Ferguson, Missouri

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
beautyfromashes
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 7279
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by beautyfromashes »

mean wrote:I'm just trying to be objective and rational, and in doing so I concluded I would rather be a woman living in Saudi Arabia or even a North Korean than anyone living in Gaza or ISISland. Shit, how is what I'm saying any different than what you just posted about not being shot by police? Completely submit to their authority, even if they are being unjust or violating your rights. Let them subjugate you, because it's better than the alternative of being dead. I'm applying the exact same logic you just used to create the exact same outcome: avoid being shot by armed representatives of the government. Invoking patriotic appeals to emotion doesn't change my long-considered conclusion.

Are you really comparing the police in the United States to ISIS?
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

God I'm sorry I do keep forgetting that it's always the victim's fault, my bad.
That is a big jump to me saying it was the victim's fault. Where did I say that? I talked about being responsible, one shouldn't be irresponsible. By using your logic with my words I would assume that you think it is a female student's fault if she gets drunk at a frat party and gets raped. Aren't they advised to not get drunk, don't get into a situation where something bad can happen to you?
You think Michael Brown's or Tamir Rice's or Eric Garner's families are "filled with hate"? Or can you just not tell the difference between that and justifiable anger and sorrow?
Again, putting words into my mouth. I don't know what they are feeling (of course the step father did say something about burning the bitch down which could be taken a few different ways but I am open to giving him the benefit of doubt - of course that kind of talk in front of a crowd like that is irresponsible to me).
But hey, it's very big of you that if your child or grandchild were killed by an overeager and unqualified cop, it would just be water under the bridge for you, a "teachable moment." Hey, it sucks, but shit happens, and at least we all learned a valuable lesson! Well, except the dead kid, he didn't have the opportunity to learn anything, but his sacrifice will enrich all the rest of us!
How many people have turned a bad experience into a cause and tried to make it better for others. I guess you don't care for that kind of a response.
And while stories like that are obviously anecdotal, the fact that blacks vastly outnumber whites as victims of police killings -- and even beyond that, the well documented racial disparities riddling our entire criminal justice system -- lends support to the assertion that such anecdotes are not isolated incidents.
So I guess every, or almost every time something like this happens it is going to be jump to the conclusion that the cop is a racist. Something like guilty till proven innocent. What about if it is a black or Hispanic officer?
because otherwise we must confront the possibility that Michael Brown in fact tried to surrender and was still killed


That is just the problem. We really don't know if Brown was trying to surrender or not. There are enough witnesses who testified they "thought" he was charging Wilson. And there are enough witnesses who "thought" he was surrendering. No one really knows for sure what Michael Brown was thinking because his actions, like moving towards Wilson, leave his thoughts up to interpretation.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11238
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by mean »

beautyfromashes wrote:
mean wrote:I'm just trying to be objective and rational, and in doing so I concluded I would rather be a woman living in Saudi Arabia or even a North Korean than anyone living in Gaza or ISISland. Shit, how is what I'm saying any different than what you just posted about not being shot by police? Completely submit to their authority, even if they are being unjust or violating your rights. Let them subjugate you, because it's better than the alternative of being dead. I'm applying the exact same logic you just used to create the exact same outcome: avoid being shot by armed representatives of the government. Invoking patriotic appeals to emotion doesn't change my long-considered conclusion.

Are you really comparing the police in the United States to ISIS?
No, I am comparing our recently militarized local police forces being (hypothetically) motivated by a (hypothetical) right wing fantasy tyrannical "I need my guns to defend myself" nightmare-scenario regime manifesting in the US to ISIS. In such a situation, armed and violent bands of militants fueled either by tyrannical or justice-seeking goals, depending on who you ask, roam the streets killing people, and I'm suggesting that fighting back against them, whichever side you believe them to be on, is stupid and self-destructive in this situation. Hamas fighting Israel, whatever Israel's injustices, is ultimately destructive to their cause and to their people. One must know when to fight, and if you can't win, don't fight. Isn't that literally the exact same principle as submitting to local police, regardless of whatever injustices they perpetrate upon you? You clearly laid out a way to avoid being killed by police, and that way was to submit to their authority regardless of whether they're abusing it, then you turn around and act like if the cops are National Guard or Army instead of municipal beat cops, then you must fight them or risk losing your Patriot Card. I call bullshit. It's the exact same fucking abuse regardless of who is perpetrating it. They're government representatives, man. The level of government is completely irrelevant. Submit to local cops but shoot military members? That's logically inconsistent and unforgivably stupid considering the military has way cooler means of killing your ass than local cops. If anything, that should be reversed.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Growing up it was the saying "Better dead than red". Of course some said "Better red than dead".
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by KCMax »

beautyfromashes wrote:Do we really have to spell this out?

How not to get shot by police:
1. Never flee from police.
2. Avoid any sudden movements.
3. Do what you're told, and do it slowly.
4. Do not talk.
5. Let yourself be handcuffed.
And even when you do that, cross your fingers.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
God I'm sorry I do keep forgetting that it's always the victim's fault, my bad.
That is a big jump to me saying it was the victim's fault. Where did I say that? I talked about being responsible, one shouldn't be irresponsible. By using your logic with my words I would assume that you think it is a female student's fault if she gets drunk at a frat party and gets raped. Aren't they advised to not get drunk, don't get into a situation where something bad can happen to you?
What's the difference between "you are responsible for your actions and something could happen to you as a result of your actions" and "you brought this on yourself"? No, you shouldn't be irresponsible, but you shouldn't be raped or killed for having been irresponsible either. This is particularly true when we're talking about children and teenagers, as in the Tamir Rice and Michael Brown cases. Teenagers do stupid things all the time and if they escape long term ramifications we laugh it off and hope they learn a lesson. If they're killed instead, we shouldn't shrug that off as "well, they should have been more responsible." Young people, in general, aren't very responsible. This is one of the key features of being young. If they live long enough, they should learn responsibility.

The problem here is that you're conflating two types of risk. On the one hand there is risk based purely in random chance, for instance you should drive carefully in bad weather because you could hit a patch of black ice. On the other hand there is risk of somebody doing something to you, a misfortune you would otherwise avoid if their behavior changed, even if yours didn't. It's still reasonable to acknowledge these risks ex ante and advise (or exercise) caution, but getting drunk at a frat party (or playing with a toy gun in a public park) should not invite finger pointing the way that speeding on an icy road would. "He should have been more responsible." Was the cop who in one swift motion leapt from his car and opened fire acting responsibly? Who has a higher level of responsibility here?
You think Michael Brown's or Tamir Rice's or Eric Garner's families are "filled with hate"? Or can you just not tell the difference between that and justifiable anger and sorrow?
Again, putting words into my mouth. I don't know what they are feeling (of course the step father did say something about burning the bitch down which could be taken a few different ways but I am open to giving him the benefit of doubt - of course that kind of talk in front of a crowd like that is irresponsible to me).
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm interpreting your words and asking if I read you correctly. My questions there aren't rhetorical. When you say that, even if you were in this situation, it isn't in your nature to be "filled with hate," I assume there is a logical connection between that statement and everything else, so the implication is that you think others who actually are in this situation are filled with hate. Otherwise where did you pull that phrase from?
But hey, it's very big of you that if your child or grandchild were killed by an overeager and unqualified cop, it would just be water under the bridge for you, a "teachable moment." Hey, it sucks, but shit happens, and at least we all learned a valuable lesson! Well, except the dead kid, he didn't have the opportunity to learn anything, but his sacrifice will enrich all the rest of us!
How many people have turned a bad experience into a cause and tried to make it better for others. I guess you don't care for that kind of a response.
How many of those people would rather have avoided that bad experience in the first place? A lot of the Sandy Hook parents tried to take up the cause of gun control and it's a worthy cause but probably they would rather their kids hadn't been murdered instead. I doubt if you ask them, or if you ask Michael Brown's family, or Eric Garner's, or Tamir Rice's, or a frat house rape victim, or whoever else, that they would consider their "teachable moment" any sort of consolation in light of what they lost. If you're going to sit there and honestly say that if your kid or grandkid were killed like Michael Brown was, that you would write it off as "well, he was being irresponsible" and be satisfied with "making it a start of something positive," I'm left to believe you aren't really trying to imagine yourself in their shoes, or you're some kind of robot incapable of truly grasping human emotion.
And while stories like that are obviously anecdotal, the fact that blacks vastly outnumber whites as victims of police killings -- and even beyond that, the well documented racial disparities riddling our entire criminal justice system -- lends support to the assertion that such anecdotes are not isolated incidents.
So I guess every, or almost every time something like this happens it is going to be jump to the conclusion that the cop is a racist. Something like guilty till proven innocent. What about if it is a black or Hispanic officer?
It's not that every individual cop is an active and averred racist, but racism inherent in the institutions themselves will ultimately color their views and actions. People can't be easily divided into cross-burning klansmen and the virtuously colorblind. In fact, there was a piece in the Washington Post just today about how white people across America display inherent biases against black people that they might not even realize they harbor.

The fun thing about institutional discrimination is that it doesn't matter what group the officer of the institution belongs to, and this is true whether we're talking about racism or other forms of discrimination (for instance, studies have shown that women in business discriminate against other women the same way men do when making hiring decisions). When the culture of your organization tells you that black people are dangerous criminals or women aren't as effective in the job, that can gradually seep into you and affect your actions regardless of your personal disposition toward (or even membership within) those groups. Maybe if you're conscious of these attitudes, you can actively resist them, but most people aren't conscious of them (as that WaPo article explains).

I don't know whether Darren Wilson is an outright, overt racist (although his grand jury testimony includes troubling tinges of racism that should have been challenged by a competent prosecutor who was actually interested in seeking justice -- most famously his description of Michael Brown's "demonic eyes" and supposed superhuman strength). I do know that the American criminal justice system is structurally racist. I would give the cops in that quoted anecdote from my last post the benefit of the doubt, that they probably aren't consciously deciding that black lives are worth less than white lives, but instead, that they've made a subconscious calculation that an armed black man is probably more dangerous than an armed white man, and so in the case of the latter they can exercise caution to try to reach a good outcome for all parties involved, but in the former case they will take care of themselves even at the black man's expense. This is a horrible attitude that should be eradicated from our police forces, but in any individual instance it is not indicative of conscious racism on the officer's part and so can afflict any officer of any race.
because otherwise we must confront the possibility that Michael Brown in fact tried to surrender and was still killed


That is just the problem. We really don't know if Brown was trying to surrender or not. There are enough witnesses who testified they "thought" he was charging Wilson. And there are enough witnesses who "thought" he was surrendering. No one really knows for sure what Michael Brown was thinking because his actions, like moving towards Wilson, leave his thoughts up to interpretation.
It's almost like our criminal justice system should have come up with some sort of method for sorting through all the evidence in a case to reach a factual finding about what we believe actually happened. I'm just spitballing here, but we could call it a "trial," and maybe the finder of fact could be called a "petit jury" (or just "jury" for short). Just an idea!
User avatar
warwickland
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4834
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: St. Louis County, MO

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by warwickland »

KCMax wrote:FWIW, the KCMO PD is handling community relations the exact OPPOSITE of St. Louis County, and should be commended for their behavior.

you have to keep in mind that the st. louis county pd and a lot of st louis county muni pds are analogous to something like if johnson county had a county wide pd that also patrolled an area a bit like the eastside, with rich and upper middle white people freaking out. its a suburban police force with a suburban mindset of "pushback" and "contain." obviously johnson county doesnt have the issues that stl county has, but thats the point. its a totally weird and dangerous mix.

kcmo pd and metro stl pd actually know how to be an urban pd. i imagine this isnt the end of suburban pds shitting the bed around the country as suburban demographics change.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

It's almost like our criminal justice system should have come up with some sort of method for sorting through all the evidence in a case to reach a factual finding about what we believe actually happened. I'm just spitballing here, but we could call it a "trial," and maybe the finder of fact could be called a "petit jury" (or just "jury" for short). Just an idea!
In reality what kind of a criminal trial do you think you would have? Wilson wouldn't have to testify. You have the physical evidence that supports Brown moving to Wilson when shot. Witnesses for the prosecution that for the most part wouldn't survive a cross examination. Did Brown have his hands up over his head, at his shoulders, or what height? You said one thing in a TV interview and now you are saying something else so which version is the truth? And if the case isn't dismissed after the prosecution rested its case you would have witnesses for the defense to support Wilson's actions during the incident.

Anything short of a conviction wouldn't appease those who would still feel that Brown was murdered and the justice system is against them.

As a side note the federal autopsy results have been released and nothing new there. And federal interviews of 8 (not all) possible witnesses were also released along with police radio traffic.
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3950
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by im2kull »

phuqueue wrote:God I'm sorry I do keep forgetting that it's always the victim's fault, my bad.
Technically, you have to be a "Victim" to play the "Victim" card. Brown was not a victim, he was the instigator. Now if the cop had rolled up for no reason, jumped out of his car for no reason, and shot Brown dead for no reason...then you might be able to call him a victim. Until then.. Just saying.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
It's almost like our criminal justice system should have come up with some sort of method for sorting through all the evidence in a case to reach a factual finding about what we believe actually happened. I'm just spitballing here, but we could call it a "trial," and maybe the finder of fact could be called a "petit jury" (or just "jury" for short). Just an idea!
In reality what kind of a criminal trial do you think you would have? Wilson wouldn't have to testify. You have the physical evidence that supports Brown moving to Wilson when shot. Witnesses for the prosecution that for the most part wouldn't survive a cross examination. Did Brown have his hands up over his head, at his shoulders, or what height? You said one thing in a TV interview and now you are saying something else so which version is the truth? And if the case isn't dismissed after the prosecution rested its case you would have witnesses for the defense to support Wilson's actions during the incident.

Anything short of a conviction wouldn't appease those who would still feel that Brown was murdered and the justice system is against them.

As a side note the federal autopsy results have been released and nothing new there. And federal interviews of 8 (not all) possible witnesses were also released along with police radio traffic.
In akp's expert legal opinion, the prosecution's witnesses "wouldn't survive a cross examination," but "witnesses" for the defense (is there more than one, besides Wilson himself?) would do great. And you keep going back to this "physical evidence" of Brown moving toward Wilson when he was shot, as if no witness ever mentioned Brown moving toward Wilson. Of course if Brown was moving toward Wilson, it must mean that all of the gunshots only infuriated him and made him even stronger, as Wilson absurdly posited, and so Brown being a few yards away from apparent spots of blood in the street must indicate that he was full-on charging at him like a bull -- there's no other possible explanation! And obviously, Wilson's only choices here were to put him down like a rabid beast or face certain death himself.

I wonder if you've even read any of the witness interviews. I still haven't been through all of them, only about half, but I've only seen one that says Brown was "charging" at Wilson, vs a bunch of others that say he turned and walked toward him, some say he appeared to be surrendering, or just staggering forward, or whatever. When they're ambiguous about how he was "coming back," they're always asked to clarify, and they always say he was not running. The one person I've read so far who says she didn't see him move toward Wilson also says that she had to move to a different window to see better -- she saw Brown running, then moved to another window, then saw him get shot without moving toward Wilson (so, could be the move everyone else reported occurred while she was walking to her other window). So a lot of the supposed "discrepancies," like that some say he moved and others say he didn't, actually aren't necessarily, but this can easily be missed if you just trust the prosecutor who clearly wasn't interested in prosecuting. On the other hand, one guy who says unequivocally that Brown "didn't have his hands up" also thinks Brown had a gun himself and believed he was witnessing a fire fight (and, for what it's worth, the transcript notes that he "chuckled" while recounting his story -- and even that guy describes Brown walking and staggering toward Wilson, not charging him), so sure, there are some inconsistencies. But it's weird for McCulloch to come on television and discuss the "credibility" of the various witnesses -- that's something a jury typically decides.

I already said some posts back, I don't think Wilson would have been convicted. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't still have been subjected to a real trial instead of a farce.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

a real trial instead of a farce
A real trial? For many who want "justice" for Brown if Wilson was acquitted the trial would have been a farce.

Here is an interesting take written by John McWhorter in Time:
Ferguson Is the Wrong Tragedy to Wake America Up

The key element in the Brown-Wilson encounter was not any specific action either man took — it was the preset hostility to the cops that Brown apparently harbored. And that hostility was key because it was indeed totally justified.

The right-wing take on Brown, that he was simply a “thug,” is a know-nothing position. The question we must ask is: What is the situation that makes two young black men comfortable dismissing a police officer’s request to step aside?

These men were expressing a community-wide sense that the official keepers of order are morally bankrupt. What America owes communities like Ferguson — and black America in general — is a sincere grappling with that take on law enforcement that is so endemic in black communities nationwide. As Northwestern philosopher Charles Mills has put it, “Black citizens are still differentially vulnerable to police violence, thereby illustrating their second class citizenship.”

This is true. It is most of what makes so many black people of all classes sense racism as a key element of black life, and even identity. Now, some suppose that the reason for what Mills refers to is black people’s fault, that black people are just too dumb, lazy, and immoral to understand what it is to be decent citizens. Most would disagree, however, which logically implies that something has gone terribly wrong from the other end — from law enforcement itself. The President’s statement on the verdict got at this point: what we must get past is larger than the specifics of what happened between Wilson and Brown.

And in that vein, as someone who has written in ardent sympathy with the Ferguson protests, I find this hard to write, but I have decided that it would be dishonest of me to hold back. As I have written endlessly, America will never get past race without a profound change in how police forces relate to black men. However, I’m not sure that what happened to Michael Brown — and the indictment that did not happen to Officer Darren Wilson — is going to be useful as a rallying cry about police brutality and racism in America.
...
This was a hideous misunderstanding. And yes, if the guy lurching back toward Wilson had been white, just maybe he wouldn’t have fired those last shots.

But can we really know that surely enough to enlighten a nation? We are told that this tragic sequence of actions shows that America “devalues black bodies,” as a common phrasing has it. But I fear the facts on this specific incident are too knotted to coax a critical mass of America into seeing a civil rights icon in Brown and an institutionally racist devil in Wilson.
...
However, Wilson apparently didn’t single Brown out because of his black body, but because that black body had just nabbed goods from a store and also assaulted its owner. It is also clear that Brown defied an officer’s reasonable request, and then battled with him. We may never know whether Brown reached into the car or whether Wilson grabbed Brown by the neck. But we do know that Wilson fired the lethal final shots upon Brown coming back toward him. Firing these shots was indeed impulsive; and one wishes someone who could fire in such a moment never had been trusted with a gun. But Wilson did not, as some have claimed, shoot Brown in the back as he ran away.

“But he didn’t deserve to die!” many stand at the ready to assert. And of course he didn’t. But we must consider the contrast with, say, Amadou Diallo killed in a lobby for pulling out a wallet. Or Martin killed for resisting a baseless detainment by a self-declared neighborhood patrolman. Or John Crawford killed in Ohio for examining a BB gun at a Walmart.
...
The Ferguson episode, in this company, stands out. It requires, as a rallying point, a degree of elision, adjustment. It will require turning away from Brown’s criminal act just before the incident, and his conduct toward a police officer a few moments later, based on the tricky proposition that these things must have no bearing whatsoever upon how we evaluate the succeeding sequence of events. The now iconic gesture, the hands up in “Don’t shoot” surrender, will become sacrosanct regardless of the evidence as to whether Brown actually held his hands up in that way. Icon, sacrosanct — there is an aspect of the ritual here.

But ritual dazzles more than it convinces. Beyond the converted, the less committed observer will see the facts piling up and conclude that one can be fully aware of racism’s persistence and yet still feel that the part racism played in Brown’s death is too abstract to qualify as a Selma-style — or even Trayvon-style — teaching moment. We need here Selma, Sanford — we want to make all of America put down their beers and feel this turning point. Again, of course Brown didn’t deserve to die — at all. But we have an urgent and challenging task here. And if so — and, God, it’s very much so — aren’t other deaths that have grieved us more useful in teaching a vast nation of people, with various levels of understanding and concern, that we have a serious problem here?

What happened to Diallo, Martin, Crawford, and also Oscar Grant is a clearer demonstration of what faces us than what happened in Ferguson. People don’t like being told to ignore facts; even fewer find ambiguity a spark for indignation. Crawford’s killers weren’t indicted either. We must wonder why this is considered a less urgent — and instructive — catastrophe than what happened in Ferguson. I mourn Brown as we all do, but I worry that we have chosen the wrong tragedy to wake this country up.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
a real trial instead of a farce
A real trial? For many who want "justice" for Brown if Wilson was acquitted the trial would have been a farce.
No doubt people wanted an indictment not for the indictment itself but because indictment is the first step toward conviction, but it's unbelievable to me that you can't see how completely absurd your position is here. We shouldn't have submitted conflicting evidence to a jury because it would "confuse" them. We shouldn't have had a trial because people who are unhappy that we aren't having a trial would also be unhappy about the outcome we presume would have occurred. Can you truly not tell the difference between these extraordinary grand jury proceedings conducted by a clearly partial prosecutor and an ordinary, open trial in which all of the evidence is put out there so that a jury can decide what happened? "We don't have enough evidence even to support probable cause" is bullshit and everybody knows it. "We don't have enough evidence to convict" is a tough pill that laypeople in particular will have trouble swallowing, but at least the criminal justice system wouldn't be nakedly corrupt.
Here is an interesting take written by John McWhorter in Time:
If he only wants to make the point that Mike Brown's death won't be any sort of turning point, that's fine, and I don't actually disagree -- I think that racism is too deeply rooted in this country for Mike Brown's death, actually probably for any death, to make a difference. Cops don't just walk around gunning down random people, so it's easy enough for people to shrug off even the most egregious cases. Sure, Tamir Rice was a child who hadn't committed a crime, but the cop thought he had a real gun, soooooo... Or yeah, we have video of a cop literally strangling Eric Garner to death, but hey, he sold loosies! Or okay, so Michael Brown was unarmed and tried to flee, but let's not forget he took some cigars from a convenience store earlier in the morning. We have posts in this very thread at least implicitly suggesting that Michael Brown deserved to die because of whatever happened, that Rice's death might have been tragic but he should have known better, etc. Where there is even the slightest thing to grasp on the officer's side, a huge chunk of this country will do so. So if the point is that this killing won't ultimately change anything, yeah, that's probably right.

Where that piece gets into trouble is in trying to justify that. If you say, as he does on multiple occasions, that Michael Brown didn't deserve to die, then that should be the end of the discussion. Regardless of what happened, Michael Brown didn't deserve to die, period. A police officer killed somebody who didn't deserve to be killed. This is a problem. Lots of other police officers have killed lots of other people who also didn't deserve to be killed. So it's part of a wider trend. There is a key distinction to be made between explaining why many people are comfortable dismissing Brown's death and actually justifying that dismissal yourself, and I think the author here misses it. He digs into the facts -- and the unknowns -- of this particular case, not to make an observation that this is the "wrong" case to "wake America up," but to make an argument that it is. But any time a police officer kills somebody who didn't deserve to be killed, regardless of any other circumstances, that case should wake America up. It won't, of course. But it should. This piece isn't "interesting," it's ultimately just another defense of the status quo.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

Man I am suuuuuuuuuper confused now cuz I heard that the pro-Wilson witnesses were just so much more credible than the others.

[quote=""Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson | The Smoking Gun"]DECEMBER 15--The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,” The Smoking Gun has learned.

...

While the “hands-up” account of Dorian Johnson is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment, “Witness 40”’s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation. The “Witness 40” testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.

However, unlike Johnson, “Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.

...

TSG examined criminal, civil, matrimonial, and bankruptcy court records, as well as online postings and comments to unmask McElroy as “Witness 40,” the fabulist whose grand jury testimony and law enforcement interviews are deserving of multi-count perjury indictments.

...

Sandra McElroy did not provide police with a contemporaneous account of the Brown-Wilson confrontation, which she claimed to have watched unfold in front of her as she stood on a nearby sidewalk smoking a cigarette.

Instead, McElroy (seen at left) waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident.

...

On October 22, McElroy went to the FBI field office in St. Louis and was interviewed by an agent and two Department of Justice prosecutors. The day before that taped meeting, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a lengthy story detailing exactly what Wilson told police investigators about the Ferguson shooting.

McElroy provided the federal investigators with an account that neatly tracked with Wilson’s version of the fatal confrontation. She claimed to have seen Brown and Johnson walking in the street before Wilson encountered them while seated in his patrol car. She said that the duo shoved the cruiser’s door closed as Wilson sought to exit the vehicle, then watched as Brown leaned into the car and began raining punches on the cop. McElroy claimed that she heard gunfire from inside the car, which prompted Brown and Johnson to speed off. As Brown ran, McElroy said, he pulled up his sagging pants, from which “his rear end was hanging out.”

But instead of continuing to flee, Brown stopped and turned around to face Wilson, McElroy said. The unarmed teenager, she recalled, gave Wilson a “What are you going to do about it look,” and then “bent down in a football position…and began to charge at the officer.” Brown, she added, “looked like he was on something.” As Brown rushed Wilson, McElroy said, the cop began firing. The “grunting” teenager, McElroy recalled, was hit with a volley of shots, the last of which drove Brown “face first” into the roadway.

McElroy’s tale was met with skepticism by the investigators, who reminded her that it was a crime to lie to federal agents. When questioned about inconsistencies in her story, McElroy was resolute about her vivid, blow-by-blow description of the deadly Brown-Wilson confrontation. “I know what I seen,” she said. “I know you don’t believe me.”

...

Despite an abundance of red flags, state prosecutors put McElroy in front of the Ferguson grand jury the day after her meeting with the federal officials. After the 12-member panel listened to a tape of her interview conducted at the FBI office, McElroy appeared and, under oath, regaled the jurors with her eyewitness claims.

McElroy’s grand jury testimony came to an abrupt end at 2:30 that afternoon due to obligations of some grand jurors. But before the panel broke for the day, McElroy revealed that, “On August 9th after this happened when I got home, I wrote everything down on a piece of paper, would that be easier if I brought that in?”

“Sure,” answered prosecutor Kathi Alizadeh.

“Because that’s how I make sure I don’t get things confused because then it will be word for word,” said McElroy, who did not bother to mention her journaling while speaking a day earlier with federal investigators.

McElroy would return to the Ferguson grand jury 11 days later, journal pages in hand and with a revamped story for the panel.[/quote]
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by chaglang »

If only there were a legal process to sort out this kind of thing. Oh well!
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Well the grand jury is a legal process to sort it out.

Anyway, glad the is some confusion on the other side. Just shows that no matter what this would have been a farce of a court room trial.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by chaglang »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Well the grand jury is a legal process to sort it out.

Anyway, glad the is some confusion on the other side. Just shows that no matter what this would have been a farce of a court room trial.
Oh, see, that was a joke, the subtext of which was that I was really saying that the jury trial would have been the correct place to sort out conflicting witness statements, not a grand jury. Sorry if that was unclear.

Anyway, I'm glad that we were able to avoid a potential courtroom farce. I know I feel better!
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9362
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by AllThingsKC »

Makes you wonder how all the liberals in charge of the investigation missed that.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

If you really think the lawyers would have called these witnesses to testify would be insane. Especially if the lawyers know they would be committing perjury. And that's if it even went to trial.
The best recourse in this situation has always been a civil trial where Wilson would have to testify and the burden of proof is lower.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by chaglang »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: The best recourse in this situation has always been a civil trial where Wilson would have to testify and the burden of proof is lower.
Best for who? Best for Darren Wilson, whose hours and hours of grand jury testimony would never be cross examined. Best for St. Louis County, who clearly just wanted these uppity residents to stop bothering them. Best if you think that criminal trial potentially being messy or confusing or whatever is something to be avoided at all costs. Not best for the Brown family, who, had they lost the jury trial could have filed a civil suit anyway. And not best for a criminal justice system that uses jury trials to sort out these sort of things, potential farces be damned.

Maybe good lawyers wouldn't have put her on the stand, but McCollough put that racist moonbat in front of the grand jury for hours, on two occasions, knowing that the FBI didn't believe her story. Possible conclusions from this: it's more evidence that McCollough really screwed up the grand jury process here, or lawyers will put anyone on the stand if they think it will help. Or both.

The fun thing about a civil trial instead of a jury trial is that it gives the right the chance to whine about how unfair the whole thing is, that this poor police officer who a grand jury wouldn't even indict, has lost his job over shooting Brown and is now facing a huge wrongful death lawsuit. And the Brown family gets to be portrayed as gold diggers who have put a price tag on their dead son's body and don't have the decency to be content with the impartial outcome of the grand jury process and are suing out of bitterness and spite and maybe to extort a few bucks from a fine, upstanding member of law enforcement who a grand jury wouldn't even indict.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Well the grand jury is a legal process to sort it out.

Anyway, glad the is some confusion on the other side. Just shows that no matter what this would have been a farce of a court room trial.
It is mindboggling to me that you still don't understand what the whole point of having a trial is, or really how the legal system works at all. The grand jury is not a "legal process to sort it out." There may be much that is a matter of personal opinion, but this is not one of those things. The grand jury has a clear and simple mandate. It is not a trier of fact. It has only two questions to answer: might a crime have been committed here, and might the accused have committed it. There is no presumption of innocence. The bar to find probable cause is so low you could step over it. A grand jury is not meant to weigh all the evidence to reach a conclusion about the facts of the case. It should not be presented with the accused's possible defenses. These are things that occur at trial, in front of a judge and a petit jury.

You can believe that Darren Wilson is innocent if you want. You can believe that, whether he's innocent or not, he wouldn't have been convicted at trial. As far as the facts of the case go, frankly you can believe whatever you want. We have all weighed the information available to us and come to our own conclusions. That's fair. But you cannot argue that the grand jury was properly utilized here, or that it was the appropriate venue for determining Wilson's legal culpability. This is false. This literally is just not how our legal system works. McCullough can get away with this because he didn't break any actual rules, because our legal system also works on an assumption that a prosecutor genuinely and honestly seeks an indictment when he convenes a grand jury. But that doesn't mean that this wasn't a perversion of the legal process.
If you really think the lawyers would have called these witnesses to testify would be insane. Especially if the lawyers know they would be committing perjury. And that's if it even went to trial.
Some of the witnesses most certainly would have been called to testify. Dorian Johnson, for example, would definitely have testified at trial (incidentally, his account remained extremely consistent in the month that elapsed between his police interviews and his grand jury testimony). The people who point blank admitted to the grand jury that they hadn't actually seen it? Of course not. But then, this goes both ways, as Wilson's defense team would also lose "witnesses" like Witness 40.

You keep harping on the fact that some of these witnesses were clearly bonkers, but let's not lose sight of this fact: some people, not everyone who testified as a "witness" before the grand jury, but some people, did actually see what happened. Even these people might not present stories that are 100% consistent with each other, because memory is faulty and witnesses unknowingly fill in gaps in what they saw or what they remember to create a complete picture -- this is well known and not in dispute, there's even a name for it. It's the job of a jury (not a grand jury) to listen to all these accounts and piece together what they believe happened, based on what is broadly consistent between the accounts and with other available evidence.
The best recourse in this situation has always been a civil trial where Wilson would have to testify and the burden of proof is lower.
This is insane. A law enforcement officer shoots somebody to death and your position is that the criminal justice system is not the appropriate place to determine whether or not this act constituted a crime. Why have a criminal code at all? Let's just settle everything in the civil system!
AllThingsKC wrote:Makes you wonder how all the liberals in charge of the investigation missed that.
You're making a fool of yourself in this thread, just so you know.
Post Reply