When can we expect apologies from all the folks who perpetrated, or who are perpetrating, the "hands up, don't shoot" hoax?
DOJ Will Not Charge Darren Wilson
DOJ Will Not Charge Darren Wilson
Vindication for Darren Wilson
- Thread starter GMM
- Start date
Yep. No civil charges, no criminal charges. I am sorry that Mike Brown died; no one deserves that for what he'd done, but we can stop pretending like he was a criminal, racist, or anything else.
Not holding my breath that the folks who caused the uproar and violence over what amounts to a fabrication will be held accountable in any way. They'll look for their next opportunity to "burn this bitch down" in the name of "injustice."
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Not holding my breath that the folks who caused the uproar and violence over what amounts to a fabrication will be held accountable in any way. They'll look for their next opportunity to "burn this bitch down" in the name of "injustice."
Posted from Rivals Mobile
To be fair, it was the protests that drew federal attention to the situation which, in turn, led to the discovery of racially biased procedures in the Ferguson police department. So it is not like the protests accomplished nothing. It doesn't justify the violence, but it does at least indicate that there was some legitimacy to their concern.
To be fair, it was the protests that drew federal attention to the situation which, in turn, led to the discovery of racially biased procedures in the Ferguson police department.
What racially biased procedures are you referring to? Please tell me its not the whole "blacks are disproportionately arrested" crap.
What racially biased procedures are you referring to? Please tell me its not the whole "blacks are disproportionately arrested" crap.
I am glad the JD found that the department routinely violated the civil rights of the black citizens. That needs to be rooted out. That said, an officer was demonized, dozens of businesses vandalized or destroyed, and people injured in the name of a fabricated story. There are better ways to air grievances than "burn this bitch down."
Somehow, I doubt this has any impact on the situation as far as trust.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Somehow, I doubt this has any impact on the situation as far as trust.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Read about the JD findings. "Routinely violated the civil rights of black citizens."
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yeah. Never really thought Wilson was the real problem. Figured it was a cop in a bad situation who did what he thought best, even if it wasn't the greatest idea in retrospect. Bigger issue for me has been the department reaction.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I also said it from the start that I thought it was probably an injudicious use of force. With more details having emerged, his use of force, though not ideal, is indeed defensible.
What is more problematic is the bigger picture of the relationship between the city leaders, the police force and the community. Policing should never be about fund raising and should strive as much as is possible to reflect the make-up of the community being policed. If your city is not bringing in enough funds, cut services and raise taxes appropriately, preferably on the more well to do, rather than taxing the poor (and calling it tickets, fines etc) as Ferguson was doing.
In the long run, it poisons relationships between police and members of the community culminating in instances where jaywalking ends with a dead teenager.
What is more problematic is the bigger picture of the relationship between the city leaders, the police force and the community. Policing should never be about fund raising and should strive as much as is possible to reflect the make-up of the community being policed. If your city is not bringing in enough funds, cut services and raise taxes appropriately, preferably on the more well to do, rather than taxing the poor (and calling it tickets, fines etc) as Ferguson was doing.
In the long run, it poisons relationships between police and members of the community culminating in instances where jaywalking ends with a dead teenager.
I dont view his use of force
as "defensible" in the sense that it was just or legitimate, nor do I view this as "vindication" that he's "not a racist" or "did nothing wrong."
It is "defensible" in the sense that it's hard to convict a cop in this situation, and the standards of proof required pretty much necessitate direct video evidence (and even then it doesn't lead to a conviction--see e.g. the original Rodney King trial).
as "defensible" in the sense that it was just or legitimate, nor do I view this as "vindication" that he's "not a racist" or "did nothing wrong."
It is "defensible" in the sense that it's hard to convict a cop in this situation, and the standards of proof required pretty much necessitate direct video evidence (and even then it doesn't lead to a conviction--see e.g. the original Rodney King trial).
on that front
"demonization:" you realize that this is the second police department Darren Wilson has been on that has had this issue right? The first one was actually shut down because of it.
You think somehow he's the non-racist cop just unlucky to be part of two racist departments?
"demonization:" you realize that this is the second police department Darren Wilson has been on that has had this issue right? The first one was actually shut down because of it.
You think somehow he's the non-racist cop just unlucky to be part of two racist departments?
....culminating in instances where jaywalking ends with a dead teenager.
....culminating in instances where jaywalking, attacking a police officer, and trying to take his gun ends with a dead criminal.
There, fixed it for ya.
Policing should......reflect the make-up of the community being policed.
I assume this is a comment on the majority race of the town vs. the majority race of the police? If so, why do you think this is a valid concern? Would it also be valid if the races were reversed?
If your city is not bringing in enough funds, cut services and raise taxes appropriately, preferably on the more well to do, rather than taxing the poor (and calling it tickets, fines etc) as Ferguson was doing.
As Ferguson becomes more black......excuse me, more "diverse" it will become more and more poor. Therefore you won't be able to tax the "well to do". Then what?
....culminating in instances where jaywalking, attacking a police officer, and trying to take his gun ends with a dead criminal.
There, fixed it for ya.
Policing should......reflect the make-up of the community being policed.
I assume this is a comment on the majority race of the town vs. the majority race of the police? If so, why do you think this is a valid concern? Would it also be valid if the races were reversed?
If your city is not bringing in enough funds, cut services and raise taxes appropriately, preferably on the more well to do, rather than taxing the poor (and calling it tickets, fines etc) as Ferguson was doing.
As Ferguson becomes more black......excuse me, more "diverse" it will become more and more poor. Therefore you won't be able to tax the "well to do". Then what?
This I agree with, though I do think that this has the potential to be a starting point for renewed trust. It will depend significantly on the transparency of the process.
Re: on that front
Whether he's racist or not, he didn't murder Mike Brown yet has been accused of doing so in the court of public opinion and many major media outlets across the country. THAT is demonization.
Whether he's racist or not, he didn't murder Mike Brown yet has been accused of doing so in the court of public opinion and many major media outlets across the country. THAT is demonization.
Re: I dont view his use of force
We have no real way of knowing whether or not he's a racist. You can infer all you want, but I wouldn't call him a racist without knowing a hell of a lot more about him. It could well be that he's a racist, but it could well be that you're good at basketball and like fried chicken and root for Army football based on what I know about you on the surface. I have no idea if any of that is true, so I wouldn't proclaim any of it.
Quite the contrary, if no civil charges are filed they can't even find grounds for "wrongful death", thus insofar as the killing of Mike Brown goes, Officer Wilson did nothing wrong.
We have no real way of knowing whether or not he's a racist. You can infer all you want, but I wouldn't call him a racist without knowing a hell of a lot more about him. It could well be that he's a racist, but it could well be that you're good at basketball and like fried chicken and root for Army football based on what I know about you on the surface. I have no idea if any of that is true, so I wouldn't proclaim any of it.
this has nothing to do with civil charges
different standard, different rules, and not remotely encompassed in what the DOJ is talking about in this report.
Nor does the report mean he "did nothing wrong" it means what most declinations to prosecute mean, there's not enough to go forward in the minds of the agency making that decision and/or the most likely offense has a high burden on the government that likely can't be met with the available evidence.
And I didn't definitively say he was a racist, I said this report was not vindication that he was not. There's certainly evidence to suggest he is, but there is no crime for being a racist, and no one is going to investigate him personally to "prove it." The fact that he's now been part of two separate police department with serious racial issues certainly does provide evidence that he's either really unlucky, or he's part of the problem. There are also past accusations of his conduct with AAs in line with the general complaints against the Ferguson PD.
different standard, different rules, and not remotely encompassed in what the DOJ is talking about in this report.
Nor does the report mean he "did nothing wrong" it means what most declinations to prosecute mean, there's not enough to go forward in the minds of the agency making that decision and/or the most likely offense has a high burden on the government that likely can't be met with the available evidence.
And I didn't definitively say he was a racist, I said this report was not vindication that he was not. There's certainly evidence to suggest he is, but there is no crime for being a racist, and no one is going to investigate him personally to "prove it." The fact that he's now been part of two separate police department with serious racial issues certainly does provide evidence that he's either really unlucky, or he's part of the problem. There are also past accusations of his conduct with AAs in line with the general complaints against the Ferguson PD.
let's be specific
murder is not what he would have been charged with.
Unlawful killing would be, but murder would not have been. I certainly wouldn't have charged that. I do think he unlawfully killed Brown, and I don't think that's "demonization." Of course, folks don't know the ins and outs of legal parlance so they short-hand it as "murder" but what they mean is, he killed a guy he shouldn't have killed. I think that's a reasonable belief to hold, and it's not demonization.
And, again, the failure to bring charges does not mean "he didn't do anything wrong" it means "we don't think we can prove it."
The federal government ordinarily doesn't charge things like murder, rape, etc. They usually leave that to states. When they are involved, they are limited to special things, like violating civil rights for example.
The definitions and proof required are higher for some of the most relevant federal offenses than in a basic murder charge. For example, one of them requires a finding that what Wilson did was "willful"..."willful" is always a high/tough standard.
murder is not what he would have been charged with.
Unlawful killing would be, but murder would not have been. I certainly wouldn't have charged that. I do think he unlawfully killed Brown, and I don't think that's "demonization." Of course, folks don't know the ins and outs of legal parlance so they short-hand it as "murder" but what they mean is, he killed a guy he shouldn't have killed. I think that's a reasonable belief to hold, and it's not demonization.
And, again, the failure to bring charges does not mean "he didn't do anything wrong" it means "we don't think we can prove it."
The federal government ordinarily doesn't charge things like murder, rape, etc. They usually leave that to states. When they are involved, they are limited to special things, like violating civil rights for example.
The definitions and proof required are higher for some of the most relevant federal offenses than in a basic murder charge. For example, one of them requires a finding that what Wilson did was "willful"..."willful" is always a high/tough standard.
Re: on that front
Just about every PD in every mid-sized or larger city in this country, that has a significant enough black population, has been accused of being racist. Its how the left operates. Any deviation from all holy and sacred Equality is proof of an unjust system.
Just about every PD in every mid-sized or larger city in this country, that has a significant enough black population, has been accused of being racist. Its how the left operates. Any deviation from all holy and sacred Equality is proof of an unjust system.
Re: let's be specific
It's not what you specifically think; it's what was being thrown around by people. It ranged from anywhere from the unlawful killing that you mentioned all the way to "hands up" shot him in the back of the head, the execution style, emptied the chamber... etc. Some of those media outlets ran with that stuff. Responsible people didn't necessarily believe it, but you and I aren't your averagely (is that a word?) informed American.
It's not what you specifically think; it's what was being thrown around by people. It ranged from anywhere from the unlawful killing that you mentioned all the way to "hands up" shot him in the back of the head, the execution style, emptied the chamber... etc. Some of those media outlets ran with that stuff. Responsible people didn't necessarily believe it, but you and I aren't your averagely (is that a word?) informed American.
Re: this has nothing to do with civil charges
As I said, I would not brand him a racist based on anything you mentioned... not without knowing him. You can draw some loose correlations to his behavior based on where he worked, but did he just "go with the flow" because he liked his job? You don't know and neither do I, and I am sure that we've both had to carry forward with policies and practices we didn't necessarily agree with. It'd be awfully hard as a young officer on a force to question the culture of the organization.
"Theirs not to make reply; theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die."
Not trying to exonerate him as he may well be a hood-wearing racist, but I'm also unwilling to throw the racist label around lightly.
As I said, I would not brand him a racist based on anything you mentioned... not without knowing him. You can draw some loose correlations to his behavior based on where he worked, but did he just "go with the flow" because he liked his job? You don't know and neither do I, and I am sure that we've both had to carry forward with policies and practices we didn't necessarily agree with. It'd be awfully hard as a young officer on a force to question the culture of the organization.
"Theirs not to make reply; theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die."
Not trying to exonerate him as he may well be a hood-wearing racist, but I'm also unwilling to throw the racist label around lightly.
my response
was to your claim that he was vindicated as not a racist.
I did not say "he's categorically a racist."
I certainly did say, he certainly has evidence suggesting he might be, because there is.
I didn't know Charles Manson personally, but there's a ton of evidence he is a racist. You don't have to know someone personally to know if they are a racist or not.
was to your claim that he was vindicated as not a racist.
I did not say "he's categorically a racist."
I certainly did say, he certainly has evidence suggesting he might be, because there is.
I didn't know Charles Manson personally, but there's a ton of evidence he is a racist. You don't have to know someone personally to know if they are a racist or not.
sure
your average person forms an opinion about anything and everything despite any evidence OR often contrary to an insanely large chunk of evidence.
So yes, I'm sure one can point to all sorts of average people out there who said all sorts of things...but how's that any different than any other "famous" thing ever?
your average person forms an opinion about anything and everything despite any evidence OR often contrary to an insanely large chunk of evidence.
So yes, I'm sure one can point to all sorts of average people out there who said all sorts of things...but how's that any different than any other "famous" thing ever?
Re: my response
This is true, so I will say that being involved with two employers with racist cultures doesn't necessarily make you a racist yourself.
Re: sure
It's not and it's also not any less tragic for all parties involved because it can easily be lumped in with other famous events. Sadly, this may go down in history with some of the legitimate racial trials in this country when it pretty clearly does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. Not that it matters in any way, but the NYC choke-hold story is at least equally tragic and far more alarming in my opinion.
sure, it doesn't
"necessarily" make you a racist...of course, there aren't that many things that, in and of themselves, makes you a racist.
But certainly is strong evidence there, and there's the legal/logical theory called the doctrine of chances that applies here.
At some point, the odds that bad luck just follows you around lowers compared to the likelihood that you are just a bad actor with each occurrence. He's had two now, two rather extraordinary levels of racial dysfunction.
"necessarily" make you a racist...of course, there aren't that many things that, in and of themselves, makes you a racist.
But certainly is strong evidence there, and there's the legal/logical theory called the doctrine of chances that applies here.
At some point, the odds that bad luck just follows you around lowers compared to the likelihood that you are just a bad actor with each occurrence. He's had two now, two rather extraordinary levels of racial dysfunction.
I'm not sure I agree
I don't mean I don't find the NYC story tragic, but at least there, you don't have cops intentionally trying to kill the guy.
Now, granted, what you do have our cops criminally and reprehensibly indifferent to the man once it was clear he was in some sort of distress, to the point that he died in large part because of them not giving him any aid, vice actually dying from acts. At any rate, I find both tragic, and I find the shooting of the 12 year old kid more tragic than either.
I don't mean I don't find the NYC story tragic, but at least there, you don't have cops intentionally trying to kill the guy.
Now, granted, what you do have our cops criminally and reprehensibly indifferent to the man once it was clear he was in some sort of distress, to the point that he died in large part because of them not giving him any aid, vice actually dying from acts. At any rate, I find both tragic, and I find the shooting of the 12 year old kid more tragic than either.
Re: sure, it doesn't
I'd quibble with your continued use of the word "strong". You and I both know that if you had to prove someone was racist for some reason, simply saying "he worked at two organizations with racist cultures" would be anything but "strong."
I'd quibble with your continued use of the word "strong". You and I both know that if you had to prove someone was racist for some reason, simply saying "he worked at two organizations with racist cultures" would be anything but "strong."
Re: I'm not sure I agree
The gross negligence and excessive force used in NYC was far more alarming to me than Ferguson, but I agree that the 12-year-old kid was probably worse than both.
The video shared of the black guy who got shot going back to his car for license and registration was pretty terrible too.
I don't deny that racism exists and specifically in the police force, but I also don't think it's always racial profiling in these instances. If I'm in a high crime neighborhood, I'm going to be on edge regardless of the color of the skin of its residents.
Officer Wilson didn't approach Mike Brown intending to kill him, nor did the guy in Cleveland who shot the 12-year-old leave for work that day thinking, "I'ma kill a kid today."
The gross negligence and excessive force used in NYC was far more alarming to me than Ferguson, but I agree that the 12-year-old kid was probably worse than both.
The video shared of the black guy who got shot going back to his car for license and registration was pretty terrible too.
I don't deny that racism exists and specifically in the police force, but I also don't think it's always racial profiling in these instances. If I'm in a high crime neighborhood, I'm going to be on edge regardless of the color of the skin of its residents.
I didnt say
anyone, or the vast majority of cops wake up intending to kill anyone.
I do think there are three types of particularly bad cops:
1. straight up racists. There aren't a ton of em, but all it takes is enough.
2. Cowards. Cops who over-value their own safety, and undervalue the safety of those they are supposed to protect and serve.
3. Power-trippers. Cops who aggressively protect their authority.
Often, it's some mix of the three, a little bit of 1, a lot of 2, a little of 3...or some other combination. Not a majority of cops, but a large enough percentage that it's a problem. I would put the cops in each of the circumstances listed as some mixture of the three, including wilson.
anyone, or the vast majority of cops wake up intending to kill anyone.
I do think there are three types of particularly bad cops:
1. straight up racists. There aren't a ton of em, but all it takes is enough.
2. Cowards. Cops who over-value their own safety, and undervalue the safety of those they are supposed to protect and serve.
3. Power-trippers. Cops who aggressively protect their authority.
Often, it's some mix of the three, a little bit of 1, a lot of 2, a little of 3...or some other combination. Not a majority of cops, but a large enough percentage that it's a problem. I would put the cops in each of the circumstances listed as some mixture of the three, including wilson.
actually it would be strong
it's why we specifically don't allow (most of the time) propensity evidence into trials. It's why as a defense counsel I feared even a prior accusation of child molestation or sexual assault, even one that wasn't proven, and was just an allegation...because that's one of the exceptions to propensity evidence.
Not because it's too weak, but because it's too strong, and we fear someone will be convicted for current conduct because of past conduct.
And it isn't just working at two organizations, he's also had complaints, and not even talking about Brown.
it's why we specifically don't allow (most of the time) propensity evidence into trials. It's why as a defense counsel I feared even a prior accusation of child molestation or sexual assault, even one that wasn't proven, and was just an allegation...because that's one of the exceptions to propensity evidence.
Not because it's too weak, but because it's too strong, and we fear someone will be convicted for current conduct because of past conduct.
And it isn't just working at two organizations, he's also had complaints, and not even talking about Brown.
Re: I didnt say
Yeah, OK. Good call. Wilson's probably not a coward. He's probably not a straight up racist and there's little indication he's a power tripper. He shot a criminal who'd assaulted him.
Yeah, OK. Good call. Wilson's probably not a coward. He's probably not a straight up racist and there's little indication he's a power tripper. He shot a criminal who'd assaulted him.
Re: actually it would be strong
Got it. It's strong. Inadmissable and useless, but strong. Good catch. Thanks for clarifying. Wait, no... all that you said just means it's not "evidence." So, yeah.
Got it. It's strong. Inadmissable and useless, but strong. Good catch. Thanks for clarifying. Wait, no... all that you said just means it's not "evidence." So, yeah.
Latest posts
-
-
-
"I was saved by God to make America great again"
- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values
- Latest: New Pal Boiler
