Ferguson, MO

The BBQ Pit
3281

Welp, for me, the question went through the process and came up with a result. I question the courts, I question the system, I have my doubts about the existence of justice itself. Still, some faith in the system is warranted, unless of course it can be shown to have become some kind of gulag archipelago monstrosity.

There is still the federal investigation. And there are plenty of lawyers and experts whose job it is to sniff out problems and generate more official results. If any new official results come through, I’ll take a look and maybe change my mind. But for now, officer Wilson is off the hook AFAIC, because if other people are putting even half the effort I am into keeping their corners of the world nailed down, we must be coming up with acceptable results at least a majority of the time.

That said, it is worth pointing out that the protesters in Ferguson are clearly, in many cases, operating under a different narrative than what we are discussing here. This is as American as apple pie, whether it is aggrieved black people, conservative voters, evangelicals, you name it. It happens a lot, I think it is manufactured a lot, but it is also worth pointing out that black people’s sense of grievance is at least connected to reality. The fact is that they get arrested and jailed for drug crimes way more than white people, even though statistically both groups take about the same amount of drugs. People have claimed otherwise in this thread, but I just read an article claiming that young black men are far, far more likely to be killed by the police than young white men- I’ll try to find a linky for that soon.

Point is, while this shooting may be justified, the protesters aren’t behaving in the utterly irrational way some want to portray. The grievance with the way the police treat black people was already there and plenty justified, they seem believe an alternative narrative about recent events, and the whole thing is as provocative as possible, stinking to holy hell as it does. This really hits a nerve. Yah, the rioting isn’t acceptable, but I suspect there are groups similar to the Westboro Baptist Church who seize on situations like this for their own reasons and stir up as much shit as possible- maybe the KKK, who knows, tons of Americans really seem to hate black people- I’m a white guy and I still hear ‘nigger’ from time to time. Most of the protesters are peaceful, but that doesn’t make a sensational headline. All of the protesters are human, and I’m not seeing that narrative stressed at all.

Some forces seem to want to use this situation as an indictment against black people in general. The sympathetic view is: Seriously, why are so many more minorities than whites in jail for drug crimes when they all use drugs at generally the same rate? Why does there seem to be so many instances of people getting away with killing young black men? Why aren’t the roots of ongoing black poverty and disadvantage fully and honestly discussed? WTF is wrong with people who discuss ‘niggers’ or otherwise seem to have an animus against black people in general? Doesn’t it seem like some entities speak about ‘liberals’ in the same tone they speak about a black monolith- is this really a political issue?

3282

Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said.

Of course, they will wait a few months or more to announce closing it. Don’t want to pour more fuel on a fire.

3283

Fingerprints or no I don’t see any substantive effect on the case the GJ considered. No fingerprints is a definite possibility whether Wilson’s story was accurate or not.

There are basically two eyewitness to the initial altercation at the car - Wilson and Brown’s friend who’s name I can’t be bothered to look up again:

  • Both said the physical altercation occurred they conflicted on who started it.
  • Both are consistent with the physical evidence related to the car.
  • Neither is more or less consistent based if fingerprint testing had been done.
  • One witness’ credibility was impugned by evidence related to the events outside the car. The other’s story was relatively consistent throughout.

So why do we care?

3284

I’m still looking for a coherent explanation from you for how these supposed lapses regarding fingerprints or the washed off blood could substantially call into question Wilson’s account. I really wish you would walk us through it, otherwise is really does come off as JAQing off.

3285

There was no reason to expect to find fingerprints on the gun in the first place, so it would have been ridiculous to test for them. Lack of fingerprints where you wouldn’t expect to find them in the first place isn’t evidence of anything.

3286

Well, near as I can tell, Hentor is suggesting that absent Brown’s fingerprints on the gun, it seriously calls into question what happened at the car. “If no prints, you must acquit” or some such shit. I think that’s grasping at straws, since it seems likely as noted upthread that the manner in which Brown grasped/touched the gun might not leave clear prints, and Wilson’s subsequently handling the firearm could also obliterate prints. Likewise, I fail to understand his suggestion that Wilson’s washing off of the blood may have deprived us of some vital evidence, the best he could do was “the amount of blood might have suggested something” (I’m paraphrasing, I hope fairly), but I don’t think he ever articulated clearly how this would be. I think it is really hard to propose a version in which Brown’s hands and arms at the least are NOT inside the car, and a struggle is seen. Even *if *no prints, we know Brown’s hands were in the vehicle because of the blood evidence when he was shot. So Brown’s hands were in the car, but no prints on the gun, and this leads to a significant revision of the story, how? I just don’t get it.

3287

I also appreciate Try 2 Be’s post above. I am inclined to be sympathetic to the issues created by institutionalized racism, and was inclinced to believe the Ferguson narrative when it appeared, but for me with actual evidence the PR story originally presented just falls apart, and I fear persisting in denying what seems blindly obvious just impeaches more valid concerns. Class inequity is probably the biggest problem facing our society today, and we’re busy denying Brown was acting like a gangster instead of focusing upon things like equal education funding and opportunity for lower SES kids. The inequity in resources between well to do districts and poorer ones is absolutely shameful and puts the lie to America as being a land of equal opportunity.

3288

Jesus Fucking Christ.

According to Lawrence O’Donnell, the ADA “prosecuting” the matter gave the grand jury a print-out of a Missouri statute that said that the use of deadly force was justified when a suspect is fleeing.

This statute was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985.

Subsequently the grand jury listened to Wilson’s testimony.

The ADA did not provide the correct text of the statute until weeks after giving them the incorrect text. She also did not tell them what was incorrect about the first statute (i.e., the part about not being allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect). She was also oddly cagey in answering a grand jury members question about whether the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction over Missouri statutes!

All we need to do is teach the blacks about the justice system.

3289

It’s amazing to me how many forensics experts we suddenly have posting to this thread. I’m grateful for the wealth of valuable information such as:

[ul]
[li]it’s possible for an autopsy to reveal whether the deceased has had shots fired at him from any given direction[/li][li]blood spatters, found a given distance from the spot where a shooting victim has died, combined with an audio record but no video can tell us* without possibility of error* that the deceased was charging the shooter with intent to harm at the time of his death[/li][li]there’s no possibility, on the other hand, of learning anything from examining the weapon used by the shooter, even if “he grabbed my gun” is part of the rationale[/li][li]because of the limited relevance of the weapon, it’s much better to let the shooter retain unsupervised possession of the firearm used in the killing, wipe it, clear it and bag it himself before it goes into a custodial chain of evidence[/li][/ul]
I feel so much more knowledgeable now. Thanks fellow Dopers.

3290

Oddly, no-one has claimed any of those things.

  1. No-one’s claimed the autopsy alone shows that. The autopsy shows all the shots that hit him hit the front of his body, and the audio recording of the times of the shots shows there would have been no time for him to turn around.

  2. No-one’s claimed we know he was charging, and his intention is entirely irrelevant.

  3. Forensic evidence was taken from the weapon, and forms part of the evidence given to the grand jury.

  4. See 3. The forensic examiner chose to take DNA evidence rather than fingerprint evidence from the weapon because of the low likelihood of finding fingerprints on the rough surface of the weapon. Said rough surface would be likely to abrade the skin of someone grabbing it, and so increase the likelihood of there being DNA evidence there.

Perhaps you should look at the actual claims being made, rather than the rantings of your pet straw men, before posting again.

3291

If true, that’s pretty poor, but as we know that he didn’t shoot at anyone fleeing, it’s ultimately irrelevant. Unless you think that he had magic bullets that could hit him in the front despite being fired at his back.

3292

As I said way back in Post 3050, the problem with this whole mess, and the relevance of Hentor bringing up instances of conflicting evidence (Hentor, please correct me if I misconstrue your direction) is that all of this should have been presented in a court of law! You know, that place where two vigorous advocates duel, using testimony, evidence, and rhetoric attempting to prove or disprove guilt or innocence, as judged by an impartial group of citizens and while held to the constraints of The Law by a presiding officer. Something called, ahh, what is it – oh yes, a trial. That thing that never happened.

Grand Juries don’t function like a criminal trial. And GJs are not usually considered to be the ultimate finders of fact in criminal cases. Yes, they’re “juries”, but the standards of evidence and the rules under which they operate are different and serve a different purpose.

The miscarriage of justice here is that there will never be a trial, never be a definitive finding of fact. Even when all the testimony and evidence presented to the GJ is considered, it does not substitute for an actual trial. Enormous numbers of questions remain unanswered, some of which might have been addressed in cross examination, if actual advocates were involved. But the Prosecutor never functioned as an advocate; the only advocate was Wilson defending himself. (I won’t address implications that the Prosecutor’s minions actually obfuscated matters of law and/or evidence. That is a separate, and even more damning action, if true.)

3293

Yes. That is precisely the problem here. Thank you.

3294

I thought the whole point was that the prosecutor routinely decides some cases shouldn’t even go before a grand jury, (a) since such cases obviously aren’t gong to result in a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt conviction at trial, so why bother; and (b) this would’ve been one of those cases…

…except he was under pressure to put this case in front of a grand jury anyway, and so shrugged and said, pfft, fine, I’ll go through the motions of this exercise in futility, but I genuinely wouldn’t have bothered if he’d shot a white thug to no outcry, sure as I won’t bother the next time it looks to me there’s not enough evidence.

3295

Are you an internet juror? Did you hear any presentation and subsequent cross-examination of the evidence?

No, you’re willing to hear and acknowledge a fundamental flaw in the process as “pretty poor” and yet are comfortable in accepting the conclusion of that fucking process.

Based on what you know of that process from the internet.

We need to teach the blacks about the justice system.

3296

Prosecutors certainly have wide latitude in discretion. But given the community attention this killing attracted from the very start, it seems that a trial to determine, in a fair and transparent manner, whether or not Wilson acted properly or improperly would be in the best interest of the community.

Instead, this prosecutor seemed to do everything in his power to ensure that a trial would not take place. By throwing everything including the kitchen sink in front of the GJ, without leadership or direction, he pretty much guaranteed this result. And by distributing the guilt (if any, for the non-indictment) onto the GJ, he insulated himself from possible repercussions had he simply declared, as ** The Other Waldo Pepper** suggests, that there was no evidence to sustain a conviction.

3297

This is an excellent point. A very basic one that is being largely ignored.

3298

Why, what an interesting question, Mr. Pot.

3299

Hey dumbfuck, it’s a trick question (although it really shouldn’t be for an adult of average intelligence). There was no cross examination.

3300

Please. You think this is news? The intent of your post is clear. Maybe I should have just quoted the whole thing, given the stupidity you’ve demonstrated in this thread.