<p>Zoosermom. I think the prosecutor should have tried for the indictment. He did not. No harm could be served by going to trial. In cases like this, you have to try very hard to be above reproach or else recuse yourself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Very true. Marijuana-induced psychosis is a rare but known phenomena. </p>
<p>I actually know of a case where a college kid got killed by the police after going a rampage that was determined by pharmacologists to be fueled by marijuana-induced psychosis. He was a football player.</p>
<p>As an aside, this leap by so-called educated to call people “idiots” that are “scientifically illiterate” really bothers me. The more you know about something, the more you become aware of weird cases out there that exist contrary to the existing paradigm, or areas where that paradigm is in question. So when someone says something contrary to the educated’ person’s knowledge of science, perhaps they are idiots, but it’s also possible that they know something beyond science 101 that leads them to a different conclusion. It reminds me of what happened on the ebola thread, where anyone questioning the cdc’s oversimplified pronouncements was shouted down as having ‘tin foil hats.’</p>
<p>Poetgrl, if the evidence wasn’t there, it wasn’t there. We can’t manipulate the criminal justice system to soothe public feelings. That would be very harmful. It is entirely possible that the proper charges were always federal. </p>
<p>I agree. I think it’s the general racism of the entire force, the pattern that is the cause of all of this, anyway. If this town were in the south there’d be all sorts of investigations and charges. Not about brown, but the pattern is very troubling. </p>
<p>The prosecutor didn’t think the case warranted an indictment so he dumped the responsibility on the grand jury. Most police shootings don’t end in indictments. The only thing different here was all of the noise outside.</p>
<p>The pattern is troubling. Attorney General Holder has promised a full and fair investigation, I believe him.</p>
<p>I don’t see what the police or the government did wrong. Mike Brown was on drugs, just robbed a store, pushed the store employee, had drugs on him, then fought with a cop. The cop was working trying to do his job. There really isn’t anything racist about the case. The media is partly to blame but the real problem is drug abuse. The drug dealer is partly at fault also.</p>
<p>The real problem is poverty. </p>
<p>Carry on</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>Some of what’s contained in that post is some truth with exaggerated fear-mongering due to the long-standing Federal government policy of banning marijuana use and possession. A policy which, incidentally, has a racist history as discussed here:</p>
<p><a href=“Marijuana Prohibition Was Racist From The Start. Not Much Has Changed. | HuffPost Latest News”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>
</p>
<p>One can have the same/worse reaction from boozing it up, especially in large amounts. And from what I’ve observed between the marijuana using classmates…including hardcore stoners and the boozed up undergrads/young professionals I’ve observed on Boston/NYC area campuses and streets, one has much more to fear from a boozed up person on that score than someone who has imbibed weed…even hardcore stoners. The ones who threw temper tantrums, got argumentative, and/or started fights on campuses/streets booze was the catalyst. </p>
<p>And yet, there isn’t nearly the same amount of exaggerated fearmongering over its genuine serious effects I’ve seen with marijuana by the government or well-meaning, but scientifically clueless folks. Heck, some of the same folks feel some people don’t drink enough booze. Funny bit of hypocrisy, no? </p>
<p>It’s unlikely that marijuana-induced psychosis has anything to do with this case, but the impairment may have been a factor just as it would be for alcohol. </p>
<p>Still, it’s inappropriate to call people “scientifically illiterate idiots” if you are actually unaware of special cases in which they are correct.</p>
<p>“Did you read what you wrote Hayden? “so long as only one side is represented, we no longer have a jury system” while complaining in the same post that both sides were presented.”</p>
<p>Perhaps my wording was in artful, but I think the point is there for someone who was sincerely reading my posts. The prosecutor is supposed to represent the victim. He represented the accused instead. There was no one representing the victim. By not fulfilling his duties as a prosecutor, which is to present the case against Wilson, he created the situation where only Wilson was represented. </p>
<p>I hope that is clearer. That is, if you truly didn’t understand the first time. </p>
<p>I don’t know how many times this needs to be said for people to see the difference: a grand jury is not a trial. It does not weigh the correctness of evidence. It does decide what is telling the truth and who isn’t. </p>
<p>The prosecutor turned a grand jury into a criminal trial, and he played the part of the defense attorney, leaving no one in the room representing the victim. </p>
<p>As an American, I am very offended that our legal system was so perverted. </p>
<p>I get your point, hayden.</p>
<p>No, Hayden because there was no crime. People who want a murder trial are operating under the assumption that there was a murder. Instead, there was what cops call a good shoot and the prosecutor knew it all the time but didn’t feel like making himself a target in that town.</p>
<p>I get your point too Haydn. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My doctor friends and I use such a term because folks like Xiggi and Federal government backed drug information sites exaggerate serious effects which are the statistical exception, not the rule while not expending the same amount of resources historically to denounce alcohol* which can also induce impairment or psychosis in statistically exceptional cases. </p>
<ul>
<li>That’s not to say they didn’t try before and during the prohibition era, but several millennia of cultural socialization of alcohol usage for personal enjoyment and mainstream religious purposes combined with the inclination to defy such laws meant it didn’t last very long and was sometimes half-heartedly enforced even by those tasked with doing so.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO the reason this specific case has blown up like it has is because the police left Brown’s body, uncovered, in the middle of the street for 4 or 5 hours. They never approached him to see if he needed aid. They wouldn’t let his mother near him. They simply let him lie there, in the middle of the street in a crowded urban area with hundreds of people looking on. The police chief had no explanation for this. No one has had an explanation for this.</p>
<p>And in fact, there is no possible decent explanation for allowing a dead human being to lie on display in the street for hours. A dog would have received more respectful treatment, and IMO that’s exactly the point. This was intended to send a message of profound contempt to the people of Ferguson, and boy did they hear it loud and clear.</p>
<p>Exactly. </p>
<p>Actually, the reason this blew up like it did is because a PR firm and a big city lawyer contacted the family immediately and made it into a national cause celeb complete with a rewrite of the story before the full set of facts was known even by them. The headline was racist white cop shoots nice unarmed black teenager headed to college for jaywalking. Then came the video of the robbery and the cops side of the story and no-one was listening to any of that information. He was called a gentle giant and “hands up” was everywhere. But, that never happened. </p>
<p>Because when you have a police force which shows no sadness at a loss of life, you have a deep seated problem. Even men in war show remorse The police are not at war. </p>
<p>They are there to serve and protect. Because we say they can. All legitimate authority derives from the people. The local people. </p>
<p>Unless we have become some sort of police state. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, the 2014 equivalent to the antebellum southern elite and 50’s/60’s era segregationists’ accusations that the racial problems/protests are all caused by northern “agitators” and “agitator” mass media. </p>
<p>Incidentally, one FB friend who is also a student of US political history posted the following on this:</p>
<p>
</p>