<p>So, although the police force could use reforming, and some police are bad, not all are and most are trying to do their job. How much can we criticize people who are doing the best they can at their job before they just give up? What if the police simply drive away from crimes in order to avoid situations like Ferguson? </p>
<p>I also think it is demoralizing to be subjected to unfair treatment. I hope the Eric Garner case is determined quickly and fairly. The odds seem to be to penalize the officer, since is was determined to be a homicide and the chokehold was banned. Although he has a prior record, so does the officer have a record of prior abuses. The jury will be considering that. </p>
<p>As an aside, people seem to think Michael Brown’s upbringing may have contributed to his behavior the day he was shot (and I don’t disagree). But apparently Darren Wilson also seems to come from a troubled background. His mother was a felon who died when he was a teenager. Hard to say whether his father was in his life when he was growing up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Ferguson shooting: Darren Wilson, cop who shot Michael Brown, stays underground amid protests | Fox News”>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/ferguson-shooting-darren-wilson-cop-who-shot-michael-brown-stays-underground/</a></p>
<p>It’s easy for a lot of us to look at a baby-faced blond, blue-eyed young man and assume his life has been perfect or at least “easy.” But we don’t know what might have made him snap (or at least overreact) under the circumstances.</p>
<p>I guess I must have been shopping while black when Macy’s harassed me ten times over a one-hour shopping trip. </p>
<p>Uh, overreact? A guy who is 80 lbs. more than you pushes your car door closed on you, reaches in and starts punching you and grabbing for your gun? I don’t think shooting him is overreacting.</p>
<p>You can argue that Mr. Brown didn’t snap, because we have footage of him beating up on the convenience store clerk and physical evidence of him beating up on the cop. He knew exactly what he was doing.</p>
<p>And Mr. Brown was NOT stopped because he was black. He fit the description of the man who beat up on the convenience clerk. Do you think Mr. Brown would have been stopped if he looked like Tommy Davidson? No, because he fit the description of the perp.</p>
<p>No one supports what Brown did in the convenience store, but if you call the physical part of it as “beating up on” the clerk, you saw a different video than I saw. </p>
<p>No kidding. He pushed him. Once.</p>
<p>Again, the narrative…</p>
<p>I think that narrative issue goes both ways.</p>
<p>I agree he did not beat up the store clerk but it was also a bold robbery. It sure went beyond shop lifting. My opinion is he walked in took the stuff he wanted in full view of the clerk and basically said nothing you can do about it. That is pretty brazen and well beyond the typical 18 year old petty thief. I feel, you may not, that it how he acted in the store is an indication to how he might have acted when faced with other authority. See I see store personnel as authority in that venue. He had complete disdain for the clerk/owner. The authority of the store owner meant nothing to him. That is not typical of most people.</p>
<p>Don’t know the height & weight of our so lightly abused shopkeeper but he… looks awfully small in that video.</p>
<p>Maybe he didn’t need to see a gun to back-off and let boys be boys? Six-four and close to three hundred pounds behind that shove was enough to make him realize a little strong-arm wasn’t worth a fractured skull, a hemorrhage? </p>
<p>Smart guy, IMO, and if he was emulated by all the other wannabe MB’s, there’d likely be a lot fewer police shootings. </p>
<p>No kidding. He pushed him. Once.>>>>></p>
<p>It’s assault and it’s against the law.</p>
<p>Understood. But it is not “beating up the clerk.”</p>
<p>I just saw an interview on TV with Lisa Bloom, a legal analyst. She reiterated that the grand jury finding is “not a judicial finding of innocence” and that it is a “very ambiguous and legally not that significant outcome.”</p>
<p>She also said what we all know, that McCulloch’s approach was clearly designed to get no indictment. And this is a clear departure from typical grand jury proceedings.</p>
<p>From International Business Times:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Ferguson Grand Jury Documents Reveal Missteps By Officer Darren Wilson, Investigators, Prosecutor | IBTimes”>http://www.ibtimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury-documents-reveal-missteps-officer-darren-wilson-investigators-1730132</a></p>
<p>And were back here again. Yet another whose mirror remains unused.</p>
<p>Yours too, Wolverine. Too bad you can’t see that.</p>
<p>Just curious: why do you think so many people are protesting all over the country–people who have no vested interest in the outcome of this case…people who will never have to set foot in a place like Ferguson?</p>
<p>It would be nice if you could take off the blinders and acknowledge that there have been problems with the handling of the case–and then open your mind to the value of a fair and balanced jury trial. I for one would be happy to see Darren Wilson go free, if the justice system produces a “not guilty” verdict. I’d also be happy to see him convicted if it turns out that he did kill Michael Brown without proper justification. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zoosermom,</p>
<p>Yes, he was elected in a local political system with systemic problems where the inertia from past racial discriminatory laws in areas like voting still affect elections in Ferguson and several other nearby towns. </p>
<p>There’s something seriously amiss when the towns like Ferguson, MO are majority Black and yet, are governed and policed by a nearly all-White local governments and police forces. </p>
<p>Worse, when some protestors a few months back tried to redress this issue, local politicians like the Missouri GOP chair criticized their voter drive as disgusting. In some ways, it’s not too far from the attitudes segregationists back in the '50s and '60s had towards Civil Rights groups whose attempts to register Black voters back then were perceived as so threatening they were met with similar criticisms along with violence.</p>
<p>It is also interesting there’s not much discussion of the KKK’s publicized threats to use violence against Ferguson protestors before the GJ reached its decision and moreso, against Anonymous folks wearing Guy Fawkes masks. Especially the part about Anonymous deciding to use the opportunity to hack into KKK accounts and “disrobe” KKK members…including several cops from various St. Louis area police forces. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eric Garner’s case has been ruled a homicide not only due to forensics evaluation, but also the fact chokeholds are against official NYPD policy and most importantly, there was video of the entire incident including the chokehold. </p>
<p>Even then, there were plenty of folks…especially those from more conservative hardcore law & order areas like many mostly White well-off parts of Staten Island, Bayside, New Jersey, or Long Island who felt the press was making Eric Garner out to be too much of a victim while the NYPD cops did nothing wrong. They also went on to state if he hadn’t committed the crime of selling illegal cigarettes and then resising the cops, he wouldn’t have died. </p>
<p>Many of them are protesting because they believed the BS narrative that the media grabbed and ran with from the outset of this case, pieces of which posters like you continue to spread…even today. They have no idea what the evidence was that was presented to the GJ, they only know they don’t like the outcome of the GJ. You can dislike the way the GJ was handled all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that it WAS NOT handled improperly. Your biases and prejudices lead you to insist that the GJ was handled the way it was in order to “lead the jurors” to a pre-conceived finding. How the heck can presenting all the evidence from both sides lead them one way or the other?</p>
<p>Ask yourself…would you be complaining about the GJ process if they had decided to indict? Hell no…because that’s the outcome you pre-determined should be reached. There’s just one little problem…the evidence (which you continue to spin and ignore) doesn’t support it. Not even close IMO…and in the GJ’s opinion. From your reference:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution also does not prohibit prosecutors from presenting evidence. And the GJ performed the exact role they were required to fulfill…there wasn’t enough evidence for a criminal charge to be brought.</p>
<p>When liberals have to quote Scalia to try and frame an argument…they’ve already lost the argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironic considering the spokesman for the SLPOA, Jeff Roorda was himself fired from a local police force for misconduct:</p>
<p><a href=“Jeff Roorda: St. Louis Police Association spox who attacked Rams players has history of disputes.”>http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/01/jeff_roorda_st_louis_police_association_spox_who_attacked_rams_players_has.html</a></p>
<p>They’re also not the only police association in St. Louis due to past history of racial divisions:</p>
<p><a href=“Police organizations in St. Louis have separate predominantly white and black organizations”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/01/1348628/-St-Louis-has-two-police-associations-one-for-white-officers-and-one-for-black-officers</a></p>
<p>And yes, there are editorials declaring the SLPOA and Roorda should have known the St. Louis Rams players gesture constituted free speech:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/st-louis-rams-dont-shoot-gesture-was-free-speech-and-the-police-should-know-it/2014/12/01/a55c2656-7995-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/st-louis-rams-dont-shoot-gesture-was-free-speech-and-the-police-should-know-it/2014/12/01/a55c2656-7995-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html</a></p>
<p>and another criticism of the SLPOA and Roorda’s poor grasp of First Amendment principles and tie ins with St Louis Police departments’ own poor grasp of the same here:</p>
<p><a href=“St. Louis Police Claim It's Their 'First Amendment' Rights Not To Protect Football Players Who Supported Protestors | Techdirt”>St. Louis Police Claim It's Their 'First Amendment' Rights Not To Protect Football Players Who Supported Protestors | Techdirt;
<p>I think people are protesting because there is a significant problem between law enforcement and the AA community. It needs to be recognized and fixed. I would start by ending the so called war on drugs which in reality is a war on AA males. Next I would have cameras on every police car and body cameras on every officer. I would do more to recruit minority officers. I think all of the above is true but that many of the people have no clue about the real facts on this case but have been lead to believe this case is an example of all that is wrong. </p>
<p>We need to fix all of the things wrong but we do not do that by indicting someone who does not deserve to be indicted. It really seems to me that many of you are painting with a broad brush just in the opposite way that those that assume guilt of minority males do.</p>
<p>To be honest my initial reaction to the story was that an innocent kid was killed needlessly. Even after seeing the tape in the store I thought bad kid still should not have been shot. Then the other evidence comes out blood in the car, gun powder on Brown’s hands, not shot in the back, different witness statements about Brown’s arm being up and running at the officer. Take all of that with the fact that police have significant legal authority to use deadly force and a IMHO there was not a GJ in the country that would have or should have indicted him.</p>
<p>I also believe that vast majority of protesters do not have a clue about the vast majority of the GJ presentation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire…when people view everything in partisan terms–rather than looking at the facts–they’ve lost it.</p>
<p>Wolverine, it’s clear you don’t understand the TYPICAL way a grand jury works, or else you wouldn’t insist that the Ferguson case was handled by the books. NO legal experts say these grand jury proceedings were handled in a predictable manner, whether in duration, abundance of evidence presented, or the opportunity offered the potential defendant to tell his story. Only you and a few others who, it seems, are equally intimidated by the prospect of letting Wilson be cross-examined, or asking for clear instructions to the jury, or airing out all the evidence in the light of day, are defending how this sad story has played out.</p>
<p>I fully understand the way a typical grand jury works, and while this one wasn’t typical…it was in no way improper. All the evidence was aired in front of the grand jury, and they formed their opinion based on the evidence. You should try it sometime.</p>
<p>
Easily fooled? They’re protesting at the behest of those who do have a vested interest in the outcome? They’re unemployed, when they’re not protesting?</p>
<p>Actually, if they get their way, I hope they have to move to Ferguson and pass their years there. Living in a place where a cop has to get a very clear and positive look at jaywalkers before he feels bold enough to tell 'em to move it over to the sidewalk isn’t my idea of an ideal homeplace but it’ll likely suit them just fine.</p>
<p>From little things descend all others, and a lack of regard for authority is a miserable foundation for the health of any community. </p>
<p>Wolverine: you’re just not getting it. I don’t think there’s any point trying to reason with you.</p>
<p>catahoula: way to bring in stereotypes. Did you even see the footage of the protesters around the country on Black Friday? A lot of people had that day off. They weren’t “unemployed.”</p>
<p>I do agree that lack of respect is a huge issue in communities like Ferguson. I have said previously, and I will say again, that I think we need to look at why police/community relations are so bad in some places. It works both ways.</p>