Peeps wrote:it is simple to sit here and say the cop shot him in cold blood and it's simple to sit here and say the cop was justified in doing so for he was in fear of his life
i doubt we will ever know the whole situation or the truth but i would hope everyone can agree the violent protesting that ensued will never help solve the problem but only add to it and others prejudice
I agree we'll know never what happened.
But we could have come a lot closer to the truth with a trial, instead of known pro-cop DA guiding a super-secretive grand jury.
from what i have heard/read there were people who swore up and down that the kid did not do a thing yet when asked to tell the truth in front of the grand jury admitted to not being there. both white and black.
regardless of what side you come down on i would hope everyone can admit that the looters and rioters dont give two shits about the verdict but are looking to take advantage of the situation
Peeps wrote:
regardless of what side you come down on i would hope everyone can admit that the looters and rioters dont give two shits about the verdict but are looking to take advantage of the situation
I agree, I believe there probably would have been some regardless of if the officer was indicted. It was a powder keg of a situation.
Peeps wrote:regardless of what side you come down on i would hope everyone can admit that the looters and rioters dont give two shits about the verdict but are looking to take advantage of the situation
I'm as sure that there are people who prey on situations like this as I am that cops enjoy an inappropriate level of exercisable power due to a complete lack of oversight.
Peeps wrote:how many grand jurys are actually made public?
from what i have heard/read there were people who swore up and down that the kid did not do a thing yet when asked to tell the truth in front of the grand jury admitted to not being there. both white and black.
regardless of what side you come down on i would hope everyone can admit that the looters and rioters dont give two shits about the verdict but are looking to take advantage of the situation
By nature, grand juries are secretive. But then they almost always produce an indictment and thus a trial. In the last 10 years, 11 out of 16,000 federal cases haven't gotten an indictment. If a DA wants an indictment, he'll get it since he controls the entire proceeding; which evidence to introduce, how the questions where asked, nothing is contested like in a trial...
That's the problem I have with that.
But I agree that the looters are just being opportunist criminals.
comparing federal grand juries to state grand juries is not a good comparison. Under the Federal system, the AUSA only goes to the grand jury if the AUSA believes he has PC to proceed. Given the level of scrutiny cases undergo before being prosecuted by AUSA it is not shocking that such a low number of their cases are returned without a true bill.
This is different on the state level where a Grand Jury can be either accusatory or investigatory. With an accusatory grand jury, indictments are extremely common. However, with an investigatory grand jury, they are less common. The Ferguson grand jury was an investigatory grand jury.
In my jurisdiction, investigatory grand juries are extremely rare. They only get employed in instances of widespread corruption or the like and have to go through a lot of procedural loopholes to even be seated. And there, the prosecutor only provides charging documents when requested by the grand jury itself. With our accusatory grand juries, I subpoena my officer to appear and he goes into the grand jury (alone) and provides the bases of the case and answers question posed by the grand jury. I do not ever get to enter the grand jury room. At the same time, I provide the grand jury prepared indictments for all the crimes I think I have PC to proceed on. The Grand Jury then votes and either returns a true bill or no bill. I've often had a grand jury come back with no bill when I thought I had PC to proceed.
turned2black wrote:I think I'm OK with some violent social unrest, actually. It's an important part of American history. And I think it's justified in this case.
Says the guy safely distanced from urban areas with large black populations.
turned2black wrote:I think I'm OK with some violent social unrest, actually. It's an important part of American history. And I think it's justified in this case.
Says the guy safely distanced from urban areas with large black populations.
I'm not sure "The Gentle Giant" is really the martyr The Great Race War needs for a catalyst. I'd prefer no one else gets killed over it.
BurtReynolds wrote:oh who am I kidding... lets burn this muthafucka down, Pookie!
burtreynolds is not the hero the apathetic white middle class deserves, but the hero the apathetic white middle class needs right now. surfndestroy is actually the hero the apathetic white middle class deserves (RIP broken iris and thodoks).
Malloy wrote:making this place inhospitable to posting is really the only move left.
