|
Post by millring on Nov 25, 2014 13:01:00 GMT -5
Not all the same "they," maybe. You're suggesting maybe there are some good cops, then? Oh, wait, you were addressing the OTHER generalization, right?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 25, 2014 13:16:54 GMT -5
Just saw the tail end of Al Sharpton's Press Conference. He spoke quite well. Condemned the burners and looters. Came down hard on the local officials who decided to announce this thing in the evening after dark. . . , Duh ! ? ! ? I agree that was very stupid. It put the whole situation out of control. And he also criticized teh local grand jury process. That the purpose of a grand jury is to see if there's enough evidence to proceed with a case; not to determine innocence or guilt. And that the prosecutor was to close to the police and didn't give an adequate effort to represent the state's case. . . . , could be. And that this isn't the end of this case, just like Rodney King.
I can't argue against anything he said. I think he touched all the bases. There's certainly some questionable issues in what happened. I haven't heard the evidence, but from what I've heard, I believe it'd be vary hard to judge against the cop. But a grand jury isn't finding innocence or guilt. Just whether or not there's enough evidence to let a jury hear and decide innocence or guilt.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 25, 2014 13:39:08 GMT -5
...........
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 25, 2014 13:56:34 GMT -5
"And he also criticized the local grand jury process. That the purpose of a grand jury is to see if there's enough evidence to proceed with a case; not to determine innocence or guilt."
And that is what the prosecutor emphasised very clearly during his announcement of the Grand Jury's decision, that the purpose of the Grand Jury was not to decide innocence or guilt, it was to determine in there was enough evidence to bring a case to trial. I'm not sure how Al missed that. Every story I have read of the event, before and after, has described the role of the Grand Jury in precisely the same fashion as the prosecutor took great care to.
And how was the prosecutor too close to the police to present the case fairly? He presented all evidence, every bit of it. And he presented every last bit of it to the Feds. And now every last bit of it is available to the press and to us. The NY Times has the whole shebang PDF'd. Judicial experts and commentators are saying it is the most expansive and open Grand Jury deal they have seen in their experience of covering Grand Jury deals.
I watched the prosecutor's press conference. He appeared to be thorough, professional, and fair, unlike most of the reporters who asked questions afterwards. Over half the questions were leading and presumptive (of guilt), "So, why did you decide not to bring this murderer to trial?" "You mean the cop who killed this innocent teenager isn't going to be indicted for the murder he committed?" "Where is the killer now?" (some exaggeration, but not much.)
The press conference is available online.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 25, 2014 13:58:04 GMT -5
Any sufficiently large "they" is going to lose a lot of uniformity.
And since my brother spent a decade or so in law enforcement, I have no trouble imagining good cops. Also bad cops and barely-adequate cops and heroic cops and miserable bullying cops and corrupt cops. The cops of my direct personal acquaintance (sample size of 1) have been uniformly pretty competent. Also now ex-, thanks to an unfortunate distribution of some of the other kinds of cops and inadequate compensation. (At some point, they not only can't pay you enough to put up with the shit, they don't pay you enough, period.)
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 25, 2014 14:07:39 GMT -5
Making available all the evidence and testimony was a good thing, though I still think a trial would have been the better way to go in terms of satisfying the American public that justice would have been served by an acquittal. However, some people (like Sunny Hoskins of CNN) will refuse to believe the shooting was legally justified that no matter what. In their case it's a matter of political convictions trumping the facts every time.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 25, 2014 14:12:19 GMT -5
I think justice needs to be satisfied, not the American public.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 25, 2014 14:14:42 GMT -5
We can try the guy on Facebook.
He's guilty.
Put his address on the web.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 25, 2014 14:16:41 GMT -5
I think justice needs to be satisfied, not the American public. That's a fine sentiment, and I sympathize with it, but as a practical matter we all have to deal with the political fallout whenever a substantial segment of the population feels they have been victimized by the system ... once again.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 25, 2014 14:17:42 GMT -5
Making available all the evidence and testimony was a good thing, though I still think a trial would have been the better way to go in terms of satisfying the American public that justice would have been served by an acquittal. However, some people (like Sunny Hoskins of CNN) will refuse to believe the shooting was legally justified that no matter what. In their case it's a matter of political convictions trumping the facts every time. You seem to be assuming that the same court that is trying this on the street and in the internet by ignoring all the evidence available to them right now would somehow be more satisfied by exactly the same evidence given to them after a trial? Why?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 25, 2014 14:28:20 GMT -5
I noticed this morning that my neighbor has righted his lawn furniture.
He'll find out tonight that this is far from over.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 25, 2014 14:32:16 GMT -5
Making available all the evidence and testimony was a good thing, though I still think a trial would have been the better way to go in terms of satisfying the American public that justice would have been served by an acquittal. However, some people (like Sunny Hoskins of CNN) will refuse to believe the shooting was legally justified that no matter what. In their case it's a matter of political convictions trumping the facts every time. You seem to be assuming that the same court that is trying this on the street and in the internet by ignoring all the evidence available to them right now would somehow be more satisfied by exactly the same evidence given to them after a trial? Why? Bingo, John. Following the system is the only way to proceed. Any other way is entering a worm hole from which we never emerge. And we've entered a lot of worm holes over the years.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 25, 2014 15:16:32 GMT -5
Obama was good, though. Admit it. . I particularly liked the part where he explained that we have a system of laws and even if you don't agree with the outcome that the system produces, we are all bound to it none the less.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 25, 2014 15:23:31 GMT -5
Obama was good, though. Admit it. . I particularly liked the part where he explained that we have a system of laws and even if you don't agree with the outcome that the system produces, we are all bound to it none the less. Oh. I thought he said "...more or less"
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 25, 2014 16:03:04 GMT -5
We can try the guy on Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 25, 2014 16:44:43 GMT -5
I was flipping between Fox, CNN and MSNBC this morning. I can't watch all three at the same time but from what I saw, Fox barely covered it, MSNBC highlighted it but also wanted to cover other stories, and CNN damned near beat it to death.
I started off feeling satisfied that justice had been served. Initially, nothing had been done after the shooting but all the protests later forced a formal investigation. The grand jury looked at the evidence and they decided not to indict. End of story. Whether you like the result or not, it's over.
But maybe not. The whole thing was handled in a very suspicious manner. As already noted above, the timing of the grand jury's finding could not have been worse. If the prosecutor had been trying to incite riots, not that he necessarily was, he would have done exactly what he did last night.
The prosecutor could have gone to trial if he wanted to. A grand jury is not necessary. He decided to use a grand jury. That's okay. But he did not act like a prosecutor who typically advocates for the victim. Instead he acted more as the cop's defense lawyer. He never once talked to any member of the family. His questions to the cop were softballs. At the end, he forgot to do something prosecutors always do. He never asked the jury for an indictment. If you put it all together, it's pretty clear the prosecutor did not want this case to go to trial, and he handled it in a way that pretty much guaranteed that it would not.
It's not hard to understand why the people of Ferguson are upset.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 25, 2014 17:07:30 GMT -5
I rather doubt that the reason folks are upset is so rational.
So, you hold that it's a possibility the prosecutor timed things to incite riots? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 25, 2014 17:13:22 GMT -5
I rather doubt that the reason folks are upset is so rational. So, you hold that it's a possibility the prosecutor timed things to incite riots? Really? Not really. I can't imagine why he'd want to do that. But a total f#cking idiot operating on pure random chance would in all probability have done a better job of timing the press release. As far as people being upset for rational vs irrational reasons, I'm sure there are plenty in both camps. The rioters by default I think are going to be in the latter group.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 25, 2014 17:20:16 GMT -5
I just thought of something. What happened to the outside groups that had supposedly come to Ferguson to stir up trouble and violence? I didn't hear anything at all about them this morning, not even on Fox.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 25, 2014 17:28:04 GMT -5
I just thought of something. What happened to the outside groups that had supposedly come to Ferguson to stir up trouble and violence? I didn't hear anything at all about them this morning, not even on Fox. I heard that all the folks who got arrested last night were from Ferguson or the area at least. We'll see what happens tonight. Too bad there's no money to be made for Sharpton or Jackson on justifiable-homicide.
|
|