I trust that the jury and those seeing the evidence had good reason to not agree that this is a crime.
Federal grand juries return incitements over 99% of the time. A judge once said that a prosecutor could get a jury to indite a ham sandwich (this is just barely an exaggeration). Good old Bob has a vested interest in serving his team mates (the cops) and letting this one slide by. That's why he presented all the evidence (pretty much unheard of for a grand jury) instead of presenting his best case that a crime was committed and should go to trial (normal order for a grand jury).
Exactly. A prosecutor asks for an indictment, and presents only the evidence necessary to establish probably cause typically. In this case, the prosecutor did not ask for an indictment and just backed the entire truck of evidence up on the jury and said "Here you go. Do what you want with it." It was designed to increase the odds of the outcome he wanted.
I can't approach him with a 10' pole on the subject. It's all I can do to keep him from vomiting on about 'those people' unsolicited. For all his intimate knowledge on the subject, he is incapable of parsing it in an unbiased fashion. For him, any deviation from standard procedure falls loudly, squarely, and justly into the "we did it this way in the holy name of transparency and fairness" narrative that they crafted.
I want to trust that the jury and those seeing the evidence had good reason to not agree that this is a crime. However, I don't. There is far too much shit flying around this epic clusterfuck. Politics, race, riots, high profile, extreme media attention, etc. I don't know. It's tough. If he isn't actually guilty, it isn't right to indict or convict one man as a recourse for / response to all the problems with the system, especially when it comes to the system and minorities. However, cops and prosecutors do it all the time. It's called "setting an example." We had teenagers downloading music on Napster being fined millions. We have teenage "hackers" being locked up for 500 years for being part of a DDOS.* Guess what? My dad found out what Napster was, deleted that shit, and lectured my brother and me for hours in fear that we would be fined a bazillion dollars after that. Recently in my town, we had a couple beach houses fined on the 4th of July for parties. There has always been city rule / law thing that says you can't rent your strand house on holidays for the sole purpose of hosting massive parties. People do it all the time. So this year they fined people. Next year far less people will do it. Two years ago, they cracked down on the red cups on the beach after we were featured on a Cops style show. No one has red cups anymore because everyone heard about the couple people who got a felony dropped to misdemeanor sit-the-night-in-jail charge. Setting an example does make a difference. The real difference is, in these stupid examples, everyone is doing it and everyone is actually doing it rather than everyone is doing it and this single high profile case he may or may not have done it. *I know these aren't 100% accurate or the best examples. Someone else can call me out on this and find some sources. **Is it just me or did I take way too much nyquil?
Not even, have you gone through the evidence that was released? It's ridiculous. I mean even the National Bar Association is calling buillshit on it. There is far too much shit flying around this epic clusterfuck. Politics, race, riots, high profile, extreme media attention, etc.
I'd like to believe that, but it could just as easily not be the case. In fact, statistics suggest that the smart money is on the fact that they did not. Justice in the US is not guaranteed. Justice in the US for black males is particularly scarce. The data bears this out. No doubt, there is the possibility that the grand jury acted in a manner that any one of us might have agreed with had we been part of it; however, IMHO we have little reason to trust that this was indeed the case. I feel badly for the jury and for officer Wilson if this was in fact nothing that we fear it was, but I feel far worse for all those that live with the fact that in most cases, it is exactly what we fear that this was. I have no confidence that the decision was appropriate, because I have little evidence that supports such faith in these matters.
The thing is, for the black folks, activists, and their supporters in Ferguson and around the country, this whole deal was about waaaaaaaaaaay more than Mike Brown almost immediately after his killing. It's about overly aggressive use of force by police killing and arresting minorities disproportionately coupled with a justice system designed to incarcerate them instead of giving them a level shot at justice. That's what the grievances on the ground actually are if one digs down and talks to folks there. Dig is the wrong word because it's right there if you just ask. They aren't wrong. The optics on this are terrible for those consumed with black pain and rage and wonderful for white people who will bend over backwards not to see what it's about and point to the riots as proof of what's wrong with 'those people'. Happened here in Detroit. "A riot is the language of the unheard" -Martin Luther King Jr.I feel badly for the jury and for officer Wilson if this was in fact nothing that we fear it was,
There is also the attitude that the people at these protests represent one homogeneous group, rather than a collection of individuals with varying opinions on a topic. The community organizers may advocate peaceful protests, but CNN is going to broadcast the angry people and the inevitable riots will often be started by the violent fridge. At my undergraduate institution, I saw a number of protests co-opted by outsider anarchists who had the time to sit in longer than most students and were more than happy to be the loudest voice in the room, throw rocks at police, and derail a message with ridiculous claims.The optics on this are terrible for those consumed with black pain and rage and wonderful for white people who will bend over backwards not to see what it's about and point to the riots as proof of what's wrong with 'those people'. Happened here in Detroit.
For anybody in the media who cared to know, for months now there have been peaceful protests in Ferguson with organizers actively speaking out against and mitigating agitators with all of their ability. In fact, even if you include the riots last night, the public protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. Some of these reporters need to get some Black Twitter going in their feed mixed with some of the organizers that are actually on the ground. They might learn something.
i've said this on here already and directed people to those sources. Black Twitter is amazing
Don't bullshit me. People made up their minds in advance because it's the same fucking thing every time, don't fucking stand there (sit there or whatever) and tell me that I shouldn't "make up my mind in advance". What the fuck am I supposed to think, as a young black male that gets fucking stopped in the middle of bullshit-white-ass-I-didn't-do-shit Boulder county for WALKING? And at least Ferguson actually has more than one Black person in it. I'm out here alone. That prosecutor, fifteen fucking minutes late, sat there and implicitly made it clear that my life as a person of color won't even be worth a trial when I, SOME DAY, get shot up by a fucking cop. And we haven't started talking about the 12 year old that got shot for having a BB gun in Ohio. GUESS WHAT HIS SKIN COLOR WAS, FLAG. This country is fucking broken, and I've already made up my mind in advance about that.
I know you may feel this is entirely justified, but as soon as you take this stance there is no longer any chance you are listening to reason rather than going by your own reaction based on your own personal experiences.don't fucking stand there (sit there or whatever) and tell me that I shouldn't "make up my mind in advance".
bruh. no matter how cool and "I get it" white peers in America proclaim they are, when shit hits the fan most of them put their heads right back in the sand. Not even worth engaging em over it, fuck em.
I know everyone is angry tonight, but I never expect hubski to share comments that are blatantly rude. Never want to see this sentiment on hubski again. "Don't speak. Just go." ... that's the sort of attitude that led this country to where it is today. Please think about that.Don't speak. Just go.
Flag, I think it's worth considering the notion that not wanting to see a bit of anger regarding the Ferguson decision boil over on a website could be construed as a kind of privilege. As I mentioned earlier, there is a pain and a rage that goes so far beyond this incident. It is deep and it is justified imho. I don't want to see rude comments , but I don't want to see people in our community in pain from being systematically targeted, killed, and shat on by our justice system and countrymen more. I don't want to see riots, burning, and looting, but I don't want to see said fires that stoke that either. I don't want to not understand the causes and symptoms both. Instead of rebuffing this pain, I'll humbly make the suggestion that we explore it and attempt to understand and know it better instead. There are massive structural problems in our country's justice system with respect to minorities. There is honest room for righteous anger and indignation. Room on Hubski too. What do you think about that?Never want to see this sentiment on hubski again
I'm with you. there is justifiable rage, and then there is being incapable of 1.) putting it down in words (and appealing to emotions instead) and 2.) living with the fact that people, even people you might respect, disagree with you. telling people to "leave" or not to speak is not, and will never be okay, or justifiable. I've said this before in other places, and have even been accused of "internalized victim blaming" for believing it, but I believe that the moment you lose your cool in an argument (especially on the internet), you've lost, and it's your fault that you lost. Nothing but calm, cool, and collected is going to get a message across, and all the screaming into the wind that people do accomplishes nothing. Don't like someone's opinion? have a fight. While i'd prefer civil (if terse) discourse, I'd rather a fight than shitty college undergrad level censorship.
What about, "I have to deal with daily racial discrimination, and today, on top of that, you are challenging my feelings that arise not only from a specific incident of pronounced racial tension but are compounded by that daily racial discrimination as well, and yet again someone who doesn't experience what I do (and may or may not even believe my experiences) is asking me to justify my emotions on the topic, and today it's just too fucking much?" Or is that just "I'm sick of discussing this" ? Because the thing is, it's not black people's jobs to stop everything, sit down, and explain their daily experience to you just because you ask. Because you are privileged enough that you have to ask instead of know. Yes, it's great to try and have open communication about race with people who actually regularly experience racial injustice, but especially on an emotionally heightened day and event like this, maybe asking them to justify their feelings (that have already been through the wringer) might feel like a little bit too much. If a guy I'd had a really tormented relationship with and I had just broken up, and someone then asked me to justify being upset with a seemingly unsympathetic view, yeah, I'd nope out of that situation as well, or I'd end up in tears, or ticked off. It's reasonable sometimes to decide that a certain type of discussion is just too much at a given time.
I do not care about your feelings when you are making a decision that should not be decided by them in any sane scenario. I am not asking for justification. I am stating that you should never be making decisions beforehand on a topic such as this. I didn't. And, yet again, the idea of privilege has been twisted and shifted from a concept that is about understanding and trying to put yourself in anothers shoes into one that is about silencing and putting people down. The whole fucking point of the concept is that we should listen to and attempt to understand others experiences so we don't end up judging actions that don't make sense from our own contexts and biases. Not "You have it good, you should shut up and appreciate life". I am not, and did not ask for a justification of any feelings. But you would go out of your way to post a topic about your breakup on a website? One that "prides" itself on the idea of "thoughtful discussion" at that? Either way, I wasn't asking for a justification of feelings. I was stating that feelings are not a justification to make up your mind on something before looking at the situation from a less biased point of view.Because the thing is, it's not black people's jobs to stop everything, sit down, and explain their daily experience to you just because you ask.
Because you are privileged enough that you have to ask instead of know.
maybe asking them to justify their feelings
If a guy I'd had a really tormented relationship with and I had just broken up, and someone then asked me to justify being upset with a seemingly unsympathetic view, yeah, I'd nope out of that situation as well,
But you did tell him to his screen that there is zero chance that he's listening to reason. In reality, there were so many reasons to believe in advance the outcome, starting with the prosecutor making the exceedingly rare choice of not asking for an indictment. Then making the rare choice of not presenting the grand jury just the evidence needed to establish probable cause. Then the series of calculated leaks from the grand jury well before the decision all supporting a pro-Darren Wilson narrative. Then the unprecedented step of declaring a state of emergency in advance where no emergency existed. If I had to put money on it, I'd say the actual unreasonable position would be believing in advance any other outcome than the one we got.I didn't ask a question or ask for debate.
I was commenting on the fact that when you literally state you have made the decision on something before-hand, you are not listening to reason. All the stuff you say are things you should listen to and reason with before making up your mind. Not after.
Yes you did. Saying something in a forum means you had a reason to say it. You may think you're "being reasonable" or "just calming the situation", but you're asserting. You are carving a place in opposition to another person. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell someone how they feel or need to react is invalid then walk away without expecting a response. You didn't know that you asked for something. You still asked for it. Now take off your mask of feigned indifference and listen.
What I got wasn't a response, it was an outright dismissal with nothing behind it. I always welcome discussion on any of my posts, but I did not directly say "I want to discuss this" so I did not expect anyone to respond with "I am not dealing with this today".
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/cleveland-shot-boy/19471925/ Williams said the "airsoft"-type pellet gun lacked the orange safety tip required at the time of sale and was indistinguishable from a real semiautomatic pistol. I'm not gonna pretend his skin color had nothing to do with this (latent, societal racism would point to the idea that if a little white kid had pulled out the same bb gun, the officer might have hesitated more). But what had far more to do with it was the fact that he had an (illegal) bb gun, without a safety thingy, and he was ignoring a police order. If you feel like blaming someone, which is reasonable, blame the fucking people who buy these things for their children, or blame the companies that profit by making the bb guns look exactly like real guns minus an orange dot. No, they made up their minds in advance because they're people. Our brains aren't wired for impartiality, or to assimilate ideas that we don't agree with. I'm still not entirely sure what happened that night with Brown and Wilson, and I'll never know, so I'm gonna go with the opinion of the 12 jurors who have seen the most evidence. Until something convinces me otherwise.And we haven't started talking about the 12 year old that got shot for having a BB gun in Ohio. GUESS WHAT HIS SKIN COLOR WAS, FLAG.
Tomba said one officer fired twice after the boy pulled the fake weapon from his waistband but had not pointed it at police. The boy did not make any verbal threats, but he grabbed the replica handgun after being told to raise his hands, Tomba said.
People made up their minds in advance because it's the same fucking thing every time
I think a police officer, who has a considerable amount of training, and has sworn to protect the people and uphold the law, even when it puts their life in danger should take more than a split second to make a decision when faced with a 12 year old with a gun. As an analogy, we go to great lengths to ensure that those who face the death penalty are absolutely guilty, with the ideal that 100 guilty are set free before 1 innocent are put to death. But then we have cops pulling the trigger at the drop of a hat, rarely facing ANY significant consequences. Shouldn't they take at least a tiny bit longer to determine the threat level before shooting to defend themselves, when THEY are the ones who chose to put their lives in danger to uphold the law? ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S A TWELVE YEAR OLD.
You know that's a bad analogy, though. The potential consequence in this particular instance is being shot, if he's wrong about the 12 year old. And 12 year olds come in all shapes and sizes, it hardly needs to be said, and can of course use small firearms as well as anyone, ceteris paribus. I agree. But I do not criticize (in shades of grey situations such as that one) because I've never been there. I've never had less than a second to figure out if someone was going to shoot me or not. I have no idea what I'd do, so in the interest of avoiding hypocrisy I attempt to be as fair as possible.But then we have cops pulling the trigger at the drop of a hat, rarely facing ANY significant consequences.
I think a police officer, who has a considerable amount of training, and has sworn to protect the people and uphold the law, even when it puts their life in danger should take more than a split second to make a decision when faced with a 12 year old with a gun.
How about this then? If a firefighter's sole intention is self preservation, they're not going to run into burning buildings to save others are they? They signed up, and went through hundreds of hours of difficult training in order to put themselves in danger for the benefit of others. Do police officers not do the same? Should they not put the lives of others before themselves as well?
The lives of the innocent, yes (in my opinion). The lives of people who might be innocent or might be pointing guns at them, and they have to determine which is true in a split second? Hmm. Ideally they make the right choice, but I don't think I could do it with any amount of training. Firemen go into each situation knowing whose side they're on, and that never changes. A lot easier mentally, though probably just as dangerous physically.Should they not put the lives of others before themselves as well?