Opinions on Ferguson MO

Excellent video. So is this woman a racist or she representative of the majority of the black community ? If she is the former we have a Problem. If she is the later we have a different problem. If she is the later we have a problem that she is not being heard by anyone in either race.

She may well be the majority, I sure would hope so, but the media seems hell-bent on handing the mic to those who believe the opposite of her. I appreciate the fact that some can see thru the propaganda.

Well since she's black it must be right. Please. The one thing that she said that no one is going to comment on is when the police officer's life was no longer in danger while he was running away. But yet he's still being shot at. Now I'm no LEO so I will not proclaim to be an expert but is that allowed by law? I think the answer is no. So to her point I am going to say it again, mike brown was not a good citizen. However, he deserves to be tried in a court of law and not in the street. But as none of us were there we don't truly know what happened other than the outcome, another black male dead at the hands of a police officer. That alone at least deserves to go to trial.

Lycan, the officer didn't shoot the man when he was running away, but he WAS in pursuit, because it's NOT the officer's job to let someone who just committed a felony (after they fought in the car) walk away. Does a bank robber, who just fought with the police, get to leave because he's running from the police? No..it doesn't work that way. He shot the man when he charged back at him (I guess when he figured he wasn't going to be able to run away).

I will say, You'd be totally correct if that were a Civilian CCW situation; The the CCW holder would have a problem if he DID pursue, as the attacker is no longer in most cases a threat to the CCW holder. Pursuing is a Law-Enforcement Officers J-O-B.
 
Greetings Lycan! Long time, no see. Hope you're doin' well! As far as trials go, didn't a jury of 12, including 3 black jurors, unanimously vote AGAINST an indictment against the officer? If so, that seems a pretty strong indicator that those most in the know feel that, although tragically fatal, the actions taken were understandable / not what most anyone would do in the situation.
Not a hearing to determine if he should have been charged but an actual trial that is prosecuted by someone that does not work hand in hand with the police department.
 
She may well be the majority, I sure would hope so, but the media seems hell-bent on handing the mic to those who believe the opposite of her. I appreciate the fact that some can see thru the propaganda. Lycan, the officer didn't shoot the man when he was running away, but he WAS in pursuit, because it's NOT the officer's job to let someone who just committed a felony (after they fought in the car) walk away. Does a bank robber, who just fought with the police, get to leave because he's running from the police? No..it doesn't work that way. He shot the man when he charged back at him (I guess when he figured he wasn't going to be able to run away). I will say, You'd be totally correct if that were a Civilian CCW situation; The the CCW holder would have a problem if he DID pursue, as the attacker is no longer in most cases a threat to the CCW holder. Pursuing is a Law-Enforcement Officers J-O-B.
I never said he shot him. What I said was he shot at him and that has not been disputed yet to my knowledge.
 
Here's my take on the bigger picture...the United States is a nation based on laws and our legal system is one of the best in the world, partly thanks to that Constitution thing and the Bill of Rights. Do we always agree with the outcome of highly publicized legal cases? Absolutely not! Did everyone agree with the verdict of the O. J. Simpson trial? No. The Casey Anthony trial? No. The aquittal of the LEOs involved in the Rodney King issue? No. If laws or processes need to change, they have to be changed in a legal way. Not by threats, intimidation, riots, looting, etc....

Regardless of people's beliefs about the Grand Jury's decision, they were the legal body responsible for the huge task of determining if any charges were required based on a ton(figuratively speaking) of evidence. I'm sure they had a lot more information that the public did not have, especially when opinions were being formed based on media reports.

Anyway, kind regards and peace!
 
I'm sure they had a lot more information that the public did not have

That seems to be one of the problems ^^^ Closed door sessions are as bad as our government doing things behind our backs.
Accountability is thrown out the window. Make those sessions public and that might change things for the better.

In The NY case - why is it they are so afraid to send a cop to trial - to be judged by 12 members of the community?
If they find him not guilty that would be fine. And maybe just a fine for excessive force would be rendered.

It seems sometimes that the police are above the law or that if they charged a cop with something that would
knock them down from their perfect status - but we already know they are not perfect because no one is.
Seems like unless a cop goes into a mall and opens fire - that might get the Grand Jury to charge them, but short of that
not much they do will get them put in jail. Maybe drunk driving on or off duty might or they could lose their job?

So what law or processes need to be changed? And would they need to be Federal laws so they apply anywhere in the USA?
 
Well I'm not an expert but opening the proceedings to the general public would be a disaster. So many attendees would disrupt the process because their beliefs and preconceived opinions are not being met. Privacy issues would come into play. Not so much for the "accused" but for witnesses and alleged victims. A public parade and circus would likely have the opposite desired effect. The general public's desire for the juicy details is sometimes unnecessary and not a protected right. The investigation in the NY case determined there is not probable cause to charge the officers. I put my trust in the system in place and do not base my opinions on emotion. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. Civil rights laws are in place and are at a Federal level and they are specifically looking at violations to someone's rights, again based on facts and not emotions. Is it possible Wilson's civil rights were violated? Maybe, I don't know...

I'm not sure what laws you think need changed other than opening proceedings to the public. If you feel laws need to be changed, jump into the political process and start lobbying at a local level to change what you "know" to be wrong, not what you "think" or "feel" is wrong. There have been people who recognized social injustice and forced changes in societal norms.

"Be the change that you want to see in the world" Attributed to a person who felt a change was needed.
"I have a dream...." Attributed to a person who felt a change was needed.

Where these two individuals angels or perfect humans? No, not hardly, but they forced changes.
 
Well Poppy I certainly see your point. But it is a stistical fact that minorities don't get equal treatment in the legal system. The reality is actually staggering when you look at the way race effects outcome. For many of the people rioting there is no legal way to get change. Maybe MB is not the perfect case to use as an example of how the system is not fair, but the fact (and the point) is the system isn't fair. Debating whether or not MB is an example of this unfairness is silly. The point should be that white officers shoot black suspects disproportionately - fact. I'm not blaming the officers for that. Once things go wrong on the street the officer must do whatever necessary to resolve it and restore order - they aren't trying to be diplomatic or empathise with the suspect at that moment. Rioting is always illegal and the police must react aggressively. Protesting is an American tradition and the proper way to bring change when other means do not work.
 
And this is the dialog I agree we should be having. It won't matter if the blacks are committing a disproportionate amount of the crimes or not, as long as the are treated equally in the process.

Its a fact that attorneys get involved to a more positive outcome if you have the economic means to secure them. That has no bearing on your race that is simply fact. Now if you are economically without means, that is a whole different discussion. No skin color there. Fallen the fact that you are educated and employed and have means, gives you an advantage over your AA brothers that are not. How do you propose solving that problem?
 
And this is the dialog I agree we should be having. It won't matter if the blacks are committing a disproportionate amount of the crimes or not, as long as the are treated equally in the process. Its a fact that attorneys get involved to a more positive outcome if you have the economic means to secure them. That has no bearing on your race that is simply fact. Now if you are economically without means, that is a whole different discussion. No skin color there. Fallen the fact that you are educated and employed and have means, gives you an advantage over your AA brothers that are not. How do you propose solving that problem?
I will agree that education and means provides a slight advantage over someone that doesn't have it but that's only if they make it to the courtroom. What's happening now is the street justice that appears to be happening now. As long as the color of his skin in brown he has less of a chance to get to a courtroom than someone lacking pigmentation. That's just simply true.
 
And this is the dialog I agree we should be having. It won't matter if the blacks are committing a disproportionate amount of the crimes or not, as long as the are treated equally in the process.

Its a fact that attorneys get involved to a more positive outcome if you have the economic means to secure them. That has no bearing on your race that is simply fact. Now if you are economically without means, that is a whole different discussion. No skin color there. Fallen the fact that you are educated and employed and have means, gives you an advantage over your AA brothers that are not. How do you propose solving that problem?

As you pointed out TT access to good representation is an economic issue more so than a race issue. A broke redneck living in a trailer park will have a similar experience with the legal system as a black man living in a ghetto. Fixing this is not that hard. We need to train a group of lawyers to specifically support these types of people. In some urban areas the best law firms must volunteer lawyers to work in these areas. Also in some cities the judge is allowed to interject themselves when the defendant's lawyers misrepresent them.

But there are some issues that are basically race. Things like brown people being 10 times more likely to get a death sentence than whites for the same crime. Or blacks getting sentanced to hard time for crack and white people getting a slap on the hand for cocaine. Or brown people being far more likely to get a harder sentence (I forget the exact ratio) for the same crime committed by whites. Or white collar crimes not being enforced at all (only one person was even charged after the banking crash) and cops over enforcing non-violent crimes in minority areas. The prison system is big business, in many small cities and counties it is the number one employer. We are filling the system with people who probably don't need to be getting 3 squares a day on the public's dime (mostly brown people) to keep the prison system rolling.
 
I never said he shot him. What I said was he shot at him and that has not been disputed yet to my knowledge.

I have never read anything that says he shot at the man when he was running away, and there is no forensic evidence supporting that claim. There are a lot of 'witnesses' who claimed a lot of things that later retracted, when cornered by the grand jury. So if that is your main reason for your stance..it's pretty thin...

I will agree that education and means provides a slight advantage over someone that doesn't have it but that's only if they make it to the courtroom. What's happening now is the street justice that appears to be happening now. As long as the color of his skin in brown he has less of a chance to get to a courtroom than someone lacking pigmentation. That's just simply true.

He didn't give himself the chance to get to the courtroom when he fought and ran..he'd be out on bail right now if he hadn't....

Arch, I am with you on one thing. Crime is crime. Whatever color, you do the crime, you do the time....
 
Protesting is a viable part of our culture but rioting is not really productive. It usually turns people's attention away from the root problem and/or issue. I understand the problems associated with acceptance based solely on someone's race or appearance. I have diversity in my immediate family unit, three granddaughters my wife and I are raising are mixed race, three other grandchildren have Hispanic heritage, and two grandsons are Caucasian. We have seen unbelievable behavior based on appearances or even based on a last name. It is sickening and hopefully younger generations will become more tolerant and accepting of others that are different, regardless of what the difference consists of.
 
And Fallen my friend we are making some common ground progress here. Right now, I live in the deep south. About as racist as it gets here. For a time, I dated an attorney. A criminal defense attorney. I am not going to say that a particular group committed more crimes than the others as I did not look at it from that perspective.

I am here to tell you that yes she got more black clients than white ones. Mobile is also about a 80% black population so that would make some sense. The ones that paid got equal representation by her. The ones that were guilty, got the minimum legal representation required by law. And she would fight for a lesser sentence etc. The ones that were innocent she fought hard for, often for less money. There was some principle of justice and conscious used, but make no mistake this is about money to the attorney.

She absolutely knows that 40% of her cases were built on LEO or prosecuting attorneys willful abuse of the system towards the accused. I never thought to ask her if there was more system abuse to blacks over whites but it stands to reason that if whites have more money to defend, it is less likely that the prosecuting side are going to try and screw up and fabricate chyt to get a conviction. You still have the 60% left that are either going to be guilty or not based on the actual truth of the acts rather than the trumped up ones.

Of her cases, 75% were felony drug cases. White clients took money out of accounts (parents etc.) to fight the battle. Black clients paid cash from undisclosed sources. Not her business but she basically knows that it probably would not pass any drug sniffing test if it were subjected to it. Her canned defense for these habitual black offenders will always be lack of opportunity, lack of education, racial tensions, etc. That was a given excuse for every client that was black and habitual. In other words, they have no other choices to make, so they break the law. And she will be the first to tell you that this is all part of the game of justice they play. It's simply the canned approach to defense of this segment of her clients. This usually plays well for sentencing rather than guilt or innocence. But it is the immediate leverage to use. Never mind that they came up with $20K, that is all confidential to the courts.

Of her clients, the whites were more likely to get no jail time, but they were also more likely to foot a larger legal defense bill as well. The larger the offense, the larger the retainer. I witnessed many times people paying 20K before she even wrote the first response to a charge. 50K was not unheard of if you were facing a good stretch of prison time. Watched a white girl with 14 previous bust, get no jail time for her 15th felony drug arrest, while her black client may get 2 years for cocaine possession with 1 prior. But the white girl had a daddy coughing up 80K, whereas the black man was tapped at 20K and his family has mortgaged the house to get there. So this could appear to be racial on the surface, when in fact its not. O.J. as we know bought his way out of trouble.

Expecting them to defend for free is a wonderful Utopia idea, much like any social hand out. Each attorney here has to provide a percentage of hours to the state for Court Appointed cases. She gets paid less than a third of her going rate and she will defend them to the minimum the law requires. They all hate doing it, so they all have a desk agreement to just get these done as quickly as they can to move on the bigger fish cases. The judges know it as well. Everyone is trying to move the garbage through the system at that point.

Asking the attorneys to do this for free....is like asking a cop to do their job for free, or you to do your job for free. Good luck with that.
 
I wasn't expecting the lawyers to do it for free. The firms can foot the bill and write it off on their taxes. You are right that this might not inspire lawyers to do their best but it's still better than a public defender making nothing. So I'm not saying soak the lawyers to fix this. My sister, brother in law (2), father in law, and 6 cousins are lawyers so we sit around all the time discussing things like this very issue. Most law firms will tell you that this kind of work is pretty good experience for their lawyers who wish to specialize in criminal defence.

I did not mean to imply we'll get volunteers to help out. They would be paid by the lawfirms who then recoup the loss by less taxes. Also Cities can put more money into the public defenders, especially when they have large urban populations. This can be fixed if there was a push to address it. Truth is there has never really been a real push back on the system to make an effort to equalize the scales of justice.

BTW: That was a great post you made, good point well supported.
 
I'd vote for this idea! All we gotta do is get it past the attorneys now. I stopped dating her when you begin to realize their perception of right or wrong has little to do with right or wrong, it's what can be proven and how you argue. In the end she was a professional liar. Which serves them well in court, not so much in life.
 
Thought this was interesting. Note: He believes the choke hold was uncalled for, but not because of any race issue...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never read anything that says he shot at the man when he was running away, and there is no forensic evidence supporting that claim. There are a lot of 'witnesses' who claimed a lot of things that later retracted, when cornered by the grand jury. So if that is your main reason for your stance..it's pretty thin... He didn't give himself the chance to get to the courtroom when he fought and ran..he'd be out on bail right now if he hadn't.... Arch, I am with you on one thing. Crime is crime. Whatever color, you do the crime, you do the time....
So if I hit a cop and runaway I deserve to die? That's just stupid.
 
Back
Top