Re: US strike options on TSP

[member_22733]

^^^ Shalav

I think this is rather funny. There are two things that are getting mixed up here wrt angry young men/teenagers
1) In other parts of the world they usually die as a result of accident, or when they come across a bigger bully. That is understandable, and I have no issues with that.
2) Here they die at the hands of the cop.

The reason they are two different issues is that the "cop" is not an accident. He is a human being who has discretionary powers. Only in a barbaric society would his ONLY option be to kill such angry teenagers in a deliberate act.

You are assuming that the cop is a law of nature which states that angry young men coming across a cop SHOULD and MUST meet their maker OR you are assuming that a cop is a bigger irrational bully who would kill rather than exercise discretion.

The funny part in all this is: You seem to be perfectly ok with either of these assumptions.

[Shalav]

A p0rn0grapher v/s an alleged thief who died while assaulting an armed police officer.

That's not an equivalence! What was the principle MB was trying to defend, by allegedly stealing and then assaulting a police officer - Might is Right?

[member_22733]

Event A: MB allegedly robbed a convenience store.
Event B: MB gets approached by a cop for jaywalking and gets killed in the resulting encounter, however it may have ensued.

Event A is causally unrelated to Event B. And yet people keep making this "Black Brute" connection.

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

This was very similar to the justification used in lynchings. He deserved to die because he was a brute.

[Shalav]

The reason they are two different issues is that the "cop" is not an accident. He is a human being who has discretionary powers. Only in a barbaric society would his ONLY option be to kill such angry teenagers in a deliberate act.

You are assuming that the cop is a law of nature which states that angry young men coming across a cop SHOULD and MUST meet their maker OR you are assuming that a cop is a bigger irrational bully who would kill rather than exercise discretion.

The funny part in all this is: You seem to be perfectly ok with either of these assumptions.

You didn't get the point, an angry young man who assaults an armed police officer is taking his own life in his hands. MB got the worst of it. You are still stating that MB was passive and not assaulting a police officer, and got shot anyway. However witness testimony, physical evidence shows this is untrue.

Lets move on from maintaining MB was peaceful and cooperating while being arrested. Far from it. He was actively resisting arrest and attempting to assault an armed person (a police officer or not is immaterial here)

If you have a gun in your hand, and 6'4" 130 kg violent man assaults you, you are going to use the gun to protect yourself. You can't protect yourself otherwise and you could die. So in this instance would you choose to shoot the assaulter or die?

[Shreeman]

A p0rn0grapher v/s an alleged thief who died while assaulting an armed police officer.

That's not an equivalence! What was the principle MB was trying to defend, by allegedly stealing and then assaulting a police officer - Might is Right?

Shalav,

The principle is that where such matters as death of a human are involved, narratives only become facts after they are ascertained in a jury trial. That is the due porocess. Just as we must vote, to uphold participation, even when we equally dislike all official candidates, by writing in our own nominations. The sanctity of the process is like trust in paper money. By itself, it has no value. You cant eat it.

[member_22733]

If I came across a teenager who thinks Might is Right, I will try my best to correct him and make him a productive member of the society.

If I know that the teenager is dangerous, I will only approach him when he is cooler spirits.

Physical force as a means of control should be the last thing for an LEO in any civilized society, let alone pull a gun and shoot him dead.

[Shalav]

Event A: MB allegedly robbed a convenience store.
Event B: MB gets approached by a cop for jaywalking and gets killed in the resulting encounter, however it may have ensued.

Event A is causally unrelated to Event B. And yet people keep making this "Black Brute" connection.

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

This was very similar to the justification used in lynchings. He deserved to die because he was a brute.

Not at all - MB died because of his actions during event B, not because he was an alleged brute.

His actions in event A led to event B - if event A had not allegedly happened, he would have been told to move to the side-walk and the police officer would not have been on the lookout for someone with his description and attire. He would not have come back to apprehend or question a suspect in a robbery, and MB could have been sleeping peacefully at home that night.

[member_22733]

You didn't get the point, an angry young man who assaults an armed police officer is taking his own life in his hands. MB got the worst of it. You are still stating that MB was passive and not assaulting a police officer, and got shot anyway. However witness testimony, physical evidence shows this is untrue.

Lets move on from maintaining MB was peaceful and cooperating while being arrested. Far from it. He was actively resisting arrest and attempting to assault an armed person (a police officer or not is immaterial here)

If you have a gun in your hand, and 6'4" 130 kg violent man assaults you, you are going to use the gun to protect yourself. You can't protect yourself otherwise and you could die. So in this instance would you choose to shoot the assaulter or die?

Evidence is like statistics. You can interpret any way you want. You are believing the cop side of the story and I am not. You do not know if the cop taunted him, or initiated the violence in the first place. There is no way to prove or disprove these things.

But going by Officer Wilsons "demon" testimony (something which you also agree with), it seems that the officer had no issues killing the demon (aka angry young teenager). It erodes my confidence in the LEO side of the story to quite a large extent.

[Shalav]

Shreeman, A Grand Jury is also due process.

Lokesh - that didn't answer the question, like the police officer you don't get to choose when to approach an angry 6'4" 130 kg teenager, he is approching you with anger.

You have to decide if you want to use your gun to save yourself or die because that angry teenager is larger than you and will take that gun away from you, probably killing you with your own gun.

[member_22733]

Not at all - MB died because of his actions during event B, not because he was an alleged brute.

His actions in event A led to event B - if event A had not allegedly happened, he would have been told to move to the side-walk and the police officer would not have been on the lookout for someone with his description and attire. He would not have come back to apprehend or question a suspect in a robbery, and MB could have been sleeping peacefully at home that night.

Did he come back to apprehend him for robbery? Is that officer testimony or has it been corroborated by an independent source?

[member_22733]

Shreeman, A Grand Jury is also due process.

Lokesh - that didn't answer the question, like the police officer you don't get to choose when to approach an angry 6'4" 130 kg teenager, he is approching you with anger.

You have to decide if you want to use your gun to save yourself or die because that angry teenager is larger than you and will take that gun away from you, probably killing you with your own gun.

And you trust the officer when he says that?

[Shalav]

Evidence is like statistics. You can interpret any way you want. You are believing the cop side of the story and I am not. You do not know if the cop taunted him, or initiated the violence in the first place. There is no way to prove or disprove these things.

But going by Officer Wilsons "demon" testimony (something which you also agree with), it seems that the officer had no issues killing the demon (aka angry young teenager). It erodes my confidence in the LEO side of the story to quite a large extent.

1. this is not statistics. Never quoted any.
2. These are from witness testimony and physical evidence.

No witnesses stated the officer taunted him, not even the friend who said the officer shot him in the back.
No witnesses stated the officer assaulted him first. How could he, everyone agrees the officer was seated in his car and MB reached in, even his friend.

All these hypothetical's are like grasping at straws. These things did not happen, even according to the most favourable witness for Mr. Michael Brown.

[Shalav]

Did he come back to apprehend him for robbery? Is that officer testimony or has it been corroborated by an independent source?

Why ask me, looks like you did not read the whole testimony, after the 911, the description was put out on radio, the officer asked if his help was required, he was told no. He moved on, saw them walking in the middle of the street, told them to move to the sidewalk, then realised this was a suspect in the armed robbery described 5-10 minutes ago, came back and so on...

[Shalav]

And you trust the officer when he says that?

Lokesh ji

You are avoiding answering the question. Would you or would you not shoot someone to save your own life, if the opponent was 6'4", weighed 130 kg, was angry and was moving towards attacking you?

[member_22733]

There are no straws to clutch, not even attempting that here. There is no need to assault physically to get a response, just the N word would do fine. Please read that book I posted earlier, you will know what I mean.

There are specifics of the case and then there are many general conclusions you can draw about it, especially if it fits a pattern.


No one knows clearly what exactly happened. The bullets tell one story, the cops tell another story and the witnesses tell another story. its more of a case of "he said, she said".

How certain are you that he was angry? How certain are you that he wasn't lifting his arms because he misheard the cop? How certain are you that he charged the cop? The only evidence is there were six (or seven?) bullet injuries a few to his arms and the final two to his head.

Consider this, the final shot went through his eye in a downward angle (or so I think), how could that have happened when both of these guys are of the same height?

Here is the private examiner statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/mi ... .html?_r=0

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

[member_22733]

And you trust the officer when he says that?

Lokesh ji

You are avoiding answering the question. Would you or would you not shoot someone to save your own life, if the opponent was 6'4", weighed 130 kg, was angry and was moving towards attacking you?

I myself am around that height (and around that weight these days ) but that apart, yes I would try to use whatever means I can to defend myself.

Now let me ask you this: What makes you certain that he was charging the cop angrily? What makes you think that the situation went down exactly as you describe in your hypothetical scenario?

[Shalav]

You see this

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

The Grand Jury saw this after talking to everyone involved, including hostile witnesses.

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

Frankly this is not an objective decision, it s subjective and prone to be coloured by our own world-views. I hold to the second opinion, and in agreement with a bunch of people who heard from all sides and saw ALL the evidence, not only those selectively publicized by the ADM.

[member_22733]

^^^^ LOL. American Grand Juries are known to be completely impartial. That should be framed somewhere in my mind .

Giving ALL the evidence to the grand jury is a prosecutorial trick that was used here to convince folks like you to go for option two:

Here is the details if you care:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... r-failure/

Now you may not believe them because there is a black legal expert in there. Sorry about that statement.

Anyway back to the larger topic:

What no one is asking here is: Is there a better way to deal with this?

1) You have an unruly teenager, instead of finding ways and reasons to kill him is there a way he can be helped?
2) You have people who are slow/sluggish and deaf, and they have also been killed by cops and its all there on youtube for anyone to see. Are deaf, sluggish, retarded people okay to be murdered? Because they were all found A_OK by the grand jury.
3) Homeless people have been killed countless number of times and one of them was even caught in camera. So being homeless is a death penalty.
4) Being Black. No need to talk about that here.

Let me prove Godwin's Law here.
What is the difference between this situation and Hitler. He also killed Jews, Romanis, Mentally ill, homeless people because he thought they were brutes and inferior.

[UlanBatori]

Event A: MB allegedly robbed a convenience store.
Event B: MB gets approached by a cop for jaywalking and gets killed in the resulting encounter, however it may have ensued.

Event A is causally unrelated to Event B. And yet people keep making this "Black Brute" connection.

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

This was very similar to the justification used in lynchings. He deserved to die because he was a brute.

Lokeshji: All the hype aside, let's take a sanity break, hain?

Events A and B were ****NOT**** unrelated, per the testimony of the police officer. He was specifically in that area, looking for the perp(s) following a complaint from the store that was robbed. Initial reports said that Brown carried some of the stolen property.

The police officer was going to arrest these guys to hold them at least until backup arrived: the backup were also looking for the perps.

When the officer asked them to stop, Brown's response was to slam the SUV door on the officer, and punch him in the face. Not exactly the response of a law-abiding citjen. He also tried to grab the officer's gun. That is as good as a death warrant, because that act put the officer's life in danger. So with the blow in the face and the gun-grab, the officer was both angry, armed and 'justified' in using force to 'stop' and detain Brown. In my opinion he used vastly disproportionate force, but now we are into a judgement call, and the Jury decided that it was OK.

Ultimately, what Michael Brown did is what is known in the US as

Suicide by Police

Point a toy-gun. Grab an officer's gun. Punch an officer in the face. Rush at an officer.

If I were a tax-paying business owner in Ferguson, I would want more cops like Officer Williams, who put their lives on the line actually catching robbers.

[member_22733]

And you guys believe that stuff went down EXACTLY as the officer has stated in his sworn testimony and he has no need/motivation to lie about stuff that could be potentially harmful to him?

[UlanBatori]

No, I don't believe everything he said. I think the number of bullets fired showed that it was a road-rage event, not law enforcement. So he should have been indicated, and at least had to face a full trial.
I also think the Prosecutor was totally biased.
But neither of those tells me that Brown was an angel.

[member_22733]

So given that we are unsure of how things went down, let me try to eggjplain even more (pardon me for dragging this on):

The officer said that this guy was a demon and he had this mean "demony" look (whatever the eff that means). So he had to make sure this guy was dead.

If someone dies as a result of my actions, however justified, especially if this was my first time killing someone. I imagine my mental situation to be a little out of whack and shaken up. And yet this officer almost has a "glee" in his testimony. It almost feels like he enjoyed the fact that he got to shoot the demon dead. He does not show any concern for the loss of life. I found that alarming.


So just like people are associating MBs alleged activity in that store to him deserving to die. I can associate the officers "glee in homicide" testimony to mean that the officer was seeking out to kill. That testimony is what is making me NOT believe ANYTHING that the LEO side says.

So yes, MB was not an angel I get that. The cop even said he was a demon. But whether he deserved to die is another question, and whether he actually did what the cop says he did is yet another mystery.

After going through that testimony I cannot believe the cop on anything.

[saip]

This is a no win situation for the prosecutor. But what he did was not illegal or prohibited by law. It might be unusual but not illegal. Instead of coming to a conclusion and presenting only the evidence that will support that scenario he presented all the evidence and threw it into the lap of the Grand Jury and they decided not to return True Bill.

[member_22733]

Yes its a loophole. The purpose of a grand jury is to decide whether to press charges or not (that is what I read). And the prosecutor need only present evidence to make that decision. Grand Jury is not a trial.

So by using this loophole of dumping the WHOLE evidence set (with a lot of noise from both sides) our brosecutor generated enough doubts in the minds of the jury members that they decide not to press charges. You need almost 9 out of 11 votes to press charges, he just needs to create doubt in the minds of about 4 people and mission accomplished.

He has plausible deniability in this case and the benefit of doubt, just like a cop does when he says "xyz did this to me" and has no other evidence to back it up.

[Vriksh]

9 whites and 3 blacks on Grand Jury. Any reason why it was not more equitable. I thought the 2 sides had vetoes on jury selection and it would be more like 50-50 given the fact that the incident took place in an area which was majority black.

[Shreeman]

Shreeman, A Grand Jury is also due process.

Lokesh - that didn't answer the question, like the police officer you don't get to choose when to approach an angry 6'4" 130 kg teenager, he is approching you with anger.

You have to decide if you want to use your gun to save yourself or die because that angry teenager is larger than you and will take that gun away from you, probably killing you with your own gun.

Shalav,

You are gravely mistaken, a grand jury proceeding (just the convening of it) -- which is what this was -- is not a grand jury trial. These proceedings are secret, they are ALWAYS conducted AFTER charged are filed (not in this case!), and the defendant NEVER testifies at these proceedings. There is no cross examination nor does any party have any lawyers present. They serve to rubber stamp what the prosecutor wants, and only that.

this is a mockery of the rules by a prosecutor whos father was killed by a black man. Dont create facts out of thin air. No other criminal defendent EVER has gotten this procedure from this porosecutor except wilson.

edit: in a trial, a different jury is selected with objections permitted on membership. This is not that jury. Its job ends at the return of its verdict. I dont know if the score was given, but a 9-3 would have passed as jury verdict in this case unlike at a trial.

[Shreeman]

This is a no win situation for the prosecutor. But what he did was not illegal or prohibited by law. It might be unusual but not illegal. Instead of coming to a conclusion and presenting only the evidence that will support that scenario he presented all the evidence and threw it into the lap of the Grand Jury and they decided not to return True Bill.

If you will not file charges, you are creating a presumption of innocence. If you then only hear from the defendant for hours on end, anbd assume his word is gospel, how exactly do you arrive at a different conclusion?

Do note that people take every excuse possible to avoid serving on juries. The remaining pool is culled to exclude people with any intelligence. Juries are not infalliable instruments of god. The poublic nature of their work is what creates reasonable precedents over time.

Secret proceedings are like guantanamo trials.

edit -- the prosecutor should have recused himself, imho. the rest was obvious from day 1.

[Gus]

massa is great only when you don't get into trouble..

one taste of the machine and you will be disabused of the land of the free home of the brave stuff.

[SaiK]

the old justice system that relies on trial by jury single hearing for crimes is archaic when the khan land is so advanced considering other nations on the planet.

trial by multiple hearing again has loopholes where evidences are tampered and truth destroyed by evil forces, always everywhere on the planet.

the criminal code procedures can be tackled as well, as the codes are never perfect for all cases.

the world over, truth is raped by the faithfool system and unfaithfool evil people.

[saip]

9 whites and 3 blacks on Grand Jury. Any reason why it was not more equitable. I thought the 2 sides had vetoes on jury selection and it would be more like 50-50 given the fact that the incident took place in an area which was majority black.

There are no two sides here. No peremtory challenges here. This particular jury was constituted four months ago and its term was expiring. Its term was extended for this case. The prosecutor had nothing to do with the composition of this jury. It is just the luck of the draw.

In theory Grand Juries decide to indict or not. In practice it is the prosecutor who decides and presents the evidence. Again the witnesses are not cross examined. The jurors may question the witnesses but they rarely do.

In this case the Prosecutor decided to present all the witnesses even those who were against the officer. Even the officer was allowed to testify which is unusual. So the jurors voted not to indict.

[Tuvaluan]

"9 whites and 3 blacks on Grand Jury. Any reason why it was not more equitable. I thought the 2 sides had vetoes on jury selection and it would be more like 50-50 given the fact that the incident took place in an area which was majority black."

The lawyers and the prosecutor can nix any juror -- also jurors are not supposed to have prejudged the case in order to serve as a juror. But all of this is bollocks if the rules have been twisted to ensure that the victim is not given a fair shake, in order to "protect the state".

India used to have a jury system until the Nanavati vs. state of Maharashtra case in 1959 caused the Indian government to move to the current system, for better or worse.

The jurors from an earlier case were probably used because jurors are not allowed to watch the news or otherwise get prejudiced by reporting about the case and base their judgement only on the evidence provided in court. Given how politically charged this case was and how it turned up on international media, it is possible that the only available pool of jurors who would not have prejudiced views on the case were the people who were already insulated from the news. Not that it explains any of the other discrepancies on how justice was (not) dispensed in the end.

[Tuvaluan]

Gus:"massa is great only when you don't get into trouble..

one taste of the machine and you will be disabused of the land of the free home of the brave stuff."

Ain't that the truth.

Sort of similar to how the US health care system only works as long as you stay healthy.

[saip]

Do note that people take every excuse possible to avoid serving on juries. The remaining pool is culled to exclude people with any intelligence. Juries are not infalliable instruments of god. The poublic nature of their work is what creates reasonable precedents over time.

.

Not true. Grand jurors are selected randomly. It is the judge's discretion to excuse the jurors. In our case out of thirty jurors only two were excused for sufficient reasons. After that the jury of 18 was selected including the alternates (in CA). There is no culling. Prosecutor does not play any role. Again this jury is four months old. Once the jury is empanelled the judge disappears and reappears at the end of the trial. The prosecutor runs the show.

[saip]

Tuvalun, you are confusing between petit jury and Grand jury.

[Tuvaluan]

saip, I mentioned the bit about India just to note that the jury system is known to have its flaws. The Grand Jury system does not involve the defendant for the benefit of the defendant, apparently, since the prosecutor cannot harass the defendant -- so picking this means of resolving this case is highly smelly, to say the least...but hey, apparently it is the land of the free etc. It effectively frees the prosecutor from having to his/her own biases if they are towards the policeman, as it was likely to be in this case.

However, the bit about juries not being prejudiced by the news holds for both grand and petit juries, AFAIK. Makes sense since it is a means to eliminate external entities to influence judgements.

[Shreeman]

Do note that people take every excuse possible to avoid serving on juries. The remaining pool is culled to exclude people with any intelligence. Juries are not infalliable instruments of god. The poublic nature of their work is what creates reasonable precedents over time.

.

Not true. Grand jurors are selected randomly. It is the judge's discretion to excuse the jurors. In our case out of thirty jurors only two were excused for sufficient reasons. After that the jury of 18 was selected including the alternates (in CA). There is no culling. Prosecutor does not play any role. Again this jury is four months old. Once the jury is empanelled the judge disappears and reappears at the end of the trial. The prosecutor runs the show.

Saip,

I am also speaking with extensive knowledge. Jury service notices are generated randomly. There are a hundred ways to excuse yourself. If unavoidable, and not excused, you may serve on one of many types of juries for varying length trials or standing grand juries like the one here.

In a typical trial, during jury selection, the candidates are brought to the trial room prior to the trial. The judge then asks the potential jurors questions which may disqualify them. Those that answer in the affirmative go home. Then the jury size (say 9, including 2-3 alternates who serve as jurors and attend all proceedings but do not participate in the decision unless a juror misses a session due to unforeseen circumstances) of rasndom numbers is called and lawyers on either side may still object.

This is the typical empaneling process, except for standing grand juries where there is no defendant. A culling still occurs, except folks here are excused prior to the jury selection process. Finally, once the days empanellings are complete, the rest (majority) of potential jurors go home rtoo. It is silly to think that if you got a jury service notice, you can serve on a jury. A really small percentage actually ends up serving.

In the end its the least suitable set of people who decide the outcome. If you had a different experience, you got lucky.

edit:a juror may force the use of an alternate with a simple excuse such as my child's baby sitting arrangements didnt materialize and I cant lkegally leave the child unattended!

[Shreeman]

9 whites and 3 blacks on Grand Jury. Any reason why it was not more equitable. I thought the 2 sides had vetoes on jury selection and it would be more like 50-50 given the fact that the incident took place in an area which was majority black.

There are no two sides here. No peremtory challenges here. This particular jury was constituted four months ago and its term was expiring. Its term was extended for this case. The prosecutor had nothing to do with the composition of this jury. It is just the luck of the draw.

In theory Grand Juries decide to indict or not. In practice it is the prosecutor who decides and presents the evidence. Again the witnesses are not cross examined. The jurors may question the witnesses but they rarely do.

In this case the Prosecutor decided to present all the witnesses even those who were against the officer. Even the officer was allowed to testify which is unusual. So the jurors voted not to indict.

Saip,

Again, this is not the whole story. Courts have Grand juries just for bringing charges and a jury empanelled before the event typically rubber stamps the prosecutors set of charges. This ended up being a secret trial instead. This is virtually unheard of.

Grand jury terms expire if empanelled for a while(varies by jurisdiction/type), and juries are always replaced. The system is grossly overburdened (think India level backlog), so its not like they have idle time. There are many more juries needed than there are available. A typical criminal defendant woulkd be charged, booked, bailed (if resourceful) and thern go to trial. Thius may take months or years. Not the sequence in Ferguson.

To think that prosecutors have no input in jury selection routinely is naive, and if you show up wearing an anarchist tee-shirt you will typically go home regardless of prosecutor involvement.

Jury pools decide empanelling of jury.

ps -- mr. wilson is already on tv giving interviews!

[SaiK]

Gus:"massa is great only when you don't get into trouble..

one taste of the machine and you will be disabused of the land of the free home of the brave stuff."

Ain't that the truth.

Sort of similar to how the US health care system only works as long as you stay healthy.

..AND keep paying your high premiums!

[member_22733]

Mr Wilson is behaving exactly like one Mr. Zimmerman.

[Gus]

It is silly to think that if you got a jury service notice, you can serve on a jury. A really small percentage actually ends up serving.

In the end its the least suitable set of people who decide the outcome. If you had a different experience, you got lucky.!

my professor used to get notices all the time, and she would be excuse all the time, without fail.

she would say that they would never pick engineers for jury (both plaintiff and defendant), as we tend to be logical and not emotional...