Darren Wilson, Ferguson Officer Who Shot Michael Brown, Resigns - Polidicks

i'm surprised at this thread, didn't think there would be so many pro establishment types on facepunch, quick to throw their dumb ratings around and run away.

[QUOTE=HammerBrute;46606393]i'm surprised at this thread, didn't think there would be so many pro establishment types on facepunch, quick to throw their dumb ratings around and run away.[/QUOTE] haha pro establisment. There are people on here that see the situation for what it is

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46606398]haha pro establisment. There are people on here that see the situation for what it is[/QUOTE] oh come on, they're either being edgy contrarians or are uninformed.

[QUOTE=djshox;46606155]you're implying that brown was basically a walking killing machine would you rather have had him walk around the streets with his hands cuffed?[/QUOTE] dude I think you're forgetting what type of person Brown was [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/f5yGFH4.gif[/IMG] look at his body movements. Even basic psychology can tell you a shitload.

[QUOTE=HammerBrute;46606405]oh come on, they're either being edgy contrarians or are uninformed.[/QUOTE] "everyone who disagrees with me is wrong or stupid" ok [editline]30th November 2014[/editline] good talk

We must not focus on Wilson, we need not to protest to put him in jail, but to protest against the grotesque actions of the police department that allow such atrocities to happen within their buildings and on their streets. We must counter the wave of violent protest with a tsunami of peaceful protest.

[QUOTE=Covalent;46606436]dude I think you're forgetting what type of person Brown was [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/f5yGFH4.gif[/IMG] look at his body movements. Even basic psychology can tell you a shitload.[/QUOTE] Watching this clip makes me even more outraged that people are defending this thug's actions.

[QUOTE=dbk21894;46606497]Watching this clip makes me even more outraged that people are defending this thug's actions.[/QUOTE] Look at that defenseless teenager... throw the store owner into his merchandise after stealing from him. And all for some shitty blunt wraps? Seriously this all boiled down over stolen Swisher Sweets cigarillos... for fucks sake society...

Terrible as he acted, I feel like we shouldn't justify his death either. The way his parents have reacted also seem completely different than the person Michael Brown seems to be.

With how unreliable tasers are (effects ranging from completely ineffective even after multiple shots from multiple different devices all the way to inducing cardiac arrest) it's impossible and immoral to force police officers to rely on them. Brown went to grab a cops gun and ended up getting shot. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yes, there is a pattern of systemic discrimination within the justice system of many jurisdictions within the United States. This wasn't one of them. [editline]30th November 2014[/editline] The problem of discrimination in Ferguson and other outlying St Louis area cities can be tackled while also acknowledging that Browns shooting death was entirely his fault.

[QUOTE=djshox;46606174]you said he had "no room" for it, while [B]he had the option of wearing it but chose not to[/B] because it "was bulky" there is a difference between having no room, and not having much room[/QUOTE] The department did not have an aqueduct amount of tasers. There was only a few to go around the entire department. He choose not to wear it for personal reasons, and due to supply problems. Its not like its required to carry, so its whatever. He could have pepper-sprayed him, but that would incapacitate both. Useless. Additionally, he would have to lose his position in order to draw it This thread is fucking weird

[QUOTE=Hollosoulja;46605407]So why take it out of your secured position if you are trained? [editline]30th November 2014[/editline] Also proof American police do not murder when assaulted or threatened even with a direct imposed threat: [video=youtube;Z8qpYTF83WE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8qpYTF83WE[/video] Wilson saw a big black kid, got scared, and executed him for threatening his safety.[/QUOTE] Except the officer threatened by the knife was infact going for his gun to shoot her until another officer tackled her from behind ending the threat. That officer was ready to use his firearm and end a direct threat.

I read many different news sites, and then this thread, and I hear so many different stories of what exactly happened. I find it difficult to form an opinion. Does anyone have a link to a reliable source on what happened here with this shooting? because I want to get a few things straight

[QUOTE=da space core;46606786]I read many different news sites, and then this thread, and I hear so many different stories of what exactly happened. I find it difficult to form an opinion. Does anyone have a link to a reliable source on what happened here with this shooting? because I want to get a few things straight[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEKcARkPuWM[/media]

Maybe Darren Wilson was innocent, but the decision not to indict was fucking horseshit.

[url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-da-analysis-20141126-story.html[/url] This is a super interesting thing yall should read. The fact that Wilson wasn't even indicted speaks volumes about how fucked up our legal system is in devaluing black lives and protecting police officers. [editline]30th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46606953]What evidence would you indict him on? Do you know something the grand jury didn't?[/QUOTE] I think you don't understand the point of how a grand jury works dude. It isn't a trial, there is not supposed to be "the defenses' case." The proseccution presents their best evidence and proceeds to trial from there if the best evidence is sufficient grounding for a trial.

[QUOTE=Flameon;46606957] I think you don't understand the point of how a grand jury works dude. It isn't a trial, there is not supposed to be "the defenses' case." The proseccution presents their best evidence and proceeds to trial from there if the best evidence is sufficient grounding for a trial.[/QUOTE] That exactly how it should work. Criminal charges are brought by the state against a person. Not a person against another. When you commit a crime you're committing a crime against the state. Thats why its only the state presenting evidence. I'm not sure on Missouri law, but I believe that the prosecutor didnt even have to bring it to a jury. He could make the call himself if he wanted.

Ugh, my sister is gonna be happy about this because she believe's Tumblr's "Evidence" that all the things that the defense brought up in court were fabricated, like they had "proof" that Brown paid for his stuff and "proof" that he had his hands raised when he was shot.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46606993]So.. you want him to be indicted... to go to trial.. when there wasn't enough evidence TO indict him to go to trial.... So essentially you want the state to waste money sending an innocent man to trial so that your feelings aren't hurt.[/QUOTE] There was enough evidence to indict him to go to trial. The prosecution strategy was instead to basically present a defense of Wilson. They weren't trying to indict him, they were trying to throw all the evidence that they had at the wall to get the jury to decide no true bill. Everyone rating me dumb doesn't understand how the American legal system works. The point of the grand jury is not: "is Wilson guilty?" - thats what the trial is for. The point of the indictment is, "Is there a possibility that Wilson COULD be guilty?"

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46606764]No, this thread is full of edgy teens who think that the police are evil because they confiscated their dimebag and let them off with a warning.[/QUOTE] Or maybe they have had legitimately horrific experiences when interacting with police, which has caused them to have such a strong bias. I know he's dumb, and wrong, but dehumanizing people that disagree with you will just cause them to never agree with you. You've set me straight a few times, on a few different issues, and it wasn't by hitting me with epic zingers.

[QUOTE=djshox;46606174]you said he had "no room" for it, while [B]he had the option of wearing it but chose not to[/B] because it "was bulky" there is a difference between having no room, and not having much room[/QUOTE] Yea, he choose not to wear it because it was uncomfortable and he didn't have a lot of room. I mean are you really going to argue with me if he had an acceptable amount of room to wear it or not. [editline]30th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Flameon;46607049]There was enough evidence to indict him to go to trial. The prosecution strategy was instead to basically present a defense of Wilson. They weren't trying to indict him, they were trying to throw all the evidence that they had at the wall to get the jury to decide no true bill. Everyone rating me dumb doesn't understand how the American legal system works. The point of the grand jury is not: "is Wilson guilty?" - thats what the trial is for. The point of the indictment is, "Is there a possibility that Wilson COULD be guilty?"[/QUOTE] Where is the evidence of this? Please do tell how the prosecution defended him

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607115]And they found that there wasn't enough evidence to even remotely consider the question "is he guilty". The jury literally reviewed all evidence, all "eye witness" testimonies, that were proven to be absolutely shit. All they had to go by was physical evidence, which was completely in favor of wilson having acted in accordance with the law. To send him to trial would have been to send him to trial with literally the same evidence, the same evidence that wasn't enough to indict him would have lead to a long, lengthy trial, costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars to come to the same conclusion that the grand jury came to: that wilson acted within the law, and that there isn't a lick of evidence to prove otherwise.[/QUOTE] I think you need to read what I'm saying next to what you are saying. I'm saying the fact that prosecution presented ALL EVIDENCE i.e: evience FOR Wilson, and evience AGAISNT Wilson just goes to show that they had no fucking interesting in getting a true bill, that they wanted the jury to make the conclusion you made i.e: "Well, its complicated..," "Theres differing and contradictory accounts for what happened..." ergo: Wilson is innocent. But that last bit? "Wilson is innocent?" Isn't that job for the grand jury to decide, because that isn't the point of indictment. The point of indictment is: If the defense got up and just shit in a bag for 12 hours and the prosecution got to pick their best evidence, could a reasonable person THINK this could happen? If your answer is, "yes", then you indict. Thats why prosecutors in the past have said they could get an indictment for a ham sandwitch if they wanted to. The fact that you want to "speed up the process" out of, what? Fiscal concerns? Is absolute bullshit, because it is that disregard for the smooth functioning of law and the idea of continually making exceptions which has gotten a bunch of innocent black people shot and killed (Amadou Diallo, John Crawford, Oscar Grant). Maybe Wilson was justified in what he did, but thats the point of the trial to say not guilty. Not the fucking prosecutor to make that decision. [editline]30th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;46607151] Where is the evidence of this? Please do tell how the prosecution defended him[/QUOTE] The prosecutions grand strategy was to give the jury everything - evidence for Wilson, evidence against Wilson, and not do any cross-examinations or push any single point or agenda. The whole process created an atmosphere of doubt which is why they said no true bill.

[QUOTE=Flameon;46607187]I think you need to read what I'm saying next to what you are saying. I'm saying the fact that prosecution presented ALL EVIDENCE i.e: evience FOR Wilson, and evience AGAISNT Wilson just goes to show that they had no fucking interesting in getting a true bill, that they wanted the jury to make the conclusion you made i.e: "Well, its complicated..," "Theres differing and contradictory accounts for what happened..." ergo: Wilson is innocent. But that last bit? "Wilson is innocent?" Isn't that job for the grand jury to decide, because that isn't the point of indictment. The point of indictment is: If the defense got up and just shit in a bag for 12 hours and the prosecution got to pick their best evidence, could a reasonable person THINK this could happen? If your answer is, "yes", then you indict. Thats why prosecutors in the past have said they could get an indictment for a ham sandwitch if they wanted to. The fact that you want to "speed up the process" out of, what? Fiscal concerns? Is absolute bullshit, because it is that disregard for the smooth functioning of law and the idea of continually making exceptions which has gotten a bunch of innocent black people shot and killed (Amadou Diallo, John Crawford, Oscar Grant). Maybe Wilson was justified in what he did, but thats the point of the trial to say not guilty. Not the fucking prosecutor to make that decision.[/QUOTE] They didn't say not guilty, they decided there wasn't any evidence that a crime was committed. All evidence that has been released has pointed clearly to the fact Brown was the aggressor and collaborated with Wilson's testimony. Why would they indict him if theres nothing to indict him on?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46607223]They didn't say not guilty, they decided there wasn't any evidence that a crime was committed. All evidence that has been released has pointed clearly to the fact Brown was the aggressor and collaborated with Wilson's testimony. Why would they indict him if theres nothing to indict him on?[/QUOTE] There was evidence to indict him on! They just simultaneously supplimented it with evidence that said he was not guilty. The prosecution didnt try and convince the jury to idict Wilson, they threw all evidence they had to them and said, "Ok, now you decide if we should push this case."

[QUOTE=Flameon;46607187] The prosecutions grand strategy was to give the jury everything - evidence for Wilson, evidence against Wilson, and not do any cross-examinations or push any single point or agenda. The whole process created an atmosphere of doubt which is why they said no true bill.[/QUOTE] You realize that's how a grand jury usually works right? They prosecutor gives the jury the evidence and works with them to decide if it is right to indict him.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46607255]You realize that's how a grand jury usually works right? They prosecutor gives the jury all the evidence and works with them to decide if it is right to indict him.[/QUOTE] No it isnt dude. They give the grand jury their best case, the evidence they want the grand jury to see. Aka: what sounds the best to get an indictment... [quote]So what you're saying is: The grand jury didn't rule how you wanted them to, and you want wilson to continuously face legal issues until he's ruled guilty, because that's totally what he is, right?[/quote] Strawman. I'm not saying hes guilty, hell maybe hes innocent. But there should have been a fucking trial. [quote] The prosecutor presented ALL the evidence, ALL THE EVIDENCE. If you'd paid attention you'd realize he scrapped literally EVERYTHING together, he went out of his way to gather MORE evidence, if he'd wanted to he could have literally just presented the physical evidence and let the jury decide based solely on the physical evidence. He literally went and gathered TONS of testimonies from people who were "supposedly" there. It's not his fault that the testimonies were full of fucking shit, and there wasn't any merit to ANY of them. [/quote] YEAH THATS THE PROBLEM! HE PRESENTED ALL THE EVIDENCE! Aka: he wasn't acting like a prosecutor. He was acting as prosecutor and defendent. Their grand strategy wasnt to indict Wilson, because if it was you can be damn sure they wouldn't have shared eveything. [quote] You want a justice system that works YOUR way, you want Wilson to be guilty because you feel bad about systemic racism. Wilson shouldn't be judged for the actions of others, only for his. What Wilson did was a clear case of justified homicide.[/quote] Boy I think a trial would be nice for you to make that decision don't you? Heres the bottom line: if it sounds like I'm arguing that the prosecution should have 'gamed the system' to make sure only their best evidence showed up, to make the jury think that Wilson should stand trial -ya, they should have. The thing yall need to ask yourself is why that gaming process, which is done by prosecutors all the fucking time, hardly ever happen when its a cop on the line?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607318]The prosecution didn't game the system. The prosecutor literally did his job to the letter. He presented the best possible evidence for both sides. What evidence did he not present? The hundreds of supposed "eye witness" testimonies that were BLATANT lies? The grand jury reviews all evidence before they make a decision, they review it during deliberation, without the prosecutor there. They read all the transcripts, all the autopsies, all the reports, EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE] Flameon isn't arguing that the prosecution "gamed the system" and didn't present all the evidence. He's arguing that the prosecution [I]should have[/I] "gamed the system" and not presented all the evidence, just evidence to indict. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607318]The prosecution didn't game the system. The prosecutor literally did his job to the letter. He presented the best possible evidence for both sides. What evidence did he not present? The hundreds of supposed "eye witness" testimonies that were BLATANT lies? The grand jury reviews all evidence before they make a decision, they review it during deliberation, without the prosecutor there. They read all the transcripts, all the autopsies, all the reports, EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE] Thats not the job of the prosecution. The prosecution's job is not to give the jury everything, its to give the jury the information they want the jury to see to get an indictment. All you are proving is that the prosecution, and the state, had no interest in trying Wilson - which is what they do often when it comes to police officers, lol.

[QUOTE=Flameon;46607347]Thats not the job of the prosecution. The prosecution's job is not to give the jury everything, its to give the jury the information they want the jury to see to get an indictment. All you are proving is that the prosecution, and the state, had no interest in trying Wilson - which is what they do often when it comes to police officers, lol.[/QUOTE] Or you know, there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson...

[QUOTE=Apache249;46607400]Or you know, there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson...[/QUOTE] That hardly ever happens except for police officers. Why do you think that is?