omahasioux1
Well-known member
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
We have had 6 years of no accountability and blame somebody else.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
No, but also don't assume that they are mob before anything happens.
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
It happened once already. Preparedness counted here.
It happened once already. Preparedness counted here.
omahasioux1
Well-known member
omahasioux1
Well-known member
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
I don't think they assumed anything. History repeating itself.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
Again, I don't see it as preparedness.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
I think they did. I think they assumed they could show force and scare people into submission. In an ordinary situation that might work, but this wasn't an ordinary situation.
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
So, the cops provoked assault by what they were wearing?
He said a good thread.Gophers.
So, the cops provoked assault by what they were wearing?
Slap Shot
I got nothing
He was referring to the lines at Wal-Mart.
P
Priceless
Guest
Touche.
I can see where JJ is coming from. The aggression and militarization of the police was an issue in the August protests. Last night it didn't matter if the police had shown up in coat and tie with punch and pie, there was an element in that crowd that was going to turn violent. Despite what we saw on American TV, the police were actually involved in a positive manner in the peaceful protest, to the point that a police car was leading the throng as if it were a parade. Meanwhile the idiots in the crowd set cop cars on fire, shot weapons (in one case shot a cop) and set part of the city ablaze.
To their credit, the peaceful protesters didn't take the bait. They marched and then they went home. And again, despite what we saw on TV, the police showed restraint. After an initial show of force around the police station, they mainly stayed in that vicinity and kept the peace. What I saw on AJAM was citizens just standing around watching events unfold (after the smoke cleared) and the police across the street letting them. As I said earlier, I'd rather watch on TV but whatever.
The villains of the night were obviously those violent agitators in the crowd who set the fires and tried to provoke a reaction; and the American broadcast media who lazily went along with their predefined narratives and did almost no actual journalism. They spread a very misleading account of what happened last night. The print media and foreign outlets did a much better job of telling what was really happening on the ground.
unofan
Well-known member
Now it's obamas fault? Apparently Jim wasn't the only one smoking something last night.
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
"That chick totally asked for it. Did you see what she was wearing?"
Hmmm.......interesting similarities there.
He said a good thread.
So, the cops provoked assault by what they were wearing?
"That chick totally asked for it. Did you see what she was wearing?"
Hmmm.......interesting similarities there.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>See the USA react to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ferguson?src=hash">#Ferguson</a> grand jury decision on Twitter
LINK: <a href="http://t.co/mHQFW6Vh6F">http://t.co/mHQFW6Vh6F</a> <a href="http://t.co/WocPyZ11rY">pic.twitter.com/WocPyZ11rY</a></p>— Twitter Data (@TwitterData) <a href="https://twitter.com/TwitterData/status/537244862408437761">November 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>See the USA react to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ferguson?src=hash">#Ferguson</a> grand jury decision on Twitter
LINK: <a href="http://t.co/mHQFW6Vh6F">http://t.co/mHQFW6Vh6F</a> <a href="http://t.co/WocPyZ11rY">pic.twitter.com/WocPyZ11rY</a></p>— Twitter Data (@TwitterData) <a href="https://twitter.com/TwitterData/status/537244862408437761">November 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>.
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
My take on yesterday's events.
1. I still don't have a good sense for what the evidence actually was/is. The prosecutor's description wasn't exactly descriptive, and the snippets of read testimony thrown out by bloggers, journalists and the talking heads, usually to support their narrative, didn't add to it. I assume at some point someone will do a complete summary, or even a book, in which the testimony and physical evidence is discussed at length.
2. A lot of claims about an abnormal process used by the prosecution. Everything from the length of time, to the "document dump" he engaged in, to his apparent(?) failure to ask for an indictment, etc...
As has been said, a grand jury proceeding is a probable cause hearing. In most parts of our criminal justice system probable cause is determined either by a grand jury or by a judge. I think it depends upon both the jurisdiction, and the nature of the crime, but in general that is where probable cause is determined.
People are correct when they say this is "normally" a very low standard. I think UNOFAN has said that either he or his wife is a criminal defense attorney, so I'm sure they can elaborate more, but I believe as a general rule in determining probable cause, no defense is even put on. That is, the defense side of the case is never presented, or even allowed. The prosecutor presents a basic outline of their evidence, with some supporting testimony and physical evidence. The judge or grand jury can question that evidence, or the validity/source of it, but both sides are not "normally" presented.
So when these talking heads tell us this proceeding is not how it "normally" happens when cases are presented to a grand jury, they are correct. But I've put the word "normally" into quotes for a reason. When it comes to examining whether a law enforcement officer should be prosecuted for something he/she did in the line of duty, this is how those cases are "normally" handled.
We can argue about whether this is right or wrong. I don't believe it has anything to do with race, or Darren Wilson in particular. It certainly has nothing to do with "the man" trying to protect the riches of the wealthy.
I believe it happens because of the relationship between cop and prosecutor. The prosecutor works with the cop every day. He generally finds the cop to be hardworking, honest, dependable, and performing a very dangerous job on behalf of the rest of us.
It also doesn't help the prosecutor to discredit the cop, or the police force vicariously. He depends upon the credibility of the police to get convictions. Prosecutions of the police as overzealous lawbreakers does not help his cause. You can argue that he should have punted the investigation to another prosecutor, and that may lessen the impact somewhat. But there is still a systematic bias that will give the benefit of the doubt to police, a benefit of the doubt that does not travel to any of us who happen to shoot someone. I am not necessarily opposed to such a benefit of the doubt, but it certainly exists.
So, from that standpoint, I think this process was completely "normal."
3. A lot of spin about the looting and destruction. The locals were all good, peaceful and lawabiding. The carpetbaggers caused all the trouble. The police exacerbated it. Blah, blah, blah. I had the sound down for the last hour or two that I watched. What I saw was a lot of people looting. Where they were from, I have no idea. But I find it hard to believe they drove in from Memphis to steal a case of malt liquor.
4. Pretty said case. You have a dead kid, who wasn't necessarily the angel described by some, but also probably wasn't beyond having a good, productive life. And you have another "kid", a young man in his 20's who has to live with this for the rest of his life. Live with the fact that he shot and killed someone. Live with the fact that his actions ultimately lead to (although didn't "cause") the B.S. we saw on tv last night. Live with the fact that he can now go out and try to start a new life and career, as Darren Wilson.
My take on yesterday's events.
1. I still don't have a good sense for what the evidence actually was/is. The prosecutor's description wasn't exactly descriptive, and the snippets of read testimony thrown out by bloggers, journalists and the talking heads, usually to support their narrative, didn't add to it. I assume at some point someone will do a complete summary, or even a book, in which the testimony and physical evidence is discussed at length.
2. A lot of claims about an abnormal process used by the prosecution. Everything from the length of time, to the "document dump" he engaged in, to his apparent(?) failure to ask for an indictment, etc...
As has been said, a grand jury proceeding is a probable cause hearing. In most parts of our criminal justice system probable cause is determined either by a grand jury or by a judge. I think it depends upon both the jurisdiction, and the nature of the crime, but in general that is where probable cause is determined.
People are correct when they say this is "normally" a very low standard. I think UNOFAN has said that either he or his wife is a criminal defense attorney, so I'm sure they can elaborate more, but I believe as a general rule in determining probable cause, no defense is even put on. That is, the defense side of the case is never presented, or even allowed. The prosecutor presents a basic outline of their evidence, with some supporting testimony and physical evidence. The judge or grand jury can question that evidence, or the validity/source of it, but both sides are not "normally" presented.
So when these talking heads tell us this proceeding is not how it "normally" happens when cases are presented to a grand jury, they are correct. But I've put the word "normally" into quotes for a reason. When it comes to examining whether a law enforcement officer should be prosecuted for something he/she did in the line of duty, this is how those cases are "normally" handled.
We can argue about whether this is right or wrong. I don't believe it has anything to do with race, or Darren Wilson in particular. It certainly has nothing to do with "the man" trying to protect the riches of the wealthy.
I believe it happens because of the relationship between cop and prosecutor. The prosecutor works with the cop every day. He generally finds the cop to be hardworking, honest, dependable, and performing a very dangerous job on behalf of the rest of us.
It also doesn't help the prosecutor to discredit the cop, or the police force vicariously. He depends upon the credibility of the police to get convictions. Prosecutions of the police as overzealous lawbreakers does not help his cause. You can argue that he should have punted the investigation to another prosecutor, and that may lessen the impact somewhat. But there is still a systematic bias that will give the benefit of the doubt to police, a benefit of the doubt that does not travel to any of us who happen to shoot someone. I am not necessarily opposed to such a benefit of the doubt, but it certainly exists.
So, from that standpoint, I think this process was completely "normal."
3. A lot of spin about the looting and destruction. The locals were all good, peaceful and lawabiding. The carpetbaggers caused all the trouble. The police exacerbated it. Blah, blah, blah. I had the sound down for the last hour or two that I watched. What I saw was a lot of people looting. Where they were from, I have no idea. But I find it hard to believe they drove in from Memphis to steal a case of malt liquor.
4. Pretty said case. You have a dead kid, who wasn't necessarily the angel described by some, but also probably wasn't beyond having a good, productive life. And you have another "kid", a young man in his 20's who has to live with this for the rest of his life. Live with the fact that he shot and killed someone. Live with the fact that his actions ultimately lead to (although didn't "cause") the B.S. we saw on tv last night. Live with the fact that he can now go out and try to start a new life and career, as Darren Wilson.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
Why would you announce this at 8pm? Why not at 10am?
Why would you announce this at 8pm? Why not at 10am?
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
My uneducated guess is this.
If you do it at night, the kids are home from school. The 99.9% of the public who want nothing to do with the protests, and certainly don't want to be in the middle of it, can be safely at home watching on tv with the rest of us.
You don't have as much auto traffic, so it's less likely Reginald Denny stumbles into the area.
No one will be in the surrounding businesses. You can rebuild a Little Caesar's but you can't restore a life.
Finally, I think it has the effect of shortening the initial protest time. You start at 10 a.m., this thing goes for 18-20 hours. You start at 8 p.m., it lasts maybe 8 hours. People get tired in the middle of the night. It gets colder.
I'm sure there will be a lot of debate over this. There was certainly a lot of criticism last night from the talking heads.
My uneducated guess is this.
If you do it at night, the kids are home from school. The 99.9% of the public who want nothing to do with the protests, and certainly don't want to be in the middle of it, can be safely at home watching on tv with the rest of us.
You don't have as much auto traffic, so it's less likely Reginald Denny stumbles into the area.
No one will be in the surrounding businesses. You can rebuild a Little Caesar's but you can't restore a life.
Finally, I think it has the effect of shortening the initial protest time. You start at 10 a.m., this thing goes for 18-20 hours. You start at 8 p.m., it lasts maybe 8 hours. People get tired in the middle of the night. It gets colder.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
No question that many (most?) of the trouble makers were local.
No question that many (most?) of the trouble makers were local.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.
There's a lot to sift through. I haven't seen much of a testimony from the witnesses, although I know it's out there on the web somewhere.
I think I have a good idea what Wilson's story is (and have seen the pictorial evidence of the bruise on his right cheek), and I'm curious to see how well the witnesses' testimony matches up.
There's a lot to sift through. I haven't seen much of a testimony from the witnesses, although I know it's out there on the web somewhere.
I think I have a good idea what Wilson's story is (and have seen the pictorial evidence of the bruise on his right cheek), and I'm curious to see how well the witnesses' testimony matches up.
- Status