Forums / Discussion / General

232,593 total conversations in 7,776 threads

+ New Thread


BREAKING: Grand Jury has reached a decision on the Michael Brown Shooting Case

Last posted Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09PM EST. Added Nov 24, 2014 at 03:44PM EST
28 posts from 16 users

It's good that nothing more than a few stray bottles have been thrown at the riot police thus far, but if the jury reached their verdict (so to speak) hours ago, then why did it take so long for the official announcement? The longer everybody has to wait, the more tension there is.

I wonder why the jury decided not to indict Wilson, since so many people would like to see him in court.
Maybe they cherry-picked the jurors? Or the jurors were scared of him?

Last edited Nov 24, 2014 at 10:41PM EST

I'm not a violent person, and my philosophy is that killing anyone is bad in nearly every circumstance, but if this guy got lynched I wouldn't really care. I'm not saying I want to see him lynched or I would personally lynch him, just that if I happened to be in Ferguson and a lynch mob happened to get the cop and string him up on a tree I would just turn a blind eye. All hypothetical of course. I wouldn't encourage them.

A Moth wrote:

I wonder why the jury decided not to indict Wilson, since so many people would like to see him in court.
Maybe they cherry-picked the jurors? Or the jurors were scared of him?

Public pressure can't and shouldn't supersede evidence. I listened to most of the lengthy speech the prosecuting attorney gave and the evidence, specifically the physical evidence, sounded very compelling. And it was compelling enough for the jury not to indict him.

The Illustrious Reggie wrote:

Public pressure can't and shouldn't supersede evidence. I listened to most of the lengthy speech the prosecuting attorney gave and the evidence, specifically the physical evidence, sounded very compelling. And it was compelling enough for the jury not to indict him.

But the thing is that this decision wasn't to determine whether he was a murderer or not, it was to decide whether there could've been a chance that he could've killed Michael Brown illegally.
And that's what's outrageous about this, they're not just saying he didn't do it, they're saying he couldn't have done it. And that's bullshit.

Oh, and viva la revolución or something.

Last edited Nov 24, 2014 at 11:27PM EST

@Dr. Coolface
It won't get passed Cat 2. To get to Cat 3, Obama would need to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow the army to deploy.

A Moth said:

I wonder why the jury decided not to indict Wilson, since so many people would like to see him in court.
Maybe they cherry-picked the jurors? Or the jurors were scared of him?

Nope. A grand jury meets for an extended period of time and hears countless cases. The Ferguson grand jury was first convened in May--months before the shitstorm began. So unless there's time travel shenanigans, there's no way there could have been cherrypicking. In addition, as the DA said in the press conference, grand juries have considerable privacy to make their decision. Wilson, nor anyone from the police, knows who the jury's members are. So there's no way for them to be intimidated.

They're also starting to release some of the information the grand jury looked at. Here's some pics of Wilson's injuries they saw:

No doubt more of the grand jury's evidence will be released over the next couple days so that facts can replace speculation.

Papa Coolface wrote:

So where does Ferguson fall on this scale?

It'll end up something between two and three, if you trust my foresight.

Also, what the fuck this level of bullshit is getting cartoonish.

Erin ◕ω◕ wrote:

But the thing is that this decision wasn't to determine whether he was a murderer or not, it was to decide whether there could've been a chance that he could've killed Michael Brown illegally.
And that's what's outrageous about this, they're not just saying he didn't do it, they're saying he couldn't have done it. And that's bullshit.

Oh, and viva la revolución or something.

You're not exactly right. This is what we're looking at here:

"In the various states of the United States, a probable cause hearing is the preliminary hearing typically taking place before arraignment and before a serious crime goes to trial. The judge is presented with the basis of the prosecution's case, and the defendant is afforded full right of cross-examination and the right to be represented by legal counsel. If the prosecution cannot make a case of probable cause, the court must dismiss the case against the accused."

Now in this case they chose to do things somewhat differently- it was a grand jury instead of a simple judge, and according to the guy speaking (not sure of his title) they went into much greater detail than usual. But the basic concept is still the same- probable cause, and not just "theoretically possible cause" must be established with a solid enough basis.

Now with that being said, was their decision bullshit or not? I have no a fucking clue. Haven't seen a convincing argument one way or the other, and besides, this crap gives me a headache. It's certainly not my area of expertise. Or, in other words, numbers don't make me want to punch a fucking wall.

0.9999...=1 wrote:

You're not exactly right. This is what we're looking at here:

"In the various states of the United States, a probable cause hearing is the preliminary hearing typically taking place before arraignment and before a serious crime goes to trial. The judge is presented with the basis of the prosecution's case, and the defendant is afforded full right of cross-examination and the right to be represented by legal counsel. If the prosecution cannot make a case of probable cause, the court must dismiss the case against the accused."

Now in this case they chose to do things somewhat differently- it was a grand jury instead of a simple judge, and according to the guy speaking (not sure of his title) they went into much greater detail than usual. But the basic concept is still the same- probable cause, and not just "theoretically possible cause" must be established with a solid enough basis.

Now with that being said, was their decision bullshit or not? I have no a fucking clue. Haven't seen a convincing argument one way or the other, and besides, this crap gives me a headache. It's certainly not my area of expertise. Or, in other words, numbers don't make me want to punch a fucking wall.

Ah, my mistake.
Whether it's "theoretical probably cause" or actual probably cause, I still find it hard to believe.
I'm probably biased because I believe that that exact type of self-defense infringes upon peoples' constitutional rights and should be illegal.

I just hope no one else has to die as a result of all this.

I was worried about the internet blowing up about this, but I never realized my campus would blow up over it too. Every dorm had at least two people crying about it and today there were signs all over the school reading "Justice for Mike" and "Black lives matter too" (which is cool and all, except putting up signs not approved by the student life office is against the rules). Hell, people were even passing around buttons. Never underestimate the rage of pretentious art students.

Old Man GigaChad wrote:

What I think of when I hear the question of will they riot or not

I hate the phrase/question "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object" Because its a not a conundrum. The force would simple change directions. What it should be is "What happens when an unstoppable force that cannot change direction meets an unmovable object".

Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Yo Yo! You must login or signup first!