|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 27 2014 04:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't have to go to the extreme of believing the rioter story of execution style shootings to see serious problems with wilson's testimony, behavior and how the indictment case is handled.
it is also important to keep in mind the stnadard for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect is not met here. the excuse is there was a struggle during the fleeing, some 150 feet away from where the first shot was fired, and self defense invoked thereafter. yes, wilson got a little beat up while at the vehicle, but out in the open street with a drawn gun, i don't see how he is in much danger against this kid. he could have used the mace at that point. a backup car was called and arrived soon after. aggression itself is not enough to meet the danger standard, nor is 'his face looked like a demon' or some such bullshit the prosecutor just allowed in there. llike come on
the main issue here isn't even the case itself, but the broad pattern of police abuse in black neighborhoods. again, as was true in the trayvon martin case, castle law 'self defense' is brought up while being oblivious to the absurdity of the standard operative on use of lethal weapons. it's not the middle ages, reflexive self defense is a joke of a response unless you are literally dealing with a problem that only guns can solve. i don't see it in this situation. there is a serious leap of faith to suggest wilson is innocent simplicter, innocent in the sense of behaving appropriately.
Pepper spray is a joke. It will not stop someone who is pissed off enough. In fact, in some cases it just makes some individuals angrier. Bringing up castle law and duty to retreat is ridiculous. What, do you want Wilson to turn and try to run despite having a 300 pound guy already in motion towards him?
The first three sentences are questions of fact that an expert could have presented to the jury and another expert could have disagreed, allowing the jury to decide. The last sentence is a question of both law and fact.
Again, I kind of agree with xDaunt that this would have ended up being a hung jury but the way it was handled was chiefly designed to (a) release the DA of the burden and (b) presented in a way that no Grand Jury in the history of Grand Jury has ever acted in terms of lenience towards the defendant. And point (b) irks not just for black people who think in this particular case injustice was served but more broadly because they never get (b). They always get the short end of the legal stick.
|
I thought I'd chime in a bit late to the discussion about whether it's reasonable to prefer to have a case tried by a jury rather than a judge. I'd take a jury of my peers any day of the week, because judges are susceptible to unconscious biases just like the rest of us, which makes extreme results more likely when judges try a case alone.
For example, here is an article about a study that found that judges in Israel were far more likely to grant parole to prisoners they saw soon after eating meals:
The graph is dramatic. It shows that the odds that prisoners will be successfully paroled start off fairly high at around 65% and quickly plummet to nothing over a few hours (although, see footnote). After the judges have returned from their breaks, the odds abruptly climb back up to 65%, before resuming their downward slide. A prisoner’s fate could hinge upon the point in the day when their case is heard.
Source
I first heard about this study in a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman. It's probably the most terrifying book I have ever read, because it discusses dozens of studies the author participated in where peoples' actions were significantly influenced by random inputs, such as one study that concluded that people act more selfishly immediately after they are shown a picture of money (even if the picture is just on the background of a screen saver in the same room as the participant).
Intelligence didn't seem to matter for any of the studies; smart people are just as likely to modify their behavior based on subtle stimuli as everyone else.
As a result, it seems safer to go with a jury, because the members' biases are more likely to cancel each other out and lead to a more just/predictable result!
Add this to the fact that in many jurisdictions judges are political figures, who have to campaign for donations and votes. Most of them do this by promising to be tough on crime, and studies have shown that judges are more likely to apply the death penalty the closer they get to an election.
Every six years, Alabama elects circuit judges (who hear capital cases) and members of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. Judicial overrides tend to spike in and around election years. According to a 2011 study by E.J.I., thirty per cent of the state’s death sentences in 2008, an election year, were imposed through override, compared with seven per cent the previous year.
Source
There are some reforms that I think would help to fix some of the perverse incentives that affect the decisions of judges that may be implemented some day, but until then I'd prefer a jury.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 27 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't have to go to the extreme of believing the rioter story of execution style shootings to see serious problems with wilson's testimony, behavior and how the indictment case is handled. "Innocent" isn't the right term. "Not guilty" is. The law purposefully avoids the term "innocent" for obvious reasons. Show nested quote +it is also important to keep in mind the stnadard for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect is not met here. the excuse is there was a struggle during the fleeing, some 150 feet away from where the first shot was fired, and self defense invoked thereafter. yes, wilson got a little beat up while at the vehicle, but out in the open street with a drawn gun, i don't see how he is in much danger against this kid. he could have used the mace at that point. a backup car was called and arrived soon after. aggression itself is not enough to meet the danger standard, nor is 'his face looked like a demon' or some such bullshit the prosecutor just allowed in there. llike come on This is a total misconstruction of the apparent facts of the case. Yes, there was a struggle in the car. Yes, Brown then turned and fled. Yes, Wilson then pursued to make the rest as was his job. You're leaving out the part where Brown turned and charged Wilson to fight him again, at which point Wilson shot him. Read this way, the facts do support the use of lethal force. Whether you believe this narrative is immaterial. There is ample evidence to support it (if not a preponderance), which forecloses the possibility of a guilty verdict. that part is not established by the evidence but by wilson's testimony. how aggressive and dangerous the charge was is pretty critical.
and this is about bringing indictment not actually a trial. they don't need to establish a beyond doubt case, just a reasonable case given the hard evidence. i don't see how this is not possible given what we know.
Show nested quote +the main issue here isn't even the case itself, but the broad pattern of police abuse in black neighborhoods. again, as was true in the trayvon martin case, castle law 'self defense' is brought up while being oblivious to the absurdity of the standard operative on use of lethal weapons. it's not the middle ages, reflexive self defense is a joke of a response unless you are literally dealing with a problem that only guns can solve. i don't see it in this situation. there is a serious leap of faith to suggest wilson is innocent simplicter, innocent in the sense of behaving appropriately. Yes, there is a problem with police action in black neighborhoods. That said, arguing that it is not okay to shoot a 300 pound man who is charging you with obvious intent to hurt/kill you is a really, really tough sell, if not outright ridiculous.
first, as stated above, whether the kid presented a serious enough threat at that point is not established by autopsy evidence. second, the point here was about the space between lethal force and doing nothing. self defense is a primitive concept with no sense of appropriate policy for the problem.
as for the stuff questioning the effectiveness of pepper spray, it is enough to temporarily disable a person for enough time until help arrives.
|
On November 27 2014 04:22 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 17:48 coverpunch wrote:
I want to say this about the facts. To me, the grand jury thinks this is what happened:
Wilson asked two men walking in a street to walk on the sidewalk in a residential road through an apartment complex. It was not a main road and was not crowded. Wilson was on edge and guarded, based on what he considered to be the reputation of the area.
Brown was already agitated and excited from a store incident where he blatantly stole a lot of cigarettes and walked out, seen by both a store clerk he pushed past and by the store's video cameras. He did not take kindly to being pestered and told rudely to get on the sidewalk, although it's not clear if Wilson asked nicely at first and they simply ignored him, angering him into a more aggressive way of asking.
Either way, a verbal altercation started which resulted in Brown reaching into the police car and assaulting Wilson, at which point shots were fired and Brown was hit. Brown started to flee, but WIlson got out of the car and ordered him to stop. Brown turned and charged at Wilson, who discharged his weapon until Brown was dead.
There are lots of unanswered questions. Why didn't Wilson stay in the car and wait for backup? Why did Brown turn around and charge? What was his friend doing the whole time? But the question to the grand jury was simple - did Wilson's account of events match up to the evidence better than those of witnesses who contradicted him? And the bottom line is that the physical evidence and most credible witnesses were heavily in favor of Wilson's story, so heavily that the grand jury didn't think a trial was worth the effort.
It does appear that the prosecutor also bought Wilson's story, because he did not try to convince the grand jury otherwise or try to spin events to look different. He also didn't bring the argument, which is widely believed, that even if Brown wasn't an innocent bystander, Wilson needs to be held to a higher standard of conduct because he's a cop and he had a gun.
If you believe Wilson's story, and by extension the grand jury's telling of the facts, then Wilson did not commit a crime. He may not have been justified in using lethal force and that will certainly be litigated in a civil case for wrongful death, but he doesn't deserve jail.
It's pretty alarming to see everyone go to their corners and I'd still like to hammer the media for being gleeful about the violence there and politicians for using this to roll out their faux outrage and self-righteous indignation. So the issue with this is (a) the way the situation was presented to the GJ was the fairest, most thorough, presentation that a GJ has ever seen in American history (b) that the jury -- who did not have reach the much higher beyond reasonable doubt standard by the way, at the GJ stage when deciding on whether to indict or not the standard is much lower -- decided all the conflicting evidence was not enough to have an actual trial where facts could be put on trial by two advocates. Basically if you were black, you would never receive this level of leniency from the system. For example, observe how quickly a black cop was charged with excessive force (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/st-louis-county-police-officer-charged/). No grand jury here, no extensive interview of the officer and presentation of facts in a manner most beneficial to his case, weird huh.
High profile cases get more attention. Not sure if you are aware, but a lot of people were following the case and making a big deal out of it. The unusual transparency of the case was in response to those public demands, so I really don't see how you can justify twisting the transparency into something sinister.
As for the black cop being charged, you need to look at what the situation was and what evidence there was. If it was obvious excessive force, than this is exactly what the people protesting are asking to happen. Also, the incident happened back in April / May, so some time has passed for the evidence to be looked at. He wasn't 'quickly charged' with a crime.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the way they presented the evidence is problematic because it showed they didn't try to build a case. they don't have to lead the jury on like usual but at least make a case.
|
The motivations behind why the Grand Jury process was carried out so unusually, what you call "unusual transparency," are as unknown to us as the actual circumstances of the encounter, given that one doesn't buy into the prosecutor's public lip service wholesale. Sure, maybe the prosecutor actually thought that giving the jury absolutely no guidelines insofar as charging is concerned was a good idea; it is also possible that he knew full well that a jury directly instructed as to the difference between Murder 2, Manslaughter, and Involuntary Manslaughter would be more likely to issue an indictment on a lower charge. In either case, you pretending that the reasons are clear is dishonest, thought not unexpected. It seems to be the standard these days.
|
On November 27 2014 05:53 farvacola wrote:
The motivations behind why the Grand Jury process was carried out so unusually, what you call "unusual transparency," are as unknown to us as the actual circumstances of the encounter, given that one doesn't buy into the prosecutor's public lip service wholesale. Sure, maybe the prosecutor actually thought that giving the jury absolutely no guidelines insofar as charging is concerned was a good idea; it is also possible that he knew full well that a jury directly instructed as to the difference between Murder 2, Manslaughter, and Involuntary Manslaughter would be more likely to issue an indictment on a lower charge. In either case, you pretending that the reasons are clear is dishonest, thought not unexpected. It seems to be the standard these days.
Oh come on. From day one I've been advocating for people to wait to look at the evidence before making up their minds. In that time we've gone all the way from "shot in the back fleeing" to "hands up surrendered" to "well, I wouldn't call it charging the officer". During that process, a lot of people decided to make up their minds with partial / bad evidence and are currently operating with some pretty big biases.
There are a plethora of documents from the GJ published online for the public to look at. If the whole thing was set up to be a farce, people will figure that out pretty quick. If you want to make reasoned arguments on those grounds, go ahead, but no one should be swayed by speculation at this point.
|
This isn't about things being set up as a farce, it's about how the Grand Jury might have analyzed the evidence differently in the event that the prosecutor followed the well established norm of charge guideline instruction. There doesn't even have to be intentionality behind it. Given all the evidence, there is most certainly a world in which a jury could find Wilson guilty of involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury did not indict in reality is not proof of any conspiracy nor of foul play, but that doesn't mean that all speculation is to be ruled out.
|
On November 27 2014 04:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't have to go to the extreme of believing the rioter story of execution style shootings to see serious problems with wilson's testimony, behavior and how the indictment case is handled.
it is also important to keep in mind the stnadard for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect is not met here. the excuse is there was a struggle during the fleeing, some 150 feet away from where the first shot was fired, and self defense invoked thereafter. yes, wilson got a little beat up while at the vehicle, but out in the open street with a drawn gun, i don't see how he is in much danger against this kid. he could have used the mace at that point. a backup car was called and arrived soon after. aggression itself is not enough to meet the danger standard, nor is 'his face looked like a demon' or some such bullshit the prosecutor just allowed in there. llike come on
the main issue here isn't even the case itself, but the broad pattern of police abuse in black neighborhoods. again, as was true in the trayvon martin case, castle law 'self defense' is brought up while being oblivious to the absurdity of the standard operative on use of lethal weapons. it's not the middle ages, reflexive self defense is a joke of a response unless you are literally dealing with a problem that only guns can solve. i don't see it in this situation. there is a serious leap of faith to suggest wilson is innocent simplicter, innocent in the sense of behaving appropriately.
Pepper spray is a joke. It will not stop someone who is pissed off enough. In fact, in some cases it just makes some individuals angrier. Bringing up castle law and duty to retreat is ridiculous. What, do you want Wilson to turn and try to run despite having a 300 pound guy already in motion towards him?
Have the sense to take an approach that wouldn't leave shooting the suspect as his only option if he turned around and came back at him.
When Wilson left his car he had two options in his head. This guy is going to give up and let me arrest him or I am going to shoot him to death. There was no other option in Wilson's mind. Wilson acted in a way that put more people at risk than if he had stayed further back (since he felt like a defenseless child against a demon [This guy could never work my local Islander bar, I don't think half the women there are under 300 lbs])
If an unarmed man runs 150 ft from the 'fight' (I've seen grade school fights with worse damage) and you can't pursue without having to shoot if they turn around and come back towards you, that is bad police work, regardless of whether it's legal or not.
|
On November 27 2014 06:29 farvacola wrote:
This isn't about things being set up as a farce, it's about how the Grand Jury might have analyzed the evidence differently in the event that the prosecutor followed the well established norm of charge guideline instruction. There doesn't even have to be intentionality behind it. Given all the evidence, there is most certainly a world in which a jury could find Wilson guilty of involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury did not indict in reality is not proof of any conspiracy nor of foul play, but that doesn't mean that all speculation is to be ruled out.
I don't think there's any change he'd go to jail. You have conflicting testimony, which helps the defendant, and from what NPR has reported on the more reliable testimony supports Wilson.
How the GJ may have come to a different conclusion seems really speculative. You'd have to put together some pretty sound arguments.
|
When a statement that is meant to indict the speculative nature of an opposing viewpoint itself starts with speculation, it would seem obvious that both sides are taking part in the fortune telling. Furthermore, it doesn't take long, once one starts to peruse the transcripts released by McCulloch, to notice that the attorneys presenting the evidence before the Grand Jury ran into a number of procedural issues brought on by the ad-hoc nature of the irregular grand jury process, further suggesting that either a standard grand jury proceeding or a regular jury trial would have very likely been more appropriate. For example, assistant prosecutor Alizadeh made a number of errors in cataloguing the evidence for presentation, and she had to go out of her way on more than one occasion to remind the grand jury of her errors. Additionally, the scope, breadth, and nature of Wilson's testimony makes it clear that an adversarial questioning method of deposition would have very likely yielded a very different sort of testimony on the part of Wilson. Sure, conflicting witness testimony tends to support the defendant, but the specifics of these conflicts and how they interact with the portrayal of the events in question are going to change dramatically when you have two legal minds battling over their reception by the jury, particularly when the defendant's testimony is as obviously integral to the construction of the conflict as it is in this case.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 27 2014 06:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 06:29 farvacola wrote:
This isn't about things being set up as a farce, it's about how the Grand Jury might have analyzed the evidence differently in the event that the prosecutor followed the well established norm of charge guideline instruction. There doesn't even have to be intentionality behind it. Given all the evidence, there is most certainly a world in which a jury could find Wilson guilty of involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury did not indict in reality is not proof of any conspiracy nor of foul play, but that doesn't mean that all speculation is to be ruled out. I don't think there's any change he'd go to jail. You have conflicting testimony, which helps the defendant, and from what NPR has reported on the more reliable testimony supports Wilson. How the GJ may have come to a different conclusion seems really speculative. You'd have to put together some pretty sound arguments.
the standard for indictment isn't beyond reasonable doubt. they are deciding whether to bring charges, not whether the charge the sticks.
|
On November 27 2014 05:41 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2014 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't have to go to the extreme of believing the rioter story of execution style shootings to see serious problems with wilson's testimony, behavior and how the indictment case is handled. "Innocent" isn't the right term. "Not guilty" is. The law purposefully avoids the term "innocent" for obvious reasons. it is also important to keep in mind the stnadard for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect is not met here. the excuse is there was a struggle during the fleeing, some 150 feet away from where the first shot was fired, and self defense invoked thereafter. yes, wilson got a little beat up while at the vehicle, but out in the open street with a drawn gun, i don't see how he is in much danger against this kid. he could have used the mace at that point. a backup car was called and arrived soon after. aggression itself is not enough to meet the danger standard, nor is 'his face looked like a demon' or some such bullshit the prosecutor just allowed in there. llike come on This is a total misconstruction of the apparent facts of the case. Yes, there was a struggle in the car. Yes, Brown then turned and fled. Yes, Wilson then pursued to make the rest as was his job. You're leaving out the part where Brown turned and charged Wilson to fight him again, at which point Wilson shot him. Read this way, the facts do support the use of lethal force. Whether you believe this narrative is immaterial. There is ample evidence to support it (if not a preponderance), which forecloses the possibility of a guilty verdict. that part is not established by the evidence but by wilson's testimony. how aggressive and dangerous the charge was is pretty critical. and this is about bringing indictment not actually a trial. they don't need to establish a beyond doubt case, just a reasonable case given the hard evidence. i don't see how this is not possible given what we know. Show nested quote +the main issue here isn't even the case itself, but the broad pattern of police abuse in black neighborhoods. again, as was true in the trayvon martin case, castle law 'self defense' is brought up while being oblivious to the absurdity of the standard operative on use of lethal weapons. it's not the middle ages, reflexive self defense is a joke of a response unless you are literally dealing with a problem that only guns can solve. i don't see it in this situation. there is a serious leap of faith to suggest wilson is innocent simplicter, innocent in the sense of behaving appropriately. Yes, there is a problem with police action in black neighborhoods. That said, arguing that it is not okay to shoot a 300 pound man who is charging you with obvious intent to hurt/kill you is a really, really tough sell, if not outright ridiculous. first, as stated above, whether the kid presented a serious enough threat at that point is not established by autopsy evidence. second, the point here was about the space between lethal force and doing nothing. self defense is a primitive concept with no sense of appropriate policy for the problem. as for the stuff questioning the effectiveness of pepper spray, it is enough to temporarily disable a person for enough time until help arrives.
Primitive concept? Have we outgrown our need for self-preservation or something?
|
On November 27 2014 07:35 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 05:41 oneofthem wrote:On November 27 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2014 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't have to go to the extreme of believing the rioter story of execution style shootings to see serious problems with wilson's testimony, behavior and how the indictment case is handled. "Innocent" isn't the right term. "Not guilty" is. The law purposefully avoids the term "innocent" for obvious reasons. it is also important to keep in mind the stnadard for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect is not met here. the excuse is there was a struggle during the fleeing, some 150 feet away from where the first shot was fired, and self defense invoked thereafter. yes, wilson got a little beat up while at the vehicle, but out in the open street with a drawn gun, i don't see how he is in much danger against this kid. he could have used the mace at that point. a backup car was called and arrived soon after. aggression itself is not enough to meet the danger standard, nor is 'his face looked like a demon' or some such bullshit the prosecutor just allowed in there. llike come on This is a total misconstruction of the apparent facts of the case. Yes, there was a struggle in the car. Yes, Brown then turned and fled. Yes, Wilson then pursued to make the rest as was his job. You're leaving out the part where Brown turned and charged Wilson to fight him again, at which point Wilson shot him. Read this way, the facts do support the use of lethal force. Whether you believe this narrative is immaterial. There is ample evidence to support it (if not a preponderance), which forecloses the possibility of a guilty verdict. that part is not established by the evidence but by wilson's testimony. how aggressive and dangerous the charge was is pretty critical. and this is about bringing indictment not actually a trial. they don't need to establish a beyond doubt case, just a reasonable case given the hard evidence. i don't see how this is not possible given what we know. the main issue here isn't even the case itself, but the broad pattern of police abuse in black neighborhoods. again, as was true in the trayvon martin case, castle law 'self defense' is brought up while being oblivious to the absurdity of the standard operative on use of lethal weapons. it's not the middle ages, reflexive self defense is a joke of a response unless you are literally dealing with a problem that only guns can solve. i don't see it in this situation. there is a serious leap of faith to suggest wilson is innocent simplicter, innocent in the sense of behaving appropriately. Yes, there is a problem with police action in black neighborhoods. That said, arguing that it is not okay to shoot a 300 pound man who is charging you with obvious intent to hurt/kill you is a really, really tough sell, if not outright ridiculous. first, as stated above, whether the kid presented a serious enough threat at that point is not established by autopsy evidence. second, the point here was about the space between lethal force and doing nothing. self defense is a primitive concept with no sense of appropriate policy for the problem. as for the stuff questioning the effectiveness of pepper spray, it is enough to temporarily disable a person for enough time until help arrives. Primitive concept? Have we outgrown our need for self-preservation or something?
A bad choice of words but a police officer should not have to resort to lethal force when confronted by an unarmed individual.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is not a bad choice of words. it is a primitive concept because it draws on some unexamined intuitions about rights.
|
On November 27 2014 07:56 oneofthem wrote:
it is not a bad choice of words. it is a primitive concept because it draws on some unexamined intuitions about rights.
Anyone is allowed to defend themselves. Sure its a "primitive concept" its hard-wired into our brain as survival instincts. that doesn't make it wrong.
The killing in self defense part is the issue, not the defense part.
|
On November 27 2014 07:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 07:35 killa_robot wrote:On November 27 2014 05:41 oneofthem wrote:On November 27 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2014 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't have to go to the extreme of believing the rioter story of execution style shootings to see serious problems with wilson's testimony, behavior and how the indictment case is handled. "Innocent" isn't the right term. "Not guilty" is. The law purposefully avoids the term "innocent" for obvious reasons. it is also important to keep in mind the stnadard for use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect is not met here. the excuse is there was a struggle during the fleeing, some 150 feet away from where the first shot was fired, and self defense invoked thereafter. yes, wilson got a little beat up while at the vehicle, but out in the open street with a drawn gun, i don't see how he is in much danger against this kid. he could have used the mace at that point. a backup car was called and arrived soon after. aggression itself is not enough to meet the danger standard, nor is 'his face looked like a demon' or some such bullshit the prosecutor just allowed in there. llike come on This is a total misconstruction of the apparent facts of the case. Yes, there was a struggle in the car. Yes, Brown then turned and fled. Yes, Wilson then pursued to make the rest as was his job. You're leaving out the part where Brown turned and charged Wilson to fight him again, at which point Wilson shot him. Read this way, the facts do support the use of lethal force. Whether you believe this narrative is immaterial. There is ample evidence to support it (if not a preponderance), which forecloses the possibility of a guilty verdict. that part is not established by the evidence but by wilson's testimony. how aggressive and dangerous the charge was is pretty critical. and this is about bringing indictment not actually a trial. they don't need to establish a beyond doubt case, just a reasonable case given the hard evidence. i don't see how this is not possible given what we know. the main issue here isn't even the case itself, but the broad pattern of police abuse in black neighborhoods. again, as was true in the trayvon martin case, castle law 'self defense' is brought up while being oblivious to the absurdity of the standard operative on use of lethal weapons. it's not the middle ages, reflexive self defense is a joke of a response unless you are literally dealing with a problem that only guns can solve. i don't see it in this situation. there is a serious leap of faith to suggest wilson is innocent simplicter, innocent in the sense of behaving appropriately. Yes, there is a problem with police action in black neighborhoods. That said, arguing that it is not okay to shoot a 300 pound man who is charging you with obvious intent to hurt/kill you is a really, really tough sell, if not outright ridiculous. first, as stated above, whether the kid presented a serious enough threat at that point is not established by autopsy evidence. second, the point here was about the space between lethal force and doing nothing. self defense is a primitive concept with no sense of appropriate policy for the problem. as for the stuff questioning the effectiveness of pepper spray, it is enough to temporarily disable a person for enough time until help arrives. Primitive concept? Have we outgrown our need for self-preservation or something? A bad choice of words but a police officer should not have to resort to lethal force when confronted by an unarmed individual.
that's a pretty absolute statement.
|
On November 27 2014 07:14 farvacola wrote:
When a statement that is meant to indict the speculative nature of an opposing viewpoint itself starts with speculation, it would seem obvious that both sides are taking part in the fortune telling. Furthermore, it doesn't take long, once one starts to peruse the transcripts released by McCulloch, to notice that the attorneys presenting the evidence before the Grand Jury ran into a number of procedural issues brought on by the ad-hoc nature of the irregular grand jury process, further suggesting that either a standard grand jury proceeding or a regular jury trial would have very likely been more appropriate. For example, assistant prosecutor Alizadeh made a number of errors in cataloguing the evidence for presentation, and she had to go out of her way on more than one occasion to remind the grand jury of her errors. Additionally, the scope, breadth, and nature of Wilson's testimony makes it clear that an adversarial questioning method of deposition would have very likely yielded a very different sort of testimony on the part of Wilson. Sure, conflicting witness testimony tends to support the defendant, but the specifics of these conflicts and how they interact with the portrayal of the events in question are going to change dramatically when you have two legal minds battling over their reception by the jury, particularly when the defendant's testimony is as obviously integral to the construction of the conflict as it is in this case.
The GJ evidence, with the problems in presentation you mentioned, kind of feels like a typical political 'document dump'
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 27 2014 07:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 07:56 oneofthem wrote:
it is not a bad choice of words. it is a primitive concept because it draws on some unexamined intuitions about rights. Anyone is allowed to defend themselves. Sure its a "primitive concept" its hard-wired into our brain as survival instincts. that doesn't make it wrong. The killing in self defense part is the issue, not the defense part.
it is 'wrong' when it leads to bad policy/actions.
|
On November 27 2014 07:56 oneofthem wrote:
it is not a bad choice of words. it is a primitive concept because it draws on some unexamined intuitions about rights. You're starting to convince me self-defense is a privilege extended to unarmed black teens, but denied to armed white police officers.
"Unexamined" in the sense that we only have four centuries of examination, or so. "Intuitions" in the sense that you have to be an expert psychologist to qualify for self preservation. We wouldn't want any primitives to think you don't have the right to kill you and take your stuff, would we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
