US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1505

On December 05 2014 09:25 oneofthem wrote:
the perception of facts in michael brown's case are distorted by the failure to indict and thus lack of a proper trial. evidence is very selectively presented and scrutinized.

On December 05 2014 03:15 oneofthem wrote:
^retreating into a shell and being indignant isn't a better response.

On December 05 2014 09:40 wei2coolman wrote:

minus the transcript being released, and stuff. you know... I have yet to hear an argument that actually points at the grand jury investigation transcript and shown selective evidence presentation and scrutiny.

NPR actually just recently had a an ex-prosecutor interviewed about the Ferguson transcript, while he said mccullough might not have been mad dog'd to get Wilson trailed, that no prosecutor would actually go to court based on the evidence presented. Pretty much, if it's not a open and shut case, prosecutors are not going to court over it. (inb4 prosecutors are sleazy, ez point grubbers), everyone has to remember when it goes to actual trial the level of evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt".

On December 05 2014 09:53 Danglars wrote:
In fact, the lessons unlearned from Ferguson should fill you with indignation. But go ahead and watch the video again to hear what he says.

On December 05 2014 09:58 oneofthem wrote:

i don't think a hypothetical competent prosecutor would have gotten a conviction, but that beyond reasonable doubt standard is not what we go by when we want to say, the quality of evidence presented is very poor and there are a number of questionable things going on. the quality of evidence is very poor overall, due in no small part to the police and other personnel at the scene not documenting stuff properly.

the basic point i raised was that many people seem to take wilson's testimony at face value, in spite of conflicting reports. this will be better sorted out during trial but no.

On December 05 2014 10:01 wei2coolman wrote:

One doesn't go to trial to sort out stuff... they go to trial to get a strict conviction because they already have their shit together (shit being evidence and case).

On December 05 2014 10:02 oneofthem wrote:

that is irrelevant to my point, which was about perception of evidence without trial. the overall quality of evidence is poor. basically, people are very caught up in proving their side of the story/influenced by positive instances of reporting, but fail to note the basic fact that we don't really know what happened.

the prosecutor chose to have a grand jury but then failed to present a case. rather the opposite really.

On December 05 2014 10:52 wei2coolman wrote:

so what you're saying is that you're mad this situation didn't get special treatment and wasn't fast forwarded into an actual case and trial?

On December 05 2014 07:37 zlefin wrote:
Re igne:
first, it wrongly conflates some cases, like Michael Brown, with cases of actual brutality.
If there was no racism at all in the slightest form, there would still be black people killed by white police officers, because crime would still be there.

The behavior's roots aren't in chattel slavery; police unaccountability has a history in the entire past of mankind, or at least everything past the small tribal stage. And it's certainly not unique to blacks, other groups have suffered as a result of it.
If the protests aren't about just a few incidents, it would be a lot clearer if they more frequently talked about the history of that, than about the few incidents. While mentioned some time, too much of the attention still seems focused on the few cases.

The system is getting better and more accountable, and has been for many decades, on the whole.

It's long been known that there are inequalities before the law (e.g. being rich, or well connected).
The goal is to work on them; it's a never-ending quest for improvement.

I question his assertion that blacks are assigned to worse schools, as opposed to simply being in the area with worse schools; but dont' have direct evidence, and would like to see his evidence for such an assertion.


Those are my main objections to the points in the quoted section, I'm sure other areas contain other objectionable points. It's good rhetoric, but its' connection to truth is only approximate.

On December 05 2014 12:02 IgnE wrote:


So you wanted an editorial about how the system is largely getting better and more accountable than it was, in what, like 1845? 1955? An article that started from the presumption that racism doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since 1964? This isn't about police brutality in toto, as if police brutality happens regularly to white folks. This is about the difference in both the kind and number of cases where minorities experience police brutality. It seems like you are mostly just uncomfortable with the realities of the subject matter. Granted that "it's long been known that there are inequalities before the law," your unstated assumption that therefore we shouldn't be talking about it now, or that these recent cases are undeserving of our attention, is completely unwarranted. Your completely oblivious attitude towards racism's role in police abuse against minorities runs through all of your objections, and your conclusion that "it's connection to truth is only approximate" is based on erroneous assumptions about the "roots" of police brutality.

On December 05 2014 11:50 IgnE wrote:


Don't be stupid. We've been over this multiple times already. He did get special treatment. The prosecutor, whose father was a police officer shot by a black man, and who has multiple other family members in the police force, and who deals with police officers every day, washed his hands of the case, refusing to bring a real case before the jury. Instead he selectively presented evidence, did not effectively cross-examine Darren Wilson, and made sure to put his thumbs on the scale in favor of Wilson wherever possible. You commonly pull your "grappling card" and maybe you should stick to commenting on things related to grappling, because your understanding of how the indictment process typically works seems to be lacking.

On December 05 2014 12:14 zlefin wrote:

you're posting nonsense now. So I will not speak to you.
I answered the question you asked. You are making unfounded assumptions and strawman me and attack me nonsensically. I do not respond to rudeness (other than the notice that the other party is being rude and will not be receiving other response).

On December 05 2014 12:15 wei2coolman wrote:

you mean the process that has been highlighted much more heavily than probably any grand jury before? in which transcripts in whole were released into public. Yet not a single argument based on the evidence of the transcripts have yet to popup as to why people find Wilson legally guilty or culpable in this incident. All I've heard is "so biased!" without actually quoting any of the transcript, and this isn't just from TL posters, I'm talking about actual news outlets and media, of whom they're responsible for breaking these things down for people, and most interviews with legal analysts who have actually read through the transcripts have all agreed on this much; that a) the grand jury was held fairly, as all evidence was given for them to analyze (as shown in the transcripts). and that b) even a brain dead first year law student could have gotten wilson acquitted even if it did go to trial (hyperbole), which it wouldn't because anyone with half a brain wouldn't of tried to prosecute such a shitty case.