There is no excuse for wanton looting and burning. There is no excuse for creating a slogan built on lies to justify wanton looting and burning. There is no excuse for using that slogan to create division, hatred, suspicion, derision and grief for political gain.
There are very serious problems in the black minority community. All healing begins with admitting there is a problem and truthfully taking responsibility for it. If the President, his administration, and black activists really care about the plight of blacks in America they will begin to speak honestly about the dysfunction that causes black on black murders, high drop out rates, high rates of single parenthood, unwarranted suspicions about the police, and the drug and thug culture that is doing such great harm in so many lives. The above response to “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” activism points to this very real, very serious problem that begs the attention of our leaders and continues to be ignored.
Don’t confuse the looters or Lefties with facts – their minds are already made up . . . .
And is it just me, or do all of these “protesters” look and act like just another bunch of occupy clowns?
“There is no excuse for wanton looting and burning.”
There is, actually. There are several. And a society that lets them fester, unmitigated, deserves what it gets: looting, burning, and so on, and so forth.
Among other things, unarmed, petty criminals are not supposed to be murdered by the police in this country. The politzei are out of control, and it truly is unacceptable.
While I wouldn’t say there is any “excuse,” there are societal factors that affect the likelihood of riots. MLK Jr. said that “a riot is the language of the unheard.” He went on to condemn riots as immoral and counter-productive, but he understood why they happened. And it had nothing to do with people wearing their pants low.
Okay we know where the left stands on these things:
Throw out the rule of law and let events play out according to the emotional whims and belief systems of the incited masses.
There was no murder in Ferguson. There certainly was no murder inspired by racism.
There was failure to comply with a request made by a police officer, assault of a police officer, an attempt to take a weapon from a police officer, threatening a police officer, charging a police officer and refusing to comply with demands to drop to stop and drop to the ground…not to mention the earlier theft and assault and harassment of the store owner.
Death threats were made against the officer.
Michael Browns stepfather stood on top of a car, incited riot and yelled more than once, “Burn this B–ch down!” He later apologized. the bigger question to me is who gave this man the idea that he would be justified to say such things? Anyone with half a dose of common sense knows race baiting Sharpton and Jackson with authority freely given by Obama and Holder, who rushed to judgement for political purposes, are responsible for this mess.
None of the business owners have been accused of or charged with racism; at least one is a black single mother!
Reports on the final bill for the damage and loss are not yet in but estimates in the millions wouldn’t be off base. The owners and employees have lost more than money and for what?
To invoke MLK, as if the imagined problem in Ferguson was anything like what was going on in the South in the sixties, or to explain away or justify this is ridiculous.
Radicals on the left have a strange idea of what constitutes protest, not to mention fairness or justice.
The twin stooges make excuses for violence and destruction. NO SURPRISES THERE!
Idiots.
Don’t hyperbolize, Tina. It is not persuasive (unless you’re already persuaded). We’re just trying to tell you that there are reasons why these things happen, real reasons.
I don’t know why I have to say these things over and over and over again. You claim to read history, but it don’t inform you … seemingly.
Listen now: An elite that let’s its underclass get too uncomfortable gets what it gets … looting, burning, and so on, and so forth.
Your insistence that said underclass should just submit itself to the groundless brutalities of the state is probably a waste of warm air.
“Michael Browns stepfather stood on top of a car, incited riot and yelled more than once, “Burn this B–ch down!” He later apologized. the bigger question to me is who gave this man the idea that he would be justified to say such things?”
Tina, I think he was angry. Very angry … you know … uncomfortable.
Libby, a lot of people get angry, but not a lot of people use that anger to incite a riot. The kind of judgment he used then was the kind that got him into prison and on parole. It's why his foster son could not live in the same house with him. They apparently were not close. He's a convicted felon, he's not a nice person and his actions say he is a racist pig. So, why are you trying to defend him?
Libby: “Don’t hyperbolize, Tina. It is not persuasive (unless you’re already persuaded). We’re just trying to tell you that there are reasons why these things happen, real reasons.”
I wish you would direct your concerns about hyperbole to the president and Eric Holder.
By your logic we should not be prosecuting drunk drivers because since they have a problem they can’t control what they do.
In fact anyone with anger issues automatically has permission to punch people out at will.
I’m sorry but the excuse you offer is BS.
I think it is you who refuse to see what’s going on here. You’re stuck in the past history and refuse to realize things have changed…a lot.
Tina: “By your logic we should not be prosecuting drunk drivers because since they have a problem they can’t control what they do.
In fact anyone with anger issues automatically has permission to punch people out at will.”
Where did Libby say anything about not prosecuting rioters if they are caught?
You just can’t resist the strawman arguments. Or is it that conservatives really can’t tell the difference between “societal factors cause this to happen” and “Yay rioting is the awesomest!”?
The problem with PC nuts is they cannot see that social factors are being excused and exploited by underhanded, opportunistic activists for politics. These people don’t give a rats a$$ about justice, truth; this rioting was induced and encouraged by them.
Prosecuting a white cop just for doing his job is acceptable and right; tolerating riots and property destruction is understandable and excused because of “social problems”. BS!
I suggest that by Libby’s argument drunk driving should be similarly tolerated and excused and I suggest she would not agree.
When you show some sign of being able and willing to actually get what we are saying, not to mention telling the difference between the actual facts in a case and an emotional and political narrative, you can take the high ground. Until then you’re just another arrogant jerk with a leftist agenda to spin the truth while looking down your nose at others.
Both you and Libby still think this cop should be prosecuted. Your response to the burning and looting is insufficient to send any message except agreement. Wake up ya da*n fool!
“Prosecuting a white cop just for doing his job is acceptable and right ….”
Murdering unarmed civilians is not in the job description. In the Garner case, particularly, the cop violated department policy to kill the citizen … and the cop’s not even gonna lose his job.
That’s sick.
Libby, so you are 100% unable to remotely see the officer’s side of this? Not one shred of understanding for the officer’s side?
Tina: “The problem with PC nuts is they cannot see that social factors are being excused and exploited by underhanded, opportunistic activists for politics. These people don’t give a rats a$$ about justice, truth; this rioting was induced and encouraged by them.”
Tina, it would be helpful if you named the people you are talking about and provided direct quotes where they “induced and encouraged” riots. It would also help if the people you name have not gone on record numerous times explicitly condemning the riots.
“Prosecuting a white cop just for doing his job is acceptable and right”
Obviously, not everyone agrees that the officer was just doing his job. You can disagree, you can even think that those who disagree with you are stupid, but constantly misrepresenting the arguments of everyone who disagrees with you does you no favors.
“Both you and Libby still think this cop should be prosecuted”
I think that, since the case was brought before a grand jury, the process should have been handled in the same way most grand juries are handled. It wasn’t. Had the officer not been allowed to testify and present exculpatory evidence, there would have been a trial. I would have accepted the results of that trial (though I concede that many leftists a would not). But I don’t see how giving police officers special treatment that most citizens would not receive can be seen as the justice system working properly. Prosecutors are very reluctant to indict police officers because of their close relationship with them. The particular prosecutor in this case already had a rep for defending police officers, and essentially used his role of prosecutor to argue in Wilson’s defense. (I think this is more a “professional backscratching” problem than a racism problem; I have no reason to think black officers get this treatment any less than white officers.)
None of this points toward Wilson’s guilt or innocence. I, personally, think that he acted in legal self defense (though I think police, in general, are often too quick to turn to using a gun when other methods could be effective), but since Wilson’s testimony was not questioned as aggressively during the grand jury as the testimony against him–which is literally the exact opposite of how a grand jury is supposed to be run–I can’t say that for sure. I think that many protesters assumed guilt and would be satisfied with nothing less than prison time for Wilson, evidence be damned. But I think there is legitimate reason for protesters to at least want a trial in this case.
“Libby, so you are 100% unable to remotely see the officer’s side of this? Not one shred of understanding for the officer’s side?”
Well are there any conservative posters here willing to see the protesters’ side? I don’t agree with everything Libby has written here and I think she may be neglecting the evidence in favor of Wilson, as many of my liberal friends have, but I don’t see how you can hold her to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. The bloggers and commenters here are not exactly known for their ability to soberly see both sides of an issue.
Re #13 Post Scripts : Libby, so you are 100% unable to remotely see the officer’s side of this? Not one shred of understanding for the officer’s side?
I can answer that. Yes.
Pants down.
Most suspects charged with sex exploitation were white, male, U.S. citizens, and had attended some college.
“Most suspects charged with sex exploitation were white, male, U.S. Citizens.” “Do you realize that nearly 70 percent of those serving time for violent crimes against children are white?”
Whites are 66 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds and 70 percent of drug users that age. Blacks are 13.5 percent of persons in that age group and only 13 percent of young adult users, while Hispanics are nearly 15 percent of that age group, but yet comprise only 12 percent of drug users 18-25.
“The face of white crime is at least as ugly as its Black and Latino counterparts.” There are two scenarios unfolding here: 1) De-emphasizing or minimizing ethnicity. When the crime is perpetrated by whites, color is not the issue; the issue is “our” children and violence. 2) Emphatic emphasizing and alienation when blacks are deemed the culprits. It is no longer “our” kids; it is “black” kids or youth. There’s a big difference.
Time to take color out of the equation and deal with the facts
Every Race is more likely to be killed by one from their own race.
We allow torture so until we change the perception crime is ok as long as one is white than no complaints are realistic.
Can someone direct me to a local political blog for Chico?
Also must say…I watched this case closely. Civil rights are being dismantled here.
A case is not suppose to be tried in front of a Grand Jury with a prosecutor having one side only present. It is not normal for the person in question to testify either.
Bottom Line the Grand Jury is only suppose to figure out if there is enough question for an actual trial. There can still be a trial by law so let’s have one and figure out what happened using facts.
Also I guess you missed the online cyber war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wtsqJL0OW0
There is Anon’s response to the KKK flier threatening people.
Why not watch the real story unfold instead of follow false corporate media?
Also who burned down those buildings? Why did the police fire tea gas than leave? Why did a few cops hold back the fire dept and watch the buildings burn? because it was all planed?
I am amazed that you guys do not know the actual facts in this fascinating story.
Our laws need to be followed by all for all. Police officers are not beyond the law.
So where are the local discussions I’d rather be active in real stories where I can make a difference here
I think what’s being missed here is Libby and Chris’s admission that, by blaming societal factors, that the welfare state has utterly failed black Americans. The war on poverty has been going on for decades but has little to show except suffering and class/racial strife.
It is time for a bolder agenda. Stronger welfare reforms that actually encourage people to get off welfare, coupled with a jobs program wherein government gets off the back of American businesses and let the economy grow! People will stop fighting over a shrinking amount of wealth if you just let entrepreneurs grow the amount of wealth! The only way to do that is get government off their backs and out of their wallets! Don’t worry, the Kennedys and the Clintons will do just fine without more taxpayer funded perks, and maybe minorities in this country will finally have a fighting chance.
Re #16 & #17: Sheesh, yet another condescending twit from zombie land. Like Chris and Libby were not enough. Sometimes I think I may take a baseball bat to the next pin-headed jerk who pontificates about “false corporate media”.
(Not to worry, I won’t break the core societal social contract. Not ever. Especially over some moron.)
Shorter Pie: “I have no real arguments, only insults.”
Libby: “Murdering unarmed civilians is not in the job description. In the Garner case, particularly, the cop violated department policy”
There have been no murders!!!!!
That you insist on using this word just shows you have no interest in facts, truth, or justice.
Ferguson was self defense. The police officer in NY did not apply a choke hold as everyone is insisting. it was a take down hold much like kids use in wrestling. There was no damage to his throat and his death was not caused from “choking” but was likely a result of his weight and health problems. had he not broken the law, resisting arrest, he would be alive today.
It’s a shame the Mayor insists that his police force spend so much time on a petty crime for tax money but that’s par for the course with liberals so there you have it.
what is it with you guys on the left? You seem incapable of acknowledging the lawless behavior that induced and precipitated what happened. As long as you give people, particularly young people, the sense that they are entitled to resist arrest, this will never stop. Its as if the collateral damage is worth the ability to create reasons to do these political protests.
Tina: “There have been no murders!!!!!”
So killing a nine year old kid for playing with a pellet gun at a park, as the cop did in the Tamir Rice case, is not murder?
“The police officer in NY did not apply a choke hold as everyone is insisting.”
Did your dojo Sean Hannity tell you that?
“There was no damage to his throat and his death was not caused from “choking” but was likely a result of his weight and health problems.”
Please read the autopsy before you make any more false claims. The heart attack was caused by compression of the neck and chest, which was exercised by the officer.
“had he not broken the law, resisting arrest, he would be alive today.”
AND had the officer not used excessive force against someone who posed no threat, he would be alive today.
“As long as you give people, particularly young people, the sense that they are entitled to resist arrest, this will never stop. Its as if the collateral damage is worth the ability to create reasons to do these political protests.”
You are a tyrant. You believe the government has the right to use lethal force against citizens for nearly any offense, no matter how small.
Chris: “it would be helpful if you named the people you are talking about and provided direct quotes where they “induced and encouraged” riots. It would also help if the people you name have not gone on record numerous times explicitly condemning the riots.”
Willful ignorance is becoming a handy excuse for you Chris. We have taken great pains to show you evidence that the radical left, of which this entire administration is a part, are activists schooled in the Saul Alinsky method. The President has been outed as a man who is willing to deceive and lie to the public to push an agenda. And you are still naively claiming he would not purposely gin up division and actively support the political protest (Which he knows will attract people with a propensity to riot) to push that divisive agenda. You still naively believe that Obama is incapable of saying what sounds good while doing something entirely different! You still naively believe men like Eric Holder are not operating from vengeful attitudes rather than a sworn oath to uphold and apply the law.
“I don’t see how giving police officers special treatment that most citizens would not receive…”
Sure, because every case in which a grand jury is appointed has been accompanied by wild speculation in the press, death threats made against the “accused,” looting and burning, the federal government inserting itself making a circus of the case and proceedings, and staged political protest.
Is it possible that this jury was interested in getting it right? And wouldn’t they have been privy to the officers written version of events anyway? Why do you think that the officer’s statement, his version of events, in person is not germane and would not be necessary in order for the jurors to make the right decision?
The circumstances of this case are hardly run of the mill. The officer had been/was being tried in the court of public opinion. A lot of wrong information had been put forth in the news. The officer had no representation and was not defended as he gave his version of events. Had the grand jury decided to go to trial, his testimony could have been used against him in court. What the he77 do you believe was unjust about the grand jury hearing his version of what happened given the strange circumstances surrounding the case?
This officer was in far greater danger of being lynched by a mob than was the case being tainted by the officers testimony.
Your perspective is skewed by a warped sense that minority discrimination is always present when a minority is present. A mind set like that ensures that we remain stuck forevermore in division and strife. I strongly reject that approach to law enforcement and civil rights.
“essentially used his role of prosecutor to argue in Wilson’s defense”
Key word: “essentially.” You have no idea whether this is true or not. None of us was present in the room. You are repeating opinion. Also the person presenting the evidence was not “prosecuting” a case. Use of that word is inflammatory and misrepresents what happens in a grand jury. (Those on the left using this deceptive word are doing it on purpose)
The Brown family also was allowed to testify in the form of their private “pathologist offering his opinion. His credentials have since been questioned. I doubt if this follows normal procedure in most grand jury cases but it too was allowed/included.
“Had the officer not been allowed to testify and present exculpatory evidence, there would have been a trial.”
Another repeated talking point/opinion!
If the DA couldn’t make a case there would have been no trial!
The Grand Jury found there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a trial; the DA would have come to the same conclusion.
The grand jury was appointed because of the circus!!!
“I, personally, think that he acted in legal self defense”
And yet you slavishly cling to the (prejudiced) left talking points and insist a trial should have taken place! Are you saying that white police officers always have to be tried in cases that involve blacks?
“…are there any conservative posters here willing to see the protesters’ side?”
I don’t know about anyone else here but I have observed and evaluated the protest and determined that it was manufactured to push a political agenda that has nothing to do with the facts of this case and therefore the protesters have, a) been duped and used or, b) are part of the political, vengeful faction that doesn’t care about the facts. (Parents, family and friends are understandably upset; we don’t determine facts or guilt based on emotions)
I have great sympathies for the plight of blacks generally. But I think things have changed dramatically since the sixties so I deeply resent efforts to keep the sins of the past alive today by creating phony cases of racism. This has happened nationally three times in six years and I’m getting the sense that we have only seen the beginning. I expect many more in the coming two years. Using cases like this to gin up anger, resentment, and division is despicable. The plight of blacks in today’s world is much greater due to conditions within the black community and it troubles me greatly that the radical left continues to ignore these problems BECAUSE it is and has been politically advantageous to blame racism for problems…that’s really messed up!
“The bloggers and commenters here are not exactly known for their ability to soberly see both sides of an issue.”
Dam*it Chris, this niggling opinion is completely false! You assume because we are putting forth a different way to look at something, then defending it against attack, that we have never considered the point of view you have. Absurd! Also incredibly arrogant.
This is the basis for frustration that elicits some of the derision you encounter on these pages. We have tried, endlessly, to show you there are other ways of seeing things, possibly several, and you relentlessly cling to the idea that yours is the only legitimate point of view and we had better get with the program. The control freak aspect of your attitude stinks! (But it is typical of liberals)
Chris I have not commented on the Rice case. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Chris: “The heart attack was caused by compression of the neck and chest, which was exercised by the officer.”
And all officers have memorized the complete medical histories of every citizen so that when they are forced to apply strong tactics to restrain someone resisting arrest they can avoid such unfortunate outcomes.
Ever heard of the word intent, Chris?
Chris: “had the officer not used excessive force against someone who posed no threat…”
Posed no threat? I know you have seen the size of this man and the video of him resisting the officer. But put that aside…the officer did what he was trained to do when someone resists arrest and behaves in a combative manner…he had no intent to do harm…you lefties are conveniently setting this aspect of what happened aside because it does not further the bad cop narrative!
Chris: “You are a tyrant. You believe the government has the right to use lethal force against citizens for nearly any offense, no matter how small.”
You love all this drama don’t you?
I believe we are fortunate in America because we have the rule of law and we believe a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. In order for this system to work citizens, even black citizens and criminals, have an assumed responsibility to comply when approached and directed by a police officer.
You are defending tyranny and mob rule when you insist that the rules should be different for black people, students, or anyone else that resists the authority WE CITIZENS grant to police officers.
Your mind is thwacked, Chris. You are one messed up dude.
“The President has been outed as a man who is willing to deceive and lie to the public to push an agenda…You still naively believe that Obama is incapable of saying what sounds good while doing something entirely different”
Please be clear. Are you saying that the President of the United States wants there to be riots in the streets?
Moral concerns aside, how would this possibly be good for the president?
“Sure, because every case in which a grand jury is appointed has been accompanied by wild speculation in the press, death threats made against the “accused,” looting and burning, the federal government inserting itself making a circus of the case and proceedings, and staged political protest.”
You’re conflating two different things here: how Wilson was treated by the legal process, and how he was treated by the media and the public. I’ve already conceded that the media and public treatment of Wilson was unfair. But the legal treatment of Wilson, as in the treatment of him by the prosecutor, was more than fair; it was special treatment that most people do not receive. Both of those things can be true at the same time, with no contradiction.
I sympathize with Wilson’s unfair treatment by the media and the protesters, who made up their minds before having all the facts. But I still don’t think we HAVE all the facts, because the grand jury process was not handled correctly. Believing that many leftists jumped the gun on this case doesn’t require me to ignore the ways in which police officers often get special treatment by prosecutors.
“Is it possible that this jury was interested in getting it right?”
I don’t blame the actual jury, I blame the prosecutor for going out of his way to act as, essentially, Wilson’s defense.
“Why do you think that the officer’s statement, his version of events, in person is not germane and would not be necessary in order for the jurors to make the right decision?”
It’s not about what I think, it’s about what the law says. And the law says that the testimony of the accused isn’t relevant in a grand jury trial. Now, maybe that should change; but if it does, it should be changed for everyone, not just for government officials such as police officers.
“Your perspective is skewed by a warped sense that minority discrimination is always present when a minority is present.”
Huh? I’ve said nothing about minority discrimination in this particular instance. You’re attributing the opinions of other people upset about the lack of indictment to me. My opinion on this is that there is not enough to conclude that this particular instance was racially motivated.
“Also the person presenting the evidence was not “prosecuting” a case. Use of that word is inflammatory and misrepresents what happens in a grand jury. (Those on the left using this deceptive word are doing it on purpose)”
On this you are simply incorrect. The person presenting the evidence to a grand jury is always called a prosecutor:
“The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant — usually reserved for serious felonies.”
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html#sthash.uIAG1ygg.dpuf
When you attribute even basic facts to some kind of liberal conspiracy, it makes your charges of liberal conspiracy elsewhere seem automatically suspect.
“The Brown family also was allowed to testify in the form of their private “pathologist offering his opinion. His credentials have since been questioned. I doubt if this follows normal procedure in most grand jury cases but it too was allowed/included.”
Again, you don’t seem to understand how grand juries are run. The testimony of the plaintiffs is almost always provided.
“Are you saying that white police officers always have to be tried in cases that involve blacks?”
No.
I am saying that police officers (regardless of color) should always be tried in cases where unarmed suspects (regardless of color) are killed, if there is conflicting evidence for whether or not the use of force was justified (as I believe there was in this case). I am also saying that police officers should be treated the same as civilians during the grand jury process.
Chris, if you did that you are altering one of the most basic principles of law…innocent until proven guilty and filing a charge without probable cause. A lot of cops would just walk off and do something else and they would likely not be replaced. Who would want to do a job that is denied basic rights?
Tina: “Chris I have not commented on the Rice case. Please don’t put words in my mouth.”
I’m not. This is what you said:
“There have been no murders!!!!!”
This sentence is so general that it seemed like it couldn’t be meant to apply only to Garner and Brown.
“And all officers have memorized the complete medical histories of every citizen so that when they are forced to apply strong tactics to restrain someone resisting arrest they can avoid such unfortunate outcomes.”
Nice attempt at sarcasm, but it fails. No one “forced” the officers in the Garner case to apply these tactics. They did it of their own volition, and they didn’t have to. There was no need to research Garner’s medical history; simple common sense and threat assessment would have told the officers that their use of force was unnecessary.
“Ever heard of the word intent, Chris?”
Yes, and I’ve also heard of the word “manslaughter,” which is what the officers who killed Garner should have been charged with.
“Posed no threat? I know you have seen the size of this man and the video of him resisting the officer.”
One’s size does not automatically make one a threat. As for resisting, the guy put his hands up and made it hard for the officer to cuff him–that’s not violence! It remains absurd to argue that this amount of force was necessary in this circumstance.
“I believe we are fortunate in America because we have the rule of law and we believe a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. In order for this system to work citizens, even black citizens and criminals, have an assumed responsibility to comply when approached and directed by a police officer.”
The system also doesn’t work when police officers unnecessarily kill suspects before they are ever given due process.
I’m not saying people have the right to resist arrest. I am saying that unless that resistance poses a direct threat to the officers’ safety or the safety of the public, potentially lethal violence is not a rational or proportionate response. By your logic an officer would be justified in shooting nonviolent offenders in the back while they are running away.
“You are defending tyranny and mob rule when you insist that the rules should be different for black people, students, or anyone else that resists the authority WE CITIZENS grant to police officers.””
I have never insisted that the rules should be different for anyone. If Mitt Romney himself were to non-violently resist arrest, and were to be killed by a police officer who used excessive force, my reaction would be exactly the same, because I believe sentient robots should have the exact same rights as humans. (Kidding about that last part.) Again, resisting arrest is a stupid thing to do, but unless the resistance is violent, cops do NOT have the right to kill you for it.
Jack: “Chris, if you did that you are altering one of the most basic principles of law…innocent until proven guilty”
Huh? I said there should be a trial, not an automatic guilty verdict.
“and filing a charge without probable cause.”
But my statement included probable cause–I said “if there is conflicting evidence for whether or not the use of force was justified.” There was conflicting evidence in this case. There was plenty of probable cause in the Wilson case, had the GJ stuck to looking at the evidence implicating Wilson. The problem in the Wilson grand jury was that Wilson’s exculpatory evidence was not only entered into the record despite that being so unusual, but also that this evidence was questioned less aggressively than evidence that implicated him–which is the opposite of how GJs are usually handled. Asking that officers be treated the same way under the law as regular citizens is NOT denying them basic rights.
Chris I can appreciate your motives here. You want to protect the citizens from erring cops, but this is not the way to do it. This is leading us down a very dangerous road.
You said “there should be a trial, not an automatic guilty verdict.” And I am saying that still violates due process. You’re waiving the preliminary hearing and going straight to trial. A pre-lim is where it is determined if probable cause exists to even have a trial. By skipping this the defendant is placed in a very bad light, having to prove his innocence in a long drawn out trial. Because the DA didn’t have prove the elements of a crime exist in the PX. if probable cause was not there during the PX the matter is dropped as it should be.
Determining if the charges meet the test of the elements of the alleged crime is extremely important and it’s why we have a PX. You can’t have one set of rules for cops and another for the rest of us, we must all be treated equally if we want fairness and justice.
Except I’m not asking for the prelim or grand jury to be skipped. I’m asking that during that process, the cops be treated the same as anyone else would during that process. Whether that means not allowing exculpatory evidence for cops, or changing the law to give the right to present exculpatory evidence for everyone, I don’t much care. But in our current system, GJs and prelims almost always go out of their way to show exculpatory evidence for cops, and almost never go out of their way to show exculpatory evidence for average citizens. That is not fairness, justice, or equal treatment.
Chris first you said you wanted these cops go on trial so all the evidence would be made public. You also didn’t like the way the Grand Jury conducted itself, but there are no binding rules on the latter and each State operates a little differently. They weighed every bit of evidence presented and consulted with the DA, but there it just didn’t warrant bringing charges against the cop. The DA could have filed charges without the Grand Jury, but he found insufficient grounds too. The Justice Dept. may still file charges for a civil rights violation, but if they don’t then it’s over. You need to accept the system had its day and now we move on.
Now lets do just that, lets move on to NYC. Insufficient evidence again, grand jury won’t be bringing charges. Did they make a mistake too? Once again, you didn’t like the outcome but, the only way you can get around this is simply not to have a Grand Jury involved or not to have a Pre-Lim. Can’t skip due process and go straight to trial in America. You have to have PC to believe a crime has been committed and the system rendered it’s opinion and the answer was…no PC.
The law has a process and this process works the same for cops as it does for anyone else. I understand the left thinks the law is broken just because it doesn’t go their way. They think the system must be rigged, but the fact the system isn’t influenced by what the mob wants is a good sign the system is working just as it should.
You don’t want to mess with the system…as the saying goes, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Our system is never going to be perfect and some cases the guilty will go free and the innocent will be convicted, but 99.5% of the time justice is served. That’s pretty and our system is probably the most fair there is in the entire world.
“GJs and prelims almost always go out of their way to show exculpatory evidence for cops, and almost never go out of their way to show exculpatory evidence for average citizens.” That’s not true.
Jack, I can’t find hard stats to verify that exculpatory evidence is presented more often for cops in grand juries, but the stats do clearly show that if a case gets to the grand jury stage, it is almost always followed by an indictment–except in cases where the accused are police. From there it isn’t much of a leap to assume that police officers may be given an advantage during the grand jury process. Especially since prosecutors already work closely with police, I’m not sure why it’s so hard to believe that they may be getting preferential treatment.
I understand that states have a lot of leeway in operating grand juries, but I think that’s exactly the problem; if we say that people have no specific right to have exculpatory evidence presented during GJs, but that the prosecutors can present that evidence if they really want to, then we are just making the situation ripe for abuse and preferential treatment. We should have clear rules on this process to ensure that all people are treated equally, and that whether a person goes to trial or not is not based on the whims of the prosecutor.
“If there are some law students who are such delicate flowers that merely being asked to assess whether certain controversial speech that’s been in the news is constitutionally protected, in a class covering the First Amendment of all things, then maybe they should find another profession,” David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, told FoxNews.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/12/ucla-law-professor-learns-ferguson-relatedexam-question-taboo/
One of my favorite journalists, Frank Miele, Daily Inter Lake, nails the underlying tactic employed in these race cases and more in his piece, “Its Time to Stop the Lying.”
Meile goes on to list the various divisive games, staged by radical Democrats, and expounds on each.
Good read!
Pie at #37…Incredible! This is exactly the type of difficult question Americas future lawyers will be required to grapple with on a continuing basis. The critics can have only one goal: Turning out a bunch of unprepared weak kneed cry babies.