Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Why would you not announce this in broad daylight? The grand jury made their decision hours ago. This whole situation is just ugly, and it's not going to get any better after this.

Christena Cleveland @CSCleve · 32m 32 minutes ago
Ferguson is a historical sundown town. Blacks could be killed if found w/in city limits after dark. The timing of this announcement matters.

[Righteous1]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

They're waiting for halftime of the Monday Nighter for maximum exposure.

Grey Cup half time show??

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Christena Cleveland @CSCleve · 32m 32 minutes ago
Ferguson is a historical sundown town. Blacks could be killed if found w/in city limits after dark. The timing of this announcement matters.

Surely not even these bubbas could be dumb enough to shoot someone else.

[wittynickname]

In an explanation of whether or not a man is being indicted for shooting an unarmed man, this guy has talked for 6 minutes, and has barely even mentioned the actual shooting. He's too busy blaming the media, social media, protesters, etc.

[Righteous1]

People got their ski masks on..ready to riot

[DuffMan]

I'm guessing not guilty, or the equivalency

[DuffMan]

What a powder keg of tension

[Acey]

This statement the prosecutor is making is going to make the rioting worse.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The statement is 30 seconds if they were indicting, instead that was a good 6 minutes.

[DuffMan]

And here we go,

[CaptainCrunch]

Wonder if they're going to give the reasons why there's no indictment.

The Grand Jury is apolitical, they can't just motion things to trial to defuse the possible riots in Ferguson.

[nik-]

holy ####, there are a lot of people in the streets

[Acey]

The fundamental problem with this, to an extent, is the concept of a grand jury.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wonder if they're going to give the reasons why there's no indictment.

I think this is part of the statement. The statement read is slowly explaining some of the details and is going through the details of their findings.

It sounds like there is a lack of consistent verbal evidence that completely agrees with the physical evidence to the point where a trial was necessary.

[rubecube]

Andrew Zimmern ‏@andrewzimmern 52s52 seconds ago
Hmmmm

In 2010, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases. Grand juries declined to indict in 11 of them.
http://53eig.ht/1xw6UdY

[nik-]

Is it sick that I find a "Seasons Greetings" light display above where the protest is forming kind of hilarious?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Andrew Zimmern ‏@andrewzimmern 52s52 seconds ago
Hmmmm

In 2010, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases. Grand juries declined to indict in 11 of them.
http://53eig.ht/1xw6UdY

How many of those were police officer involved shootings? Most officer involved shootings never come close to a grand jury. Ridiculous stat considering its not even close to being comparable to any of those 162 thousand.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jar_e

How many of those were police officer involved shootings? Most officer involved shootings never come close to a grand jury.

Uhhh...are you sure that's the point you wish to make?

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by jar_e

How many of those were police officer involved shootings? Most officer involved shootings never come close to a grand jury. Ridiculous stat considering its not even close to being comparable to any of those 162 thousand.

Really?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhhh...are you sure that's the point you wish to make?

That police officers are afforded more rights then your average citizen to uphold the law and do their job?

There's a reason why officer involved shootings in North America are usually never indicted and never seen a courtroom. There is rarely enough evidence to indict in the US system and rarely enough evidence to ever see a conviction in the Canadian system. This is a grand jury, a jury of peers, that are not indicting Wilson. They have seen the evidence, heard testimony. As much as we like to put cops on a stake, they are afforded the same rights as being innocent until proven guilty just as anyone else.

A jury of his peers (albeit a grand jury) had decided not to indict. This shouldn't be a shock. The whole thing was 50/50 anyways and even if he was indicted, his chance of conviction was slim to nil anyways.

You may think the system is flawed, corrupt, what have you. But they put it to a grand jury to see if there was enough. And there wasn't. You can't pick and choose when to use the justice system.