Post new news... regarding Fergusion:

[s2a]

Now that the grand jury has deliberated and called that there are no instances of decipherable accountable instances of guilt under Missouri law (after more than four weeks of deliberations), well then that's it.

All calls for justice have been answered.

NO?

Then perhaps, it is about time to change the law.

For months now, there has been an insistence, that by many, that the only true justice to be found is an insistence of some sort of indictment upon the accused. After months of testimony, and months of eyewitness accounting's, and months of third party testimonials, under Missouri law, the police officer was justified in shooting and killing an unarmed teenager.

So be it.

What now?

Obviously, the lynch mob mentality that many have hoped for that might prevail have lost. The desire of a an indictment (of any sort) has been denied.

Categorically. Utterly. Completely.

What's next?

I understand the frustration and unwillingness to accept the jurisdiction of an empaneled grand jury to choose the law over any sort or sense of justice, but again, its the law. It just is. Many had hoped, and still see some form of justice to be found within the law, but the law itself found otherwise.

Very soon it has been promised that all available evidence from the hearings will be released, and then we will see and determine for ourselves whether or not such evidences are to be revealed as fact or fiction.

 

[George-ananda]

The grand jury is the only body to hear all the evidence arguments and counter-arguments. They saw no cause to bring charges. I accept their decision. Nobody else has heard everything or the officer's version of the events so they would be basing their opinion on less information than the Grand Jury.

 

[YmirGF]

The grand jury is the only body to hear all the evidence arguments and counter-arguments. They saw no cause to bring charges. I accept their decision. Nobody else has heard everything or the officer's version of the events so they would be basing their opinion on less information than the Grand Jury.

I tend to agree, George. I find it difficult to accept that given the seriousness of the situation that the Grand Jury would ignore crucial evidence and vote with their emotions rather than the facts. What is especially egregious in this case is that the people have convicted the police without being privy to all the facts and further, they are not interested in a version of events that conflicts with their own.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a hard event to comment on. The cop might or might not have done wrong. The cop is very likely not guilty of any crime. Some of the demonstrators are violent thugs, but some are peaceful. Tis hard to make any of the generalizations I so love.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Too difficult for me to comment on at the moment. I'm grieving for our city this morning.

 

[Tarheeler]

I tend to agree, George. I find it difficult to accept that given the seriousness of the situation that the Grand Jury would ignore crucial evidence and vote with their emotions rather than the facts. What is especially egregious in this case is that the people have convicted the police without being privy to all the facts and further, they are not interested in a version of events that conflicts with their own.

I think emotion most likely played a significant role in the decision. I've sat on a jury, and I've watched 9 out of 12 people vote to let a man, who admitted to hitting his wife, walk away because he was a soldier and they didn't want to tarnish his reputation. It's one of the drawbacks of being judged by a jury of your peers; they don't normally check their emotions at the door of the deliberation room.

Yes, people have convicted the police in their minds. And people have also convicted protesters in the same way. Very few people are willing to face the things that challenge their preconceived notions.

Most people continue to ignore that there are serious flaws in our society, our legal system, and our political system that contribute heavily to this and similar situations. The officer might not have committed a crime, but it is hard for many people to trust a judicial system that is often caught protecting those in uniform, even when they are guilty, and has little to no oversight in the grand scheme of things.

The system has seriously failed when an unarmed man is lying dead in the middle of the street.

And to answer the OP's question of "what now?":
Hopefully now we can start to address problems that lead to this.
How do we stop unarmed citizens from being killed?
How do ensure that investigations are transparent and unbiased?
How do we ensure that those who commit crimes, regardless of their profession, are held accountable to the same laws as everyone else?
How do we address the root causes of poverty and second-class citizenship that are so often contributing factors to crime and hostility?
How do we give minorities and other groups a voice in the political process?

Hopefully that is what comes next.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Everyone knew that Wilson was not going to be indicted on criminal charges of murder 1 or murder 2 or manslaughter. Granted, though, there were many that hoped he would stand trial. However, the numbers are stacked against those who would challenge the system of profiling that is an everyday occurrance. No indictment was what was being expected from both sides.

But given the weight of evidence that Brown's civil rights were violated, it's almost certain that Wilson will face a civil court from one of two ways...his family presses charges, or the city prosecutor does himself. I predict the former is what will happen, and Wilson faced with evidence of unreasonable force (not considered criminal, though) will likely be convicted and face light penalties by the system.

 

[freethinker44]

It's a miscarriage of justice, but it's exactly what I expected to happen. If a prosecutor wants an indictment they will get it. Only the prosecutor is allowed to present evidence to the grand jury, it's incredibly one sided. I was on a grand jury over the summer and in one case when it started to become apparent that we didn't like the charges the prosecutor was going for, he stopped the proceedings and reminded us that even if we think the individual shouldn't or doesn't deserve to be charged, we were to vote on whether or not the evidence presented is enough to bring charges, not whether it's enough to bring a conviction. And they only needed to convince half the jurors. Oh yeah, also, they threatened jurors. Not with bodily harm or prison or anything, but they made it clear that they would present everything they could to convince us to indict, so we could be done by noon and still be paid for a full day or it could take all day, maybe for weeks if need be. So yeah, if the prosecutor wanted an indictment, he could have had it.

 

[Revoltingest]

So yeah, if the prosecutor wanted an indictment, he could have had it.

That can't be known by us outsiders. The grand jury system serves a useful purpose of preventing government from having too much power. Whatever the gov agent, ie, the prosecutor, wants, the grand jury has the power to oppose. Was justice served here? Who knows. The system grinds on, & what results is approximately justice.

 

[freethinker44]

That can't be known by us outsiders. The grand jury system serves a useful purpose of preventing government from having too much power. Whatever the gov agent, ie, the prosecutor, wants, the grand jury has the power to oppose. Was justice served here? Who knows. The system grinds on, & what results is approximately justice.

That's so rare, though, for a grand jury not to indict. Unless it's a police officer, then it's so rare that they would indict. The system is badly flawed. It's not approximately justice, it's the best our horrible justice system could produce.

 

[Jainarayan]

Whatever the gov agent, ie, the prosecutor, wants, the grand jury has the power to oppose.

Yes, but more importantly, the grand jury doesn't care what the prosecutor wants. I sat on grand jury. The prosecutor's job is only to investigate and bring evidence to the grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to send the accused to trial. That is the grand jury's only duty... is there enough evidence to go to trial? The prosecutor makes no recommendations one way or another. It's the trial jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the grand jury.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's so rare, though, for a grand jury not to indict.

Bulldookie. If what you say were the case, the trial courts would be empty. Criminal cases go to trial only after the grand jury indicts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But given the weight of evidence that Brown's civil rights were violated, it's almost certain that Wilson will face a civil court from one of two ways...his family presses charges, or the city prosecutor does himself. I predict the former is what will happen, and Wilson faced with evidence of unreasonable force (not considered criminal, though) will likely be convicted and face light penalties by the system.

It would be an important trial although, having not studied the evidence, I'm not about to hazard a guess as to its likely outcome.

 

[freethinker44]

Bulldookie. If what you say were the case, the trial courts would be empty. Criminal cases go to trial only after the grand jury indicts.

Right, and they almost always indict. I don't know what you're trying to argue here, because it doesn't seem to counter anything I said. I'm guessing group think bleeding over from another argument or you misread my post?

 

[ShivaFan]

No comment. Why bring the riot or the mob or the agenda to RF? I want to discuss religion, not rabble rousing.

----------

Update: ok ... just one comment.

Violence is unwarranted.

The entire media campaign to stoke up riots on the thought it would gin up black votes prior to the recent elections, where the Democrats took a shellacking anyway, was entirely based on a roo.

I told my wife the month prior to Ferguson to expect exactly this on a national level since it was clear that America had turned on the Democrats, it actually is a common method used time and again by the local San Francisco Bay Area media as well to try and start a riot over some local officer involved shooting to try and effect elections in some manner.

There was no probable cause. The roo is so exposed it is now obvious the moniker of this ginned up farce, the Hands Up logo, it never even happened.

The rumor is all the evidence will remain non-public, but then a lot was already out. Any attempt to keep the evidence from the public by the Fededal government, I think this would be part of trying to carry the water of this roo as far as they can take it by crass politicos to make sure it can pester. Release all the evidence but protect everyone's identity.

All those who plotted violence and attempted to illegally acquire firearms or make bombs, who published fliers putting a bounty on this officer's assassination and murder of his family, or attacked innocents violently need to be taken up on domestic terrorism charges, some of them obvious sympathizers of ISIS and such need to be sent to Gitmo.

Obama and Holder were obviously part of this roo early on, they will take a pass only because of last minute public announcements that the rioters must remain peaceful. But where were the National Guard last night, and did Obama pressure the Governor in some manner? An investigation may be in order since the Lt. Governor cannot get any answers. Holder needs to take a hike.

This officer, who not only is innocent of these charges and of this roo as the evidence overwhelmingly resulted in this decision, deserves a 12 million dollar compensation from the Federal government and others. The Grand Jury invoved, despite all initial efforts to redirect the evidence otherwise and to undermine and place pressures on the legal process out of political agenda and undercut the right to a fair hearing, is to be commended. They deserve to have their identities protected for the next decades from domestic terrorists and international Islamic terrorists front groups and their suicidal surrogates such as CAIR as well.

Those who want to celebrate the innocence of the officer will not be able to publically exercise their free speech at the threat of violence from those who want to rule by violence and impose themselves on others.

Overall, however, the riots which were hoped for by lunatic communist types from Berkeley were rather on the scale of what I have seen personally after a 1980s era San Francisco 49ers championship game, that is not even close to the scale the lunatics hoped for. 60 arrests, your usual cars on fire, a gun pops off, 12 stores set on fire, about 20 fires total including car fires (send a bill to Sharpton), you got the freeway stunts that were so lame, the Oakland CA crap which happens on a regular basis anyway. Black Friday sales started early for some, a hot item was Hennessy and Swisher Sweets. Probably the biggest crowds would be NYC, especially under the current Mayor, there was a tiny crowd of 200 in Chicago. Al Sharpton is heading back to Ferg to try and give looters and rioters moral support and excuses to act out.

It was of course the typical looting for the big screen TVs and stuff, with the slight variation they burned the shop down after all the Skittlles and cigars were robbed (how nice, I NEVER would rebuild), almost core for the neighborhood except the fireworks show. There was a Picollo Pete and a Magic Fountain (Red Devil Brand) but some Mexican M80s, too. One of the hilarious scenes was the video of the white Berkeley type pumping arms in the sky intersperse with using the cellphone to snap pictures to show back home with pride when one of the bros graps the cellphone from the communist and takes off running.

The cars I saw on fire in Fergville didn't have any hub caps and looked like they needed a new set of tires. One of the videos of the white colored car has been played like 200 times by now, maybe they should photoshop it to make the flames look brighter. I feel sorry for the likely Mexican lady who needed to take her kids to school in that junker on Tuesday.

There was that other white cop car in another video played about 100 times (half as much as the first white car since it wasn't set on fire), they were trying to rock it over to it's side but never got it to tip. No way would LA Lakers fans have pooped out like that before the car would be sideways.

I wonder how many of the thugs have scholarships to State U? Probably more than a few.

One lesson Americans have learned is the growing awareness that we need to do more to protect our police officers from the violence and brutality they face everyday. So there are some positives out of this.

We have an entire "protest movement" sprung up based on a lie and denial of facts. We need to focus on who will replace Hagel, excessive government regulations and taxes, and stopping Obama instead of this crap which is equivalent of the "Bush flew the planes into the World Trade Center" spoofers.

The one who deserves the biggest apology is that nice immigrant shop owner who had his store strongarmed by the guy who attacked the police officer and his liar co-robber, the shop owner was physically abused with thuggery by these two racists and now his shop has been burned down and his livelihood ruined by more thugs. This shopowner deserves a huge compensation from the agitators, when will he get justice?

I support my local police.

 

[Jainarayan]

Right, and they almost always indict. I don't know what you're trying to argue here, because it doesn't seem to counter anything I said. I'm guessing group think bleeding over from another argument or you misread my post?

I thought you were being sarcastic.

 

[esmith]

In my opinion there will be not suite brought against Officer Wilson for violating Mr Brown's civil rights, nor will there be a suite brought by the parents of Mr Brown . In both incidents, again in my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support such actions.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In my opinion there will be not suite brought against Officer Wilson for violating Mr Brown's civil rights, nor will there be a suite brought by the parents of Mr Brown . In both incidents, again in my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support such actions.

Rodney Kings case and OJ Simpsons case went from acquittal to civil suits and resulted in convictions.

 

[esmith]

Rodney Kings case and OJ Simpsons case went from acquittal to civil suits and resulted in convictions.

Different situation and different examples of personnel involved

 

[YmirGF]

I think emotion most likely played a significant role in the decision. I've sat on a jury, and I've watched 9 out of 12 people vote to let a man, who admitted to hitting his wife, walk away because he was a soldier and they didn't want to tarnish his reputation. It's one of the drawbacks of being judged by a jury of your peers; they don't normally check their emotions at the door of the deliberation room.

I understand that side of the equation too but don't you think the folks sitting on the Grand Jury would have be keenly aware of how their decision would be met? My guess is that if there was a scintilla of truth to the charges against Officer Wilson they would have moved to indict.

Yes, people have convicted the police in their minds. And people have also convicted protesters in the same way. Very few people are willing to face the things that challenge their preconceived notions.

Again, I understand that but in cases like this where very few are privy the to facts the ONLY prudent position is to say, "I don't know." There is no justifiable reason to go off rampaging in the streets.

Most people continue to ignore that there are serious flaws in our society, our legal system, and our political system that contribute heavily to this and similar situations. The officer might not have committed a crime, but it is hard for many people to trust a judicial system that is often caught protecting those in uniform, even when they are guilty, and has little to no oversight in the grand scheme of things.

I know, but yours and my systems are all we have. We have to believe in the system or the alternative is the anarchy of mob rule.

The system has seriously failed when an unarmed man is lying dead in the middle of the street.

You left out "innocent". Who is to say if he was unarmed in the mind of the Officer involved? How lucky did he feel with this very large, powerful looking man wandering down the middle of the road, allegedly high on pot, towards him?

And to answer the OP's question of "what now?":
Hopefully now we can start to address problems that lead to this.

How do we stop unarmed citizens from being killed?
How about people start behaving a bit more responsibly for starters.
How about we insist that our kids respect police officers instead of flip them off.

How do ensure that investigations are transparent and unbiased?
This is of course the current buzzword hyped by people that everything has to be more transparent. I'm not so sure things have to be more transparent personally.

How do we ensure that those who commit crimes, regardless of their profession, are held accountable to the same laws as everyone else?
In a perfect world, of course. You know as well as I do that the chances of launching a successful defense is directly tied to how much you can pay your lawyers. I don't see an easy way around that, sadly.

How do we address the root causes of poverty and second-class citizenship that are so often contributing factors to crime and hostility?
I guess that depends how honest people want to be about what the real causes are to poverty and the resulting "second-class citizenship".

How do we give minorities and other groups a voice in the political process?
Encourage them to create political parties or take an interest in politics? Just a thought.

Hopefully that is what comes next.

I'm not holding my breath, frankly.