Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

darced · 25-11-2014 03:42PM

This post has been deleted.

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 03:43PM

Beano wrote: »

Well it would explain the looting wouldnt it? When people read the story all they see is cop killed unarmed black kid. They want their pound of flesh. They wont get their pound of flesh because a grand jury decided that the charges should not be pursued so they get all angry.

Again, not answering my question. I would agree that there is a segment of society which will use such incidents for their own ends, such as looting. We are seeing that sort of stuff here where groups are hijacking the water protests.

What i am asking is why are ordinary decent folk out protesting? It has been said that the majority of the posters are peaceful. So, why are they protesting when the facts presented to the Grand Jury seem so straightforward?

I also love how people sitting in Ireland can be such experts on these issues! No questions, just blanket statement answers. You'd swear some of you are in Missouri watching this out your window. Another form of keyboard warrior-ing i think

Beano · 25-11-2014 03:48PM

nokia69 wrote: »

what gives, a good question, a blackman gets killed by a white man then it must be a racist attack, just ignore all the evidence

a blackman gets killed by a blackman and nobody cares

race hustlers love this stuff, people have made millions from cases like this based on nothing more than lies and bull****

Al Sharpton has made a career out of it.

Beano · 25-11-2014 03:49PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Again, not answering my question. I would agree that there is a segment of society which will use such incidents for their own ends, such as looting. We are seeing that sort of stuff here where groups are hijacking the water protests.

What i am asking is why are ordinary decent folk out protesting? It has been said that the majority of the posters are peaceful. So, why are they protesting when the facts presented to the Grand Jury seem so straightforward?

Cos people are dumb.

Peist2007 wrote: »

I also love how people sitting in Ireland can be such experts on these issues! No questions, just blanket statement answers. You'd swear some of you are in Missouri watching this out your window. Another form of keyboard warrior-ing i think

Oh the irony! it burns, it burns.

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 03:51PM

Beano wrote: »

Cos people are dumb.

Oh the irony! it burns, it burns.

Silly boy :rolleyes:

And no answers. Noted

Beano · 25-11-2014 03:54PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Silly boy :rolleyes:

And no answers. Noted

I did give you an answer. People are dumb. Its pretty much the answer to most of the **** in society but it works here as well.

seamus · 25-11-2014 03:55PM

psinno wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they disproved the witness statements that he was shot in the back. Kinda reduces my belief in them.

Considering that prosecution requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", the evidence doesn't prove that Brown never had his arms raised, it does show that his right arm was not raised when two of the shots were fired.

This introduces reasonable doubt into the veracity of the eyewitness statements which claim his arms were raised when he was shot and thus renders them useless for a criminal prosecution.

Likewise when witnesses claim he was shot in the back and the evidence proves that in fact didn't happen, it casts doubt over the veracity of their entire statement.

Eyewitness are known to be one of the least reliable types of evidence, so casting doubt on the major aspects of their account is usually enough to render the entire account useless for a prosecution.

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 03:56PM

Beano wrote: »

I did give you an answer. People are dumb. Its pretty much the answer to most of the **** in society but it works here as well.

Answering a question by stating that the 21k population of an entire town are "dumb" is a teenager's outlook. Any adult answers?

Nerdlingr · 25-11-2014 03:57PM

All the celebrities are now coming out of the woodwork praying for Michael Brown. Jaysus. Love how they're looting and burning down local businesses as well, all in the name of justice. :rolleyes:

Beano · 25-11-2014 04:00PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Answering a question by stating that the 21k population of an entire town are "dumb" is a teenager's outlook. Any adult answers?

is the entire town out rioting? are all the rioters from the town?

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 04:04PM

Beano wrote: »

is the entire town out rioting? are all the rioters from the town?

No idea. Are you incorporating other towns into your "dumb" classification?

It is being said that the majority of those protesting did so peacefully. I am asking why they are doing so. You say its because they are "dumb". I am saying, given the numbers seemingly involved, that cannot be the case. So again, what gives?

You seem to be rather caught up in this story. Maybe let it go for a bit? Allow the hormones a chance to settle.

end of the road · 25-11-2014 04:07PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Funny because the white police officer is the victim of racism (and mob violence as we speak) in this whole fiasco.

no he isn't. he shot an unarmed teenager and got lucky with no charges being brought. your little friend signed up for this when he joind the police

Beano · 25-11-2014 04:08PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

No idea. Are you incorporating other towns into your "dumb" classification?

It is being said that the majority of those protesting did so peacefully. I am asking why they are doing so. You say its because they are "dumb". I am saying, given the numbers seemingly involved, that cannot be the case. So again, what gives?

You seem to be rather caught up in this story. Maybe let it go for a bit? Allow the hormones a chance to settle.

calm down dear. you'll give yourself an aneurysm.

Too Tough To Die · 25-11-2014 04:25PM

seamus wrote: »

Considering that prosecution requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", the evidence doesn't prove that Brown never had his arms raised, it does show that his right arm was not raised when two of the shots were fired.

This introduces reasonable doubt into the veracity of the eyewitness statements which claim his arms were raised when he was shot and thus renders them useless for a criminal prosecution.

Likewise when witnesses claim he was shot in the back and the evidence proves that in fact didn't happen, it casts doubt over the veracity of their entire statement.

Eyewitness are known to be one of the least reliable types of evidence, so casting doubt on the major aspects of their account is usually enough to render the entire account useless for a prosecution.

Of course his arms weren't raised for some of the shots, how could anyone keep their arms raised under those circumstances.

Not saying i believe eyewitness accounts either btw.

humanji · 25-11-2014 04:26PM

Peist2007 & Beano, stop the bitching.

Killer Wench · 25-11-2014 04:32PM

Firstly, this was not a criminal trial. This was a decision as to whether to indict or not to indict. This was based on probable cause that a crime was committed. This is a much lower standard than beyond a reasonably doubt or preponderance of the evidence. Is there reasonable belief that a crime was committed?

The reason why people--including numerous legal scholars--are upset with this case is because a prosecutor presents evidence to a Grand Jury with the intention of leading to an indictment. This prosecutor presented all evidence which is rarely presented to a Grand Jury; instead, all evidence is presented at a trial. This prosecutor presented all evidence because he did not want an indictment, and he presented this to a Grand Jury knowing they are less likely to indict when it is an officer involved shooting.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Secondly, Wilson fired twelve shots. Between the first/second and eleventh/twelth shot, the risk of imminent harm was reduced. It was overkill on the part of Wilson yet the prosecutor brushed this aside.

Thirdly, the prosecutor blamed the victim, blamed the media, blamed protesters, and blamed social media for their interest in the case. Everyone else was in the wrong but not the police officer.

Fourthly, the police department allowed for Brown's body to stay in the middle of the street for 4.5 hours during a hot summer day. His mother and family were not permitted to go to his body and the police did not respect the family's request to at least cover his body as they continued their investigation. This is what inflamed the community.

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 04:36PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Firstly, this was not a criminal trial. This was a decision as to whether to indict or not to indict. This was based on probable cause that a crime was committed. This is a much lower standard than beyond a reasonably doubt or preponderance of the evidence. Is there reasonable belief that a crime was committed?

The reason why people--including numerous legal scholars--are upset with this case is because a prosecutor presents evidence to a Grand Jury with the intention of leading to an indictment. This prosecutor presented all evidence which is rarely presented to a Grand Jury; instead, all evidence is presented at a trial. This prosecutor presented all evidence because he did not want an indictment, and he presented this to a Grand Jury knowing they are less likely to indict when it is an officer involved shooting.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Secondly, Wilson fired twelve shots. Between the first/second and eleventh/twelth shot, the risk of imminent harm was reduced. It was overkill on the part of Wilson yet the prosecutor brushed this aside.

Thirdly, the prosecutor blamed the victim, blamed the media, blamed protesters, and blamed social media for their interest in the case. Everyone else was in the wrong but not the police officer.

Fourthly, the police department allowed for Brown's body to stay in the middle of the street for 4.5 hours during a hot summer day. His mother and family were not permitted to go to his body and the police did not respect the family's request to at least cover his body as they continued their investigation. This is what inflamed the community.

Thanks for that. I knew there had to be something more to the ordinary locals getting involved than a love of tv's and a lack of brains as someone insultingly put it.

IrishCule · 25-11-2014 04:49PM

Sclosages wrote: »

Another thing that has been bothering me is the breakdown of black vs white jurors. I assumed St. Louis was predominantly black? Yet, 9 white and 3 black on jury. Is this representative of the ethnicity there?

It was 9-3 because that matches the ethnic make up of that county.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:00PM

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

Can't blame them really. In certain parts of 'Murica blacks genuinely are second class citizens. It wasn't that long ago they had segregation and certain elements were up in arms when JFK was elected President because we wasn't a Protestant. Uber religious, yet ironically uber greedy, virtually no public health service and a complete lack of knowledge of the outside world; America is a bit of a sh1te hole to be honest.

What a joke. Can't blame them for the truly retarded act of destroying their own town? Putting businesses OUT of business? Shooting at will?

Well I DO blame them for their own actions as should anyone with any self respect.

Carlos Orange · 25-11-2014 05:01PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

This prosecutor presented all evidence because he did not want an indictment

Or because he wanted all the evidence in the public arena.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:02PM

Originally Posted by Killer Wench View Post
This prosecutor presented all evidence because he did not want an indictment

Because racism? LOL. Give me a break.

Putinovsky · 25-11-2014 05:03PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Because racism? LOL. Give me a break.

Because of his close connections to the police department.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:04PM

Putinovsky wrote: »

Because of his close connections to the police department.

Says who? YOU? Al Sharpton?

h2005 · 25-11-2014 05:04PM

This case would have been better served by going to trial. At least then there would be a greater level of transparency.

Putinovsky · 25-11-2014 05:07PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Says who? YOU? Al Sharpton?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background-of-prosecutor-in-ferguson-case-has-some-suspicious-of-bias/

His father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked or currently work for the St. Louis police department.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:07PM

h2005 wrote: »

This case would have been better served by going to trial. At least then there would be a greater level of transparency.

You sound like Al Sharpton who said that EXACT same thing at his slimy press conference.

It's just fine as it is. A trial would be nothing more than another George Zimmerman showtrial which didn't satisfy the baying mobs anyways. They want the verdict they want and nothing else will do.

Yarf Yarf · 25-11-2014 05:07PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Because racism? LOL. Give me a break.

It's not like racism in American police forces is unheard of. It was happening long before Ferguson.

Since when has pro-establishment become the new anti-establishment? There was a time when people were automatically distrustful of police forces, now it seems some people are very keen to just accept whatever story they come out with. It's more boring than the anti-establishment crowd ever were.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:08PM

Putinovsky wrote: »

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background-of-prosecutor-in-ferguson-case-has-some-suspicious-of-bias/

His father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked or currently work for the St. Louis police department.

So what? Plenty of families the world over operate in the same way often going into similar professions. Proves absolutely nothing.

Nodin · 25-11-2014 05:10PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

You sound like Al Sharpton who said that EXACT same thing at his slimy press conference.

It's just fine as it is. A trial would be nothing more than another George Zimmerman showtrial which didn't satisfy the baying mobs anyways. They want the verdict they want and nothing else will do.

......the "savages" as you called them at the time. You also said that you thought South Africa was better off under white apartheid rule at one stage. I'm sure those facts and the way you've greeted developments in this case with actual glee aren't unrelated.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:11PM

Yarf Yarf wrote: »

It's not like racism in American police forces is unheard of. It was happening long before Ferguson.

Since when has pro-establishment become the new anti-establishment? There was a time when people were automatically distrustful of police forces, now it seems some people are very keen to just accept whatever story they come out with. It's more boring than the anti-establishment crowd ever were.

Except the supposed "racism" in this case is against white men.

The grand jury looked at all the available evidence and based on that decided not to indict. There is no anti-black racist angle here but that doesn't matter to those of you who insist on creating it.

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments