Be Excellent To Each Other

It's all kicking off again over the pond!

Looking at my post above, I still stand by what I said at the time, and it seems the Jury agreed. That hasn't gone down at all well...

The jury didn't agree as it said he deserved to die, though oddly it might have been that the majority lost as it needed a 9/12 majority to continue.

It just seems odd that Brown would attack the cop, flee, then when the cop starts shooting at him as he flees, he turns round, charges back at the cop with lethal intent and runs through six bullets in his charge, only to be killed by the 7th.

Smells super fishy to me.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphi ... timony.pdf

Have a read of the grand jury transcript and see for yourself how fishy it seems

edit: I haven't ready through it myself yet, but the tl;dr being stated is: Stole $50 of cigars, went after cop while he was in his car, gun goes off in the car, Officer Wilson exits car, Brown gets shot while charging officer Wilson, blood/casings/most physical evidence backs up Officer Wilson's story.

At least there will be a trial to decide whether he was shot unlawfully or not.

I'll have to give that a read later. All I had seen reported re: the shots were that they indicated that Brown had turned around and that the final shot indicated he was leaning forwards (try getting shot six times without flinching).

Stealing cigars is immaterial, unless they upgraded that to a capital crime some time recently. The only way it can be justified by law is if Brown ran away from the officer, then changed his mind and charged him despite being unarmed and being shot repeatedly.

I'll read it later, but it still seems weird to me. Being a thief isn't a reason to execute someone.

Totally agree. However, attacking an officer, trying to take his gun, and charging at him while he has his gun pointed at you. It's a reasonable expectation that he is likely to shoot.

We'll find out who's right at the trial.

In other Jesus shit-kicking Christ moments: http://stellavee.tumblr.com/post/103541390869

Some background (from what I can gather) - before the video they were stopped because the two adults in the front didn't have seatbelts on. A cop pulled his gun when the passenger reached into the glove compartment to get their ID, etc. That's why they don't want to open the door and only open the window a little bit to pass the stuff through, and then the recording starts.

Skip to 1:35 ish if you're in a hurry.

As much as i'm a liberal hand wringing privacy no-cctv rimjobber, I firmly believe that all police officers should wear a camera and record all interactions. It will give protection to both them and the public from them...

"But how will we afford these cameras!?" as tanks roll through the streets of America.

His story is pretty obviously a lie, imo. However the forensic evidence matches his lie, so he put a bit more thought into it than the lie Brown's accomplice told...

Why is that story so unbelievable? By committing the robbery in the first place, Brown has already proven himself to be a thug so why is it so unbelievable that he'd get mouthy with a police officer?

I didn't realise being a thug meant you were allowed to be summarily executed in broad daylight.

I didn't insinuate that and since I don't know the full facts of the shooting, I'm going to stay well clear of it. Pretty much all I've read on the case is that website and various bits and pieces here and on Twitter. I just don't think the police officers story is as unbelievable as that website makes out.

At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct.

A grand jury decided there would be no indictment.

Of course, a grand jury only has prosecution, no defense. The running joke is that a grand jury always indicts, that they'll indict a ham sandwich. So you have to wonder just how shambolic the prosecution's efforts were that they failed to get one.

Ironic.

Apparently this happens in just one in every eleven thousand cases. Something is well off.

There was a grand jury. 9 of them were white and I'm not sure how many black. Possibly none. They needed a 9/12 majority to indict, so all it needed was 4 white people who like the police.

The town always mess it up.

Should have used 'The Sweep'!

I have also read that the state prosecutor did not actually try to make a case against the police officer, just let the evidence all be put forwards in a confusing melange, but that might be bollocks.

Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I'd like to believe that the 12 people involved realised the scrutiny the result would be under, and made sure they made the choice based on something more than race.

Have you seen/read 'To Kill A Mockingbird'?

Or just seen the general black/white divide in Ferguson and seen how the support for each person in the case is split?

This strikes me as very plausible:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ouldnt-win

Seems a bit more likely than that it was just because they are all racists.

There is a big difference between what the media say is happening, what is actually happening, what people support or say when they are on TV, and what I would hope they would say when in a closed room, with all the evidence in front of them and time to rationally think about what they are doing and the consequences of their choices.

They are going to release all the evidence to the public, as it was given to the jury apparently. So we'll all be able to put ourselves in their position and make our own mind up if we want to

The point is that it was highly unusual for the prosecutor to even give all the evidence at this stage. What pretty much always happens is the they present only the evidence which favours the case for the prosecution in order to get an indictment. The prosecutor didn't want a trial.

That does seem very possible - however it's not how it's supposed to work. The prosecutor's job in a grand jury is to secure an indictment, not to use the grand jury as a testbed to see if a trial would be worthwhile. When there is no defense it's bloody hard to not win these things.

All the evidence, none of the arguments. If trials/grand juries were decided on evidence, trial lawyers wouldn't earn a fucking fortune.

That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.

I prefer "hypocritical"

Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

Get a haircut.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?

You need to look up the definition of irony.

Still, you believing that they would come to a fair decision not based on race is fairly naive and a bit laughable. Sorry.

If it was a generic failing, then yes. A specific factual error being used against someone, when it turns out that error is exactly their own error. That's ironic.

No it's not! Look it up.

Anyway, thanks for distracting from my idiocy with this semantic argument. At least I know I'm right this time.

Wait, are you Alanis Morrisette?

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-is ... -examples/

"Is it ironic that someone steps into a puddle and you make fun of them… and the next thing you know – YOU step in one!?
Reader’s Verdict: 94% IRONIC; 6% NOT IRONIC. Final Verdict: IRONIC."

That seems to be what happened to me



All I (and anyone) can do is try and put myself in that situation and wonder what I would do. Then extrapolate that out to other people I know and think what they would do.

I can honestly say, I can't think of anyone I know enough to have an opinion on (even including every single person on Beex), that I believe wouldn't do their best in that situation to come to the best decision.
Why would I think that people I don't know wouldn't do the same as a whole? What makes me and the people I know different.

If that's a laughable opinion to have and approach to take to things, then laugh away hairball.

"the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character."

So yeah. That.

That's dramatic irony, Dave. A literary device.

It would be ironic had I said there had been no jury knowing full well there had been. Of course I had just got confused because there was a decision not to have a trial (and therefore a jury for the murder charge). Not irony.

So, ironic then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realise we're not in a play?

We're not? I thought you were just here for the comic relief!

Irony is feigned ignorance. I was not feigning, but thanks for giving me credit for that.

You're welcome.

Now get a haircut.

But it's ok, most people use it incorrectly, so you're in good company.

Ironically, most people who say that most people use it incorrectly, don't know how to use it themselves either.

That's not irony either. Keep trying though.