Obama says 'The law is the law.' (Ferguson)

[Will Robinson]

I wonder if those unhappy with the Ferguson grand jury decision to not try to convict a cop for shooting a violent aggressor are struck by Obama's comment that 'although he isn't happy with the result the law must be obeyed'.

It seems that with Obama the law must be obeyed by mobs of black people but not by mobs of Latinos for who he will find a way around the law, force law enforcement to stand down etc.
That's got to hurt a little.

[callmeslick]

wow, nice sensitivity to nuance and folks of color.

[Will Robinson]

No nuance intended. I'm saying it out loud there is a blatant disparity in Obamas application of 'the Law'.

And I reject the premise that my saying this is somehow insensitive. I believe people who wanted the cop dead for doing his job are not worthy of empathy in that regard.

[callmeslick]

no, you are just playing around, looking for your preconceived answers. That's where nuance and context come in.
For instance, no person of any standing wished the cop dead. They just wanted him tried in a court of law for excessive force on an unarmed citizen. Not in WilliWorld, though. You see, Will: once again, making flagrant lies up doesn't make your case well.

[Will Robinson]

So I'm making it up huh?

Damn I must be really good at making stuff up. Look at how I got these people all riled up!

Funny how you always proclaim stuff to be untrue and as it turns out you are the one who is making it up.


What you should be completely ashamed of is your role in supporting the ones who profit from getting those people riled up!

[callmeslick]

what person of any consequence was involved with your link. You lie, and then choose random, angry people to make your feeble case. The bottom line in Ferguson is this: rioting to protest violence is wrong. But, so is shooting unarmed citizens, which has happened more than one time, and everyone living there knows it. To conflate THAT situation with Obama's recent exec action is beyond goofy. As was stated, and underscored by all the data extant, we don't have the money to prevent illegal immigrants from living and working here. The resources were cut for 20 years straight, and those monies still remaining got focused on gangs and border fences. Choices have to be made, focus has to be more narrow. Obama's orders merely reflect the actual action taken under that reality, and essentially offered a lot of people a free hold until a law gets written to handle immigration both sensibly and in a way whose costs are funded fully. Trying to equate the two, as Will did, is just yet another tired old Obama-hate rant, likely based upon racism or simply not giving a crap about people who live or look different than Will.

[woodchip]

But, so is shooting unarmed citizens, which has happened more than one time, and everyone living there knows it.

So in slickville, it would of been better if Zimmerman was unarmed and died from having his head bashed in. In slickville it would of been better if the cop could not draw his firearm and Brown beat him into a vegetative state. In both cases blacks could of rejoiced because justice was served upon white men and we would not of been seeing images of buildings burn in Ferguson.

In slickville it is ok for a black cop to shoot a unarmed white boy with the resulting press hiding anything to do with race. Why? Maybe it is time to get a white version of Rev. Al.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... n-fatally/

[Will Robinson]

what person of any consequence was involved with your link. You lie, and then choose random, angry people to make your feeble case. ....

Lol! The qualifier "person of any consequence" just slays me!

First off, you interjected that back door into the conversation as a red herring diversion instead of simply addressing the actual point raised, so predictably slick.

Second of all, I think the people I WAS talking about would disagree with your assertion that they are of no consequence. They are the very epitome of consequence in the context of my commentary!

I didnt choose random people to make the case that they are calling for the death of the officer without knowing the facts. I chose some of people that were calling for the death of the officer because, well...because they are some of the people I said were out there that you claimed were not.
Your ridiculous 'of consequence' escape hatch not withstanding...because it doesn't have any standing... in the debate about the existence of people calling for the death of the officer!! Lol!

I dont think you could be any more of a tool in the way you have presented yourself in this discussion but the day is young and your powers of getting it wrong and arrogantly declaring yourself right are impressive so I will reserve judgement on the totality of your toolishness for now.

[callmeslick]

whoa, you two! You're getting all lathered up, and I've yet, on this board, given any indication or opinion on the Ferguson matters.
First and foremost, everyone involved all along the way has screwed up, going back to refusing a simple request to quit walking in the street. The officer, by the best I can reckon, might have gotten a bit jumpy, but seems to have been following Missouri guidelines and protocols for use of force. Still, I see his decision to use fatal force here a screw up. The government of the region, from local to state, seems completely oblivious to apparently long-standing issues relating to the community as a large. On and on, with massive complexity........to ignore that complexity or the entire core issue behind tension is to miss the whole point.
Still, those who are upset would be supported by me if they pressed to adopt stricter State law around use of force by police. The family of the kid has every right to pursue civil action for wrongful death of their son, and the threshold there is often FAR lower than a criminal case. No one gains from torching cars, shooting at the cops or other mob actions. No one is justified in those actions.
To speak specifically to Woodchip's 'in slicks world' rant. Yes, the world would have been better had Zimmerman been unarmed. The confrontation would have never occurred. There is not one shred of evidence that the kid had any intent to do anything in the area beyond walk through, and Zimmerman has long since proven not to have the character necessary to confront someone man to man, sans gun.
Finally, as I saw that mayhem in front of the police station last night on TV, I must admit thinking of some of you on here. I hope you took a good look, because that is what resistance to an oppressive government(much suggested especially in gun threads) looks like, circa 2014 America. You see, one group sees systematic oppression, yet many here see nothing. The same group response is likely to occur with any scenario out there, if one thinks about it. Sort of looked like a feeble threat to the powers-that-be to me. What do you all think?

[Spidey]

Trying to equate the two, as Will did, is just yet another tired old Obama-hate rant, likely based upon racism or simply not giving a crap about people who live or look different than Will.

You see…that’s the part that makes "you" just as bad or worse then how you are trying to paint him.

[Will Robinson]

slick, after his initial interaction with the two guys walking in the street the officer realized one of them fit the description of suspect in a strong arm robbery that his fellow officers were on the lookout for in that exact area.

At that point he backed his vehicle into the path of the suspects and then, over a total time span of 90 seconds he attempted to effect a stop and search type posture and was immediately attacked by one of the suspects before he could exit his vehicle then fired two shots as he struggled to retain possession of his weapon that the suspect tried to take off of him, pursued him down the street calling for him to stop, when charged by the suspect he fired again numerous times, when the suspect stopped advancing the officer quit firing...when the suspect again charged at him he continued firing and as the suspect fell forward the final bullet likely went into his brain pan.

Now you might be supercop and could demonstrate how your superior nuanced training would have had those 90 seconds go differently but I don't think you should expect mere mortals to be able to do what you clearly think you can do.

[callmeslick]

slick, after his initial interaction with the two guys walking in the street the officer realized one of them fit the description of suspect in a strong arm robbery that his fellow officers were on the lookout for in that exact area.

thus far, I've heard nothing from Wilson or anyone else that he knew prior to the whole event one thing about the robbery.

At that point he backed his vehicle into the path of the suspects and then, over a total time span of 90 seconds he attempted to effect a stop and search type posture and was immediately attacked by one of the suspects before he could exit his vehicle then fired two shots as he struggled to retain possession of his weapon that the suspect tried to take off of him, pursued him down the street calling for him to stop, when charged by the suspect he fired again numerous times, when the suspect stopped advancing the officer quit firing...when the suspect again charged at him he continued firing and as the suspect fell forward the final bullet likely went into his brain pan.

Now you might be supercop and could demonstrate how your superior nuanced training would have had those 90 seconds go differently but I don't think you should expect mere mortals to be able to do what you clearly think you can do.

essentially, that was what I said myself. That he may have gotten a bit trigger happy, but was essentially following procedures which are in Missouri law and his own training.

[Duper]

Link to court case transcript and reports (including toxicology and autopsy)

These are scanned.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... .html?_r=0

[woodchip]

thus far, I've heard nothing from Wilson or anyone else that he knew prior to the whole event one thing about the robbery.

Your continued ignorance of things you post about is truly appalling as evidenced yet again by the above statement. If you listened to the prosecutors very detailed explanation of what the facts are as he presented them live, you would of found out that officer Wilson was on another call when he heard about a robbery and the suspect was wearing a white t-shirt and yellow sneakers. When Wilson got done with the call he was on he then went to investigate the robbery. On the way there he saw two individuals, one of whom matched the description. the rest is history.

Because you "heard nothing" means you should not be posting anything about it. If you would stop having your news filtered by your favored news sites, perhaps you could post here in a more knowledgeable manner. Sadly, I don't think that is possible for you.

[callmeslick]

The 'facts' 'as that prosecutor presented them' were a joke. It was probably the worst presentation of probable cause I've ever read, and yes, I've read the whole mess by now. Any criminal lawyer I know who has read it agrees. That prosecutor designed his presentation to fail, and no, there is NO evidence that Wilson had heard the call about the kid before the confrontation began.

[Will Robinson]

slick, your claim to have read everything already is extremely suspect.
You have claimed to not have heard anything about things that have been said....on TV in that presentation you criticized...the same facts are most certainly in the transcripts as well...all...uh...well looks like thousands of pages of documents that you read?...and you have apparently interviewed every criminal lawyer you have ever known on the content of those thousands of pages as well!

Wow! You have had a very busy 24 hours!
Lol! Bluster and arrogance on parade.

How about you share with us the details of how the prosecution was presented with the intent to fail? Go ahead since you are now the most informed person on the planet with regard to the facts and the whole legal professions assessment of the case.

[woodchip]

The 'facts' 'as that prosecutor presented them' were a joke. It was probably the worst presentation of probable cause I've ever read, and yes, I've read the whole mess by now. Any criminal lawyer I know who has read it agrees. That prosecutor designed his presentation to fail, and no, there is NO evidence that Wilson had heard the call about the kid before the confrontation began.

The only joke is you. You are consistently showing a stupidity that is beyond excusable. Lets see what reality is:

"Legal experts across the country agree that while the process that led to a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was unusual, it was not unfair. Rather if it was anything unusual, it was in its fairness and openness."

“It was the most thorough grand jury investigation that I’ve ever heard of,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School.

"But Richard Kelsey, assistant dean for management and planning at George Mason University law school, said that what makes this case more unusual is that Mr. McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -fairness/

So stop throwing out stuff hoping it sticks to the wall.

[woodchip]

there is NO evidence that Wilson had heard the call about the kid before the confrontation began.

"The details of a robbery earlier that day, blared out on a police radio, clicked into Wilson’s head. Were they suspects?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ael-brown/

Want me to embarrass you more or do you want to continue to make a fool out of yourself

[Will Robinson]

page 208-209 of the Darren Wilson testimony slick

Oh thats right you already read it all. Wonder how you managed to miss such an important fact....

[callmeslick]

as a friend of mine, also a noted legal mind, just put it on Facebook, in a discussion:
It is clear that the prosecutor/DA's office had no interest in a prosecution. They may well have made the correct decision, based
on the evidence extant. HOWEVER(emphasis mine), professional behavior ought to have dictated that they present that decision themselves, rather than string it out in a bad show of a grand jury convention.

I'm in basic agreement, just from my gut. It isn't the evidence I doubt, it isn't the conclusion drawn. It was handled in a cowardly way that actually furthered the hurt, confusion and long-standing grievances of the community.



as for the Wilson knowledge relating the kid to the robbery, the times of call-outs over it don't add up. But, a jury will never hear that fact presented. We only have the inference of his words, and let's face it: he was the SUSPECT in that matter.

[woodchip]

Slick stop, just stop. You are not a legal mind and your assertion are no longer worth reading.

[Will Robinson]

The people on the left side of american politics have chosen to exploit the racial strife that exists today.

That strife that is a slow dying residual product from the extreme of the actual slavery of black people transitioned all the way to the President and Attorney General of our country are both black men.
Quite a transition but certainly still lots of residue that dies with a half life type attrition. You cant legislate it to disappear. It will linger but it will fade away and radiate into nothingness (or at least into a normal level of sub species self identification/preservation). It takes generations to transition.

However those lefties have found a power source in the strife. And they are not unlike the Boy who cried Wolf. Cashing in on the built in instincts of good people who will jump to defend the innocents the left can rally support, create political advantage, by issuing the false cries of racism.

The narrative propped up by the left is so far out of control that the media joins the angry mob to demand the life of a policeman be put into peril for doing his job. Just because the criminal he ended up having to defend against was a black man.

Here is a question or two for those who think I'm off base here:

If, magically, all current practice of bigotry against blacks was wiped from the planet would black people be owed immunity from breaking the law because of past bigotry? Not consideration or empathy for past suffering of their race but outright immunity from prosecution for breaking laws?

If the answer to that is no then please explain how it is correct for 'leaders' to justify the rioting as a race war that is long over due all because a black criminal was approached by a policeman on justifiable grounds and subsequently shot after he attacked the policeman in a way that the policeman feared for his life.

The narrative that you will have to construct out of rationale to support what you think is a viable justification for that will be the fuel that is being inserted into the decaying racial strife that is not just slowing its decay but extending the intensity and life of the toxic bigotry.

[callmeslick]

yup, you just have to be prepared for that strife that was caused by those horrible lefties. And, you just step back and allow Darwinism to do its thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/23/us/fergus ... index.html

[Will Robinson]

as a friend of mine, also a noted legal mind, just put it on Facebook, in a discussion:
It is clear that the prosecutor/DA's office had no interest in a prosecution. They may well have made the correct decision, based
on the evidence extant. HOWEVER(emphasis mine), professional behavior ought to have dictated that they present that decision themselves, rather than string it out in a bad show of a grand jury convention.

I'm in basic agreement, just from my gut. It isn't the evidence I doubt, it isn't the conclusion drawn. It was handled in a cowardly way that actually furthered the hurt, confusion and long-standing grievances of the community.

If the decision was based on the evidence, as your facebook lawyer friend suggests, then not pushing for a trial when you don't believe the evidence supports one is NOT wrong. Prosecutorial discretion is not just for turning a blind eye to illegal immigration...it is actually a tool designed for the very scenario you are now trying to complain about.

Also, the FED injected itself into this municipalities police shooting. They were gathering evidence along side the Ferguson authorities and was being sifted through as the Grand Jury was being provided with it.
Trying to blame it on taking the case to the Grand Jury under those conditions is stupid. You would be saying it should have at least been presented to a grand jury instead of just letting the prosecutor unilaterally decide it was a non event if that is what had happened!

as for the Wilson knowledge relating the kid to the robbery, the times of call-outs over it don't add up. But, a jury will never hear that fact presented. We only have the inference of his words, and let's face it: he was the SUSPECT in that matter.

A jury DID hear it and found it wasnt as you think it was.

[Will Robinson]

yup, you just have to be prepared for that strife that was caused by those horrible lefties. And, you just step back and allow Darwinism to do its thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/23/us/fergus ... index.html

This is offered as evidence of what exactly? That there is no strife? That there is no political exploitation of the sensitivities of black people based on the strife?
What relevance to the discussion do you think this tragic event actually has?

[callmeslick]

Will, you seemingly missed my point above. I don't think there were grounds to prosecute, given the broad leeway within Missouri law. The DA should have stated that long ago, presented why, clearly, and urged those concerned by the outcome to effect change in the law for the future. Instead, what we got was months to have the situation NOT get defused more, and an excuse for some to loot and burn. Look closely at the Fox live footage of looting. Several white guys in there. Clearly, the violence has NOTHING to do with politics(liberal or otherwise), and NOTHING to do with disparity in police treatment between races and NOTHING to do with exceedingly loose laws around deadly force usage by Missouri cops.

[Will Robinson]

The violence has everything to do with a constant narrative designed to promote extreme reactions in the event of any shooting of a black suspect regardless of the fact that it was simply a criminal act that got the suspect killed.

A justifiable shooting that is not the fault of the policeman should not be a catalyst for race wars regardless of the state of racial affairs over all or historically. Period.
Failing to make that distinction a part of the narrative is gross negligence on the part of all those 'leaders' and commentators. It is extremely harmful to the country. It is a distinction that is purposefully ignored in order to maintain a power base for the left wing and in order to have more strife to 'report on'.

The notion that there should be no Grand Jury in this case is ridiculous as I pointed out before. You may have forgotten what happened in a similar case recently where the locals decided correctly that there was no case....Sanford Florida...Holder and company swarmed down there to discredit the prosecutor and forced a political friendly state attorney to reopen the case and prosecute the non-case complete with all the same race baiting rhetoric and same players stirring the pot.

You lefties complained when they don't try to prosecute and now you complain when they do...

Based on your claims of looking at all the details and then misrepresenting the facts so blatantly in the discussion so far why should anyone take your complaints seriously now?

[woodchip]

Will, you seemingly missed my point above. I don't think there were grounds to prosecute, given the broad leeway within Missouri law. The DA should have stated that long ago, presented why, clearly, and urged those concerned by the outcome to effect change in the law for the future. Instead, what we got was months to have the situation NOT get defused more, and an excuse for some to loot and burn. Look closely at the Fox live footage of looting. Several white guys in there. Clearly, the violence has NOTHING to do with politics(liberal or otherwise), and NOTHING to do with disparity in police treatment between races and NOTHING to do with exceedingly loose laws around deadly force usage by Missouri cops.

First off, what loose laws? Any cop in any state would of done the exact same thing Officer Wilson did. If you want to argue... you find the relevant not-loose laws in other
states that apply.
Second thing, the prosecutor explained quite clearly the choices he had. He could of gone the Grand Jury route or he could of went to the courts and charged Wilson with a crime. If he went the court route they would of still have to go through the preliminary process and presented the same evidence he did to the Grand Jury. The evidence as such would of had the case thrown out. Either way it would of taken the same amount of time. So whats your point? Don't blame the prosecutor for what happened, blame those who fired up the emotions. Blame the professional agitators and the news people who wanted to foment high rating news programing.

[callmeslick]

First off, what loose laws? Any cop in any state would of done the exact same thing Officer Wilson did. If you want to argue... you find the relevant not-loose laws in other
states that apply.

Missouri allows for deadly force for a suspect merely fleeing(no statement about threat or arms). Few states allow that. Too busy, up to my armpits in Thanksgiving cooking to find counter-examples but was told that a cop couldn't aim to kill under similar circumstances. Will look it up while recovering Friday.

Second thing, the prosecutor explained quite clearly the choices he had. He could of gone the Grand Jury route or he could of went to the courts and charged Wilson with a crime.

you, for some odd reason leave out option #3, the one I and many legal scholars note: The DA can reach a decision not to seek prosecution, and announce why in the moment they reveal that. The 'go to a Grand Jury' and present defense evidence part is sort of unusual and leaves the locals with the smell that they were simply trying to look good, and NOT seeking justice. Once again, I'm looking at likely appearance to the local people of Ferguson.

anyhoo, perhaps in the spirit the nation is moving, ever so glacially, towards ever-better understanding and cooperation, let me wish one and all on the board from the US a Happy Thanksgiving. A large brood is descending upon me tomorrow(although nothing like the mob scene at CUDA's by all reports), so I'll be cooking, eating, enjoying grandkids and recovering from it all until after the day, so safe travels and have a great day all!

[Will Robinson]

Slick, why try to introduce the notion the cop shot at a fleeing felon when he didn't? He shot only while being attacked or the suspect was moving towards him.

He started to chase the fleeing suspect at one point. I'm pretty sure that is standard operating procedure and not considered unusual among all police forces.

And please find any police force that has this 'shoot to wound' policy that you have alluded to. That sounds like complete bullcrap to me.

I think you are still making stuff up and deflecting from the challenges to your previous posts.

[Spidey]

Yea, and I noticed slick ignored the point about what happened in Florida when a prosecutor decided not to press charges, when responding to Woody……

Can’t win for loosing, when the poor victim race is involved.

[sigma]

If negros has not yet been shot several police officers together with their families, this means that a police officer was right.
For a complete revolution cop need to kill a Muslim.
Aggression Americans are already working against the Americans themselves. Spiders devour each other ) Despite the fact that I feel sorry for the innocent American citizens who suffer from this conflict. But on the other hand, because the Americans do not care what their government is doing to people of other countries...

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think that's probably right.

[Ferno]

and somehow, obama is supposed to stop whatever he's doing and take personal care of both ferguson and florida.

i love the logic in here. simply amazing.

[woodchip]

Ferno, where was anyone talking about Obama. You have a fixation on him?

[Will Robinson]

and somehow, obama is supposed to stop whatever he's doing and take personal care of both ferguson and florida.

i love the logic in here. simply amazing.

No one suggested he do anything about either event. In both cases it was a local issue that the Fed had no business poking its nose into.
The fact that they didn't stay out of it is part of the problem but the extreme agitation tactic is something he built his career on so it isn't a surprise as President he spends more energy in that arena than the other areas he should be spending that 'precious' time on.

But no one here has suggested we want more of his kind of 'fixing'! There has been way too much of that fueling the fire and stirring the pot already. Those things add to a boil over not to reducing the problem.

[Ferno]

Will, you had a very good and reasonable answer up to the extreme agitation part; and I do agree on the premise thst the fed should keep out of state affairs.

and woody? lol. not even going to dignify that with a response.

[woodchip]

Because you can't ?

[sigma]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the behavior of blacks in the United States in the light of recent events shows that they are not Americans. And by the way, other people of different nationalities have membership in the United States in their passport, but they are not Americans, in my opinion.

[Will Robinson]

Will, you had a very good and reasonable answer up to the extreme agitation part; and I do agree on the premise thst the fed should keep out of state affairs.

...

Well I think it is pretty easy to look at his resume as well as his rhetoric and see the description is quite proper.