Grand Jury Not Indicting Darren Wilson

[Wells]

The evidence did. Glad he made a statement about all the false police reports. Remember our talk?

Listen man. I've tried taking you seriously before. I've tried listening and asking questions. Its never gone well.

[Ausr]

Whelp, incoming shitstorm.

[Jtbrig7390]

Right, because letting someone off scot free for employing lethal force against an unarmed suspect is totally just.

But you know, rational administration of the judicial system would get in the way of pandering to the corporate sector and a surfeit of democracy.

You mean the same unarmed suspect who tried to grab his gun and got shot in the hand because of it.

Even if he is not indicted for criminal charges he should be discharged from the police force for causing this ruckuss.

Agreed he should be discarged but still keep all of his benfits.

I love how every single time a white man is seen innocent in a case where its White Vs Black it must be because of racisum. Would really love people to stop using that card every chance they get.

[Tierbook]

I'm not sure what kind of idiot the jurors had to be to look at the case and decide there was no doubt whatsoever it was justified, but it would be a very special kind of idiot.

Or maybe they paid attention to stuff other than social media, because you know most of the first-person accounts were proven BS.

[Deleted]

No, the fact that there are systemic issues surrounding racial bias in the judicial system means the system is racist. This is just symptomatic of that.

Okay, explain the so called "systemic issues" and the "racial bias". Put some substance behind the claim and show how he got acquitted cuz racism.

Even if he is not indicted for criminal charges he should be discharged from the police force for causing this ruckuss.

You should be discharged for defending yourself?

[Deleted]

Right, because letting someone off scot free for employing lethal force against an unarmed suspect is totally just.

But you know, rational administration of the judicial system would get in the way of pandering to the corporate sector and a surfeit of democracy.

Correct me if wrong, but did the suspect not strike the officer multiple times and enter close quarters to struggle for his service weapon?

If that's grounds for lethal force or not is an American issue, in the U.K we'd say no it's not.

OnT It's what i expected realistically, given the wide ranging charges and lack of evidence.

[Wells]

Okay, explain the so called "systemic issues" and the "racial bias". Put some substance behind the claim.

If you're this woefully ill informed on the US justice system a forum is not the correct place to learn.

[Deleted]

Profiling is not a crime.

[Jtbrig7390]

They'll riot no matter what just because they're expected to. It's just what people do.

Yep dumb people will do dumb shit if you give them a reason.

I mean come the fuck on was the looting and shit needed because a kid got shot.

[Independent voter]

Only 18 years old.

[Wells]

Or maybe they paid attention to stuff other than social media, because you know most of the first-person accounts were proven BS.

I'd love to see the tally you're going off of here.

[Hexian]

I'm not sure what kind of idiot the jurors had to be to look at the case and decide there was no doubt whatsoever it was justified, but it would be a very special kind of idiot.

Just like how you were spouting out BS that he was shot in the back early in the case when the details were unclear...

[Elegiac]

Okay, explain the so called "systemic issues" and the "racial bias".

The fact the legal system is, in many respects, tailored to discriminate against poor people who are disproportionately black. An example of this is the disparity in severity for regular cocaine versus crack cocaine - the latter is more harshly punished and tends to be used more by blacks. There are also higher conviction rates amongst black people for identical crimes, as well as the variance in conviction rate depending on the racial makeup of the jury.

You should be discharged for defending yourself?

When it involves using lethal force against an unarmed suspect, yes.

[Deleted]

If you're this woefully ill informed on the US justice system a forum is not the correct place to learn.

So you prefer relying on vague descriptions of the system, so you can mold it after your own agenda? Okay.

How was he acquitted because of racism?

[Raptor With a Saber]

How many of the jurors were white, exactly?

How does that matter at all? That is just race bait and if you're saying that race made a difference then a jury of all blacks would have chose to indict just because they were black making it racist. The jury was a jury of peers the choice was made.

[Elegiac]

Correct me if wrong, but did the suspect not strike the officer multiple times and enter close quarters to struggle for his service weapon?

I'd like to know what kind of moron police officer allows the suspect to get that close.

[Jtbrig7390]

Correct me if wrong, but did the suspect not strike the officer multiple times and enter close quarters to struggle for his service weapon?

If that's grounds for lethal force or not is an American issue, in the U.K we'd say no it's not.

OnT It's what i expected realistically, given the wide ranging charges and lack of evidence.

Yes the suspect did and got shot in the hand because of it. At that point he forfit his safety.

[Stop Pretending]

Listen man. I've tried taking you seriously before. I've tried listening and asking questions. Its never gone well.

I told you many people filed false police reports, because of the social media shit storm created right after the shooting. You debated this with me on numerous occasions, and you were unwilling to budge to the fact that this was indeed possible. Well, it's wasn't just possible, it was substantiated by the DA. So much so that he stated that numerous " witness's " either changed their story, or fully retracted their statements.

[TZucchini]

Not even an indictment? The physical evidence must have been overwhelming.

[Elegiac]

How does that matter at all? That is just race bait and if you're saying that race made a difference then a jury of all blacks would have chose to indict just because they were black making it racist. The jury was a jury of peers the choice was made.

It does, actually - decisions tend to vary significantly based on a jury's racial makeup. Sad but true.