An officer has to shoot a white person, calm solution. Officer shoots a black person and the world goes insane.

Riots in NY. LA, Oakland, chicago, LAPD Units running away, NYPD Officers being attacked, 1 Dead in Chicago, and in MO 10 Police Cars, and 5 buildings on fire, MHP Lost Dollar tree staging point.

An officer has to shoot a white person, calm solution. Officer shoots a black person and the world goes insane.

 

Welcome to the rest of society.

Goodness someone get me off this planet, I'am ashamed to be of the same species of these despicable humans. :/

I'm confused as to some of the "news" being reported on this forum. 

There are not riots in los angeles, as of now, peaceful protests in an intersection are taking place. Officers down? As far as I have heard several cop cars have been lit on fire, no officers shot in relation to the events occuring in Ferguson. 

Now I could be wrong, but I don't see a point in posting news that is not confirmed in a forum about people overreacting and causing a bigger issue; false information and overexageration by the media has created this perfect storm so more than likely false live updates here seems rather redundant IMO. 

 

In an update in Ferguson; a cameraman for Fox news was attacked and camera destroyed after looters were confronted about the purpose behind their actions. Additionally, on the same street a Beauty store was set on fire with FD being filmed attempting to save the building. (this is accurate, can been seen live on several news channels :P)

I'm confused as to some of the "news" being reported on this forum. 

There are not riots in los angeles, as of now, peaceful protests in an intersection are taking place. Officers down? As far as I have heard several cop cars have been lit on fire, no officers shot in relation to the events occuring in Ferguson. 

Now I could be wrong, but I don't see a point in posting news that is not confirmed in a forum about people overreacting and causing a bigger issue; false information and overexageration by the media has created this perfect storm so more than likely false live updates here seems rather redundant IMO. 

 

In an update in Ferguson; a cameraman for Fox news was attacked and camera destroyed after looters were confronted about the purpose behind their actions. Additionally, on the same street a Beauty store was set on fire with FD being filmed attempting to save the building. (this is accurate, can been seen live on several news channels :P)

 

Im just saying what im hearing on the Scanners and the news, i cant ''Confrim'' it

Good. "Thats all I have to say about that." F.G

lol. I like you

Ugh, that poor little ceasers pizza place, what has that poor innocent pepperoni pizza ever do to you?

Goodness someone get me off this planet, I'am ashamed to be of the same species of these despicable humans. :/

Do you mean you are ashamed to be on the planet with us because we are glad that a police officer did his job succesfully, or are you ashamed of the irrational people lighting things on fire?

Do you mean you are ashamed to be on the planet with us because we are glad that a police officer did his job succesfully, or are you ashamed of the irrational people lighting things on fire?

The latter, these looters are horrible people.

No surprise, the facts indicated that the incident was a good shooting within the bounds of the law. Someone can't be indicted when they didn't actually commit a crime.

 

Now the prosecutors office should file perjury charges against everyone who testified before the grand jury making statements that have been proven to be false.

Is there any reason to believe there was even a single instance of perjury? Anything at all? Keeping in mind that perjury is an intentional lie, that honest confusion or mistake is not perjury (so "what you said suggests Y, but really not-Y" isn't automatically perjury), that nothing besides sworn testimony can be perjury, that honest opinions by experts disagree *all the time*, and that honest eyewitness reports conflict *all the time*, is there anything that would actually be perjury?

Furthermore, the grand jury found that it's improbable that a crime was committed. To count that as "proof" in a criminal trial for perjury, you'd have to have it beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally lied - the grand jury's finding is not to the standard needed. But even then, the fact that I said something suggesting X is true, when X is really false, does not necessarily mean I lied.

Incidentally: The quote from the US Constitution that you posted (about grand juries being required) is utterly irrelevant in the states. It's among the handful of elements of the Bill of Rights that was not incorporated to the states; states need not use grand juries, and most don't in most cases. It seems like it's common in St. Louis County to use a grand jury, but it's by no means required -- a prosecutor can instead have a preliminary hearing, in which the prosecutor presents evidence to the judge to try to show probable cause. In those hearings, the defendant gets to be there, with a lawyer representing them, and with the right to cross-examine witnesses. This could legally have been done in this case; it's not necessarily usual, but there is absolutely no right under the US Constitution or the constitution of Missouri to have a grand jury.

The latter, these looters are horrible people.

OHHH thank God! I thought you were on their side...

This seems like the perfect time to bring up a truthful yet meaningful video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0mVn0HH6U

Is there any reason to believe there was even a single instance of perjury? Anything at all? Keeping in mind that perjury is an intentional lie, that honest confusion or mistake is not perjury (so "what you said suggests Y, but really not-Y" isn't automatically perjury), that nothing besides sworn testimony can be perjury, that honest opinions by experts disagree *all the time*, and that honest eyewitness reports conflict *all the time*, is there anything that would actually be perjury?

Furthermore, the grand jury found that it's improbable that a crime was committed. To count that as "proof" in a criminal trial for perjury, you'd have to have it beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally lied - the grand jury's finding is not to the standard needed. But even then, the fact that I said something suggesting X is true, when X is really false, does not necessarily mean I lied.

Incidentally: The quote from the US Constitution that you posted (about grand juries being required) is utterly irrelevant in the states. It's among the handful of elements of the Bill of Rights that was not incorporated to the states; states need not use grand juries, and most don't in most cases. It seems like it's common in St. Louis County to use a grand jury, but it's by no means required -- a prosecutor can instead have a preliminary hearing, in which the prosecutor presents evidence to the judge to try to show probable cause. In those hearings, the defendant gets to be there, with a lawyer representing them, and with the right to cross-examine witnesses. This could legally have been done in this case; it's not necessarily usual, but there is absolutely no right under the US Constitution or the constitution of Missouri to have a grand jury.

 

I'm aware of the legal definition of perjury. I was mostly referring the witnesses that claimed to see something, but then admitted during questioning that they weren't actually there when the incident occurred. I was also being partially sarcastic. There were some witnesses that made statements to the media at the start about seeing Brown being shot in the back, but their own statements also indicated that they were not looking out their windows or were not outside at the time until after they heard the shots being fired. Those same statements are part of the fuel from the start of the incident that led to the hysteria we see today. I personally don't believe that someone can be honestly confused or have a differing opinion about what they saw when they actually didn't see anything at all, and some of the statements people made helped to incite these riots.

 

And the 5th amendment except that I referenced was due to the prosecutors statement that it is part of the reason this went to the grand jury when a reporter asked him why it didn't go straight to a jury trial during the press conference. I don't live in Missouri, and I'm not familiar with their State Constitution or the applicability of the US Constitution in that regard, but since the prosecutor specifically cited that amendment, it appears relevant.

 

I'm also not personally sure about the interpretation that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states. By that logic, then the 1st amendment right to assemble also does not apply. Not that the rioters are protected by that amendment anyway since they have gone well beyond the realm of peaceful protests and have not petitioned their government for a redress of grievances.

Edited November 25, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

Hey guys, like my new avatar?

 

LC's getting it's fair share of riots, hue hue.

...Incidentally: The quote from the US Constitution that you posted (about grand juries being required) is utterly irrelevant in the states. It's among the handful of elements of the Bill of Rights that was not incorporated to the states...

 

Interestingly enough, it does appear that the grand jury portion of the 5th amendment is one of the few exceptions that does not legally have to be complied without outside of federal charges in a federal court. I'll admit that I wasn't specifically familiar with that exemption, as most states that I am familiar with do respect that section of the 5th amendment and do use grand juries. Good catch.

 

Regardless of that interpretation though, it is apparently a normal procedure in St. Louis county, and since the burden of proof is much lower during a grand jury than it is for a normal trial I can't imagine the end result would have been any different.

 

For anyone interested in learning some more about the exceptions to the bill of rights, here are some excerpts form Constitutional law interpretations:

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

 

Incorporation

 

One of the greatest changes in the interpretation of the Constitution came with the passage of the 14th Amendment after the conclusion of the Civil War. It was designed to assist newly freed slaves in the transition to freedom and to protect them from acts of the Southern states, and also to overturn the decision in the Dred Scott case that ruled that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States even if they were born in the United States. The amendment was successful in this endeavor, legally, if not in reality.

 

But this sentence had and continues to have long-lasting implications on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states:

 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "Due Process Clause" has been interpreted as applying the Bill of Rights, which lists the rights (or privileges and immunities) of the citizens, to the states. Known as "incorporation," the application of the Bill to the states did not come all at once, nor is incorporation complete. Even today, there are some parts of the Bill which have not been incorporated. The process began unsuccessfully in the late 1800's and continued unsuccessfully right up until the 1930's. In 1947, however, in Adamson v California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights. Historians both agreed and disagreed with the Court's contention that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended incorporation since its passage ... but historians do not sit on the Court. Their opinions were less important than those of the Justices.

 

The process of selectively incorporating the clauses of the Bill of Rights is agreed to have begun in Twining v. New Jersey (268 U.S. 652 [1925]) which contemplated the incorporation of some of the aspects of the 8th Amendment - not because they were a part of the Bill of Rights but because they seemed to be fundamental to the concept of due process. This process of incorporating parts of the Bill of Rights because of their connection to due process began to run in parallel with the selective incorporation doctrine, where parts of the Bill of Rights were ruled to be enforceable on the states by virtue of the 14th Amendments, whether or not due process applied.

 

Thus in the early 1960's, the Establishment Clause, the right to counsel, the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures were quickly incorporated. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grand_jury

 

The grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.^[8] This means that the grand jury requirement applies only to felony charges in the federal court system. While many states do employ grand juries, no defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury for criminal charges in state court. States are free to abolish grand juries, and many (though not all) have replaced them withpreliminary hearing. 

Very sad that these business owners do not have a business to go to now that it has been burned down by these criminals. :-(

Edited November 25, 201411 yr by Chester199

Hey guys, like my new avatar?

 

LC's getting it's fair share of riots, hue hue.

 

Looks sexy!

5 stars anybody?

 

 

Edited November 25, 201411 yr by allaboutk9

Bastard should have been fried wish I was the judge in this case.