Ferguson murder began by victim walking in gutter? Wo!

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ mommy3b2c ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 7:49 am

southernbubby wrote:

I agree with you that the UN is unfair in their treatment of Israel but what is wrong with implementing reforms so that black teens are not killed by police officers unnecessarily?

There is nothing wrong with implementing reform. In fact, I'm sure reform could do good. But it has nothing to do with this case! Michael brown was killed for assaulting and charging a police officer, not because he was black!

↑ mommy3b2c ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 8:04 am

southernbubby wrote:

The USA was mentioned in the video in regard to Guantanamo bay. While the other countries do have more frequent and harsher human rights violations than the US, police officers killing of unarmed black teenagers still have to be curbed. Mike Brown, after the initial round of bullets, ran away. The police officer pursued him rather than calling for back up. Had he not done this, the boy would have lived.

Why should he not have pursued him? Is there a law against pursuing a suspect that punched you in the face and tried to take your gun?

If Michael brown has only surrendered and not charged a police officer, he would still be alive.

↑ shoshanim999 ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 8:24 am

Its funny how the protesters are chanting "hands up, don't shoot, hands up, don't shoot", when if Michael Brown would have done just that he would undoubtedly be alive today!

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 8:41 am

mommy2b2c wrote:

Because it's immoral to kill someone who isn't posing a mortal danger to you. Even Halacha recognizes this.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 8:49 am

DrMom wrote:

This.

Barbara, I am disturbed by your sentiment that -- despite ample evidence exonerating him of any wrongdoing -- Darren Wilson should be convicted so he can serve as a korban for all racial inequalities in America.

That's not how our justice system is supposed to work. The fact that the two posters on this thread who are pushing for this are attorneys strikes me as very concerning.

Edited to correct typo.

Did it strike you as very concerning when Rubashkin's defenders were attorneys, legislators, judges?

The grand jury's failure to indict is what should concern you more. As Barbara mentioned earlier, grand juries typically indict everyone because only the prosecutor presents the case. There's no defense attorney at all.

The attorneys in this thread are possibly more concerned about what happened because the know the system more and more about the potential for abuse.

↑ DrMom ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:02 am

marina wrote:

I don't know why you keep injecting irrelevant references to Orthodox Jewish criminals into this conversation.

Please cite any post of mine in which I claimed that Rubashkin was innocent, or where I praised his defenders, whatever their profession.

↑ Barbara ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:22 am

DrMom wrote:

I never said that he should have been convicted. I said he should have been INDICTED.

I find it very concerning that people who have no clue how the justice system in the United States works, who can make statements conflating indictments and conviction, are the people supporting Darren Wilson. I find it troubling that people are waving the banner that he "unequivocally" did nothing wrong when, in fact, no one know that.

All we know is that a teenager is dead.

↑ DrMom ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:27 am

Barbara wrote:

No, I am not an attorney; thank you for correcting my terminology.

But my point still stands.

You and marina are constantly bringing up two red herrings:

1. There are Jews who commit crimes.
2. Law enforcement is sometimes more strict with minorities.

These are irrelevant facts and emotional pleas; they have nothing to do with this case and are not reasons to *indict* Darren Wilson.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:30 am

DrMom wrote:

I don't recall your take on it specifically, but the vast majority of imamothers insisting he was punished harshly because he was a Jew etc

Here few people seem to think that this death ( a pretty harsh result, no?) was a result of racism. They insist that this death was the victim's fault and that the police did nothing wrong. I'm pointing out the double standard.

Last edited by marina on Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:40 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ DrMom ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:36 am

marina wrote:

I just conducted an advanced search on my posts, and aside from the above post (and now this one), only one other post of mine contains the word "Rubashkin" and that is only because it appears in some embedded quote. I never said anything about the Rubashkin case here on imamother.

By lumping me with "the vast majority of imamothers" and presuming that my thoughts and opinions mirror theirs, you are pre-judging, profiling; You incorrectly assumed that all members of a certain group think and act the same way.

Hmmm....

↑ southernbubby ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:42 am

mommy2b2c wrote:

If the officer shot in self-defense, it would seem that he no longer needed self-defense if the suspect ran away.

saw50st8 ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:42 am

I think this topic is interwoven with many, many overlapping issues including:

Why are blacks more likely to be arrested than whites?
Why are blacks more likely to be convicted than whites?
What types of implicit racism exist?
How do we prevent all this?
How do we make sure that we are applying the law across the board?

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/......html

↑ Barbara ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:48 am

marina wrote:

Prosecutors are not supposed to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. There is no defense attorney. There is no judge. Defendants are permitted to testify, but why would they? They cannot have an attorney in the room, there's no judge, the prosecutor can ask whatever he pleases. Oh, and Grand Juries are not supposed to weigh evidence or decide credibility. Their ONLY job is to decide whether, if the evidence presented against the defendant is true, there could be a conviction.

As I said, before a Grand Jury, a prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich. The indictment rate is over 99%. Federal prosecutors pursued over 160,000 cases against defendants in 2009-2010 (the last period for which there is data), and grand juries only voted not to return an indictment in 11. State rates are similar, except in cases involving police officers. And, in the Wilson/Ferguson case, you have a prosecutor who has never indicted a police officer for killing, who has publicly stated that he would have been a police officer had he not lost a leg to cancer, and whose own father was a police officer killed by a black suspect. in a 2000 incident in which two suspected drug dealers were killed by two police officers, the same prosecutor never brought charges against the officers, concluding they acted in self-defense. A subsequent federal investigation found that the men were unarmed and not moving in the direction of the officers, but because the officers felt endangered, the investigation found that the shootings were justified, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. And that's not the only time he acted that way.

The prosecutor did not recommend indictment, which is unheard of.

The irregularities in this case are shocking. Its as if Israel were trying to prosecute a terrorist, and the evidence presented to the grand jury (and I don't know if there are grand juries in Israel) came primarily from Hamas and the terrorists themselves, explaining the threat that Israel poses. As the New Times, wrote,

Quote:

McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved. This is the opposite of the customary ham-sandwich approach, in which the jurors are explicitly steered to the prosecutor’s preferred conclusion. Some might suggest that all cases should be treated the way McCulloch handled Wilson before the grand jury, with a full-fledged mini trial of all the incriminating and exculpatory evidence presented at this preliminary stage. Of course, the cost of such an approach, in both time and money, would be prohibitive, and there is no guarantee that the ultimate resolutions of most cases would be any more just. In any event, reserving this kind of special treatment for white police officers charged with killing black suspects cannot be an appropriate resolution.

Why was Wilson, who without a doubt killed an unarmed teen, be entitled to such special treatment. Why did he get to be prosecutor, judge and jury against Michael Brown; but never himself have to face a court.

↑ Barbara ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 9:53 am

DrMom wrote:

I never referred to Jews committing crimes.

I wouldn't complain, but since you got up on your high horse and attacked Marina for failing to check years of your posts on a particular point, you would think that you would bother to read what I said on one little tiny thread.

And referring to what happened as a terminology issue is like calling ham "chicken," and saying its just terminology.

Its a perversion of the US justice system. And the fact that it happened when a white police officer killed a black teen makes it all the more suspect.

↑ southernbubby ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 10:00 am

saw50st8 wrote:

I would say this, about 9 years ago, my son who was then 18, was mugged on a Brooklyn street corner at about 2 a.m. by a gang of black teens that appeared to have a gun. My skinny little Jewish boy, with his kippah, had just exited the subway after attending a yeshiva farbrangen. He had been drinking a bit so maybe he was not so aware of the danger and he should have taken a taxi at that hour, rather than the subway. He was knocked unconscious and when he came to, the gang was gone. Luckily he had fallen on snow. (I posted it in imamother). He called me in the morning (I was here in Detroit), to complain of blood coming from inside his ear. All the imamothers told me to call shomrim and I did and my son was taken to Kings county hospital. After he was released, the police asked him to look at mugshots but he could not identify anyone.
So, now, do I view black teens as dangerous? I would have to say that, innately, they frighten me, although sometimes I get into conversations with them and they are very polite to me. I am human and a group of them hurt my child. At the same time, if I were on a jury, would I check my prejudice at the door? I would hope that I could. And no, I don't see all blacks as I saw those mean boys who hurt my Shmulie. We all want the same fairness in life.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 10:03 am

DrMom wrote:

Yes, I stereotyped you. Luckily for you, I'm not a cop and you're not black.

↑ marina ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 10:05 am

southernbubby wrote:

A gang of teenagers who appear to have a gun is a reason to leave immediately, regardless of their race.

↑ saw50st8 ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 10:06 am

southernbubby wrote:

It's extremely difficult to check your bias at the door.

We are all the product of our environments and experiences. We all have some bias. Right now, that bias is so pervasive that it is harming blacks. We (as a society) need to fix that.

Notsobusy ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 10:09 am

southernbubby wrote:

So, now, do I view black teens as dangerous? I would have to say that, innately, they frighten me, although sometimes I get into conversations with them and they are very polite to me. I am human and a group of them hurt my child. At the same time, if I were on a jury, would I check my prejudice at the door? I would hope that I could. And no, I don't see all blacks as I saw those mean boys who hurt my Shmulie. We all want the same fairness in life.

I think a big factor in this discussion, and any discussion that people are having about this case, is that we are not fearing for our life. It's very easy to check your prejudice at the door when you're sitting at your computer or on a jury. It's a little different when someone is in your face, grabbing for your gun. It's very easy to fairly judge a black kid who is being respectful and polite. A little harder when he's menacing you. On the other hand, we are not trained police officers who should be able handle such a situation.
My gut reaction is that probably neither one was right. If Brown would have cooperated he would be alive, and if Wilson would have stopped shooting, if it's true that Brown really was running away, then he would also be alive. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be too many credible witnesses, so we don't know if he was still charging at Wilson, or running away.

↑ southernbubby ↓

Mon, Dec 01 2014, 10:13 am

marina wrote:

A gang of teenagers who appear to have a gun is a reason to leave immediately, regardless of their race.

He couldn't escape. They were robbing him.

Page 8 of 11

Previous 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 Next