What are your thoughts on the failure to indict the police officer in Ferguson MO

[Tazio]

hey some gay San Diegoan is calling me a Degenerate -

Actually it was a backhanded compliment dukie, knowing that you and I share at least one passion other than F1. We are both brothers of that angle, and as you know we catch some big Bucket-mouths in S.D. County. In case you've been neglecting your favorite recreation, I suggest you get a massage to hold you over.....mate

[Rollo]

You are talking about two different places about a thousand miles apart in distance. America is a big place, much like Australia. It would be less than intellectual rigor to lump these cases as the same, based on only a vague similarity.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/9.html
In my opinion there is a real distinction in the degree of culpability of an accused who has killed having formed the requisite intention without any mitigating circumstance, and an accused who, in response to a real or a reasonably apprehended attack, strikes a blow in order to defend himself, but uses force beyond that required by the occasion and thereby kills the attacker.
- Viro v The Queen (1978)

A person who is subjected to a violent and felonious attack and who, in endeavouring, by way of self-defence, to prevent the consummation of that attack by force exercises more force than a reasonable man would consider necessary in the circumstances, but no more than what he honestly believed to be necessary in the circumstances, is guilty of manslaughter and not of murder.
- R v McKay (1957) (sorry, still looking for a link)

In Australian law, there is no point when killing someone doesn't warrant charges as killing someone is always an excessive use of force in common law. And because Australia is a Federal Commonwealth, common law applies across all of it.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1788)

America is a big place, but:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
- Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution

The Supremacy clause provides that Federal law is the highest law of the land. Violation of someone's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is precisely what happened with Michael Brown by virtue of the fact that no criminal proceedings will take place, is quite frankly, horrible.

[Starter]

[QUOTE=Rollo;1028978}The Supremacy clause provides that Federal law is the highest law of the land. Violation of someone's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is precisely what happened with Michael Brown by virtue of the fact that no criminal proceedings will take place, is quite frankly, horrible.[/QUOTE]
That's a very nice try at obfuscating. A literal reading of this - "violating someone's life, liberty, or property without due process of law" could be interpreted to mean that to one can be arrested or detained until proven guilty in court. This is obviously not the case anywhere in the world.

[Rollo]

That's a very nice try at obfuscating. A literal reading of this - "violating someone's life, liberty, or property without due process of law" could be interpreted to mean that to one can be arrested or detained until proven guilty in court. This is obviously not the case anywhere in the world.

The first four words of the amendment are:
"No person shall be"...

The thing about reading a sentence is that you need to read the whole sentence.

Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.

[airshifter]

The first four words of the amendment are:
"No person shall be"...

The thing about reading a sentence is that you need to read the whole sentence.

Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.

.... and the matter with citing law is that you have to understand the law. You are citing constitutional reference that regards the rights of the accused, and that the [i]government[/b] may not violate their rights under due process. The constitutional law exists to protect the rights of all the accused within the US.

The law that applies to Brown and the cop is Missouri law, not US code. Being that the physical evidence of both the state and Browns family show that the cops version was correct and that he was backing away from a criminal continuing to charge him, the state found the action of the cop legal and did not charge the cop.


You can't twist constitutional rights and apply them in a form they are not intended for. But by all means, continue acting as if others can't understand a sentence.

[schmenke]

...Brown was killed before proven guilty in court. That is entire unambiguous and still horrible.

:cornfused: Brown was never charged and was never on trial.

[Roamy]

Actually it was a backhanded compliment dukie, knowing that you and I share at least one passion other than F1. We are both brothers of that angle, and as you know we catch some big Bucket-mouths in S.D. County. In case you've been neglecting your favorite recreation, I suggest you get a massage to hold you over.....mate

Taz I knew that - my post was a joke too.

[Rollo]

:cornfused: Brown was never charged and was never on trial.

Exactly.
He was "deprived of life"; "without due process of law". That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

[Starter]

Exactly.
He was "deprived of life"; "without due process of law". That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

What part of Airshifter's post (#55) did you not understand?

[keysersoze]

Sorry I'm late to this party, but I will chime in.

The grand jury decision was the correct one. Now to the bafflement on this board that the jury was 75% white, St. Louis county (where the incident took place) is 75% white. That's how they choose grand jurors.

Michael Brown shoudn't have died, but he is largely responsible for his own death. Let's get this clear: this 6-4, 290 pound, 18 year-old adult (not 16 as someone else mentioned) was clearly engaged in thug-ish behavior before and during his encounter with Officer Wilson. Stealing from a convenience store and shoving aside the storekeeper, then walking down the middle of the road in his drug-induced state (THC was in his system), Brown then proceeded to disobey Officer Wilson directive to get out of the street.

This is Darren Wilson's testimony:

After Wilson pulled his car to the side of the road, Brown then punched Wilson while the police officer was still in his car, and tried to grab for his gun. Only after Wilson fired a shot (which hit him in the hand) did Brown start to run. Wilson then exits his squad car and goes after him, ordering Brown to stop. Brown turns around, and with his hand inside his pants (did he have a weapon?), starts to rush Wilson. Wilson, still urging Brown to stop, shoots and hits Brown, who continues to run toward Wilson, who even backpeddles in order to avoid the now significantly wounded Brown. Still moving forward, Brown begins to fall forward as Wilson fires the fatal head shot.

There were a number of conflicting eyewitness accounts, but the THREE coroner examiners corroborated Wilson's testimony. (There was Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun)

Brown's stepfather (you know, the one who in the aftermath of the decision was shouting, "Burn this b#$%* down"!) had served a 5 year sentence for cocaine (or heroine) distribution. I mean, what chance did the young Michael Brown have with that kind of role model around the house?

It's awful that Brown died. And the cops get things wrong sometimes. But the grand jury decision was the only logical one.

Now the Garner case in NYC, that non-indictment was perplexing.