Ferguson Grand Jury Has Reached a Decision

[around4ever 4,139]

Some of you need to stop speaking as though you were there.

There is now enough official information online that someone willing to make the effort can come pretty close to "being there".

As Titan said above, in most cases like this one where there is a preponderance of evidence favoring self-defense, charges are never filed thus no grand jury. Had this been a black-on-black, black-on-white or white on white shooting case it would never have been presented to a grand jury.

Exactly!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

[around4ever 4,139]

Had to post this:

[around4ever 4,139]

Does Ferguson have any Belt Stores? Some of those rioters should have stolen a belt.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

Why don't you learn the English language ? To "fantasize" connotes joy or reverie. The context of their comments doesn't reflect that either directly or nuanced, simple speculation or conjecture as one would reasonably do considering the unique experience in Ferguson.

How you have twisted their words to imply evil of them tells us more about you.

Do they have an English to Swiss-er dictionary in Texas ? Might do you some good to buy one.

Btw, HAPPY THANKSGIVING !

[TexasTiger 13,005]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

Why don't you learn the English language ? To "fantasize" connotes joy or reverie. The context of their comments doesn't reflect that either directly or nuanced, simple speculation or conjecture as one would reasonably do considering the unique experience in Ferguson.

How you have twisted their words to imply evil of them tells us more about you.

Do they have an English to Swiss-er dictionary in Texas ? Might do you some good to buy one.

Btw, HAPPY THANKSGIVING !

An extensive knowledge of the English language is a detriment on this forum. Which is one reason you thrive here.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

An extensive knowledge of the English language is a detriment on this forum. Which is one reason you thrive here.

And you're also apart of this forum. It's amazing you seem to have more contempt for people's views on this forum than you do for the looters and rioters. SMH.............

These were just peaceful underarmed looters who had bats, bricks, rocks, lighter fluid and matches that were burning things right? Why has the National Guard been brought in if there's no threat? Maybe Governer Nixon was fantasizing about how well things were in Ferguson while the town was being vandalized and destroyed and that's what took him so long to get the National Guard there?

[alexava 6,973]

Does Ferguson have any Belt Stores? Some of those rioters should have stolen a belt.

yes, that was apparently in august. they had to have dressed for the weather this time. belt, rope, ratchet strap or something.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

An extensive knowledge of the English language is a detriment on this forum. Which is one reason you thrive here.

And you're also apart of this forum. It's amazing you seem to have more contempt for people's views on this forum than you do for the looters and rioters. SMH.............

These were just peaceful underarmed looters who had bats, bricks, rocks, lighter fluid and matches that were burning things right? Why has the National Guard been brought in if there's no threat? Maybe Governer Nixon was fantasizing about how well things were in Ferguson while the town was being vandalized and destroyed and that's what took him so long to get the National Guard there?

You don't need me for this argument since you aren't referencing anything I've said and are creating your own straw man. You clearly have no idea what I believe. One thing you share with the looters-- you are just picking someone/something at random and raging against it.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

Yes you are. Everyone but you apparently gets the difference in connotation between "thinking hypothetically" and "fantasizing."

I have nothing to get over.

P.S. Did someone burn the turkey and butcher the dressing today? You're cranky.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

Yes you are. Everyone but you apparently gets the difference in connotation between "thinking hypothetically" and "fantasizing."

I have nothing to get over.

P.S. Did someone burn the turkey and butcher the dressing today? You're cranky.

I've had a pretty good day, actually. You do your standard condescending schtick and expect compliant acceptance. Being in the minority on this forum doesn't concern me. It's generally the better place to be. One can address the question of whether one can legally protect property with deadly force without imagining the details of how they would do it. Y'all are hung up on a word that makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. I'm challenging a common mentality on this thread-- I don't expect folks to like that.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

An extensive knowledge of the English language is a detriment on this forum. Which is one reason you thrive here.

And you're also apart of this forum. It's amazing you seem to have more contempt for people's views on this forum than you do for the looters and rioters. SMH.............

These were just peaceful underarmed looters who had bats, bricks, rocks, lighter fluid and matches that were burning things right? Why has the National Guard been brought in if there's no threat? Maybe Governer Nixon was fantasizing about how well things were in Ferguson while the town was being vandalized and destroyed and that's what took him so long to get the National Guard there?

You don't need me for this argument since you aren't referencing anything I've said and are creating your own straw man. You clearly have no idea what I believe. One thing you share with the looters-- you are just picking someone/something at random and raging against it.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your posts. How's that raging? You've already shown you think people are fantasizing about shooting people to protect themselves. That was your choice of words. You're the one labeling things that you don't like. You've already been raging over how people would defend themselves in a similar situation. I don't need to create a strawman. If anyone's arguing a strawman it's you. You saying "what would Jesus do" wasn't a strawman was it?

You can drop your feigned outrage and being ashamed of other people's views. Stop being so disingenuous and expecting people to agree with you.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

An extensive knowledge of the English language is a detriment on this forum. Which is one reason you thrive here.

And you're also apart of this forum. It's amazing you seem to have more contempt for people's views on this forum than you do for the looters and rioters. SMH.............

These were just peaceful underarmed looters who had bats, bricks, rocks, lighter fluid and matches that were burning things right? Why has the National Guard been brought in if there's no threat? Maybe Governer Nixon was fantasizing about how well things were in Ferguson while the town was being vandalized and destroyed and that's what took him so long to get the National Guard there?

You don't need me for this argument since you aren't referencing anything I've said and are creating your own straw man. You clearly have no idea what I believe. One thing you share with the looters-- you are just picking someone/something at random and raging against it.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your posts. How's that raging? You've already shown you think people are fantasizing about shooting people to protect themselves. That was your choice of words. You're the one labeling things that you don't like. You've already been raging over how people would defend themselves in a similar situation. I don't need to create a strawman. If anyone's arguing a strawman it's you. You saying "what would Jesus do" wasn't a strawman was it?

You can drop your feigned outrage and being ashamed of other people's views. Stop being so disingenuous and expecting people to agree with you.

Again, your original post was a rant on something I hadn't said.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

Yes you are. Everyone but you apparently gets the difference in connotation between "thinking hypothetically" and "fantasizing."

I have nothing to get over.

P.S. Did someone burn the turkey and butcher the dressing today? You're cranky.

I've had a pretty good day, actually. You do your standard condescending schtick and expect compliant acceptance. Being in the minority on this forum doesn't concern me. It's generally the better place to be. One can address the question of whether one can legally protect property with deadly force without imagining the details of how they would do it. Y'all are hung up on a word that makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. I'm challenging a common mentality on this thread-- I don't expect folks to like that.

Yes, thank God for our self-appointed conscience of AUF. And you tell someone else to get over themselves.

I wasn't being condescending at all when I first challenged this word choice. When you decided to dig in your heels in an not-at-all condescending way, I added a touch of snark. One can have a plan in their head as to what they might do without "fantasizing" about it. I mean, I get why you want to stick to this word, but it doesn't really doesn't result in anyone coming closer to your point of view. Just looks like you want to tilt the playing field with charged word choices.

Whatever has put you in such a wonderful mood, here's to hoping it passes soon.

[Ouchyfish 67]

I really do not think hunkering down, waiting for someone to come in and firing warning shots, etc would be effective at all. You do realize that you have to run a business here, right? If, by some chance, these thugs/looters/criminals/etc were local products, do you REALLY want to risk hitting one of them or giving them a reason to come back with more guns in the future?

The law enforcement should have protected the businesses. It is THEIR job. They weren't allowed to do their job for some reason. It sucks but at the end of the day it is "stuff" not human lives and can be replaced.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your posts. How's that raging? You've already shown you think people are fantasizing about shooting people to protect themselves. That was your choice of words. You're the one labeling things that you don't like. You've already been raging over how people would defend themselves in a similar situation. I don't need to create a strawman. If anyone's arguing a strawman it's you. You saying "what would Jesus do" wasn't a strawman was it?

You can drop your feigned outrage and being ashamed of other people's views. Stop being so disingenuous and expecting people to agree with you.

Again, your original post was a rant on something I hadn't said.

What are you saying then? You haven't answered anything. You've been through this whole thread chiding people. Why don't you actually contribute something to the discussion instead of chiding people. Why don't you explain your rationale instead of being indirect.

Do you want me to go quote the post of you saying "what would Jesus do"? Will that help clear it up for you since you don't know what I'm talking about?

[homersapien 11,431]

There are two things that bother me about this case.

One, it is my understanding (possibly wrong) that the officer fired 10 shots in two groups of 5 ea with a pause between them. Considering the victim was unarmed that just seems suspicious.

Secondly, I thought a grand jury was essentially a one-sided effort by the prosecutor to get an indictment. (As the old saying goes, you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich.) It seems in this case from what I have heard, the prosecutor was trying to prevent an indictment. Is that a perversion of the intended process?

Clear cut case of officer doing his job and protecting his life. What part is not clear?

Sorry but firing 10 or more rounds at an unarmed man with a pause halfway through suggests otherwise to me. It's hardly a clear cut case.

As for my feelings regarding the grand jury:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

[homersapien 11,431]

Tex, I think you know that discussing hypotheticals has a much different connotation than "fantasizing."

They're imagining themselves in a place they won't be.

fan·ta·size

\-ˌsīz\

verb

: to imagine doing things that you are very unlikely to do :

And you still know you are being pedantic and using a word that in our vernacular has a much different connotation for dramatic effect.

No, I'm not. The word choice is fine. Get over yourself. It's one thing to simply say, "I'd defend my store with force, if necessary." It's another to say, "Yes, I would have been inside my store with loaded guns and plenty of ammo. They break my window, they come on in... they're dead."

If you can't see that, that's your problem. But you continually think you are somehow the arbiter of proper word choice. You choose your words, I'll choose mine. Ironic that you're being pedantic here.

Yes you are. Everyone but you apparently gets the difference in connotation between "thinking hypothetically" and "fantasizing."

I have nothing to get over.

P.S. Did someone burn the turkey and butcher the dressing today? You're cranky.

I've had a pretty good day, actually. You do your standard condescending schtick and expect compliant acceptance. Being in the minority on this forum doesn't concern me. It's generally the better place to be. One can address the question of whether one can legally protect property with deadly force without imagining the details of how they would do it. Y'all are hung up on a word that makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. I'm challenging a common mentality on this thread-- I don't expect folks to like that.

Your right Tex. "Hypothetical imagining" :-\ of killing people with a gun in defense of property is at least bluster if not fantasy.

Respect life but shoot to kill I suppose.

[alexava 6,973]

There are two things that bother me about this case.

One, it is my understanding (possibly wrong) that the officer fired 10 shots in two groups of 5 ea with a pause between them. Considering the victim was unarmed that just seems suspicious.

Secondly, I thought a grand jury was essentially a one-sided effort by the prosecutor to get an indictment. (As the old saying goes, you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich.) It seems in this case from what I have heard, the prosecutor was trying to prevent an indictment. Is that a perversion of the intended process?

Clear cut case of officer doing his job and protecting his life. What part is not clear?

Sorry but firing 10 or more rounds at an unarmed man with a pause halfway through suggests otherwise to me. It's hardly a clear cut case.

As for my feelings regarding the grand jury:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

homer, did you read the transcripts from all the witnesses? Do you realize the prosecutor could and usually does decide on no charges without sending it to a grand jury? He did it for transparency. Defense attorneys must defend those whom they know are guilty. Prosecutors have a duty not to prosecute if they do not think they are guilty.. The 10 shots have been explained.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

There are two things that bother me about this case.

One, it is my understanding (possibly wrong) that the officer fired 10 shots in two groups of 5 ea with a pause between them. Considering the victim was unarmed that just seems suspicious.

Secondly, I thought a grand jury was essentially a one-sided effort by the prosecutor to get an indictment. (As the old saying goes, you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich.) It seems in this case from what I have heard, the prosecutor was trying to prevent an indictment. Is that a perversion of the intended process?

Clear cut case of officer doing his job and protecting his life. What part is not clear?

Sorry but firing 10 or more rounds at an unarmed man with a pause halfway through suggests otherwise to me. It's hardly a clear cut case.

As for my feelings regarding the grand jury:

http://thinkprogress...son-grand-jury/

It fits not only Ofc. Wilson's account but that of other eyewitnesses...at least the ones whose stories didn't change every time they gave it. There were 4-5 shots and he paused because Brown stopped. He reiterated his command to get on the ground. Brown renewed his charge toward the officer and 5 or so more shots were fired. All it suggests is that under pressure, Ofc. Wilson wasn't the most accurate shot as about half of them missed entirely and half that hit were in Brown's right arm.

[WarTim 3,457]

There are two things that bother me about this case.

One, it is my understanding (possibly wrong) that the officer fired 10 shots in two groups of 5 ea with a pause between them. Considering the victim was unarmed that just seems suspicious.

Secondly, I thought a grand jury was essentially a one-sided effort by the prosecutor to get an indictment. (As the old saying goes, you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich.) It seems in this case from what I have heard, the prosecutor was trying to prevent an indictment. Is that a perversion of the intended process?

Would it bother you if a 6'6" 298# suspect, while standing above you, punched you in the face, stunning you ?

Would it bother you if that same man then put his hand on your weapon in order to shoot you and at the same time taunting you ?

Would it bother you if, after seeing this same man hit by several of your bullets, still had the physical strength to then turn and charge you ?

Would it bother you if that same man while charging you put his hand toward his waistband ?

AND: Would it bother you that you have to make a life or death assessment in a matter of seconds....for the first

time ever ? Remember, either you go home to your wife or he does. Which would you choose ?

If none of these bothers you then you would have most likely had your last meal a few hours earlier.

Bingo. End of story...

[around4ever 4,139]

If a store owner is going to be in his store with a weapon, protecting his business he better have prepared himself. The way to do that is to ask yourself the hypothetical question, Could I use it if my business or life is threatened? To answer that question you have to imagine scenarios.

I find it interesting that not one store that was protected by someone with a firearm, was damaged or looted.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I understand, and agree with, giving more weight and credence to the officers account of what happened. However, I can also understand the perspective that a prosecutor, whose father was a police officer killed in the line of duty, might be considered biased and steering the investigation. It is fine that some of you feel certain you know exactly what happened. I wish you could understand why other people might not be as sure as you are. I am not saying that I totally disagree, or even that my doubts are reasonable (legally speaking). I just do not feel absolute certainty.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I understand, and agree with, giving more weight and credence to the officers account of what happened. However, I can also understand the perspective that a prosecutor, whose father was a police officer killed in the line of duty, might be considered biased and steering the investigation. It is fine that some of you feel certain you know exactly what happened. I wish you could understand why other people might not be as sure as you are. I am not saying that I totally disagree, or even that my doubts are reasonable (legally speaking). I just do not feel absolute certainty.

But at the same time, when that prosecutor decides not to selectively present information to the grand jury, but rather gives them ALL the info, all the witness accounts, all the physical evidence, etc., then releases all of that information publicly rather than keeping it sealed, it's rather hard to accuse him of steering it to me. Certainly no one can accuse him of slanting the proceedings by selecting only evidence that seemed to exonerate the officer while withholding any damaging evidence, could they?