swgohome.com

I have to say that I am perplexed by the decision to release the grand jury findings at 8PM. Granted if the findings were released at 6AM this morning, I'm sure there would've been trouble tonight, but maybe not as bad? Who knows.

Due to the age of communication, media coverage and individuals not accepting a verdict it is now becoming more common to resort to violence and destruction. If the decision does not go the way some people/groups were hoping for then the turn to destroying property, targetting people/groups etc.

So what has happened in Ferguson is certainly not good and no doubt there will be further trouble there and across the US.

Unfortunately it's the world and age we now live in and I think before it gets any better it will get much, much worse.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/15/anti-china-riots-turn-deadly-in-vietnam
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2014/06/sri-lanka-riots-prompt-international-concern-201461752248175495.html
http://www.sott.net/article/288291-Riots-against-police-brutality-break-out-across-France

Kren

this is like the super bowl for CNN. I'm glad the prosecutor took the time to criticize the media, it was a bit refreshing. unfortunate that Ferguson is probably gonna turn to a pile of [poo] though, kinda like northern philadelphia...

I just don't see how you can justify not bringing to trial any incident that results in a dead body with six bullets lodged in it. I'm not implying anything about the cop's innocence or guilt, but it seems ridiculous that this isn't at least being indicted. If the main concern is saving time/money, it can be assured that the rioting will be much costlier in the end.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Do you seriously think they will not riot at the end of the trial? Also, do you understand the grand jury process at all? This case in particular, they were given everything, every piece of evidence to look at. It would've only took 9 of the 12 jurors to indict the officer, based on probable cause mind you, whereas a criminal trial would have to achieve 100% while utilizing beyond reasonable doubt.

No more making excuses for these people. The stepfather needs to be in jail for inciting a riot. The looters need to be pursued and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. The victims here are the local business owners who have no business now. These are good people in the town that are doing what they can for the locals by owning and maintaining a place of business, and these damn fools burn it down. Six months from now the locals will have to travel much further to go to a store because some professional agitators came in destroyed their town, meanwhile the professional agitators will be back at their hometown with everything still intact.

Here's the victims. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/201 ... -and-tears

One more thing, if you send it to court every time a cop shoots someone, you will accomplish two things, you will clog up an already overloaded judicial system and you will cost the local municipality even more money by forcing them to go through an unnecessary process. And as a bonus you will have fewer people who are going to have that desire to be a cop and you will begin to either see a cop shortage or your quality level of cops is going to decline. There is already a process in place and it was utilized

Well said MD.

Any time you threaten a police officer like that, you forfeit your rights to survival.

Just think... Some of those officers could have used deadly force on the rioters... I would not have wanted to been a police officer down there

MATTHEW'S_DAD wrote:One more thing, if you send it to court every time a cop shoots someone, you will accomplish two things, you will clog up an already overloaded judicial system and you will cost the local municipality even more money by forcing them to go through an unnecessary process. And as a bonus you will have fewer people who are going to have that desire to be a cop and you will begin to either see a cop shortage or your quality level of cops is going to decline.

Or we could just require cops to wear body cameras while on duty.

I agree. More times than not those cameras protect the officers and the departments from frivolous lawsuits. Money is an issue here, but as time marches on and the cameras come down in price, more departments add them to their force.