Open Season on Black Men explained

JohnLocke · Nov 25, 2014

This morning's coverage included an interview with a young black man for his reaction to the events in Ferguson, to which he replied.

"Now, it really is open season on young black men."

Call me ignorant, bigoted or what have you, but I cannot figure out how he could come to that conclusion.

Can anyone help me out?

NightHawkeye · Nov 25, 2014

JohnLocke said:
This morning's coverage included an interview with a young black man for his reaction to the events in Ferguson, to which he replied.

"Now, it really is open season on young black men."

Call me ignorant, bigoted or what have you, but I cannot figure out how he could come to that conclusion.

Can anyone help me out?

Given the circumstances, this individual seems to be equating "open season" with holding young thugs to account for their actions.

The fact that a grand jury, despite considerable political pressure, found no evidence to support improper police conduct suggests that people still both expect and appreciate it when police do their jobs.

Somber Warrior · Nov 25, 2014

As I wrote on another thread, it is a psychological disconnect -- the clinical term being cognitive dissonance. Despite the evidence presented by the prosecutor last night, the conclusions of this young man -- which unfortunately match a significant portion of the black community and some of the white liberal community -- is inconsistent with those facts. That a young man could say it is now "open season" on him and his friends because a young man was shot and killed in the process of attacking a police officer for the second time in 90 seconds makes no sense in the context unless there is a literal disconnect between facts and conclusions.

NightHawkeye · Nov 25, 2014

Somber Warrior said:
As I wrote on another thread, it is a psychological disconnect -- the clinical term being cognitive dissonance. Despite the evidence presented by the prosecutor last night, the conclusions of this young man -- which unfortunately match a significant portion of the black community and some of the white liberal community -- is inconsistent with those facts. That a young man could say it is now "open season" on him and his friends because a young man was shot and killed in the process of attacking a police officer for the second time in 90 seconds makes no sense in the context unless there is a literal disconnect between facts and conclusions.

I think that analysis is perhaps an overly generous interpretation.

The truth for many, as observed last night, is very simply that they intend to act as thugs when they can get away with it.

stamperben · Nov 25, 2014

JohnLocke said:
This morning's coverage included an interview with a young black man for his reaction to the events in Ferguson, to which he replied.

"Now, it really is open season on young black men."

Call me ignorant, bigoted or what have you, but I cannot figure out how he could come to that conclusion.

Can anyone help me out?

Look to what the courts are doing with cops that kill.

In the wake of the decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a Harvard professor and former federal judge said we should expect more of the same.
"Although many are saying that the decision may have to do with race, it is more likely that Wilson is not facing charges because courts have decimated the law that holds officers accountable for excessive force, rulings that make incidents similar to Ferguson all the more likely," Nancy Gertner writes in a Boston Globe op-ed.

'There Will Be More Fergusons,' Harvard Professor Says

But no, even after trying to "help you out here" you;ll not get it.

NightHawkeye · Nov 25, 2014

stamperben said:
Look to what the courts are doing with cops that kill.

In the wake of the decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a Harvard professor and former federal judge said we should expect more of the same.
"Although many are saying that the decision may have to do with race, it is more likely that Wilson is not facing charges because courts have decimated the law that holds officers accountable for excessive force, rulings that make incidents similar to Ferguson all the more likely," Nancy Gertner writes in a Boston Globe op-ed.

'There Will Be More Fergusons,' Harvard Professor Says

But no, even after trying to "help you out here" you;ll not get it.

OK. Question, Ben.

Should white police officers ever use deadly force against black criminals?

Somber Warrior · Nov 25, 2014

stamperben said:
In the wake of the decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a Harvard professor and former federal judge said we should expect more of the same.
"Although many are saying that the decision may have to do with race, it is more likely that Wilson is not facing charges because courts have decimated the law that holds officers accountable for excessive force, rulings that make incidents similar to Ferguson all the more likely," Nancy Gertner writes in a Boston Globe op-ed.

'There Will Be More Fergusons,' Harvard Professor Says

More cognitive dissonance, only at the pseudo-intellectual level.

keith99 · Nov 25, 2014

One must remember at least 10% of the population decided the cop was guilty before there was any real evidence and at least 10% of to population had decided that the police action was totally justified before there was any real evidence.

That rarely leads to a decent result.

Billnew · Nov 25, 2014

Even more,
A vast majority of people over the last three months decided on guilt or innocents based on limited factual data.
This case was not open and shut. To many conflicting stories.

To many extreme opposite stories.

Only the jurors and the prosecutors, saw all the evidence. So only they could decide.
I doubt if the media hadn't jumped on this, that it would have gone to the Grand jury. The prosecutor knew there was not enough evidence supporting indictment. But he didn't dare make the final decision.

The violent portestors have been a lynch mob since the first morning after the shooting. They will hear no evidence that might cast a doubt in their mind about how the shooting took place.
And yes, there were a few that sided that way with innocence.
But in their defense, innocent until proven guilty.

The problem isn't this dead thug. The problem was the powder keg that was smoldering before this flash point. The government and police were not connecting with this community's minorities. There was distrust and they felt the police were not there to portect them, but only to harrass them.
The dead thug and the cop were just the final thread to set off the keg.

All police forces everywhere need to work with civilians to show them they are not elite jack booted thugs looking to gun down anyone that dares to challenge them. Police have power, people fear people in power unless they feel they can trust them. Society must work on this so the people that are meant to serve and protect aren't veiwed as an occupying army.

Holder has spoken and said it ain't over, until he says its over. So one more investigation, with racist colored eyes will try to find some way of making this a crime. If they can't find a crime, then we wil know there was no crime. Holder's army could indict, but they can't find him guilty. Judge and jury will hear the case. I doubt they can find a "human rights" violation out of this shooting.

cow451 · Nov 25, 2014

keith99 said:
One must remember at least 10% of the population decided the cop was guilty before there was any real evidence and at least 10% of to population had decided that the police action was totally justified before there was any real evidence.

That rarely leads to a decent result.

Best post of the day.

brewmama · Nov 25, 2014

stamperben said:
Look to what the courts are doing with cops that kill.

In the wake of the decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a Harvard professor and former federal judge said we should expect more of the same.
"Although many are saying that the decision may have to do with race, it is more likely that Wilson is not facing charges because courts have decimated the law that holds officers accountable for excessive force, rulings that make incidents similar to Ferguson all the more likely," Nancy Gertner writes in a Boston Globe op-ed.

'There Will Be More Fergusons,' Harvard Professor Says

But no, even after trying to "help you out here" you;ll not get it.

This writer doesn't take into account any actual facts of the case, just extrapolates it onto her idea that cops have too much power and never are called to account for their actions, which is blatantly false.
So no, it doesn't explain anything and is pretty worthless, actually in the Ferguson case.

brewmama · Nov 25, 2014

keith99 said:
One must remember at least 10% of the population decided the cop was guilty before there was any real evidence and at least 10% of to population had decided that the police action was totally justified before there was any real evidence.

That rarely leads to a decent result.

How do you actually know that? The way the media carried on, I'm sure it was more than 10% that thought him guilty, at least at first, before more facts became known.

bhsmte · Nov 25, 2014

keith99 said:
One must remember at least 10% of the population decided the cop was guilty before there was any real evidence and at least 10% of to population had decided that the police action was totally justified before there was any real evidence.

That rarely leads to a decent result.

I agree, but would add I believe the numbers were higher than 10% on each side.

To me, when a grand jury of 12 people, are in a place to review all the evidence (and evidence none of us have seen, nor the media) and they deliberate and don't even bring a charge of manslaughter, that tells me something, about the evidence.

Sistrin · Nov 25, 2014

bhsmte said:
To me, when a grand jury of 12 people, are in a place to review all the evidence (and evidence none of us have seen, nor the media) and they deliberate and don't even bring a charge of manslaughter, that tells me something about the evidence.

Evidence which you admit you haven't seen. Ok...

variant · Nov 25, 2014

bhsmte said:
I agree, but would add I believe the numbers were higher than 10% on each side.

To me, when a grand jury of 12 people, are in a place to review all the evidence (and evidence none of us have seen, nor the media) and they deliberate and don't even bring a charge of manslaughter, that tells me something, about the evidence.

Grand juries aren't generally convened like this, they are generally one sided affairs where the prosecutor presents evidence in an attempt to bring charges already filed to a trial.

It's also very unusual for the accused to be allowed to tell their side of the story to the grand jury.

So, this was a rather one sided affair, where a prosecutor who didn't want to upset people by making a decision has his own little sham instead.

This is not how due process works for you and I, it is only how it works when a prosecutor wants to give the accused extra protection.

bhsmte · Nov 25, 2014

Sistrin said:
Evidence which you admit you haven't seen. Ok...

Indeed, I haven't.

Was something stopping them from indicting the cop after looking at the evidence?

Sistrin · Nov 25, 2014

bhsmte said:
Was something stopping them from indicting the cop after looking at the evidence?

Yeah, the evidence didn't warrant an indictment.

Somber Warrior · Nov 25, 2014

variant said:
Grand juries aren't generally convened like this ...

Perhaps not where you are, and all states are different in varying degrees. In Missouri, the purpose of a grand jury is to replace the preliminary hearing before a judge in which probable cause is determined. Given that attorneys for the potential defendant cannot be in the grand jury room, all of the facts of the case, indicating both culpability and innocence, is presented so the jury can make an informed decision on whether to issue a true bill or not.

variant said:
... they are generally one sided affairs where the prosecutor presents evidence in an attempt to bring charges already filed to a trial.

I'm afraid that impression may come from television dramas, though I could be mistaken. Most grand jury procedures nationwide consider evidence that may exonerate or at least call into question a given defendant's potential guilt.

variant said:
It's also very unusual for the accused to be allowed to tell their side of the story to the grand jury.

No, not at all. In fact, it is encouraged, though defense attorneys are not allowed in the room with their client.

variant said:
So, this was a rather one sided affair, where a prosecutor who didn't want to upset people by making a decision has his own little sham instead.

Mr. McCullough did not present any evidence. It was all presented by his two best assistants. I don't know if you heard his presentation last night, or read of it today, but he detailed the outlay of evidence to the jurors by those assistants, including the most outrageous statements by witnesses that were obviously false, given they were not anywhere near supportable by physical evidence, even allowing witnesses who had been confronted with the inconsistencies of their accounts to go ahead and testify to the jury anyway.

variant said:
This is not how due process works for you and I, it is only how it works when a prosecutor wants to give the accused extra protection.

I'm afraid your misconceptions of grand juries in general and the Missouri procedural rules in particular color your opinion.

variant · Nov 25, 2014

Somber Warrior said:
Perhaps not where you are, and all states are different in varying degrees. In Missouri, the purpose of a grand jury is to replace the preliminary hearing before a judge in which probable cause is determined. Given that attorneys for the potential defendant cannot be in the grand jury room, all of the facts of the case, indicating both culpability and innocence, is presented so the jury can make an informed decision on whether to issue a true bill or not.I'm afraid that impression may come from television dramas, though I could be mistaken. Most grand jury procedures nationwide consider evidence that may exonerate or at least call into question a given defendant's potential guilt.

This has been anything but regular, from lasting for months, to hearing all the evidence none of this is usual, not even for the prosecutor. He doesn't do this, and has never done this except in this case.

What's Different About The Grand Jury Process In The Darren Wilson Case? | St. Louis Public Radio

No, not at all. In fact, it is encouraged, though defense attorneys are not allowed in the room with their client.

Defense attorneys would rather gouge their own eyes out than let their client testify to a grand jury unless they had a friendly prosecutor.

Mr. McCullough did not present any evidence. It was all presented by his two best assistants. I don't know if you heard his presentation last night, or read of it today, but he detailed the outlay of evidence to the jurors by those assistants, including the most outrageous statements by witnesses that were obviously false, given they were not anywhere near supportable by physical evidence, even allowing witnesses who had been confronted with the inconsistencies of their accounts to go ahead and testify to the jury anyway.I'm afraid your misconceptions of grand juries in general and the Missouri procedural rules in particular color your opinion.

Right, and if the prosecutor wanted to indict he wouldn't have put a cavalcade of questionable and contradictory witnesses before the grand jury.

Somber Warrior · Nov 25, 2014

variant said:
This has been anything but regular, from lasting for months, to hearing all the evidence none of this is usual, not even for the prosecutor. He doesn't do this, and has never done this except in this case.

I'm sorry you want to continue insisting that to be true, but quite simply, this is Missouri Grand Jury Procedure.

variant said:
What's Different About The Grand Jury Process In The Darren Wilson Case? | St. Louis Public Radio

The posting doesn't support what you have claimed. It talks about the hearing of testimony being longer than usual, but in cases like this the prosecutors want to make sure they get it right. This grand jury even volunteered to extend its term, which ended in September, to continue hearing the evidence so the prosecutors didn't have to start over with a new jury.

The mention the article gives of potential defendants not testifying is based on the fact their lawyers usually advise them not to, so the fact Wilson's attorney had no qualms about the officer testifying should tell you something.

The release of evidence is not common, that's true, but McCullough wanted to make sure no one had any claims of manipulation of evidence, or that the process was rigged. Of course the hearing took a long time. Consider the attention this case got. Would you have respected a decision from a grand jury or a prosecutor that there was "no probable cause" to file charges or indict, if it had come down two weeks after the shooting?

variant said:
Defense attorneys would rather gouge their own eyes out than let their client testify to a grand jury unless they had a friendly prosecutor.

Or if their client is innocent.

variant said:
Right, and if the prosecutor wanted to indict he wouldn't have put a cavalcade of questionable and contradictory witnesses before the grand jury.

The jury had the right, and the need, to hear all the evidence. The scope of this hearing let the jury be the guide, not the prosecutor, which is the way it should have been. This jury was conscience, thorough, professional in its demeanor, and reached the correct decision, whether it is the popular one or not.

Open Season on Black Men explained

Regular Member

Work-in-progress

Active Member

Work-in-progress

It's an old family tradition

Work-in-progress

Active Member

sola dosis facit venenum

Legend

Standing with Ukraine.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Happy Cat

Newbie

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Active Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency