My town is burning!

To be fair, some of the individuals defending those shops during the riots were african american.

The riots themselves were no more acceptable than any riots anywhere else in the world, however the racial tensions that led to them are absolutely real.

plawolf said:

I wonder if those applauding the grand jury's decision would have the same reaction if a grand jury of 9 blacks and 3 whites decided to bring charges.

Click to expand...

The Grand jury looked at the evidence and made the judgement even though the standard for indictment is low - probable cause. If you have a problem, I suggest you review the evidence and make your counter arguments that the conclusion did not follow the evidence. Postulating a different jury composition might have arrived at a different conclusion is prejudicial and without warrant.

Brumby said:

The Grand jury looked at the evidence and made the judgement even though the standard for indictment is low - probable cause. If you have a problem, I suggest you review the evidence and make your counter arguments that the conclusion did not follow the evidence. Postulating a different jury composition might have arrived at a different conclusion is prejudicial and without warrant.

Click to expand...

Actually it is completely warranted because the suggestion is reflective of the racial tension behind the shootings.

Personally I think the verdict they reached was correct, after reviewing the evidence, but to say that a different jury composition with more african americans than caucasians would still have reached the same verdict is a bit presumptuous in terms of how sore of a nerve this incident has touched.
In other words, an alternative jury may have reached a verdict based on emotion rather than evidence. And that goes to show just how high emotions are running. To ignore the possibility of an alternative verdict would be to ignore the realities of current racial tensions.

Obviously, this is all hypothetical and we will never know how an alternative jury really would have decided. But it's definitely worth keeping in mind.

Bltizo said:

Actually it is completely warranted because the suggestion is reflective of the racial tension behind the shootings.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The problem with your reasoning is threefold. Firstly, it is counterfactual reasoning. Secondly, the jury as I understand the process was chosen way before the case in question and so reflects a system that is random and disconnect to race or circumstance of the case - a necessary pre-condition for fairness. Thirdly and statistically, indictment is unusually high because the way grand jury is conducted is stacked against the defendant both in process and standard required for indictment. Suggesting a jury that reflects decision on racial line rather than evidence reflects an attitude that is already prejudicial in nature - the very accusation being made against the grand jury.

Brumby said:

I disagree. The problem with your reasoning is threefold. Firstly, it is counterfactual reasoning. Secondly, the jury as I understand the process was chosen way before the case in question and so reflects a system that is random and disconnect to race or circumstance of the case - a necessary pre-condition for fairness. Thirdly and statistically, indictment is unusually high because the way grand jury is conducted is stacked against the defendant both in process and standard required for indictment. Suggesting a jury that reflects decision on racial line rather than evidence reflects an attitude that is already prejudicial in nature - the very accusation being made against the grand jury.

Click to expand...

In other words, you think that the racial composition of the jury would not reflect on the final result?

Considering the nature of the case and the tensions that we can see erupting everywhere, I think that is a strange if not insulting claim to make.


I'm not saying that a jury reflects decision only based on racial lines rather than evidence.
I'm saying that in this case, racial tensions and the highly emotional nature of this incident, combined with different racial compositions of the jury could have overridden the strength of the evidence and caused the jury to reach a different outcome.

I'm not trying to argue that their jury and justice system is flawed or whatever, only that it is definitely warranted to postulate and speculate as to how different racial compositions may have influenced the outcome of this particular case.
Saying that it's prejudiced and unwarranted to postulate different jury compositions is the equivalent of burying one's head beneath the sand to the larger racial tensions which has permeated this case.

plawolf said:

I wonder if those applauding the grand jury's decision would have the same reaction if a grand jury of 9 blacks and 3 whites decided to bring charges.

Click to expand...

Yes, plawolf...because most of us trust the system and the every-day Americans who are called to make it up.

You see, they were able see the evidence we do not. It is easy to get caught up in what we "think," but those people saw the actual evidence and made their decision based on it.

So, if they had indicted him I would have figured that there was clearly something those twelve people saw that I did not.

I may not have agreed with it, but then it would have gone to an actual trial where the burden of proof is even higher. Like the Trayvon Martin case did, where that case fell apart on the evidence once the defense attorney was able to be directly involved with their witnesses.

As has been said, the fact that no indictment (a "No bill") was returned by a Grand Jury is extremely indicative that the evidence the prosecution had was extremely flimsy and the Grand Jury could not even use the Prosecution's evidence alone to indict...even on the lesser charges.

Bltizo said:

Considering the nature of the case and the tensions that we can see erupting everywhere, I think that is a strange if not insulting claim to make.

I'm not saying that a jury reflects decision only based on racial lines rather than evidence.

I'm saying that in this case, racial tensions and the highly emotional nature of this incident, combined with different racial compositions of the jury could have overridden the strength of the evidence and caused the jury to reach a different outcome.

Click to expand...

Not likely. The Grand Jury, like any Jury, has to operate off of and follow the judge's very specific instructions.

Given the tensions and the likelihood of violence, I fully expected a lesser charge to be brought.

That it was not is most indicative, with a Grand Jury where the scales are tilted toward the prosecution, that there was very little if any strength to the evidence.

Jeff Head said:

Not likely. The Grand Jury, like any Jury, has to operate off of and follow the judge's very specific instructions.

Given the tensions and the likelihood of violence, I fully expected a lesser charge to be brought.

That it was not is most indicative, with a Grand Jury where the scales are tilted toward the prosecution, that there was very little if any strength to the evidence.

Click to expand...

I was not challenging the result of the decision made, only saying that different racial compositions of the jury may have led to differing results.

It is a very open ended and reasonable piece of speculation on my part, and the only way to crush it is by demonstrating that the legal system functions in a way where it can erase all preconceived notions of all potential jury compositions and cause them to decide only based on evidence and without any shred of current personal, emotional and racial sensitivities factoring in.

I think that latter premise is not one we can reasonably assume, certainly for this particular case.

I'm not attacking the justice system as flawed, rather I'm saying that there are circumstances where human nature and emotionality can overrule such systems and hard evidence. The question worth asking is whether this case would have been sufficient for any alternative jury composition to make a different decision.

Bltizo said:

In other words, you think that the racial composition of the jury would not reflect on the final result?

Considering the nature of the case and the tensions that we can see erupting everywhere, I think that is a strange if not insulting claim to make.

Click to expand...

I think the converse is true that you are insulting the people and the system that they are by nature prejudicial based on racial lines. There are the mob, the anarchist, and the opportunists which unfortunately are encouraged by people like Sharpton and sensationalised by 24X7 media with images of rioting and looting. They do not represent society as a whole.

Provide one shred of evidence for this case, that Wilson, the Grand jury or the prosecutor based their decision on racial lines rather than evidence to support your case of bias. Unfortunately, the mob out of ignorance or racial bias is making the same reasoning as you even in the face of evidence.

Bltizo said:

I was not challenging the result of the decision made, only saying that different racial compositions of the jury may have led to differing results.

Click to expand...

Which, in essence does challenge the decision inferring that a different racial component would lead to a different outcome which would mean the system is flawed.

Bltizo said:

It is a very open ended and reasonable piece of speculation on my part...

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what is it...just as you say...pure speculation.

Bltizo said:

I think that latter premise is not one we can reasonably assume, certainly for this particular case.

Click to expand...

Bltiz, you are not a US citizen and are not as familiar with the legal system here, particularly Grand Juries. The Grand Jury system was designed to avoid the very things you raise.

As stated, the Grand Jury is very heavily weighted towards the prosecution. Those are the facts and n speculation involved. Judge's instructions are always very clear.

The absolute most likely circumstance in this case is that the evidence simply could not support at all any indictment.

At a normal trial, the threshold for conviction would have been even higher.

Certainly by making the statements you are making, that the racial component "could," play a part in rendering a different conclusion, you are clearly questioning the outcome, and thereby, the overall system.

Those people saw the evidence we did not. They made a ruling when faced with five different charges...and in an environment where a No Bill was clearly going to lead to trouble. They no billed it.

We can all look at the evidence now...it has been released (which itself was unusual).

Anyhow...IMHO, it is best in such a case, not to use speculation like this.