Do the math...

[MrScorpio]

[msanthrope]

1. And this was an already seated GJ..so they didn't take any chances that more Blacks

might have been called to another jury.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Correct - they specifically chose to extend the length of the seated grand jury

for something like 4 or 5 months, rather than taking that chance.

[msanthrope]

3. Almost as if they knew they had a compliant gj. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. The GJ had already started hearing evidence in the case

They could have seated a different GJ, but then it would have all started over again.

Options were to put off the case until a new GJ was seated in September, then listen to people complain about stonewalling or delaying justice. Or, extend the existing GJ to finish hearing the case, then listen to people complain about the racial makeup of th GJ, which, BTW, closely matches the racial makeup of the county.

It was damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. listen to people complain about stonewalling or delaying?

Given how quickly most grand juries deal with a case, it doesn't look like they really minded people complaining about that, taking over 3 months in this case.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. I'm talking about people complaining about how long it would take to start the case

If they had waited until a new GJ was seated, they wouldn't even have started hearing the case until more than a month after the shooting. You don't think anyone would have complained about that?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. I don't think they would have had more to complain about than they did with this one.

As far as I can tell, the whole dragging it out as absolutely long as possible, bringing up every single bit of evidence in any direction, every fact, however irrelevant, was a blatant ploy to try and make people 'get sick of it' and let it be swept under the rug.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. You're certainly entitled to your opinion n/t

[Niko]

12. Oh for Christ's sake

You're essentially saying that every single member of this grand jury, seated BEFORE the incident happened, is a racist. No matter what case they would've been given, the whites would never vote to indict a white guy and the blacks would always vote to indict a white guy.

Take a deep breath.

[JaneyVee]

13. White racists in Missouri? What are the chances?!

[Bettie]

40. Over the summer we went to Missouri from Iowa

My 13 year old son asked, on our second day, what was wrong with these people.

I asked him what he meant. He said that he had heard the "N" word many, many times and heard a lot of people talking in unkind language about people who weren't white and it bothered him.

Yeah, white racists in MO? Say it ain't so!

[joeglow3]

44. Where in Missouri did you go?

[Bettie]

54. Hannibal

Which is why we were surprised to hear what we did. Figured a tourist area would have more decent people than not.

There was also one store owner who talked non-stop about how Obama (Obummer, "that N", and a host of other names for him) was ruining our country and needed to be "taken out" for the good of us all.

It was really disturbing because I honestly wasn't expecting it to be so widespread or so openly displayed.

[msanthrope]

17. You sound concerned. Please free to share more of your concerns and enjoy your stay. nt

[msanthrope]

21. In the whole 20 days you've been here? nt

[Niko]

22. Quality over quantity

If all your posts are like the last couple, I'd say it doesn't matter one damn how long you've been here.

[Rex]

26. So you finally admit to spouting bullshit, thanks we all knew that too.

Seriously enjoy your little gloat party, it is pathetic to watch but very predictable.

[840high]

23. Thank you.

[U4ikLefty]

48. Of course YOU would thank him/her. nt

[840high]

49. You don't know me. I always try

to thank people who have common sense.

[Cha]

28. You need to take deep a breath.

[kelliekat44]

53. Was the decision unanimous? nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. To be fair, it's quite possible that at least one of those white men and/or women voted to indict.

But not enough to get to 9.

[hunter]

5. Nobody could have forseen that!

[doc03]

6. Do you know what the vote was or who voted what way? I don't!

To start I think George Zimmerman should be in prison for murder. But of all the cases of police shootings why this one? Brown was shown physically assaulting the guy in the store that approached him about stealing the cigars. Brown punched a police officer and tried to take his gun, from all I have heard it was a justified shooting. I saw the man shot in St. Louis about the same time that was holding a knife and obviously mentally disturbed get gunned down at what looked like 15-20 feet from cops that claimed he charged them. The guy in Cincinnati gunned down in Walmart for having a toy gun in his hand. Then the 12 year old killed in Cleveland for having a toy gun. Why hold the Brown case up as an example, I truly don't understand.

[hack89]

7. So what was the final vote? Did all three AA vote to indict? nt

[Igel]

8. That's the inference.

That they didn't vote evidence, they voted entirely based on their own skin color.

It disses both the whites and blacks on the GJ. They didn't vote the way somebody else wanted. If the results aren't what we want, there must be something wrong with the process or the people involved, because under no circumstance could we even admit we might be wrong or less informed.

[hack89]

9. So many white DUrs would vote to indict

Yet turn around and assume a white person actually on the grand jury would vote the color of their skin. People must really think that whites on DU are truly special.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Or, if the GL vote broke along color lines, maybe ...

they voted their life experience, while considering the evidence. That IS a fairly common jury instruction made during closing arguments.

Clearly, your life experience allows you to interpret the evidence differently than my life experience.

[Lars39]

10. And what do you want to bet that formula stays intact from grand jury to grand jury?

One of many things of which the Justice Department should be checking.

[madville]

16. How should Grand Jury's be selected?

Based on the race of the victim or the accused?

St. Louis County is 70% white and 25% black, having 9 white people and 3 black is just about a perfect demographic representation of the jurisdiction.

The only thing that stands out is that women are underrepresented, I would guess the genders of the population of the county as being closer to 50/50 versus what was on that particular jury.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Hmm, jury of your peers...

Are your 'peers' the demographics of an entire jurisdiction? If you want to say that that's a more accurate representation of one's 'peers' than the populace of the country as a whole, then it follows that it would be even more accurate if the jury was drawn from a pool that actually represented the people you interacted with daily, rather than people from wealthier suburbs with whom you might never interact. Saying that people drawn to represent the entire jurisdiction are your 'peers' is simply an arbitrary expediency.

[madville]

36. Whose peers? Victim or accused?

Or a mixture of both? 50/50 split? Grand Jury's aren't typically seated for specific cases, they serve a term and evaluate any cases presented during that term.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Exactly - a matter of expediency is the determinative factor.

Not any actual attempt to create a 'jury of one's peers'. No matter whose peers you decide they should be.

[X_Digger]

47. So.. a grand jury of cops? That sound better? They would be Wilson's peers..

If I'm suspected of a crime, can I ask that the grand jury be dismissed and that it be re-seated with left-handed hillbillies working in IT who read a lot of sci-fi and like tinkering with open source projects?

No? But they'd be my peers...

[Niko]

11. And your point?

Are you saying the 3 black people on the jury would automatically vote to indict, despite any evidence, simply because of the shade of their skin?

Or are you saying the 9 white people on the jury would automatically not vote to indict, despite any evidence, simply because of the shade of their skin?

Is everybody a racist now?

Is it not inside the realm of possibility that the facts are what persuaded this grand jury to make a decision one way or another???

DU has gone insane tonight.

[TBF]

14. "DU has gone insane tonight"

20 days makes you an expert.

[JaneyVee]

15. Maybe GJ should reflect Ferguson more accurately?

Being that Ferguson is 70% black.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. The GJ is for the county, not for Ferguson

The racial makeup of the GJ is very close to the racial makeup of the county.

[840high]

24. A post above said

St. Louis County is 70% white and 25% black, having 9 white people and 3 black is just about a perfect demographic representation of the jurisdiction.

[joeglow3]

46. I have always envisioned jury of your peers to apply to accused

I am not saying you are wrong. Just being honest that I have always thought that way. This case certainly makes me revisit that thought.

[Cha]

29. No, DU hasn't gone insane.. just reacting to an insane decision.

[jeff47]

39. Yes, your 20 days and <100 posts make you an expert on DU. (nt)

[SomethingFishy]

42. You are ignorant of the Grand Jury process, this was not a trial,

All the Grand Jury was supposed to decide was was there enough evidence that a crime may have been committed not whether or not he was guilty.

There are conflicting reports of what happened and the whole "he tried to take my gun" is the cops word alone, it was up to a jury to decide whether or not Wilson's claims were credible. The photos of Wilson alone were enough to put into doubt his testimony about being beaten enough to be in fear for his life, he said "the next blow could have been a death blow". Funny, he didn't look to fucking beat up to me.

This whole thing was a farce...

[Logical]

50. LOL, 97 posts! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. nt

[840high]

25. So????

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Thank you!

And so when any of us people of color here on DU try to tell you guys that there is racism here at DU and in the Democratic Party, believe us. Don't dismiss our claims just because you don't want to believe or accept the truth. Look around you. Look at the sentiment expressed in these threads--not just by the trolls either.

Open your eyes, people who really care about the eradication of racism.

[jtuck004]

31. "eradication of racism." > It won't ever be eradicated, it's a manifestation of hate. Gonna have to

figure out how to prosper regardless. And keep a .38 handy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. With all the hate I'm seeing, but resigning myself to conclude that you're right. :(

[jtuck004]

43. Just means the rest of us have to figure out a way to work together. We seem to fall

apart in the face of evil, perhaps because we are always taught that it is the individual who is most important. I don't think we address how we are connected nearly enough, and not nearly effectively. That lets the bastards get more wins than they should.

On the other hand, that leaves us room to get better. We need to figure out how we can get stronger by supporting each other, eh?

[Nye Bevan]

52. DU juries are ususally quick to hide racist posts,

and MIRT is efficient in banning racists.

[spanone]

45. 6+3 =9

[Nye Bevan]

51. I think you're implying that the white jurors are racists, who ignored the evidence,

and voted not to indict someone because he had the same skin color as them.

Personally I think this kind of deliberate, cynical racism by jurors is much less common than you think it is.

[Bettie]

55. Or, perhaps

The jury was not shown a case for indictment because the prosecutor didn't want one and the white jurors are much more likely to believe a cop's word than not.

It isn't necessarily about racism, it is about a prosecutor knowing what buttons to push to get the result he wants. In this case, it was pretty clear he didn't want an indictment, he wanted to protect his buddies on a corrupt police department.