Jim

I'm actually mixed about this. One of the reasons Cuba has such amazing natural heritage sites is because the flood of US tourists have been kept at bay. I'm off to work down there this spring under a grant-funded project with CCT - maybe just getting there under the wire. Man, I hope they spend their new found tourist money on some wise eco-tourism parameters.

I'm hoping for a Burr-Hamilton reenactment.

Hmm. This is interesting. Though how it applies to the above discussion of racial injustice is, well, who the heck knows? I can't tell which it is. Either you're using a random numbers generator to develop an argument or cutting and pasting from the first Google hit of "victory against injustice in Wa" - no matter the topic. In any event, the result is a narrative that bounces around the room more than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rockers.

You seem to be confused here on how to construct a logic thread or develop a didactic construct regarding social science. That's ok. But more surprising for the wannabe lawyer is the abandonment of the legal construct once it doesn't fit the prescribed narrative. If there's some fact-based omission in the Brown discussion that you're just waiting to spring as a climax, I'm all eyes and ears. No? But I digress. One of us actually needs to work in the area of his profession. But please, don't let my absence stop you. I know it won't cheers.

Well. Like I said -- one can postulate on an extraordinary number of outcomes of the physical evidence -- but here on earth, we have set up a legal system that defines guidelines under which a jury of peers needs to consider the evidence - be it a Grand Jury or Trial Jury. Given the physical evidence, the result of 3 forensic specialists, and a range of testimony -- the Grand Jury in this case, acting under the defined legal guidelines, found that the evidence did not meet the relatively low threshold for an indictment. And given the all the information - I'd say they were correct in doing so. Now when others seem to have some difficulty with this decision they start filling in the gaps with a lot of "what ifs". Is it entirely possible that Wilson started things by dragging the big guy into his window and Brown was "defending" himself? Sure -- anything is possible-- you may also want to go with the Spaghetti Monster defense as an alternative as well. But here's the point -- it don't mean shite -- least not to anyone with a clear eye to rely on facts and understand their responsibilities under such a legal process. So, while you've proposed some very interesting scenarios lacking any credibility, and some perfectly adorable strawmen, I think I'll stick to a colder assessment of the facts. As a scientist I am more reality based than some.

We know. You're not a lawyer but just play one on TV.

Well, one can speculate endlessly and continue to play junior lawyer. I suppose there is a multitude of scenarios that could match the physical evidence including the intervention of the Spaghetti Monster, who was the real culprit who punched Wilson and tried to steal his gun. But given the physical evidence, the cumulative testimony of witnesses, and the officer’s testimony it seems the Grand Jury came to the only fact-based decision they could within the jurisprudence guidelines set up for this process. The bar is not too high here to indict – you don’t need a unanimous decision and only have to have probable cause that a crime occurred. As opposed to a trial where it is a unanimous decision and reasonable doubt. The narrative hyped by the media just wasn’t so. And typically Grand Jury testimony is sealed, for some good reasons – but the prosecutor decided to make all the information public that was under his control. Now one could argue that the prosecutor should have stepped aside for an outside attorney to take hold of the process. And I would agree. But it would not have changed the outcome or the cries for mob justice. But please feel free to speculate and arm wave some more.

Kinda tough this time of year but if you can squeak in a weather window up Icicle Creek near Leavenworth there is Twin Cracks on Mountaineer's Dome (5.3 or so), a crack I can't remember the name of (5.6) at Barney's Rubble that you can lap on top-rope then give it a lead, or over at Roto Wall further up the road are some easy ones. R&D on Icicle Buttress is a lot of folk's first muti-pitch lead (5.7) and well protected - but has a slab section, which can be odd if you're not used to that.

Oh, I think it's pretty fair to say that there's no way Wilson would have been convicted in a jury trial where the standard of "reasonable doubt" is even more of a hurdle than the grand jury process. This just isn't the poster case it was made out to be once the facts came out. The NYC choking incident (and others) are worth putting up there as true examples of police over-reach.

Hmmm. Interesting. As I said, the state has some incentive to fix the tax thing -- hopefully they will jump on it soon. Out of curiosity - is there any concern that the feds will not turn a blind eye to these experiments if the Republicans get hold of the White House? I would think there is just way too much momentum now for them to interfere with the states on this one.

WTF? This seems pretty simple. Why wasn't this clown, at the very least, suspended w/o pay for a couple weeks? That would send a message. Really? You can't control a skinny belligerent woman any other way than punch her in the face? While handcuffed?

Well here's just one more data point- https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/25/poll-results-drug-penalties/ ...which shows that preference of legalizing heroin is pretty low. The future? Who the heck knows? Not me. I think the pot thing was a pretty good idea and the public is on board because it does have some medicinal uses, has a pretty low risk of addiction, and certainly is no worse (likely better?) than use of alcohol (ones choice I suppose). In contrast the public right now doesn't see a parallel in legalizing harder drugs that have a higher risk of harm. What they do seem to prefer is less of a crackdown on petty use and an increase in treatment of these cases, which seems a sensible thing. And WTF about the 501 legislation - didn't anyone consider the tax implications? There is some incentive here for our legislators to pass the easy fix -- and that is to keep the tax revenue rolling in. So hopefully our dysfunctional office holders will move along on this in 2015. But too bad for the 2014 tax filing for these businesses.

Speaking of legalization - seems the pot business in WA has an issue of sustainability. Didn't anyone think of tax implications BEFORE this became law? Pot is one thing - but the underground market for cocaine, heroin, and prescription drugs will remain - I don't see that changing anytime soon unlike pot - the public isn't going to bite on these more significant drugs.

Well, the three forensic experts don't agree with this statement, and the changing stories and conflicting eye witness testimony doesn't match your speculations either. I'll pass on commenting further on hyperbole. What I don't get -- is why these constructions don't provide the cop the same legal process of say, the Innocents Project, where it's been shown over and over that eyewitness testimony can often be fuzzy at best and reliance on forensics is more important. Several eyewitness in this case were discredited as there stories did not match the physical evidence, they admitted they did not see the things they claimed, or that they changed their story. Not very credible. One is left with some indisputable facts - facial bruising, powder burns on Brown's hands, discharged rounds in the car, distance of Brown to Wilson. Could Wilson have handled it differently -- maybe. Could Brown have -- yep. Given we're left with the physical evidence that matches the cop's story, and some conflicting eye witnesses -- our legal system doesn't indict on innuendo. There's a lot of racial issues in policing. This is just not one of them.

Oh, I'd say your being quite selective here - as much so as the other side on this one. Let's see after getting punched a few times and having this guy try and take his gun (forensic evidence) the cop has no reason to expect this guy is going to try the same on advancing on him and ignoring his commands to stop? No, I wasn't there. Nor were you - so your speculations are no better than the other fill-in-the blanks. The forensic evidence (3 independent reviewers) generally backed up the cop's story - and several witnesses. That is a pretty uphill battle - and quite frankly, the wrong one to attempt to make in to a poster.

When I first read the news coming out about this incident I thought - man, if this cop doesn't go to jail then something is wrong. My mistake, of course, was paying attention to the media blitz on this one. Holy crap. Lo and behold, it ain't what it was purported to be. The NYC one, however is a different deal. That cop is going to be indicted on federal civil right charges and rightly so.

Tend to agree with the general assessment. Interesting article in, of all places, The Nation. Just the facts, please

And just for clarity, in case the next post is a character assassination - typically the second defense, is that I'm not saying the assertion is not true. You just can't cite such a statistic, particularly in the complex world of social science analysis, cross your arms, and declare an end of the discussion. Well, you can, but.....

Having been seeped in non-parametric analysis the last couple weeks, here's a couple considerations: 1) the basic tenet that correlation does not necessarily infer causation. The production of teflon over the past decade correlates with a significant reduction in death by colon cancer; string cheese consumption parallels an increase in sunspot activity over the past 2 years; or arrests for herion use indicates its preference over all other drugs (the last one, no - more due to the clamp down on oxycontin). 2) The first defense of weak writing is - "you are too stupid to grasp this complicated subject".

Chokehold guy was not indited That one does not seem proper - especially that it was a procedure that was not allowed. Fugerson, however, is not as clear due to the attack by Mr. Brown and the forensic evidence, w hich backed up the cop's story.

Well, this dialog is a pretty good example of the cross-talking evident on almost any website discussing the topic. Likely a by-product of the media - but I've found more realistic discussions among the races in person. To not recognize that the young adult attacked a police officer --- or that there could have been options for the police officer once he exited the vehicle is just continuing down the same trench. I worked with a guy from west Texas for a bit. He said there was a desolate stretch of dirt road where he lived with a sign that said -- Choose your rut wisely -- you'll be in it for the next 30 miles. But please continue.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. My point is that the media isn't now (maybe never was) subtle. Under the 24 hr news cycle there had to be someone else to interview, to speculate upon, or non-experts to analyze minutia. I bring up the Williams example for comparison only because this one is in Seattle and familiar to me. How could a cop not be brought to trial after shooting a old, limping guy with a whittling penknife? I'm sure there are plenty of examples of cops shooting a black man in less threatening circumstances - a lot. The Brown shooting is worth dissecting - just not the way it was played in a sensational manner by the media from day one.

Well, I think you're inferring quite a bit here - but I'll bite. And I'll preface it that - yes, I'm just some while guy with limited experience with police harassment and zero experience as being targeted for my race. So -- if this were not the case maybe I would be looking at this differently. I agree that there is a very long list of racial bias by cops and deadly consequences to especially young black males. Never-the-less this was not one of those cases. I guess it's just part of our culture now but there was a full-throated media blitz of speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated opinions by anyone and everyone, and few facts. Until - oh, wait a minute. The legal process ran it course and the facts and evidence came out. It was not a murder nor even met the criteria for manslaughter. Seriously? Beat on a cop and try and take his gun - that just is not going to pass muster by any Grand Jury or even a trial jury. I also should point out that John Williams was not white, but a person of color - he was First Nations member of the Ditidaht Tribe.

True - but given the high threshold even for manslaughter it this situation it would have went nowhere. Frankly, the media beat this one to a frenzy. I think some local incidents warranted much more attention - the killing of John Williams the wood carver by a SPD cop and the King County officer who paralyzed that innocent guy by slamming him into a brick wall. Why didn't anyone march for those folks? I guess if it made the CNN broadcast......

No, if in America you will either start a blog, continuously post inane comments on the internets, or start a reality show. Better yet - all three.