Profile

Cover photo
Michael Farnbach
1,317 followers|84,200 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
Will and Kelly McLearran looked back to the future for their 1986 Ford Mustang SVO’s powerplant and transplanted an EcoBoost 2.0L crate-engine into it.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
 
 
1986 Ford Mustang SVO - Circle Of Trust: http://bit.ly/1vxBqsJ
View original post
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Canyon red ... the ultimate barn find color.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach

Shared publicly  - 
 
In wondering if the hemisphere at the to of the distributor cap is causing too much village drop.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
 
I'm all in with the conclusion this likely means the prosecutor didn't want to press it in the first place.

What it doesn't answer is why, and the speculation in this thread seems to hold with confirmation biases.

Lets look at this in two grand possibilities, one that is favorable to Brown's telling of the story and one that is favorable to Wilson's. And with each explanation we need to cover why a grand jury was called when the prosecutor didn't want to really press charges. I mean, if the prosecutor didn't want to press charges, he didn't need a grand jury at all.

And that is easy, either there was two forces at work, the prosecutor and some political / social force.

So we either have the prosecutor acting to appease a social/political desire to let the cop off for doing some racial cleansing, or we have the prosecutor acting to appease a social/political desire to protect us from racial cleansing in a case where that clearly wasn't a factor.

While the information here is useful, it simply doesn't in and of itself, lead to any conclusion.

The evidence itself leads to conclusions.

On one side I see people who only have one fact, that Brown was shot more times than needed to be neutralized for being unarmed. And even comments in this thread where they've never seen anything else presented other than that.

On the other side, people are talking about testimony of Brown begin aggressive, and how the bullet patterns match a story of neutralizing aggression on Brown's part.

Y'all need to get together and piece together the evidence you do have. The Grand Jury no doubt did that, and the NYTimes, and other outlets have disclosed the testimony given in court.

At the end of the day, the evidence needs to lead us where it can, and we need to remember that while justice must be served we need to consider we could be in those same shoes and need understanding also.

But the evidence is key.
 
Some explanatory context about the lack of an indictment in Ferguson: while grand juries are nominally one of the checks on executive power, with the prosecutors only able to indict someone if they can convince a grand jury, this hasn't really been the case in decades, if ever. In the famous words of Sol Wachtler, former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, district attornies have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich" if they wanted.

This is because grand jury proceedings are rather one-sided: there is generally no judge involved, nor any defense, but rather the prosecutor simply presents whatever evidence he or she chooses, and has to convince the grand jury that there is "probable cause" that the person committed a crime, i.e. that a reasonable (ordinary) jury could conceivably convict. If this seems like a rather low bar to you, you're right: quite a few people have argued that grand juries are a complete waste of time, and only half of US states still use them. (The federal government is required to by the fifth amendment; no common-law jurisdiction outside the US still bothers)

In those places which still use them, their main remaining function is to provide plausible deniability to prosecutors who don't wish to pursue a case: just like you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich by only showing one story, you could get a grand jury to refuse to indict Freddy Krueger by showing them enough evidence to make the legitimacy of the state's case unclear.

That's not a common use for grand juries -- prosecutors generally have better things to do with their time than look for plausible deniability. (In the federal courts in 2010, for example, grand juries refused to indict 11 times, out of about 162,000 cases. Given that a prosecutor can generally guess when they don't even have a good enough case to indict, you can assume that those eleven each decided to have the grand jury be the one to say no, instead of them, for a reason)

What this means is that when you're trying to interpret the news and understand what a grand jury verdict means, you can basically take it to be a summary of the prosecutor's decision to prosecute or not to prosecute the case, rather than the verdict of an independent panel. 

(The analysis below notes that, in high-profile cases, there's another important reason that a grand jury may not indict, which is that the prosecutor feels that the case isn't strong enough to actually push through, but nonetheless feels political pressure to try anyway. That's not likely to be the case with today's news, as county prosecutor Bob McCulloch took the rather unusual step of having Darren Wilson, the prospective defendant, testify before the grand jury for several hours. Prosecutors who actually want an indictment generally don't invite the defendant to give their side of the story at length, as this is not considered conducive to getting the desired variety of ham sandwich. So it's fairly safe to read today's headline as "McCulloch decides not to prosecute Wilson," and interpret that as you will.)

If you want to read about the grand jury system in the US, as good a place to start as any is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise -- lea...
199 comments on original post
1
Chris Nandor's profile photo
 
Zunger's analysis is actually pretty stupid, because it ignores the fact that the evidence simply does not even remotely support an indictment.  That is the reason there was no indictment.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
1,317 people
milson castro's profile photo
Awaga Richard's profile photo
adriana Herrera delgado's profile photo
Pat Kight's profile photo
Aubrey Palumbo's profile photo
Joey Brockert's profile photo
Samuel Ramiscal Galutira's profile photo
Rohn Engh's profile photo
Jeef Kabe's profile photo
 
 
It’s never too late to find your true love.
View original post
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
 
There was a "barn find" SVO custom on EBay a bit back that went for more than $20...
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
 
Some more unsettling truths...
1) Anger is the opposite of empathy. And that is what we truly lack as a society. Whenever someone prepends a word to "Justice" it seems to all of a sudden mean revenge. Anger literally leads to heart conditions, studies have shown it dramatically decreases heart pumping efficiency and the amount of blood that gets circulated to your heart. Empathy is the curator of fragile things in our heart like compassion and integrity.
2) Shame is the opposite of Sanctity. The concept and ability to value something as sacred is something we also lack as a society. It is the a delicate curator of the most fragile things in our hearts like hope and self worth. Honestly, I think this is at the heart of why so many comedians suffer from depression. There is a personal cost to the shame, belittlement, and mockery they practice, nothing sacred can withstand their irreverence.
3) The word "Science" is coming to replace "nature" as a concept which wraps around our natural brain's concept of the universe, which also used to simply be said as "God". Most of what I see as "I love Science" is really just loving the view of nature one has from science as a pedestal. I love science too for bringing that view to me, but science is a practice, a procedure, not a result. Loving science is like loving the act of cleaning your room, rather than the clean room itself. That the word "Science" is inhabiting those natural concepts our brain harbors to appreciate nature, the universe, and God, sets Science up as a priesthood to gain access to the universe around us rather than a dispassionate rigor to discover the universe around us. We love the universe that we are all a part of, and we appreciate anything that helps us feel that natural deep-seated soulful connection with it. But we shouldn't conflate the two.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
1
Add a comment...

Michael Farnbach
owner

Discussion  - 
 
The Victim Card...
20th century politics, to me, has had a subtext. A kind of game hidden within the whole social workings of political agencies, parties, and people, that works like capture the flag. That flag is then turned into a powerful weapon. That flag is the flag of being a victim.
Early fascism, from Russia to German, was built on a simple notion that if you can be classified as a victim, you can rally everyone to do very horrible things to the people you hate. What came of these political games were police states of immeasurable power and ruthlessness, and horrible atrocities where millions of people died.
Today we see those states as being abusive, but at the time their abuses were only seen as the rightful vindication of classes upon classes of victims.
Today, I'm grieved by a growing trend in the United States.
Cases and kinds of police state harassment are growing. One can be SWATTED, where a swat team barges into your house because someone with a cell phone claimed they were being holed up in your closet at gunpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
The case I'm helping with, a young woman is being hit with major dings to her record, restraining orders and possibly even arrest, all on what could be easily falsified evidence of caller-ID and email address spoofing.
How do we protect people, without that protection itself becoming abuse?
Swatting is the act of tricking an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response based on the false report of an on-going critical incident. Episodes range from large to small, from the deployment of bomb squads, SWAT units and other ...
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
1,317 people
milson castro's profile photo
Awaga Richard's profile photo
adriana Herrera delgado's profile photo
Pat Kight's profile photo
Aubrey Palumbo's profile photo
Joey Brockert's profile photo
Samuel Ramiscal Galutira's profile photo
Rohn Engh's profile photo
Jeef Kabe's profile photo
Basic Information
Gender
Male