Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
If anyone has a good answer to that, count me in.
Ferguson
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
If anyone has a good answer to that, count me in.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think any other cases he has prosecuted has caused this kind of national uproar before. The riots in Ferguson and peaceful protests in other cities, plus a still-ongoing federal investigation and possible federal indictment could keep this in the national spotlight long enough for those calling for his resignation to actually gain some traction and get enough support to get him to step down.
If not, I believe state prosecutors are elected; so I would imagine he would not be re-elected after this as long as he doesn't run unopposed.
Berzerker
Deity
No? Here's what you just said:
You complained about the jury seeing the evidence
I imagine cops do get better treatment, but demanding injustice for all is
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm about to interpret your answer in a way you might not like. Please consider whether my interpretation, while distasteful, is accurate.
He will not be able to escape the calls for his resignation this time, because this time there was enough violence, where before there was insufficient violence.
That's a fair interpretation. With the two monumental breakdowns in public order we have seen in Ferguson as a result of this incident officials are going to start looking for a scapegoat to throw to the "angry mob" to protect their own careers; and this prosecutor is definitely looking like the perfect scapegoat right now.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I imagine cops do get better treatment, but demanding injustice for all is
So, you are agreeing that this "equal protection under law" business is an empty promise. But you don't seem to be particularly outraged about it.
Nowhere to go with that, really.Now, about this 'injustice for all'. The purpose of the grand jury system is to prevent prosecution and law enforcement from being able to use accusation as punishment.
Imagine a system where a cop said 'hey I don't like this guy' and a prosecutor said, 'oh, charge him with _____ then.' Now the guy has to go through all the misery of defending himself in court, missing work, etc etc etc. Since there is no case whatsoever, he defends himself successfully, but in effect he has already been punished.
That system is not our system. In our system the accused, before they have any obligation to defend themselves at all, is protected by the grand jury. If there is no case, the accused may not even know that they were accused, which if there is no case is how it should be.
In calling for reforms of the justice system you will not find me complaining about the grand jury system. Yes, pretty much everything a prosecutor brings in front of them gets passed on for trial. It's the things that don't get brought to a grand jury that are the reason we have one.
Now, in this case, the prosecutor clearly misused the grand jury, by not actually presenting his case for pursuing the prosecution. In my opinion, the only reason he might have for doing so is his personal unwillingness to prosecute a cop. No one has yet presented any plausible other reason for him to not use the grand jury system as designed and present the case for the defense to the grand jury.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It isn't 'scapegoating' if the guy is genuinely guilty. His previous refusals to prosecute cops, and his refusals to defuse the resulting community anger afterwards, contributed substantially to the tensions that this incident brought to a head.
However, he is far from the only guilty party. The chief of the FPD is also going to have to be removed, and if the mayor keeps inciting more violence than he defuses he is going to have to go too before things can quiet down...my guess.
This is what I meant by the prosecutor being the scapegoat. You are right that there is more than one person responsible for this, but you can bet they are going to make sure the prosecutor will take all the heat for this. His prior history when it comes to prosecuting cops and the way he handled this makes him the perfect fall-guy to place 100% of the blame on.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Maybe. There is a whole lot of heat out there though. If they let the mob tear him limb from limb he might be enough to appease them, but just resigning on a huge pension, not so much. I see two, minimum; him and the chief of police.
There was no way to avoid the violence tonight.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
There was a year ago. But a year ago the dissatisfaction with the performance of the county prosecutor and the local police was confined to the ordinary folk. The people who are 'active members of the community' looked at a prosecutor practically famous for his openly letting cops walk and said 'well, that's probably okay, cops are good, right?' Then they looked at the lawsuits being filed against their police department and said 'well, maybe a little thuggery from the cops is necessary to protect my business, so I guess we just have to pay this kind of thing off now and then'. So a year ago the opportunity to avoid tonight's violence passed untaken.
Lesson learned, other cities with similar problems? We'll see.
Berzerker
Deity
So, you are agreeing that this "equal protection under law" business is an empty promise. But you don't seem to be particularly outraged about it.
This case didn't deny anyone equal protection
That doesn't happen with grand juries? Then how can prosecutors get an indictment on a ham sandwich? I dont see how a grand jury hearing only accusations helps defend anyone, they should see exculpatory evidence.
That makes no sense, the reason we have a grand jury is so prosecutors can present a distorted case and you think thats a good thing?
If the cop was defending himself and your model grand jury would have indicted him anyway, how would your system protect the accused? Didn't you earlier suggest being indicted can be viewed as guilt?
That's debatable. One could suggest the violence might have certainly been less if the original shooting was the only incident sparking violent protests. Unfortunately, it was not.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
I think the death of Michael Brown has about as much to do with these riots as the death of Franz Ferdinand had to do with World War 1.
Sure it may be the cause, but all the lines had already been set and all the trust had already been destroyed. The people there have no reason to trust the official version of events or the grand jury's decision. Since they have no reason to believe it is fair. That doesn't mean it isn't fair of course, it's entirely possible that Darren Wilson was entirely innocent in this particular case. But in the end I don't think that has much to do with the riots or the reason for them.
After all if in 1916 an investigation determined that Franz Ferdinand had actually been killed by a lone Austrian lunatic would that have ended the first world war?
Sure it may be the cause, but all the lines had already been set and all the trust had already been destroyed. The people there have no reason to trust the official version of events or the grand jury's decision. Since they have no reason to believe it is fair. That doesn't mean it isn't fair of course, it's entirely possible that Darren Wilson was entirely innocent in this particular case. But in the end I don't think that has much to do with the riots or the reason for them.
After all if in 1916 an investigation determined that Franz Ferdinand had actually been killed by a lone Austrian lunatic would that have ended the first world war?
Paul in Saudi
Emperor
I think we can all agree that after months to plan, train and rehearse, the police will never let unrest break out again. Right?
These police are just not very good at their jobs.
These police are just not very good at their jobs.
Just so I can make sure I have the mindset of a lot of the posters correct, can I do a quick rundown here?
A very large man, while unarmed but still quite large and completely capable of doing a lot of damage, assaults a cop in the police vehicle, attempting to take the cop's gun. This can only be interpreted by the cop as an attempt by the large man to kill the cop with his own gun. This makes the large man an obvious danger to the public, not to mention the cop. The large man, failing to get the cop's gun so as to kill the cop (to assume otherwise would be foolish) runs off. The cop, being a dedicated public servant, chases after. The large man turns and charges the cop. The cop shoots the large man dead before the large man can get his large body within physical assault distance of the cop again. The cop is cleared of all charges by the grand jury. Rioters feel this justifies burning a city. Some posters in CFC OT seem to agree.
Does that about cover it?
I waited. I urged everyone to wait for the grand jury. Leaks started coming out that made it clear who was at fault and who was not at fault. But there are many here who just want to see a cop punished for doing his job in a horrible situation. So filled with hate for cops they would rather have seen the cop bludgeoned and shot to death in the cop car because, you know, cops. Even after the grand jury decision, blind hatred of lawful society seems to make some support the reprehensible actions of rioters who think that burning neighborhood stores is justified because a cop was not punished for doing his job.
(you will note I am refusing to use the clearly false indentifier of "gentle giant" that everyone prefers since it was a blatant lie. Instead, I am using "large man.")
A very large man, while unarmed but still quite large and completely capable of doing a lot of damage, assaults a cop in the police vehicle, attempting to take the cop's gun. This can only be interpreted by the cop as an attempt by the large man to kill the cop with his own gun. This makes the large man an obvious danger to the public, not to mention the cop. The large man, failing to get the cop's gun so as to kill the cop (to assume otherwise would be foolish) runs off. The cop, being a dedicated public servant, chases after. The large man turns and charges the cop. The cop shoots the large man dead before the large man can get his large body within physical assault distance of the cop again. The cop is cleared of all charges by the grand jury. Rioters feel this justifies burning a city. Some posters in CFC OT seem to agree.
Does that about cover it?
I waited. I urged everyone to wait for the grand jury. Leaks started coming out that made it clear who was at fault and who was not at fault. But there are many here who just want to see a cop punished for doing his job in a horrible situation. So filled with hate for cops they would rather have seen the cop bludgeoned and shot to death in the cop car because, you know, cops. Even after the grand jury decision, blind hatred of lawful society seems to make some support the reprehensible actions of rioters who think that burning neighborhood stores is justified because a cop was not punished for doing his job.
(you will note I am refusing to use the clearly false indentifier of "gentle giant" that everyone prefers since it was a blatant lie. Instead, I am using "large man.")
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Cops; the real victims here.
