Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

Wow, that was incredibly informative and I feel like I now know a lot more about what's going on. Thanks!!

In regards to what the prosecutor did - from what I've read he basically did what most prosecutors in grand juries do when a cop is the one accused - they treat him differently. So is the problem with this particular prosecutor, or with all prosecutors in the country?

My follow up question is this: If this had gone to trial, it doesn't seem to me that the cop would have been found guilty of anything. It seems like a clear case of a police officer doing his job to me.

So say that this grand jury thing turned out differently - and he was indicted. And it went to trial.. Do people expect him to have been found guilty there? It doesn't seem very likely to me, given what we know about the case! So is it possible that this prosecutor, in this case, did what he did because he knew that? And is it possible that this cop was thrown into a grand jury due to public pressure? Because it seems to me that most cases presented there are very solid cases that the prosecution expects to win.

This is the core of the problem. In America the vast majority of people know, at some level, that if they are brought to trial their chances of finding, and being able to pay for, a legal team that can defeat the prosecution given the basically endless resources the prosecution can bring to bear, are not really very good.

There is a prosecutorial strategy called the paper tornado. An endless stream of motions to admit this or that as evidence. Adding everything up to and including the kitchen sink at the crime scene and every person within fifty miles to the potential witnesses into the discovery (information regarding the case that the prosecution is required to share with the defense). Since your defense has to deal with every motion and consider the implications of every piece of information provided in discovery...and they bill by the hour...the intent is to run you out of money before your trial even starts.

This is just one example to illustrate how immunity to indictment is a gigantic advantage. It should help explain why people who see a case where the prosecutor doesn't try to get an indictment is a problem, even if the accused appears to have been innocent.

If I am accused of a crime there is a very good chance I would get indicted, since it is a certainty that the prosecutor would give it his best shot. I can't afford to even look for a good defense team, much less hire one, so I would then almost certainly be convicted.

In a country that claims to provide equal protection under the law.

 

[sophie]

Wow, that was incredibly informative and I feel like I now know a lot more about what's going on. Thanks!!

In regards to what the prosecutor did - from what I've read he basically did what most prosecutors in grand juries do when a cop is the one accused - they treat him differently. So is the problem with this particular prosecutor, or with all prosecutors in the country?

My follow up question is this: If this had gone to trial, it doesn't seem to me that the cop would have been found guilty of anything. It seems like a clear case of a police officer doing his job to me.

So say that this grand jury thing turned out differently - and he was indicted. And it went to trial.. Do people expect him to have been found guilty there? It doesn't seem very likely to me, given what we know about the case!

The thing is that all of this is about more than this specific incident, in much the same way that the Rodney King riots were about more than just the Rodney King beating. It's about the systemic issues with law enforcement, and in particular about how law enforcement a) is treated differently and b) uses that preferential treatment to disproportionately persecute minorities and the homeless.

There is essentially no database or record for police shootings in this country. De jure the police are supposed to report this stuff and the Federal Government is supposed to track and study these reports, but de facto none of this occurs. Recently some private citizens and educational establishments have been trying to collect this data but have been met largely with intransigence on the part of law enforcement and federal organizations. In some cases these data collectors have been threatened. After Brown was shot the Ferguson Police Department tried to keep everything hush hush. Wilson was put on leave and his name was not released. The idea that a trial would happen was unquestionably no. This is business as usual for Ferguson and most places in the US. Just keep things under wraps until it blows over. It was only once this matter turned into national news that we start hearing about a trial. A prosecutor, whose job it is to present evidence against the defendant decides not to do his actual job, when, aside from law enforcement defendants he appears perfectly competent. Was Wilson guilty? I don't know, and we'll never really know because this never went to trial because the case was torpedoed by the prosecuting attorney. Business as usual in this country.

You can say "well it doesn't really matter that the prosecutor bungled the job because he would have been found innocent in the trial anyway" but that's not the point. It's not the prosecutor's job to poke holes in his own prosecution. In this country everybody who appears in court is entitled to a defense attorney. They're free to pick their own, but if they can't afford one they are entitled to a public defendant. Now the defendant could be dead to rights guilty. Smoking gun with tons of fingerprints, bullet wound in the victim with the bullet lodged in the victim's chest and everything is perfectly lined up to put the defendant away for a long time. Open and shut case. This doesn't mean (generally, or theoretically) that the defense attorney is going to turn around and start shouting that the defendant did it and here's how we know. That's not the defense attorney's job. It defeats the purpose of the trial. It is the prosecution's job to present an argument that the defendant committed the crime and it is the defense's job to counter that argument, poke holes in the prosecution and give reasons why the defendant might not be guilty. (Hopefully) the defense attorney is going to give it his absolute best shot to try to get the defendant found not guilty, regardless of whether he's innocent. If he's not innocent, hopefully the prosecution will do their job properly and present the evidence to the jury in a convincing matter, but that's not the defendant's concern in the court. If one side starts doing the other's job then justice breaks down. The system is pointless. That is more or less what we have here. The Defense Attorney turning around and yelling "THIS GUY IS GUILTY LOCK HIM UP"

 

[classical_hero]

I think this is relevant to the current issue. I agree with this guy about what he says about the issue.

Link to video.

 

[Kaitzilla]

...

There is a prosecutorial strategy called the paper tornado. An endless stream of motions to admit this or that as evidence. Adding everything up to and including the kitchen sink at the crime scene and every person within fifty miles to the potential witnesses into the discovery (information regarding the case that the prosecution is required to share with the defense). Since your defense has to deal with every motion and consider the implications of every piece of information provided in discovery...and they bill by the hour...the intent is to run you out of money before your trial even starts...

True true.
Don't forget that they also freeze all your bank accounts, so being rich won't save you either if you get targeted to go to jail.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys...whitey-how-the-feds-disable-criminal-defense/

In both cases, as in countless others, the feds have used certain techniques that virtually assure convictions of both the innocent and the guilty, the wealthy and the poor, the violent drug dealer and the white collar defendant, indifferent to the niceties of “due process of law,” particularly the right to effective assistance of legal counsel. In order to prevent a defendant from retaining a defense team of his choice, federal prosecutors will first freeze his assets, even though a jury has yet to find them to have been illegally obtained. They then bring prosecutions of almost unimaginable complexity, assuring that the financially hobbled defendant’s diminished legal team (or, as is often the case, his court-appointed lawyer) will be too overwhelmed to mount an adequate defense.

I also liked Owen's post.
Put like that, lawyers performing the wrong job does seem to be an issue that affects everyone.

 

[JohnRM]

I think this is relevant to the current issue. I agree with this guy about what he says about the issue.

Link to video.

Surely, blacks don't bear any responsibility. It has to be someone else's fault that they're children get shot resisting arrest and attacking police officers.

 

[Senethro]

Surely, blacks don't bear any responsibility. It has to be someone else's fault that they're children get shot resisting arrest and attacking police officers.

Hey JohnRM, you seem a straight talking kind of guy. Can you explain to me how it is that in other countries street cops can arrest the pettiest of criminals without blowing them away. Also are all the black people in the US criminal justice system there because their parents didn't raise them properly or are there other factors?

 

[Angst]

Hey JohnRM, you seem a straight talking kind of guy. Can you explain to me how it is that in other countries street cops can arrest the pettiest of criminals without blowing them away. Also are all the black people in the US criminal justice system there because their parents didn't raise them properly or are there other factors?

See, that's actually what I don't get. I don't get why American police use so much force in controlling crime. It seems way overboard, and a simple educational course as part of police training (control of civic aggression or something) would perhaps be the very solution to this violence.

 

[Borachio]

What proportion of the Ferguson Police Force is black?

 

[warpus]

See, that's actually what I don't get. I don't get why American police use so much force in controlling crime. It seems way overboard, and a simple educational course as part of police training (control of civic aggression or something) would perhaps be the very solution to this violence.

It seems to me that if you are a policing a country with a well established gun culture and very liberal gun laws, you need to be a bit more "fierce" and "vigilant".. and careful.

But it also seems to me that cops aren't being trained properly either.

 

[JohnRM]

Hey JohnRM, you seem a straight talking kind of guy. Can you explain to me how it is that in other countries street cops can arrest the pettiest of criminals without blowing them away. Also are all the black people in the US criminal justice system there because their parents didn't raise them properly or are there other factors?

I do not live in other countries, nor do I care to examine their justice system or daily crime logs. Therefore, I cannot speak to it.

My experience, in this country, is that there are tens of thousands of blacks (and whites, and others) who get arrested every year and do not manage to get shot by police. Then there are a very small minority of blacks (and whites, and others) who do manage to get shot or beat senseless, and in the vast majority of cases, it is because they are resisting and/or assaulting an officer.

I will submit an acknowledgement that cases do occur wherein an officer exceeds his authority, abuses his power, and/or commits some other travesty, but they are a minute fraction of the lot. Furthermore, even in those cases, it typically does not end in death or dismemberment, because most people are smart enough not to resist. For those that do, I have no sympathy and zero tolerance. May death come swiftly.

With regard to your question; Bad parenting is the beginning, but typically not the end of the factors that contribute. There is a growing belief that, if you feel you are being treated unfairly by the police, you may resist arrest, and violently so, if necessary. This is an extension of the belief that if you have difficult life, it must be the result of being treated unfairly by society, which typically leads to criminal activity.

Given that a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans, in high density urban areas, are minorities (blacks), this leads to a disproportionate number of them being arrested. There are far more impoverish whites than blacks, but they typically live in rural areas where you know everybody and everybody knows you, and are therefore less likely to victimize their neighbors. Even when they do, they are less likely to be arrested due to the lack of police presence in many areas.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

True true.
Don't forget that they also freeze all your bank accounts, so being rich won't save you either if you get targeted to go to jail.

I also liked Owen's post.
Put like that, lawyers performing the wrong job does seem to be an issue that affects everyone.

A true story that you can believe or not:

Guy has money. His money is at least partially shielded from being frozen, so he can defend himself. He gets accused of fraud in federal court, case brought on behalf of several 'victims' spread across a couple states. He gets the paper tornado to the tune of $150K, but wins the case in what appears to be a slam dunk. Despite some 200 cartons of discovery and days of presentation by the prosecution, it takes about an hour of deliberation for the jury to arrive at not guilty.

The next day he gets indicted in a different federal district court, on behalf of several 'victims' scattered across a couple of different states. Much to his astonishment, his very honorable defense attorney tells him that the feds have delivered the discovery, in a semi truck and trailer and there is little doubt that it is the exact same materials. As his attorney this guy is obligated to go through every bit of it and not allowed to assume that it really is all the same stuff, but he is sure that after another 150K he can win this case exactly the same way he won the first one. He is also sure that when he does there will be another indictment in another district since the 'mail fraud' undoubtedly has 'victims' in every state, and despite the available fee he recommended that the guy just plead guilty.

You can take a guess where I met this guy. As a successful businessman with absolutely no criminal history, who was convicted of defrauding his 'victims' of their hard earned less than ten dollars apiece, this guy was given the absolute maximum sentence allowed by law for the crime of which he was convicted. In my entire term in prison he is the only person I met who had received the maximum sentence. I was dead on guilty of multiple violent felonies, for which I was given the minimum sentence.

He was never actually convicted, he was browbeaten into pleading guilty. His sentence was apparently based on his refusal to plead guilty the first time. And the prosecutor would undoubtedly say...let that be a lesson to you all!!!!

 

[tetley]

It's not a training issue. It's a corruption issue. You can't train corruption out of a cop.

 

[JohnRM]

See, that's actually what I don't get. I don't get why American police use so much force in controlling crime. It seems way overboard, and a simple educational course as part of police training (control of civic aggression or something) would perhaps be the very solution to this violence.

There is no amount of training that will change the fact that this man tried to murder a police officer.

What proportion of the Ferguson Police Force is black?

Relevance?

 

[Borachio]

If the majority of the police force is "white", and the majority of the population is "black", you don't think that's relevant?

The population of Ferguson grew rapidly during the first six decades of the twentieth century, from 1,015 people in 1900 to 22,149 people in 1960, an average growth rate of 5% per year. Since 1960 the population has remained nearly constant. The racial composition of Ferguson has shifted since 1990, however. In 1990, residents of Ferguson who were identified in the U.S. Census as White comprised 73.8% of the total, while those identified as Black made up 25.1%.[21] (The remainder, 1.1%, identified with other racial categories.) In the 2000 census, 44.7% were White and 52.4% were African American. In the 2010 census, 29.3% were White and 67.4% were African American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson,_Missouri

That's an amazing shift in demographics in just twenty years, imo.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If the majority of the police force is "white", and the majority of the population is "black", you don't think that's relevant?

It does make it a somewhat interesting question of exactly who the police force is referring to when they say "we are protecting our community".

 

[Senethro]

There is no amount of training that will change the fact that this man tried to murder a police officer.

Are you sure? If a cop manages to inspire a petty criminal (any previous record of violence?) to murder of a law enforcement officer, then either theres a problem with the cop or a problem with the system.

 

[JohnRM]

If the majority of the police force is "white", and the majority of the population is "black", you don't think that's relevant?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson,_Missouri

That's an amazing shift in demographics in just twenty years, imo.

I do not. Perhaps, there are not enough blacks who want to be cops in Ferguson.

 

[JohnRM]

Are you sure? If a cop manages to inspire a petty criminal (any previous record of violence?) to murder of a law enforcement officer, then either theres a problem with the cop or a problem with the system.

Of course. No responsibility for criminals. I think we understand each other.

 

[Angst]

There is no amount of training that will change the fact that this man tried to murder a police officer.

I forget where it was, but there was a recent twitter feed from actual soldiers who talked about the pictures of the police using military equipment. It was pretty clear from them that the police had no training whatsoever in riot control; having your gun raised will actually cause aggression with the rioters, as such raising your gun should be the absolute last resort, yet the militarized police ran around in the streets like Counter Strike models with their shiny military assault rifles. This is something the actual soldiers are trained in very very early, as they need to learn to riot control. Apparently the police has had no such training.

Know that I have no opinion about this actual Brown incident. I'm concerned with the overall American police culture, which I'm additionally told by insiders' articles to have crime movie hero complexes. Are police taught to keep their weapons down until actually attacked or threatened with weapons? Or do they draw their weapons first? I'm unaware really, but the sources I'm presented notes that their idea of aggression control is pretty much about "I'm here now, I'm holding a gun towards you, so you should rationally keep still and passive now." - the problem is that humans being threatened at their lives do not behave rationally, and a gun is life-threatening.

Know that many of the articles I've read are anecdotical and I haven't been presented with an actual description of police education. That's kinda what I'm asking for. Are American police properly trained how to control and prevent aggression, or are they taught how to shoot to defend themselves? Which is prioritized? Because the point of a police isn't to provide additional self defense rights to a state organization, it is to diminish criminal behavior and control aggression.

This incident, I don't know man, isolated Brown could be the aggressor. I don't care that much. The Ferguson demonstrations however (not the looters) have a point though as to what I'm told so far; American police seemingly has severe problems with how to deal with crime properly on the street.

 

[Senethro]

Of course. No responsibility for criminals. I think we understand each other.

No, I don't think we do. Or at least I don't. Seriously, criminals are not like orcs from Mordor or something. Theres a huge difference between shoplifting and serious violent crime. Did he suddenly snap and go for the kill because he was at three strikes and staring down some serious hard weeks at youth county? I'm staggered someone like that could have just completed high school. Perhaps all the stolen nicotine in his system affected his judgement?