Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
If someone intends to shoot you, grabbing for their gun isn't irrational.
Ferguson
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Drove through Ferguson today. Looks a lot better. There were a number of burned-down buildings, and lots of stores were still boarded up. But volunteers were painting the window-boards with decorations, and others were holding up signs encouraging peace and other things. Still a police presence, and parts of the main road were closed to traffic, but hardly an apocalyptic vision, and things seem to have calmed down a lot.
What interested me was how spread-out the burned buildings were, and how the court and police station seemed untouched, though they were right next to the place with the "HAPPY HOLIDAYS" sign.
What interested me was how spread-out the burned buildings were, and how the court and police station seemed untouched, though they were right next to the place with the "HAPPY HOLIDAYS" sign.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Taking out the court or the police station would require overcoming the combined forces of the police and national guard. There is no danger to those buildings until the national guard leaves and the police return to business as usual. 2017 maybe.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Don't get your hopes up. Not everyone shares your dream.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm hoping for major reforms in the StLouis county judicial system and the Ferguson PD. What are you hoping for?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
But in this situation Brown went for the gun first, not the officer. But overall the average beat cop is lightly armed and taking the guns off them is pointless.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The mystery witness that was in the car with Wilson identifies himself!
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
One of many bad effects of not bringing the case to trail and getting a verdict.
wow, WTH. It's like checks and balances failed because every Missouri leader involved in Ferguson justice is incompetent. Well done Missouri... you elected these guys.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/27/ferguson-five-leaders-failed-michael-brown
So apparently, St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch doesn't care that a policeman killed someone.
Reasons:
Mike Brown was killed, and McCulloch didn't bother to build a compelling case against him. Instead, he used a grand jury to create the illusion that he was, but it was actually an elaborate farce (see below). After the indictment obviously failed, I've seen no further efforts to bring the cop that shot Mike Brown many times in the back to trial.
Why wouldn't McCulloch want to prosecute a cop?
His father was a cop who was shot in the line of duty. His brother, nephew, and cousin all served with the police, and his mother was a clerk there. He likely has very high feelings towards police and a bunch of social connections with them.
"“I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,” McCulloch once told the Post-Dispatch."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html
He also refused to appoint a special prosecutor, which was demanded by the black community, which probably would have been an unbiased prosecutor.
Why the grand jury thing was a farce:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666
The assistant prosecutor misrepresented the law for the Ferguson grand jury, took over two months to correct the mistake, then did it in a fashion where she didn't even say specifically how a mistake had been made, probably hoping that the jurors would discount the correction as unimportant.
On how grand juries work:
Grand juries are a tool for prosecutors to establish probable cause via jury instead of via judge/pre-trial.
"Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[14] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
They're intended as an aid to prosecutors to use. For this reason, a prosecutor's case is judged, with no defense. In this case, the prosecutors purposely made their own case look as problematic as possible so that the case would be thrown out, which is completely counter to how the indictment process was designed. Prosecutors are supposed to make the best case possible, not the worst case possible.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
In this particular grand jury, 9 out of 12 grand jurors had to be convinced that there is probable cause to suspect a crime had taken place. Considering that for two months they were judging witness evidence based off of a law ruled unconstitutional in 1985 where its legal for cops to shoot fleeing suspects, and that contradictory evidence was purposely used to make the prosecution's case look weak, it is completely unsurprising that at least 4 out of 12 grand jurors were convinced that no crime had taken place.
But, who cares? There is no double jeopardy for indictments. The case never went to trial, so just try him again, right? The problem here is more simple - I don't think the prosecuting attorney, Robert McCulloch, wants to. If he did, he could just start this thing up again, go for another grand jury, or just go through pre-trial normally. Moreover, I don't think Governor Nixon cares that one of his district attorneys is not doing his job. (If he did care, he would replace McCulloch!)
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/27/ferguson-five-leaders-failed-michael-brown
So apparently, St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch doesn't care that a policeman killed someone.
Reasons:
Mike Brown was killed, and McCulloch didn't bother to build a compelling case against him. Instead, he used a grand jury to create the illusion that he was, but it was actually an elaborate farce (see below). After the indictment obviously failed, I've seen no further efforts to bring the cop that shot Mike Brown many times in the back to trial.
Why wouldn't McCulloch want to prosecute a cop?
His father was a cop who was shot in the line of duty. His brother, nephew, and cousin all served with the police, and his mother was a clerk there. He likely has very high feelings towards police and a bunch of social connections with them.
"“I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,” McCulloch once told the Post-Dispatch."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html
He also refused to appoint a special prosecutor, which was demanded by the black community, which probably would have been an unbiased prosecutor.
Why the grand jury thing was a farce:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666
The assistant prosecutor misrepresented the law for the Ferguson grand jury, took over two months to correct the mistake, then did it in a fashion where she didn't even say specifically how a mistake had been made, probably hoping that the jurors would discount the correction as unimportant.
On how grand juries work:
Grand juries are a tool for prosecutors to establish probable cause via jury instead of via judge/pre-trial.
"Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[14] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
They're intended as an aid to prosecutors to use. For this reason, a prosecutor's case is judged, with no defense. In this case, the prosecutors purposely made their own case look as problematic as possible so that the case would be thrown out, which is completely counter to how the indictment process was designed. Prosecutors are supposed to make the best case possible, not the worst case possible.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
In this particular grand jury, 9 out of 12 grand jurors had to be convinced that there is probable cause to suspect a crime had taken place. Considering that for two months they were judging witness evidence based off of a law ruled unconstitutional in 1985 where its legal for cops to shoot fleeing suspects, and that contradictory evidence was purposely used to make the prosecution's case look weak, it is completely unsurprising that at least 4 out of 12 grand jurors were convinced that no crime had taken place.
But, who cares? There is no double jeopardy for indictments. The case never went to trial, so just try him again, right? The problem here is more simple - I don't think the prosecuting attorney, Robert McCulloch, wants to. If he did, he could just start this thing up again, go for another grand jury, or just go through pre-trial normally. Moreover, I don't think Governor Nixon cares that one of his district attorneys is not doing his job. (If he did care, he would replace McCulloch!)
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
And I have no particular qualms with the current case.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
What EXACTLY did Officer Wilson do wrong?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
The police can do just as much damage to a person with a baton as they can with a gun. The issue is how the cops use them. The vast majority of police officers in the western world use their weapons properly and thy shouldn't be soiled by those rotten ones that do should be prosecuted.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Michael Brown was dead. You don't try corpses. I am not sure why Officer Wilson would be relevant.
Not true. The testemony of witnesses and circumstantial evidence supported Officer Wilson's statememt.
J
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Long since asked and answered. As the saying goes, keep up or keep out.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Bull. Name one witness who claims to have seen anything that transpired within the vehicle, where Wilson alleges that Brown went for his gun, much less that anyone corroborates, or was in any position to corroborate, that Brown went for the gun before Wilson did.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
From over here, the US seems to actually have a really poor record of policemen mismanaging arrests, either by abusing power or by not performing proper aggression control.
Additionally, your legal protection of citizens (ie the possibility to properly prosecute) has severe problems.
James Stuart
King
classical_hero is Australian. Though the current government seems to want to take us in the same direction as the US.
