Ferguson

[Agent327]

And it should be obvious that anyone who would attack a cop in his car and try to get his gun to kill the cop for no (legitimate) reason is an imminent threat to the community.

The only obvious thing from that would be that said person would be a threat to the police officer in question.

 

[classical_hero]

From The handbook for Federal Grand Jurors. Although state rules may vary, if they vary a whole lot they become unconstitutional so this should be adequate.



Or by the prosecutor on behalf of the accused.

Dead teenager. Has a crime been committed? Maybe. He clearly is dead by gunshot, not natural causes. Is shooting people generally a crime? Well, usually. So is there probable cause to believe that a crime was committed? Lots of people will think so. Lots of jurors as well. A body full of bullet holes is generally enough to get a finding of probable cause that some sort of crime was committed. You would have to really work to convince people that there probably wasn't. Doing that work is not the prosecutor's job.

Yeah it is based on the evidence provided, but for you to prove probable cause you would have to leave out the forensic evidence, since that was the largest reason why Grand Jury did not proceed with the case. Is it normal to leave out forensic evidence in a grand jury?

 

[onejayhawk]

I am stumped why Ferguson is still in the news. This is much more a media generated event than anything organic. Since it impossible to stretch the facts to civil rights violations, why has the interest not evaporated.

The police performed at a typical government service level. The people that are beating the drum are largely the same ones that want government service health care. Strange.

J

 

[Old Hippy]

I am stumped why Ferguson is still in the news. This is much more a media generated event than anything organic. Since it impossible to stretch the facts to civil rights violations, why has the interest not evaporated.

The police performed at a typical government service level. The people that are beating the drum are largely the same ones that want government service health care. Strange.

J

do you mean
why won't those pesky protesters just go away?
they can not possibly have any thoughts of there own, without all the media generated hype....

 

[classical_hero]

We are living in a post fact world.

 

[Old Hippy]

We are living in a post fact world.

we always have

 

[Smote]

Dead teenager. Has a crime been committed? Maybe. He clearly is dead by gunshot, not natural causes. Is shooting people generally a crime? Well, usually. So is there probable cause to believe that a crime was committed? Lots of people will think so. Lots of jurors as well. A body full of bullet holes is generally enough to get a finding of probable cause that some sort of crime was committed. You would have to really work to convince people that there probably wasn't. Doing that work is not the prosecutor's job.

This. Maybe add a couple witnesses, just to say who did the shooting. Done. Probable cause.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is it normal to leave out forensic evidence in a grand jury?

It is normal to leave out evidence even if it points to guilt, as long as it isn't necessary to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed and that there is probable cause that the accused person did it.

It is normal to remind the grand jury that determination of guilt is not their job, ad nauseum. Like the handbook says, there is usually no explanation by (or for) the accused. If the dead guy was killed in self defense, or by accident, or for some really good reason then the accused might be found not guilty of the crime, but generally speaking shooting people is probably a crime. So a crime was probably committed. The guy with the empty gun probably did it.

Probable cause, and their job is done, and next case. Spending three months rooting through evidence relating to guilt or not was not their job, as the handbook clearly states. They were misused by the prosecutor who was also not doing his job.

 

[classical_hero]

do you mean
why won't those pesky protesters just go away?
they can not possibly have any thoughts of there own, without all the media generated hype....

Where are the protests over this incident? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/5yearold-girl-shot-while-_n_6123908.html

 

[Antilogic]

I think white community leaders on Fox need to denounce this clearly despicable act of white-on-white crime.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Where are the protests over this incident? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/5yearold-girl-shot-while-_n_6123908.html

It is sure as hell a tragedy. I am saddened. But what exactly is there to protest about?

I have little doubt that the police will apply themselves not just adequately, but wholeheartedly, to investigating this crime.

I have no doubt that once they have apprehended those responsible the local prosecutor will approach a grand jury or judge and say 'dead kid, gun, those guys' and the case will proceed directly to trial...at least as directly as the judicial process allows.

I have no doubt that every component of the judicial process will perform their part to the best of their ability. And I have no doubt that when that happens the system works.

 

[Zkribbler]

And it should be obvious that anyone who would attack a cop in his car and try to get his gun to kill the cop for no (legitimate) reason is an imminent threat to the community.

"Full Definition of IMMINENT: ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over"

Someone who is running away is placing no one under an imminent threat.

 

[Antilogic]

Hey, man, the Feds have violated that imminent word like a Bangkok hooker in the totes super secret FISA court. Why not let local police in on the fun?

 

[Zkribbler]

I am stumped why Ferguson is still in the news.

Have you heard the nationwide protests have now spread to London?

Insofar as this incident involves just one teenage kid in Missouri, you're right. But minorities don't see it this way. They see this case as the personification of a legal system that targets minorities. Many/most of them could tell you of incidents in which they personally have been unfairly targeted.

This reminds me of a poll I saw while the OJ jury was deliberating. 80% of whites interviewed said OJ was guilty; 80% of blacks said OJ was innocent. Whites and blacks view the criminal justice system entirely differently.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Have you heard the nationwide protests have now spread to London?

Insofar as this incident involves just one teenage kid in Missouri, you're right. But minorities don't see it this way. They see this case as the personification of a legal system that targets minorities. Many/most of them could tell you of incidents in which they personally have been unfairly targeted.

This reminds me of a poll I saw while the OJ jury was deliberating. 80% of whites interviewed said OJ was guilty; 80% of blacks said OJ was innocent. Whites and blacks view the criminal justice system entirely differently.

As a white who has personally collided with the criminal justice system, I think the blacks are right. But this actually isn't about a legal system that targets minorities, it is about a legal system that protects itself.

 

[James Stuart]

Link your source then please for Missouri Grand Jury rules. I'd like to see what you read.

Here you go Mobby . I think the government of Missouri might be trying to hide those rules from the public right now. For what it's worth, I clicked on several other states in the main page of that website, and they all worked.

I might be able to find you another source, but I don't think it would be fair, as it wouldn't be what I read. It might, therefore, have different information. Best to just hope that page is just not loading temporarily, and will come back soon.

Also, as to the witnesses that said Brown was surrendering...I read in an article that several of them recanted when called before the Grand Jury and said they had lied about that. Did you know this?

Yes, I was aware of that. I am unsure of why a prosecutor would even call them before the GJ, if he wasn't certain their testimony would get Wilson indicted.

And again, there is a difference in showing evidence that is in Wilsons favor, and saying a defense was made. Those are not quite the same thing.

Hence my use of the descriptor de facto. There was no lawyer in the room, the prosecutor was still asking Wilson questions - I'm not sure what you'd call this; it's not a cross-examination, as Wilson was never examined by his lawyer. At the same time, is it an examination if the first questions are asked by the prosecutor, rather than Wilson's lawyer? - witnesses were still called.

The main problem is in the way that the GJ was conducted. This source is one I used before the verdict came down to familiaries myself with how the GJ was supposed to function, and this is one I stumbled across Googling just today, explaining why the GJ was poorly conducted by the prosecutor in this case, by several professors at Columbia Law School.

 

[MobBoss]

Here you go Mobby . I think the government of Missouri might be trying to hide those rules from the public right now. For what it's worth, I clicked on several other states in the main page of that website, and they all worked.

They aren't trying to hide it as I was able to find Chapter 540 in total, although your link didnt work. So which sub-chapter are you alleging that says evidence for the defense is not to be heard by the Grand Jury?

But fwiw I found this which seems to answer the Prosecutors ability to present evidence: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000001401.html

540.140. The prosecuting or circuit attorney shall be allowed at all times to appear before the grand jury on his request, for the purpose of giving information relative to any matter cognizable by them, and shall be permitted to interrogate witnesses before them, when they or he shall deem it necessary. No prosecuting or circuit attorney or any other officer or person, except the grand jurors, shall be permitted to be present during the expression of their opinions or the giving of* their votes on any matter before them.

Emphasis mine. I don't see any limitations on what information/evidence the Prosecuting attorney is able to give to the Grand Jury there, do you?

I might be able to find you another source, but I don't think it would be fair, as it wouldn't be what I read. It might, therefore, have different information. Best to just hope that page is just not loading temporarily, and will come back soon.

Page is up and fine, although you cant use your link to find it. However, I think I just quoted you the correct part of Chapter 540 that entails scope of duties of the prosecutor.

Yes, I was aware of that. I am unsure of why a prosecutor would even call them before the GJ, if he wasn't certain their testimony would get Wilson indicted.

Probably because their testimony was 'relative' to the matter before them. As per C540.140.

Whatever you had read earlier, I think you may have misread it or mis-interpreted it.

 

[bhsup]

"Full Definition of IMMINENT: ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over"

Someone who is running away is placing no one under an imminent threat.

Ready to take place indeed. Like from a violent man who had just tried to kill a cop and was running down the street. Quite possibly ready to bolt into a home and take someone hostage. You just don't know, do you? Someone willing to assault a cop and try to kill him for no reason is capable of any sort of violence against anybody.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I want to send money to help the peaceful demonstrations and possibly some useful stuff also. Could you please give me a cue whom I should address or what site to look on the matter?

 

[James Stuart]

They aren't trying to hide it as I was able to find Chapter 540 in total, although your link didnt work. So which sub-chapter are you alleging that says evidence for the defense is not to be heard by the Grand Jury?

But fwiw I found this which seems to answer the Prosecutors ability to present evidence: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000001401.html



Emphasis mine. I don't see any limitations on what information/evidence the Prosecuting attorney is able to give to the Grand Jury there, do you?



Page is up and fine, although you cant use your link to find it. However, I think I just quoted you the correct part of Chapter 540 that entails scope of duties of the prosecutor.



Probably because their testimony was 'relative' to the matter before them. As per C540.140.

Whatever you had read earlier, I think you may have misread it or mis-interpreted it.

I notice you didn't quote my last paragraph, which essentially outlines my argument. The prosecutor may be legally entitled to scuttle his own case, but it is so far outside the norm that it defies the stated purpose of the grand jury. He had no reason to introduce evidence or witnesses that decreased his chances of taking the matter to trial.