Ferguson

[Commodore]

If the LA cops shot an unarmed Lindsay Lohan on a drug charge, I wonder if that cop would get off.

That depends. In your ridiculous hypothetical did Lindsey Lohan try to murder a cop with his own weapon, then attempt to flee and then turn around and violently charge back at the cop with the intent to kill after being asked to surrender numerous times?

 

[Labtec600]

Dorian Johnson was Mike Brown's friend and he screwed up in an interview, he finished it by saying his buddy didn't threaten the cop much

and according to the cop they were about 10 ft apart when Brown fell dead.

if Brown's blood was found further away from Wilson then Brown was heading back in Wilson's direction.

Here is what I find troubling.

NPR was interviewing some people in Ferguson. One was a writer or something to the like in Ferguson. He asked if she had read any of the evidence that was released. She said she had not. He then asked what she writes about. She went on about the failure to indict and that it was a sign of a failure of the system. She didnt even read the evidence that she had at her fingertips. Who is she to make a judgement?

Later, they had another person on the show. A president or leader of an organization on race. She went on about how Michael Browns character was being assassinated and that she doesnt believe the video of him robbing the store was even him. His friend testified in front of the grand jury that Michael DID rob the store.

Point being, a lot of people are only seeing what they want to see and ignoring the facts of the case.

People are complaining that he was not indicted and this should have went to trial. What exactly would come out in a trial that would not come out to the grand jury? There is no defense in the grand jury. It's all the state providing the evidence. If it goes to trial, a defense attorney is there to rip apart a witness or evidence.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Of course you can say....what is the Watts area like today?
Do you even know?

Disgracefulness display by the looters and rioters.
Or as my favourite Sec of Defense would say "Freedom is Messy".

The stupid rioting, burning and looting has gone on for too long already, I hope the police crack down on all those criminals.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Here is what I find troubling.

NPR was interviewing some people in Ferguson. One was a writer or something to the like in Ferguson. He asked if she had read any of the evidence that was released. She said she had not. He then asked what she writes about. She went on about the failure to indict and that it was a sign of a failure of the system. She didnt even read the evidence that she had at her fingertips. Who is she to make a judgement?

Later, they had another person on the show. A president or leader of an organization on race. She went on about how Michael Browns character was being assassinated and that she doesnt believe the video of him robbing the store was even him. His friend testified in front of the grand jury that Michael DID rob the store.

Point being, a lot of people are only seeing what they want to see and ignoring the facts of the case.

People are complaining that he was not indicted and this should have went to trial. What exactly would come out in a trial that would not come out to the grand jury? There is no defense in the grand jury. It's all the state providing the evidence. If it goes to trial, a defense attorney is there to rip apart a witness or evidence.

The problem is that there actually was a defense in this grand jury hearing. The prosecutor chose to 'present both sides'...a choice no prosecutor, anywhere, ever, would make. Whether the cop is guilty as sin, or absolutely in the right, the fact that the prosecutor was 'unable' to get an indictment is a clear indication that the system did not work.

The worst part being that people in StLouis county, who are familiar with their prosecutor and his history expected exactly this from him. Faced with a petition to recuse himself, signed by tens of thousands of people who did not trust him to prosecute the case, he refused and then made no effort to prove them wrong.

That's why it genuinely does not matter if the cop is guilty or not. The prosecutor abused the system such that we will never actually know.

 

[JohnRM]

Here is what I find troubling.

NPR was interviewing some people in Ferguson. One was a writer or something to the like in Ferguson. He asked if she had read any of the evidence that was released. She said she had not. He then asked what she writes about. She went on about the failure to indict and that it was a sign of a failure of the system. She didnt even read the evidence that she had at her fingertips. Who is she to make a judgement?

Later, they had another person on the show. A president or leader of an organization on race. She went on about how Michael Browns character was being assassinated and that she doesnt believe the video of him robbing the store was even him. His friend testified in front of the grand jury that Michael DID rob the store.

Point being, a lot of people are only seeing what they want to see and ignoring the facts of the case.

People are complaining that he was not indicted and this should have went to trial. What exactly would come out in a trial that would not come out to the grand jury? There is no defense in the grand jury. It's all the state providing the evidence. If it goes to trial, a defense attorney is there to rip apart a witness or evidence.

If it ever went to trial and he was acquitted, what we have seen the past two days would look like a bunch of tree-hugging hippies sitting in circle singing "Kumbaya". We're talking April 29, 1992 all over again.

 

[Commodore]

Here is what I find troubling.

NPR was interviewing some people in Ferguson. One was a writer or something to the like in Ferguson. He asked if she had read any of the evidence that was released. She said she had not. He then asked what she writes about. She went on about the failure to indict and that it was a sign of a failure of the system. She didnt even read the evidence that she had at her fingertips. Who is she to make a judgement?

Later, they had another person on the show. A president or leader of an organization on race. She went on about how Michael Browns character was being assassinated and that she doesnt believe the video of him robbing the store was even him. His friend testified in front of the grand jury that Michael DID rob the store.

Point being, a lot of people are only seeing what they want to see and ignoring the facts of the case.

People are complaining that he was not indicted and this should have went to trial. What exactly would come out in a trial that would not come out to the grand jury? There is no defense in the grand jury. It's all the state providing the evidence. If it goes to trial, a defense attorney is there to rip apart a witness or evidence.

Exactly. The bolded part also definitely applies to the usual suspects here at CFC OT. Those usual suspects don't care about any of the evidence that shows Michael Brown was nothing more than a vicious criminal who tried to murder a cop who was merely trying to do his job in the service of his community. All they see (and all they want to see) is that a black teen was killed by a white cop. And because of the racial makeup if this incident, the usual suspects here automatically think this was racially motivated and a crime must have been committed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Exactly. The bolded part also definitely applies to the usual suspects here at CFC OT. Those usual suspects don't care about any of the evidence that shows Michael Brown was nothing more than a vicious criminal who tried to murder a cop who was merely trying to do his job in the service of his community. All they see (and all they want to see) is that a black teen was killed by a white cop. And because of the racial makeup if this incident, the usual suspects here automatically think this was racially motivated and a crime must have been committed.

Exactly. And the other usual suspects see a cop 'trying to do his job in the service of his community' and frankly don't seem to notice that a member of that very community ended up dead in the street. Service to the community? How exactly is that a service to the community?

Why are people afraid to see a cop on trial? Why does a prosecutor throw a case without an indictment that he could easily have obtained?

 

[warpus]

Given the evidence, how would the prosecutor have argued the case in order to get indictment?

I'm no lawyer, but I watch Law and Order, and I don't see it.

 

[James Stuart]

The problem is that there actually was a defense in this grand jury hearing. The prosecutor chose to 'present both sides'...a choice no prosecutor, anywhere, ever, would make. Whether the cop is guilty as sin, or absolutely in the right, the fact that the prosecutor was 'unable' to get an indictment is a clear indication that the system did not work.

The worst part being that people in StLouis county, who are familiar with their prosecutor and his history expected exactly this from him. Faced with a petition to recuse himself, signed by tens of thousands of people who did not trust him to prosecute the case, he refused and then made no effort to prove them wrong.

That's why it genuinely does not matter if the cop is guilty or not. The prosecutor abused the system such that we will never actually know.

I am in full and complete agreemen with this post.

 

[Labtec600]

The problem is that there actually was a defense in this grand jury hearing. The prosecutor chose to 'present both sides'...a choice no prosecutor, anywhere, ever, would make. Whether the cop is guilty as sin, or absolutely in the right, the fact that the prosecutor was 'unable' to get an indictment is a clear indication that the system did not work.

The worst part being that people in StLouis county, who are familiar with their prosecutor and his history expected exactly this from him. Faced with a petition to recuse himself, signed by tens of thousands of people who did not trust him to prosecute the case, he refused and then made no effort to prove them wrong.

That's why it genuinely does not matter if the cop is guilty or not. The prosecutor abused the system such that we will never actually know.

From the transcripts I read, it wasn't even him doing the questioning.

Sounds like an interesting trial - first in history where the defense AND the people request a different location for a fair trial...?

 

[JohnRM]

Darren Wilson was also the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

 

[Zkribbler]

Here are the transcripts:

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html

 

[Commodore]

Exactly. And the other usual suspects see a cop 'trying to do his job in the service of his community' and frankly don't seem to notice that a member of that very community ended up dead in the street. Service to the community? How exactly is that a service to the community?

It's a service to the community because it got a vicious thug with a history of violent and anti-social behavior off the streets and removed him as a threat to the community. I say good on officer Wilson and it would be a terrible injustice if a federal indictment comes down for this.

For the record I think Michael Brown's stepfather should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot for yelling "burn this b**** down" repeatedly.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Given the evidence, how would the prosecutor have argued the case in order to get indictment?

I'm no lawyer, but I watch Law and Order, and I don't see it.

The thing that makes it understandable is looking at what the purpose of grand jury hearings is in the first place.

The grand jury isn't intended to determine guilt. They are just a check, or restraint, on the prosecutor. He is supposed to show them that a crime may have been committed (someone is dead here) and there is some good reason to think that if there was a crime this person would be a good candidate to convict of it.

This system is what keeps my local cops, who despise me, from just picking me up on some totally non existent charge, and making me fight my way through a trial over nothing. My local prosecutor would have to show a grand jury that some sort of crime was at least potentially committed and that in some way shape or form I might have been involved. Without that I could spend the rest of my life in court, being found not guilty of spurious charge after spurious charge after spurious charge.

So, given that as the purpose of the grand jury, we have appropriate rules for the grand jury. There is no defense presented, because that puts a burden on the accused...specifically the burden that the grand jury is supposed to be preventing from falling on people who haven't done anything, when maybe nothing has even been done.

All this prosecutor had to show was that Brown was shot full of holes and Wilson shot him. No question that a crime may have been committed and that if it was then Wilson is a valid suspect. Beyond that anything else to be decided is decided in a trial.

Now, the prosecutor could just as well have thrown the trial. But throwing a trial without it being really obvious might be tricky. On the other hand, most people really don't get the whole grand jury concept. He showed them all the evidence? Well, that seems fair enough. Why wouldn't he?

He wouldn't because that is not how the system works. That is also not what he has done in literally thousands of other cases. So what have we got? Clear favoritism displayed by the prosecutor. That's the problem.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's a service to the community because it got a vicious thug with a history of violent and anti-social behavior off the streets and removed him as a threat to the community. I say good on officer Wilson and it would be a terrible injustice if a federal indictment comes down for this.

For the record I think Michael Brown's stepfather should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot for yelling "burn this b**** down" repeatedly.

For the record I think the prosecutor should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot for suborning the judicial system in blatantly obvious fashion, knowing full well that the people who expected no less from him would consider such a betrayal as just cause to burn the city to the ground.

 

[Commodore]

For the record I think the prosecutor should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot for suborning the judicial system in blatantly obvious fashion, knowing full well that the people who expected no less from him would consider such a betrayal as just cause to burn the city to the ground.

So basically instead of taking the evidence for what it is (since it proves your preconceived assumptions of this case were 100% wrong), you are trying to shift the focus onto the prosecutor to still make this seem like Michael Brown was some sort of victim. He was not a victim.

The absolute 100% truth of the matter was that officer Wilson applied the use of deadly force correctly and justly, and you can't stand it. You were so sure that this was a racially motivated killing and now that has been proven to be false, you are grasping at any little thing you can to still make it seem like this was the result of a corrupt system instead of what it really was; a dangerous criminal who refused to surrender and wouldn't stop attacking until the police were forced to kill him.

Despite the incompetence of the prosecutor or the governor or the police chief, the fact of the matter is the only one who is responsible for Michael Brown's death is Michael Brown himself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So basically instead of taking the evidence for what it is (since it proves your preconceived assumptions of this case were 100% wrong), you are trying to shift the focus onto the prosecutor to still make this seem like Michael Brown was some sort of victim. He was not a victim.

The absolute 100% truth of the matter was that officer Wilson applied the use of deadly force correctly and justly, and you can't stand it. You were so sure that this was a racially motivated killing and now that has been proven to be false, you are grasping at any little thing you can to still make it seem like this was the result of a corrupt system instead of what it really was; a dangerous criminal who refused to surrender and wouldn't stop attacking until the police were forced to kill him.

Despite the incompetence of the prosecutor or the governor or the police chief, the fact of the matter is the only one who is responsible for Michael Brown's death is Michael Brown himself.

Where exactly do you see me making any judgement, preconceived or not, about the issue of officer Wilson?

Where do you see me calling it a 'racially motivated killing'?

Have I argued against the knee jerk 'cops do no wrong so he must have been right' reactions? Absolutely. Have I said there was no point in 'waiting for the outcome of the case'? Absolutely. As it turns out, I was right. There is no outcome of the case, and like 70,000 people who petitioned for the prosecutor to recuse himself I didn't expect that there would be. The prosecutor, who has never been accused of incompetence, by anyone, ever, has somehow failed to get an indictment so that a trial could be held in the matter.

The fact is that under law no one can say word one about who is responsible for the death of Michael Brown...including me...or you.

 

[Commodore]

Where exactly do you see me making any judgement, preconceived or not, about the issue of officer Wilson?

Where do you see me calling it a 'racially motivated killing'?

Have I argued against the knee jerk 'cops do no wrong so he must have been right' reactions? Absolutely. Have I said there was no point in 'waiting for the outcome of the case'? Absolutely. As it turns out, I was right. There is no outcome of the case, and like 70,000 people who petitioned for the prosecutor to recuse himself I didn't expect that there would be. The prosecutor, who has never been accused of incompetence, by anyone, ever, has somehow failed to get an indictment so that a trial could be held in the matter.

The fact is that under law no one can say word one about who is responsible for the death of Michael Brown...including me...or you.

How can you say there was no outcome? There was a very clear outcome: the grand jury found no probable cause to go to trial.

As to your assumptions about the case: Are you going to tell me you didn't think officer Wilson was guilty of some crime when this all started? I know you are going to tell me you didn't assume guilt, but the tone of your arguments say otherwise. Now, being an intelligence collector (and a damn good one if you'll allow me to toot my own horn for a bit) I have become quite adept at reading people's motivations by how they structure their arguments and the words they choose. I also have a tendency to research the posting history of those I am having discussions with so I can get an idea of their philosophies and tendencies so I can make a reasonable guess as to what they will say next and what positions they will take on a particular issue.

So while I cannot say with 100% certainty that my assessment of your position is correct, I am reasonably sure that it is mostly correct. Maybe you didn't think this was racially motivated, but I am pretty sure you were in the camp of those who thought Wilson was guilty.

 

[James Stuart]

How can you say there was no outcome? There was a very clear outcome: the grand jury found no probable cause to go to trial.

As to your assumptions about the case: Are you going to tell me you didn't think officer Wilson was guilty of some crime when this all started? I know you are going to tell me you didn't assume guilt, but the tone of your arguments say otherwise. Now, being an intelligence collector (and a damn good one if you'll allow me to toot my own horn for a bit) I have become quite adept at reading people's motivations by how they structure their arguments and the words they choose. I also have a tendency to research the posting history of those I am having discussions with so I can get an idea of their philosophies and tendencies so I can make a reasonable guess as to what they will say next and what positions they will take on a particular issue.

So while I cannot say with 100% certainty that my assessment of your position is correct, I am reasonably sure that it is mostly correct. Maybe you didn't think this was racially motivated, but I am pretty sure you were in the camp of those who thought Wilson was guilty.

Commodore, for what it's worth, I think Wilson is innocent, and I still think the prosecutor rigged this grand jury case to avoid an indictment. Under the rules of a grand jury - which, I admit, is not something that exists over here so far as I know, and which I have only made myself familiar with because of this thread - this was a slam dunk indictment.

The prosecutor has openly admitted that he treated this case differently by showing the grand jury all of the evidence, and if all of the evidence is shown it's impossible to find Wilson guilty of a crime. But that is not the grand jury's job. The grand jury's job is to determine whether or not the prosecution has enough evidence to go to trial, not whether the defence has enough evidence to avoid a conviction, or even whether the prosecution has enough to secure a conviction.

The prosecutor in this case has clearly done his job incorrectly. Whether that is through corruption or incompetence - my vote is for the former, given his past record, but I am unfamiliar with those cases - is something that should be investigated.

 

[IglooDame]

From what I've read grand juries almost 100% end in an indictment in the U.S.

Unless the accused is a cop - if the accused is a cop the indictment rate drops bigtime.

So it seems that this particular prosecutor didn't do anything much differently than how these cases are usually handled in other parts of the country. Race doesn't seem to play a role either - but profession, like I said, seems to.

The problem is that there actually was a defense in this grand jury hearing. The prosecutor chose to 'present both sides'...a choice no prosecutor, anywhere, ever, would make. Whether the cop is guilty as sin, or absolutely in the right, the fact that the prosecutor was 'unable' to get an indictment is a clear indication that the system did not work.

The worst part being that people in StLouis county, who are familiar with their prosecutor and his history expected exactly this from him. Faced with a petition to recuse himself, signed by tens of thousands of people who did not trust him to prosecute the case, he refused and then made no effort to prove them wrong.

That's why it genuinely does not matter if the cop is guilty or not. The prosecutor abused the system such that we will never actually know.

Commodore, for what it's worth, I think Wilson is innocent, and I still think the prosecutor rigged this grand jury case to avoid an indictment. Under the rules of a grand jury - which, I admit, is not something that exists over here so far as I know, and which I have only made myself familiar with because of this thread - this was a slam dunk indictment.

The prosecutor has openly admitted that he treated this case differently by showing the grand jury all of the evidence, and if all of the evidence is shown it's impossible to find Wilson guilty of a crime. But that is not the grand jury's job. The grand jury's job is to determine whether or not the prosecution has enough evidence to go to trial, not whether the defence has enough evidence to avoid a conviction, or even whether the prosecution has enough to secure a conviction.

The prosecutor in this case has clearly done his job incorrectly. Whether that is through corruption or incompetence - my vote is for the former, given his past record, but I am unfamiliar with those cases - is something that should be investigated.

This is my question as well, both regarding this case and in general. I'd be interested to know (from JR, any other lawyer on here, or indeed in the media) whether a prosecutor could have readily gotten an indictment if they hadn't given the grand jury ALL the evidence, and instead run it just like any other indictment.

And, is this truly the general problem with our judicial system as it relates to criminal actions by police? DAs and other prosecutors that work hand-in-hand with the police on a daily basis using the secrecy and lowered bar ( ) of the indictment process to effectively block police abuse of power cases from coming to trial? Do we need a judicial version of Internal Affairs to prosecute these cases?