The Ferguson Indictment (on Justice)

[vy65]

Come on vy, nobody forces the prosecutor to do anything. If he didn't feel like he could bring a case forward, he should've either not brought it, or simply removed himself from the case, and let some other prosecutor that firmly believe there was a case to go for it. Both you and I know there's indictments every day on cases much, much flimsier than this one. Because it was a cop involved, then all prosecutorial diligence changes? That's what makes cases like this stink.

His hands were tied. He's an elected official. Whether you agree or disagree with the dynamics of electing that office, from a self-preservation stand point, he had to at least put it before the grand jury. If he hadn't, his career would be ed (not that it isn't already), but there'd be a far greater public/media outcry.

I took a look at some MO caselaw before, and what he did is certainly fine. I know what you're saying about prosecutorial dilligence, but the flip side to that is the ability to exercise discretion to not go to the grand jury in the first place. I think his discretion was taken away from external sources, so he did the next best thing.

You have a point about recusing himself. I don't know if he could have, but that may have been the right thing to do. I don't know.

[vy65]

Even if Wilson was innocent, it's a lot different when they get to say their side of the story.

I think this is a point that isn't getting much attention. The grand jury heard a wealth of evidence. There was testimony from 60 witnesses (although, without cross-examination). To have that much evidence before you and still not think there's probable cause should tell you something about Wilson's innocence.

Another thing that gets swept under the rug is the juries role in this. They're not some pawns of the prosecutor. In my experience, jurors, especially in a case like this, take their job seriously. They pay attention, scrutinize evidence, and, in a grand jury, can ask questions. There's also the judge who's making sure everything is done properly. Given those procedural mechanisms, the fact that the grand jury thought that there wasn't even to meet even the low probable cause standard tells me that Wilson was probably really innocent. So, the idea that this should have gone to a full-blown jury trial seems misguided to me because an innocent person shouldn't be run through a gauntlet of that type of trial because the mob is blood-hungry.

[pgardn]

What's lost in all of this is that this didn't happen because Brown was black. It happened because lots of cops are trigger happy assholes who refuse to back down to cool off a situation and instead shoot their way through.

Cops kill people of all colors all the time and the exact same legal outcome occurs.

Difference is most neighborhoods don't riot when it happens.

It's more likely to happen to a young black male.
Police still have a wide variety of differing tactics depending on what part of the country or even county one is in. Some really do take the peace keeping role seriously, some take the enforcer role first in exactly the same situations.

Bottom line though, if this did go to trial, just on the evidence we have been privy to, the cop walks. Not even the mildest form of man slaughter. The outcome is the same. But we have been allowed a unique look how prosecutors and DA's can deal with grand juries.
My wife had a totally different experiences in her world on two grand juries in Bexar county. Both criminal. I have never been called for one, just silly civil cases. Never got selected. Personally I have learned quite a good deal from this.


And making the announcement after dark was genius. I guess Ferguson wanted all to see the rable that show up in chaotic situations.

[vy65]

I suspect the numbers are roughly similar at the state level, even in St. Louis County.

The grand jury system is actually set up to prefer indictments to no bills, slanting the field decidedly against the accused (accused individuals are rarely invited to grand jury proceedings, even more rarely asked to tell their story in their own words) and requiring only a probable cause showing (not the adduction of proof beyond a reasonable doubt). A grand jury proceeding shouldn't be a mini-trial, but that is apparently not what this prosecutor thought of this particular presentation.

I get that this is what happens as a matter of course, but why is that not reflected in the statutes and case-law governing grand jury procedure? I'm not trying to make a point - I'm just curious.

[Yonivore]

In each one of those examples, the guys with the weapons got off with no penalty... and in Wilson's case, not even a trial. That's their issue here. People are mad because they don't feel like there's any accountability, and they don't feel they're getting a fair say in the process of accountability. The Rodney King jury had 10 whites, a Hispanic, and an Asian. There was one minority, a Puerto Rican, on the Zimmerman jury. Wilson won't even be going to trial.

I'm pretty sure the lives of everyone directly involved in each of these cases was forever changed in a negative way. That's a penalty. And, in the case of Zimmerman and Wilson, they did nothing wrong.

The problem is not that innocent black kids are being gunned down every day.

Neither Michael Brown nor Trayvon Martin were innocent. Both were -- according to witnesses and evidence -- attacking those that shot them.

These are extreme examples that, for these people, illustrate the larger problem.

If these are examples of a problem, one could be forgiven for believing there is no problem or, that the criminal element in predominantly black communities have no regard for life or the law.

Black Americans are disproportionately suspected of crime, arrested for petty crimes, and given harsher sentences for those crimes. But they are certainly more at risk than any other race of being shot, unarmed, by police for doing something that doesn't require that kind of force. And in the most high-profile of those cases (whether you agree they should have been high-profile or not), there has been no penalty for the shooter/beater.

Again, these are not examples of unarmed blacks being shot for no reason (or for reasons not requiring deadly force). In both cases, they were attacking the shooter and the shooter was justified in using the force.

There is a 0% chance that a white kid walking through a neighborhood at night gets shot by the neighborhood watchman, or that a 12-year old white kid playing "cowboy" and pretending to shoot cars with his toy shotgun in the suburbs gets gunned down by police. And that's without considering what the trial might look like if that did happen.

You can't know this. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer would be shot if he, as Brown did, turned and ran toward the officer to attack him again. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that was sitting on another man and banging his head against a sidewalk would get shot if the person he was beating was armed.

And, as for the 12 year-old; Kansas Police Shoot Unarmed White Teen 16 times As By Standers Beg Them to Stop Shooting (Video)

Meanwhile, the rest of America tells them to suck it up and deal with it. They tell them it's their problem, that they need to change their culture. Try telling a black guy who works hard and hasn't committed any crime in his life that he just needs to quit complaining and accept a higher level of scrutiny and risk because other people who look like him have a higher tendency to be criminals. Or that his kids will have to watch out for that as well. Tell him that he has a responsibility to evolve the culture of people who look like him. Because he's part of that group.

The rest of America is telling them to get a hold of their culture and their children because they're committing crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population.

You'd be pissed off too, if the roles were reversed. But you'll never have to worry about it. You were born with the benefit of the doubt.

If that were the case, 100% of blacks would believe as you do. As it is, they don't.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were "phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking." One of these phrases that subs ute for thought today is one that depicts the current problems of blacks in America as "a legacy of slavery."

...Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and "War on Poverty" programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black "leaders."

Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other "leaders" that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed "legacy of slavery" found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.

He's black, in case you didn't know. And, there are other examples.

I don't have to justify protesters. I support the right of people to assemble and protest for anything.

Nor should you have to but, I notice you left out "peacefully" in front of assemble. Telling.

I never claimed the looters were justified. [/COLOR] them for their selfishness and opportunism, and moreso for being a distraction and excuse for people like you. [COLOR=#000000] That said, it's a little strange how much we mourn for the loss of cars and bottles of Heineken in the context of things like Katrina and Ferguson. But we've always favored big commerce over humanity.

Destroying people's property and livelihood can, in many cases, destroy their lives. And, in the case of the Inglewood riots, scores of people died as a result of this mentality. I think we're lucky no one lost their life last night...but, it's not over, is it?

[vy65]

I think that's actually unlikely. It's very hard to succeed on a civil case against a police officer who is acting in the course and scope of his official duties. The claim generally has to be brought under federal law (28 USC s. 1983, specifically) and in federal court, and officers tend to enjoy at least some kinds of immunity -- at least in certain cir stances. It's been a long time since I've dealt with such a case (and I've never looked at the issues under Missouri law), but my recollection is that while there's a visceral appeal to a civil case, it's a legal longshot.

I think they could also bring state law tort claims as well. A lot of states also have their own tort claims acts that apply to public servants. So you get those in addition to the 1983 claims, but yah, they're losers.

[Yonivore]

I get that this is what happens as a matter of course, but why is that not reflected in the statutes and case-law governing grand jury procedure? I'm not trying to make a point - I'm just curious.

I think the prosecutor knew the officer would be no billed by the Grand Jury and, also knowing how the community thugs and national race-baiters would respond, decided to air all evidence before the Grand Jury so there would not be any speculation about on what their decision was based. He's also released nearly all the evidence, to the public, that the Grand Jury saw.

They rioted anyway.

[Chomag]

white cop trolling a black neighborhood, always a good idea for the cops.

I agree Cops should just ignore the black neighborhoods and let them steal. kill, and destroy their own. All calls should be unanswered if there are blacks involved...

[Chomag]

.. had time to harass a couple blacks, I'm sure the cop was respectful, polite, non-inflammatory, to get out of the street.

License To Kill (anybody): USA's militarized, anti-citizen police state. Everybody, and everything they own and do, is suspect. It's The American Way.

Steal from a store and its a pretty sure way to get "harassed by cops" Dear god man what universe do you live in! Would it be possible for your to join ours every once in while?

[Yonivore]

So, what happened to the National Guard?



Hmmmm...

[Shastafarian]

http://theurbandaily.com/2014/11/25/...jury-decision/

National Bar Association questions the decision

The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

Smackdown on McCullough:

The family of Michael Brown requested that District Attorney McCullough step aside and allow a special prosecutor be assigned to the investigation to give the community confidence that the grand jury would conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the tragic shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown. The grand jury’s decision confirms the fear that many expressed months ago — that a fair and impartial investigation would not happen.

[vy65]

National Bar Association =|= American Bar Association

The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges. It represents the interests of approximately 60,000 lawyers, judges, law professors and law students.The NBA is organized around 23 substantive law sections, 9 divisions, 12 regions and 80 affiliate chapters throughout the United States and around the world.

[ElNono]

His hands were tied. He's an elected official. Whether you agree or disagree with the dynamics of electing that office, from a self-preservation stand point, he had to at least put it before the grand jury. If he hadn't, his career would be ed (not that it isn't already), but there'd be a far greater public/media outcry.

I took a look at some MO caselaw before, and what he did is certainly fine. I know what you're saying about prosecutorial dilligence, but the flip side to that is the ability to exercise discretion to not go to the grand jury in the first place. I think his discretion was taken away from external sources, so he did the next best thing.

You have a point about recusing himself. I don't know if he could have, but that may have been the right thing to do. I don't know.

I don't know about the "the next best thing". Maybe for his career, but certainly not for the people he was representing (which is the family and the citizens of the state, officer Wilson notwithstanding), IMO.

I think this is a point that isn't getting much attention. The grand jury heard a wealth of evidence. There was testimony from 60 witnesses (although, without cross-examination). To have that much evidence before you and still not think there's probable cause should tell you something about Wilson's innocence.

Another thing that gets swept under the rug is the juries role in this. They're not some pawns of the prosecutor. In my experience, jurors, especially in a case like this, take their job seriously. They pay attention, scrutinize evidence, and, in a grand jury, can ask questions. There's also the judge who's making sure everything is done properly. Given those procedural mechanisms, the fact that the grand jury thought that there wasn't even to meet even the low probable cause standard tells me that Wilson was probably really innocent. So, the idea that this should have gone to a full-blown jury trial seems misguided to me because an innocent person shouldn't be run through a gauntlet of that type of trial because the mob is blood-hungry.

I'm not questioning the jurors or even what they found out.

If this is the 'fair' or 'right' thing to do, why isn't this the de-facto standard? Why aren't we doing this for every case, or, at least, the vast majority of cases? When we look at "dynamics", as you say, of how indictments are granted, this case is a huge outlier. Why is it that such high standard seemingly only applies when a cop is involved. I'm sure you would agree there's just something inherently unfair about that, which is what I think undermines what's perceived as justice.

[da_suns_fan]

Lets say Brown wasnt killed. Say Wilson took him down with a taser/mace. How many crimes would he have been charged with?

1) Robbery
2) Jay Walking
3) Resisting arrest
4) Assaulting a police officer
5) Possible attempted murder (grabbing for the cops gun).

What the was this kid thinking? Did he just wake up one day and decide he was a completely lawless individual?

[vy65]

I'm not questioning the jurors or even what they found out.

If this is the 'fair' or 'right' thing to do, why isn't this the de-facto standard? Why aren't we doing this for every case, or, at least, the vast majority of cases? When we look at "dynamics", as you say, of how indictments are granted, this case is a huge outlier. Why is it that such high standard seemingly only applies when a cop is involved. I'm sure you would agree there's just something inherently unfair about that, which is what I think undermines what's perceived as justice.

I didn't mean to put it in terms of "fair" or "the right thing to do." All I meant to say is that the grand jury is a competent body, heard a lot of evidence, and didn't think there was probable cause that a crime had been committed. Given that, I don't see what a full blown media circus jury trial would accomplish other than sating the public's thirst for blood.

Statistically speaking, this is and isn't an outlier. It is an outlier in the ham-sandwhich sense of things. It isn't, however, because grand juries rarely indict police officers acting in the course of their duties.

I don't know if something fair or unfair happened because I don't have a sense of Missouri criminal procedure. But for me, I don't have a problem because the grand jury heard a lot of evidence and believed, based on that evidence, that a crime hadn't been committed. And that is a function (hearing all the evidence), albeit less commonly used, that is authorized by the Courts of Missouri. I think there was process, which makes it fair in a sense. A lot of people are upset about the result, but choose to ignore how we got there.

[ElNono]

I get that this is what happens as a matter of course, but why is that not reflected in the statutes and case-law governing grand jury procedure? I'm not trying to make a point - I'm just curious.

You're a lawyer, you know why

But more to the point, I think the system is overburdened, and now you get rubber stamps in a lot of these proceedings as the norm, which we can debate if that's a good thing or not.

[vy65]

Nono - this is from an old MO supreme court case on the grand jury:

In approaching the issue presented we bear in mind two historical functions of a grand jury under the common law of England adopted by what is now § 1.010. One was to accuse and thereby bring to trial those believed to have violated the law. The other, equally important but often overlooked, was to protect the citizen against unfounded accusation of crime. Conway v. Quinn, 168 S.W.2d 445, 446[1] (Mo.App.1942). In State ex rel. Lashly v. Wurdeman, supra, 187 S.W. at 259, this court, speaking of grand juries, said: "That body is a component part of the court, existed at common law, and is recognized in the Cons ution, where some of its duties are specified. Its creation and duties are provided for by statutes. The grand jury is a great inquisitorial body, originally designed to vindicate the law and to protect the body of the people from the encroachments of arbitrary power. It is a necessary adjunct of all courts charged with the enforcement of the criminal law." See also State ex rel. Hall v. Burney, 229 Mo.App. 759, 84 S.W.2d 659, 664[5] (1935).

If the idea was to throw everything at the grand jury in the hope of defending Brown, do you think something "wrong," whether legally or otherwise, was done?

[vy65]

You're a lawyer, you know why .

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[ElNono]

I didn't mean to put it in terms of "fair" or "the right thing to do." All I meant to say is that the grand jury is a competent body, heard a lot of evidence, and didn't think there was probable cause that a crime had been committed. Given that, I don't see what a full blown media circus jury trial would accomplish other than sating the public's thirst for blood.

Statistically speaking, this is and isn't an outlier. It is an outlier in the ham-sandwhich sense of things. It isn't, however, because grand juries rarely indict police officers acting in the course of their duties.

I don't know if something fair or unfair happened because I don't have a sense of Missouri criminal procedure. But for me, I don't have a problem because the grand jury heard a lot of evidence and believed, based on that evidence, that a crime hadn't been committed. And that is a function (hearing all the evidence), albeit less commonly used, that is authorized by the Courts of Missouri. I think there was process, which makes it fair in a sense. A lot of people are upset about the result, but choose to ignore how we got there.

Yeah, I'm not particularly troubled by the outcome, but how the sausage was made... and not necessarily by the jurors.

[ElNono]

Nono - this is from an old MO supreme court case on the grand jury:

If the idea was to throw everything at the grand jury in the hope of defending Brown, do you think something "wrong," whether legally or otherwise, was done?

I think you posted that before, and just like then, I don't particularly think anything was legally wrong about it. But, I long for the days where every citizen accused of wrongdoing is afforded the same level of scrutiny from a grand jury as this case. Because if you're not wearing a badge, the odds in the real world right now is that a grand jury won't even be convened, it will be a prosecutor and a judge rubber stamping an express trial.

[spurraider21]

I think you posted that before, and just like then, I don't particularly think anything was legally wrong about it. But, I long for the days where every citizen accused of wrongdoing is afforded the same level of scrutiny from a grand jury as this case. Because if you're not wearing a badge, the odds in the real world right now is that a grand jury won't even be convened, it will be a prosecutor and a judge rubber stamping an express trial.

you don't think there should be a different level of scrutiny for somebody whose line of work can require violence?

the criminal courts would be flooded with cases every time a cop lays a hand on somebody

[CosmicCowboy]

I find it hilarious that some idiots are making a big deal out of the fact that Officer Wilson testified before the grand jury.

[Spurminator]

I'm pretty sure the lives of everyone directly involved in each of these cases was forever changed in a negative way. That's a penalty. And, in the case of Zimmerman and Wilson, they did nothing wrong.

Public disapproval = Criminal punishment. Okay. Poor guys even had fundraisers set up for them... Wilson looks to score a cool $500K in exchange for his suffering.

?Neither Michael Brown nor Trayvon Martin were innocent. Both were -- according to witnesses and evidence -- attacking those that shot them.

Didn't say they were.

If these are examples of a problem, one could be forgiven for believing there is no problem or, that the criminal element in predominantly black communities have no regard for life or the law.

Or one could just be willfully ignorant, or, in your case, just full of .

Again, these are not examples of unarmed blacks being shot for no reason (or for reasons not requiring deadly force). In both cases, they were attacking the shooter and the shooter was justified in using the force.

As noted before, protesters believe these are examples of a larger problem.

You can't know this. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer would be shot if he, as Brown did, turned and ran toward the officer to attack him again. There is a better than 0% chance that a white kid that was sitting on another man and banging his head against a sidewalk would get shot if the person he was beating was armed.

A white Trayvon wouldn't have been suspected and approached in the first place. 0% chance deadly force gets used on either of them. The confrontations, in all likelihood, never happen.

And, as for the 12 year-old; Kansas Police Shoot Unarmed White Teen 16 times As By Standers Beg Them to Stop Shooting (Video)

Jennings was an adult, not a 12 year old kid. In this case, the officers had background on him - they knew who he was, knew he was suicidal and believed he was armed. They got the wrong information, but their actions were not based on simple superficial bias as was the case with the Cleveland cops. , the CPD was even told by the person who called it in that the kid was probably using a toy gun.

The rest of America is telling them to get a hold of their culture and their children because they're committing crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population.

Yeah and your people are committing school shootings and financial crimes at a disproportionate rate, when are you going to do get a handle on them? Why aren't you doing something about the culture of serial violence, or the disregard for law in the financial sector? Oh yeah, and get a handle on your teachers... What is it with white women and having sex with underage students?

Do you see how stupid that sounds to someone who has nothing to do with the crimes of his "culture"? (Don't answer)

If that were the case, 100% of blacks would believe as you do. As it is, they don't.

There is no single subject that 100% of any group agrees on. And no one said that 100% of blacks experience that kind of profiling.

Nor should you have to but, I notice you left out "peacefully" in front of assemble. Telling.

Welp, you got me, I guess this whole time I've been subtly condoning riots.

[ElNono]

you don't think there should be a different level of scrutiny for somebody whose line of work can require violence?

No. Do we have a different level of scrutiny for private security, or bouncers at a club? You can shield cops with laws (which happens and it's fine), but there should be no reason to change the process in which we administer justice, IMO.

[vy65]

I find it hilarious that some idiots are making a big deal out of the fact that Officer Wilson testified before the grand jury.

I thought the issue wasn't that he testified, but that he wasn't cross-examined by the DA.