The Ferguson Indictment (on Justice)

[Nbadan]

...as Brown is walking he runs into the cop door as Wilson is incompetently trying to get out...

[Nbadan]

....Wilson is inflamed because he thinks Brown intentionally tried to push him back into the car...

[Nbadan]

....there is an exchange of words...Brown is hot...Wilson is hot....

[Yonivore]

.....Wilson pulls along side Brown and his friend and in typical cops fashion pulls in front of them to cut them off..
Actually not exactly how it transpired but, I will say this is the one huge mistake Officer Wilson made.

Wilson pulled alongside Brown and Johnson (I believe that's his last name) and confronted them about walking down the middle of the street. There was a verbal exchange after which Brown and Johnson walked off, continuing down the middle of the street. It was at that time Officer Wilson noted a few things that matched the description of the person involved in whatever happened at the convenience store -- robbery, disturbance, whatever it turned out to be. Officer Wilson then put his patrol car in reverse and backed up, passed Brown and Johnson, and angled his patrol car across the street to attempt to keep them from passing him.

His mistake was that he did so too close to Brown and Johnson and Brown prevented him from exiting the patrol car by slamming the door on him and attacking him through the window -- almost gaining control of his service weapon.

[Yonivore]

...as Brown is walking he runs into the cop door as Wilson is incompetently trying to get out...
Seriously? This is supported evidence or witness statements?

Sounds like Brown is more of an incompetent walker if he can't avoid walking into a car.

[Nbadan]

......feeling insulted and threatened, instead of trying to calm the incident and exit his car gaining a tactical advantage, Wilson incompetently tries to pull his gun and shoot Brown from inside his car firing through his floorboard and dashboard...seeing this, Brown does the only thing he can and tries to grab Wilson's gun....a scuffle occurs that many witnesses interpret as Brown trying to take Wilson's gun...

[Yonivore]

....Wilson is inflamed because he thinks Brown intentionally tried to push him back into the car...
Actual witness statements state otherwise; Brown grabbed the door and forced Wilson back into the vehicle and proceeded to assault him through the window.

[Yonivore]

......feeling insulted and threatened, instead of trying to calm the incident, Wilson incompetently tries to pull his gun and shoot Brown in his car firing through his floorboard and dashboard...Brown does the only thing he can and tries to grab Wilson's gun....a scuffle occurs that many witnesses interpret as Brown trying to take Wilson's gun...
Which witness testified to this version of events?

[Nbadan]

Actual witness statements state otherwise; Brown grabbed the door and forced Wilson back into the vehicle and proceeded to assault him through the window.

That is one person's interpretation....

[Nbadan]

Thinking...this cop is crazy...Brown tries to run away from Wilson...

[Nbadan]

...Wilson exits his car and shoots at Brown....

[Yonivore]

That is one person's interpretation....
Ah! Why don't you condense it into one post so you don't break the internet.

[Nbadan]

....hearing bullets whisk by as he is running...about 150 ft away Brown stops and turn towards Wilson.....Brown is shot in the arm..

[Nbadan]

....Brown is pissed.....

[spurraider21]

Nbadan what is your story based on?

[Nbadan]

...he charges toward Wilson..

[Nbadan]

..the situation out of control...Wilson fires again..shooting Brown in the right arm two more times...and once in the hand..

[Nbadan]

....not stopping....Brown continues toward Wilson....thinking.... this cop is gonna kill me...

Wilson fires again hitting Brown in upper right torso...

[Nbadan]

.....Wilson is slowed....but not stopped.....by this shot...

...much closer now, Wilson changes his aim to Brown's head grazing his right cheek..

[Nbadan]

Brown continues toward Wilson....Wilson fires again and hits Brown in the neck.....severely injuring Brown...

[Yonivore]

Nbadan what is your story based on?
The fecal matter in his ass, apparently.

[Nbadan]

This nearly stops Brown....Wilson fires again hitting Brown in the head....as Brown is falling, Wilson shoots again and hits Brown in the top of the head...

[Nbadan]

Brown is dead....

[Nbadan]

Because of the last shot, many people who witness the shooting accuse Wilson of executing Brown ...

[Nbadan]

They start embellishing their stories....saying that Michael Brown tried to surrender...'hand up"...

[Nbadan]

....the Police meanwhile are getting their story straight...Michael Brown laid shot in the streets of Ferguson for almost 2 hours...

[Yonivore]

Brown is dead....

Maybe the first factual statement you've posted. He is, indeed, dead.

[Yonivore]

....the Police meanwhile are getting their story straight...Michael Brown laid shot in the streets of Ferguson for almost 2 hours...

I heard it was 4 1/2 hours.

[Nbadan]

.....after hearing the story from Wilson anyone who has any competency in law enforcement, knows that Wilson should have handled this incident better from the start...

[Yonivore]

.....after hearing the story from Wilson anyone who has any competency in law enforcement, knows that Wilson should have handled this incident better from the start...
I won't disagree with this but, at the point Brown pinned him in his patrol vehicle, assaulted him, and tried to disarm him, it sounds like he acted appropriately.

[Nbadan]

.....so they have to dehumanize Brown in the press...calling his behavior 'possessed'...or 'demon-like"...

[Nbadan]

The police union makes a deal with the DA...

[Nbadan]

...the police let the myth that Brown robbed the inconvenience store go unabated in the wing-nut media

[Nbadan]

....Wilson walk with no charges.....

[Nbadan]

..but can no longer work for the Ferguson police department..

[Yonivore]

...the police let the myth that Brown robbed the inconvenience store go unabated in the wing-nut media
Why? It doesn't lessen or augment the crime he committed against Wilson.

[Nbadan]

Why? It doesn't lessen or augment the crime he committed against Wilson.

cover....after harassing Brown and Johnson for walking down the street...Wilson needed cover...

...and it makes Brown look like he had just committed a felony and was trying to get away...

[Nbadan]

Brown had not committed a crime....so he had no reason to fear Wilson....he was not fleeing the scene of a crime...

[Yonivore]

cover....after harassing Brown and Johnson for walking down the street...Wilson needed cover...
I believe there are dispatch recordings that demonstrate a person fitting Brown's description was being sought regarding an incident at the convenience store. Wilson didn't need any cover for approaching a couple of guys walking down the middle of the street. He also didn't need cover for shooting a person who had assaulted, tried to disarm him, and was in the process of assaulting him again.


...and it makes Brown look like he had just committed a felony and was trying to get away...
Without conceding your point about the non-robbery (I've quickly looked at a couple of stories) but, I'm not finding any explanation for why Brown apparently assaulted the store owner on the way out. Is that explained anywhere?

[Nbadan]

I won't disagree with this but, at the point Brown pinned him in his patrol vehicle, assaulted him, and tried to disarm him, it sounds like he acted appropriately.

Well, but the incident should never have escalated to the point it did...If Wilson just had a bit thicker skin and just let Brown comments go there would have not been an incident..

[FromWayDowntown]

So we agree that the capricious violence of LE against citizens is a problem.


Yes.


Presumably, stressing other problems does not minimize, nor does it solve the problem.


Some might argue the other problems are leading to the capriciousness of the police. I know I would.


Do you think LE should be held to account for arbitrary force, deadly home invasion techniques and unlawful shootings?


Yes.

Oh my goodness. An actual discussion about real issues in this thread without a bunch of "Hooray Team!" stuff attached to it!

Whatever justifications might exist for permitting the use of lethal force by police officers, there does seem to be at least some anecdotal evidence of at least two truths: (1) that force, when used, is -- at least in a considerable number of situations -- exercised with questionable justification (at best); and (2) the threat of that force doesn't seem to have quelled the trust in and/or the hostility exhibited in some parts of society toward law enforcement officers. I don't think the issue is purely racial, though I also suspect that the demographic that is most likely to encounter police in situations in which force might be used is the poor black male, and for that reason, there is some basis for people to perceive the problem to be race-based.

Ultimately, there's a circularity to the problem. I think we've made it too easy for police officers to resort to lethal force and the more lethal force is available, the more likely it becomes that the use of excessive force will become fatal. There are undoubtedly circumstances in which suspects engage in behavior that legitimately endangers the lives of others, but using lethal force to subdue any recalcitrant suspect seems needlessly risky to the lives of those who may have done nothing more than be suspicious of law enforcement personnel (who may have reason to be suspicious because there are a number of circumstances in which law enforcement personnel have overstepped and unjustifiably harassed people who really weren't doing anything that required law enforcement involvement).

There's no simple solution, but I think that pretending that it's not a problem is unhelpful. Obviously (and to be clear) I'm not accusing Yonivore of that, given the quoted material above. But I do think that there are many who believe that police officers are always (or at least mostly) justified in using lethal force in their encounters with suspects and that view seems to me to be untenable.

[Nbadan]

believe there are dispatch recordings that demonstrate a person fitting Brown's description was being sought regarding an incident at the convenience store. Wilson didn't need any cover for approaching a couple of guys walking down the middle of the street. He also didn't need cover for shooting a person who had assaulted, tried to disarm him, and was in the process of assaulting him again.

According to Wilson, his radio was not working right, so he only heard a vague description of possible store robbery suspects...when he first approached Brown and Johnson he was not aware that they were the two knuckle heads who were wanted for questioning.....but again no charges would have been filed since there was no robbery..

[spurraider21]

According to Wilson, his radio was not working right, so he only heard a vague description of possible store robbery suspects...when he first approached Brown and Johnson he was not aware that they were the two knuckle heads who were wanted for questioning.....but again no charges would have been filed since there was no robbery..
put the bottle down. shut your eyes for a while, and come back then

[Yonivore]

Well, but the incident should never have escalated to the point it did...If Wilson just had a bit thicker skin and just let Brown comments go there would have not been an incident..
I think we disagree on who instigated the violence.

[Nbadan]

Without conceding your point about the non-robbery (I've quickly looked at a couple of stories) but, I'm not finding any explanation for why Brown apparently assaulted the store owner on the way out. Is that explained anywhere?

.....some un-named sources say it was because of the price of the cigarillos.... the store owner accused Brown of being a poor broke-ass and Wilson grabbed the whole box and threw money at the owner before leaving the store...

[FromWayDowntown]

I take it your are limiting yourself to the three cases you mentioned, but there is a much wider universe of violent police encounters that people are right to be pissed about. I do agree that many of the cases selected for mediagenic outrage are far from ideal vehicles for the grievance, but that does not disconfirm the validity of the grievance itself.

I'm not sure what the value of relitigating the Wilson no-bill offers at this point, but if it opens the door to a conversation about the issues associated with the use of lethal force in police-public encounters, then the case is useful.

[Yonivore]

.....some un-named sources say it was because of the price of the cigarillos.... the store owner accused Brown of being a poor broke-ass and Wilson grabbed the whole box and threw money at the owner before leaving the store...
So, was it enough to pay for the cigarillos?

[Nbadan]

So, was it enough to pay for the cigarillos?

No charges were filed....

[Yonivore]

No charges were filed....
The alleged perpetrator was dead just a few minutes later.

[Nbadan]

The alleged perpetrator was dead just a few minutes later.

Still, for insurance purposes..there has to be a police report..

[Nbadan]

...besides, the store owner did not want to comment publicly about the incident......but he did not call police..

[Yonivore]

I'm not sure what the value of relitigating the Wilson no-bill offers at this point, but if it opens the door to a conversation about the issues associated with the use of lethal force in police-public encounters, then the case is useful.
I would prefer the conversation be based on illegitimate uses of lethal force because, it only perpetuates the myth Brown's shooting was a illegal when you use it to support a position on illegal police use of lethal force.

[Nbadan]

...and it would have been a open and shut-case if the police could have produced a police report...

[FromWayDowntown]

I would prefer the conversation be based on illegitimate uses of lethal force because, it only perpetuates the myth Brown's shooting was a illegal when you use it to support a position on illegal police use of lethal force.

I think a conversation about the uses of lethal force by police can be divorced from the facts of the Brown case.

[Yonivore]

I think a conversation about the uses of lethal force by police can be divorced from the facts of the Brown case.
I agree; this was just a thread about the Brown case and many in here are conflating the two.

But, sure.

[Nbadan]

I think a this conversation needs to go way beyond just talking about police use of lethal force..

[Nbadan]

...racial profiling...
...stop and frisk...
..presumption that a crime has been committed because 'this is a high crime' area"...
...police being disconnected from the communities they serve..

[Nbadan]

....militarization of the police...
....disproportionate number of blacks in jails...

[Yonivore]

I think a this conversation needs to go way beyond just talking about police use of lethal force..
I think it's two different conversations; the conversation about lethal force as it relates to Michael Brown and the conversation about increasingly suspect use of police powers as it relates to our constitutional rights.

[Nbadan]

the conversation about increasingly suspect use of police powers as it relates to our constitutional rights.

Exactly...and that is why I think some people would rather this conversation stays about race...

[Yonivore]

...racial profiling...
Michael Brown was already committing a breach of the peace by walking down the middle of the street and he exhibited elements (other than his race) that led the officer to believe he was related to the incident at the convenience store.

...stop and frisk...
Not an element to the Michael Brown case...he was holding the cigarillos in his hand.

..presumption that a crime has been committed because 'this is a high crime' area"...
The presumption was based on his red hat and the cigarillos in his hand.

...police being disconnected from the communities they serve..
Communities that demonize the police that serve them.

[Nbadan]

Michael Brown was already committing a breach of the peace by walking down the middle of the street and he exhibited elements (other than his race) that led the officer to believe he was related to the incident at the convenience store.

Wilson's own statements contradict this...and if walking down the middle of the street is a crime, then we are all guilty...

[Nbadan]

Not an element to the Michael Brown case...he was holding the cigarillos in his hand.

That's like stopping a Mexican with a Budweiser in his hand...Wilson didn't make the connections about the cigarillos till later..

[Nbadan]

Communities that demonize the police that serve them.

Just like the Vietnamese turned on the Americans in the 60's, right?

[Yonivore]

Wilson's own statements contradict this...and if walking down the middle of the street is a crime, then we are all guilty...
How do his statements contradict this? Officer Wilson said Brown was wearing a red cap and carrying cigarillos and, after their verbal confrontation over walking down the middle of the street, Officer Wilson noted the red cap and cigarillos and that caused him to be suspicious Brown was the person involved in the incident at the convenience store.

No, it's not illegal to walk in the street but, if you do so in a manner that interferes with traffic or presents a danger to yourself or others, it can be a crime. Walking down the MIDDLE of a street, open to vehicular traffic, might be cause for police intervention.

[Nbadan]

How do his statements contradict this? Officer Wilson said Brown was wearing a red cap and carrying cigarillos and, after their verbal confrontation over walking down the middle of the street, Officer Wilson noted the red cap and cigarillos and that caused him to be suspicious Brown was the person involved in the incident at the convenience store.

We don't know that for sure....that is what Wilson says now....Wilson was not the police officer dispatched to the incident...so how could there have been a APB already out on suspects?

[Nbadan]

No, it's not illegal to walk in the street but, if you do so in a manner that interferes with traffic or presents a danger to yourself or others, it can be a crime. Walking down the MIDDLE of a street, open to vehicular traffic, might be cause for police intervention

A misdemeanor...like littering...this 'thug' had just committed a misdemeanor...time to stop and frisk...

[Winehole23]

topically relevant:


A white man who was the police chief in a small South Carolina (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/south-carolina) town was charged with murder on Wednesday in the shooting death of an unarmed black man nearly four years ago.


Richard Combs worked in Eutawville – population 300 and one-third black – when Bernard Bailey came to town hall to argue about his daughter’s broken tail-light ticket in May 2011. Combs tried to arrest Bailey on an obstruction of justice charge, prosecutors said. Bailey marched back outside to his truck, and Combs tried to get inside. The two briefly fought, and then the police chief shot Bailey, 54, twice in the chest.


Combs said at an earlier hearing that he was tangled in Bailey’s steering wheel as he tried to shut off the ignition and feared for his life if Bailey drove away. But prosecutors said Combs was the aggressor, following Bailey as he tried to get away.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/grand-jury-white-police-officer-unarmed-black-man?CMP=fb_us

[Yonivore]

We don't know that for sure....that is what Wilson says now....Wilson was not the police officer dispatched to the incident...so how could there have been a APB already out on suspects?
Ask your police officer friend. Chances are the description of Brown was broadcast when the dispatcher assigned an officer to the call.

[Yonivore]

A misdemeanor...like littering...this 'thug' had just committed a misdemeanor...time to stop and frisk...

Who said anything about frisking? I think you watch too much television.

[Winehole23]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842489-1...outpacing-gang (http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842489-155/killings-by-utah-police-outpacing-gang)

[spurraider21]

infraction =/= misdemeanor

[Winehole23]

you mean they should behave responsibly around people authorized to use force? no shithttp://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/25-things-black-people-shouldnt-do-around-cops.html

[Winehole23]

did all of them need shooting too?

[spurraider21]

did all of them need shooting too?
certainly not. but there is a difference between when a shooting is required/deserved and when a shooting is a criminal act

[Winehole23]

certainly not. but there is a difference between when a shooting is required/deserved and when a shooting is a criminal act.not denied. how often are police held to account for wrongful and unlawful shootings?

[Winehole23]

surely it can't be permissible for LE to shoot you every time an officer gets scared.

[Yonivore]

not denied. how often are police held to account for wrongful and unlawful shootings?
I suspect, whenever they are determined by our justice system to be wrongful or unlawful.

[Yonivore]

surely it can't be permissible for LE to shoot you every time an officer gets scared.
Imminent fear of losing your life is a justification for use of deadly force.

[Yonivore]

Interesting essay on the police use of force in New York City.

NYPD Firearms Discharge Report Is Bad News For Al Sharpton (http://www.pocketfullofliberty.com/nypd-firearms-discharge-report/)


Here is a historical look at the number of shootings where a subject was shot and injured by an officer since 1971:

http://www.pocketfullofliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot_12_9_14_8_58_PM-640x360.png

And here are the historical figures going to back to 1971 showing the number of shootings where a subject was shot and killed by an officer:

http://www.pocketfullofliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot_12_9_14_9_00_PM-640x360.png

Except for a spike in 2012, levels have been pretty steady (and low) since the peak of the crack era. Finally, there is the geography of where these firearms discharges take place:

http://www.pocketfullofliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot_12_9_14_10_01_PM-597x360.png

If you are not familiar with NYC, then I can just tell you that most of the firearms discharges are located in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and the upper neighborhoods of Harlem and Washington Heights in Manhattan. The blue areas denote where an officer discharged their firearm. The yellow denotes a criminal shooting incident. As you can tell, the criminals are doing a lot more of the shooting than the cops.

Chances are, if some reporters to were to do some digging around (you know….journalism and reporting) they’d find this trend is probably the same all around the country. Granted, the result of this rarity in shooting incidents involving police is obviously tied to the big drop in crime the country has seen in the last 30-40 years.

That said, the media is once again playing into the hands of the loudmouths and cranks who want to convince us all that black men at large are in danger of being picked off by the cops.

Are all police involved shootings legit? No. But the fact of the matter is, incidents like we saw with Mike Brown in Ferguson are very rare. Let’s hope that reason and facts win out over emotion and more importantly, the rabble rousing of frauds like Al Sharpton.

[boutons_deux]

Imminent fear of losing your life is a justification for use of deadly force.

that's easy, and common, TO LIE ABOUT. eg, wannbe cop Zimmerman, etc, etc.

There's a lot of white cops who are scared shitless of unarmed black guys.

or maybe they're just "doing the job they're trained to do" and preferentially kill blacks.

[Yonivore]

Hell, in 1995, Al Sharpton was responsible for a quarter as many deaths of the entire 30,000 man New York City Police Department.

Nineteen Years Ago, Al Sharpton Incited the Massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart (http://www.amren.com/news/2014/12/nineteen-years-ago-al-sharpton-incited-the-massacre-at-freddys-fashion-mart/)


Nineteen years ago, December 8, 1995, Al Sharpton incited the violent firebombing of Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, causing the the deaths of Angelina Marrero . . . Cynthia Martinez . . . Luz Ramos . . . Mayra Rentas . . . Olga Garcia . . . Garnette Ramautar . . . Kareem Brunner. . . . names forever linked together as the seven victims of the Sharpton-caused massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart.

[Yonivore]

that's easy, and common, TO LIE ABOUT. eg, wannbe cop Zimmerman, etc, etc.

There's a lot of white cops who are scared shitless of unarmed black guys.

or maybe they're just "doing the job they're trained to do" and preferentially kill blacks.
Unfortunately for your narrative, there is forensic evidence and credible witness statements to suggest otherwise.

Tell me, if Officer Wilson was "scared shitless of unarmed black guys," why did he even approach the Gentle Giant?

[boutons_deux]

Unfortunately for your narrative, there is forensic evidence and credible witness statements to suggest otherwise.

Tell me, if Officer Wilson was "scared shitless of unarmed black guys," why did he even approach the Gentle Giant?

easy one, because he wasn't scared shitless, just wanted to harass some blacks, got in over his racist head, then his lawyer coaches tell him to say, effectively, the Big N!igg@ Demon grunting like an animal, etc, etc. HAD TO BE SHOT LIKE DOG because that is ALWAYS THE FIRST, ONLY OPTION for WHITE COPS against blacks.

[Winehole23]

Imminent fear of losing your life is a justification for use of deadly force.even if that fear is totally unreasonable or otherwise without a factually articulable basis? how magnanimous.

[spurraider21]

even if that fear is totally unreasonable or otherwise without a factually articulable basis? how magnanimous.
courts decide if the fear was reasonable based on facts/testimony

[boutons_deux]

courts decide if the fear was reasonable based on facts/testimony

... almost never do killer cops get into court for killing

[Yonivore]

even if that fear is totally unreasonable or otherwise without a factually articulable basis? how magnanimous.
Well, see, a Grand Jury found the fear was reasonable and with "factually articulable basis," whatever that means. How objective.

[Winehole23]

Well, see, a Grand Jury found the fear was reasonable and with "factually articulable basis," whatever that means. How objective.More customary than objective, I'd say. Grand juries are non-adversarial and one-sided in the sense that there is no cross-examination of witnesses: it's the prosecutor's show.

[Yonivore]

More customary than objective, I'd say. Grand juries are non-adversarial and one-sided in the sense that there is no cross-examination of witnesses: it's the prosecutor's show.
And yet, they are the official arbiter of whether or not Officer Wilson committed a crime and whether or not Michael Brown's shooting was justified. They answered both of those question, No and yes.

[Winehole23]

you've slyly misrepresented what grand juries do. they do not find guilt or innocence, they only determine whether evidence is sufficient to indict.

[Winehole23]

a no bill isn't necessarily an exoneration, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

you've slyly misrepresented what grand juries do. they do not find guilt or innocence, they only determine whether evidence is sufficient to indict.
But they do find whether or not their is enough to warrant criminal charges and, in this case, they didn't. Because there wasn't and, there never will be, no matter how hard you, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama wish otherwise. Pick another martyr for the racialist cause.

[Yonivore]

a no bill isn't necessarily an exoneration, Yoni.
But, in this case, it was, simply on the weight of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.

[Winehole23]

grand juries don't determine innocence or culpability. sorry.

[Winehole23]

But they do find whether or not their is enough to warrant criminal charges and, in this case, they didn't. Because there wasn't and, there never will be, no matter how hard you, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama wish otherwise. Pick another martyr for the racialist cause.there are plenty to pick from. hence the generalized outrage over a case that was far from clear cut.

btw, I don't wish the results other than they are. I can accept that there wasn't clear evidence to indict in this case.

[boutons_deux]

The bogus-prosecutor/exonerator didn't try to indict Wilson by presenting only the "evidence" to indict, he bizarrely, bad-faith-ly presented all the "evidence" AGAINST indicting Wilson, leaving it up to the "jury", very probably overwhelmed and confused, to acquit Wilson and convict Brown.

It was a farcical kangaroo TRIAL by a police-protecting, biased prosecutor acting to protect, acquit Wilson, was not a grand jury.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, Ferguson and especially New York were perversions of the Grand Jury system by prosecutors with cleat conflicts of interest. They were working for the defense and not the people. The results would have been much easier to take had the legal procedures not been so out of the ordinary.

[Yonivore]

there are plenty to pick from.
Really? Find one that is truly innocent then.


...hence the generalized outrage over a case that was far from clear cut.
As best as I can tell, the protesters are merely looking for a reason to vandalize and terrorize their own community.


btw, I don't wish the results other than they are. I can accept that there wasn't clear evidence to indict in this case.
There was clear evidence the shooting of Michael Brown was both justified and legal. The prosecutor didn't want to take the case to the Grand Jury in the first place, because the evidence of innocence was so compelling and the evidence of guilt was so lacking -- as in non-existent. The only reason he did so was to quell the faux outrage fomented by Al Sharpton and the like. I hope all prosecutors learn a lesson from the Ferguson fiasco; "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't so, just do the right thing."

[Yonivore]

The bogus-prosecutor/exonerator didn't try to indict Wilson by presenting only the "evidence" to indict, he bizarrely, bad-faith-ly presented all the "evidence" AGAINST indicting Wilson, leaving it up to the "jury", very probably overwhelmed and confused, to acquit Wilson and convict Brown.

It was a farcical kangaroo TRIAL by a police-protecting, biased prosecutor acting to protect, acquit Wilson, was not a grand jury.
There was no evidence to indict. He merely presented what he had because the "community" demanded he present the case to a Grand Jury.

[Yonivore]

Yep, Ferguson and especially New York were perversions of the Grand Jury system by prosecutors with cleat conflicts of interest. They were working for the defense and not the people. The results would have been much easier to take had the legal procedures not been so out of the ordinary.
For them to have been ordinary, the Prosecutor in Ferguson would have never brought the case in the first place but, that wasn't acceptable to the "Hands up, don't shoot" crowd. Of course, taking it to the Grand Jury wasn't acceptable to them either.

[ChumpDumper]

For them to have been ordinary, the Prosecutor in Ferguson would have never brought the case in the first place but, that wasn't acceptable to the "Hands up, don't shoot" crowd. Of course, taking it to the Grand Jury wasn't acceptable to them either.Inasmuch as ordinary is allowing the police to act without oversight or accountability to parties without a vested interest in protecting them, sure.

I agree if DAs had their druthers they would never ever bring a case involving a cop to a grand jury. It's a clear conflict of interest.

[Yonivore]

Inasmuch as ordinary is allowing the police to act without oversight or accountability to parties without a vested interest in protecting them, sure.

I agree if DAs had their druthers they would never ever bring a case involving a cop to a grand jury. It's a clear conflict of interest.
If that were the case, every police-involved shooting, brought before a Grand Jury, would have to have been "forced" by an aggrieved community and that just isn't the case. Many police-involved shootings are presented to Grand Juries; some result in indictment and trials. Some are found guilty and sent to prison.

What's your point?

[ChumpDumper]

If that were the case, every police-involved shooting, brought before a Grand Jury, would have to have been "forced" by an aggrieved community and that just isn't the case. Many police-involved shootings are presented to Grand Juries; some result in indictment and trials. Some are found guilty and sent to prison.

What's your point?I already made my point. There is a de facto conflict of interest in any local grand jury action brought by a local DA against a local law enforcement officer.

Nobody "forced" the DA to do anything, so I'm glad you used quotation marks.

[Yonivore]

I already made my point. There is a de facto conflict of interest in any local grand jury action brought by a local DA against a local law enforcement officer.
It's the system we have. Work to change it.

I don't see anything suspicious in the way this prosecutor handled what had become a very charged incident.


Nobody "forced" the DA to do anything, so I'm glad you used quotation marks.
Well, depends on how you define "forced," This prosecutor said he was proceeding as he was because of the enormous amount of public and media interest and that he hoped it would quell the upset he was witnessing in the community. Of course, he felt that way because he knew the facts of the case exonerated Wilson and showed Brown to be exactly what most people suspected, a thug who assaulted and tried to kill Wilson.

Unfortunately, the "community" wasn't interested in facts.

[ChumpDumper]

It's the system we have. Work to change it.

I don't see anything suspicious in the way this prosecutor handled what had become a very charged incident.No one would ever expect you to see anything close to a conflict. When it comes to justice, you are blind.



Well, depends on how you define "forced," This prosecutor said he was proceeding as he was because of the enormous amount of public and media interest and that he hoped it would quell the upset he was witnessing in the community. Of course, he felt that way because he knew the facts of the case exonerated Wilson and showed Brown to be exactly what most people suspected, a thug who assaulted and tried to kill Wilson.

Unfortunately, the "community" wasn't interested in facts.So he wasn't forced. Just another official acting out of his self-perceived terror.

[Yonivore]

No one would ever expect you to see anything close to a conflict. When it comes to justice, you are blind.
If you bring a criminal complaint, should a District Attorney you voted for not be allowed to prosecute the case?

I don't see how police officers involved in homicides are any different than ordinary citizens involved in homicides. The District Attorney looks at all violent deaths and makes a determination, based on the facts, of whether or not to pursue an indictment. If he doesn't think the facts warrant indictment, he doesn't bring it; if he does, he does.

I'll grant that in the case of the Ferguson Grand Jury, it was unique but, not because the prosecutor was acting on behalf of the officer but because the community demanded he present the case to a Grand Jury; which he did. What did you want him to do at that point? Pretend evidence existed that would incriminate Officer Wilson? Pretend he was seeking an indictment for a crime he does not believe is supported by the facts available?

I'm not sure what you're upset about. Please elaborate. Exactly what did the Prosecutor do/not do that resulted in an injustice?


So he wasn't forced. Just another official acting out of his self-perceived terror.
I'm with you, I would have told the community the evidence didn't support prosecution and, therefore, no case would be presented to the Grand Jury. But, he is a Democrat so, there's that.

[ChumpDumper]

If you bring a criminal complaint, should a District Attorney you voted for not be allowed to prosecute the case?

I don't see how police officers involved in homicides are any different than ordinary citizens involved in homicides. The District Attorney looks at all violent deaths and makes a determination, based on the facts, of whether or not to pursue an indictment. If he doesn't think the facts warrant indictment, he doesn't bring it; if he does, he does.

I'll grant that in the case of the Ferguson Grand Jury, it was unique but, not because the prosecutor was acting on behalf of the officer but because the community demanded he present the case to a Grand Jury; which he did. What did you want him to do at that point? Pretend evidence existed that would incriminate Officer Wilson? Pretend he was seeking an indictment for a crime he does not believe is supported by the facts available?

I'm not sure what you're upset about. Please elaborate. Exactly what did the Prosecutor do/not do that resulted in an injustice?I said you would never see the inherent conflict of interest and I was right.



I'm with you, I would have told the community the evidence didn't support prosecution and, therefore, no case would be presented to the Grand Jury. But, he is a Democrat so, there's that.Hey, look at you making it partisan!

Again!

[Yonivore]

I said you would never see the inherent conflict of interest and I was right.
You're right, I don't see it.


Hey, look at you making it partisan!

Again!
Just his cowardice in not standing up to the community. That's typically a Democrat trait.

[ChumpDumper]

You're right, I don't see it.Of course you don't.



Politics!

[Yonivore]

You know what I would support, Chump?

A law that requires ALL District Attorney's to do what this District Attorney did in the Ferguson case. Present all evidence to a Grand Jury and give them the full range of options on what indictments could possibly be reached in the event, step back, and let them decide.

What would you have done differently?

What exactly did the prosecutor do, or not do, that has you so concerned?

[Yonivore]

Of course you don't.
Do tell. But, please, do explain what conflict exists with this prosecutor that does not exist with every other prosecutor so situated.

And, then, tell us your solution.

[ChumpDumper]

You know what I would support, Chump?

A law that requires ALL District Attorney's to do what this District Attorney did in the Ferguson case. Present all evidence to a Grand Jury and give them the full range of options on what indictments could possibly be reached in the event, step back, and let them decide.

What would you have done differently?

What exactly did the prosecutor do, or not do, that has you so concerned?If a prosecutor doesn't want an indictment in the first place, how might that affect his presentation to the Grand Jury?


Do tell. But, please, do explain what conflict exists with this prosecutor that does not exist with every other prosecutor so situated.I didn't say his conflict was unique, genius.


And, then, tell us your solution.Get someone without the conflict of interest, genius.

[Yonivore]

If a prosecutor doesn't want an indictment in the first place, how might that affect his presentation to the Grand Jury?
Normally, a prosecutor who does not see evidence supporting a crime would not even present it to the Grand Jury.


I didn't say his conflict was unique, genius.
So, it exists in all cases? Why hasn't there been a bigger deal made of this?


Get someone without the conflict of interest, genius.
Who would that be? They already let the public pick the prosecutor.

[ChumpDumper]

Normally, a prosecutor who does not see evidence supporting a crime would not even present it to the Grand Jury.Great.



So, it exists in all cases? Why hasn't there been a bigger deal made of this?Who knows? You bitch about the media all the time. Certainly seems to be getting more profile now.



Who would that be? They already let the public pick the prosecutor.Read slowly: Get someone without the conflict of interest, genius.

[Yonivore]

Great.


Who knows? You bitch about the media all the time. Certainly seems to be getting more profile now.


Read slowly: Get someone without the conflict of interest, genius.
Okay, genius, how is that person selected? We already elect them.

I think my idea is better, require them to present all evidence in a Grand Jury, every time an officer is involved in a fatal shooting on duty. Period. No exceptions.

Except, of course, that's exactly what happened in this case and you're still bitching.

You still haven't explained exactly what the prosecutor did, or didn't, do that resulted in an injustice.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, genius, how is that person selected? We already elect them.

I think my idea is better, require them to present all evidence in a Grand Jury, every time an officer is involved in a fatal shooting on duty. Period. No exceptions.

Except, of course, that's exactly what happened in this case and you're still bitching.

You still haven't explained exactly what the prosecutor did, or didn't, do that resulted in an injustice.I explained there is an inherent conflict of interest.

You didn't understand it and never will, so here we are.

[Yonivore]

I explained there is an inherent conflict of interest.

You didn't understand it and never will, so here we are.
I get what you're saying but, you won't say to what you believe that "inherent conflict of interest" led in this case.

I'd be interested to know.

I think the prosecutor did the only thing he could, under the circumstances. He gave every shred of evidence to the Grand Jury, handed over 5 separate indictments, covering every possible crime that could be defined by the circumstances, and stood back and let the process work.

[ChumpDumper]

I get what you're saying but, you won't say to what you believe that "inherent conflict of interest" led in this case.

I'd be interested to know.With whom do prosecutors usually work to build and present their cases?

[Yonivore]

With whom do prosecutors usually work to build and present their cases?
Complainants.

But, seriously, are you aware of some injustice done in this case? Please share.

[FromWayDowntown]

With whom do prosecutors usually work to build and present their cases?

Given the close relationships between local police departments and local district attorneys in building and presenting cases, one would think that the go-to move in a case involving the conduct of a police officer would be to seek out another prosecutor who might not be so beholden to his allies on the police force (and dependent, to a large extent, upon those allies providing assistance -- something that might be jeopardized if the local police force perceives that a district attorney has exerted a little too much pressure in his prosecutorial choices).

Sorry for short-circuiting the pedagogy.

[ChumpDumper]

Complainants.Is that the only party with which DAs work to build and present their cases?

[Yonivore]

Is that the only party with which DAs work to build and present their cases?
Witnesses too.

[FromWayDowntown]

Witnesses too.

But not cops. Not ever with cops.

[Yonivore]

But not cops. Not ever with cops.
When they're witnesses or complainants, sure.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When they're witnesses or complainants, sure.

He said build the case and you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Yonivore]

He said build the case and you are being intentionally obtuse.
Evidence?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Prosecutors take complaints, assemble witnesses and evidence and present them to a Grand Jury. What am I missing in this case? Are you accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Evidence?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Prosecutors take complaints, assemble witnesses and evidence and present them to a Grand Jury. What am I missing in this case? Are you accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing?

With bringing up the conflict of interest, why on Earth would you limit it to the GJ proceedings and not everything that the DA and local police do together in their relationship? Further, prosecutors use cops to investigate and do legwork in building and presenting cases regardless if they end up as witnesses.

You're dissembling by being intentionally obtuse and evasive. I have to say for someone that says that nothing matters here, you are being quite the coward.

[boutons_deux]

Evidence?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Prosecutors take complaints, assemble witnesses and evidence and present them to a Grand Jury. What am I missing in this case? Are you accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing?

you're missing that prosecutors work with, depend on the police for evidence to pad their career with convictions. Prosecutors who go after police can't expect cooperation from police.

[Yonivore]

With bringing up the conflict of interest, why on Earth would you limit it to the GJ proceedings and not everything that the DA and local police do together in their relationship? Further, prosecutors use cops to investigate and do legwork regardless if the end up as witnesses in building and presenting cases.
Most prosecutors have their own investigators however, I'm not sure that's the case in Ferguson.


You're dissembling by being intentionally obtuse and evasive. I have to say for someone that says that nothing matters here, you are being quite the coward.
I'm just wondering what everyone thinks this prosecutor did that did not afford Michael Brown justice.

Police shootings are not that common but, in most cases, the local prosecutor handles officer-involved shootings, except when the evidence shows the officer may have been in the wrong. A bunch of activists yelling about "hands up, don't shoot," doesn't constitute evidence that Officer Wilson did anything wrong.

As it stands, this prosecutor went above and beyond; he turned all the evidence -- ALL OF IT -- over to a Grand Jury, gave them 5 separate indictments on which they could deliberate, and then let the system work.

Exactly what are you accusing this prosecutor of?

I'm not being obtuse, I sincerely don't see a problem with the way this case was handled except that the Prosecutor opened himself up to the types of attacks you are launching by caving to demand made by people not related to the case and went against his initial finding which was that there wasn't any evidence that warranted indictment. The same thing the Grand Jury found.

Are you saying he gave them fabricated exculpatory evidence?

Are you saying he withheld incriminating evidence?

Are you saying he misrepresented evidence?

What are you saying?

[Yonivore]

you're missing that prosecutors work with, depend on the police for evidence to pad their career with convictions. Prosecutors who go after police can't expect cooperation from police.
So, what did this prosecutor ignore so that he could ensure future cooperation of the police?

Where's his wrongdoing, boutons?

[boutons_deux]

So, what did this prosecutor ignore so that he could ensure future cooperation of the police?

Where's his wrongdoing, boutons?

A prosecutor goes for indictments based on enough evidence to convict. This exonerator, a bogus prosecutor for this case, who chooses what to present the GJ, presented all kinds of exonerating evidence (which is role of the defender in court, not of the prosecutor).

[Yonivore]

A prosecutor goes for indictments based on enough evidence to convict. This exonerator, a bogus prosecutor for this case, who chooses what to present the GJ, presented all kinds of exonerating evidence (which is role of the defender in court, not of the prosecutor).
What would this prosecutor have had to present, if not the exculpatory evidence? There wasn't any incriminating evidence. Hell, he didn't even want to present the case -- because there wasn't one.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most prosecutors have their own investigators however, I'm not sure that's the case in Ferguson.


I'm just wondering what everyone thinks this prosecutor did that did not afford Michael Brown justice.

Police shootings are not that common but, in most cases, the local prosecutor handles officer-involved shootings, except when the evidence shows the officer may have been in the wrong. A bunch of activists yelling about "hands up, don't shoot," doesn't constitute evidence that Officer Wilson did anything wrong.

As it stands, this prosecutor went above and beyond; he turned all the evidence -- ALL OF IT -- over to a Grand Jury, gave them 5 separate indictments on which they could deliberate, and then let the system work.

Exactly what are you accusing this prosecutor of?

I'm not being obtuse, I sincerely don't see a problem with the way this case was handled except that the Prosecutor opened himself up to the types of attacks you are launching by caving to demand made by people not related to the case and went against his initial finding which was that there wasn't any evidence that warranted indictment. The same thing the Grand Jury found.

Are you saying he gave them fabricated exculpatory evidence?

Are you saying he withheld incriminating evidence?

Are you saying he misrepresented evidence?

What are you saying?

What do cross examination mean?

[Yonivore]

What do cross examination mean?
In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding? Absolutely nothing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What would this prosecutor have had to present, if not the exculpatory evidence? There wasn't any incriminating evidence. Hell, he didn't even want to present the case -- because there wasn't one.

Bullshit, all he had to do is bring up one of the witnesses saying brown was trying to surrender and nothing more to get the indictment. Instead he cross examined and discredited their testimony while hand waving at pot.

OTOH, Wilson was able to testify like all other defense witnesses and was never crossed. Specifically what I have heard at issue is how the pictures from the hospital show no bruising around the face and the like where the man he described as a demon of great strength supposedly beat him to the point of being scared. He was never questioned how his supposed radio call right before pursuit never ended up on any recording or any other manner of thing someone actually seeking an indictment would attempt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding? Absolutely nothing.

Really then why did the prosecutor cross examine prosecution witnesses and not defense like the suspect then?

[ChumpDumper]

DAs never work with the police.

Ever.

This is what we learned today.

lol

[Yonivore]

Bullshit, all he had to do is bring up one of the witnesses saying brown was trying to surrender and nothing more to get the indictment. Instead he cross examined and discredited their testimony while hand waving at pot.
Unfortunately, the forensic evidence and more credible witness statements discounted those that claimed Brown was surrendering. And, this was known before the prosecutor was harangued into taking the case to a Grand Jury. I'm not sure what you don't understand about a professional prosecutor, the people elected, making a judgment on a case under his jurisdiction. To knowingly present evidence or witness statements he knew to be counter to the truth - just to obtain an indictment - would be a worse offense than what you are apparently accusing him. Which, by the way, I'm still not sure what wrongdoing he's being accused of.

You've come the closest by suggesting he should have fudged the evidence in order to gain an indictment and that it was wrong that he didn't.


OTOH, Wilson was able to testify like all other defense witnesses and was never crossed. Specifically what I have heard at issue is how the pictures from the hospital show no bruising around the face and the like where the man he described as a demon of great strength supposedly beat him to the point of being scared. He was never questioned how his supposed radio call right before pursuit never ended up on any recording or any other manner of thing someone actually seeking an indictment would attempt.
Actually, the photos do show contusions and swelling. The photos were taken fairly contemporaneous to the event and it's possibly bruising wasn't yet evident.

In any case, there is credible witness testimony that Michael Brown was leaning through the patrol vehicle window and wailing away on Officer Wilson.

[Yonivore]

Really then why did the prosecutor cross examine prosecution witnesses and not defense like the suspect then?
Please elaborate.

[Yonivore]

DAs never work with the police.

Ever.

This is what we learned today.

lol
You're a poor student.

[ChumpDumper]

You're a poor student.You're a poor judge of sarcasm.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Bullshit, all he had to do is bring up one of the witnesses saying brown was trying to surrender and nothing more to get the indictment. would you want admitted lying witnesses brought in front of you GJ hearing?

[Yonivore]

would you want admitted lying witnesses brought in front of you GJ hearing?
He wants a dishonest prosecutor to present a biased case so the Officer who killed Michael Brown can be tried for a crime he didn't commit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

would you want admitted lying witnesses brought in front of you GJ hearing?

What do strawman mean?

And that is exactly what the prosecutor is claiming to have done. You're too stupid to realize the logical extensions of what you say.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He wants a dishonest prosecutor to present a biased case so the Officer who killed Michael Brown can be tried for a crime he didn't commit.

:lol you two fumbling around trying to speak for me

I want an unbiased special prosecutor to handle all investigations and prosecution of law enforcement officials. I want the law enforcement bill of rights repealed or find a DoJ with the balls to test it's muster with the 14th amendment.

[Yonivore]

:lol you two fumbling around trying to speak for me

I want an unbiased special prosecutor to handle all investigations and prosecution of law enforcement officials. I want the law enforcement bill of rights repealed or find a DoJ with the balls to test it's muster with the 14th amendment.
So, you're not alleging this particular prosecutor did anything wrong; you just want the process changed. That's a fair statement.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I want an unbiased special prosecutor to handle all investigations and prosecution of law enforcement officialsThat would have been useful in this case. The special prosecutor would have ignored public pressure, looked at all the evidence, and say there is no case to go before a grand jury.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, you're not alleging this particular prosecutor did anything wrong; you just want the process changed. That's a fair statement.

Wrong is a word of many meanings. I don't know that he did anything illegal but that is as far as I will go. I think the corrupt nature of DA run GJ for cops is wrong and he is an active participant in the travesty.

The issue is that the conflict of interest is a corruption that calls into question of the legitimacy of the proceedings. You can cherry pick arguments and witness statements from such a system all you like but there it still is.

[Yonivore]

That would have been useful in this case. The special prosecutor would have ignored public pressure, looked at all the evidence, and say there is no case to go before a grand jury.
I'm kind of wondering from where Fuzzy would have chosen the special prosecutor. Most people considered for the job also have a prior, friendly relationship with law enforcement.

I'm not opposed to the idea, mind you, but, I think it at least needs to be shown the current prosecutor has acted in a manner that denied justice to those involved in the case. I also think having a special prosecutor selected for every case in which a police officer is involved is impractical. The people elect their District Attorneys to make the determinations inherent in the office. If they lose confidence in the DA, replace him.

[Yonivore]

Wrong is a word of many meanings. I don't know that he did anything illegal but that is as far as I will go. I think the corrupt nature of DA run GJ for cops is wrong and he is an active participant in the travesty.

The issue is that the conflict of interest is a corruption that calls into question of the legitimacy of the proceedings. You can cherry pick arguments and witness statements from such a system all you like but there it still is.
The problem you have here is that the Grand Jury reached the right conclusion. Pick an instance where the Grand Jury was swayed into making the wrong decision by a prosecutor and you might have an argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm kind of wondering from where Fuzzy would have chosen the special prosecutor. Most people considered for the job also have a prior, friendly relationship with law enforcement.

I'm not opposed to the idea, mind you, but, I think it at least needs to be shown the current prosecutor has acted in a manner that denied justice to those involved in the case. I also think having a special prosecutor selected for every case in which a police officer is involved is impractical. The people elect their District Attorneys to make the determinations inherent in the office. If they lose confidence in the DA, replace him.

My preferred notion is you create a standing body with it's own investigative and prosecutorial staff. While they may have some relationship with law enforcement prior that won't last long considering on how cops behave. After all, closing ranks and protecting themselves is what the TBL is all about.

I especially like it because it is exactly the checks and balance approach to institutionalization that makes our country great.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem you have here is that the Grand Jury reached the right conclusion. Pick an instance where the Grand Jury was swayed into making the wrong decision by a prosecutor and you might have an argument.

Your 'right conclusion' was based on the witnesses and arguments that an official with a clear conflict of interest presented. You can keep trying to gloss that over but it is what it is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your 'right conclusion' was based on the witnesses and arguments that an official with a clear conflict of interest presented. You can keep trying to gloss that over but it is what it is.
How can you claim to know what was presented when you've admitted to not reading what was presented?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How can you claim to know what was presented when you've admitted to not reading what was presented?

Someone with reading skills would note that I never claimed that. My point repeatedly has been that the conflict of interest subsumes it. I don't think you understand what it means to subsume something. You never got mutually exclusivity either.

From now on if I ignore you, it means that I think what you said was once again stupidity and I am not wasting my time further.

[Yonivore]

My preferred notion is you create a standing body with it's own investigative and prosecutorial staff. While they may have some relationship with law enforcement prior that won't last long considering on how cops behave. After all, closing ranks and protecting themselves is what the TBL is all about.

I especially like it because it is exactly the checks and balance approach to institutionalization that makes our country great.
Well, sounds like you have a cause, go forth!

[TheSanityAnnex]

Someone with reading skills would note that I never claimed that. My point repeatedly has been that the conflict of interest subsumes it. I don't think you understand what it means to subsume something. You never got mutually exclusivity either.

From now on if I ignore you, it means that I think what you said was once again stupidity and I am not wasting my time further.
You can't claim the conflict of interest subsumes it when you don't even know what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, sounds like you have a cause, go forth!

Nice dissemble. Surrendering the point of significance is noted.

[Yonivore]

Nice dissemble. Surrendering the point of significance is noted.
I did nothing of the sort, I still want to know what you believe this prosecutor did that corrupted the case.

You just don't seem willing to answer so, I've moved on.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I did nothing of the sort, I still want to know what you believe this prosecutor did that corrupted the case.

You just don't seem willing to answer so, I've moved on.
He doesn't know what the prosecutor did or did not present to the grand jury (admitted) so he can not answer your question other than to just say there was a conflict of interest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I did nothing of the sort, I still want to know what you believe this prosecutor did that corrupted the case.

You just don't seem willing to answer so, I've moved on.

It's de facto corruption due to the conflict of interest. This is the exact same point you were being obtuse about before.

[Yonivore]

It's de facto corruption due to the conflict of interest. This is the exact same point you were being obtuse about before.
But, I don't see a conflict.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But, I don't see a conflict.

With law enforcement officers investigating and prosecuting themselves? Why am I not surprised?

Anyway I'm done; this is going nowhere but circles from here.

[Yonivore]

With law enforcement officers investigating and prosecuting themselves? Why am I not surprised?
You recommend criminals investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officers?


Anyway I'm done; this is going nowhere but circles from here.
Okay.

[TheSanityAnnex]

With law enforcement officers investigating and prosecuting themselves? Why am I not surprised?

Anyway I'm done; this is going nowhere but circles from here.

Can you explain the difference between an officer involved shooting and a citizen involved shooting, concerning grand jury hearings.

[Yonivore]

Here you go, Fuzzy! Rep. Hank "Tipping Guam" Johnson Wants Federal Control of Local Grand Juries

New Bill Would Move Use of Deadly Force Cases to Special Prosecutor, Open Hearing (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/11/new-bill-would-move-use-of-deadly-force-cases-to-special-prosecutor-open-hearing/)

What could go wrong?

[boutons_deux]

Here you go, Fuzzy! Rep. Hank "Tipping Guam" Johnson Wants Federal Control of Local Grand Juries

New Bill Would Move Use of Deadly Force Cases to Special Prosecutor, Open Hearing (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/11/new-bill-would-move-use-of-deadly-force-cases-to-special-prosecutor-open-hearing/)

What could go wrong?

less than went horribly wrong in Ferguson and Staten Island.

[Yonivore]

less than went horribly wrong in Ferguson and Staten Island.
Nothing went wrong in Ferguson -- the case got a more thorough Grand Jury proceeding than almost any case in history. And, the right conclusion was reached.

I won't argue with you over the Staten Island case, there is room to argue the cop could have been indicted for criminally negligent homicide if, in fact, the technique he used was banned by the Police Department because they knew the risk it posed. But, he wasn't indicted. That doesn't relieve him of civil liability.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.

The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, constitutionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the identity of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the identity of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

[Yonivore]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.

The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, constitutionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the identity of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the identity of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.
Ultimately, the point is this: If Michael Brown had shot a person in self-defense and, it was clear to the responding police and the prosecuting attorney this was the case, it never would have been presented to a Grand Jury.

You may recall, this was the case in Sanford, Florida. The police initially refused to file a complaint because the evidence indicated Zimmerman's account was accurate...as it eventually was determined to be.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ultimately, the point is this: If Michael Brown had shot a person in self-defense and, it was clear to the responding police and the prosecuting attorney this was the case, it never would have been presented to a Grand Jury.

You may recall, this was the case in Sanford, Florida. The police initially refused to file a complaint because the evidence indicated Zimmerman's account was accurate...as it eventually was determined to be.

Oh, I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's a nice way for you to avoid the rest of the discussion, unquestionably, but I think the greater likelihood with proof that depends on the credibility of witnesses and such, is that there would be an indictment to allow a jury to weigh the evidence and assess the witnesses (with an intervening effort to secure a plea bargain from a vulnerable person facing life-altering criminal liability).

The accused's defenses and alibis only rarely make it before the grand jury, even where those defenses might be supported by strong evidence.

[Yonivore]

Oh, I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's a nice way for you to avoid the rest of the discussion, unquestionably, but I think the greater likelihood with proof that depends on the credibility of witnesses and such, is that there would be an indictment to allow a jury to weigh the evidence and assess the witnesses (with an intervening effort to secure a plea bargain from a vulnerable person facing life-altering criminal liability).
That wasn't the case in Sanford, until after the usual suspects opened their pie holes and started demanding "justice" for Trayvon Martin.

We simply disagree. Police and prosecutors make these determinations every day. Not everyone who pulls the trigger and kills another person faces a Grand Jury or trial. Our Criminal Justice system allows for the police and prosecutors to make these determinations based on the products of their investigations and their experience in the law.


The accused's defenses and alibis only rarely make it before the grand jury, even where those defenses might be supported by strong evidence.
Those police and prosecutors believe are innocent of a crime NEVER even face a Grand Jury. Which, I hasten to add, would have probably been the case in Ferguson had the "hands up, don't shoot" crowd not harangued the prosecutor into doing so.

[ElNono]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.

The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, constitutionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the identity of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the identity of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

Very well put, and I would add that on the grander scale, it damages the notion that we're all equal under the law, and erodes the trust in the judicial system.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Ultimately, the point is this: if there was a grand jury proceeding concerning Michael Brown for some crime (whatever crime you might think of for which there could be an absolute defense like self-defense), the prosecutor would not have endeavored in any way to have put evidence concerning potential defenses available to Mr. Brown into the grand jury proceedings; the grand jury would have only heard the evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Brown.

That is what the grand jury system is intended to do.


The grand jury is really intended to test the strength of the state's proof on its best day and determine if that proof would be sufficient (without regard to any controverting evidence) to sustain a conviction. This is the real import of Justice Scalia's opinion in Williams, which expressly states that the prosecutor is not required to bring forth exculpatory proof in grand jury proceedings even where that proof is directly contrary to the State's theory. That is true, constitutionally, because the grand jury's role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to simply decide if there is enough evidence of a crime to make conviction possible.

It's not intended to be a place where the merits of the case as a whole are worked out and resolved, primarily because grand jury proceedings aren't burdened (in the main) by the rules of evidence or procedure and without judges there to control the proceedings. That's why we have a second step in the prosecution of any individual -- a trial in which the rights of the accused are substantially greater.

I have said before (and reiterate) that I don't really care about the outcome of the Wilson grand jury; I think the result was probably right. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns when the manner in which a case against a law enforcement officer is presented to the grand jury is considerably different (in ways that are more helpful to the defendant) than the manner in which a case against another citizen would be presented to the grand jury.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense. Those efforts are unusual and suggest (to some, at least) that the prosecutor -- who has a clear conflict of interest when faced with the prospect of seeking indictments against those he and his office work closely with -- treated the grand jury proceeding as a de facto trial. If those efforts would not be used in other cases, there's very real danger of abuse (that is a more general matter of prosecutorial discretion and not a specific criticism of the Brown/Wilson proceedings). A prosecutor might bring a thin case burdened by substantial exculpatory evidence before the grand jury against a citizen, wholly ignore the exculpatory proof favoring the citizen in that proceeding (leaving the grand jury entirely in the dark), obtain an indictment (particularly since indictments are quite easy to obtain), and use the indictment as leverage to get some sort of a sentence or punishment against that person. The same prosecutor might choose in another case to present his thin case but offer the grand jury the exculpatory evidence or the proof bearing on a defense as well to suggest a no-bill. When the identity of the accused in the first scenario is a poor, uneducated black man and the identity of the accused in the second case is a white cop or the white son of a fellow country club member, the concerns for the fairness of grand jury proceedings in general become pretty significant.

I appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/indictments-in-police-shooting-rare-convictions-ev/nftqK/

Over the past five years, Travis County prosecutors have presented 25 cases to a grand jury in which a law enforcement officer used deadly force. Only Charles Kleinert has been indicted.
That track record is hardly unusual. Harris County grand jurors haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004. Until this spring, when two Dallas police officers were indicted within a week, that department hadn’t seen an officer criminally charged for shooting a civilian for 40 years.

Such statistics are especially stark when compared with defendants who are not police officers. When defendants are civilians, prosecutors say, most grand juries return indictments.

Experts say the reasons for the disparity are procedural and psychological. Prosecutors tend to pre-select citizen crimes before presenting them to a grand jury to consider criminal charges, weighing whether they have enough evidence to go to trial.

By comparison, many jurisdictions present every police shooting to a citizen panel, regardless of whether or not there is a suspicion the officer acted questionably, said Kim Vickers, executive director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which licenses peace officers.


“These cases go to a grand jury to provide the public assurance the investigation is going to be open and above-board, not just police investigating police,” said John Moritz, spokesman for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, the state’s largest police union.

And despite what the public’s first impressions may be, many police shooting cases are much more complicated once all the facts are known.
“These cases are not always as they seem when we first hear about them,” said Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. “Once we dig deeper, there are invariably other issues that come up, which is why we are so thorough in presenting them.”

In the calm of a closed chamber, grand jurors tend to empathize with police performing a difficult job. Moritz said the public understands that officers carry a gun for a reason.

“When an officer displays lethal force, it’s because he or she believed it was an imminent threat to public safety,” he said.

[ElNono]

I appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

Over the past five years, Travis County prosecutors have presented 25 cases to a grand jury in which a law enforcement officer used deadly force. Only Charles Kleinert has been indicted.
That track record is hardly unusual. Harris County grand jurors haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004. Until this spring, when two Dallas police officers were indicted within a week, that department hadn’t seen an officer criminally charged for shooting a civilian for 40 years.

Such statistics are especially stark when compared with defendants who are not police officers. When defendants are civilians, prosecutors say, most grand juries return indictments.

This is his salient point... it's not about this case particularly (notice the use of 'the white son of a fellow country club member'), but the fact that the grand jury system seemingly gets turned upside down in a minority of instances largely dependent on who is the accused. If anything, this case simply brings to the forefront the double standard. For over 99% of the cases out there, the grand jury system (if it's even used) has a certain way to proceed and brings out an indictment almost in every case (that you or me getting indicted). But when the accused is of certain class, then the whole system gets turned upside down, the bar seemingly gets raised, and we have a fairly different system. We know this happens (I said I wouldn't be surprised if Officer Wilson is not even indicted very early on in this case), but I think it's very debatable if this double standard is doing our justice system any favors.

[Yonivore]

This is his salient point... it's not about this case particularly (notice the use of 'the white son of a fellow country club member'), but the fact that the grand jury system seemingly gets turned upside down in a minority of instances largely dependent on who is the accused.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this point. In the case of Officer Wilson and George Zimmerman, the Grand Jury system got turned upside down because of the demands of the racialist community.


If anything, this case simply brings to the forefront the double standard. For over 99% of the cases out there, the grand jury system (if it's even used) has a certain way to proceed and brings out an indictment almost in every case (that you or me getting indicted). But when the accused is of certain class, then the whole system gets turned upside down, the bar seemingly gets raised, and we have a fairly different system. We know this happens (I said I wouldn't be surprised if Officer Wilson is not even indicted very early on in this case), but I think it's very debatable if this double standard is doing our justice system any favors.
If it's even used and, one could argue, it wouldn't have been used in this case had it not been for an external factor unrelated to the facts of the case.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure I completely agree with this point. In the case of Officer Wilson and George Zimmerman, the Grand Jury system got turned upside down because of the demands of the racialist community.

You don't have to agree/disagree with it, it's not an opinion. It's backed up by actual numbers. Factually speaking, the instances of grand jury proceedings that are conducted in this particular manner are well below 1% and they're largely due to the class of the accused (LEO, etc). This is also highlighted in the article TSA posted above.


If it's even used and, one could argue, it wouldn't have been used in this case had it not been for an external factor unrelated to the facts of the case.

What I was pointing out with "if it's even used" is that in a lot of cases, indictments are not even heard by grand juries, they're directly granted by a judge.

But the argument has nothing to do with this prosecutor or this particular case though. I don't want to speak for FWD, but I think the sticking point on his post is that perhaps prosecutors shouldn't have as much leeway to conduct the same job, under the same law with such disparity based on who's the accused. In my opinion, it reeks of a double standard and does a disservice to the notion we're all equal under the law.

[FromWayDowntown]

But the argument has nothing to do with this prosecutor or this particular case though. I don't want to speak for FWD, but I think the sticking point on his post is that perhaps prosecutors shouldn't have as much leeway to conduct the same job, under the same law with such disparity based on who's the accused. In my opinion, it reeks of a double standard and does a disservice to the notion we're all equal under the law.

You can speak for me on that.

And while others might want to continue to fixate upon it, my point isn't focused on the Wilson proceedings in particular, other than to make a larger point about troubling issues with grand jury proceedings that the Wilson proceedings brought to light.

[Yonivore]

You don't have to agree/disagree with it, it's not an opinion. It's backed up by actual numbers. Factually speaking, the instances of grand jury proceedings that are conducted in this particular manner are well below 1% and they're largely due to the class of the accused (LEO, etc). This is also highlighted in the article TSA posted above.
Does the article say how many officer-involved shootings were never brought before a Grand Jury?

Or, how many were only brought there by the prosecutor, under duress -- such as facing the prospect his community will be burned to the ground if he doesn't satisfy the mob?


What I was pointing out with "if it's even used" is that in a lot of cases, indictments are not even heard by grand juries, they're directly granted by a judge.

But the argument has nothing to do with this prosecutor or this particular case though. I don't want to speak for FWD, but I think the sticking point on his post is that perhaps prosecutors shouldn't have as much leeway to conduct the same job, under the same law with such disparity based on who's the accused. In my opinion, it reeks of a double standard and does a disservice to the notion we're all equal under the law.
I think a lot of officer-involved shootings are presented to Grand Juries to avoid what occurred in Ferguson and Sanford so, in that sense, many prosecutors may not the same type of case to present -- all they have is exculpatory evidence and testimony. What would you have them do?

[ElNono]

I think a lot of officer-involved shootings are presented to Grand Juries to avoid what occurred in Ferguson and Sanford so, in that sense, many prosecutors may not the same type of case to present -- all they have is exculpatory evidence and testimony. What would you have them do?

If we're going to have a double standard depending on who's the accused when operating under the same proceedings, then perhaps we need to split the law into two laws and codify it as such. We'll have one kind of grand jury law that applies when the accused is of a certain class, and a different kind of grand jury law that applies in all other cases. This is effectively what's happening right now. It won't solve the problem, but at least it would dispel the notion that we're all the same under the (same) law.

Alternatively, there could be a limit imposed on the leeway the prosecutor has into deciding how the proceedings should be conducted, and set forth clear guidelines that applies to every accused no matter the class they belong to, effectively ending the double standard.

[Yonivore]

If we're going to have a double standard depending on who's the accused when operating under the same proceedings, then perhaps we need to split the law into two laws and codify it as such. We'll have one kind of grand jury law that applies when the accused is of a certain class, and a different kind of grand jury law that applies in all other cases. This is effectively what's happening right now. It won't solve the problem, but at least it would dispel the notion that we're all the same under the (same) law.
Actually, I think the "double standard" to which you refer is not due to the who is the accused (Wilson was never accused of a crime) but due to the nature of the evidence to be presented. Again, remember, Wilson wasn't being accused but the prosecutor took a case to the Grand Jury nonetheless. Had the prosecutor had his druthers, it wouldn't have caused the problem you describe because, he wouldn't have had to figure out what to present to a Grand Jury on a case in which the evidence and statements demonstrate no crime was committed.


Alternatively, there could be a limit imposed on the leeway the prosecutor has into deciding how the proceedings should be conducted, and set forth clear guidelines that applies to every accused no matter the class they belong to, effectively ending the double standard.
And, in this case, if you're presuming the case would proceed as most Grand Jury proceedings, the Prosecutor would have absolutely nothing to say to the assembly. What would he present? Incriminating testimony that he had already discounted through other more credible witnesses or forensics?

[TheSanityAnnex]

This is his salient point... it's not about this case particularly (notice the use of 'the white son of a fellow country club member'), but the fact that the grand jury system seemingly gets turned upside down in a minority of instances largely dependent on who is the accused. If anything, this case simply brings to the forefront the double standard. For over 99% of the cases out there, the grand jury system (if it's even used) has a certain way to proceed and brings out an indictment almost in every case (that you or me getting indicted). But when the accused is of certain class, then the whole system gets turned upside down, the bar seemingly gets raised, and we have a fairly different system. We know this happens (I said I wouldn't be surprised if Officer Wilson is not even indicted very early on in this case), but I think it's very debatable if this double standard is doing our justice system any favors.
According to the article indictments are lop sided like this because of the fact that prosecutors pre-select citizen crimes with enough evidence for an indictment where as almost every police shooting goes before a grand jury regardless of a questionable shooting.

[ElNono]

According to the article indictments are lop sided like this because of the fact that prosecutors pre-select citizen crimes with enough evidence for an indictment where as almost every police shooting goes before a grand jury regardless of a questionable shooting.

That's a description of prosecutors using the generous leeway they have to conduct these proceedings. The reasons they do that might be noble (or not). It doesn't really matter. We effectively have a dual grand jury system strictly based on who is the accused. That, IMO, goes directly against what we preach about our justice system. I also think it's largely why people see cases like this one as judicial chicanery. There are multiple solutions to this, as I described in my previous post. But obviously there has to be a will to institute such change.

[ElNono]

Actually, I think the "double standard" to which you refer is not due to the who is the accused

Grand jury proceedings always have an accused. If there's nobody accused of anything, there's no need for a grand jury.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/indictments-in-police-shooting-rare-convictions-ev/nftqK/

Over the past five years, Travis County prosecutors have presented 25 cases to a grand jury in which a law enforcement officer used deadly force. Only Charles Kleinert has been indicted.
That track record is hardly unusual. Harris County grand jurors haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004. Until this spring, when two Dallas police officers were indicted within a week, that department hadn’t seen an officer criminally charged for shooting a civilian for 40 years.

Such statistics are especially stark when compared with defendants who are not police officers. When defendants are civilians, prosecutors say, most grand juries return indictments.

Experts say the reasons for the disparity are procedural and psychological. Prosecutors tend to pre-select citizen crimes before presenting them to a grand jury to consider criminal charges, weighing whether they have enough evidence to go to trial.

By comparison, many jurisdictions present every police shooting to a citizen panel, regardless of whether or not there is a suspicion the officer acted questionably, said Kim Vickers, executive director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, which licenses peace officers.


“These cases go to a grand jury to provide the public assurance the investigation is going to be open and above-board, not just police investigating police,” said John Moritz, spokesman for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, the state’s largest police union.

And despite what the public’s first impressions may be, many police shooting cases are much more complicated once all the facts are known.
“These cases are not always as they seem when we first hear about them,” said Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. “Once we dig deeper, there are invariably other issues that come up, which is why we are so thorough in presenting them.”

In the calm of a closed chamber, grand jurors tend to empathize with police performing a difficult job. Moritz said the public understands that officers carry a gun for a reason.

“When an officer displays lethal force, it’s because he or she believed it was an imminent threat to public safety,” he said.

:lol your quotes are from a cop union official and a local prosecutor. willful ignorance.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can speak for me on that.

And while others might want to continue to fixate upon it, my point isn't focused on the Wilson proceedings in particular, other than to make a larger point about troubling issues with grand jury proceedings that the Wilson proceedings brought to light.

I've been trying to talk about the conflict if interest for days now. They want to thump their chest a the non-indictment and talk about the particulars of the proceedings. One my be incapable of understanding but I know that Yoni understands this. He doesn't care.

BTW your first post here was exemplary explaining the issue.

[Yonivore]

Grand jury proceedings always have an accused. If there's nobody accused of anything, there's no need for a grand jury.
I don't disagree. But, when you're forced to present an accused you don't think is guilty of a crime, surely you would admit, it kind of muddies the water.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't disagree. But, when you're forced to present an accused you don't think is guilty of a crime, surely you would admit, it kind of muddies the water.

They are legally compelled to do no such thing.

[Yonivore]

They are legally compelled to do no such thing.
Again, I don't disagree but, in the case of Darryl Wilson, the Prosecutor stated his reason for presenting the case was because of external pressure. He felt forced to take it to a Grand Jury or his community would be burned down.

It was actually a matter of mob rule taking over the proceeding. Fortunately, they couldn't intimidate the Grand Jury into doing their bidding.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol your quotes are from a cop union official and a local prosecutor. willful ignorance.

Your point?

[ElNono]

I don't disagree. But, when you're forced to present an accused you don't think is guilty of a crime, surely you would admit, it kind of muddies the water.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say he didn't have prosecutorial discretion not to bring a case, then turn around and say he had that same prosecutorial discretion to present this case to the grand jury in the manner he did.

He always had the prosecutorial discretion. The moment he decided to bring a case in front of the grand jury, that decision rests entirely on his shoulders.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, I don't disagree but, in the case of Darryl Wilson, the Prosecutor stated his reason for presenting the case was because of external pressure. He felt forced to take it to a Grand Jury or his community would be burned down.

It was actually a matter of mob rule taking over the proceeding. Fortunately, they couldn't intimidate the Grand Jury into doing their bidding.

That is horseshit. They burned Ferguson anyway. What he didn't want was the special prosecutor that the state offered.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I've been trying to talk about the conflict if interest for days now. They want to thump their chest a the non-indictment and talk about the particulars of the proceedings. One my be incapable of understanding but I know that Yoni understands this. He doesn't care.

BTW your first post here was exemplary explaining the issue.I've already agreed and said there is an inherent conflict of interest because of how the system is set up, it is unavoidable. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the Wilson case never should have even gone before a grand jury.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your point?

I am not surprised you don't get the conflict of interest. It's like asking Payday loans about repealing lending restrictions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've already agreed and said there is an inherent conflict of interest because of how the system is set up, it is unavoidable. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the Wilson case never should have even gone before a grand jury.

What I refuse to acknowledge is that a prosecutor with a conflict of interest nor a random message board poster are qualified to make that statement.

It is easily avoidable. Special prosecutors unrelated to the department avoid it completely.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I am not surprised you don't get the conflict of interest. It's like asking Payday loans about repealing lending restrictions.

Your pot smoking is killing your memory.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What I refuse to acknowledge is that a prosecutor with a conflict of interest nor a random message board poster are qualified to make that statement.

It is easily avoidable. Special prosecutors unrelated to the department avoid it completely.I am fine with the special prosecutor and already mentioned that would have worked out well for Wilson as the special prosecutor would have looked at all the evidence and said there is no case to present, ignoring the pressure from the community.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your pot smoking is killing your memory.

I'm talking about the interview subject selection of the news article.

Your stupidity is killing your reading comprehension.

[Yonivore]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say he didn't have prosecutorial discretion not to bring a case, then turn around and say he had that same prosecutorial discretion to present this case to the grand jury in the manner he did.

He always had the prosecutorial discretion. The moment he decided to bring a case in front of the grand jury, that decision rests entirely on his shoulders.
Okay. I guess the mob holding torches had absolutely nothing to do with the Prosecutor's decisions...even though he said they did.

[Yonivore]

That is horseshit. They burned Ferguson anyway.
You're right, they did. And, when they couldn't intimidate the Grand Jury into returning the indictment, they burned down the town. Frankly, he would have been better off telling the mob to pack sand that an indictment wasn't going to be sought. While it would have instigated the crowd sooner, they wouldn't have been as organized as they were on the day the Grand Jury announced.

[ElNono]

Okay. I guess the mob holding torches had absolutely nothing to do with the Prosecutor's decisions...even though he said they did.

It shouldn't. If it did, that's entirely on the prosecutor. AFAIK, he could've excused himself from the case too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm talking about the interview subject selection of the news article.

Your stupidity is killing your reading comprehension.I never mentioned a particular section of the article, not sure why you are clinging on to a few quotes.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It shouldn't. If it did, that's entirely on the prosecutor. AFAIK, he could've excused himself from the case too.

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

[Yonivore]

It shouldn't. If it did, that's entirely on the prosecutor. AFAIK, he could've excused himself from the case too.
You're right. But, it goes to how the Grand Jury proceeding in this case got so fucked up.

[ElNono]

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

This prosecutor choose to bring the case in front of a grand jury, and he choose to conduct the proceedings the way he did. That's entirely on him, no excuses.

Could a different prosecutor have acted a different way and we could be waiting for a trial now? Sure, it wouldn't be surprising at all. Would it change the outcome? I don't know. There's obviously a different bar to clear in a trial vs a grand jury.

Ultimately, I'm not concerned with the current outcome. The concern is in the process this case brought to light.

[ElNono]

You're right. But, it goes to how the Grand Jury proceeding in this case got so fucked up.

I don't think it's this case particularly at all. There's plenty of other cases where this seemingly parallel rules of grand jury proceedings happen (as point out in TSA's article).

[boutons_deux]

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

well of course you don't. dead n!gg@s is the right-wing strategy.

if a prosecutor has REALLY wanted an indictment (Ferguson's guy wanted no trail), then he would have presented ONLY inculpating evidence, NOT all the exonerating "evidence", and NOT let Wilson testify in his own defense for 4 hours. Then all the evidence would have been thoroughly vetted in a TRIAL to see if it, witnesses really stood up to serious examination.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never mentioned a particular section of the article, not sure why you are clinging on to a few quotes.

Because that is what you quoted to make your argument. It just goes to show you are not trustworthy to make an intelligent, unbiased statement.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're right, they did. And, when they couldn't intimidate the Grand Jury into returning the indictment, they burned down the town. Frankly, he would have been better off telling the mob to pack sand that an indictment wasn't going to be sought. While it would have instigated the crowd sooner, they wouldn't have been as organized as they were on the day the Grand Jury announced.

So your point of him being forced was horseshit. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

The point is that a different prosecutor would have presented a different case. You are too dimwitted to get that no one is arguing that the GJ in this case came to the 'wrong conclusion' given the case that was shown.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because that is what you quoted to make your argument. It just goes to show you are not trustworthy to make an intelligent, unbiased statement.for fucks sake there were like two quotes out of ten paragraphs :lol I've got you in a tailspin

I wasn't making an argument dipshit. I was simply showing that the way Wilson's was handled by the DA is no different than other officer involved shootings. If you'd take the time to remove the stick I shoved up your ass you'd realize I'm agreeing with there always being a conflict of interest.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The point is that a different prosecutor would have presented a different case. You are too dimwitted to get that no one is arguing that the GJ in this case came to the 'wrong conclusion' given the case that was shown.
Or a different prosecutor would not have succumbed to public pressure and brought no case at all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Or a different prosecutor would not have succumbed to public pressure and brought no case at all.

I won't discount that as a possibility. OTOH, you dismiss the idea that they might seek and get an indictment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wasn't making an argument dipshit. I was simply showing that the way Wilson's was handled by the DA is no different than other officer involved shootings.

The bolded is an argument. It also so happens to be besides the point. Fumble around some more for us.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The bolded is an argument. It also so happens to be besides the point. Fumble around some more for us.

Never said it was right or wrong and no, it is not besides the point.


What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense.


It appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I won't discount that as a possibility. OTOH, you dismiss the idea that they might seek and get an indictment.Having ACTUALLY read the testimonies and evidence I can confidently say even a special prosecutor would not seek to get an indictment against Wilson, doing so would be in bad faith.

[Th'Pusher]

Having ACTUALLY read the testimonies and evidence I can confidently say even a special prosecutor would not seek to get an indictment against Wilson, doing so would be in bad faith.
You're so emotionally invested in this incident. Everyone has pretty much conceded the outcome and you're beating the horse like a virgin bangs his cock. You're so single issue. You're so narrow. You're so embarrassing

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Having ACTUALLY read the testimonies and evidence I can confidently say even a special prosecutor would not seek to get an indictment against Wilson, doing so would be in bad faith.

And again a different prosecutor would present different evidence, make different arguments, present a different set of witnesses, asked the witnesses different questions, etc. You are incredibly ignorant to the entire process and continue to fumble around the topic.


:cry Fuzzy talk to me about testimony so I can feel vindicated because of the decision. :cry

over and over and over again. It took you two weeks to finally catch up to the conflict of interest and the broader issue. You still want to talk about the witness testimony. Push has you right about the embarrassment part.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're so emotionally invested in this incident. Everyone has pretty much conceded the outcome and you're beating the horse like a virgin bangs his cock. You're so single issue. You're so narrow. You're so embarrassing
Everyone has conceded the outcome? Lock the thread Kori conversation is done.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And again a different prosecutor would present different evidence, make different arguments, present a different set of witnesses, asked the witnesses different questions, etc. You are incredibly ignorant to the entire process and continue to fumble around the topic.



over and over and over again. It took you two weeks to finally catch up to the conflict of interest and the broader issue. You still want to talk about the witness testimony. Push has you right about the embarrassment part.what different evidence? It was all presented. You haven't read shit concerning the case how can you even make that claim?
I've been trying to get you to respond to all your claims you made pre testimony release without quoting all of them for all to see and give you a chance to admit you were wrong and you've curled up repeatedly, who is really the one embarrassed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what different evidence? It was all presented. You haven't read shit concerning the case how can you even make that claim?
I've been trying to get you to respond to all your claims you made pre testimony release without quoting all of them for all to see and give you a chance to admit you were wrong and you've curled up repeatedly, who is really the one embarrassed?

:lol You think that because that is what Wilson's PD's investigation came up with that that is all that could be presented as evidence. Still fumbling around I see.

And as the PBS graphic showed there were more than half that said he had his hands up and surrendering. Remember when you got butthurt and made that thread because I called you incompetent with your Breitbart response? I would discuss the nature of eye witness testimony and all that but you are determined to cling to McCulloch's defense of Wilson. You are dumb.

[Yonivore]

:lol You think that because that is what Wilson's PD's investigation came up with that that is all that could be presented as evidence. Still fumbling around I see.

And as the PBS graphic showed there were more than half that said he had his hands up and surrendering. Remember when you got butthurt and made that thread because I called you incompetent with your Breitbart response? I would discuss the nature of eye witness testimony and all that but you are determined to cling to McCulloch's defense of Wilson. You are dumb.
What evidence did the Prosecutor not present? Even all those witnesses that made statements of "hands up, don't shoot" were made available to the Grand Jury.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What evidence did the Prosecutor not present? Even all those witnesses that made statements of "hands up, don't shoot" were made available to the Grand Jury.

Evidence generated by a investigative body without a even clearer conflict of interest would be a good start. I'm not sure but at the same time you still have a defacto corrupt investigation.

You guys cannot get past that. No statement from the suspect before his GJ hearing. A on site medical examiner that has a battery for her camera would be two good starts off the top of my head. I am sure that a trained investigator could come up with quite many more.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol You think that because that is what Wilson's PD's investigation came up with that that is all that could be presented as evidence. Still fumbling around I see.

And as the PBS graphic showed there were more than half that said he had his hands up and surrendering. Remember when you got butthurt and made that thread because I called you incompetent with your Breitbart response? I would discuss the nature of eye witness testimony and all that but you are determined to cling to McCulloch's defense of Wilson. You are dumb.
Why are you referencing a PBS graphic that was not even close to accurate?

Since you are finally ready to discuss the witness testimonies does that mean you have actually read them?

[boutons_deux]

why are you referencing witness testimonies ?

the exonerator's ENTIRE GJ show was a Kangaroo farce of TRIAL to convict Brown and a defense of the exonerator's buddy Wilson.

Let me guess, you believed thzt dubya, dickhead, rummy, feith, rice that Saddam did 9/11, had WMD and was going to hit America, mobile weapons labs, etc, etc? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you referencing a PBS graphic that was not even close to accurate?

Since you are finally ready to discuss the witness testimonies does that mean you have actually read them?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241859&page=2&p=7724991#post7724991

I was discussing them before and we got to the point in the link above at which point you ran away. If you want to discuss the issue of testimony with me, you can do it in that thread or not at all.

[spurraider21]

Kangaroo farce of TRIAL to convict Brown
what was he convicted of?

[Yonivore]

what was he convicted of?
He was in possession of Department-issued ammunition.

[boutons_deux]

Hannity favorite ‘Witness 40′ in Wilson grand jury is a liar and convicted felon

and jury “Witness 40,” whose testimony helped Officer Darren Wilson escape criminal charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, has been revealed as a virulently racist St. Louis woman with serious credibility issues.

The Smoking Gun reported (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236) Monday that information gathered from the unredacted portions of the grand jury transcript had identified the witness as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, a divorced mother of five who was diagnosed as bipolar as a teenager.

She admitted to grand jurors that she had pleaded guilty in 2007 to two counts of felony check fraud, and she also testified that she had suffered from memory problems since suffering serious head injuries in a 2001 car wreck.

The website, which reported that details from court records matched up with the background of the witness, described McElroy as a “fabulist” whose “law enforcement interviews are deserving of multi-count perjury indictments.”
McElroy first contacted police Sept. 11, four weeks after Wilson shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown during a confrontation – and after the officer’s version of events had been described in media accounts.
She had been commenting on the high-profile case for weeks through her Facebook account, telling another commenter Aug. 17 that an unspecified investigative report and the autopsy had “confirmed” that Brown’s hands were
not raised, as the teen’s friend had claimed.

McElroy did not mention at that time that she had been present as a witness to the fatal shooting, The Smoking Gun reported.

She continued posting online comments after meeting with St. Louis police, such as making a sarcastic comment about Brown’s ancestors being owned as slaves 200 years ago.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/hannity-favorite-witness-40-in-wilson-grand-jury-is-a-liar-and-convicted-felon-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hannity favorite ‘Witness 40′ in Wilson grand jury is a liar and convicted felon

and jury “Witness 40,” whose testimony helped Officer Darren Wilson escape criminal charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, has been revealed as a virulently racist St. Louis woman with serious credibility issues.

The Smoking Gun reported (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236) Monday that information gathered from the unredacted portions of the grand jury transcript had identified the witness as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, a divorced mother of five who was diagnosed as bipolar as a teenager.

She admitted to grand jurors that she had pleaded guilty in 2007 to two counts of felony check fraud, and she also testified that she had suffered from memory problems since suffering serious head injuries in a 2001 car wreck.

The website, which reported that details from court records matched up with the background of the witness, described McElroy as a “fabulist” whose “law enforcement interviews are deserving of multi-count perjury indictments.”
McElroy first contacted police Sept. 11, four weeks after Wilson shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown during a confrontation – and after the officer’s version of events had been described in media accounts.
She had been commenting on the high-profile case for weeks through her Facebook account, telling another commenter Aug. 17 that an unspecified investigative report and the autopsy had “confirmed” that Brown’s hands were
not raised, as the teen’s friend had claimed.

McElroy did not mention at that time that she had been present as a witness to the fatal shooting, The Smoking Gun reported.

She continued posting online comments after meeting with St. Louis police, such as making a sarcastic comment about Brown’s ancestors being owned as slaves 200 years ago.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/hannity-favorite-witness-40-in-wilson-grand-jury-is-a-liar-and-convicted-felon-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

:lol




http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/16/witness_40_michael_brown_football_player_witness_u nreliability_history_of.html

Ferguson Witness Exposed by Smoking Gun Was Also Discredited in Front of Grand Jury by Prosecutors

A Smoking Gun piece posted Monday reveals the identity and checkered past of "Witness 40," (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236) who likely lied while testifying to the Darren Wilson grand jury that Michael Brown charged Wilson "like a football player" just before he died. The Smoking Gun writes that Sandra McElroy's testimony is "baked into the narrative of the Ferguson grand jury"; Gawker covered the Smoking Gun story by describing McElroy as “Darren Wilson's key witness.” (http://gawker.com/darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar-1671681384) But while McElroy's "like a football player" line has been repeated a number of times on Fox News (http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/ferguson--was-witness-40-even-there--369446467820), testimony transcripts themselves indicate that it's unlikely that McElroy's account was taken seriously by grand jurors.
The Smoking Gun has collected information about McElroy's past, including social media posts and court records, indicating that she has a history of dishonesty (including check fraud and a dubious 2007 claim to have witnessed an incident in another high-profile criminal case) and racial bias (including repeated use of racial slurs). All of it certainly casts serious doubt on whether McElroy was actually anywhere near Ferguson, Missouri on the day Michael Brown died. But as the Smoking Gun alludes to only glancingly, McElroy's testimony was also extensively undercut by prosecutors themselves—in fact, a Washington Post writeup of grand jury evidence shortly after the decision not to indict Wilson referred to McElroy's testimony as “discredited,” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inconsistency-the-only-constant-with-evidence-in-michael-brown-case/2014/11/25/6e3bc702-7450-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html) while a similar CNN recap made clear that prosecutors doubted the logistics of her story and questioned her about racist material she'd written online.




Indeed, a review of the grand jury documents (http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/ferguson-shooting/) released by St. Louis County shows that McElroy's account was questioned openly and extensively by authorities. Grand Jury Volume 15 (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370817-grand-jury-volume-15.html) includes her Oct. 23 testimony in front of the grand jury, as well as a transcript of a recording of an Oct. 22 interview between McElroy and a federal prosecutor that was played for jurors. The federal prosecutor tells McElroy that her account of driving through Ferguson is physically impossible, informs her that her car can't be found in any images from the scene, solicits an admission that she "used the N-word" online a half-dozen times in relation to Brown's death, and asks her explicitly if she used media accounts to fabricate parts of her testimony. McElroy speaks about having memory problems in both the recorded interview with the federal prosecutor and the in-person interview in front of the grand jury, and tells both the federal prosecutor and the jury that she suffers from largely untreated bipolar disorder. In McElroy’s Oct. 23 testimony, the grand jury prosecution picks skeptically at her claim to have come across the Wilson-Brown encounter—which did not take place on a main road—after getting lost while trying to find a friend's apartment. (And, to repeat, the federal prosecutor's skeptical interview with McElroy was played for grand jurors that day as well.)


As the Smoking Gun does mention, McElroy returned to the grand jury on Nov. 3 with a new story about why she was in Ferguson. In testimony in Grand Jury Volume 18 (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370820-grand-jury-volume-18.html), McElroy reads from a journal and attests that she was in fact travelling to the area to conduct personal research to help her understand black people (!). But the Smoking Gun doesn't mention that, in those same grand jury records, a prosecutor says (in front of jurors) that McElroy had admitted she may have gotten details of her earlier testimony off the Internet, points out that her journal entry from the morning before Brown's death is suspiciously detailed, and asks McElroy directly whether she may have made up or "dreamed" the events that she's testifying about. Another prosecutor tells McElroy she believes McElroy is "confused" about her own account and grills her about her animosity towards blacks and her use of racial slurs.

Given all this warranted skepticism expressed toward Sandra McElroy in front of grand jurors by prosecutors—and the incredibly obvious flaws in her testimony itself—it's hard to believe that any sane juror, no matter how inclined to believe Darren Wilson, would have taken her testimony seriously. While the Smoking Gun's investigation is useful in undermining those in the media who would take McElroy's words out of context, it's doubtful—given the evidence currently at hand—that the grand jury's ultimate decision would have been any different had she never testified

[Yonivore]

Oops, bouts.

[spurraider21]

but the prosecutors weren't doing a good job in cross examination

[boutons_deux]

the very un grand jury was a total farce, but if it justifies killing n!gg@ and protecting a loser cop, you right-wingers take as God's own word.

[spurraider21]

why must you always use offensive slurs?

[TheSanityAnnex]

why must you always use offensive slurs?
Lyndon Boutons Johnson

[Trill Clinton]

she never should have been allowed to testify in the first place, let alone twice.

[boutons_deux]

why must you always use offensive slurs?

I speak to ya'll in your right wing language, at least your racist orientation, and of 10Ms of right-wingers

[spurraider21]

I speak to ya'll in your right wing language, at least your racist orientation, and of 10Ms of right-wingers
when have you personally seen me speak that way?

[boutons_deux]

Some Witnesses Told Obvious Lies To Michael Brown Grand Jury, Prosecutor Says


Certain witnesses who spoke before the grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown told obvious lies under oath, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said.

“Clearly some were not telling the truth,” he said Friday morning during an interview on KTRS-AM.

In his first extensive interview since the grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, McCulloch said he had no regrets about letting grand jury members hear from non-credible witnesses.

“Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/witnesses-told-obvious-lies-michael-brown-grand-jury-prosecutor-says/

iow, Mac's plan was to snow the GJ with any old crap witness repeating any old crap, and TONS of it over WEEKS, to overwhelm, confuse the jury, while the prosecution defended Wilson and convicted Brown. Mission Accomplished

[spurraider21]

Including Dorian Johnson?

[boutons_deux]

prosecutor ADMITS HE KNEWE at least this one racist white-trash witness lied to the GJ, but he won't charge her with perjury. Just more proof the prosecutor/exonerator is one biased, racist mothefucker, and that his entire GJ was a farce.

[DPG21920]

prosecutor ADMITS HE KNEWE at least this one racist white-trash witness lied to the GJ, but he won't charge her with perjury. Just more proof the prosecutor/exonerator is one biased, racist mothefucker, and that his entire GJ was a farce.

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

prosecutor ADMITS HE KNEWE at least this one racist white-trash witness lied to the GJ, but he won't charge her with perjury. Just more proof the prosecutor/exonerator is one biased, racist mothefucker, and that his entire GJ was a farce.

zXTZOR-lHw0

[SnakeBoy]

Officer Fatally Shoots Armed Man Near Ferguson, Police Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/us/berkeley-missouri-police-shooting.html


Natives get angry again


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqDkm2Usdsg

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah...to hell with the facts. He was black. Lets riot!

[Yonivore]

Yeah...to hell with the facts. He was black. Lets riot!
Yeah, that's kind of their thing now.

[CosmicCowboy]

Justice For Antonio! KKKops!

[Yonivore]

And then they looted a QuikTrip down the street.

[Yonivore]

Video purporting to show the deceased pointing a handgun at the officer moments before he was shot.

15vqUf6H-po

It's grainy and hard to discern but, it doesn't look like his finger.

[SnakeBoy]

Maybe he was just asking the cop to smell his finger. Smell My Finger! Don't Shoot!