The Ferguson Indictment (on Justice)

[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 ins ute 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/c...ions-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 su ion 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.

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]

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 horse . 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 horse . 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.