Reply With Quote
FuzzyLumpkins your boy Shaun King is on a good one. Why haven't you linked his Ferguson/COINTELPRO article yet?
Why whoa? This was obvious from the beginning
FuzzyLumpkins your boy Shaun King is on a good one. Why haven't you linked his Ferguson/COINTELPRO article yet?
You still haven't argued police statements and the distance the body was found from the door of the truck.
Most "Nigerian" scams are based in white-bread Russia, as are most iden y-theft rings and mail-order-bride rackets. Does that lift them to a higher plane of regard for you?
I don't need to argue the distance the body was found as I agree it was 100 feet away.
Your take on the most recent developments?
Holder is now pissed that the county autopsy was leaked, yet not a peep from him when the autopsy done by Brown's family was leaked. It is disgusting how the justice department stuck their nose in this and tried to sway the narrative. Very nice of them to send officials to Brown's funeral.
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-e...151027957.html
Reuters) - U.S. Justice Department officials on Thursday criticized local authorities' investigation of the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, saying the case had been handled in a "selective" and "inappropriate" manner.
The department's criticism comes after the official St. Louis County autopsy of Michael Brown, 18, who was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9, was leaked to media on Wednesday.
The autopsy report, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and published on its website, suggested Brown sustained a gunshot wound to the hand from close range and came as a grand jury considered whether Wilson should face charges.
"The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling," Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.
"Since the release of the convenience store footage there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case," Iverson added, referring to the Ferguson police department's release of video shortly after the shooting that showed a robbery at a nearby convenience store, although it did not specifically link Brown at the time to the footage.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed frustration with local officials investigating the incident as the Justice Department also conducts a federal investigation, according to a department official.
In a meeting with Justice Department lawyers on Wednesday, Holder said he was "exasperated" by the "selective flow of information coming out of Missouri" and called the leaks "inappropriate and troubling," the official said.
I have no problem with the evidence, but what this prosecutor is doing is just not right. As indicated on the WAPO article, normally the prosecutor presents a case to the grand jury, with enough evidence to get an indictment, then you get the actual trial to review all the evidence and make your case. This guys instead is throwing everything at the grand jury, making them co-investigators, and AFAIK, he has not even presented a case. Effectively, he's making this a close-door trial. Without looking it up, I'm willing to bet this guy has not done the same in almost every other case he's handled (and doesn't involve a cop).
Like I said many moons ago, don't be surprised if the officer is not even indicted, and the family don't get their day in court...
Except there is no trial if one is not indicted by grand. I agree with you he is effectively making the grand jury the investigators. But i'm not so sure in the racially heated case that is a bad thing.
The family will get their day in civil court.
who is defending Brown in grand jury sessions?
Since you refuse to answer in the other thread I'll ask again.
Let me make this really easy for you so you can stop dodging the issue.
When confronted by Wilson was Michael Brown's behavior acceptable, yes or no?
that has no bearing on whether or nor what Wilson did was a criminal act. I notice you don't talk about the facts. You talk about Shaun King and anyone you consider your political opponent in this matter.
I am just waiting to see what the GJ does. This thread doesn't help anyone figure out what they might decide.
If it has no bearing why is it so hard to get an answer?
What you fail to realize is I am given information well before the media has it, and it has all been correct. Remember two months ago when I said Brown's DNA was on the gun? I also said he'd be no billed a month ago, which is about to happen.
I'll defer to the criminal law specialists, but if I understand you right, I don't think your view of the grand jury and its function is correct.
That's from the Missouri Supreme Court. I think throwing everything at the grand jury for it to perform its inquisitive function is totally appropriate. And ostensibly the grand jury will be instructed on a threshold lower than the reasonable doubt that would be required in an actual trial.In approaching the issue presented we bear in mind two historical functions of a grand jury under the common law of England adopted by what is now § 1.010. One was to accuse and thereby bring to trial those believed to have violated the law. The other, equally important but often overlooked, was to protect the citizen against unfounded accusation of crime. Conway v. Quinn, 168 S.W.2d 445, 446[1] (Mo.App.1942). In State ex rel. Lashly v. Wurdeman, supra, 187 S.W. at 259, this court, speaking of grand juries, said: "That body is a component part of the court, existed at common law, and is recognized in the Cons ution, where some of its duties are specified. Its creation and duties are provided for by statutes. The grand jury is a great inquisitorial body, originally designed to vindicate the law and to protect the body of the people from the encroachments of arbitrary power. It is a necessary adjunct of all courts charged with the enforcement of the criminal law." See also State ex rel. Hall v. Burney, 229 Mo.App. 759, 84 S.W.2d 659, 664[5] (1935).
Last edited by vy65; 10-23-2014 at 04:37 PM.
If the evidence shows Brown's reaction was to assault Wilson, that has no bearing on whether what Wilson did was criminal? Are you serious?
I don't claim it's illegal, I'm merely stating that as a general rule, indictments are fairly quick, especially when you have a dead body, the murder weapon and there's no doubt who the alleged murderer is. My understanding is that in 99% of the cases the prosecutor won't even get to a grand jury if he feels he doesn't have a case (and, as I said, I'm willing to bet that's exactly what happens with this prosecutor almost all of his other cases). But when he does get there, he already did his homework, has a case, presents it, with just enough evidence to get the indictment, then you try the alleged murderer on the actual trial. This is how courts operate all day, every day in America. In this case, you get the feeling the guy wants to wash his hands of this whole thing, and point to the grand jury if there's no indictment. I noticed that early when they first said the prosecutor was going to just throw all the evidence at them.
As to Fabbs point, sure, they probably will cash in one way or another in civil court, but they should still be able to present their criminal case in front of a jury of their peers, then win or lose the trial.
I think that, because of the media scrutiny, the DA couldn't have exercised his discretion to not at least have the grand jury hear evidence. But, if the evidence really didn't show a crime was committed and if he had to convene a grand jury, then the next best thing would be to use it as an opportunity to protect Wilson.
I totally agree with you that the prosecutor "wants to wash his hands" and protect himself by pointing at the grand jury. I guess I don't see a problem with that because it's legitimate and proper under Missouri law.
There'll be varying degrees of immunity that'll definitely complicate any civil proceeding.
I wasn't an eyewitness, so I can't say.
If Wilson drove next to Brown, window open, gun drawn, and grabbed Brown through the window for "resisting a direct police order to GTF off the street", I'd say Brown knew that he, being black, was at immediate risk of getting shot and tried grab the gun. all hypothetical, of course. the "facts" presented by the "authorities" are fully dubious, trying to protect their trolling-for-trouble, racist, sadistic cop and to criminalize Brown as "walking while black".
who is defending Brown in grand jury sessions?
I understand what you're saying, but I think we both agree the prosecutor's job isn't to protect anybody. This is the dude that, if the grand jury says 'prosecute', has to present the case in court. It's ridiculous he seemingly doesn't have a case, and won't have one unless the grand jury forces him to.
Not to mention finding an 'impartial' jury. I just get the feeling a settlement with the family in that area will be easier to reach.
Not saying your info is obtained by leaks, nor am i even asking about your sources.
That having been said, how do all these "leaks" come out?
Is there no accountability after leaks do come out?
Is some female court clerk getting her bell rung by 5 paid for studs along with a Swiss bank account deposit?
Agreed. My point is -- reading the tea leaves -- it sounds like the prosecutor was left with a dog of a case that he normally wouldn't have even tried to bring, but was forced to by the public. So he's doing the next best thing.
Not sure if possible, but couldn't he withdraw from the case and let a different prosecutor that might be actually interested in bringing up a case handle it?
That is not the question that he asked. If he had asked whether or not Wilson was assaulted then sure that would be a valid response. You are really bad at drawing conclusions. I said that 'appropriate' is not the right standard to use when the response was deadly force.
You suck at argumentation once again.
It seems that Wilson shot Brown in the hand in the car because that was the only time there was close range between the two. Brown hit Wilson as well but in what order that was in who knows but he then ran away about 140 feet where Wilson got out of the car guns blazing in pursuit. As soon as Brown turned around he started shooting and backing away. I have heard zero testimony from anyone anywhere that Wilson ordered him to freeze get down or anything.
The burden of proof for an indictment is much lower than for a conviction. I am curious to see what comes out. I have no idea as I don't have near enough evidence to go by to say anything the wholes in the evidence are deliberate and case crippling.
So there is nothing new in the article for you?
Really?
Other than this no.
"Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said."
I passed on the same info from this article two months ago, most here laughed it off.
So you knew close range discharge was found on Brown's thumb?
Link dated from way back? I completely missed this. Thanks.
Last edited by pgardn; 10-24-2014 at 03:33 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions