Ferguson Riots

[StrangeSox]

It's not meant to be a real trial. It's more relaxed. There is less scrutiny of the evidence because the standard is different. You guys keep complaining about there not being a "pro-prosecution" but you're ignoring there also wasn't a "pro-defense" which would have ripped the 15 different versions of the event as reported by the witnesses (at least to the press).

Yes there was, it was the prosecution team.

 

It's not meant to be a real trial or a "mock trial." Grand jurors aren't supposed to be sorting through witness credibility and evidence reliability. That's for a full jury or bench trial to do. Inundating grand jurors with 70 hours of testimony and countless documents over 3 months while providing zero prosecutorial guidance or painting a coherent picture is pretty much guaranteed to return no indictment.

[NorthSideSox72]

fun fact from this 'investigation:' nobody bothered to get an official statement from Wilson on his version of events for at least a month after the shooting, giving him plenty of time to craft his story around everything that was publicly reported (plus whatever was leaked to him). Even with all of that prep time and advantage, he still came up with an at times fantastical story that the prosecution didn't bother to question at all.

Putting aside whatever he said later, which I don't think is all that fantastical... I do agree that a lack of recorded or written statement from Wilson immediately after is messed up. I can't speak for Missouri, but in at least one state, I can tell you that any use of force with a non-compliant subject required a special report to be filled out and a copy filed with the state, and that said report had to be completed within 24 hours. That alone should have been a start.

 

Furthermore, in most deadly force scenarios, I'm pretty sure in Illinois (and in at least one other state) you typically have a seperate agency (State Police, county, neighboring town, non-police prosecuting authority, etc.) do an initial investigation or at least be part of it, including collecting statements. That is supposed to occur straight away. I think Chicago may be an exception here as they have a (supposedly) seperate internal review department for such things.

 

Either way, if he didn't have to make a legally admissable statement for a month, either someone screwed up (intentionally or accidentally), or Missouri's laws need some tweaking.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't think that's been shown?

You're right, the elbow shot isn't well described in the press reports I'm now checking. Retract that statement.

[Jenksismyhero]

And so since most of the witnesses who say they saw the final shot do not describe Brown as charging at him while the officer does, you're going to find the officer's testimony equally uncredible, right?

 

Supposedly there were several witnesses that backed up Wilsons claim on this point. I haven't seen the GJ testimony from them though.

[Balta1701]

See above. There was also no defense attorney cross examining the same witnesses and poking a hole in a lot of their versions.

Thank you for now agreeing that there should have been a case made by an unaffiliated special prosecutor. That's what should have happened and it's nice to see you now agree that this process was faulty.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes there was, it was the prosecution team.

 

It's not meant to be a real trial or a "mock trial." Grand jurors aren't supposed to be sorting through witness credibility and evidence reliability. That's for a full jury or bench trial to do. Inundating grand jurors with 70 hours of testimony and countless documents over 3 months while providing zero prosecutorial guidance or painting a coherent picture is pretty much guaranteed to return no indictment.

 

They're supposed to be given facts and determine if probable cause exists for the charge. That necessitates some credibility analysis and comparing evidence A and B together.

 

We all know he could have gotten an indictment if he wanted, or he could have charged him if he wanted. Just because he didn't and he wanted that conclusion to be validated by a grand jury with all the evidence he had, doesn't mean it was some corrupt process.

 

And let's face it: no matter what happened here - he brought charges, he got an indictment, or it goes to trial and Wilson wins, you all would STILL be pissed off about it. You're just latching on to this GJ thing to further your conspiracy theory that Wilson, a cold blooded murderer, shot a saintly, innocent, unarmed black kid, and the powers at be are protecting him to further their racist aims. It's another example of the "epidemic" you believe is happening across the country of white cops killing black kids because racism.

[StrangeSox]

Putting aside whatever he said later, which I don't think is all that fantastical... I do agree that a lack of recorded or written statement from Wilson immediately after is messed up. I can't speak for Missouri, but in at least one state, I can tell you that any use of force with a non-compliant subject required a special report to be filled out and a copy filed with the state, and that said report had to be completed within 24 hours. That alone should have been a start.

 

Furthermore, in most deadly force scenarios, I'm pretty sure in Illinois (and in at least one other state) you typically have a seperate agency (State Police, county, neighboring town, non-police prosecuting authority, etc.) do an initial investigation or at least be part of it, including collecting statements. That is supposed to occur straight away. I think Chicago may be an exception here as they have a (supposedly) seperate internal review department for such things.

 

Either way, if he didn't have to make a legally admissable statement for a month, either someone screwed up (intentionally or accidentally), or Missouri's laws need some tweaking.

I'm wondering if all of the failures in the investigation and incident reporting is where a civil rights violation might come into play.

 

Ferguson PD did turn the case over the St. Louis County either that Saturday or the next day, but StLC seemed preoccupied with conducting a military occupation of Ferguson and shutting down the media.

[Jenksismyhero]

Thank you for now agreeing that there should have been a case made by an unaffiliated special prosecutor. That's what should have happened and it's nice to see you now agree that this process was faulty.

 

I said that a while ago, so...

 

But I also don't think if that happened anything would have changed. Charges should not have been brought and I don't see how he would have been found guilty at a trial.

[StrangeSox]

They're supposed to be given facts and determine if probable cause exists for the charge. That necessitates some credibility analysis and comparing evidence A and B together.

 

We all know he could have gotten an indictment if he wanted, or he could have charged him if he wanted. Just because he didn't and he wanted that conclusion to be validated by a grand jury with all the evidence he had, doesn't mean it was some corrupt process.

 

And let's face it: no matter what happened here - he brought charges, he got an indictment, or it goes to trial and Wilson wins, you all would STILL be pissed off about it. You're just latching on to this GJ thing to further your conspiracy theory that Wilson, a cold blooded murderer, shot a saintly, innocent, unarmed black kid, and the powers at be are protecting him to further their racist aims. It's another example of the "epidemic" you believe is happening across the country of white cops killing black kids because racism.

Wrong. I was disappointed with the Zimmerman verdict and don't think his series of actions should be legal, but I wasn't 'pissed off about it' and think it's more a problem of what is actually legal.

 

I don't have a conspiracy that Wilson was a cold-blooded murderer or that Brown was saintly or innocent. Wilson was panicked and, I think, unjustifiable killed an unarmed black kid. Pro-police and anti-black institutional bias combined from the start to make Brown look as bad as possible while making Wilson look as good as possible. I don't know that there's an endemic of "white cops killing black kids," and if there is, my position would be a lot more nuanced than "because racism."

 

But that really does reiterate that, for whatever reason, you just don't get why people (be they dopes on SoxTalk or people in Ferguson/around the country) are upset and lose faith with the justice system.

[zenryan]

I still remain baffled as to why you think that this has been conclusively shown.

 

 

yet you still want to hang onto the hope that Brown was surrendering when shot when no evidence or reliable witness statements shows that.

 

but keep pushing that MSM fed narrative.

[StrangeSox]

yet you still want to hang onto the hope that Brown was surrendering when shot when no evidence or reliable witness statements shows that.

 

but keep pushing that MSM fed narrative.

I don't know why you think the accounts of Brown surrendering are conclusively unreliable while all of the accounts of Brown charging are legit.

 

[RockRaines]

Wrong. I was disappointed with the Zimmerman verdict and don't think his series of actions should be legal, but I wasn't 'pissed off about it' and think it's more a problem of what is actually legal.

 

I don't have a conspiracy that Wilson was a cold-blooded murderer or that Brown was saintly or innocent. Wilson was panicked and, I think, unjustifiable killed an unarmed black kid. Pro-police and anti-black institutional bias combined from the start to make Brown look as bad as possible while making Wilson look as good as possible. I don't know that there's an endemic of "white cops killing black kids," and if there is, my position would be a lot more nuanced than "because racism."

 

But that really does reiterate that, for whatever reason, you just don't get why people (be they dopes on SoxTalk or people in Ferguson/around the country) are upset and lose faith with the justice system.

You should write a summary on that and leave it as your post as its literally the only thing you continue to push. If I am wrong and it's more of an indictment on the system as a whole I think looking at the lack of prosecution of criminals for black on black crime would be something you should put your energy into as well as its MUCH more frequent than this particular instance.

[StrangeSox]

I would dump this in the other thread but it got locked, not related to Ferguson:

 

COLORADO MAN ARRESTED AFTER AIMING BANANA AT DEPUTIES

 

According to part of an arrest affidavit released to KDVR-TV, Mesa County deputies Joshua Bunch and Donald Love said they feared for their lives after they "observed what appeared to be a yellow tube with a black center."

The deputies say Channing told them he was doing a trial run for a planned YouTube video and he thought it would be a "funny joke." It may be a joke that went too far. Channing now faces two counts of felony menacing. A conviction could get him three years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

 

Dumb joke? Sure. Two felony counts? Sad to see prosecutors around the country embracing this heightened standard for pressing charges didn't last long.

[StrangeSox]

You should write a summary on that and leave it as your post as its literally the only thing you continue to push.

 

Uh yeah that's kind of what all of the protests and discussions are about. If you've missed that it's about a long and building distrust of the justice system as a whole especially among a lot of black communities, you've missed most of the story.

 

If I am wrong and it's more of an indictment on the system as a whole I think looking at the lack of prosecution of criminals for black on black crime would be something you should put your energy into as well as its MUCH more frequent than this particular instance.

There's a lack of policing and prosecution in predominately black communities?

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/n...-jury-fairness/

 

Legal experts across the country agree that while the process that led to a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was unusual, it was not unfair. Rather if it was anything unusual, it was in its fairness and openness.

 

Lawyers and academics told The Washington Times that, despite their personal opinions on the case, which has sparked riots over police brutality, St. Louis county prosecutor Robert McCulloch sought unbiased justice in presenting the jury with every piece of evidence and then making that evidence public.

 

“It was the most thorough grand jury investigation that I’ve ever heard of,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School.

 

Media outlets and supporters of Mr. Brown have said that Mr. McCulloch’s prosecution was unusual because he did not go in with the goal of seeking an indictment in secret, as most prosecutors do.

 

But Richard Kelsey, assistant dean for management and planning at George Mason University law school, said that what makes this case more unusual is that Mr. McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.

 

“More recently everyone has head the statement that ‘a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich,’” Mr. Kelsey said. “It is true that it is usually easy to get an indictment, but is that a just process? I would say no.”

 

Legal scholars say that Mr. McCulloch’s decision to release the evidence presented to the grand jury for public scrutiny was also unprecedented, since grand-jury hearings are usually shrouded in secrecy, both while going on and after the fact.

 

“Usually you don’t hear what evidence they considered,” Mr. Saltzburg said. “I give the prosecutor top marks in terms of transparency and accountability.”

 

The Brown family and their supporters argue that if the prosecutor had championed harder for an indictment, a full trial could have led to a conviction. But lawyers say in this case, a strong push to indict Officer Wilson merely based on the easier legal standard of “probable cause” would have merely set up a trial where the prosecution likely would have failed to get a guilty verdict based on the much stiffer “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

 

“Even if you could have gotten an indictment, what good does it do to get an indictment and then have your case thrown out,” said Gabriel Chin, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Law.

 

“You go ahead and do a weak grand jury presentation, but if you do it in a case that’s actually weak, how are you going to feel when you are prosecuting a case that you really shouldn’t be prosecuting,” Mr. Chin said.

 

Lawyers say in general, grand jury cases are subject to pro-prosecution bias because a district attorney will try to summarize their case to obtain an indictment, possibly hiding some of the evidence. Meanwhile, the accused has no right to an attorney, to present evidence on his behalf, or even to know that his indictment is being considered.

 

“What you hope is that it’s a neutral process, but it’s not when you don’t have anybody in there for the other side,” said Lee Cox, a Texas-based criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor.

 

Mr. Cox argued that in many cases where a grand jury is seeking an indictment for a police officer, the prosecutor will try to protect the officer.

 

“Officers hardly ever get indicted for anything. It’s common of the prosecutor and the police, they are in law enforcement together. So the public’s perception is that nothing is going to happen to the officer anyway because they are both in law enforcement,” Mr. Cox said.

 

Criminal defense attorney Guy Fronstein agreed that there is an “incestuous” relationship between prosecutors and police in grand jury proceedings but admitted that in this case that relationship did not impede justice.

 

“The grand jury system is a one-sided Kangaroo Court, which virutally always indicts since jurors hear the prosecutor’s version of events and rule without having ever heard from the defense,” Mr. Fronstein said.

 

“However, due to the brotherhood between prosecutors and police officers, when a police officer is the target of a prosecutor’s case, it is almost predetermined that the officer will not be indicted. The incestuous relationship between prosecutors and officers did not come into play in Ferguson because there simply was not enough evidence for the grand jury to find probable cause that Officer Wilson committed a crime; the grand jury got it right,” he said.

 

Although the jury did not indict Officer Wilson on state homicide or other charges, the case is not necessarily over.

 

The federal government could charge Officer Wilson with civil-rights violations, and the Brown family can still bring civil lawsuits against Officer Wilson and/or the Ferguson police department

 

“The family could sue and get their day in court,” said Mr. Saltzburg adding that although football star O.J. Simpson was actually acquitted of murder charges, he was still found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a lawsuit.

 

“I’d be surprised if they didn’t bring [to a civil court] the public stance that they took that this was unjustified,” Mr. Saltzburg said.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

They're supposed to be given facts and determine if probable cause exists for the charge. That necessitates some credibility analysis and comparing evidence A and B together.

 

We all know he could have gotten an indictment if he wanted, or he could have charged him if he wanted. Just because he didn't and he wanted that conclusion to be validated by a grand jury with all the evidence he had, doesn't mean it was some corrupt process.

 

And let's face it: no matter what happened here - he brought charges, he got an indictment, or it goes to trial and Wilson wins, you all would STILL be pissed off about it. You're just latching on to this GJ thing to further your conspiracy theory that Wilson, a cold blooded murderer, shot a saintly, innocent, unarmed black kid, and the powers at be are protecting him to further their racist aims. It's another example of the "epidemic" you believe is happening across the country of white cops killing black kids because racism.

 

I have expressed my displeasure with the GJ process here multiple times, but I assure you I do not resemble the comments in bold.

 

 

I'm wondering if all of the failures in the investigation and incident reporting is where a civil rights violation might come into play.

 

Ferguson PD did turn the case over the St. Louis County either that Saturday or the next day, but StLC seemed preoccupied with conducting a military occupation of Ferguson and shutting down the media.

 

So SLCSD or the SLC DA's office or whomever, likely failed there. Even if there is no law per se to require it (which I don't know if there is), seems like some pretty piss poor investigative technique at best.

 

[RockRaines]

There's a lack of policing and prosecution in predominately black communities?

Yes, there is a lack of accountability, and cooperation in the communities where overwhelmingly a majority of crimes are committed. We live in Chicago, where there has been 155 homicides since Michael Brown was killed and 74% of those were black males, 29 were teenagers.

 

Of those homicides 5 were committed by the CPD in case we were still outraged at the police killing people.

[caulfield12]

Yes, there is a lack of accountability, and cooperation in the communities where overwhelmingly a majority of crimes are committed. We live in Chicago, where there has been 155 homicides since Michael Brown was killed and 74% of those were black males, 29 were teenagers.

 

Of those homicides 5 were committed by the CPD in case we were still outraged at the police killing people.

 

 

Looking at this topic from a historical perspective, why would you expect it?

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Yes, there is a lack of accountability, and cooperation in the communities where overwhelmingly a majority of crimes are committed. We live in Chicago, where there has been 155 homicides since Michael Brown was killed and 74% of those were black males, 29 were teenagers.

 

Of those homicides 5 were committed by the CPD in case we were still outraged at the police killing people.

That didn't answer my question, though. Is there really a lack of policing and prosecution in majority black communities like you originally claimed?

 

Every time black people get upset with what they perceive as a case of racial injustice, someone will inevitably bring up "black-on-black crime!" as if that argument hasn't been addressed a thousand times before and if there aren't a bunch of people working every day dedicated to that issue, protests/marches about it, etc.

[StrangeSox]

Looking at this topic from a historical perspective, why would you expect it?

Going to link this Radley Balko (libertarian, long-time scholar at Cato, has written about police militarization and abuse for years) article about how municipalities and police forces in St. Louis County profit from the poor and particularly black poor again, because it should really give everyone an understanding of where this distrust comes from. These people are living in a Kafka novel.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-wat...s-from-poverty/

[RockRaines]

That didn't answer my question, though. Is there really a lack of policing and prosecution in majority black communities like you originally claimed?

 

Every time black people get upset with what they perceive as a case of racial injustice, someone will inevitably bring up "black-on-black crime!" as if that argument hasn't been addressed a thousand times before and if there aren't a bunch of people working every day dedicated to that issue, protests/marches about it, etc.

They bring it up because its a much larger issue than homicides by the police and largely all the fault for both the crimes and lack of cooperation in policing the streets falls on the people who live there.

[illinilaw08]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/n...-jury-fairness/

 

That link is a good one - largely because it speaks to how ridiculous the GJ process is usually.

 

Again, however, but for the fact that (1) Wilson was a police officer; and/or (2) the national attention on the case, Wilson would have been indicted like a ham sandwich.

 

It speaks to a problem with the system, and the disparate treatment that Wilson received under the circumstances (in my opinion) rather than to the evenhandedness of the prosecutor.

 

Going off on a tangent here, but, in my opinion, the criminal justice system needs to be more transparent not less - particularly when you are dealing with someone's freedom. The system shouldn't be about convictions, it should be about getting the right result. Maybe that's what happened here (again, not intending to opine on the issue of whether Wilson is guilty or not), but it isn't what happens in the vast majority of cases.

[RockRaines]

Looking at this topic from a historical perspective, why would you expect it?

I dont get the question. Are you saying the police will be racist against a defendant who is black when the victim was also black?

[Jenksismyhero]

Going to link this Radley Balko (libertarian, long-time scholar at Cato, has written about police militarization and abuse for years) article about how municipalities and police forces in St. Louis County profit from the poor and particularly black poor again, because it should really give everyone an understanding of where this distrust comes from. These people are living in a Kafka novel.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-wat...s-from-poverty/

 

A couple of those fines were for speeding, one was for failure to wear her seatbelt and most of the rest were for what defense attorneys in the St. Louis area have come to call attorneys in the St. Louis area have come to call “poverty violations” — driving with a suspended license, expired plates, expired registration and a failure to provide proof of insurance.

 

Oh, so she broke the law and got tickets like everyone else does. How terrible!

 

I'd agree with a more general "municipalities profit from people" argument. I've been saying that for years.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[ptatc]

if he had his hands up and was yelling something like "I give up" and the cop continued shooting, an entirely reasonable response would be to slowly walk towards him with his hands up so that he could hear him.

I don't agree. The officer doesn't know if Brown is tricking him by saying he is surrendering and is just waiting until he is close enough to attack him again. When you give up you stop and possibly kneel or sit down not continue at the officer.

 

Either way even if it was his intention to give up, the officer had every right to feel threatened when a person who just attacked him was coming toward him again.