Ferguson Riots

[StrangeSox]

Some countries e.g. France don't have an adversarial system but I'm pretty sure they don't just dump a ton of information on a bunch of jurors and expect them to sort it out.

[Dick Allen]

i wonder what the racial breakdown of the Grand Jury is.

[Jenksismyhero]

How you see that as a more judicious process than an adversarial trial is equally beyond me.

 

Because I don't think that people should be charged without sufficient proof to do so? I don't think "unarmed black teen dead + white cop = murder" like some people?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

i wonder what the racial breakdown of the Grand Jury is.

9 white 3 black, need 9 to indict. I don't think we know what the vote was, though.

[Jenksismyhero]

i wonder what the racial breakdown of the Grand Jury is.

 

IIRC the guy said either 6 or 9 whites, 3 blacks.

[StrangeSox]

Because I don't think that people should be charged without sufficient proof to do so? I don't think "unarmed black teen dead + white cop = murder" like some people?

But a grand jury's job isn't to get buried under a mountain of disorganized evidence and sort it out. That's an impossible task to ask of them.

 

More frequently, their job is to rubber-stamp indictment requests, sometimes at the rate of one every 52 seconds. Again, if we see a radical break away from overzealous prosecution as a result of this, awesome, but I'm doubtful.

[Balta1701]

Some countries e.g. France don't have an adversarial system but I'm pretty sure they don't just dump a ton of information on a bunch of jurors and expect them to sort it out.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

 

That's an Antonin Scalia quote from a decision in the early 90s, in case people haven't seen that today.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah I don't actually know native american prosecution/incarceration rates off the top of my head or if they're substantially different from other groups, but I figured that if they were, "tribal police system" would be the obvious answer. Do you know if tribal arrests show up in federal crime statistics at all?

I don't know about the available stats, but I do know that all tribal agencies (law enforcement of otherwise) fall under review and/or purview of the federal government under the laws of the Dawes Act and subsequent legislation and legal findings.

 

If the tribal police arrest someone, that has to be documented, and the FBI has (or should have) that information (not sure if it is ever disseminated publically). If they are charged with a crime, it can go through a tribal court system (if one is present and patent), or else they'd need to be charged federally and go through that legal system as with other federal crimes. Those certainly would be documented - but I'm not sure about requirements for tribal court documentation. And the decision process as to which system they fall into has been noted for being... fuzzy math, we'll call it.

 

As far as tickets and minor infractions of local or reservation laws and ordinances, I have zero clue how well documented those things are. My suspicion is, the paper trail is sparse and unreliable, but that is purely a guess.

 

I should also note, it is possible they only looked at people being given tickets by municipalities or states, which would exclude much of the AmerInd populations by nature anyway. In that case, the sample size for that group is likely so small as to make the outcome statistically useless.

 

--

 

Longest paper I ever wrote was on the Dawes Act and the Reservation System. Does it show? LOL

 

[StrangeSox]

No, not at all!

 

thanks.

[Jenksismyhero]

But a grand jury's job isn't to get buried under a mountain of disorganized evidence and sort it out. That's an impossible task to ask of them.

 

More frequently, their job is to rubber-stamp indictment requests, sometimes at the rate of one every 52 seconds. Again, if we see a radical break away from overzealous prosecution as a result of this, awesome, but I'm doubtful.

 

Why do you keep saying disorganized? Do you have any evidence that this was the case?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Why do you keep saying disorganized? Do you have any evidence that this was the case?

It was not organized in a manner that a typical case is i.e. by someone making a specific argument in favor of a specific conclusion. Am I wrong to assume that prosecutors and defense attorneys each choose to introduce evidence and present witnesses in scripted order to build their story in the most effective way possible? And that, since nobody was actually advocating anything here, this wasn't done?

 

Do you think we should always ask grand juries to sort through all possible evidence when there's an issue of facts, or isn't that normally left to trial juries?

[Jenksismyhero]

It was not organized in a manner that a typical case is i.e. by someone making a specific argument in favor of a specific conclusion. Am I wrong to assume that prosecutors and defense attorneys each choose to introduce evidence and present witnesses in scripted order to build their story in the most effective way possible? And that, since nobody was actually advocating anything here, this wasn't done?

 

Do you think we should always ask grand juries to sort through all possible evidence when there's an issue of facts, or isn't that normally left to trial juries?

 

And do you know his order of witnesses didn't make sense or was somehow difficult to follow? I just don't get why you think more information means more confusion and a guaranteed no indictment order.

 

Every case has issues of fact. I don't really get why you think that's important. He could have gotten an indictment. Everyone agrees with this. He didn't want to bring charges, he knew he had a weak case, and so he decided to leave it to a jury of people to decide whether there was enough evidence. He was in cover your ass mode the entire time. Why is that unreasonable?

 

What sense would it make for him to present a "best case" to get an indictment, knowing full well that at trial it was basically a loser case? That makes no sense. You and I and everyone else knows that politically he could not have decided unilaterally to not press charges. That wasn't an option. This is the next best thing. Let people see the information he has and make the decision.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Do you think we should always ask grand juries to sort through all possible evidence when there's an issue of facts, or isn't that normally left to trial juries?

I don't think we let that happen in either case. In the case of a trial jury, each side presents the evidence they feel is necessary to prove the case they're making. They don't call every single witness or introduce every single bit of medical evidence for a reason; they filter it down to what they feel is necessary to make a strong case. The prosecution and defense are supposed to have the same piles of evidence and statements of witnesses to work off of, so that neither side hides anything, but in the case of a trial neither side would have called most of these witnesses.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think we let that happen in either case. In the case of a trial jury, each side presents the evidence they feel is necessary to prove the case they're making. They don't call every single witness or introduce every single bit of medical evidence for a reason; they filter it down to what they feel is necessary to make a strong case. The prosecution and defense are supposed to have the same piles of evidence and statements of witnesses to work off of, so that neither side hides anything, but in the case of a trial neither side would have called most of these witnesses.

 

Why? Because of the sheer number? That has nothing to do with it.

[StrangeSox]

And do you know his order of witnesses didn't make sense or was somehow difficult to follow? I just don't get why you think more information means more confusion and a guaranteed no indictment order.

 

I know, and even you agree, that the prosecution had no interest in actually getting an indictment out of this case and presented no coherent argument or interpretation of the evidence to the grand jury. Can you imagine many regular juries ever reaching a guilty verdict if they were presented evidence and testimony in a similar manner?

 

Every case has issues of fact. I don't really get why you think that's important. He could have gotten an indictment. Everyone agrees with this. He didn't want to bring charges, he knew he had a weak case, and so he decided to leave it to a jury of people to decide whether there was enough evidence. He was in cover your ass mode the entire time. Why is that unreasonable?

 

Because it's a s***ty and in my book unethical thing to do, and you were worried about wasting taxpayer money yesterday. Why should this coward use a grand jury as his own personal shield? How can you not find that unreasonable?

 

And it really seems like you're arguing contradictory sides here. On the one hand, you're saying that this was a fair, judicious process and really the best way to go; dump all possible evidence, even crappy evidence, on the grand jury and let them decide, and it'll be a just outcome. On the other hand, you've said repeatedly that you think he didn't want to bring charges and was just trying to cover his ass for a non-indictment. If he wasn't interested in an indictment and having to actually prosecute this case, why do you think he'd do anything but ensure that result from the grand jury? I really don't see how you can argue that it was a fair, judicious use of a grand jury by a prosecutor who didn't want the case and was just covering his own ass.

Edited November 26, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I know, and even you agree, that the prosecution had no interest in actually getting an indictment out of this case and presented no coherent argument or interpretation of the evidence to the grand jury. Can you imagine many regular juries ever reaching a guilty verdict if they were presented evidence and testimony in a similar manner?

 

I don't agree with the bolded. All indications are that he went above and beyond what he needed to do to find a judicious result here. He let people decide whether it was going to be worth bringing a case to trial. The GJ said nope.

 

 

Because it's a s***ty and in my book unethical thing to do, and you were worried about wasting taxpayer money yesterday. Why should this coward use a grand jury as his own personal shield? How can you not find that unreasonable?

 

And it really seems like you're arguing contradictory sides here. On the one hand, you're saying that this was a fair, judicious process and really the best way to go; dump all possible evidence, even crappy evidence, on the grand jury and let them decide, and it'll be a just outcome. On the other hand, you've said repeatedly that you think he didn't want to bring charges and was just trying to cover his ass for a non-indictment. If he wasn't interested in an indictment and having to actually prosecute this case, why do you think he'd do anything but ensure that result from the grand jury? I really don't see how you can argue that it was a fair, judicious use of a grand jury by a prosecutor who didn't want the case and was just covering his own ass.

 

It's not really contradictory. I'm saying in a perfect world he would have just said I'm not bringing charges, I don't see sufficient evidence. But there was a political pressure to do something. In lieu of taking a weak case to trial, he left it up to people to decide whether charges would be warranted. I think that was unusual but appropriate given the circumstances.

 

You guys keep arguing that his presentation of the evidence to the jury was unfair, but you're not really giving examples. I guess getting some background of Wilson as a cop wasn't necessary, but it's not going to change the facts needed to bring a charge. What else about how he presented the case was so prejudicial? What evidence was known that he didn't provide the GJ that may have resulted in charges? I'm not aware of any. All indications are that he gave every piece of information possible and he was very fair about it.

[StrangeSox]

I don't agree with the bolded. All indications are that he went above and beyond what he needed to do to find a judicious result here. He let people decide whether it was going to be worth bringing a case to trial. The GJ said nope.

 

Dumping a bunch of evidence on the grand jury without even bothering to sort out what's good and what's s*** doesn't scream judicious to me. And it still leaves the grand jury with no coherent argument being made and them left to their own devices to sort it all out.

 

If he thought the case was weak and didn't want to bring charges, why would he go "above and beyond"? Why wouldn't he just ensure that charges in a case he didn't want and didn't think he could prosecute were never brought? Why risk getting this allegedly judicious result and then having to bring the case to trial? And really, if you don't think a case is worth a s***, how good of a job are you really going to do?

 

It's not really contradictory. I'm saying in a perfect world he would have just said I'm not bringing charges, I don't see sufficient evidence. But there was a political pressure to do something. In lieu of taking a weak case to trial, he left it up to people to decide whether charges would be warranted. I think that was unusual but appropriate given the circumstances.

 

He could have just said he wasn't bringing charges and explained himself. Nobody who didn't already think charges shouldn't be brought seems to be buying the validity of this grand jury process, anyway. It gained him nothing and just makes him look slimy.

 

You guys keep arguing that his presentation of the evidence to the jury was unfair, but you're not really giving examples. I guess getting some background of Wilson as a cop wasn't necessary, but it's not going to change the facts needed to bring a charge.

 

Go browse through Wilson's testimony. The prosecution paints him as a baby-saving hero. Then they give him absolutely nothing but softball questions and don't press him or question his story once. Those examples have been given multiple times.

 

What else about how he presented the case was so prejudicial? What evidence was known that he didn't provide the GJ that may have resulted in charges? I'm not aware of any. All indications are that he gave every piece of information possible and he was very fair about it.

 

Giving "every piece of information possible" when you're the prosecution is not typical, and we don't ask grand juries to make a case for indictment all on their own. Refusing to do his job and determine what evidence was valid and credible and worthwhile before presenting it was not a fair process.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm still left confused as to how you can argue that the GJ was just political cover but was also totally legit, but I'm going home and probably checking out for the weekend, happy holidays.

[Iwritecode]

I represented a guy in a bankruptcy who worked at the McDonald's by his apartment. The apartment was one of the few he could afford. He didn't have a car. The apartment wasn't on, or near, a bus line. And McDonald's was the only business close enough for him to walk to.

 

So they literally built a McDonald's in an area where no other businesses existed?

 

Somehow I’m not buying this. In my experience, McDonald's restaurants typically have dozens of other fast food and retail shops within a couple of blocks around them.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Iwritecode

[GGajewski18]

http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2014/08/12...by-a-black-cop/

[cabiness42]

http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2014/08/12...by-a-black-cop/

 

The video shows the 5-foot-7, 140-pound student never got closer to the officer than 4 feet and didn’t try to grab his weapon

 

4 feet? I'm sorry, I'm not going to hold any cop, black or white, to the standard that somebody has to get closer than 4 feet before the officer can defend himself.

 

I think we have reached the point where we are putting way too much emphasis on whether or not people are armed. Unarmed people can be very dangerous and do lots of damage.

[greg775]

Protestors forced some stores to close on Black Friday. America is pretty pissed and protesting.

[LittleHurt05]

Protestors forced some stores to close on Black Friday. America is pretty pissed and protesting.

 

No, college kids with nothing to do are pretty pissed and protesting. In a month the new iPhone will come out and none of them will remember the name Mike Brown.

[caulfield12]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/28/us/benja....html?hpt=hp_t2

 

NFL player's response draws praise....maybe not from Keith law though

Edited November 29, 2014 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/28/us/benja....html?hpt=hp_t2

 

NFL player's response draws praise....maybe not from Keith law though

Keith law is not mentioned in the article and frankly that's an unnecessary BS cheap shot.