some great analysis in the New Rebpulic on why so many people are pissed and distrustful.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
As far as victory lap and a the sorrow of a black kid getting killed....Please...
A bunch of folks feigning their sadness over some poor kid. Meanwhile in the real world, jails have plenty of Michael Browns and the same folks here couldn't give two shits about someone that would be serving 5-15 years for robbery, menacing, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest...
But lets pretend some give a crap because it is popular to do so. And lets put an officers life in the balance for the same piece of crap...But no it is me with the issue...lol
I think the DA was brilliant. He knew he didn't have a case which based on the evidence has been obvious. He also knew that the people of Ferguson would never be satisfied. So he took it out of his hands and put it in the GJ's hands.
He knew if he said no charges would be filed, the idiots would do what they did and he knew he didn't have a case against Wilson. So he took himself and really the office out of the equation. And now all the evidence is an open book...of course the evidence is not of anyones interest here and certainly not the criminals in the streets of Ferguson masquerading as protestors.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
some great analysis in the New Rebpulic on why so many people are pissed and distrustful.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
Should he have recused himself? Perhaps, particularly if he worked closely with the department and especially if he knew the officer. That could certainly be construed as a mistake.
But using a grand jury for an investigative purpose made sense in this case. Get witnesses under oath, let them vet the evidence and see if testimony is reasonably consistent with statements made to investigators previously. Maybe what turns up changes your mind. Because if as a prosecutor you don't believe that probable cause exists to go forward with a charge you have an ethical obligation not to bring charges.
But prior to that happening i posted an apology to you PA Giants. My first post in it was uncalled for and I am sorry. I was quite tanked due to having to deal with us putting down our dog of 12 years yesterday and was not thinking clearly.
Because they knew the idiots would set the place on fire and wanted to let people get home safely. Based on the events, seems like a smart decision. People can only loot and set fire to things at night?
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Read the grand jury testimony of Officer WIlson, Â
it is very detailed and the forensics and science back up his story. If you dont read that and look at the forensics and diagrams of blood trails and body placement you shouldnt be commenting.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Or, the rioting was inevitable and at least this way the streets are empty of everyone else.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
RE: From the evidence there was never a case here Â
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
It's been said over and over they did it because they wanted rush hour traffic and kids to be home. I think that's a perfectly rational reason.
RE: RE: From the evidence there was never a case here Â
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
No rational reason? Of course there is a rational reason to announce this at 9pm at night. After what happened in Ferguson in the wake of the incident, the city feared that more rioting, looting, arson, and vandalism would occur (which it did to no one's surprise). The destruction didn't happen because it was announced at night. The destruction happened because there were enough people who saw fit to commit destructive acts after hearing the decision.
As such, the city wanted to make sure that innocent people had time to get home from work-- and more importantly, they wanted to make sure that children could get home safely from school.
If the announcement were made during the day, the protests would have led to rioting and destruction anyway, and then it was more likely that innocent bystanders and children would be caught out in public.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
Was not aware that there were server problems last night. I wasn't on BBI last night. What I saw this morning was a reasonable discussion until the DA spoke and then it veered off the tracks. In particular, I saw an "ignorant" woman become the subject of an personal attack post that had been repeated verbatim at least 10 times, with a few threads inserted in between the repetition. Besides that, discussion, even argument, had been virtually disappeared, being replaced by other personal attack posts coming from all sides.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
Seems like a pretty giant stretch to even attempt that "argument" when you consider how long (days/weeks) the "protests" lasted initially. Announcing it at 8 am, wasn't going to stop rioting. At best the rioting would've been delayed until nightfall. At worst, as you said, innocent bystanders would've been dragged into the middle.
RE: RE: RE: From the evidence there was never a case here Â
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
Got any proof of that? I don't think that is true.
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
FWIW when he collapsed he was right at the feet of one officer.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Those people still have to get home. And if you think it still wouldn't have been bad, you are being naive.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
You base this on your extensive knowledge of the mentality of protesters, rioters and looters (three distinct groups of people) and of the living habits of residents of the greater St. Louis area, no doubt.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Haha. Yes, because the anger died down after 12 hours when the incident first happened...
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
It was one of the pot shots that was repeated verbatim at least 10X. I now am aware that the server problem may have played a part in that.
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
Regardless of your positon in a this, I saw these same points made last night and I wondered the same thing then
I am confused by the first point. I heard he ws considered 'pro-police'. Based on what? He's the DA and works closely with law enforcement every day.
Not sure where the GJ leaks came from but problem number one in this case was all the incorrect information reported as fact that just wasn't true. The only relevant leaks I heard were regarding the officer taking a shot to the face from the victim.
While I do not disagree with that, Ididn't he say he did not present the cae to the GJ but had two assistants do it? (sorry if wrong on that). Regardless he released the GJ info to the public last night and mroe importantly, GJ are not trials, the DA's job is to lay out the evidence for consideration and explain to the GJ what their job is.
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
Lazy. You could've at least linked one of the "original" Brown-Ferguson threads where I'm sure it's mentioned.
the only thing close to a certainty in this whole mess is that the city of Ferguson will struggle to recover. Cities that experienced widespread rioting and looting even as far back as the 1960's are almost all still dilapidated and rundown.
it is going to be extremely difficult to recover. Also, some of the same rioters six months from now will probably complain that owners aren't choosing their town to open up their new businesses.
some great analysis in the New Rebpulic on why so many people are pissed and distrustful.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
Meh, if you are talking about the articles by Vinik, Cohn or Schieber, none are attorneys, evidenced little if any understanding of the grand jury system or the difference between a grand jury and a trial, the DA's role with an investigative grand jury, the grand jury's role vis a vis the DA, or the law.
I doubt a full trial would have diminished anything if Wilson was acquitted.
it is going to be extremely difficult to recover. Also, some of the same rioters six months from now will probably complain that owners aren't choosing their town to open up their new businesses.
Actually, my guess is that a majority of the instigators/rioters will have moved on to their next target. Ferguson was little more than an opportunity. Some/most of the looters will be around, but they are opportunists and don't have on their agenda complaining about the lack of re-openings.
The folks who got destroyed and won't be back are the small business owners. Even if they wanted to return, they just got priced out of the market by their insurance. Not sure about the McDonalds. I don't know what franchisees get as far as insurance goes. You know, Montana might be able to shed some light on that one.
people think the DA allowed too much evidence (apparently anything that corroborated Wilson's testimony). And while I do understand that normally a prosecutor doesn't do that, I think what the DA was trying to accomplish was to have something beyond and investigation, but realized very early on that there was no case. The original narrative, while extremely inflammatory, was wrong, either intentionally or not. If this wasn't such a high profile case, there wouldn't have been anything beyond a cursory investigation.
So should the DA have pushed for an indictment and put the officer, the town and everyone through a circus of a trial? Not to mention the money it would cost the county or city.
People want a show, not justice.
The argument about announcing it during night instead of day Â
is stupid. First of all, they wanted to make sure innocent citizens had time to get home safe with out having to deal with rioting after work. Secondly, if the riots are going to last several days, then the time of day is irrelevant.
That's just a dumb talking point being floated out there and if anyone would really put any thought into it they would understand the two points I posted in the above paragraph.
Here is a list of some of the aspects the DA never addressed Â
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
RE: Here is a list of some of the aspects the DA never addressed Â
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
Whether his ties with this police department (I'm not sure how many fall in his jurisdiction) would warrant a refusal is a fair question. The fact that he has close ties with police generally being trumpeted as holding any significance whatsoever is idiotic. Any prosecutor by definition works closely with law enforcement, be it at the state/local or federal level. The fact that his father was a police officer killed in the line of duty is also not expressly relevant. Presumably he and his office have prosecuted police officers for misconduct before, probably successfully.
I think if it went to trial, Wilson would have been found not guilty. Simply because where was not enough evidence supporting a conviction while there was some eye witness testimony that would support Wilson's position. So, I think this would have been dragged out for a year and without the outcome that the locals would have wanted.
Here is something that I would like to understand. Why would the POTUS wait until 10pm to tell people on a TV interview to protest peacefully if they are already in the streets rioting and have yet to plug in the TVs that they have stolen? The people who had a chance to hear what he had to say most likely were never going to leave their homes that night. Think maybe that message should have gone out a lot sooner? Does anyone think it would have mattered?
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1.) McCulloch said he gave them 5 different indictments to consider.
2.) Any evidence that he's been favorable to police officers in the past?
3.) What did you want him to do? Only give the false stories from those who said Brown had his hands up and was shot running away? Cmon. People want a full investigation and then they are upset because the Grand Jury was given a "mountain of evidence".
4.) The Chief said he didn't know about the robbery when he initially stopped Brown and Johnson. That is exactly in line with everything Wilson has said. He stopped them for walking in the road. He then noticed the cigars and noticed they matched the description, that's when he realized they were probably the ones who robbed the store. He was recorded saying he was out on canfield with two, and i believe he asked for another unit. The rest of his radio traffic did not go through, most likely because his radio channel was changed when Mike Brown was attacking him in the car.
Presumably. Fact checking for Dune - ( New Window )
Mentioning the 23 years makes it seem like he's had hundreds of opportunities.
He's had 5 opportunities. If you want to look at each of those cases and determine whether or not prosecution was warranted, go ahead. But to assume he did something wrong ONLY because none of those officers were prosecuted, well it's just ignorant.
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1.) McCulloch said he gave them 5 different indictments to consider.
2.) Any evidence that he's been favorable to police officers in the past?
3.) What did you want him to do? Only give the false stories from those who said Brown had his hands up and was shot running away? Cmon. People want a full investigation and then they are upset because the Grand Jury was given a "mountain of evidence".
4.) The Chief said he didn't know about the robbery when he initially stopped Brown and Johnson. That is exactly in line with everything Wilson has said. He stopped them for walking in the road. He then noticed the cigars and noticed they matched the description, that's when he realized they were probably the ones who robbed the store. He was recorded saying he was out on canfield with two, and i believe he asked for another unit. The rest of his radio traffic did not go through, most likely because his radio channel was changed when Mike Brown was attacking him in the car.
HB, in Wilsons testimony to the GJ he claimed:
"Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street."
That is contrary to the official statements by the Police Dept.
There was only one outcome that would have potentially avoided rioting: White cop frying in an electric chair.
Nope....Sharpton called for this to happen REGARDLESS as to what the decision was. He is there telling people in ALL cities to protest (code word for riot). They will riot even when they are happy. Remember when the Lakers won the championship? I think they roasted marshmallows over the burning cars in the streets.
There were a lot of questions that needed to be answered. Â
Thats not the job of a grand jury. This should have went to trial.
One question i have is why wilson ,after brown walked away, why didn't he wait for backups to arrive. They were on the way. He did not have to follow brown and try to arrest him on his own. Brown was on foot. He was going no where.
Since when do police officers just allow suspects to walk away after matching the description of someone who just robbed a store, punched him in the face and went for his gun?
Bad shoots by police are rare. He knows how difficult it is to get a GJ to indict if he failed 4 times before. Why he reluctantly gave it to the GJ. He knew he had a loser.
We don't put people on trial just because a mob wants it.
Thought that ended years ago.
You would have rather he said we don't have a case right off and really let the fireworks begin?
No where in that oped was the statistic of how many other indictments the DA got or the percentage. that little factoid was absent in that rant. Hell, he may have a better percentage than the feds.
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST SYMBOL THESE TO THE FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN. AS I HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, I KNOW THAT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, THEY LOST A LOVED ONE TO VIOLENCE. I KNOW THE PAIN THAT ACCOMPANIES SUCH A LOSS KNOWS NO BOUNDS. ON AUGUST 9, MICHAEL BROWN WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON. WITHIN MINUTES, VARIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT BEGAN APPEARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE TOWN WAS FILLED WITH SPECULATION AND LITTLE IF ANY SOLID ACCURATE INFORMATION. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, ANGER BEGAN BREWING BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING TENSIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. UNDER VARYING TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND ERUPTED VERY AT LEAST ONCE BY GUNFIRE. CONTINUING AFTER THAT, THEY ALONG WITH THE AGENTS OF THE FBI AT THE DIRECTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, LOCATED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND GATHERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION. FULLY AWARE OF THE UNFOUNDED BUT GROWING CONCERN IN SOME PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW OF THIS TRAGIC DEATH MIGHT NOT BE FAIR, I DECIDED IMMEDIATELY THAT ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED, ALL PEOPLE CLAIMING TO HAVE WITNESSED ANY PART OR ALL OF THE SHOOTING, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER RELATED MATTERS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY. 12 MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY SELECTED BY A JUDGE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR LONG BEFORE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY EXPAND UPON THE UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER FIRST ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION JUST DAYS AFTER THE SHOOTING, HE PLEDGED THAT FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS WOULD BE WORKING WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AND WOULD FOLLOW THE FACTS WHEREVER IT MAY TAKE US. WE BOTH PLEDGED ARE SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS WILL FOLLOW THE TRAIL OF FACTS WITH NO PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF WHERE THAT JOURNEY WOULD TAKE US. THE ONLY GOAL WAS THAT OUR INVESTIGATION WOULD BE THOROUGH AND COMPLETE TO GIVE THE GRAND JURY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY, THE PUBLIC ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY INVESTIGATORS. ALL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED BY THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCTED ITS OWN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND PERFORMED ITS OWN AUTOPSY. ANOTHER AUTOPSY WAS PERFORMED AT REQUEST OF THE BROWN FAMILY AND HIS INFORMATION WAS ALSO SHARED. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, ALL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY GRAND JURY WAS IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ALTHOUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE SEPARATE, BOTH OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE ALL OF THE SAME INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. OUR INVESTIGATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE GRAND JURY AND ST. LOUIS COUNTY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THE 24-HOUR NEWS CYCLE AND THE SENSATIONAL APPETITE FOR SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. FOLLOWING CLOSELY BEHIND WITH THE RUMORS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF ACCURATE DETAIL SURROUNDING THE SHOOTING FRUSTRATES THE MEDIA AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND HELPS BREED SUSPICION AMONG THOSE ALREADY STRESSED OUT BY THE SYSTEM. THE CLOSE REGARDED DETAILS GIVES LAW ENFORCEMENT YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE TRUTHFULNESS. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED AND COMPARED AGAINST THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MANY WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN MADE STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THEY MADE AND ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WERE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AN EXAMPLE -- BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN AUTOPSY WAS RELEASED, WITNESSES CLAIM THEY SAW OFFICER WILSON STAND OVER MICHAEL BROWN AND FIRE MANY ROUNDS INTO HIS BACK. OTHERS CLAIM THAT OFFICER WILSON SHOT MR. BROWN IN THE BACK AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING AWAY. HOWEVER, ONCE THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS WERE RELEASED SHOWING MICHAEL BROWN HAD NOT SUSTAINED ANY WOUNDS TO THE BACK OF HIS BODY, NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES MADE SUCH A CLAIM. SEVERAL WITNESSES ADJUSTED THEIR STORIES IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS. SOME EVEN ADMITTED THEY DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT AT ALL BUT MERELY REPEATED WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ASSUMED. FORTUNATELY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INVESTIGATION, ALMOST ALL OF INITIAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, INCLUDING THOSE OF OPPOSITE WILSON WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF MOST OF THE WITNESSES WERE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY RESULTS WERE RELEASED BY THE MEDIA AND BEFORE SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS PUBLISH INFORMATION FROM REPORTS THEY RECEIVE FROM A D.C. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. THE JURORS WERE THEREFORE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PUBLIC AND WHAT FOLLOWED IN THE NEW CYCLE -- THE JURORS WERE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THOSE WITNESSES WHO STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY REMAINED CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT EVERY INTERVIEW AND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MY ASSISTANTS BEGIN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 23 THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN ORGANIZED AN ORDERLY MANNER. THE JURORS GAVE US A SCHEDULE OF WHEN THEY COULD MAKE. ALL 12 JURORS WERE PRESENT FOR EVERY SESSION AND HEARD EVERY WORD OF TESTIMONY AND EXAMINED EVERY ITEM OF EVIDENCE. BEGINNING AUGUST 20 AND CONTINUING UNTIL TODAY, THE GRAND JURY WORKED TIRELESSLY TO EXAMINE AND RE-EXAMINE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE EXTREMELY ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS ASKING QUESTIONS OF EVERY WITNESS, REQUESTING SPECIFIC WITNESSES, REQUESTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND ASKING FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY MET ON 25 SEPARATE DAYS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, HEARD MORE THAN 70 HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM ABOUT 60 WITNESSES AND REVIEWED HOURS AND HOURS OF RECORDINGS OF MEDIA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEWS BY MANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED. THEY HEARD FROM THE THREE MEDICAL EXAMINERS AND EXPERTS ON BLOOD, DNA, TOXICOLOGY, FIREARMS AND DRUG ANALYSIS. THE EXAMINED HUNDREDS OF PHOTOGRAPHS, SOME OF WHICH THEY ASKED TO BE TAKEN. THE EXAMINED VARIOUS PIECES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH FIVE INDICTMENTS RANGING FROM MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE TO INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. THEIR BURDEN WAS DETERMINED BASED UPON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTSED AND THAT DARREN WILSON WAS THE PERSON TO COMMIT THE CRIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT DARREN WILSON CAUSED THE DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN BY SHOOTING HIM BUT THE INQUIRY DOES NOT END THERE. THE LOFT ARISES A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER USED DEADLY FORCE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE LAW ALLOWS ALL PEOPLE TO USE DEADLY FORCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE GRAND JURY CONSIDERED WHETHER WILSON WAS THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR. IN THIS CASE ARE WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT DARREN WILSON WAS OFTEN ARISE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THIS SITUATION OR IF HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. I DETAIL THIS FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THAT AS PROMISED BY ME AND ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER, THERE WAS A FULL PRESENTATION OF ALL EVIDENCE AN APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION TO THE GRAND JURY. SECOND, AS A CAUTION TO THOSE IN AND OUT OF THE MEDIA WHO WILL POUNCE ON A SINGLE SENSE OR WITNESS AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS CASE BASED ON THAT TINY BIT OF INFORMATION, THE DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY IS TO SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION. AFTER A FULL AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE INVOLVED AND DECIDED THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FILING OF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST AARON WILSON, THEY ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND SAY AGAIN THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEARD AND EXAMINED EVERY WITNESS AND EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THEY DISCUSSED AND DEBATED THE EVIDENCE AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THEIR COLLECTIVE DECISION. AFTER THEIR EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW, THE GRAND JURY DELIBERATED AND MADE THEIR FINAL DECISION. THEY DETERMINED THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO FILE ANY CHARGES AGAINST OFFICER WILSON AND RETURN A NO TRUE ON EACH OF THE FIVE INDICTMENTS. THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXAMINED BY THE GRAND JURY COMBINED WITH A WITNESS STATEMENT SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE HELD THE ACCURATE AND TRAGIC STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED. THE VERY GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY FOLLOWS -- AS I HAVE PROMISED, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES CALLED TO THE GRAND JURY WILL BE RELEASED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS STATEMENT. AT APPROXIMATELY 11:45 A.M. ON SATURDAY THE NINTH OF AUGUST, FERGUSON POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON WAS THE DISPATCH TO AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING A TWO-MONTH-OLD INFANT HAVING TROUBLE BREATHING. AT ABOUT 11:53 A.M., WILSON HEARD A RADIO BROADCAST OF STEALING IN PROGRESS AT A MARKET IN. THE BROADCAST ALSO INCLUDED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT. A BLACK MALE, WEARING A WHITE T-SHIRT AND A BOX OF SWISHER CIG ARS. OFFICER WILSON REMAINED WITH THE MOTHER AND THE INFANT UNTIL EMS ARRIVED. OFFICER WILSON LEFT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN HIS POLICE VEHICLE, A CHEVY TAHOE SUV. AN ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT WAS RELEASED AT THAT TIME. HE WAS WITH ANOTHER MALE. AS OFFICER WILSON WAS ATTENDING TO HIS EMERGENCY CALL, MICHAEL BROWN AND A COMPANION WERE IN THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE. MICHAEL BROWN'S ACTIVITY IN THE STORE WAS RECORDED BY THE STORE SECURITY CAMERAS. THE VIDEO OFTEN PLAYED FOLLOWING HIS RELEASE IN AUGUST BY THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOWS MICHAEL BROWN GRABBING A HANDFUL OF CIGARILLOS AND HEADING TOWARD THE EXIT WITHOUT PAYING. AS MICHAEL BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS LEFT THE STORE, SOMEBODY INSIDE CALLED THE POLICE. THE TWO WALKED EAST INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. MR. BROWN DIRECTLY BEHIND HIS COMPANION. AS OFFICER WILSON CONTINUED WEST, HE ENCOUNTERED MR. BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS TO WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. AS WILSON SLOWED, HE TOLD THEM TO MOVE TO THE SIDEWALK. WORDS WERE EXCHANGED AND THEY CONTINUED TO WALK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. WILSON OBSERVED THAT MICHAEL BROWN HAD CIGARILLOS IN HIS HAND WHEN WAS WEARING A RED HAT. AT APPROXIMATELY 12:02 P.M., WILSON RADIOED HE HAD TO INDIVIDUALS AND NEEDED ASSISTANCE. OFFICER WILSON BACKED HIS VEHICLE AT AN ANGLE BLOCKING THEIR PATH AND BLOCKING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. SEVERAL CARS APPROACHED FROM BOTH EAST AND WEST BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO PASS THE VEHICLE. AN ALTERCATION TOOK PLACE WITH OFFICER WILSON SEATED INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND MR. BROWN STANDING AT THE DRIVERS WINDOW. DURING THE ALTERCATION, TWO SHOTS WERE FIRED BY OFFERS A WILSON WHILE STILL INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MR. BROWN RAN EAST AND OFFICER WILSON GAVE CHASE. NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TO OFFICER WILSON. OFFICER WILSON ALSO STOP. AS MICHAEL BROWN MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON, SEVERAL MORE SHOTS WERE FIRED BY THE OFFICER AND MICHAEL BROWN WAS FATALLY WOUNDED. WITHIN SECONDS OF THE FINAL SHOT, THE ASSIST CAR ARRIVED. LESS THAN 90 SECONDS PASSED BETWEEN THE FIRST CONTACT AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE ASSIST CAR. DURING THE INVESTIGATION, EYEWITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME VERY AS -- BY VARIOUS NEWS OUTLETS. WITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SOMETIMES TOGETHER AND SOMETIMES SEPARATELY. ALL THE STATEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO THE OTHER PARTY. ALL PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY FOR ALSO PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WHETHER THEY WERE MEDIA INTERVIEWS OR INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI OR BY THE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE STATEMENTS OF ALL WITNESSES, CIVILIAN, LAW-ENFORCEMENT, EXPERTS WERE CHALLENGED BY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY THE PROSECUTORS AND THE GRAND JURY THEMSELVES. A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR CHALLENGING A STATEMENT IS TO COMPARE IT TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESS FOR CONSISTENCY AND TO COMPARE IT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE OR PERSONAL AGENDA. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT LOOK AWAY AS EVENTS UNFOLD NOR DOES IT BLACKOUT OR ADDED TO MEMORY. IT REMAINS CONSTANT AND IS A SOLID FOUNDATION UPON WHICH CASES ARE BUILT. WHEN STATEMENTS CHANGE, WITNESSES WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICT BETWEEN THEIR STATEMENTS AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WITNESSES ADMITTED THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING OR ONLY SAW PART OF THE SHOOTING. ONLY REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD ON THE STREET. SOME OTHERS ADJUSTED PARTS OF THEIR STATEMENTS TO FIT THE FACTS. OTHERS STOOD BY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATEMENTS WERE COMPLETELY DISCREDITED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SEVERAL WITNESSES DESCRIBE SEEING AN ALTERCATION IN THE CAR BETWEEN MR. BROWN AND OFFICER WILSON. IT WAS DESCRIBED AS WRESTLING, TUG-OF-WAR. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES DESCRIBED MR. BROWN AS PUNCHING OFFICER WILSON WHILE MR. BROWN WAS PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MANY OF THE WITNESSES SAID THEY HEARD A GUNSHOT WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STILL PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID THAT NO PART OF MR. BROWN WAS EVER INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND THAT THE SHOT WAS FIRED THROUGH AN OPEN WINDOW WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STANDING OUTSIDE. THE VEHICLE AND OFFICER WILSON'S CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WAS EXAMINED BY VARIOUS TECHNICIANS AND SCIENTISTS. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND OR DNA WERE LOCATED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE DRIVERS DOOR. HIS BLOOD AND DNA WERE FOUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND DNA WAS FOUND ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER DOOR. THE UPPER LEFT THIGH OF OFFICER WILSON'S PANT LEG, THE FRONT CALLER OF OFFICER WILSON ASSURED AND ON OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON. ADDITIONALLY, A BULLET FIRED FROM OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON WAS LOCATED INSIDE THE DRIVER DOOR. THE SHOT WAS FIRED FROM INSIDE THE VEHICLE STRIKING THE DOOR IN A DOWNWARD ANGLE AT THE ARMREST. THE SECOND BULLET WAS NOT RECOVERED. REGARDING THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF MR. BROWN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE THREE SEPARATE AUTOPSIES WERE CONDUCTED -- ONE BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICE, ONE BY A PRIVATE PATHOLOGIST, ONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE RESULT OF ALL THREE AUTOPSIES WERE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER IN ALL SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS. MR. BROWN HAD A GUNSHOT GRAZE WOUND ON HIS RIGHT THUMB. THE PATH WAS AWAY FROM THE TIP OF THE HAND CONSISTENT WITH A CLOSE RANGE GUNSHOT. OFFICER WILSON ALSO HAD A MEDICAL EXAMINATION WHICH INDICATED SOME SWELLING AND REDNESS TO HIS FACE. ALMOST ALL WITNESSES STATED THAT AFTER THEY HEARD THE SHOTS FIRED WHILE MR. BROWN WAS UP A CAR, HE HESITATED AND THEN RAN EAST. MOST STATED THAT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASED AFTER HIM. SOME WITNESSES STATED WILSON FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS HE CHASED AFTER HIM STRIKING HIM AT LEAST -- AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID ONE OF THE SHOTS STRUCK MR. BROWN. OTHER STATED HE DID NOT FIRE UNTIL MR. BROWN TURNED AND CAME BACK TOWARDS THE OFFICER. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS STATED THAT AS OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE, HE SHOT MR. BROWN MULTIPLE TIMES AS MR. BROWN STOOD NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. YET ANOTHER WITNESS STATED THAT OFFICER WILSON STUCK HIS GUN OUTSIDE THE WINDOW AND FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING. ONE WITNESS STATED THERE WAS ACTUALLY TOWO POLICE VEHICLES. MOST WITNESSES AGREED THAT NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED AROUND FACING OFFICER WILSON. SUNSETTED MR. BROWN DID NOT MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AT ALL BUT WERE SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES AS HE STOOD NEAR THE CORNER WITH HIS HANDS RAISED. IN SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, MANY OF THE SAME WITNESSES SAID THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING. SUMMER RUNNING FOR COVER, SOME WERE RELATING WHAT THEY HEARD FROM OTHERS OR THEY SAID WHAT THEY ASSUMED HAPPENED IN THAT CASE. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES MAINTAINED THEIR ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT MR. BROWN HAD HIS HANDS IN THE AIR AND WAS NOT MOVING TOWARDS THE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS SHOT. OTHERS SAID HE WAS SHOT -- IT'S USUALLY -- SEVERAL WITNESSES STATED THAT MR. BROWN DID NOT RAISE HIS HANDS AT ALL OR THAT HE RAISED THEM BRIEFLY AND THEN DROP THEM AND TURNED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHO FIRED SEVERAL ROUNDS. OTHER WITNESSES STATED MR. BROWN STOPPED FOR A VERY BRIEF PERIOD AND MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AGAIN. ONE DESCRIBES HIS MOVEMENT AS A FULL CHARGE. ACCORDING TO SOME WITNESSES, OFFICER WILSON STOPPED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STOPPED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AND RESUMED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STARTED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AGAIN. THESE WITNESSES DID NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA. THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW MR. BROWN'S HANDS, RAISED HIS HANDS OR THE POSITION OF HIS HANDS, IS NOT CONSISTENT AMONG THE WITNESSES. SOME DESCRIBE IS AND IS BEING OUT TO HIS SIDES, SOME SAID IN FRONT OF HIM. SOME SAID HIS AUNT RAISED BY HIS HEAD OR BY HIS SHOULDERS. OTHERS DESCRIBE HIS HANDS IS BEING IN A RUNNING POSITION OR INTERESTS -- IN FISTS. THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY. THE ENTIRE AREA WAS PROCESSED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CRIME SCENE UNIT. A TOTAL OF 12 ROUNDS WERE FIRED BY OFFICER WILSON. TWO SHOTS OF THE CAR, 10 MORE FARTHER EAST. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A GRAZE WOUND TO HIS THUMB WHILE STANDING NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. HE SUSTAINED SIX OR SEVEN MORE GUNSHOT WOUNDS DEPENDING UPON WHETHER ONE OF THE SHOTS WAS AN ENTRY OR REENTRY WOUND. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A SECOND GRAZE WOUND, AND OTHER GRAZE WOUND, TO HIS RIGHT BICEP. HE ALSO SUSTAINED WOUNDS TO HIS RIGHT FOREARM, UPPER FRONT RIGHT ARM, LATERAL RIGHT CHEST, UPPER RIGHT CHEST, FOR HEAD AND TOP OF THE HEAD. THE TOP OF THE HEAD, FOREHEAD AND PERHAPS THE UPPER RIGHT CHEST WERE CONSISTENT WITH HIS BODY BEING BENT FORWARD AT THE WAIST. EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST AND LAST WOUND, THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE ORDER OF THE SHOTS. TO GRAZE WOUND OF THE THUMB SUSTAINED AT THE VEHICLE WAS LIKELY THE FIRST WOUND. IT WAS THE ONLY CLOSE RANGE SHOT. THE SHOT AT THE TOP OF THE HEAD WAS MOST LIKELY THE LAST. IT WOULD'VE RENDERED HIM IMMEDIATELY UNCONSCIOUS AND INCAPACITATED. MR. BROWN'S BODY WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 153 FEET EAST OF OFFICER WILSON'S CAR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FARTHER EAST PAST HIS BODY. AND NEARBY TENET DURING A VIDEO CHAT INADVERTENTLY CAPTURED THE FINAL TED SHOTS -- 0 10 SHOTS ON TAPE. THERE WAS A STRING OF SHOTS FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF PAUSE AND THEN ANOTHER STRING OF SHOTS. AS I STATED EARLIER, THE EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEASED FOLLOWING THE STATEMENT. I AM EVER MINDFUL THAT THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY SOME AND MAY CAUSE DISAPPOINTMENT FOR OTHERS. ALL DECISIONS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY CORROBORATED BY THAT EVIDENCE, NOT IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC OUTCRY. DECISIONS ON A MATTER IS SERIOUS IN CHARGING AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A CRIME CANNOT BE DECIDED ON ANYTHING LESS THAN COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ANYTHING LESS IS NOT JUSTICE. IT IS MY SWORN DUTY AND THAT OF THE GRAND JURY TO SEEK JUSTICE AND NOT SIMPLY OBTAIN AN INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION. DURING THIS EXTREMELY TENSE AND PAINFUL TIME THAT WE HAVE, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AND ARE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING AND WATCHING HOW WE RESPOND AND HOW WE REACT. I WOULD URGE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WITH THE LOSS OF THAT WAS SUFFERED BY THE BROWN FAMILY, NO YOUNG MAN SHOULD EVER DIED. THIS IS A TRAGIC LOSS REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS OPEN OLD WOUNDS AND GIVEN US AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO ADDRESS THOSE WOUNDS AS OPPOSED TO WHERE THEY JUST FADE AWAY IN THE PAST. HOW MANY YEARS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF THAT LEAD TO INCIDENTS LIKE THIS. YET AFTER A TIME, IT JUST FADES AWAY. I URGE EVERYONE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION, ENGAGED IN THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO KEEP THAT GOING. NOT TO LET THAT GO. TO DO IT IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, I WAY WE CAN PROFIT FROM THIS. A WAY THAT WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS BY CHANGING THE STRUCTURE, CHANGING SOME OF THE ISSUES, BY SOLVING THE ISSUES THAT LEAD TO THE SORTS OF THINGS. WITH MICHAEL BROWN'S FAMILY, THE CLERGY, WITH ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE -- THE END OF -- THE NAACP. THE URBAN LEAGUE. EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, PRIVATE CITIZEN ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATION, CONTINUED THE DISCUSSION, ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS BUT DO SO IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, NOT DESTRUCTIVE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST SYMBOL THESE TO THE FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN. AS I HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, I KNOW THAT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, THEY LOST A LOVED ONE TO VIOLENCE. I KNOW THE PAIN THAT ACCOMPANIES SUCH A LOSS KNOWS NO BOUNDS. ON AUGUST 9, MICHAEL BROWN WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON. WITHIN MINUTES, VARIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT BEGAN APPEARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE TOWN WAS FILLED WITH SPECULATION AND LITTLE IF ANY SOLID ACCURATE INFORMATION. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, ANGER BEGAN BREWING BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING TENSIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. UNDER VARYING TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND ERUPTED VERY AT LEAST ONCE BY GUNFIRE. CONTINUING AFTER THAT, THEY ALONG WITH THE AGENTS OF THE FBI AT THE DIRECTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, LOCATED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND GATHERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION. FULLY AWARE OF THE UNFOUNDED BUT GROWING CONCERN IN SOME PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW OF THIS TRAGIC DEATH MIGHT NOT BE FAIR, I DECIDED IMMEDIATELY THAT ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED, ALL PEOPLE CLAIMING TO HAVE WITNESSED ANY PART OR ALL OF THE SHOOTING, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER RELATED MATTERS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY. 12 MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY SELECTED BY A JUDGE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR LONG BEFORE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY EXPAND UPON THE UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER FIRST ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION JUST DAYS AFTER THE SHOOTING, HE PLEDGED THAT FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS WOULD BE WORKING WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AND WOULD FOLLOW THE FACTS WHEREVER IT MAY TAKE US. WE BOTH PLEDGED ARE SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS WILL FOLLOW THE TRAIL OF FACTS WITH NO PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF WHERE THAT JOURNEY WOULD TAKE US. THE ONLY GOAL WAS THAT OUR INVESTIGATION WOULD BE THOROUGH AND COMPLETE TO GIVE THE GRAND JURY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY, THE PUBLIC ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY INVESTIGATORS. ALL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED BY THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCTED ITS OWN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND PERFORMED ITS OWN AUTOPSY. ANOTHER AUTOPSY WAS PERFORMED AT REQUEST OF THE BROWN FAMILY AND HIS INFORMATION WAS ALSO SHARED. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, ALL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY GRAND JURY WAS IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ALTHOUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE SEPARATE, BOTH OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE ALL OF THE SAME INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. OUR INVESTIGATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE GRAND JURY AND ST. LOUIS COUNTY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THE 24-HOUR NEWS CYCLE AND THE SENSATIONAL APPETITE FOR SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. FOLLOWING CLOSELY BEHIND WITH THE RUMORS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF ACCURATE DETAIL SURROUNDING THE SHOOTING FRUSTRATES THE MEDIA AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND HELPS BREED SUSPICION AMONG THOSE ALREADY STRESSED OUT BY THE SYSTEM. THE CLOSE REGARDED DETAILS GIVES LAW ENFORCEMENT YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE TRUTHFULNESS. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED AND COMPARED AGAINST THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MANY WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN MADE STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THEY MADE AND ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WERE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AN EXAMPLE -- BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN AUTOPSY WAS RELEASED, WITNESSES CLAIM THEY SAW OFFICER WILSON STAND OVER MICHAEL BROWN AND FIRE MANY ROUNDS INTO HIS BACK. OTHERS CLAIM THAT OFFICER WILSON SHOT MR. BROWN IN THE BACK AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING AWAY. HOWEVER, ONCE THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS WERE RELEASED SHOWING MICHAEL BROWN HAD NOT SUSTAINED ANY WOUNDS TO THE BACK OF HIS BODY, NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES MADE SUCH A CLAIM. SEVERAL WITNESSES ADJUSTED THEIR STORIES IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS. SOME EVEN ADMITTED THEY DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT AT ALL BUT MERELY REPEATED WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ASSUMED. FORTUNATELY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INVESTIGATION, ALMOST ALL OF INITIAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, INCLUDING THOSE OF OPPOSITE WILSON WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF MOST OF THE WITNESSES WERE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY RESULTS WERE RELEASED BY THE MEDIA AND BEFORE SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS PUBLISH INFORMATION FROM REPORTS THEY RECEIVE FROM A D.C. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. THE JURORS WERE THEREFORE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PUBLIC AND WHAT FOLLOWED IN THE NEW CYCLE -- THE JURORS WERE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THOSE WITNESSES WHO STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY REMAINED CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT EVERY INTERVIEW AND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MY ASSISTANTS BEGIN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 23 THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN ORGANIZED AN ORDERLY MANNER. THE JURORS GAVE US A SCHEDULE OF WHEN THEY COULD MAKE. ALL 12 JURORS WERE PRESENT FOR EVERY SESSION AND HEARD EVERY WORD OF TESTIMONY AND EXAMINED EVERY ITEM OF EVIDENCE. BEGINNING AUGUST 20 AND CONTINUING UNTIL TODAY, THE GRAND JURY WORKED TIRELESSLY TO EXAMINE AND RE-EXAMINE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE EXTREMELY ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS ASKING QUESTIONS OF EVERY WITNESS, REQUESTING SPECIFIC WITNESSES, REQUESTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND ASKING FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY MET ON 25 SEPARATE DAYS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, HEARD MORE THAN 70 HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM ABOUT 60 WITNESSES AND REVIEWED HOURS AND HOURS OF RECORDINGS OF MEDIA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEWS BY MANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED. THEY HEARD FROM THE THREE MEDICAL EXAMINERS AND EXPERTS ON BLOOD, DNA, TOXICOLOGY, FIREARMS AND DRUG ANALYSIS. THE EXAMINED HUNDREDS OF PHOTOGRAPHS, SOME OF WHICH THEY ASKED TO BE TAKEN. THE EXAMINED VARIOUS PIECES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH FIVE INDICTMENTS RANGING FROM MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE TO INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. THEIR BURDEN WAS DETERMINED BASED UPON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTSED AND THAT DARREN WILSON WAS THE PERSON TO COMMIT THE CRIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT DARREN WILSON CAUSED THE DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN BY SHOOTING HIM BUT THE INQUIRY DOES NOT END THERE. THE LOFT ARISES A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER USED DEADLY FORCE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE LAW ALLOWS ALL PEOPLE TO USE DEADLY FORCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE GRAND JURY CONSIDERED WHETHER WILSON WAS THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR. IN THIS CASE ARE WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT DARREN WILSON WAS OFTEN ARISE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THIS SITUATION OR IF HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. I DETAIL THIS FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THAT AS PROMISED BY ME AND ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER, THERE WAS A FULL PRESENTATION OF ALL EVIDENCE AN APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION TO THE GRAND JURY. SECOND, AS A CAUTION TO THOSE IN AND OUT OF THE MEDIA WHO WILL POUNCE ON A SINGLE SENSE OR WITNESS AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS CASE BASED ON THAT TINY BIT OF INFORMATION, THE DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY IS TO SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION. AFTER A FULL AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE INVOLVED AND DECIDED THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FILING OF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST AARON WILSON, THEY ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND SAY AGAIN THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEARD AND EXAMINED EVERY WITNESS AND EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THEY DISCUSSED AND DEBATED THE EVIDENCE AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THEIR COLLECTIVE DECISION. AFTER THEIR EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW, THE GRAND JURY DELIBERATED AND MADE THEIR FINAL DECISION. THEY DETERMINED THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO FILE ANY CHARGES AGAINST OFFICER WILSON AND RETURN A NO TRUE ON EACH OF THE FIVE INDICTMENTS. THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXAMINED BY THE GRAND JURY COMBINED WITH A WITNESS STATEMENT SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE HELD THE ACCURATE AND TRAGIC STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED. THE VERY GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY FOLLOWS -- AS I HAVE PROMISED, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES CALLED TO THE GRAND JURY WILL BE RELEASED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS STATEMENT. AT APPROXIMATELY 11:45 A.M. ON SATURDAY THE NINTH OF AUGUST, FERGUSON POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON WAS THE DISPATCH TO AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING A TWO-MONTH-OLD INFANT HAVING TROUBLE BREATHING. AT ABOUT 11:53 A.M., WILSON HEARD A RADIO BROADCAST OF STEALING IN PROGRESS AT A MARKET IN. THE BROADCAST ALSO INCLUDED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT. A BLACK MALE, WEARING A WHITE T-SHIRT AND A BOX OF SWISHER CIG ARS. OFFICER WILSON REMAINED WITH THE MOTHER AND THE INFANT UNTIL EMS ARRIVED. OFFICER WILSON LEFT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN HIS POLICE VEHICLE, A CHEVY TAHOE SUV. AN ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT WAS RELEASED AT THAT TIME. HE WAS WITH ANOTHER MALE. AS OFFICER WILSON WAS ATTENDING TO HIS EMERGENCY CALL, MICHAEL BROWN AND A COMPANION WERE IN THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE. MICHAEL BROWN'S ACTIVITY IN THE STORE WAS RECORDED BY THE STORE SECURITY CAMERAS. THE VIDEO OFTEN PLAYED FOLLOWING HIS RELEASE IN AUGUST BY THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOWS MICHAEL BROWN GRABBING A HANDFUL OF CIGARILLOS AND HEADING TOWARD THE EXIT WITHOUT PAYING. AS MICHAEL BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS LEFT THE STORE, SOMEBODY INSIDE CALLED THE POLICE. THE TWO WALKED EAST INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. MR. BROWN DIRECTLY BEHIND HIS COMPANION. AS OFFICER WILSON CONTINUED WEST, HE ENCOUNTERED MR. BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS TO WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. AS WILSON SLOWED, HE TOLD THEM TO MOVE TO THE SIDEWALK. WORDS WERE EXCHANGED AND THEY CONTINUED TO WALK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. WILSON OBSERVED THAT MICHAEL BROWN HAD CIGARILLOS IN HIS HAND WHEN WAS WEARING A RED HAT. AT APPROXIMATELY 12:02 P.M., WILSON RADIOED HE HAD TO INDIVIDUALS AND NEEDED ASSISTANCE. OFFICER WILSON BACKED HIS VEHICLE AT AN ANGLE BLOCKING THEIR PATH AND BLOCKING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. SEVERAL CARS APPROACHED FROM BOTH EAST AND WEST BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO PASS THE VEHICLE. AN ALTERCATION TOOK PLACE WITH OFFICER WILSON SEATED INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND MR. BROWN STANDING AT THE DRIVERS WINDOW. DURING THE ALTERCATION, TWO SHOTS WERE FIRED BY OFFERS A WILSON WHILE STILL INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MR. BROWN RAN EAST AND OFFICER WILSON GAVE CHASE. NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TO OFFICER WILSON. OFFICER WILSON ALSO STOP. AS MICHAEL BROWN MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON, SEVERAL MORE SHOTS WERE FIRED BY THE OFFICER AND MICHAEL BROWN WAS FATALLY WOUNDED. WITHIN SECONDS OF THE FINAL SHOT, THE ASSIST CAR ARRIVED. LESS THAN 90 SECONDS PASSED BETWEEN THE FIRST CONTACT AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE ASSIST CAR. DURING THE INVESTIGATION, EYEWITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME VERY AS -- BY VARIOUS NEWS OUTLETS. WITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SOMETIMES TOGETHER AND SOMETIMES SEPARATELY. ALL THE STATEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO THE OTHER PARTY. ALL PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY FOR ALSO PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WHETHER THEY WERE MEDIA INTERVIEWS OR INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI OR BY THE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE STATEMENTS OF ALL WITNESSES, CIVILIAN, LAW-ENFORCEMENT, EXPERTS WERE CHALLENGED BY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY THE PROSECUTORS AND THE GRAND JURY THEMSELVES. A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR CHALLENGING A STATEMENT IS TO COMPARE IT TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESS FOR CONSISTENCY AND TO COMPARE IT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE OR PERSONAL AGENDA. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT LOOK AWAY AS EVENTS UNFOLD NOR DOES IT BLACKOUT OR ADDED TO MEMORY. IT REMAINS CONSTANT AND IS A SOLID FOUNDATION UPON WHICH CASES ARE BUILT. WHEN STATEMENTS CHANGE, WITNESSES WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICT BETWEEN THEIR STATEMENTS AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WITNESSES ADMITTED THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING OR ONLY SAW PART OF THE SHOOTING. ONLY REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD ON THE STREET. SOME OTHERS ADJUSTED PARTS OF THEIR STATEMENTS TO FIT THE FACTS. OTHERS STOOD BY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATEMENTS WERE COMPLETELY DISCREDITED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SEVERAL WITNESSES DESCRIBE SEEING AN ALTERCATION IN THE CAR BETWEEN MR. BROWN AND OFFICER WILSON. IT WAS DESCRIBED AS WRESTLING, TUG-OF-WAR. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES DESCRIBED MR. BROWN AS PUNCHING OFFICER WILSON WHILE MR. BROWN WAS PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MANY OF THE WITNESSES SAID THEY HEARD A GUNSHOT WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STILL PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID THAT NO PART OF MR. BROWN WAS EVER INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND THAT THE SHOT WAS FIRED THROUGH AN OPEN WINDOW WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STANDING OUTSIDE. THE VEHICLE AND OFFICER WILSON'S CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WAS EXAMINED BY VARIOUS TECHNICIANS AND SCIENTISTS. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND OR DNA WERE LOCATED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE DRIVERS DOOR. HIS BLOOD AND DNA WERE FOUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND DNA WAS FOUND ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER DOOR. THE UPPER LEFT THIGH OF OFFICER WILSON'S PANT LEG, THE FRONT CALLER OF OFFICER WILSON ASSURED AND ON OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON. ADDITIONALLY, A BULLET FIRED FROM OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON WAS LOCATED INSIDE THE DRIVER DOOR. THE SHOT WAS FIRED FROM INSIDE THE VEHICLE STRIKING THE DOOR IN A DOWNWARD ANGLE AT THE ARMREST. THE SECOND BULLET WAS NOT RECOVERED. REGARDING THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF MR. BROWN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE THREE SEPARATE AUTOPSIES WERE CONDUCTED -- ONE BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICE, ONE BY A PRIVATE PATHOLOGIST, ONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE RESULT OF ALL THREE AUTOPSIES WERE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER IN ALL SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS. MR. BROWN HAD A GUNSHOT GRAZE WOUND ON HIS RIGHT THUMB. THE PATH WAS AWAY FROM THE TIP OF THE HAND CONSISTENT WITH A CLOSE RANGE GUNSHOT. OFFICER WILSON ALSO HAD A MEDICAL EXAMINATION WHICH INDICATED SOME SWELLING AND REDNESS TO HIS FACE. ALMOST ALL WITNESSES STATED THAT AFTER THEY HEARD THE SHOTS FIRED WHILE MR. BROWN WAS UP A CAR, HE HESITATED AND THEN RAN EAST. MOST STATED THAT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASED AFTER HIM. SOME WITNESSES STATED WILSON FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS HE CHASED AFTER HIM STRIKING HIM AT LEAST -- AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID ONE OF THE SHOTS STRUCK MR. BROWN. OTHER STATED HE DID NOT FIRE UNTIL MR. BROWN TURNED AND CAME BACK TOWARDS THE OFFICER. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS STATED THAT AS OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE, HE SHOT MR. BROWN MULTIPLE TIMES AS MR. BROWN STOOD NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. YET ANOTHER WITNESS STATED THAT OFFICER WILSON STUCK HIS GUN OUTSIDE THE WINDOW AND FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING. ONE WITNESS STATED THERE WAS ACTUALLY TOWO POLICE VEHICLES. MOST WITNESSES AGREED THAT NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED AROUND FACING OFFICER WILSON. SUNSETTED MR. BROWN DID NOT MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AT ALL BUT WERE SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES AS HE STOOD NEAR THE CORNER WITH HIS HANDS RAISED. IN SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, MANY OF THE SAME WITNESSES SAID THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING. SUMMER RUNNING FOR COVER, SOME WERE RELATING WHAT THEY HEARD FROM OTHERS OR THEY SAID WHAT THEY ASSUMED HAPPENED IN THAT CASE. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES MAINTAINED THEIR ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT MR. BROWN HAD HIS HANDS IN THE AIR AND WAS NOT MOVING TOWARDS THE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS SHOT. OTHERS SAID HE WAS SHOT -- IT'S USUALLY -- SEVERAL WITNESSES STATED THAT MR. BROWN DID NOT RAISE HIS HANDS AT ALL OR THAT HE RAISED THEM BRIEFLY AND THEN DROP THEM AND TURNED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHO FIRED SEVERAL ROUNDS. OTHER WITNESSES STATED MR. BROWN STOPPED FOR A VERY BRIEF PERIOD AND MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AGAIN. ONE DESCRIBES HIS MOVEMENT AS A FULL CHARGE. ACCORDING TO SOME WITNESSES, OFFICER WILSON STOPPED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STOPPED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AND RESUMED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STARTED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AGAIN. THESE WITNESSES DID NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA. THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW MR. BROWN'S HANDS, RAISED HIS HANDS OR THE POSITION OF HIS HANDS, IS NOT CONSISTENT AMONG THE WITNESSES. SOME DESCRIBE IS AND IS BEING OUT TO HIS SIDES, SOME SAID IN FRONT OF HIM. SOME SAID HIS AUNT RAISED BY HIS HEAD OR BY HIS SHOULDERS. OTHERS DESCRIBE HIS HANDS IS BEING IN A RUNNING POSITION OR INTERESTS -- IN FISTS. THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY. THE ENTIRE AREA WAS PROCESSED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CRIME SCENE UNIT. A TOTAL OF 12 ROUNDS WERE FIRED BY OFFICER WILSON. TWO SHOTS OF THE CAR, 10 MORE FARTHER EAST. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A GRAZE WOUND TO HIS THUMB WHILE STANDING NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. HE SUSTAINED SIX OR SEVEN MORE GUNSHOT WOUNDS DEPENDING UPON WHETHER ONE OF THE SHOTS WAS AN ENTRY OR REENTRY WOUND. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A SECOND GRAZE WOUND, AND OTHER GRAZE WOUND, TO HIS RIGHT BICEP. HE ALSO SUSTAINED WOUNDS TO HIS RIGHT FOREARM, UPPER FRONT RIGHT ARM, LATERAL RIGHT CHEST, UPPER RIGHT CHEST, FOR HEAD AND TOP OF THE HEAD. THE TOP OF THE HEAD, FOREHEAD AND PERHAPS THE UPPER RIGHT CHEST WERE CONSISTENT WITH HIS BODY BEING BENT FORWARD AT THE WAIST. EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST AND LAST WOUND, THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE ORDER OF THE SHOTS. TO GRAZE WOUND OF THE THUMB SUSTAINED AT THE VEHICLE WAS LIKELY THE FIRST WOUND. IT WAS THE ONLY CLOSE RANGE SHOT. THE SHOT AT THE TOP OF THE HEAD WAS MOST LIKELY THE LAST. IT WOULD'VE RENDERED HIM IMMEDIATELY UNCONSCIOUS AND INCAPACITATED. MR. BROWN'S BODY WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 153 FEET EAST OF OFFICER WILSON'S CAR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FARTHER EAST PAST HIS BODY. AND NEARBY TENET DURING A VIDEO CHAT INADVERTENTLY CAPTURED THE FINAL TED SHOTS -- 0 10 SHOTS ON TAPE. THERE WAS A STRING OF SHOTS FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF PAUSE AND THEN ANOTHER STRING OF SHOTS. AS I STATED EARLIER, THE EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEASED FOLLOWING THE STATEMENT. I AM EVER MINDFUL THAT THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY SOME AND MAY CAUSE DISAPPOINTMENT FOR OTHERS. ALL DECISIONS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY CORROBORATED BY THAT EVIDENCE, NOT IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC OUTCRY. DECISIONS ON A MATTER IS SERIOUS IN CHARGING AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A CRIME CANNOT BE DECIDED ON ANYTHING LESS THAN COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ANYTHING LESS IS NOT JUSTICE. IT IS MY SWORN DUTY AND THAT OF THE GRAND JURY TO SEEK JUSTICE AND NOT SIMPLY OBTAIN AN INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION. DURING THIS EXTREMELY TENSE AND PAINFUL TIME THAT WE HAVE, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AND ARE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING AND WATCHING HOW WE RESPOND AND HOW WE REACT. I WOULD URGE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WITH THE LOSS OF THAT WAS SUFFERED BY THE BROWN FAMILY, NO YOUNG MAN SHOULD EVER DIED. THIS IS A TRAGIC LOSS REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS OPEN OLD WOUNDS AND GIVEN US AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO ADDRESS THOSE WOUNDS AS OPPOSED TO WHERE THEY JUST FADE AWAY IN THE PAST. HOW MANY YEARS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF THAT LEAD TO INCIDENTS LIKE THIS. YET AFTER A TIME, IT JUST FADES AWAY. I URGE EVERYONE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION, ENGAGED IN THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO KEEP THAT GOING. NOT TO LET THAT GO. TO DO IT IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, I WAY WE CAN PROFIT FROM THIS. A WAY THAT WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS BY CHANGING THE STRUCTURE, CHANGING SOME OF THE ISSUES, BY SOLVING THE ISSUES THAT LEAD TO THE SORTS OF THINGS. WITH MICHAEL BROWN'S FAMILY, THE CLERGY, WITH ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE -- THE END OF -- THE NAACP. THE URBAN LEAGUE. EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, PRIVATE CITIZEN ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATION, CONTINUED THE DISCUSSION, ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS BUT DO SO IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, NOT DESTRUCTIVE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST SYMBOL THESE TO THE FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN. AS I HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, I KNOW THAT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, THEY LOST A LOVED ONE TO VIOLENCE. I KNOW THE PAIN THAT ACCOMPANIES SUCH A LOSS KNOWS NO BOUNDS. ON AUGUST 9, MICHAEL BROWN WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON. WITHIN MINUTES, VARIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT BEGAN APPEARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE TOWN WAS FILLED WITH SPECULATION AND LITTLE IF ANY SOLID ACCURATE INFORMATION. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, ANGER BEGAN BREWING BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING TENSIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. UNDER VARYING TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND ERUPTED VERY AT LEAST ONCE BY GUNFIRE. CONTINUING AFTER THAT, THEY ALONG WITH THE AGENTS OF THE FBI AT THE DIRECTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, LOCATED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND GATHERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION. FULLY AWARE OF THE UNFOUNDED BUT GROWING CONCERN IN SOME PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW OF THIS TRAGIC DEATH MIGHT NOT BE FAIR, I DECIDED IMMEDIATELY THAT ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED, ALL PEOPLE CLAIMING TO HAVE WITNESSED ANY PART OR ALL OF THE SHOOTING, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER RELATED MATTERS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY. 12 MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY SELECTED BY A JUDGE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR LONG BEFORE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY EXPAND UPON THE UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER FIRST ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION JUST DAYS AFTER THE SHOOTING, HE PLEDGED THAT FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS WOULD BE WORKING WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AND WOULD FOLLOW THE FACTS WHEREVER IT MAY TAKE US. WE BOTH PLEDGED ARE SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS WILL FOLLOW THE TRAIL OF FACTS WITH NO PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF WHERE THAT JOURNEY WOULD TAKE US. THE ONLY GOAL WAS THAT OUR INVESTIGATION WOULD BE THOROUGH AND COMPLETE TO GIVE THE GRAND JURY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY, THE PUBLIC ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY INVESTIGATORS. ALL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED BY THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCTED ITS OWN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND PERFORMED ITS OWN AUTOPSY. ANOTHER AUTOPSY WAS PERFORMED AT REQUEST OF THE BROWN FAMILY AND HIS INFORMATION WAS ALSO SHARED. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, ALL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY GRAND JURY WAS IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ALTHOUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE SEPARATE, BOTH OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE ALL OF THE SAME INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. OUR INVESTIGATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE GRAND JURY AND ST. LOUIS COUNTY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THE 24-HOUR NEWS CYCLE AND THE SENSATIONAL APPETITE FOR SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. FOLLOWING CLOSELY BEHIND WITH THE RUMORS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF ACCURATE DETAIL SURROUNDING THE SHOOTING FRUSTRATES THE MEDIA AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND HELPS BREED SUSPICION AMONG THOSE ALREADY STRESSED OUT BY THE SYSTEM. THE CLOSE REGARDED DETAILS GIVES LAW ENFORCEMENT YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE TRUTHFULNESS. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED AND COMPARED AGAINST THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MANY WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN MADE STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THEY MADE AND ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WERE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AN EXAMPLE -- BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN AUTOPSY WAS RELEASED, WITNESSES CLAIM THEY SAW OFFICER WILSON STAND OVER MICHAEL BROWN AND FIRE MANY ROUNDS INTO HIS BACK. OTHERS CLAIM THAT OFFICER WILSON SHOT MR. BROWN IN THE BACK AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING AWAY. HOWEVER, ONCE THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS WERE RELEASED SHOWING MICHAEL BROWN HAD NOT SUSTAINED ANY WOUNDS TO THE BACK OF HIS BODY, NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES MADE SUCH A CLAIM. SEVERAL WITNESSES ADJUSTED THEIR STORIES IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS. SOME EVEN ADMITTED THEY DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT AT ALL BUT MERELY REPEATED WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ASSUMED. FORTUNATELY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INVESTIGATION, ALMOST ALL OF INITIAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, INCLUDING THOSE OF OPPOSITE WILSON WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF MOST OF THE WITNESSES WERE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY RESULTS WERE RELEASED BY THE MEDIA AND BEFORE SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS PUBLISH INFORMATION FROM REPORTS THEY RECEIVE FROM A D.C. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. THE JURORS WERE THEREFORE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PUBLIC AND WHAT FOLLOWED IN THE NEW CYCLE -- THE JURORS WERE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THOSE WITNESSES WHO STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY REMAINED CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT EVERY INTERVIEW AND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MY ASSISTANTS BEGIN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 23 THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN ORGANIZED AN ORDERLY MANNER. THE JURORS GAVE US A SCHEDULE OF WHEN THEY COULD MAKE. ALL 12 JURORS WERE PRESENT FOR EVERY SESSION AND HEARD EVERY WORD OF TESTIMONY AND EXAMINED EVERY ITEM OF EVIDENCE. BEGINNING AUGUST 20 AND CONTINUING UNTIL TODAY, THE GRAND JURY WORKED TIRELESSLY TO EXAMINE AND RE-EXAMINE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE EXTREMELY ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS ASKING QUESTIONS OF EVERY WITNESS, REQUESTING SPECIFIC WITNESSES, REQUESTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND ASKING FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY MET ON 25 SEPARATE DAYS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, HEARD MORE THAN 70 HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM ABOUT 60 WITNESSES AND REVIEWED HOURS AND HOURS OF RECORDINGS OF MEDIA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEWS BY MANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED. THEY HEARD FROM THE THREE MEDICAL EXAMINERS AND EXPERTS ON BLOOD, DNA, TOXICOLOGY, FIREARMS AND DRUG ANALYSIS. THE EXAMINED HUNDREDS OF PHOTOGRAPHS, SOME OF WHICH THEY ASKED TO BE TAKEN. THE EXAMINED VARIOUS PIECES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH FIVE INDICTMENTS RANGING FROM MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE TO INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. THEIR BURDEN WAS DETERMINED BASED UPON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTSED AND THAT DARREN WILSON WAS THE PERSON TO COMMIT THE CRIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT DARREN WILSON CAUSED THE DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN BY SHOOTING HIM BUT THE INQUIRY DOES NOT END THERE. THE LOFT ARISES A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER USED DEADLY FORCE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE LAW ALLOWS ALL PEOPLE TO USE DEADLY FORCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE GRAND JURY CONSIDERED WHETHER WILSON WAS THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR. IN THIS CASE ARE WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT DARREN WILSON WAS OFTEN ARISE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THIS SITUATION OR IF HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. I DETAIL THIS FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THAT AS PROMISED BY ME AND ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER, THERE WAS A FULL PRESENTATION OF ALL EVIDENCE AN APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION TO THE GRAND JURY. SECOND, AS A CAUTION TO THOSE IN AND OUT OF THE MEDIA WHO WILL POUNCE ON A SINGLE SENSE OR WITNESS AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS CASE BASED ON THAT TINY BIT OF INFORMATION, THE DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY IS TO SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION. AFTER A FULL AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE INVOLVED AND DECIDED THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FILING OF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST AARON WILSON, THEY ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND SAY AGAIN THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEARD AND EXAMINED EVERY WITNESS AND EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THEY DISCUSSED AND DEBATED THE EVIDENCE AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THEIR COLLECTIVE DECISION. AFTER THEIR EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW, THE GRAND JURY DELIBERATED AND MADE THEIR FINAL DECISION. THEY DETERMINED THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO FILE ANY CHARGES AGAINST OFFICER WILSON AND RETURN A NO TRUE ON EACH OF THE FIVE INDICTMENTS. THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXAMINED BY THE GRAND JURY COMBINED WITH A WITNESS STATEMENT SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE HELD THE ACCURATE AND TRAGIC STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED. THE VERY GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY FOLLOWS -- AS I HAVE PROMISED, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES CALLED TO THE GRAND JURY WILL BE RELEASED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS STATEMENT. AT APPROXIMATELY 11:45 A.M. ON SATURDAY THE NINTH OF AUGUST, FERGUSON POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON WAS THE DISPATCH TO AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING A TWO-MONTH-OLD INFANT HAVING TROUBLE BREATHING. AT ABOUT 11:53 A.M., WILSON HEARD A RADIO BROADCAST OF STEALING IN PROGRESS AT A MARKET IN. THE BROADCAST ALSO INCLUDED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT. A BLACK MALE, WEARING A WHITE T-SHIRT AND A BOX OF SWISHER CIG ARS. OFFICER WILSON REMAINED WITH THE MOTHER AND THE INFANT UNTIL EMS ARRIVED. OFFICER WILSON LEFT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN HIS POLICE VEHICLE, A CHEVY TAHOE SUV. AN ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT WAS RELEASED AT THAT TIME. HE WAS WITH ANOTHER MALE. AS OFFICER WILSON WAS ATTENDING TO HIS EMERGENCY CALL, MICHAEL BROWN AND A COMPANION WERE IN THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE. MICHAEL BROWN'S ACTIVITY IN THE STORE WAS RECORDED BY THE STORE SECURITY CAMERAS. THE VIDEO OFTEN PLAYED FOLLOWING HIS RELEASE IN AUGUST BY THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOWS MICHAEL BROWN GRABBING A HANDFUL OF CIGARILLOS AND HEADING TOWARD THE EXIT WITHOUT PAYING. AS MICHAEL BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS LEFT THE STORE, SOMEBODY INSIDE CALLED THE POLICE. THE TWO WALKED EAST INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. MR. BROWN DIRECTLY BEHIND HIS COMPANION. AS OFFICER WILSON CONTINUED WEST, HE ENCOUNTERED MR. BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS TO WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. AS WILSON SLOWED, HE TOLD THEM TO MOVE TO THE SIDEWALK. WORDS WERE EXCHANGED AND THEY CONTINUED TO WALK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. WILSON OBSERVED THAT MICHAEL BROWN HAD CIGARILLOS IN HIS HAND WHEN WAS WEARING A RED HAT. AT APPROXIMATELY 12:02 P.M., WILSON RADIOED HE HAD TO INDIVIDUALS AND NEEDED ASSISTANCE. OFFICER WILSON BACKED HIS VEHICLE AT AN ANGLE BLOCKING THEIR PATH AND BLOCKING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. SEVERAL CARS APPROACHED FROM BOTH EAST AND WEST BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO PASS THE VEHICLE. AN ALTERCATION TOOK PLACE WITH OFFICER WILSON SEATED INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND MR. BROWN STANDING AT THE DRIVERS WINDOW. DURING THE ALTERCATION, TWO SHOTS WERE FIRED BY OFFERS A WILSON WHILE STILL INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MR. BROWN RAN EAST AND OFFICER WILSON GAVE CHASE. NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TO OFFICER WILSON. OFFICER WILSON ALSO STOP. AS MICHAEL BROWN MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON, SEVERAL MORE SHOTS WERE FIRED BY THE OFFICER AND MICHAEL BROWN WAS FATALLY WOUNDED. WITHIN SECONDS OF THE FINAL SHOT, THE ASSIST CAR ARRIVED. LESS THAN 90 SECONDS PASSED BETWEEN THE FIRST CONTACT AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE ASSIST CAR. DURING THE INVESTIGATION, EYEWITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME VERY AS -- BY VARIOUS NEWS OUTLETS. WITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SOMETIMES TOGETHER AND SOMETIMES SEPARATELY. ALL THE STATEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO THE OTHER PARTY. ALL PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY FOR ALSO PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WHETHER THEY WERE MEDIA INTERVIEWS OR INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI OR BY THE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE STATEMENTS OF ALL WITNESSES, CIVILIAN, LAW-ENFORCEMENT, EXPERTS WERE CHALLENGED BY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY THE PROSECUTORS AND THE GRAND JURY THEMSELVES. A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR CHALLENGING A STATEMENT IS TO COMPARE IT TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESS FOR CONSISTENCY AND TO COMPARE IT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE OR PERSONAL AGENDA. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT LOOK AWAY AS EVENTS UNFOLD NOR DOES IT BLACKOUT OR ADDED TO MEMORY. IT REMAINS CONSTANT AND IS A SOLID FOUNDATION UPON WHICH CASES ARE BUILT. WHEN STATEMENTS CHANGE, WITNESSES WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICT BETWEEN THEIR STATEMENTS AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WITNESSES ADMITTED THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING OR ONLY SAW PART OF THE SHOOTING. ONLY REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD ON THE STREET. SOME OTHERS ADJUSTED PARTS OF THEIR STATEMENTS TO FIT THE FACTS. OTHERS STOOD BY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATEMENTS WERE COMPLETELY DISCREDITED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SEVERAL WITNESSES DESCRIBE SEEING AN ALTERCATION IN THE CAR BETWEEN MR. BROWN AND OFFICER WILSON. IT WAS DESCRIBED AS WRESTLING, TUG-OF-WAR. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES DESCRIBED MR. BROWN AS PUNCHING OFFICER WILSON WHILE MR. BROWN WAS PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MANY OF THE WITNESSES SAID THEY HEARD A GUNSHOT WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STILL PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID THAT NO PART OF MR. BROWN WAS EVER INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND THAT THE SHOT WAS FIRED THROUGH AN OPEN WINDOW WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STANDING OUTSIDE. THE VEHICLE AND OFFICER WILSON'S CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WAS EXAMINED BY VARIOUS TECHNICIANS AND SCIENTISTS. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND OR DNA WERE LOCATED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE DRIVERS DOOR. HIS BLOOD AND DNA WERE FOUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND DNA WAS FOUND ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER DOOR. THE UPPER LEFT THIGH OF OFFICER WILSON'S PANT LEG, THE FRONT CALLER OF OFFICER WILSON ASSURED AND ON OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON. ADDITIONALLY, A BULLET FIRED FROM OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON WAS LOCATED INSIDE THE DRIVER DOOR. THE SHOT WAS FIRED FROM INSIDE THE VEHICLE STRIKING THE DOOR IN A DOWNWARD ANGLE AT THE ARMREST. THE SECOND BULLET WAS NOT RECOVERED. REGARDING THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF MR. BROWN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE THREE SEPARATE AUTOPSIES WERE CONDUCTED -- ONE BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICE, ONE BY A PRIVATE PATHOLOGIST, ONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE RESULT OF ALL THREE AUTOPSIES WERE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER IN ALL SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS. MR. BROWN HAD A GUNSHOT GRAZE WOUND ON HIS RIGHT THUMB. THE PATH WAS AWAY FROM THE TIP OF THE HAND CONSISTENT WITH A CLOSE RANGE GUNSHOT. OFFICER WILSON ALSO HAD A MEDICAL EXAMINATION WHICH INDICATED SOME SWELLING AND REDNESS TO HIS FACE. ALMOST ALL WITNESSES STATED THAT AFTER THEY HEARD THE SHOTS FIRED WHILE MR. BROWN WAS UP A CAR, HE HESITATED AND THEN RAN EAST. MOST STATED THAT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASED AFTER HIM. SOME WITNESSES STATED WILSON FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS HE CHASED AFTER HIM STRIKING HIM AT LEAST -- AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID ONE OF THE SHOTS STRUCK MR. BROWN. OTHER STATED HE DID NOT FIRE UNTIL MR. BROWN TURNED AND CAME BACK TOWARDS THE OFFICER. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS STATED THAT AS OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE, HE SHOT MR. BROWN MULTIPLE TIMES AS MR. BROWN STOOD NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. YET ANOTHER WITNESS STATED THAT OFFICER WILSON STUCK HIS GUN OUTSIDE THE WINDOW AND FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING. ONE WITNESS STATED THERE WAS ACTUALLY TOWO POLICE VEHICLES. MOST WITNESSES AGREED THAT NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED AROUND FACING OFFICER WILSON. SUNSETTED MR. BROWN DID NOT MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AT ALL BUT WERE SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES AS HE STOOD NEAR THE CORNER WITH HIS HANDS RAISED. IN SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, MANY OF THE SAME WITNESSES SAID THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING. SUMMER RUNNING FOR COVER, SOME WERE RELATING WHAT THEY HEARD FROM OTHERS OR THEY SAID WHAT THEY ASSUMED HAPPENED IN THAT CASE. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES MAINTAINED THEIR ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT MR. BROWN HAD HIS HANDS IN THE AIR AND WAS NOT MOVING TOWARDS THE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS SHOT. OTHERS SAID HE WAS SHOT -- IT'S USUALLY -- SEVERAL WITNESSES STATED THAT MR. BROWN DID NOT RAISE HIS HANDS AT ALL OR THAT HE RAISED THEM BRIEFLY AND THEN DROP THEM AND TURNED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHO FIRED SEVERAL ROUNDS. OTHER WITNESSES STATED MR. BROWN STOPPED FOR A VERY BRIEF PERIOD AND MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AGAIN. ONE DESCRIBES HIS MOVEMENT AS A FULL CHARGE. ACCORDING TO SOME WITNESSES, OFFICER WILSON STOPPED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STOPPED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AND RESUMED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STARTED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AGAIN. THESE WITNESSES DID NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA. THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW MR. BROWN'S HANDS, RAISED HIS HANDS OR THE POSITION OF HIS HANDS, IS NOT CONSISTENT AMONG THE WITNESSES. SOME DESCRIBE IS AND IS BEING OUT TO HIS SIDES, SOME SAID IN FRONT OF HIM. SOME SAID HIS AUNT RAISED BY HIS HEAD OR BY HIS SHOULDERS. OTHERS DESCRIBE HIS HANDS IS BEING IN A RUNNING POSITION OR INTERESTS -- IN FISTS. THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY. THE ENTIRE AREA WAS PROCESSED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CRIME SCENE UNIT. A TOTAL OF 12 ROUNDS WERE FIRED BY OFFICER WILSON. TWO SHOTS OF THE CAR, 10 MORE FARTHER EAST. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A GRAZE WOUND TO HIS THUMB WHILE STANDING NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. HE SUSTAINED SIX OR SEVEN MORE GUNSHOT WOUNDS DEPENDING UPON WHETHER ONE OF THE SHOTS WAS AN ENTRY OR REENTRY WOUND. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A SECOND GRAZE WOUND, AND OTHER GRAZE WOUND, TO HIS RIGHT BICEP. HE ALSO SUSTAINED WOUNDS TO HIS RIGHT FOREARM, UPPER FRONT RIGHT ARM, LATERAL RIGHT CHEST, UPPER RIGHT CHEST, FOR HEAD AND TOP OF THE HEAD. THE TOP OF THE HEAD, FOREHEAD AND PERHAPS THE UPPER RIGHT CHEST WERE CONSISTENT WITH HIS BODY BEING BENT FORWARD AT THE WAIST. EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST AND LAST WOUND, THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE ORDER OF THE SHOTS. TO GRAZE WOUND OF THE THUMB SUSTAINED AT THE VEHICLE WAS LIKELY THE FIRST WOUND. IT WAS THE ONLY CLOSE RANGE SHOT. THE SHOT AT THE TOP OF THE HEAD WAS MOST LIKELY THE LAST. IT WOULD'VE RENDERED HIM IMMEDIATELY UNCONSCIOUS AND INCAPACITATED. MR. BROWN'S BODY WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 153 FEET EAST OF OFFICER WILSON'S CAR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FARTHER EAST PAST HIS BODY. AND NEARBY TENET DURING A VIDEO CHAT INADVERTENTLY CAPTURED THE FINAL TED SHOTS -- 0 10 SHOTS ON TAPE. THERE WAS A STRING OF SHOTS FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF PAUSE AND THEN ANOTHER STRING OF SHOTS. AS I STATED EARLIER, THE EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEASED FOLLOWING THE STATEMENT. I AM EVER MINDFUL THAT THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY SOME AND MAY CAUSE DISAPPOINTMENT FOR OTHERS. ALL DECISIONS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY CORROBORATED BY THAT EVIDENCE, NOT IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC OUTCRY. DECISIONS ON A MATTER IS SERIOUS IN CHARGING AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A CRIME CANNOT BE DECIDED ON ANYTHING LESS THAN COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ANYTHING LESS IS NOT JUSTICE. IT IS MY SWORN DUTY AND THAT OF THE GRAND JURY TO SEEK JUSTICE AND NOT SIMPLY OBTAIN AN INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION. DURING THIS EXTREMELY TENSE AND PAINFUL TIME THAT WE HAVE, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AND ARE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING AND WATCHING HOW WE RESPOND AND HOW WE REACT. I WOULD URGE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WITH THE LOSS OF THAT WAS SUFFERED BY THE BROWN FAMILY, NO YOUNG MAN SHOULD EVER DIED. THIS IS A TRAGIC LOSS REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS OPEN OLD WOUNDS AND GIVEN US AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO ADDRESS THOSE WOUNDS AS OPPOSED TO WHERE THEY JUST FADE AWAY IN THE PAST. HOW MANY YEARS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF THAT LEAD TO INCIDENTS LIKE THIS. YET AFTER A TIME, IT JUST FADES AWAY. I URGE EVERYONE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION, ENGAGED IN THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO KEEP THAT GOING. NOT TO LET THAT GO. TO DO IT IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, I WAY WE CAN PROFIT FROM THIS. A WAY THAT WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS BY CHANGING THE STRUCTURE, CHANGING SOME OF THE ISSUES, BY SOLVING THE ISSUES THAT LEAD TO THE SORTS OF THINGS. WITH MICHAEL BROWN'S FAMILY, THE CLERGY, WITH ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE -- THE END OF -- THE NAACP. THE URBAN LEAGUE. EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, PRIVATE CITIZEN ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATION, CONTINUED THE DISCUSSION, ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS BUT DO SO IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, NOT DESTRUCTIVE.
Maybe they should. Wilson said brown was acting like demon. Wilson was scared and he was angry. Why not wait 1 minute for backups. Less than a minute in this case. Why would you try and arrest a demon with great strength alone if you did not have to?
The GJ's role in these officer involved shooting cases is different from the normal GJ case, in that it is investigatory. The logic behind it is that in the case of police officer, because the taking of a life is considered a potential task within his assigned duties, he shouldn't be placed on the same footing as a citizen who kills, who does not have that authority.
I thought some of the witnesses were going to be problematic. One of the problems with witnesses in these cases and police misconduct cases is that because they perceive a wrong has been done, they think it is appropriate, the right thing to do, to guess or assume facts that fit the narrative, then incorporate that into their testimony. I found the allegation that Brown after voicing an intent to surrender with hands raised in surrender was then subsequently shot. Was not there but I struggled to find the specifics of that narrative credible. Overzealous witnesses were a potential problem with this case.
Will we ever know exactly what happened? No. So, we are left with the Grand Jury decision. People like the OP will celebrate this. Rioters will act like idiots who don't care about Brown anyway, will react idiotically. T
he biggest problem will be the many people, particularly Black people, the vast majority who are not criminals, already distrustful of the police will see this as another bitter pill they have to swallow. And, the pill is washed down with the cheers and adulation of people like PA Giants fan. It builds up resentment, hate, and distrust. Things that will eat away at them until the nest time this happens.
Grand Jury has spoken. Regardless of whether one is pleased with that decision, they should be pleased with the fact that we have the system we have. I am. I am also pleased that PA Giant Fan isn't a cop. As a former police boss, if I knew I had a guy like that walking around with gun and a badge - I'd never be able to sleep at night.
Why should we not celebrate the outcome. A thug, piece of crap attacked a police officer and the officer defended himself and the people in Ferguson and ended up shooting Brown.
Would it be better if Wilson had executed Brown in the middle of the street?
The truth is there are a bunch of apologists for the behavior of pieces of crap in Ferguson and needed to hear that Wilson was a murderer to justify their misguided position.
There should be a sigh of relief to hear the testimony and see the cop did not commit murder. Instead there is continued nonsense to justify the ridiculousness that has occurred.
RE: National Bar Association is calling for a trial Â
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
All that says is that you can be a judge or a lawyer, see all the facts, and still be ruled by race. It's sad.
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1.) McCulloch said he gave them 5 different indictments to consider.
2.) Any evidence that he's been favorable to police officers in the past?
3.) What did you want him to do? Only give the false stories from those who said Brown had his hands up and was shot running away? Cmon. People want a full investigation and then they are upset because the Grand Jury was given a "mountain of evidence".
4.) The Chief said he didn't know about the robbery when he initially stopped Brown and Johnson. That is exactly in line with everything Wilson has said. He stopped them for walking in the road. He then noticed the cigars and noticed they matched the description, that's when he realized they were probably the ones who robbed the store. He was recorded saying he was out on canfield with two, and i believe he asked for another unit. The rest of his radio traffic did not go through, most likely because his radio channel was changed when Mike Brown was attacking him in the car.
HB, in Wilsons testimony to the GJ he claimed:
"Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street."
That is contrary to the official statements by the Police Dept.
He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield.
Why should we not celebrate the outcome. A thug, piece of crap attacked a police officer and the officer defended himself and the people in Ferguson and ended up shooting Brown.
Would it be better if Wilson had executed Brown in the middle of the street?
The truth is there are a bunch of apologists for the behavior of pieces of crap in Ferguson and needed to hear that Wilson was a murderer to justify their misguided position.
There should be a sigh of relief to hear the testimony and see the cop did not commit murder. Instead there is continued nonsense to justify the ridiculousness that has occurred.
In addition to celebrating the outcome, you are celebrating Michael Brown's death. You are a shit stain.
You can celebrate whatever you care to. I just got tired of listening to it.
FYI: I have been on the scene of several officer involved shootings resulting in citizen deaths, all involved co-workers, some personal friends. Contrary to your reaction, not one of them - not one - celebrated the life they took. It bothered them, every last one of them and it stays with them to this day. There was no high fivin, trash talking, celebrating - they took a life and they wish they didn't have to. They regret it although it was necessary - none of them celebrated it.
All went through the grand jury and had to endure varying levels of protest and negative media coverage. Despite that, they still never said - I'm glad that guy is dead. You run your mouth about stuff you know nothing about and will never have to do.
And don't build pathetic straw men for me. "Would it be better if Officer Wilson had died?" Because I get tired of reading your obnoxious crap- that means I would have preferred to see a cop get killed? What I squeezed out in the toilet bowl this morning contains more information about how to keep police officers safe than will ever reside inside that head of yours.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Maybe they should. Wilson said brown was acting like demon. Wilson was scared and he was angry. Why not wait 1 minute for backups. Less than a minute in this case. Why would you try and arrest a demon with great strength alone if you did not have to?
He did try to wait. He tried to stall until backup arrived and he got attacked in his car. He wanted to get out of his car because sitting in your car makes you vulnerable. Once Brown ran, he wanted to keep an eye on him because he literally just assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun...not a good idea to let him just run off.
police are rarely found guilty in deadly force cases regardless of the race of the victim.
Here's a story by a Wisconsin man whose son was killed in a questionable incident.
Money quote:
"In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified".
Seems you guys were looking to find Wilson a murderer and I am glad he is not which I knew already. What is wrong with that? And yes I don't give a shit about Brown really.
And neither do any of you. And if you say you do, tell me how many hours you have spent volunteering or supporting violent felons in prisons because if Brown had not been killed that day, that is what he would be.
Are you guys who bitch at me going to tell me you spend time supporting violent felons in prison that have assaulted police officers and tried to kill them? Tell me how many people in prison for attacking police officers you give a shit about.
In other words some of you are full of shit and trying to support your awful position.
This is striking me as sour as Zimmerman's lack of conviction did.
And I thought Zimmerman should have been convicted as he initiated a confrontation that took a while to come to fruition against someone who clearly had done nothing but at one point confront Zimmerman for stalking him.
The twist is that the folks in Ferguson and their supporters, including actors and celebrities are putting this in a similar basket. Not factoring in that Brown had just committed a violent crime. And that by every recent indication he would do it again. And by corroborating medical information and ballistic tests, he seemed to have attacked the cop at close range.
Don't bring Trayvon Martin into the same sack of shit with Brown--by all indications, at least that day, a piece of horseshit, who confronted a cop and seemingly attacked him leading directly to his death.
Trayvon Martin, before his death, went to the store to get himself and his sister snacks and defended himself against someone who he probably felt was going to hurt/rob him.
Michael Brown was a big, piece of shit who just committed a crime and attacked a cop and was shot dead. Please stop comparing the cases like they are related in any fucking way, shape or form?
Once again, 20 years after the OJ case, the country is racially divided because of a case like this and let's be frank? because we are a country with a HUGE racist history and influence. With police forces that way too often abuse their authority and are in it for the wrong reasons.
I don't have the answers. Maybe time?
And if PA GIants agrees with me, I promise to shower with an SOS pad.
RE: RE: National Bar Association is calling for a trial Â
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
All that says is that you can be a judge or a lawyer, see all the facts, and still be ruled by race. It's sad.
I think it is going to add to the problems down there. It will fuel the protests which is really stupid on the Bars part
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
Some people like to simplify a very complex series of Â
Inner City, poor America has decades old problems that compound every generation that is lost.
My suburbanites speak out of their hat having no knowledge of what inner city America is about. It was not a couple of bad apples looting, it was more then that. Mindset differs then those who live in a comfortable setting, sense of right and wrong is way different.
with Randy in that the Trayvon death was more troubling to me because we seemed to be expanding the use of deadly force to armed citizens. One thing for police to have this power but anybody who joins a citizen's patrol? Scary.
OTOH, most people aren't in to drawing distinctions. In both cases an unarmed black youth was killed. In neither case were any of us eyewitnesses so we can't really know what went down. Either side of each story could be true. Maybe Trayvon went off and would have beaten Z to death. Or maybe Wilson lost it and said fuck it, I'm killing this dude. I don't know.
The main problem is you can't use any one case to prove anything but without a specific case too many people don't take the issues involved seriously so there's great temptation to use one case as a catalyst for change. Can't blame folks too much for doing this because the underlying issues are real and too many people just blithely dismiss them.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
there is the probability a crime was committed and if he can reasonably convict the potential defendant. Obviously the DA did not see anyway he could win. In all likelihood under normal circumstances, he would have declined prosecution. But to calm the neighborhood he brought the evidence to a Grand Jury. He presented as much evidence as possible so that when the indictment was turned down he could say he fairly attempted to indict officer Wilson.
Why should he go to trial simply to satisfy people when he knew he had no case? Why would he waste millions of tax payer dollars just to have an aquital then have the subsequent riots anyway after wasting tax payer money.
Some of the people here are basing their views on the lies that were made at the time of the shooting and compounded by lack of knowledge of the use of firearms in self defense(i.e., why didn't Wilson shoot him in the legs, why did he shoot so many times; why didn't he know how many rounds he fired). Grasping at straws.
Then there were the lies about Brown surrendering with his hands in the air - disproved by the 3 forensic pathologists, one who was hired by the Browns.
Simply put, DAs do not bring people to trial to satisfy the multitudes.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
In addition, a special note goes to PA, who continues to act as if the limited amount of information that leaked out of the Grand Jury room was sufficient upon which to determine guilt or innocence. PA, you have earned the disgust, dislike and antipathy of a very large number of people here, in a way that will never recede. The fact that this makes you proud is disturbing, and not at all impressive. The fact that it include people who would otherwise tend to agree with you is worse.
And as for this:
Quote:
There was only one outcome that would have potentially avoided rioting: White cop frying in an electric chair.
That is thousands of light years from from right. The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
has been made public. As section said, the DA knew this case was a loser, and the GJ was only a formality to placate the angry mob. It may not satisfy purists, but I believe he did the right thing.
Wrong again and if the circle jerk of folks that cause trouble on thread after thread don't like me, I will sleep just fine. And again, you missed previous threads before the GJ leaks where I noted what happened. That was based on common sense and the data that was at hand.
People don't like me? For what? Because I told them they were backing the wrong horse here and I was right? Because I said Brown was a thug and a piece of shit early on once I saw the video? Because I am not afraid to say I don't give a crap about Brown? None of you do. You are just pretending because if you are not, please name the other convicted felons that have tried to kill police officers that you feel sorry for.
I will wait, lets hear the names of those convicts. You are full of crap.
"So many here...
manh george : 9:23 pm : link : reply
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting."
Exactly, if it's not making it past the GJ, it's not going to make it in a trial.
I don't care an awful lot about Brown per se. I care about the possibility that justice was subverted. I also care about the extraordinarily low number of cases in which law officers involved in a death are found to have committed a wrongful act. I just don't trust the numbers. It's better the FBI, where the number is zero, but not by that much. (See: Albuquerque)
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
I don't care an awful lot about Brown per se. I care about the possibility that justice was subverted. I also care about the extraordinarily low number of cases in which law officers involved in a death are found to have committed a wrongful act. I just don't trust the numbers. It's better the FBI, where the number is zero, but not by that much. (See: Albuquerque)
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
Love to have that conversation. Saw a lot of the PD in action during my career in the FD. The good and the bad. 73' thu 10'. lots of stories as told through my eyes. Not a subject for BBI.
Brown assaulted a police officer with intent to kill Â
That is who you are supporting. Subverting justice? Sure that happens but I noted that this was the wrong horse to back for that right from the beginning. I am not a big fan of the police in general but people like you apparently were led right to the water and told to drink and you did...And now you and others have to pretend you did it on your own. You got fooled, owned, played.
Others claiming that they are so sad a child was murdered...please. He would have been a convicted felon and no one would give a shit.
The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
The suggestion that an indictment alone would have been sufficient to avoid the rioting is ridiculous.
If the DA wanted it to get past the GJ, it would have gotten past the GJ. He affirmatively decided not to present a point of view.
In a trial, there would have been a prosecutor who was all in representing the people. Who did that here?
I think he knew he had a loser. He couldn't get a case past the GJ the other 4 times he tried. Would it have been better if he just came out and said there is now way I can get this past a GJ? He was in a no win situation IMHO. I give him kudos for doing his job when he knew he would be looked at as a clown by the national media. For those who say he should have asked for a special prosecutor, that's not what he was elected for. While we may not agree with him, he did the job. I at least respect that.
It was the video. He was a punk thug. I have known my share. The way he behaved in that store, his body language, grabbing the clerk near the neck. I knew what he was right there.
And then the apologists came out...saying "He was just stealing $50 worth of cigars...it was basically shoplifting"....but it wasn't and they got played. They played themselves. It tells a lot about people though...kind of scary.
that even before it went to a GJ, there was irrefutable proof that Wilson was innocent of any form of culpability?
It appears you are bent on bringing Officer Wilson to trial just to do it. If the DA thought he was guilty of something and there was a likelihood of a conviction he would have filed charges. But in this case, he either did not see a crime or he did not see a possibility of a conviction. In either case he would not waste time or money knowing he would lose.
Sadly, it appears a man lost his life by his own actions after allegedly having committed a felony (aggrevated battery and robbery). Michael Brown attacked a PO in his car and forensic evidence appears to prove he had not surrended, but decided to re-attack a smaller individual.
but it was gone. So an interesting thing that happened during the protests went fairly unreported by the media in the midst of all the sensationalism. At one point an AA woman fainted etc and needed medical attention. Some of the protesters stopped, brought her to the police who put down their shields and helped her into a vehicle to go to the hospital. If only...
that even before it went to a GJ, there was irrefutable proof that Wilson was innocent of any form of culpability?
God, you are plague on the face of BBI. I used to think you were just annoying. I was wrong.
Oh please spare me your sanctimonious BS. There was no case. The DA knew this. The whole GJ thing was to placate the mob, which includes people like you and the media.
There should have just been an internal investigation and that's it.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
Quote:
Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street.
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
Deciding on fact or fiction is deciding guilt or innocence.
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
Quote:
Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street.
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
You realize that he can still hear calls that go over the radio to other officers...right?
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Because I'd say anyone of any race would have been shot in this scenario. Being black had nothing to do with him getting shot. Trying to take the officers gun, assaulting the officer, being very big and strong, and charging the officer at a full charge is what got him shot.
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Do you mean hard evidence? No, it's mostly one of those anecdotally-based statements, similar to confidently (and IMO justifiably) claiming as fact that riots would have been just as bad had the verdict been announced at 9:30 am.
Ferguson will be rebuilt in no time. Why, I imagine Eric Holder will donate his personal time and effort and is probably picking up a hammer right now. He did so much to improve the situation there already.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
I find that the argument of some here really comes down to people should be brought to trial to satisfy the mob even when the evidence does not warrant it. This strikes me as a very dangerous precedent for individual liberty. And in the end if the person is found not guilty, at basically a pointless trial, the mob is not satisfied anyway. It just extend false expectations of what the mob considers "justice".
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
haven't read a lot of the comments here and obviously have not had a chance to comment but my initial thoughts...
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
sphinx said:
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
section125 said:
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
There are those who, from the very beginning, didn't think the prosecutor wanted an indictment. You say lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted ...), but some were steadfast, and that would seem to be probable cause, something for an adversarial trial to decide.
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
That is thousands of light years from from right. The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your statement. Do you think the whites who came in from out of town wearing Guy Fawkes masks give a rats ass about Michael Brown? Do you think the New Black Panthers care about anything other than he was black? Once the media found an opportunity to fill their 24 hour news cycle the only thing that would have prevented the riots was a 1st degree murder conviction. And even that verdict might have led to some celebratory vandalism. There probably would have been less participation from Ferguson residents, but some nasty shit definitely would have gone down.
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Or maybe, just maybe, black people get thrown in jail for crimes that other races (not just white people, but mostly) are able to get off with other terms and punishments.
Anyway what are you contending?
At "best", its a socioeconomic cycle where black communities stay impoverished through imprisonment/crime/lack of advancement.
At "worst", one could read your statement as saying that black people are just predisposed to committing more crime, which is ridiculous.
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
No, not at all. You really do not know me. Take a look at my wedding photos and you might retract your statement.
My comment was simply about ALL of the stats on the topic and not specifically about black people being 21 times more likely to be shot by cops. You might find additional stats that backup the reasons why that is occurring.
haven't read a lot of the comments here and obviously have not had a chance to comment but my initial thoughts...
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
1)He's the county attorney for St Louis County. Fergurson lies within St Louis County, of course he has ties within that Dept.
Quote:
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fundraise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers.
This just came out so i have not verified it yet, so keep that in mind.
2) True but i bet its a very small number that have anywhere close to these kind of ties:
""McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department.""
3)What kind of cases against police has he prosecuted? Also what is the percentage that he prosecuted vs those he choose not to prosecute? The reason why i ask this is i have tried for 2 days to find this info out and i can't come up with anything detailing his record with regards to prosecuting police
4) This is completely wrong. He has had quite a few issues in the past. Starting with his publicity grab of going after Guns and Roses for a concert they held that people got injured at, he has had a few other head scratching moments that illustrate him badly.
He had an issue where he outed a local govt whistle blower:
Quote:
n 1997, an employee of the St. Louis County Economic Council named Russ Signorino contacted the FBI to report what he said was improper behavior by a member of the county executive’s cabinet. He also sent reporters an anonymous fax from a Kinko’s in Creve Coeur, Mo. Claiming that the fax contained a threat, McCulloch gave a grand jury subpoena to the county police, who then used it to obtain security footage from Kinko’s showing that Signorino had sent the message.
The only hitch? McCulloch never told the grand jury what he was doing, and he later admitted that Signorino had never issued a threat or committed a crime. No matter: Signorino was forced to resign anyway.
And in 2001 he called a GJ over the shooting deaths of 2 suspects by undercover officers in which he actually got caught lying:
Quote:
McCulloch convened another grand jury after a pair of undercover drug officers shot and killed two men, a suspect and his passenger, outside a Jack in the Box in Berkeley, Mo. The officers told the jurors that they had fired only after the suspect tried to run them over with his car, and in his public statements about the secret proceedings, McCulloch himself repeatedly insisted that “every witness” had corroborated the officers’ version of events.
But a subsequent report by the Post-Dispatch revealed that McCulloch had lied. Only three of the 13 detectives who testified said the suspect's car had moved forward. Two of them were the shooters themselves; the third was "a detective who McCulloch later said he considered charging with perjury because his account was so at odds with the facts." According to the grand jury tapes, “four other detectives testified that they never saw the suspect’s car travel toward the officers.” A collision expert working for the Justice Department also determined that the suspect's car had remained in reverse throughout the incident. But McCulloch never brought any of this evidence before the grand jury — and, as a result, the jurors determined that the officers were right to fear for their safety. The case didn't go to trial.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001949 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
My comment was simply about ALL of the stats on the topic and not specifically about black people being 21 times more likely to be shot by cops. You might find additional stats that backup the reasons why that is occurring.
Great, so its easy for you to laugh dismiss not just one suggestive staff, but a number of suggestive stats regarding the treatment of minorities and blacks in particular within the legal system.
What's the point of finding additional stats if you're just gonna "laugh when you see them" anyway? What's so funny about those stats anyway?
There's obvious disparities in how the legal system treats blacks vs whites. Anyone who is trying to say this isn't true has their head in the sand.
One example:
After all, African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
Are more likely to commit the crimes. And they are more likely to be victims of the crimes. It was the Milwaukee Police chief talking about it yesterday.
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
In comment 12001949 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
Are more likely to commit the crimes. And they are more likely to be victims of the crimes. It was the Milwaukee Police chief talking about it yesterday.
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
Thank you PA Giant Fan. Now, be careful Sonic Youth thinks you may be racist too.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001967 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001934 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
it was very clear that the original "witnesses" which made the rounds of the media (the "hands up" people) were not telling the truth and had their testimony impeached by forensic evidence.
This was a flimsy case all around. It's exactly why people should not form opinions until the real, solid evidence is disclosed.
Everyone has heard that saying, "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?" Well this was less than a ham sandwich.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001980 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001964 Sonic Youth said:
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
Did you miss my FIRST post to you? Where I clearly stated by being imprisoned impoverished communities end up committing more crimes and ending up back in jail? that was my FIRST post to you. That's what I'd consider part of an explanation.
The other part is inequities of the judicial system and law enforcement system, which is slanted against blacks, both anecdotally and statistically.
But yeah, this isn't about you being racist, it's about you ignoring the truth.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: do you have anything to back it up? Â
In comment 12001967 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001934 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
Maybe {hopefully} that's not what you meant..
Thank you for your explanation. Yes, there may be truth to the fact that african americans may get put away for the same crime vs white americans. It could also be due to many factors including 1. lack of a quality defense attorney 2. prior offenses 3. etc
In the end, this all boils down to this... Don't commit the crime. Yes, socioeconomic issues do exist and are a factor. BUT, they are part of the explanation and should not be used as an excuse (reason to say it is ok to commit the crime).
I'm not making a comparison at all..My point is that, this happened and that at no point is the media giving it any attention, no riots have occured or anything..
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
sorry I heard in on CNN. Chris Cuomo was talking to Debbie Feyerick
Quote:
DEBORAH FEYERICK: ...[T]he prosecutor was very clear. It's 12 men and women from the community [on the grand jury]. So, they had just as much interest in seeing that justice be served. But it's unethical for a prosecutor to bring a case if he believes he cannot get a conviction.
What's interesting is that so many of the protesters and demonstrators went after not only the police officers, but they went after community businesses themselves. And one captain basically said – you know, this is not the way you create jobs by destroying the dreams of small business owners. There's a lot of conflict there from all sides.
CUOMO: I think that assumes a deliberateness that isn't in place once you're blinded with rage. I think – you know, violence doesn't have a conscience – it's often been said. And in a community like this, I think you destroy what you see. It's wrong. It's illegal. It stands in stark contrast to what this outrage is supposed to be about – which was a failure of justice. You know, creating more injustice does not make that any better.
But, you know – look, the grand jury itself is a dinosaur, okay? There is no need for one. A prosecutor can have an open hearing. A prosecutor can make its own process. He or she can just bring charges. In fact, the prosecutor could still bring charges even after the grand jury.
One of the major complaints from sober minds here in Ferguson was that – listen, if this prosecutor wanted to bring a case, he would just have brought it himself – that this was punting. You keep hearing the term 'punting' – to put this on a grand jury.
Look, whatever the feelings are about the process, the process is now over, and what this community have to – has to deal with, in a very real and ongoing way, will be how it deals with the outcome of this situation.
FEYERICK: Yeah – no question. You said five – you said the grand jury was unanimous – and Darren Wilson was facing five possible charges – and they decided not to indict him on any of them. Thanks, Chris.
been able to get through, if Michael Brown were white, or Officer Wilson black, I doubt this would even get presented to a grand jury in the first place.
the GJ did the right thing. All the evidence pointed to it. Isn't that the most important thing? Or is this social justice argument more important?
Mixing 2 different issues together on this thread. A very specific incident and a bigger social issue. Some of us can be on different sides on the specific and individual. Lazy to insinuate racism because of your comments on the specific incident.
the GJ did the right thing. All the evidence pointed to it. Isn't that the most important thing? Or is this social justice argument more important?
When you say, All the evidence, it's simply not true. As the prosecutor said, "THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY." There was varying testimony, ergo probable cause.
was not and has not been disclosed...McCulloch was asked (twice) and specifically said he wasn't going to release it...anything else is pure speculation and BS...
Quote:
There are those who, from the very beginning, didn't think the prosecutor wanted an indictment. You say lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted ...), but some were steadfast, and that would seem to be probable cause, something for an adversarial trial to decide.
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
what has gotten into some of you people. The GJ viewed the evidence, saw the testimony, decided who was truthful and who was not and made a judgment.
That is the beauty of this. They got to see everything. Not just the bits and pieces that made its way into the media.
This "social justice" argument is not a strong one. People seem to be insinuating there is nothing wrong with going forward with an indictment when the evidence suggests that the officer was being truthful.
The problem people are having is that the first "witnesses" the media trotted out to the public were all lying. Their testimony was impeached in the GJ.
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
I would appreciate next time that you remove me from the quote, when what you are quoting is not what I said.
People seem to be insinuating there is nothing wrong with going forward with an indictment when the evidence suggests that the officer was being truthful.
That's a large part of the problem, IMO. Wilson being allowed to testify for 4 hours without a legitimate cross examination.
What McCulloch did with the way he handled this was Â
Was nothing more then leaving Wilson out to dry and swinging in the wind. This GJ was all about McCulloch covering his own ass and no regard to how this would leave Wilson.
Here you have a situation where a part of the population feels it has been treated unlawfully for years. Its a very delicate situation that if handled properly it would go a long way towards soothing tensions. Instead this guy decides to do a questionable GJ proceeding despite the fact that you have a petition with over 70K signatures, the NAACP, the ACLU on it asking you to be recuse yourself or call a special prosecutor to convene the GJ. Instead this guy goes forward with it, handles it in a way very different from any other GJ he has had in the past, and you end up with a ton of questions and doubt instead of concrete answers. Meanwhile you have a cop whose whole life is hanging in the balance. A legitimately handled GJ would have gone a long way towards him getting through this situation and possibly not having the level of frustration we see now.
This does not mean the GJ is wrong, it very well could be correct that this was a 100% legit shooting, but because there has been so much doubt about McCulloch's impartiality it did nothing to help Wilson in the long ruin, and may have actually rallied more people to the other side
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
the testimony from the people who said he was running away, shot in the back and then came back with his hands up in the air. Those witnesses. They were not telling the truth.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
the testimony from the people who said he was running away, shot in the back and then came back with his hands up in the air. Those witnesses. They were not telling the truth.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
I repeat, from the mouth of the prosecutor ...
"THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY."
Note, "WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE". There is a huge difference between stumbling and full charge. That is the crux of the matter.
I'm not making a comparison at all..My point is that, this happened and that at no point is the media giving it any attention, no riots have occured or anything..
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
The NATIONAL media is giving it little attention, but that is not the case in the NYC area. It's still getting a lot of attention in both print and on TV. And Sharpton has been on the scene, which is a bad omen. I think everyone is waiting to see what the NYPD and the DA do. There is nearly unanimous agreement that a) This was not a justified shooting but that b) There was no premeditation or criminal intent. Instead, a horrible tragedy.
cops should have cameras on them. This would of all been avoided if they had video. I don't want to hear about cost either.Look how much Ferguson is paying all those cops overtime for having to deal with the protesters.
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
No I'm not forgetting it was a GJ. What you are forgetting is that if GJ does not find enough evidence of a crime, they don't indict. If they can't get an indictment, there isn't enough to convict. Why go to step B if you can't get through step A?
But I do understand what you are saying. I just do not agree that they should have an indictment because witnesses disagree when physical evidence supports one set of witnesses only. I will also admit I did not see the evidence, just what I read.
I understand al that. I been reading about this since it happened..This story has gotten my atention rather than the brown story..
But the point i am trying to make is that, like i said before, people are wondering why there is a distrust between minority neighborhoods and police, example number one. Or the many Blacks that have been freed this year because of that one cop who tainted hundreds of cases and other cases that Blacks were charged without reliable evidence..
This brown case is not just some issue win a vacuum and it's easy for others outside these neighborhoods to just wipe it awawy with "because of drugs, single parenting and violence"..This issue goes further back where people don't want to go to find it's roots..
but you made my point exactly in the quote you provided
Quote:
THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY.
I do believe that was McCollough being a bit snarky!
Caps because I did a copy and paste from the transcript provided by CSPAN. I was too lazy to retype.
"Varying descriptions" does not, in itself, indicate 'stumbling' or 'charging'. Was Wilson being attacked or was Brown falling down because of the gun shots that already hit him?
They can also match the blood droplets found on the street coming from Brown. The location of the droplets and the distance between them can give forensic scientists an idea of the direction Brown was headed in and about how fast.
On top of that, they have the shell casings from the weapon that was discharged. Plus the angle of the wounds. There is a lot of information that the GJ had besides testimony. That is why I said certain witnesses were more believable than others. Here are all the docs released by the prosecutor - ( New Window )
I wouldn't post this unless I trusted the source. You can take it or leave it.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
I wasn't there but it Sounds like "Fight" kicked in when he was asked to move from the middle of the road.
RE: From a trusted source in St Louis involved in this: Â
I wouldn't post this unless I trusted the source. You can take it or leave it.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Was this person on the scene or was this a direct account from Wilson?
I'm not sure that account is any more or less verifiable regardless of your feelings it's legit. Not saying it isn't but context of where or from whom your source says it came from.
Are white, middle aged laker fans residing in MO. Those fuckers are always looking to riot. Though I could be wrong.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
either you or your source (or both) are full of it...according to the evidence presented to the grand jury, the interaction between Wilson and Brown was NOT the result of Wilson telling them to get out of the street...it was after Wilson had started driving away and realized the two matched the description of the robbery suspects that something occurred...things escalated after that...
RE: From a trusted source in St Louis involved in this: Â
I wouldn't post this unless I trusted the source. You can take it or leave it.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Funny, but I saw the forensic pathologist decribing the wounds and he did not mention leg wound - three in the hand and arm and three head and chest. maybe he just chose to ignore the leg wound in his interview.
In comment 12002589 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12002347 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Are white, middle aged laker fans residing in MO. Those fuckers are always looking to riot. Though I could be wrong.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
Anyway, the attached link is something that may help those who are fearful of getting arrested by the police. How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police - ( New Window )
Yeah. It's not like you have a history of making not-thinly-veiled racist remarks in the past and then laughing about it...or anything.
a fantastic post by Benjamin Watson. I am not religious and I believe education/exposure is the long term answer so don't see eye to eye on the second half of the last paragraph, but otherwise I think it articulates both sides of the debate here beautifully. Link - ( New Window )
a fantastic post by Benjamin Watson. I am not religious and I believe education/exposure is the long term answer so don't see eye to eye on the second half of the last paragraph, but otherwise I think it articulates both sides of the debate here beautifully. Link - ( New Window )
Beats the hell out of just about anything else out there.
a fantastic post by Benjamin Watson. I am not religious and I believe education/exposure is the long term answer so don't see eye to eye on the second half of the last paragraph, but otherwise I think it articulates both sides of the debate here beautifully. Link - ( New Window )
Excellent post. One paragraph identifies him as a particularly thoughtful person ....
Quote:
I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.
I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.
"Do you have anything to back that up?" - halfback20
On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
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.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.
There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.
There has been lots of commentary here to the point that, if the GJ wouldn't indict, the case had no chance for a guilty verdict at trial. Well, as I have been saying all along, the normal GJ has DA representing the People, and this one didn't and that makes all the difference in the world.
In this NY Daily News article, a defense attorney explains clearly in several examples how he believes the DA steered the GJ NOT to indict. The attorney focuses on 6 points, but this is my favorite:
Quote:
Wilson’s account of a struggle for his gun in his car is corroborated by physical evidence, but what happened next is hotly disputed.
Some witnesses testified that Brown was shot in the back while running away. Others say he was standing still. Some backed Wilson’s account that Brown was charging him. One testified he saw Brown on his knees with his hands up, and was ridiculed by prosecutors.
“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, OK,” the prosecutor said.
Kuby said that “wildly improper commentary encapsulates what the prosecutors were doing. Steering the grand jury not to indict.”
There's lot's more int here, of course. It all goes back to my main point, though. The DA decided not to push for an indicment, as in most GJ situations, but to just sorta stay out of the way, with some nudges in Wilson's favor here and there.
In an actual trial, the prosecutor would be fiercely attacking discrepancies in the story. And, if Wilson decided to testify, it wouldn't be 4 yours or stream of consciousness ending with
Quote:
Is there something that we have not asked you that you want us to know or you think is important for the jurors to consider regarding this incident?
Usually, a potential defendant doesn't testify in a GJ, as is his right, in part because he fears getting ripped to shreds by a DA who will contradict him and in part because he can use his words against him at trial.
The second part is certainly true, except the entire set of circumstances would be different (e.g., a predominately black town with only white officials and a handful of black cops.)
As far as the first part is concerned, you are relying on the same presentation of the evidence as the GJ, from a DA who demonstrably didn't want to indict. Why should we be impressed? Read and the refute the Daily News analysis I linked, and then we can have a reasonable discussion. If not, not.
the Think Progress article linked by Sphinx and the Daily News article, taken in combination, make a powerful case for two indictments: of Wilson, using the low bar that normally applies to indictments, and of the DA for refusing to recuse himself despite a powerful conflict of interest. Both, taken together, suggest other than straightforward behavior by the DA.
the Think Progress article linked by Sphinx and the Daily News article, taken in combination, make a powerful case for two indictments: of Wilson, using the low bar that normally applies to indictments, and of the DA for refusing to recuse himself despite a powerful conflict of interest. Both, taken together, suggest other than straightforward behavior by the DA.
FWIW, I read the NYDN article and thought that the lawyer who wrote it was LOOKING for an indictment. I thought he tilted some items and cherry picked some evidence and ignored others in order to reach his POV. Same with parts of the Progress report.
Very hard to start with a neutral starting point and not look for the evidence that support "your" point of view.
"anger began brewing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tensions between the Police Department and a significant part of the neighborhood". Why were there "underlying tensions"?
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
This never would have even gone to a GJ and no one could tell your where Ferguson was on a map.
I disagree on the first part, especially if the parents raised enough awareness. Agree on the second part. But he's not and if you don't know why it's a big deal, you don't understand your country.
Your 9:27 Means what? Apparently the voters in St Louis County don't give a crap. From Wiki.
"Robert P. McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, a post he has held since 1991. A Democrat, he has historically had bipartisan support as a popular prosecutor and has won re-election in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, often unopposed but by wide margins when he has had an opponent.[1]"
The majority of those that matter, his constituents, either like the job he is doing or just don't care. We'll see what happens in 2018 if he runs. I bet odds are he wins re-election no matter what the rest of the country thinks.
the Think Progress article linked by Sphinx and the Daily News article, taken in combination, make a powerful case for two indictments: of Wilson, using the low bar that normally applies to indictments, and of the DA for refusing to recuse himself despite a powerful conflict of interest. Both, taken together, suggest other than straightforward behavior by the DA.
Unless one of these "powerful cases" (much like the "powerful analysis" by the three journalists you touted the other day) have some evidence that was not presented to the grand jury, there is nothing more to say here. It should be easy to see whether any evidence or testimony was omitted from the grand jury.
The prosecutor can say what he or she wants, he or she can stand up and demand that the grand jury indict and the grand jury can ignore everything the prosecutor says or does and do what they want. They are told this up front in their instructions.
"There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”"
Since Scalia is cited above, I wonder what he would have to say in the third circumstance. I tend to think he did not have this in mind when he made the statements above.
I guess I do have a problem when a prosecutor is pretty much forced to go to a grand jury under public pressure under what he feels is u untrue or underwhelming evidence and must keep his mouth shut even if he feels the individual is being railroaded. I am thinking of not only police officers but unpopular figures of the day like a communist in the 50s.
Of course I admit I am not a lawyer and largely ignorant of our criminal justice system.
"anger began brewing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tensions between the Police Department and a significant part of the neighborhood". Why were there "underlying tensions"?
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
Newsweek - ( New Window )
If two suspects decide to try to ram my vehicle and/or myself or other police officers, I think it is a pretty straightforward reaction by cops to try to kill them before they themselves are killed. Is that not SOP?
That article was written with total sympathy towards the "unarmed" suspects who used their car as a weapon.
that everybody decided on day 1 which "side" they were with, and nobody will bend on that decision, regardless of what they read or see.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
that everybody decided on day 1 which "side" they were with, and nobody will bend on that decision, regardless of what they read or see.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
*But*........
The a grand jury saw *everything*. Had an opportunity to view the case dispassionately, to evaluate evidence or observations, to ask questions to discuss, debate and come to a consensus. They saw the whole picture and decided to no bill.
It was deductive reasoning from the beginning. If you take Browns side you have to believe that a cop murdered this kid in the middle of the day, in the middle of the street because the "kid" was black.
If you think about the evidence you have Brown acting like a violent thug 15 minutes prior robbing a store and assaulting a clerk, then assaulting the cop through the police car window (the counter point was Wilson was trying to pull a 300lb violent man through his car window...which means you are an idiot if you believe that), then running off and turning around....
But folks want to believe that Wilson murdered some innocent kid?
Logic and reasoning told you the very mostly likely scenario here but folks refused to see things the way they were....Same reason people don't believe or accept that blacks commit more violent crime and that is one of the main reasons the criminal justice system seems slanted against them....These are statistics, undeniable...
Now is it the color of the skin that makes this occur? Of course not, we are all the same but the no one wants to address the real causes for these statistics...instead we try to unfairly make WIlson the poster child for what the issues really are.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
Logic and reasoning told you the very mostly likely scenario here but folks refused to see things the way they were....Same reason people don't believe or accept that blacks commit more violent crime and that is one of the main reasons the criminal justice system seems slanted against them....These are statistics, undeniable...
.
Fuck off troll.
Honestly, mods, how is this shitstain allowed to keep posting stuff like this. He's peppered this thread with comments like this.
The initial narrative was so one sided 'unarmed kid shot multiple times in the back with his hands up' that at first I said to myself, that's really bad, what was that cop thinking. But then of course, more information came out. I do think the initial narrative was the key to why this case was so blown up. And it's a shame because most of it wasn't true. But I still run into people who think Brown was shot in the back, while he was running away, with his hands up.
Whether you like it or not. Did you miss this part of my statement too?
Quote:
Now is it the color of the skin that makes this occur? Of course not, we are all the same but the no one wants to address the real causes for these statistics...instead we try to unfairly make WIlson the poster child for what the issues really are.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
are routinely investigated by means of a grand jury - but go ahead, PA - you're having fun, so keep making statements unsupported by fact.
There was a case of a police shooting of a White youth by a police officer in Utah in the same month as the Brown shooting. The prosecute reviewed the situation and found it to be a justified shooting with no charges filed. I see nothing in the story about it going to a grand jury. I have no issue with what happened there. I just question your statement about it being so routine to go to a grand jury. Do you have any statistics to back up your statement? I admit that I have no clue whether it is routine or not. Just would like to be educated.
"Wilson's testimony was among the most riveting. In almost 100 pages of testimony, Wilson gave a vivid and detailed narrative of how Brown punched him, went after his gun, ran away, then ran back at him in full charge."
GJ had almost 100 pages of testimony from Wilson.
Did they feel the need to call him in person?
One thing I did learn from listening to the pundits is that how GJ's are conducted vary state to state. What is common procedure in one state may not be in another and visa versa.
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor: I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officerLINK - page 5
That law was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1985. Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deady force:
previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about thatLINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the "new" law and the "old" law" in reference to the use of deadly force?
The "old" law said a police officer could use deadly force merely to to prevent the escape from custody. SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was to prevent the escape from custody.
As there never was a sincere attempt to persue an indictment. The transcripts will be quite rich with anecdotes that will be discoverable for years to come.
Most fascinating is that when the underlying problem with local law enforcement is mistrust, the prosecutor felt that the solution was to untertake this charade, and then say "trust us."
terms like "routinely" because it can be taken as applicable throughout the US. But, some DAs in NYS use the grand jury for every officer involved shooting that resulted in a fatality. And, unlike most grand juries it is not unheard for the subject of the gj, the officer,to testify.
terms like "routinely" because it can be taken as applicable throughout the US. But, some DAs in NYS use the grand jury for every officer involved shooting that resulted in a fatality. And, unlike most grand juries it is not unheard for the subject of the gj, the officer,to testify.
That makes much more sense to me that if it is routine to send officer involved shootings to a grand jury, then officer should be allowed to testify or evidence in his behalf should be allowed to be presented. Otherwise it is an innately unfair process and pretty much any shooting with lying witnesses or weak evidence would be indictable due to no chance to counter. In my opinion, the grand jury system with no chance to counter only works when a fair minded prosecutor not under public pressure sees a case that should go forward based on the evidence. It is subverted when a case goes to a grand jury mainly due to public pressure where the standard rules of no countering apply.
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
RE: defendants can always testify at the grand jury Â
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
That is not what was said in a previous post on this thread which said the suspect does not have the right to testify..
My comments were based in this:
"Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
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."
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
A a state we're authorizing police to use deadly force if certain legal requirements are met. absent a clear disregard or violation of those requirements, should police officers be perceived as criminals with respect to their use of deadly force? Does that put an unreasonable burden on a police officer in a life and death situation?
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
I see just the opposite. It failed to protect Wilson as it normally would. It seemed clear to me that the prosecutor did not see the evidence to actually send it to a grand jury and certainly not a conviction but was unwilling to take the heat for dismissing it. This bowing to public pressure is what originally subverted the grand jury system. This then led to the following subversion of the system of not vigorously trying to get him indicted. A public servant much now try to convict a person he believes to be clearly innocent. OK for a defense attorney to be in this position for a defense of a client he believes is guilty but not for a public s rant seeking justice for all sides. In this position it is hard for me to be critical of not pushing something he does not believe in. Frankly it seems like the honorable thing to do once it got to this point. Certainly not honorable to support what he considers lies and things conflicting with the physical evidence.
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
I see just the opposite. It failed to protect Wilson as it normally would. It seemed clear to me that the prosecutor did not see the evidence to actually send it to a grand jury and certainly not a conviction but was unwilling to take the heat for dismissing it. This bowing to public pressure is what originally subverted the grand jury system. This then led to the following subversion of the system of not vigorously trying to get him indicted. A public servant much now try to convict a person he believes to be clearly innocent. OK for a defense attorney to be in this position for a defense of a client he believes is guilty but not for a public s rant seeking justice for all sides. In this position it is hard for me to be critical of not pushing something he does not believe in. Frankly it seems like the honorable thing to do once it got to this point. Certainly not honorable to support what he considers lies and things conflicting with the physical evidence.
Go back to the Trayvon fiasco. Local authorities don't arrest Zimmerman right away. State by passes a GJ and appoints a special prosecutor. A made for tv trial is put on. Here on BBI, a running thread as the case went on was just like a game day thread. Hell, stand your ground was put on trial and it was never alleged as a defense by any anyone.
Ended up being the locals were correct.
I think that case played a big part in sending this to a GJ.
He knew he didn't have a case. If he didn't send it to a GJ, the results would be the same.
many are saying it should go trial so that everything is in the open to satisfy the mob. If anyone here actually thinks a jury trial which will most likely not result in conviction will satisfy the mob, l have a bridge to sell them. Just kicking the anger further down the road in the future. If you listen to many of the interviews on TV, it is clear that what is wanted is vegeance, not justice.
zimmerman who was private citizen who put himself in that position, after being informed he didn't need to. private citizens detaining/encountering other citizens unnecessarily,and armed with a gun when doing so. you're ok with him playing cop and stopping Trayvon because he was a thug or looked like one, or something like that. I'm not because my grandsons and nephew look like Trayvon. But, I'm not okay with people like him stopping young white kids. It was a situation that had the potential to end badly, and did.
re: Wilson - gj does not bother me as, in some jurisdictions, this is a common way of reviewing officer involved shootings.
re: the outcome - not so sure I buy Wilson's account of what transpired as 100% accurate. but, that does not necessarily make it a murder, or even a crime. but, gj has spoken and that's that.
more bothered, but not surprised, by the reaction of a lot of white people but it is the typical reaction after events like this and Trayvon etc. and typically follows one of three general themes -
1) He was a thug who had it coming
2) The person may not have been a thug but the reaction was understandable because he looked like people who are thugs
3) maybe it should not have happened or regardless of whether it should have happened, impact is deflected by pointing to high levels of black on black crime.
bothered or not - that's the country we live in. far from a post-racial society. with suspicion, distrust, and dislike/hate lying right underneath the surface - ready to ooze out due to events like this.
It should be mentioned that Scalia is a federal judge Â
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
RE: I don't know whoever said potential defendants do not have a right... Â
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
Justice Scalia said it.
Scalia is saying that it is rare for a suspect to appear and testify willingly. It is rare for the very reasons Mike stated.
However, none of that should lead anyone to conclude that the prosecuting attorney " threw the match" which is how I construed what several were suggesting on this thread.
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case." Link - ( New Window )
"Some critics of that decision find fault with the fact that Wilson’s lengthy account of what happened went essentially unchallenged by prosecutors. Some wonder why he testified at all, since targets in the vast majority of criminal investigations do not testify before the grand jury.
In fact, it is standard operating procedure to permit a potential target to testify in the grand jury if he wishes to do so."
about how a grand jury works. Generally speaking, where a defendant is indicted directly, without being charged by warrant and given a preliminary hearing, the defendant usually has no idea that a grand jury is even weighing his indictment. People who have a vague or even a very good understanding of how a grand jury works at the federal level or in particular states do not necessarily share a similar understanding of how it works everywhere else.
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case." Link - ( New Window )
Mike, #1 that's NY, not Missouri. #2, Your quote says "defendant" because in the scenario described in your link the guy had already been charged with the crime. That shoe doesn't fit Darren Wilson since he was not charged.
I don't care an awful lot about Brown per se. I care about the possibility that justice was subverted. I also care about the extraordinarily low number of cases in which law officers involved in a death are found to have committed a wrongful act. I just don't trust the numbers. It's better the FBI, where the number is zero, but not by that much. (See: Albuquerque)
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
this was an investigation of the facts, not just a presentation of the Prosecutions case. Although he really didn't have a case if you consider the forensics and the witnesses that testimony match the forensics and Wilson's statement.
nonetheless, you have to look at those FBI stings with a skeptical eye - for example, the Newburgh terrorist case may have contained some really questionable investigative techniques.
RE: Most GJ are just rubber stamps for the prosecution Â
this was an investigation of the facts, not just a presentation of the Prosecutions case. Although he really didn't have a case if you consider the forensics and the witnesses that testimony match the forensics and Wilson's statement.
He never presented a case, He never did his job which is to "Prosecute"
I have always said the bigger issue is the fact that there isn't enough accountability over officers, and that complaints against them go uninvestigated.
This article I read on Vice really seemed to align with my concerns.
It tells the story of 2 men, both white, who were beaten by off duty police officers. The uniformed police who came to the seen basically escorted the assaulters away and told the victims to deal with it. They then go into the story of how they've been trying to fight to hold their attackers accountable.
Due to my reputation as a cop hater, I want to go ahead and point out 2 major things that sat wrong with me in the article first:
1) I find it hard to believe their claims of PTSD from getting beaten up
2) They don't go into enough depth of exactly how the encounter with the off duty cops started.
However, this article does show a lot of the institutional inertia and uphill battle anyone who looks to file a serious complaint, or really any complaint, against law enforcement typically faces.
They have a video of the assault, the financial resources to hire a well respected law firm, and PR connections to draw media attention, but were still unable to get their attackers identified or get any punitive measures placed on the attackers or the police who let them go.
Interesting article, and might make people realize how little recourse poor minorities have when trying to fight against alleged potential police brutality.
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
Well that is not exactly correct. He decided to go the GJ route only after the media attention to the story. At that point as the prosecuting attorney his job is to present and explain the evidence. He dumped everything on them and did no explaining to them, even to the point where he never explained the different charges that could be handed down. He also gave to the Jurors prior to Wilson testifying, an outdated statue claiming that a fleeing suspect may be shot. That statue was struck down in 1985 statue. They waited 2 months to correct that claim and corrected it only 2 days prior to the verdict. So you have 2 months of the jury looking at all the evidence with the idea that afleeing suspect is a justified shooting
He did such a biased job that the National Bar Association is demanding Federal Charges against Wilson wants his head
The GJ was used to cover his ass and it was a complete sham
An African American bar association says he should have been indicted, bfd. That's not an association of criminal law specialists, a and even if it was it is clearly a political gesture. There were some issues with the GJ, but at the end of the day you don't pursue charges if you don't think they are warranted. Period. To do otherwise is unethical.
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
Its a silly assumption ctc
No it's not silly. People are biased. I hate to break that to you. I don't think the police union will be asking Holder to press charges. I expect the opposite. And yes that applies to white people who are supporting him based on skin color, not the fact presented to the grand jury.
The grand jury, by law, looks at the sworn testimony and evidence presented to them. By law, the grand jury proceedings are secret as is the vote to issue a indictment or not. That the GI stayed over a month past their service time and deliberated so long leads me to believe they took their duty seriously. IMHO
He has now resigned, with no benefits, and will never get a job in public law enforcement again. He will be viewed with suspicion everywhere he goes, and may even be under threat of harm.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
He has now resigned, with no benefits, and will never get a job in public law enforcement again. He will be viewed with suspicion everywhere he goes, and may even be under threat of harm.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
And for Wilson, if he was innocent the result would have been the same even if the DA/ADA had assumed he was guilty. If it had gone to a jury trial and he had been acquitted the same shit would have gone down (just a year or so later), his life would still be in danger and he still would have had to resign from the Ferguson PD with no hope for a job in law enforcement in the future.
RE: The DA/ADA did Wilson no favors, assuming he was innocent. Â
He has now resigned, with no benefits, and will never get a job in public law enforcement again. He will be viewed with suspicion everywhere he goes, and may even be under threat of harm.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
Again, none of that would have changed if he went on trial. He left his job because of threats. Do you think if he was indicted that would be different?
In a trial, all of the facts would have been presented to the court in a public venue. One of the reasons for the current state of distrust, rage and contempt is the widely held belief that the DA/ADA didn't make a full-blown attempt to obtain an indictment, and essentially weighed in on behalf of Wilson. It is a widely held view that the ADA allowed Wilson's comments and pro-Wilson comments to go unchallenged, but scrutinized opposing comments strenuously.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
RE: Yes, I think it would have been very different. Â
In a trial, all of the facts would have been presented to the court in a public venue. One of the reasons for the current state of distrust, rage and contempt is the widely held belief that the DA/ADA didn't make a full-blown attempt to obtain an indictment, and essentially weighed in on behalf of Wilson. It is a widely held view that the ADA allowed Wilson's comments and pro-Wilson comments to go unchallenged, but scrutinized opposing comments strenuously.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
With the citizens of Ferguson you can make the argument, though I disagree. But do you think the white anarchists with their Guy Fawkes masks and the New Black Panthers would give a rat's ass about a trial if the verdict didn't come out the way they wanted? I'm amazed you'd believe that.
RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
In comment 12016033 sphinx said:
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor: I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officerLINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about thatLINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
RE: Yes, I think it would have been very different. Â
In a trial, all of the facts would have been presented to the court in a public venue. One of the reasons for the current state of distrust, rage and contempt is the widely held belief that the DA/ADA didn't make a full-blown attempt to obtain an indictment, and essentially weighed in on behalf of Wilson. It is a widely held view that the ADA allowed Wilson's comments and pro-Wilson comments to go unchallenged, but scrutinized opposing comments strenuously.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
Because everyone believed OJ was innocent as soon as all the facts came out, you know, because a jury acquitted him. Come on. If he was convicted one side would cry miscarriage of justice, if he was acquitted the other would cry the same.
In comment 12016033 sphinx said:
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
The Missouri statute is still on the books and the 1985 SCOTUS decision which involved a Tennessee statute, did not involve the Missouri. The Missouri statute does not authorize the use of force on unarmed suspects who are not resisting or threatening to resist arrest. So, the prosecutor didn't need to mention the SCOTUS decision for the very simple reason that it didn't apply to the Missouri statute. Here is the text of the statute:
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, a law enforcement officer is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only:
(1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he or she reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
EXCEPT with this GJ? Come on, that is having your cake and eating it on your part with that claim!
Will never know, will we.
That's the way the GJ process works. Just how did the vote come down? We'll never know. As the way it should be.
You want public floggings and hangings, just come out and say it.
I believe that a GJ, who IMHO, appears to have taken their job seriously, came to the decision they saw fit by our legal system. They were the only ones charged with putting their biases aside and deciding on the sworn evidence only.
If you can't do that, I hope you are never chosen for a jury.
Even though it is flawed, it is the fairest in the world.
You either go with that or don't.
RE: RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
In comment 12016033 sphinx said:
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
To reiterate, you are being obtuse. He (and FWIW he wasn't the prosecutor presenting much of this, or so it seems) is diabolical enough to intentionally misstate the law to the grand jury, risking professional censure for doing so intentionally, and then dumb enough to release everything he's got to the public? Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught. And he's going to do that out of some sort of innate love of the police? I'm pretty sure he approached that grand jury expecting and hoping they wouldn't return an indictment, but everything you're accusing him of need not follow.
EXCEPT with this GJ? Come on, that is having your cake and eating it on your part with that claim!
The GJ is the only one charged with looking at only the sworn evidence and coming to decision whether to indict or not. Seems to me, with extending their duty and countless hours of deliberations after all the evidence was presented, they took their job seriously.
GJ deliberations and votes are secret for a good reason. How do you know that the four african americans didn't vote not to indict? Or are you admitting bias?
The GJ process is secret for a reason.
Just admit you wanted a made for tv dog and pony show.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught.
Yeah, so that's not true. Lawyers misstate the law all the time, but it is often/usually totally intentional. It's essentially consequence free. Lawyers dont lose their license over telling the just that the law is A when it is really B; lawyers lose their license for committing felonies and for mishandling client funds.
God, how my job would be different if my opposing counsel werent full of shit.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught.
Yeah, so that's not true. Lawyers misstate the law all the time, but it is often/usually totally intentional. It's essentially consequence free. Lawyers dont lose their license over telling the just that the law is A when it is really B; lawyers lose their license for committing felonies and for mishandling client funds.
God, how my job would be different if my opposing counsel werent full of shit.
I've run into to attorneys of questionable ethics, but the question that usually comes to mind when dealing with someone else's grasp of the law is "how the fuck did he/she graduate from law school AND pass the fucking bar?" I've made plenty of mistakes, but I've encountered attorneys with decades of experience who don't grasp the basics of evidence law, hearsay and how objections are supposed to work.
EXCEPT with this GJ? Come on, that is having your cake and eating it on your part with that claim!
Will never know, will we.
That's the way the GJ process works. Just how did the vote come down? We'll never know. As the way it should be.
You want public floggings and hangings, just come out and say it.
I believe that a GJ, who IMHO, appears to have taken their job seriously, came to the decision they saw fit by our legal system. They were the only ones charged with putting their biases aside and deciding on the sworn evidence only.
If you can't do that, I hope you are never chosen for a jury.
Even though it is flawed, it is the fairest in the world.
You either go with that or don't.
Ok so now your going to start flailing around with a bunch of bluster over me supposedly "wanting public hangings" because i happened to point out the hypocrisy of your claim that black lawyers are biased, but white people are not, because of some magic dust the GJ sprinkled on them.
You know you were wrong with the generalization over the NBA,and the rational with regards to white jurors, so why do this nonsense dance to hide that? Its a disingenuous way to have a discussion
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
The Missouri statute is still on the books and the 1985 SCOTUS decision which involved a Tennessee statute, did not involve the Missouri. The Missouri statute does not authorize the use of force on unarmed suspects who are not resisting or threatening to resist arrest. So, the prosecutor didn't need to mention the SCOTUS decision for the very simple reason that it didn't apply to the Missouri statute.
You need to pass that information to the Asst Prosecutor. She was obviously confused when she told the GJ ...
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
This was never going to trial either way....You know why? Â
Because he was fucking innocent. Some of you miss the real picture. Black witnesses corroborated his story to a tee but were afraid to go public out of fear. And those that made up shit were refuted with forensics. There was no case to be had and Wilson at his own peril went up before the GJ. Big fucking balls he had. He could have just hid behind it, waited for trial if it happened without his testimony, collected checks for another year or two and then be found not guilty.
That poor guy did his job and he is being screwed for it and Brown was a criminal about to spend 5-15 years in jail and people cry for him.....and this is ultimately the problem.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
To reiterate, you are being obtuse. He (and FWIW he wasn't the prosecutor presenting much of this, or so it seems) is diabolical enough to intentionally misstate the law to the grand jury, risking professional censure for doing so intentionally, and then dumb enough to release everything he's got to the public? Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught. And he's going to do that out of some sort of innate love of the police? I'm pretty sure he approached that grand jury expecting and hoping they wouldn't return an indictment, but everything you're accusing him of need not follow.
And you're being naive. He wasn't in the court room but thinking he didn't OK everything that was presented to the GJ is extreme nativity. I'm far from a conspiracy guy but just the timing of the two announcements is suspect. And again, how in hell could he not know?
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
Because it's something that doesn't reflect the police in a positive light. CTC constantly kowtows to one side without putting much thought into the other side.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: His job is to employ his discretion and determine... Â
To reiterate, you are being obtuse. He (and FWIW he wasn't the prosecutor presenting much of this, or so it seems) is diabolical enough to intentionally misstate the law to the grand jury, risking professional censure for doing so intentionally, and then dumb enough to release everything he's got to the public? Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught. And he's going to do that out of some sort of innate love of the police? I'm pretty sure he approached that grand jury expecting and hoping they wouldn't return an indictment, but everything you're accusing him of need not follow.
And you're being naive. He wasn't in the court room but thinking he didn't OK everything that was presented to the GJ is extreme nativity. I'm far from a conspiracy guy but just the timing of the two announcements is suspect. And again, how in hell could he not know?
His jurisdiction includes several hundred thousand people, and he likely has a couple dozen underlings. I'm sure he makes charging decisions on the major cases and does the bulk of the PR heavy lifting, but at that level the position is as much a managerial one as that of a courtroom lawyer.
2012 Missouri Revised Statutes
TITLE VI COUNTY, TOWNSHIP AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION GOVERNMENT
Chapter 56 Circuit and Prosecuting Attorneys and County Counselors
Section 56.110 If interested in case, court to appoint substitute.
Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 56.110 (2012)
If interested in case, court to appoint substitute.
56.110. If the prosecuting attorney and assistant prosecuting attorney be interested or shall have been employed as counsel in any case where such employment is inconsistent with the duties of his office, or shall be related to the defendant in any criminal prosecution, either by blood or by marriage, the court having criminal jurisdiction may appoint some other attorney to prosecute or defend the cause.
do we really need to rehash this and have it be more of a circus? Even if there is an indictment (which would be a sham) there is no chance of getting a conviction. And it would help if you wouldn't link to stuff from Think Progress.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
Because it's something that doesn't reflect the police in a positive light. CTC constantly kowtows to one side without putting much thought into the other side.
No, I kowtow to the middle. Something very few people on this board do.
I lean right.
I belive 12 people can go into a GJ and actually put their biases aside and reach a decision ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Apparently you don't think people can cast aside their biases and do the task before them.
I guess I have a lot more faith in humanity than most on here.
My original capstone was going to be on the difficulty on recruiting qualified minorities into the fire service. Majority, actually all, of the data was on police recruitment. We had a lot of good discussion on this board pre login on the subject. I put research up for feed back on this board and I received so much great feedback from a lot of posters.
Police in a positive light. That's funny. What does that mean?
Should we get rid of the police? Are they needed? Are there good and bad police? Are they all the same?
What is this good light bad light thing?
Because we make laws that we wish to be enforced we have police who do that. Congresses only edict is to enact laws.
I believe that 99% of cops, just like in any career, are good people who care about how they do their jobs.
You need to think how much you don't look at the the other side before you call the kettle a teapot.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
Because it's something that doesn't reflect the police in a positive light. CTC constantly kowtows to one side without putting much thought into the other side.
No, I kowtow to the middle. Something very few people on this board do.
I lean right.
I belive 12 people can go into a GJ and actually put their biases aside and reach a decision ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Apparently you don't think people can cast aside their biases and do the task before them.
I guess I have a lot more faith in humanity than most on here.
My original capstone was going to be on the difficulty on recruiting qualified minorities into the fire service. Majority, actually all, of the data was on police recruitment. We had a lot of good discussion on this board pre login on the subject. I put research up for feed back on this board and I received so much great feedback from a lot of posters.
Police in a positive light. That's funny. What does that mean?
Should we get rid of the police? Are they needed? Are there good and bad police? Are they all the same?
What is this good light bad light thing?
Because we make laws that we wish to be enforced we have police who do that. Congresses only edict is to enact laws.
I believe that 99% of cops, just like in any career, are good people who care about how they do their jobs.
You need to think how much you don't look at the the other side before you call the kettle a teapot.
You're extremely naive if you think 99% of cops are good people, and if you think people can put their biases aside. You're giving society way too much credit. Congress can't even put their biases aside. What makes you think a panel of jurors can do the same? I think the police are tasked with an extremely difficult job with a ton of responsibilities, but part of wearing the badge is being held up to a higher standard, because mistakes in this line of work leads to major consequences. You can't constantly beat the drum about how difficult the line of work is when you also want to absolve cops of any shit swimming upstream. I'm certainly not saying all cops are bad, but for once, I'd like to see you admit a cop fucked up around here.
I believe 12 people can go into a GJ and actually put their biases aside and reach a decision ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
A GJ is not presented with an adversarial presentation of events and the law. Even if each Grand Juror votes without bias their votes only reflect what has been laid before them. Ergo, the ham sandwich.
Feels that an article published by reporters about their struggle for prosecution against cops who beat them up is just "two guys bitching about an asskicking".
It's evident to me now that ctc is the most biased person here.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves.
Link - ( New Window )
A bunch of folks feigning their sadness over some poor kid. Meanwhile in the real world, jails have plenty of Michael Browns and the same folks here couldn't give two shits about someone that would be serving 5-15 years for robbery, menacing, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest...
But lets pretend some give a crap because it is popular to do so. And lets put an officers life in the balance for the same piece of crap...But no it is me with the issue...lol
He knew if he said no charges would be filed, the idiots would do what they did and he knew he didn't have a case against Wilson. So he took himself and really the office out of the equation. And now all the evidence is an open book...of course the evidence is not of anyones interest here and certainly not the criminals in the streets of Ferguson masquerading as protestors.
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
Should he have recused himself? Perhaps, particularly if he worked closely with the department and especially if he knew the officer. That could certainly be construed as a mistake.
But using a grand jury for an investigative purpose made sense in this case. Get witnesses under oath, let them vet the evidence and see if testimony is reasonably consistent with statements made to investigators previously. Maybe what turns up changes your mind. Because if as a prosecutor you don't believe that probable cause exists to go forward with a charge you have an ethical obligation not to bring charges.
You did not deserve what i posted, my apologies
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Or, the rioting was inevitable and at least this way the streets are empty of everyone else.
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Quote:
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
It's been said over and over they did it because they wanted rush hour traffic and kids to be home. I think that's a perfectly rational reason.
Quote:
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
He knew he didn't have a case and sent it to the GJ.
Let 12 of your peers decide.
What else was there to do? Put on a trial because a mob demands it?
It's not suppose to work that way.
Even in this horrendous case.
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
No rational reason? Of course there is a rational reason to announce this at 9pm at night. After what happened in Ferguson in the wake of the incident, the city feared that more rioting, looting, arson, and vandalism would occur (which it did to no one's surprise). The destruction didn't happen because it was announced at night. The destruction happened because there were enough people who saw fit to commit destructive acts after hearing the decision.
As such, the city wanted to make sure that innocent people had time to get home from work-- and more importantly, they wanted to make sure that children could get home safely from school.
If the announcement were made during the day, the protests would have led to rioting and destruction anyway, and then it was more likely that innocent bystanders and children would be caught out in public.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
That was enough for me.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
Seems like a pretty giant stretch to even attempt that "argument" when you consider how long (days/weeks) the "protests" lasted initially. Announcing it at 8 am, wasn't going to stop rioting. At best the rioting would've been delayed until nightfall. At worst, as you said, innocent bystanders would've been dragged into the middle.
Quote:
In comment 12001115 Stan from LA said:
Quote:
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
Got any proof of that? I don't think that is true.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
FWIW when he collapsed he was right at the feet of one officer.
You would think some common sense would have prevailed, but for some people, and not all, common sense is not a quality they have..
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Those people still have to get home. And if you think it still wouldn't have been bad, you are being naive.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
You base this on your extensive knowledge of the mentality of protesters, rioters and looters (three distinct groups of people) and of the living habits of residents of the greater St. Louis area, no doubt.
As Obama said last night, it does make for some compelling television.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Haha. Yes, because the anger died down after 12 hours when the incident first happened...
Quote:
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
It was one of the pot shots that was repeated verbatim at least 10X. I now am aware that the server problem may have played a part in that.
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife.
LINK - ( New Window )
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
Regardless of your positon in a this, I saw these same points made last night and I wondered the same thing then
I am confused by the first point. I heard he ws considered 'pro-police'. Based on what? He's the DA and works closely with law enforcement every day.
Not sure where the GJ leaks came from but problem number one in this case was all the incorrect information reported as fact that just wasn't true. The only relevant leaks I heard were regarding the officer taking a shot to the face from the victim.
While I do not disagree with that, Ididn't he say he did not present the cae to the GJ but had two assistants do it? (sorry if wrong on that). Regardless he released the GJ info to the public last night and mroe importantly, GJ are not trials, the DA's job is to lay out the evidence for consideration and explain to the GJ what their job is.
Quote:
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
LINK - ( New Window )
Quote:
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
Lazy. You could've at least linked one of the "original" Brown-Ferguson threads where I'm sure it's mentioned.
That won't play too well.
Video here - ( New Window )
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
I doubt a full trial would have diminished anything if Wilson was acquitted.
Actually, my guess is that a majority of the instigators/rioters will have moved on to their next target. Ferguson was little more than an opportunity. Some/most of the looters will be around, but they are opportunists and don't have on their agenda complaining about the lack of re-openings.
The folks who got destroyed and won't be back are the small business owners. Even if they wanted to return, they just got priced out of the market by their insurance. Not sure about the McDonalds. I don't know what franchisees get as far as insurance goes. You know, Montana might be able to shed some light on that one.
So should the DA have pushed for an indictment and put the officer, the town and everyone through a circus of a trial? Not to mention the money it would cost the county or city.
People want a show, not justice.
That's just a dumb talking point being floated out there and if anyone would really put any thought into it they would understand the two points I posted in the above paragraph.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
Whether his ties with this police department (I'm not sure how many fall in his jurisdiction) would warrant a refusal is a fair question. The fact that he has close ties with police generally being trumpeted as holding any significance whatsoever is idiotic. Any prosecutor by definition works closely with law enforcement, be it at the state/local or federal level. The fact that his father was a police officer killed in the line of duty is also not expressly relevant. Presumably he and his office have prosecuted police officers for misconduct before, probably successfully.
As Obama said last night, it does make for some compelling television.
Good , fuck em all. Let them be responsible for cleaning up the fucking mess and for re-building the shithole. Fucking morons.
Here is something that I would like to understand. Why would the POTUS wait until 10pm to tell people on a TV interview to protest peacefully if they are already in the streets rioting and have yet to plug in the TVs that they have stolen? The people who had a chance to hear what he had to say most likely were never going to leave their homes that night. Think maybe that message should have gone out a lot sooner? Does anyone think it would have mattered?
Presumably.
Fact checking for Dune - ( New Window )
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1.) McCulloch said he gave them 5 different indictments to consider.
2.) Any evidence that he's been favorable to police officers in the past?
3.) What did you want him to do? Only give the false stories from those who said Brown had his hands up and was shot running away? Cmon. People want a full investigation and then they are upset because the Grand Jury was given a "mountain of evidence".
4.) The Chief said he didn't know about the robbery when he initially stopped Brown and Johnson. That is exactly in line with everything Wilson has said. He stopped them for walking in the road. He then noticed the cigars and noticed they matched the description, that's when he realized they were probably the ones who robbed the store. He was recorded saying he was out on canfield with two, and i believe he asked for another unit. The rest of his radio traffic did not go through, most likely because his radio channel was changed when Mike Brown was attacking him in the car.
There was only one outcome that would have potentially avoided rioting: White cop frying in an electric chair.
The villagers are out for blood. some out for metaphoric blood. some out for actual blood.
Quote:
What a fucking mess they made of that place.
As Obama said last night, it does make for some compelling television.
Good , fuck em all. Let them be responsible for cleaning up the fucking mess and for re-building the shithole. Fucking morons.
Except those that got burned out were almost uniformly innocent parties. Certainly glad that sentiment did not prevail after Sandy.
Presumably. Fact checking for Dune - ( New Window )
Mentioning the 23 years makes it seem like he's had hundreds of opportunities.
He's had 5 opportunities. If you want to look at each of those cases and determine whether or not prosecution was warranted, go ahead. But to assume he did something wrong ONLY because none of those officers were prosecuted, well it's just ignorant.
LINK - ( New Window )
Quote:
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1.) McCulloch said he gave them 5 different indictments to consider.
2.) Any evidence that he's been favorable to police officers in the past?
3.) What did you want him to do? Only give the false stories from those who said Brown had his hands up and was shot running away? Cmon. People want a full investigation and then they are upset because the Grand Jury was given a "mountain of evidence".
4.) The Chief said he didn't know about the robbery when he initially stopped Brown and Johnson. That is exactly in line with everything Wilson has said. He stopped them for walking in the road. He then noticed the cigars and noticed they matched the description, that's when he realized they were probably the ones who robbed the store. He was recorded saying he was out on canfield with two, and i believe he asked for another unit. The rest of his radio traffic did not go through, most likely because his radio channel was changed when Mike Brown was attacking him in the car.
HB, in Wilsons testimony to the GJ he claimed:
"Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street."
That is contrary to the official statements by the Police Dept.
But he never informed the GJ that
There was only one outcome that would have potentially avoided rioting: White cop frying in an electric chair.
Nope....Sharpton called for this to happen REGARDLESS as to what the decision was. He is there telling people in ALL cities to protest (code word for riot). They will riot even when they are happy. Remember when the Lakers won the championship? I think they roasted marshmallows over the burning cars in the streets.
One question i have is why wilson ,after brown walked away, why didn't he wait for backups to arrive. They were on the way. He did not have to follow brown and try to arrest him on his own. Brown was on foot. He was going no where.
I presumed he had prosecuted officer misconduct before. That was what my post said.
Who's "they"?
We don't put people on trial just because a mob wants it.
Thought that ended years ago.
You would have rather he said we don't have a case right off and really let the fireworks begin?
No where in that oped was the statistic of how many other indictments the DA got or the percentage. that little factoid was absent in that rant. Hell, he may have a better percentage than the feds.
2) Why is there no record of Wilson's first testimony the day of the shooting?
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
JESUS CHRIST.
Quote:
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST SYMBOL THESE TO THE FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN. AS I HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, I KNOW THAT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, THEY LOST A LOVED ONE TO VIOLENCE. I KNOW THE PAIN THAT ACCOMPANIES SUCH A LOSS KNOWS NO BOUNDS. ON AUGUST 9, MICHAEL BROWN WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON. WITHIN MINUTES, VARIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT BEGAN APPEARING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE TOWN WAS FILLED WITH SPECULATION AND LITTLE IF ANY SOLID ACCURATE INFORMATION. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, ANGER BEGAN BREWING BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING TENSIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. UNDER VARYING TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND ERUPTED VERY AT LEAST ONCE BY GUNFIRE. CONTINUING AFTER THAT, THEY ALONG WITH THE AGENTS OF THE FBI AT THE DIRECTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, LOCATED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND GATHERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION. FULLY AWARE OF THE UNFOUNDED BUT GROWING CONCERN IN SOME PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW OF THIS TRAGIC DEATH MIGHT NOT BE FAIR, I DECIDED IMMEDIATELY THAT ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED, ALL PEOPLE CLAIMING TO HAVE WITNESSED ANY PART OR ALL OF THE SHOOTING, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER RELATED MATTERS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY. 12 MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY SELECTED BY A JUDGE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR LONG BEFORE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY EXPAND UPON THE UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER FIRST ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION JUST DAYS AFTER THE SHOOTING, HE PLEDGED THAT FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS WOULD BE WORKING WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AND WOULD FOLLOW THE FACTS WHEREVER IT MAY TAKE US. WE BOTH PLEDGED ARE SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS WILL FOLLOW THE TRAIL OF FACTS WITH NO PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF WHERE THAT JOURNEY WOULD TAKE US. THE ONLY GOAL WAS THAT OUR INVESTIGATION WOULD BE THOROUGH AND COMPLETE TO GIVE THE GRAND JURY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY, THE PUBLIC ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY INVESTIGATORS. ALL EVIDENCE GATHERED BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE WAS IMMEDIATELY SHARED BY THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCTED ITS OWN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND PERFORMED ITS OWN AUTOPSY. ANOTHER AUTOPSY WAS PERFORMED AT REQUEST OF THE BROWN FAMILY AND HIS INFORMATION WAS ALSO SHARED. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, ALL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY GRAND JURY WAS IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ALTHOUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE SEPARATE, BOTH OF THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE ALL OF THE SAME INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. OUR INVESTIGATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE GRAND JURY AND ST. LOUIS COUNTY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THE 24-HOUR NEWS CYCLE AND THE SENSATIONAL APPETITE FOR SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. FOLLOWING CLOSELY BEHIND WITH THE RUMORS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF ACCURATE DETAIL SURROUNDING THE SHOOTING FRUSTRATES THE MEDIA AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND HELPS BREED SUSPICION AMONG THOSE ALREADY STRESSED OUT BY THE SYSTEM. THE CLOSE REGARDED DETAILS GIVES LAW ENFORCEMENT YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE TRUTHFULNESS. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED AND COMPARED AGAINST THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MANY WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN MADE STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THEY MADE AND ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WERE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AN EXAMPLE -- BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN AUTOPSY WAS RELEASED, WITNESSES CLAIM THEY SAW OFFICER WILSON STAND OVER MICHAEL BROWN AND FIRE MANY ROUNDS INTO HIS BACK. OTHERS CLAIM THAT OFFICER WILSON SHOT MR. BROWN IN THE BACK AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING AWAY. HOWEVER, ONCE THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS WERE RELEASED SHOWING MICHAEL BROWN HAD NOT SUSTAINED ANY WOUNDS TO THE BACK OF HIS BODY, NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES MADE SUCH A CLAIM. SEVERAL WITNESSES ADJUSTED THEIR STORIES IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS. SOME EVEN ADMITTED THEY DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT AT ALL BUT MERELY REPEATED WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ASSUMED. FORTUNATELY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INVESTIGATION, ALMOST ALL OF INITIAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, INCLUDING THOSE OF OPPOSITE WILSON WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF MOST OF THE WITNESSES WERE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY RESULTS WERE RELEASED BY THE MEDIA AND BEFORE SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS PUBLISH INFORMATION FROM REPORTS THEY RECEIVE FROM A D.C. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. THE JURORS WERE THEREFORE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PUBLIC AND WHAT FOLLOWED IN THE NEW CYCLE -- THE JURORS WERE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THOSE WITNESSES WHO STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY REMAINED CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT EVERY INTERVIEW AND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MY ASSISTANTS BEGIN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 23 THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN ORGANIZED AN ORDERLY MANNER. THE JURORS GAVE US A SCHEDULE OF WHEN THEY COULD MAKE. ALL 12 JURORS WERE PRESENT FOR EVERY SESSION AND HEARD EVERY WORD OF TESTIMONY AND EXAMINED EVERY ITEM OF EVIDENCE. BEGINNING AUGUST 20 AND CONTINUING UNTIL TODAY, THE GRAND JURY WORKED TIRELESSLY TO EXAMINE AND RE-EXAMINE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE EXTREMELY ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS ASKING QUESTIONS OF EVERY WITNESS, REQUESTING SPECIFIC WITNESSES, REQUESTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND ASKING FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY MET ON 25 SEPARATE DAYS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, HEARD MORE THAN 70 HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM ABOUT 60 WITNESSES AND REVIEWED HOURS AND HOURS OF RECORDINGS OF MEDIA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEWS BY MANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED. THEY HEARD FROM THE THREE MEDICAL EXAMINERS AND EXPERTS ON BLOOD, DNA, TOXICOLOGY, FIREARMS AND DRUG ANALYSIS. THE EXAMINED HUNDREDS OF PHOTOGRAPHS, SOME OF WHICH THEY ASKED TO BE TAKEN. THE EXAMINED VARIOUS PIECES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH FIVE INDICTMENTS RANGING FROM MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE TO INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. THEIR BURDEN WAS DETERMINED BASED UPON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTSED AND THAT DARREN WILSON WAS THE PERSON TO COMMIT THE CRIME. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT DARREN WILSON CAUSED THE DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN BY SHOOTING HIM BUT THE INQUIRY DOES NOT END THERE. THE LOFT ARISES A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER USED DEADLY FORCE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE LAW ALLOWS ALL PEOPLE TO USE DEADLY FORCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THE GRAND JURY CONSIDERED WHETHER WILSON WAS THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR. IN THIS CASE ARE WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT DARREN WILSON WAS OFTEN ARISE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THIS SITUATION OR IF HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. I DETAIL THIS FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THAT AS PROMISED BY ME AND ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER, THERE WAS A FULL PRESENTATION OF ALL EVIDENCE AN APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION TO THE GRAND JURY. SECOND, AS A CAUTION TO THOSE IN AND OUT OF THE MEDIA WHO WILL POUNCE ON A SINGLE SENSE OR WITNESS AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS CASE BASED ON THAT TINY BIT OF INFORMATION, THE DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY IS TO SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION. AFTER A FULL AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE INVOLVED AND DECIDED THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FILING OF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST AARON WILSON, THEY ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND SAY AGAIN THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEARD AND EXAMINED EVERY WITNESS AND EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THEY DISCUSSED AND DEBATED THE EVIDENCE AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THEIR COLLECTIVE DECISION. AFTER THEIR EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW, THE GRAND JURY DELIBERATED AND MADE THEIR FINAL DECISION. THEY DETERMINED THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO FILE ANY CHARGES AGAINST OFFICER WILSON AND RETURN A NO TRUE ON EACH OF THE FIVE INDICTMENTS. THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXAMINED BY THE GRAND JURY COMBINED WITH A WITNESS STATEMENT SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE HELD THE ACCURATE AND TRAGIC STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED. THE VERY GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY FOLLOWS -- AS I HAVE PROMISED, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES CALLED TO THE GRAND JURY WILL BE RELEASED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS STATEMENT. AT APPROXIMATELY 11:45 A.M. ON SATURDAY THE NINTH OF AUGUST, FERGUSON POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON WAS THE DISPATCH TO AN EMERGENCY INVOLVING A TWO-MONTH-OLD INFANT HAVING TROUBLE BREATHING. AT ABOUT 11:53 A.M., WILSON HEARD A RADIO BROADCAST OF STEALING IN PROGRESS AT A MARKET IN. THE BROADCAST ALSO INCLUDED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT. A BLACK MALE, WEARING A WHITE T-SHIRT AND A BOX OF SWISHER CIG ARS. OFFICER WILSON REMAINED WITH THE MOTHER AND THE INFANT UNTIL EMS ARRIVED. OFFICER WILSON LEFT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN HIS POLICE VEHICLE, A CHEVY TAHOE SUV. AN ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT WAS RELEASED AT THAT TIME. HE WAS WITH ANOTHER MALE. AS OFFICER WILSON WAS ATTENDING TO HIS EMERGENCY CALL, MICHAEL BROWN AND A COMPANION WERE IN THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE. MICHAEL BROWN'S ACTIVITY IN THE STORE WAS RECORDED BY THE STORE SECURITY CAMERAS. THE VIDEO OFTEN PLAYED FOLLOWING HIS RELEASE IN AUGUST BY THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOWS MICHAEL BROWN GRABBING A HANDFUL OF CIGARILLOS AND HEADING TOWARD THE EXIT WITHOUT PAYING. AS MICHAEL BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS LEFT THE STORE, SOMEBODY INSIDE CALLED THE POLICE. THE TWO WALKED EAST INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. MR. BROWN DIRECTLY BEHIND HIS COMPANION. AS OFFICER WILSON CONTINUED WEST, HE ENCOUNTERED MR. BROWN AND HIS COMPANIONS TO WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. AS WILSON SLOWED, HE TOLD THEM TO MOVE TO THE SIDEWALK. WORDS WERE EXCHANGED AND THEY CONTINUED TO WALK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. WILSON OBSERVED THAT MICHAEL BROWN HAD CIGARILLOS IN HIS HAND WHEN WAS WEARING A RED HAT. AT APPROXIMATELY 12:02 P.M., WILSON RADIOED HE HAD TO INDIVIDUALS AND NEEDED ASSISTANCE. OFFICER WILSON BACKED HIS VEHICLE AT AN ANGLE BLOCKING THEIR PATH AND BLOCKING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. SEVERAL CARS APPROACHED FROM BOTH EAST AND WEST BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO PASS THE VEHICLE. AN ALTERCATION TOOK PLACE WITH OFFICER WILSON SEATED INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND MR. BROWN STANDING AT THE DRIVERS WINDOW. DURING THE ALTERCATION, TWO SHOTS WERE FIRED BY OFFERS A WILSON WHILE STILL INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MR. BROWN RAN EAST AND OFFICER WILSON GAVE CHASE. NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TO OFFICER WILSON. OFFICER WILSON ALSO STOP. AS MICHAEL BROWN MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON, SEVERAL MORE SHOTS WERE FIRED BY THE OFFICER AND MICHAEL BROWN WAS FATALLY WOUNDED. WITHIN SECONDS OF THE FINAL SHOT, THE ASSIST CAR ARRIVED. LESS THAN 90 SECONDS PASSED BETWEEN THE FIRST CONTACT AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE ASSIST CAR. DURING THE INVESTIGATION, EYEWITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY ME VERY AS -- BY VARIOUS NEWS OUTLETS. WITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED BY LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SOMETIMES TOGETHER AND SOMETIMES SEPARATELY. ALL THE STATEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO THE OTHER PARTY. ALL PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY FOR ALSO PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WHETHER THEY WERE MEDIA INTERVIEWS OR INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI OR BY THE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE STATEMENTS OF ALL WITNESSES, CIVILIAN, LAW-ENFORCEMENT, EXPERTS WERE CHALLENGED BY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY THE PROSECUTORS AND THE GRAND JURY THEMSELVES. A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR CHALLENGING A STATEMENT IS TO COMPARE IT TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESS FOR CONSISTENCY AND TO COMPARE IT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE OR PERSONAL AGENDA. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT LOOK AWAY AS EVENTS UNFOLD NOR DOES IT BLACKOUT OR ADDED TO MEMORY. IT REMAINS CONSTANT AND IS A SOLID FOUNDATION UPON WHICH CASES ARE BUILT. WHEN STATEMENTS CHANGE, WITNESSES WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICT BETWEEN THEIR STATEMENTS AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WITNESSES ADMITTED THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING OR ONLY SAW PART OF THE SHOOTING. ONLY REPEATING WHAT THEY HEARD ON THE STREET. SOME OTHERS ADJUSTED PARTS OF THEIR STATEMENTS TO FIT THE FACTS. OTHERS STOOD BY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATEMENTS WERE COMPLETELY DISCREDITED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SEVERAL WITNESSES DESCRIBE SEEING AN ALTERCATION IN THE CAR BETWEEN MR. BROWN AND OFFICER WILSON. IT WAS DESCRIBED AS WRESTLING, TUG-OF-WAR. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES DESCRIBED MR. BROWN AS PUNCHING OFFICER WILSON WHILE MR. BROWN WAS PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. MANY OF THE WITNESSES SAID THEY HEARD A GUNSHOT WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STILL PARTIALLY INSIDE THE VEHICLE. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID THAT NO PART OF MR. BROWN WAS EVER INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND THAT THE SHOT WAS FIRED THROUGH AN OPEN WINDOW WHILE MR. BROWN WAS STANDING OUTSIDE. THE VEHICLE AND OFFICER WILSON'S CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WAS EXAMINED BY VARIOUS TECHNICIANS AND SCIENTISTS. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND OR DNA WERE LOCATED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE DRIVERS DOOR. HIS BLOOD AND DNA WERE FOUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD AND DNA WAS FOUND ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER DOOR. THE UPPER LEFT THIGH OF OFFICER WILSON'S PANT LEG, THE FRONT CALLER OF OFFICER WILSON ASSURED AND ON OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON. ADDITIONALLY, A BULLET FIRED FROM OFFICER WILSON'S WEAPON WAS LOCATED INSIDE THE DRIVER DOOR. THE SHOT WAS FIRED FROM INSIDE THE VEHICLE STRIKING THE DOOR IN A DOWNWARD ANGLE AT THE ARMREST. THE SECOND BULLET WAS NOT RECOVERED. REGARDING THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF MR. BROWN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE THREE SEPARATE AUTOPSIES WERE CONDUCTED -- ONE BY ST. LOUIS COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICE, ONE BY A PRIVATE PATHOLOGIST, ONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE RESULT OF ALL THREE AUTOPSIES WERE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER IN ALL SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS. MR. BROWN HAD A GUNSHOT GRAZE WOUND ON HIS RIGHT THUMB. THE PATH WAS AWAY FROM THE TIP OF THE HAND CONSISTENT WITH A CLOSE RANGE GUNSHOT. OFFICER WILSON ALSO HAD A MEDICAL EXAMINATION WHICH INDICATED SOME SWELLING AND REDNESS TO HIS FACE. ALMOST ALL WITNESSES STATED THAT AFTER THEY HEARD THE SHOTS FIRED WHILE MR. BROWN WAS UP A CAR, HE HESITATED AND THEN RAN EAST. MOST STATED THAT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASED AFTER HIM. SOME WITNESSES STATED WILSON FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS HE CHASED AFTER HIM STRIKING HIM AT LEAST -- AT LEAST ONE WITNESS SAID ONE OF THE SHOTS STRUCK MR. BROWN. OTHER STATED HE DID NOT FIRE UNTIL MR. BROWN TURNED AND CAME BACK TOWARDS THE OFFICER. AT LEAST ONE WITNESS STATED THAT AS OFFICER WILSON GOT OUT OF HIS VEHICLE, HE SHOT MR. BROWN MULTIPLE TIMES AS MR. BROWN STOOD NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. YET ANOTHER WITNESS STATED THAT OFFICER WILSON STUCK HIS GUN OUTSIDE THE WINDOW AND FIRED AT MR. BROWN AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING. ONE WITNESS STATED THERE WAS ACTUALLY TOWO POLICE VEHICLES. MOST WITNESSES AGREED THAT NEW THE CORNER -- NEAR THE CORNER, MR. BROWN STOPPED AND TURNED AROUND FACING OFFICER WILSON. SUNSETTED MR. BROWN DID NOT MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AT ALL BUT WERE SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES AS HE STOOD NEAR THE CORNER WITH HIS HANDS RAISED. IN SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, MANY OF THE SAME WITNESSES SAID THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING. SUMMER RUNNING FOR COVER, SOME WERE RELATING WHAT THEY HEARD FROM OTHERS OR THEY SAID WHAT THEY ASSUMED HAPPENED IN THAT CASE. SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES MAINTAINED THEIR ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT MR. BROWN HAD HIS HANDS IN THE AIR AND WAS NOT MOVING TOWARDS THE OFFICER WHEN HE WAS SHOT. OTHERS SAID HE WAS SHOT -- IT'S USUALLY -- SEVERAL WITNESSES STATED THAT MR. BROWN DID NOT RAISE HIS HANDS AT ALL OR THAT HE RAISED THEM BRIEFLY AND THEN DROP THEM AND TURNED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHO FIRED SEVERAL ROUNDS. OTHER WITNESSES STATED MR. BROWN STOPPED FOR A VERY BRIEF PERIOD AND MOVE TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON AGAIN. ONE DESCRIBES HIS MOVEMENT AS A FULL CHARGE. ACCORDING TO SOME WITNESSES, OFFICER WILSON STOPPED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STOPPED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AND RESUMED FIRING WHEN MR. BROWN STARTED MOVING TOWARDS HIM AGAIN. THESE WITNESSES DID NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA. THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW MR. BROWN'S HANDS, RAISED HIS HANDS OR THE POSITION OF HIS HANDS, IS NOT CONSISTENT AMONG THE WITNESSES. SOME DESCRIBE IS AND IS BEING OUT TO HIS SIDES, SOME SAID IN FRONT OF HIM. SOME SAID HIS AUNT RAISED BY HIS HEAD OR BY HIS SHOULDERS. OTHERS DESCRIBE HIS HANDS IS BEING IN A RUNNING POSITION OR INTERESTS -- IN FISTS. THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY. THE ENTIRE AREA WAS PROCESSED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CRIME SCENE UNIT. A TOTAL OF 12 ROUNDS WERE FIRED BY OFFICER WILSON. TWO SHOTS OF THE CAR, 10 MORE FARTHER EAST. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A GRAZE WOUND TO HIS THUMB WHILE STANDING NEXT TO THE VEHICLE. HE SUSTAINED SIX OR SEVEN MORE GUNSHOT WOUNDS DEPENDING UPON WHETHER ONE OF THE SHOTS WAS AN ENTRY OR REENTRY WOUND. MR. BROWN SUSTAINED A SECOND GRAZE WOUND, AND OTHER GRAZE WOUND, TO HIS RIGHT BICEP. HE ALSO SUSTAINED WOUNDS TO HIS RIGHT FOREARM, UPPER FRONT RIGHT ARM, LATERAL RIGHT CHEST, UPPER RIGHT CHEST, FOR HEAD AND TOP OF THE HEAD. THE TOP OF THE HEAD, FOREHEAD AND PERHAPS THE UPPER RIGHT CHEST WERE CONSISTENT WITH HIS BODY BEING BENT FORWARD AT THE WAIST. EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST AND LAST WOUND, THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE ORDER OF THE SHOTS. TO GRAZE WOUND OF THE THUMB SUSTAINED AT THE VEHICLE WAS LIKELY THE FIRST WOUND. IT WAS THE ONLY CLOSE RANGE SHOT. THE SHOT AT THE TOP OF THE HEAD WAS MOST LIKELY THE LAST. IT WOULD'VE RENDERED HIM IMMEDIATELY UNCONSCIOUS AND INCAPACITATED. MR. BROWN'S BODY WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 153 FEET EAST OF OFFICER WILSON'S CAR. MR. BROWN'S BLOOD WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FARTHER EAST PAST HIS BODY. AND NEARBY TENET DURING A VIDEO CHAT INADVERTENTLY CAPTURED THE FINAL TED SHOTS -- 0 10 SHOTS ON TAPE. THERE WAS A STRING OF SHOTS FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF PAUSE AND THEN ANOTHER STRING OF SHOTS. AS I STATED EARLIER, THE EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY WILL BE RELEASED FOLLOWING THE STATEMENT. I AM EVER MINDFUL THAT THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY SOME AND MAY CAUSE DISAPPOINTMENT FOR OTHERS. ALL DECISIONS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY CORROBORATED BY THAT EVIDENCE, NOT IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC OUTCRY. DECISIONS ON A MATTER IS SERIOUS IN CHARGING AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A CRIME CANNOT BE DECIDED ON ANYTHING LESS THAN COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ANYTHING LESS IS NOT JUSTICE. IT IS MY SWORN DUTY AND THAT OF THE GRAND JURY TO SEEK JUSTICE AND NOT SIMPLY OBTAIN AN INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION. DURING THIS EXTREMELY TENSE AND PAINFUL TIME THAT WE HAVE, THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AND ARE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING AND WATCHING HOW WE RESPOND AND HOW WE REACT. I WOULD URGE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WITH THE LOSS OF THAT WAS SUFFERED BY THE BROWN FAMILY, NO YOUNG MAN SHOULD EVER DIED. THIS IS A TRAGIC LOSS REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS OPEN OLD WOUNDS AND GIVEN US AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO ADDRESS THOSE WOUNDS AS OPPOSED TO WHERE THEY JUST FADE AWAY IN THE PAST. HOW MANY YEARS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF THAT LEAD TO INCIDENTS LIKE THIS. YET AFTER A TIME, IT JUST FADES AWAY. I URGE EVERYONE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION, ENGAGED IN THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO KEEP THAT GOING. NOT TO LET THAT GO. TO DO IT IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, I WAY WE CAN PROFIT FROM THIS. A WAY THAT WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS BY CHANGING THE STRUCTURE, CHANGING SOME OF THE ISSUES, BY SOLVING THE ISSUES THAT LEAD TO THE SORTS OF THINGS. WITH MICHAEL BROWN'S FAMILY, THE CLERGY, WITH ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE -- THE END OF -- THE NAACP. THE URBAN LEAGUE. EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, PRIVATE CITIZEN ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATION, CONTINUED THE DISCUSSION, ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS BUT DO SO IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, NOT DESTRUCTIVE.
JESUS CHRIST.
tl;dr
The GJ's role in these officer involved shooting cases is different from the normal GJ case, in that it is investigatory. The logic behind it is that in the case of police officer, because the taking of a life is considered a potential task within his assigned duties, he shouldn't be placed on the same footing as a citizen who kills, who does not have that authority.
I thought some of the witnesses were going to be problematic. One of the problems with witnesses in these cases and police misconduct cases is that because they perceive a wrong has been done, they think it is appropriate, the right thing to do, to guess or assume facts that fit the narrative, then incorporate that into their testimony. I found the allegation that Brown after voicing an intent to surrender with hands raised in surrender was then subsequently shot. Was not there but I struggled to find the specifics of that narrative credible. Overzealous witnesses were a potential problem with this case.
Will we ever know exactly what happened? No. So, we are left with the Grand Jury decision. People like the OP will celebrate this. Rioters will act like idiots who don't care about Brown anyway, will react idiotically. T
he biggest problem will be the many people, particularly Black people, the vast majority who are not criminals, already distrustful of the police will see this as another bitter pill they have to swallow. And, the pill is washed down with the cheers and adulation of people like PA Giants fan. It builds up resentment, hate, and distrust. Things that will eat away at them until the nest time this happens.
Grand Jury has spoken. Regardless of whether one is pleased with that decision, they should be pleased with the fact that we have the system we have. I am. I am also pleased that PA Giant Fan isn't a cop. As a former police boss, if I knew I had a guy like that walking around with gun and a badge - I'd never be able to sleep at night.
Would it be better if Wilson had executed Brown in the middle of the street?
The truth is there are a bunch of apologists for the behavior of pieces of crap in Ferguson and needed to hear that Wilson was a murderer to justify their misguided position.
There should be a sigh of relief to hear the testimony and see the cop did not commit murder. Instead there is continued nonsense to justify the ridiculousness that has occurred.
Quote:
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
All that says is that you can be a judge or a lawyer, see all the facts, and still be ruled by race. It's sad.
Quote:
McCulloch also said, "Officer Wilson had faced charges ranging from first-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter." LINK - ( New Window )
But he never informed the GJ that
Yes he did. He said in his speech they were presented with 5 different indictments.
Quote:
In comment 12001297 montanagiant said:
Quote:
These are not mine but they are fair questions to ask.
1)McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault.
2)Some are questioning why he did not recuse himself due to having a close relationship with this Police dept and his personal past of his police officer father shot dead while in the line of duty
3)McCulloch has a rep for being very active with GJ indictments. In the majority of incidents McCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.
In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute.
4)how is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.
1.) McCulloch said he gave them 5 different indictments to consider.
2.) Any evidence that he's been favorable to police officers in the past?
3.) What did you want him to do? Only give the false stories from those who said Brown had his hands up and was shot running away? Cmon. People want a full investigation and then they are upset because the Grand Jury was given a "mountain of evidence".
4.) The Chief said he didn't know about the robbery when he initially stopped Brown and Johnson. That is exactly in line with everything Wilson has said. He stopped them for walking in the road. He then noticed the cigars and noticed they matched the description, that's when he realized they were probably the ones who robbed the store. He was recorded saying he was out on canfield with two, and i believe he asked for another unit. The rest of his radio traffic did not go through, most likely because his radio channel was changed when Mike Brown was attacking him in the car.
HB, in Wilsons testimony to the GJ he claimed:
"Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street."
That is contrary to the official statements by the Police Dept.
He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield.
Would it be better if Wilson had executed Brown in the middle of the street?
The truth is there are a bunch of apologists for the behavior of pieces of crap in Ferguson and needed to hear that Wilson was a murderer to justify their misguided position.
There should be a sigh of relief to hear the testimony and see the cop did not commit murder. Instead there is continued nonsense to justify the ridiculousness that has occurred.
In addition to celebrating the outcome, you are celebrating Michael Brown's death. You are a shit stain.
FYI: I have been on the scene of several officer involved shootings resulting in citizen deaths, all involved co-workers, some personal friends. Contrary to your reaction, not one of them - not one - celebrated the life they took. It bothered them, every last one of them and it stays with them to this day. There was no high fivin, trash talking, celebrating - they took a life and they wish they didn't have to. They regret it although it was necessary - none of them celebrated it.
All went through the grand jury and had to endure varying levels of protest and negative media coverage. Despite that, they still never said - I'm glad that guy is dead. You run your mouth about stuff you know nothing about and will never have to do.
And don't build pathetic straw men for me. "Would it be better if Officer Wilson had died?" Because I get tired of reading your obnoxious crap- that means I would have preferred to see a cop get killed? What I squeezed out in the toilet bowl this morning contains more information about how to keep police officers safe than will ever reside inside that head of yours.
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
He did try to wait. He tried to stall until backup arrived and he got attacked in his car. He wanted to get out of his car because sitting in your car makes you vulnerable. Once Brown ran, he wanted to keep an eye on him because he literally just assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun...not a good idea to let him just run off.
Here's a story by a Wisconsin man whose son was killed in a questionable incident.
Money quote:
"In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified".
Wisconsin story - ( New Window )
Murphy's Law in action.
And neither do any of you. And if you say you do, tell me how many hours you have spent volunteering or supporting violent felons in prisons because if Brown had not been killed that day, that is what he would be.
Are you guys who bitch at me going to tell me you spend time supporting violent felons in prison that have assaulted police officers and tried to kill them? Tell me how many people in prison for attacking police officers you give a shit about.
In other words some of you are full of shit and trying to support your awful position.
Wonder how many of the arrested are out of state residence and/or were paid.
And I thought Zimmerman should have been convicted as he initiated a confrontation that took a while to come to fruition against someone who clearly had done nothing but at one point confront Zimmerman for stalking him.
The twist is that the folks in Ferguson and their supporters, including actors and celebrities are putting this in a similar basket. Not factoring in that Brown had just committed a violent crime. And that by every recent indication he would do it again. And by corroborating medical information and ballistic tests, he seemed to have attacked the cop at close range.
Don't bring Trayvon Martin into the same sack of shit with Brown--by all indications, at least that day, a piece of horseshit, who confronted a cop and seemingly attacked him leading directly to his death.
Trayvon Martin, before his death, went to the store to get himself and his sister snacks and defended himself against someone who he probably felt was going to hurt/rob him.
Michael Brown was a big, piece of shit who just committed a crime and attacked a cop and was shot dead. Please stop comparing the cases like they are related in any fucking way, shape or form?
Once again, 20 years after the OJ case, the country is racially divided because of a case like this and let's be frank? because we are a country with a HUGE racist history and influence. With police forces that way too often abuse their authority and are in it for the wrong reasons.
I don't have the answers. Maybe time?
And if PA GIants agrees with me, I promise to shower with an SOS pad.
Quote:
Quote:
Last night, the National Bar Association, "the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges," issued a statement calling for Federal Charges to be brought against Officer Wilson.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.....
All that says is that you can be a judge or a lawyer, see all the facts, and still be ruled by race. It's sad.
I think it is going to add to the problems down there. It will fuel the protests which is really stupid on the Bars part
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
Inner City, poor America has decades old problems that compound every generation that is lost.
My suburbanites speak out of their hat having no knowledge of what inner city America is about. It was not a couple of bad apples looting, it was more then that. Mindset differs then those who live in a comfortable setting, sense of right and wrong is way different.
OTOH, most people aren't in to drawing distinctions. In both cases an unarmed black youth was killed. In neither case were any of us eyewitnesses so we can't really know what went down. Either side of each story could be true. Maybe Trayvon went off and would have beaten Z to death. Or maybe Wilson lost it and said fuck it, I'm killing this dude. I don't know.
The main problem is you can't use any one case to prove anything but without a specific case too many people don't take the issues involved seriously so there's great temptation to use one case as a catalyst for change. Can't blame folks too much for doing this because the underlying issues are real and too many people just blithely dismiss them.
Quote:
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Why should he go to trial simply to satisfy people when he knew he had no case? Why would he waste millions of tax payer dollars just to have an aquital then have the subsequent riots anyway after wasting tax payer money.
Some of the people here are basing their views on the lies that were made at the time of the shooting and compounded by lack of knowledge of the use of firearms in self defense(i.e., why didn't Wilson shoot him in the legs, why did he shoot so many times; why didn't he know how many rounds he fired). Grasping at straws.
Then there were the lies about Brown surrendering with his hands in the air - disproved by the 3 forensic pathologists, one who was hired by the Browns.
Simply put, DAs do not bring people to trial to satisfy the multitudes.
In addition, a special note goes to PA, who continues to act as if the limited amount of information that leaked out of the Grand Jury room was sufficient upon which to determine guilt or innocence. PA, you have earned the disgust, dislike and antipathy of a very large number of people here, in a way that will never recede. The fact that this makes you proud is disturbing, and not at all impressive. The fact that it include people who would otherwise tend to agree with you is worse.
And as for this:
That is thousands of light years from from right. The only outcome that would have avoided rioting was for a fairly handled grand jury to hand this off to a regularly jury to determine guilt or innocence, based upon evidence that all of the world could see. The DA probably did Wilson no favor, especially if he was innocent. The stigma would have been ameliorated to a much larger degree if a jury viewing public evidence, as opposed to a GJ viewing evidence the world never saw, found him innocent.
God, you are plague on the face of BBI. I used to think you were just annoying. I was wrong.
People don't like me? For what? Because I told them they were backing the wrong horse here and I was right? Because I said Brown was a thug and a piece of shit early on once I saw the video? Because I am not afraid to say I don't give a crap about Brown? None of you do. You are just pretending because if you are not, please name the other convicted felons that have tried to kill police officers that you feel sorry for.
I will wait, lets hear the names of those convicts. You are full of crap.
You continue to base your arguments on an incomplete set of facts--those leaked from the GJ. Pathetic and smug is a lousy combination.
manh george : 9:23 pm : link : reply
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting."
Exactly, if it's not making it past the GJ, it's not going to make it in a trial.
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
In a trial, there would have been a prosecutor who was all in representing the people. Who did that here?
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
Love to have that conversation. Saw a lot of the PD in action during my career in the FD. The good and the bad. 73' thu 10'. lots of stories as told through my eyes. Not a subject for BBI.
Others claiming that they are so sad a child was murdered...please. He would have been a convicted felon and no one would give a shit.
The suggestion that an indictment alone would have been sufficient to avoid the rioting is ridiculous.
In a trial, there would have been a prosecutor who was all in representing the people. Who did that here?
I think he knew he had a loser. He couldn't get a case past the GJ the other 4 times he tried. Would it have been better if he just came out and said there is now way I can get this past a GJ? He was in a no win situation IMHO. I give him kudos for doing his job when he knew he would be looked at as a clown by the national media. For those who say he should have asked for a special prosecutor, that's not what he was elected for. While we may not agree with him, he did the job. I at least respect that.
And then the apologists came out...saying "He was just stealing $50 worth of cigars...it was basically shoplifting"....but it wasn't and they got played. They played themselves. It tells a lot about people though...kind of scary.
It appears you are bent on bringing Officer Wilson to trial just to do it. If the DA thought he was guilty of something and there was a likelihood of a conviction he would have filed charges. But in this case, he either did not see a crime or he did not see a possibility of a conviction. In either case he would not waste time or money knowing he would lose.
Sadly, it appears a man lost his life by his own actions after allegedly having committed a felony (aggrevated battery and robbery). Michael Brown attacked a PO in his car and forensic evidence appears to prove he had not surrended, but decided to re-attack a smaller individual.
God, you are plague on the face of BBI. I used to think you were just annoying. I was wrong.
Oh please spare me your sanctimonious BS. There was no case. The DA knew this. The whole GJ thing was to placate the mob, which includes people like you and the media.
There should have just been an internal investigation and that's it.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
Quote:
In comment 12001494 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
Quote:
In comment 12001574 manh george said:
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
It's always been my understanding that the GJ looks at the evidence and decides if it seems fact or fiction which then helps them decide if it's worth going to actual trial.
Deciding on fact or fiction is deciding guilt or innocence.
Quote:
In comment 12001526 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12001494 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
"He clarified that by saying the call wasn't for him. He heard the call come over the radio, but he only heard part of it. When he first contacted them, he only contacted them because they were walking on the yellow line in the middle of the road. When he drove past them, he saw the cigars and realized they matched the description. He immediately called for another car after telling them he was out with two on Canfield."
Yep. he was on a medical call in the area. When the child was taken by the ambulance, he cleared the scene. He encountered the two impeding traffic walking down the yellow line and had to block traffic. That's when he noticed they fit the description and called for backup.
If they weren't walking down the middle of the road f&&n with traffic.
Story nevers happens.
ctc, All i can say is that the Police dept itself and its Chief claimed he had zero knowledge of the robbery. That contradicts what Wilson claimed.
It could be a simple misunderstanding by the Dept and the chief, but these are the kind of aspects that will cause the demand for a trial
He probably didn't know about the robbery. But he sure as hell got the Be On The Lookout with a description. Why is that hard to comprehend. Especially in a small town like Ferguson. Why he recognized the description which was clothing.
Wilsons statement:
Quote:
Wilson told the unnamed detective questioning him that shortly after getting a call about a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market, he drove past two black males walking down the middle of the street.
I comprehend it fine. You don't seem to comprehend the FACT that his own dept stated unequivocally that he had received NO call's regarding the robbery, that a different officer was handling that robbery
Your getting testy over the fact that this is an inconsistency that McCullogh failed to address, or point out to the GJ and is catching shit for it.
You can sit there and assume all you want about the radio calls but this is what his own dept stated. In addition to that is the fact that Wilson claimed in his GJ testimony that "he "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery and called for backup", but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications.
these are two major inconsistencies with his testimony that McCullogh never addressed
You realize that he can still hear calls that go over the radio to other officers...right?
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Quote:
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Because I'd say anyone of any race would have been shot in this scenario. Being black had nothing to do with him getting shot. Trying to take the officers gun, assaulting the officer, being very big and strong, and charging the officer at a full charge is what got him shot.
Quote:
In comment 12001545 TommyWiseau said:
Quote:
from all of this is don't rob stores, don't impede traffic and don't assault a police officer or you may get shot. Oh wait I knew all of this already
I won't pretend Brown was any candidate for sainthood, but let's be honest...
...you can probably do all those things and not be shot most of the time, but your likelihood of being shot increases dramatically the blacker you are.
Do you have anything to back that up?
Do you mean hard evidence? No, it's mostly one of those anecdotally-based statements, similar to confidently (and IMO justifiably) claiming as fact that riots would have been just as bad had the verdict been announced at 9:30 am.
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
Quote:
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
In comment 12001574 manh george said:
Quote:
have been arguing as if this was about whether Wilson was guilty or not. It wasn't. The ONLY question was whether or not there was enough evidence of POSSIBLE guilt to allow this to go to trial. The standard of proof for that is vastly lower, which what, I think, the Bar Association is suggesting.
sphinx said:
Reading through the prosecutor's statement it seems that he held a mock trial where he was the prosecution and the defense. Guilt or innocence was the end game, not probable cause. In his own words, "the duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction". I always thought fact from fiction was the aim of a trial, probable cause the aim of a GJ.
section125 said:
manhgeorge is correct, as far as I know. The problem is if the DA cannot get an indictment, using the lower burden of proof required, how would he get a conviction in a trial with the much Higher burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
I understand people being angry over what seems an unnecessary shooting. But the unnecessary part apparently was built on lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted by themselves or admissions that they really did not see the incident but repeated what they heard) and a deep seated mistrust on the police in similar cases.
Unfortunately this false accusation will now perpetuate the feeling that the police target certain minority groups, which is somewhat true in many areas of the country. But does burning down your home town and neighbors business help your cause? Any positive public sentiment and sympathy is lost to the majority of the country because of these actions.
There are those who, from the very beginning, didn't think the prosecutor wanted an indictment. You say lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted ...), but some were steadfast, and that would seem to be probable cause, something for an adversarial trial to decide.
Quote:
Quote:
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
Deadly Force, in Black and White - ( New Window )
If you commit more violent crimes, the greater the chance of getting killed. 13% of the population represents 37% of the inmate population. Also a disproportionate number.
The article doesn't say the circumstances of the shootings. We have a hard number 21 to 1, only. Were the alleged crimes identical? Did the suspects act the same during arrest?
It would seem that in order to show unequal treatment, the crimes would have to be categorized and compared.
Never the less, it does seem an inordinate number of shootings of African Americans
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your statement. Do you think the whites who came in from out of town wearing Guy Fawkes masks give a rats ass about Michael Brown? Do you think the New Black Panthers care about anything other than he was black? Once the media found an opportunity to fill their 24 hour news cycle the only thing that would have prevented the riots was a 1st degree murder conviction. And even that verdict might have led to some celebratory vandalism. There probably would have been less participation from Ferguson residents, but some nasty shit definitely would have gone down.
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Or maybe, just maybe, black people get thrown in jail for crimes that other races (not just white people, but mostly) are able to get off with other terms and punishments.
Anyway what are you contending?
At "best", its a socioeconomic cycle where black communities stay impoverished through imprisonment/crime/lack of advancement.
At "worst", one could read your statement as saying that black people are just predisposed to committing more crime, which is ridiculous.
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
No, not at all. You really do not know me. Take a look at my wedding photos and you might retract your statement.
My comment was simply about ALL of the stats on the topic and not specifically about black people being 21 times more likely to be shot by cops. You might find additional stats that backup the reasons why that is occurring.
Another unarmed man shot - ( New Window )
1. McCullough has/had no ties whatsoever to the Ferguson Police Department and does not know the officer involved.
2. Many prosecutors have law enforcement ties, that's why a lot of them run for/seek the office.
3. McCullough has gotten indictments/convictions of police officers in the past.
4. He has been the PA for a long time and no one before has challenged his bias or independence or integrity.
5. I hate to say it but as one poster noted, there were going to be riots anyway, whenever or however the verdict was announced.
6. Don't know it has been commented on here or if anyone saw it but shortly after the verdict was announced, Michael Brown's mother, who claimed to be calling for peace, went out and talked about herself and got the crowd all riled up. Next, his stepfather just started screaming "burn the ...bleep...down!"
7. Unfortunately for the City of Ferguson and all of the St. Louis region, nobody is talking to anyone about the real issues they should be talking about. Everyone is screaming and hurling insults at the other side. I hate to say there are sides but there obviously are.
8. The real problem lies with the Governor. Nixon has kissed goodbye any political future he might have had. They had 3 months to prepare for what happened Monday night and blew it. Not near enough National Guard and not deployed properly. Trying to negotiate "terms of engagement" with a headless crowd of protesters was a mistake. Sure there were peaceful protesters who want needed change but you couldn't pick them out from the crowd of looters and rioters.
1)He's the county attorney for St Louis County. Fergurson lies within St Louis County, of course he has ties within that Dept.
2) True but i bet its a very small number that have anywhere close to these kind of ties:
""McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department.""
3)What kind of cases against police has he prosecuted? Also what is the percentage that he prosecuted vs those he choose not to prosecute? The reason why i ask this is i have tried for 2 days to find this info out and i can't come up with anything detailing his record with regards to prosecuting police
4) This is completely wrong. He has had quite a few issues in the past. Starting with his publicity grab of going after Guns and Roses for a concert they held that people got injured at, he has had a few other head scratching moments that illustrate him badly.
He had an issue where he outed a local govt whistle blower:
The only hitch? McCulloch never told the grand jury what he was doing, and he later admitted that Signorino had never issued a threat or committed a crime. No matter: Signorino was forced to resign anyway.
And in 2001 he called a GJ over the shooting deaths of 2 suspects by undercover officers in which he actually got caught lying:
But a subsequent report by the Post-Dispatch revealed that McCulloch had lied. Only three of the 13 detectives who testified said the suspect's car had moved forward. Two of them were the shooters themselves; the third was "a detective who McCulloch later said he considered charging with perjury because his account was so at odds with the facts." According to the grand jury tapes, “four other detectives testified that they never saw the suspect’s car travel toward the officers.” A collision expert working for the Justice Department also determined that the suspect's car had remained in reverse throughout the incident. But McCulloch never brought any of this evidence before the grand jury — and, as a result, the jurors determined that the officers were right to fear for their safety. The case didn't go to trial.
My comment was simply about ALL of the stats on the topic and not specifically about black people being 21 times more likely to be shot by cops. You might find additional stats that backup the reasons why that is occurring.
Great, so its easy for you to laugh dismiss not just one suggestive staff, but a number of suggestive stats regarding the treatment of minorities and blacks in particular within the legal system.
What's the point of finding additional stats if you're just gonna "laugh when you see them" anyway? What's so funny about those stats anyway?
There's obvious disparities in how the legal system treats blacks vs whites. Anyone who is trying to say this isn't true has their head in the sand.
One example:
After all, African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
Quote:
Also, I love the old "I have black friends!" defense.
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
He said something like 80% of homicides, and assaults are on black victims too. SO yes Blacks are committing more violent crime and are also vastly the victims of the same. It is the piece that no one wants to address claiming bias and racism.
There are those things, but the odds and returns for police in arrests have been stacked against blacks because of this. Blacks are committing more violent crime. People are conditioned by this as well. Is it prejudice? Sure. But is it not statistically sound too?
The problem has been poverty, drug laws and how felonys stay on peoples records in employment creating a cycle here. Also a poor family structure and cultural shift due to these same items. Its bad but complaining that it is racism is missing the real picture that no one seems to be trying to address.
Thank you PA Giant Fan. Now, be careful Sonic Youth thinks you may be racist too.
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
Maybe {hopefully} that's not what you meant..
This was a flimsy case all around. It's exactly why people should not form opinions until the real, solid evidence is disclosed.
Everyone has heard that saying, "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?" Well this was less than a ham sandwich.
No, what I really love is when you and others LOOK for racism in people when it does not exist. You simply do not know me...period. You still have not come up with an alternative explanation for those statistics. To you, there must be only one answer.
I am willing to admit that in some municipalities (ie maybe Ferguson) the cops are out of control and possibly helping to support those statistics. BUT again...those are nationwide stats, so what are you saying about the police?
Did you miss my FIRST post to you? Where I clearly stated by being imprisoned impoverished communities end up committing more crimes and ending up back in jail? that was my FIRST post to you. That's what I'd consider part of an explanation.
The other part is inequities of the judicial system and law enforcement system, which is slanted against blacks, both anecdotally and statistically.
But yeah, this isn't about you being racist, it's about you ignoring the truth.
Quote:
In comment 12001934 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12001893 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
Anyway what are you contending?
I am contending that the crimes (violent crimes that lead to the use of deadly force) are being committed. Someone has reported a crime right? Are those crimes just being falsely reported? Wrong description of the perp? I am asking YOU or anyone else to somehow explain it other than just showing a statistic because the statistic in itself IMPLIES that the police are just arresting or shooting black people at will. Since the stats are nationwide, then it also implies that ALL of the police are doing this and not just a few bad apples.
If you're asking me to explain it beyond the statistic, I truly believe that black people are thrown in jail for longer times for the same crimes, receive less leniency from the law, and are in a de-facto segregation/imprisonment loop that hurts them socioeconomically and just restarts the cycle.
I think the justice system can be slanted against them.
It's been documents that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rates, and subsequently well documented that blacks make up a much higher % of the drug prison sentence population.
Whatever, I'm going to see myself out of this thread. But I find it shocking for people to imply in 2014 that there isn't a disparity in the legal system. People who cannot even acknowledge this are part of the problem in getting it fixed.
Maybe {hopefully} that's not what you meant..
Thank you for your explanation. Yes, there may be truth to the fact that african americans may get put away for the same crime vs white americans. It could also be due to many factors including 1. lack of a quality defense attorney 2. prior offenses 3. etc
In the end, this all boils down to this... Don't commit the crime. Yes, socioeconomic issues do exist and are a factor. BUT, they are part of the explanation and should not be used as an excuse (reason to say it is ok to commit the crime).
TOTALLY different circumstances, as is made clear in the article. You have a rookie policeman in tears, at the scene, admitting the horrible mistake.
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
I didn't see that. Link?
Quote:
Another unarmed man is shot. Difference is no media coverage, no riots, no fanning the flames... Another unarmed man shot - ( New Window )
TOTALLY different circumstances, as is made clear in the article. You have a rookie policeman in tears, at the scene, admitting the horrible mistake.
Plus the deceased didn't lay out in the middle of the street for 4+ hours.
What's interesting is that so many of the protesters and demonstrators went after not only the police officers, but they went after community businesses themselves. And one captain basically said – you know, this is not the way you create jobs by destroying the dreams of small business owners. There's a lot of conflict there from all sides.
CUOMO: I think that assumes a deliberateness that isn't in place once you're blinded with rage. I think – you know, violence doesn't have a conscience – it's often been said. And in a community like this, I think you destroy what you see. It's wrong. It's illegal. It stands in stark contrast to what this outrage is supposed to be about – which was a failure of justice. You know, creating more injustice does not make that any better.
But, you know – look, the grand jury itself is a dinosaur, okay? There is no need for one. A prosecutor can have an open hearing. A prosecutor can make its own process. He or she can just bring charges. In fact, the prosecutor could still bring charges even after the grand jury.
One of the major complaints from sober minds here in Ferguson was that – listen, if this prosecutor wanted to bring a case, he would just have brought it himself – that this was punting. You keep hearing the term 'punting' – to put this on a grand jury.
Look, whatever the feelings are about the process, the process is now over, and what this community have to – has to deal with, in a very real and ongoing way, will be how it deals with the outcome of this situation.
FEYERICK: Yeah – no question. You said five – you said the grand jury was unanimous – and Darren Wilson was facing five possible charges – and they decided not to indict him on any of them. Thanks, Chris.
When you say, All the evidence, it's simply not true. As the prosecutor said, "THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY." There was varying testimony, ergo probable cause.
Based on his actions in the Robbery and walking down the middle of the street he was either dusted or high.
Based on his actions in the Robbery and walking down the middle of the street he was either dusted or high.
Are you referring to a drug test? They found some weed in his system, that's it, IIRC.
Quote:
There are those who, from the very beginning, didn't think the prosecutor wanted an indictment. You say lying "witnesses" (many subsequently refuted ...), but some were steadfast, and that would seem to be probable cause, something for an adversarial trial to decide.
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
That is the beauty of this. They got to see everything. Not just the bits and pieces that made its way into the media.
This "social justice" argument is not a strong one. People seem to be insinuating there is nothing wrong with going forward with an indictment when the evidence suggests that the officer was being truthful.
The problem people are having is that the first "witnesses" the media trotted out to the public were all lying. Their testimony was impeached in the GJ.
Quote:
In comment 12001827 section125 said:
These stats always make me laugh. Stats that show that african americans are arrested more, or jailed more, or are shot more, or whatever vs whites. As if the crimes are not being commited and they are just thrown in jail for fun. OR that whites are committing all kinds of similar crimes and not only are they not put in jail, but they are given jobs and a new car.
Also, it's pretty disturbing that you so easily laugh/dismiss at comment about black people being 21 more times likely to get shot at by the cops.
It's pretty obvious to see your true colors.
I would appreciate next time that you remove me from the quote, when what you are quoting is not what I said.
Thanks
That's a large part of the problem, IMO. Wilson being allowed to testify for 4 hours without a legitimate cross examination.
Here you have a situation where a part of the population feels it has been treated unlawfully for years. Its a very delicate situation that if handled properly it would go a long way towards soothing tensions. Instead this guy decides to do a questionable GJ proceeding despite the fact that you have a petition with over 70K signatures, the NAACP, the ACLU on it asking you to be recuse yourself or call a special prosecutor to convene the GJ. Instead this guy goes forward with it, handles it in a way very different from any other GJ he has had in the past, and you end up with a ton of questions and doubt instead of concrete answers. Meanwhile you have a cop whose whole life is hanging in the balance. A legitimately handled GJ would have gone a long way towards him getting through this situation and possibly not having the level of frustration we see now.
This does not mean the GJ is wrong, it very well could be correct that this was a 100% legit shooting, but because there has been so much doubt about McCulloch's impartiality it did nothing to help Wilson in the long ruin, and may have actually rallied more people to the other side
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
You are *assuming* ALL testimony as to Brown's movements when shot were impeached.
Hey they can say whatever they want and people will believe them. Facts be damned!
His choice.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
Other witnesses, not interviewed by the media, had a different story and their story fit the forensic evidence ie was corroborated.
I repeat, from the mouth of the prosecutor ...
"THERE ARE VARIOUS WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENT AFTER HE STOPPED AND TURNED BACK TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON. SEVERAL WITNESSES SAID MR. BROWN NEVER MOVED TOWARDS OFFICER WILSON WHEN HE WAS SHOT. MOST SAID THE SHOTS WERE FIRED AS HE MOVED TOWARDS WILSON. MR. BROWN'S MOVEMENTS WERE DESCRIBED AS WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE. THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY."
Note, "WALKING, MOVING FAST, STUMBLING OR FULL CHARGE". There is a huge difference between stumbling and full charge. That is the crux of the matter.
When one wonders why there is a animosity between some Blacks and police, this is one thing to look at..
The NATIONAL media is giving it little attention, but that is not the case in the NYC area. It's still getting a lot of attention in both print and on TV. And Sharpton has been on the scene, which is a bad omen. I think everyone is waiting to see what the NYPD and the DA do. There is nearly unanimous agreement that a) This was not a justified shooting but that b) There was no premeditation or criminal intent. Instead, a horrible tragedy.
Quote:
Quote:
In comment 12001786 section125 said:
The problem with the steadfast was the number of witnesses that when confronted admitted they did not see or were not present. I don't have the numbers that changed their testimony and I don't know how many were steadfast, but maybe a jury (I would be) will be skeptical when a number of witnesses either change their testimony or admit they were not present, especially when the changing testimony is only from one side. The jury will also be skeptical when the forensic evidence proves that what one set of witnesses says happened, couldn't have happened.
You're forgetting this wasn't a trial. Being skeptical was not the GJ's purpose. That would be the purpose of an adversarial trial. That there was forthright testimony on both "sides" indicates the need for a trial.
No I'm not forgetting it was a GJ. What you are forgetting is that if GJ does not find enough evidence of a crime, they don't indict. If they can't get an indictment, there isn't enough to convict. Why go to step B if you can't get through step A?
But I do understand what you are saying. I just do not agree that they should have an indictment because witnesses disagree when physical evidence supports one set of witnesses only. I will also admit I did not see the evidence, just what I read.
But the point i am trying to make is that, like i said before, people are wondering why there is a distrust between minority neighborhoods and police, example number one. Or the many Blacks that have been freed this year because of that one cop who tainted hundreds of cases and other cases that Blacks were charged without reliable evidence..
This brown case is not just some issue win a vacuum and it's easy for others outside these neighborhoods to just wipe it awawy with "because of drugs, single parenting and violence"..This issue goes further back where people don't want to go to find it's roots..
I do believe that was McCollough being a bit snarky!
Quote:
would the cop still testify?
His choice.
All of his testimony in the GJ proceedings could be entered as evidence.
So Wilson speaking to the GJ without having a lawyer present could have been damaging to him in that regard.
Quote:
THE VARYING DESCRIPTIONS WERE SOMETIMES PROVIDED BY THE SAME WITNESSES IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY.
I do believe that was McCollough being a bit snarky!
Caps because I did a copy and paste from the transcript provided by CSPAN. I was too lazy to retype.
"Varying descriptions" does not, in itself, indicate 'stumbling' or 'charging'. Was Wilson being attacked or was Brown falling down because of the gun shots that already hit him?
On top of that, they have the shell casings from the weapon that was discharged. Plus the angle of the wounds. There is a lot of information that the GJ had besides testimony. That is why I said certain witnesses were more believable than others.
Here are all the docs released by the prosecutor - ( New Window )
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
I wasn't there but it Sounds like "Fight" kicked in when he was asked to move from the middle of the road.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Was this person on the scene or was this a direct account from Wilson?
I'm not sure that account is any more or less verifiable regardless of your feelings it's legit. Not saying it isn't but context of where or from whom your source says it came from.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
Anyway, the attached link is something that may help those who are fearful of getting arrested by the police.
How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police - ( New Window )
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Funny, but I saw the forensic pathologist decribing the wounds and he did not mention leg wound - three in the hand and arm and three head and chest. maybe he just chose to ignore the leg wound in his interview.
Quote:
Are white, middle aged laker fans residing in MO. Those fuckers are always looking to riot. Though I could be wrong.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
Anyway, the attached link is something that may help those who are fearful of getting arrested by the police. How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police - ( New Window )
Yeah. It's not like you have a history of making not-thinly-veiled racist remarks in the past and then laughing about it...or anything.
Link - ( New Window )
Beats the hell out of just about anything else out there.
Excellent post. One paragraph identifies him as a particularly thoughtful person ....
"Do you have anything to back that up?" - halfback20
Witness #10 - ( New Window )
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
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.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.
There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.
But McCulloch chose a different path.
Link - ( New Window )
In this NY Daily News article, a defense attorney explains clearly in several examples how he believes the DA steered the GJ NOT to indict. The attorney focuses on 6 points, but this is my favorite:
Some witnesses testified that Brown was shot in the back while running away. Others say he was standing still. Some backed Wilson’s account that Brown was charging him. One testified he saw Brown on his knees with his hands up, and was ridiculed by prosecutors.
“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, OK,” the prosecutor said.
Kuby said that “wildly improper commentary encapsulates what the prosecutors were doing. Steering the grand jury not to indict.”
There's lot's more int here, of course. It all goes back to my main point, though. The DA decided not to push for an indicment, as in most GJ situations, but to just sorta stay out of the way, with some nudges in Wilson's favor here and there.
In an actual trial, the prosecutor would be fiercely attacking discrepancies in the story. And, if Wilson decided to testify, it wouldn't be 4 yours or stream of consciousness ending with
Usually, a potential defendant doesn't testify in a GJ, as is his right, in part because he fears getting ripped to shreds by a DA who will contradict him and in part because he can use his words against him at trial.
No such risk here.
Link - ( New Window )
As far as the first part is concerned, you are relying on the same presentation of the evidence as the GJ, from a DA who demonstrably didn't want to indict. Why should we be impressed? Read and the refute the Daily News analysis I linked, and then we can have a reasonable discussion. If not, not.
FWIW, I read the NYDN article and thought that the lawyer who wrote it was LOOKING for an indictment. I thought he tilted some items and cherry picked some evidence and ignored others in order to reach his POV. Same with parts of the Progress report.
Very hard to start with a neutral starting point and not look for the evidence that support "your" point of view.
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
Newsweek - ( New Window )
I disagree on the first part, especially if the parents raised enough awareness. Agree on the second part. But he's not and if you don't know why it's a big deal, you don't understand your country.
"Robert P. McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, a post he has held since 1991. A Democrat, he has historically had bipartisan support as a popular prosecutor and has won re-election in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, often unopposed but by wide margins when he has had an opponent.[1]"
The majority of those that matter, his constituents, either like the job he is doing or just don't care. We'll see what happens in 2018 if he runs. I bet odds are he wins re-election no matter what the rest of the country thinks.
The prosecutor can say what he or she wants, he or she can stand up and demand that the grand jury indict and the grand jury can ignore everything the prosecutor says or does and do what they want. They are told this up front in their instructions.
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”"
Since Scalia is cited above, I wonder what he would have to say in the third circumstance. I tend to think he did not have this in mind when he made the statements above.
I guess I do have a problem when a prosecutor is pretty much forced to go to a grand jury under public pressure under what he feels is u untrue or underwhelming evidence and must keep his mouth shut even if he feels the individual is being railroaded. I am thinking of not only police officers but unpopular figures of the day like a communist in the 50s.
Of course I admit I am not a lawyer and largely ignorant of our criminal justice system.
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
Newsweek - ( New Window )
That article was written with total sympathy towards the "unarmed" suspects who used their car as a weapon.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
*But*........
The a grand jury saw *everything*. Had an opportunity to view the case dispassionately, to evaluate evidence or observations, to ask questions to discuss, debate and come to a consensus. They saw the whole picture and decided to no bill.
If you think about the evidence you have Brown acting like a violent thug 15 minutes prior robbing a store and assaulting a clerk, then assaulting the cop through the police car window (the counter point was Wilson was trying to pull a 300lb violent man through his car window...which means you are an idiot if you believe that), then running off and turning around....
But folks want to believe that Wilson murdered some innocent kid?
Logic and reasoning told you the very mostly likely scenario here but folks refused to see things the way they were....Same reason people don't believe or accept that blacks commit more violent crime and that is one of the main reasons the criminal justice system seems slanted against them....These are statistics, undeniable...
Now is it the color of the skin that makes this occur? Of course not, we are all the same but the no one wants to address the real causes for these statistics...instead we try to unfairly make WIlson the poster child for what the issues really are.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
.
Fuck off troll.
Honestly, mods, how is this shitstain allowed to keep posting stuff like this. He's peppered this thread with comments like this.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
as if I need to make things up...again believe what you want
GJ had almost 100 pages of testimony from Wilson.
Did they feel the need to call him in person?
One thing I did learn from listening to the pundits is that how GJ's are conducted vary state to state. What is common procedure in one state may not be in another and visa versa.
Link - ( New Window )
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
That law was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1985. Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deady force:
previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the "new" law and the "old" law" in reference to the use of deadly force?
The "old" law said a police officer could use deadly force merely to to prevent the escape from custody. SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was to prevent the escape from custody.
Most fascinating is that when the underlying problem with local law enforcement is mistrust, the prosecutor felt that the solution was to untertake this charade, and then say "trust us."
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
My comments were based in this:
"Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
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."
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week."
Link - ( New Window )
Thanks all.
Quote:
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
they do not have a right. There are circumstances under which they may testify.
And, I am aware of many cases in which officers have testified, all officer involved shootings. Barring evidence of clear, intentional misconduct - why wouldn't you let the officer testify? In that case it would make sense to just charge him.
Cherrypicking SCOTUSblog ...
"If you are the kind of person who thinks the police get too much deference for dubious uses of force, while other criminal defendants are too often treated as guilty until proven innocent, you certainly might raise an eyebrow at the likely truth that the prosecutor here gave Wilson a lot more process than the rules require – and than the average defendant seems to get. (In fact, reviewing the end of the last volume of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor’s discussion appears almost impartial to a fault – in the literal sense.) But one should think hard about whether that means the rules should change, and everyone should receive more and better legal process, or whether the prosecution instead should have thrown the book at Wilson just because it could. At a minimum, though, we should not get the wrong idea about the grand jury process we have: It protected Wilson because the prosecutor was willing to let it; nothing requires any similar caution in other cases. So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week." Link - ( New Window )
Go back to the Trayvon fiasco. Local authorities don't arrest Zimmerman right away. State by passes a GJ and appoints a special prosecutor. A made for tv trial is put on. Here on BBI, a running thread as the case went on was just like a game day thread. Hell, stand your ground was put on trial and it was never alleged as a defense by any anyone.
Ended up being the locals were correct.
I think that case played a big part in sending this to a GJ.
He knew he didn't have a case. If he didn't send it to a GJ, the results would be the same.
re: Wilson - gj does not bother me as, in some jurisdictions, this is a common way of reviewing officer involved shootings.
re: the outcome - not so sure I buy Wilson's account of what transpired as 100% accurate. but, that does not necessarily make it a murder, or even a crime. but, gj has spoken and that's that.
more bothered, but not surprised, by the reaction of a lot of white people but it is the typical reaction after events like this and Trayvon etc. and typically follows one of three general themes -
1) He was a thug who had it coming
2) The person may not have been a thug but the reaction was understandable because he looked like people who are thugs
3) maybe it should not have happened or regardless of whether it should have happened, impact is deflected by pointing to high levels of black on black crime.
bothered or not - that's the country we live in. far from a post-racial society. with suspicion, distrust, and dislike/hate lying right underneath the surface - ready to ooze out due to events like this.
Had to get that off my chest.
Justice Scalia said it.
Joe Scarborough - ( New Window )
Quote:
to testify before the grand jury but that is wrong...while it is usually the case that potential defendants do not testify because they would be under oath, their attorney could not be present in the grand jury room and their statements are often used against them at trial (if they are indicted), it is every person's right to testify before the grand jury if they so desire...they cannot be "called" to testify or compelled to testify...
Justice Scalia said it.
Scalia is saying that it is rare for a suspect to appear and testify willingly. It is rare for the very reasons Mike stated.
However, none of that should lead anyone to conclude that the prosecuting attorney " threw the match" which is how I construed what several were suggesting on this thread.
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case."
Link - ( New Window )
In fact, it is standard operating procedure to permit a potential target to testify in the grand jury if he wishes to do so."
Link - ( New Window )
"The Defendant does however have the right to testify on his own behalf and to offer witnesses (the jurors may vote on whether they want to hear from the defense witnesses). It is rare for a defendant to testify as his attorney does not conduct the questioning and there is no judge to rule on objections. But there are the rare occasions in which a defendant testifies before the Grand Jury. It is a strategic decision that can make or break a case." Link - ( New Window )
Mike, #1 that's NY, not Missouri. #2, Your quote says "defendant" because in the scenario described in your link the guy had already been charged with the crime. That shoe doesn't fit Darren Wilson since he was not charged.
There are deep holes in our criminal justice system, and the holes tend to swallow up young blacks--such as in coke vs. crack cases. I care about that, a lot.
An informative article from the WSJ ...
Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted in Federal Stats - ( New Window )
He never presented a case, He never did his job which is to "Prosecute"
This article I read on Vice really seemed to align with my concerns.
It tells the story of 2 men, both white, who were beaten by off duty police officers. The uniformed police who came to the seen basically escorted the assaulters away and told the victims to deal with it. They then go into the story of how they've been trying to fight to hold their attackers accountable.
Due to my reputation as a cop hater, I want to go ahead and point out 2 major things that sat wrong with me in the article first:
1) I find it hard to believe their claims of PTSD from getting beaten up
2) They don't go into enough depth of exactly how the encounter with the off duty cops started.
However, this article does show a lot of the institutional inertia and uphill battle anyone who looks to file a serious complaint, or really any complaint, against law enforcement typically faces.
They have a video of the assault, the financial resources to hire a well respected law firm, and PR connections to draw media attention, but were still unable to get their attackers identified or get any punitive measures placed on the attackers or the police who let them go.
Interesting article, and might make people realize how little recourse poor minorities have when trying to fight against alleged potential police brutality.
Vice: City of Silence - ( New Window )
Well that is not exactly correct. He decided to go the GJ route only after the media attention to the story. At that point as the prosecuting attorney his job is to present and explain the evidence. He dumped everything on them and did no explaining to them, even to the point where he never explained the different charges that could be handed down. He also gave to the Jurors prior to Wilson testifying, an outdated statue claiming that a fleeing suspect may be shot. That statue was struck down in 1985 statue. They waited 2 months to correct that claim and corrected it only 2 days prior to the verdict. So you have 2 months of the jury looking at all the evidence with the idea that afleeing suspect is a justified shooting
He did such a biased job that the National Bar Association is demanding Federal Charges against Wilson wants his head
The GJ was used to cover his ass and it was a complete sham
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
Quote:
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
Quote:
What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
Quote:
Quote:
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
Its a silly assumption ctc
Quote:
In comment 12015978 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Quote:
National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson.
National Bar Association is the oldest african american bar association in the US.
No bias there.
What do the other Bar associations have to say?
So because they are black there is an automatic bias? Does that apply to white people supporting Wilson?
I mean the grand jury was made up of predominantly white people (9 of the 12), did they have an assumed bias?
Its a silly assumption ctc
No it's not silly. People are biased. I hate to break that to you. I don't think the police union will be asking Holder to press charges. I expect the opposite. And yes that applies to white people who are supporting him based on skin color, not the fact presented to the grand jury.
The grand jury, by law, looks at the sworn testimony and evidence presented to them. By law, the grand jury proceedings are secret as is the vote to issue a indictment or not. That the GI stayed over a month past their service time and deliberated so long leads me to believe they took their duty seriously. IMHO
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
Wilson has no skills that would make him attractive or useful to a TV audience, except maybe on a hunting or military channel.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
And for Wilson, if he was innocent the result would have been the same even if the DA/ADA had assumed he was guilty. If it had gone to a jury trial and he had been acquitted the same shit would have gone down (just a year or so later), his life would still be in danger and he still would have had to resign from the Ferguson PD with no hope for a job in law enforcement in the future.
If, on the other hand, he was gulty, the friends and family of Michael Brown are coming out of this with no satisfaction regarding punishment of the killer.
It's pretty lose-lose.
Again, none of that would have changed if he went on trial. He left his job because of threats. Do you think if he was indicted that would be different?
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
With the citizens of Ferguson you can make the argument, though I disagree. But do you think the white anarchists with their Guy Fawkes masks and the New Black Panthers would give a rat's ass about a trial if the verdict didn't come out the way they wanted? I'm amazed you'd believe that.
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
If, by contrast, this were perceived as a true adversarial process, in full public view, and after such a process, a jury found him innocent, then a large proportion of the doubts would most likely have receded.
buford, you have my ongoing, perpetual, infinite permission to never comment on my posts. I will repeat this statement in all future threads on the off chance that you might stop at some point.
Because everyone believed OJ was innocent as soon as all the facts came out, you know, because a jury acquitted him. Come on. If he was convicted one side would cry miscarriage of justice, if he was acquitted the other would cry the same.
That who narrative changed once the Furhman tapes came to light..
Quote:
In comment 12016033 sphinx said:
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, a law enforcement officer is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only:
(1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he or she reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Will never know, will we.
That's the way the GJ process works. Just how did the vote come down? We'll never know. As the way it should be.
You want public floggings and hangings, just come out and say it.
I believe that a GJ, who IMHO, appears to have taken their job seriously, came to the decision they saw fit by our legal system. They were the only ones charged with putting their biases aside and deciding on the sworn evidence only.
If you can't do that, I hope you are never chosen for a jury.
Even though it is flawed, it is the fairest in the world.
You either go with that or don't.
Quote:
In comment 12016033 sphinx said:
Quote: In comment 12015808 Dunedin81 said: Quote:What charges if any are appropriate. He used a grand jury to aid in that decision.
***************************************
At what point in time did McCulloch make a decision aided by the GJ? Did he announce one? Since he lied to the GJ about the most important element of the case, deadly force, I have to believe his decision was made before he announced there would be a GJ and invited Wilson to testify.
***************************************
I'm sure he knew what he thought the evidence did or did not support, but grand jury testimony is sworn, comparable to initial unsworn statements and interviews and it allows evidence to be vetted by laypeople. You are being intentionally obtuse.
From the transcripts ...
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from the same MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deadly force:
... previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? Can any rational person believe this long time prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, was not aware of a 1985 SCOTUS decision? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the laws handed out in reference to the use of deadly force?
SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was in relation to the law originally handed out. I may be obtuse but I cannot believe McCulloch didn't intentionally hand out a copy of a law about the police use of deadly force to the GJ that was not in effect. That's what the entire proceeding was all about. And he lied to them.
To reiterate, you are being obtuse. He (and FWIW he wasn't the prosecutor presenting much of this, or so it seems) is diabolical enough to intentionally misstate the law to the grand jury, risking professional censure for doing so intentionally, and then dumb enough to release everything he's got to the public? Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught. And he's going to do that out of some sort of innate love of the police? I'm pretty sure he approached that grand jury expecting and hoping they wouldn't return an indictment, but everything you're accusing him of need not follow.
The GJ is the only one charged with looking at only the sworn evidence and coming to decision whether to indict or not. Seems to me, with extending their duty and countless hours of deliberations after all the evidence was presented, they took their job seriously.
GJ deliberations and votes are secret for a good reason. How do you know that the four african americans didn't vote not to indict? Or are you admitting bias?
The GJ process is secret for a reason.
Just admit you wanted a made for tv dog and pony show.
Yeah, so that's not true. Lawyers misstate the law all the time, but it is often/usually totally intentional. It's essentially consequence free. Lawyers dont lose their license over telling the just that the law is A when it is really B; lawyers lose their license for committing felonies and for mishandling client funds.
God, how my job would be different if my opposing counsel werent full of shit.
Quote:
Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught.
Yeah, so that's not true. Lawyers misstate the law all the time, but it is often/usually totally intentional. It's essentially consequence free. Lawyers dont lose their license over telling the just that the law is A when it is really B; lawyers lose their license for committing felonies and for mishandling client funds.
God, how my job would be different if my opposing counsel werent full of shit.
I've run into to attorneys of questionable ethics, but the question that usually comes to mind when dealing with someone else's grasp of the law is "how the fuck did he/she graduate from law school AND pass the fucking bar?" I've made plenty of mistakes, but I've encountered attorneys with decades of experience who don't grasp the basics of evidence law, hearsay and how objections are supposed to work.
Quote:
EXCEPT with this GJ? Come on, that is having your cake and eating it on your part with that claim!
Will never know, will we.
That's the way the GJ process works. Just how did the vote come down? We'll never know. As the way it should be.
You want public floggings and hangings, just come out and say it.
I believe that a GJ, who IMHO, appears to have taken their job seriously, came to the decision they saw fit by our legal system. They were the only ones charged with putting their biases aside and deciding on the sworn evidence only.
If you can't do that, I hope you are never chosen for a jury.
Even though it is flawed, it is the fairest in the world.
You either go with that or don't.
Ok so now your going to start flailing around with a bunch of bluster over me supposedly "wanting public hangings" because i happened to point out the hypocrisy of your claim that black lawyers are biased, but white people are not, because of some magic dust the GJ sprinkled on them.
You know you were wrong with the generalization over the NBA,and the rational with regards to white jurors, so why do this nonsense dance to hide that? Its a disingenuous way to have a discussion
You need to pass that information to the Asst Prosecutor. She was obviously confused when she told the GJ ...
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
She didn't want to get them confused.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
That poor guy did his job and he is being screwed for it and Brown was a criminal about to spend 5-15 years in jail and people cry for him.....and this is ultimately the problem.
And you're being naive. He wasn't in the court room but thinking he didn't OK everything that was presented to the GJ is extreme nativity. I'm far from a conspiracy guy but just the timing of the two announcements is suspect. And again, how in hell could he not know?
Quote:
People have biases.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
Because it's something that doesn't reflect the police in a positive light. CTC constantly kowtows to one side without putting much thought into the other side.
Quote:
To reiterate, you are being obtuse. He (and FWIW he wasn't the prosecutor presenting much of this, or so it seems) is diabolical enough to intentionally misstate the law to the grand jury, risking professional censure for doing so intentionally, and then dumb enough to release everything he's got to the public? Lawyers misstate the law ALL THE TIME in court, and the vast majority of the time they're not doing so intentionally because the consequences (loss of license among them) are very severe if they're caught. And he's going to do that out of some sort of innate love of the police? I'm pretty sure he approached that grand jury expecting and hoping they wouldn't return an indictment, but everything you're accusing him of need not follow.
And you're being naive. He wasn't in the court room but thinking he didn't OK everything that was presented to the GJ is extreme nativity. I'm far from a conspiracy guy but just the timing of the two announcements is suspect. And again, how in hell could he not know?
His jurisdiction includes several hundred thousand people, and he likely has a couple dozen underlings. I'm sure he makes charging decisions on the major cases and does the bulk of the PR heavy lifting, but at that level the position is as much a managerial one as that of a courtroom lawyer.
TITLE VI COUNTY, TOWNSHIP AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION GOVERNMENT
Chapter 56 Circuit and Prosecuting Attorneys and County Counselors
Section 56.110 If interested in case, court to appoint substitute.
Universal Citation: MO Rev Stat § 56.110 (2012)
If interested in case, court to appoint substitute.
56.110. If the prosecuting attorney and assistant prosecuting attorney be interested or shall have been employed as counsel in any case where such employment is inconsistent with the duties of his office, or shall be related to the defendant in any criminal prosecution, either by blood or by marriage, the court having criminal jurisdiction may appoint some other attorney to prosecute or defend the cause.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12016806 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
People have biases.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
Because it's something that doesn't reflect the police in a positive light. CTC constantly kowtows to one side without putting much thought into the other side.
No, I kowtow to the middle. Something very few people on this board do.
I lean right.
I belive 12 people can go into a GJ and actually put their biases aside and reach a decision ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Apparently you don't think people can cast aside their biases and do the task before them.
I guess I have a lot more faith in humanity than most on here.
My original capstone was going to be on the difficulty on recruiting qualified minorities into the fire service. Majority, actually all, of the data was on police recruitment. We had a lot of good discussion on this board pre login on the subject. I put research up for feed back on this board and I received so much great feedback from a lot of posters.
Police in a positive light. That's funny. What does that mean?
Should we get rid of the police? Are they needed? Are there good and bad police? Are they all the same?
What is this good light bad light thing?
Because we make laws that we wish to be enforced we have police who do that. Congresses only edict is to enact laws.
I believe that 99% of cops, just like in any career, are good people who care about how they do their jobs.
You need to think how much you don't look at the the other side before you call the kettle a teapot.
Quote:
In comment 12016812 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12016806 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
People have biases.
You truly believe that the NAACP, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all agree?
You and I live in 2 different worlds I guess.
Absolutely they do, but how is that an excuse for the NBA to want a federal indictment, but then it has no bearing on the GJ's decision?
Your the one who decided to use that as a rational to minimize the NBA statement. If your going to apply it to one set, why would it not apply to the other?
Because it's something that doesn't reflect the police in a positive light. CTC constantly kowtows to one side without putting much thought into the other side.
No, I kowtow to the middle. Something very few people on this board do.
I lean right.
I belive 12 people can go into a GJ and actually put their biases aside and reach a decision ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Apparently you don't think people can cast aside their biases and do the task before them.
I guess I have a lot more faith in humanity than most on here.
My original capstone was going to be on the difficulty on recruiting qualified minorities into the fire service. Majority, actually all, of the data was on police recruitment. We had a lot of good discussion on this board pre login on the subject. I put research up for feed back on this board and I received so much great feedback from a lot of posters.
Police in a positive light. That's funny. What does that mean?
Should we get rid of the police? Are they needed? Are there good and bad police? Are they all the same?
What is this good light bad light thing?
Because we make laws that we wish to be enforced we have police who do that. Congresses only edict is to enact laws.
I believe that 99% of cops, just like in any career, are good people who care about how they do their jobs.
You need to think how much you don't look at the the other side before you call the kettle a teapot.
You're extremely naive if you think 99% of cops are good people, and if you think people can put their biases aside. You're giving society way too much credit. Congress can't even put their biases aside. What makes you think a panel of jurors can do the same? I think the police are tasked with an extremely difficult job with a ton of responsibilities, but part of wearing the badge is being held up to a higher standard, because mistakes in this line of work leads to major consequences. You can't constantly beat the drum about how difficult the line of work is when you also want to absolve cops of any shit swimming upstream. I'm certainly not saying all cops are bad, but for once, I'd like to see you admit a cop fucked up around here.
I believe 12 people can go into a GJ and actually put their biases aside and reach a decision ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
A GJ is not presented with an adversarial presentation of events and the law. Even if each Grand Juror votes without bias their votes only reflect what has been laid before them. Ergo, the ham sandwich.
It's evident to me now that ctc is the most biased person here.