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Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.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.
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.