Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[BustedKnuckles]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more.

The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence. Their job is not to go in seeking an indictment (although it often works that way).

New York state Judge Sol Wachtler once famously remarked it's so easy to get a grand jury to indict, they'd indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

Except when it comes to police officers.

A grand jury proved that Monday when it declined to charge a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black youth.

The grand jury process presents a conflict of interest for prosecutors, who have to work day in and day out with police to make their cases stick. Prosecutors may not present their strongest case against an officer as a result, he said. The prosecutor rarely interrupted Wilson during his grand jury testimony, McLaughlin noted.

"At a trial, the prosecutor would go after the officer," McLaughlin said. "He would poke holes in his testimony. Here, the prosecutor basically just let him tell his story.

"So a grand juror puts himself in the shoes of the officer and thinks, 'What would I have done?' " he said.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

 

[Courtjester]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

Without a question?? Okay what charge?? Tell us the elements of what charge he could have gone forward with--keeping in mind the Missouri law that allows individuals to shoot others that have acted as the "first aggressor" and then lets apply the Missouri law that allows officers to shoot offenders that have acted as a threat to the officer and community.

Tell us what charge does he bring since you are so firm on the fact charges should have been brought? Keeping in mind that anything under Murder 1 would have probably brought about the same rioting and cries of injustice demonstrated.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more.

The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence. Their job is not to go in seeking an indictment (although it often works that way).

New York state Judge Sol Wachtler once famously remarked it's so easy to get a grand jury to indict, they'd indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

Except when it comes to police officers.

A grand jury proved that Monday when it declined to charge a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black youth.

The grand jury process presents a conflict of interest for prosecutors, who have to work day in and day out with police to make their cases stick. Prosecutors may not present their strongest case against an officer as a result, he said. The prosecutor rarely interrupted Wilson during his grand jury testimony, McLaughlin noted.

"At a trial, the prosecutor would go after the officer," McLaughlin said. "He would poke holes in his testimony. Here, the prosecutor basically just let him tell his story.

"So a grand juror puts himself in the shoes of the officer and thinks, 'What would I have done?' " he said.

Exactly!

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

Without a question?? Okay what charge?? Tell us the elements of what charge he could have gone forward with--keeping in mind the Missouri law that allows individuals to shoot others that have acted as the "first aggressor" and then lets apply the Missouri law that allows officer to shoot offenders that have acted as a threat to the officer and community.

Tell us what charge does he bring since you are so firm on the fact charges should have been brought? Keeping in mind that anything under Murder 1 would have probably brought about the same rioting and cries of injustice demonstrated.

Oh, now you're going to set the parameters as fact?? You're out of your league here, go to bed.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more.

The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence. Their job is not to go in seeking an indictment (although it often works that way).

New York state Judge Sol Wachtler once famously remarked it's so easy to get a grand jury to indict, they'd indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

Except when it comes to police officers.

A grand jury proved that Monday when it declined to charge a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black youth.

The grand jury process presents a conflict of interest for prosecutors, who have to work day in and day out with police to make their cases stick. Prosecutors may not present their strongest case against an officer as a result, he said. The prosecutor rarely interrupted Wilson during his grand jury testimony, McLaughlin noted.

"At a trial, the prosecutor would go after the officer," McLaughlin said. "He would poke holes in his testimony. Here, the prosecutor basically just let him tell his story.

"So a grand juror puts himself in the shoes of the officer and thinks, 'What would I have done?' " he said.

I would like to hear the opinion of a real expert. Where is Zow when you need him?

 

[mcintyre1]

Also finally found GJ testimony of Witness 40. This is the "Dang if that boy didn't charge at the cop like a football player" person that lots of Pro-Wilson stories are quoting.

She says that she doesn't consider herself racist because in order to be racist you have to say it to a person's face. She admits to being bipolar (which she is not receiving treatment for) and that she has had memory issues ever since she was in a car accident. She also admits to saying to an FBI agent that she googled Michael Brown to "find out what the gold thing was that dropped" (a reference to her journal entry, which, again, was not produced to anyone until a good deal after the incident and after she'd been interviewed as a claimed witness). She also testified that she "didn't know" how she ended up at the apartment complex where the shooting happened (she "got a GPS the next day"). She volunteered herself as a witness, she was not tracked down by the police or FBI. Here's a quote from the testimony about how her statements to police and statement now don't line up entirely: "Q: Okay. So you were not telling the truth initially? A: Okay. I'm sorry. ... I guess not, no."

This is a very level headed analysis by AP. Has this to say about Witness 40:

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

 

[jonessed]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more.The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence. Their job is not to go in seeking an indictment (although it often works that way).

5]New York state Judge Sol Wachtler once famously remarked it's so easy to get a grand jury to indict, they'd indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

5]Except when it comes to police officers.

5]A grand jury proved that Monday when it declined to charge a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black youth.

5]The grand jury process presents a conflict of interest for prosecutors, who have to work day in and day out with police to make their cases stick. Prosecutors may not present their strongest case against an officer as a result, he said. The prosecutor rarely interrupted Wilson during his grand jury testimony, McLaughlin noted.

5]"At a trial, the prosecutor would go after the officer," McLaughlin said. "He would poke holes in his testimony. Here, the prosecutor basically just let him tell his story.

5]"So a grand juror puts himself in the shoes of the officer and thinks, 'What would I have done?' " he said.

That's true. Apparently it's more difficult to get indictments against police officers.

 

[Courtjester]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

Without a question?? Okay what charge?? Tell us the elements of what charge he could have gone forward with--keeping in mind the Missouri law that allows individuals to shoot others that have acted as the "first aggressor" and then lets apply the Missouri law that allows officer to shoot offenders that have acted as a threat to the officer and community.

Tell us what charge does he bring since you are so firm on the fact charges should have been brought? Keeping in mind that anything under Murder 1 would have probably brought about the same rioting and cries of injustice demonstrated.

Oh, now you're going to set the parameters as fact?? You're out of your league here, go to bed.

Now I am asking you since you are a lawyer, what charges should he have brought? There were a choice of 5 he presented to the GJ.

Tell us, which one of them should have just said "I don't need a GJ, I am going forward with XXXXXX" and charged him...

 

[BustedKnuckles]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more.

The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence. Their job is not to go in seeking an indictment (although it often works that way).

New York state Judge Sol Wachtler once famously remarked it's so easy to get a grand jury to indict, they'd indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor wanted.

Except when it comes to police officers.

A grand jury proved that Monday when it declined to charge a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black youth.

The grand jury process presents a conflict of interest for prosecutors, who have to work day in and day out with police to make their cases stick. Prosecutors may not present their strongest case against an officer as a result, he said. The prosecutor rarely interrupted Wilson during his grand jury testimony, McLaughlin noted.

"At a trial, the prosecutor would go after the officer," McLaughlin said. "He would poke holes in his testimony. Here, the prosecutor basically just let him tell his story.

"So a grand juror puts himself in the shoes of the officer and thinks, 'What would I have done?' " he said.

I would like to hear the opinion of a real expert. Where is Zow when you need him?

actually i was wondering Mr. has been ?

 

[jonessed]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Oh Lord. I'm recusing myself from this thread. You don't understand the role of a Prosecutor in this instance.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Put together, all the evidence served to overwhelm, and even confuse, the grand jury, some legal experts said. They question why St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch chose to do it that way

Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, stopped short of saying McCulloch laid out an overwhelming amount of evidence to keep the grand jury from charging Wilson.

"I'm not prepared to say it's improper, but it's certainly unusual," he said. "It certainly looks like he put on a much greater amount of evidence than we're used to."

Normally, Trachtenberg said, a grand jury sees and hears much less evidence before being asked to vote on indicting a suspect.

"In many cases, the grand jury can see evidence in a few minutes and take a vote," he said.

That's because prosecutors simply need to establish probable cause, he said. They don't have to try the entire case.

 

[Courtjester]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Oh Lord. I'm recusing myself from this thread. You don't understand the role of a Prosecutor in this instance.

Good call...

 

[Patrick Bateman]

The fact that McCulloch actually called on Wilson to testify is extremely rare. It stinks of bias in a big way. Wilson gets to testify, and Brown, well...he's dead. Prosecutors are outraged over McCulloch's antics. This guy is corrupt to the core.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Oh Lord. I'm recusing myself from this thread. You don't understand the role of a Prosecutor in this instance.

Good call...

You're beyond your depth here.

 

[Courtjester]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Put together, all the evidence served to overwhelm, and even confuse, the grand jury, some legal experts said. They question why St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch chose to do it that way

Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, stopped short of saying McCulloch laid out an overwhelming amount of evidence to keep the grand jury from charging Wilson.

"I'm not prepared to say it's improper, but it's certainly unusual," he said. "It certainly looks like he put on a much greater amount of evidence than we're used to."

Normally, Trachtenberg said, a grand jury sees and hears much less evidence before being asked to vote on indicting a suspect.

"In many cases, the grand jury can see evidence in a few minutes and take a vote," he said.

That's because prosecutors simply need to establish probable cause, he said. They don't have to try the entire case.

Busted. this is completely right. I have seen many, many prelims and the DA puts the lead officer on and he/she just has to establish identity, venue and the basic elements of the crime. I am talking about a non-GJ setting type prelim--it is barebones and lacking a lot of detail.

But therein lies the problem with this case, he obviously established venue, he obviously established identity, but just because someone is dead--you have to establish the basic elements of one of the five charges to establish the defendant (Wilson) committed a criminal act that result in said death,

 

[Courtjester]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Oh Lord. I'm recusing myself from this thread. You don't understand the role of a Prosecutor in this instance.

Good call...

You're beyond your depth here.

I see you are still avoiding my original post--what charges do you bring PB?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Put together, all the evidence served to overwhelm, and even confuse, the grand jury, some legal experts said. They question why St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch chose to do it that way

Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, stopped short of saying McCulloch laid out an overwhelming amount of evidence to keep the grand jury from charging Wilson.

"I'm not prepared to say it's improper, but it's certainly unusual," he said. "It certainly looks like he put on a much greater amount of evidence than we're used to."

Normally, Trachtenberg said, a grand jury sees and hears much less evidence before being asked to vote on indicting a suspect.

"In many cases, the grand jury can see evidence in a few minutes and take a vote," he said.

That's because prosecutors simply need to establish probable cause, he said. They don't have to try the entire case.

Trachtenberg is spot on here.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

Of course it is, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can produce whatever evidence he wants. It's not a jury trial. It's clear that he did not want to indict Wilson. The evidence he presented was so one sided it's ridiculous. This article was published in August. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I find the argument that he presented too much evidence rather silly. He was biased because he presented the evidence unbiased!

Put together, all the evidence served to overwhelm, and even confuse, the grand jury, some legal experts said. They question why St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch chose to do it that way

Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, stopped short of saying McCulloch laid out an overwhelming amount of evidence to keep the grand jury from charging Wilson.

"I'm not prepared to say it's improper, but it's certainly unusual," he said. "It certainly looks like he put on a much greater amount of evidence than we're used to."

Normally, Trachtenberg said, a grand jury sees and hears much less evidence before being asked to vote on indicting a suspect.

"In many cases, the grand jury can see evidence in a few minutes and take a vote," he said.

That's because prosecutors simply need to establish probable cause, he said. They don't have to try the entire case.

Busted. this is completely right. I have seen many, many prelims and the DA puts the lead officer on and he/she just has to establish identity, venue and the basic elements of the crime. I am talking about a non-GJ setting type prelim--it is barebones and lacking a lot of detail.

But therein lies the problem with this case, he obviously established venue, he obviously established identity, but just because someone is dead--you have to establish the basic elements of one of the five charges to establish the defendant (Wilson) committed a criminal act that result in said death,

It's called probable cause. You are already assuming fact when there is nothing established other than the defendants word. Wrap your brain around that.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

No question this case should have gone to trial. Hope you guys enjoy this exercise in futility. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

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.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

The prosecutors job is to make sure justice is served, not get indictments.

If the prosecutor believes that justice is not served by getting an indictment, he shouldn't bring the case before a grand jury.

 

[timschochet]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

The prosecutors job is to make sure justice is served, not get indictments.

If the prosecutor believes that justice is not served by getting an indictment, he shouldn't bring the case before a grand jury.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. I think we can clear away all this debate and get right to the heart of the issue; the prosecutor didn't want to indict Wilson. Either he believed Wilson or he didn't think he had a winnable case. But he also didn't want to be blamed by the protestors. So he used the GJ in a way it's not normally used. Not exactly courageous , but it was a lose lose situation: either get blamed for not indicting, or get blamed for not winning. The prosecutor didn't create this mess, so he chose to find a way out. Who can blame him?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

The prosecutors job is to make sure justice is served, not get indictments.

If the prosecutor believes that justice is not served by getting an indictment, he shouldn't bring the case before a grand jury.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.I think we can clear away all this debate and get right to the heart of the issue; the prosecutor didn't want to indict Wilson. Either he believed Wilson or he didn't think he had a winnable case. But he also didn't want to be blamed by the protestors. So he used the GJ in a way it's not normally used. Not exactly courageous , but it was a lose lose situation: either get blamed for not indicting, or get blamed for not winning. The prosecutor didn't create this mess, so he chose to find a way out. Who can blame him?

I know what you're trying to do here Tim. Don't be a ##### and stand up for yourself. Don't succumb to the FBG bullies. McCullogh knew EXACTLY what he was doing. Make no mistake about it.

 

[jon_mx]

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 jurys function not to enquire upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied, or otherwise to try the suspects 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.

Just because the suspect has no right to have exculpatory evidence presented does not mean it shouldn't be. You are confusing the rights of the suspect with the duty of the prosecutor, so your point is just wrong. 99 percent of the time the prosecutor wants an indictment. In these types of political cases it is a different story. Here we have an angry mob in a witch hunt. The prosecutor used the grand jury as an independent body to evaluate all the evidence to determine if this case had merit enough to file charges. There is nothing that is wrong with that, except it did not produce the desired result to calm the angry mob. I guess they could of had the dog and pony show trial, but that is not right either. But probably would have been politically the right call, but is still a disservice to true justice.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I see we've run out of ways to blame officer Wilson and we have moved on to the prosecutor.

Tim is absolutely correct. In a national case that is inciting race wars and riots, of course this man isn't going to make the decision on his own. Why, so the NY Times can post his address, so he and his family can fear for their lives, so his career is essentially over? Think about the implications if one man made this decision. The protestors would be going (more?) bonkers. Now people are complaining because the GJ isn't typically used. Well, it's not a typical case.

You're clinging here.

 

[Otis]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

 

[Henry Ford]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Anyone protesting by a parade (there are reports of people who plan on protesting by the TG parade) should be shot on the spot. No arrest, trial, or anything... Just end their lives. People protesting and intentionally blocking traffic should be jailed for a minimum of 10 years.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

No question this case should have gone to trial. Hope you guys enjoy this exercise in futility. Happy Thanksgiving.

It absolutely should not have gone to trial, and thanks for your efforts, they've made that even more abundantly clear. Happy Thanksgiving!

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

First they would have to commit felony theft of course.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

Really ? It seems to me that there are thousands of people all across the country ,let alone Ferguson, that wanted this to go further..

So what? That is not remotely the place of the criminal justice system, to satisfy the uninformed ignorant lynch mob. If it were O.J. would have been convicted since there were tens of millions, not thousands, who wanted him convicted. I get sick and tired of the vox populi being catered to. They are ignorant. They learned one thing, and one thing only from whatever civics or social studies classes they took. The learned, or rather they miss-learned the concept of majority rule. They think if enough people want something then it must be done. This is dangerous ignorance.

Not just our jurisprudence, but our lore demands that the law not succumb to the lynch mob. That is the basis of at least half our western movies .

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Anyone protesting by a parade (there are reports of people who plan on protesting by the TG parade) should be shot on the spot. No arrest, trial, or anything... Just end their lives. People protesting and intentionally blocking traffic should be jailed for a minimum of 10 years.

You have to tone down the hyperbole to get any fish. Look instead at what I did. In the midst of a more reasonable post I placed two items the first an insult to the previous poster exacerbated by the haughtiness of going Latin, and then I brought up popular lore in a discussion of jurisprudence, inviting criticism, as if popular lore has anything to do with jurisprudence. (Hint, on the far fringes of jurisprudence it may thus leaving me a double back avenue.) That is how fishing is done. You are not fishing, you are dynamiting the pond.

 

[lod01]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

'Head down, charge officer'

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

The prosecutors job is to make sure justice is served, not get indictments.

If the prosecutor believes that justice is not served by getting an indictment, he shouldn't bring the case before a grand jury.

Indeed, this is what happens when one panders to the mob. He is learning a lesson similar to what Gooddell is learning.

 

[fantasycurse42]

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-attacked-oxygen-tank-carjacked-ferguson-article-1.2025789

84 year old man trying to get his oxygen tank car jacked and run over... The opportunity to do some detective work and lock a lot of people up for a long time is currently present in Ferguson.

These thugs were prob just mad about Mike Brown

 

[Otis]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

Not catchy enough for a march. Maybe just a punching motion.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

The suspect does not have the right so the suspect, or his attorney, cannot force their way into the grand jury proceeding. Scalia did not, however, prohibit the prosecutor from presenting exculpatory evidence.

Here's the thing. Most often grand juries are not asked to hear matters where there are the type of affirmative defenses there are in this type of matter. Folks conveniently forget that there are even particular defenses available only or mostly to law enforcement, such as the ability in some jurisdictions to shoot a fleeing felon. To extrapolate from Federal experience down to state experience, and from general experience to this specific type of fact scenario is flawed. There really is no analogy.

Could the Prosecutor have indicted, of that I have no doubt. But the question of whether he should have tried is another matter wholly. In many jurisdictions the prosecutor has an obligation above that of establishing probable cause. Establishing probable cause is really more for the police than the Prosecutor. In many jurisdictions the Prosecutor has a duty to not bring an action to trial absent a good faith belief he will prevail. We had this discussion in the recent thread on Prosecutors.

 

[Otis]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

 

[GoBirds]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Seemed like a nice guy.

 

[Bucky86]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Like that kid in Atlanta playing with a toy gun? He probably was going to turn into a thug anyways, right?

 

[rockaction]

Anyone protesting by a parade (there are reports of people who plan on protesting by the TG parade) should be shot on the spot. No arrest, trial, or anything... Just end their lives. People protesting and intentionally blocking traffic should be jailed for a minimum of 10 years.

You have to tone down the hyperbole to get any fish. Look instead at what I did. In the midst of a more reasonable post I placed two items the first an insult to the previous poster exacerbated by the haughtiness of going Latin, and then I brought up popular lore in a discussion of jurisprudence, inviting criticism, as if popular lore has anything to do with jurisprudence. (Hint, on the far fringes of jurisprudence it may thus leaving me a double back avenue.) That is how fishing is done. You are not fishing, you are dynamiting the pond.

Lore:

archaic : something that is taught : lesson
2
: something that is learned:
a : knowledge gained through study or experience
b : traditional knowledge or belief"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. - OWH

Cardozo, Holmes, et al want a word with you, especially w/r/t to sociological jurisprudence.

Cardozo's whole judicial philosophy centered around that.

 

[Otis]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Like that kid in Atlanta playing with a toy gun? He probably was going to turn into a thug anyways, right?

No idea who that is. Do you have video of him robbing stores and assaulting little old shop owners?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

Which was completely refuted by the witnesses AND autopsy. You're clinging here trying to get your Civil Rights MomentTM.

You'll have to look elsewhere to find your innocent person for the lynch mob to crucify.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Entertainment Weekly...$5!


Submit Corrections Cancel

Hey you

Who me, Officer Krupke?

Yeah you, gimme one good reason for not dragging

You down the station, ya punk?

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke, you gotta understand

It's just our bringin' upke that gets us out of hand

Our mothers all are junkies, our fathers all are drunks

Golly Moses, naturally we're punks

Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset

We never had the love that every child oughta get

We ain't no delinquents, we're misunderstood

Deep down inside us there is good

There is good

There is good, there is good

There is untapped good

Like inside, the worst of us is good

That's a touching good story

Lemme tell it to the world

Just tell it to the Judge

Dear kindly Judge, Your Honor, my parents treat me rough

With all their marijuana, they won't give me a puff

They didn't wanna have me but somehow I was had

Leapin' lizards, that's why I'm so bad

Right, Officer Krupke, you're really a square

This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care

It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed

He's psychologically disturbed

I'm disturbed

We're disturbed, we're disturbed

We're the most disturbed

Like we're psychologically disturbed

Hear ye, hear ye

In the opinion of this court

This child is depraved on account

He ain't had a normal home

Hey, I'm depraved

On account I'm deprived

So take him to a headshrinker

My daddy beats my mommy, my mommy clobbers me

My grandpa is a commie, my grandma pushes tea

My sister wears a mustache, my brother wears a dress

Goodness gracious, that's why I'm a mess

Yes, Officer Krupke, he shouldn't be here

This boy don't need a couch, he needs a useful career

Society's played him a terrible trick

And sociologically he's sick

I am sick

We are sick, we are sick

We are sick, sick, sick

Like we're sociologically sick

In my opinion, this child does not need

To have his head shrunk at all

Juvenile delinquency

Is purely a social disease

Hey, I got a social disease

So take him to a social worker

Dear kindly social worker, they tell me get a job

Like be a soda jerker, which means like be a slob

It's not I'm antisocial, I'm only anti-work

Glory Osky, that's why I'm a jerk

Eek, Officer Krupke, you've done it again

This boy don't need a job, he needs a year in the pen

It ain't just a question of misunderstood

Deep down inside him, he's no good

I'm no good

We're no good, we're no good

We're no earthly good

Like the best of us is no damn good

The trouble is he's lazy, the trouble is he drinks

The trouble is he's crazy, the trouble is he stinks

The trouble is he's growing, the trouble is he's grown

Krupke, we've got troubles of our own

Gee, Officer Krupke

We're down on our knees

'Cause no one wants a fella

With a social disease

Gee, Officer Krupke

What are we to do?

Gee, Officer Krupke

Krup you!

 

[timschochet]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

One thing, among many, to be grateful for: we live in a country where if people don't like the results of a judicial decision, they can publicly protest it (peacefully, not riot and loot of course.) I wonder how many of those protesting this incident realize just how rare and new their right to do so really is?

 

[fantasycurse42]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Like that kid in Atlanta playing with a toy gun? He probably was going to turn into a thug anyways, right?

No idea who that is. Do you have video of him robbing stores and assaulting little old shop owners?

Maybe he is referring to this one in Cleveland, I'd say eye witness accounts and video here exonerate the officer:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-tamir-rice-12-shot-dead-cleveland-police-article-1.2025132?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nydnrss%2Fgossip%2Fgatecrasher+%28Gossip%2FConfidenti%40l%29

 

[timschochet]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Entertainment Weekly...$5!

Submit Corrections Cancel

Hey you

Who me, Officer Krupke?

Yeah you, gimme one good reason for not dragging

You down the station, ya punk?

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke, you gotta understand

It's just our bringin' upke that gets us out of hand

Our mothers all are junkies, our fathers all are drunks

Golly Moses, naturally we're punks

Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset

We never had the love that every child oughta get

We ain't no delinquents, we're misunderstood

Deep down inside us there is good

There is good

There is good, there is good

There is untapped good

Like inside, the worst of us is good

That's a touching good story

Lemme tell it to the world

Just tell it to the Judge

Dear kindly Judge, Your Honor, my parents treat me rough

With all their marijuana, they won't give me a puff

They didn't wanna have me but somehow I was had

Leapin' lizards, that's why I'm so bad

Right, Officer Krupke, you're really a square

This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care

It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed

He's psychologically disturbed

I'm disturbed

We're disturbed, we're disturbed

We're the most disturbed

Like we're psychologically disturbed

Hear ye, hear ye

In the opinion of this court

This child is depraved on account

He ain't had a normal home

Hey, I'm depraved

On account I'm deprived

So take him to a headshrinker

My daddy beats my mommy, my mommy clobbers me

My grandpa is a commie, my grandma pushes tea

My sister wears a mustache, my brother wears a dress

Goodness gracious, that's why I'm a mess

Yes, Officer Krupke, he shouldn't be here

This boy don't need a couch, he needs a useful career

Society's played him a terrible trick

And sociologically he's sick

I am sick

We are sick, we are sick

We are sick, sick, sick

Like we're sociologically sick

In my opinion, this child does not need

To have his head shrunk at all

Juvenile delinquency

Is purely a social disease

Hey, I got a social disease

So take him to a social worker

Dear kindly social worker, they tell me get a job

Like be a soda jerker, which means like be a slob

It's not I'm antisocial, I'm only anti-work

Glory Osky, that's why I'm a jerk

Eek, Officer Krupke, you've done it again

This boy don't need a job, he needs a year in the pen

It ain't just a question of misunderstood

Deep down inside him, he's no good

I'm no good

We're no good, we're no good

We're no earthly good

Like the best of us is no damn good

The trouble is he's lazy, the trouble is he drinks

The trouble is he's crazy, the trouble is he stinks

The trouble is he's growing, the trouble is he's grown

Krupke, we've got troubles of our own

Gee, Officer Krupke

We're down on our knees

'Cause no one wants a fella

With a social disease

Gee, Officer Krupke

What are we to do?

Gee, Officer Krupke

Krup you!

</p>

Only a Lad by Oingo Boingo would fit this theme as well .

 

[Bucky86]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Like that kid in Atlanta playing with a toy gun? He probably was going to turn into a thug anyways, right?

No idea who that is. Do you have video of him robbing stores and assaulting little old shop owners?

Googles is your friend. There's video of cops rolling up like the first armored division and gunning down a 12 year old.

 

[Bucky86]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Like that kid in Atlanta playing with a toy gun? He probably was going to turn into a thug anyways, right?

No idea who that is. Do you have video of him robbing stores and assaulting little old shop owners?

Maybe he is referring to this one in Cleveland, I'd say eye witness accounts and video here exonerate the officer:http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-tamir-rice-12-shot-dead-cleveland-police-article-1.2025132?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nydnrss%2Fgossip%2Fgatecrasher+%28Gossip%2FConfidenti%40l%29

Oops meant Cleveland. I believe the 911 operator should be prosecuted. She left out how the 911 caller mentioned it's probably a toy gun. She never relayed that to the officer. Regardless, why roll up and expose your partner like that? Had they parked and approached more strategically then maybe they wouldn't have had such itchy trigger fingers?