Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (4 Viewers)

[Bucky86]

This is going to be a long, lawyerly "inside baseball" post that people are free to ignore, But I'm going to try to explain what personally rubs me the wrong way about the Ferguson grand jury process and why I think its representative of a certain class of cases where the adversarial system used in criminal judicial proceedings is particularly likely to be inadequate.

Typically, in a criminal case, the State's and the victim's (or the victim's family's) interests are aligned. The victim doesn't have a lawyer in the process, so he or she relies upon the State to represent him or her. And the defendant has counsel to represent him or her. So when an eyewitness account seems to implicate the defendant, it is the defendant's counsel's job to try to discredit that testimony. And when an eyewitness account tends to exculpate the defendant, it is the prosecution's job to cross-examine and try to discredit that testimony. Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed. But once evidence is presented before a grand jury, it is NOT typical for the prosecutor (who is the only "side" presenting evidence) to then attempt to cross-examine and possibly discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses presented. That's exactly what appeared to happen to Dorian Johnson, however.

I think it's entirely appropriate for Darren Wilson's lawyer to discredit Dorian Johnson at trial. I think it's inappropriate for the State to discredit Dorian Johnson before the grand jury. Now, I've known law professors who believe we should scrap the adversarial system altogether. All proceedings should be collaborative searches for the truth, they say. Maybe they are right. But I don't believe that 99,9% of grand jury proceedings should be one-sided presentations and only those involving police officers should be collaborative searches for the truth, because you can't ignore the fact that prosecutors and police officers and forensic scientists employed by police departments very often have interests that are aligned.

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.

This post is way too well thought out and intelligent to get any other response than, "I don't care. justice was served and the thief is dead."

 

[timschochet]

RHE knocks it out of the park.

 

[SIDA!]

This is going to be a long, lawyerly "inside baseball" post that people are free to ignore, But I'm going to try to explain what personally rubs me the wrong way about the Ferguson grand jury process and why I think its representative of a certain class of cases where the adversarial system used in criminal judicial proceedings is particularly likely to be inadequate.

Typically, in a criminal case, the State's and the victim's (or the victim's family's) interests are aligned. The victim doesn't have a lawyer in the process, so he or she relies upon the State to represent him or her. And the defendant has counsel to represent him or her. So when an eyewitness account seems to implicate the defendant, it is the defendant's counsel's job to try to discredit that testimony. And when an eyewitness account tends to exculpate the defendant, it is the prosecution's job to cross-examine and try to discredit that testimony. Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed. But once evidence is presented before a grand jury, it is NOT typical for the prosecutor (who is the only "side" presenting evidence) to then attempt to cross-examine and possibly discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses presented. That's exactly what appeared to happen to Dorian Johnson, however.

I think it's entirely appropriate for Darren Wilson's lawyer to discredit Dorian Johnson at trial. I think it's inappropriate for the State to discredit Dorian Johnson before the grand jury. Now, I've known law professors who believe we should scrap the adversarial system altogether. All proceedings should be collaborative searches for the truth, they say. Maybe they are right. But I don't believe that 99,9% of grand jury proceedings should be one-sided presentations and only those involving police officers should be collaborative searches for the truth, because you can't ignore the fact that prosecutors and police officers and forensic scientists employed by police departments very often have interests that are aligned.

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.

This post is way too well thought out and intelligent to get any other response than, "I don't care. justice was served and the thief is dead."

I think it is sad that someone posts a thoughtful viewpoint and you, in a way devalue it and minimize it, by making an absurd follow up post like this.

 

[Doug B]

This post is way too well thought out and intelligent to get any other response than, "I don't care. justice was served and the thief is dead."

The rebuttal is that Ramsay's post may be an indictment of the way the grand jury process was used in this case, but that his post does not address the idea that the GJ proceedings were a substitution for the prosecutor exercising his right to simply round-file the case altogether under the aegis of "insufficient evidence to win conviction".

IOW, a trial was never in play given the actors involved. Now, one can reasonably argue that another party should/could have claimed jurisdiction, or that the venue should have been moved, or something like that. One can also reasonably argue that using a grand jury in this way is unashamedly craven even if it may have granted some political cover.

 

[timschochet]

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

This is the main point. The prosecutor had no good faith belief, so he should not have brought charges. But instead of announcing that, he took the cowardly way out: presenting everything to the grand jury and letting them decide not to bring charges, which was the outcome he wanted in the first place. This is the source, IMO, of all the problems that Ramsey Hunt Experience notes in his post. It was a misuse of the grand jury process.

 

[lod01]

Die you *******!

 

[Doug B]

The problems that RHE notes

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

I think that Ramsay's points are granted, but that they address procedural issues -- not the fundamental issues of the right/wrong of Wilson's actions. If Ramsay is willing to concede that this should never have gone to a grand jury and that McCulloch should've had the stones to act accordingly ... then I can get on board with that.

 

[Doug B]

Die you *******!

"At least the meat's fresh -- you can still see marks from where the jockey whipped it!"

 

[TobiasFunke]

This post is way too well thought out and intelligent to get any other response than, "I don't care. justice was served and the thief is dead."

The rebuttal is that Ramsay's post may be an indictment of the way the grand jury process was used in this case, but that his post does not address the idea that the GJ proceedings were a substitution for the prosecutor exercising his right to simply round-file the case altogether under the aegis of "insufficient evidence to win conviction".

IOW, a trial was never in play given the actors involved. Now, one can reasonably argue that another party should/could have claimed jurisdiction, or that the venue should have been moved, or something like that. One can also reasonably argue that using a grand jury in this way is unashamedly craven even if it may have granted some political cover.

I agree 100%. The problem, of course, is that the same agenda-driven person who conducted the grand jury in such a transparently one-sided manner is also the person who would have been making the decision on tossing the case altogether. A number of activists were trashing McCulloch and demanding that he recuse himself months before we had access to any forensic evidence or testimony suggesting that Wilson's shooting may have been justified. Recusal would have been the right move both ethically and politically. This, by the way, circles back to what I've been saying all along about why this case and not others have been the flashpoint for the protest movement.

 

[jon_mx]

The problems that RHE notes

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

I think that Ramsay's points are granted, but that they address procedural issues -- not the fundamental issues of the right/wrong of Wilson's actions. If Ramsay is willing to concede that this should never have gone to a grand jury and that McCulloch should've had the stones to act accordingly ... then I can get on board with that.

IMHO, there was more damaging evidence in this case then there was in the Zimmerman case. Ramsay's point was with the potential bias of the prosecutor in favor of the police, the grand jury was not necessarily even presented the facts in a fair manner, let alone one which is usually heavily slanted towards the victim's viewpoint. It is hard to say with the conflicting facts if this case should have gone to trial or not.

 

[Henry Ford]

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

This is the main point. The prosecutor had no good faith belief, so he should not have brought charges. But instead of announcing that, he took the cowardly way out: presenting everything to the grand jury and letting them decide not to bring charges, which was the outcome he wanted in the first place. This is the source, IMO, of all the problems that Ramsey Hunt Experience notes in his post. It was a misuse of the grand jury process.

Everything including a law that was ruled unconstitutional before the person presenting it to the grand jury had gotten out of law school.

 

[timschochet]

jon, you bring up an interesting point. I'm not going to get into a debate with you as to which of the two cases, Brown or Zimmerman, had more damaging evidence. But of course beyond the specific details, the most crucial major difference in the two cases was that Wilson is a police officer and Zimmerman was a private citizen. Had Zimmerman been a police officer, would the prosecutors in Florida have still indicted him? If Wilson had been a private citizen, would this prosecutor still have left it up to a grand jury in the same manner? (Assuming all other facts are the same.) I don't know the answer, but it's an intriguing pair of questions...

 

[Todem]

I don't think this prosecutor had a good faith belief a crime was committed nor a belief he would ever get a conviction. Because of this we have the victims family in complete 100% belief that the prosecutor was in bed with the police 100%, had no intention of ever going for an indictment and therefore the victim's family had no rights nor a chance to possibly get their day in court.

I completely appreciate and empathize with their feelings and the chance at getting a trial.

There are some intelligent people in thread who have dug in with the belief the GJ process was rigged, manipulated (or whatever adjective you want to use) and completely unfair that Michael Browns parents did not get there day in court. And if you have that belief then that's your opinion. I respect that.

There have been probably dozens? Hundreds? (I really don't know) of cases of a police officer tried in court for excessive use of deadly force? This case did not have the evidence needed to convict. So why would a prosecutor waste time and money on a losing battle if the prosecution truly believed they had no case after a through investigation?

But then you will get the counter argument that he is in bed with the police.

Well if that is the case the people of Ferguson need to vote him out.....but wait, he was elected with no opponent this past election if I am correct. So no one dares to challenge him? Why? If he is so crooked why? All prosecutors work with police on cases. So there will always be an inherent "conflict of interest" in bedded in peoples minds when a case comes across of a police officer killing someone in the line of duty.

Do you really feel an independent council would have felt they had a strong case with all of the powerful forensic evidence and some strong credible witness accounts backing officer Wilson's story?

So what is the solution when a police officer uses deadly force in the line of duty. Do we have an independent party take the case and determine if an indictment is needed by a grand jury? Take the prosecutor out of the picture when it is the prosecutors job to try the case?

 

[Aerial Assault]

When I read the transcripts from this proceeding, what I'm struck by is that the victim did not have a zealous advocate in the proceeding. That is rare, and it strikes me as problematic.

Indeed. The victim was, in fact, on trial - and couldn't defend himself. It was all just theater and set up to fail.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

This is the main point. The prosecutor had no good faith belief, so he should not have brought charges. But instead of announcing that, he took the cowardly way out: presenting everything to the grand jury and letting them decide not to bring charges, which was the outcome he wanted in the first place. This is the source, IMO, of all the problems that Ramsey Hunt Experience notes in his post. It was a misuse of the grand jury process.

Everything including a law that was ruled unconstitutional before the person presenting it to the grand jury had gotten out of law school.

Also, not really "everything." Like for example not this stuff.

 

[Todem]

The problems that RHE notes

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

I think that Ramsay's points are granted, but that they address procedural issues -- not the fundamental issues of the right/wrong of Wilson's actions. If Ramsay is willing to concede that this should never have gone to a grand jury and that McCulloch should've had the stones to act accordingly ... then I can get on board with that.

Yeah...this is where things are being debated by some in here. Where as others are just being ridiculous and not using common sense in regards to the incident itself.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think this prosecutor had a good faith belief a crime was committed nor a belief he would ever get a conviction. Because of this we have the victims family in complete 100% belief that the prosecutor was in bed with the police 100%, had no intention of ever going for an indictment and therefore the victim's family had no rights nor a chance to possibly get their day in court.

I completely appreciate and empathize with their feelings and the chance at getting a trial.

There are some intelligent people in thread who have dug in with the belief the GJ process was rigged, manipulated (or whatever adjective you want to use) and completely unfair that Michael Browns parents did not get there day in court. And if you have that belief then that's your opinion. I respect that.

There have been probably dozens? Hundreds? (I really don't know) of cases of a police officer tried in court for excessive use of deadly force? This case did not have the evidence needed to convict. So why would a prosecutor waste time and money on a losing battle if the prosecution truly believed they had no case after a through investigation?

But then you will get the counter argument that he is in bed with the police.

Well if that is the case the people of Ferguson need to vote him out.....but wait, he was elected with no opponent this past election if I am correct. So no one dares to challenge him? Why? If he is so crooked why? All prosecutors work with police on cases. So there will always be an inherent "conflict of interest" in bedded in peoples minds when a case comes across of a police officer killing someone in the line of duty.

Do you really feel an independent council would have felt they had a strong case with all of the powerful forensic evidence and some strong credible witness accounts backing officer Wilson's story?

So what is the solution when a police officer uses deadly force in the line of duty. Do we have an independent party take the case and determine if an indictment is needed by a grand jury? Take the prosecutor out of the picture when it is the prosecutors job to try the case?

These are all good questions as well.

 

[timschochet]

Now, let me concede that at the outset a prosecutor is not even supposed to bring charges without a good faith belief that crime has been committed.

This is the main point. The prosecutor had no good faith belief, so he should not have brought charges. But instead of announcing that, he took the cowardly way out: presenting everything to the grand jury and letting them decide not to bring charges, which was the outcome he wanted in the first place. This is the source, IMO, of all the problems that Ramsey Hunt Experience notes in his post. It was a misuse of the grand jury process.

Everything including a law that was ruled unconstitutional before the person presenting it to the grand jury had gotten out of law school.

Also, not really "everything." Like for example not this stuff.

Lisa Bloom has been asking excellent questions all throughout this incident. She is of the firm belief that Wilson should have been indicted, and that he would have been found guilty with a competent prosecutor in charge. I can't agree with either of these assertions, but she has made some very compelling arguments on television and by twitter.

 

[Popinski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/eric-garner_n_6263656.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

A grand jury voted Wednesday not to indict New York City police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner, multiple sources confirm.

Pantaleo put 47-year-old Garner into a chokehold during an arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes on July 17. In a viral video of the arrest, Garner can be seen screaming “I can’t breathe!” multiple times until his body goes limp. A medical examiner later ruled his death a homicide.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

I've been saying all along that the Ferguson case was the flashpoint because of external factors unrelated to the facts of the case. However now I'm wondering if this, on the heels of the Brown decision, in a case where there's a video and nobody asserts that the dead man did anything worse than sell loosies on the street, might take the protests to another level.

 

[squistion]

This post is way too well thought out and intelligent to get any other response than, "I don't care. justice was served and the thief is dead."

I think it is sad that someone posts a thoughtful viewpoint and you, in a way devalue it and minimize it, by making an absurd follow up post like this.

It was a flip remark, but, in all fairness, when thoughtful viewpoints have been presented that discredit Wilson or his testimony the stock response from some of the regulars here has been, "The thug is dead", "The thief is dead", "Your thief is dead", etc.,

 

[Bucky86]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

Oof.

Here we go again.

 

[SIDA!]

After 200 plus pages, I am not even sure what the major areas of debate or disagreement are at this point. So much terrain has been covered.

Separating the discussion into the different quadrants and focusing specifically on the day in question from the point that Wilson left the prior call and came across Brown in the street and until Brown was fatally shot in the street, what are we disputing and what is in question at this point?

1. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that there was a physical altercation at the car and that Brown struck Wilson, correct? Are some people still arguing that Wilson grabbed Brown and pulled him into the vehicle?

2. I don't think anyone is any longer arguing or speculating that Wilson shot Brown in the back or shot at him as he was fleeing, correct? Does everyone now agree that Brown was shot at the vehicle in the hand and ran away from the vehicle before stopping and turning around with just a wound to the hand?

3. Does anyone disagree that there were three different volleys of shots: the car, the first volley after Brown turned around and then a second volley? Nobody disputes this right?

4. Nobody disputes the fact that Brown collapsed some 21 feet from the farther known point (marked by his blood) opposite Wilson, right?

5. Does anybody in this discussion still think that Brown had his hands up or was in the act of surrendering while being shot?

I know Tim has maintained that he has questions about whether or not Brown charged. The only evidence he has presented to suggest that Brown did not charge was various accounts of eyewitness testimony.

The conversation has obviously migrated significantly over the months, but I just want to see what the areas of common ground and disagreement are at this point during this specific time period.

I think there is room for a lot of other discussions concerning Wilson and whether or not he violated department protocols, any information about his service before this incident, etc. I also think there is plenty of room to discuss other social/political aspects whether it was how Brown's body was treated, how Wilson and department officials acted immediately following the shooting. There is room to talk about how the prosecutor handled everything as well as the Grand Jury process. All fair game.

But for those of you in this thread who feel Brown was wrongly shot and killed, can you please articulate the specific points/evidence/facts that trouble you from the time Wilson left the previous call till the time Brown was shot and killed.

 

[Doug B]

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

Do any states have something like a state-level Internal Affairs division to which all local police departments are formally accountable? Maybe complete with its own team of prosecutors and investigators.

 

[timschochet]

Man, the Garner result is probably going to make things a lot worse.

 

[squistion]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh · 5m5 minutes ago

This may be the worst: We watched Eric Garner die of an illegal chokehold. Coroner calls it homicide. No indictment. Heartbreaking.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Man, the Garner result is probably going to make things a lot worse.

Or maybe better. It's possible that a lot of people who previously dismissed the outrage from the black community and others because Michael Brown forcibly stole from a convenience store and got into a scuffle with the cop who killed him won't be able to dismiss the outrage quite so easily this time around. Maybe some people in the center will finally give this problem the attention it deserves, and when people in the center talk, politicians listen.

Or maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

 

[whiskey7]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

I've been saying all along that the Ferguson case was the flashpoint because of external factors unrelated to the facts of the case. However now I'm wondering if this, on the heels of the Brown decision, in a case where there's a video and nobody asserts that the dead man did anything worse than sell loosies on the street, might take the protests to another level.

I don't think he was put in a choke because of that but moreso because he resisted the arrest for doing that.

ETA: not saying its right at all. Just sayin...

 

[lod01]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

Oof.

Here we go again.

If you are going to rally around someone, Garner is the guy. You guys got something there. Run with it. You got nothing with Mike Brown. Never did and never will.

 

[Zow]

Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann ·

MONDAY WORSTS: St. Louis Police Union rolls over 1st Amendment to demand apology from Rams for player protest: http://j.mp/1pJcnjO

Was Keith Olbermann similarly outraged with Miami Dolphin Don Jones was suspended for tweeting 'horrible' in response to the Micheal Sam cake smudging? Olbermann's concern for the 1st Amendment is highly selective.

Yep. Oddly enough only to situations where the actor trying to deter free speech is a member of the state.

Weird.

 

[timschochet]

Man, the Garner result is probably going to make things a lot worse.

Or maybe better. It's possible that a lot of people who previously dismissed the outrage from the black community and others because Michael Brown forcibly stole from a convenience store and got into a scuffle with the cop who killed him won't be able to dismiss the outrage quite so easily this time around. Maybe some people in the center will finally give this problem the attention it deserves, and when people in the center talk, politicians listen.

Or maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

I'm an optimist too- generally.

But you know how referees, when dealing with a skirmish on the field, tend to punish the last guy they saw throw a punch? A lot of the reaction to Ferguson from the American white public has little to do with the facts of the shooting, and a lot to do with the rioting and looting that resulted after the grand jury decision. I'm afraid that this decision will lead to, along with peaceful protests, more riots and looting, and THAT is what the public will respond to.

 

[Doug B]

Some people in this thread know law enforcement folks personally. Some others work with law enforcement during the course of their jobs.

Would any of you happen to be able to take a stab at this question:

Do a significant number of police officers feel that, in their heart of hearts, it is absolutely necessary to be able to sometimes break the law to most effectively uphold the law? That if they did everything by the book 100% of the time, a personally (to the police) unacceptable number of criminals would consistently game the system and slip through the cracks?

 

[Mark Davis]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

Oof.

Here we go again.

If you are going to rally around someone, Garner is the guy. You guys got something there. Run with it. You got nothing with Mike Brown. Never did and never will.

Agreed. Mike Brown wasn't the case to use as an example, this one is.

 

[mr roboto]

That Garner case is a far better one for the protesters to stand behind IMO.

 

[shadyridr]

Wow Im ####### stunned about the lack of indictment in the Eric Garner case. Hope they don't riot here (I doubt they will) but that cop was guilty and there was video. Yikes.

 

[glvsav37]

NYC Christmas tree lighting tonight...this could get real ugly

 

[squistion]

Re Eric Garner:

David Waldman ‏@KagroX · 7m7 minutes ago

Untaxed cigarettes vs. unpaid grazing fees.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This post is way too well thought out and intelligent to get any other response than, "I don't care. justice was served and the thief is dead."

The rebuttal is that Ramsay's post may be an indictment of the way the grand jury process was used in this case, but that his post does not address the idea that the GJ proceedings were a substitution for the prosecutor exercising his right to simply round-file the case altogether under the aegis of "insufficient evidence to win conviction".

IOW, a trial was never in play given the actors involved. Now, one can reasonably argue that another party should/could have claimed jurisdiction, or that the venue should have been moved, or something like that. One can also reasonably argue that using a grand jury in this way is unashamedly craven even if it may have granted some political cover.

I agree 100%. The problem, of course, is that the same agenda-driven person who conducted the grand jury in such a transparently one-sided manner is also the person who would have been making the decision on tossing the case altogether. A number of activists were trashing McCulloch and demanding that he recuse himself months before we had access to any forensic evidence or testimony suggesting that Wilson's shooting may have been justified. Recusal would have been the right move both ethically and politically. This, by the way, circles back to what I've been saying all along about why this case and not others have been the flashpoint for the protest movement.

The conundrum is not unique to this case. In my experience jurisdictions are constantly looking to the procedure they do not have to address the situation, which, frankly, is not really susceptible, in my opinion, to a perfect answering process. This is like fans being in love with the backup Q.B. or changing managers.. The processes available are, grand jury, indictment by D.A. (Or no indictment, often accompanied by a Declination Letter explaining the non-indictment, Coroner's Inquest, Tactical Review board, and Independent Citizen Review Board. Each have infirmities.

In the Brown matter I have heard folks say that the D.A. lacked the guts to make a decision. Not wholly true. He did make a decision, after all he did not indict, though he could have, nor did he issue for publication a Declination letter. This was a decision. His decision was to pass the buck, to give his power over.

Now when the D.A. gave his power over to the grand jury he did not conduct the process there in a solely prosecutorial or accusatory role, as is most typical. Instead he used the process somewhat like a coroner's inquest, but without the independent coroner conducting it, and, frankly, perhaps even less accusatory than that process would normally be. I am not familiar enough with Missouri law to know if they still have coroner's inquests on the books, though I know that they did historically (weird what sticks with one from studying for the bar exam)

Next this D.A. decided after using the grand jury as some sort of hybrid wash to distance himself from the decision that he would like to have a non-appointed or educated Independent Citizen Review Board. To do this he released all of the information (we are told) to the public, to form their own opinion. This way we can argue amongst ourselves rather than consider the job he, the D.A., did, and the tact he took.

He was trying to make the decision palatable, but in dong so he stepped outside the lines, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too, he fudged, and dodging accountability is rarely palatable. Dude should have owned his decision. When he did not it was then only natural that folks would question it.

 

[shadyridr]

NYC Christmas tree lighting tonight...this could get real ugly

This is NY not bum#### Missouri

 

[Todem]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Todem hit a fundamental flaw in the system, one that I've mentioned before- the people tasked with prosecuting police are their allies. It's becoming clearer every day that some sort of fundamental change is needed.

I've been saying all along that the Ferguson case was the flashpoint because of external factors unrelated to the facts of the case. However now I'm wondering if this, on the heels of the Brown decision, in a case where there's a video and nobody asserts that the dead man did anything worse than sell loosies on the street, might take the protests to another level.

I just watched the video. There is absolute negligence and the use of force that was not justified.

Why in the world don't they ask him to come down for questioning, why in the world do they just jump him like that when he really showed no signs of resisting and simply said don't touch me.

This is the type of case to hang your hat on to display bad policing and excessive use of force. I don't think anyone can say without reading all of the evidence that this was a homicide. Because the officers have zero way of knowing he was an asthmatic person. The choke hold was not held long enough to kill someone. But no doubt it led to an asthmatic attack which may have led to his death. I don't know. I have not read any autopsy or any reports. I just watched the video.

As far as what they did....that is standard procedure when trying to subdue and restrain someone. But it was uncalled for and led to his untimely death.

I do find it hard to believe no indictment for negligent homicide was handed down. How can this not at least go to a trial?

 

[Todem]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh · 5m5 minutes ago

This may be the worst: We watched Eric Garner die of an illegal chokehold. Coroner calls it homicide. No indictment. Heartbreaking.

Nothing illegal about that to be technical. It is taught in police academy.

Still no indictment is hard to believe.

 

[SIDA!]

Some people in this thread know law enforcement folks personally. Some others work with law enforcement during the course of their jobs.

Would any of you happen to be able to take a stab at this question:

Do a significant number of police officers feel that, in their heart of hearts, it is absolutely necessary to be able to sometimes break the law to most effectively uphold the law? That if they did everything by the book 100% of the time, a personally (to the police) unacceptable number of criminals would consistently game the system and slip through the cracks?

Interesting question.

I know/have known quite a few law enforcement peeps and never asked or presented this question. I would venture to guess that many officers view it through the prism of their day to day life. They know that the majority of the people they deal with are the lowest of the low in society...absolute dirt bags. They know that most of them will lie, cheat and steal to get away with crime, being arrested, etc.

I think many in their heart of hearts believe that overstepping some lines, ignoring some technicalities, etc. is an acceptable means to an end to get the bad guy. And most of the time they are right and the average person can probably look aside and say, "eff these dirt bags" and "go get 'em" to the cops. But when they are wrong...what happens then?

 

[shadyridr]

So much for body cameras solving this problem

 

[Todem]

Man, the Garner result is probably going to make things a lot worse.

Or maybe better. It's possible that a lot of people who previously dismissed the outrage from the black community and others because Michael Brown forcibly stole from a convenience store and got into a scuffle with the cop who killed him won't be able to dismiss the outrage quite so easily this time around. Maybe some people in the center will finally give this problem the attention it deserves, and when people in the center talk, politicians listen.

Or maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

I am that centrist you speak of. This is a travesty.

 

[Todem]

So much for body cameras solving this problem

Was about to say the same exact thing.

 

[shadyridr]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh · 5m5 minutes ago

This may be the worst: We watched Eric Garner die of an illegal chokehold. Coroner calls it homicide. No indictment. Heartbreaking.

Nothing illegal about that to be technical. It is taught in police academy.

Still no indictment is hard to believe.

Umm yes its illegal

chokehold — a move banned by the NYPD

 

[TobiasFunke]

That Garner case is a far better one for the protesters to stand behind IMO.

I've done the whole thing about how this misses the point a bunch of times, don't want to do it again. One thought, though- maybe the Garner case should make you a little more suspicious of the way the facts were presented and justice was administered in the Brown case. The thing that presumably makes everyone so angry about the Garner case is the video- maybe if there was video of the Brown shooting there would be something there to anger us too?

Just a thought. I understand every case is different, but the protests are about the bigger picture you see when you take a step back, not a specific case.

 

[Todem]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh · 5m5 minutes ago

This may be the worst: We watched Eric Garner die of an illegal chokehold. Coroner calls it homicide. No indictment. Heartbreaking.

Nothing illegal about that to be technical. It is taught in police academy.

Still no indictment is hard to believe.

Umm yes its illegal

chokehold — a move banned by the NYPD

Interesting....very interesting. Shame on me for not knowing NYPD banned it. It is alive and well in South Florida.

Well again....no indictment? Outrageous.

 

[Sammy3469]

Meanwhile, it happened again:

@NY1 22m22 minutes ago

Sources: Staten Island grand jury decides not to indict officer in #EricGarner Case. Tune to NY1 for the latest.

If you're not familiar with the Eric Garner case, you should check it out. I have a hard time understanding the failure to indict here, much more so than in the Brown case. Curious to hear the explanation from the DA.

Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh · 5m5 minutes ago

This may be the worst: We watched Eric Garner die of an illegal chokehold. Coroner calls it homicide. No indictment. Heartbreaking.

Nothing illegal about that to be technical. It is taught in police academy.

Still no indictment is hard to believe.

Except it's banned by the NYPD

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Some people in this thread know law enforcement folks personally. Some others work with law enforcement during the course of their jobs.

Would any of you happen to be able to take a stab at this question:

Do a significant number of police officers feel that, in their heart of hearts, it is absolutely necessary to be able to sometimes break the law to most effectively uphold the law? That if they did everything by the book 100% of the time, a personally (to the police) unacceptable number of criminals would consistently game the system and slip through the cracks?

Define significant. Some would argue even one officer feeling that way is significant. Myself, I would not want to argue against that proposition.