An inconvenient truth

Why on earth would I be whining, when an innocent man was cleared by the judicial process? I think it is fantastic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Thank goodness impartial judicial systems exist, so that we don't judge, convict and punish people based on emotion, conjecture and public opinion. If anything, it's the left wingers who are caterwauling about the results of the grand jury. You guys have turned this entire thread into a public platform to cry about the outcome. Even when no-one here was posting views contrary to your own, you were all bouncing the same thoughts off each other like an echo chamber. OK, we get it, the grand jury process didn't meet your standards (translation: they didn't return the outcome you wanted). Deal with it.

Nobody has been found guilty of perjury as far as I am aware, so your claim is speculative. Again, I recommend you google 'fact' and 'conjecture', and learn the difference between the two.

The accounts of the witnesses who claimed that Brown was shot in the back while running away, or while he was on his knees with his hands up, were widely circulated in the left-wing media. Indeed, these claims were taken seriously by protestors and riots, hence the display of signs saying 'Hands up! Don't shoot!' Why didn't the media verify the validity of such claims before publishing them? Why do you think that media outlets should be permitted to publish inflammatory falsehoods and then be immune from consequences?

Whether they lied or not is just your opinion. Personally, I feel that a number of the witnesses were, at best, unreliable. However, our opinions are irrelevant. It is the grand jury's role to determine the credibility of a witness, not you or I.

You still haven't condemned the looting, violence and arson perpetrated by the rioters against innocent bystanders, even though they have done far more harm to black people than Wilson ever did. It seems like you only care about the welfare of black people when it suits your political agenda. Fancy that...

By the way, didn't you state (repeatedly) that you weren't going to have any further discourse with The Marquis. Yet in spite of that, you're still responding to his posts? Either you're a bald-faced liar, or lack basic self-control. Either way, you're not helping your credibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One observation, that is left out of this discussion, is that the bulk of the largest protests over police brutality occurred within democratic party controlled cities and states. This was expected by me, since the democrats are the historical party of slavery, division, laws of discrimination, the KKK, etc. The Republicans were the party of Lincoln, the underground railroad, formed the NAACP, etc.

The largest demonstrations showed that cities controlled by the democrats have the most people with the highest perception of racism; New York. Yet the base is too irrational to see this basic cause and effect. They blame republicans who control areas where the blacks are not demonstrating at these levels. The democratic controlled cities still have roots in the old party; good ole boys control things.

The entire narrative and discussion is a distraction so liberals will not see this basic connection. A black democratic president, based on the democratic propaganda, would be expected to make the life of blacks better, but it did not happen. I did not expected this due to their historical roots. It was always about maintaining a plantation of black slave voters not liberating them to freedom and choice. A free man makes his own decisions and is not obliged to the master even if he feeds him. The goal is to converge the blacks into a voter block against Lincoln, because Lincoln wants slavery; dumb americans.

The goals of diversity was a clever democratic tactic used to get minorities to segregate themselves. In the old days you could do this with laws. The kicker of maintaining language and traditions, which was sold as good, keeps them from enjoying the benefits of the common language of English. The lack of global opportunity keeps the races segregated in democratic controlled cities; land of voter slavery and the heavy hand of police.

In the New York a man died due to a choke hold for selling single cigarettes and not paying the excessive taxes. Anti-cigarette and high taxes are platforms of the democrats.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the tells about your really bad poker face is when your self-righteousness depends on the proposition that either you or the person you are addressing is a complete moron, and the facts of reality speak more kindly of the other.

You might as well tell us that evolution isn't reliable because we haven't found every transitional fossil.

The common point: Unfinished processes.

What is known:

(1) Witness 40 told a false tale.

(2) This was known before she was put on the witness stand.

(3) Rather than discrediting her, prosecutors invited her back for a second session.

(4) Bob McCulloch has acknowledged that he knowingly put liars on the stand.​

All McCulloch has in his defense is a shrugging, clodhopping, "call me an ignoramus if you must but I acted in good faith by knowingly putting false testimony on the stand" defense.

And for those who understand even a little about juristic process in the United States, that is a potential bellwether. This will be a test of just how far a presupposition of good faith can be stretched.

And it's an unfinished process.

What is sickening is that Witness 40 is very possibly the only head society ends up piking over this debacle. At this point, though, the Department of Justice and the Bar Association are where the action is. DoJ is trying to figure out what their part in this is, because it is obvious they have one; the Bar Association is trying to figure out just how much damage McCulloch has done to the already dismal reputation of lawyers—if it's bad enough, they'll pull his license.

Stay tuned; this ain't over.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. He didn't persuade the witness to lie or act with the intent that the witness would deceive the grand jury.

 

1) Witness 41's testimony was consistent with the forensic evidence, easily - without making any unusual allowances 2) The claims about the cell phone record and the fate of the phone were not made to the grand jury. They are also more likely to be true than most of the testimony supporting Wilson's account in its areas of disagreement with the physical evidence, by presumption - people do drop their phones in the toilet, find they no longer work, and throw them out. 3) Witness 41 was questioned adversarily in front of the grand jury, by the (ostensible) future "prosecutor", and his attitude of doubt established; that did not happen with the witnesses supporting Wilson's account, or Wilson himself.

That's how one rigs a grand jury hearing.

1) Not to the grand jury, he didn't. 2) His claims made to the grand jury were not in conflict with the forensic evidence 3)Witness 41 was questioned adversarily in front of the grand jury, by the (ostensible) future "prosecutor", and his attitude of doubt established; that did not happen with the witnesses supporting Wilson's account, or Wilson himself.

That is how one rigs a grand jury hearing.

4) And "shot in the back while trying to surrender"? You do realize nobody made that physically somewhat difficult claim ever, right?

All the eyewitnesses agree, with the forensic evidence, that Brown was facing Wilson during the entire third burst of shots, and that the kill shot was delivered into the top of Brown's head from a gun a little over four feet off the ground when it fired.

That is completely false. I have never cited anything any witness said as gospel, or based any argument on the veracity of the eyewitnesses who disagreed with Wilson's account.

Why are the several items of forensic evidence I have referred to throughout this thread not considered "reliable" by people like you, and "eyewitness" accounts from mentally ill people who were not present taken seriously instead?

We do not need to speculate about his intentions or persuasions - we have his own admission that he knew he was putting mentally ill and dishonest people on the stand, and that they would be, and in fact were, giving false testimony under oath. He kept that knowledge from the grand jury. That is not legal.

What do you think his motive was?

And they agree with the forensic evidence, unlike Wilson's account. All you have to do is replace "shot in the back" with "shot at while running away" - because we know now that Wilson missed with his first shots.

No, it isn't. That's a trial jury's job. A grand jury hasn't the resources, or the necessary help from cross examination etc.

btw: the fact that Wilson missed so many shots is not emphasized much, but he kind of shot up the neighborhood in Brown's general direction - sheer luck that he didn't hit anyone else.

 

Almost Unexpected

I admit, I didn't have this course in my charts:

A member of the grand jury that ultimately decided not to indict former Ferguson, Missouri, Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown is suing the prosecuting attorney in St. Louis County, accusing Robert McCulloch of mischaracterizing the grand jury process.

The still-anonymous grand juror, referred to only as "Grand Juror Doe" in the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, believes that his or her voice "could contribute to the current public dialogue concerning race relations" in the country. The grand juror believes that the Wilson case was handled much differently than the hundreds of other cases presented to the grand jury before the Wilson case.

"From Plaintiff's perspective, the presentation of evidence to the grand jury investigating Wilson differed markedly and in significant ways from how evidence was presented in the hundreds of matters presented to the grand jury earlier in its term," the lawsuit stated. The grand juror believes that the portrayal of the case in the media has not been accurate.

"In Plaintiff's view, the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate -- especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit stated. "Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors' view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff's own."

The ACLU said the "life-time gag order" against grand jurors in the case is not fair in the Wilson case because of the extraordinary publicity Brown's death received and the strange way the case was presented.

(Reilly)​

We'll have to see what comes. This might be an interesting question of standing, or it might actually go forward.
____________________

Notes:

Reilly, Ryan. "Darren Wilson Grand Juror Sues, Accusing Ferguson Prosecutor Of Mischaracterizing Case". The Huffington Post. 5 January 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. 5 January 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bob-mcculloch-wilson-case_n_6417370.html

 

Side comment: confusing the grand jury testimony, under oath and under McCulloch's oversight, with what people said outside the courtroom, later after criticism or earlier during the chaotic event, misleads people about what the grand jury was presented.

 

You will notice that, in general, one side of this dispute tends to rely on the historical record while the other tends to randomly make shit up.

And what is really bizarre about this is that McCulloch's farce might have been wholly unnecessary. It is said that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, but the exception to this is indicting police. And as we see from New York, even when you catch a cop on video breaking department policy in such a manner that results in someone's death, it's still really hard to get an indictment. Bob McCulloch probably didn't need to tank this invesigation, especially when we consider that, on a societal level, police get the presupposition that one can lie in good faith.

And yet he did, to such a degree that even if we take him at his best word, that he really did do a good and proper and professional job, a new question arises about why nobody else gets that process.

And as our discussion proceeds here at Sciforums, we see once again an upwelling of know-nothingism, in which people who have argued related issues fluently in the past start behaving as if they need a remedial civics course. To the one, it's not shocking to consider the proposition that most Americans don't know the difference between a grand jury investigation and a criminal trial, but at some point the ignorance these people are posing for us really does stand out.

As for a real discussion, one faces considerations personal and political; to what degree should we even waste our time responding to these people who are either dishonest or simply that ignorant? And to what degree can our community afford to let that cluster of trolls alone to do their diddle?

I admit, some of it has me reeling, as the posts have reached a level of stupidity that is staggering. The need some people present to reset the discussion to square zero on day one in order to have a complete do-over is genuinely worthy of ridicule.

You know, there was an episode earlier in this particular thread that stands out for its own reasons, anyway, but is worth recalling specifically now. A member posted an argument about how good the grand jury process was in this case, and I presented five posts (four and sources) in response. The member's response was to open up his argument and start arguing from sources that his original source had denounced. That was disgusting and disappointing at the time, but it also stands out as one of the stronger efforts put in by those who would hold police above accountability.

At some point, it's a bit disappointing; the Sciforums discussion is not so far removed from the general public discourse, and the public discourse is so lopsided that it seems we're only giving the authoritarian advocates airtime in order to present an appearance of fairness.

In the end, the only real fair thing I can figure is to generally ignore them. They're getting so toxic that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, there's even one argument up currently in one of the related threads that requires, in order to be valid, that there is no federal valence to civil rights law. And come on, really? Seriously? I mean, how is anyone supposed to take that kind of stupid need with a straight face?

As we read through certain members' posts, it should be easy enough to identify the bullshit declarations made without any real support; what is more difficult is figuring out whether they really think the process works as quickly as a television crime drama, or really do need remedial instruction in introductory civics, or if perhaps they really are just that stupid and cruel.

You know, there are fascinating and insightful discussions to be undertaken in these cases, and about this general issue. It is entirely possible to have those discussions, but we also need to sort of come 'round and decide to stop wasting our time mucking around in the gutters with these people.

 

... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/u...ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?_r=0 ...

 

The Feds found no evidence of wrong doing.

"WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer involved in the fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/u...ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?_r=0

Get ready for the next round of conspiracies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is false. The Feds found insufficient evidence to support charges of the kind available - Federal violation of Brown's civil rights. Here is what they needed evidence sufficient to prove:

I would agree with that assessment, based on the public evidence. I see no proof of awareness, in Wilson, that anything he was doing or did was wrong.

 

Yes, they said "insufficient evidence", which is broad and could mean they found nothing or found something but not enough. But your statement, "no proof" is just another way of saying "no evidence". So I think you guys really do agree that there was no evidence that Wilson was acting out of racism.

Which, of course, begs the question of why the investigation was started in the first place if there never was any evidence of racism upon which to base a suspicion.

 

No, it isn't. I see plenty of evidence that Wilson was acting out of inherent racial bigotry, and Brown is dead because of that. But nothing that would prove in court that Wilson knew he was doing wrong.

There was. And is.

 

curiouser and curiouser

 

FALSE.
Brown is dead because of his own arrogant, thuggish behavior. THAT is something easily SEEN. Only One Person is able to see/know as you say you do (leading to your interpretation of your so called "evidence"). You choose to dismiss what is plainly seen while essentially claiming supernatural abilities enabling you to know what no human can know about Wilson. Guess what...you plainly evidence traits consistent with an inherently stubborn, biased, lying spirit who's out of touch with reality.

 

Could you give some examples of this evidence you see?

 

He didn't shoot himself.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to pretend that is an honest question from someone who actually has no idea why every black and many white observers recognized the entire event as grounded in racial bigotry.

Specific to the event: Wilson opened the encounter as a confrontation. Wilson drew his gun very early in the encounter. Wilson shot at Brown when Brown was too far away to be a realistic threat. In sequence Wilson lost his temper, and then panicked, and then lost his professional control, and then shot up the street in a residential neighborhood, in a series of situations justifying no such extremes of reaction. At no time does Wilson even mention the community, seeking support and information from witnesses, any of the normal assessments of the situation a cop would be led to in a community of people the cop regarded as people like himself, on his side.

General to the situation: please - the nature of the community and the police force, Wilson's hiring circumstances, the reactions from the local authorities, Wilson's early statements, - all familiar to us all by now.

From the pov of the Feds: a white cop shot an unarmed black teenager six times, the last two shots killing the kid, in the middle of the street in broad daylight, with no apparent crime more serious than jaywalking in initial view. That has to be investigated.

 

How is any of that evidence of racism/racial bias? You list what he did (painted with a biased brush, but close enough), but racism/racial bias is a why issue. The problem is that unless he says something about why he did what he did, it is impossible to know for sure.

It was investigated.