An inconvenient truth

[Bells]

Why is it when the media puts on most shootings they are mostly when a white officer shoots a black person. I'm certain that white people are also shot in similar manners that the black people are.

That would be because it is more pervasive. Blacks in particular are over-represented in the criminal justice system in the US due to over-policing and racial profiling. So why do you think the rate of deaths by police officers would be similar to whites who are killed by white police officers?

From incomplete data, in that without all of the available figures and with just what they could gather from Government sources from the few police departments who did report such killings:

The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police.

One way of appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica's analysis shows, is to calculate how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring – 185, more than one per week.

ProPublica's risk analysis on young males killed by police certainly seems to support what has been an article of faith in the African American community for decades: Blacks are being killed at disturbing rates when set against the rest of the American population.

Our examination involved detailed accounts of more than 12,000 police homicides stretching from 1980 to 2012 contained in the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report. The data, annually self-reported by hundreds of police departments across the country, confirms some assumptions, runs counter to others, and adds nuance to a wide range of questions about the use of deadly police force.​

It is a very very large disparity. And a disturbing one.

And it isn't just white officers. Black police officers were also killing teenagers and young men, many of whom are unarmed (black and white). With a majority of the population in the US being white, of course white victims of police violence will also be fairly hefty and terribly so. But black people are a minority in the US and the numbers against them is over-represented.

Overall, the figures are too high, regardless of race.

It is just very peculiar that the media exposes the public to mostly something that will only incite people and very little truth about the shooting as the media has done with this shooting.

How many more young people have to be killed by the police before police departments implement better training to try to reduce the level of aggressiveness of their officers?

Give me a figure. Any figure. How many is an acceptable figure?

Let's just put it into some perspective.

In the past five years, more Utahns have been killed by police than by gang members.


Or drug dealers. Or from child abuse.
​

The numbers are not huge, but the problem remains the same.

Through October, 45 people had been killed by law enforcement officers in Utah since 2010, accounting for 15 percent of all homicides during that period.


A Salt Lake Tribune review of nearly 300 homicides, using media reports, state crime statistics, medical-examiner records and court records, shows that use of force by police is the second-most common circumstance under which Utahns kill each other, surpassed only by intimate partner violence.


Saturday’s shooting, which occurred after an officer responded to a trespassing call, remains under investigation.


Nearly all of the fatal shootings by police have been deemed by county prosecutors to be justified. Only one — the 2012 shooting of Danielle Willard by West Valley City police — was deemed unjustified, and the subsequent criminal charge was thrown out last month by a judge.​

Most disturbingly, police shooting of civilians are often investigated by their fellow officers and county prosecutors. Apparently conflict of interest does not enter the fray in such situations.

Comforting thought, isn't it?

What isn't comforting is the thought that we are becoming so used to this level of violence by law enforcement that it is just second nature and we expect that it is the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.

 

[Tiassa]

Most disturbingly, police shooting of civilians are often investigated by their fellow officers and county prosecutors. Apparently conflict of interest does not enter the fray in such situations.

Comforting thought, isn't it?

Why would that be relevant to anything?

Oh.

You know, it would probably work a lot better if our reassurance that the conflict of interest isn't important came in some other form than extraordinary process intended to establish extraordinary protection.

But law enforcement can't even meet its own damn standard of justice.

​

____________________

Notes:

"What Happened in Ferguson?" The New York Times. 25 October 2014. NYTimes.com. 1 December 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...i-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html

 

[Bells]

Why would that be relevant to anything?

Oh.

You know, it would probably work a lot better if our reassurance that the conflict of interest isn't important came in some other form than extraordinary process intended to establish extraordinary protection.

But law enforcement can't even meet its own damn standard of justice.

Hmm..

It's not that they did not meet their own standards of justice. The problem in this case is that they re-wrote the book altogether..

On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.


Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.​

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.


In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.


Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
​

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

​

As Marjorie Cohn, a Professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law notes, McCulloch violated every single principle that Scalia noted in this case. And it was spectacularly disturbing and self serving. And may set a very bad precedent.

You know the fix is in when a suspect who shot an unarmed man voluntarily provides four hours of un-cross examined testimony to a grand jury without taking the Fifth.​

I have to admit, this was shocking. And it gets worse:

In a normal grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents evidence for a few days and then asks the grand jurors to return an indictment, which they nearly always do. Of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of them, according the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The standard of proof for a grand jury to indict is only probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction at trial. Yet McCulloch's team presented testimony and documents to the panel for three months, evidence not subjected to adversarial testing by cross-examination.​

And worse:

The prosecutor did not ask these grand jurors for an indictment. They were left to sift through the evidence on their own, with no prosecutorial guidance about what to charge. Indeed, the transcripts indicated that prosecutors asked Wilson gentle, leading questions designed to bolster his self-defense claim. For example, a prosecutor told Wilson, "You felt like your life was in jeopardy," followed by, "And use of deadly force was justified at that point, in your opinion?" But prosecutors rigorously challenged witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

As the grand jury is a secret proceeding, with only the grand jurors and the prosecutor present, the grand jurors did not hear any cross-examination of the officer's testimony, or that of other witnesses (which is customary in an adversarial jury trial). These grand jurors, who were nearing the end of their term, which began in May, knew the drill, since they had sat on several other cases. They knew the prosecutor always asks for indictments. Thus, when the prosecutor handled the Wilson case in a radically different manner, this signaled to the grand jurors that they were not expected to indict. And they did not.

Another unorthodox aspect of this case was McCulloch's announcement of the grand jury's decision on national television. Sounding like a defense attorney delivering a closing argument in a jury trial, McCulloch characterized and analyzed the witness testimony in the light most favorable to the officer.
​

And worse still:

McCulloch has a history of bias in favor of police involved in altercations with black men. But, ignoring the pleas of 7,000 residents in and near Ferguson who signed a petition, McCulloch refused to recuse himself in the Wilson case.

McCulloch had mischaracterized testimony in a 2000 case in which two black men were killed after officers fired 21 shots at them. As in the Wilson case, the reasonableness of the officers' use of deadly force was critical. In the 2000 case, the officers said the two victims were driving toward them, trying to run them down, and McCulloch claimed that all the witnesses corroborated the officers' story. A later federal investigation, however, determined that the car was not moving forward, and that only three of the thirteen officers said the car was moving forward.

Likewise, Wilson's claim that Brown was "charging" at him when the officer fired the fatal shots into the top of Brown's bowed head was critical to the reasonableness of Wilson's use of deadly force. When McCulloch announced the grand jury's decision, he characterized the witnesses who testified that Brown was "charging" the officer as believable, but dismissed the testimony of witnesses who said Brown was surrendering. McCulloch sounded like a defense attorney, not a prosecutor charged with representing "the people," including Brown.​

But here the kicker was just how McCulloch favoured Wilson. Aside from leading questions in an unprecedented event that defies all legal logic and precedent and the simple fact that he failed in his duty to represent the people and instead moved heaven and earth, re-wrote the book to protect Wilson and blatantly withhold evidence, there was this gem:

Adachi also wrote, "Prosecutors never asked Wilson why he did not attempt to drive away while Brown was allegedly reaching through his vehicle window or to reconcile the contradiction between his claim that Brown punched the left side of his face and the documented injuries which appear on his right side."​

It was set up to fail and set up to defend Wilson. Frankly, McCulloch should face an investigation in his handling of this farce. And it is a farce.

 

[pjdude1219]

Wilson's story was not perfect (no eyewitness story should ever be expected to be), but it does fit the vast majority of the evidence.

well except for the fact the police destroyed the blood evidence. how brown's body was 5 times farther away from wilson's car than it should have been according to his story. the general incredulous aspects of wilson's story. not perfect is an understatement.

 

[iceaura]

Why is it when the media puts on most shootings they are mostly when a white officer shoots a black person. I'm certain that white people are also shot in similar manners that the black people are.

No, they aren't. Not nearly as often, anyway. Here's an unarmed white guy getting shot, typically: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-d-easton-police-involved-fatal-shooting-20141024-story.html

Notice: two to five shots, even when immersed in actual violence (getting rammed by a pickup truck, smoke from spinning tires, etc.). Not twelve shots fired at somebody bleeding on the street in front of the officer, in good light and completely visible, the last into the top of the head.

Other typical circumstances of unarmed white guys getting shot: visibility is poor, somebody has told the police they are armed, they have recently committed a violent crime with a weapon, their names are Lopez or Diaz or the like, they are inside a car they have driven violently, etc.

These are obviously rarer circumstances than the ones in which these media famous unarmed black guys get shot - decent visibility, secure knowledge of their empty hands, walking in the street, etc.

 

[joepistole]

The cities and states, within the USA, with the worse crime, poverty, debt and corruption are controlled by Democrats. In Massachusetts, run by democrats, welfare fraud is encouraged by lack of action. Chicago, for example, which is a democratic stronghold, is the home city of president Obama. This city has the highest murder rate with most of the murder black against black.

For some reason, the Democratic party, although historically pro-slavery, pro-segregation and pro KKK is favored by most of the blacks. They can't learn from history, if it is revised. It is not coincidence that the blacks are once again in dire straights under the democrat control. The democrats are good at deception and have convinced the blacks that the Republican party is the enemy. However, the hard data shows republican blacks are better off in nearly all categories including wealth, education and security. It has always been this way.

If the blacks and the liberals prefer to believe in lies that make feel good or insecure, while ignoring the hard data, things will not change for the blacks, because the party of segregation benefits by the status quo. One clever tactic that was invented is called diversity. This is where you convince all the nonwhite minorities to separate themselves into third world ghettos within inner cities controlled by democrats. It would be funny if not so tragic. Then you give them enough welfare and segregated language education to keep them there. Then you blame the whites republican, making it harder to leave since the underground railroad to safety looks like a trap; Republicans.

Liberalism makes this easy to pull off, since it is all about emotions and not hard data. All you do is paint a pretty picture, and liberals want to believe the imagery So many bad social policies have been integrated into culture because of lack of reason and fact check. How many liberals believed you could keep your doctor and premiums would come down by $2500 per person, since it felt good? Does diversity feel good?

Except that is all nonsense born out of ignorance, political demagoguery, and zealotry. How do you explain academic study after study which finds Republicans are the least well informed? How do you explain the very vast majority of scientists are Democrats? How do you explain all those very unscientific beliefs held by Republicans (e.g. climate change, evolution, creationism, or raped women secret special hormones which prevent pregnancy, etc.)? Oh that it right, you right wing facts folks don't like academics. Academics are part of that vast liberal conspiracy, so that gives you license to ignore facts and invent your own version of reality.

 

[Capracus]

Adachi also wrote, "Prosecutors never asked Wilson why he did not attempt to drive away while Brown was allegedly reaching through his vehicle window or to reconcile the contradiction between his claim that Brown punched the left side of his face and the documented injuries which appear on his right side."

Thankfully at least one juror had the sense to ask the obvious question ignored by the prosecutors.

A juror asked why Wilson didn't simply drive away.

“My thought is, I was still dealing with a threat at my car,” Wilson responded. “You know, we're trained not to run away from a threat, to deal with a threat and that is what I was doing. That never entered my mind to flee."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_95453075-8661-5e47-ae35-94783d620c6e.html

 

[GeoffP]

Many of the avenues being advanced here are correct: the cop was more likely to shoot a black attacker in all probability, although this might or might not be true specifically in Wilson's case, so that while the trend exists, the cop in question is an individual. And it's also true that an unprovoked attack may well get you shot. And if there'd been a non-lethal alternative Brown would be alive. And the court - or an element thereof - favoured Wilson. Someone said "perfect storm" above: it certainly got one outcome.

 

[Bells]

Thankfully at least one juror had the sense to ask the obvious question ignored by the prosecutors.

That article you linked..

I can understand the outrage.

GRAND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

In their final instructions Friday, jurors were told they had to find two things: probable cause that Wilson committed any of the five possible offenses, and probable cause that he did not act in self defense.

They were given the statutes for all five potential crimes, ranging from second degree involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder. They were also given the "justifications" that at trial could serve as a defense to those crimes: self-defense and justified use of force by a law enforcement officer. Lastly, they were provided with the statute for assault on a law enforcement officer.

Prosecutors did not guide jurors much on the statutes themselves — at least not from what is apparent from the transcripts.

But they did point out a legal quirk that jurors would have to navigate: Missouri's law for use of force is not consistent with a guiding U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

That U.S. Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, says that an officer using deadly force against a fleeing felon must have probable cause that the felon poses a significant risk of harm to the officer or the community.

Missouri's deadly force law says that deadly force is justified if it is needed to immediately effect an arrest and if the felon has done one of the following:

• has committed or attempted to commit a felony OR

• is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon OR

• may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious injury unless arrested without delay

The "or" between each of those clauses is important. Ostensibly, under Missouri law, an officer could use deadly force only if it is needed to make the arrest of someone who has committed or attempted to commit a felony. But that's not what the nation's top court has ruled.

Prosecutors, in trying to explain this discrepancy to jurors, provided them with "a statement of the law" that tracked the relevant part of Missouri statute but also conformed to the Supreme Court ruling.

Alizadeh told them to take the copy of Missouri law that was provided to them at the start of the grand jury process and to fold it in half.

"What we have discovered, and (sic) we have been going along with this, doing our own research, is that the statute in Missouri does not comply with the case law."

Of the portion that does not conform, she said, "Ignore it totally."

When jurors started asking more technical questions, Alizadeh told them just to disregard the statute.

"We don't want to get into a law class," chimed in Sheila Whirley, the second prosecutor on the case.

Prosecutors also told jurors what to do if they decided Wilson should be charged, but couldn't reach nine votes in agreement on which charge applied.

"If you have nine people that vote indict on anything, then there will be an indictment," Alizadeh said. "What that indictment is we will deal with if that happens, but there was some question, well, is it kind of like a hung jury if we all can't agree on the charge. No."​

 

[tali89]

OK, so let me get this straight.

Left wingers are upset about the results of the grand jury indictment because:

- The case against Officer Wilson was presented over 25 days instead of a couple of days, in spite of the fact that this would allow for a greater opportunity for any evidence against Wilson to be presented.

- Officer Wilson testified for 4 hours, in spite of the fact that this effectively meant he had waved his 5th Amendment rights and was at risk of incriminating himself.

- Testimony was heard for more witnesses than normal, again giving greater opportunity for any evidence against Wilson to be presented.

- The grand jury indictment being a public spectacle, which effectively held the grand jury hostage to public opinion.

If anything, all of the above observations appear to work against Wilson, rather than in favour of him.

This whole fiasco is yet another example of left wingers holding their distorted worldview as axiomatic, and then inventing or manipulating events to fit their worldview. Instead of allowing the judicial process to handle the matter in an impartial and rational manner, they fan the flames of racial discord and attempt to force a judicial decision with threats of violence. They had already deemed the officer guilty, and were ready to kick and scream if he wasn't publicly crucified.

What's really disturbing about all of this is that the liberal ring-leaders who created racial hatred and discord will profit, whereas the left-wingers in the lower socio-economic are the true victims. Black people are (wrongly) going to hate the local police force, which will lead to more black youths getting arrested or injured by police. Local businesses will suffer from the rioting and looting. The local community will suffer from skyrocketing unemployment and lack of services when those local businesses close down and move to a more secure and harmonious environment. And naturally, the evil Republicans and right-wingers will be blamed for the high rate of unemployment and poverty in black youths.

Officer Wilson is now a pariah, despite having never even been indicted. Under the law he is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and by all rights his hearing before the grand jury should have been conducted in secret so as to preserve his reputation. However, left-wingers aren't interested in procedural fairness, and have already convicted him in the media. They are out for blood, and by god they will get it. If they can't have Officer Wilson, then they will 'grieve' by robbing and bashing their neighbours, and burning down the businesses that service their needs.

 

[Bells]

*Guffaw*

You made a funny.

They treated it like it was an actual trial. But it wasn't a trial. There was no cross examination of the evidence they decided to present. There was no push back against their telling the jury to completely ignore and disregard the law. There was no risk that he was going to incriminate himself (he did when he changed his testimony from what he had initially told police and that was also ignored) because it was set up for his success. And it was blatant and obvious.

I think it is hysterical that you think that was designed to work against him.

 

[Capracus]

Officer Wilson is now a pariah, despite having never even been indicted. Under the law he is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and by all rights his hearing before the grand jury should have been conducted in secret so as to preserve his reputation. However, left-wingers aren't interested in procedural fairness, and have already convicted him in the media. They are out for blood, and by god they will get it. If they can't have Officer Wilson, then they will 'grieve' by robbing and bashing their neighbours, and burning down the businesses that service their needs.

A required majority of the grand jury determined that no credible evidence was revealed to significantly contradict Darren Wilson’s story, and that his actions were consistent with state law in regards to his use of deadly force. Wilson was apparently conditioned by his organizational training to perform as he did during this particular incident, so I can’t fault him for dutifully following department policy and training, but I can fault the training. By his own account it’s that organizational training that compromised his ability to de-escalate the lethality of the confrontation fueled by Michael Brown’s irrational behavior. Had Wilson been trained to tactically retreat and rely on backup, or employ non-lethal suppression, he may have avoided being a facilitator of Michael Brown’s apparent desire for self destruction. As long as police departments continue to instill tactical inflexibility in their officers, they’ll keep needlessly turning guys like Darren Wilson into pariahs.

 

[iceaura]

A required majority of the grand jury determined that no credible evidence was revealed to significantly contradict Darren Wilson’s story, and that his actions were consistent with state law in regards to his use of deadly force.

That isn't the role of a grand jury. That is what trials are for. They aren't even supposed to be hearing "Wilson's story", or picking and choosing between the supposed credibility of various witnesses, for the very good reason that proper cross-exsamination of witnesses and examination of evidence is not possible in a grand jury setting.

Wilson was apparently conditioned by his organizational training to perform as he did during this particular incident, so I can’t fault him for dutifully following department policy and training, but I can fault the training

From Wilson's uncontested and unexamined testimony, nothing of the sort can be concluded. You are making news media evaluations pertaining to an internet discussion, which is fine, but such matters when pertaining to Wilson's guilt or innocence would be determined during a trial, based on examined evidence and testimony.

- Testimony was heard for more witnesses than normal, again giving greater opportunity for any evidence against Wilson to be presented

You don't know how grand jury hearings work, do you.

They are essentially, in their first and predominant role, arenas for the presentation of the State's evidence against the defendant, the case for indictment. All the rest of the stuff is for the trial - only the prosecution's basic case, the evidence of crime and the prosecutor's opinion as to what he can prove in court, are necessary. The shorter the hearing, the more it would focus on that basic function and the less opportunity for exculpatory evidence to appear. The accused does not normally even appear, let alone give their side of the story.

Officer Wilson is now a pariah, despite having never even been indicted. Under the law he is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and by all rights his hearing before the grand jury should have been conducted in secret so as to preserve his reputation.

Now you're talking like those "lefties" you think you despise - everyone except the police and prosecutor and other rightwing white people of the local Klan infested region wanted a normal, secret, rapid, grand jury hearing. The prosecutor set up this show trial arrangement in the interests of those people, including Wilson himself.

But if you think his reputation would have been protected by such normal procedures, you are living in fantasy. His reputation took its hit when he unloaded a dozen rounds in apparent incoherent spasm at an unarmed man, including a kill shot into the top of his head after putting five bullets into him, in front of witnesses, in broad daylight, without the slightest sign of remorse or apology later.

Black people are (wrongly) going to hate the local police force, -

I hate to break this to you, but black people's mistrust and even hatred of the local police in that part of the US is not something that is "going to" appear now. It's kind of, you know, traditional. It goes back to things like having a police force manned and supervised by KKK members in good standing. If you didn't know that, you do now - easily verified on the net or in the street, if you think I am saying something dubious.

And if you wingnuts try to blame it on the Wilson case, you will reveal a level of denial and dishonesty genuinely startling. I never get used to it, anyway, no matter how often it unfolds in front of me.

The interesting aspect here is that the prosecutor's reputation seems unaffected. A failure like this, so publicly the consequence of the prosecutor's arrangements, would be embarrassing, normally. Questions of competence would arise. But he seems to have completely satisfied his employers.

 

[Capracus]

That isn't the role of a grand jury. That is what trials are for. They aren't even supposed to be hearing "Wilson's story", or picking and choosing between the supposed credibility of various witnesses, for the very good reason that proper cross-exsamination of witnesses and examination of evidence is not possible in a grand jury setting.

Of course they’re supposed to be hearing Wilson’s story. Not only does Wilson have a right tell his story in a grand jury proceeding, he is also an eye witness to the incident, which makes his story part of the body of evidence the grand jury is tasked to examine. Grand jury members are essentially co investigators of the case at hand, and encouraged to question and examine all evidence and witnesses brought before them.

From Wilson's uncontested and unexamined testimony, nothing of the sort can be concluded. You are making news media evaluations pertaining to an internet discussion, which is fine, but such matters when pertaining to Wilson's guilt or innocence would be determined during a trial, based on examined evidence and testimony.

The grand jury members are tasked with evaluating the testimony of all witnesses and evidence presented to them, and then deciding if their collective valuation warrants an indictment based on the included criminal charges. In Wilson’s case they determined it didn’t.

You don't know how grand jury hearings work, do you.

They are essentially, in their first and predominant role, arenas for the presentation of the State's evidence against the defendant, the case for indictment. All the rest of the stuff is for the trial - only the prosecution's basic case, the evidence of crime and the prosecutor's opinion as to what he can prove in court, are necessary. The shorter the hearing, the more it would focus on that basic function and the less opportunity for exculpatory evidence to appear. The accused does not normally even appear, let alone give their side of the story.

What is it you think the Wilson grand jury was exposed to that wasn't relevant to the integrity of the prosecution’s case? If the jury members did not weigh the value of the entire body of evidence, which included Wilson’s story, how could they effectively determine the strength of the case against him? Wilson was not required nor prohibited from testifying before the grand jury, but he obviously concluded it was in his best interest to do so.

 

[Tiassa]

Of course they’re supposed to be hearing Wilson’s story. Not only does Wilson have a right tell his story in a grand jury proceeding, he is also an eye witness to the incident, which makes his story part of the body of evidence the grand jury is tasked to examine.

I'm curious about this particular behavior; perhaps you can explain why you do it.

Now, the question of deviation from normal grand jury procedure is well-established; indeed, there is discussion of the point and references to the issue all over this thread.

But then you walk in and make a statement like the one above, in contradiction of the record, making a completely bogus assertion with exactly zero evidentiary support.

Why do you do this?

 

[Capracus]

Now, the question of deviation from normal grand jury procedure is well-established; indeed, there is discussion of the point and references to the issue all over this thread.

But then you walk in and make a statement like the one above, in contradiction of the record, making a completely bogus assertion with exactly zero evidentiary support.

How about you list your objections to how this particular grand jury proceeding was conducted so I can address them specifically, and then we can determine the veracity of the claims from both sides.

 

[Tiassa]

How about you list your objections to how this particular grand jury proceeding was conducted so I can address them specifically, and then we can determine the veracity of the claims from both sides.

You mean like I did in #22↑ above?

Again, why do you do things like this? I mean, first you waltz in and make some haughty, incorrect assertion with zero supporting evidence while ignoring what's already on the record, and then you ask for what's already on the record?

And it is also emerging that from day one the grand jury was improperly counseled on applicable statutes:

The grand jury had been given instructions about the Missouri law governing when it's legal for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect — but that law had been invalidated by a 1985 Supreme Court decision ....

.... For most of the grand jury's term, they were operating under instructions from an assistant district attorney that their decisions should be governed by a 1979 law — the one that was found unconstitutional in 1985 — that said it was legal for police to shoot a fleeing suspect. And then, on the very last day of the grand jury, that same assistant DA handed them an updated version of the legal instructions, explaining that the first instructions were a little incorrect, but without specifying what was wrong with them, even when one juror asked a question to clarify whether Supreme Court decisions invalidated Missouri laws.

The assistant DA response? "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that." The other county prosecutor jumped in, adding, "We don't want to get into a law class."

(Zoom)​

____________________

Notes:

Zoom, Doktor. "You Mean Grand Juries Need To Know Real Laws?" Wonkette. 3 December 2014. Wonkette.com. 3 December 2014. http://wonkette.com/568106/morning-maddow-you-mean-grand-juries-need-to-know-real-laws-video

 

[Capracus]

You mean like I did in #22↑ above?

Again, why do you do things like this? I mean, first you waltz in and make some haughty, incorrect assertion with zero supporting evidence while ignoring what's already on the record, and then you ask for what's already on the record?

How are you able to discern that what I posted is incorrect or based on unsupported evidence? Because I didn’t associated it with a graphic from a New York Times article it’s considered invalid? What I did post is consistent with the operation of grand juries in general and with the Ferguson grand jury in particular. And all you put on the “record” was a graphic that showed that the Ferguson grand jury was atypical, not illegal or improper.

Here's what a former federal judge and law professor had to say about the fairness of the Ferguson grand jury.

The Michael Brown grand jury process was fair

The Michael Brown grand jury has spoken, declining to return charges against Officer Darren Wilson. The evidence that the grand jury reviewed has made available to the public and can be found here. Since I haven’t yet had an opportunity to review the voluminous testimony, in this post I discuss not substance, but procedure. Contrary to the complaints of some critics, the grand jury process was clearly fair.

Obviously not everyone agrees with the substance of the decision. But let’s consider the objections to the process. None of them hold water.

1. Using a Grand Jury Deviated from Normal Process.

A day before the grand jury’s decision was announced, Michael Brown’s family attorney raised the objection that the grand jury process was unfair because it was deviation from the normal process. “When you think about it, if this prosecutor is saying we’re just going to be fair, we’re not going to recommend any charges, that’s different from anything he’s done in his past 28 years with grand juries,” attorney Benjamin Crump argued. It turns out that at least part of this claim is untrue: McCulloch presented to the grand jury the full range of charges, from first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. The only difference from normal process was, apparently, that the prosecutor did not make any particular recommendation — leaving the issue up to the grand jurors. But it is hard to understand how this had any ultimate bearing on the outcome. Of course, if McCulloch’s recommendation was against filing charges, then he would never have gone to the grand jury in a normal case. And if his recommendation was filing charges, then in the normal course a grand jury (or judge) would have had to review the evidence and would have been thrown out the indictment at the point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-michael-brown-grand-jury-process-was-fair/

And it is also emerging that from day one the grand jury was improperly counseled on applicable statutes:

The grand jury had been given instructions about the Missouri law governing when it's legal for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect — but that law had been invalidated by a 1985 Supreme Court decision ....

.... For most of the grand jury's term, they were operating under instructions from an assistant district attorney that their decisions should be governed by a 1979 law — the one that was found unconstitutional in 1985 — that said it was legal for police to shoot a fleeing suspect. And then, on the very last day of the grand jury, that same assistant DA handed them an updated version of the legal instructions, explaining that the first instructions were a little incorrect, but without specifying what was wrong with them, even when one juror asked a question to clarify whether Supreme Court decisions invalidated Missouri laws.

The assistant DA response? "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that." The other county prosecutor jumped in, adding, "We don't want to get into a law class."​

And given that the DA in question corrected her mistake, how is this relevant to the grand jury’s ultimate conclusion? Especially since Wilson’s use of deadly force was consistent with current law.

Alizadeh realized her mistake three months after she initially presented the statute to the grand jurors and disclosed the error. But at least according to the transcript, she never told them what exactly she did wrong or what had changed. She simply told the jurors to “fold in half” the paper they had been referencing for three months and gave them a new one with different instructions.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...stake-skewed-the-law-in-darren-wilsons-favor/

​

 

[Bells]

Of course they’re supposed to be hearing Wilson’s story.

If it was a trial, certainly.

But this was not a trial. There was no cross examination, no questioning of the evidence Wilson's lawyers *cough* prosecutors *cough* decided to selectively provide. There was no cross examination of Wilson or his "story".

Most importantly, there was no one to tell Brown's story. Only a prosecutor who seemed hell bent to tell Wilson's story in a way and with leading questions to make sure that it was only his story that was told.

Not only does Wilson have a right tell his story in a grand jury proceeding, he is also an eye witness to the incident, which makes his story part of the body of evidence the grand jury is tasked to examine. Grand jury members are essentially co investigators of the case at hand, and encouraged to question and examine all evidence and witnesses brought before them.

Except that he should not have been put on the stand.

Refer to posts above detailing Scalia's decision about putting the accused on the stand in front of a grand jury. It is not their job to determine his innocence. That is the role of a trial. However, this hearing ended up being a one sided trial, with only one person telling his story freely and anyone who tried to tell Brown's story was questioned, doubted and treated like a criminal on the stand.

Then of course comes the fact that the prosecutor was only interested in making sure that Wilson was not indicted. His job was actually to represent the people, which included Brown, the victim of the shooting. Not Wilson.

The grand jury members are tasked with evaluating the testimony of all witnesses and evidence presented to them, and then deciding if their collective valuation warrants an indictment based on the included criminal charges. In Wilson’s case they determined it didn’t.

Certainly.

Now imagine having a trial where only one side gets to present its case and the other side is shut down, denied that right and the jury told that they should just ignore the law and precedence because it favours them for the jury to do so.

The role of the prosecutor is to seek an indictment. Why did he not do so in this case and why was he only interested in protecting the rights of the accused and doing everything he could, even re-writing the book and going against Scalia's ruling and putting Wilson on the stand?

What is it you think the Wilson grand jury was exposed to that wasn't relevant to the integrity of the prosecution’s case? If the jury members did not weigh the value of the entire body of evidence, which included Wilson’s story, how could they effectively determine the strength of the case against him? Wilson was not required nor prohibited from testifying before the grand jury, but he obviously concluded it was in his best interest to do so.

In this instance, the prosecutor was acting like Wilson's defence attorneys. That was not what they were there for.

In that regard, they utterly failed in their duty to the people they supposedly represented in that court room, just as they failed their office.

Why was the prosecutor, acting solely in the best interest of the person he was there to try to indict.

It was a sham.

 

[tali89]

*Guffaw*

They treated it like it was an actual trial. But it wasn't a trial. There was no cross examination of the evidence they decided to present.

So Wilson didn't have a lawyer to cross-examine the evidence the prosecutor put forth, and you're saying this works in *favour* of Wilson. Do you read what you write before posting it?

here was no risk that he was going to incriminate himself (he did when he changed his testimony from what he had initially told police and that was also ignored)

So you're saying that Wilson contradicted himself when being questioned, but that we was at no risk of incriminating himself.

I think it is hysterical that you think that was designed to work against him.

So being questioned by 4 hours by a prosecutor, and being unable to cross-examine the witness and evidence the prosecution calls forth, works in favour of the defendant? As I mentioned previously, you're exhibiting that typical liberal dishonesty where you regard your slanted worldview as axiomatic, and then distort and reinterpret all facts to fit said worldview. Personally, I don't really care when left-wingers lie to others. It doesn't affect me personally, because I have a well honed bullshit detector. However, it is tragic when left-wingers engage in self-deception, because at the end of the day, they only hurt themselves. And when they are suffering because they behave according to their superstition rather than fact, they are so brainwashed that they won't lay the blame at the feet of the liberal ringleaders who misled them.

The inherent violence and hate mongering demonstrated by left-wingers in this thread is disturbing, though. It appears that they would have just dispensed with the whole judicial system and thrown Wilson to the mob to torn apart, in spite of the fact that an impartial jury of 12 citizens couldn't even find *probable cause* to indict him. They have remained notably silent about the violent response to the failure to indict. Where is the condemnation of the looting and violence that left-wingers are perpetrating against their own neighbours? Will left-wingers hold their liberal tabloid media accountable for hate-mongering and encouraging racial violence by perpetrating factual inaccuracies about the shooting? Will they advise minorities *not* to attack armed police-men? I won't hold my breath.