patrick.net

That depends on your religious beliefs, and your definition of "deceased"...

tatupu70 says

Are you happier with--it's a fact that Michael Brown is deceased?

Yeah....that.

dodgerfanjohn says

What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.

dodgerfanjohn says

What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.

So all that is left is to grasp at straws. The B team...made up of protestors who have admitted they don't care what the evidence shows, MSNBHEE HAW, modern day carny barkers like Al Sharpton, and lower tier left wing PAtnet posters.

I don't know if you're including me in this rant, but you are completely clueless. You're obviously incapable of nuance and lack the ability to understand the fundamental issue that I'm trying to make. If we allow DAs to act as pawns of the police, making no effort to do their job in front of a grand jury, aren't we one step closer to a police state?

How is it possible to move any closer to a police state

This is already a full blown police state. And there's no shortage of idiots lining up to support the end of freedom

Call it Crazy says

What the hell are you talking about? All the DA did was present witnesses, evidence and all types of other info to the GJ. That IS his job!!

No, that's not his job. His job is to get a conviction (or indictment in this case).

Call it Crazy says

If you have issues with the outcome, go contact those 12 people.

Not sure how many times I can state this. I DON'T have an issue with the outcome. I have an issue with the process.

If you think this is how DAs act for all criminals that are up for indictment, then I can't help you. A DAs job is to get an indictment and conviction. Period. It's not to do the defense attorney's job for him. And that's why I challenge you to find ANY other case where the accused is allowed to speak for 4 hours in front of a grand jury.

errc says

How is it possible to move any closer to a police state

This is already a full blown police state. And there's no shortage of idiots lining up to support the end of freedom

No one in their right mind should wish for a police state, but at the same time we must recognize that there are nefarious people out there who won't hesitate to murder if they can snatch a $100 - these 2 forces must be reconciled. We cannot have anarchy as long as this second category of people exists.

Call it Crazy says

Do you want Grand Juries to be eliminated and we go directly to the hangings and guillotines?

Are you on crack? I want DAs to be separate from police.

Call it Crazy says

The accused is always allowed to speak at a GJ. In many cases, the defense lawyer is against it (if he thinks his client is guilty), but in this case, no laws were broken so Wilson decided to talk to the GJ.

Uh, I don't think you have any idea what a grand jury is. Here's a quick primer for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

"Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[16] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all"

From your source:

Is McCulloch’s decision to present all of the evidence to the grand jury controversial?

Yes.

Richard Kuhns, an emeritus professor at Washington University Law School, questioned McCulloch’s approach. “Since he presumably doesn't do this with other cases, the not-so-hidden message must be ‘don't indict.’ One more reason why McCulloch should never have been in charge of the investigation.”

@dublin

Do you honestly think that there's people out there that would jig you for $100. But the police are here to keep is safe, And because of these police, we are kept safe?

I don't think that's anywhere in the same realm of reality. I honestly believe that this police state presence has probably never stopped one single crime from being committed. Not one potential victim has ever been spared, because of the existence of our police state

I'll take it one step further. I believe t that the police make us all much less safe, And their existence has resulted in unfathomable amounts of crime x and wealth destruction

Call it Crazy says

See, it's NOT about just trying to find the accused guilty but giving the GJ ALL the evidence to make a informed decision!

Your cluelessness never ceases to amaze.

The job of the GJ is to indict (or not). The job of the prosecutor should be to calibrate the charges to what they should be, i.e. if a legitimate case can be made, and then to make the case that this charge is justified. In this case I think that would be either 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or possibly only criminal negligence.

It's pretty hard to argue that a case can not even be made that the cop was at least criminally negligent.

The grand jury isn't supposed to determine if he was, only if it is POSSIBLE that a convincing argument can be made that he was.

Or the same for manslaughter, that is if they had a prosecutor who thought Wilson should be indicted for something.

You're making that up. If he wanted to satisfy the natives as you say, there should have been a trial.

Instead, he basically tried the case all by himself, with the grand jury, while acting basically as the defense attorney with the goal of finding WIlson innocent. It may be true that he (with prejudice?) determined Wilson was probably totally innocent. But that would have probably included extremely stupid leaps, such as ruling out testimony from people who say Wilson shot at Brown while he was running, just because he wasn't hit from behind.

I notice dodgerfan still repeats this, after I mentioned an obvious fact, which is that Brown not being hit from behind does not come close to proving that WIlson didn't shoot at him while he was running away (WE KNOW HALF OF WILSONS SHOTS MISSED). Who knows, maybe the prosecutor is just as ill prepared to really look at the facts objectively as dodgerfan John is.

This was a fraudulent GJ according to many experts, including Supreme court justice Scalia and many others.

Call it Crazy says

Your racial bias never ceases to amaze!!

You're the one bringing race in to this. I'm not assuming that the cops incompetence or worse has anything to do with race. I do think it might have had something to do with why the cop was such pussy. Prbably lived a very sheltered life and was afraid of the scary black man. But who knows. I don't think it's particularly relevant.

There could not be a trial. Any charges brought against Wilson would be dismissed in preliminary hearing. Even the most anti police judge would not hold Wilson to stand trial.

I don't know why you slaps fail to understand this.

errc says

Do you honestly think that there's people out there that would jig you for
$100. But the police are here to keep is safe, And because of these police, we
are kept safe?

Yes, for some it will take even less than $100.

errc says

I don't think that's anywhere in the same realm of reality. I honestly
believe that this police state presence has probably never stopped one single
crime from being committed. Not one potential victim has ever been spared,
because of the existence of our police state

I'll take it one step further. I believe t that the police make us all much
less safe, And their existence has resulted in unfathomable amounts of crime x
and wealth destruction

The threat of imprisonment/punishment logically results in some people not committing crimes when they otherwise would. The effect is hard to quantify as you cannot interview people and since only 1 system can exist at a time controlling for country/culture, you cannot run experiments, but it clearly exists.

Unfortunately it does not deter all potential criminals given how many people are actually incarcerated, but it's simply a bigger problem mainly the fact that people learn definitions favorable to crime from their delinquent peer groups. In many countries, in the underclass one way to build prestige is to openly defy the law to prove toughness. Differential Association theory of crime explains this pretty well. Given this truth, the best that can be done is to lock up this "target market" and limit the damage to law obiding society until the necessary cultural change occurs.

dodgerfanjohn says

I don't know why you slaps fail to understand this.

Who doesn't understand that?? You are the one who completely fails to grasp the point--it's not that anyone here thinks Wilson is guilty. It's that the prosecutor clearly didn't perform his duty, instead doing everything in his power to get Wilson off.

It sets a very disturbing precedent.

tatupu70 says

dodgerfanjohn says

I don't know why you slaps fail to understand this.

Who doesn't understand that?? You are the one who completely fails to grasp the point--it's not that anyone here thinks Wilson is guilty. It's that the prosecutor clearly didn't perform his duty, instead doing everything in his power to get Wilson off.

It sets a very disturbing precedent.

So in your opinion the DA should have announced that no charges would be filed, correct? Cause that was the ONLY other option.

dodgerfanjohn says

Any charges brought against Wilson would be dismissed in preliminary hearing. Even the most anti police judge would not hold Wilson to stand trial.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if a grand jury results in an indictment, they aren't also going to have a pretrial hearing. Also, just FYI cops can easily be found guilty of manslaughter. In this case (Brown/Wilson) it might have been a lessor charge that was appropriate, criminal negligence - in other words the cops incompetence led to someone being killed who shouldn't have been. IF you think a judge wouldn't even hear that, you're definitely not being honest or objective.

These are examples of cops actually being found guilty.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Ex-Police-Officer-Found-Guilty-Involuntary-Manslaughter-188842921.html

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/conroe-police-officer-found-guilty-of-manslaughter/article_66196eb3-fcbc-5b7e-b184-9a7bfe67812f.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/09/oscar-grant-oakland-police-shooting

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/09/detroit_police_officer_back_on.html

http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/mid-del/jury-has-verdict-in-manslaughter-trial-against-former-del-city-police-officer/23171644

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oklahoma-police-captain-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-teens-death/

Why do you hate the statements of witnesses who were truthful?

Why are you willing to dismiss more than half of the statements based on faulty logic?

The grand jury isn't supposed to try the case. When are you going to get that ?

dodgerfanjohn says

So in your opinion the DA should have announced that no charges would be filed, correct? Cause that was the ONLY other option.

Well, first, that wasn't the only other option. He could have behaved like a prosecutor and actually tried for an indictment. If the grand jury doesn't indict, fine. If it does, then you have a trial where Wilson would be found not guilty, if there was no evidence as you suggest.

But, if the prosecutor decided there wasn't enough evidence to indict, then present the evidence explaining why no charges were filed. Just like they did after the grand jury. It's a DA's job to determine whether or not to go to a grand jury--but once decided, the DA must do everything in his power to get an indictment. Using the grand jury as a trial jury and acting like a defense attorney shouldn't have ever been considered...

Tee Hee. Look who you have defending you Tat.

Call it Crazy says

The prosecutor decided to pass the decision on to the GJ. It's his duty to also pass ALL the evidence collected on to the GJ, not pick and choose only the evidence that supports an indictment.

This was badly mishandled.

Normally a Grand Jury does not have witnesses testifying, and reams of evidence. They determine if there is a reasonable case for going to court. The overwhelming majority of Grand Juries send the cases along, where the court can weigh all that "reasonable doubt" business and whatnot.

That is unquestionably what should have happened here. It is highly likely he would have gotten "not guilty" but society and justice would have been better served. Instead it reeks of hamhanded attempt to shove all this under the rug and hope everyone will just forget about it.

The real argument should be about why so many witnesses were caught lying. Why so many protestors don't care about evidence and don't feel any dissonance when they learn that their assumptions were wrong.

In any case, I expect cop-cams to be a double-edged sword. Rather than just 'keeping cops clean', these videos of questionable police-actions may very well just give the majority of Americans who never grew up in the ghetto a glimpse of how little respect some people have for the rule of law.

Where I grew up in Texas as a white kid, it wouldn't have mattered at all what race the cop was, if we responded with anything but "yes, sir" or "no, sir" to an officer, the conversation would have ended badly and swiftly.

Having since lived at 124th Street and Broadway near Harlem in Manhattan in the years before Julianni, I am no longer shocked by every other word in supposedly polite conversations (and in the presence of children) being "motherf----r". Even there however, no one spoke like that near a police officer, let alone AT a police officer.

We are headed for a total disrespect for the rule of law - from the poorest to the president. Race is just an excuse.

Vicente says

Normally a Grand Jury does not have witnesses testifying, and reams of evidence. They determine if there is a reasonable case for going to court. The overwhelming majority of Grand Juries send the cases along, where the court can weigh all that "reasonable doubt" business and whatnot.

That is unquestionably what should have happened here. It is highly likely he would have gotten "not guilty" but society and justice would have been better served. Instead it reeks of hamhanded attempt to shove all this under the rug and hope everyone will just forget about it.

Not true at all. Although grand juries are an peculiar american anachronism (I believe the US is the only country still using them) investigations are very much a grand jury function. It is not common to do so, but it's not that unusual either. A grand jury having witnesses testifying is perfectly normal and very common. Pretty much routine. That's a big part of determining whether to indict or not.

I don't see where a grand jury was shoving anything under the rug. Grand juries aren't required in MO, but most felonies are brought before one and almost all cases involving charges against police.Some prosecutors present all the evidence, some don't. This was a sitting grand jury already empanelled when the case came up. Letting the grand jury investigate was different but there nothing else out of the ordinary except the intense level of scrutiny.

bob2356 says

Some prosecutors present all the evidence, some don't

I've never heard of a prosecutor presenting evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Does that really occur?

dodgerfanjohn says

Tee Hee. Look who you have defending you Tat.

Uh-have you noticed who has taken up your cause?

it just seems that way. the percentage of defective bots remains the same.
However, with massive population growth, the number of incidents has risen in kind, feeding the MSM with it's source of nonstop entertainment.

deepcgi says

We are headed for a total disrespect for the rule of law - from the poorest to the president. Race is just an excuse.

bob2356 says

but most felonies are brought before one and almost all cases involving charges against police.

Totally wrong. A pretrial hearing is a very different beast. About half the states don't use grand juries at all (anymore). If it's a federal charge yes.

You should read the opinion of Scalia on this grand jury. And this SP public defender article as well.

http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2014/11/sf-public-defenders-statement-on-grand-jury-decision/

http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2014/11/sf-public-defenders-statement-on-grand-jury-decision/

You'll not that CIC and dodgerfan and other defenders of what happened seem to be afraid to read this stuff (or at least explain what's wrong with these opinions, because they are so closed minded.

marcus says

Totally wrong. A pretrial hearing is a very different beast. About half the states don't use grand juries at all (anymore). If it's a federal charge yes.

I know very well what a pre trial hearing is and what scalia said. I'm sure the a public defender in SF has no bias. Neither does captain shutup, or at least he says he doesn't.

I was talking about missouri. Last I checked ferguson was there. Note I called grand juries an anachronism and said the US is the last country to use one. You are reading a bunch of shit in that just isn't there. Panties in a wad?

bob2356 says

said the US is the last country to use one

From this statement it was not clear that you know that half of the US states don't use them at all.

You seem to be implying that I should have known from this that you knew that.

Can't help you with that.

bob2356 says

Panties in a wad?

This to me is more or less proof that you didn't know that half the states didn't use them. "oh, ahhhh, I was talking about Missouri,...obviously." Look, I was simply disagreeing with you and pointing you to where you might go to get better informed.

Kettle calling the Pot black ?

bob2356 says

I'm sure the a public defender in SF has no bias.

I don't know about bias, but they did provide an excruciatingly detailed argument.

So what does "referencing" mean in this context? Maybe the law was referenced as something that is out of date and no longer applicable.
O'Dickhead never explains this further, instead going on to rant how this changed the entire legitimacy of the proceedings.
How it was referenced makes all the difference.
Link the letter so it can be judged correctly.

In her arguments, Kathy Alizadeh handed members of the Ferguson grand jury a letter referencing an outdated and overturned law.

PCGyver says

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2014/11/29/msnbc-host-goes-off-over-prosecutors-huge-verdict-altering-mistake-in-darren-wilsons-case/

MSNBC Host goes off over prosecutor’s huge, verdict-altering mistake In Darren Wilson’s Case.

looks like the prosecutors did do everything in there power to make sure Darren Wilson got the no bill. Including handing the jury an old law that was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago.

What is this mysterious letter? Is it a form letter given to GJs to instruct them on the law?
Is the reference in question a reminder to the GJs that it is no longer valid, in case they are not aware of the change?
All sorts of possibilities.
Which can easily be cleared up by publishing the letter.
Which O'DimBulb did not clarify.

PCGyver says

SoftShell says

So what does "referencing" mean in this context? Maybe the law was referenced as something that is out of date and no longer applicable

And why would you do that? If it is not law then why would you reference it unless you are trying to confuse the GJ

The premise of this entire thread is wrong.

"Ferguson: case closed!" ?????

BZzzzt wrong!

If Wilson had gone to trial, and come up not guilty he'd be free of future prosecution under double jeopardy. Since it didn't go to trial, it could still go to criminal court.

forget the wrong copy versus the right one....i can't keep track of the line by line grammatical timebomb she shit out....

marcus says

This to me is more or less proof that you didn't know that half the states didn't use them. "oh, ahhhh, I was talking about Missouri,...obviously." Look, I was simply disagreeing with you and pointing you to where you might go to get better informed.

Well you only managed to read the last half the sentence you jumped all over. I specifically said in MO if you had read the first part of the sentence, as in MO is one of the states that uses grand juries. Pointing out where someone could be better informed isn't usually prefeced with the words totally wrong where I come from.

bob2356 says

Well you only managed to read the last half the sentence you jumped all over

I saw the reference to Missouri.

IT was actually the entire previous paragraph that led me to believe you thought grand juries are more prevalent than they are.

bob2356 says

Not true at all. Although grand juries are an peculiar american anachronism (I believe the US is the only country still using them) investigations are very much a grand jury function. It is not common to do so, but it's not that unusual either. A grand jury having witnesses testifying is perfectly normal and very common. Pretty much routine. That's a big part of determining whether to indict or not.

Btw, I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about grand juries. I just read today that they virtually always indict. Less than 1% of the time that they don't.

I thought that was interesting. Obviously the stats are going to be different when it involves the possible indictment of a cop.

marcus says

Btw, I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about grand juries. I just read today that they virtually always indict. Less than 1% of the time that they don't.

That's very true. Prosecutors are almost always overworked. They plea bargin anything they can. They go to trail only as a last resort most of the time. Rarely would they go to a grand jury without a pretty firm case for indictment. But it happen some times. Ferguson was clearly a case of dumping the hot potato in the grand juries lap.