Ferguson Megathread

[Dyakovo]

Yes, but probable cause is the LOWEST Standard.

It'd be like me saying I sorta kinda PROBABLY did bust into a home and stole a piece of jewelry.

Yes and 12 people have decided it didn't exist in this case.

Because, again, the prosecutor did everything he could to sabotage his own case.

Any evidence of this? And Grand Juries can call witnesses without the prosecution or defense calling them, which makes it kind of hard to just hide the evidence from them.

Yes.

The documents the prosecutor’s office released after the announcement, all of which St. Louis Public Radio has made available online --  have also provided a number of details that some experts have said are troublesome. For instance, as the Washington Post noted, the investigator from the medical examiner's office did not take measurements or photographs at the scene, that Wilson was allowed to go unescorted to the station and put his own weapon in an evidence bag and his initial descriptions of the incident were not recorded on tape.

Furthermore, jurors were also told about the criminal history of Dorian Johnson -- Brown's friend who was with him during the robbery and the shooting -- and discrepancies among his and other witness accounts were highlighted for them, but did not question any of Wilson's testimony, prompting jurors to take the officer's account at face value while introducing doubt about what the witnesses said they heard or saw. The fact that Wilson also chose to testify itself is uncommon, according to aSt. Louis Public Radio report, and Brown’s attorneys were not allowed to participate in the proceedings.

In effect, McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed told the Los Angeles Times. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, but probable cause is the LOWEST Standard.

It'd be like me saying I sorta kinda PROBABLY did bust into a home and stole a piece of jewelry.

Yes and 12 people have decided it didn't exist in this case.

Dude, a Grand Jury hearing isn't a full trial.

The problem here is that the prosecutor didn't really cared about the case at all.

[Dyakovo]

Yes and 12 people have decided it didn't exist in this case.

Dude, a Grand Jury hearing isn't a full trial.

The problem here is that the prosecutor didn't really cared about the case at all.

Nonsense. He cared a great deal...
...about ensuring there was not an indictment.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes and 12 people have decided it didn't exist in this case.



Any evidence of this? And Grand Juries can call witnesses without the prosecution or defense calling them, which makes it kind of hard to just hide the evidence from them.

Yes.

The documents the prosecutor’s office released after the announcement, all of which St. Louis Public Radio has made available online --  have also provided a number of details that some experts have said are troublesome. For instance, as the Washington Post noted, the investigator from the medical examiner's office did not take measurements or photographs at the scene, that Wilson was allowed to go unescorted to the station and put his own weapon in an evidence bag and his initial descriptions of the incident were not recorded on tape.

Furthermore, jurors were also told about the criminal history of Dorian Johnson -- Brown's friend who was with him during the robbery and the shooting -- and discrepancies among his and other witness accounts were highlighted for them, but did not question any of Wilson's testimony, prompting jurors to take the officer's account at face value while introducing doubt about what the witnesses said they heard or saw. The fact that Wilson also chose to testify itself is uncommon, according to aSt. Louis Public Radio report, and Brown’s attorneys were not allowed to participate in the proceedings.

In effect, McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed told the Los Angeles Times. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

Just saw the article you posted and responding to that here. First the article itself is playing with the facts.
While the medical examiner didn't take pictures they did direct St. Louis (I want to say CSI though they aren't) to take pictures for them.
Yes problems with peoples testimony was pointed out to the Grand Jury, largely because a lot of it disagreed with other witnesses and between rounds of questioning. Now the prosecutor may have presented the officers testimony without questioning it, but again the Grand Jury has the right to question witnesses and they may have chosen not to, I haven't reached that point in the records yet so I don't know.
Now do you really think that the prosecutors buckling down on Officer Wilson's testimony wold really have made the difference between an indictment or not when there was some 70 hours of evidence they went through?

[The UK in Exile]

Yes.

The documents the prosecutor’s office released after the announcement, all of which St. Louis Public Radio has made available online --  have also provided a number of details that some experts have said are troublesome. For instance, as the Washington Post noted, the investigator from the medical examiner's office did not take measurements or photographs at the scene, that Wilson was allowed to go unescorted to the station and put his own weapon in an evidence bag and his initial descriptions of the incident were not recorded on tape.

Furthermore, jurors were also told about the criminal history of Dorian Johnson -- Brown's friend who was with him during the robbery and the shooting -- and discrepancies among his and other witness accounts were highlighted for them, but did not question any of Wilson's testimony, prompting jurors to take the officer's account at face value while introducing doubt about what the witnesses said they heard or saw. The fact that Wilson also chose to testify itself is uncommon, according to aSt. Louis Public Radio report, and Brown’s attorneys were not allowed to participate in the proceedings.

In effect, McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed told the Los Angeles Times. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

Just saw the article you posted and responding to that here. First the article itself is playing with the facts.
While the medical examiner didn't take pictures they did direct St. Louis (I want to say CSI though they aren't) to take pictures for them.
Yes problems with peoples testimony was pointed out to the Grand Jury, largely because a lot of it disagreed with other witnesses and between rounds of questioning. Now the prosecutor may have presented the officers testimony without questioning it, but again the Grand Jury has the right to question witnesses and they may have chosen not to, I haven't reached that point in the records yet so I don't know.
Now do you really think that the prosecutors buckling down on Officer Wilson's testimony wold really have made the difference between an indictment or not when there was some 70 hours of evidence they went through?

Yes. The essence of his defence is that he genuinely felt threatened, the only who can testify how the officer felt is the officer. If his testimony is proven to be unreliable, the defence collapses.

[Dyakovo]

Yes.

The documents the prosecutor’s office released after the announcement, all of which St. Louis Public Radio has made available online --  have also provided a number of details that some experts have said are troublesome. For instance, as the Washington Post noted, the investigator from the medical examiner's office did not take measurements or photographs at the scene, that Wilson was allowed to go unescorted to the station and put his own weapon in an evidence bag and his initial descriptions of the incident were not recorded on tape.

Furthermore, jurors were also told about the criminal history of Dorian Johnson -- Brown's friend who was with him during the robbery and the shooting -- and discrepancies among his and other witness accounts were highlighted for them, but did not question any of Wilson's testimony, prompting jurors to take the officer's account at face value while introducing doubt about what the witnesses said they heard or saw. The fact that Wilson also chose to testify itself is uncommon, according to aSt. Louis Public Radio report, and Brown’s attorneys were not allowed to participate in the proceedings.

In effect, McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed told the Los Angeles Times. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

Just saw the article you posted and responding to that here. First the article itself is playing with the facts.
While the medical examiner didn't take pictures they did direct St. Louis (I want to say CSI though they aren't) to take pictures for them.
Yes problems with peoples testimony was pointed out to the Grand Jury, largely because a lot of it disagreed with other witnesses and between rounds of questioning. Now the prosecutor may have presented the officers testimony without questioning it, but again the Grand Jury has the right to question witnesses and they may have chosen not to, I haven't reached that point in the records yet so I don't know.
Now do you really think that the prosecutors buckling down on Officer Wilson's testimony wold really have made the difference between an indictment or not when there was some 70 hours of evidence they went through?

Yes, I do. There was no need for the prosecutor to present the amount of evidence that he did. Nor does it make any sense for him to have done so.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... rand-jury/

[Shofercia]

Yes and 12 people have decided it didn't exist in this case.



Any evidence of this? And Grand Juries can call witnesses without the prosecution or defense calling them, which makes it kind of hard to just hide the evidence from them.

Yes.

The documents the prosecutor’s office released after the announcement, all of which St. Louis Public Radio has made available online --  have also provided a number of details that some experts have said are troublesome. For instance, as the Washington Post noted, the investigator from the medical examiner's office did not take measurements or photographs at the scene, that Wilson was allowed to go unescorted to the station and put his own weapon in an evidence bag and his initial descriptions of the incident were not recorded on tape.

Furthermore, jurors were also told about the criminal history of Dorian Johnson -- Brown's friend who was with him during the robbery and the shooting -- and discrepancies among his and other witness accounts were highlighted for them, but did not question any of Wilson's testimony, prompting jurors to take the officer's account at face value while introducing doubt about what the witnesses said they heard or saw. The fact that Wilson also chose to testify itself is uncommon, according to aSt. Louis Public Radio report, and Brown’s attorneys were not allowed to participate in the proceedings.

In effect, McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed told the Los Angeles Times. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

He also had a history of bias towards cops:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-prosecutor-mcculloch/

August 20, 2014

Some residents and community leaders contend St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch has deep ties to the police and has favored law enforcement in criminal cases. Missouri State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed launched a petition that now has more than 26,000 signatures to remove McCulloch from the case and replace him with a special prosecutor to handle any criminal case arising from the August 9 shooting of Brown, an African-American who was unarmed when killed by a white police officer...

McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department, Magee said. McCulloch, who as a teenager lost a leg to cancer, made it his career ambition to become a prosecutor. He was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as telling a reporter, while first campaigning for the office: "I couldn't become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing." McCulloch has no plans to step aside and Magee said it doesn't have any impact on how he will handle the current case.

Also: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background- ... s-of-bias/

August 18, 2014

McCulloch, a Democrat who has been in office since 1991, referenced his father's death in his initial campaign. He survived a Democratic primary earlier this month and faces no Republican opposition in his re-election bid. Protesters questioned his objectivity when grand jurors returned no charges against two officers who fired 21 bullets into a vehicle in June 2000, killing two black men during an attempted drug arrest.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sure. But even in those circumstances, the instinct is to run from overwhelming deadly force, not to wade into it.

Well, instinct doesn't hold a candle to double the legal amount of marijuana in your system. would hazard a bet the kid was stoned and tried charging a cop. I really think he wouldn't have if he wasn't puffed up, if what his mother said was true about his character.

Heightened aggression would be a VERY unusual reaction to marijuana. In fact, the fact that he was stoned makes that maneuver less likely, not more likely.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I highly doubt that. I, for one, wouldn't have shot the kid if he was fleeing from me while raising his hands. That's just cold-blooded and idiotic.

Yes, the riots are idiotic, they don't solve anything. But, the media hasn't focused on the peaceful protestors who outnumber the rioters by quite a large number. Plus, the fact that riots are occurring should be a wake up call for the American people to better address the issues of inequality between races that still exist today.

It's already been proven his hands weren't up.

No, it hasn't been.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That is a matter to be decided at trial. A cop shooting someone isn't automatically not a crime, ergo probable cause existed. If probable cause exists, the grand jury is supposed to indict.

An indictment only happens if the prosecute can convince 12 individuals that probable cause of a crime exists, in this case the grand jury decided their wasn't enough evidence that the Officer in question had committed a crime and decided not to indite him.

In this case, the prosecution didn't even try to get an indictment. They subjected their own witnesses to cross-examination to find inconsistencies in their stories, and lobbed softballs at Wilson and witnesses favorable to him.

[The Serbian Empire]

Apologies if this was posted before, but it seems that the prosecutor was biased: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/fergus ... mcculloch/

August 20, 2014

Some residents and community leaders contend St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch has deep ties to the police and has favored law enforcement in criminal cases. Missouri State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed launched a petition that now has more than 26,000 signatures to remove McCulloch from the case and replace him with a special prosecutor to handle any criminal case arising from the August 9 shooting of Brown, an African-American who was unarmed when killed by a white police officer...

McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department, Magee said. McCulloch, who as a teenager lost a leg to cancer, made it his career ambition to become a prosecutor. He was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as telling a reporter, while first campaigning for the office: "I couldn't become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing." McCulloch has no plans to step aside and Magee said it doesn't have any impact on how he will handle the current case.

Also: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background- ... s-of-bias/

August 18, 2014

McCulloch, a Democrat who has been in office since 1991, referenced his father's death in his initial campaign. He survived a Democratic primary earlier this month and faces no Republican opposition in his re-election bid. Protesters questioned his objectivity when grand jurors returned no charges against two officers who fired 21 bullets into a vehicle in June 2000, killing two black men during an attempted drug arrest.

So we have a prosecutor, who's clearly biased and has a record of being biased, trying an explosive case, when tensions are already inflamed by the Trayvon Martin case. What the fuck did he, or the idiots who let him be in charge, think was going to happen?

"Oh hey, cop shot some black dude, and a biased prosecutor's in charge, and he's not indicted? It's cool bro, don't worry about, let's smoke some ganja!"

I mean, seriously, do they not have any brainpower left? If it was California, he'd be recalled from office. What an idiot!

(Yes, I'm referring to McCulloh, yes, it's flaming, no, he doesn't have an NSG account, no need to run to the mods)

And he's a Democrat... just imagine a Republican in Missouri would be even worse.

[Greed and Death]

And based on the law, Wilson did not commit a crime.

That is a matter to be decided at trial. A cop shooting someone isn't automatically not a crime, ergo probable cause existed. If probable cause exists, the grand jury is supposed to indict.

That does not make any sort of sense whatsoever. Saying something is not automatically a crime in no way provides support for an increased likelihood of something being a crime.

[Shofercia]

Apologies if this was posted before, but it seems that the prosecutor was biased: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/fergus ... mcculloch/



Also: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background- ... s-of-bias/



So we have a prosecutor, who's clearly biased and has a record of being biased, trying an explosive case, when tensions are already inflamed by the Trayvon Martin case. What the fuck did he, or the idiots who let him be in charge, think was going to happen?

"Oh hey, cop shot some black dude, and a biased prosecutor's in charge, and he's not indicted? It's cool bro, don't worry about, let's smoke some ganja!"

I mean, seriously, do they not have any brainpower left? If it was California, he'd be recalled from office. What an idiot!

(Yes, I'm referring to McCulloh, yes, it's flaming, no, he doesn't have an NSG account, no need to run to the mods)

And he's a Democrat... just imagine a Republican in Missouri would be even worse.

I doubt that political party matters at this point. It'd be like Erin prosecuting Frank on Blue Bloods. C'mon, we all know what the verdict's going to be: "dad, accept my boyfriend damn it!"

Why I don't get is this: why didn't anyone in power remove him form his post for this case? Governor should've done it. Now Republicans are probably going to pick up the governor's seat in Missouri, due to lower turnout than expected. What is it with Nixons nixing their political parties?

[Jamzmania]

An indictment only happens if the prosecute can convince 12 individuals that probable cause of a crime exists, in this case the grand jury decided their wasn't enough evidence that the Officer in question had committed a crime and decided not to indite him.

In this case, the prosecution didn't even try to get an indictment. They subjected their own witnesses to cross-examination to find inconsistencies in their stories, and lobbed softballs at Wilson and witnesses favorable to him.

Usually, prosecutors heavily slant the evidence presented to Grand Juries to ensure that an indictment is returned. In this case, it's likely that the prosecutor didn't himself believe himself that he had enough evidence to convict, but because it was such a sensitive case, he released all the evidence to the Grand Jury so they could make up their own minds.

In this case, the Grand Jury, which was unusually presented with all available evidence, decided that the State didn't have enough evidence to convict.

[Dyakovo]

In this case, the prosecution didn't even try to get an indictment. They subjected their own witnesses to cross-examination to find inconsistencies in their stories, and lobbed softballs at Wilson and witnesses favorable to him.

Usually, prosecutors heavily slant the evidence presented to Grand Juries to ensure that an indictment is returned. In this case, it's likely that the prosecutor didn't himself believe himself that he had enough evidence to convict, but because it was such a sensitive case, he released all the evidence to the Grand Jury so they could make up their own minds.

In this case, the Grand Jury, which was unusually presented with all available evidence, decided that the State didn't have enough evidence to convict.

No, it wasn't because it's a sensitive case. It's because he didn't want an indictment.

[Jamzmania]

Usually, prosecutors heavily slant the evidence presented to Grand Juries to ensure that an indictment is returned. In this case, it's likely that the prosecutor didn't himself believe himself that he had enough evidence to convict, but because it was such a sensitive case, he released all the evidence to the Grand Jury so they could make up their own minds.

In this case, the Grand Jury, which was unusually presented with all available evidence, decided that the State didn't have enough evidence to convict.

No, it wasn't because it's a sensitive case. It's because he didn't want an indictment.

He didn't think there was enough evidence to convict and the Grand Jury, which was presented with all available evidence, agreed.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Usually, prosecutors heavily slant the evidence presented to Grand Juries to ensure that an indictment is returned. In this case, it's likely that the prosecutor didn't himself believe himself that he had enough evidence to convict, but because it was such a sensitive case, he released all the evidence to the Grand Jury so they could make up their own minds.

In this case, the Grand Jury, which was unusually presented with all available evidence, decided that the State didn't have enough evidence to convict.

No, it wasn't because it's a sensitive case. It's because he didn't want an indictment.

Are you a psychic? Do you know this for a fact?

[The Serbian Empire]

Usually, prosecutors heavily slant the evidence presented to Grand Juries to ensure that an indictment is returned. In this case, it's likely that the prosecutor didn't himself believe himself that he had enough evidence to convict, but because it was such a sensitive case, he released all the evidence to the Grand Jury so they could make up their own minds.

In this case, the Grand Jury, which was unusually presented with all available evidence, decided that the State didn't have enough evidence to convict.

No, it wasn't because it's a sensitive case. It's because he didn't want an indictment.

And secondly, the acquittal of George Zimmerman sort of makes a successful conviction a fair bit harder if Missouri has laws similar to Florida's on self-defense. No desire to prosecute and next to no chance to successfully prosecute leaves us with this.

[Dyakovo]

No, it wasn't because it's a sensitive case. It's because he didn't want an indictment.

Are you a psychic? Do you know this for a fact?

I don't have to be psychic to recognize that the prosecutor was intentionally throwing the case.

[Burleson]

It's time for the NYPD to be dissolved.

Yes, lets let one of America's most dangerous cities be without a police force. Let's get rid of the secret service next.

[The Serbian Empire]

It's time for the NYPD to be dissolved.

Yes, lets let one of America's most dangerous cities be without a police force. Let's get rid of the secret service next.

Why not replace it with a national police force with a universal set of police protocols?

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes, lets let one of America's most dangerous cities be without a police force. Let's get rid of the secret service next.

Why not replace it with a national police force with a universal set of police protocols?

Wouldn't that be the FBI?
And probably because laws vary across states, cities, counties and even inside of towns. You really couldn't create a national police force because different states have some dramatically different laws, and some of those laws effect how a police force is run.

[The Serbian Empire]

Why not replace it with a national police force with a universal set of police protocols?

Wouldn't that be the FBI?
And probably because laws vary across states, cities, counties and even inside of towns. You really couldn't create a national police force because different states have some dramatically different laws, and some of those laws effect how a police force is run.

The FBI operates in all of those places thought... Federal law trumps state and local laws when the laws contradict each other.

[MERIZoC]

Wouldn't that be the FBI?
And probably because laws vary across states, cities, counties and even inside of towns. You really couldn't create a national police force because different states have some dramatically different laws, and some of those laws effect how a police force is run.

The FBI operates in all of those places thought... Federal law trumps state and local laws when the laws contradict each other.

It'd still be too confusing for the department. The city laws still apply. No, localized police forces are better, though with much more oversight.

[Dyakovo]

It's time for the NYPD to be dissolved.

Yes, lets let one of America's most dangerous cities be without a police force. Let's get rid of the secret service next.

Ummm... NYC isn't one of America's most dangerous cities...