NationStates

greed and death wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/28/joshua-williams-charged-arson_n_6386694.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices


Wow. Protester who called fr peaceful demonstration is now being charged with arson.

That is a surprise.

greed and death wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/28/joshua-williams-charged-arson_n_6386694.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices


Wow. Protester who called fr peaceful demonstration is now being charged with arson.

That is a surprise.

Kazenoshima wrote:Thaddeus Stevens: How can I hold that all men are created equal, when here before me, stands stinking the moral carcass of the gentleman from Ohio, proof that some men are inferior, endowed by their Maker with dim wits impermeable to reason with cold pallid slime in their veins instead of hot red blood! You are more reptile than man, George, so low and flat that the foot of man is incapable of crushing you!
George Pendleton: How dare you!
Thaddeus Stevens: Yet even you, Pendleton, who should have been gibbetted for treason long before today, even worthless unworthy you ought to be treated equally before the law! And so again, sir, and again and again and again I say: I do not hold with equality in all things, only with equality before the law.
- Argument in Thirteenth Amendment

Sefard wrote:Is this still going on? Why?

Mavorpen wrote:Some white people have figured this out and fight against it for these very reasons. Others, however, fight against it for different reasons. They fight against it by making it even more personal. They play to those who have felt guilty and those who fear feeling guilty, and scaremonger white people into believing in a boogeyman: that if you accept racism is still a major issue, you'll feel guilty, and that's awful! And people like DnalweN acilbupeR are, ironically, being played beautifully by racists.

Sefard wrote:Is this still going on? Why?
Is it truly difficult to believe a that, yes, a black kid did in fact rob a store and become violent with an officer, who, yes, did react?

Nuwe Suid Afrika wrote:

Sefard wrote:Is this still going on? Why?

Because black people in Ferguson want a reason to riot.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Some white people have figured this out and fight against it for these very reasons. Others, however, fight against it for different reasons. They fight against it by making it even more personal. They play to those who have felt guilty and those who fear feeling guilty, and scaremonger white people into believing in a boogeyman: that if you accept racism is still a major issue, you'll feel guilty, and that's awful! And people like DnalweN acilbupeR are, ironically, being played beautifully by racists.

So pulling shit out of your ass again, as usual, I see.

Merizoc wrote:

greed and death wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/28/joshua-williams-charged-arson_n_6386694.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices


Wow. Protester who called fr peaceful demonstration is now being charged with arson.

That is a surprise.

The smear campaign is real. Obviously this man represents all protesters.

greed and death wrote:

Merizoc wrote:The smear campaign is real. Obviously this man represents all protesters.

NSG poster does not notice the lack of plural in my statement that is a surprise.

Merizoc wrote:

greed and death wrote:NSG poster does not notice the lack of plural in my statement that is a surprise.

Wasn't necessarily referring to you.

A grand juror is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in an effort to speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson case. Under typical circumstances, grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing cases they were involved in.

The grand juror, referred to only as "Grand Juror Doe" in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American.

“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”

“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

In the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.

In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.

As the grand juror points out in the lawsuit, the Wilson case was handled in a very different manner than other grand juries. Instead of recommending a charge, McCulloch's office presented thousands of pages worth of evidence and testimony before the grand jury. At one point, McCulloch's spokesman characterized the grand jury as co-investigators.

“From [Doe]’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit says.

McCulloch has done several interviews since the grand jury decision was announced on Nov. 24, but the grand jurors have been prohibited from speaking about the case. The county prosecutor admits that some of the witnesses were lying, but said the grand jurors were aware.

The 12 people who could say for sure are currently sworn to secrecy.

Although the county released redacted transcripts of witness and expert testimony, the grand jurors deliberated without a court reporter or member of the prosecutor’s office present.


State law says that grand jurors shall not “disclose any evidence given” nor “the name of any witness who appeared before them,” adding that any juror who violates that is guilty of a misdemeanor. The ACLU is asking a judge to grant an injunction that prohibits enforcing those laws (or threatening to) in this case.

The laws “prevent [the grand juror] from discussing truthful information about a matter of public significance,” the lawsuit says. “As applied in the circumstances of this case, the challenged laws act as a prior restraint on [Doe’s] expressive activity.”

McCulloch's office declined to comment.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:New development.

In an unexpected twist, a member of the grand jury is suing for the right to speak out regarding their deliberations, stating that prosecutor Robert McCulloch mischaracterized their take on the evidence, and stating that they were misled with "confusing instructions" and an unusual "focus on the victim".

A grand juror is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in an effort to speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson case. Under typical circumstances, grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing cases they were involved in.

The grand juror, referred to only as "Grand Juror Doe" in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American.

“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”

“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

In the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.

In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.

As the grand juror points out in the lawsuit, the Wilson case was handled in a very different manner than other grand juries. Instead of recommending a charge, McCulloch's office presented thousands of pages worth of evidence and testimony before the grand jury. At one point, McCulloch's spokesman characterized the grand jury as co-investigators.

“From [Doe]’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit says.

McCulloch has done several interviews since the grand jury decision was announced on Nov. 24, but the grand jurors have been prohibited from speaking about the case. The county prosecutor admits that some of the witnesses were lying, but said the grand jurors were aware.

The 12 people who could say for sure are currently sworn to secrecy.

Although the county released redacted transcripts of witness and expert testimony, the grand jurors deliberated without a court reporter or member of the prosecutor’s office present.


State law says that grand jurors shall not “disclose any evidence given” nor “the name of any witness who appeared before them,” adding that any juror who violates that is guilty of a misdemeanor. The ACLU is asking a judge to grant an injunction that prohibits enforcing those laws (or threatening to) in this case.

The laws “prevent [the grand juror] from discussing truthful information about a matter of public significance,” the lawsuit says. “As applied in the circumstances of this case, the challenged laws act as a prior restraint on [Doe’s] expressive activity.”

McCulloch's office declined to comment.

St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch and two of his assistants are facing a misconduct complaint for the way they handled the grand jury that investigated former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

The complaint was filed Monday with the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel which handles attorney discipline in the state. It accuses McCulloch and assistants Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley of "gross failure to vigorously represent their client - the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, in their capacity as prosecutors." Alizadeh and Whirley were in charge of presenting the Wilson case to the grand jury.

"We would like to send the message that prosecuting attorneys can no longer abuse their power and expect it to be swept under the rug," said Christi Griffin, a former attorney who is the founder and president of the Ethics Project, and one of seven citizens to sign the complaint.

Specifically, McCulloch, Alizadeh and Whirley are accused of violating the following rules of conduct:

Rule 4-3.3: Candor toward the tribunal. The complaint says, among other things, that Alizadeh and Whirley cited an outdated, unconstitutional use-of-force statute, and failed to properly correct their mistake. The two are also accused of knowingly allowing witnesses to lie to the grand jury.
Rule 4-1.1: Competence. Historically, the plaintiff -- or the person bringing the case -- is supposed to receive the benefit of the doubt. In the Wilson case, the state is the plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Alizadeh and Whirley, presumably with McCulloch's knowledge, did not do all they could to present the strongest case for the state.
Rule 4-1.6: Confidentiality of information. The complaint says McCulloch needed permission to release the transcripts of grand jury testimony and witness statements and that he dumped all the evidence in an effort to taint a second grand jury.
Rule 4-1.8: Conflict of interest: prohibited transactions. The complaint alleges that Alizadeh and Whirley acted more like Darren Wilson's defense attorneys. They cite the continual references to the marijuana in Michael Brown's system, and the fact that he was suspected of robbing a convenience store moments before the shooting.
Rule 4-3.8: Special responsibilities of a prosecutor. The complaint alleges that McCulloch made several public statements that went beyond what's permitted to "inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's actions."
Rule 4-3.4: Fairness to opposing party and counsel. McCulloch made several public statements that seemed to bolster Wilson's statements, while commenting negatively about Michael Brown.
Rule 4-3.5: Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal. Alizadeh is accused of making comments about protesters, the NAACP and Ferguson unrest that could prejudice the grand jurors.
Rule 4.4-1: Truthfulness in statements to others. This complaint also deals with the outdated use-of-force statute originally presented to the grand jury. It specifically references the day Alizadeh handed the copy of the unconstitutional statute to the grand jury, and also comments she made about messing up the exhibit numbers.
Rule 4-5.2: Responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer. Alizadeh and Whirley were required to abide by the rules of professional conduct regardless of what McCulloch told them to do.
Griffin said the availability of the transcripts and evidence, even though it was released in violation of the codes of conduct, brought to light problems with the entire judicial system.

"It's made possible by the prosecutors, because as long as the police can expect not to be prosecuted for their misconduct, they will continue to over-police, they will continue to abuse citizens, they will continue to use excessive force," she said.

A spokeswoman with the state's disciplinary counsel's office could not confirm that they had received a complaint against the three prosecutors. She said that all three are attorneys in good standing with the state of Missouri, and none have ever been disciplined publicly. But she could not say if they have faced additional complaints.

Bob Ramsey, an attorney who served as a legal consultant to the seven complainants, said the OCDC will evaluate Monday's complaint and decide whether to dismiss the complaint, resolve it privately or open a formal investigation. The OCDC has five years to make that decision and unless an investigation is opened, the public won't know what happened to the complaint, Ramsey said. Nothing else would happen publicly until a potential disciplinary hearing. The Supreme Court of Missouri would make the final decision about any attorney discipline.

Ramsey said he was unaware of any Missouri prosecutors who were ever publicly disciplined, even for what he said were pretty egregious violations.

Eastern Equestria wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-civil-rights-charges/index.html

"A federal investigation has not found enough evidence to charge Darren Wilson with the federal crime of depriving Michael Brown of his civil rights, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation.

The FBI has completed its investigation into the August shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, and sent the findings to the Justice Department, a law enforcement official and a separate U.S. official said Wednesday.

Justice Department prosecutors will not recommend civil rights charges against Wilson, who killed Brown, because there is not sufficient evidence to support charges, a U.S. official told CNN."

Make of this what you will.

Eastern Equestria wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politics/ferguson-justice-department-lawsuit/index.html

"The Justice Department is preparing to bring a lawsuit against the Ferguson, Missouri, police department over a pattern of racially discriminatory tactics used by officers, if the police department does not agree to make changes on its own, sources tell CNN."

The Ferguson PD may be facing some repercussions after all.

"I think everybody will see when we announce our results that the process that we have engaged in is, as I said back at the time when I went to Ferguson, independent, thorough and based on all the facts," he said. "And I am confident that people will be satisfied with the results that will be announced."