|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ferguson and its implications
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In this case, he chose to shift this responsibility to a grand jury.
Are you saying that there is an option to bypass the grand jury process?
From law professor Gabriel Chin, in an article by Jonathan Cohn:
quote:
If the prosecutor had wanted to bring charges, he could have proceeded by filing an information charging the officer with an offense, which would have resulted in a preliminary hearing before a judge who would have determined whether probable cause existed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
I agree with Prof. Chin that the prosecutor did not want to prosecute and that he wanted the grand jury
to share in that decision.
In fact, as it turns out, the focus has been entirely upon the grand jury. I have a feeling, which I cannot substantiate of course, that this is exactly what the prosecutor knew (or hoped) would happen. How fortunate for him that he is off the hook.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Also, Prof. Chin points out that the prosecutor misstated the basic function of a grand jury. Was this a demonstration of astonishing ignorance, or a slip of the tongue, or a further attempt to use the grand jury to divert all attention away from himself?
I guess it's clear that I'm no fan of the prosecutor. I may be a cynic, but I think that he has played the p.r. game very well.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, here is what I found for St Louis County:
quote:
All felony charges must be presented for consideration either by the Grand Jury or by an associate circuit judge at a preliminary examination, and a little less than half of the cases prosecuted in St. Louis County are presented to the Grand Jury.
That doesn't sound to me as if there's something terribly unusual about asking a grand jury to consider probable cause. If they don't, then a judge will. It's simply not correct to portray this as the prosecutor abdicating the decision, because on neither route is it the prosecutor's call whether a matter gets as far as trial.
I think you're misinterpreting the charge of "abdication" - it refers to a decision that is made before any consideration by a grand jury or a judge. According to the American Bar Association "The decision to institute criminal proceedings should be initially and primarily the responsibility of the prosecutor." Standard 3-3.9 describes the considerable discretion that a prosecutor has in choosing whether or not to bring charges.
In this case, the accusation is that the prosecutor didn't want to charge the officer, but also didn't want to bear sole responsibility for the lack of a prosecution, so he charged him but then contrived an unusual grand jury proceeding with the intention that the jury not return an indictment.
{ETA: In other words, what they said. But with ABA citation of prosecutors duties, so perhaps some value added after all.}
[ 26. November 2014, 03:51: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I surfed into some good articles at Vox.com.
"Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally." is the linked one. The writer walks through various oddness in his story--adding that odd things *can* happen.
At the very end, there's a link to the account of the victim's friend, who was there.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Thank you, Dave.
That is the exactly nature of my gripe with the prosecutor.
At the same time, I cannot say unreservedly that in a similar situation, I would have the guts to take all the flack myself.
To shift the matter to a grand jury would be a very tempting way out, and the pressures to do so would be immense.
[ 26. November 2014, 04:09: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Even if you accept the police officer's testimony as the unvarnished truth, I don't see that it would mean he had no criminal liability. Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Even if you accept the police officer's testimony as the unvarnished truth, I don't see that it would mean he had no criminal liability. Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
Sorry, Doublethink, but even without knowing the facts, I don't think I can agree with you. I know this is debated as being about race, but as a foreigner to the debate, I can't help thinking there's another elephant in this particular room.
In a culture where guns are freely available and where anybody might have one, I don't see how anyone can complain if an armed policeman shoots rather than risks his own safety - whatever the surrounding circumstances.
If every random person might be armed, particularly a threatening and aggressive person, the casual citizen getting shot by the police is a price society has to accept. That's the cost, irrespective of whether the casual citizen happens to be black, a 12 year old child or whatever.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
Has anyone told us it won't, though?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
On facts, I've read Dorian Johnson's testimony (Vol 4, page 17 in the link provided here). He was undoubtedly there with Michael Brown, both at the store and at the confrontations with Officer Wilson. So he was an eyewitness.
Crucially, his account of the shootings does not tie in with the autopsy evidence (either or both autopsies) about the trajectory of the bullets.
Moo's summary earlier in the thread seems consistent with what I've read so far.
It seems pretty clear from the transcripts and some of the questions from grand jury members that at least some of them had done their homework on facts, realised the importance of the facts, and which ones might be in dispute.
Without fully understanding the ins and outs of grand jury purposes and normal courses of action, their simple function seems to be to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to justify going to trial. Surely they have to take some look at both indisputed fact and disputed fact, do at least some weighing of what is credible? How exhaustive that look should be, how much should be left for a full trial to determine, would seem to be a variable.
With the amount of publicity surrounding this case, and supposing that the prosecutor does indeed have doubts about whether there is enough to make a case, there doesn't seem to me to be anything unreasonable in getting the grand jury to look in detail at probable cause.
No doubt the prosecutor knew from early on that Dorian Johnson's initial statements didn't tie up with the initial autopsy report about bullet trajectories. You don't have to read bias into his behaviour. His own opinion may simply have been that the case against Officer Wilson was weak on the basis of the facts. But he would also know, politically, that a "no bill" verdict from him would simply intensify the stitch up suspicions. So it's not wrong to spy some self-protection on his part, but his actions in putting it all out there before the grand jury meant at least that there could be some public weighing of it all. He doesn't seem to have kept anything up his sleeve.
[ 26. November 2014, 10:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Enoch quote:
In a culture where guns are freely available and where anybody might have one, I don't see how anyone can complain if an armed policeman shoots rather than risks his own safety - whatever the surrounding circumstances.
Spot on! And especially so when added to a racial dimension where black men are seen as having a high homicidal tendency. Gun culture + racialism = a reasonable action on the part of the police officer. In that context the policeman is also a victim. This incident is not unique and there is no reason to think it will not be repeated. That's what the USA is like, it's in the DNA.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
I read some of Wilson's testimony. He said that after Brown had punched him hard in the face several times, he started feeling dizzy.
It's quite possible that he would have thought more clearly and acted differently if he hadn't been hit.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The other elephant in the room is the fact that it's pretty rare for police officers to be charged in circumstances like these (and this is regardless of any racial component).
Why?
Who is potentially facing trial as a result of a probable cause finding? A police officer.
Who investigates the facts which could lead to a probable cause finding? Police officers, typically from the same force as the individual potentially facing trial.
Who is preparing the presentation to the grand jury? The prosecution which typically works hand-in-hand with the police force normally responsible for investigating crimes within its jurisdiction.
There doesn't have to be any conscious intent to deceive or to slant facts; there need not be the faintest whiff of conspiracy involved.
Few institutions investigate themselves with quite the same even-handed dispassion as a separate body might.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Porridge
Of course that's right in general.
In this particular case, the two autopsy reports do seem to provide expert corroboration of the testimony that Michael Brown was coming head down towards the policeman when the fatal shots were fired. He was not in some posture of surrender, as described by Dorian Johnson.
That seems crucial in deciding on both the reliability of Dorian Johnson's testimony overall. If that doesn't stand, it's pretty hard to see sufficient support for probable cause. Whatever one makes of the first skirmish with the policeman sitting in the car.
Not sure that has anything to do with the self-investigation issue.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I surfed into some good articles at Vox.com.
"Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally." is the linked one. The writer walks through various oddness in his story--adding that odd things *can* happen.
At the very end, there's a link to the account of the victim's friend, who was there.
I thought Ezra Klein's article was unbelievable. One, Michael Brown had just robbed a store so the whole gentle giant narrative just doesn't hold. Two, as a fan of college athletics, I can say that young men with bright futures do stupid stuff to jeopardize those futures all the time. Three, the alternative explanation to the on put forward by Wilson is that Wilson was trying to drag Michael Brown through the window of his car. And his plan once he got him through the window was what exactly?
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
I think that countless cases have gone to trial (and have resulted in guilty verdicts or plea bargains) where the evidence was much, much flimsier than that in this case.
The difference is that in all those cases, the prosecutor wanted a conviction. In the Wilson case, the prosecutor clearly didn't want to go to trial and didn't, for whatever reason, want the decision not to prosecute to rest with him alone.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Cross-examination and the application of the rules of evidence are not part of grand jury proceedings. Therefore, issues of the credibility of witnesses are matters for the trial court jury, not the grand jury, to decide.
[ 26. November 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
ldjjd, witness credibility is a core part of a grand jury's job. They exist to see if there's reasonable cause to believe a person's guilty of a crime. Not suspect, not strongly suspect, but believe. It's a common sense, factual judgment, which hinges on whether they find the evidence to be credible.
As there's no defense counsel (except sometimes whispering in the target's ear), you're right that witnesses aren't cross-examined. Some states do apply the rules of evidence, and ban most kinds of hearsay.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A contrived testimony? I didn't form that impression.
OK, ISTM, the general tone of the discussion is far too black and white. And, pardon me B62, I will use this as an example.
What is contrived testimony? The common usage is lying or deliberately attempting to skew perception. But the reality of human recollection is not so simple.
As the Vox link is careful to say, an honest recounting is not necessarily accurate.
To add to that, recollection often changes to suit the core perception. In other words, the person fills in the story in a manner that is beneficial to them. And often believes this construction to be accurate.
It is well documented that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. This extends to the participants of an event, not simply the observers.
A proper investigation takes this into consideration and attempts to determine which observations meet what can be determined.
Wilson's statement, whether honest or not, doesn't completely track.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
That's what the USA is like, it's in the DNA. [/QB]
Thanks, dude, you're so kind. I just love having my very complex nation summed up in this dismissive way.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, there's nothing like cutting to the chase, is there?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The policeman tells a very different story.
He says that he was driving his patrol car when he saw two men walking along in the middle of the street. He stopped his car and called out the window for them to get over to the sidewalk. One of them replied, "We're not going very far.", and they continued walking in the middle of the street.
The policeman started to open his car door and get out. Brown quickly moved next to the door so that it would not open. (Brown was 6'5" tall and weighed 289 pounds. He could easily prevent the opening of the car door. Brown then reached through the car window and punched the policeman at least once in the face. He then tried to take policeman's gun, which was in a holster. There was a struggle for the gun and two shots were fired. One lodged in the police car and the other went into Brown's hand.
Brown turned and started going away from the police car; the policeman got out of the car, and Brown turned and charged him. (Given the discrepancy in physical size, Brown could easily have overpowered the policeman and taken the gun.) The policeman started shooting.
There are several pieces of evidence that back up the policeman's story.
I'll confess to not having read the whole thread, but would like to add to Moo's remarks.
We have been told that the grand jury considered all physical evidence and all witness accounts, and discovered that not only did many of the witnesses contradict each other, but even themselves, and quickly changed their stories when confronted with the fact that what they "saw" simply could not be supported by the physical evidence. Many supposed "eye" witnesses admitted that they simply repeated what they had been told by others or overheard on the street, that they did not actually "witness" anything at all.
People are forgetting, too, that Michael Brown, who we were told was a "good boy", had just robbed a convenience store, and had menaced the store clerk when confronted. He then proceeded to swagger down the middle of a street, refused to move to the curb when asked to do so by a police officer, and physically attacked and menaced the officer. He then fled from the officer and not only refused to stop when ordered to do so, but turned and charged the officer.
What did this "good boy" expect would happen? That the officer would just wave him on his merry way, stolen cigarillos in hand, and would get back in his car and go find some "real crime" to investigate?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Hi, Byron.
My impression is that the rules of evidence do not apply in most if not all state grand juries. That's explicitly the practice in California. Do you know offhand a few states where that is not the case?
Who would enforce those rules and who would object to their violation?
"Probable cause to believe" is simply a way of stating a low standard of proof.
The grand jurors do not have to be convinced that a crime has been committed nor is it their job to weigh conflicts in evidence or to judge the basic credibility of witnesses.
Unless there is a total or near total lack of grounds for an indictment, such matters should be left to the trial court jury where credibility can be closely argued by both sides.
Given such standards, an indictment usually results. Again, though, the situation we are discussing was most atypical.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
I mean atypical in the sense that we have here a prosecutor who definitely does NOT want an indictment but who nevertheless follows a path normally (almost universally) taken by prosecutors who strongly DO want an indictment.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Hi, Byron.
My impression is that the rules of evidence do not apply in most if not all state grand juries. That's explicitly the practice in California. Do you know offhand a few states where that is not the case?
Who would enforce those rules and who would object to their violation?
"Probable cause to believe" is simply a way of stating a low standard of proof.
The grand jurors do not have to be convinced that a crime has been committed nor is it their job to weigh conflicts in evidence or to judge the basic credibility of witnesses.
Unless there is a total or near total lack of grounds for an indictment, such matters should be left to the trial court jury where credibility can be closely argued by both sides.
Given such standards, an indictment usually results. Again, though, the situation we are discussing was most atypical.
New York is a good example of a reformed grand jury system. It's for the prosecutor overseeing it to enforce the rules of evidence (with appeal to a judge if it came up).
Its grand jury handbook is thorough. Note this part:-
quote:
To formally charge an accused person with a crime, 12 [out of 23] grand jurors who heard all the essential and critical evidence and also the legal instructions must agree that there is legally sufficient evidence and reasonable cause to believe that the accused person committed a crime. A grand juror who has not heard all the essential and critical evidence on a case or who has not heard the legal instructions cannot vote in that case.
As noted upthread, NY grand juries kick 7% of indictments. It's certainly not the case that grand juries should take a punt and leave it to the trial court. If they were a rubber stamp, there'd be no point in having them.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Is there a link to the rules and guidelines for grand jury procedures in Missouri? The Wiki article on Grand Juries in the USA doesn't suggest the restriction which Idjjd states, but there seems to be federal and state law in place, and a fair bit of state-to-state variation.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I thought Ezra Klein's article was unbelievable. One, Michael Brown had just robbed a store so the whole gentle giant narrative just doesn't hold. Two, as a fan of college athletics, I can say that young men with bright futures do stupid stuff to jeopardize those futures all the time. Three, the alternative explanation to the on put forward by Wilson is that Wilson was trying to drag Michael Brown through the window of his car. And his plan once he got him through the window was what exactly?
I thought Ezra Klein's article was unbelievable for its complete lack of comprehension of how violent situations sometimes escalate from verbal aggression (on the part of both parties) to physical violence.
But then I generally find Ezra Klein useless to read.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is there a link to the rules and guidelines for grand jury procedures in Missouri? The Wiki article on Grand Juries in the USA doesn't suggest the restriction which Idjjd states, but there seems to be federal and state law in place, and a fair bit of state-to-state variation.
Annoyingly, not that I've been able to find.
For anyone who wants to trawl through 'em, here's the Missouri grand jury statutes.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
You found what I found!
This looks pretty broad.
quote:
Duties of grand jury.
540.031. A grand jury may make inquiry into and return indictments for all grades of crimes and shall make inquiry into all possible violations of the criminal laws as the court may direct. The grand jury may examine public buildings and report on their conditions.
It suggests that the prosecutor has pretty broad latitude in interpreting "make inquiry". It hardly seems likely that the prosecutor exceeded the formal powers, given the seriousness and high profile.
I'm not arguing that his actions were usual, simply that he had a legal warrant for them.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Even if you accept the police officer's testimony as the unvarnished truth, I don't see that it would mean he had no criminal liability. Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
Sorry, Doublethink, but even without knowing the facts, I don't think I can agree with you. I know this is debated as being about race, but as a foreigner to the debate, I can't help thinking there's another elephant in this particular room.
In a culture where guns are freely available and where anybody might have one, I don't see how anyone can complain if an armed policeman shoots rather than risks his own safety - whatever the surrounding circumstances.
If every random person might be armed, particularly a threatening and aggressive person, the casual citizen getting shot by the police is a price society has to accept. That's the cost, irrespective of whether the casual citizen happens to be black, a 12 year old child or whatever.
Ok series of questions, based on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30189966
- Why try to block pedestrians with a car, this was *never* going to work ?
- Why hit someone with car door ? How was this not going to escalate the situation ? Why not for example, reverse, then get out ?
- There was no back up, why not trail the two men in the car whilst waiting for back up - if seriously fearing being knocked out why get out of the car ?
- Brown grabs the policeman's gun (all sorts of issues there) and Wilson tries to shoot him - seems surprised this man is now aggressive, having been hit with a car door and shot at
- Having failed to shoot Brown and regained his gun, (he has now shot at this man five times, without Brown having pulled a firearm or any other weapon to this point)
- Brown runs off - so a police officer who has already fired and missed five times and temporarily lost control of his weapon despite not having being attacked with any kind of weapon decides he will run after him without back up - stupid is an understatement - and continue to threaten to kill this man he has already shot at five times
- Brown turns around and the policeman continues to fire at him repeatedly as he is coming towards him, Brown puts his hand in his waistband - but is coming towards him as if to tackle him ?
Or to put it another way, why would you try to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you ? How is that lawful ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Is fascinating to read a thread in which Christians look carefully for any reason to excuse the actions of a policeman who killed an unarmed 18 old. But I don't see the same willingness to defend the actions of the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
This great prosecutor of yours who was acting in perfect accord with the procedures for Grand Juries, was also a great man when he choose to announce the findings at night. With no intention of helping to incite the unfortunate events that happened later that same night.
The post about celebrating the death of an 18 year old with looting and burning was probably the most revealing one.
The fact that unarmed black men seem to be killed by police with some frequency these days is of course irrelevant.
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed. But in my city a white male can walk into an airport
intimidating people with a loaded assault rifle with no charges filed.
My wonderfull city
But of course the police is always right.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I worship Loki ATM, Ikkyu. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Who here's denied that Brown's death is a tragedy, or that racism is an unhealed wound? No one I can see.
What several have said is that there's not probable cause to indict Wilson. Maybe he is guilty. We don't know, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction.
Likewise, no one's said there ought to be a death penalty for robbery suspects. What matters is whether Wilson reasonably feared for his life when he fired. If his testimony's accurate, he did.
Everyone here wishes this never happened. That doesn't mean we all want someone prosecuted without cause.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What was Michael Brown doing when the police officer fired the fatal shots? So far as a murder indictment is concerned, that's crucial. On that point, the autopsies back up the officer"s testimony. They do not support Dorian Johnson's.
On the struggle around the car, the forensic evidence supports the officer's testimony more than it supports Dorian Johnson.
What Amanda says about other eye witness testimony is spot on. Particularly since the second independent autopsy didn't contradict the major bullet trajectory findings of the first.
Nobody is arguing that the police officer always behaved properly, sensibly or in accordance with best practice. Heck, it doesn't look to me that he did either. The issue before the grand jury was whether there was probable cause to believe his behaviour was criminal.
[ 26. November 2014, 20:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
We are, once again it seems, because we seem to be here in the same territory we are with every one of these high-profile controversial cases, in the zone where we are discussing unwise and stupid behaviour.
Stupidity is generally not criminal. Not until it gets into the territory of profoundly stupid, Oscar Pistorius-level stupidity.
So I can't say I find it very helpful to be having all the variations of 'what did one person or the other think would happen when they...' because it's not generally the case that the law expects a full and correct analysis of the consequences of our actions.
Sure, it explains how we got to the final tragic outcome, but it doesn't really do a lot to establish criminal responsibility. MORAL responsibility, maybe, but not criminal.
Because the law doesn't boil everything down to "it's your fault, you started it". When 2 stupid people both do stupid things that make the situation worse, the law doesn't sit there in a criminal case deciding which one to pick.
And the reasoning process that boils down to "X didn't deserve to die, so therefore Y is guilty of murder" is just jaw-droppingly wrong. I don't care if this kid raised puppies and helped grandmothers across the street, it's not relevant to the question of criminal guilt.
[ 26. November 2014, 20:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
While there's some contradiction about whether Wilson did or did not know of the robbery, I wonder about the actions that began this series of events.
Assume for the moment that Wilson did not know of the robbery.
1. Would he have ordered a couple of white kids to get on the sidewalk?
2. Would he have done so in the same manner -- language, vocal tone, volume -- as with the black kids?
and, from the other side,
1. Would two white kids (with possibly no, or at least less, local history of bad blood between residents & cops) have complied with such an order if issued?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed.
According to the news I hear, it was a BB gun, and the tell-tale orange cap at the tip of the muzzle to identify a toy was nowhere in evidence. A BB gun is not a toy. It can kill small animals and, if aimed at a choice spot, maim a person. IMHO, a city boy has no business carrying one. Whoever in this unfortunate 12-year-old's life allowed him to possess it was falling down on the job. "Live by the sword, die by the sword..." maybe word will get out.
I certainly don't want to excuse the trigger-happy rookie cop who jumped to fatal conclusions, nor the 911 dispatcher who failed to transmit the caution of the original caller (who said it might be a toy gun). But I don't envy, either, the lot of those whose job puts them in harm's way every day. Does anyone commenting here actually have experience in this line of work? Those who make these stories all about race ignore an elephant in the room: dysfunctional families, beleaguered school systems, and drug habits. Ferguson et al. will never prosper until these problems are addressed.
[ 26. November 2014, 20:50: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What was Michael Brown doing when the police officer fired the fatal shots? So far as a murder indictment is concerned, that's crucial. On that point, the autopsies back up the officer"s testimony. They do not support Dorian Johnson's.
On the struggle around the car, the forensic evidence supports the officer's testimony more than it supports Dorian Johnson.
What Amanda says about other eye witness testimony is spot on. Particularly since the second independent autopsy didn't contradict the major bullet trajectory findings of the first.
Nobody is arguing that the police officer always behaved properly, sensibly or in accordance with best practice. Heck, it doesn't look to me that he did either. The issue before the grand jury was whether there was probable cause to believe his behaviour was criminal.
I believe shooting at Mr Brown, before there was any reason to believe he had a gun, by the policeman's own account, would constitute a crime in and of itself, effectively attempted murder or attempted culpable homicide - especially when he was moving away from the officer on foot. Arguably, if the officer was shooting at Brown and he feared for his life - the officer's account would be consistent with Mr Brown dying trying to defend himself.
I am unclear why the police officer felt he had no other options other than his gun all throigh the encounter, did he not carry a a baton, a taser, pepper spray, nothing but a gun ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The Washington Post's published a suprb analysis of this case in the context of Missouri self-defense law.
In short, given his testimony, corroborated by the forensics, there was pretty much zero chance that a petit jury was going to convict Wilson at trial. If the grand jury had returned a true bill, they'd have only been delaying the inevitable.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am unclear why the police officer felt he had no other options other than his gun all throigh the encounter, did he not carry a a baton, a taser, pepper spray, nothing but a gun ?
He chose not to carry a taser because it was too bulky on his utility belt, he could not get to his baton because he was sitting on it and he believed Brown was too close to him to mace him without it getting back on him and disabling himself, leaving him vulnerable to Brown's attack. That is what he testified to.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Assume for the moment that Wilson did not know of the robbery.
1. Would he have ordered a couple of white kids to get on the sidewalk?
I read a little bit of Wilson's grand jury testimony. He said that cars had to swerve around the men walking in the street.
Given the fact that part of a policeman's job is the prevention of traffic accidents, it was entirely appropriate for him to tell them to walk on the sidewalk.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Porridge:
1. Would he have ordered a couple of white kids to get on the sidewalk?
Yes
quote:
originally posted by Porridge:
2. Would he have done so in the same manner -- language, vocal tone, volume -- as with the black kids?
Likely
quote:
originally posted by Porridge:
1. Would two white kids (with possibly no, or at least less, local history of bad blood between residents & cops) have complied with such an order if issued?
The vast majority would. When I was a white kid, I always complied when a police officer told me to stop doing what I was supposed to be doing. Why wouldn't I? At the very minimum, the officer could give me a ticket.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I believe shooting at Mr Brown, before there was any reason to believe he had a gun, by the policeman's own account, would constitute a crime in and of itself, effectively attempted murder or attempted culpable homicide - especially when he was moving away from the officer on foot.
You might believe that. I suspect we'd have a hard time finding an American jury that sees a problem with firing at a fleeing suspect in a robbery.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Well what about Pooks?
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, if that is their law, it would explain why people keep getting killed with no legal redress. Perhaps they need to a) change their law and b) train their police officers in the basic principles of de-escalating violent conflicts and c) not send them out solo in patrol cars if the default assumption is that criminals are armed.
What would have helped in this instance would have been for the police to have had, in addition to decent training, some defence option between nothing and gunfire.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I believe shooting at Mr Brown, before there was any reason to believe he had a gun, by the policeman's own account, would constitute a crime in and of itself, effectively attempted murder or attempted culpable homicide - especially when he was moving away from the officer on foot.
You might believe that. I suspect we'd have a hard time finding an American jury that sees a problem with firing at a fleeing suspect in a robbery.
That strikes me a as problem, life is more important than property.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'd also be interested in where there is evidence that any of the shots were fired while Brown was moving away. Certainly not in the description of Wilson's testimony in that Washington Post article.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Addendum to Ikkyu
Not only him. Anyone mentioning the robbery as a factor, anyone mentioning Michael Brown might not be a sweet angel.
All of that is irrelevant.
The only behaviour that is relevant is what occurred in the shooting. And Wilson's statement is not as convincing as many would like to make it appear.
[ 26. November 2014, 21:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am unclear why the police officer felt he had no other options other than his gun all throigh the encounter, did he not carry a a baton, a taser, pepper spray, nothing but a gun ?
He chose not to carry a taser because it was too bulky on his utility belt, he could not get to his baton because he was sitting on it and he believed Brown was too close to him to mace him without it getting back on him and disabling himself, leaving him vulnerable to Brown's attack. That is what he testified to.
Concievably, we could believe that if officers were required to carry an effective non-lethal weapon, they would be less likely to use a lethal one. And who the hell sits on their baton ? Do they not train these police officers at all ? If he had never drawn his gun, he'd never been in any danger of Brown shooting him with it. His own actions did not make him safer.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
