Micheal Brown deserved to be shot.

[ManMachine]

What do you think?

The very fact you feel there is a question that needs to be asked is a testament to how little humanity has changed over the millennia.

MM

[Godscreated]

I voted probably not, I wasn't the one who had to make a split second decision after having an altercation with Mr. Brown. What I do know is the officer only needed to fire one shot at the most. Six times is unacceptable, and I believe murder. The man should have been engaged in situations to test his ability to control himself under this kind of situation. Stress test should be, if they are not, mandatory for all law enforcement persons.
The thing is done and no trial will happen which I find stupid on many levels. What I want to know is why these people didn't see what was going to happen if he didn't go to trial. They could have sent him to trial and saved many problems, this thing has cost so many so much, the worst though is a family lost a son and brother, even though he was not a model citizen he did not deserve to die. These people in Missouri have cost this nation millions of dollars and raised the distrust between black and whites even in places that didn't seem to be a problem. One thing I do not understand is why people have to be referred to by race, gees were all human beings and in this country were are all Americans, is there something wrong with being just an American, do we really need to place a race in front of American, do we really? Maybe I'm not seeing something others do, but I think it's enough to be an American. I do not see myself as a white American or a Christian American, I don't see others as atheist Americans or African Americans or Hispanic Americans, is there something wrong with the way I see us. I think if more people would see others as people without the race added in we could have a much better society. I'm not saying I do not see the race of people, I do try to make myself color blind and IMO everyone should. Finished with my raving, sorry.

GC

[Chad32]

He gave the defense's side, which you are not required to do to get an indictment. They also first told the jury it was legal to shoot someone in the back when it wasn't, then later told them to disregard that part without making an official statement or an apology. The prosecutor has close ties to the police, and purposefully threw the case.

So what you are saying is that instead of presenting all the available evidence to the grand jury the prosecutor should have skipped the coroner's report. You know, the one that supported Wilson's version of the encounter and said Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back. Which by the way didn't significantly differ from the conclusions drawn by the pathologist hired by Brown's family to conduct their own autopsy. Skipped the rest of the physical evidence and the testimony from the witnesses that could be collaborated by the physical evidence. Then present only evidence from the witnesses that would support an indictment including those that were contrary to the physical evidence or later recanted.

Yeah, that's the way the courts should work. [/sarcasm]

Yes, that's how the courts work. The prosecutor's job is to convince them that this should go to trial. The trial is where the defense gets to work towards getting the guy out of it. Getting an indictment doesn't even mean he's guilty. It just means someone may have done something, and we should take this to court. Then he may be found innocent or guilty.

[rexbeccarox]

---

I voted probably not, I wasn't the one who had to make a split second decision after having an altercation with Mr. Brown. What I do know is the officer only needed to fire one shot at the most. Six times is unacceptable, and I believe murder. The man should have been engaged in situations to test his ability to control himself under this kind of situation. Stress test should be, if they are not, mandatory for all law enforcement persons.
The thing is done and no trial will happen which I find stupid on many levels. What I want to know is why these people didn't see what was going to happen if he didn't go to trial. They could have sent him to trial and saved many problems, this thing has cost so many so much, the worst though is a family lost a son and brother, even though he was not a model citizen he did not deserve to die. These people in Missouri have cost this nation millions of dollars and raised the distrust between black and whites even in places that didn't seem to be a problem. One thing I do not understand is why people have to be referred to by race, gees were all human beings and in this country were are all Americans, is there something wrong with being just an American, do we really need to place a race in front of American, do we really? Maybe I'm not seeing something others do, but I think it's enough to be an American. I do not see myself as a white American or a Christian American, I don't see others as atheist Americans or African Americans or Hispanic Americans, is there something wrong with the way I see us. I think if more people would see others as people without the race added in we could have a much better society. I'm not saying I do not see the race of people, I do try to make myself color blind and IMO everyone should. Finished with my raving, sorry.

GC

---

Oh my gawds... I think I'm going to cry. Good comment, GC.

[popeyespappy]

Yes, that's how the courts work. The prosecutor's job is to convince them that this should go to trial. The trial is where the defense gets to work towards getting the guy out of it. Getting an indictment doesn't even mean he's guilty. It just means someone may have done something, and we should take this to court. Then he may be found innocent or guilty.

No it is not the prosecutor's job to get an indictment. The prosecutor's job is to present the truth.

A prosecutor is the only one in a criminal action who is responsible for the presentation of the truth. Justice is not complete without the truth always being the primary goal in all criminal proceedings. A prosecutor is not a mere advocate and unlike other lawyers, a prosecutor does not represent individuals or entities, but society as a whole. In that capacity, a prosecutor must exercise independent judgment in reaching decisions while taking into account the interest of victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, suspects, defendants and those members of society who have no direct interest in a particular case, but who are nonetheless affected by its outcome.

3-3.5 Evidence Before the Grand Jury
Unless otherwise required by the law or applicable rules of ethical conduct of the jurisdiction, the following should apply to evidence presented to the grand jury:
a. A prosecutor should disclose any credible evidence of actual innocence known to the prosecutor or other credible evidence that tends to negate guilt, as required by law or applicable rules of ethical conduct;
b. A prosecutor should not present evidence to the grand jury that the prosecutor knows was obtained illegally by law enforcement;
c. In the absence of a valid waiver, a prosecutor should not seek information from a witness that the prosecutor knows or believes is covered by a valid claim of attorney-client privilege;
d. A prosecutor should not take any action that could improperly influence the testimony of a grand jury witness;
e. If the prosecutor is convinced in advance of a grand jury appearance that any witness will invoke his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination rather than provide any relevant information, the prosecutor should not present the witness to the grand jury unless the prosecutor plans to challenge the assertion of the privilege or to seek a grant of immunity. The grand jury may be informed of the reason the witness will not appear;
f. The prosecutor should inform the grand jury that it has the right to hear in person any available witness or subpoena pertinent records;
g. A prosecutor should not present evidence to the grand jury that the prosecutor knows to be false;
h. A prosecutor should not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to the grand jury.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd...entary.pdf

[Losty]

A prosecutor should always push for indictment. Honestly, I don't believe police officers should have to be indicted. There should automatically be a trial. It should always be in another jurisdiction where the prosecutor/judge/jury doesn't know the officer. Police officers are walking around with lethal weapons and granted a license to kill, because they are charged with protecting the community and upholding the law. With this higher power should come greater responsibility. They should be held to higher standards than your average citizen. What people seem to be missing here is that it doesn't matter if you think Brown deserved to be shot or not. It doesn't matter which side you're on.
The riots have made it clear that something has to change. When the people distrust the police society will crash and burn every time. When the government refuses to scrutinize the police up to the standards demanded by society all hell will break loose. This isn't about Michael Brown. It is about a system that is flawed. It is about a nation where citizens fear the police more than they fear the criminals. It's something that needs to change.

[Chad32]

The first paragraph to mention indictment is 2-6.6

"When judicial scandals are uncovered, they become an indictment of the entire criminal justice system, creating a public perception that all those involved in the system are corrupt. The prosecutor must assume the role of guardian against injustice and corruption. It is unacceptable to turn a deaf ear to suspicions of criminal activity or misconduct. The standard places a duty on the prosecutor to follow through with a thorough investigation when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by a member of the judiciary. If the investigation dictates prosecution, the prosecutor must take the appropriate steps to see that it is commenced."

This means if someone does something out of bounds, you make sure it gets through. He shot someone that's confirmed by video to have been some distance from him with his hands up.

You're talking more about when they're already in court having the trial. I'm talking about pre trial stuff.

[Godscreated]

---

I voted probably not, I wasn't the one who had to make a split second decision after having an altercation with Mr. Brown. What I do know is the officer only needed to fire one shot at the most. Six times is unacceptable, and I believe murder. The man should have been engaged in situations to test his ability to control himself under this kind of situation. Stress test should be, if they are not, mandatory for all law enforcement persons.
The thing is done and no trial will happen which I find stupid on many levels. What I want to know is why these people didn't see what was going to happen if he didn't go to trial. They could have sent him to trial and saved many problems, this thing has cost so many so much, the worst though is a family lost a son and brother, even though he was not a model citizen he did not deserve to die. These people in Missouri have cost this nation millions of dollars and raised the distrust between black and whites even in places that didn't seem to be a problem. One thing I do not understand is why people have to be referred to by race, gees were all human beings and in this country were are all Americans, is there something wrong with being just an American, do we really need to place a race in front of American, do we really? Maybe I'm not seeing something others do, but I think it's enough to be an American. I do not see myself as a white American or a Christian American, I don't see others as atheist Americans or African Americans or Hispanic Americans, is there something wrong with the way I see us. I think if more people would see others as people without the race added in we could have a much better society. I'm not saying I do not see the race of people, I do try to make myself color blind and IMO everyone should. Finished with my raving, sorry.

GC

---

Oh my gawds... I think I'm going to cry. Good comment, GC.

I feel like crying at times myself, the solution seems so easy, but if it were I guess we would be at a better place.

GC

[Heywood]

I voted for "probably".....grudgingly.

I don't think that the Brown deserved to be shot but rather I believe the cop was probably justified in shooting Brown.

---

A prosecutor should always push for indictment.

Even in instances where the prosecutor knows he cannot get a conviction?

Suppose you're a cop and issue me a ticket. I call up the prosecutors office and say....."Office Losty done slapped me upside my head".

Should the prosecutor automatically convene a grand jury and push for your prosecution for police brutality?

[popeyespappy]

A prosecutor should always push for indictment. Honestly, I don't believe police officers should have to be indicted. There should automatically be a trial. It should always be in another jurisdiction where the prosecutor/judge/jury doesn't know the officer. Police officers are walking around with lethal weapons and granted a license to kill, because they are charged with protecting the community and upholding the law. With this higher power should come greater responsibility. They should be held to higher standards than your average citizen. What people seem to be missing here is that it doesn't matter if you think Brown deserved to be shot or not. It doesn't matter which side you're on.
The riots have made it clear that something has to change. When the people distrust the police society will crash and burn every time. When the government refuses to scrutinize the police up to the standards demanded by society all hell will break loose. This isn't about Michael Brown. It is about a system that is flawed. It is about a nation where citizens fear the police more than they fear the criminals. It's something that needs to change.

No, the prosecutor shouldn't always push for an indictment. That's how innocent people wind up in jail, the courts get cluttered up with frivolous and unwinnable cases, and cost the taxpayers and innocent defendants millions of dollars in legal costs. Plus You don't want a trial if you don't think there is a good chance of conviction. If the case is weak and a criminal trial results in an acquittal the courts don't get a second chance at it. It is over. On the other hand Darren Wilson can still be indicted and tried at this point should new evidence become available.

As far as all police shooting going to trial that's just silly. Yes police officers should be held to higher not lower standard. Yes there should be an independent investigation by an unrelated agency. But you are saying the cop that just shot somebody while they were in middle of murdering a bus load of kids should be charged with a crime and tried.