RE: FERGUSON
November 27, 2014 at 12:24 pm
(This post was last modified: November 27, 2014 at 12:27 pm by Jenny A.)
(November 27, 2014 at 8:51 am)abaris Wrote: Make of this what you want, but if true, I find it pretty convincing. I know too little about the finer details of the American justice system to agree or disagree with certain points. But Kyle makes the point, that the case was rigged from the start with improper procedure and a biased prosecutor.
What he has to say about the way a grand jury usually works is generally true, especially the ham sandwich part. However, the suggestion that the prosecutor has two options: preliminary hearing before a judge, or grand jury is not. The third option which is not attempt to bring an indictment at all is by far the most common option. This is called prosecutorial desecration. The prosecutor can exercise it if he thinks he doesn't have enough evidence to win the case (a rather higher burden than what is required to indite), because he thinks as a matter of public policy the case shouldn't be tried, or because the case is less important than others on desk and his office's time is limited.
Nor is obtaining an indictment the only purpose for a grand jury proceeding. Unlike a preliminary hearing, a grand jury proceeding can be used as an evidence gathering tool. Witnesses are not required to talk to police or prosecutors in an ordinary investigation (you have the right to remain silent) and a grand jury proceeding can allow the prosecutor to compel testimony he would not otherwise get before determining whether to take a case to trial. In that case, the prosecutor may elicit evidence both for and against the defendant.
In Ferguson the prosecutor attempted to use the grand jury as a means of justifying or perhaps passing off his prosecutor discretion. While unusual, that too is not an unprecedented use of a grand jury. To that end he worked with the judge to open the grand jury records. That is highly unusual.
(November 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Every cop should wear a camera, for their own and others safety.
YES
(November 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: But I would go further and say every politician should wear a body camera too.
I love transparency
I wouldn't. The whole political system would grind to a halt. Most political proceeding are public. But politicians really do need to be able to negotiate compromises in private.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.