FERGUSON

[vorlon13]

But tone and inflection can make bullets turn around in mid air and enter a body from the wrong side.

I thought everybody knew that.


hock:

[Minimalist]

No surprise at all.

It's so rare that a cop ever faces justice.

The Grand Jury was comprised of nine whites and three blacks. They investigated all the evidence, a lot of which has not been made public yet, interviewed sixty witnesses, and deliberated for 70 hours before they came to their decision to not indict the Ferguson police officer. How much of that evidence were you privy to, and how much time did you spend on that grand jury interviewing witnesses before you came to your conclusion?

I'm surprised by the grand jury decision too. I thought for sure the jurors would have been pressured into offering up this white cop for sacrifice.

So now we know that you know nothing of the grand jury process, Adolf? How did they do it back in the Reich?

[fr0d0]

[Heywood]

If a republican was president the left would be crying out about how slow the response from the federal government is.

If every criminal was prosecuted this way, few would ever be charged much less convicted.

Consider:

• During an indictment, the prosecution alone makes it's case. The only standard of proof to make an indictment is if there's any case at all to be considered.
  
• The so-called prosecuting attorney sounded like the defense attorney.
  
• There was a conflict of interest, considering the prosecutor is local and so close to the case. It would have been better to have a federal prosecutor who was less personally biased.
  

Negative DP,

The purpose of the grand jury is to establish if there is probable cause to bring a prosecution and not if there's any case at all to be considered as you suggest. Probable cause is a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true.

A lot of investigation went into this case. Are you suggesting the prosecutor only present evidence to the grand jury which supports prosecution? It seems to me the prosecutors job here is to lay out all the evidence and then argue that it is probably true a crime was committed. At times the prosecutor might sound like a defense attorney especially when he presents evidence which would support a defense if the Grand Jury brings an indictment. If the Grand Jury doesn't buy the prosecutors argument that the totality of evidence suggests a crime was committed....after seeing all the evidence the prosecutor has available to him....then it simply doesn't buy the prosecutors argument. The point of the Grad Jury is to insure that prosecutions are based on probable cause and not reasons which are arbitrary and capricious.

Regarding your last comment that there was a conflict of interest because the prosecutor was local....well that's pretty much always the case. If officer Roscoe issues you a traffic ticket in Hazard County, the prosecutor is going to be from Hazard County. They aren't going to bring in a federal prosecutor just because there is a "conflict of interest".

[The Valkyrie]

When the grand jury announces it's decision soon what do you think the people of that town will do if they are not happy with the decision? The cops are already rolling in their assault vehicles, the National guard is on standby, they don't stand a chance. I read a blow by blow about what happened and from that I think the cop won't be charged.

Manowar

I would say riot.

[Jackalope]

Are you suggesting the prosecutor only present evidence to the grand jury which supports prosecution?

No, I believe he's suggesting that if the prosecutor wants an indictment, then witnesses will be called which support the prosecutor's wishes. If the prosecutor wants no true bill, then he'll act accordingly.

It isn't an adversarial process. The prosecutor controls the process.

I'll note that the prosecutor doesn't *require* a grand jury indictment to pursue a conviction, though it helps.

If you care about transparency and the adversarial process, grand juries are a pretty shitty way to accomplish that.

[Heywood]

No, I believe he's suggesting that if the prosecutor wants an indictment, then witnesses will be called which support the prosecutor's wishes. If the prosecutor wants no true bill, then he'll act accordingly.

It isn't an adversarial process. The prosecutor controls the process.

I'll note that the prosecutor doesn't *require* a grand jury indictment to pursue a conviction, though it helps.

If you care about transparency and the adversarial process, grand juries are a pretty shitty way to accomplish that.

The prosecutor probably did not want an indictment after reviewing all the evidence. If that is the case...should the prosecutor be required to indict just to appease the mob?

[Jackalope]

No, I believe he's suggesting that if the prosecutor wants an indictment, then witnesses will be called which support the prosecutor's wishes. If the prosecutor wants no true bill, then he'll act accordingly.

It isn't an adversarial process. The prosecutor controls the process.

I'll note that the prosecutor doesn't *require* a grand jury indictment to pursue a conviction, though it helps.

If you care about transparency and the adversarial process, grand juries are a pretty shitty way to accomplish that.

The prosecutor probably did not want an indictment after reviewing all the evidence. If that is the case...should the prosecutor be required to indict just to appease the mob?

I don't recall suggesting anything of the sort.

And perhaps you don't know this, but I'm not a big fan of entertaining hypothetical questions based on conditionals that neither of us is in position to know jack shit about.

To indirectly answer your question, of course a prosecutor shouldn't indict to appease the mob. The flip side of that coin is that they also shouldn't let bad cops off the hook.(*)

(*) I have no idea whether this is the case here. FWIW, I'm undecided as to how I feel about the case. What I am not undecided about is the way that prosecutors can manipulate grand juries to get the outcome they want, for good or ill reason. You seem to be wont to ignore the latter possibility.

[Heywood]

I don't recall suggesting anything of the sort.

And perhaps you don't know this, but I'm not a big fan of entertaining hypothetical questions based on conditionals that neither of us is in position to know jack shit about.

To indirectly answer your question, of course a prosecutor shouldn't indict to appease the mob. The flip side of that coin is that they also shouldn't let bad cops off the hook.(*)

(*) I have no idea whether this is the case here. FWIW, I'm undecided as to how I feel about the case. What I am not undecided about is the way that prosecutors can manipulate grand juries to get the outcome they want, for good or ill reason. You seem to be wont to ignore the latter possibility.

I agree with you that the Grand Jury process can be manipulated by the prosecutor.....but pretty much any process can be manipulated.

[Jackalope]

I agree with you that the Grand Jury process can be manipulated by the prosecutor.....but pretty much any process can be manipulated.

The fact that it's conducted in secret makes it a hell of a lot easier than say, a preliminary hearing. I wouldn't go so far as to make a Star Chamber analogy, but justice conducted without oversight and transparency seems to be no justice at all, and is reminiscent of why the Star Chamber was a very bad thing.


As it stands, we'll never know what was presented to the grand jury. Had the process been more transparent, we might still have the mob reaction, but *at least* the public would have an opportunity to make an informed decision based on what was presented.