FERGUSON

[Brian37]

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".

Even if we were giving him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that he had personal events in his life regarding cops and death, should have been enough for him to remove himself from the case.

You are stuck on one case, this is not about one case. This is about a system that favors law enforcement and prosecutors. The lawyers and prosecutors I have been seeing in media say that the way this guy did it is way out of the norm and should NOT have been conducted the way this guy did. These were not laypeople saying this, these were people in the same profession.

Just like you only listen to rich people who side with you and not rich people who side with me.

Now I can tell you that it was NOT a 12 -0 vote. And I would bet when those grand jurors who did vote to send him to trial get interviewed you will not listen to them.

The entire thing stunk since day one. Since when is it department procedure to NOT write a report and then when you hand one over to investigators it contains no details.

And on top of that Wilson claimed to be scared of Brown. That is utter bullshit. You find me one training book for police where it says to physically confront a suspect while sitting down at a tactical disadvantage?

I'll tell you what happened. Wilson had had a long shift, was probably annoyed he had to go on another call. AND he testified before the conflicted started that he called for backup. Now if you are so scared why the hell would you reach for the cigars while sitting down at at tactical disadvantage?

Wilson jumped the gun because his training teaches him to dominate the situation. He was worried about the evidence, not Brown's size. If he had been worried he would have positioned the vehicle further away, gotten out of the car at a distance and been in a standing position at a tactical advantage.

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury. Wilson will be subject to a much greater degree tougher questions than he got during this grand jury trial.

[Jenny A]

---

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".

---

---

Even if we were giving him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that he had personal events in his life regarding cops and death, should have been enough for him to remove himself from the case.

---

You are stuck on one case, this is not about one case. This is about a system that favors law enforcement and prosecutors. The lawyers and prosecutors I have been seeing in media say that the way this guy did it is way out of the norm and should NOT have been conducted the way this guy did. These were not laypeople saying this, these were people in the same profession.

Just like you only listen to rich people who side with you and not rich people who side with me.

---

Now I can tell you that it was NOT a 12 -0 vote. And I would bet when those grand jurors who did vote to send him to trial get interviewed you will not listen to them.

The entire thing stunk since day one. Since when is it department procedure to NOT write a report and then when you hand one over to investigators it contains no details.

And on top of that Wilson claimed to be scared of Brown. That is utter bullshit. You find me one training book for police where it says to physically confront a suspect while sitting down at a tactical disadvantage?

I'll tell you what happened. Wilson had had a long shift, was probably annoyed he had to go on another call. AND he testified before the conflicted started that he called for backup. Now if you are so scared why the hell would you reach for the cigars while sitting down at at tactical disadvantage?

Wilson jumped the gun because his training teaches him to dominate the situation. He was worried about the evidence, not Brown's size. If he had been worried he would have positioned the vehicle further away, gotten out of the car at a distance and been in a standing position at a tactical advantage.

---

I see a Black/white issue. Where the hell do the rich come into it? You have a bug-a-boo about this.

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury. Wilson will be subject to a much greater degree tougher questions than he got during this grand jury trial.

It's not likely to go to civil court for the simple reason that police acting in their capacity as police officers generally have immunity from civil lawsuits. That immunity can be overcome, but the standard is pretty high. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rig...ights.html

[Brian37]

---

Even if we were giving him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that he had personal events in his life regarding cops and death, should have been enough for him to remove himself from the case.

---

You are stuck on one case, this is not about one case. This is about a system that favors law enforcement and prosecutors. The lawyers and prosecutors I have been seeing in media say that the way this guy did it is way out of the norm and should NOT have been conducted the way this guy did. These were not laypeople saying this, these were people in the same profession.

Just like you only listen to rich people who side with you and not rich people who side with me.

---

Now I can tell you that it was NOT a 12 -0 vote. And I would bet when those grand jurors who did vote to send him to trial get interviewed you will not listen to them.

The entire thing stunk since day one. Since when is it department procedure to NOT write a report and then when you hand one over to investigators it contains no details.

And on top of that Wilson claimed to be scared of Brown. That is utter bullshit. You find me one training book for police where it says to physically confront a suspect while sitting down at a tactical disadvantage?

I'll tell you what happened. Wilson had had a long shift, was probably annoyed he had to go on another call. AND he testified before the conflicted started that he called for backup. Now if you are so scared why the hell would you reach for the cigars while sitting down at at tactical disadvantage?

Wilson jumped the gun because his training teaches him to dominate the situation. He was worried about the evidence, not Brown's size. If he had been worried he would have positioned the vehicle further away, gotten out of the car at a distance and been in a standing position at a tactical advantage.

---

I see a Black/white issue. Where the hell do the rich come into it? You have a bug-a-boo about this.

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury. Wilson will be subject to a much greater degree tougher questions than he got during this grand jury trial.

It's not likely to go to civil court for the simple reason that police acting in their capacity as police officers generally have immunity from civil lawsuits. That immunity can be overcome, but the standard is pretty high. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rig...ights.html

,

Nothing in life should be about race or class, it is because humans are pattern seekers, when they see something they think works, it may for them, but they do not like looking outside their bubble. When they see a threat to that pattern they have a tendency to retract to avoid conflict or they react negatively to the challenge to their pattern.

You are stuck on my examples. I am trying to point out the issue could be about anything, and until our species can accept that those things do exist and get away from "my way or the highway" the labels will matter.

I have arguments with Haywood about economics, and no matter what I point out to him that challenges his position he ignores it.

He is doing the same here with Wilson. He does what far too many humans over ANY subject do. He sees what he wants to see.

Just like our 30 year decline and exploding pay gap. I tell him if it worked so well, no one would be complaining. And the same with how segments of our population get treated as compared to others. If all it took was "blame them" then the same types of events would not keep repeating.

His thought processes cause him to live in a bubble. No different a difficulty when you point out to a liberal theist and a conservative theist that they never consider more than two options, and that they never consider the third option in that BOTH are reading the same book with the same words.

If you understand long term behavior on evolutionary terms and have a huge sample rate over global history, you understand that labels SHOULD NOT matter, but the reason they do is that power structures in any given nation, and social pecking orders set up long term thinking and affect everyone and most of the time everyone is wrapped up in the moment and their own ideas that they cant or wont consider that there are more choices and ideas than the ones everyone they agree with buys into.

There is an evolutionary reason we as a species are pitted against each other, and most of it is needless, and most of it is because we allow power structures divide us and unfortunately that is what makes race and religion and politics so divisive and far too much of a priority.

---

---

Even if we were giving him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that he had personal events in his life regarding cops and death, should have been enough for him to remove himself from the case.

---

You are stuck on one case, this is not about one case. This is about a system that favors law enforcement and prosecutors. The lawyers and prosecutors I have been seeing in media say that the way this guy did it is way out of the norm and should NOT have been conducted the way this guy did. These were not laypeople saying this, these were people in the same profession.

Just like you only listen to rich people who side with you and not rich people who side with me.

---

Now I can tell you that it was NOT a 12 -0 vote. And I would bet when those grand jurors who did vote to send him to trial get interviewed you will not listen to them.

The entire thing stunk since day one. Since when is it department procedure to NOT write a report and then when you hand one over to investigators it contains no details.

And on top of that Wilson claimed to be scared of Brown. That is utter bullshit. You find me one training book for police where it says to physically confront a suspect while sitting down at a tactical disadvantage?

I'll tell you what happened. Wilson had had a long shift, was probably annoyed he had to go on another call. AND he testified before the conflicted started that he called for backup. Now if you are so scared why the hell would you reach for the cigars while sitting down at at tactical disadvantage?

Wilson jumped the gun because his training teaches him to dominate the situation. He was worried about the evidence, not Brown's size. If he had been worried he would have positioned the vehicle further away, gotten out of the car at a distance and been in a standing position at a tactical advantage.

---

I see a Black/white issue. Where the hell do the rich come into it? You have a bug-a-boo about this.

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury. Wilson will be subject to a much greater degree tougher questions than he got during this grand jury trial.

It's not likely to go to civil court for the simple reason that police acting in their capacity as police officers generally have immunity from civil lawsuits. That immunity can be overcome, but the standard is pretty high. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rig...ights.html

Cities and law enforcement get sued all the time. That website isn't saying it is against the law to sue or that those filing the complaint never win. When you say "high standard" what that really means is our social structures are lopsided.

It still does not address that our laws need to change and our oversight system needs to be balanced.

[Heywood]

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.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the transcripts from this grand jury were released. You can certainly find portions of it online. DeistPaladin seems to think the prosecutor acted like a defense attorney. Where else could he get that impression except for reading Grand Jury transcripts? I don't know a whole lot about the Grand Jury process but from reading news stories and your posts it would seem this Grand Jury was more transparent than the usual.

[popeyespappy]

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury.

The grand jury that heard this case was selected before Darren Wilson was killed, and prosecutors have nothing to do with selecting Missouri grand juries.

[KUSA]

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury.

The grand jury that heard this case was selected before Darren Wilson was killed, and prosecutors have nothing to do with selecting Missouri grand juries.

I didn't know they killed him.

[popeyespappy]

woops. wrong guy... meant Michael Brown

[Minimalist]

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury.

The grand jury that heard this case was selected before Darren Wilson was killed, and prosecutors have nothing to do with selecting Missouri grand juries.

That doesn't matter. It is the D.A. (alone) that determines what goes to a grand jury. There is no cross-examination.

It is a farce.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pro...-work.html

Grand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.

However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence. This serves two purposes:

It encourages witnesses to speak freely and without fear of retaliation.
It protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.

[popeyespappy]

That's true, Min, but he didn't have anything to do with selecting the people that heard the case.

[Jenny A]

Cities and law enforcement get sued all the time. That website isn't saying it is against the law to sue or that those filing the complaint never win. When you say "high standard" what that really means is our social structures are lopsided.

It still does not address that our laws need to change and our oversight system needs to be balanced.

This is what I mean by a high standard:

police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.

And I didn't say it was a crime to sue the police only that it's hard to win for the reasons stated above. And actually, I agree with that standard.