Micheal Brown deserved to be shot.

[Alex K]

I'm starting to get sick of having this thread title in front of me all the time

[rexbeccarox]

I'm starting to get sick of having this thread title in front of me all the time

Me too. It really rubs me the wrong way.

[popeyespappy]

Did they have an estimated distance? That's more important in my opinion.

I don't know, but the casing distribution suggests that by the time Brown fell down he had moved past the point where Wilson was standing when he started shooting.

[Jackalope]

That's a really sinister poll....when you think about it.

Yep. "Deserves" is a really shitty choice of wording.

Ever been shot, wonder how that might affect ones conclusion?

Personally, no, but I know plenty of people who have.

It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary. But to go so far as someone deserving it, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Lao Shizi]

"Presenting reams of evidence that could benefit the defense of Ferguson officer Darren Wilson wasn’t the only thing St. Louis County prosecutors did to bolster Wilson’s case for escaping trial.
Prosecutors also made a mistake in the grand jury instructions that gave jurors a false impression about the law and provided Wilson with significantly more legal cover for the deadly shooting of Michael Brown than the law actually provides, according to a review of the transcript by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.
Assistant District Attorney Kathi Alizadeh instructed grand jurors on how to decide the case based on a statute that was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court two decades ago. As O’Donnell points out, that statute had not been valid for the entirety of Alizadeh’s legal career. That statute said that officers can use any force they deem necessary to achieve the arrest of a fleeing suspect. It does not preclude deadly force ,saying only that officers are “justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.”
The U.S. Supreme Court nixed this law and others like it when it held in the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner that police officers could not use deadly force simply because a suspect was fleeing. They could only do so if that suspect also threatened the lives of others. A 1979 Missouri statute was never changed.
Alizadeh realized her mistake three months after she initially presented the statute to the grand jurors and disclosed the error. But at least according to the transcript, she never told them what exactly she did wrong or what had changed. She simply told the jurors to “fold in half” the paper they had been referencing for three months and gave them a new one with different instructions.
As Georgetown adjunct law professor and legal analyst Kenneth Jost explained on his blog, the grand jurors “had in mind the prosecutors’ mistake of law that completely excused Wilson” as they listened to Wilson’s testimony. Jost concedes that this mistake was one of only a host of legal factors that may have contributed to the grand jurors’ decision-making. In fact, as ThinkProgress noted this week, it may be societal standards of “reasonableness” that dictated the outcome this case more than any particular law. But as Jost points out, “Asking the grand jurors three months later to ignore the mistake was surely a fruitless attempt to unring the bell.”
Jury instructions have played a key role in several prominent deadly force cases. In the trials of both George Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon Martin, and Michael Dunn for killing Jordan Davis, Stand Your Ground provisions that had not been a focus during the trial made their way into the jury instructions, the written documents jurors rely upon to understand the law during their decision-making. (Michael Dunn was initially acquitted by a jury, but convicted on retrial and sentenced to life in prison)."

[Minimalist]

Prosecutors also made a mistake in the grand jury instructions that gave jurors a false impression about the law

But was it a "mistake?"

[popeyespappy]

The grand jury process is flawed in that it allows the local prosecutor to sculpt the presented evidence, as you yourself have noted. Clearly, there should be a more objective means for handling deaths caused by government agents.

I wanted to address this earlier, but didn't have time so here goes.

Yes the grand jury process can be manipulated because the prosecutor has control over what evidence that is presented. They manipulate the jury by only presenting the evidence they want the jury to hear. Doing this would be unethical. I even pointed out earlier in this thread that prosecutors are ethically bound to present evidence of innocence as well as guilt to a grand jury earlier in thread after being told that the prosecutor should have manipulated the jury in order to get the desired outcome. That would be in my opinion unethical.

I have yet to see any evidence that the prosecutor did anything like that in this case. As far as I can tell the prosecutor presented all the available evidence including conflicting eye witness accounts and the physical evidence. This is exactly what they should do. Not manipulate the jury by leaving out the parts that might sway the jury in the other direction. So if anyone can point out how the prosecutor manipulated the jury please be my guest.

[Minimalist]

Gee. An unethical prosecutor who is in bed with the cops? Who would ever suggest such a thing?

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

Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies.

By denying the public a trial the DA leaves himself wide open for the second guessing that's going on in Missouri.

The NY case is simply beyond belief.

[Chad32]

And I explained that earlier in the article you posted, the topic of indictment comes up. It says it's the prosecution's job to get the ball rolling and bring it to trial. Anb indictment doesn't mean guilty or innocent. It just means there will be a trial, so there's no reason to give the defense's side.

The fact that there is a separate person in charge of the defense should lead you to believe it's not the prosecution's job to give a defense. only a prosecution. I don't know what's unethical about this. Prosecutors should not be expected to make a defense any more than the defense should be expected to prosecute.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, as I said an independent investigation yes. But you don't just charge someone with a crime (i.e. indict them, Losty) just because of who they are without sufficient evidence that a crime was actually committed.

The difference is, in a public trial, the evidence is aired, as opposed to prosecutor's investigation where the prosecutor decides what evidence to present, and what to suppress. The fact that the defendant -- the cop -- has no attorney is an injustice too, right? With a full-blooded trial, conducted by adversarial counsel, more facts are likely to be aired.

Besides, the mod is going to do what the mob is going to do. What makes you think an acquittal at trial would draw any different reaction than the grand jury's no true bill?

It isn't the job of the judicial system to ensure social tranquility; its job is to ensure that justice is rendered. How do you think that mission would be impeded by an adversarial trial of a government official accused of killing a citizen?

That an open process would likely tend to ameliorate anger at racial injustices is a plus, don't you agree? The policeman has a chance to clear his name; the city, county, state, or other polity has the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to equal justice no matter the uniform one is wearing; the public is given reassurance that no one is above the law, not by empty words, but by firm action.

What, exactly, would be your objection?

---

I wanted to address this earlier, but didn't have time so here goes.

Yes the grand jury process can be manipulated because the prosecutor has control over what evidence that is presented. They manipulate the jury by only presenting the evidence they want the jury to hear. Doing this would be unethical. I even pointed out earlier in this thread that prosecutors are ethically bound to present evidence of innocence as well as guilt to a grand jury earlier in thread after being told that the prosecutor should have manipulated the jury in order to get the desired outcome. That would be in my opinion unethical.

I have yet to see any evidence that the prosecutor did anything like that in this case. As far as I can tell the prosecutor presented all the available evidence including conflicting eye witness accounts and the physical evidence. This is exactly what they should do. Not manipulate the jury by leaving out the parts that might sway the jury in the other direction. So if anyone can point out how the prosecutor manipulated the jury please be my guest.

[Emphasis added -- Parks]

In order to make the emphasized assessment in this case, you would have to have access to all the evidence, and not just the evidence presented to the grand jury.

And furthermore, my point is not limited to this case alone; the fact is that we have seen even death-penalty cases overturned due to recanted testimony that was adduced from "witnesses" by an aggressive interrogation. The idea that prosecutors would not act unethically is not borne out in theory or in practice; they do so constantly, because in America they must stand election and therefore must present good statistics.

The prosecutor in this case may not even have known he was selecting evidence, to be clear -- not all biases are conscious. That is exactly why such evidence should be reviewed by a defense lawyer charged with the shielding of his client, so that he or she may point out flaws and fallacies.

The idea that evidence should be reviewed behind closed doors, without adversarial advocacy, is inimical to our judicial sensibilities, and it is high time such an archaic and unjust system is tossed out.