The madness of Fergerson

[skyraider]

The' Siege of Fergustan' will continue and mostly likely burn itself out, no pun there.

The State Police are there, the police are there, the National Guard troops are there, helicopters,weapons and so on----should be quite a show tonight. If M.L King was here, he might say this again:

...................................

 

[Ragman]

No need to wonder.

It was sarcasm.

 

[layoutshooter]

It was sarcasm.

NO KIDDING! I never would have guessed!

 

[Turtle]

I think they should have agreed to a outside prosecutor. The grand jury process was the right call in my opinion. I would have met them halfway and used the special prosecutor.

The problem with the way the grand jury process was handled in this case is, virtually all, if not all of the evidence was presented, and a lot of it was conflicting evidence. Conflicting evidence IS probable cause. If the evidence isn't conflicting, then it's a slam dunk one way or the other. But the fact that there is conflicting evidence means it should be presented to a jury during a trial. Instead, they held a de facto trial in secret behind closed doors letting the grand jury in effect decide guilt or innocence.

I'm sure you've heard of the famous quote (by a NY State Chief Justice, I think) that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." He wasn't exaggerating much. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for the data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilson’s case was heard in state court, of course, not federal, so the numbers aren't directly comparable with state courts, but it's telling. And unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means most routine cases never go before a grand jury at all. So whether it's a preliminary hearing in front of a judge or in front of a grand jury, it's extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment. If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn't get one, something has gone horribly wrong. Or, in the case in Ferguson, the prosecutor simply didn't want one, and wouldn't own making the call himself, because he has a history of police bias. If he wanted an indictment, he'd have gotten one, instead of making the defense's case for them in front of the grand jury.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Conflicting evidence IS probable cause."

Conflicting evidence is also reasonable doubt. Since Officer Wilson would have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, a not guilty verdict would be likely.

 

[Turtle]

"Conflicting evidence IS probable cause."

Conflicting evidence is also reasonable doubt. Since Officer Wilson would have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, a not guilty verdict would be likely.

Correctamundo

People don't often get pulled over, searched, arrested and tried for "reasonable doubt." They do for probable cause, tho, which is all grand juries are designed to determine.

 

[layoutshooter]

Correctamundo

People don't often get pulled over, searched, arrested and tried for "reasonable doubt." They do for probable cause, tho, which is all grand juries are designed to determine.

I did not say why they get pulled over. I said, when I hear conflicting evidence, when witnesses make up stories, recant, change facts, when forensics don't match witness accounts, if I were on a jury presented with that, I would have reasonable doubt of guilt and vote not guilty. No unanimous jury, no conviction, or no charges filed.

 

[asjssl]

...................

 

[Turtle]

I did not say why they get pulled over. I said, when I hear conflicting evidence, when witnesses make up stories, recant, change facts, when forensics don't match witness accounts, if I were on a jury presented with that, I would have reasonable doubt of guilt and vote not guilty. No unanimous jury, no conviction, or no charges filed.

Exactly. Like I said, if the prosecutor wanted an indictment he'd have gotten one, toot sweet.

 

[layoutshooter]

Exactly. Like I said, if the prosecutor wanted an indictment he'd have gotten one, toot sweet.

So, he should not produce the conflicts just to get an indictment?

 

[Pilgrim]

Exactly. Like I said, if the prosecutor wanted an indictment he'd have gotten one, toot sweet.

Maybe, but then there would have been another OJ trial all over national TV at enormous taxpayer expense only to get the same verdict - assuming an impartial jury could have been impaneled after a change of venue. That would have given the race hustlers more time and exposure for inciting even more riots across the country. Let's face it - the legal system worked in this instance.

 

[Turtle]

So, he should not produce the conflicts just to get an indictment?

If he wanted an indictment, no. If he didn't want an indictment, yes.

 

[layoutshooter]

If he wanted an indictment, no. If he didn't want an indictment, yes.

I would think that both sides need presented for a grand jury to make a determination.

I was not there, I did not get the chance to review the over 1000 pieces of evidence produced. That is a lot of evidence. The jury took their time, did not rush to judgement. Seems to me there must not have been enough evidence to file charges.

 

[Turtle]

Maybe, but then there would have been another OJ trial all over national TV at enormous taxpayer expense only to get the same verdict - assuming an impartial jury could have been impaneled after a change of venue. That would have given the race hustlers more time and exposure for inciting even more riots across the country. Let's face it - the legal system worked in this instance.

I don't know that I'd say the legal system worked in this instance, since it was never given the chance to play out. If anything it was gamed to achieve a desired goal, which was no indictment with the prosecutor off the hook for making the call.

There's a reason he refused to allow an independent prosecutor. If he wanted an indictment and wanted to prosecute this case, I can see why he wouldn't want to step aside. But if he wanted an indictment he'd have never presented conflicting evidence in the first place, he'd have just stuck to prosecution evidence. He didn't want an independent prosecutor because they could have gotten an indictment in 5 minutes.

I have to wonder whether or not you are aware of just how rare it us for any evidence for the defense, much less the defendant himself testifying for his own cause, being presented to a grand jury in an indictment proceeding. You can probably count on one hand how many times that's ever happened. Maybe even have fingers left over.

 

[cheri1122]

Y'all can argue over the tactics, testimony, probable cause, & all of it from here to eternity, but you're forgetting what matters: black people were and are angry at being treated as 'less than' white people.
Yes, destruction of property and looting is counterproductive - but good luck convincing them that they can work to change the system, because everything they [and their parents, grandparents, etc] experience says otherwise. White people are taught that racism is something that happened in the past, but not anymore - don't we honor Martin Luther King, now? [Big snort] We cannot admit to racism, it makes us look bad, because we know there is no way to defend it. So we pretend it is just part of the past, not relevant - but black people know otherwise.
We also pretend that anyone can 'get ahead' in America, but that's a lie, too. People rarely move out of their socioeconomic class, because the system prevents it. Poor people don't get decent housing, food, education, or jobs. Practically their only way out is an athletic scholarship, which leaves most right where they are.
Dred Scott continues to be the [now unspoken] law of the land, and I don't blame black people for being mad - they'd have to be crazy not to. The conversation ought to be about how we can fix it, but first, we have to admit that it's broken.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Y'all can argue over the tactics, testimony, probable cause, & all of it from here to eternity, but you're forgetting what matters: black people were and are angry at being treated as 'less than' white people.
Yes, destruction of property and looting is counterproductive - but good luck convincing them that they can work to change the system, because everything they [and their parents, grandparents, etc] experience says otherwise. White people are taught that racism is something that happened in the past, but not anymore - don't we honor Martin Luther King, now? [Big snort] We cannot admit to racism, it makes us look bad, because we know there is no way to defend it. So we pretend it is just part of the past, not relevant - but black people know otherwise.
We also pretend that anyone can 'get ahead' in America, but that's a lie, too. People rarely move out of their socioeconomic class, because the system prevents it. Poor people don't get decent housing, food, education, or jobs. Practically their only way out is an athletic scholarship, which leaves most right where they are.
Dred Scott continues to be the [now unspoken] law of the land, and I don't blame black people for being mad - they'd have to be crazy not to. The conversation ought to be about how we can fix it, but first, we have to admit that it's broken.

Prior to the mid-sixties, blacks owned businesses, banks, stores. They took pride in their neighborhoods, families. Taught their children respect. Their fathers taught their sons how to be men. Money stayed in the neighborhoods. Blacks lifted up blacks; and in a lot of cases, so did whites.

What has changed? I'd like to hear it from you, Cheri.

BTW... to give you an idea of the mentality of the rioter... they burned down the neighborhood Little Ceasars. I'm sure there are a number of families that counted on that store to feed them throughout the week. Smooth move, Exlax.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't know that I'd say the legal system worked in this instance, since it was never given the chance to play out. If anything it was gamed to achieve a desired goal, which was no indictment with the prosecutor off the hook for making the call.

There's a reason he refused to allow an independent prosecutor. If he wanted an indictment and wanted to prosecute this case, I can see why he wouldn't want to step aside. But if he wanted an indictment he'd have never presented conflicting evidence in the first place, he'd have just stuck to prosecution evidence. He didn't want an independent prosecutor because they could have gotten an indictment in 5 minutes.

I have to wonder whether or not you are aware of just how rare it us for any evidence for the defense, much less the defendant himself testifying for his own cause, being presented to a grand jury in an indictment proceeding. You can probably count on one hand how many times that's ever happened. Maybe even have fingers left over.

Are you saying that the testimony of the single "defendant" was so overwhelming that all the other witnesses and physical evidence that went before the grand jury were rendered insignificant? It was spelled out in excruciating detail that the prosecutor couldn't prove a case against Officer Wilson. It's amazing to me that so many people buy into this mantra of "white policeman shoots unarmed teenager"; that's total horsecr*p! Brown was a 6'4" 282 lbs fleeing felon that verbally threatened and then physically attacked a police officer. Have you ever stood next to someone that size - the size of an average NFL defensive lineman??? This guy was a violent criminal whose judgement was likely impaired by the influence of drugs and an attitude that nobody would mess with him because he was big and black. Turns out that he was just young and stupid - and now dead because of his indoctrination into a culture that glorifies aggressive criminal behavior and promotes racism towards white people. All Brown had to do was say "OK officer", move to the sidewalk and none of this would have happened.

 

[cheri1122]

Prior to the mid-sixties, blacks owned businesses, banks, stores. They took pride in their neighborhoods, families. Taught their children respect. Their fathers taught their sons how to be men. Money stayed in the neighborhoods. Blacks lifted up blacks; and in a lot of cases, so did whites.

What has changed? I'd like to hear it from you, Cheri.

BTW... to give you an idea of the mentality of the rioter... they burned down the neighborhood Little Ceasars. I'm sure there are a number of families that counted on that store to feed them throughout the week. Smooth move, Exlax.

The mentality of rioters is the same as that of someone who punches a wall in rage - if they thought about it, they'd know they're just hurting themselves, but anger doesn't promote rational thought, and rage demands an outlet.
There's a lot of things that changed in the 70's, and they changed for everyone, but blacks got the worst of it. In a nutshell, the financially fortunate started finding ways to increase profit, and keeping more of it. When there was no serious pushback, they got bolder, and took more, demanding higher productivity from workers, reducing benefits, consolidating & merging to eliminate jobs, and outsourcing them all together, until we reached the point we are at now. Not enough middle class jobs to support the middle class, while the upper and lower classes keep getting bigger.
While they were doing that, middle class whites [who'd had decent paying jobs for decades] moved to suburbia, where black people were not welcome. [If they could find anyone to write a mortgage loan, which is doubtful]. Concentrated in the inner city, with lower wages & property values, their schools and homes deteriorated. Black owned businesses struggled to get loans, and went out of business.
Black people knew the FBI was trying to dig up 'dirt' on MLK and everyone associated with him, the KKK could run wild and no one would lift a finger to stop them [because there were law enforcement superiors under those hoods], and all the Civil Rights Acts did was drive the racism underground. Their schools didn't get good materials, or enough of them - how could they motivate their kids to work hard for a better life? They still wouldn't be able to buy a home in suburbia, or be promoted on merit, because white people didn't want them to succeed.
It's really tough to understand the feeling of "why bother"? that comes with being pushed and held down for so long it seems normal, but it's tougher to overcome it. That's why people give up looking for a job: humans can take just so much rejection before they opt out.
Black people saw whites getting decent jobs, buying homes in suburbia, sending their kids to college - all things they would never accomplish, because if they could do as well as white folks, then how could white folks justify the racism they cherished [secretly]?
Emancipation and integration forced whites to behave [in public] as if black people are their equals, but it didn't force them to change their minds. The only thing that could do that is seeing black people do as well as white people - but they'd have to start out equal, and it's white people who have the power to ensure they don't.

 

[Turtle]

I would think that both sides need presented for a grand jury to make a determination.

A grand jury is a tool of the prosecutor. Period. Defense attorneys aren't even allowed in there. Evidence that would be excluded at trial, such as evidence excluded because of an illegal search and seizure, is admissible in a grand jury proceeding. That's because the whole purpose of a grand jury is to hand down indictments so a trial can happen. Grand juries don't determine guilt or innocence, who might or might not win at trial, or anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They exist to satisfy the constitutional requirement that someone isn't put on trial without first there being an indictment from a grand jury.

 

[muttly]

I don't know that I'd say the legal system worked in this instance, since it was never given the chance to play out. If anything it was gamed to achieve a desired goal, which was no indictment with the prosecutor off the hook for making the call.

There's a reason he refused to allow an independent prosecutor. If he wanted an indictment and wanted to prosecute this case, I can see why he wouldn't want to step aside. But if he wanted an indictment he'd have never presented conflicting evidence in the first place, he'd have just stuck to prosecution evidence. He didn't want an independent prosecutor because they could have gotten an indictment in 5 minutes.

I have to wonder whether or not you are aware of just how rare it us for any evidence for the defense, much less the defendant himself testifying for his own cause, being presented to a grand jury in an indictment proceeding. You can probably count on one hand how many times that's ever happened. Maybe even have fingers left over.

You should bone up on the role of a prosecutor and what their duties are. It's not to willy nilly get an indictment just to have a trial to appease public dissent. There has to be actual evidence and probable cause that a crime was committed. It's not the prosecution's job to merely present inculpatory evidence. If it has exculpatory evidence, it must submit it to the court as well. Not doing so is being derelict in their duty as a D.A.(See link below for example of prosecutorial misconduct.)
The current prosecutor was elected and reelected to faithfully execute the legal process. Using his experience in determining if there was sufficient evidence to file a charge, he most likely concluded that there wasn't. But just to make absolutely sure, he gave it to a Grand Jury to look at. Looking at all the evidence, they didn't see a crime as well.
The fact that the officer testified at his own Grand Jury was done at a great legal risk to himself. That was his right to do so.

Alan Dershowitz Slams Special Prosecutor Angela Corey | Politics