Michael Brown shooting II

[Upchurch]

IANAL either ... but I thought we were discussing the process on deciding whether a case should even go to trial. I shouldn't need to rely on my defense counsel when I shouldn't even go to trial in the first place.

That's what I'm saying. It isn't up to potential defendant to defend themselves to a Grand Jury because it isn't a trial. But neither is it the role of the prosecutor to defend a potential defendant by providing evidence that they might defeats his own case.

You make the case that's it wrong for him to not "try" to prosecute a case.

That's because it is. If he makes the decision to take the case to the Grand Jury, his role is to make the case. If he tries and fails, okay. That's the way the process is supposed to work.

If he isn't going to try, he shouldn't have brought it to the Grand Jury.

I am thinking of a spectrum where one end where it's wrong for a prosecutor to not try as hard as he can to make a case prosecuting the defendant to the other end where he is only focusing on prosecuting, while ignoring exculpatory evidence.

I don't see how we're on opposite sides of that spectrum. He should take the exculpatory evidence into account when deciding to go to the Grand Jury, but once he decides to go to the Grand Jury, he was obligated to put together the best case he could. That doesn't include putting on witnesses that he knew were lying, and plainly so.

I don't think it was nearly so simple as you make it out to be.

You appear to be completely ignoring the real possibilities at the times of riots and loss of life had McCulloch simply announced "no charges"

Are you suggesting that McCulloch should make decisions is his role as prosecutor based not on the law or evidence but on popular opinion?

Because I don't think McCulloch acted outside his authority. Therefor, it's entirely on the rules of the process.

I'm not saying he acted outside of his authority. I'm saying he did not do his job as prosecutor.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Not Very Convincing, I'm Afraid: the Hands Up, Don't Shoot Story

 

[Upchurch]

So basically you're speculating that if McCulloch was not the DA or had been excused that the GJ would have come to a different conclusion? Not very convincing I'm afraid.

Rule of So. That's not what I'm saying. The DOJ investigation reached the same conclusion and I'm satisfied with that.

What I am saying is that McCulloch never had any intention of prosecuting Wilson. In a CYA maneuver, he took a weak case to the Grand Jury to assure there was no way they would indict. It was theater only.

 

[carlitos]

The only question I have left about this case is why his father hasn't been charged with incitement.

Same here. I watched it live on TV and said the same thing at the time.

And how they can determine the struggle with the gun was Brown trying to shoot Wilson as opposed to trying to stop Wilson pointing the gun at Brown.

Please take this advice in the spirit it is intended. If you are near a police officer who pulls his gun, don't "try to stop him" from pointing it at you. It's a losing move.

Are you just pulling people's chains? I don't believe you're serious.

I have thought that in other threads; it's hard to tell.

 

[theprestige]

And how they can determine the struggle with the gun was Brown trying to shoot Wilson as opposed to trying to stop Wilson pointing the gun at Brown.

In what possible universe is this an even remotely excusable act?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's what I'm saying. It isn't up to potential defendant to defend themselves to a Grand Jury because it isn't a trial. But neither is it the role of the prosecutor to defend a potential defendant by providing evidence that they might defeats his own case.


That's because it is. If he makes the decision to take the case to the Grand Jury, his role is to make the case. If he tries and fails, okay. That's the way the process is supposed to work.

If he isn't going to try, he shouldn't have brought it to the Grand Jury.


I don't see how we're on opposite sides of that spectrum. He should take the exculpatory evidence into account when deciding to go to the Grand Jury, but once he decides to go to the Grand Jury, he was obligated to put together the best case he could. That doesn't include putting on witnesses that he knew were lying, and plainly so.

Are you suggesting that McCulloch should make decisions is his role as prosecutor based not on the law or evidence but on popular opinion?

I'm not saying he acted outside of his authority. I'm saying he did not do his job as prosecutor.

I think we'll just have to disagree.

This was a particular case where circumstances appeared to dictate that the evidence should be presented to a grand jury, whether the prosecutor wanted to or not.

Sorry if it appears to simply be special pleading, but these were extraordinary circumstances.

If people in MO are dissatisfied with how McCulloch did his job, I guess they can choose not to re-elect him.

 

[Giz]

Rule of So. That's not what I'm saying. The DOJ investigation reached the same conclusion and I'm satisfied with that.

What I am saying is that McCulloch never had any intention of prosecuting Wilson. In a CYA maneuver, he took a weak case to the Grand Jury to assure there was no way they would indict. It was theater only.

Oh for crying out loud. There would have been fainting fits (and riots) all round if he had simply said "no case here, move along". He felt forced to take it to a grand jury and then had to present a balanced case lest he railroad an innocent man.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh for crying out loud. There would have been fainting fits (and riots) all round if he had simply said "no case here, move along". He felt forced to take it to a grand jury and then had to present a balanced case lest he railroad an innocent man.

The Grand Jury is just to determine if a crime had been committed. There still would have been a trial and, unless Wilson's defense council was completely useless, Wilson would have gotten off. There would have been no railroading of an innocent man.

 

[Giz]

The Grand Jury is just to determine if a crime had been committed. There still would have been a trial and, unless Wilson's defense council was completely useless, Wilson would have gotten off. There would have been no railroading of an innocent man.

It's not ethical to prosecute someone you believe to be innocent.

 

[Mumbles]

That's no better than the tired old argument that it happened "because racism". And the behavior of the department after the fact is certainly not relevant to the shooting itself.

I don't see anyone ignoring the DOJ report or the Feguson PD's behavior after the shooting. There has been quite a bit of fallout from that already and I expect there will be more. None of that changes what happened that day, and there are obviously those that will not accept the facts.

I certainly have seen quite a few people here refering to reporters as McDonald's, people sitting in their own back yards, and gathering healing supplies at churches as "riotors and looters". But I guess there weren't any white kids freaking out over guys who defended serial child rapists, or pumkin festivals, so those are different.

And actually, this is a large part of why I said Wilson deserved a *public* trial. Unlike a nutball like Zimmerman chasing after people for walking on his turf, Wilson was tasked with enforcing the law. He's *supposed* to be somewhat aggressive, that's what we want. His union would certainly have covered his legal fees, and he could have had his name entirely cleared if his story checked out. In fact, it's entirely possible that he was by far the most fair actor of the Ferguson police force, and if so, he deserved to have it heard throughout the country, not by some smarmy DA who freely admitted to acting unethically and secretly.

 

[WildCat]

Ferguson: timeline of events since Michael Brown's death


Ferguson riots: Timeline of events after the death of Michael Brown


Looting Erupts After Vigil for Slain Missouri Teen Michael Brown

​

It did not begin as looting and burning, unless you count the burning candles.

Your own source shows it began with burning and looting!

It certainly didn't begin with cops in riot gear and military vehicles clearing the streets of candlelight vigil participants like Mumbles tried to claim.

 

[WildCat]

I found the witnesses that said he was trying to surrender credible. No eye witness is perfect. But five people not only saw a similar thing, the kill

Yes, they were very credible when they admitted under oath in their GJ testimony that they didn't actually witness anything and were repeating a neighborhood rumor.

 

[WildCat]

This is one of the basics of crowd control. So long as the police act reasonably, the crowds will march around and clap, put up a memorial, and then calm down.

Except they didn't calm down, they moved on to burning and looting which prompted the heavy police response.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Maybe you'll post that video again where you claim the police are firing rubber bullets even though there's no evidence of that!

 

[Mumbles]

Your own source shows it began with burning and looting!

It certainly didn't begin with cops in riot gear and military vehicles clearing the streets of candlelight vigil participants like Mumbles tried to claim.

Sorry, Wildcat, but 9 is less than 10.

 

[WildCat]

The DOJ said they couldn't prove a federal civil rights case. Then they turned around and found the whole department guilty of racism.

The DoJ has no power to find anyone guilty of anything.

 

[WildCat]

Personally, I think the county townships need to be annexed into St. Louis city, but that isn't likely to happen.

I wonder what percentage of traffic stops St. Louis city does are of blacks as compared to whites?

I would be shocked if it was even in the ballpark of proportion to the population.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, McCulloch bragged about presenting all the evidence to the Grand Jury, even the stuff he knew was false. That's not how Grand Jurys work. The prosecutor is supposed to make a case that the person should go to trial. McCulloch didn't even attempt to make the case. Knowingly putting false testimony in front of a jury is a whole other level of ethical problems. Plus, there was some issues of his aides citing a law that had been rendered unconstitutional a few decades earlier.

McCulloch basically threw the case. He's very lucky the DOJ came to the same conclusion to not prosecute. As it is, he's still facing an ethics complaint.

And just who would he have put before the GJ to support the "hands up don't shoot" theory if he wasn't going to put liars on the stand?

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Doesn't the fact that he was shot in the top of the head lend support to the idea that he was charging head-down at Wilson?

No, because it's an extremely unlikely premise for a number of reasons.

Despite the fact people in this thread have found little nit piks to dismiss the witnesses, I listened to them myself, I looked at the nit piks. I find the witnesses not only to be very credible, but they are consistent with each other and they are consistent with physical evidence and they are consistent with the audio of the shots.

The only reason I can see that the witnesses are being dismissed by people in this forum is their racial bias that black people lie to incriminate the police. There was an endeavor in this discussion to claim because people gathered together that somehow impeaches their testimony. That's a very bigoted conclusion, IMO.

 

[WildCat]

Then he shouldn't have taken it to the Grand Jury. Since he did, it was his job to make a case. That's his role in the process.

You want the justice system to prosecute no matter what, I want them to seek justice.

I guess we're just different that way.

You must be a big fan of the guy who prosecuted the Duke lacrosse team!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The DoJ has no power to find anyone guilty of anything.

My objections, read carefully, have been that the false claim Wilson was exonerated is being repeated on the news and in this thread. I didn't say Wilson was found guilty. Tentatively I think he is, but how can we know without a fair trial?

The lie being repeated is the claim he was exonerated when no such thing occurred.