Michael Brown shooting II

[WildCat]

Is it usual to present all the evidence to a grand jury ? No.

Is it usual to have a defendant testify to a grand jury ? No.

Is it usual to present a smorgasbord of charges to a grand jury, and have them pick the one they want ? No.

Clearly the DA did a number of unusual things. And we know why. He presented the case to the GJ to cover his ass. He did it in the way most likely to result in no indictment, because there was not a good case.

You haven't shown that any of this is unusual in Missouri. Wilson testified because he chose to testify, he didn't have to.

IMHO this is the proper role for a GJ, why bother with them at all if the prosecution just presents a case with cherry-picked evidence?

 

[Olowkow]

Trial by forum? Trial by jury would have been better. That is the issue.

I think Wilson should have been better trained or in better shape to defend himself from a shoplifter/robber resisting arrest. I suspect cops get punched every day by felons who don't want to get caught, but they don't always shoot their attackers. He was losing a fist fight with a much bigger man, and he had many options, such as raising the window, hitting the accelerator and waiting for backup, before even considering using a firearm. Pulling his sidearm in the confines of a car in this situation was a foolish move. This cop, it seems to me, was not sufficiently prepared physically or psychologically for the job.

The grand jury has essentially decided that there was no possibility of any crime in this case, which means they endorsed lethal force by police for detaining/capturing unarmed shoplifters who resist arrest in the future. If Wilson, a private citizen, had been a victim of a carjacking, it would have been a totally different story, in my opinion.

This was not an adversarial opportunity for both sides to be heard and should not be spun as such by those who see lethal force as a commonplace substitute for bravery.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Trial by forum? Trial by jury would have been better. That is the issue.

I think Wilson should have been better trained or in better shape to defend himself from a shoplifter/robber resisting arrest. I suspect cops get punched every day by felons who don't want to get caught, but they don't always shoot their attackers. He was losing a fist fight with a much bigger man, and he had many options, such as raising the window, hitting the accelerator and waiting for backup, before even considering using a firearm. Pulling his sidearm in the confines of a car in this situation was a foolish move. This cop, it seems to me, was not sufficiently prepared physically or psychologically for the job.

The grand jury has essentially decided that there was no possibility of any crime in this case, which means they endorsed lethal force by police for detaining/capturing unarmed shoplifters who resist arrest in the future. If Wilson, a private citizen, had been a victim of a carjacking, it would have been a totally different story, in my opinion.

This was not an adversarial opportunity for both sides to be heard and should not be spun as such by those who see lethal force as a commonplace substitute for bravery.

There were no shoplifters involved in this incident, unless you have some new evidence that no one else has access to.

Either way, the end result was good.

 

[WildCat]

You've never heard the phrase that a decent DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich if he wants? And you're pretending that I'm the ignorant one. How laughable. Anyway...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ferguson-grand-jury-unusual-ways-27103419?singlePage=true

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/604483...r-suggests-da-is-abdicating-responsibility-in

Argument by colloquial phrase? Really?

Are your links about indicting ham sandwiches? I didn't bother reading them since you didn't provide a summary.

And yet another strawman. I didn't say that it was an outrage, rather that it highly unusual and not something prosecutors do when they want an indictment.

You claimed it was unusual, you've provided no evidence that it was.

 

[Tony Stark]

Not at all unusual in OIS cases.

In every one I'm aware of involving my agency, The officer would be subject to a departmental investigation and a DA investigation. The conclusions of both reports became the basis for evidence put before the local GJ. The information is always "warts and all."

I bet the GJ almost never indicts (not that they necessarily should) in those cases. While they indicts whoever the DA tells them to in other cases. Am I right?

 

[WildCat]

I bet the GJ almost never indicts (not that they necessarily should) in those cases. While they indicts whoever the DA tells them to in other cases. Am I right?

Is it your belief that a GJ should be presented only with evidence that favors prosecution?

What do you think the purpose of a GJ is?

 

[LTC8K6]

Is it usual to present all the evidence to a grand jury ? No.

Is it usual to have a defendant testify to a grand jury ? No.

Is it usual to present a smorgasbord of charges to a grand jury, and have them pick the one they want ? No.

Clearly the DA did a number of unusual things. And we know why. He presented the case to the GJ to cover his ass. He did it in the way most likely to result in no indictment, because there was not a good case.

This is an unusual case that requires a different approach, imo. Presenting all of the evidence is appropriate.

Defendants are usually invited to testify to the GJ, few accept. Wilson's acceptance was unusual.

It doesn't look like the charges were presented that way.

The openness and thoroughness has been very good, imo.

 

[Upchurch]

Again, what's your null hypothesis?

That grand juries are not properly equipped to decide questions of criminal indictment?

That grand juries are not generally recognized as the authority to decide questions of criminal indictment?


Have you always assumed the grand jury institution is bankrupt, or only when you think you might dispute its findings?

Now, that's an impressive amount of straw. Maybe a good start would be to inform yourself before jumping to conclusions.

From earlier:

Wait. I just realized that we're talking about two different things. Yes, the grand jury is an appropriate authority for legal status of the situation.

Legal status isn't what I'm interested in. I'm interested in what actually happened.

 

[Olowkow]

There were no shoplifters involved in this incident, unless you have some new evidence that no one else has access to.

Either way, the end result was good.

Brown took cigars or cigarillos and didn't pay, then intimidated the store owner when approached. There is video.

 

[LTC8K6]

Brown took cigars or cigarillos and didn't pay, then intimidated the store owner when approached. There is video.

Strongarm robbery is not shoplifting, and a good case can certainly be made that Brown committed a strongarm robbery.

 

[Distracted1]

Brown took cigars or cigarillos and didn't pay, then intimidated the store owner when approached. There is video.

One might even say he "strong armed" the clerk while he was robbing the store.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......
Legal status isn't what I'm interested in. I'm interested in what actually happened.

Where do you expect to find a more reliable account of that, than what was presented to the Grand jury?

 

[Cervelo]

Then he messed with a dude with a gun....gee whiz shocking how that turned out. Happens everyday just so happens that this gets made into a racial issue that doesn't exist.
I couldn't help but laugh when our racist POTUS was pitching his alternate reality split screen with the riots.... that will be his legacy playing his fiddle while Rome burns around him.
The only real question I asked myself today when I went out was should today be open carry or concealed?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You haven't shown that any of this is unusual in Missouri.

No, I haven't shown any evidence at all that it's unusual in MO.

Because we have all just sat through months of news articles and commentary explaining how all of those things are not the normal way of conducting a Grand Jury.

I could provide links of District Attorneys and other Court officers stating as much, if I thought that would satisfy you. But I feel it will just devolve into arguing silly minutia.

If you want to believe that this GJ was conducted in a typical fashion, have it at. I think the people in this thread willing to have an honest discussion about the case know better.

Wilson testified because he chose to testify, he didn't have to.

What's the point - Did I or someone claim otherwise ?

IMHO this is the proper role for a GJ, why bother with them at all if the prosecution just presents a case with cherry-picked evidence?

Your opinion on how GJs should be conducted has nothing to do with the way GJ are actually conducted.

 

[Tony Stark]

Argument by colloquial phrase? Really?

Are your links about indicting ham sandwiches? I didn't bother reading them since you didn't provide a summary.

Both of them discuss this case in particular and why/how its grand jury is unusual

You claimed it was unusual, you've provided no evidence that it was.

I did, you just didn't click.

Is it your belief that a GJ should be presented only with evidence that favors prosecution?

What do you think the purpose of a GJ is?

No, I don't think that there should be grand juries. They just do whatever the prosecutor wants. A significant majority of the time, rubber stamping indictments. In this case, it was not issuing an indictment.

 

[LTC8K6]

Looks like Piaget Crenshaw didn't see most of what she claimed to have seen in her media interviews.

Witness 16.

 

[Olowkow]

Strongarm robbery is not shoplifting, and a good case can certainly be made that Brown committed a strongarm robbery.

One might even say he "strong armed" the clerk while he was robbing the store.

That is very likely true, from the video. I would prefer to interview the owner under oath to be sure.

Was Brown endangering the public? Could he have been tracked down later on and apprehended? I'm not sure I get how we are becoming a culture of escalating to lethality so quickly. It seems to be the norm in the minds of some.

 

[Upchurch]

Where do you expect to find a more reliable account of that, than what was presented to the Grand jury?

Their purpose was to review the evidence to decide a point of law within a given framework and under certain rules, not to determine, if possible, what actually happened.

 

[theprestige]

Now, that's an impressive amount of straw. Maybe a good start would be to inform yourself before jumping to conclusions.

From earlier:

​

Meh. I was responding to earlier points before reading later points.

Just like you did here. I'm not too bothered to find that the conversation had already moved on from the point where I made that post. Nor am I too bothered that the conversation had already moved on from the point where you made this reply.

 

[Distracted1]

That is very likely true, from the video. I would prefer to interview the owner under oath to be sure.

Was Brown endangering the public? Could he have been tracked down later on and apprehended? I'm not sure I get how we are becoming a culture of escalating to lethality so quickly. It seems to be the norm in the minds of some.

It is indeed quite sad that Mr. Brown was so willing to escalate to the violence that ultimately led to his demise so quickly.