Michael Brown shooting II

[Lerxst]

Is the behavior of the department before the fact relevant to the shooting? Because that is what much of the DOJ report covers.

Of course it is, and the Ferguson PD has suffered the consequences, have they not?

 

[Upchurch]

Of course it is, and the Ferguson PD has suffered the consequences, have they not?

Not yet. A few have been fired and a few resigned, but that's about it.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Deleted, redundant.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Deleted, wrong thread.

 

[Lerxst]

Not yet. A few have been fired and a few resigned, but that's about it.

What appropriate consequences do you think they should face?

 

[HenryLee]

Personally, I'm still surprised that people refer to someone who witnessed no part of the event as a "witness"\, or that putting a person one knows to be lying front-to-back of the stand as anything but a gross violation of ethics that in any other profession, would lead to certain prison time and permanent banishment from the field.

If they didn't put the liars on the stand there wouldn't have been anyone to say MB was surrendering.

Maybe you think the construction worker who saw MB being chased by 3 police officers is credible. Or the woman who snatched the FBI's recorder from the table and tried to erase her interview after being informed of what perjury was. Or the "Well, I didn't actually see it but my boyfriend did and no, he don't wanna talk to you" is good evidence.

Nevermind that Witness 40, "the only lying witness" was taken apart on the stand and shown to be unreliable.

 

[Upchurch]

What appropriate consequences do you think they should face?

I've heard several ideas. In the Ferguson town hall discussions I've listened to, there is pretty much a consensus that the current PD needs to be dissolved and started over. There are mixed opinions about having the County PD take over. Some think they're just as bad.

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He was exonerated by the DOJ. Every credible witness confirmed Darren's version of events, or at least the part where Wilson claimed that Brown did not surrender.

What is it about biased/slanted/unfair GJ procedure that you don't understand?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find it hard to believe anyone is till ignoring the other DOJ report or the role the FPD and County police played in the aftermath of the shooting, but here we are.

Isn't the world a fascinating place?

Fascinating, but also sad.

It's also fascinating that members of this forum who claim to be skeptics think the conclusions of a tainted GJ is so certain.

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.

And how they can ludicrously conclude Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down as opposed to 5 eyewitnesses that said he was falling to or trying to get down on the ground while Wilson kept shooting.

It's sad really.

 

[plague311]

What is it about biased/slanted/unfair GJ procedure that you don't understand?

What is it about the GJ wasn't the only investigation that showed Wilson was not guilty of any wrongdoing do you not understand despite it being explained to you ad nauseum?

 

[jimbob]

The DOJ said they couldn't prove a federal civil rights case. Then they turned around and found the whole department guilty of racism. Wilson was hired after being fired from a department that was so racist it had to be dissolved and rebuilt.

Brown was shot in THE TOP OF HIS HEAD. I'd agree with a negligent homicide charge, but the 'Brown was charging at Wilson' is NOT CREDIBLE.

To think Wilson didn't get off due to favoritism is BS. He got to change his story, had a prosecutor that went out of his way to find him not culpable. That's not confirmation bias, those are established facts.

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?

Ferguson PD has caused many problems for its citizens. Police in many other countries manage to deal with large unarmed violent people without nearly as many shootings, which leads me to think that there would have been a better approach if the police were trained. However I think that any fault is more likely to be at the departmental level rather than Wilson's.

 

[Ammonitida]

Fascinating, but also sad.

It's also fascinating that members of this forum who claim to be skeptics think the conclusions of a tainted GJ is so certain.

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.

And how they can ludicrously conclude Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down as opposed to 5 eyewitnesses that said he was falling to or trying to get down on the ground while Wilson kept shooting.

It's sad really.

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

 

[Upchurch]

The forum ate my post.

Here's the short version:

It's also fascinating that members of this forum who claim to be skeptics think the conclusions of a tainted GJ is so certain.

Despite the farcical attempt by Bob McCulloch, I accept the results of the DOJ investigation as valid.

 

[plague311]

Fascinating, but also sad.

It's also fascinating that members of this forum who claim to be skeptics think the conclusions of a tainted GJ is so certain.

Kind of like how fascinating it is that someone who claims to be a skeptic disregards other investigations to, instead, continue with this "tainted GJ" nonsense.

Despite you claiming to be a skeptic you have consistently refused to accept any evidence that doesn't support your position. It's called confirmation bias, and you personify it in this thread.

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.

The struggle would have never happened in the first place if Brown didn't attack the police officer. Your arm-chair quarterbacking is comical, but if Brown didn't incite violence he wouldn't have had to fight over a gun. The gun was not drawn during the initial conversation between them. The actions of Brown caused the gun to be drawn. Your incredulity doesn't make that less of a fact.

And how they can ludicrously conclude Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down as opposed to 5 eyewitnesses that said he was falling to or trying to get down on the ground while Wilson kept shooting.

It's sad really.

Keep parroting that 5 eyewitness crap. It's all you have left to desperately cling to, while the physical evidence flies in the face of those 5 witnesses. It blows my mind that you can state eyewitness testimony is not very trustworthy, but steadfastly ignore physical evidence while touting those 5 eyewitnesses as fact of the events. This is after the fact that those same 5 witnesses admitted they were lying.

How you're able to do that and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.

 

[Lerxst]

What is it about biased/slanted/unfair GJ procedure that you don't understand?

Do you have anything besides rhetoric and hyperbole that indicates the GJ was biased, slanted, and unfair?

 

[Upchurch]

Do you have anything besides rhetoric and hyperbole that indicates the GJ was biased, slanted, and unfair?

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.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

I find it strange, though, that on the opposite end of the spectrum, it would be perfectly acceptable to ignore and not present any exculpatory evidence.

The GJ system seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation by the prosecutor, and that's what McCulloch did.

McCulloch didn't even attempt to make the case, because there wasn't one to be made.

It seems to have only made it to the GJ because of media attention - otherwise it would have been dropped for lack of evidence.

The problem isn't McCulloch, it's the archaic GJ system.

 

[Upchurch]

I find it strange, though, that on the opposite end of the spectrum, it would be perfectly acceptable to ignore and not present any exculpatory evidence.

IANAL, but I believe that's what the defense council is supposed to do during trial.

(opposite end of what spectrum?)

McCulloch didn't even attempt to make the case, because there wasn't one to be made.

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.

It seems to have only made it to the GJ because of media attention - otherwise it would have been dropped for lack of evidence.

No, it made it to the Grand Jury because McCulloch decided to take it to the Grand Jury. His other options were to take it to trial or to simply not prosecute at all.

IMHO, McCulloch didn't want to prosecute, but didn't want the political heat for making that decision. So, he took it to the Grand Jury with every intent of not convincing them to indict. That way he claim that he tried, but that it just wasn't meant to be.

The problem isn't McCulloch, it's the archaic GJ system.

Well, really, why can't it be both?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

IANAL, but I believe that's what the defense council is supposed to do during trial.

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.

(opposite end of what spectrum?)

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

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.

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.

No, it made it to the Grand Jury because McCulloch decided to take it to the Grand Jury. His other options were to take it to trial or to simply not prosecute at all.

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"

IMHO, McCulloch didn't want to prosecute, but didn't want the political heat for making that decision. So, he took it to the Grand Jury with every intent of not convincing them to indict. That way he claim that he tried, but that it just wasn't meant to be.

Well, really, why can't it be both?

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

 

[Lerxst]

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.

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.