Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
Then don't prosecute him. McCulloch made the decision to take it to the Grand Jury.
Click to expand...

To quote an amazing post from yesterday:

"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."


Note the "There would have been fainting fits (and riots) all round if he had simply said "no case here, move along"." Are you now saying that McCulloch should have simply not prosecuted? And you would have been happy with that decision?
 
Giz said:
To quote an amazing post from yesterday:

"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."
Click to expand...
That's pretty good. Here was another amazing post from yesterday that is basically saying the same thing:

"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."​


Giz said:
Note the "There would have been fainting fits (and riots) all round if he had simply said "no case here, move along"." Are you now saying that McCulloch should have simply not prosecuted? And you would have been happy with that decision?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying, again, that he has a responsibility as prosecutor to prosecute, not defend. If he felt he had to take it to the Grand Jury for political reasons, he should have made an effort to go to trial. Wilson very likely would have beaten the charges, but that is how the process works.

So, he should have either declined to prosecute and face those consequences or he should have bowed to public pressure and done his job and faced those consequences. What he did, instead, was just theater.
 
A little disturbing how so many people are fine with the process being conducted unethically as long as the result is to their liking.

And strange that these same people seem to not be able to grasp the concept that one can criticize the process without disagreeing with the result.
 
Upchurch said:
So, he should have either declined to prosecute and face those consequences or he should have bowed to public pressure and done his job and faced those consequences. What he did, instead, was just theater.
Click to expand...

So which would you have preferred of those two? Riots or railroading? Personally, I think he probably chose the best from among the options open to him.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

How would the GJ reasonably determine if a crime had been committed if they are only presented with a part of the evidence? In this case it is plain that the GJ determined that a crime had not been committed. They did their job according to your description of their purpose.

Giz said:
It's not ethical to prosecute someone you believe to be innocent.
Click to expand...
This.

Upchurch, as am outsider I am not familiar with US grand jury processes. It seems to me you are saying that a prosecutor should provide a GJ only with evidence that indicates a crime in order to ensure that it goes to trial even when the totality of the evidence indicates otherwise. That seems weird to me, and as Giz says, unethical.
 
Steve said:
How would the GJ reasonably determine if a crime had been committed if they are only presented with a part of the evidence? In this case it is plain that the GJ determined that a crime had not been committed. They did their job according to your description of their purpose.


This.

Upchurch, as am outsider I am not familiar with US grand jury processes. It seems to me you are saying that a prosecutor should provide a GJ only with evidence that indicates a crime in order to ensure that it goes to trial even when the totality of the evidence indicates otherwise. That seems weird to me, and as Giz says, unethical.
Click to expand...

A broad overview of grand jury hearings in the US is available here.

The way most people see them being used (I don't know if that how they are actually used most of the time), is as a rubber stamp or CYA for a prosecutor to take a case to trial when there is probably insufficient evidence, when the case would be politically unpopular, or some other means of appeasement.

That is not how they are supposed to be used, and in fact they can look at whatever evidence they like. The prosecutor isn't supposed to try to make the case for a grand jury. It's the opposite; the prosecutor gives them all the evidence they'd like and they tell the prosecutor if there's a case or not.

These criticisms are of the process working as intended for once.
 
tyr_13 said:
A broad overview of grand jury hearings in the US is available here.

The way most people see them being used (I don't know if that how they are actually used most of the time), is as a rubber stamp or CYA for a prosecutor to take a case to trial when there is probably insufficient evidence, when the case would be politically unpopular, or some other means of appeasement.

That is not how they are supposed to be used, and in fact they can look at whatever evidence they like. The prosecutor isn't supposed to try to make the case for a grand jury. It's the opposite; the prosecutor gives them all the evidence they'd like and they tell the prosecutor if there's a case or not.

These criticisms are of the process working as intended for once.
Click to expand...

What's weird is that these criticisms are essentially complaints that the prosecutor refrained from gaming the system and deceiving the grand jury, because he was biased in favor of Wilson and against Brown.
 
Steve said:
How would the GJ reasonably determine if a crime had been committed if they are only presented with a part of the evidence?
Click to expand...
The Grand Jury determines if there is enough evidence to support going to trial. It does not make a decision of innocence or guilt. That's what the trial is for.

Steve said:
This.
Click to expand...
If he didn't think there was a case to be made, then it was unethical to take it to the Grand Jury. Further, there are ethical issues of how he handled the case to the Grand Jury.


Steve said:
Upchurch, as am outsider I am not familiar with US grand jury processes. It seems to me you are saying that a prosecutor should provide a GJ only with evidence that indicates a crime in order to ensure that it goes to trial even when the totality of the evidence indicates otherwise. That seems weird to me, and as Giz says, unethical.
Click to expand...
How Does a Grand Jury Work?
The Grand Jury determines if the prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial. That's it. It does not determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It does not evaluate the strength of the defense because, at this point, there is no defense.

As the above link says:
the grand jury proceedings are often a valuable test run for prosecutors in making the decision to bring the case.
Click to expand...

Now, the Grand Jury may request more evidence if they want something, but the prosecutor does not have to shoot down his own case. There is a reason there is the cliche that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
 
Upchurch said:
The Grand Jury determines if there is enough evidence to support going to trial. It does not make a decision of innocence or guilt. That's what the trial is for.


If he didn't think there was a case to be made, then it was unethical to take it to the Grand Jury. Further, there are ethical issues of how he handled the case to the Grand Jury.



How Does a Grand Jury Work?
The Grand Jury determines if the prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial. That's it. It does not determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It does not evaluate the strength of the defense because, at this point, there is no defense.

As the above link says:
Quote:
the grand jury proceedings are often a valuable test run for prosecutors in making the decision to bring the case.
/INDENT]

Now, the Grand Jury may request more evidence if they want something, but the prosecutor does not have to shoot down his own case. There is a reason there is the cliche that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.​
Click to expand...


Your link sheds some light on the topic so thanks for that.

I still do not really see the purpose. If a prosecutor tests only their side of a case to a group of laypersons to see if it has a chance of holding up in court, and if the hilite is generally true, then nothing is learned from the process.​
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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?
Click to expand...
How can anyone be found innocent of anything unless we put them on trial? The matter was investigated, and no basis for a trial was found. I can't think of anything more exonerating.
 
Steve said:
Your link sheds some light on the topic so thanks for that.

I still do not really see the purpose. If a prosecutor tests only their side of a case to a group of laypersons to see if it has a chance of holding up in court, and if the hilite is generally true, then nothing is learned from the process.
Click to expand...

IIRC historically it was designed to prevent malicious prosecutions by the state with little or no supporting evidence. Therefore testing the evidence before trial makes sense.
 
Steve said:
I still do not really see the purpose. If a prosecutor tests only their side of a case to a group of laypersons to see if it has a chance of holding up in court, and if the hilite is generally true, then nothing is learned from the process.
Click to expand...

I think you have a pretty good grasp of it. It's ultimately meaningless.
 
Upchurch said:
I found this STL Today article that collected French's first day or so of tweets. It does, indeed, include a picture of a military-style vehicle ahead of any rioting or looting, not to mention the dogs and shotguns.

What's your evidence, WildCat? Was there rioting and looting prior to 6:25 PM on August 9?
Click to expand...
So? No riot gear. And no context as to what that truck is for, might just be a handy platform to get high above the crowd to observe. It's certainly not being used to attack protesters in that pic.
 
theprestige said:
What's weird is that these criticisms are essentially complaints that the prosecutor refrained from gaming the system and deceiving the grand jury, because he was biased in favor of Wilson and against Brown.
Click to expand...
Yep, as I've said earlier Upchurch wants prosecutors to act like the guy in the Duke lacrosse case and other prosecutors who withheld evidence and railroaded innocent people into serving decades for crimes DNA later showed they couldn't have committed.
 
WildCat said:
Yep, as I've said earlier Upchurch wants prosecutors to act like the guy in the Duke lacrosse case and other prosecutors who withheld evidence and railroaded innocent people into serving decades for crimes DNA later showed they couldn't have committed.
Click to expand...

Too many 'skeptics' want justice to be about feelings instead of facts.
 
Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...


Hi Mumbles. I don't post in this sub forum very much, so I might be missing some context. Could you explain how any of what you wrote makes sense or is related to the OP? Reporters as McDonalds? Healing supplies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom