Michael Brown Shooting

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Question- does a grand jury come under double jeopardy clause? If the finding is 'no bill' can somebody like Rev Al get a special prosecutor involved, and try for a trail? Or will the 'no bill' end it? I'm sure new evidence can re-open, but otherwise?

Prosecutors can charge without a grand jury indictment; happens all the time.

Without fersure. But after a 'no bill', and with no new evidence?

In St. Louis County:

The Grand Jury's function is to make an important preliminary decision about a criminal charge: whether or not probable cause exists that a crime has been committed and that the accused committed it. All felony charges must be presented for consideration either by the Grand Jury or by an associate circuit judge at a preliminary examination, and a little less than half of the cases prosecuted in St. Louis County are presented to the Grand Jury. If probable cause is found in either of these equivalent proceedings, a "True Bill" is found, an indictment is filed, and the criminal charge against the accused may continue on to trial or plea of guilty. If probable cause is not found, a "No True Bill" is found, and prosecution of the case ceases. The Grand Jury, thus, determines the future of all criminal cases brought before it.

 

[marplots]

That's not true. That may be your opinion but can you cite that written in law anywhere? As a matter of fact, as police have pointed out, they are actually held to a higher standard based on training and professionalism. In many cases where a shooter has gotten off on Stand Your Ground laws police officers would not have been permitted to fire. If they had they would've faced charges.

But it's that higher level of training and professionalism that feeds into the idea, alongside the emotional "hook." If I'm unwilling to make Brown out to be a thug, I can't do it to Owen either.

 

[Reheat]

I have fired guns in enclosures without ear protection. It was not pleasant, and it bothered my hearing, but in no way did it render me deaf or confused. It also didn't prevent me from seeing two hands in the air.

Well, I've had a slightly different experience, but YMMV. The fact that it didn't affect his eyesight is obviously a given. I can't think of any reason you would insert that comment except for snark. I did not imply that the gunshot effects inside the vehicle did or did not excuse nor justify anything at all, but I firmly believe it very well could have been an influence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I've had a slightly different experience, but YMMV. The fact that it didn't affect his eyesight is obviously a given. I can't think of any reason you would insert that comment except for snark. I did not imply that the gunshot effects inside the vehicle did or did not excuse nor justify anything at all, but I firmly believe it very well could have been an influence.

Well, I don't think two hands were in the air...

 

[shuize]

What is Brown doing when he leans through the counter window, though? IIRC, that's when he takes the property by force. You didn't show that part of the encounter at the store.

Your are correct. The robbery was complete when he grabbed the items from behind the counter. Knocking the shopkeeper out of the way removes all doubt. There are other videos which show the entire exchange. I posted the video to emphasize the intimidation at the end. In my experience, that is what really would have raised prosecutors' hackles. It's also what proves what a thug Brown really was.

 

[Mumbles]

The violence Brown displayed was shoving a guy - while admittedly in the process of stealing something - but still, he shoved a guy. He didn't punch him. He didn't hit him with a baseball bat or a tire iron. He shoved him.

I have no doubt in my mind that Michael Brown committed a crime in that store, and that he deserved to be punished for it accordingly. But again, the act of violence he commited that has earned him the status of "violent thug" is shoving a guy.

You know who else shoved someone (a law enforcement agent, actually) while in the commission of a crime? George Zimmerman.

So I'd be really curious to know how may people who label Michael Brown a "violent thug" capable of escalating a violent confrontation because of his "body of work" expressed similar sentiment towards George Zimmerman.

And for those who didn't... why the distinction?

As long as we're bringing this up...I'll admit an important distinction between Officer Wilson, and Zimmerman.

The story Zimmerman told was impossible, given the evidence. In fact, his claim of self-defense was ridiculous, and even the one juror who rushed to Anderson Cooper was very careful to explain that the jury simply ignored the evidence. A complete travesty of justice.

However, Wilson's supposed claim (as best as we can tell from his chief) is *plausible*. Yes, it's possible, given what we know, that Brown shoved Wilson back into Wilson's police car, and tried to take his gun from him. It strikes me as *unlikely*, but it is *possible*.

 

[LTC8K6]

In St. Louis County:

Well, first you have to have a felony charge...before that felony charge can go before a grand jury.

 

[Reheat]

Well, I don't think two hands were in the air...

Yes, that is quite possible too...

 

[LTC8K6]

Your are correct. The robbery was complete when he grabbed the items from behind the counter. Knocking the shopkeeper out of the way removes all doubt. There are other videos which show the entire exchange. I posted the video to emphasize the intimidation at the end. In my experience, that is what really would have raised prosecutors' hackles. It's also what proves what a thug Brown really was.

I wonder if Brown punched the clerk behind the counter?

 

[newyorkguy]

But over and over, we see the exact opposite. I never lived anywhere close to St. Louis, but that's where the anger, and the exhaustion, is coming from, I'll guarantee it. People seem to think that this is fun - it's really not. It's enraging, and exhausting.

I'm sure it is. I grew up in New York, in a multi-racial environment. I remember seeing the black kids get hassled by the cops all the time. For things and in ways the white kids didn't get hassled for. My buddy Rudy was like you, he wanted to believe in the system. My buddy Freddy was different. He didn't believe. Period!

But I know even now, black guys have told me, "It's a lot of pressure, man. Sometimes it gets to you." In fact I thought maybe that's what touched this whole thing off with the cop and Michael Brown. That maybe the cop starting talking really bad to him and Brown was eighteen-years-old, he's not used to that, and he went off. Who knows, maybe that is what happened.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, first you have to have a felony charge...before that felony charge can go before a grand jury.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Take the current case of Rick Perry - a case was presented to a grand jury to determine whether to indict him. During that time, he was not under arrest or "charged" with anything. He went about his day-to-day business as a free man.

 

[Mike!]

IIRC, three autopsies are going to be done. Local, federal, and one by the family.

That will surely result in clarity...

Or maybe they need a tie breaker?

Or it could always go into sudden death.

 

[GWCarver]

Information on the cause of death in shootings -- the number of shots and where the deceased was struck -- is normally released in hours. Anyone who watches the news or reads a newspaper or news site knows that. It usually comes from the police, too.

Now it's possible the police are sitting on it because it will be inflammatory because Brown was shot in the back. Or it is possible the police are sitting on it because Brown wasn't shot in the back and that information may also inflame the situation.

The larger point is, the police do not have the right to sit on information. It should be released in a timely fashion.

The County Attorney says all of the evidence will be released when the Grand Jury comes back with a true bill or a no true bill. The GJ only meets on Wednesdays, so it may take a while - maybe the first Wednesday after the last evidence trickles in?

http://abc7chicago.com/news/i-team-...on-begins-in-ferguson-police-shooting/257111/

Of course, IMO it is pretty much common knowledge the GJ will come back with whatever kind of bill the prosecutor wants. The defense isn't represented in the GJ room. It seems like I recall exculpatory evidence has to be presented to the GJ, but there is no way of knowing that actually happens, or how much it is emphasized, when it is all being done in secret.

 

[Distracted1]

The violence Brown displayed was shoving a guy - while admittedly in the process of stealing something - but still, he shoved a guy. He didn't punch him. He didn't hit him with a baseball bat or a tire iron. He shoved him.

I have no doubt in my mind that Michael Brown committed a crime in that store, and that he deserved to be punished for it accordingly. But again, the act of violence he commited that has earned him the status of "violent thug" is shoving a guy.

You know who else shoved someone (a law enforcement agent, actually) while in the commission of a crime? George Zimmerman.

So I'd be really curious to know how may people who label Michael Brown a "violent thug" capable of escalating a violent confrontation because of his "body of work" expressed similar sentiment towards George Zimmerman.

And for those who didn't... why the distinction?

I fit the first category.
Mr. Brown ( to my eyes ) was clearly engaging in violent, felonious behavior shortly prior to his fatal encounter with the police.

Mr. Zimmerman was ( again, without the evidence of a video recording like we have with Mr. Brown ) actively seeking out a confrontation which might give him a chance to use his gun. And as a juror I would have been in favor of conviction.

Since you have drawn a comparison to Zimmerman, allow me to ask; Following his acquittal he was again afoul of the law when he had a confrontation with his girlfriend wherein he pulled a gun, and forced her out of her own house.
The consensus on these boards was " see, that just shows what kind of guy he is, now do you believe he should have been convicted ". It was a consensus I share BTW, as other actions of an individual, although not directly linked, can be indicative of what kind of things that individual is willing to do.
My question is; If I were to search back through those threads, would I find you supporting the position that the unrelated incident with the girlfriend supported the accusations made by the prosecutor?
If it did indeed seem entirely reasonable to you to extrapolate that the incident with the girlfriend had weight when looking back at his actions with regards to Mr. Martin, why is it different in this case, wherein pretty clear evidence of Mr. Browns aggression is available. Evidence that not only shows how he acts, but how he was acting on that very day.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not sure what you mean by that.

Take the current case of Rick Perry - a case was presented to a grand jury to determine whether to indict him. During that time, he was not under arrest or "charged" with anything. He went about his day-to-day business as a free man.

From your post:

All felony charges must be presented for consideration either by the Grand Jury or by an associate circuit judge at a preliminary examination

First we need a felony charge, then we indict or not.

 

[Meed]

As long as we're bringing this up...I'll admit an important distinction between Officer Wilson, and Zimmerman.

The story Zimmerman told was impossible, given the evidence.

Did you actually watch the trial?

In fact, his claim of self-defense was ridiculous, and even the one juror who rushed to Anderson Cooper was very careful to explain that the jury simply ignored the evidence. A complete travesty of justice.

No.

However, Wilson's supposed claim (as best as we can tell from his chief) is *plausible*. Yes, it's possible, given what we know, that Brown shoved Wilson back into Wilson's police car, and tried to take his gun from him. It strikes me as *unlikely*, but it is *possible*.

It's possible, but it doesn't change the evidence suggesting that Brown was murdered after the point in which he ran away.

 

[LTC8K6]

The County Attorney says all of the evidence will be released when the Grand Jury comes back with a true bill or a no true bill. The GJ only meets on Wednesdays, so it may take a while - maybe the first Wednesday after the last evidence trickles in?

http://abc7chicago.com/news/i-team-...on-begins-in-ferguson-police-shooting/257111/

Of course, IMO it is pretty much common knowledge the GJ will come back with whatever kind of bill the prosecutor wants. The defense isn't represented in the GJ room. It seems like I recall exculpatory evidence has to be presented to the GJ, but there is no way of knowing that actually happens, or how much it is emphasized, when it is all being done in secret.

Yes, in most places, the GJ is a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. I am not sure how they work in this jurisdiction, though.

In NC, the GJ is almost guaranteed to agree with the prosecutor.

 

[Distracted1]

As long as we're bringing this up...I'll admit an important distinction between Officer Wilson, and Zimmerman.

The story Zimmerman told was impossible, given the evidence. In fact, his claim of self-defense was ridiculous, and even the one juror who rushed to Anderson Cooper was very careful to explain that the jury simply ignored the evidence. A complete travesty of justice.

However, Wilson's supposed claim (as best as we can tell from his chief) is *plausible*. Yes, it's possible, given what we know, that Brown shoved Wilson back into Wilson's police car, and tried to take his gun from him. It strikes me as *unlikely*, but it is *possible*.

The likelihood escalates when you witness the way he was behaving that day.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course, IMO it is pretty much common knowledge the GJ will come back with whatever kind of bill the prosecutor wants.

I suppose. If the prosecutor really doesn't want to prosecute this case, I suppose he could purposefully present an unconvincing case. But the GJ could ignore his presentation and vote to indict. Neither is likely.

The defense isn't represented in the GJ room.

The defendant can be present, and can even testify. Counsel cannot be present, but can be outside if the defendant wishes to consult with them.

 

[Mumbles]

Did you actually watch the trial?

You know what? Go find the moderated thread, since you missed the point here.