I think this is an accurate description of what happened - but it's not at all "justice". It's not a grand jury because a grand jury's purpose is not to weigh conflicting evidence. It's not a trial because there's no advocate for each side and there's no cross-examination or critical evaluation of evidence. As Madmax mentioned earlier, ours is an adversarial system. You have an advocate on each side making a case, and a jury being a neutral arbiter. If one person is making both cases, then his biases decide the outcome. The one guy gets to decide what evidence to show, how to frame it, etc - he gets to create the exact perception he wants. To make this specific situation worse, the guy presenting the evidence of whether to indict a police officer for killing a black man has all sorts of family ties to the police department and had a dad who was a police officer killed by a black man. The complaints the people of the town boiled down to the idea that the justice system there does not work as it should and that it works to protect cops at the expense of black citizens. Nothing that happened in this grand jury does anything to counter those claims.
Why are legal experts praising the fairness of what happened? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9361534&postcount=1853
I can understand that the complaint that the Grand Jury was done unusually this time around to not be one sided, but how did it protect the cops. Under normal circumstances, the shooting would've been wrote off as a simple policy shooting and self defense without it even reaching a grand jury. At least in this case, there were way higher chance that through the non-one sided grand jury there was still a possibility of a indictment. I mean, the prosecutor could have punted it to a special prosector with no ties to the Ferguson PD and the end result would probably be no grand jury at all. Would that be fair? The reason why Grand Juries always go the prosecutor's way is because prosecutors only put cases where they are confident that they have a case in trial into the process. Given the evidence, will there be prosecutor in the country that can honestly say they have even a slight chance of getting conviction?
Even for those who are fact-averse and side with Michael Brown, you have to admit that the protesters have acted like uncivilized criminals. Now this hit the news. Darren Wilson's wife's pregnant, and the response from the Brown supporters is truly revolting. "F*** his baby" Uncivilized trash. http://twitchy.com/2014/11/26/fck-h...ant-and-what-happens-next-will-make-you-puke/
you mean why did criminal defense attorney Guy Fronstin and Lee Cox, a Texas-based criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor and three law professors selected by the Washington Times scoop quotes for an article based on a premise fed to them? And how the "legal experts" headline bait makes you think that somehow applies across the board? Justice Scalia: It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented. This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia. Noah Feldman, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-25/fergusons-grand-jury-problem http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/25/7285265/darren-wilson-grand-jury Legal Expert Decries Handling of Ferguson Grand Jury
And of course if this were a normal grand jury, only a few of those 16 would have been introduced. But this wasn't that.
So you are trying to question their credibility? I know it doesn't compare to that of a finance intern's credibility, that's for sure. Have you actually reviewed the facts that have been made public? This one's pretty clear. And the multi-racial grand jury agrees.
Except there wasn't, because the prosecutor directs the grand jury and he directed them to this outcome through his methodology. Yes, absolutely. If the complaint of the people is that the justice system is rigged against them and is not fair, which of these does the most to challenge that assertion? Which does the least? 1. A prosecutor with a clear pro-police history declines to charge 2. That prosecutor creates a sham grand jury to game the system and create a non-indictment 3. The prosecutor steps aside for a independent special prosecutor that's respected by both sides and he/she declines to charge 4. Special prosecutor indicts and goes to trial with ultimately a non-guilty verdict. I would argue that #2 is the absolute worst possible option. Anything involving a special independent prosecutor would have been far, far better. While the end result might not be what some people want, it would be a clear demonstration of a fair process. That's not true at all. They go the prosecutor's way because they are designed to do so. If this prosecutor had conducted a "normal" grand jury, only the witnesses that supported a murder charge would have been brought up. The defendant certainly wouldn't have been given an opportunity to tell his story with no cross examination of anything he said. The prosecutor would have made a recommendation of charges. And an indictment would almost certainly have been brought forward. While there was plenty of conflicting evidence here - certainly enough to fail at trial - there was also plenty of one-sided evidence to bring an indictment. If one was wanted in the first place.
I understand why experts say this was a sham grand jury, but I would posit that it fooled many of the ignorant that it was fair and justice was allowed by letting twelve neutral jurors make the decision. It fooled me because I was ignorant of how grand juries conventionally work, and I'd say many of those protesting aren't protesting because of the "fake grand jury trial", rather they're protesting because Wilson wasn't indicted. And that they'd protest if Wilson wasn't convicted had he been indicted. There was a lot of politics involved in this decision. It was a no win situation for the prosecutor. I still believe this was the most fair course of action to handle this toxic case and that the end result reflected the truth. It's hard for me to complain about the means to get there.
---if you're talking about how the "rule of law" implemented here was an exception many legal analysts are questioning then that's pretty clear. The jury could have been composed of aliens. That's completely irrelevant to the point a lot of legal experts are making. Have you reviewed contrasting viewpoints? I'm not trying to question their credibility. I'm trying to question yours---please don't be biased and look beyond the single source you have quoted. Thanks.
Why Southern whites call black rioters "animals"? Ehh you need to get out more, I hear way more racist comments directed to blacks in the MW and North. Spend time in Chicago and you will see real racism against blacks...
It's amazing how this thing has diverted attention away from the main issue. What's happening in Ferguson and whether the grievances and responses are legitimate does not depend in any way on the outcome of this case. The case is extremely important of course and the death extremely tragic, but it does not define the overarching issues. It does not change the discussion about whether police/citizens are acting appropriately and whether they are making legitimate and reasonable claims. This thread is a perfect mirror for the way the US media has handled this issue. Started off about Ferguson, ended up being a partisan argument about one incident. I wish you would put more thought into how to help members of your community rather than bickering over this case in a thread about Ferguson. This is yet ANOTHER example of a situation where Americans come together, but instead they fall for the divisive trap set for them. Ugh. Work together, help each other.
Rioting and looting is never acceptable. Anyone guilty of it deserves to be held responsible. I'm not going to fault the grand jury and will accept their decision. But none of that changes the problem that we have created a society where African-Americans are so used to injustice at the hands of the police, and the legal system that in our nation African-Americans can't trust the verdict or the officer involved. Until there is fairness in our system for such a longer period of time that all groups will buy into it more, then we're going to keep having these kinds of problems. To me, that's the bigger problem. It's a bigger problem than any looting, than rioting, the death of one unarmed black teen, or the guilt or innocence of one cop that shot him. The fix will have to come from every group, and not just one. The white males have run this nation since it began and created the system that we have now, so the white society should take the first and biggest steps to fixing it. But that doesn't excuse anyone for not abiding by just laws, and taking responsibility.
That's an ends justifies the means argument but like most of those arguments though the process does taint the result to a certain extent. I haven't studied the facts of the case enough to have a firm view on what happened but I do find it very troubling that the prosecutor rigged the process. That said you're probably right that some people would riot unless Wilson was found guilty but that is a slightly different point than how unusual the grand jury process was in this case.
You seem to also be buying into the very divisive trap that you decry. In case you haven't noticed people from across the political spectrum have decried the violence. Also many have offered help to the businesses that were damaged by from the looting. On NBC news tonight they did a story about a bakery that was damaged that since Tuesday has gotten a quarter million in donations. While yes this situation is divisive and people are acting passionately about it that is the nature of our society and in many ways is a consequence of the rhetorical and political freedom that we have. We are diverse and are adversarial that doesn't mean that as a country we don't work together or that we aren't dealing with big issues. In fact most people would state that why this issue has drawn such interests has much more to do with bigger issues than just this case. In your country would such debate and protests be allowed to even happen?
Actually, the prosecutor didn't rig the process and that's what some people are upset about. Instead of the normal rigged process, he opted to be fair which is very rare. That fairness, looking for justice instead of just trying to get an indictment, is what some people don't like. They wanted an indictment and a conviction and they didn't care at all about true justice.
That truly reflects your opinion of me? Really? You disappoint me, sir. I'd say more, but it would be impolite.
Well this is just priceless: Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all. An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back... "Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence," McCulloch said... But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: "It struck my friend in the back." Johnson held to a variation of this description in his grand jury testimony, saying the shot caused Brown's body to "do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him, but he definitely made a jerking movement."... One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not. Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online. Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting. Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have." The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV... Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head." "What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend. Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave. "I ain't feeling comfortable," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-grand-jury-papers-full-inconsistencies-161011644.html So in other words, those "witnesses" who saw Mr. Brown executed, shot in the back, etc were all full of it. Completely, utterly full of it. Literally just making crap up. And the morons "protesting" in Ferguson are basing their claims of excessive force / abuse / whatever in this case on a pile of lies. This case never went to trial because it was built on a foundation of bull$hit. And the prosecutor knew it. And you fools who still think there is fire in this case... I've got a bridge to sell ya, suckers.
Except that isn't how our legal system is supposed to work because our system is based on precedent and the prosecutor chose to diverge from precedent. This isn't about fairness to the defendant as like any other defendant who has gone through the system Officer Wilson would've still had his rights protected through the trial. This is about the prosecutor taking a very unusual process that diverged from the way almost every single grand jury operates. Would you be defending this if the prosecutor had changed the system so that it would be easier for him to indict Officer Wilson?
