Ferguson Live Feed

[Trausti]

No way they were going to prove he didn't turn back beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wasn't aware "beyond a reasonable doubt" was a criterion for a grand jury to determine probable cause.

Correct, but I imagine the prosecutor knew from the start that proving criminal culpability "beyond a reasonably doubt" would be exceedingly unlikely based on the evidence. He punted it to the grand jury to satiate the baying mob. As an attorney and prosecutor he is held to certain ethical standards and himself could face sanctions (including disbarment) for prosecutorial misconduct if he filed criminal charges without a reasonable investigation and foundation. It seems that some wish he had done that. By providing all the available evidence to the grand jury, he essentially showed that his initial decision not to press forward was right.

 

[Derec]

He did seek an indictment.

But only due to public pressure.

But my point is that I don't think it is the grand jury's place to determine the provability of a trial, just examine the evidence to determine if there's a probability a crime was committed.

I think the two are connected. The process was a but different because the grand jury saw all the evidence rather than carefully selected ham-sandwich style presentation but maybe that's how all grand juries should be mandated to operate anyway.

 

[dismal]

He did seek an indictment.

I think from what we know now he didn't really seek an indictment. If prosecutors really seek an indictment they get it.

Yes, conventional wisdom of the left is he tanked the indictment by showing the grand jury all the evidence.

Someone should maybe inform these people that getting a sham indictment so you can take a crappy case to trial is not the goal of a responsible prosecutor.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But only due to public pressure.

But my point is that I don't think it is the grand jury's place to determine the provability of a trial, just examine the evidence to determine if there's a probability a crime was committed.

I think the two are connected.

Yes, they are connected; if there's 0% chance a crime was committed then you wouldn't prove it in trial. What I am wondering is what the threshold is for "probable cause". I feel safe in assuming that it isn't the same as a trial, with "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What happened to Wilson's broken orbital socket?

Also, yeah, those injuries look worthy of a death sentence.

That was a stupid reporter, there never was a broken bone.

And the reason the injuries matter is that they show violence in the car.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What happened to Wilson's broken orbital socket?

Also, yeah, those injuries look worthy of a death sentence.

The problem of course is that this wasn't the actual trial. Such injuries do stir reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

A grand jury gives a tremendous advantage to the prosecution. In a real trial the defense gets to rebut things the prosecution presents. Thus if a grand jury won't convict why in the world would you expect a conviction in a regular trial?

 

[Axulus]

Pictures of Darren Wilson in the ER after the incident

View attachment 1630

View attachment 1631

View attachment 1632

these are the pics the grand jury used to not indict Wilson.

Those were the photos that did it, eh? None of the other evidence introduced at the trial mattered one bit?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently waiting for backup isn't a thing in Ferguson when dealing with a potentially armed (hand going for his waistband) demonic black man.

And the bad guy is just going to sit there waiting for backup to show up??

My thought is that prosecutors are able to get an indictment basically 100% of the time . . . unless it is against a police officer. That raises questions for me.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Under ordinary circumstances a prosecutor wouldn't take a case that bad to a grand jury.

Usually they go because they have a case not because the public demands a spectacle.

Exactly. High profile cases tend to cause bad decisions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those were the photos that did it, eh? None of the other evidence introduced at the trial mattered one bit?

The Officer's narrative relies heavily on the "he was fearing for his life" angle. The life threatening injuries as shown above help support his fear as being rational, seeing that another confrontation would have meant more red blotches.

- - - Updated - - -

And the bad guy is just going to sit there waiting for backup to show up??

My thought is that prosecutors are able to get an indictment basically 100% of the time . . . unless it is against a police officer. That raises questions for me.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Under ordinary circumstances a prosecutor wouldn't take a case that bad to a grand jury.

Usually they go because they have a case not because the public demands a spectacle.

Exactly. High profile cases tend to cause bad decisions.

Agreed. OJ Simpson, Rodney King, Bush v Gore...

 

[Axulus]

Perhaps Brown getting into a wrestling match with a cop over his gun in which shots were fired and then charging back at him had something to do with it.

Perhaps you can provide the evidence that Brown was charging at the police officer and how between the time of Brown disengaging, running a ways away and turning around that Officer Wilson did not have time to bring his non-lethal tools to bear.

Well, non-lethal tool singular since apparently Wilson left his taser back at the station because it chafed.

He just had two shots fired inside his vehicle. There were only seconds that transpired from Brown moving away from the vehicle and then turning around and charging back toward it. In that kind of situation why would you expect him to think "maybe I should holster my gun and get out the mace" instead of "this guy is dangerous, I almost just got shot and could've died had those shots gone into me instead of in my vehicle, keep the gun pointed at him and fire if he comes at me again."

 

[Axulus]

A THOUGHT TO PONDER

Roy Bryant and JW Milam, the two men who killed Emmett Till in Money Mississippi in 1955, managed to get indicted.

With no witnesses to actual killing and in JIM CROW America, the prosecuting atty in Tallahatchie County MISSISSIPPI got an indictment but this fool in 2014 Mo. could not.

Was there clear evidence that Emmett Till had tried to wrestle a gun away from Roy and JW, and that shots from their guns were fired in the struggle, with multiple witnesses attesting to this?

You just refuse to consider the possibility that there was no convincing evidence that Wilson committed a crime. Why is that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps you can provide the evidence that Brown was charging at the police officer and how between the time of Brown disengaging, running a ways away and turning around that Officer Wilson did not have time to bring his non-lethal tools to bear.

Well, non-lethal tool singular since apparently Wilson left his taser back at the station because it chafed.

He just had two shots fired inside his vehicle. There were only seconds that transpired from Brown moving away from the vehicle and then turning around and charging back toward it. In that kind of situation why would you expect him to think "maybe I should holster my gun and get out the mace" instead of "this guy is dangerous, I almost just got shot and could've died had those shots gone into me instead of in my vehicle, keep the gun pointed at him and fire if he comes at me again."

Or wait for backup?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the two are connected. The process was a but different because the grand jury saw all the evidence rather than carefully selected ham-sandwich style presentation but maybe that's how all grand juries should be mandated to operate anyway.

Agreed. I have long favored a legal system that's more a fact-finding mission than an adversarial procedure. I'm not at all sure trials as such are a good idea. Rather, both sides present their evidence and get to rebut what the other side presents. When neither side has something more they want to present it's submitted to a jury.

 

[Axulus]

One major difference is that the shooter is a police officer. If he wasn't there would likely have been an indictment.

If someone gives you a beating, tries to steal your gun, and manages to fire a couple of shots from your gun in the struggle (with the bullets luckily missing you), with witnesses attesting to these facts and the fact that the guy turned around and charged you again, there may very well not be. If those were the facts or seemed to be the facts, why would you indict someone in that situation?

 

[ksen]

I believe I heard the prosecutor say there was some of Brown's blood 25 yards (it may have been feet) further up the street from where he died.

That sounds accurate.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...n-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0

Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body.

I'm going to assume that the blood didn't spray 25 feet off of brown's body. So Brown ran 178 feet away, stopped and came back 25 feet towards Wilson and Wilson didn't have time to prepare to use non-lethal means of stopping Brown?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One major difference is that the shooter is a police officer. If he wasn't there would likely have been an indictment.

If someone gives you a beating, tries to steal your gun, and manages to fire a couple of shots from your gun in the struggle (with the bullets luckily missing you), with witnesses attesting to these facts and the fact that the guy turned around and charged you again, there may very well not be. If those were the facts or seemed to be the facts, why would you indict someone in that situation?

Because Wilson followed after him. Once Brown is heading away, the threat is dissipating.

The charging gets repeated, but the witness testimony varies tremendously regarding what Brown did prior to the final shots. In fact, I was greatly disappointed that the Prosecutor didn't elaborate as to the likelihood of what Brown did. He just hung it out there that some say he was standing still, some he bent over, he moved towards the cop, he charged the cop.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And the bad guy is just going to sit there waiting for backup to show up??

In this case "the bad guy" was running away. Wilson did not have to exit his vehicle at this point, and since he claimed he was afraid for his life he probably shouldn't have.

 

[dismal]

If someone gives you a beating, tries to steal your gun, and manages to fire a couple of shots from your gun in the struggle (with the bullets luckily missing you), with witnesses attesting to these facts and the fact that the guy turned around and charged you again, there may very well not be. If those were the facts or seemed to be the facts, why would you indict someone in that situation?

Because Wilson followed after him. Once Brown is heading away, the threat is dissipating.

The charging gets repeated, but the witness testimony varies tremendously regarding what Brown did prior to the final shots. In fact, I was greatly disappointed that the Prosecutor didn't elaborate as to the likelihood of what Brown did. He just hung it out there that some say he was standing still, some he bent over, he moved towards the cop, he charged the cop.

Again, there is physical evidence that shows Brown turned back. Many of the witness accounts were clearly not consistent with the physical evidence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because Wilson followed after him. Once Brown is heading away, the threat is dissipating.

The charging gets repeated, but the witness testimony varies tremendously regarding what Brown did prior to the final shots. In fact, I was greatly disappointed that the Prosecutor didn't elaborate as to the likelihood of what Brown did. He just hung it out there that some say he was standing still, some he bent over, he moved towards the cop, he charged the cop.

Again, there is physical evidence that shows Brown turned back. Many of the witness accounts were clearly not consistent with the physical evidence.

I didn't say he didn't move back toward the direction of the Officer, which you know. I brought up the issue of Brown allegedly "charging" at the officer.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

National Bar Association response:
http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.