Ferguson Live Feed

[Axulus]

Then why have them at all? If a prosecutor can't even determine whether a crime has likely been committed, then it doesn't sound like there is a chance in hell at a conviction in a trial.

It is about finding probable cause to proceed. The conclusion need not be a done deal in order to determine if there is reason to look further.

And what is the purpose of that?

 

[ksen]

That's not their core function and has never been their core function. Their job is to tell the prosecutor if he's presented enough evidence to show a crime may or may not have been committed. That's it.

Their job is not to weigh the probability of whether or not the prosecutor can get a convicition and vote accordingly.

Then why have them at all?

I don't know. Could be just because that's always how it's been done and no one has seen fit to come up with a different way.

If a prosecutor can't even determine whether a crime has likely been committed, then it doesn't sound like there is a chance in hell at a conviction in a trial.

I believe that prosecutors aren't required to convene grand juries and can do just that if they want to. As far as I can tell grand juries serve mostly as political cover for prosecutors.

 

[doubtingt]

I didn't say she was incorrect, did I? I said the statistics are meaningless. She might as well as quoted the statistics on hemlines and sunspots, if accurate but irrelevant numbers are part of someones "point".

So statistics showing that grad juries always find probably cause except in cases of law enforcement shootings where they rarely do is a meaningless statistic. Nice.

Your right, that is a meaningful stat because it shows there was nothing unusual about this Grand Jury outcome which is only comparable to other law enforcement shooting where indictments are uncommon and not comparable to murder grand juries in general. Typically, a prosecutor only brings a case to a grand jury if he/she thinks the person is guilty and that their is sufficient evidence to at least bring charges. But in cases like this where a cop shoots someone and their is public outrage, the prosecutor is politically coerced to bring it to a grand jury even when, as with this case, there is nothing close to sufficient evidence and good evidence demonstrating innocence.

IOW, a rational person would not expect a Grand Jury in this case to emerge with the same outcome as in typical murder cases since unlike those cases, it was political pressure and not evidence that prompted the convening of a Grand Jury in the place. In addition, Grand Juries need a lot more evidence to suggest that a cop was guilty compared to a non-cop in an otherwise similar shooting. For example, cops carry guns legally and it is their job to confront law breakers. All the evidence that the cop initiated the interaction and that he had and fired a gun would be damning evidence against any non-cop suspect, but mean nothing when its a cop.

 

[ksen]

It is about finding probable cause to proceed. The conclusion need not be a done deal in order to determine if there is reason to look further.

And what is the purpose of that?

From here: HANDBOOK FOR FEDERAL GRAND JURORS

NATURE OF THE GRAND JURY

The powers and functions of the federal grand jury differ from those of the federal trial jury, which is called the petit jury. The petit jury listens to the evidence offered by the prosecution and the defense (if it chooses to offer any) during a criminal trial and returns a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The grand jury, on the other hand, does not determine guilt or innocence, but only whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that a specific person or persons committed it. If the grand jury finds probable cause to exist, then it will return a written statement of the charges called an "indictment." After that, the accused will go to trial.

The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime. The grand jury must determine from this evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of Rights as an "infamous crime." An infamous crime is one which may be punished by imprisonment for more than one year. As a general rule, no one can be prosecuted for a serious crime unless the grand jury decides that the evidence it has heard so requires. In this way, the grand jury operates both as a "sword," authorizing the government's prosecution of suspected criminals, and also as a "shield," protecting citizens from unwarranted or inappropriate prosecutions. A person may, however, waive grand jury proceedings and agree to be prosecuted by a written charge of crime called an information.

The grand jury is not completely free to compel a trial of anyone it chooses. The United States Attorney must sign the indictment before one may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks upon each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the awesome power to indict a person of a crime.

Granted, this applies to federal grand juries and I'm not sure how or if state grand juries differ from the federal grand juries.

Here's another couple of links that give some history about the rise of the grand jury and its purpose.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/241/kaditxt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

 

[ksen]

IOW, a rational person would not expect a Grand Jury in this case to emerge with the same outcome as in typical murder cases since unlike those cases, it was political pressure and not evidence that prompted the convening of a Grand Jury in the place. In addition, Grand Juries need a lot more evidence to suggest that a cop was guilty compared to a non-cop in an otherwise similar shooting. For example, cops carry guns legally and it is their job to confront law breakers. All the evidence that the cop initiated the interaction and that he had and fired a gun would be damning evidence against any non-cop suspect, but mean nothing when its a cop.

So you're saying that all those police officer related grand juries were politically motivated?

 

[George S]

Now what if a black cop killed an unarmed white teenager under very questionable circumstances, and was never investigated. What would supporters of various police shootings say? Would racism or authoritarianism prove to be the stronger basis for which way they would swing?

It did happen, in a way. But because the cop was black and the victim white, the social justice warriors apparently didn't care much about it. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/washington_times_contrasts_med.html

"...in both cases, grand juries decided not to indict."

That article notes there were no riots nor looting over this incident.

 

[Trausti]

That's not their core function and has never been their core function. Their job is to tell the prosecutor if he's presented enough evidence to show a crime may or may not have been committed. That's it.

Their job is not to weigh the probability of whether or not the prosecutor can get a convicition and vote accordingly.

Then why have them at all? If a prosecutor can't even determine whether a crime has likely been committed, then it doesn't sound like there is a chance in hell at a conviction in a trial.

I'll just add this:

RULE 4-3.8: SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/83a96f1961a98e5086256ca6005211d0?OpenDocument

 

[doubtingt]

IOW, a rational person would not expect a Grand Jury in this case to emerge with the same outcome as in typical murder cases since unlike those cases, it was political pressure and not evidence that prompted the convening of a Grand Jury in the place. In addition, Grand Juries need a lot more evidence to suggest that a cop was guilty compared to a non-cop in an otherwise similar shooting. For example, cops carry guns legally and it is their job to confront law breakers. All the evidence that the cop initiated the interaction and that he had and fired a gun would be damning evidence against any non-cop suspect, but mean nothing when its a cop.

So you're saying that all those police officer related grand juries were politically motivated?

I am saying that when irrational nutjobs are willing to burn down a city because a cop shoots a black person, without regard for any facts, then the prosecutor has no real choice but to convene a grand jury even when they know the evidence doesn't come close to warranting criminal charges.

Holding a grand jury when there is no good evidence of guilt is done as a way of showing transparency and allowing a jury to hear the evidence without actually charging the person, which would be reckless to do when their is no evidence supporting they are guilty.

And don't ignore the other half of my post about the bar being much higher and much damning evidence in a citizen shooting not counting as relevant evidence at all when a cop shoots someone. Knowing that you had a gun and you initiated a conflict with a stranger who is now dead is enough to persue a case. Knowing that a cop had a gun and initiated conflict with someone breaking the law is not. For most murders, the precise chain of events is not critical to the accussed being guilty. Cops are allowed to and all have guns and allowed to use them when the people they are paid to confront threaten them or others. So, the exact chain of events is all that actually matters, and its rare to have such detailed evidence that can distinguish between a chain of events in which the cop shooting was justified and that in which it wasn't. All of this is undeniable features of reality, thus it is an undeniable, predictable, and not at all unjust feature of reality that grand juries would be much less likely to indict cops who shoot people than non-cops who shoot people.

 

[ksen]

All of this is undeniable features of reality, thus it is an undeniable, predictable, and not at all unjust feature of reality that grand juries would be much less likely to indict cops who shoot people than non-cops who shoot people.

I'd say that when you're in an era of dropping violent crime and when only 750 out 17,000 law enforcment agencies self report that they kill over 400 citizens each year and when a citizen of Utah is more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by any other group then it is in fact an unjust system that lets them get away with that about 99.99% of the time.

Maybe you feel differently but imo there has to be chargeable homicides in that number.

The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

[laughing dog]

Holding a grand jury when there is no good evidence of guilt is done as a way of showing transparency and allowing a jury to hear the evidence without actually charging the person, which would be reckless to do when their is no evidence supporting they are guilty.

How are secret grand juries a way of showing transparency?

 

[Trausti]

Holding a grand jury when there is no good evidence of guilt is done as a way of showing transparency and allowing a jury to hear the evidence without actually charging the person, which would be reckless to do when their is no evidence supporting they are guilty.

How are secret grand juries a way of showing transparency?

All the testimony and evidence was released to the public.

 

[ksen]

How are secret grand juries a way of showing transparency?

All the testimony and evidence was released to the public.

Sure, this time.

But that's not normal procedure.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/01/obama-ferguson-police-equipment/19736081/

"This is not a problem simply of Ferguson, Missouri," Obama said after a day of meetings with local government and law enforcement officials from across the country. "This is a problem that is national."

The president announced a new task force to study best police practices, as well as tighter controls on federal money that local law enforcement agencies use to buy military-style equipment.

The goal, Obama said, is "to make sure that we're not building a militarized culture inside our local law enforcement."

The Obama administration also unveiled a three-year, $263 million plan to assist community policing, including a $75 million plan for 50,000 new body cameras to be worn by officers. The president said that community policing can help make officers and their communities "partners" in battling crime and promoting safety.

"We can build confidence and we can build trust, but it's not going to happen overnight," Obama said.
...
Monday's announcement was greeted by some as a victory for transparency in law enforcement. Yet with almost 630,000 police officers working nationwide, it's not clear how much of an effect even 50,000 cameras would have.

Body cameras have long been a popular proposal among police reform advocates, who say that documenting interactions between officers and civilians can help to eliminate bias and uncertainty regarding alleged misconduct by either party. One frequently cited pilot program in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.

 

[ksen]

Obama, once again destroying the constitution.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Body cameras will make it harder for cops to do their job, at least in the south.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Eh, Johnson's testimony confirmed that Brown stole the cigarellos. He claims he tried talking Brown out of it because the store had surveillance cameras. But Brown apparently was unmoved and seemed not to care about the repercussions of his actions. Johnson said that Brown acted strange that day. He couldn't understand why Brown chose to fight the cop rather than cooperate. Johnson's testimony is an illuminating read.

What is the preferred method for determining which parts of Johnson's testimony are to be taken as truthful and which are not?

 

[Jayjay]

Body cameras will make it harder for cops to do their job, at least in the south.

Why do you think so?

 

[Trausti]

Eh, Johnson's testimony confirmed that Brown stole the cigarellos. He claims he tried talking Brown out of it because the store had surveillance cameras. But Brown apparently was unmoved and seemed not to care about the repercussions of his actions. Johnson said that Brown acted strange that day. He couldn't understand why Brown chose to fight the cop rather than cooperate. Johnson's testimony is an illuminating read.

What is the preferred method for determining which parts of Johnson's testimony are to be taken as truthful and which are not?

Usually with physical evidence or non-bias corroborating testimony. Hence, the lack of indictment. Just pointing out there is no disagreement that Brown stole the cigarellos before the incident.

 

[ksen]

Just pointing out there is no disagreement that Brown stole the cigarellos before the incident.

Just pointing out that yes there is.

 

[Jayjay]

Video surveillance tapes not shown by the police appear to show Michael Brown paying for his cigarellos.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, what shoplifting?

Wasn't this thoroughly discussed at the time it happened? I don't see anything in the video that could be construed as Brown paying for the items, unless it is with invisible money. His hands are clearly empty. To me it seems that the author of that story had not seen the unedited footage, and was relying on a lower quality clip that starts with Brown already at the desk and grabbing the cigarillos. Here is a better video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/michael-brown-robbery-video_n_5682659.html

Second, it doesn't matter who called the cops. Someone else in the store already did it, so the shopkeeper or the clerk didn't have to. But when the police officer did arrive, he interviewed the clerk and the customers. If it was not a robbery, at that point the clerk could have just said so and there wouldn't have been a police report.

Third, the surveillance tapes were handed over at that point, before anyone knew about what had happened to Brown. So it's hardly a case of police going back to the shop to try to find some incriminating evidence against Brown.