No. I point out, correctly, that PLAYING UP their criminal behavior does not change the facts of the case, does not negate their rights as citizens,
I am not talking about playing anything up, just reporting accurately.
and does not excuse the misconduct of the cops that killed them.
No it would not excuse any misconduct by the cops, but it can change the calculus of whether there was likely any misconduct to begin with.
Take Michael Brown. The police claimed he attacked the cop in his vehicle. Dorian Johnson claimed the cop pulled Brown into the vehicle.
The initial media reports, about "gentle giant" who was starting college etc. seemed to support DJ's account. However, when the truth about MB came out the police version (later corroborated by the autopsy) became much more probable.
Digging up dirt on the victim of a crime does not make the crime justifiable.
You are prejudging the case by calling it a "crime".
It can make a great deal of difference whether a shooting is likely a crime or not based on the history of the dead guy.
Why? EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty.
Everybody is presumed innocent. But DA's have to decide whether or not to pursue a case. Not every criminal complaint results in or warrants a prosecution. Trials cost money and put the accused through hell which is why there is by necessity a selection involved.
If it is clearly unlikely that a person committed the action in question, then yes, they should not be brought to trial. If that person committed an action and there is some question as to whether or not that action constituted a crime, then he should definitely be brought to trial to determine the question of his innocence.
Not necessarily, if there is no probable cause that a crime was committed.
Imagine if the situation was reversed. Imagine if Michael Brown drove up aggressively on an pedestrian who was walking in the street; imagine the pedestrian attacked Brown in his car, struggled for Brown's gun, and then, failing to disarm him, ran away before turning back to face him; imagine of Michael Brown opened fire and killed the pedestrian, only later learning this pedestrian was an off-duty police officer, and telling prosecutors that he "Feared for his life" because he did not know who this person was or why he was attacking him.
Is everything else the same? Is Brown coming from a convenience store robbery? Also police are expected to initiate contact with members of public civilians are not necessarily called to do. I.e. it is police officer's job to tell a young punk who is walking in the middle of the street to use the sidewalk.
How would you feel if the prosecutor went out of his way to AVOID indicting Michael Brown? I'm reasonably sure YOU would be screaming "reverse racism" and probably referencing your hope that some cop recognizes him and takes him out. You would call it a miscarriage of justice and would insist that guilt or innocence is something for the COURTS to decide, not the Grand Jury.
In your hypothetical there would be more than enough probable cause to indict.
If you truly want to reverse the situation it would have to be a black cop shooting a white robber. If this had taken place I do not think the DA would have bothered to call a grand jury in the first place.
From where I'm sitting, the only difference between you and me is I don't believe cops are above the law, nor should they be, nor will they ever be in any country that I call home.
Cops are not above the law, but they do have a special relationship to it because they are tasked with enforcing it. A civilian is not supposed to engage a suspect - police officers are. Civilians often have a duty to retreat if it's safe to do so. Police officers do not.
"Omitted?" Wilson had no idea the robbery had even taken place; it was irrelevant to the circumstances of the case.
The store owners didn't even report the robbery until after Brown was dead.
A customer called it in before. Wilson was aware of the robbery but did not know the two were the suspects from it when he initially engaged them. But regardless of what Wilson knew, the fact that Brown just robbed a store lends credence to Wilson's story that he was attacked by Brown.
I suppose you also think they "omitted" the length of Michael Brown's penis since that's clearly relevant to the circumstances of his death.
You really think the fact that Brown robbed a store minutes before is irrelevant?
Is a "fact" that is in dispute, unlike the fact that Brown was unarmed when he
Hardly in dispute by anybody examining the situation fairly. The autopsy report shows a grazing would at close range which shows that he was going for the gun, just like Wilson said. And again, that is made all the more credible by the fact that Brown had just robbed a store.
Assuming Brown was attempting to cover that distance, a claim that is again in dispute.
Whether or not Brown was attempting to cover that distance (and he was) has no bearing as to whether the distance was "significant".
His "advancing" is a claim that is in dispute.
It's consistent with witness statements and physical evidence.
And I'll once again point out that the GRAND JURY is the wrong time and place to evaluate those claims. This is the whole reason why we have TRIALS: to evaluate the evidence and determine whether or not there is a reasonable doubt.
Grand juries examine whether there is probable cause to indict. In this case there wasn't and luckily the grand jury agreed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Michael Brown deserves to stand trial for his crimes, then so does Darren Wilson.
There was no probable cause that Wilson committed any crimes.
And Brown, while there is plenty of probable cause, is beyond the reach of courts. That said, his close friend Tyrone Harris survived his officer involved shooting and will be charged with ten felonies. Police officers who shot him will not be. You probably think they should face trial as well.
