Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Loren Pechtel]

Incorrect: a case is taken to trial when the evidence suggests a possibility of a crime. It is up to the grand jury NOT the prosecutor, to determine if a case should go to trial.

Of course, you and Derec are perfectly comfortable with prosecutors selectively applying the law as long as they aren't doing it to you.

That's not right. A prosecutor only takes a case to trial if he thinks he can win, i.e., prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors like to win; and they win often because they are selective of which cases go to trial, which ones plea, and which are just dismissed or not pursued. In any case, the prosecutor has an ethical responsibility not to prosecute a defendant based on a "possibility" that a crime occurred. Otherwise, the state bar may give him the Nifong treatment.

And FYI - not every state uses grand juries and in those that do the use varies.

He's mixing up taking it to trial with taking it to a grand jury.

 

[Arctish]

Incorrect: a case is taken to trial when the evidence suggests a possibility of a crime. It is up to the grand jury NOT the prosecutor, to determine if a case should go to trial.

Of course, you and Derec are perfectly comfortable with prosecutors selectively applying the law as long as they aren't doing it to you.

Grand Jury != trial. Taking borderline cases to a Grand Jury is fine.

I agree. Taking borderline cases to a Grand Jury is fine. However, the Prosecutor has a duty to make the case for proceeding to trial. His role is to lay out the evidence indicating a crime took place. If he doesn't do that, or if he deliberately weakens the case, he's not fulfilling his duty as Prosecutor, and that would be a perversion of our justice system.

 

[laughing dog]

That's not right. A prosecutor only takes a case to trial if he thinks he can win, i.e., prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors like to win; and they win often because they are selective of which cases go to trial, which ones plea, and which are just dismissed or not pursued. In any case, the prosecutor has an ethical responsibility not to prosecute a defendant based on a "possibility" that a crime occurred. Otherwise, the state bar may give him the Nifong treatment.

And FYI - not every state uses grand juries and in those that do the use varies.

He's mixing up taking it to trial with taking it to a grand jury.

No, the prosecutor in the Wilson case mixed it up.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Did I say anything about liberals? why are you trying to move goal posts?

Then how does history prove me wrong? And I am not moving any goalposts, you are.

Showing black people with guns gets gun control legislation passed.

1968 CA is an example.

Which brings us back to where we started.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, by the DOJ, your favorite source all of a sudden.

Disparate impact != discrimination. The wrongs the DOJ showed weren't racism.

Would not disparate impact be a result of discrimination?

 

[Trausti]

Would not disparate impact be a result of discrimination?

No. "Disparate impact" is legal voodoo created where evidence of discrimination is absent. When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

 

[Toni]

Would not disparate impact be a result of discrimination?

No. "Disparate impact" is legal voodoo created where evidence of discrimination is absent. When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Are you thinking about poll taxes and 'literacy' tests used in the south? Grandfather laws?

 

[Derec]

Are you thinking about poll taxes and 'literacy' tests used in the south? Grandfather laws?

Criteria for selecting NBA players would fall under "disparate impact" as well.

 

[Derec]

Incorrect: a case is taken to trial when the evidence suggests a possibility of a crime.

No, a mere possibility is not enough. Otherwise there'd be a lot more trials.

It is up to the grand jury NOT the prosecutor, to determine if a case should go to trial.

A prosecutor can certainly decide not to prosecute without calling a grand jury.

Of course, you and Derec are perfectly comfortable with prosecutors selectively applying the law as long as they aren't doing it to you.

If the prosecutors decide to prosecute of not based on the strength of the case before them then there is no problem. If they do it because of some bias, then it is. That goes, by the way, for prosecuting cases they should not as well. See Mike Nifong.

 

[Arctish]

Would not disparate impact be a result of discrimination?

No. "Disparate impact" is legal voodoo created where evidence of discrimination is absent. When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Here is an article posted on the conservative blog RedState that discusses the "disparate impact" noted on the DOJ report, among other shenanigans and unconstitutional excesses of the Ferguson PD.

Many Conservatives are Blowing it on the Ferguson DOJ Report

It’s unfortunate, the way news is consumed and interpreted in the age of twitter. Everyone feels tremendous pressure to form an opinion quickly and state it loudly and with certainty. Once this has been done, people are highly resistant to changing their minds and they become impervious to new evidence, often dismissing out of hand outright facts just because they are reported by a given source (e.g., “the media is untrustworthy” or “you can’t trust the Holder Department of Justice.”) Perhaps nowhere has this phenomenon been more obvious (or regrettable) than in Ferguson, Missouri, in the wake of the shooting death of Michael Brown. Interpreting the news out of Ferguson has become a part of ideological tribalism in which, if you are a conservative you stand for the Ferguson PD and if you are a liberal you stand against them. Thus, liberals have become highly resistant to assimilating information that strongly suggests that “hands up, don’t shoot” never happened. Conservatives, on the other hand, have become highly resistant to assimilating information that strongly suggests that the Ferguson PD – as with many other municipal police departments in the country – truly is out of control, in that it recklessly violates the constitutional rights of the citizens of Ferguson and does so in a manner that has a clearly disproportionate impact on minorities.

It's worth the time to read it through.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Incorrect: a case is taken to trial when the evidence suggests a possibility of a crime. It is up to the grand jury NOT the prosecutor, to determine if a case should go to trial.

Of course, you and Derec are perfectly comfortable with prosecutors selectively applying the law as long as they aren't doing it to you.

Grand Jury != trial.

Except when it does.

 

[Derec]

And yet you fail to draw attention to Michael Brown's NON-criminal activities, extracurricular activities, academic activities, athletic performance, or his taste in videogames.

Why should I have?

You were also remarkably disinterested in Darren Wilson's past misconduct as a police officer.

What about his extracurricular activities and taste in video games?

We've been down this road before. Your excuses get lamer every time.

If you are talking about those that insist, contrary to all evidence, that the MB shooting was a "murder", then you are right.

No, it cannot. A police officer's conduct is determined by circumstances, not by the character of the person he is acting against.

And you think MB's character had nothing to do with his behavior during the altercation with the police?

It wouldn't matter if Michael Brown was an honor student or a serial killer, the circumstances of the shooting suggest his death was unnecessary.

The circumstances are influenced by who the actors are. MB, a strong-arm robber, attacked the police officer because he was just involved in a violent crime.
And by the way, the circumstances of the shooting suggest no such thing.

And this bothers you why? You prejudged Michael Brown by referring to him as as a criminal.

It is hardly controversial that he robbed a convenience store mere minutes before his fatal encounter with Officer Wilson. Thus he is very much a criminal.
It is very controversial whether or not Wilson committed any crime at all.

Perhaps you should retract that claim until it has been conclusively proven?

It has been. Or do you doubt it? On what grounds?

Actually, the history of the SHOOTER is infinitely more relevant. Why don't you tell us about Darren Wilson's personal history if you want to establish his credibility?
He didn't rob a store mere minutes before the encounter. He was minding his business, patrolling the streets, when this young punk attacked him just because he told him (as was his right) to get out of the road.

And then there's this asshole:

A Tyler, Texas thief whose first crime was stealing Oreo cookies as a teenager has been sentenced to 16 years in prison for for stealing a Snickers candy bar.

While the sentence (predicated on him being a habitual offender) is quite stiff, are you suggesting shoplifting should not be a crime?

A cop shoots and kills an unarmed man under questionable circumstances = "Waste of taxpayer money, no trial."

Investigation found no probable cause that he committed a crime.

A petty thief gets caught sealing a Snickers bar at a gas station = "We must put him on trial to send a message to the community!"

There was more than enough evidence to go to trial. This is what trials should be based on - evidence - and not on how Crazy Eddie or anybody else feels about the accused.

In your hypothetical there would be more than enough probable cause to indict.

I accept your retraction.

No retraction. Your hypothetical was different in many important details to what happened to MB.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why should I have?

For the sake of "reporting accurately"

No, it cannot. A police officer's conduct is determined by circumstances, not by the character of the person he is acting against.

And you think MB's character had nothing to do with his behavior during the altercation with the police?

Irrelevant; Michael Brown's character had nothing to do with DARREN WILSON'S behavior, which is the source of the problem.

It isn't a question of whether or not Michael Brown did anything wrong; Michael Brown is dead, he will never have the opportunity to face consequences for his actions, right or wrong. It is a question of whether or not DARREN WILSON did anything wrong. HIS character is therefore far more relevant to the case, assuming it is relevant at all.

And this bothers you why? You prejudged Michael Brown by referring to him as as a criminal.

It is hardly controversial that he robbed a convenience store

It is hardly proven either. Even the store owners dispute this claim.

Perhaps you should retract that claim until it has been conclusively proven?

It has been.

No it has not.

Investigation found no probable cause that he committed a crime.

No, a GRAND JURY found this after they were shown conflicting evidence both for and AGAINST an indictment and even heard testimony from Darren Wilson in his own defense.

In which case Wilson is probably the only suspect in Ferguson's history who was ever allowed to present a full legal defense to a grand jury before the trial even began.

There was more than enough evidence to go to trial.

As in the Wilson case, in fact there was SIGNIFICANT evidence that Wilson had committed misconduct in dealing with Michael Brown. You have an opinion about the strength and validity of that evidence, but that doesn't make it go away now does it?

 

[laughing dog]

Are you thinking about poll taxes and 'literacy' tests used in the south? Grandfather laws?

Criteria for selecting NBA players would fall under "disparate impact" as well.

You are equating criteria for performance (NBA player selection) with nonuniformly applied criteria for voting eligibility (a constitutional and legal right0? Really?

 

[Derec]

You are equating criteria for performance (NBA player selection) with nonuniformly applied criteria for voting eligibility (a constitutional and legal right0? Really?

Nonuniformly applied criteria is not what "disparate impact" is. "Disparate impact" is when criteria are applied equally but they produce different outcome based on say race. For example trying out to play professional basketball. Or promotion test for firefighters.
For example, if a literacy test were administered in a discriminatory fashion that would be straight up discrimination. If it was administered fairly, but more blacks flunked it, it would be "disparate impact". This is one of the worst legal theories right next to "deep pockets" doctrine of liability lawsuits.

 

[laughing dog]

You are equating criteria for performance (NBA player selection) with nonuniformly applied criteria for voting eligibility (a constitutional and legal right0? Really?

Nonuniformly applied criteria is not what "disparate impact" is. "Disparate impact" is when criteria are applied equally but they produce different outcome based on say race. For example trying out to play professional basketball. Or promotion test for firefighters.
For example, if a literacy test were administered in a discriminatory fashion that would be straight up discrimination. If it was administered fairly, but more blacks flunked it, it would be "disparate impact". This is one of the worst legal theories right next to "deep pockets" doctrine of liability lawsuits.

But one could come up with criteria that is applied fairly even though it is discriminatory against a protected class.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Would not disparate impact be a result of discrimination?

No. "Disparate impact" is legal voodoo created where evidence of discrimination is absent.

You have proof of this?

When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Again, you have proof of this?

In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of  disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws protect based on race, color, religion, national origin, and gender as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.
Under this theory, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1] Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the "business necessity" defense.[1]
In addition to Title VII, other federal laws also have disparate impact provisions, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.[4] Some civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do not contain disparate impact provisions creating a private right of action,[5] although the federal government may still pursue disparate impact claims under these laws.[6] The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 creates a cause of action for disparate impact.{http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf. Disparate impact contrasts with disparate treatment. A disparate impact is unintentional, whereas a disparate treatment is an intentional decision to treat people differently based on their race or other protected characteristics.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Are you thinking about poll taxes and 'literacy' tests used in the south? Grandfather laws?

Criteria for selecting NBA players would fall under "disparate impact" as well.

 Business necessity

NBA example is

 

[George S]

http://youtu.be/v3joy3w9bwA

 

[Trausti]

No. "Disparate impact" is legal voodoo created where evidence of discrimination is absent.

You have proof of this?

When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Again, you have proof of this?

In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of  disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws protect based on race, color, religion, national origin, and gender as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.
Under this theory, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1] Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the "business necessity" defense.[1]
In addition to Title VII, other federal laws also have disparate impact provisions, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.[4] Some civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do not contain disparate impact provisions creating a private right of action,[5] although the federal government may still pursue disparate impact claims under these laws.[6] The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 creates a cause of action for disparate impact.{http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf. Disparate impact contrasts with disparate treatment. A disparate impact is unintentional, whereas a disparate treatment is an intentional decision to treat people differently based on their race or other protected characteristics.

Good grief. Do you read your own links? The whole point of "disparate impact" is to sidestep the usual legal analysis, i.e., a wrong which was the proximate cause of a harm, by permitting the plaintiff to commit a long-established legal fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. In the usual course, is it up to the the plaintiff to prove that the defendant breached a duty, or commit a wrong, and this breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. "Disparate impact" turns this on its head. Instead, all the plaintiff need to is say is "I don't like the result"; he does not have to gather evidence or otherwise prove that the defendant committed a wrong. Unlike pretty much everywhere else in civil law, the "disparate impact" defendant is burdened with coming up with the evidence and legal argument to defend itself. So yes, legal voodoo.

 

[laughing dog]

Since the plaintiff does have to gather evidence to show a disparate impact, seems to me your "legal voodoo" is shorthand for someone who provides inaccurate evidence for something he doesn't like.