General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFerguson Prosecutor's Idiot Speech Blames Everyone But Darren Wilson
http://gawker.com/ferguson-prosecutors-idiot-speech-blames-everyone-but-d-1662970833Ferguson Prosecutor's Idiot Speech Blames Everyone But Darren Wilson
35,71023
Gabrielle Bluestone
Ferguson prosecutor Robert McCulloch delivered a long-winded, smirking speech blaming social media, the media, journalists, neighborhood residents, and everyone else who isn't Darren Wilson, for Darren Wilson shooting and killing 18-year-old Michael Brown.
It took McCulloch 10 minutes of hectoring before he revealed the panel had found no probable cause to indict Wilson, and the rest of the 45-minute speech, in which McCulloch seemed to be presenting evidence in Wilson's favor, felt a lot more like defense attorney's argument than a prosecutors. The very length of McCulloch's rambling statement, really, and the amount of evidence he felt compelled to argue against, was an argument that the case should have gone to trial.
But before he got to any of that, McCulloch explained all the ways the case could have been quietly shelved, had those meddling witnesses stayed off Twitter.
McCulloch offered Brown's gunshot wounds as an example, claiming that witnesses changed their stories after private autopsy results went public. McCulloch also appeared to suggest that the grand jurors watched TV to determine witness credibility.
"There is no question of course that Darren Wilson caused the death of Michael Brown by shooting him," McCulloch said, in an extraordinary linguistic backbend. "But the inquiry doesn't end there."
MORE
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)situation, you can't act like he did the right thing.. He shot an unarmed kid when no sane person can say it was a" good shoot." We can debate whether his actions were criminal, but Jesus there's a dead kid that should be alive. It's at least poor execution (pun might be intended) of what should he Wilson's duties.
Kablooie
(18,571 posts)he didn't say it outright so it came out as weasel words but that's his defense.
maced666
(771 posts)Witnesses testified.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)is to 'separate fact from fiction.'
That is not the GJ's responsibiltiy. Its sole responsibility is to determien whether sufficient probable cause exists for an indictment to issue.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, the prosecutor didn't even need a grand jury for that. He could have decided to prosecute on his own. The purpose of this grand jury was to put a thin veneer between the prosecutor and public opinion. The way the grand jury was conducted was a farce.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)There was no one there prosecuting against Wilson and fighting for Brown. McColluch completely upended out adversarial system of justice so he could defend Wilson without challenge. And then he blamed the witnesses and the Grand Jury for the outcome of this farce he created.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)At least the Zimmerman prosecutor had the common decency to hide it in public....
Kablooie
(18,571 posts)he talked quite awhile about how dedicated they were and how hard it was for them to go through this.
Poor babies. How they suffered.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)by a black man? Heard this earlier... seems pretty significant if true.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)So why did they rule the opposite?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)A lot of the evidence that is presented to this grand jury would be inadmissible in a trial. Prosecutors have far more latitude in grand juries because the defense has no ability to challenge any of the evidence. There is also very loose rules on what is permitted in a grand jury. In a trial, the rules and the judge is very strict on what is allowed in.
It's also a higher burden of proof in a trial. The prosecution only has to show probable cause in a grand jury. In a trial, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury has to be unanimous.
The defense can also cross-examine witnesses in a trial. You can put on a dozen witnesses that say that Brown had his hands up and was surrendering, but those witnesses would be attacked by the defense cross-examination. If the defense can prove inconsistencies in the witnesses while putting up their own witnesses that conflict with the prosecution's witnesses, that points to reasonable doubt....and ultimately an acquittal.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)Both perpetrator and victim?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)A trial just for the sake of it, which will inevitably result in an acquittal, is a "show trial".
merrily
(45,251 posts)Jaywalking while black.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Whether there was probable cause to indict Wilson did not have to deal with whether a homicide occurred at his hands at all, unlike many situations encountered by the grand jury and the evidence they must weigh. Here, the fact that Wilson killed a man does not have to be proved by evidence. The issue is whether Wilson was justified in using deadly force in self defense. Unless there is a clear videotape of the shooting, I don't think it's possible to determine that through a grand jury proceeding. Almost any shooting by non police where the shooter claimed self defense would have received an indictment and proceeded to a jury trial. If there is any probable cause, through a witness statement, through an independent forensics expert, or anything else, this is an issue best decided by a jury of Wilson's peers in a real court of law that hears all the evidence, with witnesses including forensic experts subject to cross examination, and where the rules of evidence apply such as the hearsay rule (in the event grand jurors were influenced by out of court statements they heard on TV or testifying witnesses testified on the basis of hearsay). I'm not ready to call Wilson a murderer but this should have gone to a jury.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No. That would be determined at a trial.
All the grand jury is supposed to do is determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. You claim there is by saying "Wilson killed a man".
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 25, 2014, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)
The fact Wilson's homicide is not a central issue is because Wilson has apparently admitted the homicide under oath before the grand jury. A defendant who testifies before the grand jury waives immunity at trial and the prosecutor can introduce that testimony as direct evidence and not just as impeachment evidence on cross examination. I would expect Wilson's defense attorney at trial to stipulate that he shot the bullet that killed Brown. I completely agree that a trial was necessary but the central issue would be whether the homicide was justified based on self defense or whether it was an unjustified murder.
At trial the prosecution won't have to struggle to prove that Wilson did it. He admits it. At a trial, the main controversy would involve whether Wilson was justified.
What I feel you misunderstand is that I agree with you, or rather your response to my post actually agreed with it. We are in agreement on the fact that this should have proceeded to jury trial based on the fact that Officer Wilson killed a man and admitted it. This is not a mysterious who done it where the defendant denies having even committed the act of killing. Every crime involves an "actus reus" or guilty act and a "mens rea", a guilty act done with a guilty mind. The actus reus has been admitted to by Wilson. But he claims that his act was justified as reasonable self defense and he didn't have a guilty mind or mens rea while doing it. His mental state should not be determined by a grand jury. It must be determined from all the facts and evidence, Only legal evidence that had the opportunity for both attorneys to object to if inappropriate and with an actual judge ruling on the admissibility of evidence should be examined by a jury. something that just doesn't happen in a grand jury proceeding,
aquart
(69,014 posts)sammy750
(165 posts)I think his presentation last night was so wrong, timing was all wrong. He should have known that a nighttime press conference was not a good idea. But he does not care. He is all about himself.
red dog 1
(27,648 posts)Police brutality should not be tolerated in a "free society"..
..Regardless of the color of the victim's skin.
"Man Charged With Breaking a Trooper's Fist With His face"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025851191/
czarjak
(11,194 posts)"What a snob."
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Even in MD white "Dems" in rural areas turned out to vote against a black Lieutenant Governor. (Of course the fact that liberals stayed home thanks to the right wing machine-Democratic hijacking of the Obama administration didn't help. It's telling that Obama feels liberated to take liberal stances on some issues now that the Clintons and all the conservadems are on the campaign trail or unelected, including the craven Marie Landrieu.)
But look at the bottom line: McCulloch would have had to prosecute the case had a grand jury returned an indictment. We knew from day 1 he wasn't capable of doing so. So Nixon's failure to appoint a special prosecutor is at issue here. McCulloch probably threatened to try and get Nixon's job by demagoguing the white suburban / rural law-and-order folks if he was booted off the case.
The real issue is that victims never have an advocate in the US criminal justice system. Only the state is capable of bringing a case, which is why state actors (and corporate actors) are never successfully prosecuted.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)He is serving his second term as governor. There were some rumors about him running for the senate, but that's about as likely as Christie running for president.
That said, this incident was a nightmare for 2016 executive branch politics. The current AG (formerly a republican state senator) is the presumed gubernatorial candidate. He will rely heavily on unions especially those for law enforcement.
Then there's that part of never meeting an alleged criminal he didn't want to execute.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I have doubts that Missouri's long standing "top cop" turned governor would ever see police as criminals (alleged or otherwise). Especially in the context of chasing a potential suspect.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)sammy750
(165 posts)A very qualified black woman ran against him and suffered a huge lost. Only 12% of the blacks in MO vote. They are allowing themselves to be slaves to the whites and Gov. Nixon.
Voting is key to make changes. When will the blacks get educated on voting. That should be a priority in MO.
Once they get in government they can make and change the laws against the white folks.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)What "very qualified black woman ran against him"?
And where did you get that 12% stat? Isn't it 12% of all African American RESIDENTS in MO, not 12% of all MO African Americans ELIGIBLE TO VOTE? The GOP has made sure the amount of African Americans eligible to vote is the smallest it has been since Jim Crow laws were on the books, thanks to the voter-ID style poll taxes, felon disenfranchisement, and cutting down early voting. African American voter disenfranchisement will only get worse now that the Supreme Court eviscerated the Civil Rights Act.
Even if you are eligible to vote and manage to get registered, there are still the tremendous barriers presented by poverty itself. If you have two jobs and are rushing to get home to your latch-key kids (like my parents did with me), not voting is not a matter of "laziness" but a matter of poverty and being unable to get to the polls. Why risk losing your job or leaving your kids alone just to go vote when there was not even an opposing candidate to McColluch?
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)"those closely guarded detailsespecially about the physical evidencegive law enforcement a yard stick for measuring the truthfulness".
Two points. The physical evidence often needs an expert to interpret the meaning but even experts frequently disagree on just what the physical evidence tells us, so what is he trying to say. Two, where were the spent shell casings found as that would tell the approximate distance Wilson was from Brown. While not exact, it would tell us whether he was 8-10 feet away or 35 feet away. Since I have not heard any discussion on this I must assume that the police did not detail what was likely the 2nd most important evidence available. How could they have been so amateurish as to bungle the handling of such significant evidence. (I think I once heard it explained as "we didn't know we were working with a possible crime scene" -- say what!)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It seems that the evidence given to the GJ was selected pretty carefully.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)I think the location of the casings is hard to analyze as both the victim and the shooter were moving. Exactly how they were moving is the question. My general opinion is that Wilsons assertion that he was being charged is a fabrication, its clear that he fired many shots from many locations and not just in a straight line retreat.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)Meaning it only has a marginal value. The blood spots, for instance, are roughly 45 and 52 feet beyond where Brown's body came to rest if it were to scale and that would support Wilson's account of a bull rush. Indeed, the clustered shell casings are nearly all beyond the point of Brown's body, which makes no sense for any scenario given the position of Brown's body. About the only thing that does make sense is the one video account where you can hear roughly 10 shots in the background that were recorded as 6 shots in a burst and then a very short pause followed by 4 more shots in a second burst. The location of the spent shell casings are consistent with the video recording of the shots (two debris areas) and that is about all that they indicate. But by not drawing it to scale it can be manipulated to support a given point -- it can also distort it to where it looks unrealistic.
Oh, thanks for the link because that data is something I have been looking for but had not come across.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)and I am trying to group the casings the first 6 and then 4. It seems to me that the 4 casings off the road must have been the last 4. Unless they were disturbed after the shooting. Looking at it that way, while firing the first six the officer must have been moving forward, and then he moved near the side of the road from around shell 18 to 21 and fired the last 4 while moving back in the direction of his vehicle along the side of the road.
Dirty Socialist
(3,248 posts)McKKKollough.