Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
23. I was in a rush when I responded to your comment earlier. Just wanted to say that you made some good
Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:38 AM
Nov 2014

points regarding raising Wilson's past eg.

Re probable cause, which Wilson may or may not have had, this puzzled me:

McCulloch stated that Wilson was aware that a robbery had taken place, had a description of the suspect and recognized Brown as the likely suspect. IMO, that is certainly probable cause and Wilson had an obligation to confront Brown. Given how important this point is to a federal case, I am sure that federal agents looked at it very closely.


The Ferguson Police Chief said that Wilson did NOT have that information 'in his initial contact with Brown'. See here:

Ferguson police chief Officer didn't stop Brown as robbery suspect

- The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a convenience-store robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday.

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."


So there's definitely a contradiction there. I don't know how that was handled before the GJ.

Iow, this prosecutor provided a probable cause, as you pointed out, that was contradicted by the Police Chief. This is why you need trials. Someone needs to challenge what was presented. That is just one example.

Regarding McCullough providing the evidence he presented to the GJ to the Feds, I doubt that would be a problem even if he picked and chose what to present and what not to. They are not going to try to second guess a prosecutor, there are enough problems with this case as it is. And it's likely he's willing to risk some embarrassment for what is most important to him.

Btw, he could have recused himself legitimately. His own father was killed decades ago, a cop I believe, by an African American man. And he himself is very closely associated with the police. Those are grounds for recusal imo.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Against a cop? That blue line thing sure as shit is a strong one. uppityperson Nov 2014 #1
Wilson was fired from his last job, his whole Dept was fired. A real prosecutor would have sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #2
i've seen it noiretextatique Nov 2014 #14
I am less than certain that body cams on cops will have the desired effect IDemo Nov 2014 #3
True, they can manipulate evidence. However, I did read that in at least one precinct, police sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #4
There must be mandatory penalties for turning off the cameras too. BillZBubb Nov 2014 #6
If the prosecutor made an effort to get an indictment it would have happened. BillZBubb Nov 2014 #5
Agree on all counts! etherealtruth Nov 2014 #7
yep. Little Star Nov 2014 #12
Yes, I think it's obvious that the Prosecutor did not want an indictment of Wilson. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #15
Thanks for posting. JEB Nov 2014 #8
11 out of 162,000. Talk about beating the odds. JEB Nov 2014 #9
That was federal. This was done by state yeoman6987 Nov 2014 #11
I've heard that the feds have a tougher standard for indictment. JEB Nov 2014 #13
That's why people say that a prosecutor, if s/he WANTS it, could indict a ham sandwich. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #19
Saw that stay earlier. Great sign - spot on underpants Nov 2014 #10
It's rare because prosecutors don't go to grand juries with cases that are not winnable. badtoworse Nov 2014 #16
I'm not sure what you are asking. But what I think is that McCullough should have recused himself sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #17
Assuming the grand jury heard everything, what difference did what McCulloch thought make? badtoworse Nov 2014 #18
Was there anyone there to question any of the 'evidence' presented? Why do you think he would be sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #20
I think you misinterpreted what I said badtoworse Nov 2014 #21
I was in a rush when I responded to your comment earlier. Just wanted to say that you made some good sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #23
I agree with you about the Police Chief's Statement. badtoworse Nov 2014 #25
We know now how this was handled before the GJ. It appears that a second officer gave testimony sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #32
You're following this closer than I am. badtoworse Nov 2014 #35
Wilson did not write a report, which is standard procedure for cops, until long after the shooting. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #36
I'm going to wait to hear what the feds have to say badtoworse Nov 2014 #38
Did the GJ hear from the witness who saw everything from the beginning? The friend who sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #22
I disagree on one thing: the system *failed*, as it so often has for black folks..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2014 #24
"So who was representing Mike Brown?" JEB Nov 2014 #26
And hasn't it just been revealed that McCullough was raising funds for Wilson?? If that is true, sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #27
This is hopeful, but it will get ugly soon. JEB Nov 2014 #31
Yes, I followed those protests on Twitter last night. Thanks for that link, there were apparently sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #33
Absolutely a conflict of interest. JEB Nov 2014 #34
a district attorney could have a grand jury indict a bologna sandwich LanternWaste Nov 2014 #28
You can't fail if you don't even try. nt TBF Nov 2014 #29
I always thought a DA's job was to prosecute suspects. Rex Nov 2014 #30
It depends on the 'suspect' is what I am learning. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #37
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Ferguson Prosecutor, ...»Reply #23