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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: OK, suppose for the moment that Wilson's shooting was justified. [View all]Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)4. OK, does this help?
(Apparently I, along with half the media, have been misspelling McCulloch's name)
Quotes from Wikipedia
Here's where he inappropriately helped the cops identify a whistlebolwer in their ranks
In 1997, in the so-called "Kinkogate" case, McCulloch gave - using the power of the grand jury, but without informing it - a subpoena to the police in order to identify a whistleblower who was acting lawfully. He first claimed the fax contained a threat but later conceded that there was no threat and no crime, but denied any wrongdoing. The whistleblower had to quit his job.[3]
Here is where he previously covered up a cop killing:
In 2000, in the so-called "Jack in the Box" case, two undercover officers, a police officer and a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officer, shot and killed two unarmed black men in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant in Berkeley, Missouri. In 2001, the officers told a grand jury convened by McCulloch that the suspects tried to escape arrest and then drove toward them; the jury declined to indict.[2][4] McCulloch told the public that every witness had testified to confirm this version, but St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist Michael Sorkin reviewed the previously secret grand jury tapes, released to him by McCulloch, and found that McCulloch's statement was untrue: only three of 13 officers testified that the car was moving forward.[3] A subsequent federal investigation found that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots; nevertheless, federal investigators decided that the shooting was justified because the officers feared for their safety.[2][4] McCulloch also drew controversy when he said of the victims: "These guys were bums."[2] The two men killed, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley, had prior felony convictions on drug and assault charges.[2]
There's more if you need it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
OK, suppose for the moment that Wilson's shooting was justified. [View all]
Jackpine Radical
Nov 2014
OP
It's misspelled in half the news stories floating around. I corrected myself above.
Jackpine Radical
Nov 2014
#11
Journalism has really gone to hell in the 50-odd years I've been an adult. First rule
KingCharlemagne
Nov 2014
#13
It's one of my deep, dark secrets that, far back in my past, I once committed
Jackpine Radical
Nov 2014
#15
Because of his hubris and arrogance, McCulloch himself now stands indicted
KingCharlemagne
Nov 2014
#70
I don't doubt the sincerity of you beliefs or necessarily agree with McCulloch's choices.
branford
Nov 2014
#74
He should not be allowed to touch any case with a police officer as a "victim" or a suspect.
ncjustice80
Nov 2014
#25
My view is that a local prosecutor -- elected or not -- has a conflict of interest when he has
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#28
I think you are right. Unfortunately, McCulloch was just part to the fix, there was no intention of
Hoyt
Nov 2014
#31
McCulloch's father was a cop killed in the line of duty by a black assailant. That
KingCharlemagne
Nov 2014
#10
Nice attempt at deflection, Sparky. Just ignore the fact that the alleged assailant in this
KingCharlemagne
Nov 2014
#26
Yes or No: Do you, LostinAnomie, think McCulloch should have recused himself? Why or
KingCharlemagne
Nov 2014
#63
How's this for conflict of interest: McCulloch's office is responsible for bringing cases that
KingCharlemagne
Nov 2014
#71
sorry, misunderstanding... my opinion was he should have recused himself
Voice for Peace
Nov 2014
#81
No. I completely agree with the OP and was just trying to drive the point home. As the OP explains,
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#45
Not by my thinking, but I may be wrong. I believe he thinks Wilson was justified
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#49
When a great deal of the evidence is already known to be false or misleading,
Jackpine Radical
Nov 2014
#59
The duties and obligations of prosecutors and defense attorneys are very different.
branford
Nov 2014
#82