home

Ferguson News Reports

The media hype over the grand jury decision in Ferguson is over the top. Except for a few stories about Buffalo and one warning of a cyber attack by China or Russia, CNN aired nothing else this afternoon, except commercials. It was that way on my hour drive to the jail to see a client at noon, and that way for the hour drive back at 4 pm. Wolf Blitzer kept breathlessly announcing "We're expecting a grand jury announcement any moment so stay tuned." It's now 3 hours later and there has been no announcement of the grand jury decision. But the media's non-stop reporting of anticipated violent reactions persist. I learned from CNN that Best Buy is closing its stores for the weekend. Schools have decided to close the whole week. Homeowners in outlying areas are stocking up on guns fearing increased crime. Police are worried. And on and on. [More...]

At one point this afternoon, I switched to MSNBC. It was just as bad. I lasted for two minutes, long enough to hear some activist ranting about lynchings and how that's the correct word to use, and that there's a new incident of police killing a black person almost every day. He then gave examples of recent unfair police killings, and included Trayvon Martin. (George Zimmerman was not a police officer.)

When I switched back to CNN, Wolf Blitzer introduced a police officer who represents the police union as a personal friend of Officer Wilson. The officer said he has spoken with Officer Wilson several times since the shooting, but has no information about the details of the Brown killing except what's been in the news. He claimed to know no more than the public. Yet he expressed his belief Wilson did nothing wrong, calling him a "brother in blue."

The spin from both sides on the shooting death of Michael Brown, and the media hype predicting unprecedented violence, are doing nothing but fueling the flames.

I have no idea what happened between Michael Brown and Officer Wilson. An unarmed teenager was shot and killed. The officer apparently claims Brown tried to grab his gun inside his vehicle. Does that justify Wilson's shooting Brown after he exited the vehicle? It seems unlikely to me, but I really have no idea. The witness reports (at least of those who have chosen to speak to the media) are conflicting. The prosecutor has said he'll release the grand jury transcripts after the decision (a clear sign to me Wilson is not going to be indicted)so I'll reserve forming an opinion until I've read them.

The militaristic police response to protesters in the aftermath of the shooting is another matter. We saw that with our own eyes, thanks to web cams and video reports. That was wrong. But the media's current non-stop predictions of unprecedented levels of violence after the grand jury decision is announced are doing nothing but increasing tension and the likelihood police will overreact and respond the same way. I understand the need to fill air time while awaiting an important official announcement, but the media needs to understand the wisdom of exercising some self-restraint in its coverage.

The latest: Hundreds of civil rights lawyers are headed to Ferguson in anticipation of the violence that will occur.

The attorneys are arriving in Ferguson as talks between protest groups and police have stalled over a refusal by officials to rule out the use of riot gear, tear gas and militarized equipment if demonstrations turn violent should a grand jury decide not to indict police officer Darren Wilson, protest leaders say.

...The lawyers are taking instructions from the CCR, the National Lawyers Guild, the Missouri Chapter of the ACLU and the NAACP Legal defense Fund. "We are in a crisis situation and we are here to ensure police let people voice their anger and frustration and don't crack down on protesters as hooligans," [CCR lawyer] Warren said.

And as of two minutes ago, the grand jury is still meeting and no announcement has been made as to when the decision will be revealed.

< New John Cantlie Message Video | CT Releases New Report on Adam Lanza >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Inciting is right (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Redbrow on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:31:44 AM EST
    Bassem Massri is one of the most notorious agitators and has been featured on serveral news stories. There is plenty of footage of him inciting others and violently verbally attacking the officers.

    He even streamed video of himself assaulting an officer and then bragged about it afterward while calling his victim a racist name. Just do a YouTube search for "I straight spit in that crackers face" if interested.

    Holder also sent 100 FBI agents to St Louis (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Redbrow on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:35:52 AM EST
    The FBI arrested two black panthers accused of making straw man firearms purchases and attempting to build bombs.

    CBS retracts irresponsible "bomb" report (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:18:39 AM EST
    GUN PURCHASE. This is a charge is a part of "an investigation spanning several months".  The charge is attempting to make a straw purchase of 2 guns.  This means purchasing a gun under one name but doing it for someone else.

    There is a surge of gun purchases in the region BUT buyers are overwhelmingly white and first time gun buyers. Conveniently this is not being reported honestly (press wouldn't want to appear racist against scared white people).

    BTW There is no law requiring training to buy a gun in MO except for conceal gun permit holders.

    Parent

    Reuters (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    The actual indictment ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:27:35 AM EST
    surge (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jack203 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:50:10 AM EST
    "BUT buyers are overwhelmingly white Conveniently this is not being reported honestly (press wouldn't want to appear racist against scared white people)."

    That was my assumption.  

    What media source did you see that is reporting this dishonestly?

    Parent

    dishonesty by omission (none / 0) (#18)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:50:58 AM EST
    Selectively noting ethnicity is a subtle form of dishonest reporting. Why do the articles not show images of lines of customers at gun stores? Because that documentation would make the fact abundantly clear: frightened or angry
    white people are buying the guns. Who killed their sons?

    Parent
    I don't think you can fairly blame the media (none / 0) (#20)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 10:48:45 AM EST
      in this regard. Although the ATF form (4473) requires purchasers to declare ethnicity and race,* we (and the media) are told the government does not keep stats on the race and ethnicity of the purchasers, so the media would have no method of discovering the race and ethnicity of purchasers and would merely be speculating to state "most purchasers are __."

      On the other hand, reporting that a particular person or persons have been charged with a crime is merely reporting on a matter of public record.

      I can't see that fairly being called a media conspiracy.

      * A couple of notes on this. First, some  media reporting that is subject to fair criticism came a few months back when numerous outlets claimed the Obama administration had initiated the requirement that purchasers declare ethnicity and race. That was false because the recent change to the form actually only created a new category of "ethnicity" requiring people to declare whether they are hispanic or non-hispanic. The old form essentially asked for the same information but put hispanic under "race" rather than having a separate category.

      I will say there might be a pretty good argument that people should not have to declare race or ethnicity in order to buy a gun, but the articles made it sound like an Obama led big brother intrusion which it wasn't.

    Parent

    "Who killed their sons" (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jack203 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 10:08:30 AM EST
    Ignore them if it makes you feel better, but there are a lot of black on white and black on black murders.


    Parent
    Since 70% of the population is white (none / 0) (#30)
    by Redbrow on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    It should come as no surprise that the majority of most consumer goods purchasers are white. And of course 99.9 percent of guns obtained lawfully are used lawfully.

    Parent
    Some questions for people who condemn (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    the protesters in Ferguson.

    Why is this land mass known as the United States of America not a part of Canada? Were demands made on the government of England by people living here? Were people who did not support independence inconvenienced (have their rights disregarded) by the actions of the supporters of independence? Did the creation of this country involve ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence?

    Why did we abolish slavery? Think back to before the civil war. Were demands made of our government? Did the abolitionist conduct acts of civil disobedience? Did  the abolitionist movement involve ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence?

    How did the right for women to vote come about? Were demands made of our government? Did the suffragettes conduct acts of civil disobedience? Were other citizens inconvenienced by their actions? Did  the suffragette movement involve ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence?

    Why are there laws against children working in factories, safety rules and fair labor laws? Did the labor movement make demands on our government? Did they conduct acts of civil disobedience? Were other people inconvenienced by their actions? Did  the labor movement involve ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence?

    Think about whether you celebrate the July 4th, talk with pride about the Boston Tea Party and the actions of our forefathers, cherish the right to vote and are glad that children no longer work in factories. Think about how you celebrate rather than condemn these actions.

    Can you show us how Michael Brown (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:25:17 AM EST
    is equivalent to your examples?

    Parent
    I don't think I referred to Michael Brown (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    once in my comment. Read my comment one more time. It referred to the actions of the protesters in each of the movements (for the lack of a better word) to the actions of the protesters in Ferguson. I will gladly debate my point but refuse to change the debate.

    Parent
    Yes, I agree, MOBlue (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    I would add to your list, the achievement of Civil Rights, and the actions of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.  and the Civil Rights protesters.  They endured beatings, water-hosings, arrests, and even death to achieve their goals.
    And, while I'm at it, I believe to this day that the actions of the anti-Vietnam War protesters led to us getting the he!! out of Vietnam way before we otherwise would have.

    Parent
    What you are doing is wrapping (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:28:23 PM EST
    Brown and the violent protesters/rioters in those things.

    Parent
    What I am doing is pointing out just some (3.50 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    of the history of our country. Our history over the decades is made up of people who protested, rioted, destroyed personal property and did a h€ll of a lot more than throw water bottles  and  at the police and government .

    Now you may want to deny our history but it is there for anyone to read.

    Parent

    No, you are trying to create a false (2.25 / 4) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    scenario.

    Parent
    Nothing false in the fact (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    acts of civil disobedience, ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence were involved in the run up to the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, the suffragette movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.

    As much as you might want to live in denial, those facts are part of our history.

    Parent

    I don't comdemn the ferguson protesters (2.33 / 3) (#33)
    by Redbrow on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    But I think they are misinformed and rushed to judgement largely based on racial prejudice. Still they have every right to protest...peacefully.

    All protest movements and protests are not created equally and are not automatically deserving of respect. A few examples that come to mind are the westborough babtist nut jobs, anti-abortion zealots blowing up clinics or 10,000 democrats in white robes protesting the potential nomination of Al Smith at the DNC Klanbake rally.

    Parent

    "10,000 Democrats"? (4.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:20:52 PM EST
    You mean the anti-Catholic KKK members (as opposed to "Democrats" protesting Smith, who was the Democratic nominee?  No need to worry about those "Democrats", anymore - those conservative Dixiecrats are today's southern Republicans.

    All protest movements and protests are not created equally and are not automatically deserving of respect.

    Nor are all comments.

    Parent

    Over the centuries there were people strongly (3.67 / 3) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    opposed to the various movements that I referenced in my comment.. For every movement that brought great change to our country there were people who did not believe that the cause was just and opposed the actions. This country was not founded on peaceful protest. In each of these movements there were agitators for their cause. None of these movements occurred without extensive protests, civil disobedience, destruction of property and various degrees of violence. This is our history.

    The people who are protesting in Ferguson believe that their cause is just. The protesters are made up of all levels of education  from people with limited education to people with PHDs. Even the most educated and the most affluent believe that racial profiling exists mainly because they themselves or members of their families have experienced it  first hand. To dismiss them as misinformed and racially prejudiced is more then insulting IMO and a reflection of your mind set.

    Parent

    You write: (2.33 / 3) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    This country was not founded on peaceful protest.

    No, it was formed by a revolution, not rioters destroying/stealing/burning private property in the manner that we see today.

    And those founders produced a constitution that explicitly gives the right to the people to assemble and peacefully address their government.

    Let me know when that happens.

    Parent

    That sounds real nice Jim but it is totally false (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    Might want to google "riots prior to the American Revolution."  Here are some hints:

    Stamps
    Sons of Liberty
    Tea

    After googling, hopefully you will be better informed.

    Parent

    Try reading (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    No, it was formed by a revolution, not rioters destroying/stealing/burning private property in the manner that we see today.


    Parent
    I suggest you try reading (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    the history of what occurred in the lead up to the American Revolution.

    In the lead up to the American Revolution, rioters destroying/stealing/burning private property in quite a few cases was worse than what we see today.

    An English Customs Inspector was literally nailed to the wall of a ship. Look up who was the owner of the ship.


    Parent

    Well, yeah ... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    ... if you want to deal in facts.

    But in all fairness, they didn't throw any plastic water bottles.

    Parent

    Nor set fire to... (none / 0) (#101)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:10:15 AM EST
    ...any convenience stores.

    Parent
    if you are so interested, ASK: (none / 0) (#110)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:07:30 AM EST
    Where are the FPD and/or St Louis County Incident Report on the QuikTrip fire?
    Where is the Incident Report on the shooting of Maya Aaten-White Aug 12?
    Where is the bullet surgically removed from peaceful Protestor Maya Aaten-White's head on Aug. 13?


    Parent
    They preferred to burn ships (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    In 1768 his sloop Liberty was impounded by customs officials at Boston Harbor, on a charge of running contraband goods. A large group of private citizens stormed the customs post, burned the government boat, and beat the officers, causing them to seek refuge on a ship off shore. Soon afterward, Hancock abetted the Boston Tea Party. Link

    But please take note they did not throw plastic water bottles. They merely beat the officers. Without water bottles you can have no violence. <heavy snark>

    Parent

    They preferred to burn ships (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    In 1768 his sloop Liberty was impounded by customs officials at Boston Harbor, on a charge of running contraband goods. A large group of private citizens stormed the customs post, burned the government boat, and beat the officers, causing them to seek refuge on a ship off shore. Soon afterward, Hancock abetted the Boston Tea Party. Link

    But please take note they did not throw plastic water bottles. They merely beat the officers. Without water bottles you can have no violence. <heavy snark>

    Parent

    Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:35:10 AM EST
    At times this iPad has a mind of its own.

    Parent
    The actions you refer to were acts of civil (1.50 / 2) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    disobedience targeted at a central government.

    Big difference between painting yourself as a NA and throwing tea in the water as a political protest against a tax versus rioting over a single act of a local police department.... especially when the legal system federal and local... is investigating.

    Of course if the issue is black teenagers being killed they could go to Chicago, Memphis, Detroit...

    Parent

    The protesters are engaging in civil (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    obedience against local government. There is also a big difference in nailing a government official to the wall of a ship and throwing water bottles at police officers decked out in riot gear. More history for you:

    The Patriots were not a tolerant group, and Loyalists suffered regular harassment, had their property seized, or were subject to personal attacks.
    ...
    Thomas Hutchinson - Lt. Governor of MA - 1765, the worst mob in Boston history gutted his home and destroyed its contents.

    Parent

    We've gone over this before (2.67 / 3) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    a bottle of 16 ounces of water weighs just a bit over 1 pound. Heavy enough to kill if hit on the bridge of the nose or crush an adams apple into a choking pulp in the throat or break a neck if hit from behind or a killing concussion hit on the head.

    Again. The founders were revolting against a foreign government. It was a civil war.

    The protests and riots at Ferguson are over a local police action in which a grand jury is investigating to determine if action against the police is required.

    There was no justice for the founders.

    Justice is being given served at Ferguson.

    I am sorry you can't see the difference.

    Parent

    The American Revolution was not going (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:16:30 PM EST
    on when a British Customs Official was nailed to a ships wall, when mobs rioted in MA and destroyed Hutchinson's home, when  342 chests of tea were thrown overboard etc.

    There was not a civil war against a foreign government going on when acts of civil disobedience, ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence were involved in the abolition of slavery, the suffragette movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. The protesters did not feel that their grievances were being addressed by their government even after the issues were often heard in a court of law. The courts ruled in favor of those in power time after time.

    The people in Ferguson do not think that justice is being served and like protesters before them do not think their government and the courts will deliver justice.

    That you think that justice is served because a case is being presented to a Grand Jury ignores the fact that justice is not always served in the courts. The courts have often come down on the wrong side of an issue throughout our history. I'm sorry that you have different standards for the people in Ferguson than you do for other protesters and rioters throughout our history. But there it is.

    Parent

    But justice is never served (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:15:21 PM EST
    That you think that justice is served because a case is being presented to a Grand Jury ignores the fact that justice is not always served in the courts.

    without this.

    And yes, the revolution was starting.

    But what you are trying to do, and I done with this after this, is compare a protest/riot against a local PD because of its acts... acts that are being voluntary investigated by both local and federal, with acts against the government.

    Now, if you want to say that the intent of the people involved at Ferguson is to commit treason and overthrow the US government be my guest.

    Parent

    Do you buy your straw wholesale? (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:45:47 PM EST
    In your zeal to rewrite history  are you now trying to claim that the abolitionist movement, the suffragette movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement were acts of treason and attempts to overthrow the government? As stated before, in all of these cases acts of civil disobedience, ongoing protests, destruction of private property and violence were involved.

    Are you going to rewrite history by stating that justice was served when cases relevant to these movements went to court in the early days of these movements. I suggest you do some reading on the Supreme Court decision that women did not have the right to vote and the use of ant-trust laws to make unions illegal.

    Parent

    The various movements you refer to (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:34:23 AM EST
    were not about a single police action in a small city by a PD. Subject police actions being thoroughly investigated by local and federal officials.

    If your complaint is that young black men are being killed by a failed criminal justice system perpetrated by our culture then you must, if you want to be credible, move your protests to Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, LA, etc.

    The demonstrated unwillingness of the various radical elements of the Ferguson protesters to focus on the multiple killings of young black men  in the multiple locales across the US removes this from any historical connection to the founding fathers.

    Parent

    That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    The various movements you refer to were not about a single police action in a small city by a PD. Subject police actions being thoroughly investigated by local and federal officials.

    Neither are the protests in Ferguson.

    That was easy.


    If your complaint is that young black men are being killed by a failed criminal justice system perpetrated by our culture then you must, if you want to be credible, move your protests to Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, LA, etc.

    First of all, the Ferguson protesters hardly need you and your imaginary metrics to determine what they must do to be deemed a "credible" part of a movement.  Secondly, if you think the Ferguson protests aren't spreading across the country, you haven't been paying attention -

    Ferguson Protests Are Coming to Your City

    "Hands Up, Don't Shoot:" Peaceful Protests Across the Country Last Night.

    Michael Brown Protests Spread Across the Country - People in 90 cities across 35 states gathered on Thursday night show their solidarity with those protesting the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

    Whoops.

    Parent

    The cause (2.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    for any actions anyplace is the protesters/rioters
    actions in Ferguson.

    There is no national consensus.

    But nice cheery picking.

    Parent

    "Cheery picking"? (sic) - Heh, heh (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    Is that what they call introducing facts to your fairy tales, now?  The really shocking part is that you had no clue that there have already been protests in dozens of cities.  When exposed to the truth, you try to shift to a new argument ("no national consensus").

    Embarrassing, huh?

    Parent

    Yes, cheery picking and (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    you and your water carrier can just repeat your incorrect claims.

    And I am done with you because you have nothing to say that applies to my point.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    "Incorrect claims"? - Heh, heh (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    Are you reading your own posts by accident, because my claims are 100% accurate.  You, OTOH, are having trouble with very basic facts known by virtually everyone who has remotely followed this case:

    Jim says - If your complaint is that young black men are being killed by a failed criminal justice system perpetrated by our culture then you must, if you want to be credible, move your protests to Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, LA, etc.

    The demonstrated unwillingness of the various radical elements of the Ferguson protesters to focus on the multiple killings of young black men  in the multiple locales across the US removes this from any historical connection to the founding fathers.

    In reality, that's exactly what they've been doing.  Your ignorance of this basic fact doesn't change that.

    Parent

    Protests across the country (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    have been occurring for several months now.

    And, calling me a water-carrier is the first thing that Jim got right about me so far, as I am an Aquarius. 😃

    Parent

    Sigh.... (2.67 / 3) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    The fact remains that the focus of this is the actions of a small PD resulting protests and riots in a small town with no real national content or effort.

    You think too much of yourself.

    Protest the hundreds being killed in Chicago and other inner cities and then come back.

    That is if Yman will let you.

    lol

    Parent

    The death of any man is nothing (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    to lol about, sigh.

    Parent
    Are you embarrassing Jim again (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 09:16:46 AM EST
    By bringing the facts up in this case?

    Parent
    Jim you are totally uninformed (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 10:17:03 AM EST
    the demonstrated unwillingness of the various radical elements of the Ferguson protesters to focus on the multiple killings of young black men  in the multiple locales across the US removes this from any historical connection to the founding fathers.

    Your statement is not only uniformed but completely untrue. The protesters are more than willing to focus on this as a national issue. How about we let them speak for themselves:


    We are activists, young and old, new and experienced, committed to justice for all people. We believe a change in the culture of law enforcement that leaves unarmed children dead is long overdue. We believe that this is a movement that requires allies from all communities, since all communities should proclaim the humanity of all children. Link


    Parent
    Their actions speak and they have no words (2.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    because "faith without works is dead."

    Let me know when they start demonstrating against the culture that is killing multiple young black males in Chicago.

    Parent

    Protests have and continue to be in US cities (none / 0) (#150)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    On the day of & the day after the announcement of the GJ Decision there will be more than 124 different cities throughout the US.

    Ferguson Protestors are not radical they are the heart and soul patriots of a nation still finding a way to true democracy for all.

    Parent

    Make up your mind, Jim. (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    The founders were revolting against a foreign government. It was a civil war.

    lol; it can't have been both.

    Parent
    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:51:12 PM EST
    That kinda thing can happen when someone's arguing in circles.

    Parent
    It is nice to have someone point out (1.00 / 3) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:16:17 PM EST
    such an obvious mistake.

    Do you have anything of substance to add??

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    I not only didn't catch it, I repeated the same error. My bad.

    Parent
    Family Feud (none / 0) (#19)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    Sadly this uproar now has pretty much devolved into a Family Feud within the Democrat Party at all levels.  

    County Prosecutor McCulloch has deep Democrat Party roots and was instrumental in Obama's rise to the White House. And he now stands off against Obama's Attorney General.

    And it's ironic to look at the people on both sides of the protest lines -- from the Democrat-voting public employee union police to the Democrat-voting black community organizers to the Democrat-voting professional protesters.

    They are all Democrat Party constituents waiting to benefit from Showtime -- all trying their best to draw the neutral citizenry into their squabble on one side or the other.

    The police unionists are getting a lot of new hires and that good overtime pay.

    The professional protesters are being paid already , and warming up as they await their moment on stage and their big performance.

    And behind the scenes are the black community organizers working on their phony programs that they hope to be funded with their hands out for all those tax dollars coming their way.  

    And caught in the middle between them are the residents, merchants, and taxpayers who are paying for this ridiculous show.

    FWIW where I live the true "Tea Party" conservative types were/are incensed over the shooting and the lies and obfuscations that have come from the police side. Most have not lost their senses. They sympathize with the Brown  family and favor an indictment and a fair trial for the officer.

    But the Show must go on, right???

    Parent

    You forgot the "ic" (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    It's "Democratic Party",  Your use of the epithet "Democrat Party" would suggest that the opinions and theories offered therewith - without so much as a shred of evidence to support them - are not only specious but biased as well.

    Parent
    Gosh (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    and all that because of a misspelled word. Whodathunk.  

    But we all have our biases, right???

    Parent

    Common Repub usage is to omit "ic" (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    "Misspelled" several times (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    I was thinking you might offer some evidence to support these claims.

    Guess not.

    Parent

    Evidence to support what??? (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    Your ability to read minds???

    Evidence for that is sorely lacking.

    Parent

    Evidence to support your claims (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    I never claimed to be able to read minds.

    You, OTOH, claimed many things in you post.  Not a shred of evidence to support them.

    Parent

    You are free to disagree (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    and present evidence to the contrary if you so desire. Who's stopping you???

    Parent
    "Evidence to the contrary ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    ... of specious, evidence-free claims?  Why bother?  If someone is claiming the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are real, it's up to them to support their claims with evidence, not for others to disprove them.

    Parent
    That wasn't a spelling error... (none / 0) (#99)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:05:56 AM EST
    ...it was an error of grammar and usage.

    You used a noun where you should have used an adjective.

    Although it may well not have been your intent, there are many, if not most, on the right who do it deliberately so as to use "Democrat" as an epithet, which is much easier to do, sound-wise, with that hard "t" ending, instead of the softer "tic" ending.

    Parent

    Nope, not true (1.50 / 2) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    FWIW where I live the true "Tea Party" conservative types were/are incensed over the shooting and the lies and obfuscations that have come from the police side.

    The people you are writing about are the same ones who wanted Texas to secede from the Union, talk continually about how the government is building camps to imprison everyone, store a years worth of food and how the local sheriff should arrest all federal agents who come in their county and believe that every police shooting is the result of a conspiracy.

    Shorter. Nut cases.

    The Tea Party people I know want to change the direction of the country by working within the system. That would include peacefully accepting the results of a grand jury and cleaning up their own mess after peaceful demonstrations.

    Two very different groups.

    Parent

    Not different at all (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    The people you are writing about are the same ones who wanted Texas to secede from the Union, talk continually about how the government is building camps to imprison everyone, store a years worth of food and how the local sheriff should arrest all federal agents who come in their county and believe that every police shooting is the result of a conspiracy.

    Shorter. Nut cases.

    ...

    Two very different groups.

    Meet Joni Ernst - wants local law enforcement to arrest federal agents implementing the ACA.  Also a big proponent of UN conspiracy theories.

    Supported by the largest Tea Party PAC.

    Secession from the U.S.?  Tea Partiers are the biggest proponents.  In fact, a majority support secession:

    And of the people who said they identified with the Tea Party, supporters of secession were actually in the majority, with 53 percent.

    Parent

    And you and who polled all tea party members?? (1.67 / 3) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    Fact is that you have never attended a Tea Party meeting and know no one that is.

    All you know is what you've been told by people who hate the thought of people disagreeing with them as much as you do.

    Parent

    You of little experience (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:44:35 PM EST
    Fact is you have never attended a Ferguson Protest and know no one that has. Or, I might add, stay behind to help sweep and pick up the site t as people do in Ferguson Protests.

    Parent
    A good point but it has nothing (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    to do with the facts as they pertain to Yman's claims about the Tea Party.

    And I have never claimed to attended a Ferguson protest/riot nor do I intend to.

    Parent

    What?!? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:54:25 PM EST
    So polls are only valid if they're done personally?  Or if they poll every member of a group?

    You really have no idea how polling works, do you?

    BTW - If you had bothered to click on the link I provided, you would see it was done by Reuters.  Not that facts will make a difference to your response.

    Parent

    BTW - do you know the difference (2.50 / 4) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    between an actual Tea Party organization and a political action committee??

    Parent
    Sue - the PACs support ... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    ... the Tea Party organizations which, according to you, doesn't exist because it's not a national party ...

    ... or some such nonsense you engage in when you want to deny the truth about your fellow TPers.

    Parent

    Ferguson Protestors are being well paid? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    Oh, you mean helicopter Sharptons.

    Frankly, there are not so many of helicopter protestors as you think and they are really not Ferguson Protestors. Most of the Protestors are holding down jobs, sometimes two and working hard to plan, supervise, participate  and support the Protests Movement and the community. Or they have taken official leave from professional jobs or universities and relying on savings. Protestors are teachers, students, clergy, lawyers, blue collar/white collar...

    It is important to note that the Unified Command of the State of Emergency refused to agree that Legal Observers, Medics and Clergy should be protected from police violence and the arrests. At least they are consistent-they haven't respected them in the first 105 days. The Red Cross will be there too but will they be respected?
    BTW, When riot garbed cops crudely arrested the Pastor on Thursday they removed her bright orange vest with large print word CLERGY. The vest was later found thrown over a barricade.

    Thanks for the article citation you posted above.

    Parent

    It's almost like it's not about (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    Michael Brown anymore.   All these other deaths have happened since with no consequence.  The situation has taken on a life of its own.   I don't see it ending well but it would be great if somehow it could.   Whatever happens good or bad there will be live coverage.  

    For the relatively uninitiated in the (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:44:09 PM EST
    claims, back & forth, and intricate detail arguments characterizing the Ferguson-facts dispute, when I read your comment, Howdy, I agreed and started humming "What's it all about, Alfie?"  The fundamental dividing line of Race seems obvious even to those only reading from afar (like myself.)  But, something else too, maybe?

    Even from afar, the media hyping (or spurring on?) about potential violence defines said media itself ... and, despite all their cameras and news people, one gets the impression that they are now lost in the "tension" they have stoked. I keep thinking about that saying from my youth: What if they gave a war, and no one came?

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 05:40:45 PM EST
    "What if they gave a war, and no one came?"

    I almost used that phrase in the comment you responded to.  

    Parent

    I don't know... (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by bmaz on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 10:25:30 PM EST
    ...what happened either. That said, I am very troubled by the separation of the conduct, however it germinated and played out, while Wilson was in the cruiser and when, subsequently, the kill shot purportedly hit Brown some 130+ feet away.

    The other thing I will say is I am stunned by how accepting the media, and most of the public, have been of the way the grand jury presentation has been conducted by McCulloch's office. I have never seen anything like it, both as far as intentionally non-focused and confusing gross scope, and then coupled with not presenting a draft indictment. Any grand jury that has heard other cases that are handled other cases normally presented, as I understand this one has, would immediately know this was being indicated as a no-bill worthy matter by the prosecution attending them. It is just ridiculous.

    Are you saying... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:23:16 AM EST
    ...that the "kill shot" was fired from a distance of over 100 feet between the gun and Brown, or just that Brown was over 100 feet from the police vehicle in which Wilson was no longer seated?

    Parent
    So (3.50 / 2) (#100)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:08:50 AM EST
    we're just going to ignore Wilson's account of what happened here?  What might you have done, had you just been attacked by a 290 lb. suspect, and he attempted to close within lunging distance of you, ignoring demands to halt, and come no closer?  Has it occurred to you that shell casings, blood stains, and unidentified witnesses may confirm Wilson's account?

    Were you the prosecutor, how would you have handled this, if you realized you could not demonstrate the existence of "probable cause"?


    Parent

    Wilson's account? Where can I read that? (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    You know, in his words, and not what someone else says he said.  Is there a transcript of an interview?

    And I have to say that the descriptions of Michael Brown get more florid with every telling.  You and others never fail to describe him in the most menacing terms you can think of.  And yet, he wasn't the one with the gun, was he?  He was the one running away in fear for his life - a fear that was apparently justified, seeing as how he's dead and all.

    Michael Brown can't tell us anything; Darren Wilson can invoke the so-rote-we-could-write-it-ourselves "I was in fear for my life" defense that must be tattooed somewhere on every cop's body, kind of like the arm sleeves quarterbacks wear with all the plays on it.

    But in answer to your question:

    What might you have done, had you just been attacked by a 290 lb. suspect, and he attempted to close within lunging distance of you, ignoring demands to halt, and come no closer?

    you left something out: that whole "attempt to close within lunging distance" came after Brown ran away.  So, if that had been me, and I'd been afraid Brown was going to harm me, I would not have gone after him to give him another opportunity to do so.  If Wilson was in fear for his life, that danger ended when Brown removed himself from Wilson's presence.

    Why do the Wilson defenders always leave that out of the equation?

    Parent

    And just what evidence (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    do you have that the sources relied upon, by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for Officer Wilson's account, are lying?  Dorian? Piaget?  Tiffany?  

    Parent
    Non-responsive. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    My points, in case you missed them, are:

    1.  There is no publicly available first-hand report/account from Darren Wilson, only second- and third-hand, cobbled-together, devoid of challenge, relayed-by-the-media - always so reliable in their interpretation of what someone has said, right? - or friends of Wilson's.  And they are being put out there by people who weren't there, saw nothing, experienced nothing.  There were statements by the police chief that are in conflict with the story you keep trying to tell.  

    Ever play "Gossip?"  You know, the game where you whisper something to the person next to you, who whispers what you said to the person next to them, and so on, and eventually, there's someone whispering in your ear what you said to the first person...and how seldom it resembles anything like what you said.

    2.  I answered your question about what I would have done - or what I would not have done.  You have failed to provide a logical reason why someone in fear for his life went after the person he allegedly says put him in that position.  You haven't told us how someone running away is putting the person he's running away from in fear to the point where he starts shooting at him.  

    I realize this all took place within a matter of seconds, so when Brown takes off, I can see Wilson looking to see where he's headed, I can see Wilson putting out a call for assistance with information about where he is and the direction in which Brown is fleeing.  I can see him putting his car in gear and trying to follow Brown.  But there is no logic in Wilson being in mortal danger or even thinking he's in mortal danger from someone who's running away from him.

    1.  You keep hammering the image of Brown as a hulking menace, but you never speak to Wilson's size and the fact that he was the one with the gun.  All the reports I have seen put Wilson as being at least as big as Brown, and yet, you never mention the possibility that Brown could have been afraid of this behemoth of a cop with a gun.  How is that not part of this equation?

    2.  We know that no two people will experience an event in exactly the same way; differences in what they report are not necessarily because they or others involved are lying about what they saw or heard, and yet, that's your explanation for why one person's account differs from another's.

    Finally, we are not a court of law.  We are not sitting on any jury, grand or otherwise.  We will not hear testimony, cross-examine witnesses, examine evidence.  So, my advice to you would be to chill the fk out, go sit down in your not-even-a-bystander chair and try to give the legal system the opportunity to work through what it needs to.

    If you're so all-fired determined to see that justice is done and people are held to account, stop being a pretend lawyer/reporter from the comfort of the chair in front of your keyboard, and get involved in your own city's system.  I can assure you that, wherever it is you live, justice is not always being done, and people are unfairly paying for that.


    Parent

    Anne writes (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    But there is no logic in Wilson being in mortal danger or even thinking he's in mortal danger from someone who's running away from him.

    But a witness disagrees.

    2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him

    {crosstalk}

    #2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him -

    Link

    Parent

    One problem (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    But there is no logic in Wilson being in mortal danger or even thinking he's in mortal danger from someone who's running away from him.

    There is a very good possibility that at some point, for some reason, Brown turned around and was not "running away from him."  For what has been leaked, or what we think we know of the evidence, Brown was facing him (there were no shots to Brown's back) - maybe in surrender, maybe in charge.  So, the whole premise of your statement, that "...there is no logic" is entirely a false premise. If Brown was facing him and in a charge, then there absolutely is "a logic".  

    Parent

    My premise is that when Brown ran from (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    the police vehicle, away from Wilson, Wilson was no longer in mortal danger; Brown was on foot and running, and Wilson was in his vehicle.  Where is the danger to Wilson at that point?  That was my premise.  I know it was only seconds, but it was, to me, a pivot point.  

    You left something out of what you quoted.  This:

    I realize this all took place within a matter of seconds, so when Brown takes off, I can see Wilson looking to see where he's headed, I can see Wilson putting out a call for assistance with information about where he is and the direction in which Brown is fleeing.  I can see him putting his car in gear and trying to follow Brown.
     Followed directly by this:
    But there is no logic in Wilson being in mortal danger or even thinking he's in mortal danger from someone who's running away from him.
    ought to have made it clear I was talking about it not being logical for Wilson to continue to feel in danger from someone who has removed himself from the situation and is running away.

    You can makes a case - and you and others have - that the next part of the event - Wilson going in pursuit of Brown - is what may have set up a scenario where Wilson could claim to be in fear for his life, but in the moments immediately after Brown took off from the vehicle, that danger was no longer present.  

    And frankly, there is still dispute about whether Brown was "charging" at Wilson at the point where he stopped running and turned around.  Add to that the fact that there had been no sign of any weapon in Brown's possession, and the fact that these two men were roughly the same size, and you have more questions about the reasonableness of Wilson just shooting and shooting and shooting at Brown.

    Police officers with guns somehow manage to get control of suspects who may or may not have a weapon without shooting them multiple times, so why, at the point where Brown was no longer running and had clearly been shot more than once, Wilson kept shooting is a question only Wilson can answer.  

    Parent

    And you should realize (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    that yes, at the moment Brown took off, Wilson should not have been in fear for his life. However, what you leave out is that, if what we think we know of Wilson's story is true - that Brown was a person who not only was capable, but actually grabbed for an officer's gun, then Wilson  can also logically have a fear for other people's lives.  

    But at the moment Brown turns around, which is the crux of the entire case, in my opinion, is what matters.  If he turned around and tried to surrender, then your statement that Wilson could not have a logical reason to be in fear would probably be true.  If, however, Brown turned and started charging Wilson, as some witnesses claim, it seems Wilson would have a good argument of being in fear.

    Parent

    What was Officer Wilson's perception (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    if and when Michael Brown turned to face the officer.  Distance, posture, movement, belief Brown was armed.  Objective reasonableness of Wilson's belief.

    Parent
    If Wilson was so concerned for (none / 0) (#163)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    other people's lives, he should never have just been firing his weapon in a residential area like that - he put more people at risk from stray bullets than he or anyone else was in from Michael Brown.

    I'm not leaving anything out, jb - others have addressed, ad nauseam, elements of the event based on Wilson being in fear for his life, have packaged an entire scenario where, at every point, it is Brown who is in the wrong; it is not leaving anything out to offer other possibilities to consider, as I and others see them, nor is it leaving anything out to point out the simple fact that when Michael Brown takes off, Wilson is no longer in danger.

    Yes, I know that Wilson had the authority to use his weapon in pursuit of someone he is attempting to arrest - but having the authority does not mean he is required to use it.

    Parent

    I guess the problem is (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    you keep stating things as fact:  "There is no logical reason for Wilson to be in fear for his life...."

    You have also said: "You can makes a case - and you and others have - that the next part of the event - Wilson going in pursuit of Brown - is what may have set up a scenario where Wilson could claim to be in fear for his life, but in the moments immediately after Brown took off from the vehicle, that danger was no longer present."  I agree with this statement, at this point, - but it does not account for the fact that if Brown was charging (or rather, Wilson had a reasonable interpretation that he was charging), then that danger may once again have been present.

    This was not a two-step situation: 1) events at car and then 2) Brown take off running and Wilson shoots him.  There is a possible third leg to this timeline - 3) Brown turns back around and either surrenders or charges. You keep leaving off the end of the scenario.  Yes, if Brown had kept running into the neighborhood, the conversation stops there.  But he apparently did it - why will you not address that point?

    Parent

    Oh, for Pete's sake... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 11:56:49 AM EST
    I know it wasn't a two-step situation, which is why I specifically stated that

    Wilson going in pursuit of Brown - is what may have set up a scenario where Wilson could claim to be in fear for his life

    Am I crazy, or does that not address the fact that Brown running from Wilson was not the end of the event?  Or do you not understand that saying it could have set up the situation where Wilson could claim to be in fear for his life is an acknowledgment that more happened than just Brown running away?

    This ongoing effort to have to explain words that are already right there in black-and-white is exhausting.  

    Here, read this.

    I don't know why it is that you - and others - seem to think that the only way to discuss this is in the context of Wilson being justified in his actions - all of them - but that's what I see in your comments.  For all your care to use the word "if" and "maybe" and all those other modifiers, you don't ever seem to spend a whole lot of time working from any premise that Brown could possibly have been a victim of an arrogant, overly-aggressive, overzealous police officer working out of a police department with a bit of a problem with excessive use of force, in a community where it didn't seem like the police felt much compunction to act like the public servants they were supposed to be.


    Parent

    Looking at this officer-involved shooting (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    from whether the perspective of whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable is really the only relevant issue. Michael Brown is not being investigated by a grand jury.

    Parent
    As a lawyer, (none / 0) (#170)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    suppose you were charged with defending Wilson.  Would you not seek to validate, in the mind of the jury, his claim that he was viciously attacked by Brown, by reference to Brown's conduct, and state of mind, as depicted in that now infamous video?  (Here relying on the sources interviewed by the Post-Dispatch for Wilson's account of what happened.)  We now seem to be well past the point of plausibly denying that a robbery took place, given the admissions of Dorian's attorney on that head.  Would you not argue that fear of being "busted" for robbery, and caught with a pocket of the "leafy green" needed to make "blunts" of stolen "cigarillos," put him in a combative state of mind?  (For the "weed," see Source: Darren Wilson says Michael Brown kept charging, SLPD, 10-22-14.)  Would you not further argue that the assault at the squad car, and struggle over his firearm, colored Wilson's perception of the harm Brown might do to him, were he again allowed to get within lunging distance?  Would you not argue that Brown, after a brief pursuit, came at your client and defied demands to halt?  I really don't see how you break the continuum of causation here.

    All this, of course, is a mere hypothetical, not intended as a statement of fact.

    Parent

    Who know's Michael (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    Brown's state of mind?  But of course Wilson's lawyer would offer into evidence and put on witness testimony as to all the circumstances of the incident.

    Parent
    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    In the only other GJ held to investigate whether or not police officers were justified in shooting two unarmed men.

    On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch's office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.

    Sounds like McCulloch's office put the dead men on trial by presenting damaging evidence which might not be allowed at an actual trial.

    Parent

    Maybe you missed (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    all the posts where I said the best thing to happen would be an indictment? Get the evidence out in public so instead of bloviating on a blog, we could all see it presented in an open forum? I think it comes down to: 1) Was Michael Brown approaching the officer in what could be perceived as in a threatening manner (after already allegedly starting a violent encounter with him seconds earlier)? and 2) Was the officer's reaction to the situation reasonable?   That's it. All this other peripheral anecdotes about the racial makeup of the Ferguson police force, Robert McCullough, protests and riots, etc. are interesting, and may be good for the greater societal conversation, but they don't really have anything to do with the main issue at hand.

    (Of course, we heard evidence in another case that shall not be named, yet there are those who choose to ignore that evidence and still want to go with "he was armed with tea and Skittles," so I guess there are some who won't look at facts no matter what).

    Yes, Wilson's actions could have "set up" the tragic end result.  Of course, Brown's actions could have also "set up" the tragic end result, and while he didn't deserve to die, acting like Brown was just sitting around and Wilson went all Die Hard on him is crazy. Seems like there is enough blame to go around here.

    I'm not making excuses for anyone, but strangely, you have definitely made up your mind about what happened that day, what is going on with the Grand Jury, how the prosecutor is or is not handling the presentation of evidence, how a police officer should handle every violent encounter (even though I'm guessing you never have been in a situation like this), etc.  I just can't see how you can be so set in your opinion of what happened, without at least considering other facts,  except for the fact that you have an inherent bias against anything law enforcement related, so I'm guessing that's where your blinders are on.

    Parent

    No, jb, I have not definitely made up my (2.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    mind, and I am not inherently biased against anything related to law enforcement.

    You really need to stop guessing what I think and what I'm all about, because you are really, really bad at it.

    Here's what I see (and Jesus, how many times am I going to have to do this before you open your eyes and read all the words?):

    I see a bunch of people starting from the end, and working their way to the beginning, and at each step coming up with a scenario that supports a finding of Wilson being justified in his shooting of Brown.

    The language people use is deliberately florid, packed with negative imagery: it was a "violent" encounter in the convenience store - but not so violent that anyone reported it, or even reported any injury from it or weapon used.  Brown is always "hulking" and "a menacing giant" and "hopped up" on something.  He's always "angry" and belligerent.  Any move Brown makes toward Wilson is "bum-rushing" or "charging."

    And this from people who weren't there, who seem to need this emotional and vividly negative language in order to make their case.

    How fair is that, jb?  Offering another take on these elements doesn't mean I've "definitely" made up my mind -  I don't think any of us has enough information to do that, and in any event, we are neither judge nor jury and it doesn't really matter what we think.

    Where I come from, though, is that I think looking at it from a different angle is part of having an open mind, not an indication that my mind is made up.  

    Parent

    The person, (none / 0) (#177)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    apparently a customer, who called to report the robbery, can be heard in the background of one of the radio dispatches alerting the officers of the situation.

    "The Post's sources say the levels [of tetrahydrocannabinol] in Brown's body may have been high enough to trigger hallucinations."  (Evidence supports officer's account, Washington Post, 10-23-14.)

    Parent

    Did Wilson fire shots at Brown (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    when he was running away? All reports I've read indicate that he did shoot at Brown as he tried to flee.

    I can't find one report that stated that Wilson held off shooting at Brown until he turned around. If you have seen such a statement, I would be interested in reading it and would appreciate it if you would provide a link.


    Parent

    There are conflicting witness statements (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    about when the "first" shot was fired, so this is why I think it's the crux of the case.

    Several of the witnesses who have spoken to the media who said Wilson shot at Brown while he was fleeing also said he was shot in the back, which most likely isn't true, so their perception of the direction he was facing might also not be true.  Since this all happened in a matter of seconds, it would be very easy for witnesses to disagree as to whether he was turned around or fleeing when the first shot was fired, so it's a little premature to say anything with any certainty at this time.

    Parent

    O.K. If there were conflicting statements (none / 0) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    From witnesses as to when the first shots were fired, please provide a link to the witness who said that Wilson did not fire at Brown until he turned around.

    For actual witnesses to disagree on this specific issue, at least one witness to the actual event has to say that Wilson withheld fire until Brown turned around. I haven't been able to find a witness statement that says that. Please provide a link to the witness statement that substantiates your premise that at least one witness has said Brown was facing Wilson when the first shots were fired.

    Parent

    I suspect (none / 0) (#165)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    he didn't, but if Wilson fired a shot at Brown as he fled, so what?  If he was attacked by Brown, as he is thought to claim, Brown had become a violent felon.  Missouri law expressly authorizes a peace officer to use whatever force is deemed necessary to prevent the escape of a violent felon.  You want the cite?

    One might raise an interesting quibble about whether Missouri tracks federal law on this particular, but I think we all realize that prosecution under federal law is most unlikely.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    There are several witnesses who allegedly support your theory - that Brown was fleeing and Wilson shot while Brown's back was to him.  There is, however, at least one witness who said Wilson was backing up as he was shooting (which, by any logic, indicates that Brown was not running away with his back turned). There is also Wilson, of course - not that you are inclined to believe him, but he is a witness. And of course, we don't know what parts of the event they allegedly back up, but there are reportedly at least six African American witnesses, who chose not to come forward and speak to the media, but back up Wilson's version of events as well.

    I discount anything said to the media in the heat of the event. I am leery of what has been leaked so far from the Grand Jury proceedings, but I think that might be more in line with actual events than what people say in front of a TV camera. I hope we do get to see all the evidence presented - it won't answer all the questions, but it might shine a light on some aspects and put to bed rumors of others.

    Parent

    There was no first hand account of a witness in (none / 0) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    your linked article who stated that Wilson only started firing at Brown after he turned around.

    Who was the witness who said Wilson was backing up when firing at Brown? Don't find his name or an actual quote from him in your linked article.  Was that  his complete statement or only part of a statement?  There was a worker who said that Wilson fired at the fleeing Brown when his back was turned and then backed up as he continued to fire at Brown after Brown turned around. If another witness said this please provide his names and his complete statement.

    BTW, we do not now have a statement by Wilson of his account of what transpired.

    Exactly who was the source for the report that at least 6 African Americans substantiated Wilson's account? Where did he/she get that information? If that person was so knowledgeable about what transpired before the GJ, why the qualifier? Why wasn't the exact number provided? The claims by these well-placed sources have been debunked on a regular basis (see fractured eye socket) much like the claim that Judge Whittington had agreed to release all evidence presented to the GJ.

    The idea that we will be able to see all the evidence sounds real nice but seems less likely we will ever see it all based on the Judge's letter.

    Parent

    CLAYTON * If the grand jury has decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch's office is planning to release grand jury documents without seeking a judge's approval, a lawyer for McCulloch said Monday.


    Parent
    The "hands up" (none / 0) (#158)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    meme seems, in light of Dr. Baden's findings, to have gasped its last.  He has expressly stated that those findings are "consistent with" Wilson's account of what took place.  Speaking of which, I'm at a loss to imagine why it should be thought that the sources relied upon by the Post-Dispatch conveyed anything at variance with Wilson's testimony to the grand jury.

    Parent
    And just what evidence ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    Let's be clear here:

    The statements by Dorian, Piaget, Tiffany, Mike Brady, the two landscapers,... are all acceptable in a court of law as first hand evidentiary testimony. They were eyewitnesses.

    The statements by Wilson's whatevers who remain nameless to this day is nothing but hearsay and worthless in a court of law. They mean nothing.

    On the bright side, your paragraphs are getting better.

    Just remember: "paragraphs are our friends".

    Parent

    This incident (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    has been extremely polarizing, with respect to both race and "class", and one would expect this to be reflected in the representations of witnesses.  I suggest it doesn't do much for the credibility of Piaget and Tiffany that they were caught on video "talking it up" with Dorian before they were interviewed.  As for Dorian, well. . . .

    It not infrequently happens that the witness who seems most eager to help you "make your case" ends up blowing you out of the water.  The construction worker interviewed by the Post-Dispatch thought the shooting wholly unjustified, presumably because, not having witnessed Brown's assault on Wilson, he thought him harmless.  His lay opinion is inadmissible.  Where he kills you is on the distances.  He says only 10 feet separated Brown and Wilson when the latter began to retreat, firing.  He further says Brown continued towards Wilson another 25 feet.  The reporter notes that a second witness says Brown fell only 4 feet from Wilson.  (Workers who were witnesses provide new perspectives, 9-7-2014.)  This dovetails with what we know of Wilson's account, through sources also interviewed by the SLPD.  Are you seriously proposing we are permitted to consider here only information admissible in court?  How did you come by such an extraordinary notion?  

    Parent

    Whitecap (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    Piaget and Tiffany that they were caught on video "talking it up" with Dorian before they were interviewed.

    As opposed to what -- Wilson's caucusing with his buddies 20 seconds after the shoot??? his meeting with a union rep within minutes of the shoot??? his failure to fill out his report???? his silence as he allows others to go out and lie for him???

    And don't get me started on all the lies coming from the mouth of his Chief -- some of which have never been corrected by him or the crack reporters in the media.

    Everything relevant thing that Piaget/Tiffany/Dorian/et al have said thus far, and they said it early on with benefit of the forensic evidence at their fingertips, has turned out to be true even though what they said was mocked as "no way that can be true" -- but it was.

    On the other hand atleast a half dozen things that the white police chief said about the shooting at the beginning have turned out to have been prefabrications.

    Now would someone tell us again why we should dismiss the statements of the black eyewitnesses whose statements are corroborated by forensic evidence and dispatches, and stoop to acccepting hearsay and white lies from those who weren't there?

    BTW Your paragraphs need work.

    Parent

    Actually (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Palli on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:58:53 PM EST
    if you watched the protests, even from the comfort of your easy chair, you would see these protests are not polarizing racially or economic class.
    The polarization comes between people of the law and order mindset (cop wife groupies included) who are often also racist and people of all types who want to see:
    1.) Indictment of Darren Wilson.
    2.) Changes in police conduct (that is protect & serve all of the community), like the following:
    better police training incl. bias training police training, anger management training;
    new guidelines for the use of Force (especially police policy "shoot to kill", accountability of police officer actions;
    (body & auto cameras that individual officers cannot disarm);
    citizen review boards with effective power.
    Citizens young and old, euro-Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans- patriotic Americans all make up the nationwide Ferguson Protests.


    Parent
    Many of the conclusions you reach (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    are dependent upon it being Brown who assaulted Wilson, and not Wilson being the first to get physical with Brown.  Wilson's defense also depends on him being the victim.

    The thing is that just because Wilson needs to be the victim doesn't mean he was.  Your/Wilson's version of Brown going for the gun could just as easily be Brown trying to prevent Wilson from shooting him - would you have us believe that if, in fact, it was Wilson who was going for his gun, that Brown should not have made an effort to prevent that?  And I don't know why it isn't plausible that, having been dinged by a shot from Wilson's gun, and knowing he had no way to defend himself if more shots were coming, Brown tried to get as far from Wilson as he could.

    Wait, I know why it isn't plausible: because you all are working backward from the killing and coming up with a scenario where it was all justified.

    And for all the conjecture you and others have made about what was going on in Brown's head, you've been strangely reluctant to discuss Wilson's mindset, Wilson's history, the culture of the PD where Wilson was working out of, the culture of the PD where Wilson came from.  It appears to me that there was an attitude among law enforcement that they could do what they wanted.  And nothing backs that up more than how the police responded in the aftermath, the way they treated innocent people, their aggression, their confrontational attitude, their utter defiance of anyone's rights.


    Parent

    Wilson (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    was lawfully authorized to "get physical" with Brown.  A BOLO on the Ferguson Market theft had gone out, followed by a very accurate description of Brown, down to his cap and color of his socks.  We know Wilson must have heard this, because he inquired whether his assistance was needed in locating the suspects.  This gave him the "reasonable suspicion" necessary for an "investigative detention" of Brown.  That encompasses the right to use the force deemed necessary to prevent flight, cuffing, and "frisking."  Actually, a strong argument can be made that he had "probable cause" for an arrest.  I have pointed out, on several occasions, the reasons Brown had to be combative: his "shopping expedition" and, according to the autopsy report, possession of the "leafy green" needed to make "blunts" of "cigarillos."  These observations have been met with absolute, dead, resentful silence.

    Parent
    If Wilson is to be believed... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    (bearing in mind that currently "Wilson said" is being used as shorthand for "What others, presumably in a position to know, have said that Wilson said")

    ...then Brown, a suspect in a violent robbery which occurred just moments prior, assaulted a police officer and tried to take the officer's gun.

    This leaves Wilson with the burden of not letting Brown get away and possibly endanger other members of the public*, so he would not have been doing his job if he'd just backed off and let Brown leave.

    In addition to shooting you if you attack them, the police can also shoot you if necessary to affect an arrest where the arrestee-to-be is considered a danger to the public if not arrested and is not co-operating with the process of being arrested.

    *Someone who committed strong arm robbery, then assaulted a cop and tried to take his gun, would likely not shrink from car-jacking the next passing motorist, or from taking hostages.


    Parent

    Federal Prosecution? (3.00 / 2) (#58)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    There have been several media reports relative to the prospects of a federal prosecution of Darren Wilson, in the likely event he escapes prosecution by the State.  All such reports I have seen suggest a federal prosecution is unlikely.  The authorities consulted by reporters opine, for the most part, that the government would find it most difficult, on this set of facts, to show that Wilson "willfully" violated Brown's civil rights.  I have not come across any discussion elaborating on this "willfulness" element.  In the Rodney King case, the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals addressed "willfulness" at some length.  (U.S. v. Koon, 34 F. 3rd 1416)  It approved the trial court's instruction that "It is not necessary for you to find that a defendant was thinking in constitutional terms at the time.  You may find that a defendant acted with the required specific intent, even if you find that he had no real familiarity with the Constitution or with the particular constitutional right involved. . . ."  "Intent" is defined as "the intent to use more force than is reasonable under all the circumstances."  I don't offhand see how a lighter burden could be imposed on the prosecution.  For what it's worth, my lay judgment suggests that "willfulness" is here serving as a smoke screen to obscure the awkward fact that the DOJ fears it will not be able to show that Wilson acted, in constitutional terms, unreasonably.

    My non-lay judgment ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    For what it's worth, my lay judgment suggests that "willfulness" is here serving as a smoke screen to obscure the awkward fact that the DOJ fears it will not be able to show that Wilson acted, in constitutional terms, unreasonably.

    ... is that federal charges would be difficult for a number of reasons, none of which are an imaginary "smokescreen".

    Parent

    For cryin' out loud, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    you're just proving my point.  The burden of proof required here, except for the advantage of the "preponderance of the evidence standard," does not seem to differ, in any material respect, from a Sec. 1983 civil "excessive force" case.  Crump, should he sue, will also have to overcome the "qualified good faith immunity" defense, the presumptions that favor law enforcement officers, etc., etc,. etc.  He would simply have to show, however, that a reasonable officer, in Wilson's position, wouldn't have used deadly force.  How do you figure the state prosecutor has an easier burden?

    The above is an expression of lay inference, not "fact," legal or otherwise.

    Parent

    Here, (none / 0) (#71)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    according to WaPo, is what Rachel Harmon, law professor at the University of Virginia, and former prosecutor in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, has to say about the matter:  "There is an extra burden in federal civil rights cases because the statute requires that the defendant acted "willfully."  She goes on to say that if Darren Wilson "genuinely believed he was acting in self-defense, his actions were not 'willful.'"  (Federal civil rights charges unlikely against peace officer, Saul Horowitz, 10-31-14.)

    So there's the problem: self-defense, not "willfulness."

    Not your area of practice, is it?

    Parent

    It is not my area of practice (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    Although I did civil rights work many years ago - at the DOJ, in fact.

    That being said, if you think my comment proves your point, reading comprehension is not your area of practice.  I was pointing out that there are many reasons such criminal prosecutions are difficult and that your claims of a "smokescreen" are, as usual, completely specious.

    Hopefully, that was clear enough.

    Parent

    Ok, (2.00 / 4) (#83)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 07:45:26 PM EST
    name me one, specifically, hotshot.

    Parent
    You mean beyond the several ... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:47:28 PM EST
    ... in the link I posted?

    1.  Click the link
    2.  Read


    Parent
    With all due respect, (2.33 / 3) (#102)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:10:34 AM EST
    you are babbling nonsense.

    Parent
    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 07:30:20 AM EST
    I'm pointing out the article I linked to in my first response lists several reasons, which is precisely what you were asking for:

    Ok, name me one (other reasons these prosecutions are difficult), specifically, hotshot.

    The fact that you are unable (or choose not) to comprehend is not my problem.

    Parent

    Ok, (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    too wet for yard work this morning, so:  The article you link to asserts 4 difficulties for federal prosecution.  These are (1), the law, (2), issues of proof, (3), strong presumption in favor of law enforcement, and (4), "selective leaking" and "public opinion."  All save (1) apply, with equal weight, to the state prosecution.  Apart from the "willfulness" requirement, the only other obstacle to federal prosecution, of any consequence, under (1), is the "qualified immunity" doctrine.

    Qualified immunity is a powerful defensive weapon.  In lay terms, it requires the prosecution to show, in light of "clearly established law," that a reasonably trained peace officer -could- not have believed his action lawful.  What the defendant -actually- believed is thus put aside.  

    For sake of example:  A 400 lb. individual, "off his meds," went berserk, and started charging, with a pitchfork, anyone who dared approach him.  The sheriff, at a loss for how to handle the situation, called in a vet, and had him shot with a tranquilizer dart.  This had, unfortunately, fatal consequences.  The sheriff was dismissed from the following Sec. 1983 litigation on a "qualified immunity" motion.  

    It is difficult to see how "qualified immunity" could have any application to the case at hand, since the prosecution witnesses aver that Brown was no threat to Wilson when he "gunned him down."

    Parent

    That's great ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    Apart from the "willfulness" requirement, the only other obstacle to federal prosecution, of any consequence, under (1), is the "qualified immunity" doctrine.

    ... that you believe it is "the only other obstacle of any consequence".  Personally, I'll stick with the conclusions of those who have actually done it for a living.


    It is difficult to see how "qualified immunity" could have any application to the case at hand, since the prosecution witnesses aver that Brown was no threat to Wilson when he "gunned him down."

    It's not remotely difficult for anyone else to see, unless you're stipulating to the witness's claims that Brown was no threat to Wilson when he shot him, which, of course, Wilson isn't doing.  Here's a good primer on federal qualified immunity in these cases and a good one on the many difficulties of bringing federal charges in these kinds of cases.  Nothing at all to do with "smokescreens".  They're just extremely difficult cases to bring, based on the extremely high hurdles established under the law.

    Parent

    Again, (none / 0) (#122)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    you are simply confusing yourself.  The testimony of the prosecution witnesses precludes the availability of a "qualified immunity" defense for Wilson.  The law is "clearly established" that an officer can't "gun down" a suspect who represents no threat to himself or others.

    Parent
    I'm not the one who's confused (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 11:19:43 AM EST
    You are correct that a police officer who guns down a suspect who clearly represents no threat to himself or others cannot use qualified immunity as a defense.

    Is that what you (or, more importantly, Officer Wilson) are stipulating?  Otherwise, if Wilson is arguing that Brown did represent a threat, it's a question of fact and the defense is not precluded in the least.

    Parent

    Disputes (none / 0) (#125)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    of material fact defeat the "qualified immunity" defense.  That's about as basic as it gets.  This is deemed an issue of law, to be ruled upon by the court.  Factual disputes must be resolved by the jury.

    Let me put it this way: How do you suppose the issues involved in federal prosecution would differ, in any material respect (apart from the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard) from civil litigation under Sec 1983?  Such litigation has become extremely commonplace.

    Parent

    Sorry - you're wrong (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    That's about as basic as it gets.  Believe it or not, I - and the attorneys/law professors who point to qualified immunity as one of the issues that make these prosecutions difficult (including Wilson's prosecution - actually know better than you.

    Shocker.

    Parent

    If there's anything (none / 0) (#127)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    I don't require instruction on, it's "qualified immunity."  I've spent thousands of hours, on hundreds of cases, with lawyers who specialize in "excessive force" litigation.  If you attempted in court the sophistries you have paraded here, you would be sanctioned.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    They should get their money back.  As for your opinion on "sanctions", that was pretty amusing.  Like a cheerleader telling an NFL player what would happen in an imaginary game.

    OTOH - That explains your fixation on qualified immunity, rather than your initial claim that this was all about a "smokescreen".

    Parent

    I suggest (none / 0) (#140)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    anyone with a serious interest in this issue cut to the chase and Google up the 9th Circuit's decision on the Rodney King case (cite in my first comment.)  If an unreasonable use of force can be shown, getting a conviction just isn't that big a deal.

    Parent
    And I would suggest ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    ... instead of focusing on a single case where federal prosecutors successfully brought charges against local police officers, they look at the whole picture and the informed opinions of people who do this for a living, rather than the conclusions of a lay person with an agenda.

    Parent
    Had you (none / 0) (#143)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 03:57:44 PM EST
    done your research, you would realize that there are very few published decisions dealing with the prosecution of law enforcement officials under 18 USC 242.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    ... and very few prosecutions in general, due to the inherent difficulties.  Just ask anyone who actually does it.

    Parent
    Yman (none / 0) (#162)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    would very much prefer that you seek guidance here from sources which continue to parrot the "media narrative."  An essential part of that narrative is the malicious fiction that our "unarmed teen," an exemplary youth, was unjustly set upon by the racist ogre Darren Wilson for the offense of "walking while Black."  The article linked to by Yman expresses resentment at the release of the video of Brown's "shopping expedition," even suggesting that this bit of documentary evidence has prejudiced the deliberations of the grand jury.  This is Orwellian "doublethink" at its finest.  It is a crude, partisan attempt to suppress evidence pointing to the conclusion that Brown had reasons for becoming combative with Wilson.

    Nothing said here is intended as an impermissible assertion of "fact."  It is mere inference.  

    Parent

    Nice disclaimer (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 06:23:04 PM EST
    Like adding s statement at the end of "Frosty the Snowman" to make sure no one confuses it with actual facts.

    Heh heh...

    BTW - Do you think calling it a "mere inference"makes it sound more credible than what it really is? - a silly, fairy tale built on mischaracterization, speculation and outright falsehoods

    Because that's even funnier.

    Parent

    BTW - Just out of curiousity (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    What do you have against quotation marks?

    There's really no need to abuse them like that ...

    Parent

    I choose (none / 0) (#108)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    not to devote the time necessary to address every purported obstacle to federal prosecution mentioned in the article you link to.  I have simply asked you to select the one, apart from the "willfulness requirement," you think the strongest.  

    Parent
    Whitecap (none / 0) (#77)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 06:11:49 PM EST
    Why do you hate paragraphs so much???

    What did they ever do to you???

    Parent

    What was it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:17:09 PM EST
    Winston said?  "Little did I expect that I should receive assistance on such a matter from such a quarter"?  Something like that.

    Parent
    I said paragraphs -- (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 10:17:45 PM EST

    not parachutes or paratroops.

    I notice that you kept your response short and sweet so as to avoid having to call upon any of them :)

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#103)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 02:13:12 AM EST
    it was the proper construction of Arma virumque cano that gave rise to Winston's quip.

    Parent
    Well you sure (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 06:27:19 AM EST
    paraglided into that one.

    Parent
    Current rumor allegedly started by St. Ann (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:33:11 PM EST
    Police at a neighborhood watch meeting - the announcement will be made Sunday.

    If true, that will give the media and the authorities another 24 hours to stoke the fires of panic and hatred.  

    Found this interesting (none / 0) (#2)
    by BeDazzled on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    Tweet from last month. Note the second name on the list (bassem_masri) - while livestreaming protests this week, he was picked out of the crowd, arrested, and labeled a "fugitive" on the arrest list (for traffic violation/s). There's so much inciting going on in MO, it's hard to keep track.

    Bassem was released this morning, $1600 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Palli on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 10:11:19 PM EST
    His 4th arrest during the Protests. He is a Palestinian American St. Louis native.

    Parent
    Bassem (none / 0) (#109)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 08:06:15 AM EST
    Here is his interview on CNN:

    Bassem Masri CNN interview

    He sure didn't come off looking very good.  

    Parent

    Right to video police (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 07:09:44 AM EST

    ACLU wins federal court orders on right to video police in Ferguson, elsewhere

    ST. LOUIS * The ACLU of Missouri secured on Friday three federal court orders affirming citizens' rights to record police, as the region girds for potential protests after the Ferguson grand jury decision is announced.

    U.S. District Judge John A. Ross acted on an ACLU motion last week complaining that authorities were still inhibiting people from making videos of protest events, despite earlier court agreements with St. Louis County, Ferguson and Missouri Highway Patrol Superintendent Ronald Replogle.
    ...
    ...a PEN American Center report from last month that cited 52 alleged violations of freedom of the press, including the arrests of 21 journalists and citizen journalists.



    Assume (none / 0) (#8)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:43:15 AM EST
    federal agents are there to prevent violence against Ferguson Protestors. Remember who has the armament.

    St Louis County and city and Governor Nixon have, in essence, taken up arms against their own citizens.

    It should remind Americans of the Bonus March of 1932 but without the sage advice of then Army Major Dwight D. Eisenhower: "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there."

    Read this from the St Louis P-D today (none / 0) (#9)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:48:14 AM EST
    Got News (none / 0) (#12)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    Interesting Article FWIW causing a little stir:

    "People should know they don't care about us. McCulloch likes the glory so he's dragging it out but we're the ones that are going to suffer," says the officer.

    The officer continued. "When these crazy people hear he's not gonna get charged they're going to flip but when they find out he played dirty it's gonna be worse."

    "We can get killed fightin but they don't care. They want to protect Wilson they sent him away to an island & keep making us donate money to him," the officer said.

    All you have are claims with no proof (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    All the Evidence (none / 0) (#16)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    From the St Louis Post:

    Why the Grand Jury can't be trusted in this case

    The Prosecutor is presenting "all the evidence" in this case -- something that he doesn't do in his other cases, you know, all those other cases where he wants an indictment.

    Was/Is this the old lawyer trick known as a "document dump" for the purpose of hiding the pertinent evidence of this case in a haystack of irrelevance???

    McCulloch should have punted to a Coroner's Inquest, foreign to cityfolk but used regularly in rural Missouri.

    While cityfolk on a GJ might be overwhelmed by a Prosecutor's haystack, it's not so easy to hide a needle in that haystack from a half dozen seasoned rural coroners.  

    Not a Good Article (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    It is just a lot of speculation.  He say what the DA should have done instead.  It is not obvious to me that a jury or coroners would be better than this GJ but I know very little about how the former works.  I would love to see some law professor explain why the US remains the only country in the world with the institution of Grand Jury and why there is no such thing as an Investigative Judge running the police investigation (the universal standard) in the US.

    Parent
    It was an opinion piece (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    by a professor of law emeritus at Washington University School of Law.

    What is not opinion is the fact that this GJ is being handled completely different that the traditional type where the prosecutor presents limited evidence with a view toward getting an indictment.

    The Prosecuter's office could have handled this in the traditional manner but chose not to do so.

    Parent

    Good for the Prosecutor (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    Just about the most obnoxious and stupid feature of American Grand Jury proceedings is its listening to only one side, in secret. An Investigative Judge running the show would demand to see all available evidence from both sides, but usually the proceedings would be open.  The professor's article implied that the GJ was probably too stupid to do a good job of sifting through and evaluating the evidence.  How does he know?

    Parent
    The prosecutor's office picks and chooses (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    what to present and what emphasis is put on what is presented.

    He can choose not to present relevant information and can put forth information that would not be allowed in a court of law.

    Case in point -  McCulloch and the Murray - Beasley Grand Jury:

    Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray's car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that "every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion." But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.

    An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, "obviously...completely wrong." McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray's car moved forward.

    On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch's office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.

    A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges. Link

    So you will excuse me if I don't join you in "Good for the Prosecutor."

    Parent

    All Relevant Evidence (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:15:56 PM EST
    Do you have any evidence that McCulloch hasn't presented all in this case?  I think he has.  It all will be made public as soon as the GJ decides, so the international audience will be aware very soon if he has been dishonest. If you think that the decision to indict should only be made by an elected prosecutor instead of a group of citizens, come out and say it.  And then give a good reason why people should be bothered to serve on Grand Juries.

    Parent
    If you have evidence that McCulloch has presented (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    all relevant evidence to the GJ please provide it with a link. What you have is an opinion just like I have an opinion.

    Who decides what is relevant evidence and what is not? You might want to go back and read McCulloch's statement again  before you state that all of the evidence be made public. McCulloch's statement is worded very carefully and has qualifiers on it.

    McCulloch has a history. Even if he makes public part or all of what was presented to the GJ that does not mean that all of the relevant information was presented to the GJ. In the Murray and Beasley case,  an important fact was not presented to the GJ. The fact that their car was in reverse would have disproved that they were trying to run over the policemen. The fact that all witnesses at the scene did not claim the car was moving forward was not presented. In fact, McCulloch presented them with an inaccurate statement that all 13 witnesses agreed that the car was moving forward. A member of his office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.

    Let me make my opinion very clear:

    I believe that McCulloch will structure the GJ in such a way as a no bill will be returned much like he did in the Murray - Beasley GJ.  My view is shared by quite a few people with extensive experience with GJs.

    You can choose to ignore McCulloch's actions in the only other case where he took any action against a police officer  who fatally shot a civilian and come to a different conclusion. You have an opinion that differs from mine. Neither can be proved or disproved.

    Parent

    You Are the One to Make the Accusation (2.00 / 2) (#80)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 07:02:00 PM EST
    against McCulloch.  You have the burden of proof of showing he has a devious plan to make sure the Grand Jury doesn't indict.  I find the conspiracy theories relating to the Grand Jury pretty ludicrous in view of the fact that all the evidence presented to them will be released for the world to scour right after they come to a decision.  You think McCulloch is such a genius that he can get away with something egregious?  He has nothing to lose by letting the GJ see everything that is really relevant.

    Parent
    I have stated an opinion (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    I  stated on more than one occasion that this was my opinion based on his history and his past actions. I provided details of McCulloch's actions which were the basis of my opinion You evidently don't agree.

    I could provide links to numerous professors prosecutors, lawyers and members of the media who share my opinion but it would be a wast of my time.

    I am commenting on a blog where people give their opinions on various subjects. I am not in a court of law. I, at no time, stated that my opinion that McCulloch was conducting the GJ in a way that they would return a no bill was a fact. I merely provided facts on the Murray - Beasley GJ where McCulloch did not present relevant facts to the GJ, misstated other pertinent facts and read damaging information about the men shot to the GJ. I provided a link to those facts in my original comment. You evidently have trouble distinguishing the difference between an opinion and fact. Sorry I can't help you there.

    My comments on this subject were clearly stated. It really is not necessary for you to make a feeble attempt at speculating about what I think or don't think.

    I really don't much care what you think of my opinion. There are many people on this blog whose opinions I value but you are not one of them.


    Parent

    Well maybe or maybe not (none / 0) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 07:39:51 PM EST
    I find the conspiracy theories relating to the Grand Jury pretty ludicrous in view of the fact that all the evidence presented to them will be released for the world to scour right after they come to a decision.

    Seems judge is saying that she never agreed to release the evidence and if a request is made she will have to review prior to making a decision.

    ""We've asked the judge to do that, and the judge has agreed that she will do that, if there is no indictment," McCulloch said during a radio interview with KTRS in September. "There's no probably about it, it will be released."

    On Sunday, however, the court said, "Judge Whittington has entered no such order and has made no such agreement," according to director of judicial admnistration Paul Fox.



    Parent
    Also from the article: (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    This possibility may well be exacerbated by the grand jurors' perceptions of the two primary actors, Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. One would expect that Wilson probably made a good impression when he testified before the grand jury. If there were a risk that that would not be the case, his attorneys presumably would have kept him from testifying. On the other hand, the tape of the convenience story robbery (which the jurors almost certainly saw on television even it weren't presented as evidence) conveys a negative image of Brown.

    These pictures of Wilson and Brown are woefully incomplete and, in any event, of only very slight relevance to assessing what actually happened during the Wilson/Brown encounter. Nonetheless, there's a possibility -- I would guess a rather strong possibility -- that they have had a disproportionate impact on the grand jurors.

    All you have to do is read the comments of some of the people just on this blog to find that there is "a rather strong possibility" that the video of Brown in the convenience store colored the view of the events that followed.

    In case you think that these views expressed here are not representative of the views of people in St. Louis county, I will invite you to visit the area and listen to all the white folks who reference that video to arrive at the opinion that Brown was a violent thug who deserved what he got. I live in St. Louis County and I hear a version of this each and every time the subject comes up.

    Parent

    So you don't want a fair proceeding?? OK (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    But you didn't have to tell us that.

    The Prosecutor is presenting "all the evidence" in this case -- something that he doesn't do in his other cases, you know, all those other cases where he wants an indictment.


    Parent
    A fair proceeding (none / 0) (#47)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    is for the Prosecutor to go for an indictment just as hard in this case as he does in all others.

    When he says he's presenting "all evidence" is he also presenting the press conference tapes of Chief Jackson and Belmar lying about the evidence??? and then letting them try to sort it out???

    Parent

    Does anything said after the fact... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by unitron on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    ...by Jackson and/or Belmar have the ability to travel back in time and change what happened?

    Or is it your contention that something inaccurate said after the fact by one or the other or both proves anything about what Wilson himself may or may not have done?

    Was Wilson engaging in Jedi mind control to get them to say those things?

    What would be the point of presenting those statements to the jurors if those statements are inaccurate, since, I would assume from your certainty of their inaccuracy, compelling evidence exists which proves them to have been inaccurate?

    Parent

    Are either Jackson or Belmar (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    the target of this grand jury's investigation?

    [snk.]

    Parent

    No, that would be just another wrong (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    Do you believe that two wrongs make a right??

    The lies you refer to are not evidence of what happened.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#23)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    It is quite unusual that the Grand Jury was not presented with Draft Statements of Indictment by the Pros. Atty office.

    Parent
    FYI (none / 0) (#26)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:03:53 PM EST

    Written by David Feige, a television writer and the author of Indefensible. He spent 15 years as a public defender and served as the first trial chief of the Bronx Defenders.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/11/darren_wilson_grand_jury_fergu son_prosecutor_opens_proceedings_to_both_sides.html

    Your link is too long (none / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    And your comment may be deleted. So here it the link.
    FYI (none / 0) (#26)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 11:03:53 AM MDT

    Written by David Feige, a television writer and the author of Indefensible. He spent 15 years as a public defender and served as the first trial chief of the Bronx Defenders.



    Parent
    SJ Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    Feige Asks the Obvious (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    It is really too much to ask that before a citizen is indicted for a felony, we require prosecutors summon all the witnesses with relevant evidence to give sworn testimony?


    Parent
    without a massive infusion (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 01:50:41 PM EST
     of resources, in most any moderately or larger jurisdiction the answer to that is yes.

      It's not just  tactical reasons that cause most GJ's to be presented with brief hearsay summaries of the evidence. A requirement that GJs hear from "all the witnesses with relevant evidence" would go FAR beyond what occurs at most trials ( plenty of "relevant" evidence is not heard at trials for reasons including that it is cumulative, unfairly prejudicial weighed against it probative value (relevancy), excluded by the judge on other grounds or simply-- and commonly not offered by either side for strategic or tactical reasons)-- and depending on the jurisdiction 80-90+ % of felonies are resolved by plea agreements not trials.

       His proposal would require an exponential increase in the resources required by the criminal courts and prosecutors office in order to prepare and present cases at that stage. It would also require defenders whether public or private to do more work at an earlier stage-- that is if the targets of the GJ have lawyers; not all do because while many have been arrested and gone through preliminary proceedings before a GJ hears their case many other have not and are initially charged by the GJ and there is no right to counsel until one has been charged.

      Speaking as  a defense attorney, I could also envision that scenario inuring to defendant's detriment in many cases. If the GJ hears from a potentially exculpatory witnesses in a closed hearing where I am not even present let alone able to examine the witnesses, a half way decent prosecutor, so inclined, could on some occasions lock that witness into testimony which might not be as advantageous to me as if I called the witness in the first instance. Because the GJ testimony is in the record under oath it would come in as a prior inconsistent statement if I then elicited the more favorable testimony at trial.

       

    Parent

    You Make a Good Case (none / 0) (#60)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    for scraping the entire idiotic grand jury system.  Do you have anything against the system used in almost all other countries of having a judge,  and not a prosecutor, being in charge of the police investigation, deciding whether the case should go to trial, and compiling a single dossier of evidence that is used by both sides at trial?  

    Parent
    Not that simpole (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 07:15:36 AM EST
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;....

    5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

     Many (not all) states have a similar constitutional provision.

     I also think it is way too simplistic to ascribe many of the ills of our criminal justice system absolutely or relative to other systems to the institution of the grand jury.

      We have higher crime rates than most nations. which is a reflection of two primary factors: number of crimes committed and an extensive police apparatus, neither of which is influenced by the existence or absence of the grand jury system. In terms of punishment, that is driven as much or more by Legislation (meaning both the enactment of many criminal offense statutes and the legislative  establishment of harshly punitive  penalties for violations)than the mechanics of the process.

      I'll agree the grand jury rarely serves the purpose of being a bulwark against the power of the State to deprive people of their liberty, but I also don't think abolishing it (which is very unlikely) would necessarily provide any more protection of individual liberty and depending upon the regime that replaced it could exacerbate the relative power of the state over individuals.

      My essential belief is that large  "systems" work mainly in the way that the people who operate them dictate as opposed to mechanically or schematically. Any system is primarily dependent on the competence, integrity, good faith, values, goals, etc.  of the people within it.

      Short version, it's much more of a political matter and change (in any direction) comes from whom we entrust to operate systems much more than it will come with tinkering with the formalism and structure.

       

    Parent

    He Should Have Stayed in His Car (none / 0) (#70)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    You remember that one from the Martin-Zimmerman case?  Did Wilson have more justification for getting out of his van instead of waiting for backup than Zimmerman did?  Of course, in both cases, even if it wasn't best move, they may well have been justified in using deadly force later on.

    please do not divert (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 05:59:34 PM EST
    this thread to Zimmerman/Martin. The topic is Brown and Wilson, and the actions of a law enforcement officer.

    Parent
    The Big News -- (none / 0) (#98)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 22, 2014 at 10:30:14 PM EST
    Well the Big News about the Ferguson verdict from CNN tonight is that there is no news about the Ferguson verdict from CNN tonight.

    CNN is so desperate for advertising revenue that they are now reporting the news that there is no news.

    And worse than that are the networks breaking into their regular programming to report on CNN's news that there is no news.

    As if CNN had or has a little birdie with a headset on in the Grand Jury room and no one else does.

    Yep -- it's that bad.

    My guess is (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    It will come down Wednesday night - just before the holiday.

    Parent
    Rumor is that the GJ is finished (none / 0) (#176)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    and announcement is tonight.

    5:30 Gov. Nixon speaks in Ferguson (none / 0) (#178)
    by Palli on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    8 PM GJ Decision

    Apparently you don't twitter.

    Parent

    Palli, thanks for that info. (none / 0) (#179)
    by fishcamp on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    The talking heads just keep saying the GJ announcement will be soon, and they've been saying that all day.  They're definitely running out of words to say.  So the announcement will come just before Monday night football.  Figures.

    Parent
    Thanks for more complete info (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 24, 2014 at 05:28:21 PM EST
     l don't twitter either. I knew it was not a rumor but the only time frame I had was after 5 p.m.

    Was there any info on what Nixon was going to say and why the announcement would come so much later?


    Parent