The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
it's pretty critical context
like, i am a big advocate of increased oversight and accountability for police, but leaving out the context that the shooter was a police officer in ostensible pursuit of her duties doesn't do anyone any favors.
Not leaving it out, just saving it for last so that people actually pay attention instead of, "Cop = innocent regardless of what else I'm told".
But again, it's more navel-gazing and rather unproductive mental masturbation on my part than anything else.
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
One of the immediate reforms I would like to see is mandatory data collection and reporting for any incident in which a police discharges their weapon while on active duty.
One of the immediate reforms I would like to see is mandatory data collection and reporting for any incident in which a police discharges their weapon while on active duty.
It blows my mind that this isn't already the case. Like, what?
+21
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Already required by federal law, doesn't happen anyway.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
They argue it's an apples - to - oranges comparison since most Grand Jury empanelments already have a prosecutor who has reviewed all the evidence and made a determination (personally, within their prosecutorial authority) that a crime has occurred by the preponderance of the evidence before submitting it to a GJ for formal legal indictment.
In this case, the grand jury was empaneled not just for indictment purposes but also to serve as a fact finding body in lieu of a special prosecutor.
Accordingly, that chart doesn't account for all the cases where a prosecutor in his prosecutorial authority decided not to submit a case to the GJ, or the cases where police never even submitted the case to the prosecutor for want of evidence.
That said, the bar to indictment is incredibly low, and the GJ- as - special prosecutor format they did here raises a bunch of procedural questions that I don't know how to address.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
In this case, the grand jury was empaneled not just for indictment purposes but also to serve as a fact finding body in lieu of a special prosecutor.
Is this even a legally appropriate use for a grand jury? And even if it is, what non-corrupt argument is there for favoring this process instead of just using a real special prosecutor? It's not like one would have been hard to come by.
Also I read that this GJ was unusual in that the jury was presented evidence as it was uncovered during an ongoing investigation, which is why it's taken so long. They originally had until January 7th to decide.
As opposed to what we think of as a "normal" GJ where the prosecution already has its case and all the evidence ready to go and present to the jury in the most coherent manner, to help return an indictment.
Basically I think it's reasonable to believe that the prosecution wasn't really trying.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
One of the immediate reforms I would like to see is mandatory data collection and reporting for any incident in which a police discharges their weapon while on active duty.
I would like the FBI to conduct investigations of all officer involved shootings and present their findings to the Justice Department.
In this case, the grand jury was empaneled not just for indictment purposes but also to serve as a fact finding body in lieu of a special prosecutor.
Is this even a legally appropriate use for a grand jury? And even if it is, what non-corrupt argument is there for favoring this process instead of just using a real special prosecutor? It's not like one would have been hard to come by.
Via wiki:
Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing. Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions.
One of the immediate reforms I would like to see is mandatory data collection and reporting for any incident in which a police discharges their weapon while on active duty.
I would like the FBI to conduct investigations of all officer involved shootings and present their findings to the Justice Department.
The FBI is just as, if not more so, immune to shooting people than the police.
This is one of those situations where a civil lawsuit would probably be more effective than any criminal proceedings. Such as how OJ Simpson was found civilly liable for the deaths despite his acquittal in the criminal trial.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
This is one of those situations where a civil lawsuit would probably be more effective than any criminal proceedings. Such as how OJ Simpson was found civilly liable for the deaths despite his acquittal in the criminal trial.
Money is very small comfort compared to the life of your son. It's better than nothing, sure, but it's not exactly a balm on the open wound of cops literally getting away with murder in broad daylight.
+2
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
In this case, the grand jury was empaneled not just for indictment purposes but also to serve as a fact finding body in lieu of a special prosecutor.
Is this even a legally appropriate use for a grand jury? And even if it is, what non-corrupt argument is there for favoring this process instead of just using a real special prosecutor? It's not like one would have been hard to come by.
I couldn't say. Its definitely fairly unique. Edit: at least in terms of a rolling train of evidence bejng brought into the GJ as it was developed.
The Crim Pro class I took covered the 4th and 5th Amendments for field officers. I couldn't speak accurately on post - arrest procedure outside of like Miranda and rights to counsel and similar. I didn't have a class on indictment procedure
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
it's pretty critical context
like, i am a big advocate of increased oversight and accountability for police, but leaving out the context that the shooter was a police officer in ostensible pursuit of her duties doesn't do anyone any favors.
Not leaving it out, just saving it for last so that people actually pay attention instead of, "Cop = innocent regardless of what else I'm told".
But again, it's more navel-gazing and rather unproductive mental masturbation on my part than anything else.
It's probably more served by the general policing thread, but I am with you on this concept. I generally see police not as people specially empowered to 'fight crime', but instead citizens who are employed to take actions that are legal for any other citizen.
Or, as Sir Robert Peel put it when he was organizing the modern police force:
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
The general exception that police are shielded from liability in mistakes of fact when exercising their duties as opposed to a civilian doing the same is a worthwhile compromise.
Okay, I'm going to come from a point of complete batshit insanity. And it's driving me crazy and it's making me furious at the same time.
I UNDERSTAND why the State prosecutor didn't want this case. I completly understand why they threw it as hard as possible, so much so that they looked like a defense attourney.
And I'm not even talking about the obviously corrupt Ferguson Civil Goverment.
Can you IMAGINE trying to get an impartial jury for this case? Or hell, even a judge? This case is so public, and that's not even taking into consideration the Ferguson police department competly poisoning the jury pool. Everyone is going to have a bias going in, and filtering that out would be like finding a single, ignorant needle in a haystack.
And it makes me fucking PISSED OFF that this could be a reason why they phoned this shit in. That this is the BEST case scenario, for them. That they didn't want to be bothered with a pain in the ass case. This is me thinking WELL of them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, I'm going to come from a point of complete batshit insanity. And it's driving me crazy and it's making me furious at the same time.
I UNDERSTAND why the State prosecutor didn't want this case. I completly understand why they threw it as hard as possible, so much so that they looked like a defense attourney.
And I'm not even talking about the obviously corrupt Ferguson Civil Goverment.
Can you IMAGINE trying to get an impartial jury for this case? Or hell, even a judge? This case is so public, and that's not even taking into consideration the Ferguson police department competly poisoning the jury pool. Everyone is going to have a bias going in, and filtering that out would be like finding a single, ignorant needle in a haystack.
And it makes me fucking PISSED OFF that this could be a reason why they phoned this shit in. That this is the BEST case scenario, for them. That they didn't want to be bothered with a pain in the ass case. This is me thinking WELL of them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Everything about this is infuriating.
This is why a change of venue generally happens -- the circumstances in a place are so well-known that it is impossible to get an impartial local jury. Granted this has national awareness, but people are a bit less directly invested in the case in other jurisdictions.
Considering the grand jury consisted of 9 white people and 3 black people, though, I'm sure that even if it had gone to trial he would've been declared innocent. He got a grand jury of his peers, not Brown's.
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
You know that this can just as easily be turned around, right? You may be sceptical that violent protest contributed to change, someone else might be sceptical that peaceful protest on its own is responsible for change. In themselves, those are opinions, or even beliefs, not arguments. Or has empirical research been made into the extent to which peaceful protest made a difference?
Well, we know that Gandhi was successful with non-violent protest. The only violent protests that we can conclusively say lead to change are revolutions, I believe. Even something like the Stonewall riots cannot be proven to be what caused change (people could have become organized without the rioting, and the substantial progress made by the gay community in recent years has been achieved almost entirely by non-violent methods).
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
There is also doubt as to who initiated the altercation with the car.
There is no conclusive evidence that Brown was moving towards Wilson except for Wilson's own statement, which need I remind you, compares Brown's face to that of a demon, and the boy himself to The Incredible Hulk.
And the very fact that there are question marks in your still simplistic hearsay version of events means that there is absolutely grounds for indictment.
I have half a feeling people saying "There really isn't enough there for an indictment" don't actually know what the word means and what the situation involves.
And it'd only be comparable to a "Witch Hunt" if that phrase had historically been reserved for situations in which a populace demands that rule of law be applied to actual witches flying around and killing people with their government-supplied wands with impunity.
The dispatch transcript released shows that he did know about the robbery, and that was his reason for approaching. I'm trying to only take into account actual evidence and not Wilson's own testimony, for obvious reasons.
Wilson's bruises and the autopsy report are consistent with what Wilson said happened in the car, although Wilson could have said something to provoke Brown.
It would be a stretch to say it was proven Brown was moving towards Wilson, but we know he was facing Wilson, did not have his hands up in surrender, and was either charging him or was falling when he was shot in the head.
The question marks are where there are holes in the story that have so far only been filled with witness testimony (which has been unreliable) or Wilson's testimony (which isn't really worth anything). They also can't really change the facts of the case, which are that Brown assaulted a police officer while fleeing a robbery. Police shooting and killing in such circumstances don't get indicted.
Maybe witch hunt isn't the right term, but there sure are a lot of people convinced Wilson shot Brown in cold blood without giving him the benefit of the doubt or reviewing all the evidence. (Which is understandable, since racial tensions have been building and police treatment of minorities have been historically appalling)
Okay, I'm going to come from a point of complete batshit insanity. And it's driving me crazy and it's making me furious at the same time.
I UNDERSTAND why the State prosecutor didn't want this case. I completly understand why they threw it as hard as possible, so much so that they looked like a defense attourney.
And I'm not even talking about the obviously corrupt Ferguson Civil Goverment.
Can you IMAGINE trying to get an impartial jury for this case? Or hell, even a judge? This case is so public, and that's not even taking into consideration the Ferguson police department competly poisoning the jury pool. Everyone is going to have a bias going in, and filtering that out would be like finding a single, ignorant needle in a haystack.
And it makes me fucking PISSED OFF that this could be a reason why they phoned this shit in. That this is the BEST case scenario, for them. That they didn't want to be bothered with a pain in the ass case. This is me thinking WELL of them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Everything about this is infuriating.
This is why a change of venue generally happens -- the circumstances in a place are so well-known that it is impossible to get an impartial local jury. Granted this has national awareness, but people are a bit less directly invested in the case in other jurisdictions.
Considering the grand jury consisted of 9 white people and 3 black people, though, I'm sure that even if it had gone to trial he would've been declared innocent. He got a grand jury of his peers, not Brown's.
Not to detract from the overall point, but that's kind of how it's supposed to go. Not necessarily a jury of his peers in particular, but a jury of peers from the community at large (i.e.: not tied to a particular demographic or point of view, as having a jury entirely of Brown's peers is also not in service to the situation). Minor nitpick I agree, but if we're going to discuss impartiality then it's necessary to mention that.
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
You know that this can just as easily be turned around, right? You may be sceptical that violent protest contributed to change, someone else might be sceptical that peaceful protest on its own is responsible for change. In themselves, those are opinions, or even beliefs, not arguments. Or has empirical research been made into the extent to which peaceful protest made a difference?
Well, we know that Gandhi was successful with non-violent protest. The only violent protests that we can conclusively say lead to change are revolutions, I believe. Even something like the Stonewall riots cannot be proven to be what caused change (people could have become organized without the rioting, and the substantial progress made by the gay community in recent years has been achieved almost entirely by non-violent methods).
There was plenty of violent stuff involved in India's independence movement.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
You know that this can just as easily be turned around, right? You may be sceptical that violent protest contributed to change, someone else might be sceptical that peaceful protest on its own is responsible for change. In themselves, those are opinions, or even beliefs, not arguments. Or has empirical research been made into the extent to which peaceful protest made a difference?
Well, we know that Gandhi was successful with non-violent protest. The only violent protests that we can conclusively say lead to change are revolutions, I believe. Even something like the Stonewall riots cannot be proven to be what caused change (people could have become organized without the rioting, and the substantial progress made by the gay community in recent years has been achieved almost entirely by non-violent methods).
SKFM is not a representative of our history or our people. This is a gross misinterpretation of how LGBT rights was achieved in the United States. Please disregard this statement.
Well, the people who think Wilson who should have been charged generally don't think it was in cold blood, but more that he's a hot headed moron who is a danger to the public. Who we also know after his testimony has serious issues where he did not see Michael Brown as a human being. Whether that was because of racial animus, an "us vs. them" police mentality, or a combination of both. For a start. There's also lots of declarations of facts which are murky, even in the incredibly pro-Wilson statement McCulloch gave last night (e.g. hand positioning, who initiated the encounter).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
One of the immediate reforms I would like to see is mandatory data collection and reporting for any incident in which a police discharges their weapon while on active duty.
I would like the FBI to conduct investigations of all officer involved shootings and present their findings to the Justice Department.
The FBI is just as, if not more so, immune to shooting people than the police.
Does the FBI give a damn about the police's immunity, though? Local cops, local courts, and local governance are all in cahoots when it comes to this sort of thing. The FBI isn't inherently a part of that system.
Okay, I'm going to come from a point of complete batshit insanity. And it's driving me crazy and it's making me furious at the same time.
I UNDERSTAND why the State prosecutor didn't want this case. I completly understand why they threw it as hard as possible, so much so that they looked like a defense attourney.
And I'm not even talking about the obviously corrupt Ferguson Civil Goverment.
Can you IMAGINE trying to get an impartial jury for this case? Or hell, even a judge? This case is so public, and that's not even taking into consideration the Ferguson police department competly poisoning the jury pool. Everyone is going to have a bias going in, and filtering that out would be like finding a single, ignorant needle in a haystack.
And it makes me fucking PISSED OFF that this could be a reason why they phoned this shit in. That this is the BEST case scenario, for them. That they didn't want to be bothered with a pain in the ass case. This is me thinking WELL of them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Everything about this is infuriating.
This is why a change of venue generally happens -- the circumstances in a place are so well-known that it is impossible to get an impartial local jury. Granted this has national awareness, but people are a bit less directly invested in the case in other jurisdictions.
Considering the grand jury consisted of 9 white people and 3 black people, though, I'm sure that even if it had gone to trial he would've been declared innocent. He got a grand jury of his peers, not Brown's.
Not to detract from the overall point, but that's kind of how it's supposed to go. Not necessarily a jury of his peers in particular, but a jury of peers from the community at large (i.e.: not tied to a particular demographic or point of view, as having a jury entirely of Brown's peers is also not in service to the situation). Minor nitpick I agree, but if we're going to discuss impartiality then it's necessary to mention that.
My point is that there are two Fergusons, meaning a change of venue would have probably been a good idea.
Okay, I'm going to come from a point of complete batshit insanity. And it's driving me crazy and it's making me furious at the same time.
I UNDERSTAND why the State prosecutor didn't want this case. I completly understand why they threw it as hard as possible, so much so that they looked like a defense attourney.
And I'm not even talking about the obviously corrupt Ferguson Civil Goverment.
Can you IMAGINE trying to get an impartial jury for this case? Or hell, even a judge? This case is so public, and that's not even taking into consideration the Ferguson police department competly poisoning the jury pool. Everyone is going to have a bias going in, and filtering that out would be like finding a single, ignorant needle in a haystack.
And it makes me fucking PISSED OFF that this could be a reason why they phoned this shit in. That this is the BEST case scenario, for them. That they didn't want to be bothered with a pain in the ass case. This is me thinking WELL of them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Everything about this is infuriating.
This is why a change of venue generally happens -- the circumstances in a place are so well-known that it is impossible to get an impartial local jury. Granted this has national awareness, but people are a bit less directly invested in the case in other jurisdictions.
Considering the grand jury consisted of 9 white people and 3 black people, though, I'm sure that even if it had gone to trial he would've been declared innocent. He got a grand jury of his peers, not Brown's.
Not to detract from the overall point, but that's kind of how it's supposed to go. Not necessarily a jury of his peers in particular, but a jury of peers from the community at large (i.e.: not tied to a particular demographic or point of view, as having a jury entirely of Brown's peers is also not in service to the situation). Minor nitpick I agree, but if we're going to discuss impartiality then it's necessary to mention that.
I think you're both saying the same thing, and the point does still stand.
You're in a community that is overwhelmingly black. Somehow, you found 9 white people. And that's before the prosecutor's blatently begging the jury not to indict.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
You know that this can just as easily be turned around, right? You may be sceptical that violent protest contributed to change, someone else might be sceptical that peaceful protest on its own is responsible for change. In themselves, those are opinions, or even beliefs, not arguments. Or has empirical research been made into the extent to which peaceful protest made a difference?
Well, we know that Gandhi was successful with non-violent protest. The only violent protests that we can conclusively say lead to change are revolutions, I believe. Even something like the Stonewall riots cannot be proven to be what caused change (people could have become organized without the rioting, and the substantial progress made by the gay community in recent years has been achieved almost entirely by non-violent methods).
There was plenty of violent stuff involved in India's independence movement.
My understanding is that some small amount occurred, but it was never sanctioned and as the movement went on he was very successful in reigning it in. Certainly, you would not claim that the threat of violence (or actual violence) was not what allowed India to achieve independence?
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think that someone who would describe an unarmed teenager who he has been shooting at as hulking up to shrug off bullets should not be a police officer. At least some degree of grounding in reality should be a prerequisite for being a police officer, imo.
I honestly don't want to even consider that they did this on purpose.
Like, I can't handle that.
They either did or they are the stupidest people in America. Bob McCulloch and Jay Nixon's actions over the last three months could not have been designed better if they wanted to cause a riot.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is one of those situations where a civil lawsuit would probably be more effective than any criminal proceedings. Such as how OJ Simpson was found civilly liable for the deaths despite his acquittal in the criminal trial.
Money is very small comfort compared to the life of your son. It's better than nothing, sure, but it's not exactly a balm on the open wound of cops literally getting away with murder in broad daylight.
Well, I was talking more about the changes necessary to make the Ferguson PD more fair. Hit them in the pocketbook.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
I honestly don't want to even consider that they did this on purpose.
Like, I can't handle that.
Of course they did. They spent 4 days leaking out that the indictment would be coming soon. They spent 2 months telling people that they could protest but only during the day, not allowed at night.
Then the governor holds a press conference before the actual announcement.
Then the police are seen in riot gear on the streets before the announcement.
I honestly don't want to even consider that they did this on purpose.
Like, I can't handle that.
I guarantee that they did. There's no way that they are that fucking stupid.
Stupid? No. But, given the history I would err towards malevolence through indifference. It was not necessarily purposeful as it was indifferent to the growing situation. Less "let's stir things up" and more "blacks gonna black."
This is one of those situations where a civil lawsuit would probably be more effective than any criminal proceedings. Such as how OJ Simpson was found civilly liable for the deaths despite his acquittal in the criminal trial.
Money is very small comfort compared to the life of your son. It's better than nothing, sure, but it's not exactly a balm on the open wound of cops literally getting away with murder in broad daylight.
Well, I was talking more about the changes necessary to make the Ferguson PD more fair. Hit them in the pocketbook.
It would change nothing. They will simply issue more fines to raise more money for their shitty fiefdom.
Posts
Not leaving it out, just saving it for last so that people actually pay attention instead of, "Cop = innocent regardless of what else I'm told".
But again, it's more navel-gazing and rather unproductive mental masturbation on my part than anything else.
It blows my mind that this isn't already the case. Like, what?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I think the problem here is enforcement. You can write all the stringent laws you want, but if you don't enforce them, they're toothless.
Tie it to funding. You want federal money? We want numbers.
If there's one thing police departments are really fucking good at, it's fudging numbers.
The Volokh Conspiracy at WaPo had a bit about this today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/25/the-michael-brown-grand-jury-process-was-fair/
(Edit: added link. I'm on mobile so issues.)
They argue it's an apples - to - oranges comparison since most Grand Jury empanelments already have a prosecutor who has reviewed all the evidence and made a determination (personally, within their prosecutorial authority) that a crime has occurred by the preponderance of the evidence before submitting it to a GJ for formal legal indictment.
In this case, the grand jury was empaneled not just for indictment purposes but also to serve as a fact finding body in lieu of a special prosecutor.
Accordingly, that chart doesn't account for all the cases where a prosecutor in his prosecutorial authority decided not to submit a case to the GJ, or the cases where police never even submitted the case to the prosecutor for want of evidence.
@Irond Will
@Regina Fong
That said, the bar to indictment is incredibly low, and the GJ- as - special prosecutor format they did here raises a bunch of procedural questions that I don't know how to address.
As opposed to what we think of as a "normal" GJ where the prosecution already has its case and all the evidence ready to go and present to the jury in the most coherent manner, to help return an indictment.
Basically I think it's reasonable to believe that the prosecution wasn't really trying.
I would like the FBI to conduct investigations of all officer involved shootings and present their findings to the Justice Department.
Via wiki:
Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing. Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
The FBI is just as, if not more so, immune to shooting people than the police.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Money is very small comfort compared to the life of your son. It's better than nothing, sure, but it's not exactly a balm on the open wound of cops literally getting away with murder in broad daylight.
I couldn't say. Its definitely fairly unique. Edit: at least in terms of a rolling train of evidence bejng brought into the GJ as it was developed.
The Crim Pro class I took covered the 4th and 5th Amendments for field officers. I couldn't speak accurately on post - arrest procedure outside of like Miranda and rights to counsel and similar. I didn't have a class on indictment procedure
It's probably more served by the general policing thread, but I am with you on this concept. I generally see police not as people specially empowered to 'fight crime', but instead citizens who are employed to take actions that are legal for any other citizen.
Or, as Sir Robert Peel put it when he was organizing the modern police force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
The general exception that police are shielded from liability in mistakes of fact when exercising their duties as opposed to a civilian doing the same is a worthwhile compromise.
I UNDERSTAND why the State prosecutor didn't want this case. I completly understand why they threw it as hard as possible, so much so that they looked like a defense attourney.
And I'm not even talking about the obviously corrupt Ferguson Civil Goverment.
Can you IMAGINE trying to get an impartial jury for this case? Or hell, even a judge? This case is so public, and that's not even taking into consideration the Ferguson police department competly poisoning the jury pool. Everyone is going to have a bias going in, and filtering that out would be like finding a single, ignorant needle in a haystack.
And it makes me fucking PISSED OFF that this could be a reason why they phoned this shit in. That this is the BEST case scenario, for them. That they didn't want to be bothered with a pain in the ass case. This is me thinking WELL of them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Everything about this is infuriating.
This is why a change of venue generally happens -- the circumstances in a place are so well-known that it is impossible to get an impartial local jury. Granted this has national awareness, but people are a bit less directly invested in the case in other jurisdictions.
Considering the grand jury consisted of 9 white people and 3 black people, though, I'm sure that even if it had gone to trial he would've been declared innocent. He got a grand jury of his peers, not Brown's.
Well, we know that Gandhi was successful with non-violent protest. The only violent protests that we can conclusively say lead to change are revolutions, I believe. Even something like the Stonewall riots cannot be proven to be what caused change (people could have become organized without the rioting, and the substantial progress made by the gay community in recent years has been achieved almost entirely by non-violent methods).
You done fucked up.
What's uninformed about that post?
Not to detract from the overall point, but that's kind of how it's supposed to go. Not necessarily a jury of his peers in particular, but a jury of peers from the community at large (i.e.: not tied to a particular demographic or point of view, as having a jury entirely of Brown's peers is also not in service to the situation). Minor nitpick I agree, but if we're going to discuss impartiality then it's necessary to mention that.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
There was plenty of violent stuff involved in India's independence movement.
My point is that there are two Fergusons, meaning a change of venue would have probably been a good idea.
I think you're both saying the same thing, and the point does still stand.
You're in a community that is overwhelmingly black. Somehow, you found 9 white people. And that's before the prosecutor's blatently begging the jury not to indict.
My understanding is that some small amount occurred, but it was never sanctioned and as the movement went on he was very successful in reigning it in. Certainly, you would not claim that the threat of violence (or actual violence) was not what allowed India to achieve independence?
I honestly don't want to even consider that they did this on purpose.
Like, I can't handle that.
Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
I guarantee that they did. There's no way that they are that fucking stupid.
They either did or they are the stupidest people in America. Bob McCulloch and Jay Nixon's actions over the last three months could not have been designed better if they wanted to cause a riot.
Well, I was talking more about the changes necessary to make the Ferguson PD more fair. Hit them in the pocketbook.
9 out of 12 have to decide to indict. Three of the 12 jurors were black, so they needed six of the nine remaining white people to go along.
Assuming all the black jurors would have indicted. But I think it's a fairly safe assumption.
Of course they did. They spent 4 days leaking out that the indictment would be coming soon. They spent 2 months telling people that they could protest but only during the day, not allowed at night.
Then the governor holds a press conference before the actual announcement.
Then the police are seen in riot gear on the streets before the announcement.
Then they announce it at night.
There is literally no way it wasn't on purpose.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Stupid? No. But, given the history I would err towards malevolence through indifference. It was not necessarily purposeful as it was indifferent to the growing situation. Less "let's stir things up" and more "blacks gonna black."
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
It would change nothing. They will simply issue more fines to raise more money for their shitty fiefdom.