Ferguson, MO

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

What is the possible justification for the 6th shot? How is that one self-defense?

These are my questions, too. Does fear of imminent death diminish with the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th shot? Have the distances been determined showing how far Brown was from Wilson when the shots were fired?

Also, it's been reported that police department violated their own protocol, not taking statement from Wilson immediately after the incident, instead the next day. By then, several other witness narratives had emerged.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I kept thinking the same thing.

I agree. The grand jury heard all of the evidence and was in the best position to determine whether there was probably cause.

I'm not saying that means that they got it right—they may have blown it, or they may have let factors other than the evidence influence their decision. But they did have the benefit of all the evidence available.

I do anticipate civil rights charges.

MysticCat, a question. I've seen legal commentary on several networks discussing basically a "data dump," by the prosecutor, giving all the evidence to the grand jury and letting them sort it out rather than guiding them to the charge he wanted or thought most appropriate.

Except for a Ferguson police union representative, all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

On the local level the Grand Jury decision's been made. But a lot about this process, as reported, stinks.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Assuming the evidence is the same, assuming the grand jury didn't blow it, I would anticipate any civil rights charges to go down on summary judgment (if it's a civil charge) or in some sort of pretrial motion if it's a criminal charge, in that Wilson had qualified immunity in that he was performing his duties when he shot Brown.

Quite possibly. Still, I'll be more surprised if civil rights charges are not brought than if they are.

Originally Posted by TonyB06

MysticCat, a question. I've seen legal commentary on several networks discussing basically a "data dump," by the prosecutor, giving all the evidence to the grand jury and letting them sort it out rather than guiding them to the charge he wanted or thought most appropriate.

Except for a Ferguson police union representative, all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

I'm probably not the best one to ask, as criminal law hasn't been a large part of my practice. It did sound a little odd to me, but my experience with grand juries is nill. Kevin might know more.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

On the local level the Grand Jury decision's been made. But a lot about this process, as reported, stinks.

So say the pundits.

With grand juries, as with trial courts, YMMV from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I haven't seen any "experts" pontificating on this subject with any experience presenting cases to grand juries in St. Louis County, so I don't think there is near enough to even suggest what you are suggesting.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

These are my questions, too. Does fear of imminent death diminish with the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th shot? Have the distances been determined showing how far Brown was from Wilson when the shots were fired?

Also, it's been reported that police department violated their own protocol, not taking statement from Wilson immediately after the incident, instead the next day. By then, several other witness narratives had emerged.

First I want to say that I'm not totally up on all of the facts surrounding the shots fired, but I am sure that the distance between Brown and Wilson was identified and brought to the grand jury's attention since it is standard investigative protocol following an officer involved shooting.

Your question involving the number of shots I'm assuming is you questioning whether or not they were necessary and to that I say that we are trained to stop the threat, not fire one shot than reassess, fire more if necessary. Depending on the size of the person it could take one shot, or ten shots to bring someone down ( Ex. Suge Knight was shot 6 times last month and he walked himself out of the club after that). I see people always getting hung up on the number of initial shots fired and as a law enforcement officer it's one of those things that irks me. Unless he continued to shoot at Brown after Brown went down its hard to make a legit argument about the number of shots fired.

I'm curious about what you mean about the police dept violating their own protocol about taking Wilsons statement. I work in law enforcement and its a rule of thumb to not make your official statement untill you can speak to a union representative and have been able to shake off the shock and fog of what just took place. Once you articulate on paper what happened, there's no going back to change your statement to include something you forgot. So that being said, Wilson giving his initial formal statement the day after is normal.

[DrPhil]

There were peaceful Ferguson neighborhoods where the violent protests did not reach.

In the area with the violent protests, I hope the people who live in that area never petition to local representatives about increasing employment and business revenue in the area. If they ever wonder why companies do not open shop in this area, they can play the videos of businesses being torn apart by rioters. The destructive and violent protesters are a relatively small percentage of the total amount of protesters, and some of them came from outside of Ferguson to act a complete idiot. But the results are all the same.

The NAACP president on CBS This Morning.

The other national and international protests appeared more calm.

More people need to remember that systemic inequalities and patterns of behavior do not mean that every incident is a result of injustice. That cannot be assumed which is why we have a legal process in an attempt to span beyond personal opinions and civil unrest. Michael Brown's family will most likely be assisted with filing a civil suit.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

MysticCat, a question. I've seen legal commentary on several networks discussing basically a "data dump," by the prosecutor, giving all the evidence to the grand jury and letting them sort it out rather than guiding them to the charge he wanted or thought most appropriate.

Except for a Ferguson police union representative, all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

On the local level the Grand Jury decision's been made. But a lot about this process, as reported, stinks.

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by KDCat

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

Agreed 100%.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

Originally Posted by KDCat

I'm local, too. My view on that was that McCulloch didn't want the cop charged, but he needed political cover for not charging him. By handing it off to a grand jury, he could wash his hands of the decision not to charge.

He should have just charged the cop by information, held a preliminary hearing, and tried the thing. The result would have probably been the same and people would less pissed off.

I think it was weird because they knew they had to try to give enough information to the public to help them understand why the grand jury made the determination they did in hopes of preventing violent and destructive protests. Of course it was not typical. You don't typically have that kind of attention focused on most grand jury decisions. There are rarely press conferences to tell people what a grand jury determined. This was an extreme circumstance.

I don't think people would have been any less pissed off after a jury trial if the result was the same.

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by AGDee

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

I understand, too. When the prosecutor takes it on himself to act as defense, presents all the potentially exculpatory evidence, allows the accused to testify for himself, fails to look for probable cause as he would in any other case, and then essentially tells the GJ to do what they think is right without giving a recommendation as he would in any other case, the outcome isn't surprising.

You've actually highlighted the problem with the way this was handled. No one gets this kind of defense from a prosecutor.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by pbear19

You've actually highlighted the problem with the way this was handled. No one gets this kind of defense from a prosecutor.

+1, pbear19.

That's exactly what stuck with me from the array of reporting and other coverage I've read/heard. I'm also left wondering how many of last night's rioters/looters were actually registered voters, you know, actually participating (however minimally) in the process of their own political empowerment.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think it was weird because they knew they had to try to give enough information to the public to help them understand why the grand jury made the determination they did in hopes of preventing violent and destructive protests. Of course it was not typical. You don't typically have that kind of attention focused on most grand jury decisions. There are rarely press conferences to tell people what a grand jury determined. This was an extreme circumstance.

I don't think people would have been any less pissed off after a jury trial if the result was the same.

From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.

I think people would have been less pissed if a trial resulted in no conviction. There weren't riots after Zimmerman was acquitted or after the Jordan Davis hung jury. People were angry but at least they were being heard. This smacks of cover-up.

There was enough evidence from witnesses to get past a preliminary hearing if McCullough just filed charges (ie. "charging by information"). The evidence would have been heard in open court, rather than behind closed doors. The process is as important as the result.

Grand juries stink. Too secretive.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I am an attorney. I live in St. Louis City and my office is in St. Louis County. I do not practice criminal law, but MANY of my very good friends do. Unanimously, everyone familiar with the St. Louis County system and McCulloch's office thinks the handling of this grand jury was bizarre. I've seen so many comments this morning from friends who practice criminal law locally that they thought McCulloch's announcement speech was in line with that of a defense attorney, and not of a prosecutor.

I try not to step outside my area of expertise, so I defer to my friends who know. And all of my friends and professors think it was weird.

That was almost the 100% agreement on most of the Progressive Radio talk shows today. And also that McCulloch is from a family of cops, and his Dad was killed in the line of duty.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Protests are gearing up again tonight, all over the country and different parts of Europe and other countries.

To paraphrase the title of a 2003 documentary:

The Revolution Will be Televised, and Tweeted and Live-streamed.