Killing in Ferguson

There hasn't been a lot of posting here on this topic, perhaps because in many ways it's a re-run of Andy Lopez and it's already been said. But I'll say something more,if only to stop it running like a hamster wheel in my head.

I won’t pretend to know the absolute facts of the killing of Michael Brown. No one does, it seems: no one can doubt that there was extreme difference among the witnesses.

What does stand forth is the oddity of this procedure, at least as outlined in the NY Times. Normally, the prosecutor is a prosecutor, presenting the evidence that points to guilt. There’s no “defense,” and it’s simply the grand jury’s job to decide if there’s sufficient evidence to warrant a charge. It’s the trial jury that determines the credibility of that evidence.

(A friend forwarded an opinion written by Justice Scalia some time ago that made the same point: first time I've ever found myself in agreement with Scalia, and I guess what I'm saying is in line with conservative thinking, despite myself.)

Of course the D.A. must decide if his witnesses are credible or if he’s going to look like a driveling idiot making his case. But it’s no news that, in the main, prosecutors regard their job as being to go for the throat. The vast judicial wasteland of forced confessions, mishandled evidence, confused witnesses, deals with jailhouse snitches, etc., is glaringly clear in the number of death-sentence DNA reversals. Prosecutors do what the public elects them to do: nail the dude. Unless the dude wears blue.

Indeed, an indictment for murder or even involuntary manslaughter is a serious act, and one could argue that this prosecutor — in challenging witnesses, pointing out discrepancies to the grand jury, refusing to “argue a case,” was doing something that more prosecutors should do: try to ascertain the truth rather than simply smell blood.

But would the procedure have been the same, it's been asked, if Brown had killed Wilson? Has Mr. McCulloch, in his 23 years in office, pursued the same “impartiality” in the cases he’s brought? Has he ever pursued a case where the evidence was conflicted?

I have no way of knowing what happened on that day. I wasn’t standing on the curb or inside Officer Wilson’s head. I can well imagine he feared for his life: with the proliferation of guns, the rage in the streets, the growing image of police as an occupying army, it’s not crazy to react as if you’re in Afghanistan.

But that D.A. (like our own D.A. in enlightened Sonoma County) did no policeman a favor by his fair-and-balanced cop-out. The body politic is beset with a wasting disease, and it smells of rot.

Peace—
Conrad

As in the Andy Lopez tragedy, Jill Ravitch did exactly the same...she acted like a defense attorney for Erick Gelhaus, instead of the prosecutor, which she is supposed to be...
The investigations are always tainted, and their expert witnesses, always, side with the police...how can That be impartial?
Of course, we will never know all the facts, because one of the most important witnesses is Dead.
The other witness is a cop...when he said, he thought a "demon" was coming towards him, that speaks volumes...
The prosecutor gave a purposely confusing press conference, drawn out, tedious, so that amongst it all, he could casually mention, Oh by the way, NO Charges, and then he proceeded to talk as if the most important thing we wanted to hear, wasn't important at all...!
It was deliberate and manipulative...
And that the Grand Jury could not even find Wilson guilty of the least of 5 possibilities...shows just how much they never wanted to hold Officer Wilson culpable at all...
That he (Wilson) escalated the first word interaction with Brown is clear, however, he would not let it go..and he did not have to, right......he had to have the last word, the last shot!
Only with a lot of work will we be able to effect change in deadly force policy...or excessive force policy...
Our county is inundated with corruption, as so many other parts of the country as well...
Much work to do...
peace
beshiva

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

There hasn't been a lot of posting here on this topic, perhaps because in many ways it's a re-run of Andy Lopez and it's already been said. But I'll say something more,if only to stop it running like a hamster wheel in my head.

I won’t pretend to know the absolute facts of the killing of Michael Brown. No one does, it seems: no one can doubt that there was extreme difference among the witnesses.

What does stand forth is the oddity of this procedure, at least as outlined in the NY Times. Normally, the prosecutor is a prosecutor, presenting the evidence that points to guilt. There’s no “defense,” and it’s simply the grand jury’s job to decide if there’s sufficient evidence to warrant a charge. It’s the trial jury that determines the credibility of that evidence.

(A friend forwarded an opinion written by Justice Scalia some time ago that made the same point: first time I've ever found myself in agreement with Scalia, and I guess what I'm saying is in line with conservative thinking, despite myself.)

Of course the D.A. must decide if his witnesses are credible or if he’s going to look like a driveling idiot making his case. But it’s no news that, in the main, prosecutors regard their job as being to go for the throat. The vast judicial wasteland of forced confessions, mishandled evidence, confused witnesses, deals with jailhouse snitches, etc., is glaringly clear in the number of death-sentence DNA reversals. Prosecutors do what the public elects them to do: nail the dude. Unless the dude wears blue.

Indeed, an indictment for murder or even involuntary manslaughter is a serious act, and one could argue that this prosecutor — in challenging witnesses, pointing out discrepancies to the grand jury, refusing to “argue a case,” was doing something that more prosecutors should do: try to ascertain the truth rather than simply smell blood.

But would the procedure have been the same, it's been asked, if Brown had killed Wilson? Has Mr. McCulloch, in his 23 years in office, pursued the same “impartiality” in the cases he’s brought? Has he ever pursued a case where the evidence was conflicted?

I have no way of knowing what happened on that day. I wasn’t standing on the curb or inside Officer Wilson’s head. I can well imagine he feared for his life: with the proliferation of guns, the rage in the streets, the growing image of police as an occupying army, it’s not crazy to react as if you’re in Afghanistan.

But that D.A. (like our own D.A. in enlightened Sonoma County) did no policeman a favor by his fair-and-balanced cop-out. The body politic is beset with a wasting disease, and it smells of rot.

Peace—
Conrad

---

Cops who kill in the line of duty HAVE to claim that they were in fear for their lives and their ONLY option was to shoot the victim. Any other explanation could lead to an indictment on criminal charges. The need to be convincing leads to the ludicrous and exaggerated accounts of the victim's aggression that we hear in case after case. In the unlikely event that a cop wanted to tell the truth, his superiors and the DA (cops -in-suits) would not allow it.

Darren Wilson had over 3 months to prepare the explanation he gave to the media. He was certainly coached by experienced lawyers so that his explanation conformed to forensic evidence. I find it stunning that Wilson made NO report at police headquarters after the shooting. When he was interviewed then, it was not recorded nor were notes taken. With a system like this I don't see how any testimony by a killer cop could be considered credible by an unbiased party.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

As in the Andy Lopez tragedy, Jill Ravitch did exactly the same...she acted like a defense attorney for Erick Gelhaus, instead of the prosecutor, which she is supposed to be...
The investigations are always tainted, and their expert witnesses, always, side with the police...how can That be impartial?
Of course, we will never know all the facts, because one of the most important witnesses is Dead.
The other witness is a cop...when he said, he thought a "demon" was coming towards him, that speaks volumes...
The prosecutor gave a purposely confusing press conference, drawn out, tedious, so that amongst it all, he could casually mention, Oh by the way, NO Charges, and then he proceeded to talk as if the most important thing we wanted to hear, wasn't important at all...!
It was deliberate and manipulative...
And that the Grand Jury could not even find Wilson guilty of the least of 5 possibilities...shows just how much they never wanted to hold Officer Wilson culpable at all...
That he (Wilson) escalated the first word interaction with Brown is clear, however, he would not let it go..and he did not have to, right......he had to have the last word, the last shot!
Only with a lot of work will we be able to effect change in deadly force policy...or excessive force policy...
Our county is inundated with corruption, as so many other parts of the country as well...
Much work to do...
peace
beshiva

---