Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[unokitty]

...enormous headline reaction in the world's media to the Ferguson protests, and many commentators have taken the opportunity to question America's credentials as a human rights champion.

Uwe Schmitt, the former Washington correspondent for Germany's centre-right daily Die Welt, writes it is a "predictable explosion" given the juxtaposition of a "grotesquely over-armed police force" with a black community "untouched by economic recovery".

He accuses many Americans of "self-delusion" when they ask how such violence can recur again and again, while abroad "people shake their heads unsurprised, either in mourning or glee".

An editorial in France's Liberation newspaper says: "Ferguson is a long way from being the post-racial America dreamed of by Barack Obama."

In Spain, Pere Vilanova writes in El Periodico that "perhaps the symbolic value of the election enormous headline reaction in the world's media to the Ferguson protests, and many commentators have taken the opportunity to question America's credentials as a human rights champion. of a black man as president in 2008 has been overestimated and inter-communal wounds will never be healed".

In Italy, La Stampa's New York correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli says the discussion has become one about the race problem "connected to inequality and economic disparity". He notes that some of the white demonstrators in New York and Los Angeles wanted to broaden the debate in that direction...

Writing in South Africa's Daily Maverick, Richard Poplak finds that images of officers facing off against enraged citizens show "an American city aping South African archival footage".

"It's a reminder that in divided countries, with histories of institutionalized racism, reconciliation without actually reconciling... justice is not just impossible, but a massive cover-up, a ruse used by power."

Only two people actually know what happened between Mike Brown and Darren Wilson.

One is dead... Consequently, what actually happened will never be totally clear...

But what is clear is that Mike Brown is not the only loser here...

Uno

 

[HumblePie]

Except as I just pointed out with several links that you clearly didn't bother to read, what he did was unusual. Not only that but it appears that the prosecutor is biased towards police, you know, like the one he's supposed to be bringing evidence against!

Justice served!

Most prosecutors without a shred of evidence on which to base a case won't even bother pressing for a trail at all. Let alone use a grand jury. What the prosecutor did in this case he did because he had ZERO EVIDENCE on which to even base probable cause for a crime upon. With nothing, he didn't want to be caught by the media and idiots like you who believe there must be some evidence. So what he did was dump everything there was on a jury in a public fashion so as to get it into the media and the public that there was absolutely nothing he could have done had it even been brought to trial.

Yes the prosecutor could have tried to pull a dumbass Angela Corey move like what happened in the Zimmerman case. She fudged up some fake probable cause, of which no one on her team had any evidence that could disprove the obstacle of self defense. She took to trial a person with zero evidence only because of the media and political pressure.

Know what cases like that do to prosecutors? It can cause job loses. When a prosecutor squanders a crap ton of resources, time, and tax payer dollars going to trial with absolutely nothing and they know they have nothing, then that prosecutor knows they are going to be looking for a new job soon. That's why in 99.9999999999999% my finger got tired of adding more 9's, of these kind of cases where there is zero evidence then the prosecutors don't prosecute.

Angela Corey went the route of pure stupid with her prosecution of Zimmerman. She had nothing, everyone knew she had nothing, and still she pressed forward. Maybe she was hoping George would buckle and plea bargain or something. That was laughable though for her to think that. The prosecutor in this case had it even worse than Angela Corey.

Do you really want a prosecutor to risk his job so he can't food on the table for his family all to satisfy your bloodlust and the bloodlust of others?

 

[ivwshane]

Lol at your appeal to emotion with regard to mcculloch. If the prosecutor doesn't believe he doesn't have enough evidence then he shouldn't have moved to indict. The fact that he did, according to folks here, because of an angry mob, shows all this was for show and not taken seriously. Because if it was taken seriously he would have come out and said not enough evidence, or he would have got an indictment. Instead we get this farce of an indictment where people like you think justice was served.

Most prosecutors without a shred of evidence on which to base a case won't even bother pressing for a trail at all. Let alone use a grand jury. What the prosecutor did in this case he did because he had ZERO EVIDENCE on which to even base probable cause for a crime upon. With nothing, he didn't want to be caught by the media and idiots like you who believe there must be some evidence. So what he did was dump everything there was on a jury in a public fashion so as to get it into the media and the public that there was absolutely nothing he could have done had it even been brought to trial.

Yes the prosecutor could have tried to pull a dumbass Angela Corey move like what happened in the Zimmerman case. She fudged up some fake probable cause, of which no one on her team had any evidence that could disprove the obstacle of self defense. She took to trial a person with zero evidence only because of the media and political pressure.

Know what cases like that do to prosecutors? It can cause job loses. When a prosecutor squanders a crap ton of resources, time, and tax payer dollars going to trial with absolutely nothing and they know they have nothing, then that prosecutor knows they are going to be looking for a new job soon. That's why in 99.9999999999999% my finger got tired of adding more 9's, of these kind of cases where there is zero evidence then the prosecutors don't prosecute.

Angela Corey went the route of pure stupid with her prosecution of Zimmerman. She had nothing, everyone knew she had nothing, and still she pressed forward. Maybe she was hoping George would buckle and plea bargain or something. That was laughable though for her to think that. The prosecutor in this case had it even worse than Angela Corey.

Do you really want a prosecutor to risk his job so he can't food on the table for his family all to satisfy your bloodlust and the bloodlust of others?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fantastic! Then show us how Missouri law is different.

Missouri law as far as I can tell doesn't say anything either way and I believe I touched on this on an earlier date. Now show how this is related to the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except as I just pointed out with several links that you clearly didn't bother to read, what he did was unusual. Not only that but it appears that the prosecutor is biased towards police, you know, like the one he's supposed to be bringing evidence against!

Justice served!

Ok I was right.

 

[compuwiz1]

Lol at your appeal to emotion with regard to mcculloch. If the prosecutor doesn't believe he doesn't have enough evidence then he shouldn't have moved to indict. The fact that he did, according to folks here, because of an angry mob, shows all this was for show and not taken seriously. Because if it was taken seriously he would have come out and said not enough evidence, or he would have got an indictment. Instead we get this farce of an indictment where people like you think justice was served.

Have you gone to a doctor lately? You should. You are so far beyond what is considered social norms. I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane or you are a huge internet troll. Nobody...and I mean nobody is as obtuse as you. I think you're well educated and well informed, but.....you play the 180 degree opposite angle...as a game. It's your thing that gets you off at night. Myself and most others here have you figured out. I can't believe the moderators allow you to do what you do here. Back when I was a MOD your ass would have been ousted on a stick with a size 14 boot up your ass. So I want to see the preponderance of the evidence.....who is the real Shane?

 

[JEDIYoda]

On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.


It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:


And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.

But McCulloch chose a different path.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Legal Experts Explain Why The Ferguson Grand Jury Was Set Up For Failure

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...rand-jury-in-ferguson-was-set-up-for-failure/


A shirt reading “hands up don’t shoot” is covered with roses Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, at the spot Michael Brown was killed by police Aug. 9 in Ferguson.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Charlie Riedel

In this video, two experienced attorneys explain what, in their view, are serious flaws with the grand jury process in the Darren Wilson case. The lawyers, St. Louis University law professor Susan McGraugh and Jerryl T. Christmas, a defense attorney and former prosecutor in St. Louis, are unsparing in their criticism of county prosecutor Bob McCulloch. (Christmas has participated in protests following Brown’s death.)


Specifically, McGraugh and Christmas question McCulloch’s unusual decision to present “all evidence” to the grand jury. Typically, prosecutors present to the grand jury only the evidence necessary to establish probable cause. (A grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence but only if a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty.) McGraugh and Christmas are especially critical of McCulloch’s decision to allow Wilson to testify for hours in front of the grand jury.

McGraugh and Christmas emphasized that, when a prosecutor truly wants to get an indictment from a grand jury, it is usually very simple to do so.

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

*** News Release *** THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO...

THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO INDICT

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

President Meanes is requesting that the citizens of Ferguson, Missouri not allow this decision to cause an unnecessary uproar in the community that could lead to arrests, injuries or even deaths of innocent people. “I am asking for everyone to remain as calm as possible and to join in solidarity as we continue to support the family of Michael Brown and put our legal plan into full effect” says President Meanes “I feel the magnitude of the grand jury’s ruling as Ferguson, Missouri is only minutes from where I reside”, adds President Meanes.

Over the last couple of months, the National Bar Association has hosted Town Hall meetings informing attendees of their Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) constitutional rights, whether it is legal to record police activity, and how citizens should behave/respond if and when they interface with police officers. “The death of Michael Brown was the last straw and the catalyst for addressing issues of inequality and racial bias in policing, the justice system, and violence against members of minority communities,” states Pamela Meanes.

The family of Michael Brown requested that District Attorney McCullough step aside and allow a special prosecutor be assigned to the investigation to give the community confidence that the grand jury would conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the tragic shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown. The grand jury’s decision confirms the fear that many expressed months ago — that a fair and impartial investigation would not happen.

“The National Bar Association is adamant about our desire for transformative justice. While we are disappointed with the grand jury’s ruling, we are promoting peace on every street corner around the world. The only way to foster systemic change is to organize, educate, and mobilize. We are imploring everyone to fight against the injustice in Ferguson, Missouri and throughout the United States by banding together and working within the confines of the law,” states President Meanes.

 

[HTFOff]

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

*** News Release *** THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO...

THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO INDICT

Ah yes, the national bar association.

The National Bar Association (NBA) is the oldest and largest national association of African-American attorneys and judges in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bar_Association

not to be confused the the american bar association.

The American Bar Association (ABA), founded August 21, 1878,[2] is a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students, which is not specific to any jurisdiction in the United States. The ABA's most important stated activities are the setting of academic standards for law schools, and the formulation of model ethical codes related to the legal profession. The ABA has 410,000 members. Its national headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois; it also maintains a significant branch office in Washington, D.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association


Now - back to your regularly scheduled butthurt.

 

[halik]

thinkprogress is about as good of a source as hearing it on Rush Limbaugh radio show.

 

[doubledeluxe]

I'm a bit confused. A grand juries job is to determine if there is probably cause to go to trial. Did this grand jury not succeed in filling that role? They are supposed to limit the evidence presented including not taking Wilson's statements? Is he not a witness to the events?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm a bit confused. A grand juries job is to determine if there is probably cause to go to trial. Did this grand jury not succeed in filling that role? They are supposed to limit the evidence presented including not taking Wilson's statements? Is he not a witness to the events?

Typically, the prosecutor believes a crime has been committed, so he uses the grand jury to ensure an indictment is handed down. He presents a biased case against the defendant, ensuring that the GJ will indict. This is the basic way a GJ works. It is a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. The defendant has very little chance.

This is why the person the prosecutor wants indicted, is almost always indicted. It is also why an indictment often doesn't say much about guilt or innocence, or the likely trial outcome.

In this case, the prosecutor apparently did not believe a crime had been committed.

The normal course is to investigate, interview witnesses, compile a report, and announce that there will not be any charges. Hold a presser and say that he has done a complete investigation, and there's no case to be filed.

In this case, there was enormous political pressure on the prosecutor. The prosecutor basically chickened out on taking the burden himself. He decided to use the GJ as cover for the lack of charges.

The GJ was already empaneled, so he didn't even have to assemble a new one.

So he just had 2 ADAs present everything and everyone to the grand jury, including all 5 possible charges, knowing that there really was no case, and knowing there would be no indictment.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Before spending all this time posting links, you could have saved yourself the effort by learning what the word "unprecedented" means.

I guess he wasn't in class the day the meaning of the word was discussed

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LMAO!!!!! Three walls of texts and none carry any weight in this case. Liberal supporting SC Justice Scalia when it supports their cause LOL! National Bar Association LOL! Thinkprogress talking heads LOL!

Police = can do no good

Israeli jackboots = can do no wrong

 

[Conscript]

Am I the only one who can't see past the "Gone To Soon" shirt Brown's father continues to display? I don't diminish the pain he must be feeling...but ffs can someone please get him a shirt with another O?

 

[Sinsear]

National Bar Association, lmfao.

How many non black attorneys belong to the National Bar Association?

 

[The Merg]

Am I the only one who can't see past the "Gone To Soon" shirt Brown's father continues to display? I don't diminish the pain he must be feeling...but ffs can someone please get him a shirt with another O?

LOL!

- Merg

 

[TechBoyJK]

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

*** News Release *** THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO...


bla bla bla.

JEDI.. really?

 

[TechBoyJK]

I'm a bit confused. A grand juries job is to determine if there is probably cause to go to trial. Did this grand jury not succeed in filling that role? They are supposed to limit the evidence presented including not taking Wilson's statements? Is he not a witness to the events?

It's actually the prosecutors job to determine if they file charges. But if he's unsure, he has to take it to a grand jury.

He was obviously sure that there was no case, but to appease the masses he took it to grand jury anyway.

His job is to win cases, not take unwinnable cases to trial. So, in showing all evidence, he allowed the grand jury the headroom to come up with the same decision. And they did.

There's really no where to go from here. It's a done deal as far as the county is involved.

 

[surfsatwerk]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/28/ferguson-black-friday_n_6235890.html

Can we quit calling them "protestors" now?

 

[TechBoyJK]

I was reading around last night, and also read it in a cnn article this morning.

One of the key pieces of evidence that made the grand jury decide what they did:

Brown had abrasions on his face and body from when he fell. And multiple autopsies all agreed that the only way he could have received these abrasions was to have been running, full speed, then falling forward. Exactly what Wilson said he did.

The shell casings, abrasions, broken glass, angle of bullet through car door, and multiple credible witnesses (keyword credible) all backup the story that Wilson originally gave to the police, and he confirmed it by elaborating that story in front of the grand jury.

There's an abundance of evidence that allows any reasonable person to see that Wilson's story is by far the most plausible, and that alone creates massive reasonable doubt that he's guilty of murder or anything but defending himself.

There's no case.

 

[Blanky]

Ah yes, the national bar association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bar_Association

not to be confused the the american bar association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association


Now - back to your regularly scheduled butthurt.

wow, hahah I was tricked until I saw your post. Thanks.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Can we quit calling them "protestors" now?

I think they should be called ignorant fools who were tricked by the media and are too stupid to realize no claims of the media darlings are true, NONE!!!

No "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!"
No "Gunned down in the street like an animal"
No "Executed by a cop"
No "Grabbed by the throat and pulled into the car"

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I was reading around last night, and also read it in a cnn article this morning.

One of the key pieces of evidence that made the grand jury decide what they did:

Brown had abrasions on his face and body from when he fell. And multiple autopsies all agreed that the only way he could have received these abrasions was to have been running, full speed, then falling forward. Exactly what Wilson said he did.

The shell casings, abrasions, broken glass, angle of bullet through car door, and multiple credible witnesses (keyword credible) all backup the story that Wilson originally gave to the police, and he confirmed it by elaborating that story in front of the grand jury.

There's an abundance of evidence that allows any reasonable person to see that Wilson's story is by far the most plausible, and that alone creates massive reasonable doubt that he's guilty of murder or anything but defending himself.

There's no case.

At this point it just doesn't matter. The fact that the testimony was evaluated along side the forensic evidence doesn't matter at all to the faithful who want Wilson's head. Nothing that is said or done will change that.

It's evident in this very thread by the people who are still taking little snippets of info and trying to run with them without at all considering everything else.

Just don't waste your time and effort on it.