You keep trotting out the above, instead show us his record of GJ indictments against officers...I'll help you out...he's 0-5!
What's the DA's record for prosecuting cops? You know it's greater than 50% right? For every instance you can skew into making the DA out to be racist or corrupt, there's many more than show he actually will throw the book at corrupt cops. But don't let that history alter your racist bias.
You keep trotting out the above, instead show us his record of GJ indictments against officers...I'll help you out...he's 0-5!
McCulloch’s office has prosecuted at least 33 police officers or former police officers, according to a list provided by McCulloch’s executive assistant, Edward Magee. McCulloch has been prosecutor since 1991.
That's not true. He's like 21 for 33. Where did you get the 0-5 stat from? He's been the DA since like 1992. You think he's only seen 5 cases against cops? Think about it.
The 0-5 figure comes from him going to a GJ, not total prosecutions
against officers. He was 0-4 before this case, he's now 0-5. Since we are talking about GJ cases here in this thread, his GJ history with officers are the only stats relevant to the discussion.
I've been to St Louis many times, have a good friend that lives there. The place has always been crap for many decades.
Well, anybody that has been to North St. Louis will be ok with the bum statement. It's true. Kind of a crude way to put it, but it's true. A bum is a bum. St. Louis has a lot of bums that are often drunk or just pissed off at the world.
Anyways, I think his entire history of prosecutions is relevant. Especially when the 0-5 figure is being trotted as evidence of him favoring police.
What I think he favors is the integrity of the concept of 'law enforcement'. Which is normal, and acceptable. I think if you're a cop who infringes on that integrity, he'll toss you under the bus as quick as anybody.
Also, keep in mind, his overall record is very important and relevant, simply because these are cases he moved forward on without needing to defer to a grand jury. His record, in regards to GJ, simply shows a record in which he was uncertain, and deferred to a grand jury. This means that while he is 0-5 in GJ situations, there's 33 other cases in which he was confident enough to attempt to prosecute. So the 0-5 number really skews the perception that he's corrupt, especially if you don't consider the 33 other times he didn't favor a cop at all and instead tried to prosecute them.
Lastly, I don't think this was really his call anyway. I think he had .Gov, .Pres, and .DOJ breathing down his neck so he handed it to a GJ so that the entire decision didn't rest on one white guy's shoulders.
It WAS totally his call, he just didn't want to be the "bad guy", he placed that burden to the GJ and made a sham of the GJ process. He was only looking out for his own ass.
I don't buy that. He was under a lot of national pressure. He was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Step back, and imagine if he had just declined to indict Wilson outright. Ferguson would have exploded. As a resident of the area, I'm thankful he didn't do that. I'm also thankful that this didn't go to trial, which would have simply prolonged the riots and drama. This really was an open/shut case had the media not gotten involved and skewed the narrative. They simply handed this over to a GJ to hash out all of the available evidence, I think just to show that there's not nearly enough evidence to win a trial. If you can't win a trial, you don't prosecute the case. THAT is unethical. It's a county prosecutor's job to prosecute cases they can win, not chase cases they know they will lose.
He just doesn't have the track record to suggest foul play. You can take some specific stats out of context to frame up an argument, but those arguments fail entirely when presented along with all the stats. In fact, using stats, it's much easier to make the argument that had he thought he had a legit case, he would have pursued it aggressively. There wasn't a case, so it was not pursued.
The 'cop executed young unarmed black kid' narrative is nothing more than a fallacy. Remove that from the equation and this is just another out of control inner city man who didn't respect the law. As someone who is in downtown St. Louis daily, the city is full of these types. White or black.
His father was an officer who was shot dead by a black person, you honestly don't think that causes him any bias at all?
You should read more about Dorian Johnson and his history.. but you won't because you don't want to realize why he has zero credibility.
Since Londo won't, then why don't you explain why Wilson has total credibility, when he clearly and unequivocally changed his story? I mean lying and changing your story is bad right? Right? Certainly we have seen a lot of examples on this forum where police have been proven to have lied to cover themselves. So it isn't like cops lying is anything out f the realm of possibility.
Like I said, one person's story didn't change, and one did. And the one that did was the cop, and it was about a not insignificant point. Please explain your reasoning for his complete 180 on his story.
And Didn't Wilson come from another PD that was disbanded because of poor behavior?
His father was an officer who was shot dead by a black person, you honestly don't think that causes him any bias at all?
Why not let GJs talk? This probable cause hearing was treated like an actual trial anyway but absent vetting of jurors.
Plaintiff in suit says McCollough "misrepresented" this case.
You keep trotting out the above, instead show us his record of GJ indictments against officers...I'll help you out...he's 0-5!
I see these people wearing those shirts continue to excuse Mike Brown for any role he played in his own death. If they were in school they'd be treated for a learning disability.Oh oh oh, I know this!
He is so racist he saw his father's killer in Michael Brown because... skin color! Because all black people are one in the same! He must have felt that by allowing Wilson to get away with shooting dead Michael Brown, Wilson will, in appreciation, shoot dead the ghosts of his past and finally allow his father the peace he deserves in the afterlife. This stuff totally happens all the time in real life, not at all confined to the pages of movie scripts.
It really is a stretch of the imagination believing all black people are one in the same because of skin color, what a racist thing to believe in. Where could anyone have gotten that idea from?
hmmm, a lot of people need to be answering for that strong-arm robbery Michael Brown committed. That's who they say they are, to disagree would be racist. So I must agree they all are Mike Brown, the full package, both the good and the bad.
Since Londo won't, then why don't you explain why Wilson has total credibility, when he clearly and unequivocally changed his story? I mean lying and changing your story is bad right? Right? Certainly we have seen a lot of examples on this forum where police have been proven to have lied to cover themselves. So it isn't like cops lying is anything out f the realm of possibility.
Like I said, one person's story didn't change, and one did. And the one that did was the cop, and it was about a not insignificant point. Please explain your reasoning for his complete 180 on his story.
And Didn't Wilson come from another PD that was disbanded because of poor behavior?
TechboyJK did his job in arguing that when there is sufficient evidence of guilt to convict, he skips the grand jury, goes right to court, and has a good record of guilty verdicts. It's up to you to put some substance behind the words you type.
Wilson's story is backed by the physical evidence, Dorian's story on the other hand was debunked by the physical evidence. Grand Jury decided "No Bill"..........No further charges will be filed by the Fed as the evidence doesn't show any federal laws were violated either. All your going round and round about the Prosecutor/Grand Jury Process will change nothing.........period...........End of story
None of the physical evidence proved Brown's hands were not up.
Please do tell me in your opinion, which of the first 4 grand jury proceedings he prosecuted resulted in the grand jury making the wrong decision? And why?
I hope we can agree that not all cases brought into the court systems are against guilty defendants. Some are innocent.
So, you're bringing in these stats for a reason. You are making the connection that of these 5 cases, some should have been indicted, hence that none were, the prosecutor is not doing his job properly. Instead of suggesting fault by vague references to statistics, of the first 4 cases which of them do you believe the defendant should have been indicted, and what specifically do you think was done maliciously by the prosecutor?
Please provide something of actual substance to back up your argument. TechboyJK did his job in arguing that when there is sufficient evidence of guilt to convict, he skips the grand jury, goes right to court, and has a good record of guilty verdicts. It's up to you to put some substance behind the words you type.
The case that the two un-armed black men that were shot in their car by police. The case has been posted by others here in other threads.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html
A subsequent federal investigation showed that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots and killed the suspects, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley. The probe, however, also concluded that because the officers feared for their safety, the shootings were justified.
None of the physical evidence proved Brown's hands were not up.