So correct me if I'm wrong but here's what I'm understanding:
White people are inherently racist.
Melatonin levels in the skin are what determines whether or not someone can be considered a "peer".
Evidence and jury trail should be ignored in favor of race wars.
People are selected for a jury if they are believed to not have a strong bias to either side of the case. The fact of the matter is that there was 12 American citizens there to determine the guilt or innocence of another American citizen. It's also important to know that these people were selected before the killing took place.
More importantly the person being convicted of a crime is promised a jury of their peers. Not the person who is convicting. In other words officer Darren Wilson had a jury of HIS peers. Do you understand that?
No, they weren't.
They were there to determine whether there was sufficient probable cause for the case to proceed. Even in full blown trial all they decided is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocence.
Yeah, they rarely do. I've presented cases before a grand jury before (although not for indictment, but for a procedure in juvenile law known as Determinate Sentencing). The prosecutor enjoys enormous control over the process. At the same time, Grand Juries (unlike petite) juries can subpoena witnesses (even if the State does not call them) and generally conduct their own investigations. However they rarely do that make use of those powers.
Prosecutors screen cases before filling. Most of the cases that are in danger of a no bill almost never even see the grand jury. Why would I submit it to one if I know I am going to lose?
I would be cautious about using such things in comparing it to this case for this because as I said, presenting your entire case (including witness testimony) is unusual. I see it mostly in high profile cases.
Ah, an actual lawyer on the scene? Color me impressed.
What I'm understanding here is that the Prosecutor, I.E the one attempting to get Wilson into an actual court has the Home field advantage in all this, so its even more telling that they could not convince the Jury that the evidence was substantial in this case, correct? What I Know, or think that I know about such cases is that the rules of what can or cannot be included are more lax then in an actual court room...
I'm asking for the clarification of everyone on how telling it is that they could not for the life of them get this thing into court based on the evidence. I have a very hard time imagining that 9--IF nine of them voted against and not more sat there and decided that the case was not even worth an actual trial to determine guilt if there WAS compelling evidence to back it up...
Two completely different meanings in those pictures.
You were too late to tell me this! i had to puzzle it out myself in all of 20 seconds my brain hurts.
Interests:Naruto!!! Bleach, League of Legends, Xbox, Ps3, Photography,Foooooood, and Football :)
Posted 26 November 2014 - 02:51 AM
Ah, an actual lawyer on the scene? Color me impressed.
What I'm understanding here is that the Prosecutor, I.E the one attempting to get Wilson into an actual court has the Home field advantage in all this, so its even more telling that they could not convince the Jury that the evidence was substantial in this case, correct? What I Know, or think that I know about such cases is that the rules of what can or cannot be included are more lax then in an actual court room...
I'm asking for the clarification of everyone on how telling it is that they could not for the life of them get this thing into court based on the evidence. I have a very hard time imagining that 9--IF nine of them voted against and not more sat there and decided that the case was not even worth an actual trial to determine guilt if there WAS compelling evidence to back it up...
You were too late to tell me this! i had to puzzle it out myself in all of 20 seconds my brain hurts.
I wasn't trying to tell you what you already knew...
Ah, an actual lawyer on the scene? Color me impressed.
What I'm understanding here is that the Prosecutor, I.E the one attempting to get Wilson into an actual court has the Home field advantage in all this, so its even more telling that they could not convince the Jury that the evidence was substantial in this case, correct? What I Know, or think that I know about such cases is that the rules of what can or cannot be included are more lax then in an actual court room...
I'm asking for the clarification of everyone on how telling it is that they could not for the life of them get this thing into court based on the evidence. I have a very hard time imagining that 9--IF nine of them voted against and not more sat there and decided that the case was not even worth an actual trial to determine guilt if there WAS compelling evidence to back it up...
You were too late to tell me this! i had to puzzle it out myself in all of 20 seconds my brain hurts.
Home field advantage? Yeah, they do in that they have a significant amount of control and GJ's generally are deferrential to the prosecutor (though not always). Yes, the rules of evidence are very lax at grand jury. Hearsay is admissible for example. The reason is that it's just a PC determination and not a trial on the merits. PC is the level need for a search warrant for example and things like hearsay are valid in securing those even if it cannot be used a trial. We don't know how many voted against it. All we know is that fewer than 9 voted to indict. A majority could have voted for indictment (for example an 8-4 split) and no bill still be the result, but unless they say there is no way to know.
I am not sure about Missouri law on the final point. In Texas, a grand jury must indict before a prosecutor can proceed on a felony case. From what I have heard, you either need a GJ approval or you must under a PC hearing in front a judge before you can proceed on a felony in Missouri. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In Misdemeanor cases (in Texas), the prosecutor can just swear out a complaint by themselves. The same is true for juvenile cases (for felonies and misdemeanors) unless I want to use Determinate Sentencing. I must have GJ approval for that.
I am unsure what you mean on the last point. If you get a no bill, they could technically bring it back before a different grand jury, but if you are having to do that without possessing new evidence it's a good bet your case sucks and you better be prepared to have your ass handed to you at trial because your burden of proof is higher, the rules evidence apply in full and the verdict must be unanimous. It's not a guarantee, nothing ever is when juries are concerned because you have no clue who will be on it until you can get there, but it's a bad sign if you are struggling with PC.
I have had juries that are very good (in both victory and defeat) and I have had some that I wouldn't trust to boil water.
Alright, I'm back and ready to discuss again. I've read through the responses, and a lot bring up good points... however, I think this video needs to be watched and considered before we continue this thread.
Home field advantage? Yeah, they do in that they have a significant amount of control and GJ's generally are deferrential to the prosecutor (though not always). Yes, the rules of evidence are very lax at grand jury. The reason is that it's just a PC determination and not a trial on the merits. PC is the level need for a search warrant for example and things like hearsay are valid in securing those even if it cannot be used a trial. We don't know how many voted against it. All we know is that fewer than 9 voted to indict. A majority could have voted for indictment (for example an 8-4 split) and no bill still be the result, but unless they say there is no way to know.
I am not sure about Missouri law on the final point. In Texas, a grand jury must indict before a prosecutor can proceed on a felony case. From what I have heard, you either need a GJ approval or you must under a PC hearing in front a judge before you can proceed on a felony in Missouri. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In Misdemeanor cases (in Texas), the prosecutor can just swear out a complaint by themselves. The same is true for juvenile cases (for felonies and misdemeanors) unless I want to use Determinate Sentencing. I must have GJ approval for that.
Missouri law is pretty much makes it the liberty of the prosecutor's office whether or not to bring a case before a preliminary hearing or put it in the hands of a jury. It's like the ham sandwich analogy in most regards. The best comparison for this situation occuring is actually in Texas though; and if you look at that it's very rare, in cases involving a police shooting, for there to be any indictment. Dallas had 81 grand jury cases and only had 1 indictment out of those.
When it comes to the law and cops here, it's considered friendly towards law enforcement because of 563.046's rules regarding "use of force". (For the most part MO Law goes beyond Tennessee v. Garner if I remember correctly.)
McCulloch's reputation is extremely friendly towards law enforcement as well so no matter what he was going to do was probably going to be criticized (Fun Fact: He was running unopposed in this year's elections). It's also easy to be critical when the only cross-referencing that Wilson got was in an interview with George Stefanopolis, but again that's up to the prosecutor. The flip-side though is that these jurors were given the whole shebang in regards to evidence.
That being said, while the state isn't doing anything, that won't mean that the Justice Department or the Family is limited in their investigations because of it. Personally, I think we'll see the Feds get involved in reforming Ferguson and St. Louis County police in some way.
And while I've been typing this they've smashed up another police car on Church St. in front of Ferguson's City Hall. Yup.
Edited by Insurrection, 26 November 2014 - 04:06 AM.
Missouri law is pretty much makes it the liberty of the prosecutor's office whether or not to bring a case before a preliminary hearing or put it in the hands of a jury. It's like the ham sandwich analogy in most regards. The best comparison for this situation occuring is actually in Texas though; and if you look at that it's very rare, in cases involving a police shooting, for there to be any indictment. Dallas had 81 grand jury cases and only had 1 indictment out of those.
When it comes to the law and cops here, it's considered friendly towards law enforcement because of 563.046's rules regarding "use of force". (For the most part MO Law goes beyond Tennessee v. Garner if I remember correctly.)
McCulloch's reputation is extremely friendly towards law enforcement as well so no matter what he was going to do was probably going to be criticized (Fun Fact: He was running unopposed in this year's elections). It's also easy to be critical when the only cross-referencing that Wilson got was in an interview with George Stefanopolis, but again that's up to the prosecutor. The flip-side though is that these jurors were given the whole shebang in regards to evidence.
That being said, while the state isn't doing anything, that won't mean that the Justice Department or the Family is limited in their investigations because of it. Personally, I think we'll see the Feds get involved in reforming Ferguson and St. Louis County police in some way.
And while I've been typing this they've smashed up another police car on Church St. in front of Ferguson's City Hall. Yup.
The downside the examining trial is that the decision rests in the hands of a single decision maker who may be more concerned about public perception of themselves (as the identity and decision would be known) that the evidence. The idea of grand jury secrecy is minimize such constraints It's advantage is obvious a more rigorous cross examination process and that it's public. The transcript is there for any to read, but as someone who has done both trial and appellate work, I can attest there are some things that a cold record cannot convey.
Personally, I'd probably elect the GJ, especially if your judges are selected the same way as mine (via election--where the judge may be more concerned about re-election than anything else).
That being said, while the state isn't doing anything, that won't mean that the Justice Department or the Family is limited in their investigations because of it. Personally, I think we'll see the Feds get involved in reforming Ferguson and St. Louis County police in some way.
No idea what the family will do, but I bet Justice does what they did with Zimmerman....makes noise about investigating, but mostly just sitting on it until they can quietly discard it without notice. I dislike this approach because it just endlessly leaves people twisting in the wind, which is wrong. Given the failure here, I don't see why Justice would think its odds are better especially when they have the additional element of having to prove he intentionally deprived him of his civil rights. This case is not going to suddenly improve there. If they do anything, it will be, as you say, with the department as a whole, but I'd be really surprised if they went after Wilson specifically.
When it comes to the law and cops here, it's considered friendly towards law enforcement because of 563.046's rules regarding "use of force". (For the most part MO Law goes beyond Tennessee v. Garner if I remember correctly.)
While not impossible, it's not the easiest thing to get elected to that position if all law enforcement hates your guts.
Oooh, look at those cops in the right image, looking like they do after high profile sporting events when the streets are filled with drunks of all races
Seriously a random dude's tweet, that is what you are basing your opinion on? I live in the Southeastern U.S. an area that was considered the most racist region in the U.S. It is nothing like it was 50 years ago, 50 years ago only 10 percent of black were registered to vote in Alabama now the percentage of blacks registered to vote in Alabama is actually slightly higher then whites.
Also if you want to argue racism then explain this, black on white murders occurs twice as often as white on black.
I want you to give me proof, not speculation, not hearsay, not what some random people said, I want you to give me irrefutable proof that this shooting was racially motivated.
Alright, I'm back and ready to discuss again. I've read through the responses, and a lot bring up good points... however, I think this video needs to be watched and considered before we continue this thread.
This doesn't talk about the gun powder found on his hands, or the wound on his hand from where he reportedly grabbed the gun. Or Brown's blood IN THE CAR.
Its also someone who didn't see the body himself.
I want you to give me proof, not speculation, not hearsay, not what some random people said, I want you to give me irrefutable proof that this shooting was racially motivated.
This is my problem. Is there a history of Wilson being racist? not that we know of. Does he have a history of singling out black people as a cop? not that we know of, yet because he's a white cop I am supposed to ASSUME that what he did was racially motivated on the basis of his color and the color of the victim?
Why is that when a "white" person and "black" person get into it it's automatically assumed that it was racially motivated? To me that line of thinking is racist in and of itself.
I will not assume things based on CIRCUMSTANCES like what color you happened to be born as or popular opinion, but on the actual facts that have been presented before me.
Edited by Tsuki Hoshino, 26 November 2014 - 02:01 PM.
Ok, so I'm back again but just for this one, I'll come back..again (?) after my final exams. Anyway, there are too much comments for my poor english. It's already difficult to write my ideas here.
Yesterday I or whatever I spend hours reading more sources, etc. I'm more calmed now, and I agree with some of the points here, but even if I changed my mind in some aspects, some of you still are jerks to me. Anyway, I'll answer about the image and let other things down before leting this discussion for later.
Nah. The image I posted just happened to have the sentence I was looking for.
"one is a group of soldiers standing between citizens and their RIGHTS and the other is a group of cops standing around to prevent violence and further destruction of property"
"look at those cops in the right image, looking like they do after high profile sporting events when the streets are filled with drunks of all races"
Ok. That's a image of ferguson. Now, the message was that the essence hasn't changed. Before was, for example, voting (one of the things). Now, is racism institutionalized. The thing is that there is racism, and the Michael Brown's case is just the trigger. So, their protests are not there for ferguson case alone, they are demanding a life without fear.
With that out of the way, let's begin with the case itself from the very beginning.
Part of the video the police released. But this part was conveniently cut by them. It shows Brown paying for the cigars he supposedly stole in first place:
This thing here has not relation with the murder itself, but with what the police tried to use as excuse for the cop involved.
Now, can I afirm that Wilson did it for racism? No. But taking a look to his past, I can practically say he was racist. As a friend ask me: "Even him being a racist, can you prove he did it FOR it?" I answered him: " I can't understand how someone that is racist, something that is inherent partial, can act agaisnt the object of his belief's hate with impartiality. "
Just because there was a Jury who "decided" something, doesn't mean it will be the correct call. You can't asume that the ones there are unbiased. Seriously, like we hasn't enough examples in the history itself.
This video shows an specialist who explains how the shooting have had to take place.
Which contradicts more lies by police men saying that Brown has shot from behind. (They changed their version after it)
Now, about the blood: The blood was found on Wilson's car, which means (and it's consistent with the last story version of him and all the witness) that Brown was shot first when being close to him, where the struggle took place. And there is where this phrase takes place (Wilson's testimony): "You are too much of a pussy to shot me." In Wilson's words, Brown looked like a "demon", "crazy", that he felt like a 5-year-old agaisnt a Hulk Hogan and he feared for his life so he will do it again and it's proud of it.
It's proved that Brown walked to Wilson, because his blood was also found 20 feet past his body. Either way, the autopsy shows how his hands needed to be up for how the hollows are placed. But he did it because...he feared for his life, right? Agaisn't an unarmed 18-years old. "His hand was in a fist at his side, this one is in his waistband under his shirt, and he was like this. Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that eight to ten feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that’s what I shot.
‘I don’t know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face when blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped."
He could have easily shot him in his legs if he wanted that much to stop him, instead of this he shot this unarmed 18-years-old, because he feared for his life since the suspect looked like a demon (:
I agree with is that people are far too liberal in how they use it. When people hurled it at Richard Sherman earlier in the year I thought he had a legitimate gripe when he complained about it. Michael Brown doesn't tend to invoke my sympathy given the corroboration that he went for the officers service weapon and robbed a store ten minutes before that.
There was plenty of focus on Wilson. While the investigation was still within it's infancy Wilson was branded a racist based on nothing more than the race of the parties involved. It was presumed race motivated his actions without evidence.
Even know what specific evidence is being cited to justify this conclusion? His history with the department was known withing two to three weeks. I'd seen attempts to use the prior actions of his family as proof when dirt couldn't be directly found on him.
It's not as if people didn't dig for because they absolutely did. The primary reason his dirt was being spewed everywhere is because they couldn't find any. His history as an officer was absolutely looked into (as it should have been).
Pinning Wilson as a 'racist' is also what I was getting at when I said this case is complicated in the sense that it is qualified by race; in the dialogue surrounding it it's not "cop shoots young teen", because cases don't happen in a vacuum they're judged also in a social context. When I went on to talk about how I could sympathize that it's possible, that grievances may be legitimate, is because I've found a similar situation where my experiences are in line with similar problems that are highlighted for women. I'm not in Ferguson examining the case myself, but I can believe their grievances are legitimate and that this may be the culmination of frustration within the community. I'm not cynical to their cause. I understand why people are making a fuss that it's a white cop and a black man due to a history of media, exposure and handling of other cases, sterotyping, etc.
I don't pass judgement on Wilson, and I don't know his motivations. I know that the action of killing Micheal Brown was wrong. He's not innocent, but (as it was ruled) he's not guilty either. Were this and this person lying, did this and this happen, I don't know. I just think that the focus should be rightfully on him. They're both part of a bigger conversation about community, police, and justice and as with any politics things get messy. I suppose I should have added that vilifying Wilson doesn't help the issues either. That's why an open mind is necessary for such a charged topic like this. That's my stance.
The accuser is not immune to credibility attacks nor should they be. Accusers can be prone to lie as much as anyone else. Their status as victims does not make them immune from being wrong, mistaken, or outright lying. I fail to see why they are deserving of special protection that is not afforded to other witnesses whether they be experts, cops, or lay witnesses. There are limits on what and when certain types of character evidence can be used and not all credibility attacks are even usable in court.
However, he has been held up as the gentle giant who wouldn't harm a flea and so I have little sympathy when evidence comes out suggesting that image is not accurate. If you are going to paint that narrative and run with it's crap to sit and cry about when it receives scrutiny, especially when what comes out damages it.
One of my biggest grips about much of the commentary on this board in regards to Treyvon Martin is the complete inability of people too look at the law beyond that case. Michael Brown isn't the only person who has ever been a victim nor is murder the only charge to ever exist.
I haven't seen many (well any actually) people say he deserved it. I suspect there are people on social media who have (so don't waste my time finding them, I'll concede that they exist) on their isn't hard. That said, there are also witness statements, from other blacks no less, corroborating his account including that Wilson was still inside his vehicle when Brown first went after him. If you attempt to take an officers sidearm from them their assumption is that you plan to shoot them with it.
My concern is that even in this thread, someone called Micheal Brown a 'thug', and whether he robbed a store or reached for a weapon he wasn't supposed to die. Whether he was a model citizen or he's had some run ins with the law before, I don't think there is any room to discuss whether or not he should have been shot. He shouldn't have died regardless of what went down, and that's what bothers me. Maybe I've been unfortunate to be exposed to harsher topics surrounding him and not Wilson, but what I was exposed to was in line with issues I explained.
I do however, concede to this point. It's not a fair court if all parties are not address. I don't deny that when I wrote what I did, I may have had an unfair bias toward the victim without considering the actual process. It's difficult when the credibility attacks are happening to someone who is dead.
We've conversed enough that I believe your statement genuine. But I cannot overstate how much of a cynic I am about such pleas. Many people who say that don't want a dialogue. They just want to yell and lecture.
There are always people who want to yell and lecture about anything. It's because most people don't know how to argue properly. Even for those who do, emotions can sometimes get in the way.
This thread is just a flame war waiting to happen.
I can understand protesting court case decisions. The ppl have a right to let their opinion be heard. But riots and burning down buildings? You're not going to win over any supporters that way, and you're just going to arm your critics by making them seem right. There's a reason The great Martin Luther King practiced passive protest.
The shooting is a tragedy. Micheal Brown should still be alive but Wilson should not have been assaulted at the same time. The forensic evidence leans towards Wilson and several witnesses who said they witnessed his aggression flat out changed their stories and later admitted to not actually seeing the murder, This was stated by the head prosecutor in an interview and was the main reason why the case did not go to court.
Racism is horrible. I am a half-Irish half-Italian american. I am white and cannot speak to how it feels to be black in america. But it's common knowledge that when an officer of the Law asks you to do something you play along. If you don't like it fine, but take him up in court. Don't argue with him or try to assault him, what good is that going to do?
Edited by Shadow1275, 26 November 2014 - 11:16 PM.
He Who is Brave is Free-Seneca
^I have a lightsaber your argument is invalid^
"You may be called upon yet again to defend the glory of the Republic against the tyranny of the Dark Side. For this, is the destiny, of the Jedi..."
This thread is just a flame war waiting to happen.
I can understand protesting court case decisions. The ppl have a right to let their opinion be heard. But riots and burning down buildings? You're not going to win over any supporters that way, and you're just going to arm your critics by making them seem right. There's a reason The great Martin Luther King practiced passive protest.
The shooting is a tragedy. Micheal Brown should still be alive but Wilson should not have been assaulted at the same time. The forensic evidence leans towards Wilson and several witnesses who said they witnessed his aggression flat out changed their stories and later admitted to not actually seeing the murder, This was stated by the head prosecutor in an interview and was the main reason why the case did not go to court.
Racism is horrible. I am a half-Irish half-Italian american. I am white and cannot speak to how it feels to be black in america. But it's common knowledge that when an officer of the Law asks you to do something you play along. If you don't like it fine, but take him up in court. Don't argue with him or try to assault him, what good is that going to do?
If it does, I will deal with it then. I want people at least to have the chance to post on it. I can always close it if the thread falls apart.
The downside the examining trial is that the decision rests in the hands of a single decision maker who may be more concerned about public perception of themselves (as the identity and decision would be known) that the evidence. The idea of grand jury secrecy is minimize such constraints It's advantage is obvious a more rigorous cross examination process and that it's public. The transcript is there for any to read, but as someone who has done both trial and appellate work, I can attest there are some things that a cold record cannot convey.
Personally, I'd probably elect the GJ, especially if your judges are selected the same way as mine (via election--where the judge may be more concerned about re-election than anything else).
No idea what the family will do, but I bet Justice does what they did with Zimmerman....makes noise about investigating, but mostly just sitting on it until they can quietly discard it without notice. I dislike this approach because it just endlessly leaves people twisting in the wind, which is wrong. Given the failure here, I don't see why Justice would think its odds are better especially when they have the additional element of having to prove he intentionally deprived him of his civil rights. This case is not going to suddenly improve there. If they do anything, it will be, as you say, with the department as a whole, but I'd be really surprised if they went after Wilson specifically.
When it comes to the law and cops here, it's considered friendly towards law enforcement because of 563.046's rules regarding "use of force". (For the most part MO Law goes beyond Tennessee v. Garner if I remember correctly.)
While not impossible, it's not the easiest thing to get elected to that position if all law enforcement hates your guts.
Yeah. I know that a lot of people do not want to hear this, but Darren Wilson is probably going to avoid jail time in Federal and State court based on they way things currently are now. If the Justice Department can present something as stronger evidence in their case that we don't know about as the public then that might change.
What's more likely to happen is Federal action against both the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police Department. In that situation there has been past behavior and evidence of racial discrimination that could cause them to clean house. That would be a welcomed change around here. The other thing that could be reformed is a municipal court system that's basically been used less as a court and more as a source of government revenue. That's been something that's been getting a lot of buzz lately since the elections earlier in the month. With the riots and looting earlier in the week though, call it or think them what you will, but the job of actually healing the community has been made much, much harder because of them.
Edited by Insurrection, 27 November 2014 - 02:49 AM.
Yeah. I know that a lot of people do not want to hear this, but Darren Wilson is probably going to avoid jail time in Federal and State court based on they way things currently are now. If the Justice Department can present something as stronger evidence in their case that we don't know about as the public then that might change.
What's more likely to happen is Federal action against both the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police Department. In that situation there has been past behavior and evidence of racial discrimination that could cause them to clean house. That would be a welcomed change around here. The other thing that could be reformed is a municipal court system that's basically been used less as a court and more as a source of government revenue. That's been something that's been getting a lot of buzz lately since the elections earlier in the month. With the riots and looting earlier in the week though, call it or think them what you will, but the job of actually healing the community has been made much, much harder because of them.
I can't imagine the Feds having any better evidence. If they were holding on to something that changed the nature of the case then I am pissed if I am McCullough (or a citizen for that matter) because that means either they hung him out to dry (if it favorable to the State) or potentially set him up him to walk right into a Brady violation (if it is favorable to the defense). Brady wouldn't be applicable until after the indictment, but withholding that would be still be setting up local prosecutors to fail. It would be inexcusable for the feds to have such info and not make contact with local authorities. So what the State court present is likely what the feds have in terms of evidence.
Many municipal courts and justice of the peaces have that reputation, but because the stakes are so low in individual cases they don't get called on it.
EDIT: Now that I think about, there is one other change that may happen (country wide). The mandatory use of body camera's. It's more than just buying the camera itself, so small, poorer departments will be slower to adapt, but regardless of what you think of this case it something good to have. It does have limitations (I had a resisting arrest case with one, but when the resisting started they were so close all you saw was the camera jerking around (but the audio did work), which wasn't that helpful), but it's desirable for both parties. It protects defendants from lying cops and it protects cops against lying defendants.
I can't imagine the Feds having any better evidence. If they were holding on to something that changed the nature of the case then I am pissed if I am McCullough (or a citizen for that matter) because that means either they hung him out to dry (if it favorable to the State) or potentially set him up him to walk right into a Brady violation (if it is favorable to the defense). Brady wouldn't be applicable until after the indictment, but withholding that would be still be setting up local prosecutors to fail. It would be inexcusable for the feds to have such info and not make contact with local authorities. So what the State court present is likely what the feds have in terms of evidence.
Many municipal courts and justice of the peaces have that reputation, but because the stakes are so low in individual cases they don't get called on it.
EDIT: Now that I think about, there is one other change that may happen (country wide). The mandatory use of body camera's. It's more than just buying the camera itself, so small, poorer departments will be slower to adapt, but regardless of what you think of this case it something good to have. It does have limitations (I had a resisting arrest case with one, but when the resisting started they were so close all you saw was the camera jerking around (but the audio did work), which wasn't that helpful), but it's desirable for both parties. It protects defendants from lying cops and it protects cops against lying defendants.
That's why I think it's unlikely the Feds would have something extra, but you never know.
As for the body cameras I know that Michael Brown's family is advocating for a law that makes it mandatory for departments to have officers be wearing body cameras. The trouble with body cameras are the limitations: battery life, memory capacity, reliance in the field, etc. At this point the pros of them definitely outweigh the cons on that. Lately departments like Ferguson have been getting body cameras that have been either donated or funded through private enterprise, but it's not going to be the same for every area.
Still it's not going to be the long term fix for the area and the poorer departments/municipalities are going to have trouble meeting those needs. I definitely know that's the case for East St. Louis in Illinois (Personally I don't think the government in Springfield knows that they need to find a way to do so or that they just gave up).
Interests:Art, music, anime & manga, animals, dog training & behavior
"If I stumble, take a tumble
Go ahead serve me another
And if I fall I’ll give it my all
‘Cause the fall is half the fight "
Posted 27 November 2014 - 05:40 AM
Someone on another forum said something along these lines:
"The protesting in Ferguson is the people reacting to the very real problem of police brutality, they're sick of it. But in this particular case, it's misplaced."
Based on what I've learned, this is the view I'm leaning towards. Police brutality happens...but the fact that it's a very real problem does little, nothing really, to offer any proof in this particular case. I've not read the articles on Wilson having a history of racism...it may very well be true, but once again, that does very little in the way of proof in this specific case. People who are racist still have a need for self defense.
What matters most is the hard evidence that the court was presented with.
One of these two statements are true: (1) a young man was murdered by a racially motivated officer, or (2) an officer used lethal force upon being attacked by a young man and the officer is now being falsely accused
Who would want to defend a racist officer? But, also, who would want someone to be falsely charged? Neither are exactly things we want to happen, y'know? An objective viewing of the evidence is extremely important.
People much more knowledgeable in these areas than I have posted. I have little more to say.
Edited by questdrivencollie, 27 November 2014 - 05:49 AM.
"Don't ever turn me loose
Even when I turn my back"
~Relient K
Sure, completely innocent a cop who failed as one in first place:
And let's don't forget that he didn't made a report of the case, which is illegal. (Also, he didn't take photos of Brown's body because...the batery died ): . Plus, he DID clean some of the blood. For more information READ the testimonial of the Jury)
Which it's proved A LIE. There is a video about Michael PAYING for the cigars. So...he just assumed it?
Demonization of Brown:
He didn't shoot by "the protocole" you were talking about before, he shot all that he could because "he was scared":
If this isn't at least a really bad job as a cop/negligence (which is supossed to be punished too), i don't know what is.
he didn't just go out free, but he was rewarded with miles of dolars. heck even walmart donated money for him...
Edited by theunburnt, 27 November 2014 - 07:37 AM.
You were too late to tell me this! i had to puzzle it out myself in all of 20 seconds 
my brain hurts. 
Sorry, Internets not the greatest place for understanding sarcastic humor. 
