Michael Brown Case

[Terralthra]

Anyway. I may think Wilson would have had a good chance of winning the trial, but I think it should have gone to trial.

Do grand jury rulings set precedent? If so, it may be that the state/city/county doesn't want to set a precedent of going to trial over *every* police shooting. Especially when, as I mentioned earlier, deadly force is authorized for officers making an arrest (in some situations) in that state.

No, they do not.

[Simon_Jester]

In this context that would make no sense. The grand jury is supposed to decide whether, in this case, there is evidence sufficient to indicate that a trial is called for. They can't set a precedent binding on future grand juries' decision.

It'd be like the idea that convicting one thief sets a precedent that anyone charged with theft is automatically convicted.

[Patroklos]

The whole point of a grand jury is that it exists to give a person who wants charges brought before a court a way to do that. Many countries have disposed of them, since there are now public prosecutors who purport to bring charges on the state's behalf. A grand jury almost always brings charges when convened, since that's essentially the point. As previously stated, the whole way in which this has been conducted demonstrates that the DA didn't want an indictment, and he arranged the grand jury process such that he got exactly what he wanted, while washing his hands of direct culpability for no indictment.

That is most definitely not the point of grand juries since in most places the prosecutor doesn't need them to bring charges. In states where they are required to be used in many circumstances like NY the defendant can actually decline to have one and go straight to trial.

The original intent of grand juries was to curb strong executives from bringing charges maliciously via prosecutors by putting supposedly non biased juries into the process.

[Terralthra]

The whole point of a grand jury is that it exists to give a person who wants charges brought before a court a way to do that. Many countries have disposed of them, since there are now public prosecutors who purport to bring charges on the state's behalf. A grand jury almost always brings charges when convened, since that's essentially the point. As previously stated, the whole way in which this has been conducted demonstrates that the DA didn't want an indictment, and he arranged the grand jury process such that he got exactly what he wanted, while washing his hands of direct culpability for no indictment.

That is most definitely not the point of grand juries since in most places the prosecutor doesn't need them to bring charges. In states where they are required to be used in many circumstances like NY the defendant can actually decline to have one and go straight to trial.

The original intent of grand juries was to curb strong executives from bringing charges maliciously via prosecutors by putting supposedly non biased juries into the process.

Grand juries predate public prosecutors by a few centuries; they're mentioned in the Magna Carta. They were used in common law for private parties - sheriffs, lawyers, the aggrieved person in particular - with grievances to have a way of convening a trial, well before a public prosecutor whose job it was to indict people even existed. When they indicted, they essentially appointed the complaining party as an attorney general - ie, representing the state - in the specific matter of the indictment. They are no longer in use in many states in the US, along with basically every other country that once had them, because they have been phased out now that we have public prosecutors. The original intent had nothing to do with "strong executives", though they did serve to screen out malicious or incompetent prosecutions by private individuals.

[Grumman]

Second, I fail to see how audio and autopsy could prove every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson considering many of them were missed shots. The fatal shots came from the front, but if a man is surrendering he will likely turn around to do so. Many eye witnesses reported he stumbled forward after having been shot. None of the evidence supports Wilson's assertion that Brown was "charging" him at the end.

Because there aren't enough bullets to go around. There were two bursts of gunfire, and enough bullets hit that bullets from both bursts must have hit Brown in the front, which means both bursts were fired at Brown while Brown was facing Wilson.

[TheHammer]

It's more difficult to hit a moving target. If he was running away the shots from behind would be more likely to miss. Not saying they did or didn't, I'm saying the autopsy proves absolutely nothing in that regard.

OK, so to be clear, you're working on the idea that Wilson shot at Brown repeatedly and missed, then Brown stopped and surrendered, then Wilson more or less emptied the magazine into him, killing him.

Whose testimony is this based on again?

No, I clearly stated that I'm NOT saying he did or didn't fire from behind. I'm saying that the forensics are at best inconclusive about whether or not he was fired at from behind. But as the chart I liked below showed, several witnesses stated he did exactly that.

No, in fact the majority of witnesses that answered that question stated he had his hands up. See the chart I linked at the bottom of the thread.

Hm. Interesting link in the comments; someone looking at the chart claims it's wrong.

They may be full of shit, or they may be right, I in all honesty don't have the time to go look up the details. Here's their "corrected" version.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... iginal.jpg

Even the revised chart, its accuracy notwithstanding, still showed several witnesses giving the "affirmative" that Brown was fired upon with his hands up. Certainly enough to create a reasonable suspicion, and thus justifying taking it to trial.

Which brings it back on the prosecutor. They should have been able to identify which witnesses gave consistent reliable testimony and which ones didn't. They never wanted this to go to trial so they made no such efforts, instead leading the inconsistent testimony serve as fuel for doubt as to what happened.

I am honestly inclined to agree with this. Do we have evidence that they suppressed witnesses favorable to prosecution?

The forensics were a bit more ambiguous than I had previously thought.

The manner of questioning is not consistent with a prosecutor who is attempting to get a case brought to trial. No hard questioning is done of Wilson or other police, and failure to challenge Wilson on whether he did or did not know about the Robbery - when you've got testimony from another office saying Wilson told him he knew nothing about it - are pretty damning. I don't know if "doing a shitty job as prosecutor" counts as evidence or not, but its one more reason for suspicion.

I stumbled upon this useful chart which should give you an idea of the general consensus. Proper questioning from the prosecutor, and challenging of Wilson's testimony, certainly in the case of whether or not he knew about the robbery when he had other testimony from his fellow officer that he did not know about the Robbery would have likely brought an indictment. There may not have been enough evidence, ultimately, to convict, but this case should have gone to trial.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/

Frankly, the point of the indictment is (I agree with Terralthra) to establish that there is enough evidence to make it seem plausible that a crime has been committed. While some of the eyewitness testimony which asserts that Brown was murdered is suspect, I don't think all of it is.

Although the grand jury would be justified in ignoring obviously wrong/lying witnesses.*

Anyway. I may think Wilson would have had a good chance of winning the trial, but I think it should have gone to trial.

*I.e. an eyewitness that claims Wilson repeatedly shot Brown in the back while he was kneeling on the pavement, then rolled the body over and blew his brains out from point blank range, is clearly lying because that's not where the bullets went.

Even if there was some inconsistent testimony, there certainly was enough of a consensus to think that something unlawful may have happened and thus bring it to a full trial. A trial would have helped weed out the good testimony from the bad. While some people might feel like they could get away with "fudging the truth" in an interview, it would be another thing for them to do so under oath in a courtroom.

The core problem is you have prosecutors investigating police misconduct in the same departments they work so closely with. We've seen it with this case, and the Staten Island case. They are defacto co-workers and too close to the situation to do a truly unbiased job. Which is why I think there should ALWAYS be a special independent prosecutor and investigators brought in to handle such situations.

[TheHammer]

Second, I fail to see how audio and autopsy could prove every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson considering many of them were missed shots. The fatal shots came from the front, but if a man is surrendering he will likely turn around to do so. Many eye witnesses reported he stumbled forward after having been shot. None of the evidence supports Wilson's assertion that Brown was "charging" him at the end.

Because there aren't enough bullets to go around. There were two bursts of gunfire, and enough bullets hit that bullets from both bursts must have hit Brown in the front, which means both bursts were fired at Brown while Brown was facing Wilson.

Sure there are enough Bullets. The autopsy only conclusively shows that the four bullets hit Brown from the front. Then there were three other gunshot wounds: One through the hand (likely shot at the car during the initial altercation), and two more of which were inconclusive - A grazing shot, and a back-to-front through the arm that is not conclusive since arm orientation is unknown. So again, the autopsy is inconclusive for determining which way Brown was facing during the first non fatal burst.

[Simon_Jester]

No, I clearly stated that I'm NOT saying he did or didn't fire from behind. I'm saying that the forensics are at best inconclusive about whether or not he was fired at from behind. But as the chart I liked below showed, several witnesses stated he did exactly that.

Sorry. Looking at the 'revised' chart (I am just plain not in position to evaluate it, so PLEASE take with grain of salt), they claim that of the witnesses who stated that he was shot at from behind, a number had significant holes or inconsistencies in their testimony, or made statements that contradict the forensics. If that is so, then we may be looking at a case where people saw what they 'wanted' to see.

Even the revised chart, its accuracy notwithstanding, still showed several witnesses giving the "affirmative" that Brown was fired upon with his hands up. Certainly enough to create a reasonable suspicion, and thus justifying taking it to trial.

I am inclined to agree.

Me, I'm more interested in trying to work out whether or not I think Wilson is guilty; I already think Wilson should have gone to trial.

If the witness testimony against him is muddled and the forensics strongly suggest Wilson is shot from in front, then I am compelled to grant Wilson reasonable doubt.

I don't know if "doing a shitty job as prosecutor" counts as evidence or not, but its one more reason for suspicion...

I agree.

Even if there was some inconsistent testimony, there certainly was enough of a consensus to think that something unlawful may have happened and thus bring it to a full trial. A trial would have helped weed out the good testimony from the bad. While some people might feel like they could get away with "fudging the truth" in an interview, it would be another thing for them to do so under oath in a courtroom.

I agree.

The core problem is you have prosecutors investigating police misconduct in the same departments they work so closely with. We've seen it with this case, and the Staten Island case. They are defacto co-workers and too close to the situation to do a truly unbiased job. Which is why I think there should ALWAYS be a special independent prosecutor and investigators brought in to handle such situations.

I agree.

[Beowulf]

Something that recently came to my attention is that there's audio of the gunshots. One of the neighbors was recording a message, and that recording was timestamped by a remote server. From the first shot taken outside the car, to the last was approximately 6.5 seconds, in two bursts (one of 6, one of 4). If the last 4 were with Brown facing Wilson, and the argument is that Brown was initially facing away when the first shots were taken, that implies that the two unknown shots were done with Brown facing away. That implies absolutely miserable accuracy at the start, with fairly good accuracy at the end, which is to first approximation, bullshit.

[TheHammer]

Something that recently came to my attention is that there's audio of the gunshots. One of the neighbors was recording a message, and that recording was timestamped by a remote server. From the first shot taken outside the car, to the last was approximately 6.5 seconds, in two bursts (one of 6, one of 4). If the last 4 were with Brown facing Wilson, and the argument is that Brown was initially facing away when the first shots were taken, that implies that the two unknown shots were done with Brown facing away. That implies absolutely miserable accuracy at the start, with fairly good accuracy at the end, which is to first approximation, bullshit.

Why would that be bullshit? Maybe I'm not quite clear on what you're saying...

[Beowulf]

Accuracy tends not to increase during an incident. It either stays the same or gets worse, as adrenaline takes hold. So accuracy going from 33% hits up to 100% is unlikely in the extreme.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It seems like an awfully small sample size to make such strong predictions based on probabilities.

[Batman]

Um-you don't know the sample size. It would probably have helped if Beowulf had mentioned the sample base he's basing this on, but that he isn't basing it on this one incident should be painfully obvious.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Accuracy tends not to increase during an incident. It either stays the same or gets worse, as adrenaline takes hold. So accuracy going from 33% hits up to 100% is unlikely in the extreme.

Not necessarily. One of our shootings in Utah had a guy charge a female officer with a knife. Her initial shots missed but as he got closer her accuracy improved and then she began to hit with every shot. Just FYI this guy had stabbed one guy through and through the shoulder blade and then had disemboweled another guy so the situation was quite tense.

The positioning of the casing shows that those final shots were in close proximity to Michael Brown.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Um-you don't know the sample size. It would probably have helped if Beowulf had mentioned the sample base he's basing this on, but that he isn't basing it on this one incident should be painfully obvious.

It doesn't fucking matter. Only 10 shots were fired. You can't make strong probabilistic statements based on a sample that small, even with strong priors. Even ignoring the fact that Beowulf didn't provide the sort of evidence that would lead us to believe his prior conclusion is even correct, it's a ludicrous statement to think that the change in accuracy over the course of 10 shots is actually a representative sample of ANYTHING. It's even worse because he is arbitrarily dividing those 10 shots into two SMALLER groups of 6 and 4, and then trying to make strong probabilistic statements based on the accuracy rates of those small samples. Fuck, this is probability 101, here. If ONE of the missed shots had hit, or vice versa, your probability rates change dramatically, and so do your conclusions.

[Patroklos]

Accuracy tends not to increase during an incident. It either stays the same or gets worse, as adrenaline takes hold. So accuracy going from 33% hits up to 100% is unlikely in the extreme.

Or you adjust your fire based on observation of round impacts...
Or you started firing before you got to a proper firing position...
Or as mentioned the distance narrowed...
Or the target presented a better cross section for the later shots...
Or you were not properly controlling recoil for those first shots (common)...
Or any number of reasons...

But given the time frame I doubt anything can be shown to impact any particularly shot conclusively either way.

[FaxModem1]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michae ... 6]NBC News

Undercover Cop Draws Gun on Protesters in Oakland

An undercover police officer, who had been marching with demonstrators, aims his gun at protesters after some in the crowd attacked him and his partner in Oakland, California on Wednesday.

Police said more than 100 demonstrators marched through Oakland and Berkeley, which has a history of social activism, to protest grand jury decisions not to indict white police officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men. Under cloudy skies, turnout was smaller than earlier in the week, when demonstrators in the area threw rocks at police and shut down a major freeway.

And according to https://storify.com/CourtneyPFB/underco ... ign]tweets, it's because the cops were exposed as trying to instigate looting.

[Kamakazie Sith]

NBC News

Undercover Cop Draws Gun on Protesters in Oakland

An undercover police officer, who had been marching with demonstrators, aims his gun at protesters after some in the crowd attacked him and his partner in Oakland, California on Wednesday.

Police said more than 100 demonstrators marched through Oakland and Berkeley, which has a history of social activism, to protest grand jury decisions not to indict white police officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men. Under cloudy skies, turnout was smaller than earlier in the week, when demonstrators in the area threw rocks at police and shut down a major freeway.

And according to tweets, it's because the cops were exposed as trying to instigate looting.

So anything more on this? By the way, the allegation that the police were instigating looting was only made in one tweet.

[J]

This article showed up on my news feed yesterday

AP Linky

Lawmaker wants investigation of St. Louis prosecutor

By JIM SALTER
Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A Missouri lawmaker is calling for an investigation of St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, saying he "manipulated" the grand jury in the Ferguson case. McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.

State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, saying she believes McCulloch helped sway the grand jury into the decision not to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed.

McCulloch, who convened the grand jury in August, was interviewed Friday by KTRS Radio in St. Louis. It was his first interview since he announced the grand jury decision on Nov. 24.

"Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said.

He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said.

McCulloch did not return messages left with his office by The Associated Press on Friday seeking comment about May's allegations, and whether he would pursue perjury charges against any witnesses who may have lied.

The shooting by a white police officer on Aug. 9 spurred significant unrest, both in August and immediately after the grand jury decision was announced. Twelve Ferguson-area businesses, along with police cars, were burned on Nov. 24, and several other businesses were damaged.

In the radio interview, McCulloch also defended the decision to make the announcement at night, saying it was best for schools and allowed business owners time to decide whether to open the next day.

A joint House and Senate committee is already investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops in Ferguson on Nov. 24. May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer, urging that the investigation expand to look at whether McCulloch committed prosecutorial misconduct.

"Many St. Louis-area residents believe - and there is at least some evidence to suggest - that Mr. McCulloch manipulated the grand jury process from the beginning to ensure that Officer Wilson would not be indicted," May wrote.

She said in an interview that McCulloch should have removed himself from the case at the outset.

"I don't believe he followed proper procedures when he presented evidence to the grand jury," May said. "To me, he was working for the defendant in this case and not the victim."

Critics had called for McCulloch to either step aside or for Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor, citing concerns about whether McCulloch could fairly oversee the case. McCulloch's father was a police officer killed in the line of duty by a black assailant in the 1960s.

McCulloch said immediately after the announcement that the jury of nine whites and three blacks met on 25 separate days over three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses, including three medical examiners and experts on blood, toxicology and firearms and other issues. He said he assigned prosecutors in his office to present evidence, rather than himself, because he was "fully aware of unfounded but growing concern that the investigation might not be fair."

Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III and others expressed anger that of the hundreds of National Guard troops dispatched to the St. Louis region on Nov. 24, none were in Ferguson as the announcement was made.

No timetable has been set for the legislative committee's investigation, and it wasn't clear if the committee would consider investigating McCulloch. A message left with Schaefer was not immediately returned.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy...can you say prosecutor misconduct?

[Grumman]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy...can you say prosecutor misconduct?

No. The jury did hear what witness #40 had to say, but they were also told enough to know it was worthless. Far from being swayed by her testimony, they openly held it in contempt.

The prosecutor was in a no-win scenario. Wilson could have walked on the strength of the evidence alone, but ignoring the eyewitness testimony as being unreliable and contradictory would not have stopped the rioters. He could have presented all the evidence and all the testimony except for one witness, but then you'd have idiots claiming Witness #40 was silenced for being too dangerous to Wilson's defense. He could have presented all the evidence and all the testimony, but then you have fuckers like May claiming that merely ensuring the jury knew how unreliable Witness #40's testimony was and not omitting it altogether was an attempt to manipulate the jury to find Wilson innocent.

[J]

The prosecutor was in a no-win scenario. Wilson could have walked on the strength of the evidence alone, but ignoring the eyewitness testimony as being unreliable and contradictory would not have stopped the rioters. He could have presented all the evidence and all the testimony except for one witness, but then you'd have idiots claiming Witness #40 was silenced for being too dangerous to Wilson's defense. He could have presented all the evidence and all the testimony, but then you have fuckers like May claiming that merely ensuring the jury knew how unreliable Witness #40's testimony was and not omitting it altogether was an attempt to manipulate the jury to find Wilson innocent.

The prosecutor knowingly allowed a witness to lie under oath. That is subornation of perjury. Which, by the way, is a felony. It was his legal and professional duty to keep her off the witness stand. Not only did he fail in his duties, he hasn't been charged despite effectively admitting to his crimes.

In the long run, this eventually leads to distrust and contempt for the justice system, and rightfully so. And that leads to a very bad place.

[Patroklos]

Of the straws people are grasping to this is one of the flimsiest possible. We have the entire CBC asking for essentially the same damn thing and they are very correctly being ignored. How is this in any way news?

[Simon_Jester]

Er, was Witness #40 giving (noncredible) testimony that would support Wilson, or noncredible testimony that would condemn Wilson?

[Terralthra]

Er, was Witness #40 giving (noncredible) testimony that would support Wilson, or noncredible testimony that would condemn Wilson?

Witness #40 gave testimony backing Wilson's story completely, based on newspaper accounts. The grand jury was also not told about Witness #40's diary entry:

[Simon_Jester]

OK, so Witness #40 gave (noncredible) testimony supporting Wilson.

Now, J has stated that the prosecutor knowingly allowed him to lie on the stand, emphasis on knowingly. Do we have evidence for this aside from "the prosecutor had to know that things didn't happen the way Wilson said they did?"