Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Thread: Police Shooting in Ferguson

  1. #46

    Default

    That's also allowed at the petit jury level, with the questions being screened by the judge.

  2. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    I wanted to correct this, because it's incorrect.
    No. it's correct. If a juror has a question, the prosecutor listens to it in private, and if appropriate, will ask the witness something to the effect, "A member of the grand jury would like to know...."

    If the question is deemed inappropriate by the prosecutor, it will not be asked.

    So, as I said, jurors do not get to question witnesses.

  3. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    If the DA wanted to get an indictment, he could have. He didn't want one.

    Why? Because he knew if this case went to a trial, he knew he'd lose.
    How do you know that's the reason?

    Are prosecutors always sure they they will win at trial? Do they in fact, always win at trial?

    So he dumped everything on the GJ, knowing that the evidence mostly backed up the cops story,
    You sound like someone who doesn't understand probable cause to indict.

  4. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Nancy Grace? LOL.

    She is part of the sensation seeking media. She is also taking side with the anti-Wilson sentiment because frankly, that is more politically correct. She's not stupid, she has a public image to uphold. Her take on this should be taken with a grain of salt.
    I don't see as being pro-anyone or anti-anyone. I'm just interested in the truth. Was it really necessary to shoot an unarmed man? Wasn't there any other alternative?


    She also said that he should have drove away. She is such a moron. No cop in their right mind would ever flee a criminal. It just doesn't work that way. Their job is to confront the perpetrator not run away.
    I don't agree with this. The primary task of the police is to de-escalate and bring calm to situations - not confrontation. Police do have procedures where they are obligated to call in back up and not confront a perpetrator because back up can mitigate the need to escalate a situation to the point it places the officer's or the perpetrators life in jeopardy.

    There are still many questions as to why Darren Wilson chose to take the actions he did - when there were alternative choices available to him. No his answers so far are not satisfactory, there is a lot of opportunity for further examination.

  5. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    How do you know that's the reason?
    Grand Juries are the tool of the prosecutor. Generally, they won't present a case to the grand jury unless they know they have enough probable cause to get the indictment. If you're a DA, you know what this is. If they don't have it, they simply won't pursue the case. Given the publicity, doing that simply wasn't an option.

    They can also pick and chose what evidence they want to present to the grand jury. If this DA wanted the indictment, he could have only presented those witnesses whose testimony made Wilson look guilty. There's be no challenge. He'd get his indictment. But then he'd have to go to trial, and his case would have gotten torn to shreds by the defense. So he intentionally gave the GJ enough exculpatory evidence for them not to indict.

    Are prosecutors always sure they they will win at trial? Do they in fact, always win at trial?
    Always? No. Mostly? Yes. Why? Because being attorneys in criminal court, they know what the standards of proof are to convict. If they know they can't meet them, they'll plea bargain, or just simply drop a case. They won't take what they know, or even think might be, a loser all the way.

    You sound like someone who doesn't understand probable cause to indict.
    You sound like someone who doesn't understand the politics, or at least doesn't want to admit that politics drove this case much more than the evidence/testimony. If this case didn't have the profile it did, it would have never gone to the grand jury.

  6. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Grand Juries are the tool of the prosecutor. Generally, they won't present a case to the grand jury unless they know they have enough probable cause to get the indictment.
    My question was: how do you know his reason is because he thought he would lose at trial? Of course I know he could have gotten an indictment. That's my point.

    They can also pick and chose what evidence they want to present to the grand jury. If this DA wanted the indictment, he could have only presented those witnesses whose testimony made Wilson look guilty. There's be no challenge. He'd get his indictment. But then he'd have to go to trial, and his case would have gotten torn to shreds by the defense.
    So he'd lose at trial. So what?

    Let me give you more logical paths for Mcculloch to follow if he was worried about public outcry.

    1. He could have skipped the grand jury and gone directly to an Information, a Charge Document (allowed in Missouri.)

    2. He could have gotten an indictment in days, taken the case to trial, and since (as you say), he would lose, he could have gone in front of cameras after a not-guilty verdict, and said that he did the best he could, but the jury spoke. Instead of sounding like a defense attorney in his closing argument.

    3. He could have recused himself, and removed himself from all the politics. He certainly had the grounds to do so.

    You sound like someone someone who doesn't understand the politics, or at least doesn't want to admit that politics drove this case much more than the evidence/testimony.
    What are you talking about? I'm saying it's entirely politics. It's just politics from a completely different viewpoint than you.

    You think there was no case, and the politics forced McCulloch to seek an indictment.

    In my view, politics is why the governor didn't want to appoint a special prosecutor. Politics is why the prosecutor resisted calls for him to be recused. Politics is why the prosecutor didn't want to go to trial and risk a conviction.

    You're the one who stated that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. If you're right, what was the prosecutor afraid of?

    Have you read any of the transcript. Tell us what you know about the case?

  7. #52

    Default

    This is an interesting chart that summarizes what the witnesses said to the GJ. Looking at this chart, it tells a different story than what McCulloch said on TV.

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

  8. #53

    Default

    ^
    Thanks for that. I've been looking for that chart after I came across it in another article.

    One of the first things I read after Mcculloch's announcement was that, according to the transcript, hard evidence didn't back up versions either favorable or not-favorable to Wilson. But McCulloch gave the impression that anti-Wilson accounts were discredited by evidence, that some of these witnesses changed their accounts from earlier statements.

    He picked only one witness to quote, the "full charge" by Brown. That was witness #10. Could he have picked a more favorable one from the chart? But witness #10's full-charge was not supported by evidence, and he also changed his account from his earlier statement.

    I'm sure that Mcculloch realized that most people are just going to hear or read what he said, and a lot less are going to pore over 70 hours of testimony (the document dump).

    And what court conducts business at 8PM? The media knew all day that there would be an 8PM announcement; constant breaking-news countdowns; it gets dark as crowds gather; tension builds.

    Think he might have thought it would be safer to wait until early the next morning?

  9. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    ^
    And what court conducts business at 8PM? The media knew all day that there would be an 8PM announcement; constant breaking-news countdowns; it gets dark as crowds gather; tension builds.

    Think he might have thought it would be safer to wait until early the next morning?
    Agree. I thought it was very strange to announce a verdict that they knew would elicit anger among many in the public at 8PM.

    Maybe they thought it would be too cold for people to be outside?

  10. #55

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software