Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

His kids probably get shit just for being his kids.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Except we've seen that on this thread repeatedly. There are plenty of people who are gleefully taking it *as fact* that Brown reached into the car, that he reached for Wilson's gun, that he tried to assault him, that he ran at him from 150 feet away like a demon bull, and reluctantly, Wilson had to take him down. None of these things are facts. They are still based primarily on Wilson's testimony. Which might be true! Brown really might have been a truly bad person, hopped up on magical demon devil weed YankeeFan is always warning us about, and maybe Wilson did what he had to do as a peace officer. These are possibilities that people like Rick and I are at least willing to entertain, while pointing out how highly unlikely Wilson's version is. I don't see a lot of: "Wilson might have really screwed up here, guys" from a side that's typically so distrustful of government.

Maybe 16 people in the neighborhood all have mental disorders! Maybe they're all making shit up! I don't know. But people like the St. Louis Police Department saying the NFL should punish the Rams because of "overwhelming" evidence supporting Wilson's version (which is what prompted my post) are full of shit. The "overwhelming" evidence presented to the grand jury says that Brown did put his hands up. They grand jury may have decided that the more "believable" account belongs to the cop who did not want to stand trial for homicide, but that is not the same.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I think if you believe the GJ's decision is appropriate, you HAVE to be dismissing the eyewitness accounts. And that may be fair, given the noted lack of accuracy of eyewitness accounts.

But if you believe 16 eyewitness accounts that Brown raised his hands in surrender, then you HAVE to indict. You can't believe that and decide there's no probable cause to hold a jury trial.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The two problems with the grand jury are

1) The standard for returning an indictment is way, way lower than a conviction. The eyewitness reports are conflicting and we need a finding of facts? That's what trials are for.

2) The prosecutor's behavior was completely unprofessional and out of line. If you don't want to file charges, don't file charges. Convening a grand jury and then abdicating your duty to argue as a prosecutor and not as a defense attorney is absurd.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

What is the best way to go about entertaining the ultimately ignorant ideas of those with whom I disagree?

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Call them racists. It works every time.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

http://imnotracistbut.tumblr.com/

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but as I understand it grand juries are there, ostensibly, for the defendants' sake. Some of the legal reading I've been doing on this case -- and I should emphasize that said reading has been digested for non-lawyer types -- suggest strongly that Missouri law and the physical evidence were to Wilson's favor.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The physical evidence that existed, anyway.

We don't know if his account is at all true that Brown grabbed his gun -- because despite the importance of that detail, they never got around to checking it for fingerprints or DNA.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I don't think anyone is disputing that "the law" is on Wilson's side. A legal system that almost perpetually favors white people is one of the major things people are protesting.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

No, they checked for DNA (and chose not to for fingerprints, because, so the testimony went, there was a better chance of finding something by checking for DNA, but doing so eliminated the ability to test for fingerprints). I suspect they didn't find DNA on the gun, because they didn't say anything about it.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Right. They did, however, say plenty about the gun itself -- by having Wilson talk at length about Brown grabbing it and how sweaty his hands were so there must have been DNA on there.

An odd omission, then, to not put forth that evidence.