Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

heyabbott · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The Big Ragu said:

heyabbott said:

RickStain said:

heyabbott said:

He didnt fail to do his job, he failed to get the result some desired, indictment for 1st degree murder.
He made choices that were legally acceptable. Until someone can point out how the prosecutor violated the law I stand behind the process. This was a case of imperfect self defense, at best. Manslaughter. and that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

His job was to advocate for prosecution, and let the defense attorneys advocate for the defense. That's how our system of justice works. He chose to play both roles because good ol' boyism.
Click to expand...

The Grand Jury goes back to 1166 and the Assze of Clarendon. It works as a check against an authoritarian executive who wishes to charge individual with crimes on his word only. It also works as a check against knee-jerk populists who wish to charge someone with a crime because it suits their interests.
Don't like the system? Change it. The system worked in St Louis
Click to expand...

1) Yes, grand juries go back that far. So do doctors who cured everything with leeches.
2) We already have checks on an executive -- that is why we have a separate and distinct justice system that itself acts as the check.
3) Grand juries were meant to act as an investigative arm -- helping prosecutors gather evidence, and then with that evidence in hand to get indictments.
4) In so much as you could call a grand jury a "check" of any sort -- against malicious prosecutions, for example -- in practice, they have acted as anything but. 99 percent of the time, they are a de facto rubber stamp. That is BECAUSE the prosecutor runs the show in a grand jury. If you are a proponent of the 1166 version, grand juries would be independent -- with no professional prosecutor leading it around to get the outcome he or she wants. Give me that grand jury and see if something as charged as what happened in Ferguson doesn't lead to an indictment.
5) Many states abolished grand juries at the end of the 19th Century. And really, the US is the only country left that uses grand juries. It is antiquated and serves no good purpose. Most people who serve on one don't know the law, so the prosecutor leads them to wherever he wants to get to -- particularly when you are talking about where they are used, at the Federal level involving complex criminal laws such as RICO statutes that even the lawyers don't understand. Nearly all the time, the grand jury simply does what the prosecutor recommends. Which is why so many jurisdictions have gotten rid of them. Why not let the professional prosecutor investigate and indict without the show of a grand jury, since you are going to get the same outcome we already get with the waste of time of a grand jury?
Click to expand...

It is still the law in the United States in many places, even in Missouri. It's a legal body, it's a legal procedure and it's within the discretion of the prosecutor to use it. He did, it worked. Some people, not everyone, did not get the result they wanted. So lets get some free liquor, free flat screens and burn some property.
As the late Marion Barry said, Get Over It.

Boom_70 · Dec 15, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Here's story from NYT of Special Prosecutor presenting Howard Beach Case to Grand Jury
that ended up with indictment's

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/21/nyregion/grand-jury-is-presented-racial-attack-evidence.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A7%22}

Rev Al leading Howard Beach protest march.

The Big Ragu · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

You brought up the grand jury, heyabbott. You suggested that grand juries are long established and are something that are proven to do a good job of eliciting justice. I responded to your post, because that is ridiculous. Grand juries have always been subject to a ton of criticism because they are rubber stamps.

In fact, it's the opposite of what you suggested. A lot of countries USED TO HAVE grand jury systems. Every one has gotten rid of them, EXCEPT the U.S. And even within the U.S., many jurisdictions no longer use them because they suck. There is also no need for them, even in jurisdictions that cling to them. The prosecutor in St. Louis could have gotten an indictment without a grand jury. He selectively used a grand jury to get the outcome he wanted.

So basically, you are on board with the uneven application of justice, because the grand jury gave the outcome you personally think was good. And if someone points out that various people aren't treated equally before the law when you have that kind of chicanery at work (in response to what you posted), it's "well, it's the law, so get over it."

I'll bet with certainty that if some antiquated institution that can be manipulated any which way rendered a result you personally disagreed with, you'd be singing a different tune. Although I am certain your tune would still conflate everything with, "get free liquor," because in your narrow mind that begins and ends the conversation.

heyabbott · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The Big Ragu said:

You brought up the grand jury, heyabbott. You suggested that grand juries are long established and are something that are proven to do a good job of eliciting justice. I responded to your post, because that is ridiculous. Grand juries have always been subject to a ton of criticism because they are rubber stamps.

In fact, it's the opposite of what you suggested. A lot of countries USED TO HAVE grand jury systems. Every one has gotten rid of them, EXCEPT the U.S. And even within the U.S., many jurisdictions no longer use them because they suck. There is also no need for them, even in jurisdictions that cling to them. The prosecutor in St. Louis could have gotten an indictment without a grand jury. He selectively used a grand jury to get the outcome he wanted.

So basically, you are on board with the uneven application of justice, because the grand jury gave the outcome you personally think was good. And if someone points out that various people aren't treated equally before the law when you have that kind of chicanery at work (in response to what you posted), it's "well, it's the law, so get over it."

I'll bet with certainty that if some antiquated institution that can be manipulated any which way rendered a result you personally disagreed with, you'd be singing a different tune. Although I am certain your tune would still conflate everything with, "get free liquor," because in your narrow mind that begins and ends the conversation.
Click to expand...

What I am on board with is that the prosecutor used a legally impanelled Grand Jury, for a legitimate purpose. He used the discretion he legally has to perform his function. I am not saying whether I agree of disagree with the result only that he did nothing illegal and I do not believe he abused his discretion. Whether Grand Juries serve a useful function today is a different argument.

I am not asking what the prosecutor did wrong, only asking if he acted within the existing law and procedures. Everything else is result oriented.
And Yes, I abhor the riots that continue to fester when some govermental body doesnt act in a way that conforms to the beliefs of a group of people.
When Football Williams was convicted of lesser offenses in the attack on Reginald Denny, I thought that was a travesty of justice, and don't think I was alone. THose of us with the same point of view didnt terrorize a city to make our point. Nor did we call for end to the citizen jury system, which is rarely in the rest of the world today.

The Ferguson iots/protests are about a result, and thats wrong. If its about process, then chenge the process via democracy. When democracy fails, then it will be either all riot or all despotsim.

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

heyabbott said:

The Big Ragu said:

You brought up the grand jury, heyabbott. You suggested that grand juries are long established and are something that are proven to do a good job of eliciting justice. I responded to your post, because that is ridiculous. Grand juries have always been subject to a ton of criticism because they are rubber stamps.

In fact, it's the opposite of what you suggested. A lot of countries USED TO HAVE grand jury systems. Every one has gotten rid of them, EXCEPT the U.S. And even within the U.S., many jurisdictions no longer use them because they suck. There is also no need for them, even in jurisdictions that cling to them. The prosecutor in St. Louis could have gotten an indictment without a grand jury. He selectively used a grand jury to get the outcome he wanted.

So basically, you are on board with the uneven application of justice, because the grand jury gave the outcome you personally think was good. And if someone points out that various people aren't treated equally before the law when you have that kind of chicanery at work (in response to what you posted), it's "well, it's the law, so get over it."

I'll bet with certainty that if some antiquated institution that can be manipulated any which way rendered a result you personally disagreed with, you'd be singing a different tune. Although I am certain your tune would still conflate everything with, "get free liquor," because in your narrow mind that begins and ends the conversation.
Click to expand...

What I am on board with is that the prosecutor used a legally impanelled Grand Jury, for a legitimate purpose. He used the discretion he legally has to perform his function. I am not saying whether I agree of disagree with the result only that he did nothing illegal and I do not believe he abused his discretion. Whether Grand Juries serve a useful function today is a different argument.

I am not asking what the prosecutor did wrong, only asking if he acted within the existing law and procedures. Everything else is result oriented.
And Yes, I abhor the riots that continue to fester when some govermental body doesnt act in a way that conforms to the beliefs of a group of people.
When Football Williams was convicted of lesser offenses in the attack on Reginald Denny, I thought that was a travesty of justice, and don't think I was alone. THose of us with the same point of view didnt terrorize a city to make our point. Nor did we call for end to the citizen jury system, which is rarely in the rest of the world today.

The Ferguson iots/protests are about a result, and thats wrong. If its about process, then chenge the process via democracy. When democracy fails, then it will be either all riot or all despotsim.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. Process did not matter. It was the results that mattered. If arrest was made
and case ended up with acquittal by jury they would have said that McCulloch should have convened a Grand Jury and got indictments first.

RickStain · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I cited a very specific example of what the prosecution did wrong and it got ignored in favor of concern trolling.

The Big Ragu · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

heyabbott, Nobody was having a discussion about whether the use of a grand jury is lawful -- except you.

But you went a step further. You betrayed your bias with the post about how well established grand juries are and the great purpose they serve as a "check."

Which is bullshit.

But whatever. I never suggested the prosecutor did anything illegal, the gist of your last post. I am talking about a flawed system of justice -- what you called the process -- that allows a prosecutor to treat people differently before the law, depending on whether they want to go prosecute or not.

That has nothing to do with the riots or someone who stole a TV set -- anymore than something someone else posts on here is attributable to you because you both post on the message board -- making you tangentially related. When you drag the riots or the bad actions of this person or that with a conversation about whether justice was served by the way that prosecutor handled the potential indictment, you again betray your biases. They both relate to Ferguson. But the rioters don't have any bearing on whether that officer was treated the same way others get treated by that prosecutor.

My question is, do YOU think that the process employed by that prosecutor was fair (not legal, the way you are trying to frame it to avoid talking about whether the law is equitable in its application)?

heyabbott · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The Big Ragu said:

heyabbott, Nobody was having a discussion about whether the use of a grand jury is lawful -- except you.

But you went a step further. You betrayed your bias with the post about how well established grand juries are and the great purpose they serve as a "check."

Which is bullshit.

But whatever. I never suggested the prosecutor did anything illegal, the gist of your last post. I am talking about a flawed system of justice -- what you called the process -- that allows a prosecutor to treat people differently before the law, depending on whether they want to go prosecute or not.

That has nothing to do with the riots or someone who stole a TV set -- anymore than something someone else posts on here is attributable to you because you both post on the message board -- making you tangentially related. When you drag the riots or the bad actions of this person or that with a conversation about whether justice was served by the way that prosecutor handled the potential indictment, you again betray your biases. They both relate to Ferguson. But the rioters don't have any bearing on whether that officer was treated the same way others get treated by that prosecutor.

My question is, do YOU think that the process employed by that prosecutor was fair (not legal, the way you are trying to frame it to avoid talking about whether the law is equitable in its application)?
Click to expand...

I think the process was fair. It is wrong to indict someone if you know, really know, they will not be convicted because while the evidence might support PC it will never satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt. If a prosecutor cant get 9 of 12 to believe in a one sided, legal, presentation of facts, there's no way a conviction would be obtained.
It is completely wrong to charge a defendant just to exact the punishment of being charged. If it cant be proven, then it should nt be charged.
I wish all defendants' cases were treated with such an exacting standard as this. But the process is legal and fair.

The Big Ragu · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

An indictment requires probable cause. Not some mushy made-up standard about who and who may or may not engender reasonable doubt at trial. ... BEFORE a case can even be put together.

Again, we have a justice system that railroads certain people -- wrong side of the tracks, wrong skin color, pissed off the wrong person, but goes easy on more privileged classes of people. A fair system would put everyone equally before the law and let the system itself determine the reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, you don't know any more than I do how this could have played out in a trial with a motivated prosecutor. We don't know what evidence they could have presented, the case they could have put on and how easily they could have shredded the cop's version of what happened (or not).

Nobody suggested that the cop should have been charged to "exact the punishment of being charged," the way you said. He should have been charged if there was probable cause to believe he committed murder. That is a ridiculously easy standard to get an indictment whenever a prosecutor WANTS to get the indictment. But in this case, the prosecutor didn't want it.

Unfortunately, we don't have a system that applies that probable cause standard in a uniform way -- so we are all equal before the law -- because some people who get accused get indicted like its a bodily function. This was the rare time that system was used to ensure there was no indictment, and you just told me that you think the process was fair. Cool beans.

Spartan Squad · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Going to the grand jury was fine, McCulloch used it in a funny way to get an outcome that people were screaming would happen if McCulloch didn't recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor. He brought forward witnesses that would never have been allowed in court because their testimony was suspect. He went out of his way to present Officer Wilson's side of events and the inevitable outcome was a failure to receive an indictment.

McCulloch looked like he was in bed with the cops before he went to the grand jury and that appearance is exacerbated since he went to the grand jury. Appointing a special prosecutor who either went to the grand jury and had the same outcome, went and received an indictment or simply bypassed the GJ all together and still failed to convict would have come off better in the long run.

Everything about this case screams cronyism and coverup. Even in the event Wilson is telling the 100 percent truth and fired his weapon at an 18-year-old who was charging at him after already trying to steal his gun once, you go out of your way to make sure your actions don't muddy that narrative.

doctorquant · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The Big Ragu said:

... how well established grand juries are and the great purpose they serve as a "check."

Which is bullshit.

But whatever. I never suggested the prosecutor did anything illegal, the gist of your last post. I am talking about a flawed system of justice -- what you called the process -- that allows a prosecutor to treat people differently before the law, depending on whether they want to go prosecute or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ragu, you're off the rails there. Grand jury or no, the prosecutor has the power to treat people differently before the law. Now matter how you slice it, that's the way it is.

As regards the use of the grand jury ... well, I am of course no legal expert, but I would assume that a former Assistant U.S. Attorney would be. Here's the position of just such a man:

[The charge is that] McCulloch instead used the grand jury to exculpate Wilson, a white (cop) privilege that a black defendant could never dream of obtaining.

To describe this as nonsense is a slander on nonsense. It is freely conceded that the grand-jury inquest into Brown’s killing was more a political than a legal exercise. That, however, was the result of intimidation by the Left’s race-mythology agitators — very much including the president and the attorney general of the United States. It was clearly not aimed at benefitting Wilson.

In a typical case, prosecutors rely on the low probable-cause threshold applicable in grand-jury investigations only for the purpose of limiting how much evidence they need to present. Contrary to another regnant myth, guilt is not in doubt in most criminal cases. Overwhelmingly, they are open-and-shut, often supported by post-arrest confessions. As a result, the grand jury can appear to be a pro forma exercise — a cookie-cutter procedure the Constitution requires before an accused person can be convicted of a crime he not only clearly committed but to which he will almost certainly plead guilty.

On the other hand, when convinced that the subject of an investigation either is innocent or is incapable of being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors do not present the case to the grand jury. That’s because their focus is the trial, not the indictment. If, after preliminary investigation, prosecutors do not assess the evidence as strong enough to convince a trial jury to render a unanimous guilty verdict, they dismiss the case on the basis of their own professional judgment — it never sees the grand-jury room.

At a proper trial, Wilson could not have been convicted of murder. That does not mean what happened was not horrible — it was. It does not mean Wilson is not civilly liable (although I doubt that he is). It simply means the circumstances of the shooting do not meet the high criminal-law standards for either intentional homicide or the criminally irresponsible causing of death.

...

If the Michael Brown shooting were an ordinary case, a grand jury would never have been asked to consider indicting Officer Wilson. McCulloch, the chief prosecutor, directed his office to present it to the grand jury because it was not an ordinary case — because it was a racially charged case ....

Ordinarily, prosecutors unilaterally decide whether or not to seek an indictment and, in the rare instance when anyone asks why they decided as they did, are restrained by investigative-secrecy protocols from explaining their decision. But McCulloch was understandably unwilling to make a unilateral judgment for which he would have been unable to defend himself from inevitable charges of racism. He thus directed his office to make an exhaustive presentation to the grand jury. It was both a Pontius Pilate–style abdication that made the community, rather than himself, accountable for the charging decision; and a vehicle that, with the court’s blessing, enabled him to disclose the voluminous evidence justifying the decision not to indict.
Click to expand...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393642/progressive-mythography-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1

I recognize that my appeal to authority may not pass RickStain muster -- who among us can summon the strength to enter that pantheon of demigods? -- I think it does at a minimum justify heyabbott's position (and that of others) vis-a-vis the grand jury's use and actions.

Boom_70 · Dec 2, 2014

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Spartan Squad said:

Going to the grand jury was fine, McCulloch used it in a funny way to get an outcome that people were screaming would happen if McCulloch didn't recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor. He brought forward witnesses that would never have been allowed in court because their testimony was suspect. He went out of his way to present Officer Wilson's side of events and the inevitable outcome was a failure to receive an indictment.

McCulloch looked like he was in bed with the cops before he went to the grand jury and that appearance is exacerbated since he went to the grand jury. Appointing a special prosecutor who either went to the grand jury and had the same outcome, went and received an indictment or simply bypassed the GJ all together and still failed to convict would have come off better in the long run.

Everything about this case screams cronyism and coverup. Even in the event Wilson is telling the 100 percent truth and fired his weapon at an 18-year-old who was charging at him after already trying to steal his gun once, you go out of your way to make sure your actions don't muddy that narrative.
Click to expand...

"Everything about this case screams cronyism and coverup"

Are you then suggesting that Eric Holder and the DOJ are part of this coverup since
they were involved in the investigation ?

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches