Ferguson

[Bjorn]

I just read through the entirety of Darren Wilson's testimony. That strikes me as one of the softest prosecution interviews I've ever read (I'm no expert, but I've read through a few transcripts). I'm going to be curious to read through some of the other testimony, particularly the testimony of the black folks living around there, to see if the way those interviews are handled are different or similar to Wilson's.

Things I would have liked to have seen drilled down on.

The bruise/swelling on his face was on the right side, which would have been the harder or more awkward side for Brown to allegedly punch with Wilson sitting in the car. A clearer examination of the positioning of each man during the altercation at the car should have taken place.

Wilson, at a minimum, washed his hands and arms before being interviewed to remove blood, photographed or anything was processed as evidence. That should have a been a point challenged as evidence might have been destroyed.

Wilson was allowed to maintain possession of his firearm and all his other gear, drive himself back to the station and checked his own gun into evidence with no other officer overseeing it. Da fuq? That seems like something to drill down on.

He said he made the decision to use lethal force once he was punched in the face. That part of the conversation could have been expanded on a lot. Later he talks about Brown going for his gun, and him thinking Brown might have a gun in his pants. But ultimately the decision to pull his gun and use it on Brown happened within the first few seconds of the interaction, and everything else was that playing out.

His prior employment history is very, very briefly mentioned and then completely ignored. The first department he worked for was one that was completely dismantled because of corruption, and he was not one of the officers invited back when it was rebuilt. And the second department he worked a single shift before leaving. No explanation given.

The distance covered by the run from the car to where Brown was ultimately killed is not addressed at all.

His body mic was on the wrong channel, but he's never asked why it was on the wrong channel. So any radio contact he claims to have made after his initial call from his car was never heard by anyone.

None of his personal testimony is compared to, challenged or corroborated by forensic evidence during his testimony. Nothing. He's just allowed to deliver his narrative independent of any other evidence.


It's interesting to see how the cops handle another cop vs a regular person. One of the other Ferguson cops checked with him to make sure he had called their union lawyer (where as police sometimes try to restrict access to a lawyer during an investigation). They also waited to interview him until he had had time to decompress from what was a very traumatic situation, whereas with a regular citizen if they have the opportunity to interview (even extensively for hours), they will under the theory that a person is more likely to make a mistake if pressured like that.
 

[GavinTheAlmighty]

I have no idea if someone else has already said this, so apologies if I'm repeating points, or saying something that has already been addressed.  

 

I don't have an informed opinion about Wilson's guilt or innocence in murder, but it seems absolutely insane to me that this wouldn't at least go to trial.  I'm not American and I have only a Law & Order-understanding of the US court system, but it's so crazy to me that they wouldn't proceed with charges in this case.  I mean, seriously, a police officer killed an unarmed man.  Even if Wilson's version of the story is correct, it's horrifying to me that the courts consider that a legally appropriate response to being punched in the face is homicide.  

[Bjorn]

Wilson was never, ever going to be convicted. Short of a video emerging showing it was unquestionably unjustified, any decent defense lawyer would have been able to establish reasonable doubt in a jury. There's too much conflicting information. So a full trial would have taken longer, cost more, dragged this out and exposed the police department, Wilson, the prosecutor's office and the city government to scrutiny that no one wants (some of which is obviously already happening, but a trial would make it even more so). For the people in power, there were no upsides and all downsides to taking this to trial. The grand jury was never anything other than cover so the prosecutor didn't have to make the call himself.

[itsamoose]

I'm no legal expert, but from what I understand the way the Grand Jury was conducted virtually ensured no charges would be brought.  Grand Juries are run entirely at the discretion of the prosecutor, which involves them generally bringing what evidence they have to attempt to convince the jury that charges should be brought.  However with the Ferguson Grand Jury contradictory evidence was brought before the court, including some witnesses being brought on later to give testimony that directly contradicted previous evidence.  The Prosecution provided no narrative, which is at odds with the purpose of a Grand Jury as far as I understand it.  The whole ordeal seems to be focused on preventing anyone from having to claim responsibility, and even making the announcement at 8:30 PM basically ensured there would be a violent response.  I was told the National Guard units that have been called in supposedly only have orders to protect the police department and command centers, although I can't confirm this.  Thankfully though the Justice Department investigation is still ongoing, so there is a chance the institutional problems facing Ferguson could still be addressed.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Another thing that would have come up if it went to trial is how racism is okay in murders perpetrated by the police. There's a really fucked up reasonableness standard that can be applied in use of force reasoning that basically says that if you're just really scared of black people, you're going to be reasonably scared when dealing with them so maybe killing them is a little okay since you were reacting in a way that seemed objectively reasonable to you which makes it okay that you did that. No police force wants that bit of legal arcana being given a spotlight.

Use of force reasonings are super wrong-minded and make it really, really hard for cops to ever be found in the wrong.

[Blambo]

What's the point of an indictment process like this again?

[Dewar]

Generally, to decide if there is enough evidence to be worth spending the money to attempt to prosecute. In this case, an attempt to pass the blame around for why they aren't going to prosecute.

[Blambo]

Oh. Why does the prosecutor get to choose the evidence to present if the decision is to be made by the grand jury? Why does the prosecutor have to do it?

[sclpls]

I have no idea if someone else has already said this, so apologies if I'm repeating points, or saying something that has already been addressed.  

 

I don't have an informed opinion about Wilson's guilt or innocence in murder, but it seems absolutely insane to me that this wouldn't at least go to trial.  I'm not American and I have only a Law & Order-understanding of the US court system, but it's so crazy to me that they wouldn't proceed with charges in this case.  I mean, seriously, a police officer killed an unarmed man.  Even if Wilson's version of the story is correct, it's horrifying to me that the courts consider that a legally appropriate response to being punched in the face is homicide.  

 

Yeah it's pretty awful. There are things about his testimony that make sense, and things about his testimony that make no sense. This is exactly the sort of thing you have a trial for, when there are facts in dispute that need to be ascertained.

[syntheticgerbil]

I don't want to post this in the Ferguson thread since it's pointless

Ahaha, and I posted it in the Ferguson thread. (It was meant for Life, sorry 'bout that.)

[Dewar]

Oh. Why does the prosecutor get to choose the evidence to present if the decision is to be made by the grand jury? Why does the prosecutor have to do it?

The prosecutor, who in general should be doing his best to prosecute everyone (but allegedly isn't in this case,) is basically trying to prove that they have enough evidence to make a go at a real case. So the grand jury isn't so much about proving evidence wrong or right, it's just about showing what you have.

I theory, it's to prevent a biased prosecutor from harassing someone with repeated criminal cases until they crumble. People like Jack Thompson who threatened criminal proceedings several times (but didn't actually make good on threats, everything he filed was civil I believe.)

[Mangela Lansbury]

Oh. Why does the prosecutor get to choose the evidence to present if the decision is to be made by the grand jury? Why does the prosecutor have to do it?

 

The prosecutor typically has an interest in saying, "We think this is why this person is guilty. Here's a little evidence and here's our line of thinking." The grand jury typically just nods and says, "Yeah, that makes sense, okay, it can go to trial." The defense attorney and all other dissenting voices are absent because it's not the place for conflicting evidence -- it's not a trial to determine guilt or innocence, just a hearing to determine whether or not the prosecuting body's narrative of the crime makes enough sense for it to go in front of a judge and jury. You don't have Brady or evidentiary hearings about what did or didn't go to the grand jury because it ultimately doesn't matter what they hear or don't hear. They aren't judging a person guilty or not guilty. Their purpose is just to judge whether what the prosecutor thinks happened arguably could have reasonably happened.

 

It's really hard to not get an indictment if you want one. Like, REALLY hard. You're only required to give one side of the case, and when the prosecutor gets as far as the grand jury, he typically has a vested interest in the case going to trial so it's just understood that he'll do his best to get it there. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.

[sclpls]

Yeah, there's a quote that's been floating around to the effect that a competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. And most of the time, sure enough, indictments happen. The one exception to that seems to be in cases where a cop is on trial. There's actually a potential legitimate conflict of interest here since prosecutors have to work closely with law enforcement. In my mind, it would be the equivalent in a civil suit of asking a lawyer to sue a paralegal he/she hired who was responsible for collecting and maintaining evidence for the lawyer generally. It's kind of ludicrous to imagine, but that's the American legal system.

[Badfinger]

I have no idea if someone else has already said this, so apologies if I'm repeating points, or saying something that has already been addressed.  

 

I don't have an informed opinion about Wilson's guilt or innocence in murder, but it seems absolutely insane to me that this wouldn't at least go to trial.  I'm not American and I have only a Law & Order-understanding of the US court system, but it's so crazy to me that they wouldn't proceed with charges in this case.  I mean, seriously, a police officer killed an unarmed man.  Even if Wilson's version of the story is correct, it's horrifying to me that the courts consider that a legally appropriate response to being punched in the face is homicide.  

 

To answer your question directly where Bjorn expanded on the reasons why it did not go to trial-

 

Yes, Wilson should absolutely have been indicted and stood trial in a world where justice is blind. He may still be prosecuted on federal charges, and I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that he's going to be wrung dry in civil court.

[Merus]

It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

[feelthedarkness]

A prosecutor can say anything at a GJ, since there is no defense attorney presence. Obviously, there is no benefit to straight up lying, because all that will be crushed once the real trial started, but they could. Also, he presented conflicting evidence when he only had to present evidence that told the story he wanted. It makes Wilson's testifying at the GJ insane. He isn't allowed his union rep or lawyer. The prosecutor could badger him relentlessly about anything, without having to prove relevance.

[Professor Video Games]

I mean, besides Wilson's testimony, the prosecutor was calling other eye witnesses and then subsequently discrediting them. This is insane right? Why did he even call them!?

 

Considering the evidence and testimony, I doubt they would have gotten a conviction anyway, but this grand jury process was definitely a joke.

[itsamoose]

This prosecutor effectively tried to tell the Grand Jury that the events that lead to Michael Brown's death happened multiple ways.  He called a number of witnesses that contradicted one another, even some whose testimony contradicted the physical evidence found at the scene.  He did enough to make it seem as though he made a good faith effort, relying on the fact that most people don't know enough about the Grand Jury process to understand why his efforts actually undermined his stated goal.  The Grand Jury was just presented a mountain of evidence and basically told to figure it out themselves.

[sclpls]

Once again, Ta-Nehisi Coates says everything that needs to be said:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/barack-obama-ferguson-and-the-evidence-of-things-unsaid/383212/

[juv3nal]

Apologies if this has been posted before, this is not directly about Ferguson but it is fucking terrifying all the same:

http://brown-shuga-trompeta.tumblr.com/post/81471249745/here-is-the-video-proof-of-my-previous-post-about

[Gormongous]

I just found out that the St. Louis county prosecutor is president of a fundraising organization for police officers that helped to set up a t-shirt drive raising funds for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund. This has been known since August, but the organization, called The Backstoppers, has resisted both accusations of impropriety and attempts to investigate further into the depth of their association with the fundraising.

 

The fact that the prosecutor for this high-profile case is so openly corrupt and compromised has come to be upsetting for me. I can only imagine how it is for Mike Brown's friends and family. I'm basically only finding comfort in the increasingly effective breakdowns of the grand jury evidence, like this from the PBS Newshour:

Source, which also points out that some of the most crucial witnesses establishing "doubt" over Wilson's potential guilt, like Witness 30, were a "few blocks" away from the scene of the incident. Fuck me if it isn't the spitting image of the master's tools...

[Griddlelol]

With that many witnesses, and that amount of disagreement, the result isn't surprising. I wonder how many of those were actually "after-the-fact" witnesses. With the amount of media and social media attention, I'd be willing to be more than a few (especially those "few blocks" away people).

[Gormongous]

With that many witnesses, and that amount of disagreement, the result isn't surprising. I wonder how many of those were actually "after-the-fact" witnesses. With the amount of media and social media attention, I'd be willing to be more than a few (especially those "few blocks" away people).

 

The thing is (and I've been learning this myself recently) grand juries aren't about establishing reasonable doubt. They're about establishing the possibility that a person is guilty of the crime for which they're accused. If that possibility exists, they go to trial, where reasonable doubt is then established. When the prosecution bombards the jury with dozens of conflicting witness reports, when Wilson's own testimony is not even cross-examined by the prosecution, and when the prosecution makes the nigh-unprecedented decision not to ask for an indictment at the end of the process, it's hard not to see this for the farce it was.

 

To look at it all from another angle, I watched George Stephanopoulos' interview with Darren Wilson and read some breakdowns. What struck me, like it struck many people, is that, when Wilson was asked if he could have prevented Brown's killing, he says no. He says that he has a clean conscience because he did his job the way he was trained to do it and that he will not be haunted. I don't think Wilson himself is evil, but I think the banality of evil oozes from his words. How else can a man say so quickly and confidently that he has no regrets about killing another human being, especially when it sparked months of protests and riots across an entire nation? It boggles my mind that these people cannot seem to recognize their own role in what is so obviously a Very Bad Thing.

[Bjorn]

The thing is (and I've been learning this myself recently) grand juries aren't about establishing reasonable doubt. They're about establishing the possibility that a person is guilty of the crime for which they're accused. If that possibility exists, they go to trial, where reasonable doubt is then established. When the prosecution bombards the jury with dozens of conflicting witness reports, when Wilson's own testimony is not even cross-examined by the prosecution, and when the prosecution makes the nigh-unprecedented decision not to ask for an indictment at the end of the process, it's hard not to see this for the farce it was.

 

To look at it all from another angle, I watched George Stephanopoulos' interview with Darren Wilson and read some breakdowns. What struck me, like it struck many people, is that, when Wilson was asked if he could have prevented Brown's killing, he says no. He says that he has a clean conscience because he did his job the way he was trained to do it and that he will not be haunted. I don't think Wilson himself is evil, but I think the banality of evil oozes from his words. How else can a man say so quickly and confidently that he has no regrets about killing another human being, especially when it sparked months of protests and riots across an entire nation? It boggles my mind that these people cannot seem to recognize their own role in what is so obviously a Very Bad Thing.

 

Unfortunately, he couldn't have said anything else in that interview. That interview, and the interviews his legal team is doing, are only about being prepared for the federal investigation and the inevitable civil suit. If Wilson said, "Yes, I regret what happened and believe that it could have played out in a different way", then that could be used against him in a civil suit. Of course, that's one of the questions that a good interviewer should be asking is whether or not his lawyers have advised him of that.

 

Anybody watch the video (or read the descriptions of it) of the Tamir Rice killing?   The police's story is not matching up with the video, particularly not how the boy could have been ordered to show his hands 3 times in the 1.5-2 seconds that it took for the officer to shoot him upon arriving at the scene.

[marblize]

took some pickies at a small protest march in NYC: http://alexbroadwell.tumblr.com/post/103837292851/nyc-tuesday-night