StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:06 AM) Probably should get new judges too. They get to know the police departments pretty well. I can't imagine why you think personal bias could never be a problem in cases like these. Comparisons to judges don't make sense. Prosecutors have to work with PDs in order to get convictions. That's not what judges do, so the same conflict isn't there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) Ok, but the defense would, so....that information is still getting out there. Right, he wanted a grand jury to hear all the facts and decide if an indictment should be brought. He wanted it to all be out there. He didn't want to get a sham indictment and bring a meaningless trial if the facts didn't warrant it. Lol, ok man. I don't know why you're lol'ing. You're admitting above that he's running this grand jury completely differently from how he and everyone else runs every other grand jury. He went on TV last night to whine about the media and how unfair it all was. He clearly didn't think Wilson should be indicted, but he ran a sham grand jury or pseudo-mock-trial if you want to call it that to get this outcome and give himself a shield. Grand Juries aren't meant to hear "all the facts" in a mock-trial with no real adversarial system or the same rules and standards of evidence, witness examination, etc. Turning a grand jury into a mock-trial is what makes it a sham.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) Did this prosecutor have a relationship with Wilson? He has an ongoing relationship with the Ferguson PD.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:53 AM) So basically any case involving a cop should have a special prosecutor? Is that what you're saying? Because 100% of SA's offices in this country are buddy-buddy with the cops. It might be appropriate in any case with a police officer as a defendant. A prosecutor in another area might be buddy-buddy with those PD's, but he won't have a regular working relationship with the specific PD or officer in question.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) I don't think he did that, but we can agree to disagree. He wanted to present a mock trial, let the grand jury decide, and cover his ass. Prosecutors don't present conflicting or exculpatory evidence against their case at real trials. They don't paint hero cop stories of the defendant at real trials. That's even putting aside that he had already presented a bunch of cases to this same GJ in the typical "5 minute indictment" fashion and then suddenly changes the whole procedure and doesn't even ask for an indictment in this case. It's a very, very clear signal to the GJ what result he wanted. And there's lots of psychological studies out there about that sort of influence, about people wanting to please authority figures etc. But I'm glad you agree that he just did this to cover his own ass, not as a legitimate inquiry.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) Right, because that would have appeased you. I guarantee you if he had done that you would be b****ing that he should have at least presented the facts to a grand jury or a judge in a prelim hearing. That guy, mistakes and all, was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Some dude b****ing on the internet doesn't really matter. He put on what was transparently a sham grand jury hearing. He should be ashamed of himself.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:44 AM) But if a jury of people couldn't find probable cause from mere factual statements of witnesses without lawyers picking them apart, what makes you think a trial, with a more stringent standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is going to be anything more than a complete waste of time and money? A trial with these prosecutors who were running defense for Wilson would be a sham. A trial with an independent prosecutor who was not deliberately attempting to avoid charges against Wilson would likely not be.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) And getting a sham indictment and wasting tax payer money on a sham trial wouldn't? I didn't say that. If the prosecutor thought it was a sham charge (he has a bunch of conflicts of interest, so let's take that with a grain of salt), he should have the courage to make the call and explain himself. He shouldn't run an obviously sham GJ in order to give himself a shield and then make himself look like an idiot in the press conference announcing the GJ's findings. As it is, we already wasted "taxpayer money" on a sham GJ.

That doesn't mean that large companies, especially in retail, don't routinely treat their employees like garbage.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:54 AM) In speaking with my 2 partners, who have 20 and 25 years of states' attorneys experience, they both said the same thing: I would have not brought charges based on the evidence. I could have gotten an indictment by putting on one witness (the, "I can indict a bologna sandwich" joke) If I had the pressure of the national media, FBI and Dept. of Justice, i'm going to probably do exactly what this guy did: take the decision out of my hands, give a grand jury all the information they would get at a trial, and let them decide. All bringing it to a GJ did was show that he was running a sham GJ. As your 2 partners said, it would be trivially easy to get an indictment if he wanted one. Running a sham GJ only further undermines the legitimacy of the justice system.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:49 AM) Except that there is clear evidence that Brown moved 21 feet directly towards Wilson. Brown moving 21 feet towards Wilson, then kneeling down, and then Wilson firing is an entirely absurd chain of events. ?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) I think there needs to be some digging into the police department as a whole regardless on not only what transpired but also their handling of the protests. Obviously people went there to riot, but if it was handled better from the outset it may not have been the firestarter it ended up being. That's what I've read a few people saying. They might issue a finding (forget the technical term) against the PD itself that can result in reforms of policies and procedures.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) Interesting enough this is why I find it to be bulls***. The guy has been prepped to get off since day one. His dept has leaked favorable info from day one. Would have loved to have heard Brown's testimony. Do we know when Wilson first gave his accounting of what happened? It'd be mighty convenient if he was able to wait until a bunch of other people gave their version and then craft his story around that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) Transparent in the sense that you're going to get all 70 hours worth of transcripts to pour over. That's not common either. The dude was covering his ass from both sides. Not sure how you guys don't see that. And by the way, you guys misconstrue the purpose of a grand jury. The grand jury is basically a mock-trial to give the prosecutor a feel for how the evidence would shake out in an actual trial. That necessitates in some cases the defendant's own testimony, especially here where only one person involved in the crime is still around. That's not super common, but this isn't a very common case to begin with. That's not how they're ever used except in the case of a police officer potentially being charged. In every other type of case, they almost always result in an indictment. They're not run like a full mock trial with the defendant testifying and the prosecution pointing out conflicting evidence. They're usually just the prosecution presenting all of the damning evidence in favor of an indictment and then asking for an indictment, which the GJ promptly gives. That's why they hear a bunch of cases in a short period. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguso...-darren-wilson/ edit: maybe that was their original purpose, but that's not how they're actually used.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) Oh bulls***. This became a national story, with the FBI and Dept of Justice all over him. You cannot compare this to any normal proceeding. So every time there's a national story, prosecutors throw their hands in the air, present all available evidence to a grand jury, specifically decline to ask for an indictment and ask questions that paint the suspect as a baby-saving hero? I am doubtful.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) Yup. I'm hesitant to believe the verdict and I'm hesitant to say Wilson had malicious intent to kill. Judging from Wilson's testimony, a lot of it seemed true. Very descriptive and hard to make up. But at the same time, he had a lot of time to prepare before he had to provide testimony. When you look at some of the stuff StrangeSox posted from the testimony (getting stronger as he was being shot?), it's also hard to believe he was telling the whole truth. That's another aspect of this GJ procedure. There wasn't any verdict. This wasn't a full, normal trial. This was a process with a substantially lower burden of proof that almost always returns an indictment unless the prosecution doesn't actually want one. "You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" is a classic line about them. But with the way it's being presented, a lot of people will walk away thinking that this was just a fair trial and Wilson didn't get found guilty. I don't know if a jury in a full trial would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or whatever the lower threshold for voluntary manslaughter might be, if that had been the charge instead), but it would have been a lot more open and transparent and, hopefully, legitimate than this was.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:26 AM) None of that would have stopped this and you know it. The prosecutor went overboard because of pressure on both sides. He laid everything out and was transparent about it from the get go. The leaks are still bulls***, since really other than Wilson's testimony, nothing was leaked. We learned for the first time last night that many of the witnesses changed their story and/or admitted they didn't actually witness the entire thing. That wasn't part of the narrative either. Surely mistakes were made as there are in every investigation and ever hearing, but nothing egregious. Nothing that would have changed the outcome here. You're just looking for a scapegoat. This was handled completely differently from the regular GJ process. It was a sham, and it was done intentionally to give cover for not charging Wilson. If the prosecutors simply thought that there wasn't enough evidence, then they should have had the courage to make the determination themselves explicitly and present their reasoning. Instead, they go this route so that they can place the burden on a GJ that they've rigged to get the outcome they wanted anyway but provide themselves a shield. If they make their own case instead of going with the GJ shield in the first place, there's less rage and less transparent corruption that's driving the rage and reaction in the first place.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) Yeah, black and hispanic kids. I know most of the people here aren't racists, but in general, "animal" is used to describe minorities when they do something out of the norm. Don't pretend that's not true. That's a good example of how racism isn't always or even mainly about individual, KKK-style racists but underlying perceptions, stereotypes, language etc. that we're not even consciously aware of for the most part.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:27 AM) Um, the press conference last night? He mentioned this approx. 5 times. He said a lot of dumb things. I want an actual citation to the "full evidence" that they released.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:24 AM) I personally hate the jury trial system and wish it would go away. But I also don't think this case really shows any reason to keep or get rid of it. One thing that upsets me here, as I read about it, is the way the prosecutor handled the GJ. The fact that it was done so dramatically differently (basically turning it into a trial), and then delivering a bizarre, nearly impossible to understand final instruction set to the jury that made it sounds like they needed to find absolute proof to indict... that is a major failure here. I don't pretend to know what happened on that street, but I am pretty darn sure of these things: 1. There is some awful silliness in this thread on both sides 2. The prosecutor's office who handled the GJ was incompetent 3. NONE of us actually know what happened on that street Disagreed. This was done intentionally. They didn't want to indict and used an intentionally sabotaged GJ process as cover. This wasn't even a new GJ, so they had already seen a bunch of other cases presented in a way to clearly get an indictment (like most GJ's) and then they suddenly get this "both sides" "gee, we simple prosecutors just don't know what to do!" case. The prosecutors asked Wilson a bunch of questions that painted him as a baby-saving hero, for christ's sake.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) No, it's me thinking you guys are so full of your white guilt/police hate/gun hate that you can't believe a guy when he describes the fear he saw that day. Like it's not even remotely believable. As if you've been in a similar situation before. It is not remotely believable that Brown kept charging at Wilson, only getting stronger with each bullet that hit him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) The witnesses who changed their story and/or admitted they actually didn't witness Brown surrendering, they were just passing along what they overheard. Oh, and the other witnesses who disagree that he was surrendering and that he was actually heading towards Wilson. And they were black witnesses, so, no racist intent! Citation needed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:16 AM) What would you have done differently? Well, don't spend months showing everyone just how much of a sham the GJ was going to be for one. Then, don't leak information to the business community to start an arms build-up ahead of the decision, further tainting the process and undermining your own credibility. Then, don't preemptively say you're going to heavily militarize the whole situation by calling out the national guard. After that, probably not a good idea to announce that the GJ has reached a decision but hold off on announcing it for hours, letting everything come to a boil. And last but not least, don't hold a sanctimonious press conference announcing the no-bill in which you indict everyone but Wilson and whine relentlessly about the media.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:07 AM) The highest level of human no doubt. Dynamite drop in. I mean if we're trying to be accurate here, it is literally not animal-like behavior at all. Animals don't riot, don't start fires, don't destroy s*** like people do. In the area of "terrible, horrible things to do" humans have a pretty strong hold. Absolutely. Riots are usually a complex phenomenon, and the ones in Ferguson appear to be pent up anger and frustration over powerlessness and a perception of strong bias against their community. While theycan have a constructive outcome, usually that's not the case and it's just used as more 'evidence' that 'those people' are just hopeless. Again, speaking generally here and not about a particular poster or even SoxTalk.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:58 AM) Yeah but that wasn't what he said. Were the following riots described as being done by a bunch of animals? riots over Joe Paterno at PSU Vancouver over the Stanley Coup pumpkin festival in Keene, NH It's typically a charge leveled at black people, and it's influenced by generations of stereotypes.