It seems like most national legal experts are not impressed with the failure to indict. Not recommending a charge to the Grand Jury is highly unusual.
- 3,762
Seemingly unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
^ The police + McCulloch and his office handled the case disastrously. Another story confirming this: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/pros ... 0e723.html
First being THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'waxing'. The correct term is "dabbing," and it's something you can only do with expensive/specialized equipment. The second being that they would put so much focus and empty speculation on this trivial detail, which is made even worse because they clearly have no understanding of what they're talking about.
It's really too bad that all the calls for a special prosecutor were dismissed, and this is what we end up with. McCulloch's botched press conference put the cherry on top of the clusterf*ck sundae.
First being THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'waxing'. The correct term is "dabbing," and it's something you can only do with expensive/specialized equipment. The second being that they would put so much focus and empty speculation on this trivial detail, which is made even worse because they clearly have no understanding of what they're talking about.
It's really too bad that all the calls for a special prosecutor were dismissed, and this is what we end up with. McCulloch's botched press conference put the cherry on top of the clusterf*ck sundae.
People are going to b**** either way. If McCulloch would've came out and just said "No indictment" then people would b**** that he didn't present evidence. He came out and presented evidence and gave reasoning, and people b**** that he talked too long.
There was nothing that could've happened that would satisfy some of you guys here. There was no evidence that supported an indictment. I find it laughable how often MSNBC has been linked on this forum, completely ignoring the fact that MSNBC is Exhibit A of the media instigating this crap (then again, that's assuming that more than a handful of people actually watch MSNBC). The only reason the facts are being debated is because people ignorantly, and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, are suggesting things that Wilson should've done while having zero understanding of how those tactics actually work ("Use a baton" "Use pepper spray" "Shoot him in the leg"). Here's AC360 the night of the decision, and take note of Jeff Toobin's and Mark O'Mara's reactions and opinions: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/24/b ... hpt=ac_bn7. Here's O'Mara the next night after he's reviewed the evidence: Sunny Hostin is the only one holding the line. This is immediately after Toobin said that there was "no chance for a conviction" based on the evidence.
That's just one example. So keep watching MSNBC and raising your pitchforks if you want, but the right decision was made. There's no evidence to support a conviction, which would make an indictment irresponsible. People crying for justice should learn that justice conducted to satisfy a mob isn't justice at all. I'm done with this thread. Logic doesn't work when people refuse to acknowledge facts.
There was nothing that could've happened that would satisfy some of you guys here. There was no evidence that supported an indictment. I find it laughable how often MSNBC has been linked on this forum, completely ignoring the fact that MSNBC is Exhibit A of the media instigating this crap (then again, that's assuming that more than a handful of people actually watch MSNBC). The only reason the facts are being debated is because people ignorantly, and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, are suggesting things that Wilson should've done while having zero understanding of how those tactics actually work ("Use a baton" "Use pepper spray" "Shoot him in the leg"). Here's AC360 the night of the decision, and take note of Jeff Toobin's and Mark O'Mara's reactions and opinions: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/24/b ... hpt=ac_bn7. Here's O'Mara the next night after he's reviewed the evidence: Sunny Hostin is the only one holding the line. This is immediately after Toobin said that there was "no chance for a conviction" based on the evidence.
That's just one example. So keep watching MSNBC and raising your pitchforks if you want, but the right decision was made. There's no evidence to support a conviction, which would make an indictment irresponsible. People crying for justice should learn that justice conducted to satisfy a mob isn't justice at all. I'm done with this thread. Logic doesn't work when people refuse to acknowledge facts.
- 8,155
^^ I don't watch MSNBC but with all due respect, shimmy, you're crazy if you don't see this whole investigation and grand jury process as suspect. That's not to say that Wilson would have been convicted even if there were unbiased professionals at the helm or that he was even guilty of any crime, but this was an embarrassing, unprofessional demonstration that we need to ensure never happens again. And McCulloch hiding behind grand jury marionettes is contemptuous... he should have had the courage to come out on his own and say there was no evidence to support a charge. The only good thing he did was release the info which has shown what a clown show we have in Saint Louis County.
- 3,235
The man who cleaned up NYC - Giuliani - says the Grand Jury got it right and the response from law enforcement was pathetic. Should have been more forceful.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/politics/ ... -decision/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/politics/ ... -decision/
- 3,762
Washington Post =/= MSNBCshimmy wrote:I find it laughable how often MSNBC has been linked on this forum...
- 1,868
It would be a lot easier to go along with the official story if every incidence of police violence didn't get shut down with the same "COPS ARE GREAT THUGS ARE VIOLENT NOTHING TO SEE HERE" sweeping-under-the-rug bull. I don't know if Wilson was guilty of anything, but the whole case was handled from day 1 in a way I can only describe as "shady as heck." The justice system seems to be saying "just trust us!" while bending over backwards to be as untrustworthy as possible.
- 8,155
Toobin believes that there was more than enough evidence to support an indictment. He believes the the highly unusual Grand Jury process used was unfair and ensured that an indictment didn't happen:shimmy wrote:... There was no evidence that supported an indictment.... Here's AC360 the night of the decision, and take note of Jeff Toobin's and Mark O'Mara's reactions and opinions:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/use-grand-jury
Also, too, Nancy Grace.
From the start, the prosecutor said he would release every last bit of evidence presented to the grand jury. Every last piece. No one complained from the start that it was atypical to do so. No one. Didn't the dept of justice also observe this entire process? If it's so tarnished, why haven't they said anything?
As someone else said it must be difficult to look at the facts here and realize that the original story aka Dorian Johnson's "version" was just a complete lie. Someone who had lied to police before.
It's too bad cases like the chokehold death in New York over selling single cigs or the guy being shot after going for his wallet don't get more attention. Those are legitimate situations to me.
Face it, Michael Brown was someone that attacked a cop, didn't listen to the officers commands and ended up dead because of it.
People can continue to grasp at straws over the way the GJ ruled, etc, but its time to move on and see some actual gov/police structure changes in StL county. Stopping highways and screaming in malls does NOTHING to make those changes happen.
As someone else said it must be difficult to look at the facts here and realize that the original story aka Dorian Johnson's "version" was just a complete lie. Someone who had lied to police before.
It's too bad cases like the chokehold death in New York over selling single cigs or the guy being shot after going for his wallet don't get more attention. Those are legitimate situations to me.
Face it, Michael Brown was someone that attacked a cop, didn't listen to the officers commands and ended up dead because of it.
People can continue to grasp at straws over the way the GJ ruled, etc, but its time to move on and see some actual gov/police structure changes in StL county. Stopping highways and screaming in malls does NOTHING to make those changes happen.
- 8,155
^ I agree it was a good thing McCulloch released the grand jury evidence -- it was the only good thing he has done. And as suspected, the release reveals a deeply flawed investigation that underscores the urgent need for sweeping change. And I think you can count on the Feds saying something in the end about the disfunction.
Curious if anyone has seen any good speculation on what the testimony was of the live tweeting rapper Thee Pharoah?
https://twitter.com/theepharoah
He was a smart kid who didn't publicly reveal exactly what he saw and from what I've seen of him on twitter is seemingly credible. I think he might have been one of the more "middle ground" witnesses so to speak that may have seen what they felt was some kind of non-threatening movement towards Wilson but I don't really know....
pharoah y moi. @TheePharoah
· Nov 24
how can we not see police as enemies? Mike Brown couldn't have posed a threat to Darren Wilson's life, so what justifies DW taking Mike's?
pharoah y moi. @TheePharoah
· Nov 24
at the end of the day, an unarmed man got killed by someone with the capacity to use lesser force! I don't wanna hear that bullsh*t.
https://twitter.com/theepharoah
He was a smart kid who didn't publicly reveal exactly what he saw and from what I've seen of him on twitter is seemingly credible. I think he might have been one of the more "middle ground" witnesses so to speak that may have seen what they felt was some kind of non-threatening movement towards Wilson but I don't really know....
pharoah y moi. @TheePharoah
· Nov 24
how can we not see police as enemies? Mike Brown couldn't have posed a threat to Darren Wilson's life, so what justifies DW taking Mike's?
pharoah y moi. @TheePharoah
· Nov 24
at the end of the day, an unarmed man got killed by someone with the capacity to use lesser force! I don't wanna hear that bullsh*t.
- 284
Heres a question Why is it so hard for people to just do what the police say and go on your very way? Is it the fact that people don't like being told what to do? If MB and Dorian would have simply did as Darren Wilson told them to do none of this would have never happened. Instead they both chose to sass mouth and be ugly towards someone who was simply doing his job. I'm just tired of the excuse's what not. Whether it was a fair trail or not at the end of the day you have a community thats in ruins and MBs parents not showing any remorse in the choice words her husband decided to use following the announcement. You still have people protesting blocking roads going to the malls being loud and disruptive. These are the very same people who have the loudest mouths against law enforcement however when they need help they are the first to call them. Such hypocrisy there is in this country. Shut up and follow the laws.
So, roger, what do you still not believe? Do you think Darren Wilson just decided to go execute someone that day for no reason? Someone who never used his gun before? Do you not believe in the forensic evidence? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I really am totally missing your opinion here.
- 8,155
^ I don't really have any firm beliefs on the incident itself in large part b/c there is so much contradictory forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony, there were key failures and unorthodox procedures used in the investigation, and the prosecution never really challenged DW at all and purposely led the GJ to a no true bill in a manner that no other potential defendant will ever receive in Saint Louis County except for a police officer.
In the end I think I'm like Toobin where I believe the evidence is consistent with DW's account but also strong enough for a good faith charge for involuntary manslaughter or similar and that McCulloch should have either brought up such charges on his own or made a hard run at the Grand Jury. What was improper was his essentially serving as a defense attorney for Wilson as all his critics said would happen if Nixon did not appoint a special prosecutor. Does that make sense?
In the end I think I'm like Toobin where I believe the evidence is consistent with DW's account but also strong enough for a good faith charge for involuntary manslaughter or similar and that McCulloch should have either brought up such charges on his own or made a hard run at the Grand Jury. What was improper was his essentially serving as a defense attorney for Wilson as all his critics said would happen if Nixon did not appoint a special prosecutor. Does that make sense?
Two proposals for restraining American police power. “First, remove collective bargaining for police officers entirely. They should be employed at will, and should be able to be fired without any arbitration.” Second: “If a police officer shoots someone who is unarmed, they should be fired even if they can prove they reasonably felt threatened. The incentives right now lean too strongly towards shooting first and thinking later”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbeha ... -powerful/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbeha ... -powerful/
- 284
Man. The process sure does stink. I'm not sure the result is incorrect, but the process is just gross. It's increasingly clear that McCulloch pointed a grad jury in an (unsuccessful) effort to hide himself from criticism. And it seems the grand jury was guided to a no-indictment conclusion.
Which is different than saying there should have been an indictment. A lot of people are saying the reason you go to trial is so that all the evidence can be put out there and everyone cross examined. Maybe in theory, but it's always been the role of the state to not waste time or money, and you don't take cases to trial that aren't reasonably likely to result in a conviction.
And in this case, it does appear that when all he evidence is looked at, and the laws evaluated, it would be unlikely that there would be a conviction.
But that's a decision McCulloch and his staff could have and should have made on their own, rather than guiding a grand jury to it. But even more than that, he SHOULD have recused himself from the decision. He just should have. He had a real bias and the appearance of a bias. While true justice is NOT succumbing to a mob, you also can't reach true justice without the faith of the people.
There is no doubt that a special prosecutor reaching the same decision still would have led to some outcry, but it would have been lessened to some degree, and it simply should have been done.
This is a mess. And it's a real shame this all happened just after McCulloch was re-elected (by default, if not officially until the middle of the process).
Which is different than saying there should have been an indictment. A lot of people are saying the reason you go to trial is so that all the evidence can be put out there and everyone cross examined. Maybe in theory, but it's always been the role of the state to not waste time or money, and you don't take cases to trial that aren't reasonably likely to result in a conviction.
And in this case, it does appear that when all he evidence is looked at, and the laws evaluated, it would be unlikely that there would be a conviction.
But that's a decision McCulloch and his staff could have and should have made on their own, rather than guiding a grand jury to it. But even more than that, he SHOULD have recused himself from the decision. He just should have. He had a real bias and the appearance of a bias. While true justice is NOT succumbing to a mob, you also can't reach true justice without the faith of the people.
There is no doubt that a special prosecutor reaching the same decision still would have led to some outcry, but it would have been lessened to some degree, and it simply should have been done.
This is a mess. And it's a real shame this all happened just after McCulloch was re-elected (by default, if not officially until the middle of the process).
- 45
Pretty fair analysis, imo.
RE: McCullough the one thing I do admire is that he was straightforward in his intent from the beginning. He was adamant that he wasn't stepping down. In interviews he repeatedly said citizens should contact Nixon as the Gov is the only person who could remove McCullough.
Agree with the view that McCullough wasn't seen as fair/impartial.
So, the question is why didn't Nixon do something about it? Why does Nixon still refuse to appoint a special prosecutor?
My guess is that he knows the outcome already.
RE: McCullough the one thing I do admire is that he was straightforward in his intent from the beginning. He was adamant that he wasn't stepping down. In interviews he repeatedly said citizens should contact Nixon as the Gov is the only person who could remove McCullough.
Agree with the view that McCullough wasn't seen as fair/impartial.
So, the question is why didn't Nixon do something about it? Why does Nixon still refuse to appoint a special prosecutor?
My guess is that he knows the outcome already.
- 3,434
I was looking at two pages in Wikipedia about majority black towns taken from census data.
In this page of Cities with most African American residents, St. Louis City does not stand out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... opulations
But this page shows the number of towns with 90% African American populations, and majority +50% African American populations from 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... ns_in_2000
I did a few XL spreadsheet summaries and computed that St. Louis metro area has more 90% and majority +50% African American towns within our metro area than any other major metro area. The only other ones that may come close are New Orleans and possibly Baltimore.
St. Louis metro has 15 towns with 90% African Americans (11 MO and 4 IL) and 40 towns with majority +50% African Americans (33 MO + 7 IL). There are some states that have more majority small African American towns in the South, but they are more rural and not part of metro areas. Many metro areas have zero majority African American towns, such as Boston. Even the handful around Dallas are so far out I'm not sure they are included in the MSA.
I think this presents some unique questions and challenges to our metro area.
1. Do we want to merge communities into fewer large suburban towns if it means that African Americans will now be relegated to minority status within the new towns? Is it progress to line up with the demographics of town structure of other large metro areas?
2. As residents migrate among all of our many suburban towns, they will inevitably transition from one majority to another majority. So how do we get the institutions in those towns to change expeditiously to reflect the new majority demographics, and not lag? Different cultures have different expectations of how laws are enforced. (How would any of us have fared in a Puritan culture, for instance.)
3. Many many towns in our metro have successfully made those transitions peacefully, even in recent decades. How did they do it and what can we learn from their success?
In this page of Cities with most African American residents, St. Louis City does not stand out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... opulations
But this page shows the number of towns with 90% African American populations, and majority +50% African American populations from 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... ns_in_2000
I did a few XL spreadsheet summaries and computed that St. Louis metro area has more 90% and majority +50% African American towns within our metro area than any other major metro area. The only other ones that may come close are New Orleans and possibly Baltimore.
St. Louis metro has 15 towns with 90% African Americans (11 MO and 4 IL) and 40 towns with majority +50% African Americans (33 MO + 7 IL). There are some states that have more majority small African American towns in the South, but they are more rural and not part of metro areas. Many metro areas have zero majority African American towns, such as Boston. Even the handful around Dallas are so far out I'm not sure they are included in the MSA.
I think this presents some unique questions and challenges to our metro area.
1. Do we want to merge communities into fewer large suburban towns if it means that African Americans will now be relegated to minority status within the new towns? Is it progress to line up with the demographics of town structure of other large metro areas?
2. As residents migrate among all of our many suburban towns, they will inevitably transition from one majority to another majority. So how do we get the institutions in those towns to change expeditiously to reflect the new majority demographics, and not lag? Different cultures have different expectations of how laws are enforced. (How would any of us have fared in a Puritan culture, for instance.)
3. Many many towns in our metro have successfully made those transitions peacefully, even in recent decades. How did they do it and what can we learn from their success?
- 8,155
^ makes sense that with our large number of small municipalities that we'd stack up like that.
I don't know though that a wave of mergers/consolidations would necessarily impact overall demographics and racial representation very much as the racial segregation in the county is very high... for example let's say you created fewer but larger towns based largely on the existing school districts... Normandy City and Riverview City would be overwhelmingly black and Parkway City and Rockwood City would be overwhelmingly white. Hazelwood, Ferg-Flo and Ritenour would be the ones that would seem to stand out as having a greater degree of diversity if that sort of system were created.
I don't know though that a wave of mergers/consolidations would necessarily impact overall demographics and racial representation very much as the racial segregation in the county is very high... for example let's say you created fewer but larger towns based largely on the existing school districts... Normandy City and Riverview City would be overwhelmingly black and Parkway City and Rockwood City would be overwhelmingly white. Hazelwood, Ferg-Flo and Ritenour would be the ones that would seem to stand out as having a greater degree of diversity if that sort of system were created.
- 284
Has St.Louis always had one of the larger african american populations in the country?
- 8,155
^ no. like most industrial cities, the black population increased significantly during the Great Migrations away from the deep south.