View Single Post
Old 10-11-2014, 12:10 PM
Fallen is offline
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 435
"Whatever one thinks of the Ferguson case, this is a rather problematic formulation, in my opinion."

My observation was just a flipped approach to saying "so far, the evidence reflects that the police officer behaved, at best, in a criminally negligent fashion." So far, in the public domain, there is what he told a friend, who in turn disseminated it in a radio (?) interview. And his story does not line up with all the other evidence, including that of many witnesses.

"But our criminal justice system requires more than that; if i'm to be convicted, it requires positive proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that i DID violate the law."

Please note that we have not yet even entered the phase/territory of an indictment. Talking about the standard required to convict is not relevant at this point. The prosecutor has decided that there is probable cause to proceed (indeed, there is far more than probable cause). Standard required to convict will become relevant only if and when charges are handed down. This officer is already receiving light years beyond treatment any average citizen would receive (and that is the institutional organism at work ... to be expected). Were he not possessed of a badge, he'd have been indicted in short order. I suspect that'd be true even if there'd been video that captured every detail.

The prosecutor certainly is going above and beyond by, in effect, presenting a dry run of the case and the only component missing being the defense. That is a political calculation instead of a legal or practical necessity. Indeed, the prosecutor has already signaled his office will do that which is unheard of: release audio of the proceedings if the man is not indicted. One presumes this is so that people will understand that it is the grand jury members people should blame, and not him.