Mostly agreed. My view is as follows – most cops are not explicitly racist, and don’t bear animus against black people in general. But many cops are just a little more likely to be twitchy around black people (especially young black men), and just a little more likely to draw their weapon, and just a little more likely to feel nervous, and just a little more likely to pull the trigger. And most judges and grand juries (and regular juries, for that matter) are not explicitly racist, and don’t bear animus against black people in general, but are a little more likely to see a black person (especially a young black male) as more likely to be violent, and more likely to be guilty, and if they see him as guilty, then more likely to deserve a longer sentence.
I think these assumptions fit the facts of disparate sentencing, disparate cop shootings of young black men, disparate wrongful convictions (borne out by higher rates of DNA exoneration for black convicts), and similar disparities. It’s not outright racism, racial bias, and animus, for the most part, it’s just a combination of little things building on each other – the same feeling that might make someone a little more fearful of a young black man at night might make them a little more likely to draw their gun if they’re a cop, or pull the trigger, or see them as guilty if they’re a juror, or see them as deserving a long sentence if they’re a judge.
Weirder and weirder, deeply weird. Previously, I was asking about the threshold for a grand jury to indict, would it be possible for the majority of the members of a grand jury to be in favor of an indictment and no indictment to result.
According, to this, the answer is yes.
So, eight of the twelve grand jurors could have been convinced that an indictment was appropriate. and no indictment would have occurred. Did that happen? We don’t know, and will never be permitted to know, such are the peculiarities of the grand jury system.
I agree with all this, other than the implication that this accounts for the disparities mentioned. And I don’t think this was a significant factor in this particular case. What was a factor in this case was a parallel phenomenon.
Most blacks are not explicitly racist, and don’t bear animus against white people in general. But many blacks tend to be suspicious of whites in general and of cops in particular, and are more likely to react with hostility towards cops and other white authority figures, and in the case young black men in particular are just a little more likely to react with actual violence. This generality contributes to cops feeling nervous with such men which could lead to them being unjustifiably shot, and in specific situations in which they’ve reacted this way makes them more likely to be justifiably shot.
And when that happens, many blacks (along with a host of white-guilt liberals) are apt to interpret what happened as being evidence of some anti-black racism.
What troubles me about this case is the special treatment given to Officer Wilson. Not only did the prosecutor opt to convene a grand jury, he convened a grand jury but didn’t ask for any charges. He also didn’t present a prosecutor’s case–he just threw a bunch of evidence at the grand jury and asked them what they thought. And then he got on TV and played defense lawyer, offering up the most favorable account of the evidence for Officer Wilson and decrying all other interpretations as rumor-mongering.
What I would like to know is whether there were any witnesses not discredited by other means who disagreed with Wilson’s account of what happened between the time that Brown turned around after fleeing and Wilson firing the fatal shots. The other stuff matters a little to Wilson’s assessment of the threat posed by Brown, but ultimately whatever happened in that time interval is what the whole case turns on. If there were no credible witnesses that say Brown was not charging, or that Brown wasn’t given enough time to obey, or whatever, that’s one thing. But if the grand jury opted to believe Wilson (who, unusually, got to testify) and other witnesses over other non-discredited accounts, then I think the prosecutor’s decision to conduct this grand jury in such an unusual way led to an unjust result.
What is your evidence that police are more nervous when a black guy punches them in the face and tries to grab their gun than when a white guy does the same?
I think there are some interesting factors… on the one hand, cops clearly have jobs where they deliberately put themselves in situations in which deadly violence might result, and they have the training to appropriately deal with those situations. So being willing and able to shoot someone dead if the situations calls for it is part of a cop’s job, in a way that is not the case for a civilian. If a cop kills someone, I’m more likely to believe that it was justified than if a random civilian kills someone.
On the other hand, when a cop abuses his power and kills someone unjustifiably it’s much worse for society than if a random civilian kills someone… partly because it’s a betrayal of trust, and partly because the above factors mean that it’s probably going to be easier for someone unethical to get away with it.
What do you think would have happened had a white man, who was seen attacking a policeman, been shot in self defence by said policeman? I doubt we’d even have heard about it
If the GJ thought it was more likely than not that no crime was committed, then it’s their job to decline to indict. The same goes for the prosecutor. It makes no difference if there were also some credible witnesses whose testimony supported guilt. What counts is the overall evidence.
Under ordinary circumstances, if the prosecutor believed the overall evidence was more supportive of innocence he wouldn’t present the case to the GJ altogether. The reason the ordinary GJs only hear one side of the story (and invariably indict) is because the DA already believes he most likely has a case, and is only looking for the GJ to back it up, so he only presents what he needs to get them to agree.
In this case, the prosecutor likely knew from the evidence that the case was very weak, but had to go through the GJ process to satisfy the mob, and this accounts for the departure from SOP.
I disagree. No one is EVER responsible AT ALL for the actions of unrelated strangers who share their skin color. If I move to China so my white skin makes me very clearly and visibly part of a minority, and some other white guy somewhere else in China does something terrible, or even if there’s a spate of such incidents, that does not reflect in me AT ALL in any way. Zero, zilch, none.
On the other hand, if there is systemic prejudice against white people in China, then every time there’s a well publicized incidence of mistreatment of whites, it’s only natural for me to think “gee, that could have been me”, meaning that I’ll sympathize with, and identify with, the victim. (Note that an important part of that is systemic prejudice. In the world I actually live in where I’m a white American man, I don’t feel solidarity for other white American men who suffer misfortunes, because why would I? I don’t know them, they’re strangers, and because we aren’t a downtrodden minority group there’s no reason to think that whatever misfortune they suffer is unfairly likely to happen to me.)
This is a tricky issue overall. Think back to the Jim Crow south, where there was inarguably massive prejudice and blacks were clearly literally second-class citizens. Surely there were some number of cases then in which a white cop killed an unarmed black person and it WAS actually justified by the circumstances. It’s completely understandable that the friends and relatives of the dead black person would assume the worst and blame the system, because (a) they’re at that very moment dealing with grief, and (b) the system really DOES screw them. Clearly we’re much better off now than we were then, but “better off” isn’t the same as perfect.
No, that’s just factually incorrect. The standard is probable cause, not preponderance of the evidence.
Many cases feature conflicting witness accounts and inconclusive physical evidence. You seem to believe it is a common occurrence for prosecutors to believe exculpatory witnesses based on the balance of evidence and therefore not indict, even if they have one or more witnesses whose testimony, if true, would mean a crime is convicted. I don’t know what you base that belief on. It is entirely inconsistent with my experience in the criminal justice system.
These are apparently equivalent for our purposes. From the New Republic
My understanding is that this is both 1) the proper role of the prosecutors, who are supposed to prosecute guilty people and not innocent ones, and 2) consistent with their self-interest, as they don’t like losing cases, and especially allocating resources to losing cases.
The professor is mistaken, or using loose terms for a lay audience. See, e.g., United States v. Unit No. 7 & Unit No. 8 of Shop in the Grove Condo., 853 F.2d 1445, 1450 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A magistrate’s determination of probable cause, like a grand jury’s, is only a finding that there is a fair probability of criminal activity.”)
A preponderance of evidence is that “more likely than not” formulation. Probable cause, by contrast, just means a substantial chance or fair probability. A single witness whose testimony is contradicted only by other witnesses is generally sufficient for probable cause. Probable cause is not the same thing as 50%+.
This is a non-sequitur. My claim was simply that it is unusual for a prosecutor at this preliminary stage to believe exculpatory witnesses if they have one or more witnesses whose testimony, if true, would mean a crime was committed. There are lots of reasons for that, including the necessarily close relationship between police and prosecutors, the former often being important witnesses in criminal mattes.
Oh? Because he enjoys a sterling reputation among the black community? Which is why he refused to recuse himself in favor of a special prosecutor?
Are you familiar with the “Jack in the Box” case?
(Emphasis added)
False testimony given to the grand jury? What, if anything, happened to the officers who gave such testimony? And the suspects? One, Murray, was a suspect, the other guy was just in the car. I’ve seen nothing so far that speaks of any consequences for such false testimony. Anyone have such?
Can anyone offer some reason to believe that McCullough insisting on handling the case himself was born from a sensitivity to the feelings of the black community in Ferguson? That he thought his reputation was so excellent?
The grand jury was presented forensic evidence that definitively shows that Michael Brown moved toward Wilson at least 25 feet in just a couple of seconds. “Charge” is really the only explanation.