That’s a fair point. There certainly have been cases where there existed evidence of guilt that wasn’t put before a jury - the infamous Emmett Till case being the obvious answer. However, every case should be judged on it’s merits. If anyone has good reason to think that there is reason to distrust any of those things in this case, they should show that evidence.
The problem is, none of those opposing the grand jury result, or just generically protesting in Ferguson, have done so. A history of racism and/or corruption isn’t enough to prove either of those things in any given case, at least to criminal standards. And I maintain that in a democracy, there are ways to deal with these things. Stand for election. Persuade your neighbours to vote for you, or at least to vote. Apply to join the police force.
If everyone who’s qualified in Ferguson did apply to join, and they were all rejected, then that would pretty much prove racism on their part - and I’ve no doubt that lawyers could be found who would take any necessary cases. Unfortunately, that’s not what people have chosen to do.
Yeah, you might notice your post quoted there. You cry about a straw man in a post targeted at no one and then proceed to toss out your own. Fucking hypocrite, I hope you catch dysentery.
Without video, we may never be certain whether Brown’s killing was justified.(*) Yes, a grand jury found so, but it’s no secret that the prosecutor leads grand juries and this “prosecutor” certainly wanted Wilson cleared. It would be nice if we could assume the American system gave justice, but anyone who thinks blacks generally get fair justice is ignorant.
One contradiction that catches the eye is that, despite the claim that Brown handled Wilson’s gun, that gun wasn’t tested for fingerprints:
(* - We do have two recent videos of “justified” police killings of blacks which call into question the notion of “justified.”)
I imagine that many will tell you that the evidence is in 200 years of oppression and a trail of bullet riddled bodies across the country that continues to grow. Honestly, there are lots of people of all races who feel that the police as an institution has lost the benefit of the doubt, especially with many less directly racial issues like the war on drugs, militarization, no knock warrants, and civil asset forfeiture already dogging them. There’s a reason why “the blue wall of silence” is a well known phrase, and given, among other things, the racial makeup of the force in question versus that of the community it works in… I’m not sure anyone can give them a good reason to give them that benefit of the doubt. The boat has sprung a leak so many times that just telling them, “oh, go ahead and sail to Bermuda, this time is different” won’t get you much but a side eye, if you’re lucky.
As a complete aside, another random dump of links, - probably quite a bit redundant with previous, but it’s there nonetheless, and from a cursory look at the URLs involved, most of them connect to some kind of source other than an individual blog post (although even then, of course, the journalistic quality of them is, as always, a matter of debate).
The purpose of a grand jury is to determine if there is probable cause that the defendent committed a crime. The purpose of a trial is to determine if the prosecution has proven all the elements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. “Probable cause” is a lower standard and easier to reach. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a much more difficult standard.
The grand jury in this case determined that there was no probable cause to believe that Wilson committed a crime. Therefore almost by definition there is reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, and thus Wilson could not have been convicted.
A trial isn’t going to prove reasonable doubt - we already had that proven by the grand jury’s return of a “no-bill”. I don’t see why you want a trial to prove what we already know - there is no reasonable basis of a belief that Wilson committed any crime.
Put it this way - do you believe the trial of George Zimmerman proved something to your satisfaction about the shooting of Trayvon Martin? There we had what you say you want - a trial even without the finding of probable cause by a grand jury. Zimmerman was acquitted - do you believe that therefore the truth of the incident was settled?
If the answer is Yes, then great, and I will point out again that nothing is or would be established by a trial that has not already been established by a grand jury. If No, then I will repeat the question - why do you want a trial that will not prove anything that has not already been proven?
Apart from police officers, are there any other situations in which you feel an individual can be convicted of a crime based on evidence about what 200 years of other people have done?
Or is it just police that can be subject to this kind of evidence to convict them of criminal acts?
Jeffrey Toobin’s quote is not relevant - he doesn’t talk about the purpose of Grand Juries. Neither is Scalia’s quote - he is talking about a charge made by the prosecutor, and in this case there wasn’t one. So, again, what, in your opinion, is the purpose of a Grand Jury? It is not a difficult question, so your trying to weasel out of answering is quite informative.
The sub-discussion in this thread. See, e.g., “I want a trial.”
You. See, e.g., “I imagine that many will tell you that the evidence is in 200 years of oppression and a trail of bullet riddled bodies across the country that continues to grow.”
If you throw a huge mass of disorganized, unclear information at people, together with confusing instructions as to how to handle it, then the fact that they return no bill doesn’t have very strong implications as to what the verdict would be in a trial, which of course involves focused cases being made adversarily with clear and correct instructions being given.
Did you find nothing remarkably half-assed about the case the prosecutor presented to the grand jury?
No doubt Bricker has a great deal more experience with grand juries than you or I, but no, I don’t see much half-assed about the months-long case presented by the prosecutor.
Is your idea falsifiable? If so, could you explain how you arrived at it? That is, some specific examples of how the prosecutor botched it, and how you know that it was intentional.
Here’s what I’ve learned from this thread in the past week;
Grand juries should not use their powers of investigation, questioning, or free will - the government needs to tell them what decision to make, and they need to do as told.
A jury that examines all available evidence is less legitimate than one which sees no evidence contrary to the government’s desired outcome.
Prosecutors should be expected to vigorously pursue court cases where they do not believe a conviction is possible.
Political theater is an appropriate reason to deliver a bill of indictment.
Nobody would have rioted in Ferguson and nobody would be upset with the outcome if a trial had been held and Wilson were found not guilty.
Just because someone outweighs you by 80 pounds doesn’t mean they have an advantage in a street fight.
If you find yourself being beaten up, it’s unsporting to defend yourself until he’s gotten a few good blows in and left some marks on you.
Darien Johnson made up a story about his friend stealing cigarillos for no reason whatsoever.
Antonin Scalia is a jurisprudential genius whose opinions about the nature of the legal process are held in high regard by liberals.
No doubt I have a great deal more experience than Bricker in presenting cases to a grand jury. And I wouldn’t call the presentation “half-assed” at all. But it certainly wasn’t what I would call “good” either. Had the goal of the grand jury proceeding been to obtain a True Bill no matter what, I do believe it might have been possible (but not likely if you had an inquisitive grand jury) to obtain one. Exclude the officers testimony, only present witnesses who say it wasn’t in self defense (and certainly don’t question the flaws in their statements or their motive to lie), ignore exculpatory evidence, and maybe, just maybe, you could get a true bill.
And then spend millions of dollars on a farce of a trial that you should know you could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think it’s pretty clear that there was little to no question that a homicide case against Officer Wilson could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think that the prosecution reached the same conclusion, yet presented the case to allow grand jurors to make the decision rather than simply not file the case in the first place.
We don’t need to be certain of that, Wilson’s innocence is presumed. For that to change, we need to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing was not justified.
No-one should be expected to prove their innocence.
I don’t think I disagree with you in anything you post in the above. There’s a difference between dogging it, and not pursuing an indictment at all costs. Just as there is a difference between "so he shot a n*gger - big hairy deal; I’ll just go thru the motions"and letting the grand jury see that there isn’t enough case to prosecute.
It’s a good thing that Brown can’t be tried and convicted of strong armed robbery. Or tried and convicted of assaulting a police officer. That might have been embareassing to the Brown family. Especially Brown’s FIL, Louis “Burn this bitch down” Head.
