• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Ferguson?

The simple fact is that for there to be a grand jury indictment there has to be at least a reasonable chance that the prosecution can convict. That simply wasn't possible with the inconsistent eyewitness testimonies.

Going to trial just to appease a rioting crowd simply delays the riots until the not guilty verdict is reached. Then it's the same scenario we have now.

Bottom line is this...and it is not subject to argument....

People who are of the mindset to loot and burn towns will find a reason to do it! Thug mentality is not condoned because of a perceived "reason"!
 
Last edited:
Interesting read, about the witness that was with Brown... > http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

Overall assessment, was justice served?

Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination. We would have seen the strongest case that could be mounted by both the prosecution and the defense. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with these Rashomon-like testimonies, a dead 18-year-old, and a shattered family.

I remember how that Zimmerman trial really convinced people that Zimmerman was not guilty....
 
Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination.

The person who wrote that article is Ezra Klein, who is apparently some type of cook and blogger. His experience as an attorney is ... zero. His experience in cross-examining witnesses is also ... zero. His experience with the grand jury process is ... zero.

Seriously, Tibs, you cannot rely upon or put credence to an article by somebody with zero relevant experience on whom to believe. Klein describes his relevant judicial experience as follows: "Editor-in-chief, http://Vox.com . Policy analyst at MSNBC. Eater of food. Hater of filibuster. Lover of charts."

Uhh, yeah, that's the guy I would go to for insight on a grand jury decision.

He goes through Johnson's story and compares it to Wilson's, but forgets to mention that Johnson's story is his "new and improved" version, in which he changed 100% his initial statements, to more than one media outlet, that the cop shot Brown when Brown had his hands up, and also shot him from behind.

Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” By that point, Johnson says the officer and Brown were face-to-face. The officer then fired several more shots.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri

Once the physical evidence disproved that version, completely, including even the private autopsy from the Brown family, he came up with the new one he presented to the grand jury. No hands up, no more shot in the back. Oh, and his original version forgot to mention that Brown punched the cop in the face at least twice.

Other than that, Johnson's story is believable. I am sure he would do well under serious cross-examination.

So Ezra Klein, a non-lawyer with zero relevant experience, proclaims that based on his considerable experience in criminal prosecution, the case should have gone to the jury because the cop and Johnson had differing versions of what happened, but fails to mention that Johnson's original story is clearly phony, disproved by physical evidence, and that Johnson left out relevant facts.

Further, he ignores testimony from anybody else. Rather than relying on what the cop and the dude's friend said, how about taking a look at testimony from independent witnesses? What did they say? How did their versions comport with the evidence?

Counselor Klein fails to help us in that regard.
 
Like it or not, the article raises a bunch of credible issues. Go ahead and slam the source/author/publication. Anything that opposes your viewpoint must be immediately discredited, I get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vis
Like it or not, the article raises a bunch of credible issues. Go ahead and slam the source/author/publication. Anything that opposes your viewpoint must be immediately discredited, I get it.

If you spent a week, with a group of writers, you could not have formulated a weaker response. I did the following:

(1) Showed that Klein's opinion is completely irrelevant since he has literally no experience, at all, in the topic on which he is pontificating.
(2) I showed that his analysis is fundamentally flawed since he skips past inconvenient facts.
(3) I noted that a more credible approach would be to analyze independent witness testimony and physical evidence - which he failed to do.
(4) You know who else thinks that relying on eyewitness testimony is a dubious approach? Why, none other than Ezra:

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/537286983761268736

(5) Finally, I addressed in detail why Klein's analysis was so weak. I looked at his background, the comments he made, weaknesses in the evidence he relies upon, and demonstrate why his analysis is so lacking that it has no value.

If you want to debate a point on this forum, have at it. But if you say something dumb, or quote somebody dumb, be prepared for the result. Instead, your response shows just how completely devoid your thought process is.
 
I have experience. What's the issue?
 
than he knows Wilson was given a pass in his testimony. The DA didn't want an indictment. Grand Juries always do what the DA wants.

Steeltime, what type of law do you practice?
 
Interesting read, about the witness that was with Brown... > http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

Overall assessment, was justice served?

Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination. We would have seen the strongest case that could be mounted by both the prosecution and the defense. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with these Rashomon-like testimonies, a dead 18-year-old, and a shattered family.

A group of peers decided that justice was not to indict.

So yes, formally, justice was served.

How would playing into the hands of the mob outside serve justice for either the victim or the accused in any way?
 
Attention Walmart shoppers....only 30 looting days left till Kwanzaa

2014-10-26-Hands-Up.jpg
 
here we go


Governor Nixon Orders 2,200 National Guard Troops Into Ferguson


“The violence we saw in areas of Ferguson last night is unacceptable,” the governor said in announcing that the National Guard presence would be upped from 700 troops Monday to 2,200 on Tuesday.

"Last night, criminals intent on lawlessness and destruction, terrorized this community," Nixon said at an afternoon news conference. "I am deeply saddened for the people of Ferguson who woke up to see parts of their community in ruins. No one should have to live like this, no one deserves this. We must do better and we will."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...-2-200-national-guard-troops-ferguson-n255931

---------------------

send in the C-130 gunships!
 
Michael Brown's stepdad: "Burn this ***** down!

michaelbrown_stepfather_std.original.jpg


(and let me sell more t-shirts!)
 
woo-hoo!

I'm heading to Walmart

#HandsUpDontSpend: African Americans call to boycott Black Friday over Ferguson decision
 
Obama's fault


Rep. Peter King advises Obama to invite Darren Wilson to the White House

“I think it would be very helpful if President Obama went and met with the police officer, or at least invited him to the White House,” King said on Fox Business Network.

“And say, ‘you’ve gone through four months of smear and slander and the least we can do is tell you that it is unfortunate that it happened and thank you for doing your job.’”

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/...a-to-invite-darren-wilson-to-the-white-house/
 
than he knows Wilson was given a pass in his testimony.

Typically, the defendant is not cross-examined in an indictment. If the defendant is called and given use immunity, then most of the questions come from the grand jury.

I know this because I worked for the DA in law school. I worked in large part in preliminary hearings, the alternative to an indictment. The program where I worked for a year allowed law students to conduct preliminary hearings as certified legal representatives for the district attorney's office.

I then spent another year while in law school working for the DA appellate division. This group is not very well-known outside of those who practice criminal law. The DA appellate division handles appeals of misdemeanor convictions, usually on contract from city attorneys who do not have the resources to set up their own appellate department. The DA appellate division does not handle felony appeals because that is handled by the Attorney General's office. We handled appeals from cities like Bell, Ca., and Van Nuys, Ca., and on and on.

We also handled law-and-motion for the DA on felony prosecutions. This is where I learned a lot about the indictment process. Many of the hearings involved motions to suppress evidence (Cal. Penal Code, section 1538.5).

Since graduating from law school, I have handled criminal defense on a few occasions (less than 20). I have handled matters such as felony hit-and-run, DUI, and spousal abuse. Typically, I handled such cases for clients I had previously represented in non-criminal matters, mainly civil litigation. The clients were satisfied with my work on the civil matter, and despite my protests that I do not practice criminal law with any regularity, advised me that they were more comfortable with me handling their defense than a lawyer they did not know.

Therefore, I have worked for 2 years in law school for the DA, have run preliminary hearings, have worked in law-and-motion in criminal matters, and have tried a few criminal cases. In my work experience, I have seen the grand jury process take place. Your statement that the DA will cross-examine the defendant is kinda, sorta, on occasion true. Usually, however, the DA will not rely on the defendant's testimony for the indictment.

In law, we have a saying: If you are counting on the other side to make your case, you're ******.

After graduating law school (Law Review, 1988-1989), I worked civil litigation for the vast majority of my work. I now specialize in employment law.

I trust that answers your question, counselor.
 
Last edited:
Good. What do you do with contradictions between what a defendant says in grand jury proceedings and what he said in his original statement? And then do you recommend they just indict? Always, right? Not in this case.

Consider - the DA never wanted the indictment and used the process for political cover. If that was the case, wouldn't he have done exactly what was done here?


Also, do you have information that they granted Wilson immunity for his testimony? That would be a shock. Of course if you were his attorney you wouldn't have let him testify for 4 hours without you there if you thought the prosecution wanted to get the indictment either.
 
Last edited:
Top