Submitted by Bob Stone
Conventional wisdom holds that defense attorneys will normally not allow their clients to appear before a grand jury. Should the client be indicted, the grand jury transcript can be used against him in the subsequent trial; greatly reducing the attorney’s defense options.
If the target of the grand jury inquiry has nothing to hide however…
ST. LOUIS • Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson testified for almost four hours Tuesday in front of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, a source with knowledge of the investigation said Wednesday.
Wilson was not obligated to testify, and has also spoken with St. Louis County investigators twice and federal investigators once, the source said. The source said that Wilson had been “cooperative.”
Ed Magee, a spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch’s office, said Wednesday that he would not comment on which witnesses have testified.
McCulloch has said that prosecutors would present all the evidence and witnesses to the 12 members of the jury and leave the decision of whether to charge Wilson up to them. Magee told the Post-Dispatch Monday that prosecutors will help navigate legal issues.
The grand jury hearing the evidence was empanelled before the shooting. Its term would have normally expired last week, but prosecutors sought an extension and Circuit Judge Carolyn Whittington granted it — extending the term to Jan. 7, the maximum allowed under the law. McCulloch originally said a decision could come by mid-October, but the extension allows more time if needed to present evidence.
McCulloch has promised to seek the public release of all evidence if there is no indictment.
St. Louis Dispatch story continued here
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
An addnote for those who don’t know. There is no judge present. The potential defendant may not attend except as a witness. Proceedings are secret, but if a witness chooses to reveal what they told the GJ after giving testimony, there is no prohibition against that.
If a potential defendant or target of the investigation appears before a Grand Jury to testify, they may ask their attorney to attend with them; however, their attorney is relegated to the role of a potted plant. The attorney cannot ask questions or enter objections. The only thing a defendant’s attorney is allowed to do is advise the client. It is strictly the prosecutor’s show.
Thank you. This is interesting and relevant. Many of us will be watching.
more from the article:
According to McCullock, all evidence presented to the GJ will be made public if there is a no bill. I thought GJ testimony was secret.
“Tiffany Mitchell, a witness who has spoken publicly about what she saw, has not yet been subpoenaed, her lawyer Peter Cohen said Wednesday.” Tiffany is a very credible witness who was in a very good position to see what happened. MB didn’t have his hands in the car; he had his hands up when shot.
“Asked why a defense lawyer wouldn’t want the defendant to testify before a grand jury, Rogers replied, ‘You don’t always want to preview what your defense would be at such an early stage. A prosecutor’s presentation to the grand jury has a huge impact on the decision of the grand jury, so I would have to be very convinced that the prosecutor’s intentions were not to indict before I would agreeable to avail my client to this process.’ “
Regarding this bit: “The grand jury hearing the evidence was empanelled before the shooting.”
The Dispatch article doesn’t go beyond that. Do we know what triggered the empanelling?
James,
I believe that empaneled grand juries are (at least sometimes) just kept around so they’ll be handy when you need them—not necessarily for a particular reason.
Bob,
I would suggest that, in this case, a “no bill” from the grand jury is probably an unacceptable solution as it has a distinct appearance of impropriety. That might not be fair to your dog, but it is the direct result of prior actions by his masters. I don’t think that anyone can claim justice has been done unless this case is decided in open court.
Slarti: “I would suggest that, in this case, a “no bill” from the grand jury is probably an unacceptable solution as it has a distinct appearance of impropriety. That might not be fair to your dog, but it is the direct result of prior actions by his masters.”
Slarti,
Once again:
“[U]nless the prosecutor is truly bereft of conscience, he would have a moral duty to prevent an epic miscarriage of justice; i.e. preventing the mob from using Officer Wilson as a means to an end by punishing him for the sins of the country rather than judging him by his own actions.”
One does not avoid the appearance of impropriety by carrying out an epic miscarriage of justice.
Bob:
In my mind Wilson’s guilt or innocence is immaterial to certain elements in this country. He is going to be sacrificed on the altar of racial justice/social justice and the facts be damned.
I think, at this point in our history, the law is whatever certain people wish it to be, evidence be damned, contracts be damned social justice is the only concept which matters. It is really scary that a small group of people could take my property or life in the name of social justice.
Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O UNION, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
’T is of the wave and not the rock;
’T is but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest’s roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o’er our fears,
Are all with thee,—are all with thee!
Bob,
So having a trial to establish Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence would be an “epic miscarriage of justice” and would impede “judging him by his own actions”? But, somehow, having a prosecutor decide not to aggressively pursue a criminal case is perfectly fine and just even though you yourself have given us an example where exactly that behavior turned out to be an epic miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a prosecutor on the behalf of an officer who had used deadly force.
By your own arguments, a “no-bill” from the grand jury has the appearance of impropriety because, in the past, instances of bad dogs and bad masters have been covered up by some of those masters (such as the prosecutor in the article you cited in the other thread). In this, everyone who has defended a murdering* cop is guilty of damaging the credibility of good dogs who were the unwitting agent of “suicide by cop”*. (If you don’t understand why this is true, I suggest you read The Boy Who Cried “Wolf!”) You are, in effect, arguing that Officer Wilson should be let off the hook by the process which has been previously used to exonerate criminals in similar situations because people are suspicious of the integrity of said process due to the fact that its integrity has been obviously compromised in the past.
Not gonna fly, Bob.
* I use the terms “murder” (meaning some type of wrongful death, not necessarily murder, per se) and “suicide by cop” as the only possible scenarios here. If Officer Wilson acted in accordance with policy (and said policy was sound), then Mr. Brown took an action which justified his killing and thus, intentionally or no, effectively committed suicide.
Byron,
No one would be trying to sacrifice Officer Wilson if not for the social and racial injustices perpetrated protecting rogue cops (and rogue police departments) from the consequences of their actions and a general failure to address or even acknowledge the existence of this problem. Bob (as a surrogate for the “master” of his metaphorical dog, not personally) is hoist on his own petard. As for Officer Wilson, the best possible outcome for him is that he is exonerated by a process that is above reproach. The only way that can possibly happen at this point is in open court with a prosecutor trying his level best to convict him.
If Riker wasn’t to try and prove Data was a machine, then Data would have been summarily assumed to be a toaster. If no one steps up to the plate for Officer Wilson, why shouldn’t people similarly assume his case lacks merit?
Officer Wilson’s decisions put him where he is now. I can only hope that he reaps the karma of those decisions 100-fold in return. Isn’t that what everyone should want?
Slarti:
How many people have been arrested in the last 20 years? How many have been killed by cops? Of the ones killed, how many were killed without cause?
Rogue cops should be ferreted out and culled from the herd, they have no place in a society of laws. If Wilson is a rogue cop then put him down but dont sacrifice him for social and racial injustices, try him in a court of law if that is what the grand jury determines and pay homage to civil society predicated on reason rather than the irrationality of the mob.
Bron, I would regard the entire cadre of boy-men sitting atop their armored military vehicles dressed in camouflage in an urban setting armed for a war they appear certain is already underway as not “rogue,” but chronically sociopathic.
Slarti: “So having a trial to establish Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence would be an “epic miscarriage of justice” and would impede “judging him by his own actions”?”
Your stated reasons for indicting Wilson have nothing to do with his actual guilt or innocence and everything to do with controlling optics for the benefit of a mob.
Are you ready to adopt the new maxim you impose here and make it universal law?
If not, then your solution is “not gonna fly.”
Slarti: “No one would be trying to sacrifice Officer Wilson if not for the social and racial injustices perpetrated protecting rogue cops (and rogue police departments) from the consequences of their actions and a general failure to address or even acknowledge the existence of this problem. Bob (as a surrogate for the “master” of his metaphorical dog, not personally) is hoist on his own petard. As for Officer Wilson, the best possible outcome for him is that he is exonerated by a process that is above reproach. The only way that can possibly happen at this point is in open court with a prosecutor trying his level best to convict him..”
Slarti,
The problem with your analysis is that it flies in the face of something called the Equal Protection clause.
But don’t let that bother you.
Bob,
“The Mob ” yeah that’s the ticket. Next thing you’ll be telling us is that there is equal justice in America. A “justice” system divorced from reality doesn’t. dispense justice, it just assures the status quo where it is legal to shoot people who are guilty of being black, or “thugs” as you might call them.
James:
And who is giving them weapons of war?
This started with the passage of the Patriot Act, it is a power grab by the central government in DC. It is a direct result of the welfare state, 9/11 was the excuse the statists needed to clamp down on our freedoms in the name of security.
It isnt the cops who are the problem, it is the people arming them with weapons of war who should be taken to task.
It is the democratic and republican parties who should be taken to the woodshed and beaten and thrown out on their collective asses.
Bron, I agree, the 1033 program that lets these weapons get into police departments and schools (!) must be ended, along with government overreach in the form of the Patriot Act, et al. And, I’m not letting police department decision-makers off the hook. Someone had to agree these weapons were a “good idea.” That is the Mentality Problem to which I referred, juiced up by American aggression, especially torture, which told all law enforcement that anything just slightly less awful is now available for rapid deployment against our citizens for, say, jaywalking. That mentality is now entrenched and it presents as much of a danger as the federal government, mostly because they are literally next door to us. It’s a tangled problem that requires a many-fronts approach to dismantle.
We cannot be at war with the police.
I think citizens from many different political points of view see and can agree that something has gone far off the tracks.
And I definitely believe there is an ‘if you have a hammer all the problems look like nails’ aspect to deploying military resources to law enforcement.
Decades ago we did not even have SWAT teams and we did just fine.
As a practical matter, exactly how many times have these resource been deployed to deal with a threat related to the issues of 9/11 – maybe once in Boston – and even that raises troubling questions.
Essentially we have armed most every community to deal with a threat that has a very low probability of occurrence. A needs analysis might lead us to the reasonable conclusion that each state might support a very few of these units, under control of the High Way patrol or national guard, to deal with true emergencies.
“It isnt the cops who are the problem, it is the people arming them with weapons of war who should be taken to task.” Bron Sometimes, but not in this case. Darren Wilson was armed with whatever standard regulation gun police officers routinely carry.. Probably be better if we were like many countries in Europe where neither the police or the citizens are armed.
Report: Officer Wilson testifies before grand jury in Ferguson shooting case
http://q13fox.com/2014/09/17/report-officer-wilson-testifies-before-grand-jury-in-ferguson-shooting-case/
Excerpt:
There was no guarantee that Wilson would get the chance to tell a grand jury his side of the story. The defense doesn’t present a case in these proceedings, which are run by prosecutors.
“Usually an accused will not be invited to testify,” Neil Bruntrager, a criminal defense lawyer and general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officer Association, told CNN in August. “But I would expect, in a case like this, that an invitation would be extended to him.”
I had been wondering about the standard of proof required in a grand jury. The article tells us:
“Rather in Missouri, nine grand jurors — or three-fourths of the total — have to agree there is sufficient probable cause to charge someone with a crime.”
There has been some comment to the effect that charging officer Wilson would be deeply unfair to him – and maybe it would be. But it is worth noting the standard of ‘sufficient probably cause’ might be sustained by the grand jury despite controversial and contradictory evidence. We will just have to wait and see if the grand jury, without a request from the DA, will indict an officer on the basis of contradictory evidence.
I don’t envy this grand jury. I suspect they will receive heated criticism regardless of what they decide.
Admittedly I have not been following the Wilson saga very closely as I don’t see much controversy developing until the Grand Jury makes a decision but, when the article states that Wilson “was not obligated to testify” does that mean he wasn’t subpoenaed but, you know, just dropped by one day after gun practise to chit-chat?
I’m not convinced that all evidence (witnesses) are being presented to the GJ. Even if the GJ returns an indictment, I have little confidence that the prosecution will be made with much enthusiasm. We saw this in the prosecution [sic] of the killer of Trayvon Martin, where the prosecution (no alternate scenario for how the killing took place; where was Trayvon, where was Trayvon, but where the fock was his killer?; lack of objection to truly objectionable questioning by the defense attorneys, and the most incompetent jury selection possible), with assistance from the judge (elimination of a key part of the jury instructions). It could happen again.
Where is nivico, when we need him? He knows every minute detail of the grand jury’s activities. He could certainly provide us with a complete list of evidence and witnesses presented to the grand jury.
nivico, we beseech thee! Please gaze down upon us with favor! Send us thy grace, and pour forth thy enlightenment upon our undeserving, ignorant asses!
Bron,
“It is a direct result of the welfare state, 9/11 was the excuse the statists needed to clamp down on our freedoms in the name of security.”
While I agree with the second half of your above quote, as it’s been obvious since 9/11; I have to ask which welfare state you are referring to.
Could it be the corporate welfare state, the MIC welfare state, the neo-liberal welfare state? They are pretty much all the same, actually; not in tactics, but in goals.
The following excerpt is from Forbes, published March 14th of this year — fucking Forbes:
“I recently read the February 24 Good Jobs First report, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” by Philip Mattera, a respected thought leader in our business. It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.
Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. . . .”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/
Praise the “thought leader,” and do me a favor — read the whole article — as it’s not all about tax breaks.
gbk,
Freed your last comment from the clutches of our extra grumpy spam filter. There were two identical, so in the interest of parsimony, sent the second try duplicate to trash.
Thanks, Chuck.
gbk,
That was an interesting article … thanx.
Elaine just posted an article on the other thread that is also useful here and to save time I’m going to paste it here too. One poster awhile ago questioned us as to our belief in the system working (JoeJr?) and I’m wondering if he was more right than wrong.
THE FIRE NEXT TIME
By Charles P. Pierce on September
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Latest_From_Ferguson
Expert:
This sounds very much like a document dump, the way a government agency can drown reporters on paperwork on Friday so the haystack gets higher as the needle shrinks. The grand jury here essentially is working without the kind of direction it would normally get from a prosecutor’s office. You can believe that this is an accident. Or you can decide not to believe it’s an accident. I choose the latter course. So, to an extent, does Dana Milbank, who’s crackling a bit with outrage, and good for him. The local prosecutor, Bob McCulloch, is so fairly bristling with conflicts of interest that his entire office should be recused in favor of a special prosecutor. He’s got a long and sordid history of burying police misconduct. He’s got a personal history that would lead you to doubt his credibility in such matters. And now, he’s running a grand jury that doesn’t have an index or a table of contents to guide it through a mass of evidence.
What does McCulloch suppose will happen if he stays on the job, and if the grand jury no-bills Wilson on his watch? What does McCulloch suppose will happen if he presides over a process that is so riven with special exceptions that it looks as though it were rigged from jump? Even if the Feds step in, the community isn’t going to buy a local investigation that ends up like that. It’s almost as though somebody down there is operating from a playbook written in 1917. If you don’t want violence, then you don’t let a grand jury like this run on automatic pilot. Can people down there please stop making simple mistakes that have such complicated consequences?
blouise,
Here’s another article that I posted on the other thread:
Grand Jury Process Raises Questions About a Ferguson Indictment
9/18/14
http://time.com/3399022/ferguson-michael-brown-darren-wilson-grand-jury/
Excerpt:
The ongoing grand jury proceedings may suggest the prosecutor is trying to avoid backlash if Wilson isn’t indicted.
Officer Darren Wilson testified this week in the grand jury investigation into his shooting of Michael Brown, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newspaper’s scoop was unusual. Unlike most criminal-justice proceedings in the U.S., grand juries are highly secretive. Leaking information about them is a criminal act.
But perhaps it should no longer be surprising to see the investigation take an interesting turn. More than a month after Brown’s death in Ferguson, Mo., the grand jury appears to be nowhere near a decision on whether Wilson should be charged. And the road to justice has been paved with strange decisions.
Several elements of the grand jury’s proceedings have been uncommon, according to legal experts surveyed by TIME. None of these decisions are necessarily improper. But together they have raised eyebrows. “This is not your regular St. Louis grand jury case,” says Susan McGraugh, a veteran Missouri criminal-defense attorney and law professor at St. Louis University.
Leave a Reply
gbk:
I am opposed to corporate welfare. However I do not see reducing a companies tax amount welfare. The money is theirs to begin with so I am not sure how a reduction in taxes is a subsidy. It seems to me that governments, state, local and federal, could reduce their budgets by the small amount they are “subsidizing” the companies.
But governments never cut spending and consider all the money we make to be theirs. They will determine how much we need. I think it is really fucked up that a relatively small group of people are making determinations about how I should live my life. I mean really, who the fuck are they? Some union goons and some Ivy League dandies and some spoiled rich brats? Jesus Christ most of those fuckers couldnt earn an honest living if their lives depended on it.
Quite frankly, I think most government spending is so that those Newport and Hampton shitheads have a job for life and from which they cannot be fired. They draw in the goons to do their fighting since their candied, dandy asses would be kicked shitless if left to their own devices.
I really despise rich people who apologize for the money someone else made and then spend the rest of their lives fucking up everyone elses life because they feel guilty about how easy they had it.
And progressives seem to support those dandy shitheads because they give money to the poor. Even though the dandy shitheads could give 2 shits about the poor and just use them as a mechanism to gather power.
The welfare state was created by dandy shitheads for the express purpose of power and control under the auspices of helping the down and out and dispossessed.
Vote libertarian in November
So almost right, it merits the Maxwell Smart award for B.
Busy now, more later.
Bron,
The solution to ignorant voters voting against their own interests, does not lie in those same ignorant voters, voting for the insane.
That won’t help.
Unless you know of libertarian candidates who aren’t insane.
Can’t think of any, at the moment.
By the way, I detect a subtle soupcon of irritation in your writing. Is that my overactive imagination?
BOB:
NO, IT IS YOUR OVERACTIVE IMAGINATION. YOU KNOW I LOVE RICH PEOPLE, THEY HAVE MONEY. SOMEBODY HIJACKED MY AVATAR AND IS POSTING SHIT. 🙂
Seriously, you are the master of subtlety and nuance. You never cease to amaze with your lightning wit and devilish repartee.
soupcon /ˈsuːpsɒn/, n., a crime involving the misrepresentation of soup.
Ex.: “They told me it was French Onion, but it most certainly was not. It had neither onions nor French people in it. I was victim of a soupcon.”
Bron,
I thought that I always ceased to amaze you. I was misinformed.
And I thought that was you posting shit, like normal. I am easily misled.
Gene,
Careful, it’s said that the first person to invoke the soup-nazi comparison, loses the discussion.
Who’s said that? I just did. Weren’t you paying attention?
Gene
good thing you didn’t order SOS.
I ate chicken a la king at lunch at my elementary school, once. The nasty nun stood behind me and demanded that I eat it.
I gagged.
When my dad told me what they called it in the army in WWII, I understood immediately. For my virgin ears, he softened it to “Crap On a Shingle.”
isnt shit on a shingle chipped beef in a cream sauce served over toast?
http://www.cooksinfo.com/shit-on-a-shingle-recipe
Bron,
You’re probably right. The culinary experience probably caused a brain infarct, so I remembered chicken. But your reminding me makes me nauseous.
“Officer Darren Wilson testified this week in the grand jury investigation into his shooting of Michael Brown, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newspaper’s scoop was unusual. Unlike most criminal-justice proceedings in the U.S., grand juries are highly secretive. Leaking information about them is a criminal act.”
Without an explicit warning to the contrary, a witness before a grand jury can disclose that he testified and how he testified.
To wit:
Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.
Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
— Bill Clinton
Bob,
While the leaks from the grand jury may not be illegal, It does seem clear that your thesis for this post—that Officer Wilson’s testimony to the grand jury suggested he was innocent—is highly dubious at best.
What do we know?
A potential defendant testifying before a grand jury is unusual but not unheard of.
Testifying allows the grand jury to put a face on Officer Wilson (who probably appeared in uniform), who they were already likely sympathetic to. Contrast this with his victim*, who has no one to speak for him in the courtroom (it should be the prosecutor’s job, but he doesn’t seem interested in pursuing it zealously—if Riker had given the same effort in arguing against Data’s rights, Data would have been declared a toaster).
* Officer Wilson is Mr. Brown’s killer and Mr. Brown is Officer Wilson’s victim regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified. That’s just what those words mean.
Since this testimony would have required both the prosecutor and Officer Wilson (or his lawyers) to consent, and both parties are biased in this matter (one entirely reasonably and the other not so much), the obvious assumption is that Officer Wilson’s testimony was seen as a positive. Sorry Bob, but I don’t think anyone gives out brownie points for obviously self-serving actions.
Bob said:
“The problem with your analysis is that it flies in the face of something called the Equal Protection clause.
But don’t let that bother you.”
Actually, I wont since it doesn’t. I was speaking about justice (and Officer Wilson’s best interests as I see them), not the law. You have provided evidence which demonstrates the validity of the grievance people are protesting about (an example of a bad dog with a bad master), do you think any of them would (or should) accept a no-bill from a grand jury in which Officer Wilson has been given preferential treatment in the form of being allowed to testify and the prosecutor not even attempting to make a case? The situation stinks and the responsibility for that falls squarely on the shoulders of those that have used similar means to protect rogue cops from the consequences of their actions in the past. As long as you refuse to acknowledge that Mr. Brown deserves justice every bit as much as Officer Wilson does, you are little more than an apologist for bad dogs and bad masters.
Either Mr. Brown committed suicide by cop or Officer Wilson was guilty of some manner of wrongful death, there are no other possible choices that fit the established facts (clearly, it wasn’t an accident, for example). I think* that if it cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brown committed “suicide by cop” (i.e. violated your MMIR, for instance), then I don’t believe that Officer Wilson should ever be permitted to hold a position in law enforcement again. On the other hand, if it cannot be proven a wrongful death by the same standard, Officer Wilson should face no other punishment for his actions. To me, these are the only standards that provide justice equitably to both Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown.
How can a system which appears to be biased in a manner which has been used to enable miscarriages of justice in the past (by your own admission) be expected to provide any reasonable approximation of justice? After all, is that not the purpose of the law?
* Note to Bob: these words indicate that this is my opinion about what justice is. not what the law is, please try not to confuse the two again.
Slarti: “While the leaks from the grand jury may not be illegal,”
Tell that to the folks at Time Magazine and all the other folks who want to see Wilson hanged.
Slarti: “It does seem clear that your thesis for this post—that Officer Wilson’s testimony to the grand jury suggested he was innocent—is highly dubious at best.”
Really?
Slarti: “Testifying allows the grand jury to put a face on Officer Wilson”
It also terminates all other defense strategy options for the defendant since the grand jury testimony can be used by the prosecutor in his case as an admission by the defendant.
Since Wilson effectively waived his 5th amendment rights by testifying before the grand jury, the inference to be drawn here, assuming his attorney is not brain dead, is that he has nothing to hide.
“Actually, I wont since it doesn’t. I was speaking about justice (and Officer Wilson’s best interests as I see them), not the law.”
Really? So the denial of one’s Equal Protection rights is deemed “justice”?
On what planet?
Bob,
You said, “Really?”
Yes, your thesis regarding the grand jury testimony is dubious—made so because Officer Wilson derived benefit from doing so (a greater likelihood of a no-bill). You don’t know the facts (although for someone cautioning against a rush to judgement, you sure seem keen on assuming Officer Wilson’s innocence), so you can’t know for sure whether the loss of 5th Amendment rights is balanced by making a no-bill more likely (and thus negating said loss) or other strategic considerations.
In regard to your other “Really?”, in what way did I deny Officer Wilson’s equal protection rights? I suspect the answer is “none at all”, because nothing I said was in regard to Officer Wilson’s rights, but you’re free to quote me and explain how you think I did so.
I would also point out that, despite my repeated requests, you have failed to explain what you believe would be just in this case or what standards should lead to what punishment, so the only indication we have of what you deem “justice” is that people should stop kicking your dog. With all due respect, if you really want that to stop happening, I think you need to be willing to shoot your own dog and clearly articulate the circumstances under which you will do so.
Just to make things easy for you:
Under what circumstances should Officer Wilson be allowed to keep his job?
Under what circumstances should Officer Wilson be sent to prison?
We’ve already agreed that any civil action should be decided on a preponderance of the evidence and I suspect we agree that Officer Wilson should go to jail if he is proven to have caused the wrongful death of Mr. Brown beyond a reasonable doubt, so what standard do you think that Officer Wilson should be required to exceed in order to keep his job? How does that standard afford justice to Mr. Brown?
Slarti,
The benefit from testifying before the grand jury is also there because his attorney is not worried about being locked into the transcript. Far more likely that he has nothing to hide rather than a ballsy move by his defense attorney to lie before a grand jury and attempt to keep that lie straight.
Slarti: ” in what way did I deny Officer Wilson’s equal protection rights?
Um…
Slarti: “No one would be trying to sacrifice Officer Wilson if not for the social and racial injustices perpetrated protecting rogue cops (and rogue police departments) from the consequences of their actions and a general failure to address or even acknowledge the existence of this problem. Bob (as a surrogate for the “master” of his metaphorical dog, not personally) is hoist on his own petard. As for Officer Wilson, the best possible outcome for him is that he is exonerated by a process that is above reproach. The only way that can possibly happen at this point is in open court with a prosecutor trying his level best to convict him..”
“Under what circumstances should Officer Wilson be allowed to keep his job?”
If the shooting was justified.
“Under what circumstances should Officer Wilson be sent to prison?”
If the shooting was not justified.
Well, at least the hyperbole has progressed from “lynching” to “hanging.”
But it’s still hyperbole. No one has suggested lynching or hanging Wilson.
Lose the hysteria. The suggestion has been that he goes on trial.
And the fix is in already, since the “prosecuting” attorney is acting as the defense attorney.
You keep quoting those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
I made a comment about the people trying to “sacrifice” (your word) Officer Wilson. True or not, it was a statement regarding their intent, not mine nor anything having to do with the legal system. Then I said that the people who perverted the system to protect rogue cops and rogue departments (and wish to protect Officer Wilson, guilty or innocent, now) were hoist on their own petard because their prior bad actions mean that, even if Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Mr. Brown, he cannot be exonerated (in the eyes of the “they” you rail against) by a system that is known to have exonerated guilty people in the past. Kind of hard to see how I violated Officer Wilson’s equal protection rights there, since I was merely pointing out an irony in the consequences of other people’s prior actions—karma in action, in other words.
In this excerpt from his autobiography, “Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman?”, Richard Feynman was reviewing basic science texts and compared their use of the word “energy” to “wakalixes” because, while technically correct, the word “energy” conveyed no more understanding than the same sentences with the made up substitute. You use the word “justified” in exactly the same way.
Let me try and put this in language you will understand…
You have marklared my marklar and used marklar marklar to marklar the marklar in your marklar. The marklar you marklar is marklar marklar and marklars to marklar my marklar. If you marklar marklar to marklar your marklar, you must marklar marklar than marklar.
Marklar you marklar?
Slarti: “You keep quoting those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.”
Your words, emphasized below, show how you would apply the law differently to Officer Wilson; thereby violating his Equal Protection rights.
Slarti: “I would suggest that, in this case, a “no bill” from the grand jury is probably an unacceptable solution as it has a distinct appearance of impropriety. That might not be fair to your dog, but it is the direct result of prior actions by his masters. I don’t think that anyone can claim justice has been done unless this case is decided in open court.”
Slarti: “No one would be trying to sacrifice Officer Wilson if not for the social and racial injustices perpetrated protecting rogue cops (and rogue police departments) from the consequences of their actions and a general failure to address or even acknowledge the existence of this problem. Bob (as a surrogate for the “master” of his metaphorical dog, not personally) is hoist on his own petard. As for Officer Wilson, the best possible outcome for him is that he is exonerated by a process that is above reproach. The only way that can possibly happen at this point is in open court with a prosecutor trying his level best to convict him..”
(Because to apply the law to him as any other citizen wouldn’t satisfy the mob.)
Your stated reasons for indicting Wilson have nothing to do with his actual guilt or innocence and everything to do with controlling optics for the benefit of a mob.
Are you ready to adopt the new maxim you impose here and make it universal law?
The problem with your analysis is that it flies in the face of something called the Equal Protection clause.
But don’t let that bother you.
Slarti: “Actually, I wont since it doesn’t. I was speaking about justice (and Officer Wilson’s best interests as I see them), not the law. You have provided evidence which demonstrates the validity of the grievance people are protesting about (an example of a bad dog with a bad master), do you think any of them would (or should) accept a no-bill from a grand jury in which Officer Wilson has been given preferential treatment in the form of being allowed to testify and the prosecutor not even attempting to make a case? The situation stinks and the responsibility for that falls squarely on the shoulders of those that have used similar means to protect rogue cops from the consequences of their actions in the past.
Finally….
Slarti: “Officer Wilson is Mr. Brown’s killer and Mr. Brown is Officer Wilson’s victim regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified. That’s just what those words mean.”
The term killer has a strongly negative connotation, e.g. serial killer, and you know it. Thus to call Wilson “Brown’s Killer” connotes an unlawful act that has neither been charged nor proven.
Bob, Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. That fact is not in dispute. It satisfies the definition of the verb “to kill,” ergo Officer Wilson is indeed a killer. Any negative connotations that holds is something Officer Wilson will live with for the rest of his life. It’s the price he pays for being in law enforcement. There cannot be any whitewashing of that truth. No one has said “serial killer” but you, and that is not the debate. Even if Officer Wilson is found innocent of all charges, including those filed in civil court, Officer Brown still shot and killed Michael Brown. Police kill, Bob. You know this as well as anyone here. To say otherwise sounds like gross deflection.
How about “Wilson fatally dispatched Brown” … since the word killer is now a negative connotation of one’s actions we can also remove cop-killer from our vocabulary unless, of course, the person fatally dispatching cops is doing so in a series of 3 or more.
Wilson is a fatal dispatcher.
Or, perhaps … disposed. Wilson is a fatal disposer.
Or better yet, veto Wilson vetoed Brown’s life.
But wait, how about delete? Yes, that’s a good one. Wilson deleted Brown’s life.
I could go on all night.
“As for Officer Wilson, the best possible outcome for him is that he is exonerated by a process that is above reproach. The only way that can possibly happen at this point is in open court with a prosecutor trying his level best to convict him.”
9-27.000 PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION
9-27.220 Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution
Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm#9-27.200
1kill verb \ˈkil\
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill
: to cause the death of (a person, animal, or plant) : to end the life of (someone or something)
: to cause the end of (something)
: to turn (something) off with a switch
—–
Let’s think for a moment. Did Darren Wilson cause the death/end the life of Michael Brown?
“Because to apply the law to him as any other citizen wouldn’t satisfy the mob.
Bob,
This is the essence of where we differ. You apply the law out of context in a manner that to me is merely playing “pretend” that we really have a country ruled by Constitutional Doctrine and the rule of law. I understand that as a lawyer you have to play “pretend” in order to do your job. Knowing your intelligence though, I can’t believe that you believe that there exists, or ever has existed, the notion of equal protection under the law as the true state of affairs in American justice. You are right to castigate “mob rule”, but then again killing of unarmed citizens by police, that is ever increasing in this country, certainly is indicative of rule by the “mob”, though that “mob” carries badges.
St. Louis Police Academy Promotes ‘Highly Entertaining’ Course On Michael Brown Shooting
BY JUDD LEGUM POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2014 AT 10:32 PM UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2014 AT 11:03 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/20/3570116/st-louis-police-academy-promotes-highly-entertaining-course-on-ferguson-and-police-shootings/
Excerpt:
The deadly police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager, in Ferguson prompted nationwide outrage and weeks of protests. But police in the area apparently still have a lot to learn.
The St. Louis County And Municipal Police Academy, which encompasses Ferguson, is offering a “Continuing Education” course in October entitled “OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING — YOU CAN WIN WITH THE MEDIA.” The class is billed as “fast-paced class is jam-packed with the essential strategies and tactics, skills and techniques” and includes a “detailed case study of Ferguson.”
Learning about how to manipulate the media after a police officer shoots someone can be a blast, according to a flier produced by the academy promoting the course.”The training is also highly entertaining,” the flier says, “You will learn a lot, and you’ll have fun doing it!”
Elaine
Of course, it’s not the actions of the Ferguson PD that’s the problem. It’s the way people perceive the actions.
Leaving the body out for four hours and running over the flowers of the memorial are problems of perception, not deed.
”The training is also highly entertaining,” the flier says, “You will learn a lot, and you’ll have fun doing it!”
Hmmm. Sounds as if inciting Bob’s mob is part of the game plan. Wonder why.
A connotation is a commonly understood cultural or emotional association that some word or phrase carries, in addition to the word’s or phrase’s explicit or literal meaning, which is its denotation.
A connotation is frequently described as either positive or negative, with regards to its pleasing or displeasing emotional connection. For example, a stubborn person may be described as being either strong-willed or pig-headed; although these have the same literal meaning (stubborn), strong-willed connotes admiration for the level of someone’s will (a positive connotation), while pig-headed connotes frustration in dealing with someone (a negative connotation).
It is often useful to avoid words with strong connotations (especially pejorative or disparaging ones) when striving to achieve a neutral point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation
Thus we call Charles Manson a “killer”;
while we do not refer to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII as a “killer.”
(N.B. If you’re a member of a mob, then words with strong negative connotations is exactly what you’d use.)
For further information on the use of connotations in everyday language, ask a poet.
So, which one did you like the most? Dispatcher, disposer, vetoer, or deleter? Which fits the best into the poetic license you are employing? Rhetorically speaking..
Bob,
We know about word connotations. We know about euphemisms too. What word/words would you suggest we use instead of “killed” with regard to what Officer Wilson did to Michael Brown?
“extinguished his life”
“bought him the farm”
“took his breath away… forever”
“made sure he kicked the bucket”
“sent him to his maker”
“sent him to his eternal sleep”
Got some suggestions for us? Inquiring minds–and poets–want to know.
“Got some suggestions for us? Inquiring minds–and poets–want to know.”
There have been a lot of good suggestions. But I am going with extirpation – as in ‘office Wilson extirpated Brown’.
For those of us who don’t hear the word that often it almost has an official sound to it.
That is a good thing because official procedures are often investigate by impartial, independent agencies when implemented under unusual and controversial circumstances.
I would love to get past the idea that an official investigation is somehow unfair and disrespects the officer. We ought to consider a thorough, independent, impartial investigation a normal part of police work any time a citizen is extirpated.
Never mind, Bob. This is getting tiresome and I’m not going to return to it till after the grand jury finishes its work.
blouise,
“So, which one did you like the most? Dispatcher, disposer, vetoer, or deleter? Which fits the best into the poetic license you are employing? Rhetorically speaking..”
That would give a brand new meaning to the term “police dispatcher.”
Elaine,
I submit “harvester of sorrow”. If one is going to use euphemism, why not go all out?
While I side with Bob in this, I do agree with Elaine about dispatcher, it has a “nice” quality to it. Semantically or rhetorically speaking of course.
The grim dispatcher, dispatched in peace, recently dispatched, the dear dispatched, dispatch or be dispatched.
He looked at her large brown eyes as she dispatched him using an ice pick thrust up under his sternum, through his diaphragm and into his heart. He couldnt believe she was a cold blooded dispatcher, she smelled so good. That was last thing that went through his brain, well that and the ice pick she pithed him with.
Officer Wilson set Michael Brown free. Does that make you feel better?
In that sense, the U.S. freed many thousands of Iraqi civilians,
freed many thousands of Vietnamese civilians.
No endeavor is too noble for the U.S. military.
But I digress.
Obviously, Martin Luther KIng, Jr. was prescient in praising officer Wilson, when King said,
‘Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.’
But if we ignore Bob Stone’s obvious cynical attempt to control what words we’re permitted to use,
“Wilson killed an unarmed man by shooting him many times, until the man was dead.”
Now, why would anyone question why Wilson did that? Mind your own business.
I call Officer Wilson a killer and I’m quite aware of the connotation. The problem with observing the niceties of the “rule of law” is that those niceties are usually reserved for the privileged in our society, or those of pale skin.
Mike,
Wealthy people who are wacko aren’t called crazy. They’re called “eccentric”–doncha know?
Elaine, unless the gates before the communities of the elite reach to Europa, they will be little barrier to their disassembly. For a pittance, we can know the exact movements of anyone on earth calling themselves “rich.” Fire is being played with as what has been built cannot be sustained. Perhaps the use of the word “mob” in the phrase “flash mob” is what lawyers such as Bob worry about. The doublespeak surrounding the clear killing of Michael Brown by Officer Wilson is a major symptom of our disease.
Go, mob!
” The problem with observing the niceties of the “rule of law” is that those niceties are usually reserved for the privileged in our society, or those of pale skin.”
You have given us some insight to both society and this particular situation. But I would take issue with your suggestion that what defenders of Wilson want is the application of legal niceties. I would argue is that what they want and what they have been arguing is that no legal scrutiny be applied to Wilson at all.
For example, in another article, much has been made of a made up standard called the Mother May I rule to justify Wilson’s actions. Not only that, but other readers, who have seemed perfectly rational in the past, have passively accepted and cheered on analysis based on the Mother May I rule.
Yet the MMIR express no standard that could be called a rule in the usual meaning of the word. The MMIR makes no attempt to conform to any standard for the application of lethal force expressed in legislation or case law. If you actually look at the description of the MMIR you will see that it does not suggest any constraint on the officer’s actions. Under the MMIR an officer can shoot a subject for any reason or no reason at all.
Use of the MMIR is the baldest possible example of a claim that no legal standard should be applied to Wilson’s actions.
These people are not demanding justice for Wilson. They are demanding and presenting argument that no legal standard applies to Wilson.
If only it were the case that the defenders of Wilson merely wanted the application of the niceties of the rule of law. That would be a manor step forward if we could just get to that point.
“That would be a manor step forward if we could just get to that point.”
I’m not sure what a “manor step” is in argumentation, but I do know what “hyperbolic” means.
The Rule of Law is not a nicety but rather a necessity, regardless of whom the defendant might be. It was failure to adhere to the Rule of Law which is in large part what leads to injustice in the first place. You don’t remedy injustice with more injustice. The Rule of Law must apply to Wilson. What should not apply is a double standard or lax enforcement simply because he’s a cop. Inequity leads to injustice and as the Good Doctor once noted, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The Lady is wearing a blindfold for good reason. It’s our duty as citizens to make sure she keeps in on and nobody puts a thumb on her scales.
“I’m not sure what a “manor step” is in argumentation, but I do know what “hyperbolic” means.”
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error. I intended to say that it would be a major step forward if we could get everyone to agree that the law applies LE as much as anyone else.
You seem to agree with that idea – that the law applies to everyone. And I commend you for it. Unfortunately there seem to be those who do not agree and argue strenuously against applying legal scrutiny to law enforcement. I don’t think there is any hyperbole in that statement at all.
I kind of prefer “late”. As in “Officer Wilson made Mr. Brown late“.
As I understand it, the situation is this:
We should not, under any circumstances, rush to judgement. Unless, of course, we wish to judge Officer Wilson to be justified or Mr. Brown to be a criminal.
We should not use prejudicial words like “killer” in describing Officer Wilson, because, while technically correct, it doesn’t imply that the shooting was justified. It is, however, perfectly fine to use a terms of endearment and respect such as “thug” or “honey badger” to refer to Mr. Brown.
There are only two possibilities: Officer Wilson was justified or he was not. This would imply that Officer Wilson should retain his job as long as he isn’t convicted of a crime (I’m assuming Bob wouldn’t accept any lower standard since he has said that “not justified” should include prison time). There is to be no discussion about what standard is used to determine whether or not Officer Wilson giving Mr. Brown a time out with extreme prejudice was justified, nor any consideration of what evidence would be necessary to sustain such a standard.
If someone discusses what “justice” might mean in this context, then they are attempting to violate Officer Wilson’s equal protection rights (even if they don’t say anything about the law or their own opinion and just make statements about what the protesters… excuse me, I mean the “mob”… will perceive as just or suggest that the the proceedings have the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Brown, on the other hand, is not entitled to equal protection or justice and it is perfectly fine if Mr. Brown’s advocate (the prosecutor) makes no attempt to seek justice or organize the evidence presented to the grand jury because it makes them more likely to no bill Officer Wilson.
Bob (and nivico),
I said that it would be best for Officer Wilson if he was exonerated by a process viewed as fair. I regard this as obvious, but if you can come up with a better result him, by all means let us know what you think it is. But don’t tell me this statement has ANYTHING to do with him receiving equal protection under the law—it just doesn’t. Similarly, if I say something about what kind of outcome the protes… er… mobsters would be satisfied with, feel free to say I’m wrong and argue why, but don’t say that I was talking about what should happen or advocating a course of action—again, especially not a non sequitur like the bullshit that I in any way suggested or advocated infringing Officer Wilson’s right to equal protection under the law. Or should I say his right to privileged protection under the law as neither of you seem to feel that Mr. Brown was entitled to any sort of protection or is entitled to any kind of justice after the fact. Finally, suggesting that the bad masters had made their own bed by perverting the system in the past, making it impossible for the system to appear to have integrity to the thuggish mobsters in no way attacks Officer Wilson’s equal protection under the law. If anything, those who have suborned justice in the past and their apologists are the ones who have corrupted the process which otherwise would have been able to clear Officer Wilson are the ones that have denied him equal protection.
Gene,
Justice should indeed be blind and you can’t achieve it by breaking the law, but there also has to be a recourse when the law is unjust and the sins of the past should not excuse repeating those sins in the present. I don’t think the grand jury should consider the possibility of riots when deciding whether or not to indict (although I’d imagine that it would be hard to avoid having that influence your decision one way or the other), but think they should consider that the process here is similar to processes which have resulted in injustice in the past.
It seems all but certain that Officer Wilson will not get equal treatment from a system that is clearly biased in his favor and that no one involved (at least not locally) has any concern about equal protection or justice for Mr. Brown. Am I naive to think that there can be no justice for Officer Wilson unless there is also justice for Mr. Brown?
“We should not, under any circumstances, rush to judgement. Unless, of course, we wish to judge Officer Wilson to be justified or Mr. Brown to be a criminal.
We should not use prejudicial words like “killer” in describing Officer Wilson, because, while technically correct, it doesn’t imply that the shooting was justified. It is, however, perfectly fine to use a terms of endearment and respect such as “thug” or “honey badger” to refer to Mr. Brown.”
Slarti,
This is the essence of the discussion, along with the fact that overwhelmingly the “rule of law” applies only to a few. When you have a “rule of law” that excludes people of color from justice, while it enables a minority to act with relative impunity in repressing them, then what kind of “law” is it really. In NYC Bloomberg applied the “rule of law” to stop and frisk, but allowed the wealthy elite to run roughshod over the City. Who were the more damaging to society? The poor and dark skinned, or the Capitalist who looted our country? Who was the “mob”?
Mike,
We shouldn’t forget the reason that Bernie Madoff was prosecuted and went to prison: He stole money from rich people.
Elaine, in the spirit of the dialog, Madoff instead “liberated unused wealth.”
“Elaine, in the spirit of the dialog, Madoff instead “liberated unused wealth.”
James,
Quite correct. As Slarti has shown negative connotations must only pertain to the “less worthy” among us.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/index.html “Wilson has stayed out of the spotlight since the incident, and until now, few details have emerged publicly about his side of the story.
Wilson told investigators he was trying to leave his car when Brown shoved him back in, The Times reported Friday night.
Once in, Brown pinned him in his car and tried to get his gun, which made him fear for his safety, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed government officials familiar with the federal civil rights case.
The officer told authorities that Brown hit him and scratched him repeatedly, leaving bruises on his face and neck, according to The Times.
Gun fired twice in car
FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown’s arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said.
His account did not include an explanation on why he shot at Brown even after they got out of the car, according to The Times. A preliminary autopsy showed the teen was shot at least six times, including twice in the head.
Separate federal and local investigations are still ongoing, but the government officials said the evidence so far does not indicate that the officer violated any civil rights, The Times reported.
CNN cannot confirm the details of The Times’ report.
A grand jury is considering whether Wilson should be tried on other charges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html “The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.
This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times. It contradicts some witness accounts, and it will not calm those who have been demanding to know why an unarmed man was shot a total of six times. Mr. Brown’s death continues to fuel anger and sometimes-violent protests.”
‘Separate federal and local investigations are still ongoing, but the government officials said the evidence so far does not indicate that the officer violated any civil rights, The Times reported.”
Killing someone doesn’t violate their civil rights?
No one is all that upset about the shots fired while Wilson was in his car, we’re upset that he got out of his car and repeatedly shot someone who was running away and then who was trying to give up.
@bettykath: No one is all that upset about the shots fired while Wilson was in his car, we’re upset that he got out of his car and repeatedly shot someone who was running away and then who was trying to give up.”
I think you have hit on a key point. I am sure there are some who will crow that Wilson’s testimony and the evidence from inside the SUV vindicate Wilson.
But the stubborn fact still remains that the legal use of lethal force depends on what happened when they were facing each other and Wilson fired the fatal shots – not on what went on before.
In addition, we should remember there is conflicting testimony on what was happening when the shots were fired inside the SUV. Was Brown attacking Wilson in the SUV or was Wilson trying to grab onto Brown after driving so close to Brown that Wilson could not open the SUV door? Evidence of shots fired from inside the SUV does nothing to clarify that.
SwM,
A police officer may shoot a fleeing suspect if he refuses to stop and the officer believes said suspect is a danger to others. But the officer can’t use deadly force if the suspect stops and surrenders by raising his hands. If the suspect approaches him, he can only use deadly force, if he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. The Ferguson Police chief told the public that Brown was 35 feet from the vehicle when Wilson killed him. That was a lie as the forensics now show that Brown was 95 feet fom the vehicle when Wilson killed him. Wilson’s testimony, as reported by the NYTimes, did not address this issue of imminent-danger vis-a-vis distance and was Brown stumbling and falling when he turned towards Wilson or running towards him. This imminent danger requirement is key to an indictment … or should be.
Also… no where in the Times report do we learn anything about why Wilson, having told the 2 guys about jaywalking and driven away, stops and reverses his car backing up to confront them again. I would be very interested in Wilson’s reasoning behind that action as it set up what was to follow.
The NYTimes article is suspect … remember Judith Miller and the articles she wrote for the Times about WMD? Just sayin’ …
It could very well be suspect, Blouise. I only put the story up because we were all absolutely sure that Bob was entirely wrong and if it does turn out to be true it certainly lends support that that might not be the case as much as I hate to admit it.
@swarthmoremom: ” I only put the story up because we were all absolutely sure that Bob was entirely wrong and if it does turn out to be true it certainly lends support that that might not be the case as much as I hate to admit it.”
If the Bob you are referring to is Bob Stone then we know he was entirely wrong because he based his defense of Wilson on the Mother May I Rule which has nothing to do with ‘reasonable belief of imminent threat to life of serious bodily injury”.
Wilson may yet demonstrate that he has a good story. But evidence of shots fired inside the SUV do nothing the answer reasonable questions of who was doing what to whom in that SUV. And as I pointed out earlier, the events in that SUV tell us nothing about what occurred when the lethal shots were fired.
At best, the events in the SUV might tell us something about the mental state of Wilson. However we should all remember that thoughts like ‘I am terrified of that big, black man’ do not necessarily form the basis for reasonable belief of imminent threat to life or serious bodily injury.
SwM,
I know and I suspect the Times article was written to serve that purpose just as they published all those Judith Miller articles on WMD. A cover-up for subverting justice in order to maintain the status quo.
However, change is not brought about by people who are afraid of causing civil disorder. The “Poor Paula” mind set is being challenged once again by those who believe that a trial is the only way to bring transparency to the killing of Brown.
“FBI scandal
In the 1990s, the fingerprint, DNA, and explosive units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory had written reports confirming local police department theories without actually performing the work.
Such laws and regulatory procedures stipulating the conditions under which evidence can be handled and manipulated fall under a body of due process statues called chain of evidence rules. It is crucial for law enforcement agencies to scrupulously collect, handle and transfer evidence in order to avoid its falsification. In most jurisdictions, chain of evidence rules require that the transfer of criminal evidence be handled by as few persons as possible. To prevent error or improper tampering, chain of evidence rules also stipulate that those authorized to experiment with collected evidence document the nature, time, date and duration of their handling.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence
It seems it took a very long time for this new forensic evidence to be found. Given the tensions involved in Ferguson and St. Louis, one would think that the authorities would have been quick to release such evidence, with the forensics being given high priority. Then there is the six shots fired from 95 feet away. Some cynics, possibly myself, would conjecture that it may have taken a long time to figure out an exculpatory story. Of course we know that things like that never happen in America.
Now I could be accused of rushing to judgment by some, but then the evidence of history backs me up.
“If the Bob you are referring to is Bob Stone then we know he was entirely wrong because he based his defense of Wilson on the Mother May I Rule which has nothing to do with ‘reasonable belief of imminent threat to life of serious bodily injury”. ” bfm Agree about the Mother May I rule.
bettykath says:
October 18, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Killing someone doesn’t violate their civil rights?
==============================================
that would depend on three things
#1 who did the shooting
#2 who got shot
#3 when is the nearest election and how is your party doing in it.
While I don’t really disagree with anything anyone has said, I think that the import question to ask here (and, in fact, in any case where we get additional evidence) is does this make it more or less likely that the hypothesis “Was Officer Wilson’s killing of Mr. Brown justified?” is true?
In science, there is an empirical method for doing this: Bayesian inference. While real-life situations rarely lend themselves to the metrics necessary to apply this formally, I think it still provides the appropriate context in which to decided whether or not evidence favors a conclusion. Roughly speaking, Bayes’ theorem says that the change in the probability of a hypothesis being true depends only on the size of the probability of the given evidence if the hypothesis is correct relative to the probability that the event you are considering would have occurred if the hypothesis were false.
In this case, BI implies that we should consider whether it is more likely that this evidence should be released at this time if Mr. Brown’s killing was justified or if it wasn’t. First off, it seems all but certain that this release of information was intended to support Officer Wilson’s justification. In which case, it seems reasonable to assume that this is the best available exculpatory evidence. How does the light in which we view this change depending on Officer Wilson’s guilt or justification? It seems reasonable that actual guilt or innocence would correlate well with evidence of the same (this would certainly be true statistically speaking), so this means that the chance that this is the best available exculpatory evidence is much lower the stronger Officer Wilson’s justification is. Indeed, it seems like either eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence regarding the circumstances of the fatal shots would be stronger evidence of justification that what was presented here—if, in fact, the killing was justified.
In short, it seems to me that anyone who considers this evidence rationally should have a more skeptical view of Officer Wilson than they did before.
Sorry, Bob, but it’s not looking good for your dog…
Slarti,
As a member of the “public opinion” jury, I place little import on this latest forensic info released by the DOJ/FBI because it gives us nothing of real value except to confirm that some sort of struggle occurred at the vehicle as eyewitnesses stated and that Brown ran away and was killed 95 feet from the vehicle. Although Wilson supposedly testified that he was scratched, there is nothing in the info released referring to his blood or skin being found on Brown’s body. If this is the best they have to support Wilson’s claims then I suspect this is a “test” release by the DOJ to see how the public reacts and the NYTimes is playing their usual role by doing the government’s bidding and not bothering the Big Boys with any follow-up, embarrassing questions.
Interesting article regarding the autopsies in the WAPO today, apparently based on a story from St Louis Post Dispatch.
https://accounts.coursera.org/signin?course_id=973631&r=https%3A%2F%2Fclass.coursera.org%2Fandroidapps101-002%2Fforum%2Fthread%3Fthread_id%3D1065&user_action=class&topic_name=Creative%2C%20Serious%20and%20Playful%20Science%20of%20Android%20Apps
I think it is fair to say the article is not favorable to Brown.
However I found this statement to be questionable. I think it reaches conclusions that are beyond the facts:
“The autopsy found material “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm” in a wound on Brown’s thumb. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said this “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.”….Melinek, who was not involved in the investigation, said the autopsy did not support those who claim Brown was attempting to flee or surrender……“If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun,” she said.”
The incident at the SUV before the fatal shooting is controversial. We have witnesses claiming that Brown was trying to get at the officer in the SUV and witnesses claiming the officer was trying to drag Brown into the SUV.
It is my understanding that gun shot residue is likely to be found on the victim at ranges from point blank to something like two feet. And we we know that Brown had part of his body in the SUV. We just don’t know if Brown was trying to get at the officer or trying to pull away.
It seems to me that it would be just about impossible to fire the weapon in the confines of the SUV and fail to have gun shot residue in the wound. Gun shot residue in and of itself cannot tell us if Brown were reaching for the gun or trying to pull away. The conclusion offered by Melinek seems unwarranted. The evidence she cites seems consistent with either story of what happened at the SUV – either Brown trying to grab the gun or Brown trying to pull away from Wilson.
And as I mentioned before, the altercation at the SUV might have greatly influenced Wilson’s view of later events. But it cannot tell us whether Brown was in fact an imminent threat at the time the fatal shots were fired – several minutes later.
There is much more in the article including discussion of the position of Brown’s arms and body when the fatal shots were fired. If you are interested in this case the article is well worth a read.
Sorry for the confusion. The cite to the WAPO article mentioned above should be:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/22/report-autopsy-analysis-shows-michael-brown-may-have-gone-for-darren-wilsons-gun/?hpid=z4
bfm,
“The autopsy found material “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm” in a wound on Brown’s thumb. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said this “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.”
So, following Judy Melinek’s logic, if I shoot you in the head, you were trying to bite the gun?
Works for me.
Here is another interesting article, this time from the AP/NYT. It quotes various professionals to the effect that while the autopsy report may be suggestive to some, in fact the report clarifies little.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/10/22/us/ap-us-police-shooting-ferguson-autopsy.html?ref=news&_r=0
In particular, these professionals with expertise and knowledge tell us the the autopsy report cannot tells us whether Brown was grabbing for Wilson’s gun or whether Brown was charging Wilson, walking toward Wilson, or standing still when he was shot.
“Some of the bullet wounds indicated Brown and Wilson were facing each other on the street after moving away from Wilson’s vehicle. But forensics pathologist Shawn Parcells, who assisted Baden, told the AP there is no forensic evidence to verify whether Brown was surrendering or moving aggressively toward Wilson…. “He could have been charging the officer. He could have been walking toward the officer. He could have been standing still. He could have been stumbling,” Parcells said. “I don’t know if we’ll ever know.””
How many people killed by cops? Go to:
http://www.october22.org/
and scroll down. There’s a nice chart to answer the question.
Leak? It Probably Means That Darren Wilson Won’t Be Charged In Michael Brown’s Death
Prosecutors are preparing those of us outraged about Brown’s death for what we don’t want to hear.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/don_t_expect_darren_wilson_to_be_charged.html?wpisrc=burger
Excerpt:
All along, McCulloch had the choice to charge Wilson by information, which means that Wilson would have been arrested and charged and would have faced a public preliminary hearing with the scrutiny of a judge, which the world could have listened to and observed. Now, two-and-a-half months after the shooting and with no public statements from Wilson or his lawyers, the Times leak has conveniently brought Wilson’s version of events to the forefront. In other words, someone is preparing us for the bad part.
According to available information, Brown’s blood was in the car, indicating that he was shot near the car during a physical altercation. That is not disputed. However, Brown was running away with his hands up to surrender while several feet away, according to several witnesses—of varying ethnic backgrounds. Then, according to witnesses, Wilson shot the unarmed Brown repeatedly.
The problem with that version of events, from a self-defense legal perspective, is that if a threat is going away from Wilson and surrendering, then that threat is neutralized, and deadly force should not be used. However, in this case, deadly force was used, and at least six shots hit the unarmed teenager’s body.
Wilson testified before the grand jury for approximately four hours. It’s rare, though, for a person who could face charges to testify before a grand jury unless he or she already knows what to say to secure a “no bill.” It looks as if Wilson’s extensive experience testifying before juries and grand juries was advantageous in his testimony.
Wilson had another advantage because he had a lot of time before giving sworn testimony to get his story together and make sure the evidence found by investigators matched his version. Unfortunately, given the combination of Wilson’s experience and his colleague, McCulloch, being in charge of the grand jury proceedings, more than likely, Wilson won’t be charged. And it will all happen in secret.
Ironically, as I said above, the evidence with which they are trying to prepare the way makes me think that it was less likely that the killing of Mr. Brown was justified. Can the officer and the city be sued for wrongful death at least?
Judy Melinek was interviewed on The Last Word, tonight. Melinek says she did not say that Brown’s thumb injury proved that he was reaching for the gun. She says that there’s no way that you could tell that, without additional witnesses seeing it.
The newspaper interviewer took her remarks totally out-of-context, and misinterpreted them.
Melinek is not the idiot that she’s made out to be by the newspaper. She’s an ethical scientist.
Well, clearly someone failed their ethical obligations here…
Bob (Stone),
Would you agree that it is looking less and less likely that Officer Wilson’s actions were justified?
Kevin,
Seeing the forensic evidence coming to light supports Officer Wilson’s account of the events and not the version of events touted by the grievance syndicate, you may want to back away from your earlier assertions.
Otherwise you’ll end up sounding like a creationist denying the age, much less existence, of ancient pottery; i.e. older than creationists “universe.”
Expert: My Michael Brown Autopsy Analysis Was Taken ‘Out Of Context’
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc
Excerpt:
That would be consistent with Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson’s version of events, as reported by the New York Times and others. Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.
But Melinek told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken “out of context” and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.
“What happens sometimes is when you get interviewed and you have a long conversation with a journalist, they’re going to take things out of context,” she said. “I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don’t have the scene information. We don’t have the police investigation. We don’t have all the witness statements. And you can’t interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum.”
” Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.”
Much has been made of statements that Brown was not shot with his arms in the surrender position. However, it seems clear to me that the best anyone can make of the diagrams and statements is that Brown was not shot – in the arm – with his arms in the surrender position.
Brown was also shot in the torso. The autopsy cannot tell us the sequence of shots (with the exception of the shot to the head). If Brown were shot in the torso first and were stumbling or falling forward, it would be completely consistent that the arms would not be in the surrender position. The information is not sufficient to tell us where Brown’s arms were when he was shot in the torso. We simply do not know at this point if Brown was in fact trying to surrender when he was shot because we do not know if the first shots hit his arm or his chest.
Once again we have ambiguous evidence that is consistent with either the story from Wilson or the story from other eye witnesses.
Some have already started crowing that the autopsy supports Wilson. A fair minded reading of both the paraphrases and the corrections to the paraphrases demonstrate the autopsy does not lead to compelling support for either story.
Dr. Judy Melinek and Judy Woodruff discuss the forensic evidence and its limitations with Dr. Judy Melinek of the University of California, San Francisco on PBS Newshour:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/forensic-expert-says-michael-brown-autopsy
Excerpt:
The new autopsy also found the fatal shots had come from a downward motion into the top of Brown’s head. Another gunshot struck Brown in the forehead, a third to his chest, two in his upper arm and one two the back of his forearm.
All but one of the gunshots, Melinek said, seem to have struck Brown in the front of his body, which is consistent with witnesses who said Brown had been facing Wilson when he was shot. Depending on any witnesses physical proximity to the shooting, Brown could have been turning to Wilson in surrender, stumbling toward him after being shot or charging him.
The shot to the back of Brown’s upper arm, Melinek said, suggested he could have been shot from behind.
Seeing the forensic evidence coming to light supports Officer Wilson’s account of the events and not the version of events touted by the grievance syndicate, you may want to back away from your earlier assertions.
Otherwise you’ll end up sounding like a creationist denying the age, much less existence, of ancient pottery; i.e. older than creationists “universe.”
======================================================
Just curious, are you any relation to Evel Knievel? It’s been some time since I’ve seen a leap like that.
“I’m not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I’m saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that,” said Melinek.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc
“All but one of the gunshots, Melinek said, seem to have struck Brown in the front of his body, which is consistent with witnesses who said Brown had been facing Wilson when he was shot. ”
Actually, it’s inconsistent with witnesses Johnson, Crenshaw and Mitchell who said Wilson shot Brown in the back.
Furthermore, the autopsy results do not support the contention that Brown had his “hands up” in any semblance of a surrender fashion when Wilson shot him.
The forensic evidence ALSO supports Wilson’s statement that Brown was advancing on him while his gun was drawn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
Pete,
What leap?
Truth consists in the agreement of knowledge with its object.
Wilson’s knowledge of the events agrees with the forensic evidence revealed so far.
The same can’t be said for the knowledge of events touted by the grievance syndicate.
Bob,
Excerpt from the WaPo article:
Victor W. Weedn, chairman of the George Washington University Department of Forensic Sciences, said the autopsy report raises doubts about whether Brown’s hands were raised at the time of the shooting but is not conclusive.
“Somebody could have raised their hands way above their head and lowered their hands and then be shot,” Weedn said. “So an autopsy will never rule out that the hands were above the head. It can only say what happened at the time of the shooting. . . . With the graze to the right arm, it appears the arm was in a vertical position, suggesting that it was closer to down by his side, but it could have been higher.”
*****
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/forensic-expert-says-michael-brown-autopsy
Excerpt:
A pair of experts, including Melinek – a forensic pathologist from San Francisco – and St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, told reporters on Wednesday that Brown’s wounds were consistent with Wilson’s explanation of events.
Later that day, Melinek told msnbc that her words had been partly misconstrued.
Melinek said that she had compared the forensic evidence included in the official autopsy report and Wilson’s statements and found them consistent. Since the report indicated the wound to Brown’s right thumb was close and in line to the barrel of Wilson’s gun when it discharged, it could mean he had been reaching for the gun.
“I’m not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I’m saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that,” she said. “I have limited information. It could also be consistent with other scenarios. That’s the important thing. That’s why the witnesses need to speak to the grand jury and the grand jury needs to hear all the unbiased testimony and compare those statements to the physical evidence.”
Melinek said that interpreting the forensic findings is often subjective.
“If other witnesses have statements as to where [Brown’s] hands were, they could also be consistent with the forensic findings if they line up with the injury trajectory and distance,” she said.
Melinek added that the only statement she compared to the forensic evidence was that made by Wilson and that a number of other scenarios could also be possible, including Brown trying to protect himself or his hands for whatever reason being near the muzzle of Wilson’s gun.
“Somebody could have raised their hands way above their head and lowered their hands and then be shot,”
And yet there were no witnesses saying that’s what happened when the grievance syndicate had the mob marching through the streets of Ferguson chanting “hands up, don’t shoot.”
“And yet there were no witnesses saying that’s what happened when the grievance syndicate had the mob marching through the streets of Ferguson chanting “hands up, don’t shoot.”
Bob,
“Grievance syndicate”…..really? “Mob”…..really? You are trying to win your argument with denigration, rather than reason and I think that sort of exposes that you come to this situation without the “clean hands” of an impartial observer. Now of course I could say your side of things is a representation of the “fascist police racists who are abrogating the right of free speech” but that would be descending to a place I’d rather not go. While I realize that some people do go there in the media glare, I don’t believe that the level of discussion here has been at the name calling level and so I find that your characterizations are unfortunate.
New Michael Brown shooting witnesses describe scene
From Randi Kaye, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/
Excerpt:
(CNN) — Two men, shocked at what they saw, describe an unarmed teenager with his hands up in the air as he’s gunned down by a police officer.
They were contractors doing construction work in Ferguson, Missouri, on the day Michael Brown was killed.
And the men, who asked not to be identified after CNN contacted them, said they were about 50 feet away from Officer Darren Wilson when he opened fire.
An exclusive video captures their reactions during the moments just after the shooting.
“He had his f**n hands up,” one of the men says
The man told CNN he heard one gunshot, then another shot about 30 seconds later.
“The cop didn’t say get on the ground. He just kept shooting,” the man said.
That same witness described the gruesome scene, saying he saw Brown’s “brains come out of his head,” again stating, “his hands were up.”
Two men, shocked at what they saw, describe an unarmed teenager with his hands up in the air AS he’s gunned down by a police officer.
My point exactly.
Look, if Wilson is indicted then that whole Rule of Law thing falls apart. White cops will have to stop killing unarmed black boys and all the traditions that made this country great will be lost. Next thing you know NRA nutbags won’t be able to shoot up kindergartens, Presidents won’t be able to order the deaths of American citizens and equal treatment under the law might actually become a reality rather than a myth. Now, think about it. Is that what you really want? Prisons will be over crowded with bankers and hedge fund managers constantly rioting cause they don’t have cable. CIA spooks will be making license plates instead of running around not catching terrorists. It’ll be a gigantic mess.
“Once again we have ambiguous evidence that is consistent with either the story from Wilson or the story from other eye witnesses.”
No, we have forensic evidence tending to support one narrative more than the other.
“No, we have forensic evidence tending to support one narrative more than the other”
No what we have is leaked “forensic evidence” used to portray a position that it does not support..
“It’ll be a gigantic mess.”
It would be a beautiful necessary mess, but that outcome would be the Rule of Law in action.
Gene,
Be careful … confusing myth with reality can lead to a purity of spirit that doesn’t bode well for any American. I believe Ben Franklin understood that better than anyone.
Bob Stone,
It looks as if Officer Wilson will not be prosecuted for shooting Brown.
Is that because you testified to the grand jury, as an expert witness, to the inclusion of the “Mother, May I?” amendment (the 28th), in the Constitution?
If so, kudos. The grand jury must’ve been intrigued by your argument. I certainly was.
p s … a friend just wrote me informing me that prisons have cable and what all the bankers will riot over is the lack of 4-ply toilet paper.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does
Excerpt:
For the TL;DR crowd, here’s a synopsis of the problems with the article written by Christine Byers and Blythe Bernhard for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
The Post-Dispatch says that the autopsy report supports Wilson’s version of events. In fact, it supports the earlier eyewitness testimony at least as much as it does Wilson’s.
The Post-Dispatch (and later, the Washington Post, which essentially reported on the the St. Louis reporting) claims that a forensic expert said the autopsy shows that Michael Brown was “going for his (Wilson’s) gun.” Except that’s not what the expert said – at least not in anything she provided on the record. She told Lawrence O’Donnell that it was just as likely that Brown was trying to defend himself from being shot.
The Post-Dispatch quotes the expert saying that Michael Brown’s was not in surrender posture when he was shot. She actually wrote that she can’t say with reasonable certainty that his hands were up when he was shot in the right forearm.
The article claims the expert said the autopsy didn’t support witnesses who said Michael Brown was shot while running away or with his hands up. She apparently said nothing of the sort.
The expert quoted has since told Lawrence O’Donnell that she was only asked if the autopsy report was consistent with Darren Wilson’s version of events. She was not asked if it fit other scenarios, though there are eyewitness accounts that differ from Wilson’s account.
Blouise,
The Rule of Law is (again) not a myth despite what some would have you believe. It is an integral part of the social compact and without it, society will eventually implode. That is what history tells me about societies where two (or more) tiered legal systems become chronically inequitable. It leads to rebellion and/or revolution, both of which are inherently unstable states (pardon the pun) and do not guarantee that the new order will be more just than the old. However, it was that kind of preferential/biased treatment by the Crown that was a direct causation of the Revolutionary War as well as most direct driver in the formulation of the Declaration of Independence. And if you doubt this, ask China how well that state capitalism is working out for them in Hong Kong right now. The oppressed will only take so much before fighting back and math isn’t an illusion: 99>1.
Blouise,
It would be a gigantic mess; and after that mess people might start looking at our perpetual war economy. Then we would really be fucked because weapons manufacturing is one of the few heavy industries left. What to do?
Bob @10:02
what leap
——————————
the discussion is about whether a police office acted correctly in shooting a suspect.
your reply
——————————–
Otherwise you’ll end up sounding like a creationist denying the age, much less existence, of ancient pottery; i.e. older than creationists “universe.”
——————————————–
that leap
vroom vroom
Bob,
Like any good defense attorney, you try to present the evidence in a context that is most advantageous to your “client”. You do this by (in my view) not mentioning the assumptions necessary to support your conclusions. In this case, you are avoiding mention of your implicit assumption that there isn’t any bias behind the decision of what evidence will be released. On the other hand, I approach this like a scientist—admitting my bias and clearly stating my assumptions and my reasoning (well, as clearly as I can, anyway—my comments are honest attempts to communicate, whether or not they are effective as well is debatable). As I said above, if we assume that what has been released is the best available exculpatory evidence, then the rational conclusion (in accordance with the principles of Bayesian inference) is that this evidence tends to support the conclusion that the shooting wasn’t justified.
The choice is yours now—you can question my assumptions, you can show how my reasoning is flawed or you can accept my conclusions, but implying that I sound like a creationist is, to me, a weak and unconvincing attack. To paraphrase a saying about lawyers, I think that if the facts were on your side, you’d be arguing the facts and if the law were on your side, you’d be arguing the law. If that is the case, why are you pounding on the table?
Mike,
Ain’t none of our hands clean.
The best we can do is admit our bias and explicitly acknowledge where and how it impacts our reasoning. And blame it on Heisenberg.
Blouise,
I don’t know. Personally, I think 4-ply toilet paper is an abomination.
Slarti,
I bet your commode isn’t gold plated either. .. you peasant
Release the peasants!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sztf4hcGrB4
gbk,
Reuters notes in an article late last year:
$8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China’s economic output last year (2012)
The American people, in 2 separate polls (66% -57%), want peace but D. C. wants war because D.C. politicians do a lot of fundraising from defense contractors and … they make a lot of money from inside trading related to military spending. People don’t realize that insider trading laws don’t apply to congress.
There’s that pesky old Rule of Law myth again.
Slarti,
On principle, I’m uncertain whether to blame Heisenberg.
Myth /mɪθ/, n.,
A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events: A widely held but false belief or idea:
Contrast with . . .
Dysfunctional /dɪsˈfʌŋkʃənl/, adj.
Not operating normally or properly: Unable to deal adequately with normal social relations:
Being broken is not the equivalent of being nonexistent.
Gene,
King Cheney … pull!
Blouise,
It’s good to be the king.
Gene,
And I answer your dysfunctional with the 3/5 of person amendment … the myth was there from the beginning … first as a suggestion for taxation under the Articles(refused of course) then as representation under the Constitution (accepted)
Blouise,
Blouise,
Yeah, let’s not forget these details also:
Donald Rumsfeld holding a press conference on 9/10/2001 admitting the Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion dollars in some unspecified time-frame.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
And then there is the $12 billion in Federal Reserve Notes shipped into Iraq under Bremer’s watch that, um, just sort of vanished.
(Only two links allowed so just search with “billions cash iraq” and the first result will be a Guardian article.)
The list is long and disgusting, as I’m sure you know.
What does any of this have to do with Darren Wilson or Michael Brown? Maybe, just maybe, that perpetual war distorts economies, basic expectations of justice, moral codes however derived, and societal and cultural cohesion?
How many “enemies” can one keep on the front burner?
Slarti,
Heisenberg? I’m uncertain if you mean the one on Breaking Bad, or that other one, the Physicist?
Blouise,
I’m not talking about the Constitution in specific but rather the social compact as its underpinning. The Rule of Law applies to the social compact – in fact it’s an integral part of that structure as a matter of legal theory – no matter what the laws of the land might be. The Rule of Law is what defines the mutual benefit gained but as such there is no inherent requirement that it be equitable. The notion of equity comes from many sources of law in this country, from the Declaration to the conscious choice to incorporate chancery courts (courts of equity) at both Federal and state levels to the 14th Amendment, but it is not an inherent trait of the Rule of Law. It seems like you are confusing the two ideas. The Rule of Law is a necessary part of society but to make it equitable and just (or inequitable and unjust) is a choice.
Say my name . . .
Can you blame a dog for drinking out of a gold plated toilet?
gbk
There are things we know and things we don’t know. There are also things we don’t know that we know and things we know that we don’t know.
The 3.2 trillion is in there somewhere, we just don’t know it. (or know that we know it)
From Dr. Judy Melinek:
Forensic Sound Bites & Half-Truths
http://pathologyexpert.blogspot.com/2014/10/forensic-sound-bites-half-truths.html
Excerpt:
A reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week, saying she had Michael Brown’s official autopsy report as prepared by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death. I read the report, and spent half an hour on the phone with the reporter explaining Michael Brown’s autopsy report line-by-line, and I told her not to quote me – but that I would send her quotes she could use in an e mail. The next morning, I found snippets of phrases from our conversation taken out of context in her article in the Post-Dispatch. These inaccurate and misleading quotes were picked up and disseminated by other journals, blogs, and websites.
This is the text of my actual email exchange with Post-Dispatch health and medical news reporter Blythe Bernhard:
“From: “Dr. Judy Melinek”
Date: October 21, 2014 at 5:53:21 PM PDT
To: Blythe Bernhard
Subject: Re: media request
Great talking to you. Here are the quotes:
“The autopsy report shows that there are a minimum of 6 and maximum of 8 gunshot wounds to the body. The graze wound on the right thumb is oriented upwards, indicating that the tip of the thumb is toward the weapon. The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown’s hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun. Given the investigative report which says that the officer’s weapon discharged during a struggle in the officer’s car, this wound to the right thumb likely occurred at that time. The chest wounds are going front to back, indicating that Mr. Brown was facing the officer when he was shot in the torso, then collapsed or leaned forward exposing the top of his head. You can’t say within reasonable certainty that his hands were up based on the autopsy findings alone. The back to front and upward trajectory of the right forearm wound could occur in multiple orientations and a trajectory reconstruction would need to be done using the witness statements, casings, height of the weapon and other evidence from the scene, which have yet to be released. The tissue fragment on the exterior of the officer’s vehicle appears to be skin tissue, but only DNA analysis would confirm if it is from Mr. Brown or the officer. It is ‘lightly pigmented’ but even African-American skin can appear lightly pigmented on a small microscopic section, depending on what part of the body it came from.”
This is how I was quoted in the Post-Dispatch the next day:
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.” Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun. Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
Notice the difference? There’s a big difference between “The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown’s hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun” and “he’s going for the gun.”
Gene, (sorry, went out to dinner)
I’m talking about the fabric of myth building. You can talk about the Social Compact with Bob. But to answer your joust …I’m more with Rousseau than Locke, I.e., illusion … but I think we could agree that democracy suffers when the rule of law becomes a joke as it has in the instances noted. Perhaps Brown is still considered 3/5ths to Wilson’s whole and we are, once again, being asked to accept the compromise in support of the myth for to do otherwise would cause great discomfort to the ruling class threatening many a gold plated toilet. Or more baldly put … White guys should be able to shit on black guys if the rule of law is being viewed in its proper context and implemented as originally intended. Wink, wink
gbk,
“What does any of this have to do with Darren Wilson or Michael Brown? Maybe, just maybe, that perpetual war distorts economies, basic expectations of justice, moral codes however derived, and societal and cultural cohesion?”
No maybe about it. The Wilson/Brown situation goes to the very soul of our country and illuminates the very real divide we refuse to acknowledge … the perpetual wars we wage to cover-up the perpetual war being waged. (you’re welcome Slarti … you single-ply peasant)
And, oh yes …. I am more than willing to go there! Gird your loins. “Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.” (Job 38:3)
Blouise,
“No maybe about it.”
I thought that’s what I said.
No more time tonight, I’m re-tubing my antique guitar amps so I can piss of my neighbor’s dogs which have kept me up for far too many nights. Hopefully, my neighbors can’t sleep also.
There’s nothing like Vivaldi at 11.
Gbk,
My three-year-old granddaughter enjoys listening to Vivaldi.
Blouise,
We’re watching Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga on PBS at the moment.
“Perhaps Brown is still considered 3/5ths to Wilson’s whole and we are, once again, being asked to accept the compromise in support of the myth for to do otherwise would cause great discomfort to the ruling class threatening many a gold plated toilet. Or more baldly put … White guys should be able to shit on black guys if the rule of law is being viewed in its proper context and implemented as originally intended.”
Come on now. Quit trying to use that 3/5ths argument when the 13th Amendment did away with that language. Again, you mistake the Rule of Law for justice and equity. That the war of privilege against “the other” (read: anyone darker than a WASP) continued on afterwards by other means, the moral arc of that battle so to speak is over largely except for the distraction value it provides in detracting from the real culture war which anyone paying attention realizes is the rich versus the poor. A battle the rich will eventually loose, but that is another story. What I am talking about is something far more fundamental.
Absent the Rule of Law there is simply anarchy. How or whether it is abused by those “in power” (which in our country is nominally We the People according to some documents, although the truth is much more oligarchical in practice and in no small part due to graft, er, um, “campaign finance”) is a different subject. To return to the tool analogy, the Rule of Law is a necessary tool in the construction of a society but just like a hammer can be used to build a house it can also be misused to murder someone. Don’t be hatin’ on the tool, Weezie. Be hatin’ on the malicious user. 😉 But the Rule of Law is a very real thing. If you want to say that there is a myth that it is just? Okay, but that is a statement that doesn’t really reflect the true nature of the Rule of Law under the social compact theory. The Rule of Law under that theory is at its base a neutral construct. We as a society, whether for good or ill, imbue it with the character upon which both members of our society as well those outside looking in judge our society as good or ill, just or unjust (and consequently those who hold positions of power). The very same social compact that resulted in the 3/5th’s Compromise also resulted in the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act. The very same social compact that resulted in those positive changes also resulted in the Patriot Act.
It’s not the tool.
It’s the users.
The House of Corporate Representatives and the Senate of the United Shills of International Business.
gbk,
Ah, Reacher … you get my heart every time. Here’s my signature Vivaldi piece. I sang it so often I dreamed it. This recording sounds very close to mine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoDpWnMsK-s
Elaine,
“My three-year-old granddaughter enjoys listening to Vivaldi.”
Good for her!
His compositions bridged the stiffness of the Baroque era (which was not a bad thing) with the more fluid movements of the Classical era.
He is my favorite for many reasons.
Elaine,
We were going to be out so I set to record … will watch later. I love Lady Gaga
Gene,
As originally seen in the Declaration but then filtered through the Articles and the Constitution … from reality to myth, it was twisted so that now it is only a concept to discuss. Rousseau, Locke, even Hobbs would wash their hands of us and deservedly so.
Blouise,
“Here’s my signature Vivaldi piece. I sang it so often I dreamed it.”
Beautiful, is it not? It’s like listening to a butterfly. Thank you for the link.
When are going to send me the multitrack tapes to mix and master. I suspect they are half-inch, eight tracks, Ampex 456 formulation, recorded at +3 relative to 0 being 520nW/inch squared.
Don’t dally, this shit is becoming a lost art.
Blouise,
And Jefferson would probably be hanging lobbyists from the cherry trees on the National Mall.
What’s your point?
Other than to characterize something as a myth which is not. A habit, by the way, that plays directly into the hands of douche bags like the Koch Brothers. How? It excuses what they do by trivializing the concept which they consistently flaunt: the Rule of Law.
That they do so in a manifestly selfish, unjust and inequitable way is without argument. I’m not saying don’t be mad at the injustice. Who am I to say it is improper to rage against the dying light.
I’m saying be sure you’re mad at the right thing.
The Rule of Law?
Ain’t it.
Gene,
This one speaks more better 😉
gbk,
Here’s my other “bel canto” most requested and again I chose the performer closest to my rendition. Forgive the skips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQS7_xhREKk&index=1&list=RDhQS7_xhREKk
Funny you should mention Butterfly as my regular accompanist who was Dean of Organ at Oberlin for the period of time I’m referencing used to call me Madame Butterfly based on my flair for the dramatic
Just posted something to gbk … please ask the filter to release Mozart
[Done – Slarti]
Gene,
“In short, the rule of law that flows from the separation of powers has preserved our freedom.” (WILLIAM H. PRYOR JR) … the myth writ large enabling the acceptance of unjust laws and done from the very beginning. Rhetoric never straightens the path made crooked by deeds.
But then, I’ve always been more Malcolm X than Martin Luther King Jr.
gbk,
I’ll try this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQS7_xhREKk
gbk,
There ya go … bel canto training
Blouise,
Thanks for the link that works! Listening now.
gbk,
That was actually my first choice but I thought the lyrics of the other went better with Koch.
Blouise,
Despite the words of Judge Pryor, the Rule of Law doesn’t flow from the Separation of Powers. The Separation of Powers Doctrine only segregates the law making powers to the Legislature. Even without a Legislative Branch, some organelle of society (or several) would still promulgate law. Keep in mind too that law in general is different from the narrower scope of administrative laws and regulations bodies can create only because they are delegated that power by Congress. Underneath it all is the social compact. The Rule of Law flows by the Separation of Powers Doctrine, but it springs from the social compact. The idea of the Rule of Law (as contrasted to arbitrary official decision), however, is at least as old as Aristotle. When the Rule of Law breaks down? You end up with forms like autocracy, collective leadership, dictatorship, or oligarchy where one class is immune to the law as it applies to the masses which in turn breeds inequity and injustice. Is the Rule of Law breaking down in this country? Without a doubt. It has been in serious decline since the day Nixon was sent back to Yorba Linda instead of to Leavenworth.
Gene,
“When the Rule of Law breaks down? You end up with forms like autocracy, collective leadership, dictatorship, or oligarchy where one class is immune to the law as it applies to the masses …”
Do see therein my references to the 3/5ths … from the getgo our Republic was in trouble which is something Franklin saw better than most and why I introduced him early into the conversation.
gbk,
Sent years being trained bel canto … I could hang it out there with the best of ’em. Some criti,c and I cant remember from where though I think it was Chicago, called me a coloratura mezzo which at the time really stumped me.
spent years
It’s late and time for bed
Blouise,
Ah yes, the flair of dramatic from female vocalists. I’ve never heard of such a thing until now. 😉
Though I must admit, beautiful singing cannot be denied.
While Mozart’s “Laudate Dominum” is something I dream of composing, I much prefer Vivaldi’s “Domine Deus” simply because it feels less forced in concept.
But it’s all good.
Just like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJV81mdj1ic
“from the getgo our Republic was in trouble”
Why yes it was and still is. I’ll see your Franklin and raise you a Jefferson: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Still does not change that the Rule of Law is a real thing stemming from the social compact.
Excellent music choice that serendipitously colludes with my Jefferson quote, gbk.
Blouise,
“. . . called me a coloratura mezzo . . .”
Yeah, some expect the notes to be sung with no embellishment or sense of interpretation. I’m sure this critic is languishing in their forgotten words while performances are remembered.
gbk,
He was one of the best accompanists I ever worked with. The man moved with me, breathed with me … it was as if we were one being united for the moment in the music. Good memories to take with me as I turn off the lights and climb the stairs.
Gene,
Oh it’s real alright, we’ve just never experienced anything other than a cheap imitation all dressed up by the myth makers. Brown is our reality. Always has been, and when Wilson walks away with no indictment, proof of always will be. That’s why police need all that military equipment … the internet, blogs, social media have changed everything.. The myths are failing as the reality sharpens and comes into focus. People want the real thing. I don’t know if we’ll get it in my lifetime but it’s coming … it’s in the pipeline.
“Oh it’s real alright, we’ve just never experienced anything other than a cheap imitation all dressed up by the myth makers. Brown is our reality. Always has been, and when Wilson walks away with no indictment, proof of always will be.”
Gene,
I’m with Blouise on this. I don’t discount the need for a “true” Rule of Law in any society, nor dispute that it would flow from the notion of a social contract. What pisses me off about when some (not you) piously invoke the Rule of Law in a particular case such as this, which of course exists in the larger context of a society where that “Rule” exists only for the few, it invariably leads to the LEO getting away with murder/mayhem. That we NEED a rule of law ensuring each individual a fair degree of even handed justice is indisputable, but when it is invoked only to protect the status quo, then I gag on its hypocrisy.
My sense from the statements by Franklin and Jefferson quoted above, is that they knew they were producing a revolutionary, though flawed document that in its structure accorded those of their wealth/class greater privilege within the designed system. They were after all the wealthiest men in the nascent country and from all we can know of them thoroughly enjoyed their privilege and were loath to surrender it. Yet with Jefferson and Franklin they were self aware enough to understand that it certainly was not the ideal social setup and were basically exhorting future generations to perfect their flawed vision. In its time our Constitution represented change of immense magnitude, far eclipsing the Magna Carta in its importance for the conception of government and laying waste to the puny notion of Athenian Democracy. Yet knowing the Constitution’s history, I see it as being “oversold” to the masses because for the most part it never really provided them with a piece of the action, but did provide them with more freedom than any ordinary citizens, in any nation that had existed before its inception.
Blouise,
“He was one of the best accompanists I ever worked with. . . . Good memories to take with me as I turn off the lights and climb the stairs.”
I’m sorry if I misunderstood. I don’t get out much, obviously.
Sleep well.
gbk,
My fault, not yours. My accompanist was not the critic. I’m jumping around between you and Gene and expecting you both to read my mind. Mea culpa
Lights are off and now all I have to do is plug this tablet into the charger. Good night my friend.
Part of what makes the discussion of the Brown case so difficult and confused is addressed here regarding the autopsy report http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does?detail=email . Somehow 🙂 those supporting Wilson ignore these inconvenient facts.
Mike,
“Yet knowing the Constitution’s history, I see it as being “oversold” to the masses because for the most part it never really provided them with a piece of the action, but did provide them with more freedom than any ordinary citizens, in any nation that had existed before its inception.”
Oversold is correct. I read some of the Federalist Papers, to get a sense of what the writers of the Constitution intended. I got some insight on that. I also realized that the writers were telling folks what they wanted to hear. The Federalist Papers were also advertising, to procure acceptance of the new Constitution.
There’s a tinge of biblical qualities, in that so much is said, by several authors, that one can cherry-pick the parts that confirm one’s own biases.
Mike,
I’ll agree that I find those who invoke the Rule of Law as a rationale for screwing others over to their own benefit, it more than pisses me off. However, I do think categorizing the concept as “myth” plays right into the hands of them and their ilk. As for this? “My sense from the statements by Franklin and Jefferson quoted above, is that they knew they were producing a revolutionary, though flawed document that in its structure accorded those of their wealth/class greater privilege within the designed system. They were after all the wealthiest men in the nascent country and from all we can know of them thoroughly enjoyed their privilege and were loath to surrender it. Yet with Jefferson and Franklin they were self aware enough to understand that it certainly was not the ideal social setup and were basically exhorting future generations to perfect their flawed vision.” I think that encapsulates it quite well. The real American Dream the Founders were behind was the aspirational goals of the Great Experiment. Have we as a nation lived up to that aspiration? Sometimes but certainly not always and some could argue not even often, but that does not lessen the value of seeking to perfect that aspiration. I say this being perfectly aware that perfection is not a possible state but we can be a lot closer to it than we are now.
My hope over the years is that the ethical/moral pendulum would swing back in the direction of the aspiration without the necessity of something really bad happening. However, as time moves on and the corporatists push distort the public morality further from those goals of equity and justice, I think that there will be some blood price paid to correct the course and bring us closer to the ideal of a nation built on not just equity and justice and the Rule of Law but closer to the angels of our better nature as a species.
And as I’ve said before elsewhere, I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that I am not.
Gene,
We sadly agree.
I realize that Gene takes issue not so much with what I wrote but with my choice or word usage, especially, myth. But then I read all the Propaganda series and all the Myth building series and then re-read them … studied them.
I stubbornly stick to that word for I think it perfectly describes that with which we live. A myth is a widely held but false idea. It is spread and supported through propaganda. The Rule of Law put forward by Rousseau, Locke, and others of the Enlightenment, and adopted by the Foundings as a basis for their representative democracy stressing individual freedom or “liberal democracy” under the Articles which then morphed to a constitutional republic was real enough until the myth builders moved in and they did so right there at the super secret convention. The Rule of Law has been propagandized to appear to be something it is not. We think we have it but what we have is a false idea … a myth carefully constructed through the use of propaganda that allows all sorts of abominations to rob us of our equality under the law while being told that that is the way the Rule of Law is supposed to work.
It isn’t very complicated and can be easily seen throughout this series on Wilson/Brown.
“A myth is a widely held but false idea. It is spread and supported through propaganda.”
Blouise,
From my readings of Campbell, Fraser, Graves and Slotkin myths aren’t always innately “false”, in that they may express a Universal Truth. However, for humans in practice, much of it is false and misleading. There are elements to the “American Dream” that do ring true. My forebears apparently were poor peasants in Europe and there is no doubt their live improved immensely in America. Yet the “American Dream” is used by the oligarchs as a means of keeping the people unaware of the con game being run on them. So in the sense you were using it, you were completely correct.
America talks a good game when it comes to a notion of “the rule of law”, but the reality of its criminal justice system is a fetid mess. Just the fact that for some felonies someone can be imprisoned for two years awaiting trial, unable to make bail and then be exonerated at trial (with all the legal expenses entailed) only to be released impoverished, makes our justice system inequitable. The poor simply cannot afford adequate legal defense and the middle-class are usually bankrupted by a criminal defense. The wealthy, however, obviously are able to get legal defense available and I also suspect are shown greater deference at Court.
One of the things that bugged me being at RIL is that lawyers would talk glibly of the “rule of law” while it is their client’s suffer under the inequities of the system. Now I can well understand why a lawyer would need to maintain this perspective mentally to do their jobs, but damn the reality of it must grate on them is they’re equipped with any sort of empathy. I’m not saying that JT lacks empathy, but he wrote a lot like someone working as a Law Professor should write and in that sense ignored the downside of our legal system.
Blouise said, “A myth is a widely held but false idea.”
Whoops, flag on the play.
Semantic inconsistency, five yard penalty, repeat first down.
Blouise used the term “myth” in the same sense that it is used by, for instance, the Mythbusters, while I suspect that Gene is using it in the other sense of legend or folklore (where the point is truthiness rather than truth—or explaining the unknown if you don’t want to be cynical). You guys need to agree about the way you are using this word before you go back to arguing…
blouise,
“…adopted by the Foundings…”
I first skimmed that as “Foundlings.”
I liked it, that way. I sometimes use “Foundering Fathers,” in reference to some of their more foolish choices.
Well, they did what they could, for whom they were.
Slarti,
Yep. I’m busting the myth.
With imprecise language. What you use as denotative of the word “myth” can easily be read with a different (and wrong) interpretation due to no fault of your own but due to the multiple meanings of the word. The “myth” you seem to object to isn’t the Rule of Law itself but rather the belief that we have the Rule of Law in this country. Which for anyone paying attention the obvious answer appears to be no in the terms of equity and justice.
Our disagreement is semantic, but the value load of the “other” value of the word “myth” is such that its application must be used with a great deal of specificity to be effective and still not misleading.
Bob K,
It is what it is. I doubt anyone could have done any better given the set of circumstances in play at the time. July 4, 1776 to September 17, 1787 was a most remarkable 11 years.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, Ben Franklin was asked what the delegates had given us. His reply:
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”