Why Shawn Parcells? — “Don’t You Dare Kick That Dog” III

By Bob Stone

Benjamin Crump hired world renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden to perform a second autopsy. Yet Crump also hired Shawn Parcells to “assist” Dr. Baden; when Dr. Baden requested no such “assistance.”   So what does Shawn Parcells have to offer Crump that Dr. Baden doesn’t?

If you go back and check Dr. Baden’s comments during a press conference regarding his second autopsy of Brown, you’ll notice that he wasn’t the one who did most of the talking. And when he did speak, he said nothing controversial or contradictory of the official autopsy performed by Dr. Mary Case.   In fact, Dr. Baden and Dr. Case have expressed nothing but the highest mutual respect for each other.

Since Benjamin Crump had a story to sell the media regarding the shooting of Michael Brown, he leased the respectable name of Dr. Baden and paid Shawn Parcells to spin the autopsy findings on national television. 

Shawn Parcells apparently makes his living exaggerating.  Parcells claims he is qualified as a “forensic pathologist assistant and medical investigator.” Dr. Erik Mitchell, a board-certified forensic pathologist with Kansas City-based Frontier Forensics Midwest said:

That is a degree that does not exist in my knowledge, except in the mind of Shawn Parcells…You cannot claim the title, because it is a formal, licensable position. You can assist somebody; in this way I can say, for instance, I have paid my taxes, so I am an assistant President of the United States…He has none of the qualifications that are required. He has experience as a morgue technician, somebody who would move bodies around, clean up after an autopsy

Parcells admitted he has no certification as a pathology assistant, but says his qualification comes from experience.   “I worked there as a forensic assistant for about a year. And if I remember correctly that was 2005 to 2006. That was under Dr. Young,” Parcells said.

Dr. Thomas Young, the former Jackson County Medical Examiner, responded:

[Parcells] hung out at the Jackson County Medical Examiner’s office but was not trained by me.”…. “He has been representing himself in a way that is not appropriate by giving forensic pathology opinions when he is not qualified to do so.

The chief medical examiner of St. Louis County, Dr. Mary Case, put it this way:

“I can tell you absolutely that I find what Parcells does to be abysmal,” Dr. Mary Case told The Daily Caller…. Case, along with a number of other medical examiners and pathologists have been heavily critical of Parcells.   “He is doing forensic autopsies which may send someone to prison, and he is not a physician much less a forensic pathologist,” she told TheDC, adding that forensic pathologists and medical examiners throughout the U.S. “are shocked by this man and how bold he is to do what he does.”   “No one stops him,” she said.   St. Louis Medical Examiner SLAMS Brown Family Hire, August 21, 2014

Dr. Judy Melinik summed up the Parcells/2nd Autopsy problem quite nicely:

There have been recent reports in the press that forensic technician Parcells has no credentials or accreditation, and misrepresents his experience.   Following allegations that Parcells did the autopsy alone, a doctor/blogger in PathologyBlawg.com interviewed Parcells. Parcells affirmed that he alone examined the body on 8/15 before it was embalmed; Dr. Baden was not yet in Missouri at that time. Two days later, after the body had been embalmed, Dr. Baden performed the second autopsy.

There is a big difference between the examination of Michael Brown’s undisturbed body during the first, legally-mandated autopsy, performed by the St. Louis medical examiner, and the follow-up examination done days later on his washed and embalmed cadaver. In the embalming process, preservative fluids are injected into the arteries and organs using a sharp tool called a trocar. The trocar pokes holes in the organs. The preservative fluid in the blood vessels pushes the blood ahead of it to the site of any injuries. These changes, which we call “embalming artifact,” can exaggerate the size and shape of injuries.

Even if Dr. Baden, a board-certified forensic pathologist, looked at photos of the injuries taken prior to the embalming, the orientation and quality of the photos taken by the technician would influence his interpretation of the findings. Autopsy means “see for yourself”—and there is no substitute for seeing the undisturbed body for yourself if you are going to be offering opinions with legal ramifications.

And tonight on CNN, Elizabeth Cohen exposed Shawn Parcells on national television for the fraud he really is:

Is ‘professor’ who helped with Michael Brown autopsy who he says he is?

By Elizabeth Cohen and Matthew Stucker, CNN

(CNN) Parcells became an overnight media star in August when he assisted in an autopsy commissioned by Brown’s family. He appeared time and again on major media outlets as a forensic pathology expert. He said over the years he’s testified in court dozens of times in several states.

But an investigation by CNN that included interviews with attorneys, law enforcement and physicians suggests Parcells isn’t the expert he seems to be.   (Full CNN Story Here)

This entry was posted in Constitutional Law, Courts, Crime, Evidence Law, Jurisprudence, Law Enforcement, Legal Analysis, Legal Theory, Uncategorized, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

892 Responses to Why Shawn Parcells? — “Don’t You Dare Kick That Dog” III

  1. bigfatmike says:

    Is there a controversy in the results of the autopsies?

    Or is this just another attempt to divert and evade any meaningful discussion of Wilson’s actions and MdCulloch’s manipulations to protect him?

  2. po says:

    Bob, Bob, Bob, let that dead dog lie!
    Whether “don’t you dare kick that dog” 1 or 12, the offering seems the same, and it revolves around a mob.

  3. Bob Stone says:

    When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.

    • po says:

      Again, Bob, the only thing the “mob” asked for was that the officer be made accountable for killing an unarmed man. Were he your kid, you and yours would be just as vocal, especially if the officer was part of a force that oppresses your neighborhood AND has killed unarmed neighbors of yours before.
      All the signs in the stars directed to a road well traveled, the lack of accountability for another police officer who shot an unarmed civilian. Where you see mob rule I see democratic process of civil and peaceful demonstration.

  4. Bob,

    You are ignoring that the grand jury process was unduly influenced by the prosecutor in a manifestly biased manner.

    Due process does not exist in a vacuum from equal protection.

    That kinda thinking about concomitant rights is a lot like you know who.

  5. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    Who was denied due process?

    Who had standing to claim due process rights?

  6. Bob Kauten says:

    Speaking strictly for myself, the posting by Mr. Stone of one more incoherent, irrelevant bullshit rant will definitely change my opinion about the murder of Michael Brown.
    I haven’t been reading these ravings, but as St. Reagan established, if you repeat bullshit often enough, it becomes fact.
    I’m just assuming that whatever the point is of this never-ending snowjob (I can no longer tell), it must be true.
    I haven’t read anything of this intellectual quality since I stopped reading the spewings of the teabillies at RIL.

  7. I suggest you learn the difference between due process and equal protection before you start this argument, Bob. And understand that what McCulloch did was subvert due process to deny equal protection. He intentionally biased the way the evidence was presented to the grand jury.

    You are simply missing the point here. Whether that is because of your admitted bias toward the police or simple intransigence in the light of facts that show the grand jury process was manipulated, I can’t say. It kind of reminds of that time I stopped you from drilling a hole in your head, Egon.

  8. Bob Stone says:

    ” And understand that what McCulloch did was subvert due process to deny equal protection. He intentionally biased the way the evidence was presented to the grand jury.”

    He had nothing to do with it Gene; his assistants ran the show.

    And how did McCulloch, or the DA’s office, “subvert due process to deny equal protection”?

    How did an exercise of prosecutorial discretion (i.e. using the grand jury as a safety valve for the community to decide on an indictment) become a plot to “subvert due process to deny equal protection”?

  9. Bob Stone says:

    My mistake. What McCulloch did doesn’t even qualify as prosecutorial discretion; since he left the decision up to the grand jury.

  10. “He had nothing to do with it Gene; his assistants ran the show. ”

    Bullshit and you know it.

    The rest of what you say? Is gibberish, Bob. He passed the buck. He biased the proceeding by effectively mounting a defense for Wilson in the GJ (not his job, not the place). It was an exercise in avoiding accountability.

  11. Seriously, Bob. You are starting to talk in circles. “What McCulloch did doesn’t even qualify as prosecutorial discretion; since he left the decision up to the grand jury.” Then he biased the proceeding by effectively mounting a defense for Wilson. Duh. Again:

    It was an exercise in avoiding accountability.

  12. Bob Stone says:

    Prosecutorial Discretion is not an “exercise in avoiding accountability.”

  13. Wow, Did you just suddenly get stupid? Did Kant finally rot your brain?

    He passed the buck to the GJ.

    He then mounted a defense of the very person he was allegedly sending to their review for indictment.

    The GJ came back with no true bill.

    McCulloch can then say “I didn’t cut him loose, the grand jury did.”

    What he did is arguably malfeasance of office.

    Re-read Machiavelli and Cicero, Bob. This was politics pure and simple. But it wasn’t justice.

  14. nivico says:

    “And understand that what McCulloch did was subvert due process to deny equal protection.”

    The role of the grand jury is to act as a buffer between the government and the people, and what we’ve seen here is exactly how a grand jury is supposed to work. The jurors were presented with sufficient evidence (both inculpatory and exculpatory) which allowed them to make an INDEPENDENT determination regarding probable cause.

    Spoon feeding jurors ~only~ inculpatory evidence to ensure an indictment (as most here seem to think should have happened) would render the process meaningless and it would defeat the very purpose of even presenting the case to a grand jury in the first place.

    • bigfatmike says:

      Thanks for bringing this up. I actually caught this when it broadcast in our area. I think it is well worth the attention and consideration of those interested in the Ferguson situation.

      It really is a tangent, but does anyone really believe this is an error on the part of the assistant DAs – that some how they did not know the relevant law?

      Of course the important question is does this manner of presentation to the GJ aid their consideration of relevant facts? Or does this manner seem likely to overwhelm and mislead their analysis of the relevant facts?

  15. bettykath says:

    If it were a legitimate error, the ADA would have done a much better job of correcting the error. Page 135 or so in the last volume.

  16. Elaine M. says:

    Bettykath,

    Thanks for that link. Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser.

  17. “Spoon feeding jurors ~only~ inculpatory evidence to ensure an indictment (as most here seem to think should have happened) would render the process meaningless and it would defeat the very purpose of even presenting the case to a grand jury in the first place.”

    No. The proper way to do the job is to present the information in a neutral manner and let the GJ decide, not to try to persuade them one way or the other as what clearly happened here.

    What part of “advocacy has no place in a Grand Jury” is escaping you and Bob?

    Advocacy is for trial, where evidence and witnesses can be thoroughly cross-examined in camera.

  18. blouise17 says:

    Here’s another curious course of events revealed in the transcripts and may be something the Feds are investigating.

    Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

    When Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson left the scene of the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, the officer returned to the police station unescorted, washed blood off his hands and placed his recently fired pistol into an evidence bag himself.

    Those actions, described in grand jury testimony, violated protocols for handling a crime scene and securing evidence, according to experts in policing procedures and Justice Department documents. ….

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

  19. Mike Spindell says:

    “When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.”

    Bob,

    Again obfuscation on two counts that are irrelevant to the basic question of what was Officer Wilson’s rationale for shooting Michael Brown, which you still avoid answering via use of ancillary subterfuge. The autopsy does NOT provide exculpatory evidence, nor does it disclose a rationale. So you are using a straw man. Even Antonin Scalia’s opinions disclose that this Grand Jury was completely unusual, but you lack the courage to address what McCollough really used it for which was to provide he illusion that Wilson was justified. You are either delusional, or disingenuous in your whole method of assertion and quite frankly doing a poor job of defending your case. Try answering the most pertinent question and then maybe here can be a rational discussion. Really Bob, I’ve been reading your writing for years and it has always been of high quality from the standpoint of logic. These latest two pieces fail the smell test

  20. Mike Spindell says:

    Again Bob, the purpose of a Grand Jury as explained by the most conservative and harshest Judge on SCOTUS: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/justice-scalia-explains-why-ferguson-grand-jury-was-completely-wrong

    It might help your future legal practice, unless unbeknownst to us you’re running for DA, in which case I can see you’ll be the “law and order” candidate. To think you once used to quote Hunter S.Thompson?

    Also, curiously, I can remember Police Chief Bull Connor of Selma, Alabama talking about “outside agitators” stirring up them “nigrahs”.

  21. bron98 says:

    po:

    Since you bring up the parents, I will say that if my son grabbed a police officers gun and started giving him a beatdown and he was shot and killed. I would apologize to the officer and think my son got what he was asking for.

    But since I raised my son to be a law abiding citizen and respectful of the police, it isnt something I worry about.

  22. Harvey says:

    I strongly disagree with Bob about Darren Wilson and the Grand Jury. However, he is right about Parcells. Parcells is a con man. Interestingly, Parcells exposes another failure of our justice system – autopsy reports done by unqualified assistants without any supervision of a pathologist. Parcells does the cutting and takes the tissues and mails them to real pathologist. Seems to me to be a great little business for the two of them. In this link, Parcells describes this as happening “all the time across the nation”.

    http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/pathology-law/forensic-pathology/shawn-parcells-responds-claims-performs-autopsies-without-medical-license/

    Note that this article was done in 2013 – well before Michael Brown was killed. Parcells ‘defense’ is absolutely appalling. And Baden allowed this uneducated blow-hard to do most of the autopsy and the talking at the presser? WTF!

    The CNN interview with Parcells exposes the lie that he is a Professor, as he introduced himself at the Baden presser . Stone provided the link, but here it is again. You should watch it.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/health/ferguson-michael-brown-pathologist-credentials/

    Parcells should be stopped. But guess what. Some people are sitting in prison because of his “autopsies”, so prosecutors don’t want to go after him. It could be very embarrassing for them. And Baden won’t say much because he allowed the guy to take over his job.

    Google Parcells. He got ‘scam’ written all over him.

  23. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    Mike raises a good point. What would your hero Hunter S. Thompson think about your impassioned defense of authoritarianism by fallacy and avoidance?

  24. Bob Stone says:

    Hunter S. Thompson was not anti-police.

    And Hunter S. Thompson despised FRAUDS AND LIARS. Witness how much he despised Nixon and Timothy Leary.

    Speaking of Frauds and Liars, it pays to get your facts straight before you start accusing people of murder. The three primary eyewitnesses, Johnson, Crenshaw & Mitchell all lied. Mitchell and Crenshaw even admitted to the FBI that they didn’t personally see the altercation at the car; YET THEY TOLD THE MEDIA DAY IN AND DAY OUT THAT WILSON WAS DRAGGING BROWN INTO THE CAR AND HE WAS THE AGGRESSOR!

    Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies

    By HOLBROOK MOHR, DAVID A. LIEB and PHILLIP LUCAS
    Nov. 26, 2014 10:40 PM EST

    FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson “finished him off.” Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all.

    An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back.

    Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown’s death.

    Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, said the grand jury had to weigh testimony that conflicted with physical evidence and conflicting statements by witnesses as it decided whether Wilson should face charges.

    “Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence,” McCulloch said.

    The decision Monday not to charge Wilson with any crime set off more violent protests in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson and around the country, fueled by claims that the unarmed black 18-year-old was shot while surrendering to the white officer in the mostly African-American city.

    What people thought were facts about the Aug. 9 shooting have become intertwined with what many see as abuses of power and racial inequality in America.

    And media coverage of the shooting’s aftermath made it into the grand jury proceedings. Before some witnesses testified, prosecutors showed jurors clips of the same people making statements on TV.

    Their inconsistencies began almost immediately after the shooting, from people in the neighborhood, the friend walking with Brown during the encounter and even one woman who authorities suggested probably wasn’t even at the scene at the time.

    Jurors also were presented with dueling versions from Wilson and Dorian Johnson, who was walking with Brown during the Aug. 9 confrontation. Johnson painted Wilson as provoking the violence, while Wilson said Brown was the aggressor.

    But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: “It struck my friend in the back.”

    Johnson held to a variation of this description in his grand jury testimony, saying the shot caused Brown’s body to “do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him, but he definitely made a jerking movement.”

    Other eyewitness accounts also were clearly wrong.

    One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson’s vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, “middle age or young” and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

    Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer’s window “from his navel up,” with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

    Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

    Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then “stood over him and finished him off.” But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was “based on me being where I’m from, and that can be the only assumption that I have.”

    The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

    “So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn’t have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?” a prosecutor asserted.

    “Yeah, to coincide with what really happened,” the witness replied.

    Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown’s, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown “on his knees with his hands in the air.” He added: “I seen him shoot him in the head.”

    But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

    “What you are saying you saw isn’t forensically possible based on the evidence,” the investigator told the friend.

    Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

    “I ain’t feeling comfortable,” he said.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

  25. Bob Stone says:

    Mike,

    You might want to ask Gene with help with your legal arguments.

    And don’t forget you’re the one basing your entire argument on a cloud of sheer ignorance; which you cling to proudly I might add.

    Christ, you’re so biased and lazy about this that you can’t even read an article before dismissing it entirely for the wrong reasons.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Christ, you’re so biased and lazy about this that you can’t even read an article before dismissing it entirely for the wrong reasons.”

      Bob,
      The log in your own eye, working with your defense mechanism of denial has you using reaction formation to blame your own bias on others. I’ve been open with you in saying I simply can’t take you seriously because you still fail to provide the rationale for the central issue in this case. Why did Wilson HAVE to shoot Michael Brown multiple times? Though you keep claiming that the forensic evidence proves your point, there is none that explains the central issue. As far as help with legal issues I don’t need any in this case because your legal expertise has simply been overtaken by your own bias in favor of police.

  26. Bob Stone says:

    Bettykath: “If it were a legitimate error, the ADA would have done a much better job of correcting the error. Page 135 or so in the last volume.”

    I saw the Lawrence O’Donnell clip you posted and I scanned through the transcript that I OCR’d.

    I thought at first that I’d like to know if the ADA that made the error had been involved in any other police shooting cases; i.e. was she already familiar with the statute in question. If she did, then I was suspecting that she probably did it intentionally.

    But then I went through the transcript. O’Donnell gives the false impression that the ADA instructed them on how to read it in the outdated fashion. That’s not what happened. And if you look it up online, you’ll see that even the version that will take effect in 2017 contains the same language O’Donnell objects to.

    See for yourself.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000462.html#Top

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000461.html

    And I must say his conflating the ADA’s refusal to get into a legal discussion over a statute that’s not going to come into play in the first place, since the blood trail evidence proves Brown wasn’t fleeing when Wilson shot him, is just shameless.

    And to connect the failure to start a discussion about the Supreme Court to Selma somehow???

    That’s Rush Limbaugh of the left level of audacity.

  27. Bob Kauten says:

    Mike,
    Correct. I’ve seen absolutely no indication of any legal expertise.
    All I’ve seen is incredibly incompetent attempts to divert attention from anything relevant to the issue of Wilson shooting an unarmed man to death.
    Manufactured rules and laws (Mother May I?).
    Unsupported assertions declared to be established fact.
    It’s insulting that anyone would assume that a non-lobotomized person would believe any of this.
    Shouldn’t we expect at least the most pedestrian guile, in attempts to deceive us?
    If this ridiculous display exemplifies “legal expertise,” then we have a much larger problem than anything that’s going on in Ferguson.

    Jes’ sayin’

  28. blouise says:

    “Why did Wilson HAVE to shoot Michael Brown multiple times?” Mike S

    Because it was perfectly legal for him to do so. Allow me to explain. Understand that I think Wilson is a bad cop, a poorly trained cop, a bully and a first rate liar but the justice system protects him as it protects any officer, good or bad.

    A couple of months before Wilson killed Brown, the Supreme Court ruled (9-0) in Plumhoff v. Rickard, where the plaintiffs were suing after police officers ended a high speed chase by shooting 15 rounds into the car, killing the driver and a passenger, that said action was not “excessive force” and wrote in their opinion, “It stands to reason that if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”

    Now let’s keep in mind the term “reasonable fear” remembering that that belief only has to be “objectively reasonable,” not likely or even possible, to justify lethal force under existing law, once again as interpreted by the Supreme Court and decades of accepted practice.

    Our judicial system, the one we, as a society have constructed, isn’t equipped, nor willing to be equipped if one considers the Supreme Court’s rulings and our acceptance of them, to hold officers accountable for shootings. The fact that on-duty officers can kill with little fear of criminal charges as long as the situation contains the very loosely defined element called reasonable fear is supported by our laws and the society in which we live. I believe it’s called “qualified immunity” for performing duties reasonably.

    Actual justice for Brown is something that will never come from our justice system which can only provide as much justice as we, society, are willing to give.

    So, why did Wilson have to shoot Michael Brown multiple times? Because he could and he knew no one would touch him. It’s the way the system works.

    The grand jury knew there was a serious question regarding Wilson’s knowing about the “stealing” incident based on the sworn testimony from his Sergeant so, if the Sergeant was telling the truth, then Wilson wasn’t knowingly pursuing a suspect but the tussle at the car was enough to establish reasonable fear and justify the killing and you better believe Wilson knew that with every pull of the trigger.

    And the truth of the matter is that a Wilson-type cop could do exactly the same thing to you or me.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Because it was perfectly legal for him to do so. Allow me to explain. Understand that I think Wilson is a bad cop, a poorly trained cop, a bully and a first rate liar but the justice system protects him as it protects any officer, good or bad.”

      Blouise,

      You’ve caught me. Don’t you think that I understood all that when I kept asking Bob the question?
      Yes I was being disingenuous, but with a purpose. Bob in his rush to debase the protestors and exculpate Wilson was doing the entire issue a disservice. This was never about the death of Michael Brown, nor about the fact that Wilson is the thug in this instance, but about the state of affairs that in this country it has become legal for police officers to murder people with impunity. This is about the fact that people of color are far more likely to be arrested, beaten and/or killed by police officers under cover of law. This is about the militarization of the police. About SWAT Teams and finally about the fact that American in the 21st Century is turning into the Soviet Union of the 20th Century, without any of the few meager benefits that country had.

      Bob’s series serves as a distraction to the real issues involved here, as he anathematizes anyone protesting what is going on. He talks glibly of evidence, but the only “evidence” he is interested in pertains to the individual “rights” of Wilson, rather than the evidence of the dysfunctional governmental/police systems in Ferguson, which serve as a stand-in for the entire country. I must admit that this has surprised me because in the years I’ve read Bob’s writings he always impressed me as someone willing to look at the “big picture”, but in this his focus is extremely narrow and thus ultimately blind.

      This “narrowness” of legal focus is something that my years on Turley led me to re-evaluate in my own thinking, as I tried to work out how someone that had my admiration, Jonathan Turley, could seem so blind when opining on something like “Citizen’s United”. I’m a lot more sophisticated about legal matters than lawyers perhaps give me credit for and I did have 2 1/2 years of night Law School, at a relatively good school. I understand Turley’s reasoning in supporting “Citizen’s United” and that it has a good foundation from the standpoint of upholding First Amendment Rights. However, there is where the “blindness” of some legal scholarship comes in, because they view the “Law” (Constitutions etc.), out of context from the society it affects. By supporting CU’s First Amendment rulings you are doing a greater harm to society. From Turley’s perspective and perhaps Bob’s, that is subsumed via the narrow focus of technical legalities and therein lies what I see as “blindness” and denial. I’ve never once believed, since the beginning of this case, that Wilson would receive any punishment, except for perhaps having to leave the force. My guess is that if he wants he could easily get another job, perhaps in Idaho. There was never going to be any “justice” for Michael Brown, save as a spark that improbably might lead this country to reconsider its’ path towards becoming a classic “police state”. Bob’s narrowly focused “noise” attacking those protesting Michael Brown’s death merely added to the immediate pushback of those supporting the “police state” of affairs and serves to obfuscate the real issues here. We have seen the “national disgust” re-focused on the protestors by all levels of the media and the Missouri government, making Wilson a sort of “hero” for the bigots and casting him as the victim. My question to Bob was one of curiosity to see whether he in fact understood the larger issue and was willing to admit it. I fear, however, that while Bob might understand it, he is far too caught up in his own need to appear sagacious by defending his position at all costs.

      You will note that this is why I haven’t dealt with the specifics like the autopsy, witnesses etc. As you know, perhaps better than I, some of the “outside agitators” in the Civil Rights Movement were self-serving hypocrites, perhaps Parcells is of that ilk. However, the overarching issue is a serious one and I’ll take any port in the storm, because I’m well aware that a “police state” can happen here and I fear for my safety and the safety of those I care for, along with the safety of my fellow citizens.

  29. blouise17 says:

    BTW …I expect we’re going to see the same thing play out here in Cleveland over the death of the 12 year old boy. Piss poor police procedures, dead kid, reasonable fear shield. FBI was on the scene within 4 minutes and the chain of custody isn’t going to be the joke it was in Ferguson but the rookie who killed the kid is well protected and the law is on his side. There will be no justice for the 12 year old for that is something society is not willing to give.

  30. mespo727272 says:

    Bob Kauten:

    “Teabillies”? I like that moniker.

  31. mespo727272 says:

    Bob:

    Looks like there’s some pre-existing proclivity to bite in that dog of yours and a decided lack of appreciation for Constitutional rights:

    http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/18/new-video-appears-to-show-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-in-confrontation-with-local-resident/?hpt=ob_articlefooter&iref=obnetwork

  32. Bob Stone says:

    You’re right Mark. That video clearly shows why Wilson shot his gun for the first time in his career; he’s a cold blooded killer!

  33. mespo727272 says:

    Bob, it’s shows he is fully capable of acting improperly and abrasively to the public in his field work which is what the mayor confirmed. It also suggests those stories of a belligerent Wilson at the scene of the Brown shooting are at least in keeping with some of his earlier interactions with the public. Finally, it shows a side of Wilson far removed from that choir boy persona in the TV interview.

  34. Bob Stone says:

    Mark: “those stories of a belligerent Wilson”

    Belligerent?

    “[Brown] immediately grabs my gun and says, ‘You are too much of a pussy to shoot me,”‘ Wilson told grand jurors. He said Brown grabbed the gun with his right hand, twisted it and “digs it into my hip.”

    Belligerent?

    The video of the strong arm robbery clearly shows Brown acting like Honey Badger™**. That belligerent attitude clearly continued in his altercation with Officer Wilson not 10 minutes later. Having just robbed a store and coming upon a police car, does Brown run? No. After striking Officer Wilson in the face while he was struggling for his sidearm, committing yet another felony, Brown flees and Wilson pursues with his gun drawn and orders him to stop. And what did Brown do? Just like Honey Badger™, Brown didn’t give a shit. Brown advanced on Wilson and Wilson fired while backing away. And even with the gunfire, Brown still didn’t care because he kept coming towards Wilson for 25 feet despite being hit several times in the process.

    [SEE BLOOD TRAIL EVIDENCE PROVING IT]

    Accordingly, the video of Brown’s strong arm robbery, being nearly contemporaneous, is “evidence of a continuation of a sequence of events that assist in painting a coherent picture of the [altercation with Wilson and eventual shooting]” (State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 591) thereby making it relevant and admissible.

    Belligerent indeed.

  35. Bob Stone says:

    Belligerent.

  36. Bob Stone says:

    “This was never about the death of Michael Brown,”

    There ya go.

  37. There is causation and then there is causation.

    Brown’s death is the symptom of something far more dangerous than an isolated incident. The symptom of a system run amok. A system that doesn’t protect the people but rather favors protected classes.

    Like cops.

    In this case, the Brown shooting should serve as a catalyst: the causal factor in examining both the militarization of police in general and the protectionist attitude toward bad acting cops. It should be the causation of that line of public inquiry. But the causation of Brown’s shooting? Seems to be a bad dog on no leash at all immune from the consequences of murdering an unarmed citizen.

    There ya go.

  38. Bob Stone says:

    Okay Gene,

    Let’s abstract your theory of justice.

    Same facts but now Darren Wilson is Jewish and Mike Brown was Palestinian.

    Do the protests throughout the world about trigger happy Israeli cops killing unarmed Palestinians have ANY bearing on the culpability of the Jewish Darren Wilson?

  39. blouise17 says:

    Mike,

    Well, Bob kept ignoring your question so I figured after so many days of asking without getting an answer, I could “explain” it to you. I’m all about public service.

    Now, don’t lightly dismiss the final observation I made regarding a Wilson-type cop interacting with you or I. At this time we are looking at cops who kill black boys but …. you are a Jew and I am a woman. I’m certain a Wilson-type can see the thuggery in our souls.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “At this time we are looking at cops who kill black boys but …. you are a Jew and I am a woman. I’m certain a Wilson-type can see the thuggery in our souls.”

      Blouise,
      About 6 months after I began to live in Florida I was involved in a very minor fender bender in a supermarket parking lot. The other driver was a young, attractive woman. When the police arrived they began talking to her and when I noticed I went over to add my own version. I was told to get back in my car and stay there, by this young cop in very forceful terms. When I tried to protest his manner became threatening. I was smart enough to shut up and get back into my car. Their discussion with her ended and they came over to me with a judgment that the accident was my fault and gave me a $250 ticket for “reckless driving”. I am convinced that had I insisted on my rights further I might have been tased or handcuffed and arrested. When I went to court to fight the ticket I was told that if I pled “not guilty” I would be liable for the court costs of the trial. I paid the money. The reason I had deferred to the cop at first, was because the week before I read a story about a 65 year old woman who was tased at a Walmart and arrested when she protested a police order. It is happening here to everyone, but in his zeal for Officer Wilson it seems not to concern Bob.

  40. Bob Stone says:

    Mike’s question about “what did Brown do to deserve being shot” is not ignored.

    It’s a beautiful question that “deserves” an article to answer it.

  41. swarthmoremom says:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-howe-red-state-id-have-shot-mike-brown-in-face

    “Red State editor Ben Howe jumped on Twitter the day before Thanksgiving to share his take on a grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson in the killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

    The conservative editor’s takeaway on Wednesday was brief but clear: He tweeted that, if he were in Wilson’s position, he would have “shot Mike Brown right in his face.” “

  42. Bob Stone says:

    swarthmoremom,

    “An officer may use lethal force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life.”

    When the facts support the use of deadly force, then every cop in the same situation would be justified in shooting Brown as well.

  43. Elaine M. says:

    “More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.”
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

    ******

    Officer Wilson shot at Brown when he was running away according to more than half of the witnesses. Was Wilson defending himself by shooting at Brown while he was running away from him?

  44. Bob,

    Notice that not once did I bring race or religion to that statement.

    The true problem here is about inequity based on class (cop vs. citizen). That this bias manifests along race and income lines as well are simply more symptoms of the underlying problem: a two tiered legal system where some crimes in some classes go unpunished. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Orwell may have said that, but I’ll be damned if I can find that language anywhere in the 14th Amendment.

  45. Blouise,

    Thuggery? We have the video evidence . . .

  46. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    “Notice that not once did I bring race or religion to that statement.”

    Now why did you say that Gene?

    Are you saying Crump and Parks were hired because of the “true problem” as you defined it?

    Are you saying that Shahid, Crump, Parks, Sharpton, Holder, Obama, et. al. are talking about “cop v. citizen” inequities?

    Is that what most, if not all, protesters have on their mind?

    “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” (“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”).

    One should never postulate the reality of any entity unless it’s logically necessary to do so.

    To accuse or imply that Wilson executed Brown for reasons, like Mike admitted, that have “nothing to do with [the actual events]” is nothing short of bearing false witness.

    That’s why I’ve been saying over and over that to accuse Wilson as he has been accused is to use him as a means to an end and is per se immoral.

    If Wilson was Jewish and Brown was Palestinian, the protesters and Brown supporters would be equally wrong and immoral for drawing their conclusions and making accusations against Wilson by saddling him with the sins of Israel in the West Bank while ignoring all the forensic evidence to the contrary.

  47. Mike Spindell says:

    “Mike’s question about “what did Brown do to deserve being shot” is not ignored.
    It’s a beautiful question that “deserves” an article to answer it.”

    Bob,
    You keep promising it, but instead just deliver stuff casting aspersions on all who disagree with you.

    BTW Bob,

    “Same facts but now Darren Wilson is Jewish and Mike Brown was Palestinian.
    Do the protests throughout the world about trigger happy Israeli cops killing unarmed Palestinians have ANY bearing on the culpability of the Jewish Darren Wilson?”

    Straw man yet again. Dodge the issue, change the debate, so Bob can continue to evade the real issue. What would Kant say? Is there really any morality behind your reasoning, or is it all a self-justification based on your own pre-jugments defended by retroflection and denial?

  48. Mike Spindell says:

    “If Wilson was Jewish and Brown was Palestinian, the protesters and Brown supporters would be equally wrong and immoral for drawing their conclusions and making accusations against Wilson by saddling him with the sins of Israel in the West Bank while ignoring all the forensic evidence to the contrary.”

    Bob,
    You are so dense at times and this is one of them. Are you really in such self-supporting denial that you don’t realize the prejudicial flaw in your statement above. On the other hand are you just trying to bait me because I’m Jewish and support Israel. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in support of ones’ self esteem is no vice”, or at least that’s how you seem to see it.

  49. “Are you saying that Shahid, Crump, Parks, Sharpton, Holder, Obama, et. al. are talking about “cop v. citizen” inequities?”

    What they are saying is irrelevant to the underlying problem (which is as framed above, a bifurcated legal system).

    “Is that what most, if not all, protesters have on their mind?”

    Also irrelevant to the analysis of causation in a rational manner. They, like a patient often does, are complaining about the symptoms. They have not/cannot/will not by in large be able to quantify the problem properly as they are not doctors (to carry out the analogy).

    The rest of what you say is gibberish. Flailing gibberish at that.

  50. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    I’m not talking about policy and we’re not talking about legislation to address the problems of society you’re speaking of.

    I’m talking about the rules for judging people’s actions. I’m talking about a mob seeking to crucify a man for reasons having nothing to do with actual events as they played out.

    Mankind already got their shot at that type of justice 2000 years ago.

    I believe that was sufficient.

  51. Mike Spindell says:

    “Mankind already got their shot at that type of justice 2000 years ago.”

    Once again Bob, an interesting choice to make, considering who the “mob” was supposed to be 2000 years ago……….or am I being too sensitive?

  52. blouise17 says:

    Mike,

    A few years ago my daughter was ticketed by a cop after she refused to give him her telephone number. The ticket was for not having her vehicle under control. She was parked in a parking lot when he first approached her. She asked him, as he was writing the ticket, how she didn’t have her car under control. He responded that he had seen her talking on her cell phone when she pulled into the lot. She told him she wasn’t. He smiled and said, “My word against yours.” She got scared and shut up.

    We hired a lawyer and went to Court. The lawyer told the Judge her story. The Judge looked at the cop then dismissed all charges and told the cop to inform his Sergeant that the Judge wanted a conference. It was worth every penny we paid the lawyer.

  53. Bob Stone says:

    You self-absorbed fool.

    Replace Jew and Palestinian with Indian and Pakistani.

    The principle remains the same.

  54. Bob,

    Why are you intent to focus on people who are protesting an injustice which they think is caused by one thing when it is really caused by another? Do you get mad at someone for hating having a fever but not knowing that they have the flu?

  55. blouise17 says:

    Mike,

    Bob used the same tactics with po … he didn’t bite. I suggest you don’t either. It’s a solid legal ploy and Bob is a solid lawyer well trained in the adversarial.

  56. bigfatmike says:

    ” It’s a solid legal ploy and Bob is a solid lawyer well trained in the adversarial.”

    The only problem for Bob is that every time he uses one of his lawyerly tactics we see that he is defending an agenda instead of using the facts to search for truth. .

  57. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    You don’t get to switch tracks simply because you hear the train of inevitability heading into the “argument over” station.

  58. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise,

    It’s no ploy, and it’s not even clever. It’s a simple litmus test for bias and dishonesty.

  59. blouise17 says:

    Gene,

    Hell’s Grannies and purses that pack a punch. We’re old, we have more insurance.

  60. blouise17 says:

    Bob S,

    He says, she says. 🙂

  61. Bob Stone says:

    BFM,

    Mike’s admission that “This was never about the death of Michael Brown”

    is proof of an agenda.

    • bigfatmike says:

      “Mike’s admission that “This was never about the death of Michael Brown” is proof of an agenda.”

      Having an agenda for discussion is not the same as having an agenda for conclusions. Having an agenda for discussion can be useful to guide the discussion to important issues.

      I do like discussion and I have found much of this interesting.

      Nevertheless I think much of what has been said here results from a failure to engage.

      In a very simplified form (hopefully not too simple) I think some are saying ‘protestors have legitimate issues beyond the immediate facts of the Brown shooting’. While others seem to respond that ‘protestors are demanding action against Wilson based on their own perceptions – they want to railroad Wilson’. In addition the position of protestors is suspect because of violence and racism.

      The problem with the last claim, as I see it, is that it seems to assume that protestors speak from one common view and want only one thing. I don’t think that is true.

      Clearly not all protestors are violent or defend the violence. I doubt they are all racist. I really doubt that the single objective of all protestors is to railroad Wilson to a long prison sentence.

      And I can think of several issues that might bring protestors out on the street for lawful assembly:

      They might question whether Wilson had reasonable belief in imminent threat – was the shooting lawful?

      The might question whether the investigation would be or was fair and objective – at this point the DAs handling of the GJ is controversial to say the least .

      The might question whether rules of engagement by LE have changed to far in favor of officer safety – if the reader has not noticed militarization and rules of engagement for LE is a rapidly growing, nationwide subject of discussion.

      They might feel that it is important assemble and protest the kind of military tactics used in the first difficult nights.

      As has been noted by others here, sometimes protestors feel something is deeply wrong even if they cannot clearly articulate what that wrong is. That too can be a reasonable expression of discontent and the need for change. There is nothing about the right of assembly that requires protestors to present a legal brief.

      I am sure other readers can think of other issues that are related to the Brown shooting.

      I don’t want to sound too critical. Yet I think much of what has been said does not get much beyond ‘protestors have good reasons’ vs ‘protestors want to railroad Wilson’.

      Finally I will say it again. Lawyerly techniques that might be effective in the court room may back fire in a blog thread like this because every attempt to change the subject or evade discussion is like a sign that announces ‘look here for weakness in my position’.

  62. Elaine M. says:

    The new threat: ‘Racism without racists’
    By John Blake, CNN
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/

    Excerpt:
    (CNN) — In a classic study on race, psychologists staged an experiment with two photographs that produced a surprising result.

    They showed people a photograph of two white men fighting, one unarmed and another holding a knife. Then they showed another photograph, this one of a white man with a knife fighting an unarmed African-American man.

    When they asked people to identify the man who was armed in the first picture, most people picked the right one. Yet when they were asked the same question about the second photo, most people — black and white — incorrectly said the black man had the knife.

    Even before the Ferguson grand jury’s decision was announced, leaders were calling once again for a “national conversation on race.” But here’s why such conversations rarely go anywhere: Whites and racial minorities speak a different language when they talk about racism, scholars and psychologists say.

    The knife fight experiment hints at the language gap. Some whites confine racism to intentional displays of racial hostility. It’s the Ku Klux Klan, racial slurs in public, something “bad” that people do.

    But for many racial minorities, that type of racism doesn’t matter as much anymore, some scholars say. They talk more about the racism uncovered in the knife fight photos — it doesn’t wear a hood, but it causes unsuspecting people to see the world through a racially biased lens.

  63. “You don’t get to switch tracks simply because you hear the train of inevitability heading into the “argument over” station.”

    Really. I wasn’t aware I needed your approval to make arguments in the alternative or multiple arguments.

    If anyone is hearing anything? I’d say it is you, Bob, but you are clearly not capable of hearing anything that conflicts with your desire to justify your desired result no matter whether that result was reached justly or not.

  64. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    There is no questioning that you have passed the simple litmus test for bias and dishonesty and it was clearly positive for both.

    Officer Wilson’s behavior shows him to have acted like, at best, a scared and angry bully. It is not possible to support the claim that Officer Wilson was a competent police officer based on the evidence which you have stipulated to or asserted. What is the appropriate way redress for the rights that were violated by Officer WIlson’s incompetence? Or are you just interested in vilifying the victim in the interests of covering up the negligence of both your dog and his master.

  65. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    Does your “underlying problem” have anything to do with the guilt or innocence of Officer Wilson?

    How does acknowledging your “underlying problem” enter into the legal equation without violating Wilson’s right of due process and equal protection?

    What does your “underlying problem” have to do with folks like Elaine wanting to connect Wilson to the KKK?

    What does your “underlying problem” have to do with people carrying signs reading “Black Lives Matter?”

    Did your “underlying problem” escape the attention of Crump, Parks, Sharpton, Obama, & Holder?

    Etc.

  66. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    Your case is built on the lies of three primary witnesses and pimped by a fraud pathologist wanna-be because it’s not backed by any forensic evidence.

    And I’m biased?

    Whatever you say.

  67. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    I posted a news story from the International Business Times. Anonymous was the source of the story. You posted a story provided by someone named Josie to the host of a right-wing radio talk program as evidence that Michael Brown was a bad dude and had acted violently toward Officer Wilson.

  68. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine,

    I wasn’t talking about the story. I was talking about the intent of Brown supporters.

  69. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    And what IS the intent of Brown supporters? Do ALL of his supporters have the same intent?

  70. Bob Stone says:

    BFM,

    “sometimes protestors feel something is deeply wrong even if they cannot clearly articulate what that wrong is.”

    That does not give anyone the right to demand the punishment of a man simply because they feel the need for satisfaction regarding an ambiguous wrong.

    I have never in my life seen protests based on such a willing, dare i say indignant, ignorance of facts and law.

    Never.

    • bigfatmike says:

      “That does not give anyone the right to demand the punishment of a man simply because they feel the need for satisfaction regarding an ambiguous wrong.”

      That is a point well taken. Yet you seem to use that fact to condemn the actions of all protestors.

      That seems to assume that all protestors want the same thing – conviction of Wilson.

      It is not clear to me that all protestors want so much a prosecution of Wilson, let alone conviction.

      I admit I don’t have the survey or protestor statements to prove it, but I will be there are some protestors who want nothing more than an investigation that has the appearance of more objectivity than the GJ that just finished.

      BTW, in the national press there have been some calls for a commission to investigate the Ferguson situation.

      Protesting the events at Ferguson is not the same as demanding punishment for Wilson.

  71. “Does your “underlying problem” have anything to do with the guilt or innocence of Officer Wilson?”

    Uh . . . it’s what caused him to get out of jail free because the DA’s office mounted effectively a defense of him at the GJ thus usurping the role of the trial court.

    Duh.

  72. Slartibartfast says:

    That’s a very insightful study Elaine, thanks. Bob has been providing us with a great example of how one can employ that psychological distinction to defend systemic racism because it isn’t overt like the KKK. Doing it while the KKK is overtly on his side is a nice flourish, though.

  73. Elaine M. says:

    Bfm,

    “Unconscious racism is a part of our lives, even for professionals whose careers depend on measurable objectivity.”

    That’s for sure. I’d add that sometimes we choose not to see what we don’t want to acknowledge is the truth.

  74. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    “it’s what caused him to get out of jail free because the DA’s office mounted effectively a defense of him at the GJ thus usurping the role of the trial court.”

    Really Gene?

    So, giving the case to a grand jury in a neutral manner because the DA knew the evidence would never support a conviction constitutes a “get out of jail free” card?

    So you want a constitutional amendment doing away with prosecutorial discretion?

    Perhaps an exception to the Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor?

    The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

    (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

    Except when protesters say otherwise?

  75. Bob Stone says:

    BFM,

    The law doesn’t allow for indicting a man for “satisfaction.”

    Period.

  76. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    Bullshit.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    Officer Wilson put his SUV in park before the initial confrontation with Mr. Brown.

    Officer Wilson exited his SUV without backup after Mr. Brown left the immediate vicinity.

    Officer Wilson washed blood off of his hands and handled putting his gun into evidence by himself.

    My conclusions are based on these facts and the physical evidence. I would be happy to explain my reasoning if you like (as to why these assumptions lead to the conclusion that Officer Wilson acted like a frightened and angry bully rather than a trained law enforcement professional). Your arguments, on the other hand, are based on little more than your need to satisfy your bias.

    Arguing is reason giving. You have given us no reason why we should accept your bias as truth and ample reason to believe that your arguments are logically unsound.

  77. “So, giving the case to a grand jury in a neutral manner because”

    Full stop, Bob.

    That sure as Hell wasn’t what happened here. The case was given in anything but a neutral manner. The GJ? Is not the equivalent of a jury trial, Bob. Yet the DA’s office presented their case effectively as a defense of Wilson that wasn’t subject to the appropriate cross-examination such a defense merits and would have had at trial.

    If you’ve looked at the transcripts and think that this case was honestly presented in a neutral manner to the GJ?

    I suggest getting checked for brain parasites.

    Because something would have to be wrong with you to come to that conclusion based on the transcripts. That or some kind of full blown bias for Wilson is in play. Your pick.

  78. “How does acknowledging your “underlying problem” enter into the legal equation without violating Wilson’s right of due process and equal protection?”

    How does not tampering with the GJ process and taking the case to trial if that is their conclusion violate Wilson’s due process and equal protection?

    Oh. That’s right. It doesn’t.

    Seriously, Bob. Your feet have ceased to be made of clay here and are now made of Jello.

  79. Bob Kauten says:

    blouise17,
    “It’s a solid legal ploy and Bob is a solid lawyer well trained in the adversarial.”
    Then WTF has happened?
    Speaking of this in the present tense isn’t working for me.

  80. blouise17 says:

    Bob K.,

    I’ve known Bob S a long time though I have never personally shook his hand. I like him and I believe he is presenting his views as he honestly sees them. I simply strongly disagree with him on this issue. Disagreeing with him is not disliking him and I won’t disparage his abilities.

  81. blouise17 says:

    I have never in my life seen protests based on such a willing, dare i say indignant, ignorance of facts and law.

    Never. – Bob S.

    Obviously you have never witnessed a KKK protest March.

  82. blouise17 says:

    Bob K.,

    Besides, I don’t need to disparage him because my arguments are better than his. 😈

  83. Bob Stone says:

    “Obviously you have never witnessed a KKK protest March.”

    You’re absolutely right. I should have just left it at “I’ve never seen so many people protest…”

  84. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    I just got back from checking my brain for parasites and aside from my unwillingness to suspend disbelief for a predestination paradox…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

    my mind is in perfect working order.

    Which brings us back to you.

    Tell me how you’re not engaging in special pleading.

    Is it the job of a prosecutor to always get an indictment when he can?

  85. Bob Stone says:

    “Do you agree or disagree?”

    “Officer Wilson put his SUV in park before the initial confrontation with Mr. Brown.”

    Agree. Should he have gotten out with the car in gear?

    “Officer Wilson exited his SUV without backup after Mr. Brown left the immediate vicinity.”

    Agree. That’s called pursuing a felon.

    Carol Costello: …. should Officer Wilson have gotten out of the car and run after Michael Brown? Should he have pulled up beside them in the first place or waited for backup? Once he realized that these two were robbery suspects, shouldn’t those things be reviewed?

    CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director TOM FUENTES: He did – he did radio before the encounter that he had the individuals on the street.

    COSTELLO: He didn’t wait for backup to come, though.

    FUENTES: Well, you don’t wait for it. I mean he’s backed up, what’s he going to do? Drive away and wait for other officers. In a small town like that, when you call for assistance or say you have the subjects in sight, you would expect reasonably within a minute or two another police car to arrive. After the altercation when he says “Shots fired” not realizing the radio had switched, again, he would have to assume and rightfully assume that backup is on its way. Now you’re radioing shots fired, you’re going to have 100 police officer – police cars arrive within a matter of minutes if you put out a call like that. I’ve been involved in this before as a street cop. I know how many cars are going to be on route and how fast they’re going to come.

    As far as letting — I’ve heard the comment “Oh, he should have let him go away.” No, he shouldn’t have, at the point where he’s punched in the face and Brown is trying to get his gun, once that’s happened, he can’t let him go because now if the comments that the — that Brown’s unarmed, he doesn’t know that positively that he is unarmed and secondly you’re going to do what? Let him run into a nearby apartment where he could maybe get a butcher knife, hold a family hostage to do it? A police officer cannot let a felon run away just because you had an altercation. That’s just …

    [Batshit crazy.]

  86. “Is it the job of a prosecutor to always get an indictment when he can?”

    It is the job of the prosecutor to not bias proceedings and/or usurp process.

  87. So tell me, Bob.

    How does not tampering with the GJ process and taking the case to trial if that is their conclusion violate Wilson’s due process and equal protection?

  88. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    Implicit in a duty “not bias proceedings and/or usurp process” is the overall duty of the prosecutor to always seek the indictment.

    So is that your final answer?

    If not, then please state the maxim that you would will the world to adopt as universal law in this matter.

  89. Also, there is no predestination paradox involved here.

    The GJ process was interfered with by the actions of the McCulloch’s office in effectively mounting a defense of Wilson at the GJ instead of presenting the material in a neutral fashion.

    That happened.

    Whether or not the GJ would have returned a true bill if the material had been presented in a neutral fashion?

    I guess we’ll never know now.

  90. Bob Stone says:

    “How does not tampering with the GJ process”

    What does that mean Gene?

    How does a prosecutor “tamper” with a grand jury?

    Got any caselaw to help me understand the concept you’re talking about?

    “and taking the case to trial if that is their conclusion violate Wilson’s due process and equal protection?”

    Is the prosecutor’s duty to always seek the indictment?

  91. Bob Stone says:

    “The GJ process was interfered with by the actions of the McCulloch’s office in effectively mounting a defense of Wilson at the GJ instead of presenting the material in a neutral fashion.”

    You’ve made the allegation; now show me the goods.

    Show me what McCulloch did wrong; legally or ethically.

    Try to do that, then I’ll show you how your proposed rule is impossible.

  92. Do you know what the word concomitant means?

    Duties can be concomitant just as much as rights can.

    It does not interfere with prosecutorial discretion to maintain equatable unbiased process.

    If you want to narrow it to base principles, the principle of justice requires equitable unbiased process which can be quantified objectively. Make the process equal by design, apply it equally. The process here is defined as equal, but it was not applied equally when McCulloch’s office decided to act as an active defense for Wilson. Wilson got preferential treatment, the GJ process was tainted and the equal protection (and possibly due process depending on how the bill could have been returned with a neutral presentation) of the Brown family was denied.

    But discretion? Is a judgement call. It can be misused and abused like any subjective criteria.
    In the hierarchy of what holds more substantive and analytical value?
    The objective is always going to trump the subjective.

    That’s one of the reasons we have objectively based rules around here.

  93. “Show me what McCulloch did wrong; legally or ethically.”

    I can repeat myself if you like: he presented the material to the GJ in a biased manner.

    Do the rest of the math yourself.

    Oh. That’s right. You’re quite preoccupied with pretending that didn’t happen. Can’t do the math if you can’t see the terms.

    • bigfatmike says:

      “I can repeat myself if you like: he presented the material to the GJ in a biased manner.”

      It seems to me that by presenting all the information to a GJ with no resources such as investigators or legal analyst he left them no choice but to find reasonable doubt. But that is not their job.

      If the DA knew of exculpatory evidence then perhaps he should not have presented to the grand jury. But I think it is a hard case to make for exculpatory evidence. What we have is contradictory witness accounts and evidence consistent with at least two stories.

      Without exculpatory evidence the DA should have made the best case he could. But he did not do that – which is why many feel the evidence was not vetted.

      I don’t think that is an impossible or contradictory standard. In the absence of clearly exculpatory evidence the DA should refine the data and make the strongest case possible to the grand jury.

      Presenting data that might lead to reasonable doubt is the job of the defense attorney.

      So what is wrong with that?

      • Mike Spindell says:

        “If the DA knew of exculpatory evidence then perhaps he should not have presented to the grand jury.”

        BFM,

        Therein lies the tale. If the DA thought there wasn’t enough evidence to indict, then he shouldn’t have brought to the GJ in the first place. The DA brought it to the GJ to let himself off the hook and still manage to not get an indictment. It certainly does smell of Pontius Pilate as Bob alluded, just in a different context.

  94. Also consider that he cited now invalid law to the GJ concerning the police’s ability to fire at suspects for fleeing. That? Was a material misrepresentation, Bob. A “mistake” a 1L wouldn’t make once they learned how to Shepherdize. Which today consists of hitting a button on Westlaw or Lexis.

  95. Fighting down hill is too easy, Bob, but I do like to “watch it wiggle” down there in that valley you’re in.

  96. Mike Spindell says:

    “Mike’s admission that “This was never about the death of Michael Brown” is proof of an agenda.”

    Bob,

    Only a low grade moron who’s read anything I’ve written, would think that I claim to not have an agenda and I have more respect for your intelligence than that. What I am losing respect for though is the issue of whether you have any real self awareness of your behavior. This is the difference between you and I. I have an agenda and I’m proud of it. You pretend to have no agenda but objectivity and truth, yet in this instance you clearly have an agenda and I must say bias as well. That you think yourself capable of understanding where I’m coming from seems laughable to me in the way you’ve gone about all of this. Bob, just as you were forced to admit months ago when you chastised me for not being interested in the Ukraine, only to apologize when I showed you the piece I had written about it months before, we are now talking bout a similar situation in that you falsely believe that my interests lie in “railroading” Officer Wilson to satisfy my particular party line. Now concentrate hard Bob and try to understand what I wrote about in this link, first at RIL and then here. https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/02/27/the-misplaced-pursuit-of-political-purity/ In tandem with that piece is this: https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/06/05/why-i-am-a-radical-and-what-that-means/ Those two pieces sum up my agenda and I would think that someone reading it might get the idea that I’m not into making examples of “innocent” people to satisfy some political beliefs on my part. It’s all in the nuance Bob, but unfortunately you don’t seem to get nuance.

    Instead you develop straw men lumping all those protesting the killing of Michael Brown into a “lynch mob” out for the poor policeman’s blood. How smug you are Bob, buffered by Kant and by your legal training, putting yourself above it all as an “impartial” judge of irrational behavior? It is clearly evident in your smugness and your propensity to lump a whole group of people upset with the Ferguson situation together, as an irrational mob of phonies and fakirs. How silly of you having done this now over many blog posts to hold yourself up as merely an unbiased observer of the truth. In ANY movement there are always those who are in it for themselves, for that is the sad state of human nature at this time. You take a few examples and then tar everyone who has protested as”thugs” and worse. Your bias and your prejudice are showing.

    “Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence”.

    Now given your lack of self-awareness about your own bias you actually believe that you have a grip on the relevant facts of this case, but that is also your delusion, because your facts are limned by your own bias, which in this case is pro police. This is admitted in your opening sequence to “Don’t Kick That Dog”:

    “For the cop who paid it forward back in the summer of 1977 by taking the time to track down a 10 year-old boy’s brand-new Ross Apollo 3 speed that was stolen. I’ll never forget how he convinced me that the kids who stole it and raised the seat and stripped off a lot of the paint before leaving it in the woods somehow made it ‘faster.’ I thought it was the coolest bike in the world after that.
    And for my friends in college who went on to become cops.”

    Bob, clearly you have an agenda and a bias, the question is though if you can admit it not to us, but to yourself. You don’t have the chops to call my kettle black.

  97. Bob Stone says:

    “Duties can be concomitant just as much as rights can.”

    Spell out the duty.

    “It does not interfere with prosecutorial discretion to maintain equatable unbiased process.”

    Spell out the duty.

    “If you want to narrow it to base principles,”

    We call that law.

    “the principle of justice requires equitable unbiased process which can be quantified objectively.”
    Make the process equal by design, apply it equally. The process here is defined as equal, but it was not applied equally when McCulloch’s office decided to act as an active defense for Wilson.”

    First, you haven’t shown that McCulloch’s office put on a defense for Wilson. Just because you allege it doesn’t make it fact. .

    Second, your entire premise denies the existence of prosecutorial discretion.

    “Wilson got preferential treatment, the GJ process was tainted and the equal protection (and possibly due process depending on how the bill could have been returned with a neutral presentation) of the Brown family was denied.”

    You keep making these claims, and yet you ignore the fact that the grand jury is the prosecutor’s one-man show.

    Only in a world created by special pleading did Wilson get preferential treatment. Wilson is far more the victim of the prosecutors’ refusal to drop an investigation that would ordinarily have been dismissed without charges without presentation to a grand jury.

    Was McCulloch obligated to bring the case to the grand jury?

    No.

    Was the public entitled to the transcripts?

    No.

    Was the grand jury sequestered?

    No.

    Could the grand jury have returned an indictment just because they thought it should go to trial; even if they didn’t see probable cause?

    Yes.

    Is the Brown family “the people”?

    No.

    Does the grand jury exist to replace law with family vendetta?

    No.

    Under your rules Gene, a prosecutor would have a duty to always seek an indictment; i.e. no prosecutorial discretion.

  98. Bob Stone says:

    So Mike,

    If I wet the bed when I was two years old, does that remove the blood evidence from the scene backing up Wilson’s narrative and not the narrative of the three lying primary witnesses?

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “So Mike,
      If I wet the bed when I was two years old, does that remove the blood evidence from the scene backing up Wilson’s narrative and not the narrative of the three lying primary witnesses?”

      Bob,
      That’s it….keep ducking and dodging, because the gloves laid on you already are taking a heavy toll, but then that worked for Ali, but he was a lot quicker on his feet than you are demonstrating yourself to be.

  99. “Spell out the duty.”

    To uphold both due process and equal protection. You know, those things in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    “First, you haven’t shown that McCulloch’s office put on a defense for Wilson. Just because you allege it doesn’t make it fact..”

    Like I said, read the transcript: the way the exculpatory evidence was framed (highlighted, since you seem to have a problem grasping the basic today), the hours of testimony by Wilson, the incorrectly cited law that is a material misrepresentation, the lack of cross-examination of not just testimony but forensic evidence . . . you think that’s the way to present information in a neutral fashion, Bob? Then you’re simply wrong. Feel free to be wrong all you like. I don’t mind. Like I said, it is easy to fight down hill.

    “Second, your entire premise denies the existence of prosecutorial discretion.”

    Horseshit, Bob. It constrains it by other legal principles. In this case, the Constitution. And guess what trumps all in our legal system? That pesky Constitution again.

    ‘You keep making these claims, and yet you ignore the fact that the grand jury is the prosecutor’s one-man show.”

    I’m not ignoring it at all. In fact, that makes it easier to know whom to point the finger at for the manifest injustice in usurping the role of the courts here.

    “Only in a world created by special pleading did Wilson get preferential treatment. Wilson is far more the victim of the prosecutors’ refusal to drop an investigation that would ordinarily have been dismissed without charges without presentation to a grand jury.”

    Gibberish. Apologist gibberish at that.

    “Was McCulloch obligated to bring the case to the grand jury?

    No.”

    As explained earlier, it gave him a political out for not bringing charges himself as he was clearly reluctant to do. “I didn’t let Wilson go! The Grand Jury did! After I spoon fed them evidence and miscited law.” Yep.

    “Was the public entitled to the transcripts?

    No.”

    Fortunately for us, McCulloch is bright but not too bright. Otherwise, we’d never have known what shenanigans he was up to.

    “Was the grand jury sequestered?

    No.”

    Irrelevant.

    “Could the grand jury have returned an indictment just because they thought it should go to trial; even if they didn’t see probable cause?

    Yes.”

    And monkey’s might fly out of Bron’s butt, but a steady diet of carefully spun evidence and no cross-examination by adverse parties creates a guided impression. You know as well as I do that people can be manipulated, especially when it is a “one man show”. No opposition to counter and cross makes directing a verdict much easier as an exercise in propaganda, er, mind control.

    “Is the Brown family “the people”?

    No.”

    Why, yes, Bob. Yes they are. And so is every other citizen of Ferguson and the United States. And denying their equal protection and possibly due process in an act of blatant favoritism for a cop damages each and every one of us.

    “Does the grand jury exist to replace law with family vendetta?

    No.”

    Never said it did. If you’d like to try to put words in my mouth again though I’ll be glad to remind you how well that works out for people arguing with me.

    “Under your rules Gene, a prosecutor would have a duty to always seek an indictment; i.e. no prosecutorial discretion.”

    Apparently you think discretion is immune from concomitant considerations like the Constitution and the integrity of the justice system itself. Prosecutorial discretion does not mean “whatever the prosecutor wants he gets to do”. McCulloch could have directly declined to prosecute. That action would have likely had a cost: his removal from office. Instead, he manipulate process to give himself a credible out. A move Machiavelli would have approved of certainly, but it was an exercise in CYA, not the furtherance of justice.

    Seriously, Bob, you are making this way too easy.

    The high ground is mine.

    The argument wins itself.

  100. Bob Stone says:

    “It seems to me that by presenting all the information to a GJ with no resources such as investigators or legal analyst he left them no choice but to find reasonable doubt. But that is not their job.”

    What “reasonable doubt?” It’s a probable cause determination.

    “If the DA knew of exculpatory evidence then perhaps he should not have presented to the grand jury. But I think it is a hard case to make for exculpatory evidence. What we have is contradictory witness accounts and evidence consistent with at least two stories.”

    “Without exculpatory evidence the DA should have made the best case he could. But he did not do that – which is why many feel the evidence was not vetted.”

    The blood evidence is exculpatory; care to argue that it should have been withheld?

    “I don’t think that is an impossible or contradictory standard. In the absence of clearly exculpatory evidence the DA should refine the data and make the strongest case possible to the grand jury.”

    So the rule you propose is that DA’s must always seek the indictment.

    “So what is wrong with that?”

    It removes a thing called prosecutorial discretion.

    • bigfatmike says:

      “The blood evidence is exculpatory; care to argue that it should have been withheld?”

      The blood trail might provide reasonable doubt. The blood trail does not demonstrate what circumstances that Brown was moving toward Wilson. The blood trail does not demonstrate when Wilson started shooting – which may have been with Brown’s back toward Wilson. The blood trail demonstrates Brown far more than ~20 feet from Wilson which clearly raises the issue of whether Brown was an imminent threat to Wilson.

      Note: the Tueller information, commonly referred to as the 20 foot rule, is about the time (and therefore the distance) an officer has to become aware of an assailant, remove his weapon from a safe holster position and fire. In the case of Wilson, Wilson, none of this is applicable. Wilson knew he was in pursuit of an assailant, had his weapon out in ready position, and was well advanced in the fire position. The blood evidence demonstrates Wilson fired long before Brown was an imminent threat. At best the blood evidence might raise doubt. A jury not enthralled by an officers badge might very well use the blood evidence to convict the officer for clearly firing before the victim could pose an imminent threat to the officers life. Wilson ought to count himself damn lucky no jury got a look at the blood evidence.

      “I don’t think that is an impossible or contradictory standard. In the absence of clearly exculpatory evidence the DA should refine the data and make the strongest case possible to the grand jury.”….So the rule you propose is that DA’s must always seek the indictment.”

      Not at all. The prosecutors discretion applies when he makes the decision to present or not to present to the grand jury.

      “So what is wrong with that?”….It removes a thing called prosecutorial discretion.”

      Absolutely not. The prosecutor make the decision to present the the GJ or not to present.

      However, if he presents he should evaluate the information and present the information that makes the best case possible.

      It is not the prosecutors job, at this stage, to present contradictory or questionable information. It is not his job to question witness to call into question their credibility in front of the GJ as was done here. That is the job of the defense attorney at trial. It is not the job of the prosecutor to help the potential defendant to make his best case in front of the GJ, as was done here. That is the job of the defense attorney at trial.

      There is plenty of evidence the prosecutors make the best case possible for reasonable doubt in front of the GJ and then when the GJ returned no bill, they said in effect ‘you see there was nothing that could be done’.

      What a silly charade.

  101. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    If you had actually read and understood what bigfatmike wrote, you would know that mentioned two options for the DA: either to present the strongest possible case or not to present at all. To characterize this as “DA’s [sic] must always seek the indictment” is just flat-out wrong and, since the DA’s ability to choose is preserved, it hardly means removing prosecutorial discretion. Is your position really so weak that the only way you can defend it is by misrepresentation?

  102. (sings quietly to himself)
    watch it wiggle . . . see it jiggle . . . (mumble mumble) brand gelatin . . .

  103. Bob Stone says:

    Gene’s duty of all prosecutors: To uphold both due process and equal protection.

    Could you be more general?

    Gene: Like I said, read the transcript:

    No, you’re making general assertions and asking me to do the work for you. Plead out your case with particularity.

    “the way the exculpatory evidence was framed (highlighted, since you seem to have a problem grasping the basic today),”

    So you want the Ferguson DA to be less ethical than the Department of Justice?

    “It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department’s policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.”

    “the hours of testimony by Wilson,”

    Special pleading? Shall you deny Wilson the right to testify in his own grand jury proceeding; just for this case?

    Or shall the DA refrain from being neutral; just during Wilson’s testimony? Remember, the DA didn’t cross examine that liar Dorian “my name is Derrick” Johnson either. And if you want to talk about fair, the Missouri equivalent of FRE 609 would have MANDATED that the Grand Jury hear of Johnson’s conviction for lying to the police!

    the incorrectly cited law that is a material misrepresentation,”

    Misrepresentation? Material?

    No.

    [From another post] Regarding Lawrence O’Donnell and the outdated statute…

    I thought at first that I’d like to know if the ADA that made the error had been involved in any other police shooting cases; i.e. was she already familiar with the statute in question. If she did, then I was suspecting that she probably did it intentionally.

    But then I went through the transcript. O’Donnell gives the false impression that the ADA instructed them on how to read it in the outdated fashion. That’s not what happened. And if you look it up online, you’ll see that even the version that will take effect in 2017 contains the same language O’Donnell objects to.

    See for yourself.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000462.html#Top

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000461.html

    And I must say his conflating the ADA’s refusal to get into a legal discussion over a statute that’s not going to come into play in the first place, since the blood trail evidence proves Brown wasn’t fleeing when Wilson shot him, is just shameless.

    And to connect the failure to start a discussion about the Supreme Court to Selma somehow???

    That’s Rush Limbaugh of the left level of audacity.

    “the lack of cross-examination of not just testimony but forensic evidence”

    On what planet would a DA cross examine its own forensic evidence before a grand jury? IT’S NOT A MINI TRIAL; SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ONE WITH YOUR SPECIAL PLEADING.

    “Apparently you think discretion is immune from concomitant considerations like the Constitution”

    Do I? Before the constitution was ratified, and after, the prosecutor has always retained the power of nolle prosequi.

    And as far as the constitution goes, the decision not to indict is “a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution” under Article II, Section 3 to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed. Heckler v. Chaney (1985)

  104. Bob Stone says:

    Syracuse, NY — Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick offered his analysis today on a grand jury’s decision not to indict a Ferguson, Mo. police officer in the death of an unarmed man, Michael Brown.

    The grand jury

    • A prosecutor who wanted to indict Wilson could have gotten the grand jury to do so: A prosecutor has the ability to present only evidence favorable to the case.

    If St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch had only presented witnesses who claimed Brown had his hands up in a universal sign of surrender, he could have gotten an indictment, Fitzpatrick said. But that could have been misconduct, because he was obligated to present clearly exculpatory evidence, Fitzpatrick said.

    • Presenting all the evidence was the right call:Fitzpatrick credited McCulloch for releasing the grand jury testimony so he couldn’t be second-guessed.

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/forensic_evidence_officers_state_of_mind_key_in_ferguson_grand_jury_decision_da.html

  105. Bob Stone says:

    Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

    (a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:

    … (2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving — or the witness’s admitting — a dishonest act or false statement.

  106. Bob Stone says:

    In 2011, Dorian Johnson was convicted of making false statements to the police:

    “Police records indicate 19-year-old Johnson said his “name was Derrick” and claimed he was 16-years-old.

    Officers say [Johnson] gave them a date of birth that “would mean he was 17″ and told police he didn’t have any identification.

    Even after finding his ID, the police report says Johnson told officers that he was holding the ID for someone else.

    Even at the jail, the police report claims Johnson signed a court summons with the name “Derrick.” However, an officer who had previous run-ins with Johnson knew exactly who he was. Johnson eventually pleaded guilty to making false statements.”

    http://kfor.com/2014/09/03/he-never-told-the-truth-man-describes-run-in-with-key-witness-in-michael-brown-shooting-case/

  107. “Could you be more general?”

    Could you ignore the foundation of our legal system more?

    “No, you’re making general assertions and asking me to do the work for you. Plead out your case with particularity.”

    You assume this is a ring match. I have stated with particularity the parts of the Constitution being abused here: the 5th and the 14th.

    In re cross: The GJ isn’t the time for cross and you know it. Again, you are assuming I’m arguing something I am not. I am not arguing Wilson’s guilt. I’m arguing McCulloch’s manipulation of process for political reasons at the expense of justice. I don’t give a damn about Dorian or his credibility in regards to this matter. Imputed at GJ, imputed at trial, the quality of the witnesses is not what germane to what I am arguing. What I’m arguing is something we’ll be getting to shortly and I’ll try to use short easy words so you can follow along this time.

    And a state statute that conflicts with a SCOTUS ruling? Even if it is still on the books? Good luck with that. Even if it gets out of trial, it won’t get past on appeal if the attorney is worth their salt. Bad law is bad law but especially when a case from a higher – in this case the highest – court contradicts it.

    “On what planet would a DA cross examine its own forensic evidence before a grand jury? IT’S NOT A MINI TRIAL; SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ONE WITH YOUR SPECIAL PLEADING.”

    Ooooo. Shouting. That’s amusing. A sure sign of desperation. Again: the Grand Jury is not the place for cross. And it wasn’t a “mini-trial” either nor have I ever said it was. I said the evidence was presented in a biased exculpatory manner bereft of the benefits of cross. See how that works, Bob? You can’t stick words in my mouth because I know what I said and I have an attention span more than 15 words. You’re welcome to try again. I’ll be glad to make you look like a monkey for doing it again. It’s funny and a little sad. I know you are capable of far better argumentation than this. Everyone has a blind spot though. I think we’ve identified one o’ yours. Cops. Mine is red heads with questionable morals and a tendency toward the kinky, but I digress.

    “And as far as the constitution goes, the decision not to indict is “a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution” under Article II, Section 3 to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed. Heckler v. Chaney (1985)”

    Really. Last time I checked, until Nixon, Bush and Obama started using it as urinal puck, the Constitutional constraints on governmental power like those found in the 5th and 14th Amendments applied to the Executive as well.

    Yep.

    Watch it wiggle.

  108. Also, I note your appeal to authority and promptly ignore it since my argument is based in Constitutional principle and his (like yours apparently) is based in a vested personal interest. Fitzpatrick is free to be wrong all he likes as well.

  109. Let’s look at prosecutorial discretion again:

    Their choices are –
    1) To press charges (which results in a trial which the prosecution may or may not win).
    2) To decline charges (which means no trial but in some cases where wrongdoing is legitimately at issue, can cost a prosecutor their job and – in extreme cases – their law license and/or their freedom).
    3) A Grand Jury (which may result in a true bill or no true bill based upon evidence presented in a neutral manner but in either case absolves the prosecutor of the decision to charge or not).

    Let me ‘splain this slowly for you, Bob.

    The problem here is all in #3.

    If McCulloch went with #1, he ran the chance of Wilson going to prison and subsequently a civil suit that would have crushed the Ferguson PD.
    If McCulloch went with #2, his credibility as a prosecutor – especially with his background and reputation for being on LE’s side no matter what – would have likely cost him his job in such a high profile case.
    So McCulloch opts for #3, where he can keep his job and get his cop friend off the hook by presenting the evidence in a biased manner and reap the rewards of plausible deniability.

    This is realpolitik at play, Bob.

    McCulloch covered his ass and twisted the process by an evidentiary slight of hand that would have made any propagandist or Machiavellian schemer proud.

  110. Okay.

    I’m done playing with my food.

    Feel free to be as indignant and shout all you like now, Bob.

    At this point, if you can’t see the nature of the problem, then you can’t (and probably never will) see it.

  111. Elaine M. says:

    PROSECUTOR USED GRAND JURY TO LET DARREN WILSON WALK
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/28/prosecutor-used-grand-jury-to-let-darren-wilson-walk.html

    Excerpt:
    St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s announcement of his failure to secure the indictment of Officer Darren Wilson in the Aug. 9 shooting death of unarmed teen Michael Brown has openly and shamelessly mocked our criminal justice system and laid bare the inequality that is emblematic of criminal jurisprudence in the United States. Monday night’s farcical performance during McCulloch’s press conference, at which he announced the grand jury’s “no true bill” decision, was a failed and poor attempt to convince the residents of Ferguson, St. Louis County, and the nation of the legitimacy and fairness of the grand jury process.

    Let’s be candid and clear about grand juries in the United States: They are at all times completely and unalterably under the control and direction of the prosecutor. If the prosecutor wishes to secure an indictment, a “true bill” is inevitably returned. It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to override the prosecutor’s intention to obtain an indictment. In my 27 years as a police officer in Boston, I have never heard of a situation in which a prosecutor failed to secure an indictment when seeking such—plainly put: It doesn’t happen. That McCulloch failed to obtain an indictment of Wilson means only one thing: He did not want to obtain an indictment. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence and everything to do with the prosecutor’s unwillingness to try the case in court and his reluctance to incur the wrath of the law-enforcement community to which he is so incestuously tethered.

    Prosecutors provide explanations to grand jurors regarding legal definitions of the various crimes that they can consider in deciding what indictments, i.e. charges that grand juries return against those who they are investigating. In other words: Prosecutors direct grand juries whom specifically to charge with what particular crime. Prosecutors do not put cases before grand juries that they do not strongly believe will result in guilty convictions at trial, and they have to be convinced, prior to the presentation of evidence to the grand jury, that there is sufficient evidence in the case to obtain a guilty conviction of the target of the indictment. In other words, you wouldn’t bring a case to a grand jury unless you already believed the case would stand up in trial.

    McCulloch’s decision to allow the target of a grand jury investigation to actually testify before that grand jury is practically unheard of—in my 36 years as a practitioner and an academic working, studying, and teaching in the criminal-justice system, I have never heard of this rather novel legal maneuver being put into what many would consider a rather imprudent and questionable practice. Targets of grand jury investigations, like Wilson, are typically not even aware that they are under grand jury investigation, let alone invited to testify. Targets of grand jury investigations have no legal “right” to testify in these proceedings, so it is fair to question why the prosecutor in this rather notorious case thought that this was a good idea.

  112. Bob Stone says:

    “Like I said, read the transcript: the way the exculpatory evidence was framed (highlighted, since you seem to have a problem grasping the basic today), the hours of testimony by Wilson, the incorrectly cited law that is a material misrepresentation, the lack of cross-examination of not just testimony but forensic evidence . . . “

    “Again: the Grand Jury is not the place for cross. And it wasn’t a “mini-trial” either nor have I ever said it was. I said the evidence was presented in a biased exculpatory manner bereft of the benefits of cross. See how that works, Bob? “

  113. Bob,

    I see reading comprehension is a weakness as is context.

    The first statement and the second are not incompatible. They are consistent. The GJ isn’t the place for cross. Trial is. Without cross, the probative value of evidence is lessened. Without cross, evidence can more easily be biased. In biasing the evidence in presentation, McCulloch used the GJ to usurp the courts function at trial as a finder of fact. Part of that process is the interrogation of cross-examination.

    Try again.

  114. Slartibartfast says:

    In regards to the three questions I asked, you ducked the third, so I will assume you accept that, whether because of his training or despite it, Officer Wilson acted completely inappropriately in regards to evidence in a killing. Bad cop, bad department or both? I’ll let you choose.

    “Do you agree or disagree?”

    “Officer Wilson put his SUV in park before the initial confrontation with Mr. Brown.”

    Agree. Should he have gotten out with the car in gear?

    He shouldn’t have been getting out of the car in that situation. By doing so, he gave the magical negro the chance to attack and possibly kill him and neutralized his best weapon—his vehicle. I think that he should have backed up, put the SUV back in drive and made the initial contact, not getting out of the car until he established that it was necessary and safe to do so. If Officer Wilson had considered the potential threat Mr. Brown posed, why did he make himself vulnerable? If not, why? Does Ferguson teach its officers to put themselves in dangerous situations? Or did Officer Wilson just want to bully Mr. Brown and his companion?

    “Officer Wilson exited his SUV without backup after Mr. Brown left the immediate vicinity.”

    Agree. That’s called pursuing a felon.

    It also completely ends the immanent threat posed by Mr. Brown. If Officer Wilson was still scared for his life, he should have called for help and stayed in or near his vehicle until it arrived. Instead, he choose to leave his vehicle without requesting (and confirming) backup. As Blouise’s law enforcement source pointed out, this was overcommitting to the situation. This seems more like the action of someone who is angry and impulsive than that of a trained law enforcement professional. It was a pursuit of a felon, but it was also a foolhardy one.

    What happened from there? Officer Wilson chased after Mr. Brown, firing his weapon (and missing). This was either improper procedure on the part of Officer Wilson or bad policy on the part of the Ferguson PD. Firing wildly at a fleeing target (with a possible accomplice nearby, no less) is not appropriate police behavior. Not anywhere outside of Hollywood, at least.

    At that point, what did he expect Mr. Brown to do? Keep running until he was shot? Stop and hope that Officer Wilson would hold his fire long enough to surrender? Or turn and attack? Given that he had every reason to suspect that the cop was trying to kill him* and he was aggressive enough to have attacked Officer Wilson in the first place was there really any question about what Mr. Brown would do? Mr. Brown certainly made some extremely bad choices that day, but that doesn’t change the fact that Officer Wilson’s errors led directly to Mr. Brown being killed. I don’t know if that makes him legally culpable, but it sure as hell makes him morally culpable and justice demands that the legal matters be dealt with in an unbiased and equitable manner—which they clearly weren’t.

    All in all, it seems to me that Officer Wilson didn’t even come close to meeting any standard of behavior that I would find reasonable in law enforcement—both for the protection of the public and the protection of the officer themselves.

    * Mr. Brown lived in the real world (as opposed to Bob’s fairyland), so we can assume that he was aware that police officers, historically, don’t get in trouble for killing black people.

  115. blouise17 says:

    The St Louis grand jury could have appealed to the St. Louis county presiding Superior Court judge at any time regarding the prosecutor’s assistants presentation. I wonder why they didn’t as there was ample reason and opportunity to do so.

    There is a real need for an in-depth examination, under oath, of all participants in this farce, including the jurors.

  116. I get it now! In the interest of diametric discussions – Mr. Stone will assume the contrarian position of staunce nolle prosequi.

    Good thing Mitt isnt hiring yet….

  117. nivico says:

    “As Blouise’s law enforcement source pointed out…”

    LOL!!! You’re basing your entire argument on the following logic: “and this one time this lady I know who posts online said this cop once told her blahbity blah…”

    Trust me, police officers are indeed allowed to stop their cars, put them in park, and (gasp) exit the vehicle to pursue a fleeing felon, or to give a driver a citation, or etc, etc, etc.

    Heck, a lot of cops don’t even have patrol cars to get out of… they walk a beat on foot.

  118. blouise says:

    nivico,

    As a former Civil Service Commissioner I spent several years overseeing the testing, training, and hiring of dozens of police officers. I have spent innumerable hours at Police Academies observing every aspect of police training. I have overseen exams, including the MMPI, background checks, and skill sets evaluations. Once officers complete all that, they are then on probation for 6 months without protection from their Associations but with protection from Civil Service. Further down the road I am again involved at promotion time and always at grievance time when Civil Service has authorization. I have personally served subpoenas on officers and been involved in Civil Service court proceedings for Civil Service Commissioners can convene their own courts.

    I have more than likely forgot twice as much about proper police procedures than you ever knew.

    My police sources are acquaintances or friends holding rank from patrolman to chief, actively working the job or retired.

    Most of the people who post here know all this.

    Your statements as to what proper police procedures should be followed to avoid getting trapped in the vehicle as Wilson was, are ignorant and dangerous.

  119. blouise17 says:

    Oh yeah, one other responsibility … I certify the payroll. If I don’t certify it, the officer doesn’t get paid. It’s all part of the watchdog power to keep politicians from trying to run the public service departments. Might be really interesting to see what sort of Civil Service setup is in Ferguson.

  120. Slartibartfast says:

    nivico,

    That’s why you should always find fault with the merits of a source before you try to impeach it. Now, I certainly have known blouise for a long time and was predisposed to accept her second hand source, but it was also clear that Officer Wilson’s actions put himself at greater risk as well as leading to the death of Mr. Brown, making those comments much more plausible.

    You, on the other hand, look pretty silly since you have no argument as to how blouise’s comments were in any way incorrect and have inadvertently strengthened my argument.

    Nicely done.

  121. po says:

    And this is where the kids, in Ferguson perhaps, might have said:SNAP! as urban/utmost appreciation for such this mighty Blouise retort that may silence nivico for a lil’ bit!

  122. mespo727272 says:

    Well, po, as well all know too well: blouise rules!

  123. Bob Stone says:

    Po,

    If Wilson was Jewish and Brown was Palestinian, the protesters and Brown supporters would be equally wrong and immoral for drawing their conclusions and making accusations against Wilson by saddling him with the sins of Israel in the West Bank while ignoring all the forensic evidence to the contrary.

  124. Bob Stone says:

    “I see reading comprehension is a weakness as is context.”

    “The first statement and the second are not incompatible.”

    Gene,

    The first paragraph I cited represented you taking this point of view:

    “A first-year law student would have done a better job of cross-examining” Wilson, Crump said, adding that he had looked through the grand jury record. “When was his [Wilson’s] credibility ever challenged?”

    And the second paragraph represented McCulloch’s point of view; with your anger about the ph being slightly north or south of 7.

    Like I said, if McCulloch wanted to control the show, he would have had his DA’s destroy Johnson on the stand.

  125. po says:

    It dawned on me this morning, while waking that Bob1 and Bob2 (Stone and McCullough) were actually using much of the same method to indict Mike Brown posthumously.

    1-Both Bob’s experience/cultural affinity with cops revels a bias for cops, both in action for Bob 2 and words, for Bob 1.

    2- Both Bobs tried to frame the debate in favor of their bias by:
    A- Making it less about the legitimacy of the action taken by the cop, but more about the level of threat Mike Brown constituted for Officer Wilson, for other potential and unknown victims, and for the community at large.
    B- Both used a crime Mike Brown was accused of having done BEFORE he encountered the cop, to justify the cop’s overreaction and shooting of the kid, despite the fact that the most believable understanding is that Officer Wilson was unaware of the fact that Mike Brown was the suspected criminal.
    C- Both brought in an outside entity, the mob, as most active player in their attempt to make it play a prominent role, even a causal role in the shooting of Mike Brown.
    D- Then both give the character more speaking parts by trying to establish justification in Officer Wilson’s earlier action by claiming that the mob is now demanding Officer WIlson’s head, , which, even if we were to allow that in, only happened AFTER the shooting.
    E- Both established a story line that justifies Officer Wilson’s narrative of justified shooting while telling us to wait for the facts to come to light, and while castigating everyone else for doing exactly what themselves were doing.

    3- Both Bobs, to quote Slart, put a lead thumb on the scale of justice, get what they wanted, then used it to claim that justice has been served, while still blaming the victim and the bystanders, the mob.

    Finally, both Bobs lost a lot of credibility through this process, and while Bob2 will likely pay a heavy price with the loss of his position, this Bob2, our Bob, just fed us/Mike with plenty of ammunition to use against him later.

  126. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    When you show me a respectable law enforcement expert that shares your unique view of hot pursuit by using inflammatory terms like “magical negro” and…

    Well, what’s the point in even finishing that thought.

  127. bigfatmike says:

    Here is an interesting article in the NYT examining some of the many groups organizing around the incident at Ferguson with their many different objectives:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/us/protesters-united-against-ferguson-decision-but-challenged-in-building-movement.html

    “Groups are divided by aim and by geography, with goals of justice for Mr. Brown or an end to lethal police force against minorities, but the path for achieving them is neither clear nor easy.”

    “Part of the challenge for activists here and across the country is whether they can or want to agree on a concrete agenda, whether it be civilian review boards for police, or special prosecutors, or a push for more minority police officers.”

    The article also documents differences in view toward violence and difficulties some have had advocating for non violence in all protests.

    If ever there were a lack of a single view or agenda in a movement, this has got to be it.

  128. Bob Stone says:

    PO: Both Bobs tried to frame the debate in favor of their bias by:

    PO: Making it less about the legitimacy of the action taken by the cop, but more about the level of threat Mike Brown constituted for Officer Wilson, for other potential and unknown victims, and for the community at large.

    The City of Ferguson Police Department’s use of force policy (section 410.01) states:
    “An officer may use lethal force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life.”

    PO: Both used a crime Mike Brown was accused of having done BEFORE he encountered the cop, to justify the cop’s overreaction and shooting of the kid, despite the fact that the most believable understanding is that Officer Wilson was unaware of the fact that Mike Brown was the suspected criminal.

    Oh, the robbery video smears poor Mike Brown does it? It doesn’t show him acting in a manner completely consistent with Wilson’s story about a belligerent man who slammed the door on him and felt as entitled as a Honey Badger to grab his weapon.

    I see.

    And after a description of the robbery suspects went out on the air, when Wilson calls in and says at 12:02 p.m., “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car” he’s really inviting them to lunch.

    I see. Very believable.

  129. Bob,

    You do realize that usurp is a synonym for infringe, right?

    If I’d wanted to characterize the GJ as a “mini-trial”, I would have as I am a precision language user. However, “mini-trial” is a misnomer in that Grand Jury proceedings (traditionally) are not structured like court. In this instance, the GJ infringed upon the role of the courts in the justice system because McCulloch (and this word is important) led them into acting as a trier of fact by effectively mounting a defense of Wilson instead of presenting the evidence neutrally and letting the chips fall where they may. That does not constitute a “mini-court” linguistically speaking. Something better defined as a mini-court might be an administrative court or hearing, but again, neither of those are structured like a GJ.

    I can argue semantics until the sun burns out, but “mini-court” was not how I characterized the contaminated GJ process here. I characterized it as a process subverted to usurp the role of the courts. Because that is what it is in this instance.

  130. Also, in re tactics, one can drive a screw with a screwdriver or a hammer. The result is still comparable.

  131. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    So are you still saying that it’s my fault for not reading what you wrote with the “context” that you personally had in mind?

    And regarding this gem:

    “In this instance, the GJ infringed upon the role of the courts in the justice system because McCulloch (and this word is important) led them into acting as a trier of fact by effectively mounting a defense of Wilson instead of presenting the evidence neutrally and letting the chips fall where they may.”

    The Grand Jury infringed upon the role of the courts in the justice system?

    Infringing upon the rights of targets or infringing upon the the independence of the grand jury are concepts I’m familiar with; but the grand jury infringing upon the role of the courts in the justice system?

    Can you cite me any case that comes close to what you’re talking about?

  132. Every wrong is not defined by a specific case, Bob.
    That is how new case law is made; novel situations or situations not brought to review before.
    However, when an active defense is presented to GJ without the benefits of cross had at trial, steering the Grand Jury to a specific conclusion supplanting the finder of fact?
    Infringe (as usurp) is a fair and accurate word to describe that maladapted process as it relates to the finder of fact.
    Feel free to disagree all you like.
    Agreement is not required.
    I’m not arguing to change your mind as it is clearly made up and was made up even before the Grand Jury hearing, but rather to show that what you are calling justice is anything but justice regardless of Wilson’s guilt or innocence and it is injustice directly attributable to McCulloch’s highly suspect actions. Damn, Bob, most targets of Grand Jury inquiry don’t even know that they are the target of a Grand Jury let alone are allowed to testify for hours in their defense. They are not entitled to a defense at Grand Jury (conversely it is not a prosecution either). The GJ is supposed to act on neutrally presented evidence to decide an appropriate charge if any. The evidence here was most certainly not presented in a neutral manner.
    The audience will either agree with me or agree with you on this matter.
    And as I’ve already said, the argument of disservice to the 5th and 14th Amendments here makes itself and rest upon the highest legal ground possible: Constitutional principle. The equal protection of the law was denied the Brown family, and possibly the due process, when McCulloch opted for his Machiavellian manipulation of the Grand Jury to get a no true bill finding.
    His only mistake was publishing the transcripts which could not hide his maneuvering. Either that was a mistake on his part, he was acting with impunity and/or he had no choice given the public and incendiary nature of this case. Either way, you’d have to be a political novice not to see what he was doing for what it is: a political out for him that gets him his desired result and covers his own ass.

  133. Bob Kauten says:

    Summing up,
    Bad dog!

  134. nivico says:

    “Spent some quality time with a few police officers. Learned a lot about “over committing” (entering a situation without proper backup) and how, when approaching pedestrians while remaining in the patron car, always keep one’s car in drive … not park and certainly not reverse. Keeping the car in drive helps in getting away quickly should the pedestrian try to trap you in your car. And, if the pedestrian is a “suspect” remember that he or she may be armed and the best part of a patrol car to offer protection is the engine … keep it between you and the suspect as you are assessing the situation. Also, unlike we see on television, suspects who flee usually do so at sprintp speed which means they tire abruptly so keep your pursuit at about 60% so that you aren’t caught unawares without time to assess whether they are surrendering.”

    Blouise,

    If I didn’t know any better, I might think you got your information from the following site and passed it off as your own recollections rather than cite the source:

    http://www.njlawman.com/Police%20Tactics/General.htm

    “When pulling up (or being pulled up on) keep your car in drive. Should the situation go bad, all you have to do is hit the gas. No fumbling with the gearshift or depressing the brake to get the car out of park. Just keep the car in drive for easy escape.”

    “When a suspect takes off running, he or she usually explodes into a sprint and runs at full speed. Often, this will mean that it won’t be too long before they run out of steam. Generally, at full speed he will die off somewhere within 30 seconds to a minute from where the foot pursuit began.

    When taking off after them, run at about 60%. This will give you a chance to use your radio, keep them in sight, and keep going after they drop off. Also, you will still have energy left for any physical altercation which might occur when you reach them”

  135. Lynne says:

    Gene Howington says:
    November 26, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    You are ignoring that the grand jury process was unduly influenced by the prosecutor in a manifestly biased manner.

    Please elaborate. Yes, I have read the comments. I don’t understand how the DA presenting conflicting witness statements and Officer Wilson testifying is biased.

  136. blouise says:

    I have read/heard a plethora of opinions on this particular grand jury and the argument seems to boil down to the points Bob S and Gene are debating.

    Up to this point in my life I haven’t thought much about the role the grand jury plays in our judicial system though mespo ignited a great discussion about it years ago. I remember what he wrote about its history and development starting some time in the 1100’s (this was well before the advent of the GBers). At any rate, that’s about all I knew having never been called to serve on one. And my prosecutor friends don’t talk much about grand juries, at least up until now. Now they won’t shut up about it. (And yes, nivico, I am presently part of a group formed by retired prosecutors from across the country working to change our gun laws)

    Anyway, the points of disagreement amongst those who know and understand the system seem to be the same points Gene and Bob are arguing.

    I do know that if I ever am called to serve, the prosecutor isn’t going to enjoy a walk in the park.

  137. blouise17 says:

    nivico,

    That’s a good source and there are plenty of others that say much the same thing but the one I used was a 2002 training manuel referenced by one of my email buds. Your mistake is in thinking that the police procedures I point to are mine or that I concocted them. These are procedures taught in Academies and developed through the experiences of those similar to the officer you sourced.

    Nice try at impeachment though. I bet it’s really going to frost your derriere when you find out I made my living as a classical musician. Oh no, however am I going to stick that lady in an insignificant category and keep her there??

    Lord love a duck, I do so love to be underestimated.

  138. Mike Spindell says:

    “I don’t understand how the DA presenting conflicting witness statements and Officer Wilson testifying is biased.”

    Lynne,
    Here’s the problem. Grand Juries are set up to determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone on criminal charges. They are not trials, which decide guilt or innocence, but rather whether the evidence of a crime meets the basic elements of a chargeable offense. The possible defendant, in this case Wilson almost never testifies and if they do are subject to cross examination. Wilson, a police officer, was allowed to testify for four hours in under non-adversarial questioning by the ADA’s. This is effect lent credibility to him and his statements. By the same token supposed exculpatory evidence like the blood trail was introduced and at the same time witnesses backing a different version than Wilson’s were intensely cross-examined. The result was to lead the GJ towards not indicting Wilson, which it is obvious was McCollough’s intent all along. If McCollough did not believe that Wilson should be indicted than he should have stated so and not brought the case to the GJ, which prosecutor do all them time. Instead he abrogated his responsibility to make the decision to the G, under circumstances that were certain to result in no indictment. As Bob mentioned it was a lot like Pontius Pilate “washing his hands” and allowing Jesus to be crucified by the “mob”, when in fact history documents that Pilate had the final authority.

  139. Slartibartfast says:

    Once again we see that Bob has no reasons to give as to why my reasoning is invalid so he makes a semantic nitpick regarding my choice of words.

    Arguing is reason giving, Bob. Clearly you have no reasons to give as to why Officer Wilson should not be considered incompetent based on his actions that day.

  140. Mike Spindell says:

    “And after a description of the robbery suspects went out on the air, when Wilson calls in and says at 12:02 p.m., “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car” he’s really inviting them to lunch.”

    Bob,
    Was this a tape of Wilson, or his testimony that he did make this call? Also why is it that the Police Chief stated that Wilson didn’t know about the robbery until after the shooting? Was he lying? And while we’re discussing your dis-ingenuousness how about this from above?

    “PO: Both used a crime Mike Brown was accused of having done BEFORE he encountered the cop, to justify the cop’s overreaction and shooting of the kid, despite the fact that the most believable understanding is that Officer Wilson was unaware of the fact that Mike Brown was the suspected criminal.

    BOB: Oh, the robbery video smears poor Mike Brown does it? It doesn’t show him acting in a manner completely consistent with Wilson’s story about a belligerent man who slammed the door on him and felt as entitled as a Honey Badger to grab his weapon.”

    Do you think no one would notice that you didn’t respond to Po’s point at all but tired to deflect away from it? And by the way no matter how you insist the “blood evidence” neither exculpates, no convicts Wilson. It is widely open to interpretation, but since you are biased toward police officers you read it from your bias.

  141. Hocus says:

    “Perhaps because the prosecutor’s power at this early stage of criminal
    proceedings is paramount, grand juries return indictments in an extremely high
    percentage of cases. 15 Not surprisingly, the status of the grand jury as an
    independent and quasi-judicial body capable of screening out unmeritorious
    charges repeatedly has been called into question. Much has been written about
    the failure or the inability of the grand jury to fulfill its historical function of
    screening out unmeritorious charges through the return of a “no bill.” Once
    conceived as frontline security for the innocent against “hasty, malicious, and
    oppressive persecution,” 16 the grand jury, according to some experts, has become
    a mere tool, or “rubber stamp,” of the prosecutor.17″

    http://works.bepress.com/r_michael_cassidy/2/

  142. Hocus says:

    Was this a tape of Wilson, or his testimony that he did make this call?

    You will find it in the transcript of the radio communications of the Ferguson PD.

    Also why is it that the Police Chief stated that Wilson didn’t know about the robbery until after the shooting? Was he lying?

    The Police Chief either made a mistake or didn’t correctly interpret the original question. He later corrected it in a subsequent statement.

  143. Lynne says:

    Mike Spindell,

    So witnesses should not be intensely cross-examined because this is not a trial? The GJ should only have received and reviewed witness statements?

    Based on some of the arguments presented, it appears as if there was misconduct in the GJ proceedings. If that is the case, then justice was not served for Wilson or Brown. What can or should be done to rectify this outcome?

  144. Mike Spindell says:

    “If that is the case, then justice was not served for Wilson or Brown. What can or should be done to rectify this outcome?”

    Lynne,
    Good question for which at this point I don’t have an answer. I believe that the evidence didn’t justify the killing of Michael Brown, yet I don’t see how Wilson can be given a fair trial at this point. I believe, like so many other police officers before him he has gotten away with murder, or at the very least criminally negligent manslaughter. The answer, as unsatisfying as it may be, is that this country comes to its senses regarding police acting as executioners, rather than as public servants. After the games played at Ferguson though, I don’t have much hope

  145. nivico says:

    THIS IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED BEFORE:

    “… Spent some quality time with a few police officers. Learned a lot about “over committing” …”

    AND THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE SAYING NOW:

    “That’s a good source and there are plenty of others that say much the same thing but the one I used was a 2002 training manuel referenced by one of my email buds.”

    SO, WERE YOU LYING THEN OR ARE YOU LYING NOW?

    You originally claimed this was personal knowledge you had learned on the job as a Civil Service employee, now you claim the information came from an “e-mail bud.”

    • bigfatmike says:

      “You originally claimed this was personal knowledge you had learned on the job as a Civil Service employee, now you claim the information came from an “e-mail bud.””

      Is there necessarily a contradiction between ‘learning on the job’ and getting the information through email from a personal acquaintance?

      Is so you better get back real quick to all those judges and prosecutors that are requiring email to be preserved as evidence.

      Guess the IRS can just toss that old hard drive. Those emails stored on it have nothing to do with job performance or targeting certain tax exempt groups.

      Guess we can ditch all those policies about document retention including emails. So it really does not matter where administration officials post their emails because those requirements to preserve administration emails just don’t apply to activities on the job – right?

      You heard it here first folks, emails are not related to any job activity so you don’t have to worry about preserving them – they have nothing repeat nothing to do with the job.

      I love this thread. I get to learn so many new and interesting things – every day.

  146. nivico says:

    …and speaking of people who pretend to have knowledge they don’t actually possess, here’s the latest on the “forensic pathologist consultant” fraudster

    http://fox4kc.com/2014/11/28/brain-in-bucket-and-other-peculiar-incidents-involving-kansas-man-who-helped-with-michael-brown-autopsy/

    brain in a bucket, lol

    • bigfatmike says:

      ” here’s the latest on the “forensic pathologist consultant” fraudster”

      In regard to the Brown autopsy, is there anything – any thing at all – that changes if we accept exactly what Parcells said about the details of the Brown autopsy, or if we completely eliminate what Parcells has said about the details of the Brown autopsy?

      Is there any detail of the Brown autopsy that is controversial.

      So far as I know there is not even one issue of controversy surrounding the details of the autopsy.

      There is controversy regarding the interpretation of the autopsy and blood evidence in regard to whether those facts support Wilson or are only consistent with his story – as well as the story told by others. .

      Many who have written on the Ferguson incident claim the autopsy and blood evidence support Wilson. But if you read their whole article you will see they actually claim a much lower level of support for Wilson. Here is an example from the WAPO where the author claims in the headline that blood evidence supports Wilson. But in the detail of his article he never says that. Instead he only claims that the blood evidence is consistent with Wilson’s story.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

      It is surprising to me how many reputable authors confuse and make sloppy use of ‘support’ and ‘consistent with’.

  147. blouise says:

    If that is the case, then justice was not served for Wilson or Brown. What can or should be done to rectify this outcome? – Lynne

    That is the crux of the matter. Once the smoke has cleared and emotions have settled down, hopefully those in a position of authority to effect change will look at the uses to which the GJ is put and make recommendations.

    The citizenry has become better educated in the mysteries of the GJ process through this debate and I would think that those within the judicial system might be very concerned that said citizenry has lost confidence in the system.

  148. Elaine M. says:

    blouise,

    “The citizenry has become better educated in the mysteries of the GJ process through this debate and I would think that those within the judicial system might be very concerned that said citizenry has lost confidence in the system.”

    I’m not sure that some individuals who are involved in the judicial system are really concerned if certain segments of the population have lost confidence in the system.

  149. gbk says:

    Another very unknown movie:

  150. blouise17 says:

    nivico,

    A Civil Service Commissioner is not a civil service employee. Try again.

    You keep trying to prick a balloon that doesn’t exist but shout as much as you’d like if it makes you feel better. Words like “over committing” came from the manuel but you will find those words in many sources dealing with police procedures including from the mouths of instructors and officers. If Wilson suspected Brown was a suspect in the stealing call then he over-committed by not waiting for backup. I’ve specifically heard the term used several times in the past few weeks from several officers. Admittedly they are, indeed, well-built and not nearly as enamoured by Wilson as you appear to be.

    (well-built is cop talk and I considered editing it out but playing with nivico is too much fun)

  151. blouise17 says:

    I’m not sure that some individuals who are involved in the judicial system are really concerned if certain segments of the population have lost confidence in the system. – Elaine

    I know I’m being optimistic … maybe tragically so.

  152. Elaine M. says:

    bfm,

    Regarding forensic evidence/investigation and procedural mistakes in this case:

    – Darren Wilson washed away blood evidence.
    – Investigators neglected to take some measurements at the scene of the killing.
    – Wilson’s gun wasn’t tested for fingerprints.
    – Wilson put his own gun in the evidence bag at the police station.

  153. blouise17 says:

    gbk,

    One of Tex’s favorites.

    Ah, The blanket thing …

  154. Elaine M. says:

    American history in black and white: Ferguson and our nation’s cognitive divide
    If the Ferguson tragedy offers a vivid reminder of our bitter divisions, it also offers moments of revelation
    http://www.salon.com/2014/11/29/american_history_in_black_and_white_ferguson_and_our_nations_cognitive_divide/

    Excerpt:
    One aspect of the willful racial blindness often called “white privilege” is the collective insistence that an event like the Brown shooting must be considered on its own in some Platonic void, as an isolated forensic and legalistic question unconnected to any larger historical pattern or to issues of race, culture and power. Such an imaginary perspective is understood as “neutral” and non-racial, rather than in itself a view conditioned by race. History’s bunk, the bad stuff that happened long ago no longer matters (and perhaps wasn’t so bad in the first place), and race is irrelevant. Except, of course, when it isn’t: Those who persist in noticing that Brown was black and Wilson white, and that violent encounters of this kind seem to repeat themselves with distressing frequency, are the real racists who refuse to accept the disinterested, impartial and normal perspective of whiteness.

    For African-Americans, on the other hand, it is clearly not possible to separate the pain of Michael Brown’s death, and the inescapable conclusion that the lives of young black men are held in low regard, from the pain of history and memory. The question of exactly what happened between Wilson and Brown on that street in Ferguson, and why one of them wound up in the cemetery while the other walked away and now gets to move on with his life, is part of a much longer story of white fear, white hatred and white violence inflicted on black bodies. That story includes the list of black men and black boys who have been killed by panicky cops just this year, for bad reasons or unclear reasons or no reasons at all. It includes the black men hanged by mobs from poplar trees in the town square during the last century, that “pastoral scene of the gallant South,” in the words of “Strange Fruit,” the Abel Meeropol poem and song made famous by Billie Holiday. It includes the men brutalized or killed for resisting the tyranny of slavery during the century before that, or simply killed because they had displeased someone who held power over them, and because they were property and had no rights.

    Which of these perspectives on American history in black and white is more “fair,” or more “just”? Which contains more of the truth? Questions like that depend entirely on what we think those words mean. Look around you at the vast racial disparity reflected in public opinion polls, in social media and in the vitriolic comments on Internet articles (including this one, no doubt), and you can only conclude that our definitions of fairness and justice and truth are also conditioned by race and by history. Is it fair to connect what happened between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson to long-ago crimes whose perpetrators and victims are long dead? When it comes to the specific question of Wilson’s guilt or innocence, probably not. But is it fair to decouple every single such incident from history, to pretend that we are fully enlightened beings who have left all patterns of bigotry and racial hatred and institutionalized police violence behind us?

  155. po says:

    That’s the whole point, Elaine! I keep discussing this issue with people, White people on the conservative side, and black people on the Uncle Tom side, who repeat that bS of viewing every instance of police shooting of a black man outside of its structure of routine occurrence.
    Even Obama is guilty of that… Nothing ever exists in a vacuum and the Mike Brown shooting must be viewed indeed as part of the legacy of slavery and structural/systematic discrimination.

    As soon as the first black man landed on these shores, the pr work to delest him of his humanity in order to dehumanize him completely started in earnest. When times changed and the horror of slavery became too much for some to handle, others worked on proving that blacks were lesser beings indeed. That work never really stopped, and the system is built upon that framework.
    Ta Nehisi Coates wrote a fantastic article in the Atlantic several months ago, that shows the extent to which the system went in order to install such discriminatory structure, and that every issue that affects the black community, whether inner or outer, can be traced directly to that.
    Every instance of police shooting of a black man is related to another, the ones before and the ones after, because they tend to be generated by the same cultural and psychological forces.

    That is why the “mob” was out, because Mike Brown’s death, to them, was one more chapter in that long running book that is the discriminatory legacy of slavery, not one event separate from the previous ones, and the others,soon to follow.
    That is also why to hear Bob blame the mob for calling for justice, is to hear him blame the victim for reacting to the injustice.

  156. Elaine M. says:

    Po,

    Don’t know if you saw my earlier post about the following article…so I’ll post a link to it again:

    The new threat: ‘Racism without racists’
    By John Blake, CNN
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/

  157. Bob Kauten says:

    Mike,
    “Lord Love a Duck” is not quite an unknown movie.
    I saw it when it came out.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Mike,
      “Lord Love a Duck” is not quite an unknown movie.
      I saw it when it came out.”

      Bob K,
      Then you and I must have had similar sensibilities at the time since the studio pulled it after about 3 weeks. I thought then and now that it was a great, funny movie that said much about America.

  158. po says:

    Thanks, Elaine. Quite insightful! This quote frames it in depth: “But as Nicholas Kristof recently pointed out in The New York Times, the U.S. has a greater wealth gap between whites and blacks than South Africa had during apartheid.” Wow!

    • bigfatmike says:

      ” the U.S. has a greater wealth gap between whites and blacks than South Africa had during apartheid.” Wow!”

      This is a little off track, but there are pretty good stats to show that America the land of opportunity is now more stratified than many of the countries in Europe, the land of kings and royalty.

      If you are born in a lower SES or if you parents are rich it is pretty likely you will remain in that social strata.

      So choose your parents well. Their SES and accomplishments may have more to do with your job opportunities and career alternatives than anything you can do in college.

      There are exceptions and some do manage to break through all the way to the top. But SES and gini coefficients are difficult barriers to overcome. For many, your fathers job tells us more about where you will wind up than your college and gpa.

      That might not be so bad if the standard of living were increasing. But about 70% of the population has been loosing ground, in real terms, not just since the last recession but since the 1970’s.

      Some shrug their shoulders as though that is just the market, so what. We should remember, economies work well or fail depending on whether the needs of most of population are satisfied.

      After the WWII an average man could expect to find a job. If he were responsible enough to go to work and put in a good day, he could expect to eventually own a house, a car, maybe two, put his children through college and retire in reasonable comfort. For many Americans those modest goals are out or reach – even with two wage earners working all their adult lives.

      Something has gone terribly off the tracks. And as Po has pointed out, for some groups in American it was never on the tracks in the first place.

  159. Bob Stone says:

    Gene: In this instance, the GJ infringed upon the role of the courts in the justice system because McCulloch (and this word is important) led them into acting as a trier of fact by effectively mounting a defense of Wilson instead of presenting the evidence neutrally and letting the chips fall where they may.

    Me: The Grand Jury infringed upon the role of the courts in the justice system?

    Infringing upon the rights of targets or infringing upon the the independence of the grand jury are concepts I’m familiar with; but the grand jury infringing upon the role of the courts in the justice system?

    Can you cite me any case that comes close to what you’re talking about?

    Gene: Every wrong is not defined by a specific case, Bob. That is how new case law is made; novel situations or situations not brought to review before. However, when an active defense is presented to GJ without the benefits of cross had at trial, steering the Grand Jury to a specific conclusion supplanting the finder of fact?

    That’s not quite the way it works Gene; and you know it. Your complaint about the conduct of the grand jury is non-justiciable for lack of standing (i.e. no demonstrable injury) and being a political question. The reason you can’t cite case law is that your special pleading in this matter has boxed you into a corner. When you say…

    Gene: I suggest you learn the difference between due process and equal protection before you start this argument, Bob. And understand that what McCulloch did was subvert due process to deny equal protection. He intentionally biased the way the evidence was presented to the grand jury.

    That’s nonsense because 1) you can not point to any injury in fact that would give you standing to
    make such a complaint; i.e. whose equal protection and due process rights were violated? (you haven’t even suggested a remedy)

    and 2) asking the court to interfere with prosecutorial discretion, especially where you cannot point to an injury in fact, means asking the court to show a clear lack of respect for the separation of powers.

    Prosecutorial misconduct is anything that prevents the accused from receiving a fair trial.

    You’re alleging prosecutorial misconduct when your sole complaint is that the prosecutor did not harm the accused.

    Every intimation of a remedy you may seek necessitates doing away with grand juries and/or prosecutorial discretion. Ergo, the political question problem and part of the reason you have no case law. The other part being that you won’t find a single successful case of someone suing a prosecutor to file charges where the prosecutor has chosen not to do so because he/she knows a guilty verdict would be impossible. And, because grand juries are secret, you ESPECIALLY won’t find a case of someone attempting to sue the prosecutor for wrongfully influencing grand jurors to return a no true bill.

  160. pete says:

    Forget body cameras on police. Have them all carry ham sandwiches, then when the prosecutor gets the grand jury to indict the ham sandwich, the sandwich will then take a plea deal and implicate the officer.

    I knew all those episodes of “Law and Order” wouldn’t go to waste.

  161. Bob Stone says:

    Slarti: “Once again we see that Bob has no reasons to give as to why my reasoning is invalid”

    Kevin,

    Your reliance on Ipse dixit for your arguments grows tiresome; especially when it asks me to accept your explanation of proper police procedure over a former assistant Director of the FBI.

    Run off now and find me a police practice handbook that supports your contentions while referring to a “magical negro.”

  162. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine,

    The line forming to find a connection between Wilson and the KKK is right next to the one demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate.

  163. Bob Stone says:

    Po,

    Same facts but now Darren Wilson is Jewish and Mike Brown was Palestinian.

    What would be your justification for accusing Wilson of executing Brown simply because of the history of bad blood between Jews and Palestinians?

  164. Bob Stone says:

    Stay Classy!

    The Westlake tree-lighting and Macy’s star-lighting ceremonies took place around 5 p.m. Protesters made good on their vow to disrupt the proceedings, at one point causing children gathered to sing carols to break into tears.

    “We’re trying to have maximum disruption, maximum attention and potentially shutting down the city as much as we can,” Mohawk Kuzma, with the group Justice for Mike Brown Seattle, said before the ceremony.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/seattle-mall-closed-as-protesters-5922596.php

  165. gbk says:

    Blouise,

    Many miss the visual Magritte reference in the scene. The dichotomy of the blanket and Magritte is wonderful.

    It reminds me of what one refuses to see, though all is well exposed.

  166. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    Where did the line form for those who claimed that Michael Brown beat Darren Wilson so severely that he suffered an orbital eye fracture?

  167. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    While I’m sure it is a concept that you would rather couldn’t be elucidated, “magical negro” is a term that was defined in an article Mike linked and used in the discussion here, so I believe that it is a perfectly valid semantic. As for my source, I’ve cited Blouise. Feel free to proceed with voir dire if you like—that didn’t seem to work out too well for nivico, though…

    If you don’t like my claims about proper police procedure, then please tell us what you think would have been appropriate.

    After backing up to begin the encounter, what should Officer Wilson have done? (Hint: the correct response should minimize or eliminate the possibility of getting into a struggle for his weapon)

    After Mr. Brown disengaged, what do you think would have been correct police procedure? (Hint: there was no longer an immanent threat so Officer Wilson should have been acting like a police officer rather than someone in fear for their life)

    If you wish to claim that I’m wrong (or that Blouise is wrong) about proper procedure, then the burden is on you to tell us what you think proper procedure actually would be.

    As for your silly Jewish/Palestinian hypothetical, while correlation is not causality, it is still unlikely to be coincidence. White cops kill black men at a far higher rate than simple demographics would suggest. Only a fool would argue that this is due to random chance, so it is likely that the same causal factors are in play in this case as in the others.

  168. Bob Stone says:

    Let’s see, a rumor about an orbital eye fracture that CNN, et. al. disproved within 12 hours and

    Benjamin Crump at Brown’s Funeral:

    “Fifty-nine years ago this week, 14-year-old Emmett Till was murdered for allegedly “whistling” at a white woman. His death and open-casket funeral revealing the boy’s brutalized body caused a national outcry, demonstrating how African Americans were viewed as less than human in many parts of our society, and that those who kill them would likely go unpunished.

    But the killings of Emmett Till and those like him, for infractions small or imagined, didn’t start 59 years ago. These killings and the divide they illustrate are rooted in 400 years of oppression.

    Michael Brown is now part of a tragic legacy, a member of a group that includes Till. ”

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/emmett-till-michael-brown-story-old-america-itself

    Florida Bar Rules
    RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT

    A lawyer shall not:

    (d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

  169. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    My admonition stands; and Blouise is not an expert on police procedure. You don’t get a pass simply because I like Blouise.

    And “magical negro” is a term that was never used by me or in any conversation I’m familiar with.

    Again, your ipse dixit doesn’t trump the analysis of a former assistant Director of the FBI’s analysis of proper police procedure.

  170. Bob,

    Apparently you cannot distinguish between identifying a problem and solving a problem. Guess which I was doing.

    “That’s nonsense because 1) you can not point to any injury in fact that would give you standing to
    make such a complaint; i.e. whose equal protection and due process rights were violated? (you haven’t even suggested a remedy) ”

    The charge is obstruction of justice. The injury is interference with the function of and harm to the reputation of the state’s criminal justice system. In this instance. You could argue that gives is state AG standing to bring charges on behalf of the State. Remedy could/should be the appropriate penalty and McCulloch losing his job and/or voiding this Grand Jury’s finding ab initio and convening another where the evidence is presented in an unbiased manner..

    “and 2) asking the court to interfere with prosecutorial discretion, especially where you cannot point to an injury in fact, means asking the court to show a clear lack of respect for the separation of powers. ”

    Asked and answered in re injury and since the SAG like the DA is part of the Executive, the Executive policing the bad acts of the Executive via the courts is anything but a violation of the Separation doctrine.

    Nice try though. Anticipated. But nice try.

    Will the State have the balls to do that? Probably not. They’re more likely to rely on short attention spans and shiny objects to obscure the problem (although they might shuffle McCulloch out the deck).

  171. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    Seriously?

    Then why do you seem to be just fine with the DA in this case engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice? Behavior which could possibly be on account of race as well.

    Do you enjoy being hoist with your own petard?

  172. pete,

    Excellent analysis/suggestion. It seems you are indeed close to your quota. 😀

  173. Kevin,

    Don’t call Bob petarded. That isn’t nice. We prefer the term “justice challenged”. :mrgreen:

  174. “engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,”

    You mean like spinning the evidence in a Grand Jury proceeding to get a prejudicial result, Bob?

  175. po says:

    Bob Stone says:
    November 29, 2014 at 9:53 pm
    Po,

    Same facts but now Darren Wilson is Jewish and Mike Brown was Palestinian.

    What would be your justification for accusing Wilson of executing Brown simply because of the history of bad blood between Jews and Palestinians?
    _______________________
    I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, Bob! I am not sure I see the link between Wilson/Brown and Israelis/Palestinians.
    Are you saying that I would accuse Wilson of executing Brown simply because I have accused some Israelis of executing some Palestinians?
    Are you saying that because of my identifying with the Palestinians I would necessarily/unavoidably side with Brown over Wilson?

  176. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    The term “magical negro” was used on one of these threads to indicate the seemingly supernatural powers that apologists like yourself tend to impart to African Americans. Think of it as a shorthand for your big bad Michael Brown vs. poor little Officer Wilson meme.

  177. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    I never suggested that you should give Blouise a pass because you like her, I suggested that if you wanted to disagree then you should test her expertise. Or don’t you understand what voir dire means? Come on, either explain why Blouise is wrong (and what is right) or accept that assertion as true, your choice. Or can’t* you give reasons beyond ipse dixit yourself?

    * pun intended

  178. blouise says:

    gbk,

    Yep

  179. Elaine M. says:

    Po,

    I don’t know if BOB understands what he’s saying. He’s all over the place–a mall in Seattle, Michael Brown’s funeral, the Middle East.

  180. Slartibartfast says:

    Gene,

    Bob brought it on himself—he seems to be following nivico’s example of being his own worst enemy. We should make a drinking game: take a sip whenever Bob commits a logical fallacy, take two whenever he accuses a straw man of a logical fallacy and finish the bottle when he accuses someone of a fallacy that he is currently using. Well, maybe not… we’d probably die of alcohol poisoning.

  181. blouise17 says:

    My admonition stands; and Blouise is not an expert on police procedure. You don’t get a pass simply because I like Blouise. – Bob S

    Hey wait a minute! I’m as much an expert as anyone else on this thread. And I submit that I have more actual experience working with police than any of you. Man, this is a tough room.

  182. pete/Elaine,

    Would it be prejudicial to find the ham sandwich delicious before trial?

    I’m thinking about having one right now to try out the theory. The delicious part of it anyway.

  183. blouise17 says:

    voiding this Grand Jury’s finding ab initio and convening another where the evidence is presented in an unbiased manner.. – Gene

    Now that’s a suggestion I fully support. But I’m fairly certain the Jerry Ford’s out there want us all to move on, for the good of the Nation.

  184. po says:

    Tough room indeed, Blouise.
    What a great room though! One minute Bob and I are ganging up on Mike, and the next, Mike and I, and Blouise, and Gene and Slart, and Elaine… well, all of us, are ganging up on Bob and nivico!
    I wonder who will be under siege next!
    I suspect nivico is a very likely candidate…unless Tony C returns, that is.
    Anyone heard from him? Has he really quit or just getting the mental health care he has been neglecting?
    What a baby, that guy! If you out there, Tony, may God, whose existence has been proven without a doubt, be with you (that should get him running back here with fire and brimstone)!

  185. blouise17 says:

    pete,

    The visual mind picture you created, Wilson walking into the grand jury room eating a ham sandwich, placing it on the witness stand then exiting the room, would make a great editorial cartoon. Any number of captions would fit. Or, Wilson could be sitting in the witness chair facing a a tray of 12 ham sandwiches. The mind boggles at the possibilities.

  186. gbk says:

    Do you mean Gerald R. Ford; the one that pardoned Nixon?

    Well, there’s always this:

  187. Slartibartfast says:

    Blouise,

    Bob has every right to try and prove he knows more about police procedure than you do.

    And I have every right to put a $20 on you in that cage match.

    I appear to have been biased by this thread… I was leaning towards a Caesar salad, but now I’m thinking about a ham sandwich (or an Italian one, anyway).

    Po,

    I don’t think anyone has heard from Tony since he went on walkabout. He probably just got distracted by something shiny.

  188. blouise17 says:

    po,

    Bob has made some excellent points requiring all of us to clarify our thoughts and prose and certainly kept/keeps the discussion going. It’s kind of like the good old days.

    As to Tony, he’s fine.

  189. po says:

    Glad to hear, Blouise, about Tony!
    Bob’s debating method reminds me of my brother’s. Says just enough so it won’t bind him, and picks at whatever you say so you keep clarifying your points until you slap him (me) or you throw your hands up and quits. We all knew he shoulda been a lawyer!

  190. “Bob’s debating method reminds me of my brother’s. Says just enough so it won’t bind him, and picks at whatever you say so you keep clarifying your points until you slap him (me) or you throw your hands up and quits.”

    Or until you give him a ham sandwich.

  191. blouise17 says:

    gbk,

    Who was that masked man?

  192. gbk says:

    Blouise,

    Who knows; now?

  193. Mike Spindell says:

    “Magical Negro” entered this discussion thread sometime ago when I posted an article referencing the concept in the context of Wilson’s description of Michael Brown looking like a demon and evincing fear of him, even though Wilson was a large man himself and had a Sig Sauer to boot. It is a rather old concept ascribing to Black people superhuman powers. In the white psyche it makes Black men people to be feared and distrusted. It is also tied up psychologically in the idea that Black men have larger penises and thus would satisfy White women better. It is integral to the racial prejudice of fear of diminished manhood. I must apologize though for introducing it into Bob’s thread because he clearly doesn’t believe police are capable of racist activity, or even breaking the law, so if Wilson stated that Michael Brown seemed “demon” like, we must respect the officers judgment and conclude that he had just cause to kill Michael Brown from being a “Black Demon” Here is another article about “magical negroes which Bob is excused from reading because he doesn’t do prejudice.

    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/racism-problematic-belief-magical-negro-spike-lee-movies-hollywood-92167/

  194. Bob Stone says:

    Gene: The charge is obstruction of justice. The injury is interference with the function of and harm to the reputation of the state’s criminal justice system. In this instance. You could argue that gives is state AG standing to bring charges on behalf of the State.

    Really? Draw up the complaint Gene.

    Parties, jurisdictional allegations, (which must include why it’s justiciable), and don’t forget the jurisdictional allegations.

    And please don’t spare any details in explaining how the state AG can do this by showing how a county prosecutor “used the GJ to infringe upon the role of the courts in the justice system because McCulloch (and this word is important) led them into acting as a trier of fact by effectively mounting a defense of Wilson instead of presenting the evidence neutrally and letting the chips fall where they may.”

    N.B. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821

    Criminal prosecutorial decisions vindicate only intangible interests, common to society as a whole, in the enforcement of the criminal law. The conduct at issue has already occurred; all that remains is society’s general interest in assuring that the guilty are punished. See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”).

    And don’t forget, a prosecutor is “the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sover­eignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

    We’ll get to a remedy when you can show how the state A.G. can indict county prosecutorial discretion.

  195. Elaine M. says:

    Barack Obama, Ferguson, and the Evidence of Things Unsaid
    Violence works. Nonviolence does too.
    TA-NEHISI COATESNOV 26 2014
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/barack-obama-ferguson-and-the-evidence-of-things-unsaid/383212/2/

    Excerpt:
    Black people know what cannot be said. What clearly cannot be said is that the events of Ferguson do not begin with Michael Brown lying dead in the street, but with policies set forth by government at every level. What clearly cannot be said is that the people of Ferguson are regularly plundered, as their grandparents were plundered, and generally regarded as a slush-fund for the government that has pledged to protect them. What clearly cannot be said is the idea of superhuman black men who “bulk up” to run through bullets is not an invention of Darren Wilson, but a staple of American racism.

    What clearly cannot be said is that American society’s affection for nonviolence is notional. What cannot be said is that American society’s admiration for Martin Luther King Jr. increases with distance, that the movement he led was bugged, smeared, harassed, and attacked by the same country that now celebrates him. King had the courage to condemn not merely the violence of blacks, nor the violence of the Klan, but the violence of the American state itself.

    What clearly cannot be said is that violence and nonviolence are tools, and that violence—like nonviolence—sometimes works. “Property damage and looting impede social progress,” Jonathan Chait wrote Tuesday. He delivered this sentence with unearned authority. Taken together, property damage and looting have been the most effective tools of social progress for white people in America. They describe everything from enslavement to Jim Crow laws to lynching to red-lining.

    “Property damage and looting”—perhaps more than nonviolence—has also been a significant tool in black “social progress.” In 1851, when Shadrach Minkins was snatched off the streets of Boston under the authority of the Fugitive Slave Law, abolitionists “stormed the courtroom” and “overpowered the federal guards” to set Minkins free. That same year, when slaveholders came to Christiana, Pennsylvania, to reclaim their property under the same law, they were not greeted with prayer and hymnals but with gunfire.

  196. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    Blouise was never an assistant Director of the FBI.

    Carol Costello: …. should Officer Wilson have gotten out of the car and run after Michael Brown? Should he have pulled up beside them in the first place or waited for backup? Once he realized that these two were robbery suspects, shouldn’t those things be reviewed?

    CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director TOM FUENTES: He did – he did radio before the encounter that he had the individuals on the street.

    COSTELLO: He didn’t wait for backup to come, though.

    FUENTES: Well, you don’t wait for it. I mean he’s backed up, what’s he going to do? Drive away and wait for other officers. In a small town like that, when you call for assistance or say you have the subjects in sight, you would expect reasonably within a minute or two another police car to arrive. After the altercation when he says “Shots fired” not realizing the radio had switched, again, he would have to assume and rightfully assume that backup is on its way. Now you’re radioing shots fired, you’re going to have 100 police officer – police cars arrive within a matter of minutes if you put out a call like that. I’ve been involved in this before as a street cop. I know how many cars are going to be on route and how fast they’re going to come.

    As far as letting — I’ve heard the comment “Oh, he should have let him go away.” No, he shouldn’t have, at the point where he’s punched in the face and Brown is trying to get his gun, once that’s happened, he can’t let him go because now if the comments that the — that Brown’s unarmed, he doesn’t know that positively that he is unarmed and secondly you’re going to do what? Let him run into a nearby apartment where he could maybe get a butcher knife, hold a family hostage to do it? A police officer cannot let a felon run away just because you had an altercation. That’s just …

    [Batshit crazy.]

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Blouise was never an assistant Director of the FBI.”

      Bob,
      and you seriously think the FBI is an organization to be honored and emulated? Boy you really do have an authoritarian personality.

  197. Bob Stone says:

    And for all you new fans of Scalia

    “the discretion our system allows to prosecutors, … is so broad that we ordinarily find decisions not to prosecute unreviewable.”

    YOUNG v. U.S. EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987)

  198. Bob Stone says:

    SNL time. Signing off.

    “There was only one road back to L.A., U.S. interstate 15. Just a flat-out high speed burn through Baker, and Barstow, and Berdoo. Then on to the Hollywood freeway straight into frantic oblivion. Safety… obscurity… just another freak in the freak kingdom. We’d gone in search of the American dream, it had been a lame fu(k around. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. Fu(k no, not today, thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Algier, a man on the move, and just sick enough to be totally confident.” — H.S. Thompson

    “Goodnight Austin Texas; wherever you are!”

  199. Elaine M. says:

    Butcher knife? Nah! I think Brown would have searched high and low for a Samurai sword.

  200. gbk says:

    Bob,

    Pattern recognition is a very human trait, though far from unique.

    Why the Hunter S. Thompson reference again? Do you think we missed it the first time? Is this stamping your feet for attention?

    Are there syllogisms in your multi-quote that all have missed?

  201. gbk says:

    Sorry for the, “. . . we missed it . . . ” above.

    It should read: “[d]o you think it was missed the first time?”

    Apologies if any think I speak for them.

    But, there’s always tomorrow to sort out such details, isn’t there?

  202. Elaine M. says:

    Darren Wilson: America’s ‘Model Policeman’
    Even as activists are organizing against police violence, many Americans continue to see blacks as criminals—and want our police to act accordingly.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/191673/darren-wilson-americas-model-policeman

    Excerpt:
    Implicit bias research tells us that most Americans are afraid of black people and subconsciously associate dangerous weapons and animals with them. They see things often that are not there. Stanford psychologists Rebecca Haley and Jennifer Eberhardt note in a study last month that the more people perceive blacks as criminals or prisoners, “the more people fear crime, which then increases their acceptance of punitive policies.”

    The truth is that Wilson has no regrets. He wouldn’t do things differently. He’s looking forward to a new chapter in his professional journey as a teacher, trainer or a consultant. He’s our representative figure—a model policeman—acting on our collective fears.

  203. Elaine M. says:

    Khalil Gibran Muhammad November 29, 2014
    Darren Wilson: America’s ‘Model Policeman’
    Even as activists are organizing against police violence, many Americans continue to see blacks as criminals—and want our police to act accordingly.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/191673/darren-wilson-americas-model-policeman

    Excerpt:
    Implicit bias research tells us that most Americans are afraid of black people and subconsciously associate dangerous weapons and animals with them. They see things often that are not there. Stanford psychologists Rebecca Haley and Jennifer Eberhardt note in a study last month that the more people perceive blacks as criminals or prisoners, “the more people fear crime, which then increases their acceptance of punitive policies.”

    The truth is that Wilson has no regrets. He wouldn’t do things differently. He’s looking forward to a new chapter in his professional journey as a teacher, trainer or a consultant. He’s our representative figure—a model policeman—acting on our collective fears.

  204. Elaine M. says:

    Khalil Gibran Muhammad November 29, 2014
    Darren Wilson: America’s ‘Model Policeman’
    Even as activists are organizing against police violence, many Americans continue to see blacks as criminals—and want our police to act accordingly.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/191673/darren-wilson-americas-model-policeman

    Excerpt:
    Implicit bias research tells us that most Americans are afraid of black people and subconsciously associate dangerous weapons and animals with them. They see things often that are not there. Stanford psychologists Rebecca Haley and Jennifer Eberhardt note in a study last month that the more people perceive blacks as criminals or prisoners, “the more people fear crime, which then increases their acceptance of punitive policies.”

    The truth is that Wilson has no regrets. He wouldn’t do things differently. He’s looking forward to a new chapter in his professional journey as a teacher, trainer or a consultant. He’s our representative figure—a model policeman—acting on our collective fears.

  205. blouise says:

    I mean he’s backed up, what’s he going to do? – Bob S and former FBI

    It was the “baked up” that was the over commitment. Once he backed up the two men were right outside his driver’s side window with nothing between him and them but the door through which he must exit and the open window through which, according to Wilson, Brown was able to reach and grab him. Because he had put his car in park he was unable to get away and ended up trapped, struggling for possession of his side arm with bullets flying inside his car.

    Of course all this assumes he was telling the truth regarding recognizing the clothing from the description given in the stealing call. His sergeant testified under oath that Wilson told him shortly after the shooting that he, Wilson, didn’t know about the stealing call. That means he didn’t recognize shit and backed up for some other reason. It was from this Sergeant that the Chief probably got the information that he passed on to the media at the press conference. Later, after Wilson had had time to taylor his story, the Chief changed his to the media but the Sergeant stuck with the original when under oath to the grand jury. (all the page citings for these witnesses are already listed on one of these threads)

    Your FBI guy was being disingenuous. The people who talk to me would be far less forthcoming if the cameras were rolling.

    The other day I was watching CNN and one of their law enforcement experts was talking about the shooting of the 12 year old in Cleveland. He stated flat out that the video showed the 12 year old pointing his fake gun at the officer thus giving the officer no choice but to fire. The video hadn’t been released yet but one of my friends had told me that the boy had not pointed his gun at the office and that the kid hadn’t had time to get it out. The video was released and guess what … no gun pointed at the officer. In fact, when the Chief here in Cleveland first talked about the existence of the tape and long before it was released, he specifically said that the boy had not pointed the gun at the officer. I don’t know where CNN’s expert got his info but I going to venture a guess that it came from a rectal orifice.

  206. blouise17 says:

    Mike,

    I know some really good FBI guys and some really lazy ones. It’s the DEA guys who are the cowboys. One of the Feds I know about took his gun off when he was using a restroom in a big box store. He put it on the metal shelf above the sink intending to reholster it after he finished his business and washed his hands. He forgot and walked out without it. A young boy saw it there a little while later, got his mom and showed her. She got the store manager who called the police. While they were running the surveillance videos to try and identify the person who owned the gun, he returned to the store. I’m not privy to what happened next.

    The only bright spot was the kid who hadn’t touched the gun and got an adult.

  207. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    If Wilson has resigned, the citizens of Ferguson are a little safer.

    Teacher, trainer, or consultant. What a joke. He has a short future on the rubber chicken dinner circuit and then, maybe, the republicans will make him their next Joe-The-Plumber and run him for office. He’ll have to write a book first.

  208. gbk says:

    Let’s also not forget that according to Bob:

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/11/21/stay-classy-grievance-syndicate/#comment-21727

    that:

    “His baton was at the back of his utility belt, where he was essentially sitting on it.”

    What justification this brings to the turmoil escapes me. But to give credence, here is Bob’s full paragraph that he quoted from the St. Louis Post – Dispatch:

    “Wilson, trapped in the front seat, couldn’t use his pepper spray in the confined space because it would incapacitate him as well. His baton was at the back of his utility belt, where he was essentially sitting on it. He did not have a Taser. So he drew his gun.”

    Reads like a thriller, doesn’t it?

    • bigfatmike says:

      “False dilemma? Rather sophomoric; wouldn’t you say?”

      I had decided not to respond to the ‘false dilemma’ remark.

      But Bob’s remarks have come up again. In a previous message Bob asked me if I found Johnson credible and what forensic evidence supported my view.

      I pointed out that most of the story told by Johnson and Wilson were very similar and differed mainly in that Johnson claimed Wilson reached out to grab Brown, while Wilson claimed Brown reached in to grab at the gun. Aside from who did the grabbing their stories are very consistent.

      I pointed out that if you believe Wilson then you also have to believe most of Johnson’s story. And if you believe Johnson is a liar then you have to believe that most of Wilson’s story is false.

      I specifically ask Bob which witness he believed and if there was any forensic evidence to distinguish the two stories.

      Now I argue that my question can only be a dilemma if one has a specific position to support – regardless of the facts. If all one cares about are the facts of the case and where those facts lead then there is no – repeat no – dilemma.

      If all one cares about are the facts then you easily and simply announce which version you find most credible and what you think supports your opinion.

      Bob could not do that. Instead he claimed the question was an attempt to put him in a difficult position – a dilemma. It is as though Bob considers it unfair to ask Bob what he believes and what supports his belief.

      In addition in stead of clearly answering if there were any forensic evidence that supported Bob’s own view and allowed us to distinguish the stories of Johnson or Wilson, Bob answered by quoting extensively from a news story.

      Now I think we can all agree Bob is smart enough to distinguish forensic evidence from a news story.

      But why the news story? Did Bob think we would not notice? Did Bob think that when specifically asked to cite forensic evidence we would be confused and not realize he gave us a news article with absolutely no evidentiary value of any kind?

      I suggest that this is just one more attempt by Bob to direct us away from facts or aspects that diminish the creditably of his argument or anything that cast doubt on Wilson’s story.

      Once again if all you care about are the facts of this case there is no dilemma of any kind.

      The dilemma only arises if you are trying to argue a position regardless of the facts.

  209. “Really? Draw up the complaint Gene. ” Blah blah blah.

    I’m 1) too busy with other things to draw up a complaint just to amuse you and 2) you’re simply being a petulant ass at this point. However, thanks for doing some of the research for me:

    “Criminal prosecutorial decisions vindicate only intangible interests, common to society as a whole, in the enforcement of the criminal law. The conduct at issue has already occurred; all that remains is society’s general interest in assuring that the guilty are punished. See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”).”

    The integrity of the criminal justice system itself is the very definition of an intangible interest common to society as a whole, Bob.

    “And don’t forget, a prosecutor is “the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sover­eignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).”

    Really. What I’ve been doing that has gotten your panties all bunched up is illustrating that impartiality was tossed out the window at the expense of justice. But please, find something else I can use to make my points (again).

    “the discretion our system allows to prosecutors, … is so broad that we ordinarily find decisions not to prosecute unreviewable. YOUNG v. U.S. EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987)”

    Okay, but here he abdicated that decision to the Grand Jury and then hid behind an engineered answer, Bob. If McCulloch had not wanted to prosecute, he simply could have declined and we are back to his realpolitik reason for manipulating the system in the first place: it would have probably cost him his job.

    “By disgracing and degrading the presidency of the United States, by fleeing the White House like a diseased cur, Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream.” – Hunter S. Thompson

    “By disgracing and degrading the criminal justice system of the United States, by manipulating process like a diseased cur, McCulloch broke the heart of the American Dream.” Just in case you were having a problem with the analogy. Is equal protection just a dream, Bob? Or rather an aspirational goal and an integral part of justice. No man should be above the law, Bob. Even the President. Or a cop. The proposition is simple: either you are for a bifurcated legal system that places some above consequence or you are not. It is not hard to divine your stance on this from your flailing justifications for the actually rather manifest abuse of process that went on with this Grand Jury and how the evidence was presented to it.

  210. blouise says:

    gbk,

    ” … couldn’t use his pepper spray in the confined space because it would incapacitate him as well.”

    So then he has this bright idea … “Hey, I’ll shoot my gun instead!” Or are we supposed to believe that Brown did the shooting too? (Oh yeah, that’s right the police forgot to check the gun for finger prints. Or did they and not finding Browns prints decided to forget) I gotta tell you, that 18 year old Brown kid was some superman. I’m surprised it took only 6 bullets to kill him.

    Now, gbk, what if you believed in reincarnation and the karmic chain. If you were Brown, who would you want to reincarnate as? Think about it.

  211. gbk says:

    Blouise,

    I miss the obliqueness of your question, and what I should think about.

    Are you to lecture me on the danger of pepper spray as Chuck did?

    Maybe you missed the quoted reference?

    Sleep well.

  212. blouise says:

    gbk,

    Pepper spray is bad so bullets are better? Well, I guess if one is as bad a shooter as Wilson then bullets probably are less threatening.

    I’ll email you the reincarnation thing cause it really is an evil thought and probably bad for my image as a sweet old lady.

  213. gbk says:

    Blouise,

    E-mail me, then.

    You have forgotten my arguments spanning at least three threads. I’m not the one to ask the question of, “[p]epper spray is bad so bullets are better?”

    You’ve lost reference given my meager contributions of late.

    I have no illusions as to anyone’s character. You have my email address.

  214. blouise17 says:

    gbk,

    No … I remember your arguments. I was agreeing with you in my own sarcastic way.

    Email sent

  215. Slartibartfast says:

    Blouise,

    While I would agree with Bob that Officer Wilson was justified in using lethal force at that point, it has always struck me as stupid to fire a gun inside a car while a struggle for control of said gun is going on. Sure, he wounded Mr. Brown (superficially, I believe), but he could have easily shot himself. Then there is chasing after a fleeing suspect and shooting at him. I doubt that’s how they teach it at the police academy…

  216. gbk says:

    Blouise,

    Sorry for being on edge, but I just had 156 stiches weaved into my left calf from my new neighbor’s pitbull attacking me while I was trimming my fruit trees. The dog is dead; the lesson being do not attack a human with a running chainsaw in their hands.

    Animal Control came by today and took away his second pitbull.

  217. blouise says:

    Slarti,
    I have a problem with that only because the Sergeant’s testimony casts doubt on Wilson’s reason for reapproaching Brown and Johnson after the initial contact when he told them to get out of the street.

    I’m not saying that correctly. Given the deterioration of the situation, the lethal force used was lawful. It is the law itself that I view as wrong for reasons I’ve stated before on other threads.

    As to the fleeing. That was the thing that the prosecutor had to correct as his office misinformed the jury as to the constitutionality of Missouri statute 563.046. As it turns out, Wilson had to have a reasonable belief that Brown posed a dangerous threat to someone or had committed a violent felony. Thus knowing about the stealing call was vital.

    The prosecutor’s assistant worked fairly hard trying to get the Sergeant to say Wilson had told him he knew about the stealing call but the Sergeant stuck to his testimony.

    The jury obviously chose to believe Wilson.

    Society determines how much justice the law can give and the laws are written accordingly. In this case there wasn’t much for Brown and Society has to own up to that.

    The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that even if the GJ had sent up an indictment and even if there had been a prosecutor who prosecuted the case well, the trial jury’s verdict would probably still be “not guilty”. That’s who we are. That’s how we roll. That’s why we’re broken.

  218. blouise17 says:

    gbk,

    Jesus! A 156 stitches! Did he tear your muscle? Good Lord, I am so sorry. Thank goodness you had something to fight him off with. You’re probably going to have to go through physical therapy.

  219. blouise17 says:

    I gotta get to bed. As much as I enjoy your and Slarti’s company, it’s time to find my pillow. Take care of yourself!

  220. mespo727272 says:

    Gbk:

    Sorry about the injury. Dog bites are incredibly painful and puncture wounds leave scars. After you finish with your doctor, call your lawyer.

  221. gbk,

    What Blouise and mespo said. May your recovery be swift and uneventful.

  222. Elaine M. says:

    gbk,

    OUCH! Sounds painful. I hope your recovery will be quick.

  223. Mike Spindell says:

    gbk,

    Wow! Sorry to hear about what you went through, it must have been terrifying, hope your recovery is far less challenging. It seems chainsaws have other uses than for cutting trees and horror movies.

  224. po says:

    Just spent a couple of hours with a guy and his pitbull, the most loving pitbull one can ever meet. Obviously there was much talk about how it is all how the dog is raised and to love them makes them loving….but, man, they seem to be the only ones to kill people.
    Imagine if the other one had joined in….maybe not!
    Hope the new neighbor is just renting.

  225. po says:

    Insightful, BFM!

  226. Bob Stone says:

    BFM: I think you are faced with one of two alternatives:

    1) Admit there was an altercation along the lines described by both Johnson and Wilson and supported by the forensic evidence

    2) Or to claim that Johnson and Wilson are liars when they claim there was an altercation, and that the forensic evidence is in some way false, incomplete, misleading or a total fabrication.

    So which is it Bob. Do you believe Johnson and Wilson? Or are you ready to call Johnson and Wilson liars?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

  227. Bob Stone says:

    @Bob Stone: “What part of Johnson’s story of the altercation at the car makes sense and is substantiated by forensic evidence?”

    That was my question.

    People who lie keep changing their stories; i.e. they’re inconsistent.

    I directed your attention to the altercation at the car, because that’s the whopper.

  228. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    Are you aware there are people believing what you said is true? I said to draw up a complaint in the same manner that I would ask you to saddle up a unicorn; there’s no such thing.

    And there’s no such thing as a state attorney general filing charges against a prosecutor for what you claim McCulloch did; i.e. his job.

    And the fact that you thanked me for Heckler v. Chaney tells me you didn’t even crack a book on this; and yet you’re lecturing me. That’s like telling me you’re half way though the Civil Procedure textbook when you haven’t even read Penoyer v. Neff.

    Jesus H. Christ Gene, this “obstruction of justice” charge of yours wouldn’t even work against Scalia and cadre for when THEY DID IN FACT abuse their position to violate the separation of powers doctrine at the highest apex possible. I’ve been far more angry than you Gene and I’ve been down the road you’re merely pointing to. The difference between my anger at Scalia and your anger at McCulloch is that Scalia exercised power that he knew was specifically not given to him; whereas McCulloch WAS DOING HIS F’N JOB.

    You’re asking one prosecutor to infringe on the prosecutorial discretion of another; not because of prosecutorial misconduct, or the violation of rights of the accused, but because you think you think you know better in the abstract.

    It doesn’t work that way; and you know it.

  229. Bob Stone says:

    gbk,

    “My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly
    with my legs.” — Woody Allen

  230. Bob Stone says:

    gbk,

    Is your neighbor a dick?

  231. Bob Stone says:

    Oh, and I hope you at least got some cool pain meds.

  232. Bob Stone says:

    BFM: “Bob could not do that.”

    Because what Bob can do is show you how Johnson’s story, in its inconsistent aggregate, becomes absolutely ridiculous.

  233. Bob Stone says:

    Johnson’s stories, in their inconsistent aggregate

  234. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise,

    You’re a game player, so I’m sure you’re aware of the rule “cards speak.”

    The fact that Wilson didn’t tell the Sergeant about the robbery at the scene or that the Sergeant recited the events as he did in his testimony doesn’t trump the the radio call “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car”

    Forty-one seconds after Wilson’s call, unit 25 reported that he was about to arrive at Wilson’s location, saying he was “going out on Canfield” and accompanied by the sound of his racing engine.

    25 is not RACING to Canfield to help Wilson simply bully a couple of black kids for no reason.

  235. Bob Stone says:

    “Why the Hunter S. Thompson reference again?”

    I find it therapeutic.

  236. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    Regarding my Jew/Palestinian shift.

    Would there be any justification to claim that the Jewish Darren Wilson executed the Palestinian Mike Brown?

    No. Why? Because law and morality mandates that we judge people as individuals. To punish the Jewish cop for the sins of Jewish cops in the West bank against Palestinians is just as wrong as it is to accuse the real Darren Wilson of executing Mike Brown out of racism.

  237. Bob Stone says:

    Palestinian killings by Israeli security forces in the West Bank

    June 2014

    Ahmad ‘Arafat Husseini Samad’ah

    20 year-old, resident of al-Jalazun R.C, Ramallah and al-Bira district, killed on 16 Jun 2014 in al-Jalazun R.C, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Shot by soldiers in clashes that began in al-Jalazun refugee camp after troops entered the camp during Operation Brother’s Keeper. According to the army, he took part in stone-throwing.

    May 2014

    Nadim Siyam Ahmad Nawarah

    17 year-old, resident of Ramallah, killed on 15 May 2014 in Bitunya, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Shot in the chest and killed in a demonstration that included stone-throwing. Was not throwing stones when killed.

    Muhammad Mahmoud ‘Odeh Salameh

    16 year-old, resident of al-Mazra’a al-Qibliya, Ramallah and al-Bira district, killed on 15 May 2014 in Bitunya, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by gunfire
    bullets. Additional information: Shot in the back and killed in a demonstration that included stone-throwing. Was not throwing stones when killed.

    March 2014

    Yusef Sami Yusef a-Shwamrah

    14 year-old, resident of Deir al-‘Asal al-Foqa, Hebron district, killed on 19 Mar 2014 in Deir al-‘Asal al-Foqa, Hebron district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Fired at by soldiers in ambush after he and two friends went through a gap in the Security Barrier in order to gather the gundelia plant.

    Raed ‘Alaa a-Din Nafe’a Z’eiter

    38 year-old, killed on 10 Mar 2014 in Jericho, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: A Palestinian and Jordanian citizen. Shot by Israeli soldiers at Allenby Crossing, the crossing between the West Bank and Jordan. Shot after he argued with a soldier and shoved him.

    December 2013

    Wajih Wajdi Wajih a-Ramahi

    15 year-old, resident of al-Jalazun R.C, Ramallah and al-Bira district, killed on 07 Dec 2013 in al-Jalazun R.C, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by gunfire
    bullets. Additional information: Was present in a place where teenagers were throwing stones at soldiers located approximately 200 meters away when soldiers shot him in the back. B’Tselem does not have information as to whether or not a-Ramahi took part in the stone-throwing.

    November 2013

    Bashir Sami Salem Habanin

    28 year-old, resident of Merkah, Jenin district, killed on 07 Nov 2013 in Za’tara, Nablus district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Shot to death by Border Police officers and soldiers after he fired firecrackers at Tapuah Junction.

    August 2013

    Karim Subhi Muhammad Saleh

    17 year-old, resident of Jenin R.C, injured on 20 Aug 2013 in Jenin R.C, by gunfire bullets, and died on 31 Aug 2013. Additional information: Injured by shots fired by soldiers during clashes and exchanges of gunfire in the course of an arrest operation at the refugee camp. Took part in stone-throwing at the soldiers. Died of his wounds about ten days later.

    Jihad Mansur Harbi Aslan

    20 year-old, resident of Qalandiya Camp, al-Quds district, killed on 26 Aug 2013 in Qalandiya R.C, al-Quds district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Injured by military fire during clashes that erupted in the course of an arrest in the refugee camp. Took part in stone-throwing at the Israeli security forces during the clashes. Died of his wounds later that day.

    Yunes Jamal Muhammad Jahjouh

    22 year-old, resident of Qalandiya Camp, al-Quds district, killed on 26 Aug 2013 in Qalandiya R.C, al-Quds district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Killed by military fire during clashes that erupted in the course of an arrest at the refugee camp. Took part in stone-throwing at the Israeli security forces during the clashes.

    July 2013

    Mu’taz Idris ‘Abd al-Fatah Sharawnah

    18 year-old, resident of Dura, Hebron district, killed on 02 Jul 2013 in Dura, Hebron district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Shot in the back during clashes with IDF force.

    March 2013

    Mahmoud ‘Adel Fares a-Titi

    22 year-old, resident of al-Fawwar Camp, Hebron district, killed on 12 Mar 2013 in al-Fawwar R.C, Hebron district, by gunfire bullets. Additional information: Shot by soldiers who entered a refugee camp in a vehicle and began firing after their vehicle got stuck and civilians in the camp threw stones at them.

    Muhammad Samih Hussein ‘Asfur

    22 year-old, resident of A’bud, Ramallah and al-Bira district, injured on 22 Feb 2013 in ‘Abud, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by gunfire rubber-coated metal bullets, and died on 07 Mar 2013. Additional information: Wounded in the head during a demonstration in the course of which youths threw stones, and died of his injuries in an Israeli hospital about two weeks later.

  238. Bob,

    Are you aware people are (not particularly) believing what you say?

    Apparently so as you keep blathering about it trying to convince people that doing your job in a biased manner is just dandy.

    As for the realpolitik of the situation, you seem quite ready to use it when it suits your needs (a prosecution of McCulloch won’t happen) yet you refuse to acknowledge the very same realpolitik when it doesn’t suit you (he manipulated the process in the way he did to keep his job).
    As for lecturing, I’m not lecturing you. I’m ripping apart your rationalizations of why this is justice when only the blind cannot tell the way the evidence was presented to the GJ was improper and biased the proceeding. “Doing your job” and “doing your job properly” are not the same damn thing, Bob. The job of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not engage in acts of sabotage in furtherance of outcome determinism.

    When wrestling an opponent, he who controls the center of gravity wins and once that control is gained, it takes much less effort to maintain the superior position than it does to escape it.

    Compare how hard you are fighting and how hard I am fighting compared to audience response.

    I’m arguing from principle. You’re arguing to defend something that under the light of principled scrutiny is practically indefensible. “Legal” and “just” are not necessarily the same thing. You are arguing what McCulloch did was legal and while it wasn’t expressly forbidden? As a matter of principle it was inequitable and unjust and arguably obstruction in fact.

    I’m sorry if that upsets you and that others find your arguments as specious as I do. But you keep seeking to win this argument by defeating mine. That tactic will never work. I’m not arguing to defeat your argument. I’m arguing to create doubt and cause people to question how does equity (and thus equal protection) fit into the concept of justice as a matter of principle. Which I think I’ve done quite well. You cannot win this argument because we are in fact not fighting the same battle and the shape of my victory is considerably different than yours.

    I pretty much have my victory while yours seems to keep slipping from your grasp. The harder you fight, the better I control the center of gravity in this argument. Now I’ve ‘splained it to you in terms of argumentation strategy and tactics. You know I treat argumentation like a bloodsport. Do you really think you have more to gain by persisting to struggle? If so? Interesting. I enjoy an exercise in futility as entertainment as much as the next guy. If not? Why do you persist except for the sake of your own peace of mind that the outcome you desired was reached by just means when I keep (easily) demonstrating that it was not?

    Let me remind you again: this isn’t about Wilson’s guilt or innocence proper. That is a separate issue. This is about the usurpation of process to get a desired outcome by using the GJ in ways that while technically not illegal are biasing and obstructing justice. This is about – in HPT parlance – a process error.

    Would the GJ come back with no true bill if the evidence had been presented in a non-biased way? Who knows now. But at least that outcome would have been just whether it be no true bill or true bill. You cannot escape the reality that what McCulloch did reeks of impropriety, realpolitik and bias when your primary consideration is the integrity of the criminal justice system and the Constitutional guarantees of the 14th and 5th Amendments.

    But feel free to continue struggling.

    It’s funny.

  239. Mike Spindell says:

    “Palestinian killings by Israeli security forces in the West Bank”

    Bob,
    Applying the same logic you used in your series here, all of these killings were justified and those killed were thugs. Seriously? You seem more and more desperate as you go on.

  240. blouise says:

    Bob S.,

    I was going to make a remark about how it doesn’t pay to go to bed but you appear to be refreshed.

    Here’s my problem with the stealing call situation. I’m going to reprint transcript testimony for ease of discussion and so there is no confusion.

    The person under oath is Wilson’s direct supervisor, a Sergeant whose last name was not given in the transcripts but who did arrive on the scene within minutes and was the first person to interview him.
    The first set of questions to Wilson’s Sergeant comes from the prosecutor’s assistant (Vol. V, pp. 52-53):

    Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
    A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
    Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
    A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.

    The next set of questions to Wilson’s Sergeant comes from a juror (Vol. V, p. 58):

    Q: Now, my question to you is this. Are you saying that because he told you he didn’t know about it or are you saying that because he didn’t mention It to you when you were talking to him?
    A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.
    Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn’t know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
    A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
    Q: He told you he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
    A: Correct.

    There really is no way around that. The call you mentioned only suffices to place Wilson and two on Canfield. There is no mention in that call of “matching description” or any other indication that the cal was in response to the info from the stealing call. “Send another car” does nothing more than establish the fact that Wilson might need assistance.

    “The fact that Wilson didn’t tell the Sergeant about the robbery at the scene ” (your words from post above) is not a clear representation of the testimony. According to Wilson’s supervisor/Sergeant he, Wilson, said he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market.

    I don’t believe the Sergeant is committing perjury and the fact that there is no reference at all by Wilson to the stealing in his radio call does not mean that that radio call trumps his supervisor’s sworn testimony. It’s the other way around.

    Wilson’s supervisor has no reason to lie. Wilson, on the other hand, has many reasons to do so.

    I have to admit that I was surprised by the supervisor’s testimony in that I thought the real conflict in testimony was going to be between Johnson and Wilson, not between Wilson and his supervisor/Sergeant.

    If one believes the Sergeant, and I do, then Wilson’s decision to reengage with “the two” had nothing to do with the stealing call. That is where Johnson’s testimony begins to make sense. If one believes the Sergeant, and I do, then one knows that Wilson’s whole story is based on a lie.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that the following deadly confrontation was all Wilson but it does create a reasonable doubt as to how many lies he was willing to tell while testifying under oath.

    There is no way around it. Either Wilson committed perjury or his Sergeant did.

  241. Elaine M. says:

    Blouise,

    What reason could Wilson’s supervisor/sergeant possibly have had for lying under oath?

    Thanks for posting that excerpt from the grand jury testimony transcript.

  242. Bob Stone says:

    “Compare how hard you are fighting and how hard I am fighting”

    Gene,

    I spent a good three hours researching if there was ANY possible merit to your argument. To see if there was something I may be missing.

    And when I come back and explain the problems with your argument, you berate me as being completely wrong and yet never show your cards. I hear grand stories o how good they are, and how you’ve got me so beat, what with your mentioning of violations of the due process clause and the 14th amendment, but you never explain how in any form hitherto known in American jurisprudence.

    Whose answer does the law professor mark wrong? Yours or mine?

    Whatever, you win; since I’d be an ass to continue that line of inquiry any further.

    Let’s try this:

    You claim there was an injustice done by the way McCulloch’s office handled the Grand Jury inquiry. You obviously didn’t read the transcript and review all the evidence before arriving at your conclusion. So what are you relying on that makes you so certain that an injustice was done?

    A finding of probable cause means the grand jury finds sufficient evidence exists to warrant putting the subject of an investigation on trial.

    What specifically has you so convinced there was probable cause; or that these normally secret grand jury proceedings were unorthodox in any way?

    What evidence and testimony do you base your indignation on?

  243. blouise17 says:

    I’d convene another grand jury simply to investigate that. Perjury is a crime, right?

  244. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise,

    Why did Wilson call for backup?

  245. 1) The hours of testimony by Wilson when in the usual course of things the target of a Grand Jury doesn’t even know they are the target much less are allowed to mount a defense.
    2) The great length to which the DA’s office spent framing the evidence in a almost solely exculpatory way.
    3) The non-proffer of charges.
    4) McCulloch’s personal history which should have caused his recusal ab initio.

    As to the rest of your claims about “obviously didn’t read” blah blah blah.

    Sour grapes, Bob. And a handful of wrong assumptions on your part. That it took you three hours to put together an argument I dismantled in fact before you even wrote it (the rest being creative typing)? Is just your bad luck. Why do you think I changed tactics (about which you complained as if I required your permission to do so)? I picked the strongest argument based in Constitutional principle illustrating what is wrong with the prejudicial manner in which McCulloch presented the evidence to the Grand Jury.

    But you keep trying to make it about me personally if you like. We all know that historically works so well. It’s okay. Frustration can be a terrible thing.

  246. Bob Stone says:

    Yes, perjury is a crime.

    Q: Did you ever see Big Mike’s hands inside the car?

    Johnson: No, ma’am, I never, I’m still standing there, more shocked than ever because I see it is escalating, I can see and hear the cuss words, ….

  247. Bob Stone says:

    “That it took you three hours to put together an argument I dismantled in fact before you even wrote it”

    Says quite a bit about who is approaching the topic in earnest.

    You win.

  248. Bob Stone says:

    Mike: Applying the same logic you used in your series here, all of these killings were justified and those killed were thugs. Seriously? You seem more and more desperate as you go on.

    No Mike, my logic says those were acts of cold blooded murder. And I also say that the Jewish Darren Wilson shall not be presumed to have murdered the Palestinian Mike Brown, because there is no legal, moral or logical justification for saddling him with those crimes, in any way, simply by virtue of his race.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Mike: Applying the same logic you used in your series here, all of these killings were justified and those killed were thugs. Seriously? You seem more and more desperate as you go on.

      No Mike, my logic says those were acts of cold blooded murder.”

      Bob,

      Irony usually escapes those of such an authoritarian mindset that they are unable to examine their own premises. A pity.

  249. Elaine M. says:

    Why did Wilson call for backup? Maybe because he was afraid of the big black hulking demon walking down the street who made him feel like a weak little five-year-old?????

  250. Bob Stone says:

    Really Elaine? Is that supposed to be funny?

  251. blouise17 says:

    Bob,

    Because there were two guys and only one of him. The guys hadn’t moved out of the street as instructed. He might need another officer to help handle the two. Seems like a prudent move.

    I live in a town about the size of Ferguson (population wise) and our police force is approximately the same size as Ferguson’s (employee wise). Our officers operate as singles (one officer per patrol unit) like Ferguson. It is common practice, even when writing tickets, for a second unit to pull up. The second officer seldom gets out of the car, just observes. If there’s a traffic accident without injury then often two cars show up to augment the first. One officer directs traffic while the initial responding officer talks to the parties involved, the third officer observes and handles the lookie-lues.

  252. bettykath says:

    6’4″ plus badge, baton, gun vs 6’4″ unarmed Black teen and he’s a five year old vs Hulk Hogan. He couldn’t use his baton b/c he was sitting on it. He couldn’t use the pepper spray b/c it would have overcome him as well. He can’t use a taser because, oh, right, it’s too cumbersome to carry in his car. So he manages to unholster his gun (how does that happen in the close quarters of his SUV?) so the Hulk could grab it. Now how do those excuses, oops, reasons, work once he got out of the car? Oh, that’s right, Brown was no longer near him and bullets were the only thing that would reach Brown who was threatening his life. Wuss comes to mind.

    FWIW, I don’t believe Brown attacked Wilson beyond pushing back on the door that Wilson hit him with when Wilson opened it. I believe that the red spot on Wilson’s face, on the right side, was caused by his face hitting the door jamb when the door was pushed back. I believe the Sgt. who said that Wilson didn’t know anything about the theft. I also believe that Wilson went after Brown b/c hitting one’s face against a car door jamb hurts like blazes and Wilson was angrrrrry. So glad that pos is no longer a cop.

  253. Bob Stone says:

    Ah, so he called for backup to hassle a couple of kids.

    Wilson took car 25 away from its task of tracking down some robbers just to hassle some jaywalking black kids.

    That’s why car 25 was racing to Wilson; because jaywalking trumps robbery.

    Okay then.

  254. Bob Stone says:

    bettykath,

    I take it you haven’t scrutinized Johnson’s narrative(s).

  255. Elaine M. says:

    Bob,

    Do you think Wilson’s sergeant/supervisor lied under oath?

  256. blouise17 says:

    Bob,

    If those two had moved out of the street when Wilson told them to, I don’t think any of this would have happened. But Johnson’s reason for not doing so makes sense in that they were very close to his apartment (verified) and would have to be back on the street in order to cross it.

    The tragedy commenced.

    Hindsight is 20/20

  257. Bob Stone says:

    No Elaine, I don’t think he lied.

  258. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise,

    If those two had moved out of the street, if Brown didn’t keep playing the part of Honey Badger, Wilson would have kept going; having no reason or opportunity for a second glance.

    But that’s not what happened is it.

  259. blouise17 says:

    Bob,

    “Ah, so he called for backup to hassle a couple of kids.”

    No, he called for backup in case those kids hassled him. One of those kids was pretty big, right? They’d already ignored his warning to cease jaywalking. Once he decided to push it, backup was prudent.

    Too bad the backup didn’t race faster. Had he gotten there quicker, Wilson might not have had to shoot his own car or kill another human being.

  260. Bob Stone says:

    “No, he called for backup in case those kids hassled him”

    While they were looking for robbery suspects?

    Whatever.

  261. blouise17 says:

    But that’s not what happened is it. -Bob S

    No, that’s not what happened.

    In hindsight it’s kind of like watching the perfect storm. Since one knows how it’s going to end, one wants to shout out at various times, “No, don’t do that!”

  262. Bob,

    Earnest?

    Did you ever wonder why Vince was (is) so hard to argue against? You weren’t taught to argue every side first?

    “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

    Since when do you get to tell your opponent they’ve won (you wouldn’t have known the shape of my victory unless I told you, the way you were arguing evidences that)?

    “If you are far from the enemy, make him believe you are near.”

    Again: the shape of my victory was never to convince you. Your steadfast adversity made that a losing battle before the first move. You were fighting to win. I was fighting to create doubt based in principle(s) and to highlight process error. I was fighting for the judges, which in this instance is the audience. “Defeat you” wasn’t the point. Make your argument defeat itself? That was closer to the goal.

    “The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”

    “Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy.”

    You can thank me later, grasshopper.

  263. blouise17 says:

    “While they were looking for robbery suspects?”

    Wilson didn’t know that … remember the Sergeant’s testimony?

    Now, if the responding officer, the one who got there after Wilson killed Brown, raced there because he, the responding officer, knew about the stealing call that doesn’t clear Wilson of perjury to the GJ because said knowledge was not Wilson’s.

  264. The difference between issues of truth and realities that are axiomatic, is that truth is immortal and inflexible; everything else is a concept.

    It is true that Mike Brown was killed by Mr. Wilson and it is ciomatic that Officer Wikson is innicent until proven guilty.

    Arguig with parties who are damnatiin bent on ignoring any facts that cant achive a desired result is truly insane as it axiomatically feeds the ignorance.

    G-d forgive me for siding with Bob; but he gets a mark point for accepting the gifts that snides provide.

    Like – seriously – Backup is a protocol

    B that as it may, let’s consider being kind to each other this Christmas season and turn to a new thread, please.

    I suggest we start arguing on the present and probable future of “whn” the step dad will be indicted for inciting a riot;

    and if Ofgicer Wilson is entitled to th hundreds of thousands an anonymous gal raised in selling shirts.

    Happy Holidays

    And let the games begin…

  265. Er, I’m sorry

    Factually, I should have said continue

  266. Uh Bob,

    I beg to differ counselor. The law leaves the option of indicting in the hands of prosecutorial discretion;

    Which – in this case (arguably) was done to satisfy/ quell emotion.

  267. Elaine M. says:

    Prosecutors repeatedly stressed Brown’s pot use
    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/prosecutors-repeatedly-stressed-brown-s-pot-use/article_71a79204-ff00-5070-9d1e-96098250e723.html

    Excerpt:
    When St. Louis County Police conducted a followup interview of two construction workers who witnessed the Michael Brown shooting, a detective focused not on what they had seen but on a single word one of the men had said to Brown: “wax.”
    Pot smokers use the term to describe a process that concentrates marijuana’s most active ingredient — tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — into a highly potent sticky tar.

    The worker told police he had made an offhand remark that Brown should try waxing to get a better high. But he said Brown told him he had never heard of it.

    Waxing became a theme in a three-month long St. Louis County grand jury investigation.

    Throughout months of prosecutors questioning witnesses, marijuana use, which may have involved waxing, was frequently presented as a potential explanation for why an unarmed 18-year-old attacked a police officer and then charged head first into a barrage of bullets, as Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson has testified.

    But investigators did not present a single witness to the grand jury who said they saw Brown wax or saw him use marijuana the day of the shooting.

    Even expert witnesses told jurors it was impossible to say how marijuana would have affected Brown.

  268. bron98 says:

    Bob, Esq:

    The kid led a life that would have ended in tradgedy one way or another. If Wilson hadnt shot him, another cop would have or maybe he would have killed another cop and then been on death row or executed by cops when the went to arrest him.

    This young man’s entire life led to that moment on the street.

    Where were his parents and the community when he could have been helped to turn into a productive member of society? Why dont people care about the little kid in Cleveland and Miriam Carey? Cops killed them with little or no reason. Why does Michael Brown rate riots?

    Maybe the officers in the other 2 cases were black and so there isnt any racial animosity to raise?

  269. Elaine M. says:

    Bron,

    You think you know that Michael Brown’s future would have led to tragedy? I taught in a white middle class community where some of the juveniles from “good families” did far worse things than Michael Brown–including using cocaine and killing friends while driving drunk. But…they were white and came from families of means. The future wasn’t as bleak for those young men as it might have been for Michael Brown had he not been killed by Darren Wilson. Where, oh where, were their parents? Can you give me a clue?

  270. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob said:

    “That it took you three hours to put together an argument I dismantled in fact before you even wrote it”

    Says quite a bit about who is approaching the topic in earnest.

    You win.

    A good argument off the top of one’s head beat a bad argument, no matter how meticulously researched, every time.

    Yes, perjury is a crime.

    Q: Did you ever see Big Mike’s hands inside the car?

    Johnson: No, ma’am, I never, I’m still standing there, more shocked than ever because I see it is escalating, I can see and hear the cuss words, ….

    First of all, the phrase “Big Mike” is yet another reference to Mr. Brown’s “magical negro” status (i.e. it is effectively propaganda). Second, while either Officer Wilson or the sergeant clearly committed perjury, there is nothing at all in this statement that rises to that level (certainly not that could be proven). Mr. Johnson said that he didn’t see Mr. Brown’s hands inside the car. How are you going to establish that this is a lie? Was he wearing a point-of-view video camera that only you were privy to? It’s too bad that you don’t seem to respect the people here enough to realize that such puerile word games wont fool us. Do you think that your straw man of Mr. Johnson as a perjurer will distract people from Officer Wilson’s likely perjury in fact?

  271. po says:

    Good grabbing onto the “Big Mike”, Slarti, I missed it completely!

    Bron, I know I have asked this before, but are you serious?!!!!!!!!!!
    Did you turn out according to the stupid/criminal acts you did when you were young? When your teachers thought you would never amount to anything based on those acts, were they right?
    I know people I grew up with, who did much worse than Mike Brown is known to have done, they are know upstanding citizens and great people.

  272. Po,

    I know for a fact turnarounds from bad upbringings, do occur

    And I concur that h notiins of Esq. A

    and others, is assumptiin of facts that never will be in evidence.

    It sucks that ppl seek the worst and defend th worst; as a paradigm.

  273. Slartibartfast says:

    Re “waxing”: So now Mr. Brown is not just a magical negro, but was partaking in the killer weed and suffering from super-duper reefer madness? Now, I could believe it if waxing caused him to cough uncontrollably for a couple minutes or go after a bag of Doritos with extreme prejudice, but attack a cop? Sorry, got to call bullshit on that one. Just more propaganda to play on people’s naive prejudices.

    From what I understand, wax will get you extremely baked though. I’m sure Hunter would have loved it.

  274. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    You didn’t even read the testimony of Dorian Johnson to the Grand Jury and you call me an apologist? Pure balls.

    “First of all, the phrase “Big Mike” is yet another reference to Mr. Brown’s “magical negro” status (i.e. it is effectively propaganda)”

    Q: All right. So with that said, let’s talk about you knew Mike Brown, right? You call him Big Mike?

    Johnson: I’m going to ask if I can refer to him as Big Mike, that’s the way it sounds funny saying if it is okay with the jury.

    Q: Absolutely, I will call him Big Mike too if you don’t mind.

    Johnson: Thank you.

    Q: So you were good friends with Big Mike?

    Johnson: We were good friends, but not childhood…

    “Second, while either Officer Wilson or the sergeant clearly committed perjury, there is nothing at all in this statement that rises to that level (certainly not that could be proven).”

    Johnson: At this time I’m not behind him any more, we’re side to side so I can see everything that is going on.

  275. bron98 says:

    Elaine/Po:

    Most people I know behaved pretty well as young men. The only people I know who would go into a 7-11 and rough up/man handle a small shop keeper are probably in jail or dead.

    Doing drugs is one thing, roughing people up and stealing from them is quite another.

    White priveledge is all around us. I wonder why Ben Carson, Alan West, Michael Jordon, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and millions of other succesful black men and women didnt get that message?

    Why is it always about race with liberals? If Wilson was black and Brown was white, where would the outrage be? Race, Race, Race, it an obsession with the left. The left stokes the flames of racism, it benefits the government. It is really messed up.

  276. Elaine M. says:

    Why Ferguson Burns
    http://m.thenation.com/article/191505-why-ferguson-burns

    Ferguson is on fire. Immediately after St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced that a grand jury had failed to indict Police Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, waves of unrest roiled the city. A dozen buildings were torched and looted, and two police cars were set ablaze. As President Obama appeared on TV urging calm, cops in Ferguson fired rounds of tear-gas canisters into crowds and deployed armored vehicles with gun turrets that were built for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They eventually arrested sixty-one people. In cities across the country, Americans spontaneously took to the streets, shutting down highways and bridges in acts of civil disobedience. In New York City, one demonstrator splattered Police Commissioner Bill Bratton with fake blood.

    From the president on down, the official response to these protests has been to demand, in an impotent mantra, respect for the rule of law. So yes, let’s talk about that rule of law. To begin with, let’s talk about the near impunity with which law-enforcement agents in this country shoot, choke and beat unarmed civilians. This epidemic of lawful violence has become so routine that we lack even accurate statistics about it. By one count, on-duty police officers committed 3 percent of all homicides last year. A more expansive study by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement found that in 2012, a black person was killed by a police officer, security guard or self-appointed vigilante every twenty-eight hours.

    As Chase Madar points out at TheNation.com, state and federal law gives wide latitude to police officers to use deadly force in self-defense, or merely in carrying out an arrest, if such force is “objectively reasonable.” In practice, that standard means police accounts are almost always taken as truth, even if eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence points to a different reality. And as recent cases remind us, when the suspect has dark skin, what counts as an “objectively reasonable” use of force by police may be prompted by a toy gun, a loose cigarette, the symptoms of mental illness, or a person simply walking into the darkened stairwell of his own building. This two-tiered system of justice—one for civilians, the other for law enforcement—must end.

    Let’s also talk about “broken windows” policing, the guiding principle in virtually every major city in America. The debate over stop-and-frisk in New York, in which more than 80 percent of those stopped were African-Americans or Latinos, exposed the racist underpinnings of such policies. Less known has been the fact that over-policing minor offenses isn’t just racist; it’s systematic extortion of the poor. In Ferguson, a town of 21,000 mostly African-American citizens, the city court issued more than 32,000 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses in 2012, raking in court fees and fines from those too poor to mount a legal defense. As Radley Balko documented in a devastating Washington Post exposé, some municipalities in St. Louis County make 40 percent or more of their annual budget from the collection of fines for infractions as minor as playing loud music, disturbing the peace and, yes, even wearing saggy pants. And let’s talk, finally, about what all this over-policing ultimately produces: a historically unprecedented system of mass incarceration in which nearly half of all black men by age 23 will have been arrested, and in which 3,000 prisoners—65 percent of them black—currently languish in prison for life for nonviolent crimes.

    So yes, Ferguson is on fire. Black America, brown America, poor America is on fire. And these embers of rage will smolder and flare until our out-of-control “justice” system is thoroughly reformed.

  277. bettykath says:

    Bob, yes, I have read Wilson’s testimony. I know he told more than one lie and so much of his story is beyond credibility. Once you realize that his story is self serving and you look critically at what the witnesses have to say, you realize that it just didn’t happen the way he says it did. His testimony could best be used to charge him with perjury if he and the witnesses were all subjected to the rules of a jury trial and subjected to cross examination. I settled for guilty as charged and let him float on the perjury.

    The other possibility is that none of the witnesses can withstand a critical cross examination and Wilson is the one telling the truth. Wouldn’t a trial be a great way to determine which of the witnesses are credible? Too bad we don’t get that opportunity. Good for Wilson, though.

  278. blouise says:

    “Why does Michael Brown rate riots?” Bron

    Maybe because the authorities left his body in the street for over 4 hours while his mother stood on the tree lawn/sidewalk pleading with them to cover him. That gave people a lot of time to gather, trade information, and take pictures of Brown’s dead body while they listened to his mother’s cries and pleas. That information they were trading was the story Dorian Johnson had to tell because Dorian Johnson went to see Brown’s grandmother within an hour after Brown was killed. You can bet Johnson’s version of events got to the community very quickly. And finally, maybe because Ferguson’s black population has a history of abuse at the hands of the police force, Johnson’s story was believable to those who live within that community.

  279. blouise17 says:

    Q: Did you ever see Big Mike’s hands inside the car?

    Johnson: No, ma’am, I never, I’m still standing there, more shocked than ever because I see it is escalating, I can see and hear the cuss words, ….

    And surprise, surprise, all the law enforcement folk “forgot” to check Wilson’s gun for Brown’s fingerprints … or did they?

  280. bron98 says:

    Blouise:

    Where are the other stories of police brutality in Ferguson?

  281. bettykath says:

    I agree that the protests aren’t just about Michael Brown. He served as the catalyst after many decades of police abuse.

  282. Bob Stone says:

    “Bob, yes, I have read Wilson’s testimony. I know he told more than one lie and so much of his story is beyond credibility. Once you realize that his story is self serving and you look critically at what the witnesses have to say, you realize that it just didn’t happen the way he says it did.”

    Bettykath,

    By all means, please show us each and every lie and or reason you find “so much of [Wilson’s] story … beyond credibility.”

    Meanwhile, from The Washington Post:

    The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]

    By Paul Cassell November 28

    “Perhaps the reason for this disinterest in the ballistics report, autopsies and other similar information is that for at least some of Brown’s supporters the facts are, apparently, largely irrelevant because Brown is a metaphorical “symbol” of injustice regardless of what actually happened. [Eh hem…] A related reason may be that working through this information is time-consuming — and thus beyond the capacity of many commentators. In contrast, the grand jury painstakingly heard sworn testimony from more than 60 witnesses, which is now collected in several thousand pages of transcripts. Reviewing these transcripts reveals some important and essentially indisputable facts. And those facts confirm many critical aspects of Wilson’s account.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

  283. bigfatmike says:

    I could use a little help here.

    Can anyone locate in the GJ proceedings or in a reputable news article

    the number shell casings found inside Wilson’s SUV,
    the number of shell casings recovered on the ground (reported as 12),
    the number of rounds in his weapon when he deployed that day,
    the number of rounds remaining in the magazine,
    the capacity of the magazine in the weapon he turned in after the incident?

    A widely distributed picture of Wilson’s weapon shows a Sig Sauer 229R (erroneously identified as 229). We know that weapon is frequently deployed with a 15 round magazine and 1 in the chamber for a total of 16 rounds. That would be a reasonable guess for the total rounds in Wilson’s weapon that day. But that is only a guess because it is possible he used a magazine with fewer than 15 round capacity – not likely in my judgment. He would normally carry additional magazines for use as needed.

    We know two rounds were fired while still in the SUV. The shell casings from those shots would have been initially ejected into the SUV. What became of those shell casing? Were they recovered? Were they recovered from inside the SUV?

    What about the magazine removed from the weapon that Wilson turned in. Do we have a count of rounds remaining in that magazine? And do we have a statement of the capacity of that magazine?

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  284. Slartibartfast says:

    Keep pounding on the table Bob! You know it’s all you’ve got.

    Apart from my assumption that the use of “Big Mike” was prejudicial, nothing in my comments is in any way impeached by my not having read the transcripts (which I never claimed to have done). It also has absolutely nothing to do with my basis for calling you an apologist. That’s okay, we both know that you can’t address my arguments (or anyone else’s) on their merits and it becomes clearer every time you’ve got nothing better to do than pound on the table.

  285. Bob Stone says:

    Q: Did you ever see Big Mike’s hands inside the car?

    Johnson: No, ma’am, I never, I’m still standing there, more shocked than ever because I see it is escalating, I can see and hear the cuss words, ….

    Blouise: And surprise, surprise, all the law enforcement folk “forgot” to check Wilson’s gun for Brown’s fingerprints … or did they?

    “An expert in DNA from the St. Louis County Police Department Crime Law testified that Michael Brown’s DNA was later found on Wilson’s firearm. (Vol. 19, 182:16). It was not possible to determine whether this was due to contact with Brown’s skin, blood, or some other bodily fluid. The interior left front door panel of Wilson’s car also had DNA from Michael Brown on it (185:9). On the other hand, the DNA expert did not find Wilson’s DNA on Michael Brown’s shirt (191:15).”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

    Is Johnson lying again?

    Q: Okay. So do you know where his hands are when the officer is saying, I’ll shoot?

    Johnson: I can still see both Darren Wilson’s hand and Big Mike’s hands.

    Q: Tell us about it?

    Johnson: Big Mike’s left hand was still on like right above the side mirror, right up under that, right up under the side mirror. His other arm now because of the tug of war pull, the officer’s grip come up, from up on his neck, to the shirt collar, to the shoulder, to basically he never let go.

    What a shocker.

  286. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    My fists are pounding on the table in laughter at your “informed opinion” about any of this.

  287. bigfatmike says:

    ” At least in the theories that I have seen sketched out, no explanation is offered for why Brown (who weighed around 300 pounds) had been forced by Wilson to have his right hand in a position where it was close to the gun and inside Wilson’s police car.”

    Once again we have someone who ought to know better claiming that forensic evidence supports Wilson when what they clearly mean is that forensic evidence is consistent with Wilson. BTW, this forensic evidence is also consistent with much if not every detail of Johnson’s testimony. The key question is there any forensic evidence that allows us tho distinguish Wilson form Johnson?

    In the question regarding a hypothetical of how Brown’s hand and arm were near the weapon in the SUV, I would argue that only someone totally unacquainted with physical violence could be puzzled.

    I don’t know how his hand came to be in the SUV. But Cassell is asking for a reasonable theory. OK, if Johnson is correct and Wilson grabbed Brown. then Brown would likely resisted. If he placed his hand or forearm on the door or window sill of the SUV to push away, he might very well have slipped due to the surprise, strength of Wilson or being off balance. If he slipped his hand, and arm almost certainly would have been propelled/dragged into the SUV. From the forensic evidence it is impossible to determine if Brown were grasping for the weapon or recoiling trying desperately to get away. The forensic evidence does not support either Brown grasping for the weapon or pulling away from the weapon. The forensic evidence is consistent with either story.

    That may or may not be the way it happened. But Carrell’s comment on the lack of explanation tells us more about his inability to think of hypotheticals rather than anything real about this case.

    More responsibility in the statements of journalist and their editors would be greatly appreciated by those of us who actually read their articles.

  288. Bob Stone says:

    “BTW, this forensic evidence is also consistent with much if not every detail of Johnson’s testimony.”

    No it’s not. For starters:

    Johnson said Brown never put his hands in the vehicle.
    (His blood is inside the car.)

    Johnson said Brown never touched Wilson’s gun.
    (His blood and DNA is on the gun and he’s got “soot” in the thumb wound from the gun shot)

    Johnson said Wilson grabbed Brown by the shirt collar.
    (Wilson’s DNA not found on Brown’s shirt.)

  289. Bob Stone says:

    Almost forgot…

    One of Johnson’s narratives had Wilson shooting and hitting Brown in the back.

  290. blouise says:

    Blouise:

    Where are the other stories of police brutality in Ferguson? – Bron

    You’re kidding, right?

    Tell you what … Google Ferguson racial problems and read the articles.

  291. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    People usually don’t laugh with their fists, but whatever you need to tell yourself to make it through the night. Personally, I’m laughing pretty hard at your attempt to impeach Mr. Johnson’s testimony, although bigfatmike beat me to explaining why the evidence isn’t saying what you are claiming it does.

    As for your chart, I think it would be interesting to know the typical ejection trajectory for Officer Wilson’s gun and where the locations of the casings suggest his location and direction of aim were when he fired. At first glance, I wonder what prompted him to fire the 3rd shot (the first once he was away from the vehicle). Mr. Brown would have been fleeing barefoot at that point, right? What police procedure directs an officer to chase after someone and, after gaining sufficient ground on them, to stop and begin firing at them? Is that how you think police should behave?

  292. Bob Stone says:

    “Personally, I’m laughing pretty hard at your attempt to impeach Mr. Johnson’s testimony,”
    — Kevin Kesseler

    Worthy of framing.

  293. blouise17 says:

    “On the other hand, the DNA expert did not find Wilson’s DNA on Michael Brown’s shirt (191:15).” -Bob S.

    Now that is an excellent point worthy of dueling forensics experts. The dead body was face down on the pavement in the hot sun for over 4 hours and his blood was everywhere … could DNA from Wilson have been so degraded by those conditions as to no longer be discernable?

    I don’t know but I’d be very interested in the expert opinions on the matter. Of course we can’t test Wilson because he went back to the station and washed up and changed clothes. They did find Brown’s blood on some of his clothing though and on a spot he missed on his body (I’m not sure about that spot on the body and I’m too tired to go look it up)

  294. blouise17 says:

    BFM,

    I think I read somewhere that they hadn’t recovered all the bullets. Sorry, not sure.

    • bigfatmike says:

      @blouise17: “I read somewhere that they hadn’t recovered all the bullets. Sorry, not sure.”

      That does not surprise me. Ideally, we would like to trace shell casings, bullets, and rounds left in the magazine. But, I would guess that is rarely possible.

      In this case we ought to be able to get an accurate count of the shell casings, their location and the rounds remaining in the magazine. That information would give us reasonable belief of the number of shots fires and the approximate location of the shooter when he fired. Location of the shooter will only be an approximation because shell casings may travel far in the air and can bounce on broken ground or roll further on smooth pavement.

  295. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob said:

    “BTW, this forensic evidence is also consistent with much if not every detail of Johnson’s testimony.”

    No it’s not. For starters:

    Johnson said Brown never put his hands in the vehicle.
    (His blood is inside the car.)

    Ever heard of blowback?

    Johnson said Brown never touched Wilson’s gun.
    (His blood and DNA is on the gun and he’s got “soot” in the thumb wound from the gun shot)

    Wouldn’t his blood have to have gotten on the gun after it fired? Wouldn’t this be an expected result of a supersonic projectile hitting Mr. Brown’s hand at close range?

    Johnson said Wilson grabbed Brown by the shirt collar.
    (Wilson’s DNA not found on Brown’s shirt.)

    Can you generally find someone’s DNA on a shirt that they grabbed? I highly doubt it.

    The fact is that, as bigfatmike has pointed out, the physical evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson’s story as well. To anyone willing to look past their own bias, the evidence neither exculpates Officer Wilson nor does it condemn him, although it does raise questions about some of his statements and his decisions. You, on the other hand, rushed to your conclusion faster than any of the protesters you’ve tried to demonize and have been completely unwilling to budge from that spot. Seemingly, there is no possible evidence that will make you change your mind, which would make you incapable of correcting even the slightest mistake you made in your hurried leap into this fray.

    The really sad thing is that if Officer Wilson truly is innocent, then people like you do him a grave injustice by “protecting” him from a process with integrity which could clear his name and if he is guilty (of whatever crime), and if he is guilty you are belittling all of his victims with your apologia.

  296. See Bob, when evidence is subjected to third party adverse scrutiny, your mileage may vary.
    When evidence is directed by one party with a specific goal in mind and not subject to interrogation, you get whatever story the speaker wishes to present and nothing more.

    Hey, you know where questionable evidence gets subjected to interrogation via cross-examination?

    Trial.

    Too bad the Grand Jury didn’t get to decide whether a trial was merited or not based on a neutral presentation of the evidence then, isn’t it.

  297. Slartibartfast says:

    Blouise,

    The chart Bob linked to showed the location of all twelve of the bullet casings. Not as good as the bullets themselves, but it does give an idea of where Officer Wilson was when he was firing.

  298. blouise17 says:

    “Apart from my assumption that the use of “Big Mike” was prejudicial” -Slarti

    Don’t be so quick to concede that point. The prosecutor’s assistant could have easily continued to call him Mike or even Mr. Brown. Asking Johnson’s permission to call him “Big Mike” out of concern for Johnson’s comfort was pretty slick. The more usage of the word “Big” associated with Brown, the better for poor little old Wilson’s claim of feeling like a 5 year old hanging on to the “Hulk”.

    Bet the prosecutor’s office had a celebratory drink over that slick move.

  299. bettykath says:

    Johnson was quite clear that Brown was bleeding when he fled from the SUV and it’s the only time that Brown was close enough to get gunshot “soot” in his thumb (otoh, maybe it was soot from the street when he fell. It was always called soot, not gunshot residue. Strange that.). Accepting that it was the wound on his thumb, isn’t it possible that there was blood from the thumb that ended up in the SUV without Brown’s hand actually being inside the SUV, perhaps from a spurt or free-flowing? If it was Brown’s blood on Wilson’s hands, isn’t it possible that Brown’s blood was transferred from Wilson’s hands to his gun and to his trousers and anywhere else inside the SUV? Too bad Wilson destroyed evidence. Since he was concerned about being contaminated, I suspect he knew it was Brown’s blood. I think he was too angry at the time to spread it deliberately but it was an opportunity not to be missed.

    Once you accept that Wilson’s story just might not be true, it’s easier to find other explanations that are just as consistent with the forensic evidence as Wilson’s story. He absolutely lied when he wove in the story of the stealing, unless you think his supervisor lied. Which cop lied?

  300. mespo727272 says:

    Bettykath:

    Wilson lied as he had the motivation to do so; his superior had none . Cui Bono?

  301. bettykath says:

    Another part of Wilson’s testimony that was interesting, i.e. over the top, is how he stated at least twice that Brown had complete control of his gun or maybe he said that Brown had complete control of his gun twice. The ADA corrected him and suggested that he really didn’t mean it. She had to say it more than once. Wilson decided to agree with her.

  302. bettykath says:

    Mespo, I expected you to see it that way. I was hoping Bob would see it too. Maybe with your rather large clue?

  303. blouise17 says:

    mespo,

    Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.

  304. bigfatmike says:

    @Slartibartfast: ” I think it would be interesting to know the typical ejection trajectory for Officer Wilson’s gun and where the locations of the casings suggest his location and direction of aim were when he fired. At first glance, I wonder what prompted him to fire the 3rd shot (the first once he was away from the vehicle). Mr. Brown would have been fleeing barefoot at that point, right? ”

    It is vital to know is if shell casings were found in the SUV. We know two shots were fired in the SUV. As a first reasonable guess, we would expect the shell casings to be ejected and hit the lower dash board or the windshield, ricochet toward the front floor board, the passenger seat or perhaps make their way toward the back seat. Few who do not shoot realize the speed and energy with which shell casings are ejected.

    It is possible that Wilson or Brown knocked or brushed shell casings outside the SUV. But, to me, it seems improbable that both would have been accidentally moved outside the SUV.

    The WAPO diagram illustrates 12 shell casings on the ground with two near the SUV. the others are roughly 150 feet away from the SUV in the vicinity of Brown’s body. One of the two shell casings near the SUV is shown near the rear, driver side tire. The second is shown roughly even with the driver’s door, all the way across the road nearly in the gutter.

    I have no idea how a shell casing from a shot fired in the SUV or while Wilson was standing by the SUV would find its way to the vicinity of the rear tire.

    However, the shell casing across the road, near the gutter is where I would guess it would land if Wilson stood near the drive door, outside the SUV and fired at the fleeing Brown.

    There are not many possibilities here:

    If Wilson deployed with 16 rounds in his Sig Saeur 229R, and we find 4 unfired rounds in the magazine and 12 shell casings on the ground, then we can reasonably conclude that the two shell casings on the ground were somehow swept out of the SUV and onto the ground.

    If we find one or two shell casings in the SUV, then we have reasonable belief that more than 12 rounds were fired and that Wilson fired while he stood outside but near the SUV.

    One or two shell casings recovered in the SUV would support Johnson’s testimony that Wilson fired at the fleeing Brown. We really need to nail down the number and location of spent shell casings.

  305. I really do love this blog. :mrgreen:

  306. blouise17 says:

    BFM,

    This is a fascinating line of inquiry. It’s science!

    I believe that in his testimony Johnson insists that there was only one shot fired inside the vehicle. If my memory is serving me correctly and only one shot was fired and the casing swept out of the car, would that make the placing of the shells on the diagram more or less confusing?

    • bigfatmike says:

      @blouise17: “I believe that in his testimony Johnson insists that there was only one shot fired inside the vehicle. If my memory is serving me correctly and only one shot was fired and the casing swept out of the car, would that make the placing of the shells on the diagram more or less confusing?”

      I would have to go back and check, but my recollection is that there was forensic evidence concluding that two shots were fired inside the SUV.

      But as a hypothetical, suppose that Johnson got it right and there was only one shot fired inside the SUV and that the shell casing was swept out of the SUV to the ground.

      The WAPO article, which I believe reproduced a diagram introduced as evidence, shows two shell casings in the vicinity of the SUV. If one of the two shell casings was from the shot fired in the SUV, then the other shell casing would have to be from a shot fired while Wilson stood outside but near the SUV.

      I think that would be near conclusive evidence of a shot fired by Wilson in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing. I would have to check the exact words of Wilson. But a shot fired while standing by the SUV would seem likely to have been fired at Browns back before he stopped and turned to face Wilson.

      I would argue that your hypothetical or either one shell casing or two shell casings found in the SUV would be strong, but not conclusive, evidence that Wilson fired at the back of fleeing Brown.

  307. Slartibartfast says:

    bigfatmike,

    Casings could have been ejected through the window depending on the attitude of the gun when it was fired, so while casings inside the car would have strongly suggested the gun being fired inside, the casings near the car don’t prove that the gun was outside the vehicle when fired. In any case, the forensic evidence just isn’t the slam dunk Bob wants to pretend it is.

    Gene,

    *jiggle*

    It’s mesmerizing.

  308. Slartibartfast says:

    Blouise,

    The casings, in my opinion, would be consistent with both rounds being fired while Officer Wilson was in the car, although one or both of them could have been fired outside. I’m most curious as to the circumstances of the second and third shots as they seem to be most telling regarding Officer Wilson’s frame of mind and intent. It really is a shame that there wont be some kind of process or hearing to determine what happened and if that constituted any form of wrongdoing because of people who are more concerned with protecting their dog (or their own ass) than justice.

    bigfatmike,

    Regardless of whether or not both shots were fired in the car, Officer Wilson ran about 150 feet and started firing again. It seems unlikely that Mr. Brown would have turned around (in his flight) before the third shot and I think that we can assume that Officer Wilson could outrun Mr. Brown (who had lost both of his sandals by that point). Why did he start firing again? What were the circumstances? What did he hope to achieve by doing so? Bob complains about other people’s stories, but avoids answering questions like these. I wonder why that is.

  309. bigfatmike says:

    @:Slartibartfast ” the casings near the car don’t prove that the gun was outside the vehicle when fired.”

    Correct. But we have forensic evidence of two rounds fired in the SUV.

    If we find one shell casing in the SUV then we have to conclude that the one of the shell casings found in the vicinity of the SUV was from the second shot fired in the SUV and was some how knocked out of the SUV. That would strongly suggest that the second shell casing found outside the SUV was from a shot fired by Wilson while he stood outside but near the SUV.

    If we found two shell casings in the SUV, then by similar analysis we would have to conclude that the two shell casings found near the SUV had nothing to do with the shots fired in the SUV. That would give reasonable belief that Wilson fired two shots as he stood outside but near the SUV.

    It is only if we find no shell casings in the SUV that we can conclude that the two shell casings found outside but near the SUV are likely to be from the shots fired while Wilson was in the SUV. If we find no shell casings in the SUV then we are left to conclude that the shell casings from the shots fired in the SUV somehow were transferred from the interior of the SUV to the ground near the SUV. In that case i know of nothing physical to suggest that Wilson fired at the back of fleeing Brown.

  310. mespo727272 says:

    BLouise:

    Not sure I’m buying the rest of Ovid’s quote that there was no malum in se in Wilson’s heart.

  311. mespo727272 says:

    Bettykath:

    Good enough for Lucius Cassius, good enough for me.

  312. rafflaw says:

    Slarts,
    After reading this engaging thread, I was appalled to read about “typical ejection trajectories”! Sounds like math to me! 🙂

  313. Slartibartfast says:

    No, it’s just a little physics. Besides, the math doesn’t get really complicated until you try to land the crime scene on a comet or some such.

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

  314. mespo727272 says:

    Rafflaw:

    Good to see you on this side of town. It’s like Old Home Week here.

  315. blouise says:

    Raf,

    At FFS anyone who dares to use math gets a solid beating with wet noodles. It is the number 9 simple rule. Yes it is unwritten but never the less strongly enforced. Slarti has scars.

    It’s a safe place for those suffering from math phobia

  316. blouise17 says:

    mespo,
    Ab irato?

  317. Slartibartfast says:

    Blouise,

    You forget, I’ve got the keys to the front door and my own fiendish plans. One day, and sooner than you think, I’ll have my revenge for those scars. And I’ll make no apologies to Raff for it—he was warned!

    Bwa-ha-ha-HA-ha!!!!!!

  318. Bob Kauten says:

    Rafflaw showed up?
    Holy shit!

  319. pete says:

    Does Wilson say he drew his weapon and they were fighting over it or did Brown attempt to take Wilsons gun out of his holster? Because trying to reach in an suv window between someones body and the steering wheel to get to a holstered gun just doesn’t sound right. Or had Wilson already drawn his weapon before exiting, if so, why?

  320. Harvey says:

    OK. Terrible source but I thought I had read somewhere that one shell casing was found in the door panel of the SUV.

    Here’s a link with my apologies….

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/11/24/congratulations-treepers-you-nailed-the-entire-evidence-construct-and-witness-testimony-with-99-99-accuracy/comment-page-2/

    I’ll see if I can find another source.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Harvey,

      No need to apologize for that link it was most interesting, especially the comments. One struck me during a discussion of the fact parents brought their children to the demonstrations:

      “Training up the next generation of gimme-dat do-nothings” . Or in other words “niggers”..

      This is in effect the divide we are seeing here. The question keeps coming up as to whether this incident had to do with race. The question really is why such a high percentage of Black people seemed to be shot, compared to the White population, when the crime rates are about equal. As far as crime rates go the percentage of Blacks arrested and convicted for minor offenses, such as marijuana possession is higher than their White counterparts, although the percentage of White “users” is the same.

      The issue is “White” privilege and always has been. The Civil War solved nothing. It only taught those who would oppress people of color to use somewhat more subtle methods, if you call “Jim Crow” subtle. In places all across the country from Ferguson, to L.A., to NYC, Black people are held to a different, higher, standard than are Whites. The ironic cruelty of this situation is that most Whites deny the obvious.

  321. blouise says:

    Harvey,

    My tablet just blew up!! You owe me a new kindle fire. 😉

  322. pete says:

    watch out raff, slarti’s one nuclear accident away from being an evil genius. 🙂

  323. Slartibartfast says:

    Pete,

    I’ve sworn to use my powers only for good …or world domination.

  324. Harvey says:

    Here is a Kos article that reports that Wilson said he fired a second ‘blind’ shot in the SUV and that shot hit the door panel.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347723/-Facts-about-Mike-Brown-Shooting-Still-Unexplained#

    The statement is found in the paragraph that begins: “According to Wilson”

  325. Harvey says:

    Pete, I always wondered about the difficult stretch in order to reach for the gun. But that WaPo ‘slide show’ illustrations of the entire event indicated that the seated officer was pretty high in the vehicle making it seem as though the gun may have been reachable. I have no idea if the drawings reflected an accurate perspective.

  326. nivico says:

    Here are the crime scene photos:

    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2014/11/24/michael-brown-evidence-from-shooting-scene/

    Now, let’s debunk a few myths that seem to persist here…

    1) The body did not lay in the street uncovered for four hours. It is clearly covered with a sheet ~and~ it is surrounded by orange screens.

    2) Notice the bullet perforation just above the interior door handle and the corresponding defect on the outer door. Now either Officer Wilson has incredibly bad aim, or it went off during the struggle for the gun inside the vehicle just as he says it did.

    3) Notice the markers 18, 19, and 20 designating the blood spatter trail farther away from the police SUV than the large pool of blood 20-25 back towards the police SUV where Brown died. This is irrefutable evidence that he stopped, turned around, and advanced back towards Officer Wilson. The blood spatter is also characteristic of a forceful ‘cast off’ spatter pattern, meaning he was running at the officer (Google cast off spatter).

    4) Notice the markers to the right of Brown designating three shell casings. Shell casings eject back and to the right, meaning Officer Wilson was beyond the point where the casings are and then retreated backwards. Just as he said he did.

    Note, too, Dorian Johnson’s bracelet is laying on the ground at evidence marker 3 next to the police cruiser. My guess is Dorian lost his bracelet while trying to pull his friend off of the officer he was beating.

    • bigfatmike says:

      “Now either Officer Wilson has incredibly bad aim, or it went off during the struggle for the gun inside the vehicle just as he says it did.”

      I don’t think anyone has questioned whether there was a struggle in the SUV. The question is whether Brown was reaching in to grab the gun of pulling away to flee from Wilson’s grasp.

      “This is irrefutable evidence that he stopped, turned around, and advanced back towards Officer Wilson. The blood spatter is also characteristic of a forceful ‘cast off’ spatter pattern, meaning he was running at the officer (Google cast off spatter).”

      Again, I don’t think there is any controversy that Brown was moving toward Wilson when shot. The question seems to be whether he was running to attack, walking to surrender, stumbling from mortal wounds.

      I find you remarks on blood spatter not at all convincing. BTW if you had read a little more of your googling you would have seen that most any velocity over 100 feet/second will produce high speed, cast off blood spatter.

      Most any 9mm round will have a velocity of maybe 1100 feet/second. Police rounds may be loaded to as much as 1400 feet/second – although 1250 feet/second might be more typical of most departments.

      A well conditioned human probably could not reach as much as 60 feet/second. That is likely less than the standard deviation of velocity of 9mm rounds rated for 1250feet/second. The difference in velocity in one bullet to the next is likely to be greater than the fastest that any human being can run.

      I would argue that for a standard police load in 9mm it is impossible to distinguish the difference in blood spatter from a stationary human being and a running human being on the one hand and the difference in blood spatter of one bullet from the next hitting a stationary target that is due to normal variation in the velocity of the bullets. .

      Even for the best match ammunition there is variation in velocity. If you buy a box of +P rated ammunition with a nominal velocity of 1250 feet/second, the bullet may come out at 1225 feet/second or even less, or 1275 feet/second or more. That variation is likely greater than most humans can run – even when they are terrified for their life. In addition blood splatter is likely influenced by factors like health, hydration and wound location.

      The idea that we can tell whether a human was running or stationary when struck by a police load 9mm bullet from blood spatter is fantasy. How exactly would the investigator distinguish the blood spatter from bullet with a velocity of 1220 feet/second striking a man charging at 30 feet/second from a bullet, that by chance, matched its design velocity of 1250 feet/second striking a stationary man with his hands up.

      It is a trick question. there is no way the investigator could distinguish the blood spatter. And that variation in bullet velocity is not unusual.

      Blood spatter may tell us a lot. But the speed of a running man is not one of those things.

      • Mike Spindell says:

        “The idea that we can tell whether a human was running or stationary when struck by a police load 9mm bullet from blood spatter is fantasy. How exactly would the investigator distinguish the blood spatter from bullet with a velocity of 1220 feet/second striking a man charging at 30 feet/second from a bullet, that by chance, matched its design velocity of 1250 feet/second striking a stationary man with his hands up.

        It is a trick question. there is no way the investigator could distinguish the blood spatter. And that variation in bullet velocity is not unusual.”

        BFM,

        Exactly so, but notice the continual emphasis put on the depository nature of the “forensic” evidence as if it conclusively exonerates Wilson. Notice too that with all the evidence presented the key question is conveniently ignored. That Michael Brown was shot and killed is beyond dispute. Yet though promised consistently, Bob has never supplied a rationale for why that was the necessary outcome, especially give the many shots fired. By focusing on the “facts” of the case, with the knowledge that most “forensic science” is open to questions such as yours, attention is drawn away from the key question. My sense is that this is so because in the end Wilson was not justified in shooting Michael Brown multiple times,

  327. Harvey says:

    Just to keep it interesting – here is an account that says two casings were found in the SUV. From the CSMonitor

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/1024/Ferguson-shooting-Evidence-appears-to-support-officer-s-version-of-events

    excerpt:
    The officer said he reached for his gun to defend himself, but Brown grabbed it and let go only after it fired twice. Two casings from Wilson’s gun were recovered from the police SUV, the sources said.

    Ain’t journalism grand?

    • bigfatmike says:

      @Harvey:

      I found this in the CSM article you mentioned: “The officer said he reached for his gun to defend himself, but Brown grabbed it and let go only after it fired twice. Two casings from Wilson’s gun were recovered from the police SUV, the sources said.”

      If we could trace this to evidence entered before the grand jury that would be pretty explosive – at least to me.

      We know there were two shots fired in the SUV. Now we have an unnamed source claiming two shell casings were found in the SUV. The WAPO, from a Ferguson PD diagram, documents two shell casings outside near the SUV. Those shell casings could not be from the shots fired inside the SUV – according to the source we already have casings from those shots. Those two shell casings would have to be from shots fired while Wilson stood outside the SUV.

      My recollection is that Wilson stated he did not shoot from outside the SUV. And Johnson said he though he heard shots as he and Brown fled from Wilson. Two shell casings inside the SUV and two casings outside the SUV would call into question Wilson’s statements and lend support to Johnson’s statements. Two shell casings in the SUV would lend support to the claim that Wilson fired at the back of fleeing Brown.

  328. nivico says:

    “And that variation in bullet velocity is not unusual.”

    Who said anything about bullet velocity?

    Brown was already bleeding from the gunshot wound to the palm of his hand, and the cast off trail is indicative of that arm being swung forcefully while running.

    It’s called cast off spatter because it is created by the same general arm movement as casting a fishing rod, the same arm movement as running.

    Walking or staggering would create a continuous drip drip drip drip drip trail, not the intermittent cast off cast off cast off pattern seen in the photos.

    And FYI, oh never mind… I’ll let blouise continue thinking she’s the person in the room with the most experience. I mean she did read that outdated training manual and all 😉

    • bigfatmike says:

      @nivico

      I glanced at your cite. In picture 82 I could clearly see markers 16,17 ,18, 19 and 20. In picture 83 there was an enlargement of of the area around marker 19. Picture 83 was helpful to me because after seeing a close up of 19 I could better interpret picture 82 and the area around marker 20.

      I think you are going to have to show me a lot more science before I am convinced that you can distinguish walking form running or just arm swinging from those patterns.

      BTW, I scanned a number of google references to blood pattern analysis. Several of them mentioned reasonable results that one could expect from blood pattern analysis. None of them mentioned the speed or velocity of a moving person, or even the velocity of a weapon such as a hammer that struck a body.

      The patterns in the pictures you mentioned might suggest to some that Brown was moving forward rather than swinging his arm. But I bet you have to search far and wide to find an expert who will hang his hat on a number for the speed of Browns forward motion – walking or running – based on blood splatter analysis.

      Finally, if you compare your cite with the WAPO diagram based on Ferguson PD diagram, you are going to find it very difficult to use blood patter analysis to demonstrate more than about two paces of running. Markers 20 and 19 are just about the extent of blood pattern documented. Marker 18 is a shell casing. Marker 17 is said to be an apparent projectile – bullet – that is close to what seems to be a large pool of blood. Marker 17 is just short of where Brown went down for the last time.

      Brown may have been running. But i don’t think the blood pattern analysis demonstrates that.

      I would like to know where Wilson was when he started shooting at Brown. We have 10 shell casings in the vicinity of Brown’s body. But they do not tell us where Wilson was standing when Brown started moving toward Wilson.

      Apparently Brown was bleeding enough to leave drops on the asphalt apporximately 20 feet before he fell for the last time. The blood trail also undermines nivico’s claim that the blood on the asphalt if from the wound on the hand suffered at the SUV.

      If that wound was bleeding so profusely then we should also see blood drops all the way from the SUV for mover than 150 feet to the point that Brown turned and started back. We don’t see that. At least there are no blood drops documented by Ferguson PD between the SUV and where Brown fell. That would indicate the hand was not bleeding very much. The most reasonable belief is that it is some other wound that resulted in the blood drops documented at markers 20 and 19 – wounds suffered when Wilson began the last lethal volley.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Nivico,

      So tell us please what is your rationale for why Michael Brown had to be shot multiple times?

  329. Malum en se can’t be a factor when gunning down afro American youths is never considered malum prohibitum

  330. And, btw blouise,

    The answer to the question of prints onthe gun,

    Is none!

    That remark of “later” dna was found is as specious as the changing if sidewalk stories of witness 10

    and the telltale surreptitious account of Wilson’s that Brown was charging like a demon bull with his hand staying inside his clothes

    No. Malum. ‘Prohibitum of a cop shooting an unarmed nkn-Caucasian youth multiple times;

    But – if a non- Caucasian cop were to have shot down a Perry or Bushie

    That’s a whole other thingy

  331. Elaine M. says:

    Most agree on the following: There was some sort of physical struggle between Brown and Wilson while Wilson was still in his vehicle; Brown ran from the confrontation; Wilson got out of the vehicle and fatally shot Brown at least six times from a distance; Brown was unarmed; and his bleeding body lay in the hot summer sun for four hours, much of that time uncovered, as the residents of Canfield looked upon his splayed-out corpse in horror.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/20/everything-know-shooting-michael-brown-darren-wilson/

  332. po says:

    Interesting interview with Chris Rock, especially his view on racism…
    Found here:
    http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html
    ——————————————————————–
    What would you do in Ferguson that a standard reporter wouldn’t?

    I’d do a special on race, but I’d have no black people.

    Well, that would be much more revealing.

    Yes, that would be an event. Here’s the thing. When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.

    Right. It’s ridiculous.

    So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

    It’s about white people adjusting to a new reality?

    Owning their actions. Not even their actions. The actions of your dad. Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for.

    Would you seek out someone to interview who might not normally be sought out?

    I would get you to interview somebody, and I would put something in your ear, and I’d ask the questions through you.

    You’d have a white guy.

    And I would ask them questions that you would never come up with, and we’d have the most amazing interviews ever.

    And we’d be asking white people and black people?

    Just white people. We know how black people feel about Ferguson — outraged, upset, cheated by the system, all these things.

    So you think people can be lulled into saying the outrageous shit they really feel?

    Michael Moore has no problem getting it. Because he looks like them. But the problem is the press accepts racism. It has never dug into it.

    When Obama was running for president, a certain kind of white person would routinely tell reporters, “He’s just not one of us.” Few reporters want to push that person to the wall and say, “What do you mean he’s not like you, unless you’re talking about the fact that he’s African-American?” Where else besides Ferguson would you hypothetically want to interview white people?

    I’d love to do some liberal places, because you can be in the most liberal places and there’s no black people.

    I assume one such place is Hollywood.

    I don’t think I’ve had any meetings with black film execs. Maybe one. It is what it is. As I told Bill Murray, Lost in Translation is a black movie: That’s what it feels like to be black and rich. Not in the sense that people are being mean to you. Bill Murray’s in Tokyo, and it’s just weird. He seems kind of isolated. He’s always around Japanese people. Look at me right now.

    We’re sitting on the 35th floor of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel overlooking Central Park.

    And there’s only really one black person here who’s not working. Bill Murray in Lost in Translation is what Bryant Gumbel experiences every day. Or Al Roker. Rich black guys. It’s a little off.

    But the thing is, we treat racism in this country like it’s a style that America went through. Like flared legs and lava lamps. Oh, that crazy thing we did. We were hanging black people. We treat it like a fad instead of a disease that eradicates millions of people. You’ve got to get it at a lab, and study it, and see its origins, and see what it’s immune to and what breaks it down.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Po,
      In my opinion Chris Rock is not only the funniest comedian around, he is most certainly the wisest and most truthful. It is his truth that fuels his comedy.

  333. “Comedy is the truth only faster.” – Gilda Radner

  334. blouise says:

    We know there were two shots fired in the SUV. Now we have an unnamed source claiming two shell casings were found in the SUV. The WAPO, from a Ferguson PD diagram, documents two shell casings outside near the SUV. Those shell casings could not be from the shots fired inside the SUV – according to the source we already have casings from those shots. Those two shell casings would have to be from shots fired while Wilson stood outside the SUV. – BFM

    That’s what I was wondering after reading the story from Harvey’s link. I was going to ask you but now I don’t have to. I guess the problem resides in that old bugaboo, unnamed sources? Where do we find the named source, the document itself? Shouldn’t it have been released, if it exists at all, in the transparency dump?

  335. blouise17 says:

    BFM,

    And if we can’t find it does that mean there were not 2 shell casings found in the vehicle but rather just the one projectile found in the door?

    • bigfatmike says:

      @blouise17: “And if we can’t find it does that mean there were not 2 shell casings found in the vehicle but rather just the one projectile found in the door?”

      If we cannot find official documentation of some kind referring to processing the SUV then we just do not know what they may or may not have found. Is an open question.

      In my opinion, there must be an official record of what was found in the SUV, whether or not that was introduced to the GJ.

      If we cannot find a reference in the GJ documents, that just pushes the question back to other source documents that seem likely to exist.

      I don’t know their procedure. But evidence technicians must document their findings in some way. How else could their findings be introduced as evidence at a trial? The people that documented the shot in the door of the SUV are ones who seem likely to have checked for other items like shell casings in the SUV. We know there search/processing was detailed enough to have found blood and other evidence of the encounter.

      If the record produced by the people who processed SUV do not contain references to the two shell casings then the possibility of proving two shell casings in the SUV is greatly lessened. That does not mean there were no shell casings in the SUV – maybe they overlooked the casings, maybe they did not realize their significance, or maybe they just were not in the SUV at the time of their investigation. In any case, if the shell casings are not documented as being in the SUV by the people who processed the SUV then the chance of finding convincing evidence greatly reduced.

      But that is not the only way to demonstrate that Wilson fired at fleeing Brown. We know Wilson fired twice in the SUV. We know Wilson fired 10 times in the vicinity of where Brown finally fell – more than 150 feet from the SUV. That is a total of 12 shots.

      If we can demonstrate that Wilson fired more than 12 shots we would have to conclude more shots were fired somewhere between the SUV and where Brown fell.

      That is why the magazine in the weapon Wilson turned in is so important. A count of the bullets still in that magazine would give us additional information that either supports Wilson or greatly undermines his story.

      Wilson likely deployed that day with a full magazine of 15 rounds. It is likely he put one round in the chamber for a total of 16 – that is the whole point of using a double action weapon like the Sig Sauer 229R. If we found fewer than 4 rounds in the magazine that would suggest that Wilson fired more than 12 rounds.

      We are looking for two pieces of information. 1) The document or documents that describe what was found during the investigation of the shooting in the SUV, with a reference to the two shell casings, and 2) a record of the number of bullets contained in the magazine removed from Wilson’s weapon, which we know was a Sig Sauer 229R.

      Those two pieces of information should be consistent with each other and they either support Wilson or the undermine his story.

  336. blouise17 says:

    po,

    Thanx for drawing attention to the Chris Rock interview. The man is a clear thinker. I smiled at this particular observation:

    “I’d love to do some liberal places, because you can be in the most liberal places and there’s no black people.”

  337. blouise17 says:

    BFM,

    Okay … I’ll start looking. I wonder what sort of documentation the Feds have and when, if ever, we might get access.

  338. nivico says:

    And to further debunk the ‘training manual/law enforcement sources/email-bud’ myth that the officer should have sped off, here is the actual Missouri statute regarding what an officer is authorized and even expected to do in these situations:

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000462.html

    —————————————————————————
    563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
    ————————————————————————–

    And if you go to the MO General Assembly link above, you’ll see another favorite FfS myth debunked… this law is valid until Dec 21, 2016. The folks reporting that the grand jury was given an outdated copy of the law are misinformed, the new statute doesn’t take effect for two more years.

  339. Elaine M. says:

    §563.046 is the MO statute that allows the use of deadly force in making an arrest.
    $563.046 was read to the Grand Jury.
    §563.046 was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision Tennessee v. Garner.
    The Grand Jury therefore made its decision not to indict Wilson on the basis of an unconstitutional law.

    http://wblk.com/ferguson-grand-jury-was-misled-about-deadly-force-law-video/

  340. Bob Stone says:

    Ҥ563.046 is the MO statute that allows the use of deadly force in making an arrest.
    $563.046 was read to the Grand Jury.
    §563.046 was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision Tennessee v. Garner.

    The Grand Jury therefore made its decision not to indict Wilson on the basis of an unconstitutional law.”

    That’s not true Elaine; in fact it’s a lie.

    First, the grand jury was simply given the statute on a piece of paper; it was not read to them.

    Second, the seasoned, i.e. experienced, grand jury was given the proper instructions before deliberation.

    Third, the facts as supported by the forensic evidence rendered that statute irrelevant:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/26/officer-wilson-had-a-powerful-case-for-self-defense-under-missouri-law/

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Third, the facts as supported by the forensic evidence rendered that statute irrelevant:”

      Bob,
      Why do you persist in perpetuating an untruth. The “facts” as you see them are not “supported” by the forensic evidence, they are not in conflict. There is no forensic evidence that can clearly provide a rationale for Wilson shooting Michael Brown and that is the key point in this case which you continue to avoid. Now obfuscate again and call somebody involved in the protests a bad person.

  341. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014| MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
    “I’m going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer”

    Grand Jury November 21, 2014
    MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
    “previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
    What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
    And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United States supreme court cases.
    So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn’t comply with the law.”

    Grand Jury November 24, 2014
    Decision

    😉

  342. Elaine M. says:

    Blouise,

    I remember reading that somewhere on the Internet. Thanks for posting the excerpt from the grand jury transcript for us. Talk about clear instructions…huh?

  343. Hocus says:

    If you can’t evaluate the Grand Jury decision without injecting race, you’re a racist. Period. End of discussion.

    If you don’t think an unarmed person can present a threat of death or serious injury, invite me over, I’m sure I can find a way to convince you otherwise.

    If you think a person sitting in a car cannot be easily manhandled by a person close to the same size who is standing, you know nothing about leverage and how much your legs can provide a significant advantage.

    If you think 6, 7, or 10 shots are too many, you should consider the potential results of not enough shots. Once lethal force is justified, you shoot until the threat is no longer viable. Too few and you might be dead.

    If 12 bullet casings from a Sig Sauer P229 40 S&W are accounted for and you’re still looking for 2 more, you’re an idiot.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “If you can’t evaluate the Grand Jury decision without injecting race, you’re a racist. Period. End of discussion.”

      Hocus,

      If you persist in making foolish statements like the one above you’re simply clueless……or worse.

  344. bigfatmike says:

    Radley Balko in the WAPO has an interesting article on Parcells. It seems to be a solid pieces on Parcells background, expertise, what has been said about him and what he has claimed about himself:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/02/the-saga-of-shawn-parcells-the-uncredited-forensics-expert-in-the-michael-brown-case/?hpid=z3

    I think it is fair to say that our entire experience regarding Ferguson would have been better if Parcells had not been involved.

    Some might suggest that the involvement of Parcells suggest bad judgement by the Brown family. When you consider where Parcells has been and where his work has been accepted I think this suggest the family has been victimized yet again.

    Finally, I will pose a question that I raised before: what exactly changes about our understanding of Ferguson if we accept completely the words of Parcells and what changes if we remove his words altogether? I don’t think anything changes but I will be intested to hear if any interested reader can point to some detail.

    Of course it is important to realize that Parcells does not have the credentials that he claims. But it seems to me that the focus on Parcells is little more than a distraction and the main use of that distraction is to discredit the call by the Brown family for rigorous investigation of the shooting.

  345. blouise says:

    Elaine,

    Those transcripts certainly foul up everybody’s spin. Also useful to remember that no one knows, except the jurors themselves, what emphasis was placed on any of the presentations.

    I have to go get my granddaughter and then commence my December activities.

    I’ll see you after the 1st of the year.

  346. Bob Stone says:

    “If you don’t think an unarmed person can present a threat of death or serious injury, invite me over, I’m sure I can find a way to convince you otherwise.”

    Don’t forget, when a cop is wrestling with an unarmed suspect, the rule is “There’s always at least one gun involved–yours.”

    Hocus,

    You are definitely focused!

    Which reminded me of this tune:

  347. Hocus says:

    Mike,

    Forensic evidence supports that Brown had been further away from Wilson than the point at which he died. That means that Brown had turned around and was coming back in Wilson’s direction. In addition, shell casings close to the body provide forensic evidence that Wilson had been retreating back towards his vehicle.

    That means that the forensic evidence supports a claim of self-defense, which renders law enforcement use of force statute moot.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “That means that the forensic evidence supports a claim of self-defense, which renders law enforcement use of force statute moot.”

      Hocus,

      No it only means that that is one interpretation of what happened. He may have moved towards Wilson to surrender and Wilson backed up to get a better angle of fire. Most forensic evidence is not science as in experimentally proven, but is interpretation of physical facts that are open to debate. If you want references I already cited them long ago in this debate.

      “As I previously stated (without reservation); “If you can’t evaluate the Grand Jury decision without injecting race, you’re a racist. Period. End of discussion.”

      Well in that case, my original designation of you as clueless goes from the conditional to the definite.

  348. Bob Stone says:

    Hocus,

    You’re trying to reason with someone who has made up his mind regardless of facts.

    What’s relevant to folks like Mike, and the rest of the grievance syndicate, is the furthering of a political agenda. And the most expedient way to do that is to prosecute Wilson for a racist murder — even if the facts, of which he’s completely ignorant, show the charge is completely unfounded.

    And he’s not alone.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/24/do-the-facts-of-the-michael-brown-shooting-matter/

  349. Blood spatter gives directionality. It does not give speed (in the sense required here). The narrative that Wilson depends on is the idea of being rushed. The forensics can neither confirm nor deny that.

  350. Unless Wilson is flat out lying about the surrender, Bob.

  351. nivico says:

    Gene – “Blood spatter gives directionality.”

    You’re partially correct, Gene.

    Ross M. Gardner, ‘Practical Crime Scene Processing & Investigation’ – “Castoff patterns occur when an object is bloodied and then moved or swung with some force.”

    In other words, castoff patterns tell us both directionality ~and~ force. And the bloodied object in our situation was a bleeding arm/hand being swung forcefully while running towards the officer.

    And again, the location of the shell casings (which eject back and to the right) tells us that Officer Wilson was in fact retreating from an advancing threat (Brown).

  352. mespo727272 says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/comic-chris-rock-on-stand-up-and-his-new-film/

    He may be the smartest comedian I know — except maybe for Richard Prior — or Richard Nixon.

  353. nivico,

    Apparently you either didn’t read or understand “It does not give speed (in the sense required here).”

  354. Bob Stone says:

    “If you can’t evaluate the Grand Jury decision without injecting race, you’re a racist. Period. End of discussion.”

    “If you persist in making foolish statements like the one above you’re simply clueless……or worse.”

    Not foolish; true.

    The racism element isn’t found within the actual facts; it’s trucked in by the grievance syndicate.

  355. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    Dorian Johnson is the liar.

  356. Elaine M. says:

    How can one be so sure that racism wasn’t a factor in the killing of Michael Brown? Does forensic evidence prove that it wasn’t?

  357. Bob Stone says:

    “Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio”

    How dare you or anyone else accuse a man of being a racist murderer without any facts to back it up.

    • bigfatmike says:

      “How dare you or anyone else accuse a man of being a racist murderer without any facts to back it up.”

      Nobody said anything about accusing him of being an racist murderer.

      His work background, and possibly other areas of his life, raises the issue of what if any role did racism play in his decisions that day.

      Perhaps you don’t realize that you don’t gain anything in the discussion by trying to put silly accusations in the mouth of those asking reasonable and obvious questions.

  358. Hocus says:

    “If you persist in making foolish statements like the one above you’re simply clueless……or worse.”

    The Grand Jury was not asked to consider race. Race is irrelevant to the Grand Jury decision. Michael Brown was not more or less of a person because of his race and neither is Darren Wilson. Neither are afforded special provisions before the Grand Jury because of their race.

    As I previously stated (without reservation); “If you can’t evaluate the Grand Jury decision without injecting race, you’re a racist. Period. End of discussion.”

  359. Bob Stone says:

    4 out of 5 theologians surveyed advise against spreading false reports and joining forces with the wicked to be a malicious witness.

  360. po says:

    Bob, nothing you have said here in each iteration of your original post has been different from what you said in it, and that was before all the facts were in. In other words, what you’ve said before the facts were in, is what you keep repeating.
    That demonstrates either incredible insight, ability to time travel or obtuse refusal to see the facts differently. I think the latter!
    Once again, 16 out of 18 witnesses said that they saw Mike with his hands up, which you dismiss outright!
    The forensic evidence, the autopsy, ballistics…all of it is open to interpretation, and depending on what one’s bias is, one can claim it confirms one’s side.
    Your refusal to see that basic point of the ambivalence of the facts confirms your relentless bias, which you are entitled to, certainly. What I find hypocritical however, is, again, your obtuse determination in using words such as grievance syndicate to make a point that is unmakable. Grievance syndicate or mob has nothing to do with the facts at hand, which are that Wilson shot and killed Mike. Your determination to make it play a role in your analysis is that which undermines your analysis in the first place, which is what I pointed out in response to your original post.

  361. Bob Stone says:

    “Once again, 16 out of 18 witnesses said that they saw Mike with his hands up, which you dismiss outright!”

    Really Po? 16 out of 18?

    PBS Newshour has put together a chart of at least some of the competing witness statements. Summarizing the chart, PBS reported that its “data” showed that “[m]ore than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements).”

    PBS acknowledged that its chart “doesn’t reveal who was right or wrong about what happened that day, but it is a clear indication that perceptions and memories can vary dramatically.” This concession is required, because a fair assessment (such as the grand jury was tasked with making) involves not simply toting up the number of witnesses on competing sides, but determining the quality of their accounts. The grand jury observed the demeanor of all of the witnesses and, perhaps even more important, had other evidence (including physical evidence) to sort out which witnesses were giving credible testimony.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

    Your desire for “ambivalent facts” is a result of your attempt to reconcile your cognitive dissonance rather than accept reality.

  362. Bob Stone says:

    “It definitely could have been me. I feel blessed to say that I am still here, being able to tell and get the truth out because I believe that if I wasn’t here then, it would have been looked over. … I don’t think the truth would have been told.” – Dorian Johnson

    4 out of 5 theologians surveyed advise against spreading false reports and joining forces with the wicked to be a malicious witness.

  363. Mr. Stone;

    Repeat these words to thyself.

    The truth doesn’t matter.

    He’s dead due to blood slatter

    I’m the law and say justice is done

    And I hope all black people don’t get a gun

    Today officer Wilson is a WASP order king

    Who will get to buy much stuff with the money his fame doth bring

    The law is but a snake on justice high

    Because it doesnt matter what happens to black guys

    Tomorrow another Kelly Tbomas, Trayvon Martin or Mike Brown will come

    And I’M real happy more banter, like blood, will run

  364. nivico says:

    “… Apparently you either didn’t read or understand “It does not give speed (in the sense required here).” …”

    The lack of drip spatter coupled with the presence of castoff spatter is indicative of running, not walking.

    You have to consider the totality of the evidence, including void and missing evidence.

    The blood flow patterns on his arm would also serve to prove or disprove the hands up narrative. If he had his hands up, the blood would have flowed from the palm down to the elbow. We don’t have those pictures, but the grand jury would have seen them.

  365. Hocus says:

    “Once again, 16 out of 18 witnesses said that they saw Mike with his hands up, which you dismiss outright!”

    16 of the 29 witnesses said that saw Brown’s hands out from his side in some fashion.

    “One witness who thought Brown was charging said she saw his hands balled up into fists. Others thought the raised hands were a gesture of surrender, though some of these witnesses said they were not lifted in the traditional way, with the hands high and palms facing forward. Others thought Brown had touched a wound on his body and raised his hands in shock.”

    To illustrate the witnesses’ varying interpretations of what they saw, the Post published a graphic, “Descriptions of Brown’s Movement,” that showed how differently observers perceived his actions. The same behavior by the same man was alternately described as both “charging” and “surrendering,” as well as a host of other descriptors in-between.
    http://news.yahoo.com/did-michael-brown-really-hands-shot-172812909.html

    The position of Brown’s hands is pretty irrelevant because, contrary to the beliefs of some, a person can rush and attack another with their hands in just about any position. In other words, the position of the hands does nothing to defeat the claim that Brown was coming at Wilson or that Wilson had reasonable fear.

    After this, if I ever found need to attack someone, I would make sure I put my hands in the air as I came at them. 🙂

  366. Mike Spindell says:

    “Your desire for “ambivalent facts” is a result of your attempt to reconcile your cognitive dissonance rather than accept reality.”

    Bob,

    Your interpretation of “facts” without any ambivalence, reveals that you believe your reality to be more real than others and your admitted prejudice towards the police to be supreme in your evaluation.

    Or to paraphrase James Garner in the “Americanization of Emily”, “God save us from all the self righteous moralists of the world because they get everyone else’s back broken.

  367. Reality and truth are words too big for contrarians to comprehend.

  368. Btw, even the transcript notes officer Brown capitulating that (at some point ) Brown raised his hands.

    Then Wilson continued reiterating that the Demon looking Brown charged forward, toward the man shooting at him, with Brown’s hand xonstantly tucked into his clothes.

    With the bull (c)-it inference Wilson had to put Brown down.

    No indictment resulted, because no grand jurist could possubly fathom the concept that Brown turned around and put his hand in his clothes; because the officer kept shooting and Mike Brown figured his only chance was to charge at his wannabe killer.

    All the genius here and there can’t grasp the obvious,,most logical explanation.

    Shheeessshhh!

  369. Hocus says:

    laserD,

    So, the “most logical explanation” is that Brown charged at Wilson in order to try to stop him from shooting at him? Hmm. If Wilson had his gun drawn, and Brown charged him, one would think that stopping Wilson from shooting him is exactly what Brown intended to do. And that’s exactly why Wilson would have reasonably thought that Brown would have killed him had he gotten to him.

    Now, please explain Brown’s rationale for charging the store owner?

  370. po says:

    Bob says:”PBS Newshour has put together a chart of at least some of the competing witness statements. Summarizing the chart, PBS reported that its “data” showed that “[m]ore than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements).”

    That’s my point exactly, Bob.
    I gleaned the “16 out of 18” from Democracy Now this morning. You got your numbers from PBS. Others have gained theirs from other sources!
    There is enough discrepancy and holes in the narratives, the forensics and the process that no one is certain for sure of ANYTHING! Not you, nor me, and certainly not nivico or hocus pocus.

    Once again it is all interpretation around the missing, the holes, the lack of info around key aspects that we know not much about. BFM has done a great job floating many of those holes, and the answers provided by your camp have been stomped by others, especially Blouise and Elaine.

  371. nivico,

    It’s indicative of movement, not speed. Drops would be indication of being stationary. Nice try though. Too bad for you I have a better than average grasp on physics.

    And your last paragraph is pure supposition and ergo worthless.

  372. “There is enough discrepancy and holes in the narratives, the forensics and the process that no one is certain for sure of ANYTHING! Not you, nor me, and certainly not nivico or hocus pocus.”

    Bingo. And had the Grand Jury been presented the information in a neutral manner, such ambiguity would have suggested that the finder of fact in the justice system – the trial – would have been the proper venue to sort through the forensic information.

  373. Bob Stone says:

    “Your interpretation of “facts””

    Makes me 100 percent more earnest than a man who disregards the facts while rendering opinions as if he’d actually examined said facts.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Makes me 100 percent more earnest than a man who disregards the facts while rendering opinions as if he’d actually examined said facts.”

      Bob,

      Earnestness and intellectual honesty are not equivalent. You began your original post in this series expressing your gratitude for the police, thus showing that you are biased in their favor.
      You trumpeted second hand reports as “facts” and made untrue claims about what the forensic evidence proves. That may be earnestness on you part, but it certainly doesn’t reflect honesty.

  374. Bob,

    You keep mentioning Johnson as if that explains the holes in both the multiple narratives and the forensics.

    It’s kinda cute.

    You got a lucky rabbit’s foot too?

    Talismans are all the rage with the kids these days.

  375. Bob Stone says:

    “You got your numbers from PBS.”

    No I didn’t Po. I copied and pasted two paragraphs from a Washington Post article because it’s easier than drafting an obvious response myself.

  376. And to once again clarify my position: it has nothing to do with whether or not Wilson is guilty of a crime. My position is that McCulloch misused the GJ process to get a desired result and cover his own ass from assuming the potential realpolitik fallout he’d have faced if he as prosecutor declined to press charges.

  377. Bob Stone says:

    “You keep mentioning Johnson as if that explains the holes in both the multiple narratives and the forensics.”

    That’s right Gene,

    Johnson does have multiple (inconsistent) narratives.

    You’re catching on.

  378. po says:

    Yep, Gene, wanted to add to previous post how that is reflective of the thorough job of control and disinformation Mc Cullough did, but did not know how to say that without giving him credit for being smarter than I think he is.

  379. In “multiple narratives” Bob, I was including a set much larger than your talisman.

  380. po,

    He was smart enough to manipulate the process for his own political protection but dumb enough (or arrogant enough) not to cover his tracks by withholding the GJ transcript.

  381. Bob Stone says:

    And which one of those “multiple narratives” describes what happened at the car; i.e. the reason Wilson reasonably feared for his life when Brown came back for more?

  382. Bob Stone says:

    Did Piaget Crenshaw or Tiffany Mitchell see what happened at the car?

  383. po says:

    Bob, but why are you zoning on to Johnson, as if his is the only narrative there is?
    There are gaps in Wilson’s account as well, why are those invisible to you?
    The same tools you use to challenge Johnson’s narrative, are the same tools that DO NOT support Wilson’s narrative. Why the selective blindness?

  384. po says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 2, 2014 at 7:34 pm
    And which one of those “multiple narratives” describes what happened at the car; i.e. the reason Wilson reasonably feared for his life when Brown came back for more?
    ——————————————–
    How do you know with certainty that Wilson feared for his life?
    How do you know with certainty that Brown came back for more?

  385. po says:

    Hate to quote CNN and even more Nancy Grace, but… Gene, she says as you do.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-grace-goes-off-on-darren-wilson-it-doesnt-add-up/

  386. One guy (Andre) is dead. Witness 10’s changed testimony is much more telltale than anything your WaPo source can conjur up (Kaplan is as Kaplan does)

    And Hocus failed to focus and pocus askew.

  387. Bob,

    Is a Grand Jury the finder of fact in our legal system? Or only in the one you’ve created in your imagination?

  388. Bob Stone says:

    “How do you know with certainty that Wilson feared for his life?”

    Certainty? Where did that standard come from; your imagination?

    “How do you know with certainty that Brown came back for more?”

    A 20 foot trail of blood Brown left while advancing on Wilson with his gun drawn.

  389. po says:

    The standard came from Bob, who said:” the reason Wilson reasonably feared for his life when Brown came back for more?”. it sounds like certainty to me, what you expressed there, Bob!

  390. NBC says:

    Slarti has asked me to join this forum. Let me introduce my position: I am not in favor of the use of deadly force in self defense or the escalation in force seen amongst police encounters. Having said that, my interest in the Ferguson case is to establish what the evidence is showing and if the decision to not indict was based on reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented.

    Bob Stone just mentioned that there was a 20 foot trail of blood, which strongly suggests that Brown backtracked, and which supports Wilson’s statements. However, it does not prove by itself that he charged, or that he was not surrendering.

    Similarly, the wound on his right hand, the trace soot particles and the blood inside the car suggest again that the hand was close to the gun when it was discharged inside the car.

    There is a lot of evidence presented, many by witnesses who at first appear to be disagreeing on some very relevant points. However, we have to realize that they entered the situation at different times, and if the first thing I see is Brown falling on his knees after having been repeatedly hit, it may look to me that he was shot while begging for his life.

    Many of the witnesses support that Michael Brown stopped, turned around and reversed direction, some refer to it as running, or charging, others as walking, and others as more stumbling. In a few cases witnesses state that he turned around and was shot immediately.

    So far I believe that the physical evidence, combined with the testimony is consistent with the Grand Jury’s decision to not indict. Having said that, there is still an enormous amount of testimony to read and re-read on my part.

  391. Gene;

    As stated above, truth (facts) and reality are concept beyond contrary person,s grasp.

    As the outcome appears to be Mr. Stone,s desired result; the notion (even in black n white, ironclad proof) that the grand jury,s conclusion was wrong

    Will never even be considered – much less accepted.

    Bullets, blood n guns – the corrupt wins

  392. NBC says:

    The issue of the statute is an interesting one. First of all, it is helpful to point out that the ruling by the Supreme Court involved a Tennessee case. Secondly, the Missouri statute has not changed much in its phrasing since the decision, and in fact has been cited in various court cases, even one referencing the Garner case (Supreme Court). As such, I do not find it hard to accept that the prosecutors made a mistake when presenting the statute as is, and rather than trying to explain the nuances introduced by the Supreme Court, they decided to ask the Grand Jury to ignore the statute and to focus on their description of lawful response.

    The Missouri statute allowed a police officer to use lethal force even if there was no lethal threat, something the Supreme Court had rejected in Garner. However, the statute itself was not unconstitutional either, but rather one part of it was unconstitutionally broad.

    Lawrence’s accusations, in light of these observations sound a little outrageous to me, and the instruction given to the grand jury to just ignore the statute is quite defensible, does not sound like prosecutorial misconduct, and is actually quite reasonable. Given that the Grand Jury had not started its deliberations, it was also timely, unless we believe that the Grand Jurors are somehow unable to disregard statements.

  393. Liza says:

    The grand jury observed the demeanor of all of the witnesses and, perhaps even more important,

    Indeed. More importantly, grand jurors also examined multiple transcripts and interview recordings of eyewitnesses conducted by the FBI and county sheriff department prior to the grand jury sessions.

    And, I’ve only read through 929 pages of GJ transcripts.

  394. NBC says:

    As to what the standard is:

    Jones v. City of St. Louis, 92 F. Supp. 2d 949 – Dist. Court, ED Missouri 2000, contains a direct reference to Garner:

    Plaintiffs argue that the issue before the jury in the instant case will be whether defendant police officers used constitutionally excessive force by shooting them. See Pl.Resp., at 3. Pursuant to the law of this Court, there is no question that an officer firing shots at suspects constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure. Henderson, 17 F.Supp.2d at 1047. “The relevant question, therefore, is whether [the officer’s] actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. In the instant case, it was permissible under the Fourth Amendment for the officers to use deadly force during plaintiffs’ arrest. The Eighth Circuit has held that

    The use of deadly force is constitutionally reasonable in certain limited circumstances “[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”
    Krueger v. Fuhr, 991 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir.) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946, 114 S.Ct. 386, 126 L.Ed.2d 335 (1993).

  395. Bob Stone says:

    “A grand jury may make inquiry into and return indictments for all grades of crimes and shall make inquiry into all possible violations of the criminal laws as the court may direct.”

  396. laser,

    What I find most amazing about Bob’s argument is that I know he knows the proper role of discrete structures within the criminal justice system, but because (as you note) he got the outcome he wanted he refuses to see the impropriety at the Grand Jury as being inherently unjust regardless of Wilson’s ultimate guilt or innocence.

  397. Non-responsive, Bob.
    The power of inquiry isn’t the same as functioning as finder of fact and you know it.

  398. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    See also

    Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F. 2d 1037 – Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, 1991

    “Law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force in self defense or in defense of a third person if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person in similar circumstances would believe that it is necessary.”

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12463948644414232343&q=Fitzgerald+v.+Patrick,+927+F.2d+1037&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1

  399. Bob Stone says:

    It’s not a finder of fact simply because you allege it is.

  400. Bob Stone says:

    “A grand jury is a panel of private citizens, chosen in a manner similar to the way in which trial
    juries are chosen, whose job is to look into allegations of criminal activity. The prosecutor presents evidence to the 12 grand jurors, nine of whom must agree on whether a crime was committed and
    whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed it.”

    And that’s what happened.

  401. NBC says:

    Laser: As the outcome appears to be Mr. Stone,s desired result; the notion (even in black n white, ironclad proof) that the grand jury,s conclusion was wrong

    Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. Based on the evidence I have seen so far, and I admit that I am still working my way through the massive amounts of text and images, I tend to agree with the Grand Jury’s decision not to indict.
    Yes, the Grand Jury could have been wrong, as we may never know all the facts of the case. However, given the known facts, evidence and testimony, I agree with them that there is no probable cause for an indictment.

  402. I know the GJ not a finder of fact and you know it isn’t, Bob, and yet McCulloch’s actions are essentially a defense of Wilson – a defense reserved for trial as targets of GJ inquiries are not entitled to a defense. Again: most targets of GJ inquiry don’t even know they are targets let alone get to testify for hours and have the DA’s office frame the evidence in a light most favorable to them.

    I know it’s hard to keep up, but do try.

  403. NBC says:

    Bob: “Law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force in self defense or in defense of a third person if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person in similar circumstances would believe that it is necessary.”

    Ha, that was going to be my next reference… Found it before the more recent ruling I quoted. The Garner ruling is clear that it is not ok to shoot someone who is not armed or posing a threat, however we quickly get into murky territory. If, as the evidence shows, Brown turned around and proceeded towards Wilson for a distance of at least 20+ feet, then a reasonable person who has just been involved in a struggle inside a car, may very well believe that this poses an imminent threat and is, under our laws, justified to use deadly force.

    Having said that, I do not believe that our laws are just in these areas. Soon after Brown, a man armed with a knife, was shot and killed in St Louis. It have seen to many instances were it appeared that violence was escalated far too quickly.

  404. NBC says:

    Gene: I know the GJ not a finder of fact and you know it isn’t, Bob, and yet McCulloch’s actions are essentially a defense of Wilson – a defense reserved for trial as targets of GJ inquiries are not entitled to a defense

    Constitutionally speaking that is correct, at least at the Federal level. However, the rules of the federal prosecuting attorney outlines that, in spite of the ruling in US v Williams, prosecutors have a duty to share exculpatory evidence with the grand jury. And while historically, our Grand Jury system has become a rubber stamp on prosecutor’s indictments, I do not believe that justice is served by such an approach. So rather than argue that it is unfair that Wilson’s GJ was allowed to see any and all evidence, which they are entitled to under statute, before determining if there was a probable cause that laws had been broken, we should insist that Grand Jury’s become more inquisitorial and less a tool of the prosecution.

    So, even if the proceeding was not as usual, I still am not convinced that justice was not served by the prosecutor’s decision to present all evidence to the grand jury and have them decide whether or not to indict. That, to me, sounds like the proper role of any grand jury.

    Furthermore, the process used in this GJ, while perhaps unusual was neither illegal nor a denial of justice. How could it be when the jury gets to look at all the evidence? And why should we insist that the jury only gets to see one side of the evidence? Just because normally the prosecutor controls the GJ to such an extent that it has lost its original function? I cannot accept that as a reason to reject the findings by the GJ in this case.

  405. Bob Stone says:

    NBC: “then a reasonable person who has just been involved in a struggle [FOR HIS GUN] inside a car, may very well believe that this poses an imminent threat and is, under our laws, justified to use deadly force.”

    When a cop is wrestling with an unarmed suspect, the rule is “There’s always at least one gun involved–yours.”

  406. Hocus says:

    Gene,

    If I understand correctly, it is your position that the Grand Jury should be used to rubber stamp that which the Prosecutor could do on his own initiative via information, but should never be used as a check upon the prosecutors power to not file charges. Is that correct?

    If that’s correct; why should we waste our resources by having a Grand Jury to begin with?

    My biggest problem with Grand Jury proceedings is that they usually aren’t recorded. I have seen indictments that could only have resulted from the police officer lying to the Grand Jury. As such, if we are really interested in making sure the Grand Jury is able to perform its role, we should make sure that the proceedings are on the record. I don’t have a problem with keeping the deliberations secret, but I think we all recognize that with no record there is no threat of perjury.

  407. NBC says:

    Gene: What I find most amazing about Bob’s argument is that I know he knows the proper role of discrete structures within the criminal justice system, but because (as you note) he got the outcome he wanted he refuses to see the impropriety at the Grand Jury as being inherently unjust regardless of Wilson’s ultimate guilt or innocence.

    I would be willing to defend the claim that the Grand Jury proceeding in this case was more just than one in which a prosecutor gets 99.9% of the indictments he wants and in which 0.1% of police officers get indicted. So, if the argument is that Wilson should have been given the same treatment as other police officers, then an indictment would have been quite unlikely given the historical grand jury’s performance.

    The role of the Grand Jury is to stand between the prosecutor/Crown and the accused, and if this means that the prosecutor gets to present only evidence he believes will serve his case, then that role is significantly harmed by undue influence.

  408. Bob Stone says:

    A prosecutor is “the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sover­eignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

    McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.

    “Even if you could have gotten an indictment, what good does it do to get an indictment and then have your case thrown out,” said Gabriel Chin, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Law.

    “You go ahead and do a weak grand jury presentation, but if you do it in a case that’s actually weak, how are you going to feel when you are prosecuting a case that you really shouldn’t be prosecuting,” Mr. Chin said

  409. NBC says:

    Bob: When a cop is wrestling with an unarmed suspect, the rule is “There’s always at least one gun involved–yours.”

    And if, as Wilson claims, and as the evidence supports, Brown grabbed the firearm, and physically attacked him while being pinned down in his car, then the use of lethal force seems to be quite lawful. That deals with the beginning of the sequence of events. The final outcome, while morally speaking far less defensible, appears to have been lawful. Even though I do not support the use of a firearm under these circumstances. But that’s something that we can correct, if we care to pass better laws of self defense and use of force.

  410. NBC says:

    Bob: McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.

    There is a similar ruling in which the court observes that the prosecutor’s role is two-fold: to get an indictment and to serve the grand jury, and when the two conflict, the latter should prevail.

  411. NBC,

    Well good for you. While I have stipulated what was done was not technically illegal, I find the argument that the improprieties served as sufficient bias to create a de facto injustice combined with the realpolitik motives of McCulloch to hide behind the GJ instead of simply refusing to press charges compelling. Your agreement is not required.

    Hocus,

    No. My position is that the Grand Jury process is compromised when evidence isn’t presented in a neutral manner and that McCulloch did just that: biased the presentation by 1) letting Wilson testify extensively (bereft of the cross-examination he’d have faced in a trial) and 2) by how the forensic evidence was framed for the GJ (also bereft of the cross-examination said evidence would have had at trial).

    Grand Juries have inherent value, but only if used properly.

    Again: My argument isn’t about Wilson’s ultimate guilt or innocence. It’s about biasing the system for political reasons (protecting a cop and protecting McCulloch’s career). As I’ve already said, if the evidence had been presented in an unbiased fashion? The GJ still might have found the same way. Or they might have returned a true bill. The point is we’ll never know now and that effectively usurps the role of the trial judge and jury as finders of fact by putting a thumb on the scale to keep it out of their hands had the Grand Jury returned a true bill.

  412. NBC;

    Congrats! You, the counselor, the grans jury and WASP America (including Charles Barkley) are all of same mind and body.

    No such thing as excessive force in a bylly cop shooting a dozen bullets at an unarmed black man.

    If he had been armed, then maybe your mob coukd pull out a bazooka next time and give a whole new meaning to the big bang theory;

    and any “collateral damage” such “just cause” response would bring.

  413. NBC says:

    Gene: Is a Grand Jury the finder of fact in our legal system? Or only in the one you’ve created in your imagination?

    That is a tough question. In my opinion the Grand Jury is inquisitorial in nature. It hears testimony without any spin, and determines, based on their interpretation of the credibility of the evidence, if there is sufficient reason to proceed with an indictment. In that sense, it is more fact finding than the adversarial process we call a trial.

    At least, that is what a GJ could be under the powers it has been granted. The problem is that typically they only get to see what the prosecutor brings to them, and under US v Williams the prosecutor cannot be forced by the court to present exculpatory evidence. however, the Grand Jury may proceed to examine further witnesses. In a better system, the prosecutor presents all the evidence, and makes his best case, and then the grand jury gets to ask questions and deliberates. Otherwise, it is hard to argue that that the Grand Jury plays any role of relevance in our search for justice.

  414. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    The final outcome was Brown’s decision to make. He’s the first aggressor and the man ultimately responsible for his own demise.

  415. NBC says:

    Laser: No such thing as excessive force in a bylly cop shooting a dozen bullets at an unarmed black man.

    I consider it personally to be excessive force, however under our statutes and precedents, I believe he was justified in his actions. I hope that you can distinguish between the legal and moral argument, as I agree with you that the force used is excessive under my moral interpretation of self defense. Alas, our laws allow for more excessive action than I am comfortable with.

    I wish I could help you with your anger and sadness, as I feel the same about the whole incident, however in spite of my personal feelings, I feel obligated to look at the facts, evidence and the rules of law, however unjust I believe them to be. Even more so, if I had been on the Grand Jury.

  416. Bob Stone says:

    “There is a similar ruling in which the court observes that the prosecutor’s role is two-fold: to get an indictment and to serve the grand jury, and when the two conflict, the latter should prevail.”

    That’s a judge Hand ruling; right?

    I just read that a few days ago

  417. There’s no such thing as justice in America. All that we keep seeing, time after time, are unspoken precedentals that power, money and might makes right.

    Thus, anyone who doesn’t posses such; shall always be wronged!

  418. NBC says:

    Bob: The final outcome was Brown’s decision to make. He’s the first aggressor and the man ultimately responsible for his own demise.

    There we disagree, morally speaking at least. Yes, he seems to have been the original aggressor, and it was his response when he turned around that caused Wilson to second guess Brown’s intentions that caused his ultimate death. However, that could only happen when the use of lethal force is acceptable when the person appears to be unarmed. Even if he were grabbing for his belt, there should be ways to deal with assailants in a manner that does not involve a death sentence.

    It’s like resisting arrest. Too often used to add charges to an incident, where the suspect merely frowned or twitched. I understand that these laws serve a purpose, but they have started to become quite counter productive. Do I have the answers? I can provide some alternatives such as chasing down a suspect before backup arrives should be avoided unless there is immediate danger to others. The use of defensive police force should not be one level above the threat.

  419. NBC,

    We could have a inquisitional court system, but we don’t thanks to the Founders. The reasons for choosing an adversarial system over an inquisitional system are well rooted in the abuses of inquisitional courts throughout the European jurisprudence leading up to the creation of this nation. The wisdom of that decision is an entirely different discussion.

  420. Bob Stone says:

    Before the grand jury the prosecutor has the dual role of pressing for an indictment and of being the grand jury’s adviser. In case of conflict, the latter duty must take precedence. United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567, 573-74 (2 Cir. 1953) (L. Hand, J., dissenting), Cert. denied, 347 U.S. 913, 74 S.Ct. 476, 98 L.Ed. 1069 (1954).

    U.S. v. CIAMBRONE, 601 F.2d 616, 623 (2d Cir.1979)

  421. NBC

    You can’t juxtapose the two as totally bright line separate concepts and then conclude that the rigging of the grand jury process is ethical.

    I”ll grant you the premise that affairs of state have no moral compass, if you’ll in kind capitulate to the fact that a more ethical prosecutor would have done a more legal job.

  422. Bob,

    Adviser for the Grand Jury and advocate for the target of their inquiry are not the same thing.

  423. Mr. Stone;

    You state a possible correct case cite; but you wish to then obfuscate the discussion in holding as fact that McCullough advised correctly (when it appears the he actually devised/turned)

  424. Gene

    Correct (basically what I just said)

  425. Bob Stone says:

    NBC: “there should be ways to deal with assailants in a manner that does not involve a death sentence.”

    That’s not part of the calculus.

    “Adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law.”

    Ferguson Police Department’s use of force policy (section 410.01) states: “An officer may use lethal force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life.”

    That Brown was the first aggressor makes him ultimately responsible for his own demise because it put Wilson in the position where he had to make a choice.

    Applying the categorical imperative, the issue isn’t “what could have been?” The issue is, given this exact set of circumstances, is the choice to use deadly force justified every time?

    The answer is yes.

    Legally and morally, Wilson was justified in defending his life in the manner that he did.

  426. Btw counselor, case sites in the affirmative aren’t always dispositive.

  427. NBC says:

    Laser: You can’t juxtapose the two as totally bright line separate concepts and then conclude that the rigging of the grand jury process is ethical.

    The use of the word rigging already presumes an act which is unlawful or immoral, when in fact, as I pointed out the approach chosen allows a fully informed Grand Jury to decide. How is that rigging? Furthermore, both the prosecutor as well as the Grand Jury have the right to present and ask for evidence however they feel, with limitations on prosecutorial misconduct. In this case, the Grand Jury was free from prosecutorial pressure when it made its decisions. How is that rigging, or unethical? Is the alternative in which the outcome is guaranteed better?

    Laser: I”ll grant you the premise that affairs of state have no moral compass, if you’ll in kind capitulate to the fact that a more ethical prosecutor would have done a more legal job.

    Define more ethical and more legal because I have come to the conclusion that the actions by the prosecutor were both ethical and lawful/legal. But we can always second guess what could have, should have. Given the volatile circumstances, the approach chosen was a wise and lawful one which best serves justice.

  428. Eeeeaaaannnnttttt Counselor – I object to the presumption of facts not in evidence. Even by Wilson’s own testimony, he was the agressor.

    Where his bark turned out to be much less than his 12 bullets bite.

  429. NBC;

    It’s not ethical to represent the state of Mo. ( its citizens) and not try hard to get an indictment.

    And unethical representation of a client is illegal.

  430. po says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 2, 2014 at 8:58 pm
    NBC,

    The final outcome was Brown’s decision to make. He’s the first aggressor and the man ultimately responsible for his own demise.
    ————————————————————
    I call BS on that, Bob! That’s your interpretation! Not factual!

  431. Bob Stone says:

    “I call BS on that, Bob! That’s your interpretation! Not factual!”

    Make your case Po.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=1

  432. po says:

    I’ll start with two questions:
    How was Mike Brown the first aggressor?
    How was he responsible for his own demise?
    Are those questions answered without a doubt by the facts of the case, or are you coming to that certainty based on your conclusive reading of the facts of the case?

  433. Hocus says:

    “It’s about biasing the system for political reasons (protecting a cop and protecting McCulloch’s career).”

    Since County Prosecutors usually run for election as being tough on crime, isn’t it just as political to seek indictment when the evidence suggests otherwise?

    “As I’ve already said, if the evidence had been presented in an unbiased fashion? The GJ still might have found the same way. Or they might have returned a true bill. The point is we’ll never know now and that effectively usurps the role of the trial judge and jury as finders of fact by putting a thumb on the scale to keep it out of their hands had the Grand Jury returned a true bill.”

    Yet you are willing to accept the Prosecutor deciding not to prosecute without involving the Grand Jury. Correct? Please explain how the Prosecutor not handing to the case to the Grand Jury and refusing to file an information on his own does not also “effectively usurp[] the role of the trial judge and jury as finders of fact by putting a thumb on the scale.” It appears to be kind of a damned if you do -Damned if you don’t scenario.

  434. Wilson initiated the confrontation with verbal banter. That’s admitted and beyond contestation.

    From that point on, Wilson’s testimony is controlling (due to his elimination of possible contradictory evidence);

    But Wilson’s testimony is far from compelling.

  435. Hocus;

    Capitulating to the dynamics of “unbiased fashion” should stop the presses (and processes) right then and there.

    Targets of prosecutorial quest can’t be tried twice – in court ;

    But they can be grand juried as often as needs be.

    And there needs be a new, true and “unbiased” prosecutorial effort here;

    Because justice hasn’t been served

  436. Elaine M. says:

    How One Woman Could Hit The Reset Button In The Case Against Darren Wilson
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/02/3598082/one-woman-could-appoint-a-special-prosecutor-and-bring-justice-to-ferguson/

    Excerpt:
    The criticism of the prosecutor in Copeland largely mirrors the criticism of McCulloch and his team in Wilson’s case. Ben Trachtenberg, a professor at the University of Missouri School of law, told ThinkProgress last week that McCulloch’s statement after the grand jury decision “read like a closing argument for the defense.” Marjorie Cohn, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Thomas Jefferson School of Law agreed, saying “It was clear the prosecutor was partisan in this case, and not partisan in the way prosecutors usually are, which is to get people indicted.” Another expert, Susan McGraugh, an associate professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, also criticized McCulloch’s conduct. “His duty is not to be a defense attorney,” McGraugh said.

    In an interview with ThinkProgress, Washington University law professor Mae Quinn said she believed an appointment of a special prosecutor by Judge McShane would still be possible under the law. Quinn said, “this case was treated very very differently from every other case before the grand jury in St. Louis County.”

    Indeed, Bob McCulloch admitted as much, telling the grand jury at the start of the proceeding that the case would be “different from a lot of the other cases you’ve heard, that you’ve heard during your term.” A grand jury returns an indictment in the overwhelming majority of cases.

    Quinn also noted that the prosecutors vouched for the police to the grand jury, linking the credibility of their office to the credibility of the police. McCulloch introduced assistant prosecutor Kathi Alizadeh, who was one of the main attorneys presenting evidence to the grand jury, as someone who has been “working with the police… on this since the very beginning.”

  437. Bob Stone says:

    I said: The final outcome was Brown’s decision to make. He’s the first aggressor and the man ultimately responsible for his own demise.
    ————————————————————

    Po said: I call BS on that, Bob! That’s your interpretation! Not factual!

    I said: Po, make your case.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=1

    Po said: “I’ll start with two questions:
    How was Mike Brown the first aggressor?
    How was he responsible for his own demise?
    Are those questions answered without a doubt by the facts of the case, or are you coming to that certainty based on your conclusive reading of the facts of the case?”

    Po,

    I said make your case.

    Asking me questions about my case, which you should already know from the transcript, doesn’t make yours.

    Since Dorian Johnson is THE ONLY witness with testimony contradicting Wilson’s as to who is the first aggressor, I suppose you’ll be starting with what he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=1

    After all, how could all those people marching in the streets possibly be wrong?

  438. Hocus says:

    Elaine, If nothing else, I hope this will help you to recognize just how untrustworthy ThinkProgress is.

    “Another expert, Susan McGraugh, an associate professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, also criticized McCulloch’s conduct. “His duty is not to be a defense attorney,” McGraugh said.”

    Thinkprogress has taken her statement out of context for their own slanted benefit. Here’s what Professor McGraugh said in an interview with NPR.

    CORNISH: What misconceptions are there about the role of the grand jury? Or what questions should be raised about how a grand jury was used in this case?

    MCGRAUGH: Well, I think the big problem is that a grand jury was used properly in this case, but in a way no one else has benefited from except for Officer Wilson. By Bob McCulloch’s own admission, this is the only time he’s used a grand jury in this way. You know, a normal criminal defendant would have been charged before their case went to grand jury, and because they were charged, would’ve either had to wait for the grand jury to finish while they were in jail or would have had to post a bond. [emphasis mine]

    http://www.npr.org/2014/11/25/366620546/michael-brown-case-puts-attention-on-grand-jury

    As you can plainly see, Susan thinks the Grand Jury was used properly in this case.

    What’s different in this case than what is ordinarily presented to the Grand Jury? The answer is a self-defense claim. In 99.9% of the criminal cases heard by a Grand Jury there is no affirmative defense.

  439. po says:

    Bob, as I said from the start, the case is quite wide open. it hinges on a very many discrepancies in everything, The prudent, non-mob, non-grieving syndicalist in me said that though I would not call the killing racist, I’d say that the oppressive relationship between the police and the community leads me to believe that the police’s story doesn’t pass my bs detector!
    I reacted to your stance from the start, and specifically to your having already taken sides before the jury was out, justifying the shooting while vilifying the murdered,WHILE blaming the protesters for not waiting for the facts to come in.
    So, I do not have a case…and…wait, neither do you!
    You claim Johnson lied…I claim Wilson lied!
    You weigh his statements against your dog’s, and I weigh your dog’s against Johnson’s!
    You dismiss the sarge’s claims that Wilson was ignorant of the robbery, I accept them.
    The facts allow you to derive your conclusion, and the facts, yes, allow me to derive my conclusions!

    The following is my case, and i have kept repeating it:
    “Bob, very eloquent and thorough post.
    i must point out my discomfort at reading the part where you chastise the media and others for demonizing Darren Wilson, the killer, only to turn around and demonize the victim, Mike Brown.
    You make the good point that none of us know what happened, yet went out of your way to offer a narrative that seems to counter what the overwhelming narrative is, supported by most if not all the witnesses.
    The bottom line is actually quite simple: black men are being killed at the drop of a hat, and the reason advanced are always ones that blame the victim for doing something he is little likely to do.
    The other bottom line is this: when a cop kills an unarmed civilian, the burden of proof is on the cop, and the burden of the punishment should be on the cop.
    Additionally, the reaction in Ferguson and around the world is quite natural. People are sick of their children being snuffed without any reason at all. At all! How many black kids were killed this month alone by the cops?! How many?”

  440. Bob Stone says:

    Po: “Bob, as I said from the start, the case is quite wide open. it hinges on a very many discrepancies in everything,”

    What discrepancies in particular did you find?

    Perhaps you can use them to make your case.

  441. Bob Stone says:

    “The bottom line is actually quite simple: black men are being killed at the drop of a hat,”

    The bottom line is we don’t put people on trial or punish them based on statistics.

    The bottom line is I’m only concerned with what happened on August 9th on Canfield Drive in Ferguson MO. I’m only interested in the killing of one black man; because the rest are irrelevant per the guilt or innocence of Darren Wilson.

  442. po says:

    Bob:
    The bottom line is I’m only concerned with what happened on August 9th on Canfield Drive in Ferguson MO. I’m only interested in the killing of one black man; because the rest are irrelevant per the guilt or innocence of Darren Wilson.
    ————————————————————————
    Perhaps,then, Bob, you should drop the references to the mob, and the grieving syndicate!
    You and I say the same thing, the mob/grieving syndicate is irrelevant to the process. They play no causal effect into what happened on AUgust 9th on Canfield Drive in Ferguson MO.

  443. Hocus says:

    Bob, Don’t take a bite of the racist meat. Seriously! Your statement above could have just as easily said “I’m only interested in the killing of one black man [person/man]; because the rest are irrelevant per the guilt or innocence of Darren Wilson. The value of a life is not based on race or sex or profession. A life was taken in order to preserve the life of another. In such cases, no one is a winner. Both lost something, and society weeps…as it should.

  444. The Bottom Line is, counselor Stone, is that you are only concerned with the discription of events on that faithful day;

    And not on what really happened.

  445. Bob Stone says:

    “Perhaps,then, Bob, you should drop the references to the mob, and the grieving syndicate!”

    When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.

    And it’s the grievance syndicate that specializes in exploiting a situation to further a political agenda; even if it means “spreading false reports and joining forces with the wicked to be a malicious witness.”

    Exodus 23:1-2

    http://biblehub.com/exodus/23-1.htm

    Or something like that; right?

  446. po says:

    And it’s the grievance syndicate that specializes in exploiting a situation to further a political agenda; even if it means “spreading false reports and joining forces with the wicked to be a malicious witness.”

    Exodus 23:1-2
    ———————————————————-then you have just described those on the side of Officer Wilson trying to show him justified at the expense of Mike Brown et al. Including McCullough, those taking up donations, the fraternal orders of police, Josie….

  447. Bob Stone says:

    Hocus,

    I see what you’re saying, but every race angle is based on punishing Wilson for a pattern of racism that he’s not responsible for.

    The fact that I say that I’m only interested in the killing of one black man makes race irrelevant; since there’s no such thing as a pattern of one.

    This also reinforces the patently obvious fact, lost to all protesters, that it’s immoral and illegal to punish Wilson for the sins of the country.

  448. po says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 2, 2014 at 11:33 pm
    “Perhaps,then, Bob, you should drop the references to the mob, and the grieving syndicate!”

    When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.
    ——————————————————————
    How could they demand such?
    All they asked was that the officer be made to stand before the law and answer for his act, which is democratic per essence! Anyone else but a cop would have been asked to justify themselves, and had the “mob” not been vocal about it, the GJ would never had been gathered! Still democratic!

  449. Bob Stone says:

    “then you have just described those on the side of Officer Wilson trying to show him justified at the expense of Mike Brown et al. Including McCullough, those taking up donations, the fraternal orders of police, Josie….”

    Po, if you’d take some time to read the transcript, you’d see just how lost in lies you are.

    Are you so sure Johnson has been telling you the truth, i.e. hasn’t completely lied to you, that you’d be willing to stake your eternal soul on it?

    Exodus 23….

  450. Still missing that whole “the DA acted as a defense attorney” thing, eh Bob?

    Upholding the letter of the law while kicking its spirit in the balls is still called injustice. And in the end, that is what pisses you off most. The argument based in Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process is not so easily defeated by pounding the table. Obstruction is still defined as a criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court. That the interference was through malfeasance and not a statutory violation is not an argument without merit. McCulloch had means, motive and opportunity to abuse process and unduly influence outcome. I guess we’ll see if the DOJ probe of the Ferguson PD expands to cover the DA’s office. In the end though, the root of this problem tracks back to the same root of so many social ills: individual ego. He should have recused himself from the start to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but noooooooooo. Oh but for that ego! That pol ego that got in the way when he thought that despite his known cozy relationship with the police that he was just slick enough to get the result he wanted and suffer no political fallout or consequence at all. Imagine that. A pol’s ego writing checks his intellect can’t cash.

    That almost never happens. 🙄

  451. Bob Stone says:

    “Still missing that whole “the DA acted as a defense attorney” thing, eh Bob?”

    An indicting grand jury may also be charged with responsibilities ordinarily assumed by dedicated investigative grand juries.

    It’s designed to act as a Sword/Shield

    It acts as a shield against malicious prosecutions and it acts as a sword by using its investigative powers to ferret out criminals whose activities might otherwise have escaped prosecution.

    BTW, still not showing me the portions of the transcript to back up your argument?

  452. Bob Stone says:

    “Goodnight Austin Texas; wherever you are!”

  453. NBC says:

    Laser: It’s not ethical to represent the state of Mo. ( its citizens) and not try hard to get an indictment. And unethical representation of a client is illegal.

    That’s a foolish argument since ethics do not require a prosecutor to indict at all cost, especially when the evidence does not support such. In this case, the prosecutor took his role as advisor to the Grand Jury more seriously. Now during the actual trial, he should give his full attention, but that is not the role of the Grand Jury. Furthermore, he has discretion as to how he acts as a prosecutor.

    And do the people of Mo want someone indicted at all cost or do they want justice?

  454. Its not the letter or spirit of the law Mr. Stone seeks to verify. Its the arbitrary/ capricious “Color of Law” (tantamount ti breach of fuduciary duty);

    Which is (apparently) Mr. Stone’s desire.

  455. I already told you, Bob. I’ve got other things to do than (essentially) draw up a complaint just to entertain you. If you don’t see the impropriety without having it spoon-fed to you? You never will. Besides, I already told you how I’m arguing this. That you don’t deal with sideways attacks well? Is just misfortune. I’m a lateral thinker and you know this. However, I’m not the only person with the appropriate background to have an expert opinion saying that McCulloch acted improperly and for the most part we seem to be on the same page: he was acting like a defense attorney.

    But please do tell me to spoon feed it to you again.

    It’s cute.

    Maybe afterward I can burp you and put you down for a nap.

    Otherwise, unless I’m getting paid, I’m simply not going to do that much work just to please you.

    Keep poking at you, sure, that’s just good fun. But work? Nope. I’m here for the fun.

  456. Bob Stone says:

    “If you don’t see the impropriety without having it spoon-fed to you You never will”

    I don’t see the impropriety because I haven’t read any yet.

    What transcript are you reading?

  457. NBC says:

    PO: I call BS on that, Bob! That’s your interpretation! Not factual!

    That is the best explanation given the known evidence and the eye witnesses. What is a fact is that there was soot on his right hand, and that his right hand was wounded. The facts are that his DNA and blood were found inside the car. So, if you combine the evidence and the witness accounts, this is indeed the best explanation. Is it factual? We may never know.

  458. NBC says:

    ” It’s about biasing the system for political reasons (protecting a cop and protecting McCulloch’s career). ”

    That does not make sense. McCulloch could have best protected his career by having Wilson indicted. Since he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, he chose the most honorable and just way to resolve the question about indictment: Have a grand jury consider all the evidence and determine if there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment. That’s the only way to ensure that one cannot blame the prosecutor, one way or the other.

  459. Be careful with your word choices NBC. And it is also improper to put words in anothers mouth. There’s no remark by me of “at all costs”.

    Your proffer that the prosecutor took the role “as advisor to the Grand Jury more seriously”

    Than the indictment effort

    Is the whole point!!!!!!!!!

  460. NBC says:

    Laser: Which is (apparently) Mr. Stone’s desire.

    That’s what is known as a pure ad hominem attack. Sorry Laser but such logical fallacies do not belong in this forum.
    Mr Stone is presenting valid and good arguments and just because you have a hard time dealing with them, does not mean that you have to abandon logic and reason.

  461. NBC says:

    Laser: Is the whole point!!!!!!!!!

    So he did his duty and you complain? Remember that the prosecutor serves two roles: One as accuser and one as advisor and that the second role is more important than the former. You seem to believe that justice is served only when the prosecutor presents biased arguments to the Grand Jury. Or you believe in a balanced approach and that’s exactly what the prosecutor did in this case.

  462. Bull sprit…NBC

    Another supposition of facts not in evidence; stating

    “McCullough could have best protected his career by having Wilson indicted”

    REALLY!

    Puuuhhhhlllleeeaaasssseeee.

    McCullough could gain more politico power, votes and campaign money

    By indicting Mike Brown – even though he’s dead.

    That’s tge real WASP world!

  463. NO….

    The whole point is that he did NOT do his duty. As noted by law professors quoted in the new thread, McCullough came across as Wilson’s advocate

    Instead of being advocate of state

  464. NBC says:

    Laser: Be careful with your word choices NBC. And it is also improper to put words in anothers mouth. There’s no remark by me of “at all costs”.

    Ok, you suggest that the prosecutor has an ethical obligation to seek an indictment more than seeking the truth? Because the process you are proposing would be not unlike what happened but with the prosecutor limiting the evidence to what he wants the jurors to see. Is that what the people of Mo. want? I surely hope not.

    The role of the prosecutor to the grand jury requires the grand jury to be properly informed to make a decision, even though it has become a tool of the prosecution. Explain to me why you believe that the Grand Jury should not be given access to all the evidence?

    He may present or outline his best evidence, and hope that the Grand Jury agrees, but he should present sufficient evidence for the Grand Jury to make an informed decision.

    So ask yourself, if the prosecutor had followed the usual proceedings and a not guilty were returned, which is statistically speaking very likely, then would you believe the prosecutor has done his job?

  465. po says:

    Actually, NBC, BFM did a good job above showing another option that could explain both the wound, the soot and dna. There is overwhelming evidence Mike’s hand was in the car, which Johnson explains by Wilson having grabbed and pulled in.
    The question is, again, was Mike reaching to pull the gun, which makes no sense to me and most, or was he struggling to free his hand?
    What is the evidence for the former?