By Elaine Magliaro
Mike Hayes (BuzzFeed) has reported that St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch admitted during a radio interview with KTRS on Friday that he let witnesses who he knew were lying testify before the Ferguson grand jury. McCulloch told radio host McGraw Milhaven, “There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath. Some lied to the FBI. Even though they’re not under oath, that’s another potential offense — a federal offense. I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture.” The Ferguson grand jury chose not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Excerpt from the radio interview:
KTRS: Why did you allow people to testify in front of the grand jury in which you knew their information was either flat-out wrong, or flat-out lying, or just weren’t telling the truth?
McCulloch: Well, early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the grand jury.
And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.
So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did. This grand jury poured their hearts and souls into this. It was a very emotional few months for them. It took a lot of them.
I wanted to put everything on there.
I thought it was much more important to present everything and everybody, and some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it.
McCulloch also admitted that the testimony of “Witness 40”– 45-year-old Sandra McElroy–lacked credibility. The St. Louis prosecutor said, “This lady clearly wasn’t present when this occurred. She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson’s actions, and right down the line with Wilson’s actions. Even though I’m sure she was nowhere near the place.”
Buzzfeed reported that there was no indication that McCulloch’s office instructed the grand jury to consider the credibility of any specific witness. His office has already been criticized for not immediately telling the jurors that a state statute giving officers more leeway on use of deadly force had been found unconstitutional. McCulloch himself has also been accused of being biased toward police.
According to the Associated Press, the interview aired amid a demand by state Rep. Karla May (D) that McCulloch be investigated by a bipartisan committee of state lawmakers.
May wrote the following in a letter to state Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R), the committee’s chairperson: “Many St. Louis-area residents believe — and there is at least some evidence to suggest — that Mr. McCulloch manipulated the grand jury process from the beginning to ensure that Officer Wilson would not be indicted.”
Earlier this week, The Smoking Gun broke the story about “Witness 40” Sandra McElroy’s “fabricated” story.
The Smoking Gun:
The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,” The Smoking Gun has learned.
In interviews with police, FBI agents, and federal and state prosecutors–as well as during two separate appearances before the grand jury that ultimately declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson–the purported eyewitness delivered a preposterous and perjurious account of the fatal encounter in Ferguson.
Referred to only as “Witness 40” in grand jury material, the woman concocted a story that is now baked into the narrative of the Ferguson grand jury, a panel before which she had no business appearing.
William Bastone, Andrew Goldberg, and Jeffery Jesselli of The Smoking Gun said that Dorian Johnson’s “hands-up” account of what happened in Ferguson “is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment.” They also noted that McElroy’s testimony about seeing Michael Brown “batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation.” They added that the “Witness 40” testimony, as viewed by Fox News, “is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.” Bastion, Goldberg, and Jesselli said that, unlike Johnson, Sandra McElroy “was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.”
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch Breaks Silence
St. Louis prosecutor McCulloch says he knew ‘Witness 40′ lied to Ferguson grand jury (Raw Story)
Prosecutor Says He Knew Some Witnesses Were Lying To The Ferguson Grand Jury (BuzzFeed)
Witnesses Lied Under Oath In Ferguson Grand Jury, Prosecutor Says (Huffington Post)
Some witnesses lied to Michael Brown grand jury, McCulloch says. So why have them testify? (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
“Witness 40”: Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson–TSG unmasks witness who spun fabricated tale (The Smoking Gun)
They won’t disbar this guy. They’ll probably nominate him for USAG
I, ah, I means I gots one of
On the one hand we have a claim that it is ok to present all the evidence including questionable evidence with out any attempt at vetting to the grand jury. I find that questionable.
On the other hand we have the claim that it is ok to present assertions known to be false without any warning, disclaimer or vetting to the grand jury.
“And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on. ”
It seems to me there is one appropriate answer to the hypothetical question of why he did not put that witness on: ‘We knew she was lying and had no relevance or bearing on the case’. That kind of answer would seem, to me, to be both a clear explanation and an iron clad defense.
Surely there must be some limit on what the DA or ADAs can do before the grand jury?
You have other states like Michigan, letting police get away (even after going to trial twice) with throwing concussion grenades in the wrong apartment and shoot 7 yr olds, while being filmed for 1st 48 hours.
This case pales by compare.
Powers that be always get off Scot Free
Including prosecutors lacking common.sense and selling bull shit as relief.
After all, he,s not charging the stepfather
“You have other states like Michigan, letting police get away (even after going to trial twice) with throwing concussion grenades in the wrong apartment and shoot 7 yr olds, while being filmed for 1st 48 hours.”
This is a bit of a tangent to this thread, but I have remarked before on the difference between an officer not being guilty of a felony, and the officer performing his duties in accordance with reasonable standards for the job.
Can you imagine a file clerk putting files in the wrong Cabinet, causing great loss to his employer and not being reprimanded? I can not.
Yet many of us have read of officers taking strong action at the wrong address, or the wrong car, or to the wrong person and later being excused because there broad discretion prevented conviction for a felony.
Surely something can and should be done by citizens acting through elected representative to hold negligent officers accountable to reasonable performance standards on the job. Why would any citizen of sworn officer object to that?
Why won’t McCulloch charge Witness #40 with perjury? Time for a special prosecutor, new grand jury
Since releasing an additional batch of documents from the grand jury proceedings, the public has learned that one witness in particular, Sandra McElroy, also popularly known as witness #40, was thoroughly discredited in her interrogation by the FBI a month before she ever appeared on two separate occasions before the grand jury.
In this interrogation, the FBI proved that McElroy, whose testimony would eventually mirror Wilson’s better than any other witness, was never actually at the scene of the shooting and had concocted an elaborate and preposterous hoax of a narrative on why she was there, how she drove in, how she mysteriously drove off the scene, how she saw the entire incident from close range, how nobody could confirm her being there, how she had a deep and ugly racist history, and so much more. By the time she finished her interview with the FBI, McElroy had perjured herself not one or two times, but well over 100 times. Her story, insulting, demeaning, and fundamentally outrageous was completely debunked by the FBI over and over again, yet Bob McCulloch, fully aware of this, called her not once, but twice as a witness…
Today, however, in the brazen and flippant manner in which he has done nearly everything regarding this case, he did just that.
McCulloch fully admitted that witness #40 “clearly wasn’t present” at the scene of the shooting and that “she recounted her story right out of the newspaper.”
Actually hearing him admit this is shocking because it’s an almost indefensible strategy to call a witness before a grand jury when that witness has already been thoroughly discredited as a destructive liar who willfully perjured herself. The point is this—Sandy McElroy was not a witness. To call her to testify as such, not once, but twice, makes no legal, moral, or ethical sense whatsoever.
In his radio interview, McCulloch said he “determined early on” that he would allow witnesses to testify even if “their statements were not accurate.” However, McElroy was not an inaccurate eyewitness who struggled to recount the facts of a traumatic event she actually witnessed, but is in a different category altogether. She wasn’t inaccurate. She was delusional and destructive and nowhere near Canfield Drive on Aug. 9. To group her in with residents who were actually there, but gave wildly varying accounts, which is typical of eyewitnesses, is insincere at best. McElroy was not only dozens of miles away, she only came forward with the express intent of boosting Wilson’s narrative.
To this end, she was wildly successful and her testimony has now been quoted by Sean Hannity and Fox News hundreds of times as a form of evidence that Mike Brown “charged at Darren Wilson like a football player.”
Calling McElroy forward as a material witness to a shooting, knowing that she was not a witness at all, may actually be a federal crime. There is no doubt that McElroy committed perjury over and over again. She was told explicitly that if she testified that she witnessed this shooting when she was not anywhere near the scene, she would be committing a crime. But she doubled down repeatedly and was even allowed to present to the grand jury a fake journal she said she kept from the day of the shooting as a form of evidence proving that she was indeed a witness. The prosecutors are on record in the grand jury proceedings actually asking her to bring the journal with her when she returns to testify.
He,s only admitting.. NOW .. that the woman is full of bull; because the FBI disclosure exposed him.
If he knee, he should have informed GJ
It’s dereliction to let known false testimony stand on its own.
Can we start an impeach McCullough movement
Can’t forget witness # 10 either :
“The differences were stark. One person identified only as Witness 10 told the 12 jurors, nine of them white and three black, that after Mr. Brown turned to face Officer Wilson, he went “full charge at the officer.” The witness said Mr. Brown “was not in a surrendering motion of ‘I’m surrendering, putting my hands up,’ or anything.”
But another witness, a resident of the Canfield Green apartment complex near where the shooting took place, was adamant that the opposite had occurred. As seen from her second-floor patio, she said, “he’s now facing the officer with his hands up like this.” She testified, “He was casually walking as if he had got shot and he started feeling the pain or something like that, where, like, he couldn’t, you know, pick up his pace because of the shot.” The prosecutor noted that the witness had not said in her initial police interview that Mr. Brown’s hands were up, but the woman stuck by her account.”
bfm:And example of what you said is going on right now in New York:
“Surely something can and should be done by citizens acting through elected representative to hold negligent officers accountable to reasonable performance standards on the job. Why would any citizen of sworn officer object to that?”
““Due to Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito’s consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve, I believe that their attendance at the funeral of a fallen New York City police officer is an insult to that officer’s memory and sacrifice.”
I think the rejection of de Blasio by LE is an indication of the difference in culture that must be bridged.
de Blasio is certainly not anti police. He has appointed William Bratton commissioner, who has strong credentials as a ‘broken windows’ enforcer. I could be mistaken but my recollection is Bratton has also expressed support for stop and frisk tactics.
The fact that de Blasio has received this level of criticism for expressing concern over what seem to be a clear violations of department training and policy should be an indication of the gulf between the views of some police and many citizens.
BTW, I don’t think we should be anti police. But I do not think there is any contradiction in demanding strong action against officers who violate their trust, abuse their authority, or make basic errors that lead to great damage to citizens.
To me that all seems fundamental.
“Witness 40’s story has unraveled. Sean Hannity used it at least 21 times to defend Darren Wilson.”
Of course they did…mainly because Fox News is a steaming pile of ass clowns….
What can’t be overlooked either is that the Mayor(deBlasio) is of and interacial marriage and he is in thing more than most and lives this much more than most.
And IMHO he is ***NOT*** anti police,he couldn’t survive if he were.
“meme: is “an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.” A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.”
Now think of the “meme” that has spread throughout defenders of Officer Wilson: “McElroy’s testimony about seeing Michael Brown “batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation.”
And then witness #10: “One person identified only as Witness 10 told the 12 jurors, nine of them white and three black, that after Mr. Brown turned to face Officer Wilson, he went “full charge at the officer.” The witness said Mr. Brown “was not in a surrendering motion of ‘I’m surrendering, putting my hands up,’ or anything.”
Memes can also be spread though small groups brought together for a specific purpose, like a grand jury of 12 and then through transcripts filter through to the rest of society. We have seen countless defenders of Officer Wilson describe Michael Brown’s actions in just this way. At the same time we have seen witness Johnson disparaged as a liar and worse.We have also seen McCollough’s policy of giving ALL the evidence to the Grand Jury and let them sort it out in action. He presented a witness who was proven a liar that had fabricated her tale. A person who he knew had a history of mental illness and virulent racism. Doesn’t that seem more than a little prejudicial in Officer Wilson’s behalf? for those who “pored” over the transcripts, which I didn’t, was there at the very least any grueling cross-examination by the ADA’s of witness #40, to convey the possibility of her completely fabricating her testimony? It is obvious that if her testimony is considered truthful, Officer Wilson would have been justified in shooting Michael Brown multiple times. Even if, however, witness 40’s testimony was less than credible and balanced against Mr. Johnson’s testimony (remembering of course that he was a friend of Michael Browns) than there you have the type of doubt injected into this case that would cause even a fair Grand Jury to refuse to indict. McCollough rigged this Grand Jury in Officer Wilson’s favor and that is the simple fact of the matter no matter how many angels someone has seen dancing on the head of a pin.
“.We have also seen McCollough’s policy of giving ALL the evidence to the Grand Jury and let them sort it out in action. ”
Even here on this web site we have seen some praise the document dump by McCullough. But in my experience document dumps are not intended to aid understanding or lead to thoughtful action.
So far as I know grand juries have no staff to aid in sorting through and reviewing testimony, documents and other evidence. All the members have is their own diligent efforts and their ability to inform and convince their fellow members
In my opinion the document dump on the grand jury was a clever attempt to render them incapably of reaching any clear conclusion – which would require a no true bill.
Some may be fooled. Some may defend McCullough. But anyone who has watched a group deal with masses of information knows what he did and why it is wrong.
What? People can be manipulated by language? Why . . . that all sounds vaguely familiar. One point I haven’t reached yet in that work is the larger context in which propaganda and propaganda techniques fit. That larger context is cybernetics (in the sociological applications and meaning of the word). I do recall mentioning the effects of bias in both content and presentation of this matter to the grand jury earlier, but it was an idea that some just couldn’t or wouldn’t process.
Maybe I should change my name to Cassandra.
Cassandra indeed! I seem to recall defenders of the process of giving the GJ ALL the information supporting the notion that this deliberative body would carefully and impartially sift it all out and come up with the truth of the matter, based only on the evidence. At the time the idea that this even equated with what I know about human individuals and their groups seemed rather overly optimistic. An idealistic viewpoint can indeed be a wonderful thing, but when it is used to ignore reality, is is merely a defense mechanism, know as Denial.
Not off tangent as your clerk rxample.
In both.instances. the.killer is Scot Free. In Mi case, the prosecutiin happened ..because it eas an innocent child.
Still, no convict..cause no real desire to
Anyone could have obtainef a trial here. If the radio guy would have had more grit, McCullough wouldn,t skate.
Why not independemt prosecutor!
McCullough, himself, opened the door with the story about the other case. The jockey needed to say
Did you…too… get other review?
Because he wanted to appease;
But let the guy off the hook…
Who, by the way (per the banter above on clerk) resigned.
We ( U.S. who cares) can get this done; ‘by demanding another go by another.
Who wont try wrong charge;
and do half ass job.
Wilson lied about the store issue and “instigated” it all with the back up!
That’s a terrible thing to say about asses, clowns or ass clowns, Carterbo.
Eh . . . strike that bit about clowns. On second thought, they are inherently creepy.
Did Robert McCulloch Just Admit To Suborning Perjury?
It’s easy to be outraged(!) that a prosecutor knowingly put lying witness on the stand. But we don’t have to merely be outraged because we have actual laws against this kind of behavior. Here’s the federal statute:
Sec. 1622. Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In practice, you need to show five elements to support a charge of subornation of perjury:
* The defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely.
* There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed
* The statements of the perjurer were material.
* The perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity.
* The defendant had knowledge that the perjurer’s statements were false.
McCulloch just out-and-out admitted to four of those five elements.
The only one in doubt is whether McCulloch and the lying witness made any kind of pre-trial agreement to lie. McCulloch will clearly say that he did not. But it sure seems like McCulloch went out and solicited false statements from “witnesses,” statements taken right out of the newspaper, from people he knew where not there.
Prosecutor Admits He Let Witnesses Who “Absolutely Lied” Testify Before Ferguson Grand Jury
Throughout the interview, McCulloch maintained that he not only did his job in presenting the evidence for a possible indictment, but went above and beyond by making sure the grand jury was given every possible piece of evidence and testimony to sift through. Which is, of course, the very problem in this instance. McCulloch essentially played defense attorney for Wilson and inundated the grand jury members with all sorts of testimony and evidence that could potentially sway any of them to see things one way or another. Hearsay, unreliable statements and witnesses who were completely lying were all placed before the jurors.
Isn,t the back up of the SUV – paramount?
Wilson,s conflicting testimony on when he knew – is also paramount!
Yes. Or No?
I would argue that McCulloch had an agreement for her to testify falsely, not in the sense of “here’s what I want you to say” but as in “[tacitly:] I know your testimony is false, [explicitly:] tell your story to the gj. And she did.
Former Federal Prosecutor: McCulloch Violated Rules Of Professional Conduct In Brown Case
By Heather December 20, 2014
Former Federal Prosecutor Jonathan Shapiro discussed the possible sanctions St. Louis Country Prosecutor Bob McCulloch could be facing for putting witness 40 on the stand in the Ferguson case.
MSNBC’s Ari Melber, filling in for Chris Hayes this Friday spoke to former federal prosecutor Jonathan Shapiro about the latest revelation and McCulloch’s response and Shapiro discussed the possible sanctions McCulloch could be facing for his decision to put McElroy on the stand.
MELBER: Why would a prosecutor say that he should put people on the stand in a grand jury that he didn’t think were telling the truth?
SHAPIRO: Well, he shouldn’t and no lawyer should. The rules of professional conduct prohibit it, rule 3.3 specifically says a lawyer shall not put a witness before a tribunal, including a grand jury, if the lawyer, including a prosecutor knows the person is not telling the truth. You can’t do it. It’s illegal. It’s called suborning perjury.
If you do it the sanctions that you face are contempt of court sanctioned by your state bar, in this case the state of Missouri, or prison. You’d be indicted for it. The question is what did this prosecutor know and when did he know it?
If he knew that that witness, number forty was lying and wasn’t there, he had a ethical, legal and professional duty to not put the witness on the stand. If he found out about it later, he had a separate obligation to notify the tribunal, that is go into the grand jury and say that witness lied to you.
The idea that you’re able to sort of open up the grand jury witness stand to anybody who wants to have a say, like it’s a group meeting or something it outrageous.
He should be disbarred for this but I’m not holding my breath for anyone to hold him accountable for his actions.
“he also allowed lies from people supportive of the gentle giant. so, he was fair in allowing lies from both sides.”
What McCulloch did was out of pragmatism. If he prosecutes one act of perjury he’d have to prosecute them all. That means Dorian Johnson too. And the reason Johnson lied was to keep himself out of jail for felony murder; another crime that will not be prosecuted out of pragmatism.
“What McCulloch did was out of pragmatism. If he prosecutes one act of perjury he’d have to prosecute them all. That means Dorian Johnson too. And the reason Johnson lied was to keep himself out of jail for felony murder; another crime that will not be prosecuted out of pragmatism.”
Nice ignoring of the issue and trying to change the topic. Well played. Didn’t you somewhere talk about Michael Brown’s furiously charging Wilson to show Wilson’s rationale for shooting him multiple times. Where was that from, Bob, since you’ve read the transcript. Was it witness 40, witness 10, or maybe even Josie who you’ve quoted many times. When in doubt…..obfuscate.
McCullough isn’t that stupid.
Our systems are rigged that the prosecutor gets elected or nominated, like judges..via support of those who know the one seeking office.. will play ball
That being said, I do agree that he had bad intent. But we are able to crucify him more by his public banter to the radio station, than anything else he’s done heretofore.
That interview wasn’t intelligent
The only pragmatic here, is you Bob
By unrelenting defense of the inane
Yes, we realize that McCulloch is a Democrat. I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
” I don’t know what that has to do with anything.”
We don’t care what his party is. We only care if he did a good job or if his efforts undermined the duty of the grand jury.
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood ‘party’s got nothing to do with it’.
Aside from Bob’s quaint arguments contrary to himself (that Dorian can be prosecuted for murder, but Wilson never should be)..
We agree with this reflection by another ..that you’ve cited.
Wonder if the state can step in, now that McCullough has confessed his errors?
No, actually, I didn’t realize this guy is a dem. WTF has that got to do with it? Care to explain?
“What McCulloch did was out of pragmatism. If he prosecutes one act of perjury he’d have to prosecute them all. ”
What McCulloch did was suborn perjury, fail to follow best evidence practice and deliberately manipulate a grand jury proceeding.
And what Bob K. said. Those who only look at the problems with our system through a lens of partisanship? Are suckers. Systemic error isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a systemic issue. It can (and does) come from all the “clubs” participating. Systemic error is a reflection of complexity. It would happen in single party systems of size just as it does in a dual party dominated system just as it does in multi-party (usually Parliamentary) systems.
“What McCulloch did was suborn perjury, fail to follow best evidence practice and deliberately manipulate a grand jury proceeding.”
Oh yeah; that’s what he did.
From you source: “The term subornation of perjury further describes the circumstance wherein an attorney at law causes a client to lie under oath, or allows another party to lie under oath”
Don’t know about the state and what there law requires. But it looks like there is a reasonable question whether McCulloch ‘allowed another party to lie under oath’.
Please don’t use the chair debate lord as a case in point; because it doesnt make our day
And hes a punk too!
“And hes a punk too!”
I think it is wonderfully uplifting when a punk turns out to be right and make a good point.
‘Party’s got nothing to do with it’.
I suppose there is the chance that might bring fear and trembling to party hacks.
Quoting corroborative sources unimpeachable. .eh Bob!
Did you have your buds go edit Wiki 1st, for ya…cause..you know
The prosecutor Eliane cites is no where near as credible as your wiki
Adolf n Rand made points too
But I never quote them
I move off McCulloch for a moment to look at the GJ. This document dump does nothing other than create probable cause. Probable cause runs throughout and yet those citizens couldn’t see it?
No, I’m not buying that explanation. It smacks too much of “just following orders”. They all need to be investigated.
Nixon’s decision to not go the special prosecutor route by keeping McCulloch also needs to be looked at.
(And fuz, Nixon is also a dem.)
Bob is never in doubt;
and obfuscates instinctively.
Before they are Dems
They are Thems
“folks do realize this guy is a dem?”
Your point, or were you merely spouting the “stereotyped” Brooklyn pronunciation of “them” as some sort of existential statement?
fuz: “folks do realize this guy is a dem?”
Or were you trying to attack him and meant ‘folks do you realize this guy is dim?’ – which would at least contain relevant information.
Some of you guys are all over the place so it can be a challenge to figure out what you are getting at.
Really, really good interview… did you guys even bother to listen to it?
You’re doing EXACTLY what he predicted you would do; single out this one witness to harp on when he has clearly stated that a major problem they had to deal with was that many of the witnesses who came forward were obviously and demonstrably lying.
In relevant part:
Given that the “evidence” of Wilson being charged was both material and substantively affected the outcome of the proceeding, that McCulloch willfully allowed such perjury with a priori knowledge of its questionable quality and substantive reasons based on history of the declarant to question her veracity in general, it is indeed arguable that McCulloch suborned perjury with a mind to biasing the outcome of the proceedings.
“Given that the “evidence” of Wilson being charged was both material and substantively affected the outcome of the proceeding, that McCulloch willfully allowed such perjury with a priori knowledge of its questionable quality and substantive reasons based on history of the declarant to question her veracity in general, it is indeed arguable that McCulloch suborned perjury with a mind to biasing the outcome of the proceedings.”
Ah, Borscht Belt law.
Shall we try the veal too?
“You’re doing EXACTLY what he predicted you would do; single out this one witness to harp on when he has clearly stated that a major problem they had to deal with was that many of the witnesses who came forward were obviously and demonstrably lying.”
This particular witness was presented twice. This particular witness seems to have done much to shape the perception of many outside the grand jury. We might reasonably wonder if this witness did as much to influence the grand jury. It seems to me there are excellent reasons to spend some time evaluating the effect of this witness’s testimony.
And further it seems more then reasonable to me that we give some consideration why this witness would have been presented twice by the ADAs.. What lead them to make that decision?
At this point there seem to be some excellent reasons to single out this one witness. The fact that McCullough realized his vulnerability is absolutely no reason whey we should not ask obvious questions.
“No, I’m not buying that explanation. It smacks too much of “just following orders”. They all need to be investigated.
Nixon’s decision to not go the special prosecutor route by keeping McCulloch also needs to be looked at.” – Blouise
It is interesting that some elements insist on characterizing this site as somehow cheerleading for the DNC regardless of what they do. True, a some of the authors and posters here are unabashed Democrats, but that is certainly not a homogeneous state (I’m so much an Independent it makes any partisan’s eyes bleed) nor is it the policy of this blog to act along partisan lines. Democrats. Republicans. Libertarians. All that hoohah is tribal gibberish if your primary concerns are the fundamental fairness, egalitarianism and equity a healthy and robust society requires from its legal system, a requisite sense of good ethics and accountability in all our elected officials, and the integrity of the Constitution as informed by the Declaration. I’ve called out Bush and Cheney for their Constitutional abuses just like I called Obama out for his. Party didn’t have squat to do with it.
There is something funny here, Bob. Just not what you think.
Felony murder is not funny Gene.
“It is interesting that some elements insist on characterizing this site as somehow cheerleading for the DNC regardless of what they do.”
I do find that interesting. I know I’ve done perhaps fifteen pieces since January that unabashedly bash Democrats and others bashing liberals. Perhaps political debate in this country has become so imbued with the two party idea that many are unable to perceive otherwise.
This just in, Officer Wikson,s a Dem!
Niw we all mustapologize to Bob n ilk
Interesting article on McCollough and his impartiality.
Oh no you did NOT just go there!
Felony murder is not funny..
Glad to see you capitulate to the issue
That it’s Felony Murder
Giving a cop a pass because he’s a cop isn’t funny either, Bob. Johnson’s potential felony murder charge? I’d be perfectly content with that despite what you seem to think. What I’m not content with is preferential treatment by a system that is supposed to be unbiased and egalitarian. Or is “no man above the law” a value you only hold when it’s not your
Well put Gene..
“Johnson’s potential felony murder charge? I’d be perfectly content with that despite what you seem to think.”
Really? And yet you have problems with the timing of McCulloch’s announcement of the no true bill.
“Take my wife; please.”
No he really seeks to punish us..
I have problems with no true bill when evidence was selective in presentation and the key element in the DA’s (improper) proffer of an affirmative defense for Wilson at the GJ was known to be perjury by the DA’s office. Johnson wasn’t the only witness that day. Ol’ Sandy sure as Hell wasn’t one, but there were others. Others that say Brown was shot after surrendering. Others without the credibility issues of either Johnson or McElroy.
Another interesting bit of info from the interview:
The more serious offense committed here was not that these witnesses lied to the grand jury… it was that they lied to the FBI in the first place.
Eric Holder and the DOJ can and should be bringing charges against ALL of the witnesses who lied to federal authorities… starting with Dorian Johnson.
“when evidence was selective in presentation”
Q: You never had any interaction with him at all before this incident?
#41: You say Darren Wilson?
Q: The police officer involved with the shooting who shot Michael Brown, his name is Darren Wilson?
#41: Oh, yeah, once.
Q: You did once?
#41: A Yeah, when I was running from QuikTrip because I had to pee, because I normally walk to QuikTrip and get my donuts and coffee and cigarettes, and I was running down Canfield trying to make it home to pee. I didn’t buy no coffee that day, I just had donuts and cigarettes.
Q: And what happened?
#41: As I was running, he was asking me what are you running from. I say I’m running from QuikTrip to try to get home, I got to pee. He pulled in front of me and I ran straight into it, that’s why my knees is kind of messed up a little bit worse than what they are.
Q How long ago was that?
#41: This was like, I’ve been in Canfield for four years, this was like two and a half years ago.
Q And your knee is messed up because of it?
#41: No, I already had chronic arthritis, it just got worse.
Q So you said you ran into the car?
#41: Yeah, and then I called the captain of Ferguson
Q: Let me ask you what happened when you ran into the car?
#41: I peed on myself.
Q: Did you have any discussion with the officer?
#41: Yes, I did.
Q: Tell us about that?
#41: I told him I say, uh, why is you blocking my way of getting home. I said I’m trying, I got to pee, I said I’m peeing on myself. I said I ain’t peed on myself since I was two. I’m feeling very violated. Could you please move your vehicle so I could pee. He looked at me, he smiled, and then….
Rationalize your (pre-stipulated) biases all you like, Bob.
The McElroy problem throws a big wrench in your “unbiased” argument. Bigger than the framing and selective nature issues. As big as the improper proffer of affirmative defense.
“Rationalize your (pre-stipulated) biases all you like, Bob.”
You’re the one speaking before you think. You have no problem with charging Johnson with felony murder? Care to guess what he admitted to under oath and what predicate felony the forensic evidence points to?
Everybody hates a free thinker.
What I can’t figure out is this pulling together of both rep and dem administrations at the local and state levels to protect cops you know none of them really want to have anything to do with.
You should hear the verbal gyrations to which the Mayor of Cleveland is willing to subject all of us in order to protect two cops whom no one would want patrolling their neighborhood, including the Mayor. It’s ludicrous. (Note to any mob-stars out there … the Mayor of Cleveland is a blackman and a dem.)
Sometimes I wonder if the members of city and state administrations are more frightened of the police that the regular citizens are.
“Sometimes I wonder if the members of city and state administrations are more frightened of the police that the regular citizens are.”
A good thought and I wonder if this has always been the case. From what I’ve read about Wyatt Earp he was kind of a tyrannical figure in Dodge City.
Selective presentation; what a joke.
“Selective presentation; what a joke.”
You are flailing, avoiding, bobbing and weaving so much that I’m beginning to have sympathy for you and won’t pile on, even though your argument is becoming incredible.
Whether or not Johnson is guilty of felony murder is not impacted by whether or not the killing that occurred during the commission of said felony was a crime in and of itself. Nice try, but some of us know the actual definition of felony murder. Not thinking? That whole mote/beam problem is getting to you there, Bob.
I don’t go for, “oh, there’s just too many liars to prosecute them all.”
If 40 witnesses to the grand jury knowingly lied, then prosecute them. All of ’em.
If Dorian Johnson knowingly lied, prosecute him. That’s the job description, right?
If this Johnson guy did felony murder, prosecute him.
But I’m mystified at how he coulda done that. You mean, he was walking with a guy that stole some cigars, and a cop shot the thief to death, so Johnson was an accomplice to felony murder?
Where’s the felony? The cop killing Brown? Yes, that should have resulted in felony charges.
Stealing cigars isn’t a felony. Oh, yeah…and Johnson didn’t even steal the cigars, did he?
So, did Brown and Johnson commit a felony together, that I’m just not aware of?
This cluster-fornication crossed the line of total insanity, long ago.
Are the defenders of McCulloch’s behavior capable of any self-reflection? Capable of any remorse, or feelings of humiliation?
But I guess McCulloch is one of dem dems, so he should be excused, right?
The only way out of this hole that you people have dug for yourselves, is to keep digging it deeper, obviously. It’s a cesspool. Good luck with that.
“This cluster-fornication crossed the line of total insanity, long ago.
Are the defenders of McCulloch’s behavior capable of any self-reflection? Capable of any remorse, or feelings of humiliation?”
Another way of querying “have they no shame?” And the answer is apparently not.
“Whether or not Johnson is guilty of felony murder is not impacted by whether or not the killing that occurred during the commission of said felony was a crime in and of itself.”
What’s the underlying felony Gene?
When you figure it out, then you’ll see why that statement is completely wrong.
“As big as the improper proffer of affirmative defense.”
McCulloch addresses this point in the interview as well.
It’s not unusual for the accused to be invited to testify before the grand jury, it’s just unusual for the accused to take them up on the offer. Most invoke their right to remain silent.
Hint: The underlying felony is not the strong arm robbery.
Scenario: Bank Robbery
A gang robs a bank. They don’t intend to harm anyone and indeed none of the gang kills anyone during the course of the robbery. However, unbeknownst to them, Joe C. is in the bank. Joe C. is sleeping with the wife of one of the guards, C.K. Old. C.K. Old takes the chance the confusion of the bank robbery to shoot and kill the guy sleeping with his wife. C.K. Old has just committed murder as a third party, but still the gang is guilty of felony murder because someone died during the commission of their felony robbery. Same would be true of the guard shot one of the gang although the guard would have the affirmative defense of self-defense as mitigation.
Just so, Dorian Johnson may be guilty of felony murder, but that murder was (possibly) committed by a third party (Wilson) and under the color of authority against his alleged felonious cohort. But we’ll never know whether Wilson’s self-defense was proper or not because McCulloch’s office proffered that affirmative defense at GJ instead of trial; bereft of cross-examination and usurping the trial’s role as finder of fact.
The DA isn’t at the GJ as a counsel or advocate for the target of the investigation and the GJ isn’t the proper venue to offer affirmative defenses.
No oops. You’re ignoring what I said.
What is the underlying felony Gene?
Hint: It’s not Bank Robbery.
“Are the defenders of McCulloch’s behavior capable of any self-reflection?”
Another point that McCulloch addresses in the interview… he’s prosecuted over 50 law enforcement officers during his career.
So this myth that he is pro-police and wouldn’t charge a police officer is baseless; he will and has charged many an officer.
Bob: “Felony murder is not funny Gene.”
I’m curious as to where you’re getting the felony murder idea, Bob. I’m not seeing much in Missouri caselaw that would lead me to think that their felony murder statute extends to cover the death of a co-conspirator at the hands of the police. And that’s before you get to the issue of whether Brown’s death took place while the two were “in flight” from the earlier felony.
Personally, I don’t think there was a snowball’s chance in hell of Johnson facing felony murder charges, but I’m curious as to why you think otherwise.
The same applies if you consider Brown’s alleged attack on Wilson the underlying felony. The felony murder doesn’t mean that the killing itself isn’t a distinct crime in itself. Nor does it change that the affirmative defense of self-defense is properly done at trial with adverse cross, not at a one-sided presentation by the prosecution.
Beat me to the punch on that one. 😀
Ah. So, now, I’m guessing that you’re going with the underlying felony as the assault on the LEO. But the problem there would be demonstrating that Johnson was an accomplice. I’m guessing here that you’re going with the handoff of the cigars that all parties testified to, but this is still a hell of a stretch.
Especially since I can’t locate any recent Missouri case where a co-conspirator was on the hook for felony murder resulting from the death of a participant in the crime at the hands of law enforcement. If anything, the case law in Missouri seems to suggest that the death must be in furtherance of the crime to qualify.
Nope, still seeing no realistic felony murder charge there.
Gene – yeah, but you beat me on the assault one. 🙂
You kerp ignoring that Officer Wilson lied about when he knew of the convience store incident.
That the paramount issue, causing the incident to transpire
Was the back up of Wilson,s SUV
Core issue controlling.
“But the problem there would be demonstrating that Johnson was an accomplice. I’m guessing here that you’re going with the handoff of the cigars that all parties testified to, but this is still a hell of a stretch.”
Gene n Mike D,
Are we keeping score?
Is there a prize?
Agree, prosecute it all
That’s why the people of Ferguson were so outraged, at the very least he could’ve been prosecuted on a manslaughter charge. To have no true bill was insulting and a miscarriage of justice and the people reacted.
The 33 police officers or former police officers prosecuted by McCulloch’s office and included on the list from his office faced a range of charges including child molestation, statutory sodomy, stealing and corruption.
Eight officers were acquitted, found not guilty by a judge or had their cases dismissed. Twenty prosecutions resulted in convictions; five are still pending. Some officers were charged in more than one case.
The office doesn’t keep statistics based on suspect occupation, so the list is based on the memory of prosecutors, investigators and victim service personnel in McCulloch’s office and might be incomplete, Magee said.
Also unclear is how many of the incidents were committed in the course of the officers’ duties. The use of unreasonable force is not a crime in Missouri — charges related to injuries caused by police officers are prosecuted as second- or third-degree assaults in state court or civil rights violations in federal court, said Joseph Hogan, a solo criminal defense attorney who estimates 60 percent to 70 percent of his cases are in St. Louis County.
Five officers on the list faced assault charges. At least two faced the charges for off-duty incidents. Two others weren’t identified: one of those officers was found not guilty by a judge; the other completed probation on a suspended sentence. A second-degree assault charge still is pending against St. Louis County police officer Dawon Gore, who allegedly hit a man with his baton during an argument at a MetroLink station, according to news accounts.
Those charges are less likely to be prosecuted than off-duty offenses because of the way the police handle them, Hogan said. An off-duty officer who commits a crime is arrested, Hogan said, citing domestic violence and traffic cases. But McCulloch doesn’t go out and find cases — police bring them to him, Hogan said.
“What are the odds that Brentwood police [for example] are going to say, ‘Hey, want to look at this? It looks like one of our guys roughed someone up’?” Hogan said.
But he added that such cases are taken more seriously than they were 20 or 30 years ago.
A search of Post-Dispatch archives turned up on-duty allegations in 11 cases from stealing to fatalities. Seven of the cases went to grand juries, and only one ended with an indictment: In 1991, the year McCulloch took office, then-Kinloch Police Chief Sylvester Ingram was arrested after stolen liquor was found in his home. He later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor stealing and was fined and placed on probation.”
About above source
Yes, I think it would be a stretch. But that’s really not the important point. The important point is the one you didn’t respond to, which is that I can’t find anything in the relevant caselaw that would seem to suggest that Missouri’s felony murder statute stretches to include deaths of co-conspirators at the hands of law enforcement.
“The important point is the one you didn’t respond to, which is that I can’t find anything in the relevant caselaw that would seem to suggest that Missouri’s felony murder statute stretches to include deaths of co-conspirators at the hands of law enforcement.”
But it certainly acts as a distraction from the central issue of this post which was the propriety of allowing the testimony of witness #40. Could that be intentional?
I, too, worry that Bob,s bad position places him in the quandary of becoming overwhelmed by the pile up of facts dispostive.
“Took office in1991”!
His being a lifer explains much.
State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153 (Mo. 1980)
“His being a lifer explains much.” Whammy
well established cnnections up and down the line.
Yes, I thought of “At long last sir, have you no decency?”
But that’s been a bit overused.
I’m truly at a loss to comprehend the total cluelessness.
If you’ve convinced everyone that you’re delusional, the way to alleviate that is to persist in your delusion?
The “felony” thing. If we’re saying that the theft of the cigars was a felony, then let’s try the perpetrator posthumously, before saying that Johnson is guilty of felony murder. Prove that there was a felony. But, of course, we can’t summon Brown to testify, since he’s already been executed. Oops.
But I don’t know if that’s what Bob Stone means was a felony. All Bob Stone does is smirk, and say, “Guess!”
No, homey don’t play dat. I should guess how you should prove your groundless argument? Give you advice on perpetuating this spiral agony?
I believe that there are grounds for a felony trial, for the killing of Brown.
I believe that there are grounds for a felony trial, for knowingly presenting evidence known to be false. That applies to the “witnesses” and to the “prosecutor.”
Wanna know what my crowning argument, topping all of these points is?
“A good thought and I wonder if this has always been the case. From what I’ve read about Wyatt Earp he was kind of a tyrannical figure in Dodge City.” Mike S
No Wyatt Earl in Cleveland but we did have Elliott Ness as our Safety Director. Two of Tex’s uncles were Cleveland Police Detectives who worked closely with Ness and a third uncle owned the bar that Ness and the CPD detectives liked to hang out in. All three uncles were still alive when Tex and I first started dating though all three had retired. ( Ness had been dead about 6 or 7 years)
Oh boy, the stories I heard!
Mr. Stone violates the cognitive dissonance pyramid towards its bottom
Just above being ad homin
He remains false in purpose, as he keeps ignoring the fact that Officer Wilson,s back up maneuver was the ill fating
Bob: “State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153 (Mo. 1980)”
Interesting case, which does seem to support your argument. I failed to find it during my search because the relevant statutes have been amended three or four times since then, and the particular felony murder statute invoked there (1st Degree felony murder) is no longer in existence.
Nevertheless, I stand by my basic claim – there is absolutely no reasonable expectation whatsoever that Johnson would face felony murder charges.
First of all, Baker seems to be an outlier. Even after expanding my search, it seems to be by far the closest case to the one here, but that involved a felony murder statute that was specific to a very limited set of underlying felonies, and is a case where the decedent was not killed by law enforcement. I can find only one other Mo. felony murder case that seems to have involved the death of an accomplice, and in that case the only dispute was over which of the other two involved in the crime accidentally shot the accomplice.
Second, as I noted, the statutes have been amended since Baker. There is no longer first degree felony murder (it’s all second degree), and the language has shifted. It’s possible that a court might find that Baker is still controlling, but there are reasons that a court might give the case a hard look under circumstances where a co-conspirator is shot by law enforcement.
Third, your case for making Johnson an accomplice in an assault on Wilson would depend on a prosecutor being willing to bring felony murder charges based essentially on Wilson’s testimony alone regarding the timing of the cigar handoff. I’m not seeing that as particularly likely.
Fourth, the case would then also depend on linking Brown turning around and charging at Wilson to everything that happened at the car window before Johnson took off. There’s a case to be made that the alleged charge was the continuation of the initial alleged assault, but there’s also a very good case for it being a separate encounter that Johnson could not expect. This is particularly true when you consider that the defense prosecution defense whoever’s theory that Brown made the otherwise entirely inexplicable decision to charge a law enforcement officer because he was a crazy black demon raging out of his mind on bad pot.
And all of that is before we even start to factor in all the conflicting accounts from other witnesses in the area as to what actually happened during the shooting. I’m sorry, Bob, but there is simply not a snowball’s chance that Johnson was gonna get charged for felony murder over Brown’s death. Not at all.
I’m happy to concede that Johnson had a motive to lie to minimize his role in the gas station shooting, and I’m pretty sure he’s got some moral culpability in Brown’s death – because I strongly suspect that Brown wasn’t the leader of the pair. But felony murder is a hell of an overreach.
Even of 2nd degree, and IF it was string arm robbery ( not petty theft.. or.. posdible the store owner gets pot from who knows who)
Can anyone be charged as culpable.. 2nd degree or otherwise
If Wilson backed up ..starting it all
Not aware if the store thingy
You really have no conscience when it comes to this case and your defense of the prosecutor: I present this article link as evidence that you will tolerate anything if it serves your pro-police bias: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/4-things-should-happen-now-we-know-truth-about-witness-40-white-supremacist?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
With selected quotes from it about witness # 40:
“No eyewitness testimony was more consistent with Darren Wilson’s personal story of events the day he shot and killed Michael Brown than that of Witness #40—who we now know as white supremacist Sandy McElroy.
Not only did Sandy McElroy testify before the grand jury twice, she was allowed to show what she claimed was her journal from the day Brown was killed. In the journal she said she decided to travel to a black neighborhood so she could learn to no longer “call blacks niggers.” In the transcript of her testimony, in her back and forth with members of the grand jury, members are recorded as actually stating that they believe she’s telling the truth”
So that’s how come she was in a Black neighborhood? Really Bob, you found that credible? I doubt that so what you did was selectively make your case, omitting any of those more troubling details. Yeah tell me about Johnson lying once again.
“What’s clear now, and what was actually clear to the FBI and the prosecutors before she ever testified, is that Sandy McElroy wasn’t anywhere near Canfield Drive the day Brown was killed and made her entire story up. Not only that, but Sandy McElroy was on record with the St. Louis police as having lied and concocted fanciful stories in other murder cases in which she falsely claimed to be a witness.
Her inclusion in the grand jury pool of witnesses poisoned the well and her testimony is the most quoted testimony of conservative pundits; Sean Hannity alone has quoted her at least 21 times in various broadcasts. In addition to her calling African Americans “apes” and saying police should “kill the niggers” in the aftermath of Brown’s death, she regularly posted comments on various social networks showing her affection for Darren Wilson weeks and weeks before she ever claimed to be a witness.
The FBI, in its interrogation of Sandy McElroy, completely tore apart her story and proved that she never drove onto Canfield Drive, never drove off of Canfield Drive, was never seen on Canfield Drive, and couldn’t find one person or photo or message before or after the event to confirm that she was ever there. She claimed she told her ex-husband all about what she saw, but he swore she didn’t and he has problems remembering things.”
So in this context she was allowed to testify twice before the GJ and include her “journal” as bearing the weight of corroborating evidence.
“After telling the FBI that she was there to meet a friend she hadn’t seen since 1987, she admitted to the grand jury that she actually lied about that and no such person existed. She then explained that she was actually on Canfield Drive in a different town the exact moment Brown was killed, in the exact spot where he was killed, on a solo ethnographic expedition to ease her own racism. It’s a lie so preposterous that it feels dirty even repeating it.
Here’s the thing, though. When Sandy McElroy was called before the grand jury, she had already been thoroughly discredited by the FBI not just as being a poor witness whose recollection is fuzzy, but as someone who didn’t witness anything at all and was making it all up for the worst possible reasons. That she was allowed to testify before the grand jury on two different dates and produce fake evidence on her second trip is a scandal of epic proportions. That her testimony has become so popular among conservatives says as much about them as it does about Sandy McElroy.”
So it is good prosecutorial procedure to put a person in front of the GJ that is known to be lying and in fact had been proven not to have been there at the time of the shooting. Now Bob, is your time to ignore this, rather than facing up to it and to once again try to distract us about that “liar” Johnson. The logical problem though with that is that whether he lied or not Johnson was actually there, whereas witness #40 was proven not to have been there to witness anything. This was misconduct of the most egregious degree on the part of McCollough. What amazes is me is that while we have had our disagreements, I always thought that you possessed intellectual honesty. You have not done yourself proud with this ongoing attempt to justify your position. And yes if you detect anger in my tone, it is there, simply because I used to think more of you and I’m disappointed.
Rustlers’ Rhapsody is my all-time favorite movie. There is a clip of the good guy conversation between Bob and Rex that is hilarious. I was going to post it as a setup for the lawyer clip but was concerned our Bob might think it was a jab at him.
“there is absolutely no reasonable expectation whatsoever that Johnson would face felony murder charges.”
“I’m sorry, Bob, but there is simply not a snowball’s chance that Johnson was gonna get charged for felony murder over Brown’s death. Not at all. ”
Your defense of Johnson was truly zealous, but far from persuasive. The only reason Johnson gets off is, as I stated earlier, due to the pragmatism of the prosecutor.
As I stated at the very beginning:
“What McCulloch did was out of pragmatism. If he prosecutes one act of perjury he’d have to prosecute them all. That means Dorian Johnson too. And the reason Johnson lied was to keep himself out of jail for felony murder; another crime that will not be prosecuted out of pragmatism.”
But per your four points:
“First of all, Baker seems to be an outlier.”
Baker is not an outlier since it is fully in accord with plain language of the felony murder statute of Missouri, written 11 years later, which does not exclude the death of co-felons:
“Commits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.”
“Second, as I noted, the statutes have been amended since Baker”
Yes; see above.
Your third point omits Johnson’s own admissions and the forensic evidence supporting Wilson’s narrative of events. Accordingly, it’s not just Wilson’s testimony alone. Johnson tied his own noose.
And your fourth point: ” there’s also a very good case for it being a separate encounter that Johnson could not expect.”
Seriously Mike? Is foreseeability an element of felony murder in Missouri? That aside, did you have to read People v. Fuller; the felony murder case involving the burglary of tires from a locked car?
Did the FBI interview of Johnson fill in the gaps regarding waxing?
“This was misconduct of the most egregious degree on the part of McCollough.”
We must bow down upon.bended knee to the grand Noba Bob,
His knowledge of the law and righteousness being beyond earthly understanding
“2 cops were executed in Brooklyn earlier today. there are consequences for enabling. di blasio better watch his back. this is on him.”
So di Blasio is responsible for a deranged man who ambushes two officers and commits suicide? Does that make any sense at all? Good citizens want to support LE. But it is hard to know how to do that when LE sounds as crazy as those who attack them. Of course not all LE are stark raving crazy – at least we hope not.
From the AP/NYT:
“An armed man walked up to two New York Police Department officers sitting inside a patrol car and opened fire Saturday afternoon, shooting both of them fatally before running into a nearby subway station and committing suicide, police said.”
Bob, quoting himself, earlier: “…the reason Johnson lied was to keep himself out of jail for felony murder…”
Yes, I saw that before I replied. I wasn’t impressed then, and I’m not impressed now. I’m not a Johnson fan, and I am “defending” him only in the sense that I’m rejecting your suggestion that there was enough of a possibility of him being on the hook for felony murder for that to be a motive for him to lie. Right now, even if I give you the maximum plausible benefit of the doubt on everything else, you have at most demonstrated that there is a theoretical possibility that the statute could have been stretched to include Johnson. You haven’t demonstrated that there was any plausible reason for him to actually fear such a charge, particularly given the circumstances of this case.
Bob: “Baker is not an outlier since it is fully in accord with plain language of the felony murder statute of Missouri, written 11 years later, which does not exclude the death of co-felons:”
Baker is an outlier unless there are other Missouri cases dealing with felony murder charges being leveled against co-felons as the result of a bystander, intended victim, or law enforcement killing a co-felon. If you want to convince me that the chances of Johnson actually facing felony murder charges were substantial enough to create motive for Johnson to lie, you’re going to have to show me more than a single case from several decades back.
Bob: “Your third point omits Johnson’s own admissions and the forensic evidence supporting Wilson’s narrative of events. Accordingly, it’s not just Wilson’s testimony alone. Johnson tied his own noose.”
First of all, the forensic evidence does not establish who was the aggressor at the vehicle. Second, and more importantly, there are still quite a few conflicting accounts of what happened outside the car. I think that there would need to be some sort of positive showing that the subsequent shots were justified (and possibly that they were within the scope of the department use of force policies). I don’t think the lack of proof that the shooting wasn’t justified that was needed to get Wilson off the hook would be enough to put Johnson on the hook.
Bob: “Seriously Mike? Is foreseeability an element of felony murder in Missouri?”
Depends on how defined. The standard is that the death be a “natural and proximate result” of the crime. I can easily see that if Brown dies at the car. If, on the other hand, we accept the theory that a crazed on pot Brown retreated, stopped retreating, turned, and made an unarmed, demonic charge at the officer who had already shot him once, I’m not seeing “natural and proximate” so much. Again, you might be able to make a theoretical case, but I don’t see any rational reason Johnson would have to worry about a felony murder charge under these circumstances.
Bob: “That aside, did you have to read People v. Fuller; the felony murder case involving the burglary of tires from a locked car?”
This would be the 1978 California case where the court very reluctantly held that felony murder could be applied? Yes, I’ve read it. And if the situation here was more similar to those facts – with a bystander being killed during a chase – I could see Johnson having reason to worry. But, again, I’m not seeing any rational expectation in this case.
Bob, different post: “Did the FBI interview of Johnson fill in the gaps regarding waxing?”
The only information I saw in there was confirmation that Brown and Johnson had discussed waxing with the construction worker earlier in the day. Did I miss something where Johnson said that he and/or Brown had engaged in waxing? If I didn’t, then, no, the gaps have not been filled.
“What amazes is me is that while we have had our disagreements, I always thought that you possessed intellectual honesty.”
I picked up on intellectual dishonesty during the first dog post. We’re not arguing with a mind that can accept being mistaken, about even the smallest matters.
We’re dealing with a pathetic ego that must win every argument, in order to preserve its fragile, artificial construct of the way things are.
I don’t like being shown that I’m wrong. It disappoints me. But it’s my fault, for being wrong. I admit fault, and get over it. What alternative is there?
We’re dealing with someone who simply cannot do that. That situation leads to a bad outcome.
Bob K, and Mike D,
In a legitimate realm of discussion, your most recent arguments, decent in decorum and thorough in logic,
Would now have case closed.
Regretfully, licit is fleeting here.
Great arguments, fact findings and conclusions of Law.
Your licit is ill?
In what manner?
Can I read Johnson’s mind; no. But he has a distinctive “tell” in his testimony and I’d be “shocked” if you didn’t notice it.
Felony murder prosecution for the death of a co-felon is not a theoretical possibility; it’s Missouri state law. The fact pattern may be rare, but the felony murder statute was NOT amended like the ones in CT, NY and NJ to eliminate the deaths of co-felons.
Here’s the NY statute: “Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants;
In fact, the Missouri statute, as you know, was amended to remove the “enumerated felonies;” making it applicable to any felony.
“First of all, the forensic evidence does not establish who was the aggressor at the vehicle.”
No, Wilson’s testimony, supported by the forensic evidence which also contradicted Johnson’s testimony, does.
“Second, and more importantly, there are still quite a few conflicting accounts of what happened outside the car. I think that there would need to be some sort of positive showing that the subsequent shots were justified (and possibly that they were within the scope of the department use of force policies).”
This comes back to your insistence that both stories can be true. If Wilson’s story is true, i.e. that Brown fought him for his gun, then per department guidelines (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.”
See also: Jones v. City of St. Louis, 92 F.Supp.2d 949 (E.D. Mo., 2000) and Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir., 1991)
“The standard is that the death be a “natural and proximate result” of the crime. I can easily see that if Brown dies at the car. If, on the other hand, we accept the theory that a crazed on pot Brown retreated, stopped retreating, turned, and made an unarmed, demonic charge at the officer who had already shot him once, I’m not seeing “natural and proximate” so much.”
I’m being theoretical?? And what is this intervening cause that took place within a matter of seconds Mike?
And I brought up People v. Fuller as to the unnecessary element of foreseeability of death from the burglary of tires from an unoccupied car.
“The only information I saw in there was confirmation that Brown and Johnson had discussed waxing with the construction worker earlier in the day. Did I miss something where Johnson said that he and/or Brown had engaged in waxing? If I didn’t, then, no, the gaps have not been filled.”
What did Johnson tell the FBI v. the Grand Jury about that same topic?
“Baker is an outlier unless there are other Missouri cases dealing with felony murder charges being leveled against co-felons as the result of a bystander, intended victim, or law enforcement killing a co-felon.”
Here ya go Mike… this is from April of this year, and in Ferguson no less.
Murder charge filed against accomplice of robber killed by St. Louis County police
Unless somebody here knows something I don’t, McCulloch has no immunity from an adverse action by the bar, or from being charged with malfeasance. For an attorney to put a witness in front of a jury, knowing full well the witness is going to lie, then actually lying, is malpractice of the worst kind.
As for Witness #40, there needs to be an investigation at the very least. If she was mislead by McCulloch that she could tell her story and everything would be good, she may be somewhat less culpable. If that happens, then what McCulloch did edges into criminality. I am thinking obstruction of justice, not to mention subornation of perjury.
On the other hand, if she knew she was about to commit perjury and was not guilty of simple stupidity, then the gloves need to come off.
nivico: “Here ya go Mike… this is from April of this year, and in Ferguson no less.”
Fair enough, and I’ll cop to being wrong on how common that felony murder charge is. (Strange that there seem to be few/no published opinions on it, though.) Even so, and given all the other things I mentioned, I still don’t see this being a charge that Johnson realistically needed to be worried enough about to give him a motive to lie. (Or at least more of a motive than he already had as a result of the earlier robbery.)
I have been thinking about this for some time. There needs to be some kind of default mechanism whereby a killing of a civilian by an LEO is investigated by an agency not connected to the officer’s agency in any way. No plan is perfect, and there is infinite room for abuse no matter how an investigation is set up, but what we have now is obviously not working.
The problem in any such default investigation protocol is that Federal legislation will be needed to make it work. That won’t happen, given the present state of gridlock inside the Beltway.
I have heard of such collateral murder charges over the years. I believe they have stuck in some jurisdictions, resulting in convictions. I don’t know if any took place in Missouri.
“There needs to be some kind of default mechanism whereby a killing of a civilian by an LEO is investigated by an agency not connected to the officer’s agency in any way.”
You mean like a panel of 12 neutral citizens who are presented with every scrap of evidence available, every witness who came forward, every prior statement from those witnesses, and who are additionally given the opportunity to question the witnesses directly (including the accused)…???
Yeah, if only this case had been handled in that manner, everybody would be satisfied 😉
Close, but no cigar. You are deliberately misinterpreting the issue, as usual.
We require something like a murder trial. Like, officers of the court not presenting testimony that they know is a lie. Questioning and cross-examining of the accused. Defense lawyers and prosecutors. Like what should happen whenever an armed person kills an unarmed person.
Why does it take you so long to understand this? Because you don’t want to? Because that would strike terror into your authoritarian heart?
No one is satisfied by the charade that took place with the Grand Jury in Ferguson.
As for the claims of suborning perjury… you guys might want to actually read the grand jury transcripts:
Start reading Volume 15 on page 153… the prosecutors tore Witness 40 a new hole on the stand!!! They did not call her to the stand to lie, nor did they leave the grand jury with any impression that she was a credible witness.
Here, too, is a good source of information about what ‘suborning perjury’ means. Lying clients and witnesses are unavoidable and are inherently part and parcel of the justice system; if you disbarred every lawyer who has ever put a lying client or witness on the stand there’d be no lawyers left. It’s not enough that you know someone is likely going to lie on the stand, there has to be collusion between the person and the attorney to offer false testimony.
If McCulloch knew that “Witness 40” was not actually a witness to what happened that day, why call her to testify?
Here is an interesting article. I don’t know the author and I am not sure about the quality of AlterNet (via Salon) but it purports to tell us 15 findings by DOJ about use of force at the Cleveland PD:
The findings document a kind of police culture where force is escalated often and with little or no reason, and force is used with impunity.
What is so concerning to me is that the the findings don’t seem that unique. I have to wonder how common the patterns found at Cleveland PD are are among other agencies.
Justice comes, on by force, bia distributive power. Christmas is close, then New Year and other things.
This is now in the hands of the mothers desire to fight. And Mike’s mom has a pendulum. . heavy… burdening her greatly.
I see U!
Pingback: From Democracy Now!: More Information about Ferguson Grand Jury Witness 40 | Flowers For Socrates
nvico sez: “You mean like a panel of 12 neutral citizens who are presented with every scrap of evidence available, every witness who came forward, every prior statement from those witnesses, and who are additionally given the opportunity to question the witnesses directly (including the accused)…???”
That’s not even close to what I said or meant, and you know it. What is so hard to understand about an independent investigation done by a sterile source? Some jurisdictions already handle things that way. In our state, such investigations are routinely handled by the TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation).
As for the notion of subornation or obstruction, why was the witness even put on the stand when the prosecutor knew she was going to lie like a rug. The operant word is “knew.” I know what subornation means. I have seen lawyers disbarred for it. Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, and all he did was lie about having sex with somebody not his wife. However, lying about a killing takes it to a completely different level.
“I did not have murder with that woman.”
Ex-con Bernie Kerik and Neil Cavuto are very upset with New York Mayor Bill deBlasio for meeting with the groups protesting police brutality this week.
If the talking heads over on Faux “news” want to take up for the New York City Police Department in the wake of these protests going on in their city and across the country, they could find a better spokesperson than ex-con Bernard Kerik, but for whatever reason Fox and their cohorts over at CNN seem to have a vested interest in rehabbing Giuliani’s buddy’s image.”
“As for the notion of subornation or obstruction, why was the witness even put on the stand when the prosecutor knew she was going to lie like a rug.”
It was an investigative grand jury; thus the DA gave them everything; including witnesses that were obviously lying in a pro-Wilson sense (#40) and those lying in an anti-Wilson sense (e.g. #41among others).
But Sandra McElroy wasn’t actually a witness to what happened in Ferguson. Why would a DA have someone he knew wasn’t a witness to what happened testify before the grand jury? It doesn’t make sense. How could McElroy possibly help with the grand jury investigation?
How the hell would Witness 41 help either?
Don’t want to answer my question? Just say so.
I answered it in my response to Chuck. It’s an investigative grand jury. They got everything. It’s up to them to decide.
You didn’t answer the question I posed as to how Sandra McElroy could possibly help with the investigation if she WAS NOT a witness to what happened?
I took the time to read through the GJ transcript of the cross-examination of the witness. The problem with it is that it is a transcript and so we cannot actually see what the Grand Jurors saw, or see the demeanor of the witness, the ADA’s and the Gran Jurors. Nor can we know the personal feelings of the Grand Jurors, or know how they reacted to the testimony. That is the problem with reading transcripts way after the fact. For all we know witness 40 could have seemed sympathetic to the majority of the GJ. They may have seen the ADA’s as badgering her. No way to tell. Then too there would be the normal presumption that if a witness is put on the stand then there must be some good reason the witness is being presented. There are a whole host of factors and nuances that transcripts can never reveal. You will note that the ADA’s constantly reassured Witness 40 that she was “not in trouble”. How did that constant reassurance seem to the jury? Lying before a GJ is perjury. In effect someone might surmise from the constant reassurance that there was enough credibility to Witness 40’s story, that all the details where it didn’t jibe were minor. After all wasn’t that the case? The key detail of her testimony was that Brown was attacking Wilson, how she exited the scene as she described it could easily fall by the wayside in the mountain of detail and evidence. Most human beings, myself included, are simply unable to mentally register that much information without mentally redacting it into highlights, rather the the whole.
The idea that the prosecution put Witness 40 on the stand, knowing that she was never there and thus never a witness to anything has to be viewed as irresponsible. They KNEW she wasn’t a witness to what went on and yet you would make the argument that in the interest of fairness that fact was up to the GJ to decide. That is senseless from a legal standpoint and recklessly careless on the part of the Prosecution.
A point of view on the problems with Grand Jury’s in general when it comes to the police and people of color, that admittedly I happen to agree with and have written about:
“One study of grand jury actions against officers accused of deadly force found that indictments against them are almost non-existent. In Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings involving 175 officers from 2008 to 2012. Yet only one police officer was indicted. In Chicago only one police officer has been charged in an on-duty shooting since 2007.Grand jury indictments of police officers are so rare that when grand juries in North Carolina this year indicted two cops in two separate shootings of in each instance a black male, it made national news.
The typical grand jury consists of 16 to 23 jurors and those jurors are not screened for overt or hidden racial, gender, sexual preference or religious bias. This is far different from criminal court juries. Prospective jurors particularly in racially tinged capital cases are sharply challenged by both prosecutors and defense attorneys through oral examination, the use of lengthy questionnaires, and profiles, to root out hidden animus, especially racial animus. The scrutiny of jurors for bias is even more intense when the accused is a police officer and the victim is a young African-American male.
But even then, it’s nearly impossible to ferret out hidden and overt racial bias. Two Penn State University studies on racial perceptions and stereotypes, one in 2003 and a follow-up study in 2008, found that many whites are likely to associate pictures of blacks with violent crimes, and in some cases where crimes were not committed by blacks they misidentified the perpetrator as an African-American. In a Gallup survey in June, 2014 that measured overall confidence in police, the police topped out among the three highest-rated institutions out of 17 tested in terms of public confidence, behind only the military and small business.
Despite overwhelming evidence that police do profile minorities, lie, cheat, and even commit crimes, jurors still are far more likely to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than witnesses, defendants, or even the victims, especially minority victims. The bias is further reinforced by pro forma instructions that grand jurors are given on how to judge the actions of a police officer who kills. They are told to always view the decision an officer makes to use deadly force through his or her eyes. The jurors in effect are challenged to put themselves in the officer’s shoes when confronted with a supposed potentially life threatening situation. Was the amount of force used reasonable and necessary to protect their life? Ray Hunt, president of the Houston Police Officers’ Union, drove that point home. He noted that grand jurors empathize with police officers who face life-and-death situations, even if the suspect who is shot does not display a weapon. This is amply borne out in the not surprising fact that even though more than a quarter of the 121 civilians Houston Police Department officers shot in the past five years were unarmed, in the past decade no Houston police officer has been charged in any of the shootings.
It’s an uphill battle to overcome both pro-police attitudes and negative racial stereotypes. Stanford University researchers recently found that even when many whites are presented with evidence that the criminal justice system is loaded with racial bias toward blacks they are more likely to support tough, draconian laws such as three strikes, tough sentencing and increased incarceration.”
Read more at http://www.eurweb.com/2014/11/juror-bias-the-biggest-barrier-to-indicting-wilson-and-cops-that-kill/#o0fBMZsSDg0Zrr7o.99
Should you have any problem with the above please remember that I am merely presenting evidence to those who read this blog, our own jury so to speak. Therefore I am being completely fair n presenting it, as it seems you think that the Ferguson prosecutors were fair.
“They got everything.”
Including lies and a biased presentation and an improper proffer of an affirmative defense!
They must have been good boys and girls because Santa gave them everything early this year.
I am pretty sure a jury of Wilson’s peers would bring back a verdict of not guilty.
Stick your head inside a patrol car, smack the cop, grab his gun and see what happens.
Bobby K., why dont you try that today and let us know how it works out for you. Elaine? Any takers? Probably not, no need to answer why you wouldnt, I already know the answer. First of all you are law abiding and secondly you dont have a death wish.
Where is all the chest clutching for the 2 NY City cops who were killed by a black gang banger? Wilson could have easily been on that side of the gun, he just got lucky.
At least the asshole in NY had the good sense to shoot himself. What a piece of shit he must have been. I guess if he had been shot by those cops before he shot them, the left would talk about another poor black man killed by the evil pohleece, such a good upstanding citizen, blah, blah, blah.
Chris Rock has a good video on how to not get shot or beaten by the police, gang bangers and punks ought to watch it.
The GJ that heard this testimony had been seated for weeks before the killing of Brown. If they were an investigative GJ then all the cases that they heard before Wilson/Brown must also have been under that investigative format?
Are you suggesting that those of us who think the Ferguson grand jury process was not handled correctly don’t give a damn about the shooting of those two NYC police officers…that we couldn’t care less about what happened to them? How did you draw that conclusion?
“Where is all the chest clutching for the 2 NY City cops who were killed by a black gang banger? Wilson could have easily been on that side of the gun, he just got lucky.” bron What? Michael Brown was not armed, and Wilson knew it.
If the format used in all those other cases wasn’t investigative, doesn’t anyone indicted have a legitimate basis on which to challenge the indictment. I’m sure all of them could have provided a few false witnesses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/police-combing-through-shooting-suspects-arrest-history-and-violent-day.html No indication that he had taken part in any protests.
“Bron, Are you suggesting that those of us who think the Ferguson grand jury process was not handled correctly don’t give a damn about the shooting of those two NYC police officers …”
Bron asks “Where is all the chest clutching for the 2 NY City cops who were killed by a black gang banger?”
What else could he be implying?
Fuz has a buddy.
blouise, Well you know all the right wingers are blaming DeBlasio although some are blaming Holder. More of the same….
blouise, They constantly complain about Obama’s “police state” but when the police shoot unarmed black people they take the side of the police. Same old same old……..
And none of the right-wing are blaming the NYC cop who came out of nowhere to punch the handcuffed and totally subdued 16 year old. BTW … both the 12 and 16 year old were released without charges.
And some are blaming Obama.
It is Bull chit that witness 40 testified
Also Bull chit on what started all this. A dumb arse cop backed up his SUV to confront, 2 people..
Just plain DUMB
Also Bull chit to prosecute dump style; and allow officer to blab for hours to GJ
AND it is wicked Bull chit to infer that we don,t care about the unprovoked assault upon LEO , s… by a suicidal
Had little respect for Stone and his troopers heretofore; because of the empirical evidence of siding on the darkness.
If you continue to shovel your Bull chit as sound logic, you can’t fault the rest of U.S. for calling you
Bull chit…bat crazies Wingnuts
Because your crap always STINKS!
“Stick your head inside a patrol car, smack the cop, grab his gun and see what happens.
Bobby K., why dont you try that today and let us know how it works out for you.”
Brony baby, why don’t you try pulling your head out of where I told you to stick it (sorry about that, I didn’t realize you were gullible enough, and flexible enough, to actually do it), and look at the real world?
I can’t do what you propose, because I’d need impossibly long arms, and several more joints in them, to reach in a car and grab a cop’s gun. Unless, of course, he already had it out, and was pointing it at me for jaywalking.
If I was stupid enough to punch a cop while he was in a car, he’d probably punch me back. Also, if I did something like that, he’d probably lean away from me to avoid the punch. He certainly wouldn’t need to shoot me.
You’ve set a record, I believe, for ignorant, binary thinking. What has the Brown shooting got to do with the two cops who were shot? I don’t have to support cops no matter what they do. My mind is actually flexible enough to dislike the outcome of both incidents.
If you can get your head out of there, try using it for something.
Biggest Bull chit was NYPD have a support rally, rubbing peoples noses in it
Whike wearing “I Can Breath” Tshirts
Where your question breaks down is that no witness should be called when the attorney who calls that witness has prior knowledge the witness is going to lie.
Prior knowledge. As an attorney, you know that is exactly the difference between conspiracy, premeditation, and an accident.
And to pick a lexical nit, “witnesses” who saw nothing are not really witnesses in the true sense of the term. They did not witness anything. The crime takes place when the attorney calls somebody as a witness, knowing anything they say comes solely from said witness’ fertile imagination.
Rudy Giuliani: 2 NYC Cops Were Killed Because Obama Told Everyone To ‘Hate The Police’
BY IGOR VOLSKY POSTED ON DECEMBER 21, 2014 AT 9:38 AM UPDATED: DECEMBER 21, 2014 AT 10:23 AM
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attributed the execution-style assassination of two police officers on Saturday afternoon to the protests that broke out across the city following a grand jury’s failure to indict a police officer for killing Eric Garner.
“We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the president that everybody should hate the police,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News on Sunday. “The protests are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence, a lot of them lead to violence, all of them lead to a conclusion. The police are bad, the police are racist. That is completely wrong.”
Giuliani then argued that most of the city’s violence is centered in the black community through so-called “black against black” crime and heralded the police for keeping African Americans safe. “Actually, the people who do the most for the black community in America are the police,” he explained.
Since Saturday’s killing a host of conservatives — including former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) — blamed DeBlasio or Attorney General Eric Holder for inciting the kind of anti-police fervor that led 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Brinsley to ambush and murder two officers, shooting them point-blank in the head as they sat in their patrol car in Brooklyn before killing himself at a nearby subway platform.
Rudy was a prosecutor turned mayor that’s now a maroon. He is the head of the snake of Stoner and his misanthropics.
These arguments, from purported intelkectual elites among U.S. does not bode well for touting America as superior.
Where,s Anthony Anaxagorou.s “I’m not a poet and this is not a poem”
When you need to stuff it up Rud[el]y
Ari Melber Talking with former federal prosecutor Jonathan Shapiro about St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch and Witness 40:
SWM, ” No indication that he had taken part in any protests.”
Exactly, there are a number of people who don’t need the protests to have their issues with cops.
“They got everything.”
Actually, they didn’t. They didn’t get the information that showed that witness 40 couldn’t have been there, the evidence that proved that her entire testimony, including her journal, had to be false. Chuck’s right. She wasn’t a witness, McCulluch knew it and he broke the law when he called her as a witness.
See Police and Prosecutor thread
“Combined 2011-2014 data measuring Americans’ confidence in the police shows that 59% of whites have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police, compared with 37% of blacks.
The police are among the three highest-rated institutions out of 17 tested in terms of whites’ confidence, behind only the military and small business. Among blacks, police drop to seventh on the list, behind not only the military and small business, but also the presidency, the church or organized religion, the medical system, and television news.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx
From a recent Gallop poll. We see that 59% of Whites have confidence in the police and that makes sense in light of the dominance of pro-police shows on TV. So in a situation like Ferguson, despite protests that this “wasn’t about race”, I think in that in light of the protests that racked Ferguson in light of the killing, White attitudes were negatively stirred up in favor of Officer Wilson. The Gallup Poll goes a long way to explaining why few indictments of police officers are made. Ignoring the reality of prejudice in America, is in the end aiding it.
“Where is all the chest clutching for the 2 NY City cops who were killed by a black gang banger? Wilson could have easily been on that side of the gun, he just got lucky.”
Do you think that the murder of police officers represents a greater wrong than the murder of any average citizen. Do you also think that people who dispute what happened in Ferguson feel no compassion for murdered policemen, or for the devastation of their family and friends?
“Chris Rock has a good video on how to not get shot or beaten by the police, gang bangers and punks ought to watch it.”
So you are so out of it that you didn’t even get the larger point Chris Rock was making in his video. Perhaps it’s because for you “gang bangers” and “punks” are euphemisms for young Black men.
“Where your question breaks down is that no witness should be called when the attorney who calls that witness has prior knowledge the witness is going to lie.”
Reading through the transcripts, I get the impression that while they strongly suspected Witness 40 wasn’t there that day, they weren’t absolutely certain… she remained adamant throughout questioning that she was there despite all the holes they were poking in her story.
That said, there was another witness who outright admitted she wasn’t there and was merely repeating what her boyfriend had told her. Why was she allowed to testify?
Dorian Johnson was there, but he was clearly lying and admittedly had been lying all along. Why was he called to testify?
Piaget Crenshaw couldn’t have seen what she claimed she saw due to physical obstructions. Why was she allowed to testify?
The construction workers couldn’t have seen the altercation because, like Crenshaw, there were physical obstructions that blocked their alleged view. They even claimed that Brown was being chased by three police officers. Why were they allowed to testify?
Then there were the two witnesses in the car that Dorian Johnson hid behind who both claimed they simultaneously blacked out and didn’t see anything. Why were they called to testify?
Again, lying clients and witnesses are inherently part and parcel of the judicial process. While it’s certainly within the prosecutor’s discretion to exclude lying witnesses, there’s nothing improper about putting them on the stand and grilling them about their lies in the search for the truth.
You’re going to make Bob n brew have a bad Christmas, when you put forth legal details by other legal experts they can’t counter (or verbally assault)
Its not fair to fight Bull chit with truths
On the officers killed in Brooklyn, and the troopers killed in PA, and the protests around the nation: These events should serve as a wake-up call to the “good” cops and their supervisors and the prosecutors that they need to weed out the bad cops and provide better training, especially in how to de-escalate situations, to the good ones. The police unions also need to select spokespeople who aren’t as belligerent as some of those we have heard from. There is a lot of hurt and anger directed at cops. Someone who goes over the edge with anger isn’t likely to see what kind of cop is wearing the uniform.
Niv (or w.ever)
Even if, arguendo, we accept your closing remark (and I Don’t). You fail by your own illogical..
“grillung them about their lies in the search for truth”
Exactly when did that grilling happen?
“That said, there was another witness who outright admitted she wasn’t there and was merely repeating what her boyfriend had told her. Why was she allowed to testify?”
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Why were witnesses who were known not to have been there/not to have witnessed what happened allowed to testify before the grand jury? Bob thinks it was appropriate because it was an investigative grand jury.
There isn’t enough information available to support the headline. The article is better balanced.
Another Cop Assassinated In Retaliation For Police Killings
December 21, 2014 10:39 am·
Just hours after two New York City police officers were assassinated, allegedly in an act of retaliation against police brutality, authorities in Florida say that a similar killing has just happened there.
Early Sunday morning, a Tarpon Springs police officer was shot “execution style.”
The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office has released a statement. They say that they will be holding a press conference shortly.
From what we know so far from the Sheriff’s Officer, the shooting occurred around 3 a.m.
They have confirmed to Counter Current News, that they have a suspect in custody.
While the police claim that this was an “assassination,” some are suggesting that they are trying to incite fear, riding the paranoia surrounding the New York killings.
Local WTSP says that “police were originally called out for a noise ordinance complaint as the suspect was banging on residential doors.”
Was this a set up to get the police out there so they could be assassinated? Perhaps. But it’s also possible that the police are manipulating us so that they can call for more power and less oversight. At this point, it’s too early to tell. But one thing is for sure, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office is claiming that this is a similar act to what just happened in Brooklyn, New York Saturday.
You seem to be forgetting how the “social engineers” obstructed McCulloch from doing his job as he usually would.
A false narrative is spun by the only witness to the altercation at the car with the help of a racist agitator.
Crump, Parks, Sharpton, et. al. join in the fray and a nationwide lie is born.
Enter Eric Holder effectively declaring the officer’s guilt before any investigation is complete.
Meanwhile, the FBI interviews Johnson and, as you can tell from the interview, doesn’t believe his story.
The forensics come back showing that Johnson lied through his teeth about every element that would show that Wilson acted in self defense.
Is McCulloch free to pick and choose the witnesses? Is McCulloch free to do what any prosecutor would do and not ask for an indictment in light of the evidence; as the prosecutors in the Jamie Leigh Jones rape case did when they found that she was lying?
Not a chance.
Darren Wilson’s grand jury: too much evidence, too little supervision
3. Facts vs. interpretations
Obviously, with 24 witnesses — one of whom was Wilson himself — some testimonies were bound to contradict each other. And McCulloch’s statement on Monday implied that vast chunks of witness testimony were simply disproved by the autopsy:
Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made, and also conflicted with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence.
But the simple narrative presented by McCulloch doesn’t really appear to reflect the way the grand jury thought about it themselves.
The assistant prosecutors attempted to run the grand jury by presenting witness testimony first, and forensic testimony second. (Their rationale was that they’d lose their access to eyewitnesses more quickly than they would to experts.) That’s why the grand jury hadn’t heard about the autopsy before it was leaked to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — although as the autopsy leak showed, the prosecutors’ strategy was only partly successful in getting jurors to consider evidence in a systematic way.
But even the forensic evidence was presented by actual people — and those people brought along their own interpretations of the facts, or others’ interpretations, to sketch out stories of what could have happened. The doctor who examined Darren Wilson was willing to repeat that Wilson had told him he’d been punched, even though it would have been impossible to work backward from Wilson’s bruises and prove a punch had occurred. And when the grand jury finally heard about not just one, but three autopsies — the ones conducted by St. Louis County, the FBI, and an independent autopsy commissioned by Michael Brown’s family — they couldn’t figure out the differences between them (even though press reports were sharply different). The answer, said the independent autopsy analyst, was that with the same facts they’d come to different interpretations.
“Not a chance”
Of all the disingenuous total Bull chit banter you have wielded,
this one takes the cake.
It is against every state and federal Model Rules if Conduct, And th BAR
for an attorney at law to foster perjury
Wham Bam No Thank You Ham
Treble Bull Chit upon Bologna Bob
Ferguson testimony shows inconsistencies, unorthodox forensic practices
When Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson left the scene of the 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.
Such seemingly unorthodox forensic practices emerged from the voluminous testimony released in the aftermath of a grand jury decision Monday night not to indict Wilson.
The transcript showed that local officers who interviewed Wilson immediately after the shooting did not tape the conversations and sometimes conducted them with other police personnel present. An investigator with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s office testified that he opted not to take measurements at the crime scene.
“I got there, it was self-explanatory what happened,” said the investigator, whose name was not released, in his grand jury testimony. “Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there.”
The investigator, described as a 25-year veteran, did not take his own photographs at the scene of the shooting because his camera battery was dead, he said. Instead, he relied on photographs shot by the St. Louis County Police Department…
When Wilson returned to the police department after the shooting, he was permitted to drive by himself. No one photographed his bloodied hands before he washed up at the station because “there was no photographer available.”
Later, injuries to Wilson’s head caused by punches he said were thrown by Brown were photographed by a local detective at the Fraternal Order of Police building, not at police headquarters.
The “social engineering” argument is a red herring, and totally irrelevant. If any engineering was done, it was done by McCulloch.
Let’s not forget this is a Grand Jury we are discussing. A GJ is not a trial jury. The prosecutor is under no obligation whatsoever to present exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury.
He is obligated, both legally and ethically, to hand over every piece of exculpatory evidence to the defense for a trial. But, as I said, this is not a trial jury. That is why it is said that a GJ will indict a ham sandwich.
The only ham here is Bob and his verifiers of manure
Wham, Can you address Bob’s arguments rather than his character?
International News Break..Germany wants trial on torture parties.
Meanwhile, in America, calls for new GJ and investigation of McCullough..loom larger.
Bob n hus hoopla,s will be vexed!
I,m not saying anything about him undeserved. Sticking strickly with my rebuttals if his B.S. shuffles. How dies ine argue on verity, when there is none?
And, as far as good character..
I dont see any!
Tone it down. Impeaching Bob’s character isn’t necessary to dismantling this particular argument. He isn’t expecting us to take what he says as the truth absent any other evidence so his character is at worst a moot point. His reasoning and evidence, however, are a different story.
Wham, Come on. Bob is more than one lousy opinion. Respect the man but dispute his arguments.
That,s strike two
And my life clock is clicking faster than most, due to the road traveled.
Lawyers always win;
And so does your lordships
I don’t necessarily want to whack you with a stick, laser, but the rules apply to you too. If you just want to use ad hominem attacks devoid of substance, might I suggest RIL is a better forum for that. That’s the same bullshit nick the blessed and his horde of halfwits does over there.
I will explain (again) the difference between ad hominem and insult.
Ad hominem is the position that the speaker is wrong because of some intrinsic quality of theirs and absent any corroborative evidence. E.g. X is wrong because X is a dick.
Insult is (in the context of argument) a disparaging remark about a speaker but made in conjunction with some argument of substance. E.g. X is wrong because of evidence Y and/or logic #3. X is also a dick.
Seriously, it wasn’t a strike, but it is a caution. You’ve degenerated to simple name calling.
Don’t force my hand.
“Nick the blessed” – read this 5 minutes ago. Just recovered enough to type, ROFLMAO.
One lives to be of humorous service, mespo.
Part of the reason Cleveland officials have so much trouble clearing out the “culture of violence” that besets its Police Department.
Cleveland police union defends fired cop, saying others did far worse
‘”This is just one of many cases where the right actions by the city were taken to terminate or discipline (an officer) and the courts/arbitrators have overturned the decision,” Williams said.’
Chuck: “The prosecutor is under no obligation whatsoever to present exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury. ”
What happens to a prosecutor that moves for an indictment when he knows the target is innocent?
“the prosecutor operates without the check of a judge or a trained legal adversary, and virtually immune from public scrutiny. The prosecutor’s abuse of his special relationship to the grand jury poses an enormous risk to defendants as well. For while in theory a trial provides the defendant with a full opportunity to contest and disprove the charges against him, in practice, the handing up of an indictment will often have a devastating personal and professional impact that a later dismissal or acquittal can never undo. Where the potential for abuse is so great, and the consequences of a mistaken indictment so serious, the ethical responsibilities of the prosecutor, and theobligation of the judiciary to protect against even the appearance of unfairness, are correspondingly heightened.” United States v. Serubo, 604 F. 2d 807, 817 (1979).
“The ex parte character of grand jury proceedings makes it peculiarly important for a federal prosecutor to remember that, in the familiar phrase, the interest of the United States `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
Bettykath: “Respect the man but dispute his arguments.”
Don’t you know? I’m a filthy racist fascist for defending Wilson according to Mike Spindell.
“I’m a filthy racist fascist for defending Wilson according to Mike Spindell”
Don’t confuse what you think I said in your paranoid belief you are being put upon, because the truth is your arguments are weak, flawed and show your admitted bias towards police. If you can show me where I said that to you, I will abjectly apologize with no mitigating qualifications However, I didn’t say that. As a matter of fact, I said that your problem in defending Wilson is that you make a weak case based on polemics, rather than dis-positive evidence
I am well aware of the Berger decision, as well as the ex parte nature of the Grand Jury.
I don’t think the Justices in the Berger decision suggested the prosecutor presiding over a GJ should include presenting lying “witnesses”–and I use the term loosely here since nothing was witnessed–to do nothing but muddy the waters and help insure there would be no true bill returned.
To do that subverts the process, just as much as overcharging a defendant subverts it.
Bob, your assertions get more desperate and pathetic. You’re just throwing more doubt on the original premise.
You are aware that grand jury proceedings are secret; are you not? And you are aware of something called prosecutorial discretion; yes? So tell me Chuck, if the law would have allowed McCulloch to have simply declined to prosecute, just like the prosecutors in the Jamie Leigh Jones rape case did when they found that she was lying, how did McCulloch subvert the process by allowing all the witnesses to testify before an investigative grand jury?
Paul Callan, former deputy chief of homicide in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, says grand jury practices vary across the country.
Some prosecutors “use grand juries to provide political cover for the dismissal of difficult and controversial cases which the prosecutor knows will be lost at trial due to weaknesses in the available evidence,” Callan says. These cases may involve police or civilians, such as “a store owner who shoots a robber under somewhat questionable circumstances or a father who kills the rapist of his daughter when he should’ve relied on the police.
“McCulloch’s approach in presenting virtually every shred of existing evidence to the grand jury is unusual but not unprecedented,” Callan said.
Some prosecutors in New York, for example, present virtually all evidence to grand juries in cases of police shootings, Callan said, citing a former high-ranking fellow prosecutor from another office.
“Cop shooting cases are always highly controversial and there is an awareness that the omission of any evidence may subject the prosecutor to future public criticism by either the family of the victim or by the police officers involved,” Callan said.
Also, “virtually all of these cases now result in subsequent civil litigation where the record of the prior investigation will be closely examined and possibly publicized.”
Local prosecutors know that federal authorities might open an independent investigation — as they have in Ferguson, Callan says. Federal investigators will obtain copies of the grand jury presentation and “an unfair or incomplete presentation may subject the prosecutor to criticism.”
Mike, you never ever painted me as a racist or an over zealous authoritarian for defending Wilson.
I was dreaming.
“your problem in defending Wilson is that you make a weak case based on polemics, rather than dis-positive evidence”
Yes, Mike Dunford and I are battling over polemics.
An “over zealous authoritarian” isn’t (necessarily) the same thing as a “fascist”.
It is my understanding that prosecutors are advocates and in that role they present evidence to get an indictment. How skilled are they in the abnormal role of presenting “all” the evidence, including that which is false? I’ve read the transcripts and the explanations given to the jurors before any witnesses were called seemed, at best, clumsy. This is understandable as up to this point in time the jurors were used to hearing evidence streamlined by the ADA’s seeking indictments. Getting them to switch gears, to hear evidence without any steering by the prosecution, must have been difficult to explain and that shows in the transcripts. It is my opinion that many of the decisions made and mistakes committed can be attributed to the fact that this prosecutor’s office was putting aside its role of advocating to assume a role at which none were very skilled in playing.
“Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” – Frankfurter
The more we read and hear about the manner in which McCulloch’s office handled this particular GJ , the less the appearance of justice satisfies the actuality.
I always thought the purpose of a the grand jury was to give the prosecutor leverage in plea bargaining.
If you’re not hungry, who needs a ham sandwich.
Merry Christmas from Ezra Klein & Progressives, et. al.
Tipping perpetuates racism, classism, and poverty — let’s get rid of it!
Yes, let’s put people out of work by replacing the waiting staff with smart phone ordering and table delivery via Lionel trains.
How nice that we have something that we sort of agree upon. Left an orphan at age 18 I had to work my way through college, working 35 hours in the evenings delivering for a liquor store using my own car and gas. I was paid $36 a weeks by my two bosses, neer do well sons in-law of a wealthy man who didn’t want his daughters husbands out of work. Although I was on full tuition scholarship, this work paid for all my other expenses as I lived alone in a furnished room. I made much more in tips each week than my salary and that made me able to support myself. Because of that experience and as things improved for me financially, I am a fairly good tipper. I’ve also found at times, dining with some wealthy people that they weren’t and from what I knew of their lives they had never been in financial straits. This then is what it comes down to. In our culture tipping has become a means for people to improve their lot and I find nothing wrong with it under current circumstances.
In the restaurant business there is an extremely high rate of failure, perhaps 95%. Margins are difficult and profits can be fleeting. In a different system I would agree that people all should be paid a fair wage, but that is the ideal and transitioning to it is a very complex process in our country. For now I’ll continue to tip well and reward good service when I receive it. Incidentally, if I am treated poorly, or the service is in the server’s control but is poor, I will tip less generously. In my life when I worked for tips I worked hard at it in providing the best service I could provide, if I’m treated indifferently or disdainfully I have no problem with tipping accordingly.
Maybe it is because employers of those who receive tips are only required to pay their workers $2.13 an hour.
SWM: “Maybe it is because employers of those who receive tips are only required to pay their workers $2.13 an hour.”
And yet 60% of restaurants still fail in the first year.
See where you’re going with your argument SWM?
Well, if the restaurant is failing and there are no customers, the poor worker is stuck with $2.13 an hour. Not the worker’s fault if the restaurant offers an inferior product or is poorly marketed and does not attract customers. The restaurant business is booming in many parts of the country now.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/10/09/354656429/customers-can-keep-the-tip-which-might-please-restaurant-workers “Menu prices might read a bit higher, but diners will know what they’ll end up paying at meal’s end — probably no more than they would have at an equivalent place where they’d tip.
And lack of tips simplifies compliance for restaurateurs obligated to make up the difference between servers’ base pay and the standard minimum wage, if they don’t make enough in tips. Currently, the federal minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 an hour, although that baseline is higher in a majority of states.
Tipping creates winners and losers. The people who bring you your steaks at high-end restaurants are probably doing quite well off tips, but many restaurant workers can’t count on bringing home big bucks, especially after slow shifts on off days. A recent study from the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute found that 17 percent of restaurant workers live in poverty.”
“Well, if the restaurant is failing and there are no customers, the poor worker is stuck with $2.13 an hour.”
Then the worker looks for employment elsewhere.
Unless of course most of the restaurants closed up shop because they couldn’t afford to pay the waiting staff what they normally made in tips.
Obviously, there is no clear solution here but I certainly don’t think Ezra is as far off the mark as you do, bob.
my son made 2 or 3 bucks an hour in a place in Ocean City, MD for 2 summers. So did a bunch of other kids. They worked hard and played hard. Most worked an 8 hour day and made around 16 bucks in salary for the day. They also made 200-300/day in tips. My son worked 5 days a week and since he was new did not get the good nights when you could make double that amount.
I would say that tipping is a way for everyone to win. Especially those with good customer service skills and a good work ethic. It would be a bad idea to do away with tipping. Who thinks this shit up anyway?
Like most things progressive, this is just an attack on people who are trying to better themselves. Someone probably did some sort of tax payer funded study on 50 year old cocktail waitresses and felt sorry for them.
The researchers probably didnt bother to check to see what the cocktail waitresses were doing when they were 20 and how those life choices led to their current situation. Some ones bad choice at 25 is not a reason to force employers to pay $15/hour. Especially when many people who receive tips are making 3-4 times that “minimum” wage.
You are real liberal Bob, I have great respect for your thoughts.
” Some ones bad choice at 25 is not a reason to force employers to pay $15/hour. Especially when many people who receive tips are making 3-4 times that “minimum” wage.”
I think part of the problem with this analysis is the assumption that people wind up in marginal jobs because of bad life choices.
If you haven’t noticed, several factors, including globalization, have lead to an economy the produces far fewer middle skill, middle income jobs. As a result we have many well educated, hard working individuals who have been forced into under-employment. There are many taking jobs which require far less in skills than they can contribute – though no fault of their own.
Further, even if someone does make less than optimal choices, why should that condemn them to a life of poverty. Don’t we want a vibrant economy in which people can live down their mistakes and through hard work still reach a reasonable middle class life? I think so. Why wouldn’t we want an economy like that?
Finally, why would we think that the large income of a few tips earning employees makes it acceptable for the vast majority to put in their hard work and come away with less than a living wage.
As far as the failure rate of new restaurants, that clearly is not related to the wages they pay. They are not paying a living a wage, therefore the cause for failure must lie with the market or management. It is a reasonable guess that most successful companies can pay a living wage. Why shouldn’t they do so – after all that success was also earned through the hard work of their employees.
Ezra didn’t write it; I was just being facetious because he runs VOX.
Me, I think the article was written by and for people who don’t like tipping because they’re cheap.
Moral of the story:
Tip your wait staff generously; especially around the holidays…
And don’t forget to try the veal!
“You are real liberal Bob, I have great respect for your thoughts.”
If President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a liberal, then I guess I’d want to be called a liberal too.
But I don’t think he was.
“Like most things progressive, this is just an attack on people who are trying to better themselves. Someone probably did some sort of tax payer funded study on 50 year old cocktail waitresses and felt sorry for them.” bron What about a 60 year old waitperson who has worked in the field their whole life? Restaurant work is often a career not some temporary work. Oh well, I have guests and have read enough right wing banter for a day.
bob, liberals don’t eat veal. lol
“liberals don’t eat veal.”
Confidentially, neither do I. If you’ve ever seen up close what they do to a poor baby calf…. Not on television; but up close and personal.
There’s no reason for that.
Sorry, that was rude. I mean to include the words “but thank you anyway.
“As far as the failure rate of new restaurants, that clearly is not related to the wages they pay. They are not paying a living a wage, therefore the cause for failure must lie with the market or management.”
Agreed. I’m saying that if only 40% of startups don’t drown in debt in the first year, then the added burden of a minimum wage for the wait staff commensurate with what they’d normally make in tips would sink a hell of a lot more restaurants and leave far fewer employment opportunities.
Tips are the key to the customer’s conscience; freeing up more money for everyone.
A History of T I P (ing)
‘According to Michael Lynn, a professor at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, tipping in the United States began just after the American Civil War in the late 1800’s. Lynn suggests that wealthy Americans traveling abroad to Europe witnessed tipping and brought the aristocratic custom back with them to “show off,” or prove their elevated education and class.
According to an article that appeared in The New York Times in 1897, there was a movement brewing against tipping in America. The anti-tipping group believed that tipping was the “vilest of imported vices” because it created an aristocratic class in a country that fought hard to eliminate a class-driven society. In 1915 six state legislators from Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Carolina attempted and failed to pass an anti-tipping bill that would make leaving gratuities unlawful.
In 1916, William Scott wrote a stinging diatribe against tipping in his book, “The Itching Palm,” in which he stood up against the policy of paying for a service twice (once for the employer and once for the employee). He decried tips to be “democracy’s mortal foe” and creates “a servile attitude for a fee.””
“Liberals don’t eat veal”
Well I guess that proves I’m not a liberal, it since I always have veal dishes when I go to Italian restaurants. Being the creature of eating habits that I am, it is most often Veal Franchaise, with linguini in garlic and oil on the side. Makes my mouth water just thinking of it. 🙂
My comment 12/21 at 11:29pm:
“I’m a filthy racist fascist for defending Wilson according to Mike Spindell” (Bob Stone)
Don’t confuse what you think I said in your paranoid belief you are being put upon, because the truth is your arguments are weak, flawed and show your admitted bias towards police. If you can show me where I said that to you, I will abjectly apologize with no mitigating qualifications However, I didn’t say that. As a matter of fact, I said that your problem in defending Wilson is that you make a weak case based on polemics, rather than dis-positive evidence” (Mike S.)”
Then from Bob Stone Dec. 22nd 12:15 am:
“Mike, you never ever painted me as a racist or an over zealous authoritarian for defending Wilson.
I was dreaming.”
Since you obviously couldn’t find the quote from me, perhaps you were dreaming, or perhaps your reading comprehension on this subject is clouded. Also by the way “over zealous authoritarians” are not necessarily Fascists, think of Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao. Now again I said that you make a weak case based on polemics, rather than dis-positive evidence. I also said that some of your verbiage in respect to the Black principals of this case mirrored terms used traditionally by racists like Bull Connor and that your characterizations of those who disagreed with you also were tinged with that same type of rhetoric.
When I write I choose my epithets quite carefully and deliberately. If I meant to call you either racist, or fascist I would have done so directly. That you are unable to comprehend nuance is not my problem, it is yours.
Bob Stone says:
December 21, 2014 at 11:10 pm
Bettykath: “Respect the man but dispute his arguments.”
Don’t you know? I’m a filthy racist fascist for defending Wilson according to Mike Spindell.
Good that you recanted but this kind of accusation makes it difficult to continue to respect the man.
btw, good thread hi-jack with the tipping reference. A good subject that should probably get its own thread.
Mike Spindell: “You assume that is my position since from the start of this you have assumed bad faith and a rush to judgment by those who have taken up Mike Brown’s side.and denied their viewpoints any validity while simultaneously demonizing Mike Brown and anyone asking for justice for his murder. I assume you don’t like the term “murder” in connection to this case, but by the same token I find your use of the words “mob” similarly offensive and barely disguised surrogates for “niggers”. You have implied that anyone here that disagrees with you is part of a g”grievance syndicate” and in that trivialization you are implying that this country doesn’t have a problem with “race”, only with what you would call “Black race baiters”, or as Bull Connor and James Eastland used to say “outside agitators, a position the KKK would applaud. Now you might object to my lumping you in with the Klan, which is the height of denial because you have lumped your rhetorical opponents here with a broad and nasty brush. In the process of defending your position of bias.”
You’re so full of shit Mike.
[Bob] “I assume you don’t like the term “murder” in connection to this case, but by the same token I find your use of the words “mob” similarly offensive and barely disguised surrogates for “niggers”. You have implied that anyone here that disagrees with you is part of a g”grievance syndicate” and in that trivialization you are implying that this country doesn’t have a problem with “race”, only with what you would call “Black race baiters”, or as Bull Connor and James Eastland used to say “outside agitators, a position the KKK would applaud. Now you might object to my lumping you in with the Klan, which is the height of denial because you have lumped your rhetorical opponents here with a broad and nasty brush. In the process of defending your position of bias.”
You’ve proven two of my points. !. I didn’t call you a racist, but related aspects of your tactics in writing on Ferguson as similar to that of racists past. The comparison was a fair one, especially in terms of your disparagement of “outside agitators”. The second point I’ve proved is that when it comes to this issue your reading comprehensions skills erode.
Bettykath: “Good that you recanted but this kind of accusation makes it difficult to continue to respect the man.”
I can’t recall recanting anything I said. Could you clarify?
Bettytkath: “btw, good thread hi-jack with the tipping reference. A good subject that should probably get its own thread.”
You’re probably right. I threw it on here out of sheer impulse; mostly of disgust.
Of all times to run a story on not tipping; during the holiday season!
Sorry, that’s just …. I honestly don’t have the words to express my disgust at the timing.
Tis the season to be tipping heavily and otherwise giving gifts to the people that help you all year long; e.g. the mailman, etc.
Bob Stone says:
December 22, 2014 at 12:27 pm
I can’t recall recanting anything I said. Could you clarify?
December 22, 2014 at 12:15 am
Mike, you never ever painted me as a racist or an over zealous authoritarian for defending Wilson.
I was dreaming.
So you didn’t mean what you said or you were being sarcastic. Mike did characterize your comments. He did not your character, you did that. You’re starting to make me wonder about your character, but I won’t go into it here.
So what Mike said is okay, because I should know my comments are separate from my character?
Do you work in corporate law?
That too is sarcasm.
Here’s what I hear you saying:
Comments or opinions expressed on the blog by Bob Stone are those of its respective officer only. The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent the views and or character of Bob Stone, its management or employees.
From the “About/Contact” page, in relevant part:
“Legal: This is an opinion/legal/news/culture blog and nothing published here should be considered legal, medical or otherwise professional advice. All columns published here are the copyright of the author. Any views expressed therein are their own.”
History of tips: To Insure Promptitude or To Insure Prompt Service.
In re: veal
“Mmmmmmm . . . baby cow.” – Homer J. Simpson
To Insure Prompt Service = T.I.P.S.
I support tipping and it is always figured into the cost of an evening out or a vacation. It’s part of the culture I’m used to and I especially appreciate those who go that extra bit to insure my comfort.
I found it interesting when planning a trip to Italy that I was told to be careful about tipping as many there viewed it as an insult. The people who told me that are friends who live there. I haven’t gone yet so don’t have first-hand knowledge but I would suppose it is a cultural thing. When in Rome …
Wait staff must work until closing at $2.15 an hour even when there are no diners who might or might not leave a tip. The $2.15 an hour gets further eroded because taxes are taken out with the presumption that the worker is getting tips. Since employers are required to make up the difference if the tips are insufficient to bring the person’s income to a legally required minimum which, I believe, is less than minimum wage for other jobs, many employers require wait staff to report their tips as more than they actually receive. If diners stay after closing wait staff still have to stay just in case the diners need a refill on their coffee or to bus the table when they leave. People who are inconsiderate enough to stay after closing are also generally inconsiderate enough to not leave a tip commensurate with the additional time that the wait staff must work at $2.15 per hour.
Yes, wait staff in upscale restaurants might make out ok, but that’s the minority. Most wait staff work in diners and less fancy restaurants and don’t make out too well. They work just as hard but don’t get the benefit. And speaking of benefits, there aren’t any. It’s rare that a diner or restaurant provides any benefits at all.
I know of one case, a private club, where there is a weekly group that requires services of the wait staff. The members are bitchy and demanding. Tipping is best described as stingy. At this same club it’s not unusual for a table of diners to stay after closing, requiring the wait staff to stay b/c they have to provide the drinks or the coffee refills and then, after the diners are gone, to bus the tables. The dishwasher gets minimum wage but usually ends up with more than the wait staff. The “joke” is that they ought to get jobs where the diners are well off financially.
I used to dine with a man, a real miser, who looked for the opportunity to say, “She just spent her tip.” He rarely tipped and when he did, it was rarely 10%. He tended to be demanding so he would be justified in declaring “she just spent her tip.”
My own tipping is generally 20% or more. I don’t have rent to pay or kids to feed. If I can afford to eat out, I can afford a good tip.
When I was in Europe tipping was not expected regardless of the whether the restaurant was more upscale or a pub. There was special training for those working as wait staff, much as there was training for other jobs, e.g. cosmetology, auto mechanic, clerk, etc.
IMO, tipping should not be required because the staff should be paid a living wage whether or not there are customers. With a change to a living wage and tipping not required or expected, I’d like to see tips treated as gifts, i.e. not taxed.
“I’d like to see tips treated as gifts, i.e. not taxed.”
What a wondrous country America is, where a Presidential candidate can park money overseas to avoid taxes and a worker making not even minimum wage, gets their tips taxed.
But aren’t gifts taxed but the responsibility for paying the tax is on the giver? (Maybe I am thinking higher amounts.)
I, too, have been out with people who use that “he/she just spent their tip” line. Often these are the same people who seem to enjoy verbally abusing their servers/bellhops/cabdrivers/salesclerks. When stuck dining with such fools I always find a way to get the appropriate amount to the server with an apology that acknowledges and respects their dignity. Senseless cruelty is an insult to all.
I usually tip at 20%. I’ll do more if the service is exceptional and/or it’s a larger party. I’ll do less if the service is bad. If it’s really bad, I won’t tip at all. That’s rare, but it is sometimes justified. If they piss me off, which is rarer still, I’ll leave a quarter.
blouise, I believe that amounts under $12,500 are tax free. The amount may have changed, upward, since I first heard the amount. If you’re inclined to leave such a tip, let me know, I’d love that server job and you can be as bitchy as you’d like. 🙂
“When stuck dining with such fools I always find a way to get the appropriate amount to the server with an apology that acknowledges and respects their dignity. Senseless cruelty is an insult to all.”
I also do that and will never go out to dine with those people again. I like to enjoy it when I eat out and not have to feel embarrassed because of the actions of my dinner companions.
[A] review of the grand jury documents released by St. Louis County shows that McElroy’s account was questioned openly and extensively by authorities. Grand Jury Volume 15 includes her Oct. 23 testimony in front of the grand jury, as well as a transcript of a recording of an Oct. 22 interview between McElroy and a federal prosecutor that was played for jurors. The federal prosecutor tells McElroy that her account of driving through Ferguson is physically impossible, informs her that her car can’t be found in any images from the scene, solicits an admission that she “used the N-word” online a half-dozen times in relation to Brown’s death, and asks her explicitly if she used media accounts to fabricate parts of her testimony. McElroy speaks about having memory problems in both the recorded interview with the federal prosecutor and the in-person interview in front of the grand jury, and tells both the federal prosecutor and the jury that she suffers from largely untreated bipolar disorder. In McElroy’s Oct. 23 testimony, the grand jury prosecution picks skeptically at her claim to have come across the Wilson-Brown encounter—which did not take place on a main road—after getting lost while trying to find a friend’s apartment. (And, to repeat, the federal prosecutor’s skeptical interview with McElroy was played for grand jurors that day as well.)
As the Smoking Gun does mention, McElroy returned to the grand jury on Nov. 3 with a new story about why she was in Ferguson. In testimony in Grand Jury Volume 18, McElroy reads from a journal and attests that she was in fact travelling to the area to conduct personal research to help her understand black people (!). But the Smoking Gun doesn’t mention that, in those same grand jury records, a prosecutor says (in front of jurors) that McElroy had admitted she may have gotten details of her earlier testimony off the Internet, points out that her journal entry from the morning before Brown’s death is suspiciously detailed, and asks McElroy directly whether she may have made up or “dreamed” the events that she’s testifying about. Another prosecutor tells McElroy she believes McElroy is “confused” about her own account and grills her about her animosity towards blacks and her use of racial slurs.
Given all this warranted skepticism expressed toward Sandra McElroy in front of grand jurors by prosecutors—and the incredibly obvious flaws in her testimony itself—it’s hard to believe that any sane juror, no matter how inclined to believe Darren Wilson, would have taken her testimony seriously. While the Smoking Gun’s investigation is useful in undermining those in the media who would take McElroy’s words out of context, it’s doubtful—given the evidence currently at hand—that the grand jury’s ultimate decision would have been any different had she never testified.