bbauska wrote:Can anyone explain why a police officer should be tried differently in the court of law? Is that unequal treatment like I think it is?

A little legal advice...

You have not. A Canadian, however, has not. I have asked 3 times if that is what he meant, and I know it has been posted to the site because you were kind enough to answer.

Perhaps the question is too tough to answer...

Bbauska, if you are referring to me ...According to this site I answered you at 9:15 on December 18.

The police were treated differently in these cases, Brad--the prosecutor used a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing, presented evidence that was in favor of the officers instead of the usual practice of only presenting evidence adverse to to the defendant, and the officers were allowed to explain their actions after having months to prepare and without any cross-examination. But I don't suspect you 're complaining about that unequal treatment, Brad...
I guess you're complaining about the proposals that would subject police officers to prosecution by a special unit or by a state as that would constitute differential (and therefore unfair) treatment of police officers. Well, see above. The goal is ensuring that police officers would be getting equal treatment but not favorable treatment. Yes, there would a different prosecutor but that is not unfair in this circumstance--it simply reflects an attempt to ameliorate the conflicts that are created when a local DA is faced with prosecuting police officers that his office closely works with. A judge recuses himself when he has interest in a case, a juror will be kicked off a jury for cause if they are friends with a defendant, a criminal defense lawyer is not going to represent a defendant when he is a close friend of the victim, and a local DA has a similar conflict of interest because he knows police officers, needs to work with them , and if the police department is unhappy with how the case against an officer is handled...well, that could hurt the relationship between the DA's office and the police department. These underlying pressures are why it is probably a good idea for the state to take over the prosecution of local police officers--not to be unfair, but to ensure fairness of the process.

here are also specific laws in Missouri governing the subornation of perjury.

"A lawyer should not present testimony that he believes to be false," Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University, told BuzzFeed News. "That is especially true in a proceeding that lacks all of the usual safeguards, such as opposing counsel and a judge

."
To Archduke:
The above is another reason why the Grand Jury proceeding was not as fair as a preliminary hearing. A judge And opposing counsel would have stopped the presentation of obviously lying witnesses...

And Fate. You seem to think its possible to decide the case in Ferguson based on media reports of the "evidence". I don't.
But I do think that the proceedings were several steps below a just process.
As for knowing whether a charge could have been laid .... as has been reported most professionals commenting, the outcome of normal GJ proceedings is a given. Indictments.
That the result can and usually is controlled by the DA. we could not know how he could have presented evidence to get a charge, because we are not currently privy to all of the evidence. Nor are we privy to how a professional medical examiner or crime scene investigator could have presented the evidence. What we are now privy to is that the DA suborned perjury.
As proven in the statistics of out comes available to us, DA's have the power to ensure charges. This guy chose to knowingly let false witnesses testify.
In your mind this is justice?

freeman3 wrote:The police were treated differently in these cases, Brad--the prosecutor used a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing, presented evidence that was in favor of the officers instead of the usual practice of only presenting evidence adverse to to the defendant, and the officers were allowed to explain their actions after having months to prepare and without any cross-examination. But I don't suspect you 're complaining about that unequal treatment, Brad...

So, what if the "evidence adverse" to the officer in Ferguson was mostly (or entirely) contradicted by physical evidence? What if the DA looked at that sort of presentation and realized he couldn't pull it off with a straight face?

Again, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a plausible case that Officer Wilson committed a crime.

I guess you're complaining about the proposals that would subject police officers to prosecution by a special unit or by a state as that would constitute differential (and therefore unfair) treatment of police officers. Well, see above. The goal is ensuring that police officers would be getting equal treatment but not favorable treatment. Yes, there would a different prosecutor but that is not unfair in this circumstance--it simply reflects an attempt to ameliorate the conflicts that are created when a local DA is faced with prosecuting police officers that his office closely works with.

While this may be true in a rural area, it is definitely NOT the case in larger municipalities. In any event, I believe it should be proven and not just assumed.

A judge recuses himself when he has interest in a case, a juror will be kicked off a jury for cause if they are friends with a defendant, a criminal defense lawyer is not going to represent a defendant when he is a close friend of the victim, and a local DA has a similar conflict of interest because he knows police officers, needs to work with them , and if the police department is unhappy with how the case against an officer is handled...well, that could hurt the relationship between the DA's office and the police department. These underlying pressures are why it is probably a good idea for the state to take over the prosecution of local police officers--not to be unfair, but to ensure fairness of the process.

The governor could have appointed a special prosecutor, but declined to do so. That's not McCullough's fault.

Furthermore, a special prosecutor and an indictment do not necessarily yield a guilty verdict nor do they convince the populace that "justice" has been done--see Trayvon Martin.

Someone else popped off about police officers investigating other police officers and how they would be biased. Again, that could (theoretically) be the case, but should not be presumed. When Internal Affairs came knocking, it's not like anyone I ever knew thought "Here comes the Cavalry!" In fact, those guys are reviewed and evaluated. Guess what? If they don't nail enough police officers, they get sacked. IA is also seen as a good pathway to promotion. Why? Because you have learned "the dark side"--the management side. It is preposterous to presume that the officers of a unit like Internal Affairs are going to ignore evidence to go with their "brothers in blue." No one despises dishonest and abusive cops more than honest ones. They make us all look bad.

rickyp wrote:And Fate. You seem to think its possible to decide the case in Ferguson based on media reports of the "evidence". I don't.

Wait. Let's see how long it takes for you to contradict yourself.

But I do think that the proceedings were several steps below a just process.

It wasn't "just," but you don't think it's possible to decide the case. That's pretty close to a contradiction. I'll give you a 93. Good try!

As for knowing whether a charge could have been laid .... as has been reported most professionals commenting, the outcome of normal GJ proceedings is a given. Indictments.

So, we can't trust what they say about the evidence, but we should trust what they say about "normal GJ proceedings?" Okay, now that is a contradiction. If they're not basing that on their faulty perceptions of the evidence, what are they basing it on?

You previously cited stats for Federal Grand Juries. The only stats that would be pertinent would be St. Louis County grand juries. So, dig those up.

Btw, the County has nearly a million residents. This is not "Hickville." There is no reason to presume McCullough and the officer were good buddies. None.

That the result can and usually is controlled by the DA. we could not know how he could have presented evidence to get a charge, because we are not currently privy to all of the evidence

.

What significant evidence don't we have.

Again, I'll bet you $100 you can't make a coherent case to indict Officer Wilson. Go ahead! Let's have at it.

Nor are we privy to how a professional medical examiner or crime scene investigator could have presented the evidence. What we are now privy to is that the DA suborned perjury.

You're joking re the medical examiner, right? Mr. Brown was autopsied multiple times. Did the examiners not testify?

If you want to say Mr. McCullough suborned perjury, then what is the evidence of that? Did he tell people to lie? Suppose he had refused to let those who did lie testify. How would people have responded if those who claimed Brown was gunned down by Wilson were excluded?

As proven in the statistics of out comes available to us, DA's have the power to ensure charges.

You have not established this.

Furthermore, let's say in 98% of the cases involving criminals a DA in St. Louis County gets an indictment. Well, this isn't that, is it? It's trying to determine IF a crime was committed. If Wilson acted in self-defense, what crime should he be charged with?

Once they determined that Brown was the aggressor, why would they charge Wilson?

This is fairer than anything you've posted (after they make the mistake of comparing Federal GJ's to St. Louis County):

It’s possible, for example, that the evidence against Wilson was relatively weak, but that jurors were also more likely than normal to give him the benefit of the doubt. St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch has said he plans to release the evidence collected in the case, which would give the public a chance to evaluate whether justice was served here. But beyond Ferguson, we won’t know without better data why grand juries are so reluctant to indict police officers.

One basic premise of American justice: all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Wilson was not charged. He is innocent unless and until proven guilty. You can make no coherent case that it's even probable that he committed a crime.

So, either do the work or admit you can't.

I think the DA in Ferguson did not think that Officer Wilson committed a crime yet went forward with the prosecution to placate the community and threw all of the evidence in front of the grand jury and said you decide I don't want to. I don't think that is a professional way to do things, but I do understand the enormous pressure he was under (can you imagine if he declined the case--his father was a cop shot by a black man--what would have happened). I think there has to be a better way.
There are two ways you can deal with conflicts--to compartmentalize within the police department or district attorney's itself or send it out to a different agency . Internal affairs reflect internal compartmentalization. I think you 're right that in big cities internal compartmentalization has a much better chance at working than in rural areas.

So I will take that obfuscative answer as a yes. You do believe in unequal treatment under the law.

Got it.

freeman3 wrote:I think the DA in Ferguson did not think that Officer Wilson committed a crime yet went forward with the prosecution to placate the community and threw all of the evidence in front of the grand jury and said you decide I don't want to. I don't think that is a professional way to do things, but I do understand the enormous pressure he was under (can you imagine if he declined the case--his father was a cop shot by a black man--what would have happened).

I think that is pretty fair.

I think there has to be a better way.

The governor could have appointed a special prosecutor, but did not. I think (opinion) that we would have seen something akin to Trayvon Martin if he had: a showy prosecutor, an indictment, and a verdict of "not guilty." That would have been followed by rioting.

I don't know that laws should be changed for one case--one in which it is not evident that the wrong thing happened.

There are two ways you can deal with conflicts--to compartmentalize within the police department or district attorney's itself or send it out to a different agency . Internal affairs reflect internal compartmentalization. I think you 're right that in big cities internal compartmentalization has a much better chance at working than in rural areas.

I just don't think St. Louis County is Mayberry. I'm not convinced that anything less than justice occurred. However, I'm willing to have my mind changed--with evidence.

If the DA has to try people for a crime (whether it be a police officer or not) with a grand jury indictment first, then so be it. My only point is equality. I am ok with the police being brought before a grand jury if that is the system in that state.

If a DA needs to recuse himself, fine. Bring in another DA.

Just make it equal for ALL citizens.

What significant evidence don't we have

We don't know since the official record of the GJ is not public.
We all don't know how the evidence was presented to the GJ. AS Archduke explained earlier, in dealing with the GJ its all about the presentation.

We DO know that some of the witnesses were lying. And we do know that the DA did not inform the GJ of this, not intercede during the testimony to eliminate the perjurers - although he was by his admission aware they were lying.
That makes him guilty of a crime and invalidates the proceedings.
And yet you think it clears the officer of any crime?

read this and explain why you have faith in this GJ process Fate...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/1 ... ere-lying#



bbauska

So I will take that obfuscative answer as a yes. You do believe in unequal treatment under the law

An inflexible mind can be easily confused.
As Freeman eloquently explained, the system already ensures uneven treatment.
Changing the system would eliminate preferential treatment.

rickyp wrote:

What significant evidence don't we have

We don't know since the official record of the GJ is not public.

We have more than enough. Look it up.

We all don't know how the evidence was presented to the GJ. AS Archduke explained earlier, in dealing with the GJ its all about the presentation.

I don't know if that is the case here.

Here's something to ponder: after the OJ case, the jury went on TV. Now, normally Grand Juries don't do such things. In fact, I think it's illegal. However, you mean to tell me not one of them has leaked anything to the press? No one has offered money to find out what happened?

Or, maybe . . . those jurors are scared to death--as a lot of people are. That's why Grand Juries are "secret" to protect the jurors.

We DO know that some of the witnesses were lying. And we do know that the DA did not inform the GJ of this, not intercede during the testimony to eliminate the perjurers - although he was by his admission aware they were lying.
That makes him guilty of a crime and invalidates the proceedings.

How do you KNOW this? You keep acting as if the evidence is a mystery. If you know the witnesses were lying, then you know enough about the case to know that a conviction was a long shot. I don't care if Perry Mason was the DA and "The Hanging Judge" was hearing the case--the physical evidence doesn't lie and it didn't contradict the officer's story.

Oh, and one more thing: will you stop with the "DA committed a crime" crap? If true, why isn't he charged? If true, why isn't he being disbarred? Why is it that YOU can figure out the DA committed a crime, yet no one in authority in Missouri can figure it out?

And yet you think it clears the officer of any crime?

Not what I said. I said there is no way to convict him.

read this and explain why you have faith in this GJ process Fate...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/1 ... ere-lying#

The article is as balanced as a buzz saw. How about this objective nugget:

Today, however, in the brazen and flippant manner in which he has done nearly everything regarding this case, he did just that.

I watched his news conference after the Grand Jury had decided there would be no charges against Wilson. I didn't think he was brazen or flippant. I thought he was very matter of fact.

As for your ridiculous "subordination of perjury" charge (which you clearly derived from this article), I cite the article:

It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely.

Good luck with that.

That whole article is a rant. It never goes beyond one witness.

Now, with idiots like the mayor of NYC, Al Sharpton, and others fueling protests and riots like this one (go to 0:22 and realize this is ONE week ago in NYC), it appears some people are getting their wish fulfilled:

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s execution-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

“It’s an execution,” one law enforcement source said of the 3 p.m. shooting of the two officers, whose names were being withheld pending family notification of their deaths.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cop ... -brooklyn/

Oh, I know, "tragic."

You don't get it. These two were murdered because some nut heard nothing for weeks except "No justice; no peace!" and "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!"

I'm sure Sharpton will be protesting this . . .

Doctor Fate wrote:I think the DA gave all the evidence to the Grand Jury. Why? So, they could make the decision for him. I don't believe he thought a conviction was likely. If you know anything about DA's, you'll know this: they don't take loser cases if they can avoid it. .

This is the interesting part. If he thought there was no chance of a conviction, he was ethically required to not pursue the case. However, if he didn't there would have been even more chaos in the streets. So he went to the GJ but showed them all the evidence including the exculpatory stuff. Then he released it all to the public so they could see why it happened.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I think the DA gave all the evidence to the Grand Jury. Why? So, they could make the decision for him. I don't believe he thought a conviction was likely. If you know anything about DA's, you'll know this: they don't take loser cases if they can avoid it. .

This is the interesting part. If he thought there was no chance of a conviction, he was ethically required to not pursue the case. However, if he didn't there would have been even more chaos in the streets. So he went to the GJ but showed them all the evidence including the exculpatory stuff. Then he released it all to the public so they could see why it happened.

And, the additional steps of transparency bought him . . . scorn and the call for criminal charges.

No good deed goes unpunished.