RickyP,
I am not being obtuse. I will post your statements (with time stamp reference) to show where you HAVE advocated different treatment. It is OK if you want someone treated differently. I just want you to be honest about your words.

RickyP @ 17 Dec 2014, 9:28 am:
No.
But it would be better if, when police are involved, the local DA didn't conduct a GJ.

RickyP @ 18 Dec 2014, 9:15 am
When they are involved in use of force that causes injury or death they are not like any other citizen.
Treating them in a similar manner when they have greater powers and greater responsibilities is inappropriate.

These two statements ARE advocating a different treatment for police officers. I agree that police are different in their responsibility. They should NOT be different in their legal rights AND legal responsibility. I do not advocate a police officer being treated differently when they shoot someone or if they are shot by a citizen.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote: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.

Yes well, it was a no win situation for the DA so he did what legal ethics required within the scope of political pressure

Archduke Russell John wrote:Yes well, it was a no win situation for the DA so he did what legal ethics required within the scope of political pressure

Precisely.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Yes well, it was a no win situation for the DA so he did what legal ethics required within the scope of political pressure

really? Its ethical to suborn perjury? To put people on the stand whom had already been discredited by FBI investigators?
Not only unethical, but illegal.
Why would it have been a no win situation to follow the letter of the law, and place in front of the jury the evidence that he normally would for any other Grand Jury Procedure? (You see Bbauska that this cop wasn't treated like an ordinary citizen. The DA did not act as a prosecute. So I assume that your position of "equal treatment" is outraged by the way this GJ was fixed for the COP.?)

So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did...

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…

Robert McCulloch

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.

rickyp wrote:Archduke Russell John wrote:

Yes well, it was a no win situation for the DA so he did what legal ethics required within the scope of political pressure

really? Its ethical to suborn perjury? To put people on the stand whom had already been discredited by FBI investigators?
Not only unethical, but illegal.
Why would it have been a no win situation to follow the letter of the law, and place in front of the jury the evidence that he normally would for any other Grand Jury Procedure? (You see Bbauska that this cop wasn't treated like an ordinary citizen. The DA did not act as a prosecute. So I assume that your position of "equal treatment" is outraged by the way this GJ was fixed for the COP.?)

So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did...

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…

Robert McCulloch

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.

Missouri has a Bar association. McCullough could be disbarred even if he's not convicted.

So, rickyp, do you have ANY indication this is under consideration?

Any serious person suggesting subornation of perjury?

The answer is, "No, just a few lunatics and losers."

People serious about this situation know the Archduke is correct. But, don't let the voice of knowledge and reason dissuade you.

There is no substantive evidence that Officer Wilson did anything other than defend himself.

Fate

Missouri has a Bar association. McCullough could be disbarred even if he's not convicted.
So, rickyp, do you have ANY indication this is under consideration?

Show trials aren't challenged by other parts of a states justice system.

If McCulluch was in a "no-win" situation and had to stage manage the GJ in order to avoid charges and a trial, the Bar Association and the State Attorney are in the same "no win" situation aren't they Fate?
What McCulloch's unguarded remarks on the radio have done, is reveal the creation of a false patina of justice.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Missouri has a Bar association. McCullough could be disbarred even if he's not convicted.
So, rickyp, do you have ANY indication this is under consideration?

Show trials aren't challenged by other parts of a states justice system.

Wrong.

Michael Byron "Mike" Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is a former North Carolina attorney.[2] He was the district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina (the state's 14th Prosecutorial District) but was removed and disbarred due to court findings concerning his conduct in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case.[3] Several criminal justice bills passed by the North Carolina legislature later that same year are believed to have been brought about by Nifong's actions in the Duke lacrosse case.[4]

In the Duke Lacrosse case, the DA withheld evidence and manipulated the system. I'd say the situations are comparable to what you allege. Nifong was disbarred.

If McCulluch was in a "no-win" situation and had to stage manage the GJ in order to avoid charges and a trial, the Bar Association and the State Attorney are in the same "no win" situation aren't they Fate?

Not at all. You make that statement because you don't understand McCullough's dilemma. It was presumed (because of prejudice by some on the left) that a DA whose father was an officer slain by a Black criminal could not fairly prosecute the case. If he stepped aside, it would be like admitting his critics were right. So, either way, he loses.

So, he did what seemed like a "middle ground" approach. McCullough didn't see a crime in the evidence, but he knew his conclusions would be seen as tainted by his life experience. So, he determined to put the evidence before the Grand Jury and see what conclusion they came to.

What McCulloch's unguarded remarks on the radio have done, is reveal the creation of a false patina of justice.

You'll seize on any nugget to claim a gold rush.

Again, virtually all the evidence is available for you to review. Edit it as you please and make a case fitting the physical evidence that there is probable cause to arrest the officer.

You can't.

Everything else you've written bears, erm, the patina of pseudo-judicial nonsense.

In his throw all the evidence to the grand jury approach, it does appear the DA on the Ferguson failed to properly vet the witnesses. That is more a negligence than a misconduct issue. I am not going to give an opinion as to whether that would warrant any state bar discipline, but it is something his office should have done. Putting on a witness who gave critical testimony in favor of the defendant who was not even there ? That's inexcusable, really.

Fate

In the Duke Lacrosse case, the DA withheld evidence and manipulated the system. I'd say the situations are comparable to what you allege. Nifong was disbarred

So in North Carolina there is accountability.
The difference between the two is being that McCulluch admitted false testimony. Knowingly. He had Witness 40 on the stand. twice. The second time after she had "reviewed her written notes " because her first attempt at testimony had horrible inconsistencies...
That's irregular.

fate

You'll seize on any nugget to claim a gold rush

The mans own words?

Fate

So, he determined to put the evidence before the Grand Jury and see what conclusion they came to.

Including testimony he knew was false ....
And he brought Witness 40 to the stand twice..., the only witness to corroborate the Officer's testimony completely.
Although he had in his hands the FBI's reports discrediting her testimony.

Fate

. McCullough didn't see a crime in the evidence

If you include Witness 40, I might not either. But she was a liar and he knew it.

rickyp wrote:Fate

In the Duke Lacrosse case, the DA withheld evidence and manipulated the system. I'd say the situations are comparable to what you allege. Nifong was disbarred

So in North Carolina there is accountability.
The difference between the two is being that McCulluch admitted false testimony. Knowingly. He had Witness 40 on the stand. twice. The second time after she had "reviewed her written notes " because her first attempt at testimony had horrible inconsistencies...
That's irregular.

In North Carolina, the DA suppressed evidence. He knew the players were not guilty, but he didn't care. His conduct was far more egregious. That you can't see that speaks volumes about you.

In Missouri, feel free to hold another Grand Jury. Have 10 more. I don't believe you'll ever get an indictment because no matter how you edit the witnesses statements, the physical evidence cannot make Mr. Brown a victim. It's not there.

So, keep blathering about Witness #40 . . . or do something constructive: make a criminal case against the officer using the other evidence. Otherwise, shut up.

fate

You'll seize on any nugget to claim a gold rush

The mans own words?

I don't care! Go after McCullough! Knock yourself out. My guess: he gets a small fine from the Bar Association. As an attorney said:

freeman3 wrote:In his throw all the evidence to the grand jury approach, it does appear the DA on the Ferguson failed to properly vet the witnesses. That is more a negligence than a misconduct issue.

"Negligence" is something that might get a slap on the wrist from the Bar.

However, rickyp, the DA's negligence says nothing about Officer Wilson's conduct.

Fate

So, he determined to put the evidence before the Grand Jury and see what conclusion they came to.

Including testimony he knew was false ....
And he brought Witness 40 to the stand twice..., the only witness to corroborate the Officer's testimony completely.
Although he had in his hands the FBI's reports discrediting her testimony.

Blah, blah, blah (see above)

Fate

. McCullough didn't see a crime in the evidence

If you include Witness 40, I might not either. But she was a liar and he knew it.

Put up or shut up. Where is the case against Wilson? Make it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/23/why-a-milwaukee-cop-is-not-being-charged-in-killing-of-an-unarmed-african-american/

Another non-compliance fatality...

Still waiting for the explanation of these statements by RickyP...
RickyP @ 17 Dec 2014, 9:28 am:
No.
But it would be better if, when police are involved, the local DA didn't conduct a GJ.

RickyP @ 18 Dec 2014, 9:15 am
When they are involved in use of force that causes injury or death they are not like any other citizen.
Treating them in a similar manner when they have greater powers and greater responsibilities is inappropriate.

Interesting. This case looks like it was handled better. Officer fired for using poor judgment in dealing with a person with mental problems in violation of policy but not charged. Prosecutor investigated and made the call not to prosecute. No blindly defending the officer, no abdication of responsibility by the DA. Explanation to the community why charges were not brought. Well-done.
I do think it is questionable whether the officer needed to draw a gun....but I doubt a conviction was possible. And by firing the officer hopefully he cannot get another job in law enforcement.

freeman3 wrote:Interesting. This case looks like it was handled better. Officer fired for using poor judgment in dealing with a person with mental problems in violation of policy but not charged. Prosecutor investigated and made the call not to prosecute. No blindly defending the officer, no abdication of responsibility by the DA. Explanation to the community why charges were not brought. Well-done.
I do think it is questionable whether the officer needed to draw a gun....but I doubt a conviction was possible. And by firing the officer hopefully he cannot get another job in law enforcement.

Agreed.

The sad truth is the bar needs to be higher for law enforcement. Instead, what has happened over the last 30 years is the physical, intelligence, and integrity standards have been lowered.

An example: while I was in the academy, a man who was a former probation officer was fired. The reason? He could not spell. Now, that would never happen. Is it necessary? Spelling? Maybe not. However, the level of writing has fallen off a great deal.

In an effort to get "more" recruits at a reasonable price, the policing pool has become less qualified.

Furthermore, many departments have cut training because it costs money and does not directly enhance the bottom line. There is much that can be done here.

However, the Federal government has no business getting involved--and I'm confident that is the intent of the President. Mark it down: he is going to look for ways to increase Federal control of the local PDs and that's as wrong as it could be.

freeman3

do think it is questionable whether the officer needed to draw a gun....but I doubt a conviction was possible. And by firing the officer hopefully he cannot get another job in law enforcement.

Perhaps a body camera would have provided more evidence? Perhaps the presence of a body camera would have restrained the officer from his particularly unwise approach?
But the part about the officer not getting another job in police enforcement? Maybe. But maybe not.

A police officer who shot a 12-year-old dead in a Cleveland park late last month had been judged unfit for police service two years earlier by a small suburban force where he worked for six months, according to records released on Wednesday

.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... dged-unfit

Fate

The sad truth is the bar needs to be higher for law enforcement. Instead, what has happened over the last 30 years is the physical, intelligence, and integrity standards have been lowered

From what i read most academy course are about a year long Fate? And although most of the job of policing comes down to communication and dealing with the public, there doesn't seem to be that much emphasis on teaching these skills.

There are certain jobs that we seem to value but not always reward properly. I've always like Finlands approach to teachers. They are extremely well paid. Extremely well educated and their profession is held in very high esteem. As a result the Finnish education system is the best in the world.

In that vein... In a perfect world...
Police officers have a difficult job and deserve both longer and better training to equip them for their jobs. They also deserve far better pay in order to attract more mature, college educated prospects.
Officers get into Police academies at 21... If they got out and on the streets and full duty officers when they were 25, after 4 years of school, including "apprentice policing", they'd be better equipped to deal with some of the situations they encounter I suspect. (I'm thinking of dealing with things like domestic violence, mentally ill people, and more.. )
We also have police officers doing things that should be automated... Traffic violations like speeding cameras and red light cameras would eliminate some of the dangerous traffic stops and have proven to be more effective at actually reducing the problems. (Because the cameras are pervasive.) Google is going to elimiante this in the future anyway with driverless cars...)
And I think doing away with seizure of property by police forces would improve their reputations...

Fate

However, the Federal government has no business getting involved

How about in setting standards and curriculum for academies and funding them so that poor areas had equally as well trained police as wealthy areas?

A view from some black cops in New York. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/2 ... 73496.html