rickyp wrote:fate

There's a basic problem: police officers are . . . Human.

The basic problem is that police officers appear to be unaccountable for actions that are killing people. ,

Is that true?

So, are Grand Juries in Missouri and NYC part of a grand scheme? Or, is it possible that "accountability" means "review by Grand Jury" rather than "prison time?"

fate

Or, is it possible that "accountability" means "review by Grand Jury"

At the moment, it seems that this is what accountability amounts to....or what the state wants people to accept as accountability.

A process controlled by a DA who can present whatever evidence he wants, in any way he wants. A process that is not open to public scrutiny. A process that does not reveal how the decision of the grand jury was arrived at, except as disclosed by the DA.
As the DA has a close working relationship with the police department, that offices independence and neutrality is immediately brought into question..

So if this is accountability, then the question is To whom? With the Grand Jury System certainly not the public.The public is not normally informed of anything but the verdict...An there is no recourse to the lack of an indictment.
The whole premise behind the justice system is that justice is blind. (neutral) and that justice must be seen to be done... This does not happen with Grand Juries.
Therefore the Grand Jury system has not provided accountability Fate.

This is the reason the grand Jury system has been abandoned outside the US.

rickyp wrote:fate

Or, is it possible that "accountability" means "review by Grand Jury"

At the moment, it seems that this is what accountability amounts to....or what the state wants people to accept as accountability.

A process controlled by a DA who can present whatever evidence he wants, in any way he wants. A process that is not open to public scrutiny. A process that does not reveal how the decision of the grand jury was arrived at, except as disclosed by the DA.
As the DA has a close working relationship with the police department, that offices independence and neutrality is immediately brought into question..

As usual, you're not paying attention. Even HuffPo readers know better than this. All of the Ferguson evidence was made public.

And, in Missouri, the DA is a Democrat. The governor who could have sacked him is . . . a Democrat. if you want to claim race is the issue, then . . . it's those Democrats!

So if this is accountability, then the question is To whom? With the Grand Jury System certainly not the public.The public is not normally informed of anything but the verdict...An there is no recourse to the lack of an indictment.

Sure there are other recourse: the Feds can intervene if they deem it a civil rights issue. There is also the possibility of more evidence coming to light. Our attorneys here can feel free to correct me, but I don't believe jeopardy attaches to a Grand Jury decision, so charges could be pressed still, I think.

As for NYC, people can think whatever they want--it's a free country. I just don't see the evidence of a crime (while stipulating it was not prize-winning police work). Again, if they don't like the laws, change the laws. Open up the Grand Jury system. Make it a law that all police-related deaths must go to a criminal trial. Or, get really nuts: make it legal to sell loose cigarettes.

The whole premise behind the justice system is that justice is blind. (neutral) and that justice must be seen to be done... This does not happen with Grand Juries.
Therefore the Grand Jury system has not provided accountability Fate.

"Justice must be seen to be done."

That's false*** (evidence below). I can name many times justice is done that no one sees.

If you want it that way, change the laws.

This is the reason the grand Jury system has been abandoned outside the US.

They can change the law. And, again, the GJ need not have the last say. You have no idea if an injustice has been done. You really don't. You have your opinion, but no knowledge. You are convinced the Grand Jury failed, but you have nothing but ill-informed opinion.

***Now, about your inane statement:

1. Does the public know the ins and outs of every plea-bargain? If not, according to you, it's not "justice" because it's "not seen."

2. How about when an officer decides not to make an arrest even though he/she could? That's entirely arbitrary and, according to you, it's not "justice" because it's not seen.

fate
.

You have no idea if an injustice has been done. You really don't

.
Neither do you. (Although you seem to have blind faith) .
Which is the point...
Since you refereed to Huffpost as a source for information on the Ferguson GJ, you'll know then this.about the proceeding. (Which points to the bias in the way this GJ was conducted..)

Myth: This was a normal grand jury proceeding.

Fact: This grand jury proceeding was unusual in a number of ways. Others have already discussed the abnormalities in considerable detail, but they include the decision to present the jury with all the evidence, as well as the decision to present that evidence without recommending whether the grand jury indict on particular charges. In a typical grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor would present enough evidence to establish probable cause of the crimes the grand jury was considering, and would then recommend to the jurors that they indict on particular charges.

Myth: It's normal for a defendant to testify in front of a grand jury.

Fact: It's actually rare for a defendant to testify in front of a grand jury. It's not unheard of, and the practice varies from one jurisdiction to another. But in most instances people who are known targets of a grand jury investigation don't want to risk testifying in front of a jury. Moreover, there is no absolute right for a defendant to testify in front of a jury that is investigating him. So Robert McCullough, the prosecutor, gave Darren Wilson an opportunity that McCullough was not constitutionally or statutorily required to provide.

Because of the above, many people feel the GJ in Ferguson was fixed....
had an independent prosecuter wanted to, he could have presented the GJ with just enough evidence to get a trial.
In many jurisdictions a judge would have been presented with the prosecutions case, and would not have weighed the evidence the same way as a jury.

But I agree with you. The GJ system does need to be replaced, at least when it comes to police actions that may be illegal.
As for this

1. Does the public know the ins and outs of every plea-bargain? If not, according to you, it's not "justice" because it's "not seen.

"

Innocent People Plead Guilty
This is particularly essential in our system where the underlying
premise—that innocent people do not plead guilty—
has been demonstrated to be false. Although commentators
have long argued and explained why innocents are likely to
plead guilty, the notion that an innocent person would plead
guilty to a crime he or she did not commit was apocryphal
until about 15 years ago—and even where acknowledged,
believed to be so rare as to not require a systemic look backward.
(John G. Douglass, Fatal Attraction? The Uneasy
Courtship of Brady and Plea Bargaining. 50 Emory L.J.
437 (2001).)
A range of cases of the factually innocent now provides
proof that the fundamental assumption is wrong. Of the
more than 230 DNA-based exonerations documented by
the Innocence Project and the additional 110 documented
non-DNA exonerations, 20 of those are innocent people
who pled guilty. (Samuel R. Gross, Convicting the Innocent,
Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci. (forthcoming 2008).)

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

I suppose if its shown so clearly that innocent people are being forced into plea bargains, justice isn't being done is it?

2. How about when an officer decides not to make an arrest even though he/she could? That's entirely arbitrary and, according to you, it's not "justice" because it's not seen.

You complain about arbitrary enforcement of the laws all the time. While, by Obama and Holder.
Providing law enforcement officers with the ability to make selective judgments about when and where and who they enforce laws upon is a necessary evil, i suppose. But when a law enforcement agency becomes discriminatory that's a huge problem isn't it?
Or any agency with enforcement powers... Lets sat the IRS decided to enforce taxation laws only against republican political agencies....would that be justice?

And that's the whole problem now. People of color have lost faith in the way police enact the laws. Secretive or biased GJ don't help.

rickyp wrote:fate
.

You have no idea if an injustice has been done. You really don't

.
Neither do you. (Although you seem to have blind faith) .
Which is the point...

No, wrong. In the Ferguson case, we've been given access to the evidence. I have seen no analysis to this point that would lead me to believe the officer committed a crime. That's the standard.

Since you refereed to Huffpost as a source for information on the Ferguson GJ, you'll know then this.about the proceeding. (Which points to the bias in the way this GJ was conducted..)

Myth: This was a normal grand jury proceeding.

Fact: This grand jury proceeding was unusual in a number of ways. Others have already discussed the abnormalities in considerable detail, but they include the decision to present the jury with all the evidence, as well as the decision to present that evidence without recommending whether the grand jury indict on particular charges. In a typical grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor would present enough evidence to establish probable cause of the crimes the grand jury was considering, and would then recommend to the jurors that they indict on particular charges.

Myth: It's normal for a defendant to testify in front of a grand jury.

Fact: It's actually rare for a defendant to testify in front of a grand jury. It's not unheard of, and the practice varies from one jurisdiction to another. But in most instances people who are known targets of a grand jury investigation don't want to risk testifying in front of a jury. Moreover, there is no absolute right for a defendant to testify in front of a jury that is investigating him. So Robert McCullough, the prosecutor, gave Darren Wilson an opportunity that McCullough was not constitutionally or statutorily required to provide.

Because of the above, many people feel the GJ in Ferguson was fixed....

"Fixed" would indicate the Democratic DA wanted the GJ not to indict the officer. Let's see what's the evidence . . . "many people feel." Oh, well, that's it then. Forget the evidence, hang the officer.

had an independent prosecuter wanted to, he could have presented the GJ with just enough evidence to get a trial.

Because the best way to get justice is to force an innocent man to prove his innocence--and shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend himself.

Look, "many people felt" Zimmerman got away with murder. "Many people felt" OJ Simpson got away with murder.

It's our system. If you don't like it, move to Canada.

In many jurisdictions a judge would have been presented with the prosecutions case, and would not have weighed the evidence the same way as a jury.

It happened in Missouri. If they don't like it, they can change the system.

But I agree with you. The GJ system does need to be replaced, at least when it comes to police actions that may be illegal.

I never stated that.

I would be interested in seeing a separate justice system for officers being declared "equal." Somehow, I'm dubious. "Separate but equal" has been struck down in the past--and rightly so.

I suppose if its shown so clearly that innocent people are being forced into plea bargains, justice isn't being done is it?

"Forced" into a plea bargain? Hmm. Maybe that's how it works in Canada.

Providing law enforcement officers with the ability to make selective judgments about when and where and who they enforce laws upon is a necessary evil, i suppose. But when a law enforcement agency becomes discriminatory that's a huge problem isn't it?

It would be . . . if it exists.

Or any agency with enforcement powers... Lets sat the IRS decided to enforce taxation laws only against republican political agencies....would that be justice?

Oh, that one's not over yet. There are all kinds of things coming out on that case.

But, you're all over the map.

And that's the whole problem now. People of color have lost faith in the way police enact the laws. Secretive or biased GJ don't help.

I didn't realize you were the spokesman for "people of color."

In the meantime, I don't believe the whole system should be thrown out on the basis of arguable cases in Missouri and NYC. What the Left (and the demonstrations are being organized by anarchist and communist groups) wants is to federalize the police, which is patently unconstitutional.

fate

"Fixed" would indicate the Democratic DA wanted the GJ not to indict the officer

well, he employed this key witness.... A known nut.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... -40-496236

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.

“Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.
McElroy (seen at left) waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident.

In the weeks after Brown’s shooting--but before she contacted police--McElroy used her Facebook account to comment on the case. On August 15, she “liked’ a Facebook comment reporting that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown stole cigars before the confrontation with Wilson. On August 17, a Facebook commenter wrote that Johnson and others should be arrested for inciting riots and giving false statements to police in connection with their claims that Brown had his hands up when shot by Wilson. “The report and autopsy are in so YES they were false,” McElroy wrote of the “hands-up” claims. This appears to be an odd comment from someone who claims to have been present during the shooting. In response to the posting of a news report about a rally in support of Wilson, McElroy wrote on August 17, “Prayers, support God Bless Officer Wilson.”

rickyp wrote:fate

"Fixed" would indicate the Democratic DA wanted the GJ not to indict the officer

well, he employed this key witness.... A known nut.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... -40-496236

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.

“Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.
McElroy (seen at left) waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident.

In the weeks after Brown’s shooting--but before she contacted police--McElroy used her Facebook account to comment on the case. On August 15, she “liked’ a Facebook comment reporting that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown stole cigars before the confrontation with Wilson. On August 17, a Facebook commenter wrote that Johnson and others should be arrested for inciting riots and giving false statements to police in connection with their claims that Brown had his hands up when shot by Wilson. “The report and autopsy are in so YES they were false,” McElroy wrote of the “hands-up” claims. This appears to be an odd comment from someone who claims to have been present during the shooting. In response to the posting of a news report about a rally in support of Wilson, McElroy wrote on August 17, “Prayers, support God Bless Officer Wilson.”

Oh brother. Come back when you have evidence.

The political allegiance of the DA is not actually the issue - Democrats are just as capable of being corrupted as anyone else. The question of how involved the police are in the elections of DAs is the concern.

And the fact that the DA is a Democrat doesn't lessen my suspicion that they acted in a partial way during the process.

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh brother. Come back when you have evidence.

Most of the evidence on Witness 40 comes from their own testimony to the Grand Jury, and then when The Smoking Gun researched and identified her they found a lot more. She has since confirmed to TSG that she is indeed Witness 40.

There were dodgy witnesses all over the case. Which doesn't help anyone to work out the truth, but perhaps before confusing a jury with a load of unreliable witnesses, the prosecutor could have left them out. Unless checks were not carried out that well.

Just a couple questions...

Were there dodgy witnesses on both sides of the case? Is it the public that makes up the Grand Jury? RickyP said the public was not involved, but I thought a Grand Jury was made of the public.

bbauska wrote:Just a couple questions...

Were there dodgy witnesses on both sides of the case?

Yes. And they should have been omitted if they were as unreliable.

Is it the public that makes up the Grand Jury? RickyP said the public was not involved, but I thought a Grand Jury was made of the public.

The Grand Jury in this case was made up of twelve people, chosen by a State Circuit judge from a jury list.

I don't know what criteria they are selected by, but that does raise a question as to whether they represent the public in the same way a purely random selection would.

A member of the public or 12 of them are not "the public" themselves.

bbauska

RickyP said the public was not involved, but I thought a Grand Jury was made of the public

.
I've said that the GJ proceedings were not public. We don't know exactly what went on in them....
The reason most trials are public is that the proceedings can be witnessed and reported upon. It is that transparency that creates a trust in the system. (Justice must be seen to be done.)

Closed proceedings do not.
12 people in the jury, who are restrained from reporting on what they hear, are not "the public". and their presence does not create transparency They hear what the prosecuting attorney wants them to hear. After having made the decision he wants them to make, through management of the process, they go home and must stay quiet.

Smoking Guns reporting on "Witness 40" who seems to have been key in creating doubt, indicates that the prosecuting attorney wasn't terribly concerned about her reliability. In a trial,a competent prosecutor seeking a conviction would have torn her testimony to shreds. But in this case the prosecutor used that shaky testimony, presented without cross examination, as genuine and trust worthy. Hardly an indication that he was neutral.

As this becomes widely known .... the Ferguson verdict will be further reviled.
Had the proceeding been open to the public, or been a judicial preliminary hearing of the case, there would have been a genuine trial open to the public. And if the DA tried to tank the case in public view, he would place his job and career in jeopardy. In secret, he wasn't so worried. (Though maybe he should have been.)

In both cases it at least appears the prosecutor abdicated their prosecutorial role. A prosecutor should decide whether a criminal case should be brought then they go to the grand jury and present the evidence in favor of prosecuting the case. In each case the prosecutor did not make that determination and presented evidence for and against the case, including allowing police officers the opportunity to defend themselves. This actually does reduce trust in the system, because essentially you have the prosecutor providing preferential treatment to police officers. Again, it was up to the prosecutor to decide if those cases should be brought, but once brought the cases should be properly prosecuted. If they did not want to make determination (for fear of either harming their working relationship with local police or taking the heat from the community) then they should have brought in their state attorney general to handle the case.

rickyp wrote:Smoking Guns reporting on "Witness 40" who seems to have been key in creating doubt, indicates that the prosecuting attorney wasn't terribly concerned about her reliability. In a trial,a competent prosecutor seeking a conviction would have torn her testimony to shreds. But in this case the prosecutor used that shaky testimony, presented without cross examination, as genuine and trust worthy. Hardly an indication that he was neutral.

Were there any reliable witnesses that would have led to a criminal indictment? Did the witnesses' statements contradict the physical evidence? If so, how damaged is their credibility?

As this becomes widely known .... the Ferguson verdict will be further reviled.

Because the evidence proves something to the contrary? What evidence is there for "hands up?" What evidence is there that Michael Brown was the victim of a crime and not an aggressor? Did you see the video (unrelated) of Mr. Brown cold-cocking an old man and robbing from him as he beat and taunted him? (yes, I know that's not legally "relevant," but it does give us insight into Mr. Brown's propensity for violence)

Had the proceeding been open to the public, or been a judicial preliminary hearing of the case, there would have been a genuine trial open to the public. And if the DA tried to tank the case in public view, he would place his job and career in jeopardy. In secret, he wasn't so worried. (Though maybe he should have been.)

If he only wanted to protect himself, he could have recused himself. He could have not released the evidence. Instead, he went over and above to be transparent. He was in a no-win situation.

But, again, since you know more than the Grand Jury and the DA, why don't you tell us what should have happened and on what evidence you base your conclusion. Go ahead. You claim the decision was wrong, so make your case or SHUT UP.

fate

Because the evidence proves something to the contrary?

because he was willing to introduce testimony from a wholly unreliable witness.
BTW the only eye witness testimony that corroborated the officers testimony entirely.
(Or so we're told. Because the proceedings have not been completely revealed.)

fate

If he only wanted to protect himself, he could have recused himself. He could have not released the evidence. Instead, he went over and above to be transparent. He was in a no-win situation

No win?
What does that mean? Are you saying that if the GJ had been used as it normally was, and proceeding had lead to charges he would lose? Why?