I'd need to read the arrest report. Just because you're marching on the courthouse in protest doesn't mean that you're not doing something else arrest-worthy. The news report said that the arrests happened "a scuffle broke out." If someone's throwing punches, then -- protestor, counterprotestor, tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, whatever -- it's the job of the police to pull them out of the crowd.
The first thing that really struck me about this whole thing is that the video was released by a propaganda firm that is presumably paid for by the police department, presumably with taxpayer dollars. (If the money is coming from somewhere else, that would be very interesting!)
The video might have been nice a month or two ago, but now seem like too little, way too late. It also seems full of lame excuses, for problems that don't seem to happen in other cases.
The big problem is that the cop has not even been indicted yet. Grand Juries are kind of a joke, and the old saying is that it is so easy to indite someone that "you could indite a ham sandwich". The fact that the cop hasn't even been charged, and is even still collecting a paycheck, is a national disgrace!
No justice, No peace!
PS The Ferguson police have proven to be shameless lairs, who are bad at writing arrest reports. I could care less what the arrest reports written by those clowns say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the record: Darren Wilson testified to the grand jury, which just doesn't happen unless there's some kind of a deal. The defendant testifying without benefit of counsel when he can't be compelled to?
The prosecutor is also apparently not asking for any particular charges, but leaving it entirely up to the grand jury.
That bit about inditing a ham sandwich, it works the other way around too.
I had not heard that he testified... that sees really strange to me.
...searching..." The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that officer Wilson talked to grand jurors for four hours."
WTF? That is really weird! I have done grand jury, and I don't think I ever saw a defendant the whole time. We also indicted many people for serious crimes with about 5 minutes deliberation. I think about 95% of cases we were presented were indicted on all counts.
This whole thing is totally odd to me. Waiting until the middle of January in order to decided if there is enough evidence to go to trial? You have a dead body and an eyewitness, that would have been decided before lunch on every grand jury I have ever heard of.
EDIT: And one more thing, if one grand jury doesn't give you the results you want, you just bring him before another grand jury.
I think I could get this guy indicted in about 10 minutes. Any decent prosecutor should be able to do it in 5.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Just for the record: Darren Wilson testified to the grand jury, which just doesn't happen unless there's some kind of a deal. The defendant testifying without benefit of counsel when he can't be compelled to?
The prosecutor is also apparently not asking for any particular charges, but leaving it entirely up to the grand jury.
That bit about inditing a ham sandwich, it works the other way around too.
I had not heard that he testified... that sees really strange to me.
...searching...
" The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that officer Wilson talked to grand jurors for four hours."
WTF? That is really weird! I have done grand jury, and I don't think I ever saw a defendant the whole time. We also indicted many people for serious crimes with about 5 minutes deliberation. I think about 95% of cases we were presented were indicted on all counts.
This whole thing is totally odd to me. Waiting until the middle of January in order to decided if there is enough evidence to go to trial? You have a dead body and an eyewitness, that would have been decided before lunch on every grand jury I have ever heard of.EDIT: And one more thing, if one grand jury doesn't give you the results you want, you just bring him before another grand jury.
I think I could get this guy indicted in about 10 minutes. Any decent prosecutor should be able to do it in 5.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
They're not looking for an indictment. It's that simple. The whole plan here is for the prosecutor to be able to come out and say "We presented all the evidence to the grand jury and they didn't think it was enough. It's not my decision."
At least that's what I think in more cynical moments.
And the longer they stall on it, the more the anger will have died down and the more other distractions there will have been. That, I think they're wrong about. I think this will blow up if there isn't an indictment. Maybe he's stalling and will push the...
The department will be disbanded and another will have to be created. Probably from the same pool of officers this one uses.
Similar thing happened to Wilson before.
|
Or...you know...because of how big of an event this has turned out to be (not saying it should be swept under a rug, just all of the other stuff surrounding it: mishandling, protests, riots, etc.), they want to be meticulous and ensure that they do everything correctly and get as close to the truth as possible. That's not something that is decided in 10 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or...you know...because of how big of an event this has turned out to be (not saying it should be swept under a rug, just all of the other stuff surrounding it: mishandling, protests, riots, etc.), they want to be meticulous and ensure that they do everything correctly and get as close to the truth as possible. That's not something that is decided in 10 minutes.
You have faith in the system that I do not.
|
|
So basically you're saying that the officer should be locked up even if the evidence indicates that he shouldn't be...because the mob is always right?
You have to have faith in the system because if no one does, then the system no longer works. It's certainly not perfect, and there are systemic issues that need to be addressed, but it's important to remember that there are two sides to every story and both have a right to be heard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically you're saying that the officer should be locked up even if the evidence indicates that he shouldn't be...because the mob is always right?
I said nothing of the sort.
You have to have faith in the system because if no one does, then the system no longer works. It's certainly not perfect, and there are systemic issues that need to be addressed, but it's important to remember that there are two sides to every story and both have a right to be heard.
Forgive me if I do not fall to my knees awash in faith in the system you openly admit is imperfect. This has been mishandled from the beginning. Ferguson PD deserves their black eye, and the legal process in the town may yet soon follow.
So basically you're saying that the officer should be locked up even if the evidence indicates that he shouldn't be...because the mob is always right?
You have to have faith in the system because if no one does, then the system no longer works. It's certainly not perfect, and there are systemic issues that need to be addressed, but it's important to remember that there are two sides to every story and both have a right to be heard.
Sorry if I am not understanding you correctly, but it sounds like you are confusing the grand jury with the criminal trial that sometimes follows.
A grand jury isn't for deciding guilt or innocence, and it is not where proof of innocence is presented. It is incredibly rare to even see the defendant, because it is basically a chance for the prosecutor to tear into the defendant with no option of defense counsel. The "system" you seem to be referencing will never be reached because right now the prosecutor seems to be actively working for the defense, so only the officers view is being presented.
A grand jury is basically a formality that only avoids trial in cases were the evidence is so lacking that there is not a reasonable chance the person may have committed the crime - a very low standard for indictment, especially when you consider that only something like 2/3's of the grand jurors have to agree. I would guess that over 90% of people brought before a grand jury are indited on all counts, and I'm willing to guess 99% of cases are voted on the day they are presented.
I don't know... maybe there is some brilliant legal maneuvering going on, but I just don't get it. It seems like a clear cut case of total BS, but I'm surprised that they would do it in such a way that everyone who has served grade jury would catch on to the scam.
Anyone out there know enough about grand juries to shine some light on this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://fox2now.com/2014/09/26/devin-james-public-relations-spokesperson-for -ferguson-fired/
"A statement from St. Louis Economic Development Partnership issued a statement Friday saying:
“We have asked Elasticity, our contracted communications firm, to release [spokesman] Devin James from his subcontractor role, due to a lack of transparency. While we admire his personal growth from difficult circumstances and commend him for his high quality work in Ferguson, it was the lack of information about his background that prompted us to make this move. Mr. James failed to inform us of his prior conviction. He also did not reveal this information to Elasticity when he was hired as a subcontractor. As of today, we are developing new vendor due diligence policies which we believe will prevent similar incidents in the future.”
According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, James was being paid $154.10 an hour.
"
New idea... Stop wasting people's tax money on propaganda. If they did their jobs right in the first place, they wouldn't have to pay to cover up their actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically you're saying that the officer should be locked up even if the evidence indicates that he shouldn't be...because the mob is always right?
You have to have faith in the system because if no one does, then the system no longer works. It's certainly not perfect, and there are systemic issues that need to be addressed, but it's important to remember that there are two sides to every story and both have a right to be heard.
If you're unfamiliar with Robert McCulloch (the district attorney in charge of all of this), here's an example.
A man who got lost on his way to work pulled over to look at a map. A police officer ran the plate and saw that he had the same name as someone who had a warrant for his arrest (different middle names though). The police officer arrested him.
While in custody, having been searched and placed in a cell, the cameras viewing that cell were disabled. During that time, 4 police officers entered the cell, held him down and beat him. Oh, they also handcuffed him during the beating too.
Since the man wasn't actually wanted for any sort of crime, the officers decided to charge him with destruction of government property, he got blood on their uniforms. Four counts, one for each set of uniforms.
Later, the man sued the officers for damages, since he was wrongfully detained and beaten. On the witness stand the officer who wrote the complaint admitted that he HAD NO BLOOD on his uniform. He was asked if he submitted the report, he said yes. I was asked a second time if his answer previously about the blood was correct and he affirmed it.
Robert McCulloch, after an officer admitted to lying in an official police report on the stand, dropped 2 of the 4 charges.
McCulloch has NEVER charged a police officer with any sort of wrongdoing when they have killed black men and he's been the DA since 1991 (there have been multiple shootings, a couple under questionable circumstances). Prosecutors have a heavy hand in dealing with grand juries, that's basically who they receive all of their instructions and information from.
Yes, prosecutors work with police and need a good working relationship, but at the same time if the cops do something wrong, he needs to go after them just as hard, not protect them and automatically take their side.
To denigrate the men and women of the county police department is shameful
That was his opinion during the worst of the protests in Ferguson. He though the police department was handling everything fine.
Also, something that's bugging me....
indite = archaic word for writing or composing words
indict = to charge with a crime
Also, something that's bugging me....
indite = archaic word for writing or composing words
indict = to charge with a crime
Opps, thanks Irontruth.
That should also be oops, not opps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That should also be oops, not opps.
EDIT: Damn, Naughty by Nature! They destroyed my young mind!
Yeah, you know me...
It's funny though, in his last election in Ferguson, McCulloch received 9749 votes of the 11250 cast. Overall he had nearly 300000 of the 380000 votes cast in St. Louis County.
Why do the people keep voting for him?
It's funny though, in his last election in Ferguson, McCulloch received 9749 votes of the 11250 cast. Overall he had nearly 300000 of the 380000 votes cast in St. Louis County.
Why do the people keep voting for him?
He ran unopposedIt's funny though, in his last election in Ferguson, McCulloch received 9749 votes of the 11250 cast. Overall he had nearly 300000 of the 380000 votes cast in St. Louis County.
Why do the people keep voting for him?
So? Just because he's the only one to vote for, doesn't mean that you have to vote for him. Last election I didn't like anyone running for President, so I voted for Kevin the Lost Bunny of the Apocalypse. (Yes I know that vote doesn't count, but it sends a small message.) I've left other races empty because I didn't like any of the candidates. If the people of St. Louis County want to send a message, don't vote for him! If instead of getting 87% of the Ferguson vote, he got 5% maybe someone would notice, even if the other 95% were null votes.
IIRC, voter turn out was something like 12%?
Most Ferguson residents didn't vote for him, Vod.
IIRC, voter turn out was something like 12%?
Most Ferguson residents didn't vote for him, Vod.
No the turnout was over 50%, and yes less than half the registered voters voted for him, but that was still over 9000 people that did vote for him, and almost 300000 in St. Louis County.
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 23) . . . . . 23 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 21,535
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 11,250
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 52.24%
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
(Vote for ) 1
(WITH 23 OF 23 COUNTED)
ROBERT P. McCULLOCH (DEM) . . . . . 9,749 99.12%
NO CANDIDATE FILED . . . . . . . 0
INVALID WRITE-IN . . . . . . . . 87 .88%
So only 87 bothered to write in a name, and a total of 1501 didn't vote for him. that is only 13% of those voting.
Township results looking through those, most of the Democrat heavy areas voted about the same as Ferguson. Most of the Republican heavy areas voted at about 67% (rough estimates) for McCulloch. I would blame that on a straight party vote, but Missouri no longer allows that. Every one of those 9,749 votes were marked by a voter.
No the turnout was over 50%,IIRC, voter turn out was something like 12%?
Most Ferguson residents didn't vote for him, Vod.
Woopsie. I guess it was kinda dumb to assume he was re-elected last year without doing any google searching.
For example, BDTB, Missouri got rid of straight-ticket voting in 2006.
I'm not saying he's popular. What I am saying is that the people that are complaining about him, have been voting (knowingly or unknowingly) for him for many years. They have what they deserve. Perhaps, just perhaps, the people in St. Louis County won't keep voting for him this fall. I realize that he is running unopposed again, I don't understand that, but maybe more will leave that blank or maybe get a real write in candidate.
Comrade Anklebiter, St. Louis County has a nice election results page.
Thejeff it isn't racism that keeps getting him elected, that is pure party politics. He gets most of his votes from Democrats, he gets a lot from Republicans too, but he has been running unopposed.
He on the other hand is likely as racist as they come. His father was a cop that was killed by an African-American man, he has three or four other relatives that were St. Louis cops, and his mom worked as a dispatcher. In a previous police shooting of two unarmed African-American men, he presented testimony from three officers that was contradicted by the other ten officers present.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wondered what Ferguson looked like through the prism of The New Jim Crow and started cursorily googling, but I didn't get very far before I realized that I have to go to work. :(
Bookmarking for later:
How Restrictive Voting Laws Block Ferguson’s Citizens From Having Their Fair Say
"Justice Brennan/Take out some insurance on me, ooh baby"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Former prosecutor describes grand juries.
Basically, there are 2 types of grand juries. Fergie described one kind. The other kind is what is being used here.
|
It's funny though, in his last election in Ferguson, McCulloch received 9749 votes of the 11250 cast. Overall he had nearly 300000 of the 380000 votes cast in St. Louis County.
Why do the people keep voting for him?
Given the apparent corruption in that county, I'm surprised he wasn't elected with 380,000 of the 300,000 votes cast.
IIRC, voter turn out was something like 12%?
Most Ferguson residents didn't vote for him, Vod.
No the turnout was over 50%, and yes less than half the registered voters voted for him, but that was still over 9000 people that did vote for him, and almost 300000 in St. Louis County.
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 23) . . . . . 23 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 21,535
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 11,250
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 52.24%PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
(Vote for ) 1
(WITH 23 OF 23 COUNTED)
ROBERT P. McCULLOCH (DEM) . . . . . 9,749 99.12%
NO CANDIDATE FILED . . . . . . . 0
INVALID WRITE-IN . . . . . . . . 87 .88%So only 87 bothered to write in a name, and a total of 1501 didn't vote for him. that is only 13% of those voting.
Township results looking through those, most of the Democrat heavy areas voted about the same as Ferguson. Most of the Republican heavy areas voted at about 67% (rough estimates) for McCulloch. I would blame that on a straight party vote, but Missouri no longer allows that. Every one of those 9,749 votes were marked by a voter.
What is your point?
That he must be okay because people voted for him?
Bashar al-Assad got 88% of the vote with 73% turnout, he must be the best president ever!
That's a ridiculous argument. Instead, why not dig up an actual piece of information that shows he's a good DA. I dare you to find evidence that McCulloch doesn't automatically side with the police against minorities, even when the police are obviously abusing their power. (see bloody uniform story above)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Musical Interlude Included"Justice Brennan/Take out some insurance on me, ooh baby"
Wugazi is an album worth of mashups of Wu-Tang Clan and Fugazi. It's possibly the most amazing thing ever (okay, not really, but I do like it a lot).
IIRC, voter turn out was something like 12%?
Most Ferguson residents didn't vote for him, Vod.
No the turnout was over 50%, and yes less than half the registered voters voted for him, but that was still over 9000 people that did vote for him, and almost 300000 in St. Louis County.
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 23) . . . . . 23 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 21,535
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 11,250
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 52.24%PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
(Vote for ) 1
(WITH 23 OF 23 COUNTED)
ROBERT P. McCULLOCH (DEM) . . . . . 9,749 99.12%
NO CANDIDATE FILED . . . . . . . 0
INVALID WRITE-IN . . . . . . . . 87 .88%So only 87 bothered to write in a name, and a total of 1501 didn't vote for him. that is only 13% of those voting.
Township results looking through those, most of the Democrat heavy areas voted about the same as Ferguson. Most of the Republican heavy areas voted at about 67% (rough estimates) for McCulloch. I would blame that on a straight party vote, but Missouri no longer allows that. Every one of those 9,749 votes were marked by a voter.
What is your point?
That he must be okay because people voted for him?
That's a ridiculous argument. Instead, why not dig up an actual piece of information that shows he's a good DA. I dare you to find evidence that McCulloch doesn't automatically side with the police against minorities, even when the police are obviously abusing their power. (see bloody uniform story above)
No, I believe he's a corrupt SOB, that needs to be stripped of his office, and probably thrown on jail. My point is that despite all the stuff he's done, people continue to vote for him. I wouldn't be surprised if this November he still get 66% of the votes cast in Ferguson.
I wondered what Ferguson looked like through the prism of The New Jim Crow and started cursorily googling, but I didn't get very far before I realized that I have to go to work. :(
Bookmarking for later:
How Restrictive Voting Laws Block Ferguson’s Citizens From Having Their Fair Say
"Justice Brennan/Take out some insurance on me, ooh baby"
I agree with a lot of that of that article, the second to last paragraph though. You cannot make people care. And comparing the Obama re-election year with the municipal election turnout? That's a joke. How comparing the 2004 turnouts, or even the 2010 turnouts.
I wondered what Ferguson looked like through the prism of The New Jim Crow and started cursorily googling, but I didn't get very far before I realized that I have to go to work. :(
Bookmarking for later:
How Restrictive Voting Laws Block Ferguson’s Citizens From Having Their Fair Say
"Justice Brennan/Take out some insurance on me, ooh baby"
I agree with a lot of that of that article, the second to last paragraph though. You cannot make people care. And comparing the Obama re-election year with the municipal election turnout? That's a joke. How comparing the 2004 turnouts, or even the 2010 turnouts.
The link in that paragraph? The only comparison in the end of the first article is 6% black to 17% white.
Comparing turnout in the municipal elections to presidential year elections is the whole point of it though. That the municipal elections are set in the off, off year, which reduces turnout and thus makes the local government less responsive to the people.
The link was comparing it to an election with an artificially higher African-American voter turnout. That is why I suggested comparing it to 2004.
But still my point is that you can't make the voters care. People b#+!# and complain, but if they won't get out and vote, do they really care? Or do they only care when the cameras are on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a lot of that of that article, the second to last paragraph though. You cannot make people care. And comparing the Obama re-election year with the municipal election turnout? That's a joke. How comparing the 2004 turnouts, or even the 2010 turnouts.
I, of course, think voting is for ninnies. I was just wondering how many disenfranchised felons there are in Ferguson.