Open Season on Black Men explained

[variant]

I'm sorry you want to continue insisting that to be true, but quite simply, this is Missouri Grand Jury Procedure.The posting doesn't support what you have claimed. It talks about the hearing of testimony being longer than usual, but in cases like this the prosecutors want to make sure they get it right. This grand jury even volunteered to extend its term, which ended in September, to continue hearing the evidence so the prosecutors didn't have to start over with a new jury.

Missouri grand jury procedure is not atypical, just this one (from the link):

Is McCulloch’s decision to present all of the evidence to the grand jury controversial?
Yes.


Richard Kuhns, an emeritus professor at Washington University Law School, questioned McCulloch’s approach. “Since he presumably doesn't do this with other cases, the not-so-hidden message must be ‘don't indict.’ One more reason why McCulloch should never have been in charge of the investigation.”
Providing the grand jury with every bit of evidence is “simply a way for prosecutors to avoid responsibility for decision-making,” he said.



But David Rosen, a former federal prosecutor in police cases, disagreed. “Why wouldn’t you put in all the evidence you know of so that the jurors know what is out there?” he asked. “The biggest complaint we hear about grand juries is that it is one-sided. The prosecutor just presents his evidence. It was always my practice to let the jurors know everything about the case, good and bad. Why shouldn’t the grand jury hear evidence both ways? They are supposed to stand between the government and the citizen, so why wouldn’t we let them know all the evidence?”

It is not typical for the prosecutor to show all the evidence to the grand jury.

The mention the article gives of potential defendants not testifying is based on the fact their lawyers usually advise them not to, so the fact Wilson's attorney had no qualms about the officer testifying should tell you something.

It tells you that the county prosecutor was friendly to his case.

The release of evidence is not common, that's true, but McCullough wanted to make sure no one had any claims of manipulation of evidence, or that the process was rigged. Of course the hearing took a long time. Consider the attention this case got. Would you have respected a decision from a grand jury or a prosecutor that there was "no probable cause" to file charges or indict, if it had come down two weeks after the shooting?Or if their client is innocent.The jury had the right, and the need, to hear all the evidence. The scope of this hearing let the jury be the guide, not the prosecutor, which is the way it should have been. This jury was conscience, thorough, professional in its demeanor, and reached the correct decision, whether it is the popular one or not.

Most prosecutors can get any indictment they wish out of a grand jury, this was simply the prosecutor not wanting to get one.

I'm saying the prosecutor was uninterested in an indictment (he did not need a grand jury to indict) but instead he was using the grand jury process as cover and doing all he could to have them not indict.

 

[bhsmte]

Missouri grand jury procedure is not atypical, just this one.



It tells you that the county prosecutor was friendly to his case.



Most prosecutors can get any indictment they wish out of a grand jury, this was simply the prosecutor not wanting to get one.

I'm saying the prosecutor was uninterested in an indictment (he did not need a grand jury to indict) but instead he was using the grand jury process as cover and doing all he could to have them not indict.

What you had here, was likely a DA that didn't personally believe the evidence called for an indictment and since the case has racial overtones, he didn't want to make that call on his own and left it to the grand jury.

If this case was not public, the DA doesn't even bother with the grand jury, because the evidence was not there.

The governor could have appointed a special prosecutor if he wanted, but we saw what that did in the Zimmerman case, when the local DA refused to charge Zimmerman, because he didn't feel the evidence was there. The special prosecutor bypassed a grand jury and gave a affidavit to a judge, which was missing evidence that could have cleared Zimmerman and many legal analysts blasted her for the same. Watching the trial, showed the original prosecutor was correct, the evidence was severely lacking.

 

[Somber Warrior]

Missouri grand jury procedure is not atypical, just this one (from the link): ... It is not typical for the prosecutor to show all the evidence to the grand jury. ...

Explained in my previous post. Sorry you don't like the explanation.

It tells you that the county prosecutor was friendly to his case ...

As I said, it tells you the defense attorney was certain his client was innocent. That's not always -- in fact, not generally -- the case with most defense attorneys and their clients.

Most prosecutors can get any indictment they wish out of a grand jury, this was simply the prosecutor not wanting to get one.

It is not the job of the prosecutor to get an indictment. It is the job of the prosecutor to seek justice.

I'm saying the prosecutor was uninterested in an indictment (he did not need a grand jury to indict) ...

Which proves your premise false, because he didn't have to take the case to the grand jury. He could have just said there was no probable cause and that would have been that, except it wouldn't have been. Then all sorts of cries of injustice would have been spewed about, Governor Nixon would have reconvened the investigation and there would have been one huge political mess. Instead, we have a thorough, professional investigation that rendered justice. Some people, however, aren't interested in justice, but want a pound of flesh where none is deserved.

... but instead he was using the grand jury process as cover and doing all he could to have them not indict.

Funny. I'm sure you would have said he should have called a grand jury if he'd decided on his own there was no probable cause.

 

[variant]

What you had here, was likely a DA that didn't personally believe the evidence called for an indictment and since the case has racial overtones, he didn't want to make that call on his own and left it to the grand jury.

If this case was not public, the DA doesn't even bother with the grand jury, because the evidence was not there.

Indeed, that is exactly what I am saying, he didn't want to indict and used the grand jury as cover to do exactly that.

Had he wanted to indict he would have either done so or used the grand jury in the normal way to indict.

The governor could have appointed a special prosecutor if he wanted, but we saw what that did in the Zimmerman case, when the local DA refused to charge Zimmerman, because he didn't feel the evidence was there. The special prosecutor bypassed a grand jury and gave a affidavit to a judge, which was missing evidence that could have cleared Zimmerman and many legal analysts blasted her for the same. Watching the trial, showed the original prosecutor was correct, the evidence was severely lacking.

Well he should have appointed a better special prosecutor then.

 

[variant]

Explained in my previous post. Sorry you don't like the explanation.

It is not actually. You can claim typicality all you like this case was anything but. The prosecutor did not want an indictment here and used the grand jury for political cover.

As I said, it tells you the defense attorney was certain his client was innocent. That's not always -- in fact, not generally -- the case with most defense attorneys and their clients.

You mean he was certain he had a friendly prosecutor, which is almost never the case for defense attorneys.

It is not the job of the prosecutor to get an indictment. It is the job of the prosecutor to seek justice.Which proves your premise false, because he didn't have to take the case to the grand jury. He could have just said there was no probable cause and that would have been that, except it wouldn't have been.

He had to take the case to the grand jury so he didn't have to make the unpopular decision not to prosecute himself.

Then all sorts of cries of injustice would have been spewed about, Governor Nixon would have reconvened the investigation and there would have been one huge political mess. Instead, we have a thorough, professional investigation that rendered justice. Some people, however, aren't interested in justice, but want a pound of flesh where none is deserved.

You mean instead of deciding there was no probable cause he lead a grand jury to make the decision he wanted instead?

Funny. I'm sure you would have said he should have called a grand jury if he'd decided on his own there was no probable cause.

No, I would have called for the governor to appoint a special prosecutor.

Grand juries aren't independent enough to basically just be a trial in and of themselves like this one was propped up to be.

 

[brewmama]

It is not actually. You can claim typicality all you like this case was anything but. The prosecutor did not want an indictment here and used the grand jury for political cover.

What exactly is your complaint? Your own link states:

"But David Rosen, a former federal prosecutor in police cases, disagreed. “Why wouldn’t you put in all the evidence you know of so that the jurors know what is out there?” he asked. “The biggest complaint we hear about grand juries is that it is one-sided. The prosecutor just presents his evidence. It was always my practice to let the jurors know everything about the case, good and bad. Why shouldn’t the grand jury hear evidence both ways? They are supposed to stand between the government and the citizen, so why wouldn’t we let them know all the evidence?”

And your "expert" says: "Since he presumably doesn't do this with other cases"

That's proof of anything??

If evidence led to no indictment, then there shouldn't have been an indictment, obviously, and to say that evidence shouldn't have been shown so that there would be an indictment is just crazy.

 

[variant]

What exactly is your complaint? Your own link states:

If evidence led to no indictment, then there shouldn't have been an indictment, obviously, and to say that evidence shouldn't have been shown so that there would be an indictment is just crazy.

My complaint is that the prosecutor ran the grand jury to get the "no indictment" he wanted rather than just saying so himself.

This is NOT how the justice system works for the average person, just the average person who happens to be a member of the police whom a prosecutor wants to keep a good relationship with while deflecting political criticism.

 

[brewmama]

My complaint is that the prosecutor ran the grand jury to get the "no indictment" he wanted rather than just saying so himself.

This is NOT how the justice system works for the average person, just the average person who happens to be a member of the police whom a prosecutor wants to keep a good relationship with while deflecting political criticism.

Or maybe the "no indictment" is just the right call to make, and now more than one person has made it. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed, that is exactly what I am saying, he didn't want to indict and used the grand jury as cover to do exactly that.

Had he wanted to indict he would have either done so or used the grand jury in the normal way to indict.



Well he should have appointed a better special prosecutor then.

Let me make myself clear.

If a DA feels the evidence does not give a decent chance to convict, he will not engage a grand jury. In this case, what I am saying is; this DA didn't see the evidence for probable cause and he didn't want to be the one to make the call, so he punted to the grand jury.

Here is the deal though, nothing was stopping the 12 people on the grand jury from indicting the officer on one of the five potential charges, if they felt the evidence warranted the same, regardless of how the DA felt, who didn't even present the evidence to the grand jury. The fact they didn't even indict on manslaughter, is telling, as to what the evidence stated.

Get a better special prosecutor? Not sure what you mean. Is a prosecutor willing to see the evidence a different way automatically a better?

Angela Corey was willing to see the evidence differently than the local DA in the Zimmerman case, as it appeared, she wasn't in touch with evidential reality, but she was certainly in touch with political reality.

 

[variant]

Or maybe the "no indictment" is just the right call to make, and now more than one person has made it. I see nothing wrong with that.

It might be the right call, but shielding yourself from blame for your decision by basically telling a grand jury to make it for you is shameful.

 

[variant]

Let me make myself clear.

If a DA feels the evidence does not give a decent chance to convict, he will not engage a grand jury. In this case, what I am saying is; this DA didn't see the evidence for probable cause and he didn't want to be the one to make the call, so he punted to the grand jury.

Here is the deal though, nothing was stopping the 12 people on the grand jury from indicting the officer on one of the five potential charges, if they felt the evidence warranted the same, regardless of how the DA felt, who didn't even present the evidence to the grand jury. The fact they didn't even indict on manslaughter, is telling, as to what the evidence stated.

Nothing was stopping them except the prosecutor that basically doing everything in his power to tell them not to indict.

Give me another example where a grand jury hears a long uninterrupted self serving speech from the accused.

This was an example of the prosecutor doing everything in his power not to have to indict here, basically giving the police officer de-facto extra protections that no one else would get.

Get a better special prosecutor? Not sure what you mean. Is a prosecutor willing to see the evidence a different way automatically a better?

Angela Corey was willing to see the evidence differently than the local DA in the Zimmerman case, as it appeared, she wasn't in touch with evidential reality, but she was certainly in touch with political reality.

Wasn't in touch with the Jury that didn't convict is all really. If Zimmerman were a cop they might have decided to protect him more.

A special prosecutor doesn't have to maintain the relationship with the local police that the county prosecutor does.

A jury trial would have had a full airing of the facts in a paradoxically less friendly environment than the grand jury was.

 

[JohnLocke]

Let me see if I can synthesize this...

"A white cop shot and killed a young black man and was not punished, so then anyone can shot and kill a young black man with impunity."

I guess this presumes that all of the machinations we have in place to prevent the murder of citizens by agents of the government, laws, elections, trials etc. are all just illusions designed to prevent the public from organizing to overthrow the oppressor.

I wonder if people who believe this, also believe that in order to "be heard" the government must be persuaded and adopt their position.

 

[variant]

I guess this presumes that all of the machinations we have in place to prevent the murder of citizens by agents of the government, laws, elections, trials etc. are all just illusions designed to prevent the public from organizing to overthrow the oppressor.

The statistics on police being indicted on improper shootings suggests that police simply don't shoot that many people improperly or that the system is rigged to protect officers that do.

Why It?s Impossible to Indict a Cop | The Nation

This of course means that officers are more likely to shoot knowing they will be backed up by the system.

 

[JohnLocke]

The statistics on police being indicted on improper shootings suggests that police simply don't shoot that many people improperly or that the system is rigged to protect officers that do.

Why It?s Impossible to Indict a Cop | The Nation

This of course means that officers are more likely to shoot knowing they will be backed up by the system.

I have read your link and the link to the List of Demands contained therein.

Can you please state your argument then? I'm leery of trying to "put words in your mouth" by guessing at what you mean.

 

[variant]

I have read your link and the link to the List of Demands contained therein.

Can you please state your argument then? I'm leery of trying to "put words in your mouth" by guessing at what you mean.

That society should strive to judge police actions in the same manner as they judge everyone eases, preferably by an independent system as the current judicial system isn't cutting it.

It's something we don't do very well now, and it would go a long way to both trust between public and police, and probably lower the rate at which excessive force is employed.

 

[GarfieldJL]

It tells you that the county prosecutor was friendly to his case.

It tells me that you don't know what you're talking about.

A defense attorney would be going bananas even if the county prosecutor was friendly to his case because the grand jurors get to ask their own questions.

Unless you're suggesting that all 12 jurors were in the tank for Officer Wilson, it was not a move a defense attorney would want their client to take.

 

[variant]

It tells me that you don't know what you're talking about.

A defense attorney would be going bananas even if the county prosecutor was friendly to his case because the grand jurors get to ask their own questions.

Unless you're suggesting that all 12 jurors were in the tank for Officer Wilson, it was not a move a defense attorney would want their client to take.

I'm suggesting that a friendly prosecutor who wants the grand jury to not indict will lead the proceeding in the right direction, which is exactly what happened. The officer got to tell his side of the story relatively unquestioned, in a paradoxically friendlier environment than a trial (where he supposedly would have more witness rights).

In a trial with a real prosecutor officer Wilson would have been say, questioned why the chief of police said he hadn't stopped brown as a robbery suspect when Wilson's testimony says he had indeed put this together. A real prosecutor might question why officer Wilson felt so small and weak (a five year old compared to hulk hogan) compared to the comparatively not much larger (and unarmed) Brown. A real prosecutor would question why a police report wasn't ever filed over the incident.

You know, a prosecutor that hadn't already decided not to indict and was leading the grand jury to do his bidding. I don't expect the grand jury to just come up with the most poignant questions like a seasoned prosecutor would, but even a first year law student could have done a better job, if, the questioning was meant to get at the truth rather than get the grand jury to not indict.

 

[gnomon]

This morning's coverage included an interview with a young black man for his reaction to the events in Ferguson, to which he replied.

"Now, it really is open season on young black men."

Call me ignorant, bigoted or what have you, but I cannot figure out how he could come to that conclusion.

Can anyone help me out?

A stupid man making a stupid statement.

That's all there is to that.

There are some serious issues needing addressing in this nation. But the statement such as an "open season on black men" when the fact remains that black on black homicide far exceeds police corruption is absolutely ignorant.

 

[DaisyDay]

A stupid man making a stupid statement.

That's all there is to that.

There are some serious issues needing addressing in this nation. But the statement such as an "open season on black men" when the fact remains that black on black homicide far exceeds police corruption is absolutely ignorant.

But how would you know? What are the stats on police on black violence?

 

[JohnLocke]

A stupid man making a stupid statement.

That's all there is to that.

There are some serious issues needing addressing in this nation. But the statement such as an "open season on black men" when the fact remains that black on black homicide far exceeds police corruption is absolutely ignorant.

Unfortunately, it's not just one individual making a stupid statement. The statement has been repeated by a large number of people, just here in the metro including clergy, civil rights activists, etc.

I still think it absurd, but it is troubling how much traction and repetition it has gotten at least here in the Metro.