<p>They should have had a trial. There are too many abnormalities about the GJ proceedings. He would have been acquitted because of reasonable doubt, probably. But circumventing the legal system by allowing him to testify at the GJ proceedings was really arrogant under the circumstances and shows a total disregard for the life of this young man, adolescent shoplifter or not. </p>
<p>The blinding contempt continues. Some of the less than probing comments here are really discouraging.</p>
<p>The federal investigation can STILL result in a trial, so it isn’t over. There can also be a civil trial if the parents choose to bring one.</p>
<p>It’s my opinion that a civil trial by Brown’s parents will be fruitless, given the Grand Jury decision (but our lawyers here on CC will comment more accurately than I). If Wilson’s account is true and complete, I don’t see a foundation for a wrongful death lawsuit. My guess is that the feds will similarly find no substantial foundation for prosecution, based on what we “know” at present.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, there was no circumventing of the legal process. The accused has always been allowed to testify before a grand jury. It is the defense that generally doesn’t permit that, not the process. In fact, the appearance of the accused was reported as a trend ten years ago by the New York Times.</p>
<p>Okay. </p>
<p>“I also think it would have better for a) the officer, b) the police force, c) the prosecution and d) every activist of every stripe, white and black and so on, to have gone through the trial and found the officer not guilty. Why?”</p>
<p>The same riots and looting would have occurred. Who are we kidding here?</p>
<p>Wow. According to the evidence presented to the grand jury, the police didn’t measure the crime scene. We’ve speculated here about how far Brown was from the car. Guess we’ll never know, because the police investigator didn’t measure it.</p>
<p>And after the shooting Wilson left the scene, went back to the station house, washed the blood off his hands and put his gun in an evidence bag. Hmm, is that the procedure now for shootings-- the shooter handles the evidence himself?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html</a></p>
<p>Here is an article. </p>
<p><a href=“New Trend Before Grand Juries: Meet the Accused - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/nyregion/new-trend-before-grand-juries-meet-the-accused.html</a></p>
<p>More on Ryan Moats. I had forgotten that the officer actually drew his gun. I think we all know that cops as well as gun enthusiasts are taught never to draw their weapons unless they intend to use them. Would the officer had brandished his gun had Moats been white? We don’t know but we do know that the cop later admitted to using very poor judgment in the situation.</p>
<p><a href=“Police officer sorry after detaining NFL player at hospital - USATODAY.com”>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/texans/2009-03-27-moats-apology_N.htm</a></p>
<p>The INDEPENDENT federal investigation is supposed to be INDEPENDENT. It’s not up to each of us to second guess what the INDEPENDENT investigation will find. If there is no basis for a indictment and trial, there is none and it will be a decision made by an INDEPENDENT national organization, not the local one that some have complained of. Whether or not a civil trial will be brought is really up to the family and whatever attorney they can find who is willing to bring the action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Michael Brown case shares a lot of similarities to the Dillon Taylor case, where a young white kid was killed by a cop, only I think he did a lot less.
<a href=“http://thefreethoughtproject.com/body-cam-shows-unarmed-dillon-taylor-shot-da-rules-justified/”>http://thefreethoughtproject.com/body-cam-shows-unarmed-dillon-taylor-shot-da-rules-justified/</a></p>
<p>In both cases, the kids had been in some trouble with the law, were intoxicated at some level, and did not comply with police requests. A petty theft and shoving of the storekeeper does not deserve execution, but it’s also more likely that a person who would do that would not act appropriately in the face of police requests. Also, an intoxicated person would be less likely to respond to commands quickly. So does failing a police request in itself deserve “execution” as you call it? No, but police typically ask you to do something in order to increase their own safety, whether that means to get your hands out of your pocket, to stop walking or running toward them, or whatever. </p>
<p>The difference here is that Michael Brown actually assaulted the cop, so he established himself as potentially dangerous right there. I don’t think even Michael Brown’s friends dispute that. If you don’t believe that most of the witnesses corroborated the officer’s story, then at worst there is dispute about what happened after that. You’re living in a fantasyland if you think a white person can grab a cops gun and then bumrush him and end up alive. If you try to grab an officer’s gun and don’t do anything else, you should consider yourself lucky if you don’t get killed. </p>
<p>In the scheme of things, peace would have been preserved had the officer reacted as passively as the store owner. So what if Brown shoved the police officer back in his car. He should have just drove away then. But that’s not police protocol, nor should it be.</p>
<p>By the way, juvenile records are sealed so I don’t see how anyone has knowledge of Michael Brown’s record either way. He had been 18 for 3 months, so his known record or lack of it would be for that 3 month time period.</p>
<p>I’ll add that I think it is really unfortunate that all these activists have hitched their cause to this guy. As far as I can tell, this came to be considered as a travesty of justice because the story that emerged after percolating through the community was that Michael Brown was some random kid minding his own business who just got gunned down by the police even though he had his hands up. After initial discovery that the case was a lot more complicated, these activists like Sharpton and others should have found another case to advocate for.</p>
<p>Surely this is not the most egregious case of police using excessive force, right?</p>
<p>I smell a cover up. McCulloch should be forced to step down. Based on Scalia’s opinion, Wilson should never have gone before the grand jury.
<a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/”>http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/</a></p>
<p>There needs to be a do over since it would not be double jeopardy.</p>
<p>Several posters have commented that Some here misunderstand the grand jury process, and I want to repeat that. </p>
<p>Grand jurors are not tasked with looking at the evidence. They’re tasked with listening to the prosecutor’s case against a potential defendant, and seeing if there is a case worth bringing for a jury to decide facts and credibility. Grand jurors are NOT tryers of fact. Their job is not to determine if one side or the other is credible. Our master of jurors (remember, there is no judge there to monitor anything) told us we were to act only on the presumption that the facts presented by the prosecution were true; and were they sufficient for charges to be brought. </p>
<p>The handling of this was so far from the norm it lacks credibility. A grand jury is not supposed to be a shadow trial. It is totally different in purpose and process from a jury trial. </p>
<p>For those of you sure that the process was fine and the grand jury was right not to find Wilson chargeable, think of it this way: Let’s say the politician you most dislike and distrust is involved in a situation. A grand jury is convened. The prosecutor, who is a prominent supporter of the politician, deviates from the norm in every conceivable way, and constantly leaks rumors that support the politician you don’t trust. The prosecutor is supposed to represent the victim, but in fact presents the politician’s case completely, with no cross examination to challenge any evidence that helps the politician. No one know what the prosecutor says to the jurors because there is no judge and no lawyer for the victim, and it’s illegal for the jurors to reveal anything. The politician is not indicted. Are you confident of a just outcome, or do you think the fix was in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point of a trial is not to “prevent riots and looting.” The point of the trial is to get justice for the victim and give the accused a fair hearing.</p>
<p>Hayden, it seems to me that the grand jurors did presume the facts presented by the prosecution were true and still didn’t support an indictment. Maybe those serious, committed people just didn’t believe that the evidence pointed to a crime by officer Wilson.</p>
<p>Additionally, it seems conveniently forgotten that there is an ongoing federal investigation that could bring charges. That investigation isn’t some second-rate alternative, it is an appropriate venue for that investigation and possible prosecution. </p>
<p>As I have said, my immediate community is awaiting a grand jury decision. What I wonder, in light of what is happening here, is what is the backstory in ferguson. There have been some incendiary statements made here by members of the grievance industrial complex which are unquestionably false. Those statements have ben ignored by the community, but have been accepted without question by the media and some other people who have a vested interest in stirring the pot. I wonder how much of that is going in ferguson. It shouldn’t be forgotten that there are people who benefit from unrest and dissension.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some have an abiding need to preserve the facade of police officers, especially White police officers always being the good guys and telling the truth and regarding the opposite number as “must have done something to deserve it” even when the only definitive word is from the very cop whose very interest it is to maintain that haloistic sometimes fantasy-oriented image. </p>
<p>It also seems some commenters would be happy living under an authoritarian/totalitarian regime considering his remarks about “not provoking” or otherwise being obsequious to LEO. I am saddened to see this attitude from folks whose society was founded on defying tyrannical authority from the British redcoats onwards…</p>
<p>I think questions about the grand jury are legitimate (although I’m not a good judge on this since I’m not familiar with the law.) However, given the evidence that has come out, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person could find Wilson guilty. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>xiggi, you are smarter than this. Why would you put such blind faith in, well, a blind process in which key pieces of evidence were left out and protocol went out the window in order to give the accused the chance to tell his story? You expect transparency and good methodology in college-related “findings.” Why not here?</p>