<p>By recuse do you mean resign because he did not oversee the GJ other prosecutors in his office did.</p>
<p>garland- I could care less about order that is not what I am basing my opinion on. I feel there was justice. Railroading Wilson to make up for the sins of the past may make the more enlightened feel good but I really doubt that was King’s objective.</p>
<p>Do you feel the white moderate that feels no matter what we need a conviction even if the GJ felt there was insufficient justification to go to trial is somehow on a higher moral ground than those of us who feel the evidence did not support an indictment.</p>
<p>He’s their boss. Just because he let them run the proceedings does not mean he had no hand in how they were conducted. </p>
<p>tom, remember that an indictment is not a conviction. It just means there is probable cause to try the case. Clearly there are doubts and inconsistencies and failures in evidence handling. Wouldn’t you be more convinced that justice was served if everything was examined in a public trial?</p>
<p>When I Googled, this is the first thing that came up. I apologize if I’m not using the correct words. The point is that from the beginning many were concerned about impartiality.</p>
<p>McCulloughs’s father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for the police. His father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect. He has in the past been accused of being lenient about police misconduct. He should have stepped down and let someone that didn’t have such obvious conflicts of interest handle the case.</p>
<p>Prosecutors are usually pretty firmly in the law enforcement camp. I don’t think he should have stepped down if he felt he was unbiased. Good for him. It’s his job and we can’t have prosecutors pushed aside every time they’re the wrong race or happen to have something in their family history somebody thinks could influence their judgment. You’re going to have defense attorneys investigating prosecutors. Also, the governor could have removed him but he disappeared until that idea blew over. Now, I do think he passed the buck to the grand jury because he wanted out of the hot seat and threw them everything but he knew all along there was no criminal case against Wilson. Probably he should have just ruled the shooting justified but maybe he wanted to get the evidence into the public realm. Not that it will change any minds but it’s all available. There wouldn’t be anything new at a trial.</p>
<p>This case doesn’t meet the missouri standards for recusal, and if officers of the court were to step aside every time someone found their appearance uncomfortable, we would be in trouble. Mr. McCullough has been reelected seven times by wide margins, so obviously the electorate has faith in him. In our system, we don’t prosecution shop and we don’t stage show trials. Our system can’t survive unless we are all willing to defend it even when we don’t agree. </p>
<p>The Brown case is tragic, but it doesn’t represent a systemic failure, and Mr. Brown was likely the catalyst to the whole mess. The only other likely outcome was that officer Wilson would have ended up dead. He would have had a funeral and his name on a wall, but he would have been forgotten quickly because his death wouldn’t have been useful to the vampires who profit from racial conflict. I also agree that there probably won’t be federal charges because there is nothing to charge.</p>
<p>The real test case is. Staten Island, where the cop was a punk and the victim was mouthy but not dangerous. </p>
<p>What line would you draw for a police officer to defend himself? Presumably, most people know that officers are armed. At. What point do you think they can defend themselves? Would running away be better?</p>
<p>@garland…I respect your opinion, but we obviously have different views of the validity of the process. I happen to think it was MUCH more transparent than the normal “ham sandwich” GJ and I happen to think it’s the way more GJ proceedings should be held. You want to believe that the members were somehow “led to the only possible outcome” when I believe they were presented with the best possible opportunity to make an informed decision. When 12 members have the opportunity to directly question any witnesses themselves if they have any concerns about inconsistencies, etc…do you really think that little of their ability to make an objective, informed decision?</p>
<p>When I look at the evidence available to them, I come to the same conclusion they did. The forensics support Officer Wilson’s version of events, and completely refute the initial narrative told to the press by the “eyewitnesses”. Forensics can sometimes be interpreted in more than one way, but they don’t lie. People do, and in this case…did. I give credence to the testimony that is supported by forensics…and have serious doubts about testimony that is physically impossible based on forensics. Call me crazy. I haven’t been “led” or “spun” by McCulloch or anybody else, and I didn’t enter the process with any pre-disposition one way or the other. If you can objectively view the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, then so be it. We would’ve had some interesting discussions if we both served on the GJ, but absent that I believe the 12 members that were there came to the correct conclusion.</p>
<p>Regarding your M.L. King quote, do you honestly think the “direct action” he was referring to included rioting, looting, burning local businesses, etc.? I certainly don’t think you support that type of lawlessness, and I think the statement made earlier upthread by another poster of “what else would you reasonably expect them to do” was pathetic. If someone wants to have intelligent discussion about body cameras or other positive procedural improvements…let’s do it. But if you’re implying that people who think the GJ reached the correct conclusion in this case have “shallow understanding” I’d have to disagree with you again. The one thing King doesn’t mention in that quote is “absolute misunderstanding from people of good will”, which can be just as frustrating and damaging to the dialogue.</p>
<p>Dr. King’s dream was for a time when people were judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. </p>
<p>It is impossible to know for certain what happened between Brown and Wilson from the myriad of narratives out there, what each was thinking or what motivated them. However, there are facts in the forensics. The most disturbing evidence to me is Brown grabbing Wilson’s gun. This inevitably leads to serious consequences. </p>
<p>Sadly, the race aspect invokes so much emotion that discussing what actions Brown might have taken in the moment which may have left him alive seems impossible, even though the wish of many people on both sides of the discussion is for young people not to die like this. </p>
<p>Dr. King was a great man who deserves to be honored but how can we give him the honor he deserves if we ignore his instructions? </p>
<p>There is DNA that likely matches Browns on the gun. One could argue how it got there, but the narrative exists that Brown grabbed the gun. This is dangerous. </p>
<p>But arguing over Brown’s actions isn’t my intent, but to discuss this case in light of prevention. Regardless of what happened exactly, there was an altercation that lead to terrible circumstances. I’d rather see it presented in a way that helps save some lives in the future if possible. </p>
<p>This is no way negates an unfairness in a system or solves larger problems, but in the heat of the moment, the goal is to have people survive. </p>
<p>Yes . . . the “narrative exists” that Brown grabbed Wilson’s gun but there are no swabs for Wilson’s gun presented here in evidence. So we have swabs from Browns shorts and t-shirt, his sandals etc, why I’m not sure, but no swabs from the weapon in question?</p>
<p>Forensics say a lot, but do not always tell the whole story. As Dr. Baden said, forensics show a point in time, not always the full trajectory. The autoppsys indicated Brown was not shot while his hands were up. Does that mean his hands were never up? No, it doesn’t. </p>
<p>Brown’s hands had gunpowder residue. That proves his hand was a certain distance to the gun when it went off the fact that the gun had his blood on it proves he touched the gun after it went off. But nothing in those facts says anything at all about who pulled the gun, if Brown first went for the gun, or if Brown tried to grab the gun only after Wilson pulled the gun on him - nothing like that. </p>
<p>I don’t think it is possible to know for certain what happened. My responses came from seeing the quotes from Dr. King, whose dream was to judge people by character.</p>
<p>The media, on the other hand, emphasizes divisions, not solutions. </p>