Ferguson Part Deux - No charges to be filed!

Parent Cafe
941

<p>sally…No, I totally get it. You made your mind up what happened on Day 1 and you refuse to recognize anything that contradicts the version you’re playing in your head. You continue to trivialize the actions of MB prior to and during the stop by Officer Wilson. You continue to spread misinformation from the initial COMPLETELY FABRICATED narrative that a select group of “eyewitnesses” propagated through the media, and you won’t be burdened by pesky little things like facts and evidence. You don’t like the outcome of the GJ, so you choose to malign the process…even though it was EXPONENTIALLY more open and complete than a normal GJ, including the public release of all the evidence. Evidence which you still apparently have not bothered to even review or consider.</p>

<p>NO ONE on this thread disputes the need for a national dialogue on the interactions between police and AA in many communities around the country, but that dialogue needs to occur between objective, reasonable people from both sides. At least in this case…you are neither.</p>

942

<p>sally you just are not getting it either. The evidence does not support your view and you can not make up for all the ills faced by AA versus the police by indicting someone that should not be indicted. You can contort the evidence all you want, blame the prosecutor, hang your hat on but you can indict a ham sandwich. The fact is the man was deemed to have acted within the law, he was not indicted, he should not have been indicted and he is not to blame for all that is wrong with your view of law enforcement.</p>

943

<p>Lot of interesting, productive people, non-“hands up, don’t shoot” people aren’t employed these days, sally, so I guess I’d be stereotyping the rest. While they might appreciate you standing up for 'em, I doubt it bothers them that much.</p>

<p>I’ll agree with that look at police/community problem, along with parental involvement being key. Maybe a turn away from the violent, anti-cop, pro-crime lyrics of today’s music of choice would make a tiny bit of difference too.</p>

944

<p>

</p>

<p>Not true. I am not “playing a version in my head.” There are gaps in the story–which in typical proceedings Darren Wilson would not have been invited to present anyway–and lapses in protocol. Darren Wilson, and the prosecutor who did not want to indict him, had months to frame the evidence the way they wanted to–and did. </p>

<p>What are you all worried about, “saving taxpayers’ dollars”? Or do you have a sneaking suspicion that a cross-examination of Darren Wilson and a balanced look at the evidence might yield a different result? </p>

<p>I have already said that I’d be happy to see him walk free if he deserves to. I just don’t think we know that yet.</p>

945

<p>Sally, even a not guilty verdict at trial is not a judicial finding of innocence. That’s why it’s “not guilty”.
This conversation is driving me slightly crazy.</p>

946

<p>

</p>

<p>Got it…not biased or prejudicial whatsoever.</p>

<p>Those who think the GJ reached the correct conclusion think so based on the EVIDENCE. Hard, scientific, forensic evidence that fully corroborates Officer Wilson’s testimony versus “gaps” in the story (the COMPLETELY FABRICATED story) that you continue to insist actually occurred…I’ll take the evidence thanks.</p>

947

<p>It’s a not uncommon view that a lot innocent people are sitting in jail, so demanding he stand trial for something a grand jury passed on, seems so decidedly odd to me. Appearances count for more than most of us ever realized.</p>

<p>The DA would have suggested a no-bill, if he’d bothered with it at all, but he didn’t have the discretion. With it being tried on the internet, with all the early disinformation, the only option he had other than pushing to indict what he evidently believed an innocent man, was taking a chance on the grand jury doing the right thing.</p>

<p>He was toast simply by having run for re-election.</p>

948

<p>

</p>

<p>Correct. But it carries far more legal weight than a grand jury proceeding.</p>

<p>Anyway, there is no reasoning with people who refuse to view this case with an open mind, and who are gullible enough to fall into the same trap that was set for the grand jury. So I am going to bow out for now. Y’all are welcome to carry on.</p>

949

<p>

</p>

<p>Sally…your post from Aug 15th. My bad…it was Day 6.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Physician…heal thyself</p>

950

<p>I had an open mind and the evidence took me to where I am now. It appears to me you are the one without the open mind.</p>

951

<p>Just a reminder that it is considered unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute someone he believes to be innocent. If a prosecutor believes someone to be innocent, he actually has an ethical obligation to try to sway the grand jury into issuing a no bill. There is no such thing as a criminal “show” trial, or trial just to let everyone have their day in court in this country.</p>

<p>So essentially the far left is complaining that the Ferguson DA was ethical. Oh, sad day!</p>

952

<p>"Just a reminder that it is considered unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute someone he believes to be innocent. If a prosecutor believes someone to be innocent, he actually has an ethical obligation to try to sway the grand jury into issuing a no bill. There is no such thing as a criminal “show” trial, or trial just to let everyone have their day in court in this country.</p>

<p>So essentially the far left is complaining that the Ferguson DA was ethical. Oh, sad day!"</p>

<p>That was something I was wondering about earlier. Does a prosecutor have to full heartedly prosecute if he or she thinks the person is innocent? I would hope not. That seems absolutely morally wrong.</p>

953

<p>Forensic “expert”, says maybe I’ll go to med school one day.
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/02/the-saga-of-shawn-parcells-the-uncredited-forensics-expert-in-the-michael-brown-case/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/02/the-saga-of-shawn-parcells-the-uncredited-forensics-expert-in-the-michael-brown-case/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

954

<p>The key word in this article is that he “assisted”. It is acceptable to have an assistant, but how much the assistant does on his own is where Dr. Baden’s professionalism is on the line. If Dr. Baden supervised the entire time, and Parcells assisted by holding a light, or a tool, or something that didn’t require a medical degree- then perhaps that would be acceptable. His training seems adequate for a job as a technical assistant.</p>

<p>However, if Baden left Parcells on his own for part or most of the time, and then just signed the document, that is troublesome.</p>

<p>It concerns me that Dr. Baden introduced Parcells and had him speak for him. Dr. Baden should have presented the results himself. By having Parcells speak for him, it raises the suspicion that if Parcells knows the details better, Brown didn’t do the work himself and simply signed off on Parcells’ work. Ultimately, it is Dr Baden who was hired as the pathologist, billed for the work, and signed the document. He’s responsible. One would think he would not put his reputation, career and license in the hands of Parcells, or leave room for speculation in a legal case. </p>

<p>It also leaves room to wonder why or how the Brown family hired Baden, how much they were aware of his practice or if they were misled in any way- which would be hurtful and unfair to them.</p>

<p>However this news may make little difference in how people feel about the case, as stated: “once the lines have been drawn, nuance is dead. You’re either all-in on all of the talking points, or you’re on the other side.”</p>

<p>“Once a story has been infected with this level of conflict, neither side is much interested in facts or truth. Pointing out that Shawn Parcells may be a fraud is just signalling that you support Darren Wilson. Mocking those who question Parcells’s credibility lets the world know that you’re with the Brown family. Unfortunately, whether or not the guy who assisted on Brown’s autopsy and has since been proffering his opinions on televisions across America actually is a fraud quickly becomes irrelevant.”</p>

<p>A young man is dead, and that is sad no matter what side anyone is on. However, the inconsistent stories that abound, and the fact that it is so hard to have an objective discussion about this is also sad, particularly since it seems impossible to know what the truth is. </p>

955

<p>The Shawn Parcells saga says more about expert shopping by defense teams than anything else and for the record this guy has been involved in over 1000 criminal cases and looked a little sleazy to anyone who was paying even a slight amount of attention. And, since no-one is really even arguing about forensic evidence I’m not sure substance-wise what difference this would make, anyway. The Parks/Crump team knew who they were hiring and they hired him precisely because he was willing to go on record with conclusions that went a little further than anything Dr. Baden was willing to articulate. But it doesn’t matter.There were 3 autopsies and they basically all say the same thing. </p>

956

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a scary statement. Any police can arrest me and put me on trial? And I got nothing to worry about since I am innocent? I didn’t know we try people to prove them innocent. That’s what they do in a police state.</p>

957

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s no secret that McCulloch didn’t want to charge Darren Wilson. He has never sought an indictment of a cop for a shooting in almost 25 years in his position. Not once. According to him, every single shooting is justified no matter what the evidence says. That is his “ethical” position.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“The Ferguson Lie | Simple Justice”>http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>McCulloch wasn’t at the scene of the crime. There is tons of conflicting evidence. Not all of it was necessarily presented to the grand jury. The entire process was controlled from the get-go to produce the exact outcome that occurred. McCulloch is not judge and jury rolled into one, which is why prosecutors generally seek indictments–so a jury can examine ALL the facts, from both sides, in the light of day. It is not his job to unilaterally determine guilt or innocence.</p>

<p>Also, Earl, there is no reason to inject politics into this discussion. The “far left”? How do you know anyone’s political leanings, and moreover how do they matter here? It astonishes me how many people on this site these days view every incident as a competition between two “sides” and align their positions accordingly rather than look at each case on its own merits.</p>

958

<p>

</p>

<p>Ok…where is it? Where is the hoard of conflicting evidence you claim exists? Where are the lawyers screaming that they have “tons of evidence” waiting to be presented. Another myth.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A jury did, and it made a determination. A determination based on facts and evidence…not emotion, supposition and pre-disposition. Trials are not held because you want them to be…they’re held when probable cause exists to bring a charge based on the evidence. It wasn’t.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow…just wow.</p>

<p>The forensic evidence…ALL OF IT…corroborates Officer Wilson’s sequence of events. Eyewitnesses…ones who haven’t been proven to be bald-faced liars by scientific evidence…supports Officer Wilson’s sequence of events. What exactly supports your version of events that you posted from the very beginning? How do you explain the DNA on the door handle, the gun, the skin and blood inside the car, no wounds to the back of MB, etc. etc.? What forensic evidence supports the sequence of events and fits the narrative you’ve been spouting since mid-August?</p>

<p>What seems more objective and reasonable to you; those who waited until the evidence was made public, ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT, and formed an opinion based on facts and evidence or those who declared it a “murder” of an “innocent” from the outset and refuse to accept the impossibility of the false narrative they bought into. Who do you think is truly the “gullible” ones here?</p>

959

<p>

</p>

<p>Until you understand that a grand jury is not the same as a trial jury, and that grand jury proceedings don’t require the same level of cross-examination and challenges to presented evidence, here is no point debating this with you. And you seem to have steadfastly refused to read anything people have posted here that casts doubt on the process.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why do you continue to insist that there is only one possible explanation for how the events unfolded? This, again, is from the PBS summary of statements to the grand jury:</p>

<p>More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)
Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.
There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.
Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.</p>

<p>It also seems necessary to point out, for the umpteenth time, that a grand jury requires 9 of 12 jurors to indict, rather than all 12 as in a criminal trial. And the composition of grand juries is often different from that of a regular trial jury. </p>

<p>

<a href=“http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq2.htm”>http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So let’s see…9 of 12 grand jurors were white…possibly retired…in a racially divided city. There was no one representing the Brown family’s interests who was able to interview prospective jurors as to their views on race, black youth, police authority or anything else. Hmmm.</p>

960

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly. Do the math…there wasn’t enough evidence to convince 9 of 12 to a lower required level (probable cause versus reasonable doubt) and yet you somehow think that 12 of 12 would’ve found differently? Even the talking heads are pretty much consistent in their opinions that there’s no way a trial would ever result in a conviction given the preponderance of evidence supporting Officer Wilson’s testimony…yet you still keep beating that drum?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know which to find more offensive…the suggested racism or the suggested agism.</p>