<p>If the prosecutor is going through all this as a dog and pony show, just to pretend to the public that something is being done, even though he fully believes the police officer is innocent, that seems like a serious waste of taxpayer money. Why should he be required to go for an indictment if he think’s the officer is not guilty? Is it the job of the prosecutor to attempt to get people indicted, if they believe they are innocent?</p>
<p>Though I’m sure there are many prosecutors that try as hard as they can for indictments and convictions, playing dirty and withholding evidence, even if they think the accused is innocent. With some people, it is more about the win, and not the truth.</p>
The short answer is “because that really isn’t his decision to make!” In our adversarial system, it is up to the judge and jury to decide guilt, based on two opposing counsels trying to advance positions of guilt and innocence. Not only did the DA rob the citizens of their right to a fair trial, but it also demonstrates an avenue for corruption in the system. The DA didn’t think there was a case… why? By what standard? Because he was a cop? Because he wanted police support for his re-election? Because he feared angering white voters?</p>
<p>The choice is not supposed to be his. If he has a case (and tons of other attorneys have said he had) then it is his duty to prosecute that case to the best of his ability. Then the choice properly devolves to the jury, after a public trial.</p>
<p>^This is exactly it. This prosecutor NEVER “thinks there is a case.” He never has in nearly 25 years in his job. Really? Not even ONCE?</p>
<p>Now imagine you were living in my community, and it was your (white, educated, talented) son who was shot to death on his own street by a cop because he had a few too many drinks and walked up the wrong porch by mistake. How would you feel then? Would you just accept the (admittedly biased) finding of the prosecutor and the grand jury led to a preordained conclusion? Somehow I think not.</p>
<p>Cops rarely get indicted even when they shoot white suspects which by the way they did last year over three times the number of times the suspects were black. I don’t have time to look it up again but’s over 3 to I whites killed by police use of lethal force. Why that would make anyone feel better I don’t really know but, you asked so there it is and I’m not aware of any of them being porch sleepers. Usually, as in this case there was something else going on.</p>
<p>“The short answer is “because that really isn’t his decision to make!” In our adversarial system, it is up to the judge and jury to decide guilt, based on two opposing counsels trying to advance positions of guilt and innocence”</p>
<p>But they make judgment calls all the time, deciding whether or not to prosecute people. They don’t automatically put people in front of a grand jury or accuse them of a crime, every single time, do they? Maybe every time a cop shoots someone, they should go in front of a grand jury. Perhaps a professional one that is well versed in the law.</p>
<p>I am quite certain that the state troopers that shot and killed the man that blasted my brother in law in the face with a shotgun, and a couple of other officers, did not go in front of a grand jury to see if they should stand trial. I suppose that since they were white officers that killed a black man, that there are some that think that they should have.</p>
There’s an Art Bell virus that a lot of bloggers tend to contract. All kinds of explanations as to ‘what’s really going on behind the scenes’… about the only one I haven’t heard is that the Trilateral commission is just the front organization for a splinter faction of Martians.</p>
<p>If it’s actionable, the feds are sure to indict any day now.</p>
<p>So why has McCulloch NEVER ONCE found occasion to try for an indictment? Does anyone really believe that all the officers in St. Louis County are beyond reproach, even in rinky-dink precincts like Ferguson??</p>
The decision whether or not to prosecute someone is supposed to based solely on the question of whether or not a reasonable case for prosecution exists. That is to say, if the evidence indicates that person A could have committed crime B, then absent a superior suspect person A should be prosecuted. That is the point of an adversarial system - just as the defense is supposed to present the best argument they have (even if ridiculous), so too is the prosecution supposed to actually try and argue that a crime has been committed. The prosecutor refusing to do their job is every bit as bad as saying a suspect is not entitled to a defense attorney.</p>
<p>
First, the suspects never go before a grand jury*!! Second, was there any question as to whether or not a crime had been committed? I do not know the circumstances of the shooting you mention, but the Wilson case is anything if unambiguous.</p>
Don’t count on it - the feds can only prosecute violations of federal law, which are different entirely and have different expectations of evidence. For example, the feds cannot challenge whether or not the shooting was homicide, manslaughter, or an act of self-defense in the line of duty - those are issues of state law, and not for the federal government to determine. They CAN prosecute for violation of civil rights, but in this kind of case it is doubtful that they can find even the minimal level of evidence it would require to indict.</p>
<p>“First, the suspects never go before a grand jury*!! Second, was there any question as to whether or not a crime had been committed? I do not know the circumstances of the shooting you mention, but the Wilson case is anything if unambiguous”</p>
<p>Whether a crime had been committed? I am most certain it is a crime to shoot police officers at close range. And I doubt that it could be considered a crime for other police officers to then shoot the attempted murderer. Even in the state of Alabama </p>
Actually, it can be, depending on the circumstances. But presuming that there weren’t any witnesses or other evidence suggesting that such circumstances existed then the level required for an indictment would clearly not have been met. Note that in the case of Wilson and Brown, this level HAD been met, and that the prosecutor’s conduct after that point that is inexcusable.</p>
Determining whether or not the officer is innocent or guilty is not the job of the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s job is to determine whether or not the evidence of crime (NOT the evidence AGAINST a crime) rises to a certain level, and if it does, to prosecute the crime. Determining guilt and innocence is the job of the jury.</p>
[quote]
They CAN prosecute for violation of civil rights
[quote]
Which would include what scenarios?</p>
<p>Not leading… just, not being a lawyer, I’m left with vague recollections of past instances where that sometimes seemed a much broader class of crime than others.</p>
The obvious one would be if they determined that there was evidence that Brown was killed because of his race, that being a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. There could be others perhaps, but that is probably where they are spending 90% of their time.</p>
<p>“Determining guilt and innocence is the job of the jury.”</p>
<p>Not the job of the Grand Jury either. Their job is strictly to determine if there is probable cause a crime was comitted. They do not even determine what the facts are. What the facts are and if the defendant is guilty or not guilty is the job of the petit jury. </p>
<p>Killed because of his race is pretty much the core of countless posts on this thread. </p>
<p>That blog post, taken at face value, looks to be an excellent place to start building that case, otherwise we’ll have to assume a lack of motivation on the part of the current Justice department and it’s leadership. Past statements suggest that’s pretty unlikely.</p>
<p>busdriver, your snarkiness is really astonishing here. A young man is dead in questionable circumstances. Please try to be logical. Just how likely is it that not a single case involving a police shooting in nearly 25 years has been worthy of a fair and open hearing in front of a jury? That’s all an indictment means, and as others have said the burden of proof has been amply satisfied. The prosecutor doesn’t have to be “psychic.” He just has to look at the pile of evidence, testimony, etc. on the table and share it with the GJ. He isn’t supposed to give the would-be defendant a one-sided, unchallenged opportunity to present his “case.” I don’t know how many times this has to be explained.</p>
<p>I read her comment as meaning emilybee is the one who is psychic if she can state with certainty what someone else was thinking. As in this statement:</p>
</p>