<p>Preliminary hearing? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The history and perception of bias also come from his prosecution of prior cases like here:</p>
<p><a href=“20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting”>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/sign-petitions-seeking-special-prosecutor-in-michael-brown-shooting/article_d0cc6e7f-8b32-5153-8ab4-86ebdc4659ca.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the article also discusses his involvement in a case known in that area as “Kinkogate”. </p>
<p>I don’t know about some posters on this thread, but this history shows McCulloch ability to be a fair prosecutor is dubious at best and as such, he should have recused himself from this case rather than insist on being involved in this case. </p>
<p>Yes. A hearing in open court where the prosecutor presents a case for indictment. Three advantages over a grand jury: 1. It is public. 2. The defense has an opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s evidence. 3. It is decided by a judge, not a group of ordinary citizens who in this case were subjected to a data dump, and given no direction at all.</p>
<p>Of course, the reason McCulloch didn’t go this route is that he wouldn’t have controlled the outcome. It may well have resulted in Wilson’s indictment, which made it a non-starter.</p>
<p>A preliminary hearing follows an arrest. There was no arrest. Also, how often does a preliminary hearing result in anything but proceeding to trial? So, you’re saying they wanted him arrested for murder. They did. But, there was no basis for such a thing. Thousands of pages have been released. Evidence is irrelevant in this case.</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>There’s a serious question as to whether McCulloch, the prosecutor involved in the grand jury proceedings actually wanted an indictment considering his past history of prosecuting cases where he showed bias in favor of law enforcement.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, some on this thread are doing their pointed best to ignore this crucial piece of the sordid puzzle. </p>
<p>A puzzle which would have been less sordid if McCulloch did the right thing and recused himself in the first place due to documented history of his pro-law enforcement bias and dubious prosecution of cases involving LEO. </p>
<p>“Mr. Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, and stepfather, Louis Head, stood with protesters outside the barricaded Ferguson police station as Mr. McCulloch made the decision public. As Ms. McSpadden cried, Mr. Head turned and yelled, with an expletive injected, “Burn this down!””</p>
<p>While I understand his anger. This was the wrong thing to say.</p>
<p><a href=“Security in Ferguson Is Tightened After Night of Unrest - The New York Times”>Security in Ferguson Is Tightened After Night of Unrest - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, he should have been arrested. Then a preliminary hearing. If there wasn’t enough evidence to indict, he would have gone free. If there was, he would have gone to trial. If he’s as innocent as some seem to believe, he would have been acquitted. Right? </p>
<p>Okay, I don’t really see the difference.That would delay the riots, nothing more.</p>
<p>There is a HUGE difference. A trial would happen out in the open and everyone could hear the same evidence. There were numerous unusual circumstances that took place in the grand jury (especially having Officer Wilson testify on his own behalf). The prosecutor has his perceived biases. A trial would allow the public to be satisfied that all the evidence was brought to the jury. We have no way of knowing that in this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And being found by local reporters to have acted dubiously in at least 2 prior cases he prosecuted. </p>
<p>How are these violent protests going to help the businesses that are torched and have their property destroyed? How will they get business owners to go back to rebuild in Furgeson and other places? </p>
<p>Wolverine, you may want to be a little more sure of your brushes before you paint them so broadly. I never had an opinion about the guilt of the couple allegedly having sex in the car. Posters may comment on generalities of an environment without giving an opinion about the specifics of a case. I speculate about the Brown case because of what we do know, such as a Wilson being unique in not having to write a report of the shooting, the history of that department and all the other cases we see constantly. The important part of all of these cases is the pattern. </p>
<p>But I stand by my statement about lenses. It’s like the famous All in the Family episode where the repairman came in to work on the refrigerator. They showed the view that each family member had of what happened, then they showed what actually happened. None of them was lying, but they viewed the repairman through a tinted lens. </p>
<p>re MichiganGeorgia’s link -#145 The group pix of people protesting all holding professional signs that were obviously made by the same company is quite disturbing. It makes this seem like less of a “people of the community expressing their personal concern/outrage” versus “professional organizers taking advantage of raw emotions”</p>
<p>The justification of the lawlessness and looting and arson is “insurance covers it and they will rebuild,” is not a welcoming attitude for businesses that may decide it’s too volitile a place to do business in the future and choose to move elsewhere. Also, many businesses interviewed during prior violence indicated they had no idea whether their insurance WOULD provide ANY coverage for the violence, looting and arson. There are often a lot of exclusions in coverage, as well as deductibles. The personal fears of the shopkeepers could cause them to decide to move elsewhere as well. It sounds like there may be future actions that could be taken against the officer and entire police department. If folks aren’t happy with how that goes, will violence again erupt?</p>
<p>They’re wearing more gear than I had on when I was on mission in Afghanistan, wow…there’s much to be said about the overabundance of military gear Cops have access to but don’t really know how to use properly. Please tell me that’s not Ferguson PD riding around in an MRAP?</p>
<p>St Louis County and the National Guard were primarily handling riot control last night. Although no-one seemed to be doing much but protecting firefighters for a short time until everything burnt to the ground anyway.</p>
<p>Hayden…I made no comment on your particular view of the case, only on your comment that you think the police view black males through a “lens”. My point was that many of the posters on this thread view the police through the same type of lens whenever a black male is involved, without any consideration to the facts of the case. If you thought I was implying anything about your opinion on this case, I apologize for the confusion. I absolutely agree with you that there are lenses (note the plural) in this country, and ALL of them need to be done away with.</p>
<p>i found this article in the Post to be particularly insightful;
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-decision-and-its-aftermath-more-a-media-event-than-organic-moment/2014/11/25/b506ff72-7256-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-decision-and-its-aftermath-more-a-media-event-than-organic-moment/2014/11/25/b506ff72-7256-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html</a></p>
<p>“Thanks to a relentlessly forward-skewed news media — “What will happen next?” was the topic of nearly every cable news discussion — Monday night’s violence became on-demand programming for a nation that flits from one blockbuster event to the next.”</p>
<p>Apology accepted!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sally is correct, @marie1234; if the process had been the tiniest bit transparent. it would be easier for people to accept the result. It is harder to accept things that are done in deep dark secrecy, especially if they’re not done in the usual way. In some important respects, this grand jury proceeding was not conducted as it normally is. Process matters.</p>
<p>As far as delaying the unrest – you’re assuming that a preliminary hearing would not have resulted in an indictment. I don’t think we can make that assumption at all. Obviously McCulloch was afraid of that outcome; that’s why he went with the grand jury. Prosecutors have tremendous influence in that venue, not as much in a courtroom.</p>
<p>There’s another huge difference between a grand jury and a preliminary hearing. In a hearing, both sides are able to present a case; in the grand jury, only the prosecutor does. In a hearing, the defense can rebut or explain incriminating evidence presented by the prosecutor. A grand jury only hears one side of the case. Just about any argument can be made to sound reasonable if it can’t be challenged. That’s why it’s so very easy for prosecutors to get indictments from grand juries. It’s also why guilt isn’t determined at the grand jury, but at trial where the defense can present a vigorous case.</p>
<p>Of course, a hearing would have put McCulloch in an extremely awkward position since in this case, he sees himself in the role of the defense attorney. </p>