Let's review Ferguson - objectively

[mirage62 0]

1. I was wrong. I stated several times that the police officer would be convicted by the press. In fact he was - but in the end he wasn't.

2. While many people think the D.A. handled this wrong, it appears that there was a real effort to get the facts out.

3. The governor blew it big time.

4. It appears that M.B. was a real sure enough thug.

5. Science (like the posters here that always use "I fucking love science) seems to have proven that the office was attacked, and that he shot in defense.

6. Ferguson was damaged by a LOT of people that didn't care about M.B. and the national press didn't cover that aspect well.

So what say you? Did the system work, or did the D.W. just get off because he is white and M.B. was black?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[BillyVance 34]

I'd say the system worked. Lots of people flubbed their jobs in the process, but the justice system did its job in the end.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[DanG 1]

Don't forget:

7. The authorities did a terrible job responding to the initial protests. A little honesty and cooperation go a long way.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

2. While many people think the D.A. handled this wrong, it appears that there was a real effort to get the facts out.

Ha. If the DA had no compunction about getting all the facts out, he wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail in court to preserve the gag order preventing grand jurors from publicly speaking about the proceedings. Oh, BTW, the Staten Island DA has followed this lead, and is also fighting to prevent his grand jurors from speaking publicly, either.

Fish generally start to stink at the head.

[xsniper 1]

BillyVance

I'd say the system worked. Lots of people flubbed their jobs in the process, but the justice system did its job in the end.

+1 I really think this is the case.

[mirage62 0]

Andy, basically are you saying that the facts don't speak well enough for the outcome or do you think that somehow the grand jury got fooled and if ______ had happen the D.W. would have gone to trail and would have been found guilty?

Are you basically of the mind set that no matter what this should have gone to trail?

To me....it appears that this was a very justifiable shooting sad as it might be.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Andy9o8 2]

mirage62

Andy, basically are you saying that the facts don't speak well enough for the outcome or do you think that somehow the grand jury got fooled and if ______ had happen the D.W. would have gone to trail and would have been found guilty?

Are you basically of the mind set that no matter what this should have gone to trail?

To me....it appears that this was a very justifiable shooting sad as it might be.

I'm saying let the grand jurors speak publicly if they so choose.
The light of day is the best disinfectant. Let all the truth come out, and let the chips fall where they may.
There's a basic rule of courtroom evidence that if you conceal material facts (or evidence, etc.), that concealment creates a presumption that the facts would be detrimental to you were they to come to light. So here: if the DA is so hot on keeping that gag order in place and the grand jurors muzzled, then that makes me strongly suspect that he fears what would come out. Doesn't seem quite right in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law, does it?

[mirage62 0]

Andy, your a lawyer - right?

Are grand juries in that state normally gaged? If so why change the normal procedure for this case.

Serious question, I don't know.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Andy9o8 2]

mirage62

Andy, your a lawyer - right?

Are grand juries in that state normally gaged? If so why change the normal procedure for this case.

Serious question, I don't know.

Gag orders on grand juries are common, but they're also very controversial. I've always been very leery of grand juries generally, because they are subject to being abused by prosecutors, who can force people to testify (unless they plead the 5th) without the aid of their attorney in the room with them. Cops and prosecutors generally like gag orders, because it enables them to use grand juries as "star chambers" to empower themselves, but without scrutiny. Another segment of the profession (including me) opposes gags on grand juries once their job is done, because dissolving the gag order acts as a counterbalance to prosecutor abuse.

In a nutshell, gag orders on grand juries are rationalized to preserve the integrity of the investigation the GJ is conducting. But once the investigation is over, that "justification" usually ceases.

Thus: The Ferguson and Staten Island GJs' investigations are long over. The gag orders should be lifted, and the individual jurors should be permitted to speak publicly should they wish to do so.

[mirage62 0]

Thanks. Just so I am clear - it is the norm for gag orders to be lifted? Or are you saying that in this case because you feel something isn't cool that the gag order should be lifted.

If the norm is for it to be lifted, than I fully agree. If the norm in Ferguson is that the gag order stays in place than I can't see the rationalization to change it for this case.

Thanks again

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[normiss 798]

Personally I think this case and many others of note lately that are similar in circumstances are EXACTLY the type of cases that every bit of evidence should be made fully public.
It's easy for a prosecutor to get exactly what they want from grand juries, and the trust and confidence in cops as well as the justice system as a whole is in serious doubt these days.
Transparency across the board.

[Andy9o8 2]

mirage62

Thanks. Just so I am clear - it is the norm for gag orders to be lifted? Or are you saying that in this case because you feel something isn't cool that the gag order should be lifted.

If the norm is for it to be lifted, than I fully agree. If the norm in Ferguson is that the gag order stays in place than I can't see the rationalization to change it for this case.

Thanks again

Gag orders generally aren't lifted for the simple reason that nobody thinks to request it. 99% of GJ investigations are droll matters outside the public eye, so once the GJ's job is done, they just get on with their lives and that's that. That's the "norm". But in the Ferguson case one or more of the jurors wants to speak publicly and has requested to be allowed to do so. And, of course, there's the public interest in pulling back the curtain of the Star Chamber. So in this case, the "norm" is not very persuasive.

[Anvilbrother 0]

If they lift the gag all your gonna get is the ones who voted no saying the process was fair and just, and the ones that voted yes would be screaming racism, corruption, bias, etc. They are under no law to tell the truth at that point, you open the door to a few trying to make money off of being in the media and all your gonna do is start another riot.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 2]

[ quote "Anvilbrother"]If they lift the gag all your gonna get is the ones who voted no saying the process was fair and just, and the ones that voted yes would be screaming racism, corruption, bias, etc. They are under no law to tell the truth at that point, you open the door to a few trying to make money off of being in the media and all your gonna do is start another riot.

If they lift the gag there will be transparency rather than concealment. A free society governed by the people requires transparency. Government formed and run by the consent of the governed requires transparency. you will note that freedom of the press is guaranteed by the chronologically first amendment to the Constitution. That's no accident.
Yes, it may very well be messy. Democracy always is. Let the chips fall where they may. any other alternative is a worse one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Transparency would be for us to see only facts, and documents with no motives. What you are asking for at this point will likely only release opinions, and feelings from these jury members, and biased info.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 2]

I stand by my points. Good night.

[Anvilbrother 0]

I do also.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DanG

Don't forget:

7. The authorities did a terrible job responding to the initial protests. A little honesty and cooperation go a long way.

The authorities did a terrible job with the whole thing. From the processing of the crime scene, to the way the story kept changing (including some flat-out lies), to the handling of the protests, to the arrests of the journalists.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Anvilbrother 0]

Th story kept changing because ever other mother fucker interviewed as a witness that "saw" the officer murder the black guy had a different story, or flat fucking said well I did not see it but i figured the cop just shot him , so that's why I said I saw it happen.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[DanG 1]

The official story, you know, the one from the officer's point of view, should have stayed the same. What random "witnesses" were saying didn't have any bearing on the officer's story.

- Dan G

[skypuppy 1]

DanG

The official story, you know, the one from the officer's point of view, should have stayed the same. What random "witnesses" were saying didn't have any bearing on the officer's story.

as far as what I heard on the news, the officer's story did stay the same. Throughout.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[turtlespeed 220]

skypuppy

***The official story, you know, the one from the officer's point of view, should have stayed the same. What random "witnesses" were saying didn't have any bearing on the officer's story.

as far as what I heard on the news, the officer's story did stay the same. Throughout.

That was my understanding as well.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

The police initially were involved in the eye socket fracture lie. I don't know if Wilson himself was involved, but the police department was. There was also a lot of back and forth about whether Wilson knew about the strong arm robbery or not. But the most damning thing was the huge delay before the department said anything at all. When you wait three or four days to release your story, it looks like you're covering something up, even if you aren't.

- Dan G

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Yes, it may very well be messy. Democracy always is. Let the chips fall where they may. any other alternative is a worse one.

I generally fall in this position.

To my way of thinking a police shooting should be investigated by people outside of the officer's on department. The problem with that is cost and the fact that when the race card is played there seems to be no answer that suits "the people" other than a preconceived answer.

I haven taken from this event that if a police office carries a weapon he/she should have body video - it would fix everything but it would cut down a lot. Of course there is a cost.....

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

To my way of thinking a police shooting should be investigated by people outside of the officer's on department.

Yes, but it needs to go beyond just outside of the department. If/when it gets to the level of being investigated by prosecutors, that must be done a Prosecutor's office outside of the same local/county jurisdiction served by the officer/police dept being investigated. Prosecutors have a very close, repetitive relationship with the cops whose arrests they routinely prosecute. So in the case of possible police misconduct, this creates an impossible, and I think really obvious, conflict of interest if the DA's office that's investigating cops is the same one they work closely with every day.

There are various ways this can be done. Some states have state Attorney General offices that are separate from county DA offices. In other states, the county prosecutors are under the general umbrella of the state attorney general, but each county has its own separate office run by a separate county-level supervising prosecutor. Either way, the local prosecutor's office should recuse itself, and the investigation should be done either by the state attorney general's office (if separate), or by a local prosecutor's office from clear on the other side of the state. If neither option is practical, then there's no choice but to appoint an outside special prosecutor to investigate the case and head-up the grand jury.

This (recusal of the local DA) was not done in the Ferguson case, and if my memory's correct I'm pretty sure it wasn't done in the Staten Island case, either. How'd that work out for public trust and confidence in the objective integrity of The System?