Michael Brown Shooting: The Aftermath of the Grand Jury Decision

[Summah]

By the time he was last shot, he had been shot in the chest and the second to last shot was in the face, through the eye out the jaw, reentry to the collar bone area. You really think he was charging after that?

And your first link doesn't have anything to do with your post afai can tell, the second one doesn't say where the person was shot who drove off.

[Ned Snow]

Terra:

I have no opinion on whether or not the prosecutor intentionally blew the case. Anything I said would be speculation. I haven't had a chance to look over the evidence, and I probably won't, but here's a link to everything that has been released. Anyone who thinks McCulloch was sabotaging the case should compare the evidence they've seen on the internet and other outside sources to what's been released to the public.

Edit: For some reason I can't post the link, but it's on the Saint Louis Public Radio website.

[Summah]

I haven't read all the thousands of pages of documents released by the prosecutor, but I have read several hundred, and much of what I have read supports the idea that the prosecutor did not attempt to actually get the grand jury to indict.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I haven't read all the thousands of pages of documents released by the prosecutor, but I have read several hundred, and much of what I have read supports the idea that the prosecutor did not attempt to actually get the grand jury to indict.

Honestly, I don't think the evidence even really enters into it, as far as the prosecutors intentions go. This guy did not want to try the case. It's the prosecutor's job to secure an indictment. That he would direct the jury to give more weight to "reliable witnesses" whose testimony supports the individual who he is attempting to indict tells you everything you need to know about his intentions.

The prosecutor had one move to make here if he had any integrity at all. And that move would've been recusing himself.

[sToNED_CAT]

I've read the transcripts and everything about this case would be cartoonish if it wasn't so tragic.. From the medical examiner not taking pictures because his camera was "out of battery" to wilson's description of Brown turning into some kind of weredemon.

As for the alleged looting and burning, we all know by now that most of it is caused by outsiders or white anarchists but even if it wasn't and it's a direct action from Black rioters, I hope they burn their way down to washington.

Medical examiner too no pictures, but other people on scene (coroner, police) did.

Oh and Brown's own stepfather incited the crowd to "burn this bitch down". So much for outside rioters.

Brown was falling when the last shot hit him or he could have been charging as Wilson claims, however I have difficulty believing someone shot so many times would be physically capable of charging, except in the racist world of bulletproof, hulk-like, big, scary, black, demon men.

There is 20 feet long bloodtrail showing he advanced on Wilson. There are black eyewitnesses confirming it. Conflicting testimonies (people who said he was shot standing with his hands up or shot the the back while fleeing) were eliminated by forensic evidence.

[Ned Snow]

If you haven't looked at ALL of the evidence, you are speculating to at least some extent. The GJ considered everything when they made their decision. I just want people to be aware of that. Good on you for looking through as much as you have.

Also, recusing himself was not necessary. The Governor could have removed him, and chose not to. This is the MO state standard (paraphrasing a bit): "recusal is limited to situations where the prosecutor has been employed as counsel in a case where that employment or interest is inconsistent with his duties in the present case, or if he has a relation by blood or marriage to a party in the case." That's not the case here.

Now, he could have recused himself anyway, and maybe he should have even if just to avoid the current perception of him being corrupt. But his past history doesn't necessarily mean that he can't faithfully perform his duties in this case. Maybe it does, sure, but it's possible he can separate all of that from this case.

[Summah]

sc, that proves he was moving, not that he was charging. He could gave been staggering from injury, walking forward to surrender, charging, or something else entirely. Also we do not know whether he was shot at with his back to Wilson, since 5-6 of the 12 bullets fired didn't hit him, we only know he wasn't shot while running away. Being wrong about certain specific details does invalidate people's entire testimony--although certainly it calls the entirety into question--if that invalidation of everything were so there would be no use for eye witness accounts in any part of the legal process.

ns, perhaps legally he had no obligation to recuse himself, but ethically he did for all the reasons gone into previously in these threads. He didn't attempt to make a case, which means he didn't do his job. This also really should gave been moved into another jurisdiction as often (and should) happens for high profile cases.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Now, he could have recused himself anyway, and maybe he should have even if just to avoid the current perception of him being corrupt. But his past history doesn't necessarily mean that he can't faithfully perform his duties in this case. Maybe it does, sure, but it's possible he can separate all of that from this case.

Current perception of him? This is the fifth Grand Jury indictment he has failed to secure against a police officer. He's one of two things, either incompetent or corrupt. His "past history" includes the fact that his policeman father was killed by an African American man. He clearly could not faithfully perform his duties in this case.

[The Fallen]

It's always weird to see your hometown (Springfield, MA) brought up in these threads. But I see not much has changed.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

If you haven't looked at ALL of the evidence, you are speculating to at least some extent. The GJ considered everything when they made their decision. I just want people to be aware of that. Good on you for looking through as much as you have.

Also, recusing himself was not necessary. The Governor could have removed him, and chose not to. This is the MO state standard (paraphrasing a bit): "recusal is limited to situations where the prosecutor has been employed as counsel in a case where that employment or interest is inconsistent with his duties in the present case, or if he has a relation by blood or marriage to a party in the case." That's not the case here.

Now, he could have recused himself anyway, and maybe he should have even if just to avoid the current perception of him being corrupt. But his past history doesn't necessarily mean that he can't faithfully perform his duties in this case. Maybe it does, sure, but it's possible he can separate all of that from this case.

The problem is that it´s not usual for Grand Jury to get all the evidence. Prosecutor will get the indictment if he wants to get one. Handling the case differently is a clear sign of bias.

[ThinkerX]

At the risk of drawing the boards ire, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the first part of Wilsons testimony makes sense - about being attacked in the car, and how Brown paused long enough to hand the smokes over to his buddy. Reason being, having known a number of cops, ex-cops, druggies, and petty offenders is people really do things like that in the commission of a crime. Example that sticks in mind:

I used to know a guy who had a gun shop in the St Louis area. After repeated break-in's, he invested in one of the toughest damn doors on the market - then went and wired it to a security system at his house so he'd know WHEN somebody was screwing with it. Alarm goes off one night. He gets dressed, grabs a gun, and heads to the shop. When he gets there, he finds a young black guy with a crowbar trying to pry the door open. Gun guy asks him 'what the hell he thinks he's doing?' Kid with crowbar takes a couple more whacks at the door, turns to gun guy, and say's 'I'll just be a minute,' then turns back to trying to pry the door open. Note that gun guy had his weapon pointed at the idiot with the crowbar, and said idiot saw the gun. Gun guy debates with himself for a moment about shooting intruder, decides to call cops instead. When cops arrive, crowbar guys tale is that he and gun guy are buddies.

The part I have some issue with is how Wilson ended up so far from the car, and fatally shooting Brown. Eyewitness recollection is very often hazy and contradictory, but even so, Wilson, as a cop, was supposed to be a trained observer. At best, the fatal shooting is a grey area.

Case should still have gone to trial.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Case should still have gone to trial.

At the end of the day, that's the only part that really matters to me. Let all this crap come to light at a trial. Give Officer Wilson and Micheal Brown their day in court.

[sToNED_CAT]

sc, that proves he was moving, not that he was charging. He could gave been staggering from injury, walking forward to surrender, charging, or something else entirely.

Yes, but again there were eyewitnesses who confirmed he was charging. So on one side you have eyewitnesses + forensic evidence + Wilson's own version and it all fits together. On the other side you have eyewitnesses who say something else, but they all say he was standing, not walking forward (especially not 20 feet) when he was killed. Their version didn't fit available forensic evidence, so their testimonies were considered unreliable, hence the decision by GJ to not indict.

At the risk of drawing the boards ire, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the first part of Wilsons testimony makes sense - about being attacked in the car, and how Brown paused long enough to hand the smokes over to his buddy.

The part when he paused and handed the smokes to his friend was actually confirmed by Dorian Johnson.

[TrueMetis]

Hey do we have any evidence of Brown getting into fights before? Because if not going from no fights to fighting a cop seems a little odd.

[Altherion]

Here's a slightly less sensationalist account than most (from Bloomberg). On the one hand, it is pretty clear that if the prosecution was determined to secure an indictment (without regard to the fact they would lose badly at trial), then they could have done a lot better than they did. The account reads as if the prosecuting attorneys were at a trial and playing both the role of the prosecution and the role of the defense. My understanding from the previous threads is that this is not the usual procedure for a grand jury hearing, although I'm not sure how far the prosecution is allowed to go. For example, if they know that several of the witnesses are lying (as was the case here), can the prosecutors let them testify?

On the other hand, it is even more clear that if this went to trial, the prosecution would have lost. Here are the facts that, as far as I can tell, are more or less undisputed:

1) Brown, having just stolen some cigars from a store and shoved a clerk in the process, was walking down the middle of the street (i.e. in the area reserved for cars) with his friend, Johnson.

2) Wilson was driving by, stopped and told Brown and Johnson to get on the sidewalk. The precise wording used to convey this message differs between the various accounts, but the meaning is the same.

3) Instead of getting on the sidewalk, Brown went to Wilson's car at which point there was an angry conversation which devolved into a physical altercation between Brown and Wilson.

4) Wilson fired his gun after which Brown ran away.

5) Wilson pursued Brown on foot, then retreated after Brown turned around and went back towards Wilson. At some point(s) during this dance, Wilson shot Brown multiple times.

Unless the jury is stacked with scum such as the lying witnesses, I don't see how the prosecution gets anywhere with this at trial. Are they obliged to push for a trial even if they know that they will lose? It seems a waste of resources to do so.

[Iskaral Pust]

I think outrage is misspent on this. We definitely have a problem with trigger-happy police and cover-ups, but this was not the situation to expose it. After months of portraying this as racist murder/manslaughter by police, the evidence does not back that up. But it has become such a cause célèbre that now people won't drop it and focus instead on more clear-cut examples of wrongful death by police.

It undermines the bigger crusade to make this the battleground.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Here's a slightly less sensationalist account than most (from Bloomberg). On the one hand, it is pretty clear that if the prosecution was determined to secure an indictment (without regard to the fact they would lose badly at trial), then they could have done a lot better than they did. The account reads as if the prosecuting attorneys were at a trial and playing both the role of the prosecution and the role of the defense. My understanding from the previous threads is that this is not the usual procedure for a grand jury hearing, although I'm not sure how far the prosecution is allowed to go. For example, if they know that several of the witnesses are lying (as was the case here), can the prosecutors let them testify?

On the other hand, it is even more clear that if this went to trial, the prosecution would have lost. Here are the facts that, as far as I can tell, are more or less undisputed:

1) Brown, having just stolen some cigars from a store and shoved a clerk in the process, was walking down the middle of the street (i.e. in the area reserved for cars) with his friend, Johnson.

2) Wilson was driving by, stopped and told Brown and Johnson to get on the sidewalk. The precise wording used to convey this message differs between the various accounts, but the meaning is the same.

3) Instead of getting on the sidewalk, Brown went to Wilson's car at which point there was an angry conversation which devolved into a physical altercation between Brown and Wilson.

4) Wilson fired his gun after which Brown ran away.

5) Wilson pursued Brown on foot, then retreated after Brown turned around and went back towards Wilson. At some point(s) during this dance, Wilson shot Brown multiple times.

Unless the jury is stacked with scum such as the lying witnesses, I don't see how the prosecution gets anywhere with this at trial. Are they obliged to push for a trial even if they know that they will lose? It seems a waste of resources to do so.

Once again the problem is handling the case differently. If you know you don´t have a case then this is even worse than outright refusing to go for grand jury and explaining the decision. If you go with grand jury then handle it like any other case and get the indictment because the whole US justice system is stupid.

[Fragile Bird]

I would like to point out something that I assume was discussed at the very start of these threads, that McCulloch could have simply charged Wilson and gone to trial. I doubt any jury would have convicted Wilson because there were certainly enough contradictory witnesses that the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" would not have been met. Evidence could have been openly heard and there would have been cross examination of those witnesses.

From an article in the Globe and Mail:

Many legal observers believe that – at a public criminal trial – a jury would have acquitted Darren Wilson given the weight of evidence showing some sort of a fight between Michael Brown, the fullback-sized African-American, and the almost-as-big police officer preceded the shooting and would have buttressed an exculpatory self-defence claim. But there will be no criminal trial, no public trial, no presentation of the evidence and no cross-examination of witnesses or Mr. Wilson who did get to explain his version of events in secret to the grand jury largely because of Mr. McCulloch.

As St. Louis County prosecutor, Mr. McCulloch could have laid charges himself. Instead, he chose to present evidence to an already empanelled grand jury which had been sitting before the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., that attracted international attention last summer. Usually a prosecutor presents only incriminating evidence against a potential criminal suspect, seeking to establish the sufficient cause not to convict but only to warrant the laying of charges.

Instead, Mr. McCulloch – whose impartiality has been questioned – took the unusual step of allowing Mr. Wilson to testify to the grand jury that Mr. Brown was trying to take his gun away and he feared for his life.

Much of the bullshit that's been thrown around in the last two threads would not have come up because witnesses would have been cross examined and perhaps some of the contradictions might (I use that with emphasis) have been clarified. And of course, we probably would not have seen the travesty of testimony that Wilson gave. I doubt he would have taken the stand, without the benefit of no cross examination.

[Wee baby Shamus]

I haven't read all the thousands of pages of documents released by the prosecutor, but I have read several hundred, and much of what I have read supports the idea that the prosecutor did not attempt to actually get the grand jury to indict.

Honestly that sounds like a complete waste of your time.

It's over.

The DOJ might push for a civil rights case but they have zero evidence for it.

The only way for a civil rights case to move forward is if multiple credible witness claim that Wilson used racial slurs during the entire confrontation.

If Wilson did we would have certainly have heard of it.

He didn't.

Again it's over.

Continue discussing if you want but I'm done and am moving on.

[Ned Snow]

Czarlos: I was referring the evidence presented to the GJ. Surely, they saw all of that.