Michael Brown Shooting: A Bitterly Divided Nation

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I don't find it troubling when someone gets high quality legal counsel.

Maybe that's just me.

Again, it depends on circumstance. In that particular circumstance (The Dan White trial) I find it troubling because I believe that this was 1st degree murder, straight up. Had White had the sort of counsel that he could normally afford, I suspect he would've recieved a much more appropriate sentence.

[Swordfish]

Again, it depends on circumstance. In that particular circumstance (The Dan White trial) I find it troubling because I believe that this was 1st degree murder, straight up. Had White had the sort of counsel that he could normally afford, I suspect he would've recieved a much more appropriate sentence.

Then your beef is with the prosecutor, the system and the jury, not the defense counsel.

it does not depend on the circumstance for me. It would be better if more accused people had access to higher quality legal counsel. i find absolutely nothing troubling about it in the slightest. We do, after all, have a right to a fair trial, and competent representation. Even the guilty people have this right.

I am troubled that you are troubled by that, tbh. or that you are only selectively troubled by it.

Either way, this case is not the White case. There is nothing clear cut about it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

it does not depend on the circumstance for me. It would be better if more accused people had access to higher quality legal counsel. i find absolutely nothing troubling about it in the slightest. We do, after all, have a right to a fair trial, and competent representation. Even the guilty people have this right.

I am troubled that you are troubled by that, tbh. or that you are only selectively troubled by it.

Either way, this case is not the White case. There is nothing clear cut about it.

It's troubling to me that "Justice" can be bought. That far and away, the most important color as far as our legal system is concerned is green.

I didn't make any comment regarding the clear cut nature of either case. I was merely answering your question regarding legal defense funds.

[Swordfish]

It's troubling to me that "Justice" can be bought.

Fair enough. But that's a different thing entirely than being morally disgusted or troubled bythe people who set up a defense fund for Wilson, or Wilson himself for having access to a defense fund. Your beef is with the justice system and not with Wilson and his supporters.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Lev

The jury does have the final authority to indict, or not. But they can only formulate their decision based on what the prosecutor presents to them. There are three pieces of information that made me think McCulloch didn't discharge his duty ethically. First, he was the nominal, if not effective, head of the non profit that raises funding for Wilson's now-not-needed defense cost. Second, the way he handled this case was different than how most Grand Jury cases are handled, i.e. in almost all other cases the prosecutor does NOT present the jury with ALL the evidence and then let them sort it out. If the prosecutor believes there's is case to be made, enough to warrant going to the Grand Jury, they usually present their case in a way that will strongly implicate the suspect. In this case, it does not appear that that's what happened. Third, after the verdict was announced, the prosecutor presented a half hour speech basically trashing all the witnesses that were supposed to be making the case against Wilson.

So given all of this, I think the Grand Jury is more or less excused for making the decision that they did. Or at the least, any sort of bias or malfeasance on their part is entirely obscured by the prosecutor's conduct.

I agree with Nestor that the prosecutor is not obligated to try a case just to appease the public. But in this case, McCulloch did decide to proceed, so he should be making his best attempt to obtain an indictment, which from my layperson perspective, he did not. If he thinks Wilson's actions did not merit indictment, which I think is clearly the case here, then he had acted unethically by bringing the case to the Grand Jury in the first place. It seems to me that he took the case in order to sandbag it. I don't see many other alternative explanations that would make sense.

So in this context, it is absolutely reasonable to NOT accept the Grand Jury's decision as a valid outcome and furthermore, to lay most of the blame at the feet of the prosecutor.

Re: Swordfish

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. The objection is not that the quality of counsel was high, but that the monetary assistance allowed him to get a set of lawyer who were able to obtain, on his behalf, a judgment that didn't comport with our sense of justice. To the extent that the quality of the lawyer is measured by whether they can get a client out of jail or not, sure he got great lawyers. Like OJ did. But many of us see that it was not a just outcome. And so, the money raised enabled someone to, quite literally, get away with (double) murder.

Jury trials and court rulings just don't always align with the common sense understsnding of Justice. In some cases, the common sense understand is flawed and unwarranted, but in some cases, the criminal justice system is rigged and conned into delivering the wrong verdict.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Fair enough. But that's a different thing entirely than being morally disgusted or troubled bythe people who set up a defense fund for Wilson, or Wilson himself for having access to a defense fund. Your beef is with the justice system and not with Wilson and his supporters.

I suppose, but the two things are related.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Jury trials and court rulings just don't always align with the common sense understsnding of Justice. In some cases, the common sense understand is flawed and unwarranted, but in some cases, the criminal justice system is rigged and conned into delivering the wrong verdict.

Pretty much this. Rigged or conned might be a bit strong, but a high-priced trial lawyer is very skilled at reading and manipulating a jury in ways that can often supercede common sense or even facts.

ETA: On second thought, "rigged" actually works for me. When you're talking about a high-priced team of defense lawyers, I think it's fair to say they have an advantage over your typical prosecutor. They typically have more time and money and experience on their side.

[The Notorious]

On the Garner grand jury verdict ..... was there any allegation of prosecutorial misconduct?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

On the Garner grand jury verdict ..... was there any allegation of prosecutorial misconduct?

I haven't read anything specific, but you have the same overall issue of a prosecutor finding him or herself in the same uncomfortable position of having to bring charges against a department that they have to work hand in hand with.

[Swordfish]

Re: Swordfish

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. The objection is not that the quality of counsel was high, but that the monetary assistance allowed him to get a set of lawyer who were able to obtain, on his behalf, a judgment that didn't comport with our sense of justice. To the extent that the quality of the lawyer is measured by whether they can get a client out of jail or not, sure he got great lawyers. Like OJ did. But many of us see that it was not a just outcome. And so, the money raised enabled someone to, quite literally, get away with (double) murder.

I'm not being deliberately or even accidentally obtuse.

I understand that point. I've already talked about it a bit. i find it problematic. I mentioned this before, but your issue is with the SYSTEM. Not with the defense fund.

Remember, this is what started this conversation.

Is it morally disgusting that said fundraiser amassed more than $500K? Completely and utterly.

Not that it's disgusting that he might get away with something because of money, but that the mere fact that this fund existed, anjd that people donated to it, are morally disgusting.

I know we've backed off the 'morally disgusting' part. but i want to be certain that we maintain the context of what we're talking about.

If your disgust is with a system that is not as good as it should be, and sometimes fails utterly for particularly heinous reasons, then I'm right there with you.

But I can't muster any disgust that someone wants to acquire the best legal representation they can. Or that people who believe he is not guilty contribute to making that happen. in this scenario, what should wilson have done in terms of dealing with the system to avoid you finding it problematic?

Jury trials and court rulings just don't always align with the common sense understsnding of Justice. In some cases, the common sense understand is flawed and unwarranted, but in some cases, the criminal justice system is rigged and conned into delivering the wrong verdict.

I don't disagree with this. I'm just not sure we can say that with any certainty in this case. i would have liked to have seen it go to trial, but I'm not convinced that there would have been any kind of conviction for the killing, and I'm not sure how anyone can say with relative certainly that there should have been. There is a lot of nuance and ambiguity here, though I know a lot of people on both sides of the issue would deny that there is. The standard is still reasonable doubt after all.

ETA: On second thought, "rigged" actually works for me. When you're talking about a high-priced team of defense lawyers, I think it's fair to say they have an advantage over your typical prosecutor. They typically have more time and money and experience on their side.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case to the jury for a reason. It's CRITICAL that it work that way.

If they can't, then they can't. That's not the defense attorneys fault.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

If they can't, then they can't. That's not the defense attorneys fault.

That's where I'm going to disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

Fault is an interesting word. I'm not sure I'd say it's the defenses fault necessarily, but they do use some extremely underhanded tactics to influence a jury.

In the Dan White case, there was very little the prosecution had to prove. White confessed to the crime. They had the murder weapon. They had numerous witnesses. They proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense did little or nothing to challenge the proof or evidence. What they did was trot out a series of psych "experts" who cast doubt on whether or not Dan White's capacity for rational thought had been diminished or not.

[Roose Seal]

Not that it's disgusting that he might get away with something because of money, but that the mere fact that this fund existed, anjd that people donated to it, are morally disgusting.

I know we've backed off the 'morally disgusting' part. but i want to be certain that we maintain the context of what we're talking about.

If your disgust is with a system that is not as good as it should be, and sometimes fails utterly for particularly heinous reasons, then I'm right there with you.

But I can't muster any disgust that someone wants to acquire the best legal representation they can. Or that people who believe he is not guilty contribute to making that happen. in this scenario, what should wilson have done in terms of dealing with the system to avoid you finding it problematic?

The disgust comes from several things:

-the fact that the fundraiser was started by the very prosecutor who later manipulated the facts to avoid him getting indicted

-the fact that thousands of people rushed to donate to him when at the time, literally the ONLY information we had about the case was "white cop shoots Black kid"

-the fact that people rushed to his aid to supposedly pay for legal counsel when he hadn't even been indicted yet

-you might have missed it, but at the time, 90% of the comments on the gofundme page were somewhere along the lines of "good job for getting rid of that n*****"

-the frightening realization that people didn't donate to protect someone who was potentially innocent, they paid to experience the thrill of killing a Black guy without having to actually pull the trigger

Note that my disgust is directed towards the entire system just as much as it is towards wilson.

The same way, say, the cover-up of the whole Joe Paterno thing was just as disgusting and appalling as Paterno's actions.

Ultimately, for me, it boils down to this: what happened at the scene is tragic and had it been an isolated case, I would've given wilson the benefit of the doubt - but when you take into account the pattern of police misconduct towards Black people and the appalling failure of the justice system that followed, it becomes so much more.

[Tempra]

First, he was the nominal, if not effective, head of the non profit that raises funding for Wilson's now-not-needed defense cost.

This rumor has been spread widely but appears false:

Claim: St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch runs a charity called Backstoppers that sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund.

MIXTURE:

TRUE: St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch was the president of Backstoppers, an organization aimed at supporting the families of first responders in crisis, during the controversy in Ferguson.

FALSE: Backstoppers sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund.

...

The controversy made it to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by 15 September 2014, at which time the newspaper spoke with Backstoppers' executive director, Ron Battelle. Battelle told the outlet Backstoppers had not initiated the fundraiser, was not affiliated with it in any fashion, did not know who was responsible for selling the shirts, and should any money be offered from the proceeds to Backstoppers, the group would reject the funds.

The controversy abated but resurfaced on 25 November 2014 in the wake of McCulloch's statement to the press on 24 November 2014. A Facebook user shared an image questioning Backstoppers' connection to the shirts:

In response, Backstoppers issued a statement via Facebook, reiterating the fundraiser was not connected with their organization:

Contrary to recent posts on social media, The BackStoppers is not participating in or has benefited from any fund raising activity involving the Ferguson matter. We scrutinize our contributions and if we receive funds involving the Ferguson matter, those funds would be rejected by the Board of Directors.

Our mission is to provide assistance to families of police, fire and EMS officers who die in the line of duty. We are currently helping 66 families which includes 64 children. This is and always will be our first priority!

We greatly appreciate the support of the St. Louis community! Thank You!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/backstoppers.asp#8KMQUI3MTMFM5xXW.99

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

This rumor has been spread widely but appears false:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/backstoppers.asp#8KMQUI3MTMFM5xXW.99

Look at that! Good catch. There's an amazing amount of disinformation out there.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

No speculation among the things I said.

However, I never said they were relevant legally - they participated to the moral outrage that followed however.

I never said Wilson raised money for legal defense - a fundraiser was set up in his name and raised half a million dollars. That's not speculation

Is it legal to set up a donation fund for a cop who just killed a Black boy before his innocence or guilt was proven? Sure.

Is it morally disgusting that said fundraiser amassed more than $500K? Completely and utterly.

All of those things might be irrelevant for the legal case itself, but they are far from irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. They are relevant because they are very revealing of the attitude of the authorities and the people towards Black lives, they are relevant because Black victims rarely, if ever, get justice; they are relevant because people will donate half a million dollars to congratulate someone for killing a Black boy; they are relevant because the streets of Ferguson were treated like a war-zone by the PD; they are relevant because this happens over and over again and nothing ever changes.

To be clear, the following statements that you made are not, at all, undisputed "facts" - some of them are simply incorrect factual statements, and some of them are just speculation.

-Brown was denied medical attention

Brown was not denied medical attention. Brown was examined by paramedics less than five minutes after being fatally shot by Officer Wilson and determined to be dead.

-During his 3 months PAID LEAVE, had time to fabricate a completely ridiculous testimony

The idea that Officer Wilson "fabricated" his testimony is, of course, not an established fact. Wilson's testimony is largely supported by the physical evidence. Ironically, several witnesses did effectively recant their testimony after the physical evidence came out during the grand jury proceeding - but all gave narratives that directly contradicted Wilson's. It may be your belief that Wilson fabricated his testimony, but this is not something that we know "for sure."

appeared before a highly biased grand jury without an ounce of remorse/regret

Again, there is zero evidence that the members of the grand jury were themselves "biased" in any way. This is not something that we know "for sure." This is unsupported, rank speculation on your part.

-was not indicted in a case with LOTS of uncertainties that SHOULD have been cleared up in a trial.

This just speaks to your ignorance of the law. I've already addressed this before, but we don't drag people through criminal tries to clear up uncertainties. Prosecutors are obligated not to bring cases to trial that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And they couldn't prove this one beyond a reasonable doubt.

-Wilson barely had a scratch (his injuries amount to red cheeks and a birthmark) when his testimony says Brown got so violent and physical with him that he feered for his life

I'm not sure what you mean by "barely a scratch." Wilson said he was struck in the face. You wouldn't necessarily expect that to result in an abrasion or a cut. He had facial redness and swelling which is consistent with being struck in the face with a fist or body part. A person need not be on the verge of actual physical death to reasonably fear that their life is in danger. A physical struggle over a firearm, for example, might be enough.

-Peaceful protesters were greeted by hyper-militarized police that shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them, provoking them to fight back, so protesters could be painted as "violent"

You can certainly argue with the police response to the Ferguson protests and riots, but the idea that the intention was to "provoke" the protesters into "fighting back" is counterfactual speculation. The idea that the riots, looting and/or destruction of personal property by protesters and/or rioters in Ferguson was a "response" to the police is also counterfactual speculation.

[The Notorious]

I haven't read anything specific, but you have the same overall issue of a prosecutor finding him or herself in the same uncomfortable position of having to bring charges against a department that they have to work hand in hand with.

That's just a perceived general issue but really nothing concrete to show deliberate bias or intention to mislead the grand jury in the Garner case.

This rumor has been spread widely but appears false:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/backstoppers.asp#8KMQUI3MTMFM5xXW.99

Wow, good find. Snopes just debunked the strongest allegation of prosecutorial misconduct in the Ferguson case.

[TerraPrime]

This rumor has been spread widely but appears false:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/backstoppers.asp#8KMQUI3MTMFM5xXW.99

Thanks for that link.

[Swordfish]

That's where I'm going to disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

Fault is an interesting word. I'm not sure I'd say it's the defenses fault necessarily, but they do use some extremely underhanded tactics to influence a jury.

In the Dan White case, there was very little the prosecution had to prove. White confessed to the crime. They had the murder weapon. They had numerous witnesses. They proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense did little or nothing to challenge the proof or evidence. What they did was trot out a series of psych "experts" who cast doubt on whether or not Dan White's capacity for rational thought had been diminished or not.

So what are you suggesting? That defense attorneys should not do everything legally possible to defend their clients if the believe the client is guilty?

because if so, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Strongly disagree. Like, in the strongest possible terms.

The disgust comes from several things:

-the fact that the fundraiser was started by the very prosecutor who later manipulated the facts to avoid him getting indicted

-the fact that thousands of people rushed to donate to him when at the time, literally the ONLY information we had about the case was "white cop shoots Black kid"

-the fact that people rushed to his aid to supposedly pay for legal counsel when he hadn't even been indicted yet

-you might have missed it, but at the time, 90% of the comments on the gofundme page were somewhere along the lines of "good job for getting rid of that n*****"

-the frightening realization that people didn't donate to protect someone who was potentially innocent, they paid to experience the thrill of killing a Black guy without having to actually pull the trigger

Note that my disgust is directed towards the entire system just as much as it is towards wilson.

The same way, say, the cover-up of the whole Joe Paterno thing was just as disgusting and appalling as Paterno's actions.

Ultimately, for me, it boils down to this: what happened at the scene is tragic and had it been an isolated case, I would've given wilson the benefit of the doubt - but when you take into account the pattern of police misconduct towards Black people and the appalling failure of the justice system that followed, it becomes so much more.

Most of what you are outraged is either false or simple speculation.

Quickly:

• The prosecutor did not start the fundraiser.
• If you think that when it was started it was out of the question that wilson was gonna need legal defense, then you're naive about how the system works. Questioning how early it happened is a major stretch.
• I didn't read the comments, but if you have outrage at the heinous shit people post on the internet, I have no problem with that, but that isn't what we are talking about.
• I'm not really gonna address your assertion that people donated just for the cheap thrill of participating in the murder of a black teenager, and not at all because they wanted to help defend Wilson other than to say it's pure rhetoric, and patently ridiculous on it's face.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

So what are you suggesting? That defense attorneys should not do everything legally possible to defend their clients if the believe the client is guilty?

because if so, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Strongly disagree. Like, in the strongest possible terms.

No, I didn't say that. I was refuting your statement that it is all on the prosecution when a case is lost.

[Swordfish]

No, I didn't say that. I was refuting your statement that it is all on the prosecution when a case is lost.

It is the prosecutions job to prosecute. If an someone does not get prosecuted, then the prosecutor has not done their job successfully, and the defense attorney has.

I don't really see where you're going with this at this point, TBH.