How Grand Was That Ferguson Grand Jury? A Couple of Perspectives

[PRB]

Ummm.....lots of patriotic Americans who always defend gun owners weren't happy with Zimmerman and talked about that here. And some who were defending Zimmerman didn't defend the black woman gun owner who was convicted of firing a "warning shot." Just because you defend gun ownership in general doesn't mean that you have to support every action by every gun owner. Nor does it mean you have bury your head in the sand and ignore looking at facts that don't line up with the gun owner's side of the story.

they were clearly not true patriots.

 

[jmdrake]

Wrong. If a prosecutor takes something to the grand jury then his job is to get an indictment. His job is not to act like a defense attorney. And the prosecutor is supposed to follow the same procedure with everyone. Justice is supposed to be blind. If this was a normal case there's no way in hell the prosecutor would be cross examining his own witnesses trying to discredit their testimony. Further the prosecutor most likely had a relationship with the defendant because prosecutors and police typically work together. A prosecution team from outside the jurisdiction of Ferguson should have been brought in to handle this. It would have been one thing if the prosecutor had dispassionately looked at the evidence and decided not to bring charges. That's not what happened. There were credible witnesses that said Brown was shot with his hands up. That was enough for an indictment. Hell, I've seen people indicted and convicted with less.

Guys, it is NOT the job of a prosecutor to get an indictment. That's a fascistic, disgusting view of the law that promotes putting innocent ppl in prison. (I know no one here believes in this, but that's what the articles are saying when they say "the prosecutor is supposed to get an indictment.") The prosecutor is the one lawyer/advocate who isn't going for a particular result, his goal is JUSTICE. If a prosecutor thinks that a suspect didn't commit a crime. OR that he couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should not pursue an indictment. Its illegal AND unethical to pursue an indictment when you don't even believe in what you're saying. Its fine for a defense attorney because he represents his clients' interests; but the prosecutor's client, the state of Missouri, does not have an interest in convicting innocent ppl.

You guys do rightfully bring up the disparity in indictments between cops and non-cops. The solution? Tell prosecutors to stop being gung-ho about indictments in general. Don't throw Darren Wilson under the bus because other cops are assholes, even if Wilson is one of those assholes. The prosecutor did not think Wilson did it, therefore he did not treat the grand jury as a bunch of gullible stooges, he gave them all the information. This was 100% ethical. Blame the prosecutor here when he DOESN'T do that when dealing with a non-cop, when that inevitably happens.

 

[jmdrake]

they were clearly not true patriots.

Who were clearly not true patriots? Those who weren't happy with Zimmerman or those who were fine with seeing a woman convicted as a felon for firing a warning shot? Either way, I question your definition of "true patriot". Patriotism doesn't require blind stupid loyalty. Zimmerman's actions were questionable at best. He never should have gotten out of his car. He shouldn't have been doing a neighborhood watch patrol by himself. His actions caused danger not just for himself and Martin, but for any innocent bystander that might have been shot by a stray bullet. In the end there is an open question as to whether or not he had regained control of the situation before firing the fatal shot. I still don't buy that you can shoot someone in the chest and they slump over on you and you don't get any blood on your shirt. That said I agree with the ultimate verdict only because I can see where a reasonable person could have doubt about what happened those final fateful seconds. But Zimmerman was no patriot. He was a spoiled judges son who had gotten away with assaulting an undercover officer before and has since been charged with aggravated assault against his now ex wife. He, Martin and Brown were all thugs. Same for officer Wilson.

 

[JK/SEA]

PRB and DFF are obviously having problems with reading comprehension.

i blame the fluoride.

Be gentle with them, for they know not what they do.

 

[maybemaybenot]

Wrong. If a prosecutor takes something to the grand jury then his job is to get an indictment. His job is not to act like a defense attorney. And the prosecutor is supposed to follow the same procedure with everyone. Justice is supposed to be blind. If this was a normal case there's no way in hell the prosecutor would be cross examining his own witnesses trying to discredit their testimony. Further the prosecutor most likely had a relationship with the defendant because prosecutors and police typically work together. A prosecution team from outside the jurisdiction of Ferguson should have been brought in to handle this. It would have been one thing if the prosecutor had dispassionately looked at the evidence and decided not to bring charges. That's not what happened. There were credible witnesses that said Brown was shot with his hands up. That was enough for an indictment. Hell, I've seen people indicted and convicted with less.

No, you will never find any legitimate legal source saying the role of the prosecutor is EVER to get an indictment or a conviction, their role is to do justice. Many prosecutors unfortunately believe in your fascistic view of the legal system, which says that during grand jury proceedings or criminal trials that prosecutors must try to ruin the defendants' life, regardless of their actual view of the facts. Your system is illegal and unethical. He went to the grand jury precisely because he wanted to defer to another entity, since the prosecutor himself didn't think there was probably cause for an indictment. Your assertion that he must act as a zealous advocate for indictment once the grand jury proceedings is unfounded, and based solely on the fact that prosecutors typically act that way. Prosecutors should not act that way, and they shoould not treat civilians worse than cops, you're right. So complain when the prosecutor acts like a fascist in his next case, don't repeat your fascistic assertion here that his job is to always get an indictment when there's a grand jury proceeding. Your position goes against the law as it is today, AND against the rights of the accused.

 

[Christian Liberty]

^This. There is an old saying. A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.....but only if he wants to. The two white witnesses who came forward and said Brown had his hands up plus the video of them expressing that right after the shooting should have been enough for an indictment. A conviction? Maybe not. But most certainly an indictment.

That is very different from what I've heard happened. That detail definitely changes things....

I think he should have been indicted, I have always thought that. I still don't have enough info to say for sure whether he was guilty...

 

[Christian Liberty]

No, you will never find any legitimate legal source saying the role of the prosecutor is EVER to get an indictment or a conviction, their role is to do justice. Many prosecutors unfortunately believe in your fascistic view of the legal system, which says that during grand jury proceedings or criminal trials that prosecutors must try to ruin the defendants' life, regardless of their actual view of the facts. Your system is illegal and unethical. He went to the grand jury precisely because he wanted to defer to another entity, since the prosecutor himself didn't think there was probably cause for an indictment. Your assertion that he must act as a zealous advocate for indictment once the grand jury proceedings is unfounded, and based solely on the fact that prosecutors typically act that way. Prosecutors should not act that way, and they shoould not treat civilians worse than cops, you're right. So complain when the prosecutor acts like a fascist in his next case, don't repeat your fascistic assertion here that his job is to always get an indictment when there's a grand jury proceeding. Your position goes against the law as it is today, AND against the rights of the accused.

The point is that the prosecutors are almost always trying to get an indictment UNLESS the defendant is a cop, then they don't.

 

[maybemaybenot]

The point is that the prosecutors are almost always trying to get an indictment UNLESS the defendant is a cop, then they don't.

Really, cuz that's not all jmdrake said. He also said the job of a prosecutor during grand jury proceedings is to get an indictment.

 

[acptulsa]

Really, cuz that's not all jmdrake said. He also said the job of a prosecutor during grand jury proceedings is to get an indictment.

It is. That's why they call him or her a 'prosecutor'.

If there is no reason to prosecute, then his or her job is to ensure that no grand jury's time is wasted on the incident at all. And it's the prosecutor's job to take the heat for that decision--not to deflect responsibility onto some grand jury which conveniently didn't get half the facts of the case.

 

[maybemaybenot]

It is. That's why they call him or her a 'prosecutor'.

If there is no reason to prosecute, then his or her job is to ensure that no grand jury's time is wasted on the incident at all. And it's the prosecutor's job to take the heat for that decision--not to deflect responsibility onto some grand jury which conveniently didn't get half the facts of the case.

First of all, being called a 'prosecutor' does not mean you have to go for an indictment or a conviction. That's like saying a baker has to bake everything in sight, that's not how it works. Even you know that a prosecutor isn't supposed to prosecute every case, the issue is what the prosecutor's role is in a grand jury proceeding. You're right, he did waste the grand jury's time, because crazy mobs were asking for a different kind of proceeding, not because he actually wanted it. Its still unethical for him to pursue a result he doesn't believe in, because he's a law enforcement officer, he enforces the law, he doesn't represent a client that seeks a particular outcome. You may as well say cops should arrest a person as long as they've already stopped/seized them, since they've already gone that far in the process, it'd prove to be a "waste of time" to search/seize someone and not do everything possible to arrest the person (even if the law enforcement officer doesn't believe it warrants an arrest). Also, you're wrong when you sy the grand jury didn't get half the facts, this was the rare grand jury proceeding where they did NOT get only half the facts. The problem here is that prosecutors in general do everything possible to get an indictment/conviction when its not their job, and this case proves it by showing how prosecutors act differently with cops. The solution isn't for prosecutors to become more fascistic, no matter how crazy RPF members want to lynch a cop over a case they know nothing about, the solution is for prosecutors to do this more often.

 

[acptulsa]

You're right, he did waste the grand jury's time, because crazy mobs were asking for a different kind of proceeding, not because he actually wanted it.

Which mob is that? Is that the mob the prosecutor swore to serve, and which pays that prosecutor's salary? That mob?

 

[maybemaybenot]

Which mob is that? Is that the mob the prosecutor swore to serve, and which pays that prosecutor's salary? That mob?

You're using semantics to evade my argument: public, angry controversy is the only reason law enforcement even put this before a grand jury. Correct? If not for an angry community, the case would not have even gotten that far, they would've just not indicted him and that's it, right?

 

[acptulsa]

You're using semantics to evade my argument: public, angry controversy is the only reason law enforcement even put this before a grand jury. Correct? If not for an angry community, the case would not have even gotten that far, they would've just not indicted him and that's it, right?

I'm not using semantics, you are when you call sovereign residents a 'mob'.

Undoubtedly the prosecutor would never have put it before a grand jury were it not for pressure from an unhappy citizenry. And if that unhappy citizenry is pacified by these grand jury shenanigans, then they are fools.

Just because you call them a mob does not mean they have no reason to be unhappy.

 

[maybemaybenot]

I'm not using semantics, you are when you call sovereign residents a 'mob'.

Undoubtedly the prosecutor would never have put it before a grand jury were it not for pressure from an unhappy citizenry. And if that unhappy citizenry is pacified by these grand jury shenanigans, then they are fools.

Just because you call them a mob does not mean they have no reason to be unhappy.

So imagine you're a state prosecutor. You don't think the suspect committed the offense, but you've been assigned that case, and ppl are going nuts, saying he did it. You would put for an indictment/conviction because the public wanted you to?

 

[acptulsa]

So imagine you're a state prosecutor. You don't think the suspect committed the offense, but you've been assigned that case, and ppl are going nuts, saying he did it. You would put for an indictment/conviction because the public wanted you to?

Maybe, if The detectives weren't coming up with the actual perpetrator and giving the suspect in custody his or her day in court was the only way to get people off his back. And if I did, I wouldn't sour that by doing my job poorly and making a cover-up of it. And I sure wouldn't try to hide behind the skirts of a grand jury panel.

But, of course, you do realize that we are talking about a county prosecutor and a suspect who certainly did shoot the deceased, right?

 

[PRB]

i blame the fluoride.

Be gentle with them, for they know not what they do.

don't forget GMOs, chemtrails and vaccines! they're all responsible for my autisms!

 

[PRB]

So imagine you're a state prosecutor. You don't think the suspect committed the offense, but you've been assigned that case, and ppl are going nuts, saying he did it. You would put for an indictment/conviction because the public wanted you to?

No, because your duty is to justice. A DA's duty is not symmetrical to a defense attorney's duty, a defense attorney's duty is to zealously advocate for his client, and always defend his client in every legal way possible to get him off. A DA's duty is to prosecute those who deserve it and allow the defendant to fight for his rights. A prosecutor should not waste taxpayer money to file a case he knows has no chance of closing.

 

[jmdrake]

Really, cuz that's not all jmdrake said. He also said the job of a prosecutor during grand jury proceedings is to get an indictment.

I did and I'm right. If a prosecutor doesn't believe the person is guilty then he shouldn't go to the grand jury in the first place and just refuse to prosecute. What was done in this case is dishonest and your bullshit "We want the innocent to go free right" hand wringing doesn't disprove that. Let's say your mom was murdered and there were two credible witnesses and 4 witnesses that were not credible for whatever reason. Would you really want the prosecutor to put the non-credible witnesses forward during the grand jury proceeding and work to undermine their testimony just to muddy up the waters? I wouldn't.

 

[jmdrake]

So imagine you're a state prosecutor. You don't think the suspect committed the offense, but you've been assigned that case, and ppl are going nuts, saying he did it. You would put for an indictment/conviction because the public wanted you to?

You have two ethical choices. One is to decline to prosecute at all. The other is to actually prosecute. If you honestly believe that the case has no merit then don't take it before the grand jury at all. To take it before the grand jury and then try to throw the case is dishonest, unethical and a sham.

 

[jmdrake]

You're using semantics to evade my argument: public, angry controversy is the only reason law enforcement even put this before a grand jury. Correct? If not for an angry community, the case would not have even gotten that far, they would've just not indicted him and that's it, right?

Do you understand the relationship between police and prosecutors? The reason prosecutors are reluctant to go after police has little to do with whether the prosecutor believes the officer is guilty or not.