Grand jury

[Winstonm]

Actually, it doesn't strain credulity that it started that way. If it did, it would have been a stupid tactic, prompting even the most ignorant of suspects to believe he ---not the officer --- was in control of the situation at that point. It would be difficult to switch gears from there (oops pun not intended), for either the officer or for Brown. You just don't remain in your vehicle and expect to be in charge of anything.

 

It seems entirely possible that both accounts are somewhat accurate, but that the witness was unaware that the real first encounter was while the officer was still in his car.

 

I think this quote from Vox.com sums up how I see it:

 

But where Wilson's account presents Brown as completely irrational and borderline suicidal, Johnson's account is more recognizable. It isn't a blameless, kindly beat cop who gets set upon by a rampaging Michael Brown. And nor is it a blameless, kindly Michael Brown who gets set upon by a cold-blooded murderer with a badge.

 

It's a cop who feels provoked by these two young black men who won't get out of the street, and who tries to teach them a lesson, to put them in their place. His actions escalate the situation, and then the adrenaline floods, and then there's a struggle, and the situation escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and then Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown and Michael Brown dies.

 

Neither party was totally innocent and everyone involved (including Johnson) tells the tale putting a spin on it that places themselves in the best possible light.

[blackshoe]

I appreciate the above response from KenR, it is sort of what I would expect but, in my case, this is based on virtually no experience.

 

As to the feds, I think, again based on my vast lack of direct experience, that it goes something like this:

 

Federal prosecution of Wilson won't happen. To prosecute him, they would have to make a convincing case that he intended to vilate Brwon's civil rights. If Wilson just lost his head through fear, that would not be enough for a case under federal civil rights law.

 

The feds are, I understand, also looking at the whole structure. I imagine this includes the grand jury presentation. I am not sure what they might do if they came to decide that the grand jury presentation was deceptively staged to get Wilson off, but in theory I suppose that they could do this. Even if so, I doubt that they could successfully prosecute Wilson. Unlike KenR, and maybe other posters, my legal training is zip. But I think that the feds would have to show some planned violation of Brown's civil rights.

 

 

The facts matter here. I don't see what the point would be of indicting Wilson if the facts support his version of events. The grand jury apparently decided that they did. It's fair to ask if the prosecutor, or State's Attorney, or whatever he was, intentionally scuttled this. I doubt that is true, but it is fair to ask if it is true. Lacking that, I think the case is over.

If the feds think the presentation was "deceptively staged" they'd have to go after whoever staged it, not Wilson. IOW, this would be separate from any alleged violation of civil rights by Wilson. IMO, of course.

[kenberg]

If the feds think the presentation was "deceptively staged" they'd have to go after whoever staged it, not Wilson. IOW, this would be separate from any alleged violation of civil rights by Wilson. IMO, of course.

 

Yes, that was what I was trying to say. The case against Wilson, I think, is over.

[blackshoe]

Not entirely germane to Ferguson, but recent posts here reminded me of an old case from San Diego involving a botched drug raid and a dead civilian whose only connection with drugs was that his son, who he had disowned, was a dealer. In searching the web for info on that case to supplement my memory, I found this report from the Cato Institute. Some readers might find it interesting (and scary) as I did.

 

I think it's time we seriously scaled back all this SWAT BS, whatever police departments' excuses are for "needing" them.

[mike777]

With 2000 army troops with rifles and over a 1000 cops in Ferguson it may be difficult to convince cops they need to disarm Swat.

[Cthulhu D]

With 2000 army troops with rifles and over a 1000 cops in Ferguson it may be difficult to convince cops they need to disarm Swat.

 

Sure, but that is another symptom of the problem. US cops kill unarmed black dudes at a ridiculous rate. They just shot a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in a park:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_police_officer_shot_1.html

 

Other countries manage to not have this happen, so logically the US can not kill a bunch of minorities as well.

[mike777]

Sure, but that is another symptom of the problem. US cops kill unarmed black dudes at a ridiculous rate. They just shot a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in a park:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_police_officer_shot_1.html

 

Other countries manage to not have this happen, so logically the US can not kill a bunch of minorities as well.

 

 

good point it would be interesting to compare the USA cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes with Ausi's cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes.

 

Not sure why Ausi's rate might be lower unless the Ausi cops don't want to murder them as USA cops are accused of doing. Perhaps your court justice system is not rigged as many believe here in america

[Cthulhu D]

good point it would be interesting to compare the USA cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes with Ausi's cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes.

 

Not sure why Ausi's rate might be lower unless the Ausi cops don't want to murder them as USA cops are accused of doing. Perhaps your court justice system is not rigged as many believe here in america

 

Unfortunately the US does not tabulate the killings in a useful way. There are some numbers for justifitable homocides (~400-450 a year). Total killings by police are estimated at 750-1000 a year. Australia records all people killed by police with firearms, and has tabulated it here: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip34.html

 

Taking the lower 'Justifiable Homocides' number not 'all shootings by police' - so this comparison is in the US's favour. This runs at over 400 a year, so averaging the Australia rate since 2008, we kill 64 for every 400 killed by police in the US - best case estimate. Atlenatively, a US cop is 6 times more likely to kill a suspect with a firearm than an Australia cop.

 

That is a best case estimate - if we use the 750 number (which is more comparable), that jumps to 12 times more likely.

 

Overall, US police are much more likely to kill civilians than Australian police - or UK police, or German police or basically police anywhere else in the OECD.

[mike777]

Good points.

 

One concern is looking at only OECD will introduce many biases and issues into the stats compared with looking at the entire world.

 

another way to look at your numbers is just simply the usa is better, much better at murder and getting away with it than other countries in OECD. Hard to say with your numbers.

 

For example in reading about Italy and murders it came across it is much easier to murder and get away with it than in the USA. Not sure about aust.

 

 

I note in my old hometown of Chicago only roughly 30% of the murders have lead to conviction and much jail time if any in the last few years. My neighborhood where I grew up of Pullman/Roseland may be worse.

 

Side note I lived for many years in the close in suburb of OAK Park...think Hemingway and Frank L Wright. The Chicago mob boss lived in a simple plain house a few blocks away. His murder has never been solved. He was killed in his basement.

 

btw2 My sister for many years has lived just outside of a town called Melbourne, not sure what the murder rate is there.

[Cthulhu D]

 

btw2 My sister for many years has lived just outside of a town called Melbourne, not sure what the murder rate is there.

 

State of Victoria (of which Melbourne is the capital): 2.9 per 100,000

United States: 4.7 per 100,000

 

Overall violent crime rate (crimes against the person), is much lower than the US.

 

One concern is looking at only OECD will introduce many biases and issues into the stats compared with looking at the entire world.

 

another way to look at your numbers is just simply the usa is better, much better at murder and getting away with it than other countries in OECD. Hard to say with your numbers.

 

It's completely pointless looking at the rest of the world. If it's not a developed country with a 'real' police force, how can we make a comparision about police shootings?

 

Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilians.

[WellSpyder]

I was told that I would face prosecution myself if I discussed any aspect of what had transpired there with anyone, including my wife.

I hope BBO forum members don't come under the category "anyone" - or do we risk losing your contributions when you lose your liberty for sharing your interesting experience with us?

[mike777]

"Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilian"

 

 

that is what Ferguson and the protests are all about, police in this case the Officer murdered Mr. Brown in cold blooded murder. That is what the eyewitnesses and protesters are saying all around the country. They believe the police are murdering young men. that is what the protesters even in my little town are claiming. They believe the grand jury and the justice system is rigged. The community does not trust the police or the system or process. That is the whole theme.

 

 

Just be clear the theme in Ferguson is not shooting by police of civilians. That may be where some confusion is in discussing other countries and why we need to include all countries not just developed countries when comparing the real world. If a country has a pretend police force it is important to include them and compare them to real police forces whatever the heck that means. :)

[kenberg]

State of Victoria (of which Melbourne is the capital): 2.9 per 100,000

United States: 4.7 per 100,000

 

Overall violent crime rate (crimes against the person), is much lower than the US.

 

 

 

It's completely pointless looking at the rest of the world. If it's not a developed country with a 'real' police force, how can we make a comparision about police shootings?

 

Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilians.

 

According to http://www.fbi.gov/a...e_2012-2013.xls

the rate has droped from 4.7 (in 2012) per 100,000 to 4.5 per 100,000 (2013). Maybe not much of a drop, but movement in the right direction. Of course I would like to see it be 0. But I am not exactly shaking with fear, and therein lies the problem. There is an old book: We only kill each other, The Life and Times of Bugsy Siegle. This of course was in reference to the mafia, but the point remains. Often people are killed by someone they know. Often these eaople are known to be not very good people. Living life as I do, the chance of me being intentionally killed by someone is vanishingly small. As a citizen, I would like to see fewer people gunned down. I also would like a cure for cancer and safer highways. These latter two items are surely more of a threat to me personally. Everyone (more or less) knows someone who has died, rather excruciatingly, from cancer. Most of us know someone, maybe not closely, who died in a car accident. But murder? Some sixty years ago, the father of a friend of a friend was shot in his home. He was mob connected. I can't think of anyone I know who was gunned down in a street incident. (Oops, see below for a distant example of one such, but largely the statement is correct.)

 

It is usually easier to see a problem clearly when you have direct experience with it. I have had very little. Sometime back, the daughter of a friend was working in a jewelry store. A man came in with a gun to rob the place. She saw an opportunity, kneed him in the balls, and took his gun. Obviously this could have been very bad, but it turned out ok. And there was this guy, I never actually met him, that was caught more than once using drugs, enough to be facing serious time. The police decided to use him as bait to catch some other druggies and got him killed. So, on the periphery, I am aware of some things. But mostly when I discuss matters such as this, my experience is too meager to be a useful guide.

 

In the same reference on murder rates, I see that in Minnesota, where I grew up, it was 1.8 and 2.1 out of 100,000 in 2012 and 2013 respectively. So if I get worried, I don't have to move to Victoria, I can just move back to Minnesota where it is safer. But the family, mostly, are here so I will live with the danger.

[PassedOut]

I was told that I would face prosecution myself if I discussed any aspect of what had transpired there with anyone, including my wife.

I hope BBO forum members don't come under the category "anyone" - or do we risk losing your contributions when you lose your liberty for sharing your interesting experience with us?

I expect that the warning (if it really had any legal basis from the start -- I still have very little knowledge of these matters) expired with the final verdict of not guilty. :)

 

I do remember being quite surprised that the grand jury actually indicted the guy, however much I disliked him. I suspected (wrongly, it turned out) that there was some other evidence that I didn't know about. Of course, that was before I knew that even a ham sandwich could be indicted...

 

My concern going into the grand jury was that the real object was not the (preposterous) alleged threat against the president, but other matters such as the mechanics of how draft-age men were able to escape to Canada. But no, it was just that ridiculous threat and, for some reason, my attorney.

[kenberg]

There were various absurdities back then . I recall a story in the newspaper about a war protester saying something like "Johnson's war makes me want to puke". He was arrested. The claim was that if enough people puked on the president it could kill him. This was the way it was reported, although it would not surprise me to learn that again there was some other evidence of something more substantial tan puking. But maybe not. Those were crazy times all around.

[PassedOut]

They believe the grand jury and the justice system is rigged. The community does not trust the police or the system or process. That is the whole theme.

The belief arises from actual experience. It won't change until the system improves.

[cherdano]

This seems pretty bad:

Report: Prosecutors may have misled the Ferguson grand jury about the law for two months

 

Just doesn't sound like a mistake they'd have made if they had been invested in the case.

[mike777]

Good point.

It is very possible if this had not been such a hot in the news case the prosecutor would never have brought it to the grand jury. In this case he felt that if he did, if one white guy, made the decision he would be thought of as a racist guy who rigged the system. As such he believed shifting the decision to the grand jury and presenting all the ev idence rather than just one side he could have the community feel that justice prevailed. As in the actual case any decision which justified the shooting resulted in just making the community feel that America is a racist country out to murder young black men and let the cops get away with it.

[PassedOut]

The Washington Post has a troubling story today along similar lines: Did Miriam Carey have to die?

 

Carey arrives at the Secret Service kiosk at E and 15th. She drives past the kiosk into a restricted area that used to be E Street NW before it was closed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Now only authorized vehicles are permitted.

 

The White House is not even visible from this outermost perimeter. Someone trying to reach it would have to pass through at least three more. Obama is inside, after a visit to a Rockville construction company.

 

In the first of three still images the U.S. attorney released from security videos of this encounter, at precisely 2:13:13 p.m., a uniformed Secret Service officer seems to be trying to rap the Infiniti to get Carey’s attention. He and another uniformed officer direct her to stop, according to the U.S. attorney’s report. Carey doesn’t. She makes a U-turn and drives past the kiosk again on her way out.

 

She is crossing back into public space, at 2:13:30 p.m., when a man not in uniform, wearing a dark short-sleeve shirt, is seen pushing a section of portable fencing against the front of Carey’s Infiniti. At the same time, he’s trying to hang onto what looks like a cooler and a plastic shopping bag.

 

The man is an off-duty Secret Service officer, according to the report. The U.S. attorney, the Secret Service and the Capitol Police have declined to name any officer involved.

 

The off-duty officer is not trying to block Carey from entering the restricted area; he is trying to keep her from exiting back onto 15th Street.

 

According to a tourist bystander quoted at the time, Carey tries to steer around the fence section, but the officer repositions it in front of her. This is the only security barrier Carey ever rams.

 

The third image (2:13:32 p.m.) shows the off-duty officer tumbling away from the left front of Carey’s car. Officials said at the time that a Secret Service officer was slightly injured but not taken to a hospital.

Five minutes later she was dead.

[blackshoe]

Moral of the story: stay far, far away from "the people's house".

[mike777]

I am in the middle of reading a book about police training written by a cop.

 

In one section he talks of the President and the secret service.

 

The secret service come to town and tell the local cops, if some guy or gal seems to be threat they tell the cops to drop to the ground. The secret service is trained to shoot through anyone, cop or civilian, to bring the hidden threat down. They will not hesitate to put a bullet through the cop to hit a threat behind the cop.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1610352173/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=4968126763&ref=pd_sl_2vju48ztkf_e

 

 

The surprise in the story about that woman is that she lived minutes longer not that she was killed.

[kenberg]

Colbert King wrote an eloquent and deeply felt piece for the Post this morning.

 

Colbert Kng

 

 

Any comments that I have can come later, for the moment I will shut up and let you read his thoughts.

[barmar]

But I am not exactly shaking with fear, and therein lies the problem. There is an old book: We only kill each other, The Life and Times of Bugsy Siegle. This of course was in reference to the mafia, but the point remains. Often people are killed by someone they know. Often these eaople are known to be not very good people. Living life as I do, the chance of me being intentionally killed by someone is vanishingly small.

You're not a black man, are you?

 

Innocent African-Americans are presumably several times more likely to be killed than whites, either because of racial biases by the perpetrator, or just because they live in a neighborhood with a higher rate of violence where they might be a bystander.

[kenberg]

You're not a black man, are you?

 

Innocent African-Americans are presumably several times more likely to be killed than whites, either because of racial biases by the perpetrator, or just because they live in a neighborhood with a higher rate of violence where they might be a bystander.

 

Sure. The graph at rates makes your point dramatically. Actually I was, perhaps not clearly, intending the same point. You have figures of 51.5 and 2.9 for black and white males, age 10-24. Moreover, if you did the figures for, say white males age 65-80, I think the numbers would go down even further. What I meant by "and therein lies the problem" is that for me, surely reducing these numbers is a matter of civic responsibility, but not one of personal safety. I think I can be as civically responsible as the next guy, but I imagine that the sense of urgengy would be higher if I were in a different demographic category.

 

 

 

 

I had mis-read the table at Murder

 

Greenman, below, corrects my earlier version. Thanks.

 

 

So there is a lot of data, but data, to be useful, needs interpretation and context. And of course it also has to be read carefully.

[GreenMan]

I was particularly interested to see that of the 14,548 murders in 2011, there were 9,485 who were male, 1,138 who were female, and 3,925 whose sex was unknown. Say what? I have heard of sloppy investigation but there were 3,925 murdered people whose sex is unknown? Similar questions apply to race. Now I don't always know whether someone is black or white but I can usually tell if they are male or female.

 

The list is labeled "Murder offenders." In 3,925 cases they don't know (officially) who killed the person.