*promote
Good god.

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by HenningKO because HenningKO is not privileged - sorry.

Not a surprise to me. We knew that the DA had thrown the case. They did NOT do what they normally do in a grand jury, which is to present evidence that shows or implies the 'defendants' guilt, and present it in a way that makes the 'defendant' look guilty, or at least looks like they could be guilty. They don't show evidence that might make the 'defendant' look not-guilty, and the 'defendant' does not testify. In this case, they handed over ALL their evidence, did not explain it except to provide explanations that fit the 'defendants' version, and did allow the 'defendant' to 'testify', in his own words, for days on end without any cross examination or question of his version. Now we have another story that they also instructed the 'jury' with long held unconstitutional 'laws'.
To me, this all adds up to 'jeopardy' never attaching in this case, due to prosecutorial misconduct. The DA is REQUIRED to represent the state, not the defendant, ZEALOUSLY. There can be little question that, in this case, no such zealous representation happened on the side of the state/people. For that reason, I hope a special prosecutor can still go after him for murder. I also really hope this DA will be disbarred, certainly removed as DA, but it's a thin hope.

What is the LAW? When can a cop shoot / kill an offender? It was handed to them. I would think that they read it ? What was given to them?

A better question might be...What is the Law? When can a citizen 'stand their ground' and shoot/kill an offending/abusive cop? At some point, it must dawn on the legislature that cops kill 10 times as many citizens as the reverse (citizens killing cops) and it must be considered that we need protection FROM the police, as well as protection by the police. ;-)

As to your actual question, it's been reported that they were given the entire 'file' of evidence by the DA, everything they had, which must have been boxes upon boxes of information, as well as multiple 'laws' in their legalese entirety, including some that had already been removed for being unconstitutional. When that's done to an actual defendant in a trial, it's often called 'burying them in evidence', and is a tactic to hide a needle (of evidence) in a hay stack. I've never heard of it happening in a grand jury, where there is no defense side offered only the prosecution side (normally). It really seems the 'prosecution' this time was designed to both confuse the grand jury and offer them reasonable doubt...which is not how grand jury's work against citizens/non-police. Again, why I hope for disbarment of the DA, this was not zealous representation of their client, us.

@enoch. I suggest removing the word 'mistake' from title

This was not a mistake. This was the purposeful misleading of a jury.
Appalling.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, December 8th, 2014 9:20am PST - promote requested by eric3579.

The problem I've had is that both in Ferguson and the New York case, the Grand Jury both seemed to vote on guilt/innocence, not if there is merit for a trail. Ferguson could have ended up with an innocent verdict had it actually gone to trial, if only because of massive conflicting testimony (people would still be upset, but at least if there was a trial it'd probably have been minimized). The New York choke hold is a bit harder to see how it didn't go to trial, there's a flipping camera recording it.

The Cleveland one that seems to be blowing up is a bit different, though the family wasn't treated with proper respect, I'm a bit more on the cop side there since the orange cap was off (and who can fully trust that if all you have to do is paint the tip of a real gun orange) and it looked real in the time they had. One could argue they shot too soon, but hard to tell how long to give. The problem in that case is they didn't call for medical care quick enough (not that it probably would have helped) and they blocked and arrested the family, treating them without any respect to a dead/dying child that by that point they knew had a toy gun. Let the mother get to her kid, let the sister go and don't make the mother choose to stay with her daughter or ride with her son... That's where the Cleveland one went south.

The explanation at the top of this thread + the video which you can watch if you are functionally illiterate, explains exactly what isn't the law...

But I know you're literate, you spew bullshit back to other posters. So I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignorant of the law...

You're an ex-police officer, correct? So you were given a badge and a gun even though you seem incapable of understanding the law you swore to uphold.

And we wonder why cops are gunning down people without legal justification?

Don't understand why you are asking that question? The video is the answer, and it's summarised for you in the description. The answer is that they were handed a piece of paper that did not have any current (at the time) American law on it - but were misled by someone into thinking that it was. I hope that's clear enough and i've highlighted it so you can see it easily.

Are you trying to make a point, or did you not get that from the seventeen different ways it was said in the video and description?

Additionally to that point, i strongly suspect that in the professional legal industry, mistakes like that simply do not happen by accident. They are at the very top some of the most important legal decisions being made in the entire world, and i'm supposed to believe that they accidentally overlooked something that had been decided over 30 years ago and entirely changed police policy? Whoops i just printed off a 30 year old law, and i thought it was the present day one? Do you think the members of the jury didn't think, "Hmmm, are you sure it's legal to shoot random people as long as they're running away? We don't see that very often anymore.... Odd!" And when they ask that they're told, "Well there's the law right there for ya, i'm as surprised as you but i won't double check the modernity of it!" Only to be told days before the decision that perhaps maybe parts of the second bit of the bit i gave you earlier might not be valid, but we don't want to get into technicalities here, don't worry about it.

It's fucking corrupt, someone's (more likely to be many people) pulled a fast one... but worse still, someone's pulled a fast one on a HUGELY important case and had the arrogance to think they'd get away with something that simple. When you think of the protests in Ferguson and many many people showing support, how could they be so flippant? It doesn't just point towards racism, it confirms every racist suspicion that you might have had about the American legal system. It's not a one-off when it happens at the very top of the pyramid, that's how the best of the legal eagles in America deals with the problem of a white policeman killing a black man.... it was his fault, he's bad, he deserved it.

They were right under the microscope here - are you racist? And what did they do? Surely this is evidence of a system that lets down black people, and therefore it urgently needs to be fixed... and what about past offenders? I'd be pretty angry, if i were a black American. It's not just a let down, it's a dupe.

This is astonishing.

@dannym3141
@Asmo
@newtboy


Just asking for the current Law on the books. no more no less. Odonnell seems quick to point out the misgivings ( ie slight of hand trick) from the DA but to be fair reporter of facts he should give the current actual law. It does matter. With out it she is just stoking the fire and you all are sucking it up.

Brown's blood was on Officer Wilson's gun (a Sig Sauer P229) and on the inside of his police vehicle.

He ran away then stopped turned around and came back to the cop and started charging and finally wend down 8 - 10 feet from the cop.



The cop was justified. I am glad the kid is dead.

you had me until "i am glad the kid is dead".

you appear to be fighting a battle based on dissimilar distinctions.
you point out (rightly in my opinion) that there is evidence mike brown went for officer wilsons gun.while there is contradictory eye-witness accounts in that regard,if it had proven true,wilson would have been justified.

but...

this has zero to do with the evidence presented in this video.
which is exactly what people here on this thread have been trying to point out to you and you keep ignoring.either willingly or otherwise.

i do not understand conservatives such as yourself.you seem to adore the rule of law,but only when it is subservient to your own prejudices.

so let us break this down a bit.
if it were proven in a court of law that mike brown DID go for officer wilsons gun (which is possible).then under the current federal law wilson would be justified in this particular shooting.

then WHY did the D.A and A.D.A so obviously manipulate the grand jury?
why did they sabotage their OWN grand jury?
there are only two possibilities:
both the D.A and A.D.A are a level of epic incompetence,as to justify an immediate termination,OR their malfeasance,manipulations and LYING were intentional.

they never truly sought and indictment but rather a no-indict.which is a perversion of the system and goes against the basic principles of due process,equality and justice.

and now we will never know and neither do you bob.
this will never see the inside of a court and the rule of law has been raped by these two district attorneys.

so you can armchair lawyer all you like.it is meaningless in a system that has been so thoroughly corrupted and you cheer like a 12 yr old tween at a beiber concert.

glad someone is dead?
you should feel shame not pride.
a boy is dead and the system has been perverted.

there is nothing to be proud of...nothing.

Its a shame when anyone dies, but when dealing with a police officer its best to comply and complain after... If you resist it will not go well.

This needs a twitter movement. #disbarkalizadeh

Disbarring one attorney won't matter or make any difference. The entire system needs to be changed so that local DA's are automatically assumed to have a conflict of interest since they must work closely on a daily basis with the local police. A federal agency should handle these cases.

Agreed. However system changes start with small things slowly rolling into larger ones. Kind of like a snowball rolling down a hill until it becomes unstoppable.

ur country is shit

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Grimm.

The grand jury didnt indict because the cop was attacked by a man 6 feet tall and weighing 300 lbs, who forced him to shoot him..the whole hands up thing dont shoot was disproven by many witness's..

Is there a transcript from the GJ proceedings? Unless there is, all this speculation is simply...speculation.

Also, if all this speculation is true, then why doesn't Eric Holder file a civil rights complaint against Wilson?

Also, accusing someone who disagrees with you as a knuckledragger is being discriminatory to Neanderthals.

That's odd, because we've seen you make numerous definitive statements about exactly what happened in this case. Are you saying now that all your 'factual' statements about this case were really just speculation?! (because you could not have read the transcript yourself if you don't know if it exists)
If so, that's an improvement in my view. For my part, I have tried to be clear that my posts are my speculation based on available evidence (perhaps I have failed to be clear, but I made an effort). I was not there inside anyone's mind, so I can't KNOW anyone else's true viewpoint.

It is not speculation to say things were not handled in the normal methods for a grand jury. We know that definitively from what the DA said in his own press conference and from the evidence he presented (which reportedly IS publicly available information).
Also it's clear from the simple presentation/application of a law that was found unconstitutional 30 years ago, before he was even a lawyer. It wasn't a mistake, he had to search for that long removed law in law history books to even bring it up, it's not like he had ever used that law in the past and just didn't realize it was no longer law, it had not been law for 30 years. That's important, and clearly either clear disbar-able misconduct or complete disbar-able incompetence, I can't see a third possibility, if you do please enlighten me.

Civil rights cases take a long time to build before you take them to court, sometimes years, and sometimes it's impossible. In many cases, even though the CHARGE of a civil rights violation is true there's not enough proof of it to make a legal case, often (not always) due to the entire department closing ranks, hindering the federal investigation, and sometimes even destroying evidence. I think you know this.

We found another point of agreement. To me, when one jumps from disagreement on an idea to personal name calling, the name caller is admitting defeat in the debate and is just being a bad loser. I think most of us are guilty of that at one time or another, but some use it as an MO for life.

Enoch does it again...posts a totally irrelevant video. Why? Because if there were a case against Darren Wilson, the feds would have made it. He had a whole platoon of FBI agents trying to make a case against Wilson and they couldn't do it, simply because all the evidence backed Wilson's account. There was no 'hands up, don't shoot'. All total bullshit.

But enoch sounds like he was there, he knows everything about what happened.

If you want to make a case for removing that prosecutor, that's fine. She screwed up. Every rookie cop since Tenn v. Garner knows that you can't shoot a fleeing felon simply because they are fleeing.

However, FYI, you can shoot a fleeing felon if in your judgment the person poses a threat to other people and that threat is immediate.

Most of the posters here, I think, would prefer to watch a video of the proceedings a week later, than make a studied response, mostly based on their hatred of authority and misunderstanding of law and law enforcement.