The Grand Jury, composed mostly of whites, did not find a true bill in the case of Ferguson Police Officer Wilson shooting and killing the unarmed young black man, Michael Brown. This comes as no surprise. I expected as much when the prosecutor delayed announcing the Grand Jury findings for several hours -- a very unusual occurrence, as most Grand Jury findings are announced as soon as known. Evidently, the white power structure in St. Louis County wanted time to get their militarized police in position to control any justifiable response to the decision.
It is clear this prosecutor didn't want charges, and made sure the Grand Jury had enough information to obfuscate what happened (so they could return a no-bill decision). He obviously doesn't think police shooting an unarmed person, with their arms up and trying to surrender, should be against the law -- and thanks in part to this decision, it isn't.
This was a horrendous decision, but it is not an unusual decision. Police are seldom held responsible for shooting unarmed citizens in the United States, especially if the victim is a black male. And Missouri is no exception to any rule. That is true across this country.
I have said before that I think this would have been very different if the officer had been black and the victim (and witnesses) had been white. I still believe that. The prosecutor (and his right-wing friends) will try to deny this case had anything to do with race, but that is a load of crap. It was definitely about race -- from the killing to the Grand Jury decision. I think I would be very worried if I was a black male -- because this case just illustrates that they can easily be victimized (and even killed) at the whim of a white officer, and nothing will be done.
This shooting, and this decision, are both inexcusable.
I am no police apologist or particular fan of - but in this case it is apparent that the officer was in fear for his life and was justified. It is highly unlikely that an officer is going to shoot someone for stealing some cigars and was in the process of surrendering to the officer. I have little sympathy here.
ReplyDeleteI do feel for the hardworking folks who have everything they have been able to save, beg, and borrow tied up into their businesses that are being looted by thugs. I am surprised that some have not "defended" their property with deadly consequences. Perhaps most wisely figured that would bring more trouble to them than it is worth.
I make no excuse for the arsonists and idiots. That was wrong. But that does not excuse in any way the actions of the officer. I think he murdered Brown -- not because he stole some cigars, but because he was angry at Brown defying his authority.
DeletePushed for time today so all I can do is offer you an extract from my blog:
ReplyDelete"[T]here were nine 'good men and women true' in the peace and privacy of a grand jury-room who had to spend months confronting the facts of the shooting dead of Michael Wilson by policeman Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, in order to determine if the officer had acted improperly and should therefore face charges in a court.
They had to work their way through mountains of detailed forensic evidence which might have strained the brains of a science graduate. They had to collate and compare huge numbers of witness statements that were self-contradictory, some of which were later withdrawn and some of which were obviously pure (or impure!) fantasy. Meanwhile, they had to try and clear their minds of the poisonous fog of innuendo that poured out of the American media - and which continues today even after the verdict. Thus, as just one example, Michael Brown is always and forever described as either "a black teenager" or "a black unarmed teenager". True as far as it goes and it instantly establishes an image, and in these highly politicised events, image is all. No media outlet that I have seen has described Michael Brown accurately as 'a black, 6'-5", 20-stone, violent criminal who had just used force to rob a shop-owner". No, no, you can hear sundry Leftie editors complaining, that's too much information, the dopes who read our trash can't take all that in and anyway it's the wrong image.
Happily, those nine jurors did have to face the facts and they decided quite sensibly that if such a violent behemoth charged at you with obvious malice aforethought you would have every right to use whatever means to defend yourself. Not only was Officer Wilson doing his duty he was also a brave man."
There were 12 Grand Jurors in this case. And we don't know how many voted to no-bill the officer. It would have taken 9 to issue a charge, so as many as 8 could have felt he was guilty and he would still have been no-billed. I believe the prosecutor wanted them to no-bill, so he dumped far more information than was necessary to confuse them and get a no-bill.
DeleteSorry, I confused myself with the fact that it takes nine jurors to agree that a case must be answered..
DeleteHowever, I am amused at your desperation when you say "so he [the prosecutor] dumped far more information than was necessary to confuse them". You mean he should have held back evidence? If so, who does the picking and choosing and on what grounds? And would we be allowed to know what was left out? And why do you assume that your fellow citizens are incapable of understanding the basics of forensic science when it is explained to them slowly and carefully by experts?
'Bartender Cabbie', above, is entirely right, Michael Brown was a thief and a thug and a menace to the life and well-being of Officer Wilson when he made to attack him for a second time. What would your advice have been to Officer Wilson? Bang the car into reverse and flee the scene?
Also, Ted, I can't help noticing that you joyfully engage in the vile agit-prop of the mass media by publishing a pretty-boy picture of Michael Brown obviously taken years before which no more resembles the hulking great brute who had just attacked a small Asian man in a shop. Incidentally, when are you going to speak up for that little man?
If the prosecutor did this with every case he presented to a Grand Jury, I would agree with you -- but he doesn't. On all other cases, he just presents the information favorable to the prosecution. He didn't want a true bill, so he did this case differently -- presenting all the information that would get him what he wanted -- a no-bill. That means the victim was not treated the same in this case as in all of the other cases this prosecutor presents to a Grand Jury -- and that is the problem, being treated differently than other people are treated.
DeleteSo, Ted, still **nothing to say** for the little Asian man hurled up against the shelves in his shop by a hulking, 6'-5", 20-stone brute intent on robbing him?
ReplyDeleteAnd the prosecutor did not just present the facts favourable to an 'aquit' decision, he gave the jury, quite properly, every fact at his disposal with nothing held back and then let them exercise their American right to take a decision. Can you tell me what is wrong with that? Or are you the latest in a long line of political extremists who, if the first decision fails to go your way, insist on trial after trial until they reach the, er, 'correct' decision.
I've already told you what was wrong with it. You just chose to ignore it.
DeleteDavid, I have no interest in helping you spread your right-wing propaganda -- from the National Review or anywhere else. As for your "twelve good men and women", you need to study up on our justice system. A prosecutor can get what he wants out of the Grand Jury almost all of the time (hence the phrase that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich). This prosecutor want a no-bill, so that is the case he presented to them. He didn't just give them the info and tell them to decide. He put a defense attorney's spin on the evidence they were given. You could tell that by the defensive summation he gave before reporters. The man didn't do his job, and that could be because he was not impartial (heading an organization that raised funds for the officer's defense). A special prosecutor should have been appointed, and because that didn't happen, what we got was a perversion of our law.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I sent you the link to The National Review was because, much to my surprise, the writer went quite along way in *your* direction!
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how you know so much about the presentation of evidence, I thought the Grand Jury considerations were secret. And I still don't understand why you prefer partial evidence to all of the evidence. (Er, well, I do understand, actually, it's because 'twelve good men and women true' had the effrontery to come to a different conclusion than you and the massed ranks of the progressive Left - just as they did with George Zimmerman.) Honestly, you just can't rely on 'the people' anymore!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/25/prosecutor-fundraising-wilson/
ReplyDeleteWell, I read all that 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink' innuendo which failed utterly to establish a single fact. Why on earth did you bother to link to it?
ReplyDeleteThe *FACT* remains that the prosecutor offered up every bit of evidence in the possession of the authorities, no picking or choosing, the whole damn lot! The jury, 12 of your fellow Americans of whom you seem to have a remarkably low opinion, came to a conclusion. That's it - end of! Personally, I have no definitive idea whether their conclusion was right or wrong because unlike them I do not have all the evidence - nor do you! Unlike you, I accept the jury verdict.
'twelve good men and women true'
ReplyDeleteAnd you know this is true? How?? psycho powers?
That's like the dumb assed phrase 'a jury of your peers' How many of his neighbors (peers) where on the jury??
There aint know way I could get one....my peers have all been to college-studied science-forensics-how the brain does not work-and knows religion is a pile of BS. Our legal system my be better than some but is is still twisted a bit.
And history shows that shooting a black in that state is NO BIG THING for the racial & religious bigots that live there.
DD
ReplyDeleteYou are making a huge assumption -- that the "prosecutor" presented all the evidence in an unbiased way. Many (including me) don't believe that at all. He presented a view to that grand jury that was slanted toward the murderer, because that is his own bias.
And endlessly repeating your faulty assumption doesn't make it true.
Delete