This ain't McCulloch's first rodeo. From wikipedia: Seems like cops in St Louis have a long track record of being afraid of something, I just can't put my finger on it.In 2000, in the so-called "Jack in the Box" case, two undercover officers, a police officer and a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officer, shot and killed two unarmed black men in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant in Berkeley, Missouri. In 2001, the officers told a grand jury convened by McCulloch that the suspects tried to escape arrest and then drove toward them; the jury declined to indict. McCulloch told the public that every witness had testified to confirm this version, but St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist Michael Sorkin reviewed the previously secret grand jury tapes, released to him by McCulloch, and found that McCulloch's statement was untrue: only three of 13 officers testified that the car was moving forward. A subsequent federal investigation found that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots; nevertheless, federal investigators decided that the shooting was justified because the officers feared for their safety. McCulloch also drew controversy when he said of the victims: "These guys were bums." The two men killed, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley, had prior felony convictions on drug and assault charges.
white people? no that's not right, think i'm close though
Here's the thing. If asked beforehand whether I wanted column 1 or column 2 for the Ferguson case, I would have wholeheartedly endorsed column 2. If it were feasible, I'd want column 2 for every criminal justice case. It's more comprehensive and supposedly more transparent.
that's what the trial is for, though. you can't have a fair assessment in a grand jury because the prosecuting attorney is the only one with power. defense attorneys aren't allowed to speak and it's illegal for a called witness to refuse testimony. grand juries are solely for establishing probable cause.It's more comprehensive and supposedly more transparent.
True. I would still prefer column 2 on the whole (more witnesses called, longer testimony), with the caveat that the next step has to be an indictment, or else you run the risk of only one side getting aired. And of course etc etc it does normally lead to an indictment but these circumstances are different.
Yes, but in this case, with column 1 or 2 the prosecutor was actually building a case against the proposed victim.
Yeah, there are good parts to this and bad -- I think in a "normal" indictment situation (no cops involved) the extended testimony, longer wait, leaving the charges up to the jury ... all very good things. In a situation like this one where a prosecutor has any number of reasons to protect the cop, all bets are unfortunately off. I'm waiting for someone to do a comprehensive summary of the released evidence. Want to look at it but don't have time to draw the conclusions myself.
No, not a good thing...a terrible thing! A jury is a panel of regular folks. They are not trained legal practitioners. They are in NO WAY qualified to decide what the appropriate charges should be in a case. The things you like, those are all part of a trial. That's the point of a trial, except in a trial it's all out in the open and there are two sides actually working towards a goal. In this instance the prosecutor torpedoed his own side as he had no intention of ever prosecuting a cop. With column 1 he has less room for manoeuvrability. With column 1 he has to present his case against Darren Wilson, suggest a charge and nothing more. In column 2 he gets to present both sides of the argument and no one else is on the other side to call him on it.leaving the charges up to the jury
all bets are unfortunately off
I assume juries who indict people when they haven't been given a list of charges they have to conform don't pull things out of their ass. I imagine it's more like: here are the 2000 whatever possible legal charges, pick some; as opposed to, here are the three things you are allowed to charge this person with, pick some. At least I hope so. That seems to increase the options the jury has, if they are willing to put some work in.No, not a good thing...a terrible thing! A jury is a panel of regular folks. They are not trained legal practitioners. They are in NO WAY qualified to decide what the appropriate charges should be in a case.