snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 25 November 2014, 02:09 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,962
Default Grand Jury Does Not Charge Ferguson Officer in Michael Brown Shooting

A St. Louis County grand jury has brought no criminal charges against Darren Wilson, a white police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American teenager, more than three months ago in nearby Ferguson.

At a news conference, the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said that members of the grand jury deliberated for more than two days before finding that no probable cause existed to file charges against Officer Wilson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us...jury.html?_r=0
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 25 November 2014, 02:54 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,251
Default

If there was so much evidence that it took them two months or so to review it all, how was there insufficient evidence to indict?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25 November 2014, 03:39 AM
Spud Sabre Spud Sabre is offline
 
Join Date: 27 October 2009
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,677
Default

Not all evidence gathered is useful.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25 November 2014, 03:49 AM
Aud 1 Aud 1 is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 7,159
Default

The evidence is being released. You can do your armchair commentary based on the same information they did.

It is surreal seeing the riots in Ferguson on streets I walked down hundreds of times.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25 November 2014, 03:52 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,913
Default

It's not about volume, it's about persuasiveness and standard of proof, which is "probable cause" at this stage.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25 November 2014, 03:54 AM
Aud 1 Aud 1 is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 7,159
Default

Here is a transcript of the grand jury testimony.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/multime...3c15d0f0e.html
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25 November 2014, 04:03 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud Sabre View Post
Not all evidence gathered is useful.
Shouldn't the non-useful evidence have been screened out before being presented to the Grand Jury?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25 November 2014, 04:12 AM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,373
Default

I don't think I would want anyone except the Grand Jury screening the evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25 November 2014, 04:16 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Shouldn't the non-useful evidence have been screened out before being presented to the Grand Jury?
Are you making the argument that the jury took too much time to look at too much evidence? That seems like rather a good thing in a case like this.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25 November 2014, 04:22 AM
Magdalene Magdalene is offline
 
Join Date: 30 October 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aud 1 View Post
The evidence is being released. You can do your armchair commentary based on the same information they did.

It is surreal seeing the riots in Ferguson on streets I walked down hundreds of times.
Ditto. I've been hearing rumors that they've gotten to Flower Valley Shopping Center. That's three miles from my parents house.

Magdalene
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25 November 2014, 11:30 AM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

As I heard in interviews with protesters last night on the way home after the Grand Jury announcement. Physical evidence is not relevant if there are enough independent unrelated witnesses to the crime.

I also think that a lot of people do not understand the police work under a different set of rules and laws when it come to shooting someone then those for normal citizen. As a citizen you should remember these rules when dealing with a police officer even if you think you are right and innocent and the officer is being an ass.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25 November 2014, 12:35 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,784
Default

This page has some reports and forensic evidence that the grand jury saw: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/fergu.../evidence.html
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25 November 2014, 01:12 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud Sabre View Post
Not all evidence gathered is useful.
You can get into a semantic argument about whether material gathered is 'evidence' if it is not useful in reaching a determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Shouldn't the non-useful evidence have been screened out before being presented to the Grand Jury?
Necessarily a fair bit of it was. No doubt there were statements taken of people who said they arrived well after the events, lots of video taken the day of the events for hours after the death, truly extraneous details about clothing and possessions, etc. But particularly when there was so much false information being passed around, and so much incitement to riot, you would want to make sure the grand jury got every tidbit that could even be tangentially persuasive of not just the events but the thoughts of the participants as well. It can be too easy for a DA to present a very biased, prejudiced picture of events by presenting only partial facts, but with the tensions around this case, he needed to present all the information thoroughly.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 25 November 2014, 06:30 PM
Spud Sabre Spud Sabre is offline
 
Join Date: 27 October 2009
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
You can get into a semantic argument about whether material gathered is 'evidence' if it is not useful in reaching a determination.
I hope it's clear that what I meant by 'evidence' was "things gathered by the investigators because they thought they would be useful" not "things useful in reaching a determination".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 25 November 2014, 06:47 PM
Dark Blue's Avatar
Dark Blue Dark Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 June 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,319
Police

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
If there was so much evidence that it took them two months or so to review it all, how was there insufficient evidence to indict?
Just because it's called evidence doesn't mean that it automatically points towards a person's guilt. Evidence can also exonerate the defendant. In fact we even have a name for it. Exculpatory evidence.

From what I've read the evidence included approximately 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses. For a grand jury meeting once a week or so it would take a few months to hear it all. And they would be remiss in doing their job if they didn't hear and consider all of it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 25 November 2014, 08:44 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,251
Default

From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-of-the-time/

Quote:
2. Grand juries, at least at the state level, often do not indict police officers. As Ben Casselman of 538, who made the observation about the rarity of grand juries not indicting, noted, "A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that 'police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings' in Houston and other large cities in recent years. ... Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 26 November 2014, 04:00 AM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

Some where there is usually a requirement of willful and wanton disregard or some such wording that has to be met before a officer will go to trial. It is very hard to prove a police officer was willfully and with wanton disregard killed someone.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26 November 2014, 05:36 AM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,551
Default

I've read that the public prosecutor didn't have to refer the case to the Grand Jury, but could have decided to bring charges himself.

Is that true? And if so, what were the reasons for a Grand Jury decision? Is it common in cases like this (morder/manslaughter in general and/or cases involving police officers) to have the Grand Jury decide?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26 November 2014, 06:41 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,913
Default

In the states that allow charging other than by grand jury (most of them, including Missouri), prosecutors can file charges themselves and the defendant has the right to have a preliminary hearing in front of a judge to determine if there's probable cause for the charges. Usually that procedure gets used for routine cases where there isn't any doubt about p.c. In those cases, defendants also usually waive the preliminary hearing.

If there's doubt about p.c., the charges are more likely to go to a grand jury. On a practical level, there's a slight advantage to defendants in getting a preliminary hearing. There's also, of course, the fact that a grand jury provides more political cover to prosecutors. If the prosecutor in Ferguson had filed directly and there was a preliminary hearing rather than a grand jury process, I guarantee that people would be protesting that that process favored the officer. In neither case does the requirement of having probable cause go away. There are just different methods of testing for it.

I think someone may have posted this link already, but it gives some information about the process and some of the possible reasons why grand juries rarely indict police officers. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/f...darren-wilson/
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26 November 2014, 01:25 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,219
Default

Quote:
2. Grand juries, at least at the state level, often do not indict police officers. As Ben Casselman of 538, who made the observation about the rarity of grand juries not indicting, noted, "A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that 'police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings' in Houston and other large cities in recent years. ... Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically."
One explanation would be that most police shootings are justified.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More White House officials at Michael Brown’s funeral than Thatcher’s snopes Soapbox Derby 10 28 August 2014 03:24 AM
Ferguson, MO: The “JJ Witness Video” – Eye Witness Audio of Mike Brown Shooting A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 38 27 August 2014 06:13 PM
Tattooed-children case moves to Campbell County grand jury A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 3 08 April 2014 03:14 PM
Man Charged With Killing Burleson County Deputy No Billed by Grand Jury A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 13 10 February 2014 09:42 PM
Watchdog suggests Ontario take charge of police training after Toronto shooting Canuckistan Police Blotter 20 19 August 2013 02:22 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.