The Many Faces of US Politics...

[muppet]

All that article shows is two differing view points as to how the grand jury was convened.No matter what Mculloch done he was going to be criticized by one side or the other.

What are these two sides?

Rightly or wrongly most people have taken either Wilsons side or Browns  side and this is without even reading all the evidence.Most people take the bits of evidence to suit there own agenda and will never look at the whole picture.Watched both MSNBC "S and FOX coverage of the aftermath of the grand jury decision and it was like looking at 2 different cases.

That news article was about McCullough and his actions though, not Brown or Wilson.

There were two arguments in it.

a) some highly qualified people criticised his conduct
b) one highly qualified said he would be criticised whatever he did - which is a diversion tactic not a defence.

[maigheo]

Not the way I read the article.The second opinion was that Mcculloch convened the grand jury in the proper way, the first opinion otherwise.We are going around in circles here.The grand jury sat for 25 days and heard over 70 hours of evidence so I would imagine that they were best qualified to come to a decision.The biggest problem in this case is certain people wanting to turn it into a racial issue and clouding the real issues in the case

[muppet]

Not the way I read the article.The second opinion was that Mcculloch convened the grand jury in the proper way, the first opinion otherwise.We are going around in circles here.The grand jury sat for 25 days and heard over 70 hours of evidence so I would imagine that they were best qualified to come to a decision.The biggest problem in this case is certain people wanting to turn it into a racial issue and clouding the real issues in the case

These are the first 7 opinions in that article. Which one is 'the second opinion' that you are referring to?

1st opinion - Director of Harvard Justice Institute:

"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result."

Sullivan called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

2nd opinion - 'several analysts' unnamed in the article:

In the Ferguson case, several analysts said, the decision to present all available evidence essentially meant that jurors heard from witnesses both favorable and hostile to a prosecution. It provided an unusual opportunity for jurors to have doubts about whether there was probable cause for an indictment.

3rd opinion - Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker:

Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst writing in the New Yorker, accused McCulloch of using the Wilson case for "a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else."

4th opinion - 'legal experts' unnamed in the article:

Most tellingly, legal experts said, McCulloch did not challenge Wilson's detailed account of his encounter with Brown. That, they said, prompted jurors to accept at face value Wilson's testimony that he feared for his life as Brown allegedly charged at him after he punched the officer and tried to grab his gun.

5th opinion - Benjamin Crump layer for Brown's family:

"A first-year law student would have done a better job of cross-examining" Wilson, said Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for Brown's family. "When was his credibility ever challenged?

6th opinion - Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed - granted a politician and not a legal opinion :

McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," said Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

7th opinion - James A. Cohen law Professor at Fordham:

James A. Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University, said the presentation of evidence was normally structured by prosecutors to help grand jurors understand it.

"A prosecutor has an obligation to ask questions and clarify testimony for grand jurors," he said. "This prosecutor did worse than abdicate his responsibility: He structured the presentation so the jurors would vote no true bill."

[macdanger2]

Not the way I read the article.The second opinion was that Mcculloch convened the grand jury in the proper way, the first opinion otherwise.We are going around in circles here.The grand jury sat for 25 days and heard over 70 hours of evidence so I would imagine that they were best qualified to come to a decision.The biggest problem in this case is certain people wanting to turn it into a racial issue and clouding the real issues in the case

You can't simply say that the grand jury were best qualified to come to a decision while at the same time accusing people of making it into a racial issue - otherwise you could apply the same logic to any decision of this kind, including ones involving miscarriages of justice. They were only best qualified if the racial element DIDN'T come into play which of course is a matter of opinion

[seafoid]

Also, this is a thread about US politics...why are you discussing a police shooting ?

institutionalised racism is political

By all means bring up issues in Ireland but don't give us crap about the US not having a serious problem in this regard

[whitey]

Not the way I read the article.The second opinion was that Mcculloch convened the grand jury in the proper way, the first opinion otherwise.We are going around in circles here.The grand jury sat for 25 days and heard over 70 hours of evidence so I would imagine that they were best qualified to come to a decision.The biggest problem in this case is certain people wanting to turn it into a racial issue and clouding the real issues in the case

These are the first 7 opinions in that article. Which one is 'the second opinion' that you are referring to?

1st opinion - Director of Harvard Justice Institute:

"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result."

Sullivan called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

2nd opinion - 'several analysts' unnamed in the article:

In the Ferguson case, several analysts said, the decision to present all available evidence essentially meant that jurors heard from witnesses both favorable and hostile to a prosecution. It provided an unusual opportunity for jurors to have doubts about whether there was probable cause for an indictment.

3rd opinion - Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker:

Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst writing in the New Yorker, accused McCulloch of using the Wilson case for "a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else."

4th opinion - 'legal experts' unnamed in the article:

Most tellingly, legal experts said, McCulloch did not challenge Wilson's detailed account of his encounter with Brown. That, they said, prompted jurors to accept at face value Wilson's testimony that he feared for his life as Brown allegedly charged at him after he punched the officer and tried to grab his gun.

5th opinion - Benjamin Crump layer for Brown's family:

"A first-year law student would have done a better job of cross-examining" Wilson, said Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for Brown's family. "When was his credibility ever challenged?

6th opinion - Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed - granted a politician and not a legal opinion :

McCulloch "allowed Darren Wilson to sit there and give his side of the story," said Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed. "But there was no one there to give Michael Brown's side of the story."

7th opinion - James A. Cohen law Professor at Fordham:

James A. Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University, said the presentation of evidence was normally structured by prosecutors to help grand jurors understand it.

"A prosecutor has an obligation to ask questions and clarify testimony for grand jurors," he said. "This prosecutor did worse than abdicate his responsibility: He structured the presentation so the jurors would vote no true bill."

This will probably the most scrutinized GrandJury verdict in American history.

We have an African American President, an African American Attorney General,  and an African American woman poised to become the new Attorney General once Holder resigns.

I'm confident that if the  correct processes and procedures were not followed in Ferguson, they will be investigated and corrected by the aforementioned parties if need be.

And thank fvck the prosecutor is a Democrat....if he was a Republican, we'd never hear the end of it

[muppet]

Says 'Whitey' 😊.

[Mike Sheehy]

Mike, I note you haven't contributed to the "social media humiliation" thread. By your logic your silence incriminates you - you condone that type ofbehaviour. Pathetic. You've lived in America for 20 years? Stay another f**king fifty and don't come home.

Come to think of it, you didn't contribute to that thread yourself, did you? You merely trawled through it after the fact looking to use anyone else's non-contribution to suit the slant you're attempting (and failing, miserably - see, I can be a patronising f**k too!) to put on a completely unrelated discussion.

You need to calm down and stop throwing the insults around. I know you are embarrassed that you got called on your hypocrisy, that doesn't excuse that sort of carry on.

You should concentrate on combatting racism in Ireland. That is somewhere that you can actually do something instead of constantly looking for excuses to have a go at Americans.

It is a great country with the most open-minded and tolerant people that I have come across anywhere and I am sick of listening to you xenophobes constantly running them down.

[Mike Sheehy]

Also, this is a thread about US politics...why are you discussing a police shooting ?

institutionalised racism is political

By all means bring up issues in Ireland but don't give us crap about the US not having a serious problem in this regard

Read the thread. I clearly stated that the US has a problem with racism. However, you are certainly the last person to be lecturing anyone about it.

[gallsman]

Mike, I note you haven't contributed to the "social media humiliation" thread. By your logic your silence incriminates you - you condone that type ofbehaviour. Pathetic. You've lived in America for 20 years? Stay another f**king fifty and don't come home.

Come to think of it, you didn't contribute to that thread yourself, did you? You merely trawled through it after the fact looking to use anyone else's non-contribution to suit the slant you're attempting (and failing, miserably - see, I can be a patronising f**k too!) to put on a completely unrelated discussion.

You need to calm down and stop throwing the insults around. I know you are embarrassed that you got called on your hypocrisy, that doesn't excuse that sort of carry on.

You should concentrate on combatting racism in Ireland. That is somewhere that you can actually do something instead of constantly looking for excuses to have a go at Americans.

It is a great country with the most open-minded and tolerant people that I have come across anywhere and I am sick of listening to you xenophobes constantly running them down.

Congratulations, you're an embarrassment to two countries.

[maigheo]

Not the way I read the article.The second opinion was that Mcculloch convened the grand jury in the proper way, the first opinion otherwise.We are going around in circles here.The grand jury sat for 25 days and heard over 70 hours of evidence so I would imagine that they were best qualified to come to a decision.The biggest problem in this case is certain people wanting to turn it into a racial issue and clouding the real issues in the case

You can't simply say that the grand jury were best qualified to come to a decision while at the same time accusing people of making it into a racial issue - otherwise you could apply the same logic to any decision of this kind, including ones involving miscarriages of justice. They were only best qualified if the racial element DIDN'T come into play which of course is a matter of opinion

not sure what you are trying to say here.Do you think the grand jury was racially motivated in not bringing an indictment?All the credible witness's were black and there account of what happened was supported by forensic evidence and by the police officers account.Unfortunatly it has been turned into a racial incident by people like Al Sharpton and there probably would not be any coverage of it if Mike Brown was white.The 'hands up don't shoot' slogan that a lot of protesters are using is total BS and only makes people believe that he was shot with his hands up and inflames the situation even more

[macdanger2]

Not the way I read the article.The second opinion was that Mcculloch convened the grand jury in the proper way, the first opinion otherwise.We are going around in circles here.The grand jury sat for 25 days and heard over 70 hours of evidence so I would imagine that they were best qualified to come to a decision.The biggest problem in this case is certain people wanting to turn it into a racial issue and clouding the real issues in the case

You can't simply say that the grand jury were best qualified to come to a decision while at the same time accusing people of making it into a racial issue - otherwise you could apply the same logic to any decision of this kind, including ones involving miscarriages of justice. They were only best qualified if the racial element DIDN'T come into play which of course is a matter of opinion

not sure what you are trying to say here.Do you think the grand jury was racially motivated in not bringing an indictment?All the credible witness's were black and there account of what happened was supported by forensic evidence and by the police officers account.Unfortunatly it has been turned into a racial incident by people like Al Sharpton and there probably would not be any coverage of it if Mike Brown was white.The 'hands up don't shoot' slogan that a lot of protesters are using is total BS and only makes people believe that he was shot with his hands up and inflames the situation even more

I'm saying that you're completely dismissing the possibility that there was a racial motivation by saying the grand jury saw all the evidence and are therefore best placed to decide whether Wilson was justified or not. It may well be that that is correct, however it may also not be correct and those who feel, based on the (albeit incomplete) story that we have heard, that Wilson was not justified in what he did then racial prejudice would be one explanation for the decision

[maigheo]

well I guess you could say that is possible but there is nothing to indicate that this incident was racially motivated and I am sure if there was a racial incident in the past involving Wilson we would know about it by now.For me the thing that annoys me about this case is hate mongers and race baiters like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson inserting themselves in to the story and making the whole story about black v white.In the St Louis area 90 per cent of black murders are committed by other blacks but you are never going to hear them address this as it does not suit there agenda.If there is any issue in this case it would be the police training whereby they are taught shoot to kill if they think there life is in danger but maybe this has been proven to be the right approach.

[heganboy]

This will probably the most scrutinized GrandJury verdict in American history.

We have an African American President, an African American Attorney General,  and an African American woman poised to become the new Attorney General once Holder resigns.

I'm confident that if the  correct processes and procedures were not followed in Ferguson, they will be investigated and corrected by the aforementioned parties if need be.

Unfortunately, Whitey, this confidence is based of yours is founded on absolutely no legal or factual basis whatsoever.

A bit like some of your previously stated facts opinions, sorry (which you are of course entitled to), none of your African American "aforementioned parties" have jurisdiction, which is precisely why anyone wanting this squashed would go through the unusual process of a) bringing it to a grand jury in the first place, and b) the antics played out at the grand jury itself.

The grand jury is not supposed to decide guilt or innocence, but rather if there is enough evidence for a trial to even take place. The fact that there are conflicting witnesses alone would be enough for a grand jury a similar scenario in New York, NJ or CT. 

I'm confident that you will, of course, embark on the requisite years of full time legal study in the US and then practice law for a while and then come back with more well founded legal opinions involving the nature of the legal system in Missouri.

I'm not stating whether that is fact or opinion just yet, I'll let you know...

[J70]

well I guess you could say that is possible but there is nothing to indicate that this incident was racially motivated and I am sure if there was a racial incident in the past involving Wilson we would know about it by now.For me the thing that annoys me about this case is hate mongers and race baiters like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson inserting themselves in to the story and making the whole story about black v white.In the St Louis area 90 per cent of black murders are committed by other blacks but you are never going to hear them address this as it does not suit there agenda.If there is any issue in this case it would be the police training whereby they are taught shoot to kill if they think there life is in danger but maybe this has been proven to be the right approach.

This is just another in a whole series of cases where unarmed black men are killed by police. It's easy to sit as a white person who doesn't need to worry about their kid when it comes to cops and society and condemn the reaction of the black community,  but we don't know their experience,  do we? And blacks being killed by other blacks generally does not occur at the hands of the state, does it?

By the way, what percentage of murders of whites are at the hands of other white people?