[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

[薔薇語]

The Prosecutor has prosecutorial discresion and can choose what he wants to take to court. If the prosecutor really thought that there was no chance in heck that the officer was guilty of any crime, then he should have never indicted him and stood up for his beliefs. But he didn't. No, he created a show trial of the Grand Jury for the sole sake of fooling stupid people who think a Grand Jury is anything like an actual trial - it isn't and is never meant to be. He purposely allowed people to perjure themselves in front of the court to throw the case. He purposely deflated every possible aspect of the state's (HIS!) case so as to destroy his case. He purposely made the entire event last longer than many trials just to wear down the jurors so that they would be too fed up to care anymore. 

Yes, it is true he has prosecutor discretion and he could have used it to never take it to trial. But he used it to convene a Grand Jury. Once he made that choice he should have had to follow through with it but he chose not to. He chose to cover for his murder friends and deny anyone of any chance of justice. 

 

If you so strongly believe that the officer was innocent, then he could have had his day in court where he could defend himself. As the old saying goes: innocent people don't need to fear the law. Darren wasn't innocent and the prosecutor knew it. That is why he did everything he could to prevent it going to trial.

 

Do you know whose case wasn't represented at the Grand Jury - the murdered boy. That boy had no one there to advocate for him. That boy was denied even the slightest semblance of justice. The officer would have had his chance to defend his actions with all the vigor the law allows had it gone to trial. But you know what is even better than that, having the prosecutor do that job for you at a Grand Jury hearing. 

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

Speaking of all the fun statics about how our police murder us, if I recall correctly there hasn't been a single death by cop in Japan in the better part of President Obama's time in office. And that is in spite of some cops here being out and out racists. The US has some real problems it needs to solve. 

 

La Rose. 

[Agent X]

The Prosecutor has prosecutorial discresion and can choose what he wants to take to court. If the prosecutor really thought that there was no chance in heck that the officer was guilty of any crime, then he should have never indicted him and stood up for his beliefs. But he didn't. No, he created a show trial of the Grand Jury for the sole sake of fooling stupid people who think a Grand Jury is anything like an actual trial - it isn't and is never meant to be. He purposely allowed people to perjure themselves in front of the court to throw the case. He purposely deflated every possible aspect of the state's (HIS!) case so as to destroy his case. He purposely made the entire event last longer than many trials just to wear down the jurors so that they would be too fed up to care anymore. 

 

Yes, it is true he has prosecutor discretion and he could have used it to never take it to trial. But he used it to convene a Grand Jury. Once he made that choice he should have had to follow through with it but he chose not to. He chose to cover for his murder friends and deny anyone of any chance of justice. 

 

If you so strongly believe that the officer was innocent, then he could have had his day in court where he could defend himself. As the old saying goes: innocent people don't need to fear the law. Darren wasn't innocent and the prosecutor knew it. That is why he did everything he could to prevent it going to trial.

 

Do you know whose case wasn't represented at the Grand Jury - the murdered boy. That boy had no one there to advocate for him. That boy was denied even the slightest semblance of justice. The officer would have had his chance to defend his actions with all the vigor the law allows had it gone to trial. But you know what is even better than that, having the prosecutor do that job for you at a Grand Jury hearing. 

 

La Rose. 

 

You claim to understand the legal system. Opinion: It is wrong to try someone for a crime when a typical prosecutor knows the burden of proof cannot be met. What I read is just talking in circles. Let me sum up your position as I understand it: It's okay to try someone for a crime the prosecutor doesn't think the accused committed. That you are doing the person a kindness by letting him exonerate himself. - Is that your position? Would you prefer an accusation against you to die with the Prosecutor or the Grand Jury or would you prefer for it to go to trial? 

[Agent X]

By the way, some of the witnesses against Wilson had already changed their story before the Grand Jury. Also, what witness holds more weight? The one that agrees with physical evidence or the one that doesn't?

[Roter Baron]

@ Sinanju: Thanks for the first-hand report about the garnd jury system: I had no idea (or quite a blurry one) of how that works.

Seems quite 19th century to me, quite well for a close-living community where most people know each other and are fully aware of the circumstances and know the person about to being tried (at least like "Yes, it's the nephew of Old Widow Miller who used to work in Mr McPherson's store. Married Susan Maurer last year."). 21st century conditions are not really well addressed by this jury system, it seems.

[Markdoc]

Utah is still an apples to oranges comparison. You simply can't make an apples to apples comparison to the US. That's the problem with the numbers.

 

Also, citing statistics, then saying it's not about statistics, then giving more statistics is . . . confusing.

This makes no sense. If you can only compare things that are exactly the same, then you can't actually compare anything - because of course if they are exactly the same, there's nothing to compare, and if they are different, then you're saying they can't be compared. So you can't compare, say, Utah to Nevada? Or Utah in 2014 to Utah in 2013? Eeeh. I don't buy it. Europe and the US are different yes, but not so different that no meaningful comparisons can be made. It's not like we're comparing Utah and Anbar province.

 

As for the point about statistics, I don't think that word means what you think it means: it's not a synonym for data or numbers. Saying "9 per year is a lot more than 1 per year" is not statistics. It's just good old-fashioned common sense. Statistical analyses, in contrast, look at variation - for example if the average is 10 per decade, is that 1 a year, or none for 9 years and 10 in one year? The average is the same, but statisically those two counts are different. But that's way off the discussion here.

 

We could *do* a statistical comparison if you want - but really, there's no point. We can see without it, that these numbers are very, very different. US cops shoot and kill more citizens than the cops of any other developed country. Heck, at these levels, they are shooting and killing more citizens than criminals do in many other developed countries. So you have to ask why. Saying "Ah, it's just different" doesn't help. We already *know* it's different. But why?

 

If you can't (or won't) answer that question, then you probably can't solve the problem. To me, at least, it looks like a problem that needs solving.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I think that's twisted logic. If I'm a prosecutor and I know that the evidence does not support a trial but people are rioting because they think they know better, I don't go ahead and have the trial.

Actually, sometimes you do. A core concept of the English justice system - on which the US system is built - is that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The justice system does not exist in isolation from the citizenry, and the prosecutor had the discretion to send this case to trial, if only to ensure justice was seen to be done. He should have done so, I think. After all his job - and the job of the system - is to maintain public order, and it does not look like that is what happened.

 

Our systems give prosecutors a lot of discretion, but the flip side is that we expect them to use it wisely.

 

Regards, Mark

[Agent X]

Actually, sometimes you do. A core concept of the English justice system - on which the US system is built - is that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The justice system does not exist in isolation from the citizenry, and the prosecutor had the discretion to send this case to trial, if only to ensure justice was seen to be done. He should have done so, I think. After all his job - and the job of the system - is to maintain public order, and it does not look like that is what happened.

 

Our systems give prosecutors a lot of discretion, but the flip side is that we expect them to use it wisely.

 

Regards, Mark

Okay, so in the name of public order you put an individual through a show trial that you know won't go anywhere AND you provide an expectation on the part of the aggrieved that "this is for realz" AND, you know, you sell it too. It's not like you can't charge him without claiming you have a strong enough case. So, when he is found not guilty and the riots REALLY BLOW UP - How's your public order?

[薔薇語]

I think Markdoc's most recent post made an extremely good point. Justice needs to be done and needs to be seen being done. The public trust is extremely important and if the system ignores a fundamental aspect of our society (that people need to see justice being served), then it is no longer functioning.

 

You claim to understand the legal system. Opinion: It is wrong to try someone for a crime when a typical prosecutor knows the burden of proof cannot be met. What I read is just talking in circles. Let me sum up your position as I understand it: It's okay to try someone for a crime the prosecutor doesn't think the accused committed. That you are doing the person a kindness by letting him exonerate himself. - Is that your position? Would you prefer an accusation against you to die with the Prosecutor or the Grand Jury or would you prefer for it to go to trial? 

 

You think a typical prosecutor knows the burden of proof can't be met in this case? Really? If that were the case, then why did the actual prosecutor have to hardball all witnesses for the victim, soft ball the murderer, swear in and accept obvious perjury (obvious in that he, himself, knew it to be 100% fake) just to get the murderer off the hook? Those aren't the actions of a prosecutor who is confident in his belief that he couldn't meet a burden of proof, those are the actions of a man afraid that he could. Those are the actions of a spineless swine who has had and will only continue to have a tradition of protecting murderous cops from justice at all costs. 

 

By the way, some of the witnesses against Wilson had already changed their story before the Grand Jury. Also, what witness holds more weight? The one that agrees with physical evidence or the one that doesn't?

 

I like how you think the physical evidence only corroborates the murderer's story - it doesn't. First, there were three completely distinct autopsy reports done. None of which were in complete alignment. But all of which agreed that the boy was shot several times. Most of the shots were at a distance and that the killing shot was followed up by additional shots after he was already dead. We also have witnesses who at the time of the event were caught on camera talking about how the boy had his hands up and was surrendering when he was gunned down. And that video and their testimony is worth a whole lot more than the racist, mentally unstable, perjurer that the prosecutor decided to rely on.

 

So, Agent X, I don't think you really understand why people are so angry with this case and why it is so necessary that it goes to trial. Perhaps in the full course of a trial I could be shown to be wrong and the murderer could be shown to have been acting in the bounds of the law, but that is a little bit of justice we were all denied. The murderer is not obviously innocent and it is not clear that there is no way to meet the burden of proof. That is purely your opinion on the situation. And the best thing for the victim would have been to have an actual adversarial trial where his interests were given consideration - that did not happen. The best thing for society would have been to have an actual adversarial process where our basic need to see the system actively and righteously pursue justice did not happen. All that happened was that an old-boy prosecutor covered for his murderer friends as he has done so before. 

 

La Rose. 

[Agent X]

I think Markdoc's most recent post made an extremely good point. Justice needs to be done and needs to be seen being done. The public trust is extremely important and if the system ignores a fundamental aspect of our society (that people need to see justice being served), then it is no longer functioning.

 

 

 

You think a typical prosecutor knows the burden of proof can't be met in this case? Really? If that were the case, then why did the actual prosecutor have to hardball all witnesses for the victim, soft ball the murderer, swear in and accept obvious perjury (obvious in that he, himself, knew it to be 100% fake) just to get the murderer off the hook? Those aren't the actions of a prosecutor who is confident in his belief that he couldn't meet a burden of proof, those are the actions of a man afraid that he could. Those are the actions of a spineless swine who has had and will only continue to have a tradition of protecting murderous cops from justice at all costs. 

 

 

I like how you think the physical evidence only corroborates the murderer's story - it doesn't. First, there were three completely distinct autopsy reports done. None of which were in complete alignment. But all of which agreed that the boy was shot several times. Most of the shots were at a distance and that the killing shot was followed up by additional shots after he was already dead. We also have witnesses who at the time of the event were caught on camera talking about how the boy had his hands up and was surrendering when he was gunned down. And that video and their testimony is worth a whole lot more than the racist, mentally unstable, perjurer that the prosecutor decided to rely on.

 

So, Agent X, I don't think you really understand why people are so angry with this case and why it is so necessary that it goes to trial. Perhaps in the full course of a trial I could be shown to be wrong and the murderer could be shown to have been acting in the bounds of the law, but that is a little bit of justice we were all denied. The murderer is not obviously innocent and it is not clear that there is no way to meet the burden of proof. That is purely your opinion on the situation. And the best thing for the victim would have been to have an actual adversarial trial where his interests were given consideration - that did not happen. The best thing for society would have been to have an actual adversarial process where our basic need to see the system actively and righteously pursue justice did not happen. All that happened was that an old-boy prosecutor covered for his murderer friends as he has done so before. 

 

La Rose. 

Your bias is showing.

[薔薇語]

Your bias is showing.

 

So is yours. But my bias is towards justice and has come about in direct response to the all too common problem of cops in the US being awful people. 

 

La Rose. 

[Agent X]

_{I tried to edit that post. I thought it was "short". For some reason, I couldn't.}

 

_{There is a massive incongruity with claiming you have a bias for justice.}

 

_{Your outrage toward the prosecutor just screams "grudge" to me. There was no meaningful difference in the autopsies. There were a host of witnesses who saw all sorts of things. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/ Of course, some witnesses changed their story after the preliminary autopsy report, witnesses who had to tone down their description of what happened. We've got a young man who just threw around a store owner and is wandering down the middle of the road and a police officer who tells him to go to the curb to walk and it goes downhill from there.}

 

_{I know that a lot of people "voted" to make this incident the rallying point against police brutality, especially against minorities, and that gives everyone who desperately wants to change the system a motivation for endless special pleading against Wilson and for Brown. I looked into it and I can say I do not for a minute believe Wilson should have gone to trial. Oh, and I DO understand why people are so angry (and it's not about Brown and Wilson). That's why I can pick up on a lot of smart people willfully ignoring information they don't want to hear. I am not impressed with a militarized police force. I have witnessed shoddy police work. I was hassled by a cop for no reason other than being a teen. Once, I was an adult I thought that was probably over with. However, I discovered having a beard and walking on the sidewalk at 10 at night gives a cop a reason to hassle you as well. I've read up on cops who are too free using force. I've seen the footage of a man getting shot for following a cop's directions to produce his ID. I've read up on no-knock warrants on the wrong house leading to accidental death. I read up on the predatory policing in St. Louis and even talked to a friend of mine who lives in the area.}

 

_{I just wish people would have picked their incident more carefully.}

[Lawnmower Boy]

I think the problem is that we're looking at incidents of policing going wrong, and seeing that they lead to a far higher number of fatal shootings than in other jurisdictions, involving a disproportionately large number of white policemen shooting black teenagers, and we see a need for social change. The shootings arise in cases of policing gone wrong.The kid is doing something wrong and suspicious. The officer perceived a need to fire, and the death is a tragic outcome of the behaviour that triggered the encounter in the first place, and the misperception of risk that led the police oficer to fire. 

 

It is not always like this. There have been some blatant cases. But take what is perhaps the most extreme one, the shooting of Oscar Grant in 2013.  It seems clear that in a stressful and chaotic situation, Officer Mehserle drew and fired the wrong weapon. Just absolutely clear malpractice. But what the heck are you going to do with that? It's systemic in the sense that it's another black man shot by a white officer. That's what needs to be fixed in a vaguely societal way, but the problem of young,out-group males being disproportionately subject to police violence is scarcely confined to America.

 

It seems clear that solutions going forward need to focus on minimising risk:

 

First, above all, fewer firearms, to break the culture that expects gunplay. Second, less stress on police through other means than de-escalating risk. Patrols in arger numbers (and less frequently); but I would like to take a moment to focus on finances. The Oscar Grant episode involved a BART Policeman rather than a San Francisco Police Department patrol officer. The City of San Francisco advertises a BART police salary of $5,548/month to $7,422, though the low end of the scale is at the end of several years of training. The SFPD, on the other hand, pays $80,574.00 - $112,164.00/year . 

 

Would anyone care to speculate as to why the city of San Francisco chooses to operate a separate police department for the BART system? Why, yes, you are completely right! It is a jurisdictional issue over which the city has, unfortunately, no control or influence! It has nothing to do with money!

 

Snark aside, 64 grand may seem like a lot of money, but I suspect there's a reason that I found a job opening advertisement for BART, and a job description for the SFPD. The reported average rent for a 1 bedroom in San Francisco as of 09/2014 is $2873/month, up from just over 1400 five years ago. Now, an SFPD officer in his mid-50s, who entered Police Academy right out of high school in 1979, probably owns his own house. As late as 1990, the price of a three-bedroom house in San Francisco was under $300,000. Mortgage and property tax payments on it have, er, diverged from rental by a considerable margin. 

 

An SFPD officer in his 20s, by way of contrast, will probably think that he has won the lottery on income --but that does not mean that he can afford rent and student loan payments (because of course a college degree is required now). As for a BART officer --hey, welcome to the lumpen proletariat! The one good thing about your job? You're the one handing out the lumps.

 

I've got to say, the temptation to confiscate evidence of illicit drug dealing --oh, what am I saying? That stuff doesn't happen! 

 

In case you're interested, a County of St. Louis Police Department commissioned patrol officer with nine years seniority earns $21.40/hour, or $21.94 with a bachelor's degree. The City of Ferguson's listed salary is $21.15, although this is from a non-official source. It's not nearly as big a gradiant as that between the SFPD and the BART police, but it is still significant, especiallly when it is not clear that oranges are being compared with oranges. 

 

And here is the key takeaway point. We have extensive experience in how to turn a police force into a band of demoralised corporate thugs-for-hire. Extensive. A key part of this formula is low pay, and this trend is far from confined to America. Everyone is trying to save money on this pesky "civil service" thing with wage caps, discipline, austerity, holding costs down, all that good stuff.

 

So, congratulations, world! We have a clear policy direction,and we seem to be getting there jig-time. After all, brutal and corrupt policing have given us some of the greatest moments in human history.  

 

[Pattern Ghost]

This makes no sense.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Eh, nevermind. Enjoy the view from your high horse.

[Badger]

2873 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment!!  The hell?  Large portions of people in my county dont even make that much a month.

[Badger]

So is yours. But my bias is towards justice and has come about in direct response to the all too common problem of cops in the US being awful people. 

 

La Rose. 

 

Who says Agent X (or mine for that matter) "bias" isnt for justice? 

[Old Man]

2873 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment!!  The hell?  Large portions of people in my county dont even make that much a month.

 

Higher than here but not by much.  Admittedly SF and here are two of the most expensive real estate markets on the planet.

[Ragitsu]

When it comes to interacting with the police, there is a difference between a little fear and "Am I actually going to die at some point during this conversation?".

[薔薇語]

In the US, Seattle I think still holds the title for the most expensive real estate. New York comes in next. But neither of them are as expensive as Tokyo. And Tokyo doesn't even hold a candle to London.

La Rose.

[Roter Baron]

These prices for rental are NUTS! "Free" market my hairy commie behind!

[Badger]

So can we at least agree that Al Sharpton is a tapeworm upon American society?

[Old Man]

One of many, I suppose.

[Lawnmower Boy]

So can we at least agree that Al Sharpton is a tapeworm upon American society?

 

Hunh? No. No. If we consider Al Sharptonas an obnoxious, self-interested activist, then this line of thinking is taking us in a very bad direction. People who say things you disapprove of or disagree with are good for you. (At least to the point where slander and libel laws intervene; but that's why you have those laws.)

 

If we consider him as an activist--- Look, this whole thing with discrimination against, and oppression of, out groups (for example, Black Americans, Canadian Indians) is a real human problem that causes untold suffering and misery. Bringing attention to this problem  is not what creates it.

 

If we consider him a con artist and opportunist who gins up trouble where there is none to be had --Well, here we're running up on the whole slander and libel thing. There is some social damage being done there, but it's pretty trivial compared with, say, Glenn Beck (lost any money on gold, lately?) or, better example, Bernie Madoff. Putting salt in an open wound for a living is a bad thing, and I'm not defending Al Sharpton for it. But it's a good way of reminding everyone that the wound exists.

[gewing]

Tawana Brawley. Fraud.

[Roter Baron]

I consider Al Sharpton an scandal-chasing race-riot hunter. Sure, he isn't the cause of the incidents and he isn't the one who is inciting riots but he is basically "laying it out" so that things can happen or he is approving it.

Hey, I can understand that people have to get violent to make society notice injustice.

BUT: You have to see who is the enemy and who is not.

If I see (mostly but not exclusively) black folks protesting angrily in the street because of the unjustified and unneccessary death of a black man making end smeet with selling cigarettes in a park in New York City I do understand their justifies outrage - they kept it peacefully.

That was wise, good PR and tactics since nobody attacked them.

Had the NY police attacked peaceful demonstrators and they had defended themselves that would have been totally justified IMO.

 

But the people in Missouri whose idea of "Justive Now! seemed to be to plunder and loot the shops of the people in their own city who had ZERO to do with the killing there, not only did a good job at discrediting the protest (who is - thanks to people like Sharpton - quite aimless and one-side) but also showed the world what lumpen they really are.

 

No, I do not feel sympathy with people who use each and any excuse to loot and shout about "justice" while robbing and stealing from their fellow man.

And peopel like Al Sharpton play the tune to this kind of music. And for that I find him quite despicable, though the causes he involves himself in (is he invited? does he just pop up?) are often not.

But his involvement always turns them away from the centre of the problem and towards his greedy, self-rightous self.