The Ferguson Fiasco
Via Steve Bates bmaz at Emptywheel looks at the conduct of St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch and his handling of the Micheal Brown shooting.
On CNN Nancy Grace of all people isn’t buying the police officer’s testimony. As she notes, this is the first time she has not supported the police version of an incident. The picture of the cop showing pink cheeks is not how someone looks after being punched by someone the size of Michael Brown, and how the hell does anyone sitting the driver’s seat of a car get punched on the right side of their face? Think about it. Can you turn your face that far around?
The BBC looks at The trouble with the timing of Ferguson decision and wonders Did prosecutors focus unduly on marijuana?
The timing of the announcement couldn’t have been worse. It was after dark so officials couldn’t see what the protestors were doing. The darkness required lighting and torches are an option. People weren’t at work and had time for a few brews before the announcement came.
If Michael Brown was really on a marijuana buzz, he wouldn’t have been reaching for the cop’s Glock – he would have been after the Krispy Kremes. I’m serious. You have a large group of ‘unruly’ potheads – Cheetos and donuts will do the trick. If Brown had a .14 of alcohol instead of THC, I could accept the cop’s story, but I have had too many years dealing with marijuana users to believe the garbage the St. Louis prosecutors are presenting as fact. Read this ABC story on the ‘safety’ of alcohol consumption and a large group of ‘unruly’ drunks.
Just in: the ABC is reporting Police officer who shot Michael Brown resigns.
7 comments
Oops. I said it was by emptywheel; as you note, it’s actually by bmaz. Corrected and credited to you.
The entire business disturbs me. I prefer to trust cops when I can, but I dislike the prosecutor’s use of the grand jury to essentially defend the cop to the detriment of the reputation of the deceased. That is much more than a mere procedural error.
(Aside: to Stella’s great regret, Krispy Kreme closed its Houston outlets. Sad.)
I meant to add that Charlie Rose interviewed Michael Brown’s parents. They were calmer than I would ever have thought possible in expressing their utter disdain for prosecutor, court and no-true-bill. Clearly, Mr. Brown Sr. understands the power of the manner of his son’s death to move people, and it appears he also understands the very real possibility that a federal case will not yield justice, either.
The one Missourian I know personally, one of the finest human beings I know, is crestfallen; she had intended to be buried in her family plot in Missouri but is beginning to debate that decision.
One last comment: I watched the video of Nancy Grace and posted on her statement, crediting and linking you.
Yeah, I read that ABC article and thought about posting it. I figured you’d see it anyway Bryan. I thought I’d post this instead. 🙂 There are still some decent cop’s, and this one is in Miami! You can be proud Bryan, this cop is ‘old school’. 😀
Because this LEO did the sane and compassionate thing, the woman now has a job and can feed her kids. I am certain the Rethugs will be totally disgusted. Maybe some will have a stroke! win-win. LOL
Well, it was at Emptywheel, Steve, even if it wasn’t Marcy posting 😉
That prosecutor was using the grand jury to avoid doing his duty. If a prosecutor doesn’t think he has enough evidence for a trial, he doesn’t send the case to a grand jury. They are calling it a trial, but it isn’t. There weren’t two sides, only one, so no one challenged the testimony of the witnesses, especially of the police officer.
Actually Kryten, that officer was keeping the peace, rather that simply ‘enforcing the law’. She used her discretion to resolve the problem, which was hungry children, not shoplifting. She ‘treated the cause, not the symptoms’ looking for a cure, and saved taxpayers a hell of lot more than the $100 she spent. The Miami-Dade PD needs all of the good PR it can get – trust me on that. They have a number of ‘Ferguson officers’ on their duty roster.
Indeed, a due process hearing is *not* a trial, never was intended to be a trial, never *will* be a trial. You don’t use a grand jury for a trial. You use a *real* jury for a trial, and it’s an adversarial proceeding in the US tradition. This isn’t Norway, yo.
Unfortunately we really don’t have a good system for dealing with misdeeds by police officers. Prosecutors have a decided conflict of interest so aren’t really the right people to present the case against the police officer. It makes you wonder if maybe we need some alternative way to press the case against police officers. Maybe mandatory to appoint the plaintiff attorney of victim’s choice to press the case in court on the State’s behalf. It’s amazing how many departments lose civil cases after they win criminal cases against their officers. The difference between “reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of evidence” isn’t enough to explain that, methinks… it’s all in who’s doing the prosecuting, I suspect.
Of course prosecutors would fight this tooth and nail because it’d blow chunks in their budgets. And white kkkonservatives would fight it tooth and nail because all them nigras need to be just shot dead or sent back to Africa anyhow, doncha know, so cops did nothing wrong to shoot them darkies, right? So ain’t happenin’. But in an ideal world…
The English system allows for private prosecutions, although they are very rare. That is the only way the family of victims could be assured of justice. A private prosecutor would have the same restrictions and the defendant with have the same protections, but the case would at least be judged by the evidence that was presented in public. US prosecutors and police would raise hell, but they need to be held accountable, which is not happening at the moment.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one in our system …