I haven't been entirely of one mind in this debate. I have felt like the powers that be in this case-the police, the DA, etc.-have been strangely incurious about what happened, yet I did feel once they relented and gave us a GJ that the protesters and those who felt that Michael Brown was murdered in cold blood were a little bit too sure that they are right. I mean that's what the GJ is meant to determine.
What we seemed to be hearing from a lot of protesters in Missouri was there better be a indictment or there will be hell to pay. That's not how the justice works or should work. All you have the right to expect is a fair trial.
However, I also see what what I was losing sight of was that this was just a GJ not a trial. In a GJ all we need is probable cause not beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
Klein does a very good job at looking at the facts that we know now that Officer Darren Wilson has told us his side of the story. His account is just hard to figure out. As Klein shows, not everything he says is inconsistent with the evidence. However, a a good deal with it is. And the whole narrative is hard to understand: why did Brown seem to have a death wish that night? Why would an unarmed 18 year old boy stick his head into a police officer's car and dare him to shoot him?
Still not everything he says is inconsistent with the evidence. In this case, why not have a trial? Isn't that exactly what a trial is meant to determine? At the end of the day, Wilson's version of events raises as many questions as it answers.
Then you have the strange behaviour of the prosecutor who seemed to be not just the prosecutor at the GJ but the defense attorney-it seems he basically did an evidence dump. And why did they wait until late at night to release the evidence? I mean that's very strange behavior too if the goal is to avoid a riot. So there is very good reason for there to be a trial and not having one is a miscarriage of justice.
What we seemed to be hearing from a lot of protesters in Missouri was there better be a indictment or there will be hell to pay. That's not how the justice works or should work. All you have the right to expect is a fair trial.
However, I also see what what I was losing sight of was that this was just a GJ not a trial. In a GJ all we need is probable cause not beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
Klein does a very good job at looking at the facts that we know now that Officer Darren Wilson has told us his side of the story. His account is just hard to figure out. As Klein shows, not everything he says is inconsistent with the evidence. However, a a good deal with it is. And the whole narrative is hard to understand: why did Brown seem to have a death wish that night? Why would an unarmed 18 year old boy stick his head into a police officer's car and dare him to shoot him?
Still not everything he says is inconsistent with the evidence. In this case, why not have a trial? Isn't that exactly what a trial is meant to determine? At the end of the day, Wilson's version of events raises as many questions as it answers.
Then you have the strange behaviour of the prosecutor who seemed to be not just the prosecutor at the GJ but the defense attorney-it seems he basically did an evidence dump. And why did they wait until late at night to release the evidence? I mean that's very strange behavior too if the goal is to avoid a riot. So there is very good reason for there to be a trial and not having one is a miscarriage of justice.
Happy Thanksgiving Mike
ReplyDeleteAgree totally with this post. A trial was the only way to get to the bottom of things. This was a complete INjustice and the whole police force and prosecutor in Ferguson are untrustworthy. No one should believe anything they say anymore. They had no interest in getting to the bottom of anything.
Happy Thanksgiving Greg. Yes the best word to describe them is 'incurious'-which of course makes them very suspect
ReplyDelete