Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do This

[DriftingSand]

The far right white monkeys felt this case should not have gone to a grand jury, should have just been dismissed as a justifiable shooting.

And the far right, white men happen to agree.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

9:30 PMNov 24 By Ben Casselman



Demonstrators march through the streets on Sunday in St. Louis, Missouri, protesting the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.


Justin Sullivan / Getty Images


A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.


Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.


Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.


Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.


“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”


Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. 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. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. 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.


There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.


The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.


“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The more you read, the worse this smells.

But it does happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/charlotte-police-officer-indicted-in-shooting.html?_r=0

 

[Asclepias]

Likely because the prosecutor didn't believe Wilson was guilty of anything. The entire Grand Jury debacle occurred for one reason and one reason only: to appease the ever-whimpering black community.

That's why we have juries.

There are way too many discrepancies and that video I posted shows exactly why this should have gone to jury, and in a different venue.

We do NOT have juries to appease black people, or any other people for that matter.

We have juries to decide on guilt when a crime has been committed, in this case no crime was committed. Get that through your head.

One exception: OJ's jury of his "peers" (mostly black) found him not guilty based on his race.

The cops planting evidence which happens a lot in Black neighborhoods had more to do with it.

Yeah ... if it weren't for the cops, blacks would NEVER be arrested for drug dealing, theft, murder, rape, prostitution, or any other crime. It's ALL the cops fault. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

No. Its only the cops fault when they plant evidence which is what happened in the OJ trial. Thats why he couldnt be convicted of murder.

 

[Asclepias]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

9:30 PMNov 24 By Ben Casselman



Demonstrators march through the streets on Sunday in St. Louis, Missouri, protesting the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.


Justin Sullivan / Getty Images


A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.


Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.


Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.


Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.


“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”


Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. 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. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. 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.


There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.


The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.


“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The more you read, the worse this smells.

But it does happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/charlotte-police-officer-indicted-in-shooting.html?_r=0

Thank goodness they had the altercation on film.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

9:30 PMNov 24 By Ben Casselman



Demonstrators march through the streets on Sunday in St. Louis, Missouri, protesting the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.


Justin Sullivan / Getty Images


A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.


Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.


Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.


Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.


“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”


Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. 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. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. 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.


There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.


The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.


“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The more you read, the worse this smells.

But it does happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/charlotte-police-officer-indicted-in-shooting.html?_r=0

Thank goodness they had the altercation on film.

It wasn't clear even then but I think in my heart Justice was served. and will be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right white monkeys felt this case should not have gone to a grand jury, should have just been dismissed as a justifiable shooting.

And the far right, white men happen to agree.

Smart conservative white men know that the DA did the right thing and the the GJ made the right finding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I believe the right decision was made by the GJ.

One of the great errors of the millennial generation is that they believe everyone is "equal" (parents and children, students and teachers, people and cops), and that is one of the greater generation stupidities of the last two centuries.

Brown never, ever should have touched the cop, and never, ever should have charged the cop. That is death by cop.

 

[Asclepias]

I believe the right decision was made by the GJ.

One of the great errors of the millennial generation is that they believe everyone is "equal" (parents and children, students and teachers, people and cops), and that is one of the greater generation stupidities of the last two centuries.

Brown never, ever should have touched the cop, and never, ever should have charged the cop. That is death by cop.

Disagree. He should have been brought to trial but I knew it was not going to happen. The prosecutor father was killed by a Black man and he has deep ties to the police.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

9:30 PMNov 24 By Ben Casselman



Demonstrators march through the streets on Sunday in St. Louis, Missouri, protesting the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.


Justin Sullivan / Getty Images


A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.


Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.


Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.


Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.


“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”


Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. 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. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. 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.


There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.


The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.


“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The more you read, the worse this smells.

But it does happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/charlotte-police-officer-indicted-in-shooting.html?_r=0

Thank goodness they had the altercation on film.

If they hadn't, the cop would have gotten away with it - again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I believe the right decision was made by the GJ.

One of the great errors of the millennial generation is that they believe everyone is "equal" (parents and children, students and teachers, people and cops), and that is one of the greater generation stupidities of the last two centuries.

Brown never, ever should have touched the cop, and never, ever should have charged the cop. That is death by cop.

Assault is not and should not be a capital crime.

Next, we'll be chopping off the hands of those who steal a loaf of bread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

9:30 PMNov 24 By Ben Casselman



Demonstrators march through the streets on Sunday in St. Louis, Missouri, protesting the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.


Justin Sullivan / Getty Images


A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.


Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.


Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.


Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.


“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”


Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. 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. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. 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.


There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.


The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.


“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The more you read, the worse this smells.

But it does happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/charlotte-police-officer-indicted-in-shooting.html?_r=0

Thank goodness they had the altercation on film.

If they hadn't, the cop would have gotten away with it - again.

It does happen even without being filmed.

 

[MaryL]

Truth has a way of biasing folks. What I would like to know, why people keep defending Michael Brown after what he did that night, up to and including assaulting a police officer. And how that excuses looting and riots if we live in a "post racial" America blind to race.

 

[squeeze berry]

oh bullshit you ignorant fucking jackass.

This was only taken to a grand jury to appease the racists. There was no case.

No thats not true. Your buddies in the KKK were against this going to a grand jury. Are you claiming they are not racists?

the KKK aren't the ones burning this bitch down

Thats because they would be killed by the New Black Panthers. Now my question is what did your post have to do with my post monkey?

apparently you can't read your own posts

lol at NBPP

 

[Asclepias]

oh bullshit you ignorant fucking jackass.

This was only taken to a grand jury to appease the racists. There was no case.

No thats not true. Your buddies in the KKK were against this going to a grand jury. Are you claiming they are not racists?

the KKK aren't the ones burning this bitch down

Thats because they would be killed by the New Black Panthers. Now my question is what did your post have to do with my post monkey?

apparently you can't read your own posts

lol at NBPP

Apparently you cant read at all.

 

[whitehall]

"Incredibly rare" and in the same rant "we don't have good data" . Why do low information lefties swallow this cool-aid?

 

[RKMBrown]

Truth has a way of biasing folks. What I would like to know, why people keep defending Michael Brown after what he did that night, up to and including assaulting a police officer. And how that excuses looting and riots if we live in a "post racial" America blind to race.

You are confused. No one is saying Mike Brown was an angel. They are saying the cop gunned him down in the street like a rabid dog. Which... sadly... is true. The cop showed no quarter... no mercy.