Ferguson - No indictment leads to riots

[Jorick]

To specifically answer this question, I don't think a lack of indictment was the right choice. In 2010, there were 162,000 cases of US attorneys prosecuting federal cases {Source}. Grand juries declined to indict eleven of those. For all of the others, there was deemed to be enough of a case or conflict of testimonies (and conflict of testimonies is definitely something going on with Ferguson) to take it to trial. Ignoring arguments about who was right or wrong, I feel there still should have definitely been an indictment, and that this should have been decided in a trial.

An interesting point to raise, and one I've seen brought up on national news networks today, but I would counter that the overwhelming majority of decisions to indict means that there is something very wrong with the grand jury system. There is a reason why only the United States still actually uses it, and I think case shows exactly why that is. The grand jury is supposed to listen to witnesses and see evidence and then decide whether or not there is probable cause for criminal charges to be filed. What the District Attorney did for the Michael Brown case was to use the grand jury for its intended purpose, and in fact presenting both sides of the case used to be the common practice for grand jury hearings. The way it has been used in the recent past, however, is that the DA will only present the evidence against the accused (and legally this is all that he or she must do) with not a word about anything that contradicts this, which of course means that the grand juries almost always decide to indict. As I heard multiple legal analysts on various news networks say, if a DA wants to get an indictment then they can absolutely get it done.

This, I feel, is evidence of the system being broken, not of any wrongdoing in the Michael Brown case. If the grand jury were presented with all the evidence for all cases, as was done here, rather than only hearing one side of it, the number of frivolous prosecutions would drop dramatically and the number of grand juries that decline to indict would of course raise dramatically. Alternatively, if that cannot be done, the grand jury system out to be removed entirely because it serves no true purpose; it currently acts as an echo chamber for a DA's desire to indict, not as an actual barrier to faulty indictments. I see the Michael Brown case as a rare instance of the grand jury proving that it does have some use still in the modern era, not as a phenomenon spawned from corruption or bullshit or whatnot. They saw that the evidence available to try to prosecute Darren Wilson was nowhere near strong enough to merit an indictment, so they did not indict. It's how the system should actually work, not a problem with the system.

 

[HerziQuerzi]

As I heard multiple legal analysts on various news networks say, if a DA wants to get an indictment then they can absolutely get it done.

Is the implication there that the DA didn't want to get an indictment (which wouldn't really be kosher) or is that just an unfortunate side effect of connotations and word choice?

 

[Jorick]

Is the implication there that the DA didn't want to get an indictment (which wouldn't really be kosher) or is that just an unfortunate side effect of connotations and word choice?

The talking heads I referenced were using that information to imply that he was purposely trying to not get an indictment.

However, if he wanted to do that then he could have stonewalled the whole thing by saying himself that there wasn't enough evidence to indict. As I understand it, the DA's office has ability to not pursue charges for cases that they don't think merit it. He also did not solely present the defense of the case, he gave apparently all the evidence they had on hand and let the grand jury hear witnesses both against and for the indictment. Seems to me that what he wanted to do was take any potential blood off his hands by giving the grand jury everything and letting them make a call, and they ended up deciding that there wasn't probably cause to indict.

 

[Mid]

Honestly, I feel at this point the riots are an excuse to get "free" stuff before the holidays. These same people were flipping out over Brown are going to get over it the same way they got over Martin. People are all talk and no one is going to make change the right way, the way it was done in the old days. The older generation knew how to get a point across and they didn't do it with violence. Do you honestly think anyone is going to sit and listen when you're burning down people's businesses? Or stealing their merchandize? From your brothers and sisters at that?

This completely defeats the purpose of what the issue is. Yes, cops are TRAINED to shoot to kill for those who are unaware. Most of the black people I know will tell you a black cop is the most racist cop they know because there's always something to prove and they will go after a black teen over a white teen to prove that they are not the same.

I feel we focus too much on skin color and not enough on the bigger issue. How to create a better relationship between cops and the community? We have so many wonderful cops who are dimmed because of the stupidity or mistakes of others. Never acknowledged for their hard work due to cases like this.

Honestly, I do not have an opinion on whether he was right or wrong. I was not there to witness it...and the saying goes, "There's his side, your side and then there's the truth."

 

[LeVen]

I feel we focus too much on skin color and not enough on the bigger issue. How to create a better relationship between cops and the community? We have so many wonderful cops who are dimmed because of the stupidity or mistakes of others. Never acknowledged for their hard work due to cases like this.

There is not enough words in the English language that describe how much I agree with this statement.