I know, and I'm sure some people are going to go back to the "they were asking for it," stuff. Umm, pretty sure the first amendment gives us the right to "peaceful assembly." The first amendment says nothing about "as long as they stay on the sidewalk."
Not even ticketed? Wow.
The Trib said this morning that police are still investigating.
Well, my brother just texted me that he's not coming. Just waiting to see if I get a call from my mother.
Is that your brother that is so insistent on the facts?
Yes. Our dad has been on the Philly police force for 33 years, and my brother has been a probation officer for 10 years. I was hoping that his Masters in Criminal Justice would give him some perspective.
Is that your brother that is so insistent on the facts?
Yes. Our dad has been on the Philly police force for 33 years, and my brother has been a probation officer for 10 years. I was hoping that his Masters in Criminal Justice would give him some perspective.
Yes. Our dad has been on the Philly police force for 33 years, and my brother has been a probation officer for 10 years. I was hoping that his Masters in Criminal Justice would give him some perspective.
Sorry.
I'm not 100% he'll follow through on not coming. We'll see.
I'm not 100% he'll follow through on not coming. We'll see.
I'm not on your FB, but I can put 2 and 2 together to see what happened here. I am sorry that this is putting stress on your family. I can sympathize. I have said it before, I have lost a lot of respect for friends throughout this. It is very hard to see someones true colors.
wawa There was a young man found dead in a car yesterday am near where Michael eas killed. There was broken glass found around the car, but no details on how he died. His grandmother said she thinks the police won't investigate because he's black
wawa There was a young man found dead in a car yesterday am near where Michael eas killed. There was broken glass found around the car, but no details on how he died. His grandmother said she thinks the police won't investigate because he's black
They can't just choose to not investigate, can they? I mean, any mysterious death with a body found means autopsy and automatic investigation, right?
Has everyone read most of the grand jury documents? If you had been the prosecutor, what evidence would you have presented to convince the grand jury of probable cause? There are so many flawed issues with the process, I don't think you can just ask the question 'was there probable cause'. I was asked this question and want to know what you think as well.
wawa There was a young man found dead in a car yesterday am near where Michael eas killed. There was broken glass found around the car, but no details on how he died. His grandmother said she thinks the police won't investigate because he's black
They can't just choose to not investigate, can they? I mean, any mysterious death with a body found means autopsy and automatic investigation, right?
Well if you are white, yes. If you are black, they do a different kind of investigation where they don't find anything wrong.
wawa There was a young man found dead in a car yesterday am near where Michael eas killed. There was broken glass found around the car, but no details on how he died. His grandmother said she thinks the police won't investigate because he's black
They can't just choose to not investigate, can they? I mean, any mysterious death with a body found means autopsy and automatic investigation, right?
Black dude dead in a car? Obviously crack overdose. Move along.
There was also the woman shot in Aug. the police immediately dismissed it as a rioter. The police never even talked to the woman, let alone investigate. If I remember correctly, they have misplaced the bullet they removed from her.
Has everyone read most of the grand jury documents? If you had been the prosecutor, what evidence would you have presented to convince the grand jury of probable cause? There are so many flawed issues with the process, I don't think you can just ask the question 'was there probable cause'. I was asked this question and want to know what you think as well.
Problem #1 was that it wasn't really about what evidence he should have presented, it was what evidence he shouldn't have.
To get an indictment, you put up the evidence you think is going to get you the indictment, not the evidence you think could exonerate the person.
Problem #2 was that after he decided to do that, he didn't cross examine people in a way that would have challenged their credibility and given additional credence to those whose testimony supported indictment. Here's a great summary of how cross examining Wilson may have changed things -
Has everyone read most of the grand jury documents? If you had been the prosecutor, what evidence would you have presented to convince the grand jury of probable cause? There are so many flawed issues with the process, I don't think you can just ask the question 'was there probable cause'. I was asked this question and want to know what you think as well.
Problem #1 was that it wasn't really about what evidence he should have presented, it was what evidence he shouldn't have.
To get an indictment, you put up the evidence you think is going to get you the indictment, not the evidence you think could exonerate the person.
Problem #2 was that after he decided to do that, he didn't cross examine people in a way that would have challenged their credibility and given additional credence to those whose testimony supported indictment. Here's a great summary of how cross examining Wilson may have changed things -
SallyJ, that video you gave me a couple pages ago explained that they shouldn't have been dumping all the evidence in the grand jury's lap. (like ESF said).
Oh I am on the same page as you guys to the nth degree and I have provided this info to the people asking. They are genuinely asking for my critical assessment of the evidence and these are people who have expressed an appreciate for my willingness to do such a thing, rather than come blazing in to shut down the conversation. I am struggling to narrow my opinion down because there are so many issues to point at what's wrong with the process, that I can barely wade through the evidence. As a group I haven't seen us discuss the specific evidence for probable cause, probably because we all agree it's obvious there is and the fucking prosecutor didn't do his god damn job.
I made a rookie mistake. I waded in to the Ferguson thread over on DWP and the refusal of certain posters to see that this should have at least gone to trial so everything could be properly examined, ugh, I just can't. Nope no misconduct during the investigation, and DW is telling the truth because all the physical evidence supports him.
There was also the woman shot in Aug. the police immediately dismissed it as a rioter. The police never even talked to the woman, let alone investigate. If I remember correctly, they have misplaced the bullet they removed from her.
ETA: some people think she was hit by police
Yeah. I can't imagine why people would think that.
Oh I am on the same page as you guys to the nth degree and I have provided this info to the people asking. They are genuinely asking for my critical assessment of the evidence and these are people who have expressed an appreciate for my willingness to do such a thing, rather than come blazing in to shut down the conversation. I am struggling to narrow my opinion down because there are so many issues to point at what's wrong with the process, that I can barely wade through the evidence. As a group I haven't seen us discuss the specific evidence for probable cause, probably because we all agree it's obvious there is and the fucking prosecutor didn't do his god damn job.
I think starlily is probably the best person to explain what you typically need to get to probable cause.
I think though, you just need enough to suggest that a jury trial would be a completely baseless and a total sham. So basically, is there some kind of reasonable, good faith basis to charge this guy, and is there a probability he's guilty. But again, I defer to starlily so don't take this as gospel.
I don't think we've talked about Wilson's interview with Stephanopolis this morning.
I can't stomach watching it, but if anyone would like a summary of it, the Wonkette version is a good read, if you'd like a nice snarky, light-hearted yet full of rage discussion on what this turd said.
Let me get this straight. Because you feel strongly about an issue and aren't siding with the cop, your family has basically cancelled Thanksgiving? Dude, if we were just a bit closer you'd have plenty of people to feed.
Wait, they are actually defriending you IRL because they don't agree with your statements on FB?
Hugs - you do need wine. If it makes you feel better my sister decided not to drive 2 hours back here for Thanksgiving after my mom flipped out about my sister's friend's dogs being in her car last Sunday. [There's more too it, but it's too stupid and long to explain, but my mom was in the wrong IMO.]
Post by redheadbaker on Nov 26, 2014 17:23:25 GMT -5
No, my parents are still coming. I just got a lecture that politics should not cause divides among family, as if *I* had told my brother that he was not welcome at Thanksgiving dinner.
When in fact I had texted my brother not 5 minutes before the call telling him I did not hold any hard feelings toward him and that if he changed his mind, he was still welcome to come to dinner.
you are a grown-ass adult woman, and you are NOT taking a scolding from your parents just because your brother is running around tattling on you. Not happening.
Oh I am on the same page as you guys to the nth degree and I have provided this info to the people asking. They are genuinely asking for my critical assessment of the evidence and these are people who have expressed an appreciate for my willingness to do such a thing, rather than come blazing in to shut down the conversation. I am struggling to narrow my opinion down because there are so many issues to point at what's wrong with the process, that I can barely wade through the evidence. As a group I haven't seen us discuss the specific evidence for probable cause, probably because we all agree it's obvious there is and the fucking prosecutor didn't do his god damn job.
I think starlily is probably the best person to explain what you typically need to get to probable cause.
I think though, you just need enough to suggest that a jury trial would be a completely baseless and a total sham. So basically, is there some kind of reasonable, good faith basis to charge this guy, and is there a probability he's guilty. But again, I defer to starlily so don't take this as gospel.
Probable cause = more likely than not that a crime occurred. As explained to me by my supervisors as a percentage, think 51%. It's a very low standard.
In a regular complaint process for charges (i.e. without a grand jury), police or investigators submit a case that they believe has probable cause. Now, the DA who decides whether or not to actually file the charges has to have a good faith belief that the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the PC declaration and supporting reports available at the time. Then after a felony case is formally filed, probable cause as a standard of proof becomes relevant again at the preliminary hearing. The DA puts on the bare bones of their evidence and a judge decides if there's enough probable cause to proceed to a trial. The defense can present a case, but usually opts not to. There are a minimal number of witnesses, usually the least you can get away with to meet your burden.
Out of approximately 400 preliminary hearings I personally conducted, there were 2 that were found to have insufficient probable cause, and 1 was a procedural error on my part. Some were reduced from felony to misdemeanor, but the judge still found probable cause for *a* crime. Like I said, it's a very low standard.