The Ferguson Shooting Case – What’s Next?

Screen Shot 2014-08-21 at 5.21.40 PM

Sometimes the wheels of justice grind slowly and sometimes they race around in circles like they’re competing for the Porsche Cup. In the Ferguson case, the latter seems to be the way it’s going. “Big Mike” Brown was shot and killed on August 9th. Jury selection started on the same day in every kitchen in America. The guy’s not even in the ground yet but the race to official judgment goes on, making haste rapidly . . .

The Michael Brown Autopsy Tour is moving to Washington, or wherever the Feds want it, for a third autopsy. Let’s keep that in context — Brown will have had more autopsies than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That’s cause for wondering about priorities, and also whether the forensic pathologists are looking for evidence or coverage for their own buttocks.

Back at the ranch, the Feds are conducting a “parallel investigation,” looking for any evidence that Brown was deprived of his civil rights when he was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Eric Holder is promising “big changes,” so his inclinations are obvious.

Just to keep these ingredients from settling to the bottom, a state Grand Jury started hearing evidence yesterday. Yesterday! According to St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Robert McCulloch, “local investigators” have interviewed Wilson and a bunch of other witnesses. If the local investigators have actually completed their investigation, McCullough isn’t saying. Usually the Grand Jury doesn’t hear a case until the field investigation is complete, for reasons that should be as obvious as Eric Holder’s intentions. But in this case, speed seems to be as important as accuracy. Maybe more so.

Gov. Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon, who had called for thorough prosecution rather than investigation and then tried to backtrack, has a bone to pick with prosecutor McCulloch. It seems that the prosecutor has a strong connection with police, notably through McCullough’s father who was a cop before he was murdered by a black criminal. Well, Holder says that he was victimized by racial prejudice on the part of whites, so I guess Nixon must want him to go, too. No?

McCullough was having none of it. He called on Nixon to either relieve him of his duties or to STFU. Apparently Nixon chose to STFU and will not replace McCullough, at least for now, probably because Nixon was still removing his size 12 foot from his mouth. Or possibly because Nixon is positioning McCullough as a scapegoat. In any case, McCullough is in charge of the state’s case, at least for now.

So what’s next?

McCullough did not have to proceed via the Grand Jury route. He could have pulled an Angela Corey and gone directly to a judge for a probable cause finding (as he still might), but McCullough chose instead to proceed by indictment rather than by “information.” The Grand Jury investigation will go forward until it votes or somebody stops it from voting by preempting it.

The standard in a Grand Jury proceeding is whether or not the jurors collectively find “probable cause” to believe that a crime has been committed. In Missouri, nine out of the twelve Grand Jurors must agree on a finding of probable cause – voting a “true bill” – in order to return an indictment. If nine don’t agree, they will return what is sometimes half-humorously referred to as a Bill of Ignoramus. In such a case, there is no indictment and no state trial. At least, not right away. But since jeopardy does not attach by virtue of a Grand Jury, Wilson could still face the same state charges sometime down the road even after being “no-billed.”

It’s often claimed that the prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Hence the recent indictment of Rick Perry for performing his duty as governor. Certainly, this is true when the ham sandwich is accused of blowing away a teenager, even if the teen in question was the size of a refrigerator. In a Grand Jury proceeding, there’s no judge, no defense and the prosecutor alone gets to decide what evidence the Grand Jury will hear, including hearsay. The prosecutor isn’t required to present any exculpatory evidence, which in this case is evidence that would tend to exonerate Wilson. The prosecutor can cherry-pick the evidence if he wants and present a lopsided case. That’s why ham sandwiches get indicted.

Grand Jury proceedings are also secret. Completely secret. But McCullough says that he will release the case to the press after the GJ reaches its decision, one way or the other. That’s just great, unless you are a local confidential informant for or against Brown or Wilson, in which case you might want to consider finding new quarters in Grand Forks or Tehachapi.

McCullough has already intimated that he will make a comprehensive presentation to the GJ, meaning that the Jurors will hear even exculpatory evidence. He has stated that he will allow Wilson to testify if Wilson wants to. That’s not unprecedented, but must be viewed as fair. It seems that McCullough wants to do his job, which includes the fair administration of justice. If true, he’s the un-Cory. One can only wonder if McCullough’s claim that he will be fair is the actual reason that many want to remove him from this case.

If the GJ indicts Wilson, there will be a trial down the road. Maybe two trials. The state trial will likely be for some form of homicide – maybe murder, manslaughter or some lesser included offense. There may also be a Federal trial. The Feds have wiggled their inquisitive nose under the tent, so I expect that Holder et al. are considering bringing a civil rights case against Wilson if the state homicide case peters out, as the Feds did in the Rodney King case.

The Grand Jury may be hearing this case for the next six weeks before they return a true bill…or they don’t. Until then, Wilson should spend the majority of his time finding the best goddam lawyer that money can buy. Expect that more revelations will be leaked to the media by agents both pro-Wilson or pro-Brown. And for the sake of the good people of Ferguson, let’s hope that the Grand Jury says nothing until the weather, and tempers, turn very, very cool.


  1. avatar BobB says:

    All real evidence supports the cop. I expect the natives to be more “social” once the GJ fails to indict. Good times and fun for all.

    1. avatar Layne says:

      The facts didn’t effect their opinion of Geroge Z. and they won’t matter this time either.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Except, in Zimmerman’s case, the prosecutor (Wolfinger) was insistent on taking the case to a Grand Jury, and the Scheme Team successfully pressured the governor to relieve Wolfinger, and to appoint a special prosecutor (Corey), who promptly cancelled the Grand Jury, and filed what may go down in history as the most pathetic PCA of all time.

        I think that may have had something to do with the prosecutor taking this case to the Grand Jury as quickly as possible this time.

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz even said Angela Corey should be disbarred for prosecutorial abuse. And he ain’t exactly no gun rights advocate.

    2. avatar BDub says:

      I’ll wait till there is actual evidence not just reported evidence.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        There’s plenty of actual evidence of Brown’s assault of Wilson. Why does the extent/severity of injury matter? Whether the bone was broken or not, Brown committed a violent felony upon Wilson.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          I would imagine it matters because one is likely evidence of an assault, and the other could have been self-sustained, perhaps by getting out of your patrol a bit hastily. All the evidence matters.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …and the other could have been self-sustained, perhaps by getting out of your patrol a bit hastily.

          Is this supposed to be taken seriously? So he’s the abused wife who “walked into a door”? Right…

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          Agreed. Brown committed a felony assault on a police officer. This crime allowed the officer to use any necessary force to take Brown into custody and/or to prevent his escape. The case will turn on whether Brown charged Wilson, and on that the evidence is still majorly in dispute. If Wilson gunned him down from 35 feet away, Wilson has a problem. (However, the first report that Brown was shot in the back have been affirmatively disproved by the pathologist’s opinion, facts that undermine the credibility of the first reports.) If it is true, as reported, that Brown hit the pavement only two feet in front of Wilson, evidence that strongly supports Wilson’s claim that Brown charged him, the use of force will likely to be found justifiable.

    3. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Yep, the law abiding had better tool up. Expect more crimes to be generated and self-justified by this incident by hoodlums.

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      All real evidence supports the cop.

      So far, all we have to go on is rumor and innuendo. There’s no evidence one way or the other. There are “reports” that Wilson suffered what I call a “broken face.” There are other “reports” that he did not. There’s a witness who claims that Brown was shot in the back, put his hands up to surrender and was blown away. I would not be surprised at all if there are “witnesses” who say the opposite. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are UFO fruitcakes who claim that Big Mike was actually abducted and analy probed.

      Most people will choose to believe the witnesses whose “reports” confirm their prejudices. Me, I’m waiting for actual evidence.

      1. avatar WILDWEST42 says:

        The autopsy report is in. No shots in the back. “evidence” will not be reported in the press. It will be presented in court. All we are going to get are reports. Since this is being tried by the media (like it or not it is being tried in the court of public opinion) we are all going to be forced to either form an opinion or try to ignore the trickle of information that will keep this in the news (doom and gloom sells commercials) as a distraction from things that actually do matter to the bigger scheme of things.

        I’m not going to say that I have made a final opinion yet. More information may trickle in. But if you want to wait for actual “evidence” then you will need to be on the jury.

        The police department is not going to issue a report on the officer’s medical condition unless they have a very very real blow out eye orbit fracture to report. The freedom of information act is in action here so “reports” are coming forth with. But it will not be called “evidence”.

        Brown was involved in a strongarm burglary. – Fact.
        Brown had illegal drugs in his system – Fact.
        The police officer has a fractured eye orbit – Fact.
        Brown has no wounds in his back. – Fact.

        Not drawing a final conclusion yet. But the initial story looked bad for the cop (as the media wanted it to). Now it looks bad for the race baiting brokers of violence and looting.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          The autopsy report is in. No shots in the back.

          Correct, but any of the arm wounds could have been inflicted when Brown was surrendering, according to Dr. Baden. And we don’t know how many rounds the officer fired, so he could have shot at Brown’s back. So far, then, no case has been proven one way or the other.

          If there’s a trial, it will be televised. Then we’ll actually see the evidence, just as we did in the Zimmerman case. In that trial, everybody who didn’t have his or her @ss inserted ten inches up their rectum knew that the entire case was horsesh!t. Maybe this case will be the same, maybe not.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Correct, but any of the arm wounds could have been inflicted when Brown was surrendering, according to Dr. Baden.

          Dr. Baden didn’t perform the forensic analysis. He wasn’t even in the state until two days after it was performed. The quack with no credentials “performed” the forensic analysis (not a full-blown autopsy; the body was already embalmed). Also, the gunshot wounds to the arms, IIRC, are graze wounds, not entry/exit wounds. If so, they more likely happened with Brown’s arms extended outward from his body, not extended upward.

          And we don’t know how many rounds the officer fired, so he could have shot at Brown’s back.

          Under Missouri statute, Wilson was justified in using deadly force, even if Brown was fleeing. He had just committed a violent felony (one of two felonies committed within a span of approximately 10 minutes), and reasonably posed an imminent threat if allowed to escape.

        3. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Ahem. I don’t think you can put your @ss up your @ss.

          Rectum? Damn near killed ’em!

        4. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Speaking of being on a jury, WHERE is the pool for a fair and impartial jury to be drawn from? Afghanistan? Tibet? The Ocean Floor?

          The MSM and the Internet have made it nearly impossible to find 13 people who haven’t heard of the case, much less formed an opinion of any sort.

        5. avatar Hannibal says:

          It’s a stretch to justify shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect. It doesn’t matter what state law is, Tennessee v. Garner made it illegal to use deadly force against a fleeing felon absent an imminent and clear threat to life. I think you’d be very hard-pressed to say that Brown was going to kill the next person he met down the street if he was able to run away. I’m sure one could try and articulate that he might do just that, but I don’t think it will fly… especially in this case.

        6. avatar Ralph says:

          @Chip Bennett, Baden said on national TV that the arm wounds could have been the result of gunshots with Brown’s hands up, surrendering. And while firing at a fleeing felon may be legal, firing at a surrendering felon is murder.

          I don’t know what happened. If you were an eyewitness, I would defer to you. But you weren’t there, so you don’t know any more than I do.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Well, Baden wasn’t present at the forensic examination about which he was commenting, so anything he says is basically worthless, because it is hearsay.

        8. avatar Ralph says:

          @Hannibal, Garner was a civil case, and it never decided that lethal force was only justified if the fleeing felon was going to kill the next guy he saw.

          In the case where a fleeing felon had assaulted an officer, danger to others is a logical conclusion. In a case where a burglar was trying to jump a fence to escape and the officer had no belief that the fleeing felon had assaulted anyone, danger cannot be assumed.

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        Yes, “actual evidence” is what counts, but it is a natural instinct for witnesses to lie, when one of their own bites the dust, as a result of one “not of their own” does the biting! When there are many witnesses “stretching” the truth, then sometimes actual evidence does not prevail.
        If there is a trial, I wonder if there will be an equal number of blacks and whites.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          As a lawyer, it was always my opinion that the only time witnesses didn’t lie is when they didn’t know the truth.

          As for the jury composition, it hope that it will be as racially mixed as the community. We’ll find out for sure in a couple of years. But I do know that expecting black jurors to be prejudiced against Wilson because he’s white is just as morally wrong as expecting the white prosecutor to be prejudiced against Brown because he was black.

        2. avatar Anon in CT says:

          But sadly it’s also true.

        3. avatar Accur81 says:


          Sorry, but given the course of events between this media circus and the Martin / Zimmerman shooting, I believe that black people are 10 times as likely to make this a racial issue. I would expect the racial bias to play out accordingly amongst jurors and prosecutors. It’s certainly played out that way with Obama and Holder in the Zimmerman shooting.

          Or do you think for a minute Holder would have been involved if a white 18 year old was shot?

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          @Accur81, Zimmerman’s prosecution was entirely racial. The Federal government pushed for it, Angela Cory manipulated the system and the media defamed Zimmerman to create racial hatred, starting with the “white Hispanic” bullsh!t and the doctoring of the police call tape by NBC.

          And he was acquitted.

          The evidence will tell the story of the Ferguson case, and if Wilson has a good legal team, the evidence will convict or acquit him.

    5. avatar Felix says:

      There is no real evidence so far other than a dead body. Everything else has lousy provenance or none.

      I have all sorts of opinions, but none of them are based on evidence, only reports, hearsay, innuendo, and more flotsam and jetsom than after a hurricane.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        We are both of the same opinion.

  2. avatar Layne says:

    The exact same thing happened in Homestead Florida several years ago when I was down there, and it did not make national news. Heck, the exact same thing happened again in St Louis yesterday and I’m not hearing too much about it. The fact that someone’s life will be changed forever depending if an incident happens on a slow news day or not in this country is outrageous.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The St. Louis shooting is even more clear because it was videoed.

      I still think it’s remarkable that the Ferguson shooting is the only thing on the planet that day that wasn’t videoed by someone.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        I’m keeping my camera at the ready in case something happens in the street in front of my house!
        Actually, something did happen a few years ago. A couple of cop cars pulled up in front of my place. I thought they were going to the house on my left, or across the street.
        Guess where they went? Yes, to MY front door, seems my step sons girlfriend was in some trouble and they thought she might be at my place. She WAS!

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I’d be willing to bet that it was, and whoever did it is holding out for the Big Media Payout ™.

      3. avatar Gr8Scott says:

        You can hear the officers in the video ordering the man to drop the knife before opening fire on him. In this case, I don’t exactly understand why they didn’t tase him. One could cover with the pistol while the other used the taser to subdue him. I would venture to say that this was a needless killing.

  3. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I am going to have to see it before I believe it. This, by now, is so clearly a good shoot that a trial would be a farce. Maybe somebody should sue the police force for allowing a man with a broken face and a concussion to carry a gun? Further pursuit is stupid.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      Then it should be an easy case to win in the courtroom… which is exactly where you or I would be if we shot somebody in self defense.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Not without probable cause.

        The State has to show probable cause that a crime was committed, including probable cause that the use of deadly force was not justified as self defense, if the would-be defendant injects that claim.

        Maybe you support wasting taxpayer money for prosecuting people who act in self-defense, but I don’t.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Exactly. Why should we waste time and money on investigations, Grand Juries and trials when there are people who weren’t within a thousand miles of this shooting but still know exactly what happened.

        2. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

          My point is that for Joe Homeowner NOT facing charges is likely the exception, not the rule.

          Just because someone has a different career shouldn’t make them any more/less likely to go through the Grand Jury and trial process that every other civilian is subject to.

    2. avatar Ed Cardoza says:

      At this point, sure, I gotta give the benefit of the doubt to Wilson, but it’s anything but clear. The investigation isn’t over, there’s reporting of “facts” that turn out not to be facts. No one has any idea if this was a justified shooting or not. Maybe it’s justified, maybe it wasn’t.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Wilson is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but if he goes to trial — IF — he will be entitled to the presumption of innocence.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Actually, legally, he is given the benefit of up to and including ‘reasonable doubt.’ Right?

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          @barnbwt, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard of proof in criminal trials. The jury (or judge in a non-jury trial) cannot find a defendant guilty, even if they believe he was very, very likely to have done the crime, unless the jury has no reasonable doubt. Lots of time the jurors will say, “Sure, we thought he did it, but there just wasn’t enough evidence to convict.”

          “Presumption of innocence” means that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and not on the defendant to prove that he’s innocent. In other words, a man is innocent until proven guilty, and even the fact that he’s charged is not proof of guilt.

          The presumption is overcome when the jury finds guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  4. avatar Scrubula says:

    Holder should already be in jail. I don’t know why he is trying to corrupt this trial.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Nah, a despicable man like him should be in the ground

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        What do you have against ground?

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I’ve nothing against it, personally, but outer space is too dang expensive.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I should clarify what I just said. Outer space is too dang expensive, even if we don’t waste any money on a space suit or a pressurized tin can.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          And you can’t bury him at sea because that would be water pollution (EPA donchaknow).

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          “ground” is where hungry worms and maggots are found.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      I think the actions taken by governmental officials in this case rises to the point where they deserve censure and, frankly, I’m not sure there can be a fair trial.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Well, the trial won’t be for a year and a half or two years. Tempers cool. And if they don’t, then the defense will try for a change of venue.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    For folks who don’t know or have never been in or on a Grand Jury, this is a terrific primer.
    Good write-up Ralph.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      +1. I did not know all the steps either, and this helps explain the delays and politics.

      Speaking of politics, the two best commentaries on Ferguson, IMHO are these:

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Thanks, Tom. There may be a lot more write-ups if this case goes the way I think it will.

  6. avatar jerry says:

    Officer Wilson is wishing with all his might that he had called in sick that morning.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah, or just put his blinders on and driven by those two.

      In a place like that if you stick your neck out, it’ll get chopped. I suggest no cop in Ferguson do anything that could result in a use of force.

  7. avatar OCD says:

    Their merely exploiting the event in order to motivate part of their voting base that typically does not bother to vote in mid term elections.

    You can see it in the voting numbers from Missouri’s ballot a few weeks ago. 2.7 million voters participated in the 2012 presidential election. Less than a million voted on Aug. 5th.

    If the incident in Ferguson happened in say, 2013, it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the amount of press.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      It’s definitely part of motivating the black democratic base, as well as an attempt to make Holder look like less of a scumbag. Which is to say 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.
      There’s also more “justification” of federal oversight bullsh!t.

      As a white cop, I sincerely hope I never have to shoot a black man while on duty or off. Black men and women get shot all the time in Chicago, but it never seems to ping the radar.

      At least I know that no-one will call me a white Hispanic. I make typing paper look tan.

      And if my post sounds racial, it’s because this whole incident seems about 90% racial to me. One of my greatest fears these days are the masses of morons who possess an attention span no longer than a tweet, and lack the capability to change their minds in the presence of facts which don’t agree with their pre-determined narrative.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        this whole incident seems about 90% racial to me

        I take it that math was never your best subject. 🙂

        This case may or may not have been about race at the time of the shooting. But now, it’s all about race and nothing but. We hope that the GJ deliberations and the trial will not be affected by it.

        The Zimmerman case was also completely racial (at least after the shooting), but it appears that the GJ wasn’t buying it — which is why Angela Cory took the case away from them. Likewise, the prosecution was entirely race-based, but the jury didn’t buy it.

        As the Zimmerman case showed, there are some people who will stick with the facts. I think there are plenty of good people, black and white, in St. Louis County, and there will be a fair result.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Hey, this was all about race from the get-go. The very first reports were about an “unarmed black teenager.” No unicorns there.

        There’s also more “justification” of federal oversight bullsh!t.

        I don’t know about that. The Feds injected themselves into the situation with the first proclamation from Obama’s pie hole. Then Holder blows into town to issue a nonstatement. Of course, the Feds can’t even “oversee” DC, so there’s scant hope for anything concrete happening in Ferguson due to the oversight except more chaos.

  8. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The crude racism in the “black leadership’s” claim that McCullough is biased because he’s a white guy is disgusting. That no national media people have mentioned this glaring fact, is even more disgusting. If the roles were reversed and the cop was black, the dead kid white and if white people were questioning the bias of a black prosecutor, those same race-huckster “leaders” would be loudly screaming about racism. Among the race-hucksters racism is a one-way street. I hope McCullough stands firm. This is not going to end well.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The crude racism in the “black leadership’s” claim that McCullough is biased because he’s a white guy is disgusting.

      It’s actually worse than it seems. The racial arsonists are questioning McCullough’s integrity because his father was a hero cop who died in the line of duty.

      1. avatar DSP says:

        That’s why our racist U.S. attorney general is in town to assure there will be a civil rights trial. Eric Holder’s integrity is worthless. Nobody’s civil rights were violated that day. Just more purposeful distraction on Obama’s treason.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Well, the Justice Department also launched a civil rights investigation of Zimmerman, which went nowhere even though Trayvon Martin was Obama’s son.

          I noticed that Obama’s statement was less racial this time than after the Martin shooting. I guess that POTUS wasn’t so quick to claim Big Mike as his own. Do you wonder why?

          One was shot by a cop. The other was shot by a man with a licensed firearm. Which group does POTUS wish to disarm? And which group does POTUS not want to offend?

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          You mean “I don’t know all the facts… but the police acted stupidly” Obama?

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Big Mike didn’t have the physical appearance of a scrawny, syphilitic, HIV infected, wannabe gangbanger. That is no one would believe him to be Obuma’s son.

        4. avatar JeremyR says:

          Neiowa, he got his looks from Moochelle. Strong genes those, can carry half a ton, and chew a man in half. The resemblance is striking. Both are big, ugly, and hate(d) humanity and America.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    +1 Ralph. If big Mike broke officer Wilson’s eye socket all bets are off. BTW this kind of BS happens all the time in Chicago & it barely registers as a blip on the radar.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If Wilson suffered a severe injury, or even a superficial injury, it explains why his gun was out and Wilson would be off the hook for that. Easily.

      However, if there’s a trial, the defense will still need to deal with the question whether Brown was attacking or surrendering. If he was attacking, then most normal people would believe that the shooting was justified. If Brown was surrendering, then most would believe that the shooting was unjustified.

      There’s a long way to go.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        I’ll bet you a bottle of scotch that Wilson did in fact have an eye / facial injury. I’ll keep the limit at $75 so you’re not in the hook for a 25 year old bottle of McCallan.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          No bet. It could be that Wilson was injured, or not. There are dueling “reports” at this stage and nobody has released any X-rays. Besides, I don’t think it legally matters, as long as Wilson was struck. Assaulting a cop is a violent crime even if it didn’t result in a broken bone.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        That’s true and will probably depend on (always undependable) witness testimony since the injuries are likely not conclusive on that point. Maybe if they find blood going towards the officer that could show Brown was approaching, but who knows.

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        However, if there’s a trial, the defense will still need to deal with the question whether Brown was attacking or surrendering. If he was attacking, then most normal people would believe that the shooting was justified. If Brown was surrendering, then most would believe that the shooting was unjustified.

        Actually, the State would need to deal with that question, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

        But, I agree with you: if the evidence shows that Brown was surrendering, then the use of deadly force at that point was unjustified, and Wilson should be prosecuted accordingly.

  10. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Ralph correctly summarized What is happening here. Also note that McCullough did not support current stl countuy exec Dooley (who is black) and instead supported a council member (stenger who is whiite). Stenger won primary and faces a republican (not me unfortunately). Dooley is out in january. Those raising hell are black pols who supported Dooley (see a pattern?) and who will lose juice in January. Gov Nixon is term limted and trying to avoid a new riot so he can be on the short list for vice potus. Also, since Nixon delcared a state of emergency, he can remove McCullough but won’t b/c he doesn’t have the balls to do so. Instead, he will let state of emergency lapse and wait to let the feds phuck things up and start the riot/race war.

    Holder must not have $hit from the 3d autopsy b/c they would have put it out there for the mob, I mean crowd. Also, rumor is this “kid” has a juvie record that is sealed (which may explain why he spent his junior year elsewhere). I thinl holder is looking for some race animus inwilson’s background that will take months to find or make up

    Hold onto your seats and keep youir mags loaded

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Also, rumor is this “kid” has a juvie record that is sealed

      Brown’s juvie record was FOIAed but the request was rejected. The requestor has brought suit to release the records.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:


        If Brown had a minor juvvy record it would be out in a NY second.

        1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          Huh? If the record is SEALED, it is not subject to FOIA. Gotta get a court order to UNSEAL it. Officer Wilson’s defense team will move to get it unsealed

        2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          It’ll be interesting to see if they allow a sealed Juvie record to be unsealed.
          Correct me if I’m wrong, but if it’s sealed, then everything has been adjudicated, and if it’s adjudicated, why allow it?
          Prior crimes can’t be brought up during trial, unless defense opens the gates…

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Keep my mags loaded?

      I never unloaded them from the Friday of the Zimmerman trial. I was half expecting riots to break out if he were found innocent. The trunk of my car had some… interesting (but, I hasten to add, entirely legal) hardware in it that day.

      As it happened the verdict was announced on Saturday, I didn’t have to go to work that day (the hazard is in that neighborhood, not the one I live in), and there was no rioting here.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        Well, 10 days of rioting here is keeping people on edge here

        1. avatar 16V says:

          On edge? Only if you reside in Ferguson-Florissant. And the Florissant part is a stretch.

          Nothing is going to leave that area, or even migrate to North City. The professional ‘burbs? They’d never have a chance of making it. Far too many well-armed folks would stop it long before the moneybelt of 40 was close to breached.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:


          Sorry, my bad, Dirk. I (mis)interpreted your comment as being general advice for after the trial, not current advice for people in the area. If I were in the area I’d certainly be behaving differently than I am now, here.

  11. avatar 357M28 says:

    Thanks for the write-up, Mr. Ralph. I learned a lot today.

  12. avatar ensitue says:

    What’s next?
    Remember when Obama mentioned Private Armies?
    Remember Horst Wessel?
    Hitler had 2 gangs of organized thugs, the SA and SS. Despite not being a native born German Hitler was able to have the German Constitution overturned by a judge through blatant intimidation established by his campaign of political murder both inside and outside Germany. A Colonel in the German army distributed arms to 1000’s of SA and SS and Hitler gave them 60 days to terrorize Germany into submission. Nearly 50,000 Germans were murdered, tortured, kidnapped and sent to the first death camp, in Berlin. Organized resistance to Hitler ceased.
    And Horst Wessel? he was just a Nazi pimp, a tattooed sociopath killed in a street fight that fit the pre-planned propaganda campaign that was waiting for him.
    So when you ask what’s next just look to the German Republic of the 1930’s and you’ll see the answer

    1. avatar Bob72 says:

      I too am a student of history, and one area I studied is the Weimer Republic, and those events that led to the rise of the National-Socialists in Germany. If anyone reading this believes that it cannot happen here, you are in for a very rude awakening. It is crazy scary how similar the tactics and ideology of the fascists are to the Democrat Party. 10 years ago, if someone came to me claiming that in the future the US government would be doing what it is doing today, I would have said that was crazy talk. So, with that being said, let me close with saying that this election matters more than any other election in the history of the US.

    2. avatar BDub says:

      Gee! All that’s left is runaway inflation to start the ball rolling, but how likely is that to happen? /sarc.

  13. avatar joe says:

    “Holder says that he was victimized by racial prejudice on the part of whites”
    every interaction he had said happened with the police has happened to me…. guess they did it cause I’m white

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      And he conveniently forgets that he was victimized right into a Cabinet position. Hypocrite much?

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    The ‘community’ is pretty straight-forward about threatening what they will do if there’s no guilty verdict… and the ‘justice’ department is happy to oblige and serve up a sacrifice.

  15. avatar KMc says:

    Three autopsies? What am I missing here?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      When you need two investigations and three autopsies it means you’re going to keep trying till you get the “truth” you want.

      1. avatar KMc says:

        “And the Truth will set you Free”……..except in this case.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      At this point is there any body left to autopsy?

      1. avatar maltwit says:

        Not really. The body has been embalmed and the bullets removed.

        All the second and third autopsies can do is refer to the findings of the first pathologist. If there is any GSR left on Brown’s clothes, they can analyze that, I suppose.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Baden didn’t have access to the clothes when he did his private autopsy (which was #2). The Feds (autopsy #3) will have access to the clothing, but what do they expect to find that the local investigators (autopsy #1) didn’t?

          BTW, autopsy #4 is scheduled for September 2 in Heidelberg, which is the start of the European Tour. Tickets are $125, with 50 Cent as the opening act.

  16. avatar Dragonheart says:

    Evidence, we don’t need no stinking evidence! Our legal system is now just a lynch mob.

  17. avatar Gunr says:

    Speaking of juries, I’d like to bring up something. We need a new system! One that doesn’t cost a fortune in lost wages and time. I have been called for jury duty more than a couple of times and served on one once. There were several dozen people waiting around to see if they would be chosen for the jury. I’m guessing over half of these folks had jobs that they should have been at. Most of them ended up wasting their time waiting around to be told to go home.

    Then of course there were the people who were actually picked for the trial, lasting anywhere from a few hours to over a month. I was fortunate that I was on disability at the time, so did not suffer any pay loss.

    Something else to consider is the fact that not all those chosen to serve, are of the mental capacity to make a large financial decision in a verdict, much less in the case of life or death.

    Here’s an idea I would like a comment on, from some of the more distinguished panel members.
    How about a group of “professional” jurors. These folks would be of average IQ (lets me out) and schooling.
    They would be well versed in their field of expertise. If they were to be used on deadly force type criminal cases, they would have good knowledge of firearms etc. If I was to be judged on a DGU, I wouldn’t want somebody on the jury that doesn’t know the difference between a firing pin and a grip cap.
    The number of jurors in any particular area would be enough so that most of them would be serving a jury most of the time.
    The attorneys would have a list of the potential jurors and would pick the ones that have had the longest time off. Of course they would have to be approved as in our present system.
    Another thing it would save is the hardship some of these folks have to go through just to get to the courthouse. Some live at a considerable distance, and some don’t drive.

    I understand there will be criticism to my little money and time saving plan, so I would like to hear what you think.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Many jobs compensate for serving on juries and a number of states have specifc laws that require employees not be discriminated against for serving on a jury

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        I understand that Dirk, this means that the employer must pay for services not rendered, which we all pay for in the end. Nobody wants to pay three bucks for a two dollar burger. This also disrupts schedules, company output, as well as employee vacations.
        And then there’s the problem of all that wasted gas, large crowds sometimes at courthouse, and as mentioned, getting to the courthouse for some folks. There’s gotta be a better way!
        Thanks for your input.

  18. “Professional” Jurors are likely to become just a part of the justice system. The whole idea of juries is to have a check on the government bodies. “A jury of your peers”.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      I knew that word “peers” was gonna come up. Thanks for the reply.

    2. avatar JeremyR says:

      Peers? When, EVER has a scum bag child molester gotten a jury of perverts? Or a robber a jury of thieves? Wilson’s jury won’t have any cops. Let’s pray it has twelve honest men and women.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        “peers” as in other people of the same class, and by that they don’t mean upper/middle/lower class. The term is actually a bit of a holdover from the English system where it was intended that noblemen had to be tried by noblemen, and commoners by commoners. In our (nominally) classless society a nominally random (but in fact stacked via voir dire) cross section of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty is assumed to be our “peers.”

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        And the other problem with what you say is that a man accused of child molestation or thievery is still presumed to be NOT one of the above, so those people wouldn’t be his peers even by your logic. Not until after conviction.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email