re: DA McCulloch

quote:

---

I 100% disagree with his choice to announce at 8pm.

---

Do you really think the decision was his and his alone? I don't. Also, when are there less people on the streets, the local people either going to or coming from work? There would have been more chaos on the roads at 8 am than 8pm.

Dude did a good job considering what he told the public is that he failed in his duties. Grand juries are supposed to indict...the system is weighted so heavily in the favor of the prosecution that it is almost a foregone conclusion that if a prosecutor thinks they have a case to convict the accused is going to be indicted. The evidence in this case was pretty clear to the prosecutor that there wasn't a case. Yet, for obvious reasons, the officer was put through the torment of facing indictment. The instances of a grand jury failing to indict when the prosecutor sincerely is seeking a conviction are fairly uncommon when compared to the instances of succesfully presenting a case to a grand jury.

Here is the fricked up thing and what the American people should be told by the press.....the prosecutor failed in his duty to protect the rights of the accused when there was not enough evidence to suggest a conviction at trial would be forthcoming.

Finally, does anyone sincerely think that the prosecutor could not have gotten and indictment given the evidence in this case? Obviously the evidence supported the officer but does anyone sincerely think that a good prosecutor, bent on conviction, could not have gotten an indictment? If the community decided to go with the sham of the grand jury system they should have sought and received and indictment and allowed a jury to tell the world that the officer was innocent...which he was. Now we have a situation where the people who will make hay in the sunshine has had the light cranked up to full volume.

This case should have never gone to the GJ unless the prosecutor was certain he could get an indictment. To use the system for political purposes is just wrong...understandable but wrong. The system is supposed to protect the innocent as well as try the guilty. The officer here was innocent and was used for political ends and a citizen of this country should not have to go through that.

Solid point

quote:

---

Grand juries are supposed to indict.

---

Wrong you really don't know what you are talking about. Sadly most people don't.

quote:

---

Yet, for obvious reasons, the officer was put through the torment of facing indictment.

---

Wrong again, it gets all the facts out there and actually protects the officer in future hearings in the federal system and it allows the topic to be dropped by the state.

quote:

---

the prosecutor failed in his duty to protect the rights of the accused when there was not enough evidence to suggest a conviction at trial would be forthcoming.

---

Wrong again. The Grand Jury isn't a one way street. It also protected the rights of the "Accused" as you would put it the police officer. It guarantees that the officer can't be brought up on state murder charges later in the event that a political hack does become DA.

You really aren't very educated on this process. It is OK because after listening to the talking heads last night it is clear most aren't.

I guarantee you that he officers attorney welcomed the grand jury.

quote:

---

I don't know how that could have been done better.

---

He could have indicted the racist police officer who shot the unarmed AA teenager who was fixin' to go to college.

quote:

---

quote: Grand juries are supposed to indict. Wrong you really don't know what you are talking about. Sadly most people don't.

---

Your right....in 2010 there were 162000 cases prosecuted at the federal level and grand juries failed to indict 11 times so .007% of the time federal prosecutors fail to get an indictment. While that is different than what happened here the numbers would be similar at the state level.

The are exception is when grand juries convene in the caste of a crime involving police, especially police shootings....the. The numbers are about the same.....grand juries almost never indict policemen. It does happen, but it is rare. The reason is simple....the person responsible for getting the indictment is on the same team as the accused.....or, in this case, the only reason for taking it to grand jury is because of the political fall out if not done.

I am not a lawyer but a grand jury does not prevent a person from being charged now or later...a judge can allow the case to go forward or another prosecutor can take it to another grand jury in the future. The accused is not placed in jeopardy until a trial jury is selected.

quote:

---

Your right

---

I know I am right, otherwise I wouldn't of posted.

quote:

---

I am not a lawyer

---

This is clear.

quote:

---

Your right....in 2010 there were 162000 cases prosecuted at the federal level and grand juries failed to indict 11 times so .007% of the time federal prosecutors fail to get an indictment

---

I am right, this wasn't a federal grand jury.

Keep reaching, your ignorance of the law and the process is astounding, especially in Missouri State Law.

But hey emotions are cool.

quote:

---

quote: Your right....in 2010 there were 162000 cases prosecuted at the federal level and grand juries failed to indict 11 times so .007% of the time federal prosecutors fail to get an indictment I am right, this wasn't a federal grand jury. Keep reaching, your ignorance of the law and the process is astounding, especially in Missouri State Law. But hey emotions are cool.

---

You seem to have a reading problem. I didn't say this was a federal GJ...in fact I said it wasn't. But of course that didn't fit in with your flawed summation.

But why don't you enlighten me since you know so much more than I...I freely admit that I am no where near an expert...like you....so I would love for you to explain how it is common in Missourri for Grand Juries to decline to indict....especially when it is a cop who is under suspicion. This ought to be good....

Suite melt

Oh, it's funny alright.