Best of the Web:

Prosecutor in Ferguson case deliberately misled jurors to ensure Wilson acquittal

Lawrence O Donnell
MSNBC
Mon, 01 Dec 2014 13:08 UTC

Mike Brown, lynched by the KKK in Blue.

The so-called "prosecutor" in the Ferguson shooting Grand Jury deliberately fooled the jurors into believing that Wilson could legally shoot Brown as he ran away.

She did so by using a Missouri law that was ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court in 1985. She further tried to confuse the jurors by not telling them clearly that US supreme court law overruled Missouri state law.

Ask yourself, why would she go to such lengths? Obviously, because the facts of the case show that Wilson shot the unarmed Brown dead as he was running away from Wilson.

Social justice in psychopath-ruled USA

Reader Comments

Ennio · 2014-12-01T14:20:25Z

Out-friggin-rageous!

Yet another way in which this case was railroaded by the court. Unbelievable. Injustice heaped on injustice. Grievous injury heaped upon insult, heaped upon more grievous injury. Interesting that this dimension of the case is being covered by MSNBC, no small media outlet. One thing is for sure, the PTB in Ferguson and nationally could not have done more to incite the righteous anger of blacks and, really, anyone following the murder of Mike Brown - who has an ounce of morality in their body, if they tried!

canyonjammer · 2014-12-01T16:49:50Z

In the article concerning the murder of witness DeAndre Joshua, testimony of witness 14 (also missing), refutes the Hands Up, Don't Shoot as a fabrication of the neighborhood. This testimony is detailed, and has a certain ring of truth to it. It is public record.
It seems like a great deal of effort is being put into sensationalizing the murder of Michael Brown, and at this point there is more mis-information available about what did or did not happen that day than correct information. The entire incident has been co-opted by the media and special interests, and turned into something that never happened.

Although I am sure it has happened at other times and in other places, the manipulation of public opinion in regard to the Michael Brown murder is reminiscent of the application of similar strategies by the British in Northern Ireland forty five years ago. According to FDR in politics nothing happens by accident and I believe this situation is being deliberately manipulated to create deeper division between people of different ethnic backgrounds, keeping the people from coming together to oppose police state brutality.

Debereeba · 2014-12-01T19:07:03Z

The really scary part is the grand

jury so easily being misled by the bait and switch argument of the DA. Modern education has groomed them only enough to be manipulated. The agenda to further gut our justice system is proceeding under The Pale of Law just like was done in Weimar Germany.

Even with all the dots on the page,The People just can't seem to make their connections apart from what they passively receive from the MSM and their exalted poobah leaders (sic) white or black or brown or ....

The woefully sad part is that Grand Juries have been led to believe they are not permitted rise above The Law to in order to obtain Justice.

win 52 · 2014-12-01T18:52:58Z

people

Isn't that what they always do, get people to argue amongst themselves thus distracting from more serious issues? The status quo of divide and conquer works well with people.

Under current rule there is no let up in sight. There is too much believing in lies for many people which confuses the issues.

Aithin Tusa Fein · 2014-12-01T23:00:59Z

Incorrect

The 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the host is referring to is, of course, the well known Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) [Link] which held that:

"The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The Missouri Statute 563.046 [Link] reads:

1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

The only unconstitutional part of the statute would be 563.046.1(2)(a), if, and only if, the suspect "Has committed or attempted to commit a felony" and the perusing police officer does NOT have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." In that situation, and that situation ONLY, is the statute unconstitutional according to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding.

Keep in mind that in Part II, B, of the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner, it was stated:

"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

That being said, as a matter of law, the Missouri Statute 563.046 is also "not, however, unconstitutional on its face."

The unconstitutionality of the statute is only situational, not on its face, and either way section 563.046.1(2)(a) did not even apply at the Grand Jury hearing, because officer Wilson claimed he had "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Therefore, the host is incorrect.

Aithin Tusa Fein · 2014-12-01T23:20:32Z

Correction: change "563.046.1(2)(a)" to read "563.046.3(2)(a)".

Good Optics · 2014-12-02T02:58:23Z

This is slippery, smarmy mess . . .

And how, might we suppose, did Wilson come to claim that he had, " . . . probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" when by all accounts I've seen the kid was unarmed and posed no threat to anyone.

This reeks of 'loophole-ology" and I challenge your statement that the host is incorrect; on the basis Wilson's claim was taken as a statement of fact, rather than having been challenged as, at best, -highly- suspect.

Aithin Tusa Fein · 2014-12-02T05:53:02Z

The Grand Jury decided the question of facts. The Grand Jury decided that officer Wilson had "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" as per his testimony which was consistent, in their opinion, with the physical evidence.

Good Optics · 2014-12-02T07:10:50Z

It still stinks . . .

but at least enough of the situation has been opened up that the matter of the host's errant position can be clearly seen; which now begs the question, "Who -is- the host and why is he fanning an inflamed situation?" because this is no part of accidental.

Aithin Tusa Fein ·

Good questions.

· 2014-12-02T16:05:08Z

Niall · 2014-12-02T16:40:39Z

"The Grand Jury decided the question of facts. The Grand Jury decided that officer Wilson had "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" as per his testimony which was consistent, in their opinion, with the physical evidence."

Is that it, for you? Case closed? Justice has been served?

Aithin Tusa Fein · 2014-12-02T19:47:02Z

Niall stated: "Is that it, for you? Case closed? Justice has been served?"

If you are referring to the philosophical definition of "justice," in itself, then that would lead to a large discussion, as there are many differing opinions on what it is, and therefore also the criteria of whether it has been served or not.

However, if you are referring to justice as defined by law in the United States, then, based on my limited knowledge of the case, I would say, at this time: yes.

From my understanding of the case: (1) officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, (2) an investigation was launched (by multiple agencies) to ascertain the facts of what occurred, this included collecting physical evidence and testimonial evidence, (3) upon examination of the collected evidence the DA had to decide whether or not to charge officer Wilson of a crime, or was he justified under the law according to the facts in the killing of Michael Brown, (3) the DA, under no obligation to do so, but definitely within his authority, decided that he would let the Grand Jury decide the facts of the case and whether or not to indict officer Wilson according to the law, (4) the Grand Jury met and examined the evidence before them, deliberated and returned their decision, which was not to indict officer Wilson on any charge.

All that has transpired, to my knowledge, has been in accordance with the justice system in the United States as defined by statute and judicial precedent. Although, I am aware that there are those who do not agree with the decision of the Grand Jury, I have not yet heard any argument, sufficiently supported by evidence, that would support the position that the Grand Jury proceedings was rigged in any way.

I hope this answers your question.

IncenDiary · 2014-12-03T05:44:03Z

Are we forgetting what the prosecutor actually did?

"The so-called "prosecutor" in the Ferguson shooting Grand Jury deliberately fooled the jurors into believing that Wilson could legally shoot Brown as he ran away.

She did so by using a Missouri law that was ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court in 1985. She further tried to confuse the jurors by not telling them clearly that US supreme court law overruled Missouri state law."

_ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw4nQd6lryw

Divide By Zero · 2014-12-03T06:17:59Z

Aithin Tusa Fein- SHILL???

I don't feel like you are a real SOTTer...

-You don't seem upset that the prosecutor misrepresented the law. To "you" it was legal, like as if you can respect this legalistic crap. Maybe you are a law student or lawyer and like to follow this. But SOTT is a website that looks to expose lies in disguise. Sometimes the disguise is the law.

Your profile quote from a father of a current programmed media whore (what father would allow that but one who sees a purpose in it?), a song (from 92) that talks about miltary propaganda for wars like the first Iraq war, promoting cannon fodder to the country music lovers.
-"All gave some and some gave all" - Billy Ray Cyrus
Even if it didn't include the first Iraq war, how is this an indication of any questioning of the mass media? Even Vietnam, WW2, etc were wars started by propaganda and lies.

Ruth · 2014-12-05T12:35:45Z

If the law protects psychopaths and bad people around the world, then there is no justice here what-so-ever. The law is just a weapon that paths wield.

Highland Fleet Lute · 2014-12-01T23:41:44Z

canyonjammer said:

"Although I am sure it has happened at other times and in other places, the manipulation of public opinion in regard to the Michael Brown murder is reminiscent of the application of similar strategies by the British in Northern Ireland forty five years ago."

Win 52 said:

"Isn't that what they always do, get people to argue amongst themselves thus distracting from more serious issues? The status quo of divide and conquer works well with people."

Sure.

“Formatory apparatus resembles a hired typist who works for a firm and has a large number of stereotyped replies for external impressions. She sends printed replies to other centers who are the ‘directors’ of the firm and who are strangers to each other. Wrong replies are often sent, as the typist is asleep or lazy.” Gurdjieff.

“In the intellectual centre, the mechanical part includes in itself all the work of registration of impressions, memories and associations. This is all that it should do normally, that is, when other parts do their work. It should never reply to questions addressed to the whole centre, it should never try to solve its problems, and it should never decide anything. Unfortunately, in actual fact, it is always ready to decide and it always replies to questions of all sorts in a very narrow and limited way, in ready- made phrases, in slang expressions, in party slogans. All these, and many other elements of our usual reactions, are the work of the mechanical part of the intellectual centre.

“This part has its own name. It is called a ‘formatory apparatus’ or sometimes ‘formatory centre.’ Many people, particularly people No. 1, that is, the great majority of mankind, live all their lives with the formatory apparatus only, never touching other parts of their intellectual centre. For all the immediate needs of life, for receiving A influences and responding to them, and for distorting or rejecting influences C, the formatory apparatus is quite sufficient.

“It is always possible to recognise ‘formatory thinking.’ For instance, formatory centre can count only up to two. It always divides everything in two: ‘bolshevism and fascism,’ ‘workers and bourgeois,’ proletarians and capitalists’ and so on. We owe most modern catchwords to formatory thinking, and not only catchwords but in modern popular theories. Perhaps it is possible to say that at all times all popular theories are formatory." - P.D. Ouspensky. Psychology of Mans Possible Evolution

Hegelian Dialectic….[Link]
Dividers....[Link]

JGeropoulas · 2014-12-02T07:32:06Z

Both autopsies: no shots to back

Read more at these links:

[Link]
[Link]
www.youngcons.com/breaking-autopsy-report-shows-witness-lied-about-michael-brown-shooting/

Divide By Zero · 2014-12-03T06:21:50Z

Interesting!
If this is true, it makes me wonder whether this event was manufactured to create strife.
As I have heard Obama's speech this morning, I got nauseous in how he is pretending to be honorable etc.
Same for the kid who was shot with a BB gun, why would the guy call in 9-11 for that? Then why would the kid get so quickly shot without anyone around, but a camera pointed at the scene?

I'm smelling the elites cooking up a pot of civil unrest between the people. The same recipe that both MLK and Malcolm X got assassinated after they exposed how the war isn't race vs race, but US vs THEM.

medicis · 2014-12-06T03:00:50Z

doesn't sound a lot different from

what the Nazis did with the Reichstag destruction in Germany. When are we gonna wake up. To the perfidy of the banking elite. I say the 'D' word to them all. IN spite of the bad kharma i might deserve... i would witness the executions and applaud.

"Parsi also claims to have heard from a Western-friendly "senior Global South diplomat" that "whatever agonizing claim the US had to lead a...

ReRan

Their spelling is wrong. Shouldn't it be attack'ems ?

ReRan

Needless, wanton violence. So sad.

ReRan

Depopulation agenda is well under way....less stupid humans might be better.

Gator

and you thought your wife's back seat driving was annoying....

Gator

Best of the Web:

Prosecutor in Ferguson case deliberately misled jurors to ensure Wilson acquittal

Reader Comments

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk