Update (VIII): NO INDICTMENT!!!
In his statement prosecutor McCulloch stressed how much witnesses were caught contradicting prior statements--or the physical evidence. I.e., lying.
McCulloch notes that there was no question Wilson shot Brown, but the issue was whether it was lawful self-defense. No mention of right to shoot to apprehend, which is something I mentioned in a previous post. (Please note that I will be updating parts of this live without making a separate notation. Basically I am live-blogging this. Live with it.)
Particularly striking is McCulloch mentioning that several witnesses claimed that Wilson shot Brown in the back, on the ground, which was utterly disproven by forensic evidence.
It is interesting that they don't seem to discuss the right of a cop to shoot to apprehend. And McColloch reasonably relies significantly on physical evidence because, well... it doesn't lie. And it sounds like a lot of people were lying to them. Terrible, if true.
McColloch promises to release some of the evidence later. He speaks extensively about finding blood in the car, suggesting that there was a struggle in car. Wound previously reported on Brown's thumb verified. Wilson also had some swelling on face. Claim that his eye socket was broken not verified.
McColloch has basically verified every single rumor heard about the autopsy I have heard. It sounds like Brown was charging Wilson when the final shooting. And he mentions the video chat that captured all of it. Says that the evidence and the testimony will be released after this decision.
McColloch can't tell us what the vote break down was by statute. And they asked if they might go after them for perjury--rules it out.
McColloch, in response to reporter notes that most of the testimony he referred to specifically was from black witnesses. It used to be a law in many Southern States that a black person cannot testify without a white person testifying first that this person can be trusted. In this case the rule seems to be reversed: Wilson is not innocent unless a black person can vouch for him. We are not yet at the point of colorblind justice, unfortunately.
Statement from the Brown family, according to a reasonably reliable source:
Idiot reporter claims that the law does not value the lives of kids like Michael Brown. The law only ceased to value his life, to the extent it did, when he apparently attacked a cop.
McColloch says the federal investigation is ongoing. But I told you already that they don't seem likely according to rumors and this outcome suggests it is unlikely.
And the conference is over.So the live blogging will shut down for now. Actually no, I am still frequently updating.
(Title change, original title placed after updates, all after the break)
Update (IX): Via Mediaite, we get significant anger from the media from what I saw as a pretty mild description of the realities of a high-profile case.
You can also see video from the announcement at the Mediaite link.
Also statement from the Wilson camp:
Some reports of possible shots fired. One store window broken with a trash can, other chaos. Not sure you call it a riot, yet, but it is close.
Obama just finished making a statement that didn't really have much to report on, there. It is interesting that he blamed the media, too.
Also, this:
Seriously. Also this:
And this, too:
As I told her, a civil suit seems like a losing proposition, now. As I have said before, the standard of proof to indict is very low. If you can't get that, you probably can't win a civil suit, although collateral estoppel will not apply. Of course the question is, who eats the legal fees? I suspect that no lawyer will offer a contingency fee. And I am not sure Brown's family can afford a suit. So unless it is taken on pro-bono, I don't think it is financially viable. One reader brought up 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, which deals with civil rights violations. They can get past a motion to dismiss on that if the complaint is competently written, but the winner get back attorneys' fees, which means if they lose, the Brown family might end up owing Wilson money.
I will add that it looks like it is officially a riot. Sigh. I hate being right, sometimes.
Finally, I am trying to track down the actual evidence released tonight. The prosecutor's site is down (hacking? high demand?). If you find it, tweet or email me asap.
Update (X): Found a transcript. Haven't looked at it, but it is embedded below the fold. If you find more, tell me. Update: It is too large to post to scribd. Sorry, if you came here for that. You can read it on the NYT website, here. And now, this site is uploading fully searchable versions. I will have my own version to look through, and if I find it interesting enough, I might write a post or twenty on it.
I might attempt to split it up and embed it.
Update (VII): Announcement now... 9:17 p.m.
Update (II): Word is that the announcement will be made at 9 p.m. (8 p.m. local time in Missouri). Mediaite's Joe Concha rightfully excoriates that decision as a "borderline reckless" decision. I respectfully disagree. It has gone well past that border.
As I said on Twitter, if I ran Fergusson, the decision would come in at 5 a.m. local time. Everyone would be too tired to riot.
Update (III): I classify this as a rumor, but for what it is worth, Jim Hoft is saying sources say there will be no indictment.
Update (IV): Bumped, for obvious reasons. It should come down at any second now...
Update (V): 9:04 p.m. Brown family says Wilson won't be charged. From the article:
Update: (VI): Why is it taking so long? One theory:
We now resume the original post, as is.
According to both the Washington Post and CNN, the Grand Jury has reached some kind of decision about whether to indict Darren Wilson. On Friday I shared some tea leaf reading on the subject and today we get two more leaves to read.
In his statement prosecutor McCulloch stressed how much witnesses were caught contradicting prior statements--or the physical evidence. I.e., lying.
McCulloch notes that there was no question Wilson shot Brown, but the issue was whether it was lawful self-defense. No mention of right to shoot to apprehend, which is something I mentioned in a previous post. (Please note that I will be updating parts of this live without making a separate notation. Basically I am live-blogging this. Live with it.)
Particularly striking is McCulloch mentioning that several witnesses claimed that Wilson shot Brown in the back, on the ground, which was utterly disproven by forensic evidence.
It is interesting that they don't seem to discuss the right of a cop to shoot to apprehend. And McColloch reasonably relies significantly on physical evidence because, well... it doesn't lie. And it sounds like a lot of people were lying to them. Terrible, if true.
McColloch promises to release some of the evidence later. He speaks extensively about finding blood in the car, suggesting that there was a struggle in car. Wound previously reported on Brown's thumb verified. Wilson also had some swelling on face. Claim that his eye socket was broken not verified.
McColloch has basically verified every single rumor heard about the autopsy I have heard. It sounds like Brown was charging Wilson when the final shooting. And he mentions the video chat that captured all of it. Says that the evidence and the testimony will be released after this decision.
McColloch can't tell us what the vote break down was by statute. And they asked if they might go after them for perjury--rules it out.
McColloch, in response to reporter notes that most of the testimony he referred to specifically was from black witnesses. It used to be a law in many Southern States that a black person cannot testify without a white person testifying first that this person can be trusted. In this case the rule seems to be reversed: Wilson is not innocent unless a black person can vouch for him. We are not yet at the point of colorblind justice, unfortunately.
Statement from the Brown family, according to a reasonably reliable source:
Statement from #MichaelBrown family regarding #DarrenWilson ruling pic.twitter.com/vpmJrJIFLO
— Seni Tienabeso (@SeniABC) November 25, 2014
Idiot reporter claims that the law does not value the lives of kids like Michael Brown. The law only ceased to value his life, to the extent it did, when he apparently attacked a cop.
McColloch says the federal investigation is ongoing. But I told you already that they don't seem likely according to rumors and this outcome suggests it is unlikely.
And the conference is over.
(Title change, original title placed after updates, all after the break)
Update (IX): Via Mediaite, we get significant anger from the media from what I saw as a pretty mild description of the realities of a high-profile case.
You can also see video from the announcement at the Mediaite link.
Also statement from the Wilson camp:
NEW: Statement from Darren Wilson's defense team #FergusonDecision pic.twitter.com/UbhxAqrdvM
— ABC News (@ABC) November 25, 2014
Some reports of possible shots fired. One store window broken with a trash can, other chaos. Not sure you call it a riot, yet, but it is close.
Confirmed: Some protesters are throwing D batteries at police officers in #Ferguson near the police department.
— St. Louis County PD (@stlcountypd) November 25, 2014
Obama just finished making a statement that didn't really have much to report on, there. It is interesting that he blamed the media, too.
Also, this:
Obama: "We are a nation built on the rule of law [except when I want to change anything]."
— Leslie (@LADowd) November 25, 2014
Seriously. Also this:
#Ferguson RT @gdthomp01: The juxtaposition is pretty surreal on this dual image during Obama's speech. pic.twitter.com/0Kzde1NBap
— Stacey-SisterToldjah (@sistertoldjah) November 25, 2014
And this, too:
Brown family atty: "Michael Brown's justice will have to come in a different form of justice. Our system offers different forms of justice."
— Leslie (@LADowd) November 25, 2014
As I told her, a civil suit seems like a losing proposition, now. As I have said before, the standard of proof to indict is very low. If you can't get that, you probably can't win a civil suit, although collateral estoppel will not apply. Of course the question is, who eats the legal fees? I suspect that no lawyer will offer a contingency fee. And I am not sure Brown's family can afford a suit. So unless it is taken on pro-bono, I don't think it is financially viable. One reader brought up 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, which deals with civil rights violations. They can get past a motion to dismiss on that if the complaint is competently written, but the winner get back attorneys' fees, which means if they lose, the Brown family might end up owing Wilson money.
I will add that it looks like it is officially a riot. Sigh. I hate being right, sometimes.
Finally, I am trying to track down the actual evidence released tonight. The prosecutor's site is down (hacking? high demand?). If you find it, tweet or email me asap.
Update (X): Found a transcript. Haven't looked at it, but it is embedded below the fold. If you find more, tell me. Update: It is too large to post to scribd. Sorry, if you came here for that. You can read it on the NYT website, here. And now, this site is uploading fully searchable versions. I will have my own version to look through, and if I find it interesting enough, I might write a post or twenty on it.
I might attempt to split it up and embed it.
Update (VII): Announcement now... 9:17 p.m.
Update (II): Word is that the announcement will be made at 9 p.m. (8 p.m. local time in Missouri). Mediaite's Joe Concha rightfully excoriates that decision as a "borderline reckless" decision. I respectfully disagree. It has gone well past that border.
As I said on Twitter, if I ran Fergusson, the decision would come in at 5 a.m. local time. Everyone would be too tired to riot.
Update (III): I classify this as a rumor, but for what it is worth, Jim Hoft is saying sources say there will be no indictment.
Update (IV): Bumped, for obvious reasons. It should come down at any second now...
Update (V): 9:04 p.m. Brown family says Wilson won't be charged. From the article:
A
white police officer will not face charges for fatally shooting an unarmed
black teenager in a case that set off violent protests and racial unrest
throughout the nation, an attorney close to the case said Monday night.
Reason for delay - all the jurors are in a room in the back saying "You tell 'em." "No, YOU tell 'em."
— Angela (@Bear2theRight) November 25, 2014
Ferguson: Announcement Imminent (Update: 9 p.m., Rumor(s) is no Indictment, BUMPED)
According to both the Washington Post and CNN, the Grand Jury has reached some kind of decision about whether to indict Darren Wilson. On Friday I shared some tea leaf reading on the subject and today we get two more leaves to read.
First, we find
out that Wilson
has been talking with various news agencies about some kind of
interview. On one hand, you might argue
that he (and his lawyer) are willing to risk that kind of interview because
they know there is little legal jeopardy.
But honestly, I don’t feel confident in that analysis.
Second, we
find out that Wilson
got married in October. But this is
particularly ambiguous. Somewhat similar
to people who push up the timetable for marriage when they are about to go to
war, you can see a person scared of going to jail wanting to reaffirm one’s
love before going in. I mean to pick an
extreme example, Charles Manson is about to get married and I don’t think he is
anticipating freedom anytime soon (although with lunatics you never know what
their unrealistic expectations might be).
Wholly apart
from reading tea leaves, I wrote a post on the law as applied to this
situation, here. On the other hand, it takes a very low burden
of proof to demonstrate that an indictment is justified. In other words, one isn’t likely to get poor
in general betting in favor of indictments...
which would make any non-indictment even more stunning.
Anyway, so the
question is when the announcement is going to occur. I don’t typically go crazy trying to follow
breaking news, but I will update this post when I find out more. Update: Literally as I was putting the finishing touches on this story, I get this report that Governor Nixon is meeting with clergy at 4 p.m. Take that for what you will.
And I will
echo a plea I said on Twitter. To all
the people who want Wilson indicted, why don’t you surprise everyone by
reacting peacefully?
I’m not
optimistic anyone will listen to my plea, but it’s worth a shot. Stay safe, people, and be ready to defend
yourself if necessary.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I
have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and
adjudicated pedophile) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed
and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting here,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence. If you would like to help in
the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on
the right. And thank you.
Follow me at
Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for
snark and site updates. And you can
purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A
Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.
And you can read a little more about my
novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused
some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice
I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice
system. I do not want to see vigilante
violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the
particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that
matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t
sneak around and try to photograph him.
Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line
into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.
The only
exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course
nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any
stories you might report. And even then
if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a
harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you
refuse.
And let me say
something else. In my heart of hearts, I
don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment