Michael Brown killing: State police take over riot-hit US town

[H1w4yR1da]

The beef about ultra-right wingnut fiction arises from examples I provide in my post above, e.g., that it is not fact Michael Brown was a "violent thug." That it is not fact Brown was unable to raise his hands in the air to surrender because, as the right wing so wildly claim, he had been shot in the arm (arms?) before he could raise his hands. These are not facts. They are claims by virulent right wingers who have wrongfully attempted to reduce Michael Brown to the gutter.

Criminal lawyers know the law. Criminal lawyers say the video of Brown in the store does not indicate, suggest, nor does it provide evidence or proof of any claim Michael Brown was violent, was a thug, or was a "violent thug."

Which criminal lawyers are these? That's got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on this forum.

The video PROVES Brown was indeed a violent thug. It doesn't lie! That's why his family and supporters didn't want it released. That's the thing about CCTV and why it makes such great evidence.

Robbing a store and then assaulting the storekeeper PROVES Brown WAS violent, WAS a thug and WAS a violent thug. It's indisputable

Edited August 25, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[Chonburiram]

Why is there no outcry about this???

Is this the normal cop behaviour in the US??

I give a shít what happened to Mr. Brown (is this a common surname for black Americans?), but this is a

disgrace to police work for all real policeman/woman in the whole world.

An unarmed, disturbed person gunned down by 2! fully functional police officers, just after about 10 sec! they approached the scene?

Usa, you are so fourth world...

You don't see the knife? As long as he is wandering or climbing that wall the police are just "on guard." But when he gets closer and starts toward them they correctly shoot.

I would far rather be shot with a handgun than stabbed. Knives slash and cut and are deadly.

Cops are trained to shoot someone with a knife if he gets within about 21 feet (7 meters) of them. They let him get a lot closer than that.

Then they are trained to keep shooting until they are sure the threat is neutralized.

Go to full screen with a really good monitor and with really good sound and see what that perp is really doing and saying.

I see a disturbed person.

I see 2! police officers, shouting with drawn guns covered by their car doors at a disturbed person.

I see 2! yes, 2 not 1 police officer, emptying their gun magazines, without a second thought, into the body of a disturbed person just about 13 seconds after arriving at the scene, in broad daylight, stereo.

If you think that is normal, correct behaviour and the right way how police work is done, than you are wrong on all accounts.

I've broke up a few brawls and 2 also included a drawn knife. and i am not a police officer or in martial arts...

Killing a (disturbed) human being should still be the utmost thing to avoid for any other human, and not something you do in stereo, while on your job.

[F430murci]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

[Publicus]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?

Or do civil lawyers play a support role in criminal proceedings and in devising a defense to include the defense strategy?

The fact is your are an attorney at law, civil law.

I read and am informed by practicing criminal lawyers to include current prosecutors who discuss the Wilson-Brown case, as well as former prosecutors. I read defense lawyers discussing issues pertaining to this case, issues both broad and specific. I make the effort to follow their knowledge of criminal law and proceedings as prosecutors either active or retired.

They don't always concur or otherwise agree, which is more helpful than it is a distraction.

I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case.

All well and good you participate in parallel cases involving criminal and civil law affecting one client or a group of clients. As I understand, criminal defense lawyers represent their client in criminal proceedings as best they can, to include collaboration with civil lawyers. Btw, have you or your criminal lawyer colleagues who have cooperatively managed parallel cases had an instance of a securities regulator shooting to death an equities trader? Perhaps, but I'd say that would be rare. So perhaps not (or not yet).

But the bottom line in this is that you are not a criminal lawyer. I read and seek to understand and comprehend the presentations of the criminal lawyers and prosecutors who are analyzing and commenting on the case to date and on an ongoing basis.

Your scorn at my reference to Wilson and the 5th Amendment for example betrays your quick dismissal of the issues in this particular case.

So, what can you advise me of in respect of the following besides to say maybe or it could be?

***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt? Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?

***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?

***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?

***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested? If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury? Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury? Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?

I don't know or have answers to these and many other legal questions and issues and neither do you. They are questions discussed at various blogs by lawyers both as prosecutors or as CDLs.

The point is if your want to talk about my reference to the 5th Amendment in one of my posts, you need to say something about it other than any attorney with a license will advise his client to remain silent. So what do we make of the silent Incident Reports by the FPD and SLPD that make no mention of the incident?

Counselor?

[F430murci]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?

Or do civil lawyers play a support role in criminal proceedings and in devising a defense to include the defense strategy?

The fact is your are an attorney at law, civil law.

I read and am informed by practicing criminal lawyers to include current prosecutors who discuss the Wilson-Brown case, as well as former prosecutors. I read defense lawyers discussing issues pertaining to this case, issues both broad and specific. I make the effort to follow their knowledge of criminal law and proceedings as prosecutors either active or retired.

They don't always concur or otherwise agree, which is more helpful than it is a distraction.

I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case.

All well and good you participate in parallel cases involving criminal and civil law affecting one client or a group of clients. As I understand, criminal defense lawyers represent their client in criminal proceedings as best they can, to include collaboration with civil lawyers. Btw, have you or your criminal lawyer colleagues who have cooperatively managed parallel cases had an instance of a securities regulator shooting to death an equities trader? Perhaps, but I'd say that would be rare. So perhaps not (or not yet).

But the bottom line in this is that you are not a criminal lawyer. I read and seek to understand and comprehend the presentations of the criminal lawyers and prosecutors who are analyzing and commenting on the case to date and on an ongoing basis.

Your scorn at my reference to Wilson and the 5th Amendment for example betrays your quick dismissal of the issues in this particular case.

So, what can you advise me of in respect of the following besides to say maybe or it could be?

***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt? Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?

***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?

***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?

***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested? If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury? Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury? Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?

I don't know or have answers to these and many other legal questions and issues and neither do you. They are questions discussed at various blogs by lawyers both as prosecutors or as CDLs.

The point is if your want to talk about my reference to the 5th Amendment in one of my posts, you need to say something about it other than any attorney with a license will advise his client to remain silent. So what do we make of the silent Incident Reports by the FPD and SLPD that make no mention of the incident?

Counselor?

[Publicus]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?

Or do civil lawyers play a support role in criminal proceedings and in devising a defense to include the defense strategy?

The fact is your are an attorney at law, civil law.

I read and am informed by practicing criminal lawyers to include current prosecutors who discuss the Wilson-Brown case, as well as former prosecutors. I read defense lawyers discussing issues pertaining to this case, issues both broad and specific. I make the effort to follow their knowledge of criminal law and proceedings as prosecutors either active or retired.

They don't always concur or otherwise agree, which is more helpful than it is a distraction.

I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case.

All well and good you participate in parallel cases involving criminal and civil law affecting one client or a group of clients. As I understand, criminal defense lawyers represent their client in criminal proceedings as best they can, to include collaboration with civil lawyers. Btw, have you or your criminal lawyer colleagues who have cooperatively managed parallel cases had an instance of a securities regulator shooting to death an equities trader? Perhaps, but I'd say that would be rare. So perhaps not (or not yet).

But the bottom line in this is that you are not a criminal lawyer. I read and seek to understand and comprehend the presentations of the criminal lawyers and prosecutors who are analyzing and commenting on the case to date and on an ongoing basis.

Your scorn at my reference to Wilson and the 5th Amendment for example betrays your quick dismissal of the issues in this particular case.

So, what can you advise me of in respect of the following besides to say maybe or it could be?

***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt? Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?

***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?

***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?

***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested? If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury? Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury? Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?

I don't know or have answers to these and many other legal questions and issues and neither do you. They are questions discussed at various blogs by lawyers both as prosecutors or as CDLs.

The point is if your want to talk about my reference to the 5th Amendment in one of my posts, you need to say something about it other than any attorney with a license will advise his client to remain silent. So what do we make of the silent Incident Reports by the FPD and SLPD that make no mention of the incident?

Counselor?

Your best and most eloquent post.

Well said and done.

I look forward to much more of the same, all in the interests of justice in the Wilson-Brown criminal case.

[NeverSure]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?

Or do civil lawyers play a support role in criminal proceedings and in devising a defense to include the defense strategy?

The fact is your are an attorney at law, civil law.

I read and am informed by practicing criminal lawyers to include current prosecutors who discuss the Wilson-Brown case, as well as former prosecutors. I read defense lawyers discussing issues pertaining to this case, issues both broad and specific. I make the effort to follow their knowledge of criminal law and proceedings as prosecutors either active or retired.

They don't always concur or otherwise agree, which is more helpful than it is a distraction.

I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case.

All well and good you participate in parallel cases involving criminal and civil law affecting one client or a group of clients. As I understand, criminal defense lawyers represent their client in criminal proceedings as best they can, to include collaboration with civil lawyers. Btw, have you or your criminal lawyer colleagues who have cooperatively managed parallel cases had an instance of a securities regulator shooting to death an equities trader? Perhaps, but I'd say that would be rare. So perhaps not (or not yet).

But the bottom line in this is that you are not a criminal lawyer. I read and seek to understand and comprehend the presentations of the criminal lawyers and prosecutors who are analyzing and commenting on the case to date and on an ongoing basis.

Your scorn at my reference to Wilson and the 5th Amendment for example betrays your quick dismissal of the issues in this particular case.

So, what can you advise me of in respect of the following besides to say maybe or it could be?

***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt? Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?

***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?

***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?

***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested? If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury? Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury? Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?

I don't know or have answers to these and many other legal questions and issues and neither do you. They are questions discussed at various blogs by lawyers both as prosecutors or as CDLs.

The point is if your want to talk about my reference to the 5th Amendment in one of my posts, you need to say something about it other than any attorney with a license will advise his client to remain silent. So what do we make of the silent Incident Reports by the FPD and SLPD that make no mention of the incident?

Counselor?

There is no such thing as an attorney who is limited to practicing either civil or criminal law. If they specialize it's by choice. They study and are licensed for both.

The jury may not know that someone plead the fifth, unless he does it in front of the jury. The right to remain silent is sacrosanct in the Constitution. Any good lawyer will advise his client to remain silent when questioned by the police.

When the police initially interview a person, they must by law advise him of his right to remain silent, and respect that if he does. He needs to wait for his lawyer lest the police try to twist what he says.

He is well within his rights, and shows common sense if he refuses to fill out any forms. Remember, the police and the prosecutor are out to get him even if he's justified. In the instant case it's apparent that he's been tried and convicted in the left wingnut press. His lawyer now has the job of undoing all of that before the jury.

I suggest that people wait and see how this plays out once all of the evidence is in. If it goes to trial, juries have a uncanny ability to find the truth.

It would take a unanimous vote of 12 ordinary citizens to find him guilty in court, after they see and hear all of the evidence including witnesses. The prosecutor will need some pretty hard and irrefutable evidence to get all 12.

But first he would have to go before a grand jury of his peers to even get sent to trial. That's two shots at getting released. It's premature to predict what will happen once all of the facts in the case are presented in court.

[F430murci]

Pub:

Interesting how you claim to be such an advocate and so knowledgeable about American jurisprudence and fairness and equity in our judicial system . . ., but you don't even abide by the fundamental concept of innocence until proven guilty.

Question: "Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?"

Answer: Somewhat bizarre question, but I will take a stab at it. One licensed as a lawyer can be lead counsel in both a civil or criminal matter. I am a trial lawyer and competent to be lead counsel in any criminal matter. Criminal law is much simpler than what I typically handle and I have been lead counsel in 3 very large and complex RICO cases this year and will be filing another this week. A lawyer's value and skill comes from their ability to stand in front of a judge or jury and present a case, any type of case. A good lawyer can research and handle just about anything and criminal law is perhaps on the easiest side of the spectrum.

I would say in general, the vast majority of lawyers are general practioners that handle civil, criminal and domestic or basically what walks in the doors and pays the bills. I focus on securities and med mal because I have all the work I can handle at a very nice hourly rate. If I needed work/income, I would not hesitate to serve as lead counsel on a criminal matter provided you could pay my retainer and rate.

Your statement: "I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case."

My Response: When you lead in with what professors, prosecutors and judges say on television or in the papers, I am not so impressed. I have taught law school as an adjunct when I was younger and building my career. Great lawyers tend not to resort to full-time teaching, becoming judges or work as prosecutors. Why? Great lawyers can command $ 500 to $ 1,000 an hour (in NY/Chicago markets) whereas state trial judges make about $ 130k, state appellate judges make about $ 150k and federal judges make about $ 180k. I pay paralegals close to what some law professors make and more than many state ADAs. The talent will typically follow the money.

That said, I am not saying anything inconsistent with legal principles anyone on television or elsewhere. Your silliness about disputed issues of fact regarding thuggery and etc. are not legal principles.

Question: "***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt?"

Answer: Basic concept of law a 1st year law student (heck most high school or college students) would understand. Not in a criminal prosecution. His silence at this point means absolutely nothing except that he is following the advice of his lawyer and there is a pending criminal investigation. You are not entitled to his version at this point and if you have patience, you will certainly hear his side of the story after the Grand Jury decides how to proceed.

Question: "Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?"

Answer: I understand that there is a report prepared by the St. Louis PD as the investigation was immediately turned over the St. Louis PD which presumably you would be happy to hear since you hold Ferguson PD in such a low regard. The police report will not be made public DURING the criminal investigation and during the Grand Jury proceedings. If you are patient, you will be privy to the report when it is made public after the Grand Jury proceeding.

Question: "***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?"

Answer: Addressed above.

Question: "***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?"

Answer: Addressed above . . ., is there any reason you are asking the same questions over and over? Is this to make it appear as if you have more questions or points than you actually do or did you just forget what you typed in the preceding sentence?

Question: "***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested?"

Answer: Who said he took the 5th? One can refuse to say anything before or after arrest. Miranda is another basic, fundamental concept that even high school students would generally know about.

Question: "If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury?"

Answer: A Defendants or their attorney may be allowed to present testimony or evidence before a Grand Jury, but they are not entitled to. Prosecutor has sole discretion here and typically does not want Defendant to Defendant's attorney to present evidence before a Grand Jury. Most grand jury systems only permit prosecutor to present evidence. Defendants certainly does not have to appear and cannot be compelled to testify before a Grand Jury.

Question: "Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury?"

Answer: Answered above.

Question: "Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?"

Answer: Prior statements of a party can be deemed a party opponent admission or a prior inconsistent statement to avoid hearsay. Accordingly, third party extrinsic evidence of out of court statements could be offered against a Defendant that refused to testify during a criminal trial.

Edited August 25, 2014 by F430murci

[JDGRUEN]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?

Or do civil lawyers play a support role in criminal proceedings and in devising a defense to include the defense strategy?

The fact is your are an attorney at law, civil law.

I read and am informed by practicing criminal lawyers to include current prosecutors who discuss the Wilson-Brown case, as well as former prosecutors. I read defense lawyers discussing issues pertaining to this case, issues both broad and specific. I make the effort to follow their knowledge of criminal law and proceedings as prosecutors either active or retired.

They don't always concur or otherwise agree, which is more helpful than it is a distraction.

I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case.

All well and good you participate in parallel cases involving criminal and civil law affecting one client or a group of clients. As I understand, criminal defense lawyers represent their client in criminal proceedings as best they can, to include collaboration with civil lawyers. Btw, have you or your criminal lawyer colleagues who have cooperatively managed parallel cases had an instance of a securities regulator shooting to death an equities trader? Perhaps, but I'd say that would be rare. So perhaps not (or not yet).

But the bottom line in this is that you are not a criminal lawyer. I read and seek to understand and comprehend the presentations of the criminal lawyers and prosecutors who are analyzing and commenting on the case to date and on an ongoing basis.

Your scorn at my reference to Wilson and the 5th Amendment for example betrays your quick dismissal of the issues in this particular case.

So, what can you advise me of in respect of the following besides to say maybe or it could be?

***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt? Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?

***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?

***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?

***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested? If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury? Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury? Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?

I don't know or have answers to these and many other legal questions and issues and neither do you. They are questions discussed at various blogs by lawyers both as prosecutors or as CDLs.

The point is if your want to talk about my reference to the 5th Amendment in one of my posts, you need to say something about it other than any attorney with a license will advise his client to remain silent. So what do we make of the silent Incident Reports by the FPD and SLPD that make no mention of the incident?

Counselor?

There is no such thing as an attorney who is limited to practicing either civil or criminal law. If they specialize it's by choice. They study and are licensed for both.

The jury may not know that someone plead the fifth, unless he does it in front of the jury. The right to remain silent is sacrosanct in the Constitution. Any good lawyer will advise his client to remain silent when questioned by the police.

When the police initially interview a person, they must by law advise him of his right to remain silent, and respect that if he does. He needs to wait for his lawyer lest the police try to twist what he says.

He is well within his rights, and shows common sense if he refuses to fill out any forms. Remember, the police and the prosecutor are out to get him even if he's justified. In the instant case it's apparent that he's been tried and convicted in the left wingnut press. His lawyer now has the job of undoing all of that before the jury.

I suggest that people wait and see how this plays out once all of the evidence is in. If it goes to trial, juries have a uncanny ability to find the truth.

It would take a unanimous vote of 12 ordinary citizens to find him guilty in court, after they see and hear all of the evidence including witnesses. The prosecutor will need some pretty hard and irrefutable evidence to get all 12.

But first he would have to go before a grand jury of his peers to even get sent to trial. That's two shots at getting released. It's premature to predict what will happen once all of the facts in the case are presented in court.

In this thread I posted an image of the text of the Missouri statutes pertaining to use of deadly force by an officer of the law. As I read them - the statutes will be used to clear officer Wilson regardless of which one of the various stories of how the incident happened turn out to be the truth as a jury would see it The statutes evidently were written by law enforcement officers - because no way under those laws will he be convicted. I posted them and no one paid attention to them. Some industrious person could actually go and find the link to the Missouri government website. Those laws I refer to make most of this argument moot. So - after the left wing biased media are finished with there diatribes and go on to the next outrage (as their slanted views deem) then ... this whole episode will die down to next to nothing... The race baiters will go home -- and wait for the next incident so they can raise false issues - bear false witness and generally stir the pot of racism which the Two Revs. are so good at.

[Ulysses G.]

The larger jury however is the court of public opinion.

Thankfully that it incorrect. Otherwise, George Zimmerman would be doing life, even though the evidence supported his story.

[Publicus]

Pub says:

"2) I'm not going to argue criminal law with a securities lawyer, or a lawyer whose specialty is in some area(s) of commercial law or fiduciary transaction law."

What the heck is "fiiducary transaction law?" Lol!

Pub, you fail to consider that as a securities lawyer many of my clients have parallel criminal proceedings so as a civil lawyer I need to be very well versed on the 5th and right against self-incrimination. Parallel proceedings create a Hobson choice scenario of invoking the 5th in a civil proceeding where your silence can be used against you to protect yourself from saying something that can hurt you in your criminal case. Courts don't always stay civil pending criminal so we have to counsel our clients very carefully on the 5th Amendment.

Lol at the notion that it takes a law degree for someone to assess a person's level of thuggery or that there is going to be a separate trial on Brown's level of thuggery based on this video.

Are civil lawyers lead attorneys in a court of law involving criminal proceedings, trials? Do civil lawyers take the lead in advising defendants in the issues central to criminal proceedings? Are civil lawyers principals in preparing a criminal defense? Do civil lawyers even participate in the criminal trial proceedings?

Or do civil lawyers play a support role in criminal proceedings and in devising a defense to include the defense strategy?

The fact is your are an attorney at law, civil law.

I read and am informed by practicing criminal lawyers to include current prosecutors who discuss the Wilson-Brown case, as well as former prosecutors. I read defense lawyers discussing issues pertaining to this case, issues both broad and specific. I make the effort to follow their knowledge of criminal law and proceedings as prosecutors either active or retired.

They don't always concur or otherwise agree, which is more helpful than it is a distraction.

I read and follow criminal defense lawyers, to include those who were criminal law prosecutors, retired judges who have chosen to write on the Wilson-Brown case, law professors who also know criminal law and many others who are the most qualified by education and training, by experience, to discuss the criminal law aspects of the case.

All well and good you participate in parallel cases involving criminal and civil law affecting one client or a group of clients. As I understand, criminal defense lawyers represent their client in criminal proceedings as best they can, to include collaboration with civil lawyers. Btw, have you or your criminal lawyer colleagues who have cooperatively managed parallel cases had an instance of a securities regulator shooting to death an equities trader? Perhaps, but I'd say that would be rare. So perhaps not (or not yet).

But the bottom line in this is that you are not a criminal lawyer. I read and seek to understand and comprehend the presentations of the criminal lawyers and prosecutors who are analyzing and commenting on the case to date and on an ongoing basis.

Your scorn at my reference to Wilson and the 5th Amendment for example betrays your quick dismissal of the issues in this particular case.

So, what can you advise me of in respect of the following besides to say maybe or it could be?

***Is Wilson the homicide cop's silence admissible in court as effectively a statement of guilt? Wilson's failure to write an Incident Report until more than a week after the incident is silence, is it not?

***When Wilson did file the Incident Report he completed the cover sheet but left the Incident section of the Incident Report blank. What's the likelihood or probability Wilson did this because he orally (and still privately) claimed his 5th Amendment right? It's not a great likelihood, is it?

***If Wilson did claim the 5th, is his silence prior to his claim admissible in court as an indicator of guilt?

***Does Wilson have to take the 5th prior to being arrested or after he is arrested? If Wilson takes the 5th, does he have to testify before the grand jury? Could Wilson take the 5th but selectively testify to the grand jury? Are any statements Wilson provides to the grand jury admissible in the trial court?

I don't know or have answers to these and many other legal questions and issues and neither do you. They are questions discussed at various blogs by lawyers both as prosecutors or as CDLs.

The point is if your want to talk about my reference to the 5th Amendment in one of my posts, you need to say something about it other than any attorney with a license will advise his client to remain silent. So what do we make of the silent Incident Reports by the FPD and SLPD that make no mention of the incident?

Counselor?

There is no such thing as an attorney who is limited to practicing either civil or criminal law. If they specialize it's by choice. They study and are licensed for both.

The jury may not know that someone plead the fifth, unless he does it in front of the jury. The right to remain silent is sacrosanct in the Constitution. Any good lawyer will advise his client to remain silent when questioned by the police.

When the police initially interview a person, they must by law advise him of his right to remain silent, and respect that if he does. He needs to wait for his lawyer lest the police try to twist what he says.

He is well within his rights, and shows common sense if he refuses to fill out any forms. Remember, the police and the prosecutor are out to get him even if he's justified. In the instant case it's apparent that he's been tried and convicted in the left wingnut press. His lawyer now has the job of undoing all of that before the jury.

I suggest that people wait and see how this plays out once all of the evidence is in. If it goes to trial, juries have a uncanny ability to find the truth.

It would take a unanimous vote of 12 ordinary citizens to find him guilty in court, after they see and hear all of the evidence including witnesses. The prosecutor will need some pretty hard and irrefutable evidence to get all 12.

But first he would have to go before a grand jury of his peers to even get sent to trial. That's two shots at getting released. It's premature to predict what will happen once all of the facts in the case are presented in court.

If Wilson wants to plead self-defense to include having his lawyers ask for the judge to so instruct the jury, Wilson will have to testify in court to present his self-defense. Which necessarily will mean the State can confront and challenge Wilson's rationale and justification in open court.

Wilson turned in an Incident Report, way late, endorsed by a supervisor, with the incident section of the report being blank. An Incident Report without any incident which, as the Missouri ACLU says violates state law, namely the public records disclosure statutes. It also says the Dirty Harry Wilson and the Dirty Harry FPD and the Dirty Harry SLPD are not publicly communicating at this point of the proceedings.

The Washington Post has now reported that Wilson joined the Ferguson PD after his first PD, in nearby Jennings, was discharged en masse by the elected city council due to the PD's Dirty Harry operations, reputation, corruption, in dealing with local residents.

Darren Wilson’s former police force was disbanded for excessive force and corruption

The Washington Post gives additional insight into the background of the officer who killed Michael Brown

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it.

Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Edited August 26, 2014 by Publicus

[Publicus]

In this thread I posted an image of the text of the Missouri statutes pertaining to use of deadly force by an officer of the law. As I read them - the statutes will be used to clear officer Wilson regardless of which one of the various stories of how the incident happened turn out to be the truth as a jury would see it The statutes evidently were written by law enforcement officers - because no way under those laws will he be convicted. I posted them and no one paid attention to them. Some industrious person could actually go and find the link to the Missouri government website. Those laws I refer to make most of this argument moot. So - after the left wing biased media are finished with there diatribes and go on to the next outrage (as their slanted views deem) then ... this whole episode will die down to next to nothing... The race baiters will go home -- and wait for the next incident so they can raise false issues - bear false witness and generally stir the pot of racism which the Two Revs. are so good at.

The Missouri statute governing police use of deadly force is inconsistent and incongruent with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that prohibits a police officer shooting a fleeing suspect that is unarmed and nondangerous.

The Missouri statute has not been revised to comport to the Supreme Court's ruling in this respect so its constitutionality is in question.

Here is from the ruling of the Supreme Court prohibiting police use of deadly force against all fleeing felony suspects, which is what the unarmed Michael Brown was;

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts).

The bottom line however is that the Missouri law governing police use of deadly force against felony suspects is constitutionally inconsistent as it presently stands. I should think Wilson's lawyers would need to account for the material ruling by the SCOTUS in their construction of his defense that he committed the Brown homicide in self-defense.

This is why it is fiction when the ultra-right wildly claim Michael Brown was a "violent thug" or that the unarmed Brown posed a direct and immediate threat to the life of the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson or to anyone else. Wilson was armed and dangerous, not Michael Brown.

[Publicus]

So how many Dirty Harry cops and how many Dirty Harry police departments are there in the United States?

We don't know and it would have to be a massive undertaking by legitimate honest law enforcement authorities to find out.

George Zimmerman was one trigger happy psycho but the Darren Wilson homicide cop is an entirely different matter because it exposes Dirty Harry cops and Dirty Harry police departments as real.

The only question at this point is how many cops, in how many departments, in how many states.

We in the United States need to find out, to know, so we can act and to support the legitimate law enforcement authorities to act to correct and remedy an ugly reality. The country and all citizens will be better for the cleansing reforms that are urgently needed throughout.

In the meantime however the suddenly silent ultra-right extremists are regrouping and scrambling to hastily agree on new lines of attack in support of Dirty Harry cops and Dirty Harry police departments.

Ferguson: Darren Wilson 's 1st Racist Police Force in Jennings Mo.,Disbanded!

Complaints and lawsuits were piling up against the force for using unnecessary force.

The city council voted six-to-one to close the Racist Ridden Police department and have St Louis County run its policing.

The city council concluded that the force had been discredited with the local population and dismissed EVERY OFFICER.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thegistoffreedom/2014/08/25/ferguson-darren-wilson-s-1st-racist-police-force-in-jennings-modisbanded

Edited August 26, 2014 by Publicus

[Publicus]

The larger jury however is the court of public opinion.

Thankfully that it incorrect. Otherwise, George Zimmerman would be doing life, even though the evidence supported his story.

Reference to the court of public opinion is done as a manner of speaking, a metaphor, not a literal chamber room of a judge, lawyers, jury, evidence, exhibits etc etc etc.

O.J. Simpson lost in the court of public opinion and ended up in prison anyway.

That's my reference.

[chuckd]

If Wilson wants to plead self-defense to include having his lawyers ask for the judge to so instruct the jury, Wilson will have to testify in court to present his self-defense. Which necessarily will mean the State can confront and challenge Wilson's rationale and justification in open court.

Wilson turned in an Incident Report, way late, endorsed by a supervisor, with the incident section of the report being blank. An Incident Report without any incident which, as the Missouri ACLU says violates state law, namely the public records disclosure statutes. It also says the Dirty Harry Wilson and the Dirty Harry FPD and the Dirty Harry SLPD are not publicly communicating at this point of the proceedings.

The Washington Post has now reported that Wilson joined the Ferguson PD after his first PD, in nearby Jennings, was discharged en masse by the elected city council due to the PD's Dirty Harry operations, reputation, corruption, in dealing with local residents.

Darren Wilson’s former police force was disbanded for excessive force and corruption

The Washington Post gives additional insight into the background of the officer who killed Michael Brown

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it.

Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

This statement in the quoted post is so patently absurd that it is laughable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If Wilson wants to plead self-defense to include having his lawyers ask for the judge to so instruct the jury, Wilson will have to testify in court to present his self-defense. Which necessarily will mean the State can confront and challenge Wilson's rationale and justification in open court."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendants have the right not to testify and no judge can compel them to do so during the trial process.

Now would be the time to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination which says in part...

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Permit me to ask one simple rhetorical question of our reading public.

Who do you want to have representing you if you are in a courtroom fighting for your life...a practicing attorney or an English Teacher?

PS:

You forgot to mention the last sentence of the Washington Post hit piece on Wilson which you linked to above. Here it is for those that didn't want to waste their time reading it:

"Officials say Wilson kept a clean record without any disciplinary action."

According to your own link you have failed to prove he is the dirty cop you keep trying to make him out to be. Your attempt to paint him with a broad brush is wrong.

[chuckd]

The larger jury however is the court of public opinion.

Thankfully that it incorrect. Otherwise, George Zimmerman would be doing life, even though the evidence supported his story.

Reference to the court of public opinion is done as a manner of speaking, a metaphor, not a literal chamber room of a judge, lawyers, jury, evidence, exhibits etc etc etc.

O.J. Simpson lost in the court of public opinion and ended up in prison anyway.

That's my reference.

It isn't a very valid reference. OJ was acquitted in 1995 for the murder of two people and was set free.

He is in prison for armed robbery and kidnapping. Crimes which he committed in Las Vegas in 2007.

The two crimes were in no way related.

[chuckd]

In this thread I posted an image of the text of the Missouri statutes pertaining to use of deadly force by an officer of the law. As I read them - the statutes will be used to clear officer Wilson regardless of which one of the various stories of how the incident happened turn out to be the truth as a jury would see it The statutes evidently were written by law enforcement officers - because no way under those laws will he be convicted. I posted them and no one paid attention to them. Some industrious person could actually go and find the link to the Missouri government website. Those laws I refer to make most of this argument moot. So - after the left wing biased media are finished with there diatribes and go on to the next outrage (as their slanted views deem) then ... this whole episode will die down to next to nothing... The race baiters will go home -- and wait for the next incident so they can raise false issues - bear false witness and generally stir the pot of racism which the Two Revs. are so good at.

The Missouri statute governing police use of deadly force is inconsistent and incongruent with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that prohibits a police officer shooting a fleeing suspect that is unarmed and nondangerous.

The Missouri statute has not been revised to comport to the Supreme Court's ruling in this respect so its constitutionality is in question.

Here is from the ruling of the Supreme Court prohibiting police use of deadly force against all fleeing felony suspects, which is what the unarmed Michael Brown was;

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts).

The bottom line however is that the Missouri law governing police use of deadly force against felony suspects is constitutionally inconsistent as it presently stands. I should think Wilson's lawyers would need to account for the material ruling by the SCOTUS in their construction of his defense that he committed the Brown homicide in self-defense.

This is why it is fiction when the ultra-right wildly claim Michael Brown was a "violent thug" or that the unarmed Brown posed a direct and immediate threat to the life of the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson or to anyone else. Wilson was armed and dangerous, not Michael Brown.

You state:

"As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts)."

Let's look at what the same Supreme Court decision said immediately following your quoted portion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Link, Section 2. B: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

In other words, if Wilson had been attacked by Brown following an arrest attempt, the use of deadly force was constitutional. In addition if Wilson knew Brown had been involved in the felony theft where "threatened infliction of serious physical harm", as implied on the store video, then deadly force was also not unconstitutional.

The other contributing factor is the question of whether Brown was actually fleeing or not. Some have claimed Brown was charging towards Brown after attacking him in his patrol car, thus he was not in the act of fleeing at all. IF that is the case, Brown was no longer a fleeing suspect but was an imminent threat to the safety of the officer.

You might want to tone down your rhetoric some since neither you nor I have any real idea what went on. A Grand Jury has been called and is hearing the case and Holder's civil rights division is hard at work trying to find federal charges to file against Wilson.

When this process is further along might be the right time for more discussion.

[Publicus]

If Wilson wants to plead self-defense to include having his lawyers ask for the judge to so instruct the jury, Wilson will have to testify in court to present his self-defense. Which necessarily will mean the State can confront and challenge Wilson's rationale and justification in open court.

Wilson turned in an Incident Report, way late, endorsed by a supervisor, with the incident section of the report being blank. An Incident Report without any incident which, as the Missouri ACLU says violates state law, namely the public records disclosure statutes. It also says the Dirty Harry Wilson and the Dirty Harry FPD and the Dirty Harry SLPD are not publicly communicating at this point of the proceedings.

The Washington Post has now reported that Wilson joined the Ferguson PD after his first PD, in nearby Jennings, was discharged en masse by the elected city council due to the PD's Dirty Harry operations, reputation, corruption, in dealing with local residents.

Darren Wilson’s former police force was disbanded for excessive force and corruption

The Washington Post gives additional insight into the background of the officer who killed Michael Brown

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it.

Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

This statement in the quoted post is so patently absurd that it is laughable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If Wilson wants to plead self-defense to include having his lawyers ask for the judge to so instruct the jury, Wilson will have to testify in court to present his self-defense. Which necessarily will mean the State can confront and challenge Wilson's rationale and justification in open court."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendants have the right not to testify and no judge can compel them to do so during the trial process.

Now would be the time to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination which says in part...

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Permit me to ask one simple rhetorical question of our reading public.

Who do you want to have representing you if you are in a courtroom fighting for your life...a practicing attorney or an English Teacher?

PS:

You forgot to mention the last sentence of the Washington Post hit piece on Wilson which you linked to above. Here it is for those that didn't want to waste their time reading it:

"Officials say Wilson kept a clean record without any disciplinary action."

According to your own link you have failed to prove he is the dirty cop you keep trying to make him out to be. Your attempt to paint him with a broad brush is wrong.

I'm aware of the content and meaning of the 5th Amendment, thx, have been for some decades.

Have some tea -- it can help you to calm down, relax, to think more clearly about other people.

Do some reading.....

http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2014/08/23/ferguson-darren-wilsons-prearrest-silence-may-be-admissible/#more-77076

[Publicus]

In this thread I posted an image of the text of the Missouri statutes pertaining to use of deadly force by an officer of the law. As I read them - the statutes will be used to clear officer Wilson regardless of which one of the various stories of how the incident happened turn out to be the truth as a jury would see it The statutes evidently were written by law enforcement officers - because no way under those laws will he be convicted. I posted them and no one paid attention to them. Some industrious person could actually go and find the link to the Missouri government website. Those laws I refer to make most of this argument moot. So - after the left wing biased media are finished with there diatribes and go on to the next outrage (as their slanted views deem) then ... this whole episode will die down to next to nothing... The race baiters will go home -- and wait for the next incident so they can raise false issues - bear false witness and generally stir the pot of racism which the Two Revs. are so good at.

The Missouri statute governing police use of deadly force is inconsistent and incongruent with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that prohibits a police officer shooting a fleeing suspect that is unarmed and nondangerous.

The Missouri statute has not been revised to comport to the Supreme Court's ruling in this respect so its constitutionality is in question.

Here is from the ruling of the Supreme Court prohibiting police use of deadly force against all fleeing felony suspects, which is what the unarmed Michael Brown was;

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts).

The bottom line however is that the Missouri law governing police use of deadly force against felony suspects is constitutionally inconsistent as it presently stands. I should think Wilson's lawyers would need to account for the material ruling by the SCOTUS in their construction of his defense that he committed the Brown homicide in self-defense.

This is why it is fiction when the ultra-right wildly claim Michael Brown was a "violent thug" or that the unarmed Brown posed a direct and immediate threat to the life of the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson or to anyone else. Wilson was armed and dangerous, not Michael Brown.

You state:

"As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts)."

Let's look at what the same Supreme Court decision said immediately following your quoted portion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Link, Section 2. B: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

In other words, if Wilson had been attacked by Brown following an arrest attempt, the use of deadly force was constitutional. In addition if Wilson knew Brown had been involved in the felony theft where "threatened infliction of serious physical harm", as implied on the store video, then deadly force was also not unconstitutional.

The other contributing factor is the question of whether Brown was actually fleeing or not. Some have claimed Brown was charging towards Brown after attacking him in his patrol car, thus he was not in the act of fleeing at all. IF that is the case, Brown was no longer a fleeing suspect but was an imminent threat to the safety of the officer.

You might want to tone down your rhetoric some since neither you nor I have any real idea what went on. A Grand Jury has been called and is hearing the case and Holder's civil rights division is hard at work trying to find federal charges to file against Wilson.

When this process is further along might be the right time for more discussion.

I consciously chose to make a referential statement to the graf you quote rather than to quote it. Yet your post strongly suggests I have no knowledge of the qualifier, modification of the first graf, by the statement in the second graf. All the second graf does is to allow Wilson to try to prove his innocence. The contents of the 2nd graf, which you present, does not exempt Wilson from charges of criminal homicide nor does the 2nd graf exempt Wilson from any indictment, trial, jury verdict adverse to him.

So you are blowing blue smoke in your house of mirrors.

I did ask a legal beagle poster questions based on the a discussion at a defense attorney's blog, linked below, questions the defense attorney himself answered. I find, and I'll note this to the legal beagle poster himself, the defense attorney's answers differ in many ways from the posters' answers to the same issues, such as pretrial silence, courtroom testimony etc. It is fact lawyers disagree on the interpretation of law as do judges, so differences should be expected among them.

http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2014/08/23/ferguson-darren-wilsons-prearrest-silence-may-be-admissible/#more-77076

So it is fact the legal issues before us at this point are to be determined by the lawyers in St Louis county, the state of Missouri, Washington DC. I refer to the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the civil rights lawyers. We here go back and forth aimlessly and fruitlessly when we try to get in to legal issues in the Brown homicide by the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson and the Dirty Harry PDs in Ferguson and St Louis county (and formerly in Jenkins city).

The issues before posters at TFV at this point are not procedural in the legal sense as there is only one known lawyer here and none of us are involved in the case.

The issues before us are why thousands of young black males are shot by police each year, why police in the U.S. shoot so many unarmed black men such as the teenager Michael Brown, why the Dirty Harry FPD and the Dirty Harry SLPD have protected Wilson and withheld information required by the State of Missouri public records disclosure laws in Wilson's homicide against Brown, why the FPD and the SLPD are themselves criminal organizations that perhaps exemplify what legitimate and honest law enforcement authorities in the United States call the Dirty Harry Syndrome / Problem, and what to do about all of the foregoing and still more I haven't mentioned here and now but which are central to the justice system of the United States.

Darren Wilson entered the FPD from a racist Dirty Harry brutal and corrupt police department in nearby Jenkins city that the city council of Jenkins voted 6-1 to disband by firing all the officers to start completely over again to create an honest and capable police force. The Jenkins neighbor city to Ferguson and St Louis country constitutes a documented realization that there are Dirty Harry cops and Dirty Harry police departments in the United States and that both police departments Darren Wilson has been a member of are Dirty Harry police departments. This is central and crucial to Wilson's running chasing blasting his firearm homicide against the backside of the unarmed Michael Brown.

[Publicus]

Yes yes relax, Michael Brown was shot in his front side. Six times.

The unarmed Brown was however chased after by the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson while Wilson was blasting his firearm until he finally killed Brown in a hail of bullets.

How many shots did Brown fire? How many shots did Wilson fire while on the run chasing down the unarmed and fleeing Michael Brown? The family autopsy showed Brown was hit six times. So how many shots did Wilson fire at the unarmed Brown's backside, front side, all in total?

We don't know.

What we do know is that Wilson hit Brown six times and given the poor accuracy of handguns even among highly qualified police officers, Wilson may well have fired off more than six shots. Given Wilson was in a wild full forward charge it's likely he had to fire a lot of shots at Brown to hit him six times. Which would mean Wilson stopped to reload his firearm? We don't yet know. Reload more than once? We don't yet know, but these questions do arise from the homicide by Wilson.

Why the madness of this fatal and one-sided shooting?

Why discharge his firearm at all against an unarmed citizen of the United States.

Because Darren Wilson is a Dirty Harry cop who knows only Dirty Harry police departments that themselves are criminal organizations, formerly in Jenkins city and presently in Ferguson and St Louis county.

When the police are lawless and answerable only to themselves it's time to take the rogue and destructive of justice Dirty Harry police to task, to court, and to the community's elected officials as occurred in Jenkins three years ago. It's time the community's elected officials in Ferguson stop being practitioners of their militant and military apartheid.

Police wearing riot gear walk toward a man with his hands raised Monday, Aug. 11, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.

Justifiable?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Publicus

[chuckd]

It seems your imagination has conquered all that remains of common sense. It is therefore pointless to discuss anything further with you on this issue.

So you may post your rants as you wish and you will find no contest from me. Troll others for your arguments.

In other words...

If a tree falls in the forest and if nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Publicus]

It seems your imagination has conquered all that remains of common sense. It is therefore pointless to discuss anything further with you on this issue.

So you may post your rants as you wish and you will find no contest from me. Troll others for your arguments.

In other words...

If a tree falls in the forest and if nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

You or anyone else is free to abandon and dump your losing proposition that Wilson is innocent and good, Brown is guilty and a worthless human being - the obscene proposition propagated by the extreme far out ultra-right sectors of society..

The developments in the Wilson homicide against Brown are going strongly against the racist apartheid ultra-rightists who have failed to carry their fictitious claims due the fact their claims are, well, fiction.

Wilson's homicide against Michael Brown has blown open the Dirty Harry Syndrome / Problem cops and their foul and corrupt police departments, prosecutors, other lawyers, politicians and the like.

This case vividly reminds us that everyone has rights or no one has rights.

Cheers to the nearby to Ferguson Jenkins Missouri city council that discovered it had a rogue Dirty Harry police department loaded with brutal and corrupt Dirty Harry criminals in police uniforms so consequently voted 6-1 to fire the whole criminal gang in blue to start all over again with genuine police officers, officers of the peace.

Bravo to President Obama, Attorney General Holder, the Rev Al Sharpton, the Rev Jesse Jackson and to MSM such as MSNBC for the superb approach they have taken to respond to this crisis of law enforcement in Missouri and in the United States.

[Asiantravel]

It seems your imagination has conquered all that remains of common sense. It is therefore pointless to discuss anything further with you on this issue.

So you may post your rants as you wish and you will find no contest from me. Troll others for your arguments.

In other words...

If a tree falls in the forest and if nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I disagree with many things Publicus writes, but on this particular issue I can't possibly see how you can justifiably accuse him of ranting and raving.

Even though I am not American, I am eagerly waiting (as I'm sure the rest of the world is) with anticipation as to why a trained police officer needed to discharge six bullets without any apparent care about where he was aiming merely to restrain an unarmed person.

In fact I still can't even understand why a less lethal form of weapon was used such as a taser.

[chuckd]

Your opinion is duly noted.

[Ulysses G.]

I disagree with many things Publicus writes, but on this particular issue I can't possibly see how you can justifiably accuse him of ranting and raving.

Really? What else can you call this? :

Brown is guilty and a worthless human being - the obscene proposition propagated by the extreme far out ultra-right sectors of society..

The developments in the Wilson homicide against Brown are going strongly against the racist apartheid ultra-rightists who have failed to carry their fictitious claims due the fact their claims are, well, fiction.

Wilson's homicide against Michael Brown has blown open the Dirty Harry Syndrome /

Edited August 26, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[H1w4yR1da]

Personally I think we need more Dirty Harry cops. The Michael Brown gangbangers of the world need to be shown they don't own the streets. And their unhinged far-left apologists will all cry racism.

[F430murci]

In this thread I posted an image of the text of the Missouri statutes pertaining to use of deadly force by an officer of the law. As I read them - the statutes will be used to clear officer Wilson regardless of which one of the various stories of how the incident happened turn out to be the truth as a jury would see it The statutes evidently were written by law enforcement officers - because no way under those laws will he be convicted. I posted them and no one paid attention to them. Some industrious person could actually go and find the link to the Missouri government website. Those laws I refer to make most of this argument moot. So - after the left wing biased media are finished with there diatribes and go on to the next outrage (as their slanted views deem) then ... this whole episode will die down to next to nothing... The race baiters will go home -- and wait for the next incident so they can raise false issues - bear false witness and generally stir the pot of racism which the Two Revs. are so good at.

The Missouri statute governing police use of deadly force is inconsistent and incongruent with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that prohibits a police officer shooting a fleeing suspect that is unarmed and nondangerous.

The Missouri statute has not been revised to comport to the Supreme Court's ruling in this respect so its constitutionality is in question.

Here is from the ruling of the Supreme Court prohibiting police use of deadly force against all fleeing felony suspects, which is what the unarmed Michael Brown was;

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts).

The bottom line however is that the Missouri law governing police use of deadly force against felony suspects is constitutionally inconsistent as it presently stands. I should think Wilson's lawyers would need to account for the material ruling by the SCOTUS in their construction of his defense that he committed the Brown homicide in self-defense.

This is why it is fiction when the ultra-right wildly claim Michael Brown was a "violent thug" or that the unarmed Brown posed a direct and immediate threat to the life of the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson or to anyone else. Wilson was armed and dangerous, not Michael Brown.

You state:

"As in almost all Supreme Court rulings, this one has qualifiers and modifications that allow a police officer to justifiably use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect. This would be expected in any SCOTUS ruling (or by other courts)."

Let's look at what the same Supreme Court decision said immediately following your quoted portion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Link, Section 2. B: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

In other words, if Wilson had been attacked by Brown following an arrest attempt, the use of deadly force was constitutional. In addition if Wilson knew Brown had been involved in the felony theft where "threatened infliction of serious physical harm", as implied on the store video, then deadly force was also not unconstitutional.

The other contributing factor is the question of whether Brown was actually fleeing or not. Some have claimed Brown was charging towards Brown after attacking him in his patrol car, thus he was not in the act of fleeing at all. IF that is the case, Brown was no longer a fleeing suspect but was an imminent threat to the safety of the officer.

You might want to tone down your rhetoric some since neither you nor I have any real idea what went on. A Grand Jury has been called and is hearing the case and Holder's civil rights division is hard at work trying to find federal charges to file against Wilson.

When this process is further along might be the right time for more discussion.

I consciously chose to make a referential statement to the graf you quote rather than to quote it. Yet your post strongly suggests I have no knowledge of the qualifier, modification of the first graf, by the statement in the second graf. All the second graf does is to allow Wilson to try to prove his innocence. The contents of the 2nd graf, which you present, does not exempt Wilson from charges of criminal homicide nor does the 2nd graf exempt Wilson from any indictment, trial, jury verdict adverse to him.

So you are blowing blue smoke in your house of mirrors.

I did ask a legal beagle poster questions based on the a discussion at a defense attorney's blog, linked below, questions the defense attorney himself answered. I find, and I'll note this to the legal beagle poster himself, the defense attorney's answers differ in many ways from the posters' answers to the same issues, such as pretrial silence, courtroom testimony etc. It is fact lawyers disagree on the interpretation of law as do judges, so differences should be expected among them.

http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2014/08/23/ferguson-darren-wilsons-prearrest-silence-may-be-admissible/#more-77076

So it is fact the legal issues before us at this point are to be determined by the lawyers in St Louis county, the state of Missouri, Washington DC. I refer to the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the civil rights lawyers. We here go back and forth aimlessly and fruitlessly when we try to get in to legal issues in the Brown homicide by the Dirty Harry cop Darren Wilson and the Dirty Harry PDs in Ferguson and St Louis county (and formerly in Jenkins city).

The issues before posters at TFV at this point are not procedural in the legal sense as there is only one known lawyer here and none of us are involved in the case.

The issues before us are why thousands of young black males are shot by police each year, why police in the U.S. shoot so many unarmed black men such as the teenager Michael Brown, why the Dirty Harry FPD and the Dirty Harry SLPD have protected Wilson and withheld information required by the State of Missouri public records disclosure laws in Wilson's homicide against Brown, why the FPD and the SLPD are themselves criminal organizations that perhaps exemplify what legitimate and honest law enforcement authorities in the United States call the Dirty Harry Syndrome / Problem, and what to do about all of the foregoing and still more I haven't mentioned here and now but which are central to the justice system of the United States.

Darren Wilson entered the FPD from a racist Dirty Harry brutal and corrupt police department in nearby Jenkins city that the city council of Jenkins voted 6-1 to disband by firing all the officers to start completely over again to create an honest and capable police force. The Jenkins neighbor city to Ferguson and St Louis country constitutes a documented realization that there are Dirty Harry cops and Dirty Harry police departments in the United States and that both police departments Darren Wilson has been a member of are Dirty Harry police departments. This is central and crucial to Wilson's running chasing blasting his firearm homicide against the backside of the unarmed Michael Brown.

I actually answered your questioned accurately based on legal principles related a discussion of the 5th Amendment.

You linked to a blog that is actually arguing apication if a case based upon assumed facts that may or may not be true and is only applicable where the 5th Amendment is never invoked and a witness testifies at trial. It also makes the incorrect assumption that Wilson never orally communicated his self defense version immediately after the incident and that proper protocol was for St. Louis PD to complete the police report after being assigned the investigation/duty.

Does your log blog guy even have a law license or did he surrender his license 10 years ago? I would not voluntarily surrender my license unless something bad was about to happen. Seems better route is just to pay a couple hundred bucks a year to keep it active or just go inactive status.

All lawyers have opinions, but I would only listen or take advice from one still licensed if it was me.

[Asiantravel]

Personally I think we need more Dirty Harry cops. The Michael Brown gangbangers of the world need to be shown they don't own the streets. And their unhinged far-left apologists will all cry racism.

be careful what you wish for

“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”

George Orwell

Edited August 26, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Publicus]

I disagree with many things Publicus writes, but on this particular issue I can't possibly see how you can justifiably accuse him of ranting and raving.

Really? What else can you call this? :

Brown is guilty and a worthless human being - the obscene proposition propagated by the extreme far out ultra-right sectors of society..

The developments in the Wilson homicide against Brown are going strongly against the racist apartheid ultra-rightists who have failed to carry their fictitious claims due the fact their claims are, well, fiction.

Wilson's homicide against Michael Brown has blown open the Dirty Harry Syndrome /

The following post is in response to a poster who'd thought a right wing piece was a parody or mockery until the poster realized it was a serious bit of far out extremist crackpot lunacy.

The post cites the right wing fiction the heavily armed officer Wilson was severely or even seriously injured in a scuffle with Michael Brown.

The post refers not to looters but to peaceful demonstrators and tries to propagate the failed fiction of the lynch mob.

Posted by Ulysses G. on 2014-08-21 14:50:57 in World News

The article might be a little over the top, but it seems pretty accurate to me.

Why isnt anyone speaking the most obvious and most disturbing truth about what has been taking place in Ferguson? This is a lynch mob. It is unconcerned with the facts, impatient with due process, and it wants a severely injured officer who is probably the victim of a vicious criminal thug, indicted, tried and convicted or else.

http://www.frontpage...-white-flesh-2/

[Publicus]

Personally I think we need more Dirty Harry cops. The Michael Brown gangbangers of the world need to be shown they don't own the streets. And their unhinged far-left apologists will all cry racism.

I'm old enough to remember this.

When the dogs and the pigs controlled the streets.

Animal Farm.

But that ended soon afterward and pretty quickly.

That's Dirty Harry there in the sunglasses back in 1957, before there was a Dirty Harry.

Ahead of his time and still out of time.

And wrong.....always wrong.