Has the DA addressed the oddity of not going in with a desired charge like 99% of the time he and other DAs go before a grand jury? If so, what was his reasoning for going the opposite direction in this case? I'm asking. That's not rhetorical. I haven't seen any answers to that one.

 

Or giving someone an unheard of 3 hours to exonerate themselves during questioning. People should look up how often that happens.

I really think you are making a bigger deal of it than it is. If it was that egregious don't you think every news agency going would be beating this thing into the ground?

As far as #3, you should review all the evidence presented to the GJ. My 17 y.o. was convinced that Officer Wilson was in the wrong. He reviewed everything presented to the GJ and studied all 3 autopsy reports. He has changed his mind. He said there is no way it could have went down the way the media had portrayed it back in August.

 

Bottom line in all of this is simple, if Brown had not attacked Officer Wilson he would not have been shot.

 

 

So it's not a big deal that a DA can quote some archaic law that isn't good law and give it to a grand jury.

 

Glad she knows more about it than the Supreme Court.

 

Sorry, DA screwed up bad. If she got some criminal off people would be on here going nuts and calling the lawyer who pointed it out a sleaze ball.

 

No excuse for what she did, period. DA's need to be competent and/or not take the law into their own hands. Looks like she's guilty of at least one of the two.

 

I'm not saying anything about the guilt or innocence in asking that the grand jury be presented with the correct law to decide on, otherwise what's the point?

What instructions was your son given to make a decision as what the grand jury should decide upon? What federal or state law was he basing his decision upon? What does he know the police are allowed to do or not allowed to do in regards to a fleeing suspect?

 

He reviewed testimony versus physical evidence. He wants to be a police officer so he has spent several days reviewing the testimony and Googling federal and Missouri statutes.

 

The suspect isn't fleeing if he is charging the officer.

 

The Grand Jury based it's decision on the evidence presented. I get you don't like their decision but that is our justice system.

Has the DA addressed the oddity of not going in with a desired charge like 99% of the time he and other DAs go before a grand jury? If so, what was his reasoning for going the opposite direction in this case? I'm asking. That's not rhetorical. I haven't seen any answers to that one.

 

If you listened to the press conference he said he presented the GJ with 5 charges they could indict on ranging from negligent homicide to murder. They declined on all 5. That's very telling to me about the evidence.

So it's not a big deal that a DA can quote some archaic law that isn't good law and give it to a grand jury.

 

Glad she knows more about it than the Supreme Court.

 

Sorry, DA screwed up bad. If she got some criminal off people would be on here going nuts and calling the lawyer who pointed it out a sleaze ball.

 

No excuse for what she did, period. DA's need to be competent and/or not take the law into their own hands. Looks like she's guilty of at least one of the two.

 

I'm not saying anything about the guilt or innocence in asking that the grand jury be presented with the correct law to decide on, otherwise what's the point?

 

I think you need to re-read what you pointed out in bold in my post. Never said it wasn't a problem. I still say if it was that egregious the media would have this ADA drawn and quartered already.

 

Screw ups happen. People are human. She corrected her mistake. If she hadn't, I'd say there would be more an outcry.

 

I'm sure if this has happened before and a DA has been disbarred or sanctioned you will provide us a link.

 

Dude, mistakes like that lead to people losing their license. It's not like she made some small mistake on not saying on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday. You not thinking that this is a huge deal just shows that.

 

Look at what Clyde said that I was responding to. He seems to imply it was intentional...I simply stating it may not have been. Maybe you should report her to the BAR, because this seems to have you tore up.

I admit several of us would have jumped all over "don't worry about it" if that was the only answer. I did not read the transcript.

You are assuming the DA's actions were intentional attempt to do that and not a mistake. As stated before I didn't realize attorneys were perfect and never made mistakes.

 

Already stated that whether they were ignorant or liars they failed to CLEARLY state what the correction was. Evidence is great ONLY if you know what the current laws are. We have no idea what each juror used as the WHY. That's a problem.

I agree it is unfortunate that she did give them the incorrect regulation. In reading the current law I don't think it would have mattered. Very straightforward.

 

Agreed but we just don't know how they would have voted had it been clear. The PERCEPTION of intentional deception hurts the credibility.

He reviewed testimony versus physical evidence. He wants to be a police officer so he has spent several days reviewing the testimony and Googling federal and Missouri statutes. The suspect isn't fleeing if he is charging the officer. The Grand Jury based it's decision on the evidence presented. I get you don't like their decision but that is our justice system.

 

You didn't answer my question. Reviewing evidence is only part of the equation.

Look at what Clyde said that I was responding to. He seems to imply it was intentional...I simply stating it may not have been. Maybe you should report her to the BAR' date=' because this seems to have you tore up.[/quote']

 

At 9:17 I said it is either ignorance or intentional. Neither are acceptable especially with tbe convoluted correction she tried to make only to be trumped by " don't worry about it."

 

Damn Clyde, you must have had some different professors than everyone else at the Facebook and BGP School of Law.

 

So anyone who hasn't been to law school is wrong? I keep getting that impression from you, maybe it's not the right impression.

So that we're all on the same page here is the transcript from what the ADA said when she "corrected" her error.

 

Again, the GJ had been thinking that all that had to happen for Office Wilson to be legally allowed to shoot Brown was that he was fleeing. That is what she said and let sink in for two months.

 

 

MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:

"previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.

What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.

And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.

So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law."

 

She then handed out to the Grand Jury a new document explaining the Law on police officers use of force, and then said..

 

 

Grand Jury - November 22, 2014

MS Alizadeh ADA prosecutor

 

"that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.

It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally"

 

A Grand Juror then asked..

 

 

Grand Jury - November

Grand Juror: "The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?"

 

ADA MS Alizadeh: "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that"

 

100% unclear. Which half of the original sheet were they supposed to ignore? What part of the wording she let them stew on for 2 months was incorrect?

 

Come on. Complete failure on her part. No way every juror knew what the CURRENT legal wording they were supposed to use is.

You didn't answer my question. Reviewing evidence is only part of the equation.

 

Sure I answered your question. I guess you just don't understand it.

So that we're all on the same page here is the transcript from what the ADA said when she "corrected" her error.

 

Again, the GJ had been thinking that all that had to happen for Office Wilson to be legally allowed to shoot Brown was that he was fleeing. That is what she said and let sink in for two months.

 

MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:

"previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.

What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.

And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.

So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law."

 

She then handed out to the Grand Jury a new document explaining the Law on police officers use of force, and then said..

 

Grand Jury - November 22, 2014

MS Alizadeh ADA prosecutor

 

"that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.

It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally"

 

A Grand Juror then asked..

 

Grand Jury - November

Grand Juror: "The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?"

 

ADA MS Alizadeh: "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that"

 

100% unclear. Which half of the original sheet were they supposed to ignore? What part of the wording she let them stew on for 2 months was incorrect?

 

Come on. Complete failure on her part. No way every juror knew what the CURRENT legal wording they were supposed to use is.

 

Looks like she told them to ignore the first sheet completely and use the one she had just passed out. She stated the first sheet was correct but had something in it that was wrong so "ignore it totally"

Not sure where the confusion is unless you are just grasping for straws because you don't agree with the decision.

 

No way if I'm on the jury I'm confused by that.