Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

No, Prosecution did not Mislead #Ferguson Grand Jury into Erroneous Decision

No, Prosecution did not Mislead #Ferguson Grand Jury into Erroneous Decision

Lawrence O’Donnell ignores that Darren Wilson’s strong claim of lawful self-defense was more than sufficient to prevent indictment

There have been many false factual narratives of the Michael Brown killing, such as “hands up, don’t shoot.”

Now there’s a new false legal narrative spreading, that a prosecutorial mistake misled the Grand Jury into erroneously failing to indict Police Officer Darren Wilson.

The source of the claim appears to be MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.

O’Donnell, who was magnificently misleading in the Trayvon Martin case, expounds on this claim in the Ferguson case with absolute moral and intellectual certainty, as he always does.

The heart of O’Donnell’s claim is that a legal error in presenting the law on use of force in making an arrest early in the Grand Jury proceedings somehow led the Grand Jury astray.  O’Donnell maintains that this error could have led the Grand Jury to think it was okay to shoot Michael Brown in the back as he was running away, even though the corrected law was given to the Grand Jury prior to deliberations.

There are at least two major flaws in O’Donnell’s argument.

First, and most important, even if O’Donnell is correct that prosecutors misstated one justification for Wilson’s use of deadly force (arrest powers), these same prosecutors correctly stated an alternative and independent justification for that same use of force (self-defense).

Thus, even if Wilson’s arrest powers were insufficient justification for his use of deadly force, his right of self-defense was more than sufficient justification for that use of deadly force. And even O’Donnell claims no error in that instruction to the Grand Jury.

Second, the justification that O’Donnell claims was read to the jury in error is entirely irrelevant, as it applies only if the suspect is shot while fleeing arrest.

Here, Michael Brown suffered not a single gunshot wound to the back, nor did Wilson ever claim to have shot Brown while he was fleeing in order to affect an arrest.  Instead, Wilson claims consistently that he shot Brown in self-defense, and numerous witnesses testified and the forensic evidence supports that Wilson fired only when Brown was actively advancing towards, and not while Brown was fleeing from, Wilson.

As a result the legal justification that O’Donnell claims to be in error, that of arrest powers, simply has no application to this case.

Now to the video:

O’Donnell’s diatribe is an almost perfect example of what is commonly referred to as a “straw man” argument.

In a straw man argument, one side purports to present the other side’s position, and then proceeds to ruthlessly shred that position.

The key, however, is that the position they are shredding is not, in fact, the other side’s position at all. The other side’s actual position is, in fact, too strong to be effectively attacked.

So, in a straw man argument you attribute to the other side a position that they do not actually claim, then you destroy that unclaimed position, and you declare victory.

As long, that is, as you control the debate forum

Sadly for MSNBC, their control of the debate forum continues to diminish with their ever shrinking ratings, and certainly fails to extend to this forum.

So, let’s have at O’Donnell’s straw man argument.

O’Donnell’s straw man centers on the idea that Police Office Darren Wilson’s justification for his shooting of Michael Brown is the he justified that use of deadly force on the basis of his arrest powers under Missouri law.

O’Donnell references that specific Missouri statute, §563.046. Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest.

You can read the entire full-length statute at that link (don’t even try the Missouri official site, it’s sending 404 returns, probably due to the attention inappropriately drawn its way by O’Donnell’s nonsense.), but I urge you to not bother until after you reach the end of this post.

As you’ll see, it would be a pointless exercise for our purposes.

O’Donnell then argues that this portion of §563.046 was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985). Again, you can read the entire full-length of that case at that link, but don’t bother quite yet.

As you’ll see, it would be a pointless exercise for our purposes.

Let’s assume, for purposes of this blog post, that Garner does, in fact, absolutely make §563.046 unconstitutional, and that therefore it would be legal error for the Grand Jury to decline to indict Wilson on the basis of §563.046.

IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER.

The core fallacy in O’Donnell’s straw man argument is the very same defect shared by all straw man arguments.  The position O’Donnell presents as being Wilson’s defense–that his use of deadly force was justified on the basis of his arrest powers–is simply irrelevant, because Wilson’s actual defense relied on a completely independent and sufficient justification.

That his use of deadly force was justified as self-defense.

At no point in Wilson’s testimony to the Grand Jury did he ever claim that he shot Brown because he was seeking to make an arrest of a fleeing suspect.  At no point in his four hours of Grand Jury testimony was the issue of deadly force arrest powers ever raised.

Not once.

Wilson’s utterly consistent testimony through four hours before the Grand Jury, without legal counsel present and at his own initiative, was that his claimed justification for the use of lethal force against Brown was that of self-defense.

As it happens, self-defense is governed not by §563.046, but by a completely different Missouri statute, §563.031. Use of force in defense of persons, the state’s self-defense statute.

The Grand Jury was also, of course, instructed on §563.031, self-defense.

Indeed, even Lawrence O’Donnell claims no error in either that self-defense statute’s reading to the Grand Jury or in that statute’s constitutionality.

Bottom line: §563.046, Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest, the very heart of O’Donnell’s straw man argument is, as are all straw men, utter irrelevant to the issues at hand.

Wilson did not need §563.046, arrest powers, did not rely upon it’s arrest power provisions, and indeed he never even mentioned them.

All Wilson needed was §563.031, self-defense, and no error is claimed there.  Period.

As for the relevance of Mr. O’Donnell and MSNBC, I’ll defer to the ratings books.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of it’s online state-specific Law of Self Defense Webinars.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Webinars, and get access to the ~20 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Heh. I was just driving around, and heard something about this on NPR. Apparently the police are wholly capable of investigating anything, according to them.

Lessee…

O’Donnell, self-identified as a “socialist”, has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Haaavid.

No law. But his daddy was a lawyer.

So, is he qualified to look over the shoulder of a seasoned (and he IS) prosecutor who is ALSO a Deemocrat? I mean on ANY-FLUCKING-ELEMENT here? From the FLUCKING jurisdiction in question, not from Nuevo Ork?

Naw.

Now, of course he’s free to make himself an Al Sharpton (apparent fool) on television before dozens of viewers. No question there…

Go, Larry, go…!!!

    platypus in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2014 at 12:22 am

    Rags, you do know what station he’s on, right? I mean, we’re not talking LI-level so you really shouldn’t be surprised in any way THAT HE IS DOING THE BIDDING OF HIS MASTERS.

    I have a cat that makes more sense with his irrational meows than O’Doodoo does using English.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2014 at 12:39 am

    I have, over the years, worked with some very very sick people, mentally speaking. I can tell you from experience that. imho, Mr. O’Donnell is at minimum extremely delusional. I mean all it really takes is one good look at his eyes, and if you can’t see the crazy behind them well then, I just don’t know how to explain it to you. I am not talking just your average liberal crazy, I am talking diagnosable weapons grade crazy.

    If I saw this man on the street I would upgrade my threat level and probably unsnapping the holster, just because of those eyes.

      Estragon in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 29, 2014 at 3:58 am

      Teh crazy is strong with this one, true, but he isn’t making these arguments out of delusion. As a leftist, lying to him is not only not prohibited, but actually a useful tool in advancing his agenda.

      Some of the garbage he spouts is born of his leftist self-delusion, but he knows when he is misrepresenting facts.

Larry really is a dim bulb, even by MSNBC’s low standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQCFqgAGyM

Here’s a great pallet-cleanser. Good man.

    dhmosquito in reply to Ragspierre. | November 28, 2014 at 10:40 pm

    Oh, boy, that made my night. Best 6:21 I’ve spent in awhile. I hope Sheriff Clarke doesn’t fall victim to an IRS tax audit. Thanks for the link. And thanks to Andrew, too, for watching those nitwits on MSNBC, something I could no more do than watch a speech from that nincompoop who occupies the Oval Office.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2014 at 12:43 am

    I wanna shake that man’s hand, I really, really do.

“facts? I don’t need no stinkin’ facts…..”

Do I get my Jounalism degee, now?

Is it possible to get any more intellectually dishonest and corrupt?

I refuse to watch any MSNBC link video. Why give them any more views/”hits” than they deserve?

Larry has beclowned himself so many times it is old, tired, pathetic and not worth notice. Sadly, he is apparently passing on the current leftie talking points, probably handed down from Holder’s minions.

Larry, give it a rest. No one is watching, let alone believing, you.

Let me respectfully disagree with both you and Larry. Or, at least respectfully with you, not so much with him.

Tennessee v. Garner is being thrown around a lot these days claiming that it invalidated the Tennessee statute. But, it doesn’t do that. Rather, it merely invalidates it for the situation in that case: “We hold that the statute is invalid insofar as it purported to give Hymon the authority to act as he did.” Notably: “We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

This would say to me that the case stands for the proposition that the statute isn’t invalidated, per se, but only in cases where the suspect doesn’t “pose[] a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others“. But, if Wilson’s story is accurate, then Brown has committed a 1st or 2nd degree assault on a police officer (Class A or B felonies), and arguably attempted murder by forcing Wilson’s firearm to point at Wilson’s pelvis/hip, then trying to get his finger into the trigger guard, presumably to discharge it (possibly hitting Wilson’s femoral artery). That would seem to pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others – attempted murder and assault on a police officer. Brown could have gone away for decades if arrested and convicted of those crimes.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Bruce Hayden. | November 29, 2014 at 12:13 am

    Let me add that the relevance here is that a lot of Brown’s defenders are claiming that Wilson shot at Brown’s back, but didn’t hit him (given no wounds were found in his back). Then, they claim Brown turned around, tried to surrender, and was gunned down. On the one hand, in terms of shooting at Brown’s back – no harm, no foul (since he missed). But, also, if Wilson did shoot at Brown, it could be argued that due to how dangerous Brown was, shooting him to prevent him from escaping would have been legally justified.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Bruce Hayden. | November 29, 2014 at 6:20 am

    Further Wilson says that he called for backup and thought he had to stop Brown before backup encountered him — possibly unaware of the situation. Brown had already proven he was a danger.

Gardner did not rule out shooting fleeing felons. In Gardner, the fleeing felon must be a threat of death or great bodily injury if the felon escapes. This justifies shooting any fleeing felon involved in rape, murder, ADW, etc.

When all this happened back in August, it appeared to be a righteous shoot, but I kept a open mind; “stuff” does happen. However, when unburned gun powder was found imbeded in Brown’s hand, any remaining doubt vanished. There is only one way for that to happen: if a shot is fired inside point blank range, at actual contact distance. Brown’s hand had to be on the gun, which fully supports Officer Wilson’s version and totally exposes any contrary “witness” statements as lies. Period.

“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.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

According to the Court, the use of deadly force could be lawful “to prevent escape” whether or not the suspect is fleeing, and the Missouri statute doesn’t authorize the use of deadly force simply because a suspect is fleeing. So what’s the unconstitutional part?

The bottom line on all this is that the left is a cult. We have to deprogram these people, not matter what it takes.

Cult deprogramming:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult7.htm

The Seven Signs You’re in a Cult:

1. Opposing critical thinking

2. Isolating members and penalizing them for leaving

3. Emphasizing special doctrines outside scripture

4. Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders

5. Dishonoring the family unit

6. Crossing Biblical boundaries of behavior (versus sexual purity and personal ownership)

7. Separation from the Church

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/the-seven-signs-youre-in-a-cult/361400/

“Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups, “Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Obama is no less a pimp than any other cult figurehead driving his Rolls Royce slowly past his pathetic, impoverished followers. President Pimp’s goal now is to find more impoverished followers — illegals. And he’s buying them, and with our money.

The best thing that could happen is if Obama accidentally hits the gas on his Rolls and t-bones a bus driving by with Boehner, Presbus, Rove and the rest of the GOP hacks in it. Maybe then, we could get past having a Squeakers and other assorted cowardly failures head our last-chance effort for a nonviolent battle for freedom.

    Alright, first I would like to comment and say that I made an account specifically to reply to this. This is a level of ridiculous that causes me physical pain.
    1. I wouldn’t cite ‘people.howstuffworks.com’ as a reliable source, neither would a college level professor (I know because I asked one.)
    2. That list you posted isn’t even on the website you linked to. What it actually says is “The cults that make the news and drive fear through the hearts of parents sending their kids to college are the exception, not the rule. At its most basic, a cult is simply a small, unestablished, non-mainstream religious group that typically revolves around a single leader. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “cult” this way:
    “A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.”
    A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
    http://www.howstuffworks.com/cult.htm
    3. Even if what you sited is correct ,which it isn’t I am a Anthropology student in college so i more likely to have a better idea than most people,then who defines what bible or what ‘scriptures’. You could be talking about the Koran, or the King James bible or any of the other translations. And every other religion not based off of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim texts would not be religions. Examples being Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and an innumerably other number of religions would Anthropologically classified as cults ,which in case you are wondering they aren’t,. Cult and Religion are two terms that are debated though-out philosophy, anthropology and basically every other social science. But Websters Dictionary definition of cult as
    : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

    : a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

    : a small group of very devoted supporters or fans

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

    And I realize that who ever posted this is most likely an extremist zealot and whatever I say is not going to register. I am mostly posting this for the other more rational people reading this.

O’Donnell’s reasoning is flawed.

First of all, there is no evidence that Brown was shot in the back… that was a made up story.

    Elliott in reply to Aussie. | November 29, 2014 at 6:55 am

    This false premise, black child shot in the back while fleeing in terror of white mad dog policeman who filled him full of lead just to watch him die, is so imbedded in the outrage that they cannot transition their thought patterns out of it. The myth of a cold blooded police murder started minutes after Brown died and everything the professionally outraged have thought, said, planned, scammed, reported, obsessed or stroked out over is causing physical pain of cognitive dissonance. When your social, professional, and mental life is centered on outrage of a cause du jour rather than facts, truth and principle, you have no reason to face the pain and discomfort that you were magnificently WRONG.

      Yes, and you need to look at the involvement of Louis Head and a fella by the name of Shahid who is a known agitator in St. Louis. He was on the scene very fast and he had contact with several witnesses including Dorian Johnson Piaget Crenshaw and that other female. It would seem that he told them what to say to the media… and perhaps that is the way that the spin started.

The key is your line ‘. . . controls the debate forum.’

His audience, like him, had made up their minds on the case on Day One, before any actual facts were known (and virtually everything that had been reported was later proven false).

The Narrative of the case was set then. If the Narrative does not fit the facts, then the facts must be made to fit the Narrative. That’s what O’Donnell does, and he is fervent about his work.

Progressives don’t believe that police officers have a right to self defense.

    Elliott in reply to Sanddog. | November 29, 2014 at 7:01 am

    Collective guilt of whites means they don’t have the right of self defense. I am fascinated by the attitude that anyone deserves a beating, being murdered, physical, verbal or mental abuse from purported victims of something that happened several generations before all parties were born. It is a very primitive and backward tribal thought process. Progressives center their philosophy on collective guilt.

This is perfect…

A mob of mostly white, self-righteous Collectivists doing the “Hands Up…Don’t Shoot” dance ruined a Christmas Tree lighting last night, and reduced a bunch of kids there to sing to tears.

In Collectivist bowling, that’s a strike!

This is perfect…

A mob of mostly white, self-righteous Collectivists doing the “Hands Up…Don’t Shoot” dance ruined a Christmas Tree lighting last night, and reduced a bunch of kids there to sing to tears.

In Collectivist bowling, that’s a strike!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/protesters-disrupt-christmas-tree-lighting-in-seattle.php

    UncleFester in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2014 at 6:14 am

    That’s about as low as it gets, ruining some kids’ Christmas program. I hope some of the parents had a constructive conversation with the Collectivists afterwards.

    And by constructive conversation I mean beat them with clubs.

      Elliott in reply to UncleFester. | November 29, 2014 at 7:12 am

      Imagine having such a miserable life, so many problems, that you have to direct all of your mental and physical energy into outrage over the plight of others. It is a psychological trick avoid acknowledging your own mistakes, inadequacies, insecurities and misery by ruining everyone elses joy even that of children. No one can enjoy anything because these dogs in the manger try to force everyone to be as miserable as they are.

    Rags you say good and wise things but I note that your shadow continues to behave like an idiot…. gotta be a good Australian expression to describe such a person… but maybe not in this forum 🙂

Note according Justice Scalia any information that would benefit the accuss8d including testimony from the accused.

Wilson broke the current law when he shot a Brown while Brown was fleeing after being shot by Wilson. One shot grazed Brown’s arm. That’s when he flinched, stopped running, turned around and put his hands up. From certain angels it’s easy to understand that some witness thought he shot in the back. He shot from the back by Wilson, but not in the back. Brown was 153 feet away from the police vehicle at this time. According to most witnesses including 2 white construction Brown was shot at while his hands were in the air. Do you believe 2 white construction workers? Have you seen the video? They said he had fuc*king hands up.

Brown stumbled forward 23 feet after being shot. Wilson shot again as he was falling to the ground. The last shot was to top his head. Not sure how Wilson good so vividly describe the expression on Brown’s face when his head was facing down when the bullet entered the top of his head. Note Brown was wearing flip flops and wounded multiple times. He was in no position to charge anyone.

    Sanddog in reply to MrUniteUs. | November 29, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    I don’t know why you think anyone commenting here would accept your SJW driven narrative as anything other than magical thinking. Sorry sport, the physical evidence trumps your delusional fantasy.

    amwick in reply to MrUniteUs. | November 29, 2014 at 9:15 pm

    MB was so stoned he could have been charging on a street filled with broken glass. How is my magical thinking? But at least the stoned part is true.

    Not a very smart response because Wilson did not break any law in his confrontation with a felon who had committed a felony assault upon a police officer, and who was in the process of charging at the police officer when he was struck by a bullet to the head… because he was charging like a rhinoceros.

Research has shown that two out of three MSLSD viewers agree with Lawrence.

(No. really. They only have three viewers.)

Wilson said in his ABC interview that he was not trying to arrest Brown after Brown left the fight at the patrol car, that he’d called for backup and knew they were very close. His intent was to keep Brown in sight till help arrived, then arrest him. Of course, Brown changed that plan by turning and charging, twice. I think the timeline shows backup arrived 90 seconds after the shooting (?).

But Wilson’s white, so I’m gonna go with O’Donnell’s take.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 29, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Again, I’m impressed by how many chances Wilson gave Brown to live AFTER Brown turned on him.

    IF he’d just gotten down on the first order, for instance, he would have lived and might even have kept his thumb with medical intervention.

This is my first comment on this website, so I don’t know much about it, I don’t know if it’s run by a lawyer or not or whether the commenters are lawyers or not. I am an attorney, and I have handled many grand jury hearings, as my state is using them with some frequency in cases where witness intimidation is alleged by prosecutors. The main problem with your article is that it ignores what the purpose of a grand jury is. Contrary to how the Ferguson jury was charged, self defense is NOT, I repeat, NOT supposed to be considered at the grand jury level. Thus, charging on self defense was legally inappropriate. The existence of an affirmative defense is irrelevant at grand jury because a grand jury is not a trial. Defenses are not raised at grand jury because they are not relevant. Defendants NEVER testify at grand jury because their testimony is not relevant either.

The only question is whether there has been a crime committed and whether the defendant is the one who committed the crime, just like the standard at a preliminary hearing. If a prosecutor wants an indictment from a grand jury he or she can easily get one by picking and choosing the evidence presented to the grand jury. In this case it was obvious that the prosecutor did not want an indictment. I say that as a criminal defense attorney who has handled these cases for 10+ years.

Regardless of whether you believe that there should have been an indictment, the simple fact remains that this case was not handled like 99.9% of grand jury cases are. I would love to have a grand jury like this one, where the prosecutor doesn’t even bother to cross examine the defendant and then doesn’t even ask for an indictment of the defendant.

Legally this is a mess. Even the National Bar Association (of which prosecutors and defense attorneys are members) is calling for an investigation.

    Ragspierre in reply to NickiDrea. | November 29, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    Wow.

    As a civil trial attorney, I’m appalled at your glaring ignorance.

    You made several definitive statements that are simply false, and most of the NON-lawyers here know they’re false.

    Cripes…!!! Where the FLUCK did you go to law school?

    “The only question is whether there has been a crime committed and whether the defendant is the one who committed the crime . . . ”

    THAT’S what you think a Grand Jury does? Determine if there’s been a crime committed and whether the defendant is the one who committed the crime?

    If THAT was true–and it most assuredly is not–why bother having a TRIAL? You’ve already determined the defendant committed a crime at the Grand Jury level.

    Further, one would have to be an idiot to “successfully” obtain an indictment from a Grand Jury only by withholding the very evidence that makes a conviction at trial hopeless.

    What, exactly, advances justice about THAT scenario?

    Along the same lines, please cite your source of legal procedure or ethics that states that raising the issue of self-defense before a Grand Jury–a legal defense that goes to the HEART of whether the defendant’s act was even criminal AT ALL–is “legally inappropriate”, or that “self defense is NOT, I repeat, NOT supposed to be considered at the grand jury level.”

    Sure, I’ll wait.

    Finally, under self-defense the defendant CONCEDES the use of force that would otherwise be a crime–it is NEVER in question, NEVER disputed. He merely claims justification for that use of force. By YOUR supposed “legal standard” EVERY SINGLE USE OF FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE would be REQUIRED to GO TO TRIAL, because the Grand Jury WOULD be told of the conceded use of force but NOT of the legal justification.

    What an absurd position.

    Oofah. You claim to be an attorney? Then you surely won’t mind sharing your actual name and the state where you are admitted?

    I smell fraud, “NickiDrea.” I therefore provide the opportunity for you to dispel the smell. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Andrew the only way that the smell from NickiDrea can be dispersed is through the use of Air-O-Zone… that smell has made it all the way to Australia and there is nothing that is going to shift it… any time

    Finally, anybody who cites that hotbed of Progressive fascism the National Bar Association as an authority on any subject whatever is certainly a tool.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    citizenjeff in reply to NickiDrea. | November 29, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    “This is my first comment on this website, so I don’t know much about it, I don’t know if it’s run by a lawyer or not…”

    How difficult is it, and how long would it take, to figure out who runs this blog?

    So you cannot work out that Professor Jacobson is a Law professor and that Andrew Branca is a lawyer who is well versed in the law of self defence. Did you come down in the last shower or is it that you are simply very slow on the uptake?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to NickiDrea. | November 30, 2014 at 5:47 am

    “This is my first comment on this website, so I don’t know much about it, I don’t know if it’s run by a lawyer or not or whether the commenters are lawyers or not.”

    That bit right there is what told me you were are liar. If you are that obtuse then well I don’t have much hope for you.

    Julian in reply to NickiDrea. | November 30, 2014 at 7:20 am

    I served on a Grand Jury and several times the defendant testified. One was an alleged rape case of the female of a couple that lived together and another was a stolen property case.

Larry O’D hits my ‘over-sensitive GAG Reflex for Bullshit’ even faster than Little Chrissy M. or Fast Eddie Schultz or even Wretched Madcow…’Bout on a par with Revrund Tawana Brawley Sharpton…What a crew they’ve got over there at PMSNBC where they gave a blather and literally NOBODY came.

The author of this article, Andrew Branca, conveniently fails to mention the fact that, when one juror asked if “federal court overrides Missouri statutes”, assistant district attorney Alizadeh said “Just don’t worry about that”. Assistant prosecutor Whirley added that, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”

Braca is just another deceitful lawyer like the Ferguson DA’s. This is the only site on the web that defends the Ferguson DA’s presentation to the grand jury.

It is a known fact that a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and yet they failed here. That says it all right there. 😉

    It’s “Branca.”

    B-R-A-N-C-A

    Previously, “Brancaccio,” before Ellis Island got its hands on us. 🙂

    Now, just Branca.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Gremlin1974 in reply to BSbuster. | December 3, 2014 at 11:47 pm

    Or maybe it was that they realized that the question wasn’t relevant since it only applies to non-violent/dangerous suspects.

    Or they realized that the question wasn’t relevant because Wilson never, not even once claimed that he shot Brown as part of trying to affect his arrest, he only ever claimed that she shot in self defense which makes the “federal law that trumps state law” irrelevant?

    See facts matter more than what sounds like a good argument.

Next we’ll be seeing an article by Braca trying to persuade us into believing that the cop that strangled Eric Garner to death was acting in self defense too.

That makes two ham sandwiches that avoided getting indicted now. 😉

    chuckgcs in reply to BSbuster. | December 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    BSbuster – ” strangled Eric Garner to death ” is B.S.!
    Garner died at least an hour after being transported to the hospital. The medical examiner did NOT assign the cause of death to strangulation. GET THE FACTS from somewhere other than the racist black grapevine.

Ok Branco. What say you about the DA’s avoiding the juror’s legitimate question about Federal Law trumping state law? It doesn’t take a law degree to have already known that it does.

Obviously these sheeple on the jury were easy prey to these corrupt prosecutors. It doesn’t take an Einstein to see which side the prosecutors were on. And after the Garner grand jury decision, people are starting to wake up to the fact that it is an obvious conflict of interest to have the local prosecutor, who depends on the cops daily to win cases, try to gain an indictment against one of his “co-workers”.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend