Dusty Rhoades’ column in the Dec 7 Pilot disturbed me. To say that the prosecutor in the Ferguson case “threw” the case or deliberately lost it for the state involves a level of cynicism that is difficult to take.
Certainly, the prosecutor could have gotten an indictment if he “wanted” to. And just as certainly, there were political pressures for him to do just that. But Mr. Wilson is not a ham sandwich, of popular grand jury lore.
No he was not. But the rest of us would have been treated like one, which was part of the point.
Imagine for just a minute, even if you are as arrogant as Mr. Rhoades and are able to reach conclusions based on a superficial view of the evidence from newspapers and TV reports, that the prosecutor who did see all the evidence had a good-faith belief that the actions of Darren Wilson may have been justified.
Wrong. I actually read the transcripts. And I’m betting I read more of them than Mr. Muller. if actually doing your research is your idea of “arrogance,” then guilty as charged.
A prosecutor represents the state in an adversarial system, but he is not a pure advocate and must believe that the evidence on review supports a criminal conviction. Can you imagine a prosecutor asking a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a criminal offense when the prosecutor himself has significant doubts?
Yeah, actually, I can, because I live in the real world.
But, understanding correctly the highly charged nature of this case, rather than deciding himself to not proceed further against Wilson, which prosecutors do all the time, he presented the case to a grand jury as a check on the use of his discretion.
Again, a break which no one but someone like Wilson would get.
Yes, doing so and presenting evidence on both sides was highly unusual.
And thus, not “equal justice.”
But viewed in this way, the prosecutor was hardly giving Wilson a “break,” and just maybe was trying to do justice in the best way he could.
Justice which the average Joe (or Michael) would not have access to.
I acknowledge that I don’t know where the truth lies, but I respect the process and don’t share the view that “justice” requires a particular result here.
William Muller, Pinehurst
“Justice” does not require a particular result. It does, however, require a fair trial, not a sham.
At least Mr, Muller was (mostly) polite. But then of course, our old friend “Francis” needed to weigh in in the comments with his usual brand of wingnut fuckwittery:
More surprising than the article you have commented on is the fact you succeeded in having the Pilot post it, you have openly criticized, and even called arrogant one of those who John protects from any unflattering remarks, not often will you read honest appraisals on the individual you mentioned, even this comment may have gone too far, a very thin skinned critic who lashes out at others with no restrictions.
Get that? The guy with over 1100 posts on The Pilot website, the vast majority of them vicious personal attacks on me (including one that said I should die a slow and painful death from Ebola) is whining that The Pilot is “protecting me” from “unflattering remarks.” Not only that, he’s doing so in response to a letter disputing one of my columns that’s on there as a “Top Letter to the Editor.” And as for no restrictions, let’s not forger that he’s still allowed to post and I’m not.
Classic wingnuttery: using a public forum to complain endlessly about how that forum is violating their right to free speech.
Via: J.D. Rhoades