HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Race & Ethnicity » African American (Group) » A Question about Pres. Ob...

Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:00 AM

A Question about Pres. Obama and Michael Brown/Eric Garner

Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:17 AM - Edit history (2)

Earlier tonight on YouTube, I watched one of TheAdviseShow's videos related to the Ferguson and NYC police incidents. The host of the show said that he thinks Pres. O has been "too quiet" so far about them. I have also heard some posters on various black websites such as "TheColi" (WARNING: lots of strong language on that site) saying, in other words, that they want him to be more vocal about those (and other black issues).
My question is this: what could he really say or do that would help our situation? So far, Pres. O's agenda has been hamstrung most of his term by Congress, and he has had RW media constantly harass him for even touching on social matters (while their listeners eat it up).

8 replies, 2180 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Question about Pres. Obama and Michael Brown/Eric Garner (Original post)
Jamaal510 Dec 2014 OP
brush Dec 2014 #1
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #2
brush Dec 2014 #3
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #4
brush Dec 2014 #5
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #6
brush Dec 2014 #7
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #8

Response to Jamaal510 (Original post)

Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:38 AM

1. I want Eric Holder, the Attorney General to be more vocal . . .

and to actually do something.

All we hear is that the DOJ is conducting investigations.

DO SOMETHING ALREADY!

The prosecutor in Ferguson blatantly and purposely threw the grand jury proceedings by allowing a known racist liar to testify twice (witness 40) and taint the evidence pool. What more does the DOJ need? Hold that prosecutor accountable for.

And the Garner/Staten Island case HAS A FU_KING VIDEO of the crime again, what more does he need?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 04:02 PM

2. I hear you; but ...

 

the DoJ needs evidence that the shootings were BECAUSE of, not incidental to, the victims' being Black. That's a pretty steep hill to climb for anyone.

Regarding the Prosecutor's (mis)conduct in the Michael Brown case, again, without evidence that the case was blown BECAUSE of Michael's race, or because of criminality on the prosecutor's part ... there's no there, there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 05:08 PM

3. For once I disagree with your post. The "there" is now there

The prosecutor admitted that he allowed a person to testify that he knew was lying. That's called suborning perjury.

As an officer of the court he broke the law.

I'm sure the DOJ should be able to do something with that at least put pressure on the county to assign a special prosecutor and reconvene the grand jury that won't be manipulated by a prosecutor with an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 05:33 PM

4. It's not that simple ...

 

The crime of "Suborning perjury" is, INDUCING, or attempting to induce, a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding, and the witness actually gives false testimony.

Simply, "allowing" someone to give testimony that one suspects to be untruthful, even if there is a strong suspicion, is not a crime. It is/can be, however, a (non-criminal) violation of the Code of Profession Conduct, punishable by civil sanction(s).

Here is a good lay-person's explanation: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/suborning-perjury.htm

Note:

(From the primer:

Most of the time, merely knowing that someone else is planning on committing perjury, without trying to make it happen, will not amount to suborning perjury. But the rule changes when an attorney knows that his client or any witness the lawyer intends to call plans to lie under oath.

Attorneys have a special duty as officers of the court. Not only are they barred from trying to influence a witness to lie under oath, they also must not call a witness whom they know or believe will lie under oath. And, once an attorney learns that a client or any witness intends to lie under oath, the attorney must inform the witness of the consequences of committing perjury and advise the witness not to do so.


And that "out" is satisfied by merely making a statement at the beginning, or end of the testimony, that is practically indistinguishable from the swearing in of the witness.

I'm sure the DOJ should be able to do something with that at least put pressure on the county to assign a special prosecutor and reconvene the grand jury that won't be manipulated by a prosecutor with an agenda.


IMO, the DoJ can, at most, do what could be batter accomplished by the family of Michael Brown (though I doubt they have the stomach for it, as it merely revisits the wound) ... call a press conference in which they announce that they are filing a Bar Association complaint against McCollum ... which would, as you mention, put pressure on the county to assign a special prosecutor and reconvene the grand jury that won't be manipulated by a prosecutor with an agenda.

For the DoJ to do so, would make it an easily dismissible political stunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 06:39 PM

5. Witness 40 was called twice

"Attorneys have a special duty as officers of the court. Not only are they barred from trying to influence a witness to lie under oath, they also must not call a witness whom they know or believe will lie under oath."

The above is from your post.

I'm not an attorney but other posters have called this suborning perjury.

Whether it is or not, McColloch admitted to it which would seem to invalidate the decision reached by the grand jury, thus the need for a special prosecutor and a reconvened grand jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 06:53 PM

6. Understood; but, you are missing this part ...

 

And, once an attorney learns that a client or any witness intends to lie under oath, the attorney must inform the witness of the consequences of committing perjury and advise the witness not to do so.


This "out" is satisfied by merely making a statement at the beginning, or end of the testimony, that is practically indistinguishable from the swearing in of the witness, i.e., "You understand that you are under oath in this matter and everything you testify to must be your truthful understanding of what has occurred. Failing to do so, could subject you to penalty under law. You understand this ... is that correct?"

I'm pretty certain, though I would have to check the transcript, McCollum (or his staff) read some variation of the above into the record.

(That would arguably avoid criminal liability because no one can MAKE someone tell the truth (we can only warn of the penalty should they choose not to); but, as I mentioned, McCollum's statement puts him (and his staff) on really thin ethical ice.

Whether it is or not, McColloch admitted to it which would seem to invalidate the decision reached by the grand jury, thus the need for a special prosecutor and a reconvened grand jury.


Agreed; but, it's not going to happen on the prosecutor's office's own initiative ... It will have to come from the State's Supreme Court and then, only if it becomes politically perilous not to.

ETA: If I were representing the family of Michael Brown, I would file Bar complaints against everyone in McCollum's office that appeared before the Grand Jury ... let each one of them explain to investigators how THEY didn't know that witness 40 was going; but McCollum did ... and included them in his knowledge. (And the Supreme Court would likely offer a "you can continue to practice" deal to the first one that comes clean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 08:19 PM

7. I like your last graph

Hope that happens.

Aren't they represented by the same team from the Trevon Martin case?

I would think they would know to pursue that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 09:09 PM

8. No, they had/have different counsel ...

 

But I think the Garner family are with Crump (the attorney for the Martin family).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread