The conventional wisdom is that the grand jury's decision about the Ferguson shooting will soon be known, and that it will not indict Officer Darren Wilson.
I have no inside scoop on this. My (pure) guess is that the conventional wisdom is correct; it usually is. If so, I'll predict here and now that there's going to be a riot. I will also give my predicted reactions when it happens.
From libertarians: The police are an over-militarized menace just short of the SS.
From Mother Jones: The United States continues to be a rancid racist cesspool.
From Al Sharpton: People need to listen to me. (This was the easiest one).
From Eric Holder: I told you we're a bunch of cowards.
From Rachel Maddow: [Head explodes].
From me: ...once upon a time, I heard about due process and the presumption of innocence....
I think your Rachel Maddow prediction is unlikely.
From all of the above, you will hear "We want justice!" as if letting an innocent man go free is not "justice."
Kent,
I stand corrected. Her head will explode from the lack of an indictment, not the ensuing riot.
The head will re-assemble itself in time to ooze with understanding for the rioters.
Bill,
I couldn't agree with you more regarding the principle of due process and presumption of innocence. However, unlike yourself, I believe this should be afforded to all persons rather than just agents of law enforcement who find themselves in the position of the defendant. Whereas you “once upon a time, [ ]heard about due process and the presumption of innocence,” I too heard about it, and consistently apply it to defendants. What makes me presume that you do not actually believe this principle of presumption of innocence to apply to everyone?
"USAToday has an article reporting that the defense team for the Boston Marathon killer wants a change of venue"
"And to help give Mr. Tsarnaev the punishment he has earned."
- Bill Otis, Change of Venue for the Boston Marathon Bomber, 6/18/2014 [trial still pending]
"The younger, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was captured and is awaiting trial in November. No serious person is claiming there is doubt of his guilt"
- Bill Otis, Why We Have the Death Penalty, 4/15/2014 [trial still pending]
"His problem, like the problem for most defendants (only in his case to an even greater extent) is how sufficiently to muddle the truth so that the jury might be hoodwinked into an acquittal."
- Bill Otis, The Latest syndrome, 6/12/2012 [Sandusky found guilty 6/22/2012]
"The only possible reason to have gone to trial was to fulfill the routine, bravado defense promise, usually made at the time of arrest, that we shouldn't "rush to judgment" until "all the facts are known" and the client has "had a chance to give his side of the story in the proper setting.""
- Bill Otis, Q: What to Do if the Client is Too Obviously a Liar?, 6/20/2012 [Sandusky was found guilty 6/22/2012]
"It's disgusting for the obvious reasons; there's only so much you can, or would want to, say about a mother who suffocates her two year-old daughter and tosses her corpse into the woods."
- Bill Otis, Casey Anthony and the Defense from Central Casting, 6/6/2011 [Casey Anthony was acquitted on 7/5/2011]
So, while you state in this post that you heard, once upon a time, about due process and the presumption of innocence, you are happy to pick and choose which defendants are afforded that presumption. Tsarnaeva, Sandusky, and Anthony, according to you, did not warrant this presumption. Wilson, a law enforcement agent, does warrant this presumption. How exactly are you any different than the mob demanding an indictment against Wilson? Your previous comments actually stoke the mob mentality of demanding guilt prior to adjudication; you just happen to switch sides in this particular situation.
To come out in this case as an avid supporter of the defense and the notion of presumption of innocence, given your previous comments on other defendants, is to demonstrate your own bias so candidly as to undermine your credibility. If I were to speculate (warning: I'm going to speculate) I would say for you this case is different because the defendant is a law enforcement agent and you are a former prosecutor. Therefore, unlike other cases where you would presume the defendant guilty and post links to articles detailing the horrible consequences the defendant's conduct had on the victim, here you are guided by your pro-law enforcement sentiments. Law enforcement agents, like prosecutors, are out there fighting the good fight against evil criminals. They are on the same team, sharing the same goal, and need to stick together. When a law enforcement agent is suddenly put on trial the rallying cry goes out and current and former members of the executive branch come together to support their teammate. This would be laughable it the practical ramifications weren’t so terrifying. If your comments are indicative of a typical prosecutor it means that law enforcement agents will always be given the benefit of the doubt when they are in the defendant’s seat, whereas civilians will be presumed guilty and the judge or jury just needs convinced of that. While this might be generally understood to be the case by people, it is especially disheartening to see an actual former prosecutor confirm the assumption.
You regularly claim to be someone who exists outside the “academic bubble” to the extent that you are able to objectively look at those within it. However, you are so stuck in the “prosecutor bubble” that you seem to have lost the ability to objectively look at our legal process. Reading your comments in this post in light of your comments from previous posts demonstrates a logical inconsistency with regards to those who should be afforded due process and the presumption of innocence. It is especially heartbreaking to see this inconsistency come from a person that was entrusted with the extraordinary prosecutorial power of the State.
-Sean
"Bill, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the principle of due process and presumption of innocence."
Then why have you written comments doing everything they can to slant the perception of guilt at Officer Wilson? Because he's white? Because he's a cop? Both? Have you written similarly slanted posts against non-white, non-police defendants? Who would they be?
You fall flat in attempting to suggest that I'm hypocritical in my outlook. There is at the minimum credible evidence in this case that Wilson acted in self-defense. At the very worst, the evidence is in equipoise, meaning that the presumption of innocence is unscathed AT THIS POINT in the public's knowledge.
All the other cases you mention are vastly different. Tsarnaev is ON TAPE planting the bomb next to the eight year old (hey, I know, that's cool), and he wrote a hate-filled screed in the boat where he was hiding from the cops. There, he explained why the United States had it coming.
Sandusky had ELEVEN victim-witnesses and an eyewitness against him. In addition, he declined to take the stand because the prosecution told him that it would call HIS OWN SON to testify about his sexually abusive conduct. But he is to be presumed innocent, right?
Casey Anthony lied at every turn in her case; had her lawyer suggest that her, uh, odd behavior resulted from molestation as a child, then never adduced any proof of it; and was viewed as guilty, not just by me, but by at least a 2-1 majority of those (presumably not ex-prosecutors) who followed the case. Indeed, if I don't miss my guess, you also, based on the evidence presented at trial, ALSO believe she did the deed. Not so?
I am capable of differentiating these cases from the Darren Wilson case -- and so are you. The reason you pretend they're indistinguishable is to be able to slap together an accusation that THE ONLY REASON I want to urge the presumption of innocence for Darren Wilson is that he's a white cop.
Just to be absolutely clear: What's actually going on is that the blatant hypocrites on YOUR side who normally pound the table about innocence now want Wilson lynched pre-trial (indeed pre-accusation), while I want the evidence evaluated for whatever it will turn out to show. And, unlike the Tsarnaev, Sandusky and Casey Anthony cases, there is a realistic prospect that it might show a likelihood of innocence (i.e., the presence of valid self-defense).
Sorry, it's not my biases. It's the evidence. You know, the kind of evidence you defense lawyers often (and here too) love to pretend doesn't exist.
You are correct, however, that bias is rampant in this case. It's the bias of the Left, which has yet to see a white cop they won't hiss under their breath (and sometimes over it) is a Nazi. You people want Wilson strung up for the same reason you wanted George Zimmerman strung up: Not because that's what the law and the actual evidence indicates, but because it's what your Amerika Stinks ideology demands.