there is a virtual consensus in the topic so far, which is what i said. please read more carefully

Choose your words more carefully. Consensus is thrown about much too widely for what it truly means.

What's wrong with what PE said? He said it's strange that it didn't go to trial but that because it didn't go to trial, none of us actually know; we've just been fed media hyperbole bullshit.

lol, no. it is used accurately in this thread. how about you own your mistake instead of trying to backtrack?

"Apparent consensus" is an oxymoron. Either there is or isn't consensus. There is not consensus on this thread, not even close. Semantically it is significant, no matter how much PE tries to dismiss it away.

It's true that grand juries rarely fail to indict, but that's a scandal in itself. It's a sign of a broken system that they never stand up to prosecutors.

That, of course, does not mean that cops should get special treatment. But I think there's at least one plausible explantion for why *this* case happened like this: it was always an *exceptionally* weak case, and was brought at all only because it was a political necessity that it be brought.

If, in fact, the grand jury was legally right that there was insufficient reason to indict -- and it seems very highly likely to me that it was, though of course I did not see the evidence -- then it's appalling that people would say they should have given us a trial anyway "so that we can know for sure." The justice system is there for justice, and grand juries have a job to do; giving us the media circus trials we long for is no part of that job.

A very tragic case all around, anyway.

Jeff, as I'm sure you've argued in any number of climate-change debates, a few loud dissidents does not a consensus ruin.

no, you're picking a meaningless semantics fight here, sorry. the fact that this wasn't your initial objection and you had to go back and reread my post to find the exact wording to pick a bone with proves as much. and that wording is still supported by the thread - at the time i posted, obvious trolls aside (whose opinion does not count for determining consensus, if the word consensus is to mean anything), everyone had espoused more or less the same position: that none of us really know what happened and therefore we're not really in a position to criticize the lack of indictment.

look, there really isn't a problem with making a mistake in reading something. no harm no foul, just acknowledge it and move on.

semck - surely though if only .00007% of cases don't go to trial (and I do agree with you on the prosecutor bit) isn't it a bit shit that this one happens to fall with that lot? I mean, the barrier to pass for indictment is *extremely low*. Probably cause a crime may have occurred, or some wording like that.

goldfinger,

Only 0.00007% of cases are media circuses that are brought by the prosecutor due solely to political pressure; which is they explanation that I'm offering as possible.

(Number is of course made up to make a point ).

Also goldfinger,

It's not supposed to be that a crime "may have occurred"; it's supposed to be that it *probably* did.

Right call. Guy was an armed robber and tried to take the cop's gun, got what was coming to him. It's not a race issue.

You're continuing with the meaningless semantic fight. Claiming consensus has the effect of stifling dissenting opinion because the issue is claimed to have been settled. Nothing of the sort happened. Take your fallacious argument away from here.

Disappointing, Jeff; at this point I'm forced to conclude that in addition to a difficulty with reading, you also appear to lack the intellectual integrity to admit a routine, inconsequential error. Such a basic deficiency makes further constructive conversation impossible, so I'm going to cease this tangent.

Chaqa, I don't disagree with your take per se, but I'm curious as to how you can be so certain about the facts of this case. I couldn't conclusively find anything you're saying to be true. It could all be, but I see no reason to privilege this belief over any others on the matter.

PE, there is no error on my part. You're the one refusing to admit that you chose your word(s) imprecisely and are attempting to use flawed logic to conclude your argument. Go ahead and try to belittle me to mask your own mistakes and poor rhetoric. That's all you've got left.

Go away, Kuta.

As an aside, I don't think it's particularly troublesome that the indictment rate is so high, per se. That simply indicates that prosecutors don't bring cases before grand juries that don't have legs to them. It would be much more worrisome if that were the conviction rate.

PE,

Perhaps, but it's a very widely held opinion in the legal profession (on every side, so far as I know) and the legal academy that a grand jury will indict basically whenever asked, almost irrespective of the facts.

Ah. Alright, that's more problematic. And thinking more about it, the logic probably extends just as "well" to conviction rates (after all, who says that a high conviction rate isn't merely the result of prosecutors only bringing slam-dunk cases to court?).

Admittedly, a nonindictment rate stated as a percentage that starts with "0.00" is so utterly obscene statistically that it should garner serious suspicion on principle.

Thanks for proving my point, PE.

Jeff, what "flawed logic" is PE using to conclude his argument?

'semck - surely though if only .00007% of cases don't go to trial (and I do agree with you on the prosecutor bit) isn't it a bit shit that this one happens to fall with that lot? I mean, the barrier to pass for indictment is *extremely low*. Probably cause a crime may have occurred, or some wording like that. "

Please provide documentation for that 00007 quote

SC,

I think he was referring to the statistic in this article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Look for the number 162,000 in the article.

Is that right?

No idea. It sounds extreme, but the situation with grand juries is fairly extreme, so it's possible.

I mean even if the statistic is correct, you can make the argument that the DA was forced to bring a crappy case to grand jury that usually would not make it that far due to incredible pressure from the public. Hence the 12 out of 162000

BUT

If the statistic is correct, I'm actually inclined to agree with goldfinger. That is absurdly low.

SC,

Yes, that's the argument I was making. But I agree the number is absurdly low, and irrespective of one's opinion of this case, should be higher in general.

That's not at issue, the question is if it is that absurdly low, why was this case different.

SC, granted. I tend to think it was the reason you (and earlier I) highlighted. This was brought under extremely different circumstances than a usual case, and very few cases are brought under such extreme circumstances.

I can't say that this is the case (not having been privy to all the evidence), but it seems clear that this case would probably have been brought even if every single piece of evidence, including videotape from several angles, had corroborated the officer's story. In such circumstances, I think most prosecutors would not usually bring the case.

So in other words, I think this was plausibly actually in the top 0.00007% of cases ranked by pressures to prosecute that were uncorrelated to strength of case, too.

Which one may or may not find relevant.