Ferguson, Missouri

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote: Do you know what "might" means? The grand jury doesn't determine whether a crime was committed, it determines whether it's possible that a crime could have been committed. "Might a crime have been committed here" is, indeed, a yes or no question. But answering "yes" doesn't mean that a crime was definitely committed because that's not what "might" means at all.
Forgive me if you have already mentioned this as I haven't read every single word in this thread. But how much evidence is needed for a grand jury to decide if a crime could have been committed? I ask because on the surface, I look at how much attention was put on this investigation from the president down to the police chief. It seems like that kind of attention would provide the grand jury with significant evidence either way. If that is true, then either 1) they didn't have enough evidence or 2) they DID had enough evidence not to indict. Or 3) maybe the grand jury was just corrupt and didn't care about the evidence at all.

In short, I guess what I am asking is how much evidence is needed for a grand jury to determine if it was possible that a crime was committed.

I'm not challenging your opinion. I have no counter-argument to make. I really am just asking the question.
I'm not sure what you mean by "how much evidence." If you mean what's the standard (like "reasonable suspicion," "preponderance of the evidence," or "beyond a reasonable doubt"), it's probable cause. However, "might a crime have been committed" is the definition of probable cause, so if that's your question then I'm giving you a circular answer. Maybe the answer to your question is just, however much evidence each individual juror needs to feel that a crime might have been committed?

I don't think the grand jury itself was corrupt. The issue is that grand jurors, like regular jurors, are not trained legal professionals. They're laypeople. They're led by the prosecutor and will typically do what he leads them to do. And it's not necessarily as simple as "McCulloch told them not to vote for indictment." Grand juries hear a bunch of cases and this one was highly irregular, while the rest of the cases this grand jury heard presumably were not. So you're a grand juror and you've heard thirty other cases in which McCulloch came to you, asked for a specific charge, gave you the evidence most helpful to his case, and called it a day. Then you come in for this case and it lasts months and McCulloch doesn't ask for a charge and he gives you testimony he knows is unreliable and he lets the defendant testify and he gives you the wrong law and "corrects" it at the very last minute, and what are you going to do? It's actually funny that akp keeps harping on how "confused" a jury would have been at trial, since confusing the grand jury seems to be exactly what the prosecutor's office set out to do here.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:Sorry about the wording. I know a grand jury doesn't have to be unanimous. My point was basically that if the prosecutor was leading the jury not to indict (as some as said) then one or more of them could have said "No, we will indict." A criminal jury trial does have to be unanimous so let's say 4 voted not to indict then that means to me that there would have been an even harder time to get a conviction.
See above re: McCulloch leading the grand jury not to indict. As for whether or not it would be even harder to get a conviction, I think that's impossible to say. We can't look at the grand jury proceedings and just say "well, they wouldn't even indict, so clearly he never could have been convicted," in light of how bizarre the grand jury proceedings were. Regardless of what intentions you ascribe to McCulloch -- maybe, for whatever reason, you don't believe he had any nefarious motivations here, okay -- the fact remains that the way this particular grand jury process went was objectively tipped in Wilson's favor far more than a typical grand jury for a typical defendant. It's like fighting somebody with your hands tied behind your back, and taking your loss to mean you couldn't have beaten a tougher opponent if you had use of your hands -- maybe true, maybe not, but the loss you actually experienced isn't meaningful evidence either way.
True, but for those demanding "Justice for Michael Brown" anything short of a conviction would have been no different than what the grand jury did. True, for you (and others) a jury trial was needed. I on the other hand feel that a jury trial would have accomplished nothing, and maybe even make the situation worse.
A jury trial would have accomplished something just by occurring at all -- it would have subjected Darren Wilson to our actual criminal justice system. Even if an acquittal wouldn't make the situation any better than it actually was, it's hard to see how it could have been worse.
You used the word might so I just followed your usage. Ok, so is it "probable" that a crime was committed? Now, the choice the grand jury made was not to indict. Correct me if I am wrong but that could be for one of two reasons. First, Wilson did not shoot Brown. Or two, Wilson do shoot Brown but it was not a crime. We already know Wilson did shoot Brown, he admits it so that leads to reason two, a crime was not committed by Wilson shooting Brown. Maybe there is a third or fourth reason for the grand jury not to indict but these two are the most obvious.
True, it seems you feel that maybe the grand jury shouldn't be determining whether or not Wilson committed a crime but if the grand jury doesn't have that power then why have a grand jury in the first place? If the bar is set so low that all a grand jury does is say "yes, the act was remotely a possible crime" and "this person may remotely be possibly the one who committed the crime" then why have grand jury proceedings in the first place?
mean explains this well too in terms of probability vs. possibility, but here's an alternate explanation from a different angle. A grand jury can determine that a crime wasn't committed, just not that a crime was committed. "Might a crime have been committed" is a yes or no question -- yes, a crime might have been committed, or no, a crime wasn't committed. The problem in this case is that shooting somebody is a crime unless a defense, like self-defense or law enforcement officer's use of force, applies. But defenses are not meant to be presented to grand juries because the applicability of the defense is a matter of law (to be decided by a judge), based on the surrounding facts of the case (to be sorted out by a jury). Clearly the grand jury decided that a crime wasn't committed, but that's because a lot more was presented to them than was supposed to be, and in making their decision based on all that extra stuff, they overstepped their bounds. If this sounds like a violation of arbitrarily drawn legal procedures, it's not, for reasons I already explained in a previous post (which also goes to your next post about grand juries engaging in jury nullification).

As for your final question -- the entire common law world except America has already abolished the grand jury, and in half of states it's no longer used even though it technically still exists. So, indeed, why have grand jury proceedings in the first place?
mean wrote:Sure, there are situations I can imagine where someone gets shot and it is so abundantly obvious that the shooter had no choice that an indictment / trial isn't really necessary, but this isn't that case, regardless of the fact that Wilson probably wouldn't have been convicted.
This is definitely true, and in those cases, the prosecutor would not have sought an indictment in the first place.
beautyfromashes wrote:
phuqueue wrote:To be 100% clear, I don't want anybody to be killed, ever, under any circumstances, but if a few more police officers are killed in the line of duty because they exercised a higher level of caution before employing deadly force, and this higher level of caution saves the lives of people like Tamir Rice, that seems like a worthwhile trade off to me. Police officers willingly go into what they know is a dangerous line of work.
Two NYPD officers killed by a protester over the weekend. I wonder if the police were exercising a 'higher level of caution'. And why are we not requesting the same level of caution from our civic leaders and elected officials.
The officers were, evidently, killed before they even knew what was happening, so they probably weren't exercising any level of caution. Of course cops have a right to defend themselves and I've never argued otherwise -- I've only argued that their right to self-defense should extend only as far as it can without compromising the safety of the public. Blaming this on BdB, Obama, the protesters, or basically anybody else is absurd and obscene. And I've got to run now but if you really want to make a thing of it I'm happy to elaborate more later.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by loftguy »

beautyfromashes wrote:
Two NYPD officers killed by a protester over the weekend. I wonder if the police were exercising a 'higher level of caution'. And why are we not requesting the same level of caution from our civic leaders and elected officials.
I don't have a tv or radio on often. I'm curious if anyone is saying what seems obvious to me? The person who killed these officers was unstable and whatever 'cause' they had doesn't matter. The man was deranged and innocent people died. No more sense can be made of this and the use of such madness in assigning blame and supporting any 'cause' is also a despicable act.

Sharpton's a hustler that diminishes issues that are real and deserving of our attention. Can we just stop giving him air?
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

It's actually funny that akp keeps harping on how "confused" a jury would have been at trial, since confusing the grand jury seems to be exactly what the prosecutor's office set out to do here.
I don't think they would have been confused, I just think a trial jury would have heard or seen the same evidence but would have heard far less testimony from so-called witnesses. If the case went to trial both sides would have vetted their eye witnesses and vetted the other side as much as they could have. In others words more expert testimony on what the physical evidence means.
Grand juries hear a bunch of cases and this one was highly irregular, while the rest of the cases this grand jury heard presumably were not.
Yes, and if I was on the grand jury panel I would have asked and demanded to see more evidence and witnesses, especially given all of the public coverage of the case. And in reading various opinions of how the grand jury was conducted it is not out of the ordinary that prosecutors present "all" of the available evidence when the case involves shootings by the police.
this particular grand jury process went was objectively tipped in Wilson's favor far more than a typical grand jury for a typical defendant
The way I see it Wilson was not a typical defendant. He is/was a police officer and there are statutes that govern the discharge of a weapon that do not apply to typical citizens/defendants. So, if I am on a grand jury hearing 10 shooting cases, 9 involving citizens like me and the 1 remaining I would expect something different.
he lets the defendant testify
It isn't like he "let" him testify, the prosecutor is required to have him testify if the defendant requests it. Now the "softball" questioning is another matter.
the fact remains that the way this particular grand jury process went was objectively tipped in Wilson's favor far more than a typical grand jury for a typical defendant
I'm not sure about being "objectively tipped in Wilson's favor" but I think police officers do have an advantage over typical defendants in that they are the police and many "average" citizens will give them the benefit of the doubt.
The problem in this case is that shooting somebody is a crime unless a defense, like self-defense or law enforcement officer's use of force, applies. But defenses are not meant to be presented to grand juries because the applicability of the defense is a matter of law (to be decided by a judge), based on the surrounding facts of the case (to be sorted out by a jury).
Under normal circumstances I would agree. However since Wilson did testify he can present a defense and there is no way a juror cannot take that into account in determining if a crime occurred or not.
Blaming this on BdB, Obama, the protesters, or basically anybody else is absurd and obscene.
Agreed. Not saying there wasn't an effect but saying putting the blame on them would be like blaming an author of a book for putting ideas into a reader's head and having the reader act on those ideas.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
It's actually funny that akp keeps harping on how "confused" a jury would have been at trial, since confusing the grand jury seems to be exactly what the prosecutor's office set out to do here.
I don't think they would have been confused, I just think a trial jury would have heard or seen the same evidence but would have heard far less testimony from so-called witnesses. If the case went to trial both sides would have vetted their eye witnesses and vetted the other side as much as they could have. In others words more expert testimony on what the physical evidence means.
You literally said that one reason this shouldn't have gone to trial is that if conflicting witness testimony were presented "the prosecutor would be accused of confusing the jury." Of course, the prosecutor did precisely that here, except without the oversight of a judge or opposing counsel to call out his shenanigans (although in this instance, I guess opposing counsel would love the favor McCulloch was doing for their case).
Grand juries hear a bunch of cases and this one was highly irregular, while the rest of the cases this grand jury heard presumably were not.
Yes, and if I was on the grand jury panel I would have asked and demanded to see more evidence and witnesses, especially given all of the public coverage of the case. And in reading various opinions of how the grand jury was conducted it is not out of the ordinary that prosecutors present "all" of the available evidence when the case involves shootings by the police.
I promise you it is extraordinary for prosecutors to present witnesses who they know aren't telling the truth.
this particular grand jury process went was objectively tipped in Wilson's favor far more than a typical grand jury for a typical defendant
The way I see it Wilson was not a typical defendant. He is/was a police officer and there are statutes that govern the discharge of a weapon that do not apply to typical citizens/defendants. So, if I am on a grand jury hearing 10 shooting cases, 9 involving citizens like me and the 1 remaining I would expect something different.
The format of legal proceedings don't change (or at least, are not supposed to change) based on the identity of the defendant. This is a bedrock principle of a fair and impartial legal system.
he lets the defendant testify
It isn't like he "let" him testify, the prosecutor is required to have him testify if the defendant requests it. Now the "softball" questioning is another matter.
A defendant has no right to present his case to a grand jury.
the fact remains that the way this particular grand jury process went was objectively tipped in Wilson's favor far more than a typical grand jury for a typical defendant
I'm not sure about being "objectively tipped in Wilson's favor" but I think police officers do have an advantage over typical defendants in that they are the police and many "average" citizens will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Whether Wilson's status as a police officer already gives him an advantage is a fair question but is separate from the question of whether the extremely unusual proceedings also served to bias the grand jury for Wilson. I think it is impossible to look at the irregularities here and come away thinking it didn't objectively play in Wilson's favor. Maybe you believe that even under ordinary proceedings Wilson wouldn't have been indicted (I disagree, but that's a counterfactual and the arguments depend on making assumptions about how individual grand jurors whose identities we don't even know think, so it's a pointless discussion to get into), but all that means is that tipping the proceedings toward Wilson ultimately didn't matter, it doesn't mean they weren't still tipped toward Wilson.
The problem in this case is that shooting somebody is a crime unless a defense, like self-defense or law enforcement officer's use of force, applies. But defenses are not meant to be presented to grand juries because the applicability of the defense is a matter of law (to be decided by a judge), based on the surrounding facts of the case (to be sorted out by a jury).
Under normal circumstances I would agree. However since Wilson did testify he can present a defense and there is no way a juror cannot take that into account in determining if a crime occurred or not.
For like the millionth god damn time, defenses aren't supposed to be presented to grand juries.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

A defendant has no right to present his case to a grand jury.
For like the millionth god damn time, defenses aren't supposed to be presented to grand juries
Forgive me if I am going on about this but doesn't a defendant's testimony itself present his/her case to the jury?

With regards to the confusion, at a trial the prosecution would, I would believe, narrowed down the number of witnesses to achieve a more uniform story so the jury wouldn't be confused. On the other hand the defense, if it proceeded that far would have been the one to confused
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

Are you splitting hairs on whether "present his case" means the same thing as "testify"? Of course they're the same thing, and as I said, a defendant does not have the right to do whichever wording that you prefer in front of a grand jury. Darren Wilson testified because he was permitted to testify, not because he has an inalienable constitutional right to testify before a grand jury.

Moreover, even accepting that he did testify, the existence of a valid defense is a matter of law that the jury will be instructed on. If the defendant merely claims to have been defending himself, that does not necessarily mean he can validly claim self-defense (or in Wilson's case, lawful use of force by law enforcement). In a real trial, the jury doesn't just hear testimony and shrug and say "hm, that seems reasonable enough." The prosecution and defense will each propose jury instructions to the judge, who will ultimately instruct the jury on the applicable law. The jury then decides, based on the evidence presented, whether the law was violated and whether a defense applies. None of this happens in grand jury proceedings, where there is no judge or opposing counsel. I'm not sure whether the grand jury had Wilson's defenses explicitly explained to them -- which they shouldn't have -- or whether they simply heard Wilson's story and decided he was defending himself and so he shouldn't be indicted -- which they also shouldn't have. It doesn't really matter, because either way, something happened that wasn't supposed to happen.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

First, thank you for these exchanges. They have been beneficial to me in trying to understand the process. Sometimes words used to describe a process are different in practice or may apply to one state and not another. Much like the following. The first quote is yours the second from a previous quote of mine.
Darren Wilson testified because he was permitted to testify, not because he has an inalienable constitutional right to testify before a grand jury.
3-3.6 Request by a Target to Testify
Except as otherwise governed by the law of the jurisdiction, the prosecutor should grant requests by the target of an investigation to testify before the grand jury.
The second quote was from National District Attorneys Association, National Prosecution Standards, Third Edition. I know it says "should" instead of "must" or some other mandatory word but in the spirit of fairness or justice for the defendant is it general practice to grant the request or not? I understand his words shouldn't be taken as gospel but at the same time they will probably have a greater affect on the members of the jury than the testimony of various witnesses that may not be as convincing.

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays if you prefer, and don't concern yourself with this mnatter for a few days.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

Merry Christmas, happy holidays, etc. I'm not sure whether it's general practice to grant a defendant's request to testify because that request isn't made very often in the first place. Defense attorneys also typically advise their clients against testifying because the defendant has no right to have an attorney present during grand jury questioning and the prosecutor is obviously (usually) hostile to the defendant's interests. It wasn't such a bad call for Wilson though in light of the softball questioning he was subjected to.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

To throw a little more gas on the fire: Grand Juror Sues McCulloch, Says He Mischaracterized The Wilson Case
“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”

“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

...

As the grand juror points out in the lawsuit, the Wilson case was handled in a very different manner than other grand juries. Instead of recommending a charge, McCulloch's office presented thousands of pages worth of evidence and testimony before the grand jury. At one point, McCulloch's spokesman characterized the grand jury as co-investigators.

“From [Doe]’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit says.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

I would say so much as been said and written about the grand jury in this case I wouldn't want to hear from just one. Let's hear from all 12. This would shed even more light onto the process. This would be a good case study for the law profession to study.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

From NY Times:
WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his civil rights chief, Vanita Gupta, will have the final say on whether the Justice Department will close the case against the officer, Darren Wilson. But it would be unusual for them to overrule the prosecutors on the case, who are still working on a legal memo explaining their recommendation.
...
The federal investigation did not uncover any facts that differed significantly from the evidence made public by the authorities in Missouri late last year, the law enforcement officials said. To bring federal civil rights charges, the Justice Department would have needed to prove that Officer Wilson had intended to violate Mr. Brown’s rights when he opened fire, and that he had done so willfully — meaning he knew that it was wrong to fire but did so anyway.

The Justice Department plans to release a report explaining its decision, though it is not clear when. Dena Iverson, a department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the case Wednesday.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

Not really a surprise, the feds had a much higher bar to clear than the state.

In related news, another black man, shown on video with his hands up, was shot to death by white cops in New Jersey. CNN breathlessly recounted his history as a bad and dangerous man so I'm sure that'll be the narrative to justify this one too.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

In related news, another black man, shown on video reaching for a gun, was shot to death by a white cop in Muskogee Oklahoma.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by loftguy »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:In related news, another black man, shown on video reaching for a gun, was shot to death by a white cop in Muskogee Oklahoma.

Do you have any sane reason for this post?

You really harsh my buzz.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

Cops defending themselves against someone who is unequivocally armed and dangerous (I haven't read about the incident yet, so I guess I'll take your word for it) isn't related news.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

phuqueue wrote:Not really a surprise, the feds had a much higher bar to clear than the state.

In related news, another black man, shown on video with his hands up, was shot to death by white cops in New Jersey. CNN breathlessly recounted his history as a bad and dangerous man so I'm sure that'll be the narrative to justify this one too.
From what I can tell one of the officers was black (Days) and even knew the man who was shot. And a gun was located in the car. The man shot was also told not to move but he did get out of the car.
Days repeatedly orders the passenger, Jerame Reid, 36, not to move. Days appears to try to prevent Reid from opening the door. But Reid opens the door and appears to get out with his hands up, and in doing so moves closer to Days.

Both officers open fire, killing Reid. At least six shots can be heard.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
phuqueue wrote:Not really a surprise, the feds had a much higher bar to clear than the state.

In related news, another black man, shown on video with his hands up, was shot to death by white cops in New Jersey. CNN breathlessly recounted his history as a bad and dangerous man so I'm sure that'll be the narrative to justify this one too.
From what I can tell one of the officers was black (Days) and even knew the man who was shot. And a gun was located in the car. The man shot was also told not to move but he did get out of the car.
Days repeatedly orders the passenger, Jerame Reid, 36, not to move. Days appears to try to prevent Reid from opening the door. But Reid opens the door and appears to get out with his hands up, and in doing so moves closer to Days.

Both officers open fire, killing Reid. At least six shots can be heard.
So what? It doesn't matter what race the officers are. We've been over this before. It doesn't matter that a gun "was located" in the car -- the police had already confiscated it before they opened fire. He got out of the car after the cops repeatedly accused him of "reaching" for something, which he denied. Cops will always tell you to stay in your car, and you should always stay in your car, but people occasionally get out and most of them aren't killed for it. The man was unarmed and had his hands up. Which sounds kinda familiar.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by FangKC »

Attorney General Holder says he will dismantle Ferguson Police Department if necessary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... necessary/

Do you think the Ferguson Police Department will end up under state control--like that of the St. Louis and Kansas City police departments?
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

No way. Believe StL is returning to local control.

Besides the trouble in that city extends beyond the PD. Just announced, the City Manager has resigned after service for 8 years.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

So now the family has filed it's civil suit. Will be interesting to see how this develops. Go to trial? Settled out-of-court? Defended by city or it's insurance company? Family has said new evidence has come to light.
Post Reply