Eleven Ferguson Ethics Posts In One!

APTOPIX Police Shooting Missouri

There are too many ethics topics for me to cover adequately as it is. This is frustrating. That the Ferguson Ethics Train Wreck is generating ethics issues on a daily, even hourly basis creates a professional dilemma for me. I don’t want to appear obsessed with this mess; I’m not. I am really quite sick of it, and sick as well—and depressed—by the relentless stream of emotional, incompetent, and toxic opinions issuing from the news media, well-meaning but ignorant friends, and in some cases, professionals who appear overwhelmed by confirmation bias. One of my father’s favorite lines was “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts,” and I doubt that I have ever seen commentary on an event so dominated by that state of mind. Except, perhaps, the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman fiasco.

Allow me, then, to indulge in this compromise, while I wait for the entries in the Ethics Alarm contest to find the most unethical article, essay or blog post about Ferguson. Here are eleven points about the current Ethics Train Wreck that I would devote full posts to if I had the time and we lived in a Hell where Ferguson was the only thing going on. I may write full posts on a few of them yet, but meanwhile, here are shorter summaries that I hope you can use to enlighten some of your friends, relatives and associates afflicted with jerking knees….

1. We keep hearing that Officer Wilson is suspect and not credible because he expresses no remorse, and seems “cold.” This attitude projects the critics’ unjustified conclusions onto Brown, who doesn’t share them and shouldn’t. Why don’t interviewers point this out? If Brown was killed in self-defense, prompted by his own threats to the officer, Wilson shouldn’t be remorseful. Remorse means “deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed.” Wilson only did wrong if he shouldn’t have shot Brown, which is the assumption—an evidence-free assumption—of those who want him tried for murder. As for “cold”: Wilson’s whole life has been turned upside-down because a community and a substantial part of the nation have decided to make him pay the price for insensitive and poorly run police departments over decades and across the country. People are calling him a murderer based on political agendas. He’s supposed to respond to that warmly?

2. On ABC this morning, Jelani Cobb, a professor of African-American studies—and boy, are we learning a lot about the racist biases of that area of scholarship lately—pronounced the testimony of Wilson “fantastical” based on this statement:

“At this point [Wilson says he had fired at the approaching Brown], it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him. And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn’t even there, I wasn’t even anything in his way…

Cobb said this sounded like Wilson was describing action from a super-hero comic. Thus does confirmation bias make a professor stupid, assuming Cobb really believes what he said. Wilson is describing what happened as he experienced it; he says that the large man seemed to steel himself to keep coming despite being wounded, and uses a metaphor. He didn’t literally mean that Brown got bigger. Of course he didn’t. The same kind of criticism has been used regarding Wilson’s description of Brown, while struggling with him in the car, as looking “like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.” Have I ever seen a family member, a friend, an adversary, whose face is so contorted with rage and emotion that I might say that they look “demonic”? Absolutely. The critics who have fastened on to this mere turn of phrase by a man who is not F. Scott Fitzgerald and who cannot be held to exalted standards of expression just show that they are grasping at straws.

3. Very, very few lawyers and prosecutors, of any partisan persuasion, believe that there was sufficient evidence to charge Wilson. The news media, especially cable news, have completely misrepresented that fact. They keep interviewing partisan lawyers and lawyers playing to specific groups they are allied to by ideology. Rudy Guliani, a terrific prosecutor and no racist, has even said that the case shouldn’t have gone to the grand jury. (Rudy knows that such a decision was politically unfeasible. I hope.)

4. Non-lawyers, including a commentator on ABC this morning whom I respect tremendously, keep saying that they don’t understand why the prosecutor didn’t just bring the case to trial. To this I have a problem reacting with anything other than, “ARRRGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!” One pundit—I had the link but lost it, and if someone finds it, submit it to the contest—actually wrote that Wilson should have been tried even though he couldn’t be convicted!


I am looking at Prosecutorial Ethics (Second Edition), by R. Michael Cassidy. It is not a radical tome. Right here on page 13, it says that The NDAA Standards and the ABA Criminal Justice Standards state “that a prosecutor should not commence a criminal prosecution unless the prosecutor expects that that there will sufficient admissible evidence to convict the defendant.” The U.S. Attorney’s Manual takes a slightly different approach: it says that there should be no charge unless “the prosecutor reasonably believes that an unbiased finder of fact will be able to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Under either of these standards, Wilson could not be ethically charged. Got that? Everybody? It would be unethical for Wilson to just be charged to try to make the lynch mob happy, which is really what it would be. Cornel West, another former African-American Studies professor, at Harvard and Princeton, and now a full-time rabble-rouser, said recently that the proof of systemic racism in the Brown shooting was that any time Americans kill anyone, they are tried for murder, and should be. He’s a professor? He sure isn’t a lawyer; he doesn’t even watch enough lawyer TV shows. (On this and some other topics in this post, this article is relevant and helpful—and correct.

5.  Passionate people are just irrationally certain what is right here based on internet memes and what they see on MSNBC, and I have no idea how to ethically deal with them. They say “The system is broken!” I say, “A broken system would be one where we charge a white cop with murder without evidence because the civil rights establishment picked the incident to make a stand based on bad facts and the representations of the victim’s parents.” They say, “The prosecutor set out to let the cop go! He’s supposed to seek an indictment!” I say: “You don’t know what you are talking about. Grand juries can be used as neutral investigative bodies. The prosecutor used the grand jury in this case to back up what would have been his decision if people weren’t demanding a prosecution. That was the right course.” They say, “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich!” (Judge Wachler’s famous quip.) I say, “That was criticism, not the description of just process. Do you realize you are arguing for over-zealous prosecution of the sort that gets innocent people sent to jail? I was a prosecutor. I studied prosecution ethics. I was a defense attorney. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” They say, “You are part of the broken system then. Why don’t you stop taking your opinions from Fox news?”

And it takes everything in my being not to say, usually to a friend: “You are a biased, ignorant, dangerous fool. Shut up and learn something: you don’t have a leg to stand on ethically, factually, or legally, and fuck you, asshole, for the Fox News cheap shot. If they happen to agree with me, it’s because they happened to avoid the anti-cop, race-baiting biases infecting you and much of the media. I don’t take my views from anyone, ass, and I had no bias in this case at all, except the bias against pre-judging a case and assuming a public servant is a racist killer based on twisted facts and the color of his skin.”

6. The repeated argument that Wilson should have tried to wound or use non-deadly force if Brown was charging him is another theme that should have been shut down by competent journalists immediately. Police are trained to stop assailants, armed or unarmed, by firing at their center. It is estimated that only 20% of police shots hit their targets. The second-guessing is arrogance, irresponsible and disrespectful: police have a dangerous job, and activists who have never faced similar threats in their life are telling an imperiled officer and his profession what the correct response should be. I am certain that one of the results of this shooting will be that police departments will be under pressure to put in place policies mandating non-lethal responses when an enraged 300 pound man is charging. Officers will die as a result.

7. On the Legal Ethics Forum, one of the giants of the legal ethics field, Monroe Freedman, has argued that McCulluch had a conflict of interest:

“McCulloch’s most serious ethical violation, which was his conflict of interest in participating in the indictment of a police officer in his own jurisdiction.  An unethical conflict of interest occurs when there is a risk that the lawyer’s representation of a client will be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or by the lawyer’s duties to a current client, a former client, or a third person.  The forbidden conflict of interest exists even though it’s not probable that any adverse effect will in fact occur.  Therefore, there’s an unethical conflict of interest when a prosecutor participates in the indictment of a police officer in his or her own jurisdiction, because the prosecutor has a personal and professional need to maintain good relations with the police, who have been known to publicly threaten not to cooperate with a prosecutor thereafter if a fellow officer is indicted.  A prosecutor in that position should therefore obtain the appointment of a special prosecutor who does not herself have a conflict of interest.”

Some agree with him. I sure don’t. Freedman was one of the prominent critics of Angela Corey, the Special Prosecutor appointed to decide if George Zimmerman should be prosecuted. The evidence wasn’t there: she prosecuted anyway, dictating a virtual show trial. That’s the likely result with a special prosecutor. Freedman’s conflict of interest doesn’t exist: the client (the government, on behalf of the public) has waived it, and the prosecutor reasonably believes that it will not result in a failure to do his job fairly.) The imagined conflict, it seems to me, would prevent any prosecutor from handling any case in which the police were involved, which is to say, most of them.

8. Another commentator in the same thread, the professor, legal ethicist and text-book author Richard Zitrin says

“I actually have no problem with an “all-the-evidence” grand jury – IF it were afforded anyone. To be as precise as I can be after some deliberation, the unethical behavior (setting aside the conflicts issue) is not in presenting all the evidence and the GJ not indicting. It’s NOT presenting all the evidence in the routine cases.”

As with Monroe, my credentials in the field can’t approach Prof. Zitrin, whose text book I used in my own ethics course one year. This statement, however, is ethically off-kilter. He is arguing that the prosecutor’s approach to Wilson’s grand jury wasn’t a bad one, but since it is not typical, then it is unethical. In other words, it is unethical to use a more ethical procedure with a cop than the prosecutor uses with a non-cop. First of all, that’s not the right comparison. The comparison should be between potential prosecutions where there may not be sufficient cause to charge but the public and media are demanding a charge anyway—as with George Zimmerman. That is when the grand jury should be used as it was in Wilson’s case. If it is not, then the ethical response is to develop a policy where it would be, not to refuse to employ the grand jury ethically in Wilson’s case, because he’s a cop. Prof. Zitrin seems to say that it is better that everyone be treated unjustly than for a cop to be treated more justly than a typical citizen. The injustice in the latter case is ethically addressed by applying the more ethical practice to everyone else.

9. Zitrin also says, “To put it plainly, Mike Brown would have been indicted in a heartbeat had this thing gone the other way, no matter how equivocal the evidence.” I have heard and read this a lot, from commentators far less persuasive and credentialed than the Professor. With due respect, I think it’s a cheap shot. What does he mean, “if the thing had gone the other way?” If Brown, without provocation, had been charged by a 400 pound cop and shot him with a legal firearm? Or does he mean if Brown had used deadly force on another citizen who outweighed him by 100 pounds, had previously attacked him, and was charging? I researched the latter cases when I was an interning appellate attorney for Boston’s public defenders, and it is often found to be legitimate self-defense. The fact that the shooter is a cop, meanwhile, does make a material difference, and ought to.

10. It seems clear that the fact that Brown’s body was left in the street for four hours did much to inflame this situation, and was taken as signature significance that the police did not respect black citizens.

Two points  on that:

  • Again, confirmation bias at work. I think Hanlon’s Razor applies: the decision was insensitive, incompetent and stupid, but one should not presume malice. However, in this case I can’t blame any African- American who sees malice in it.
  • The fact that Brown was left on the street should not have any bearing on Wilson, his motives in shooting, or whether he should have been prosecuted.

11. Finally, the protests, especially with the facts as they are (and not as the protesters and activists pretend them to be) are unethical, and the further removed from Ferguson they are, the more unethical they are. Review the Ethics Alarms Protest Ethics Check List. Brown protesters stormed Seattle’s Westlake Mall on Black Friday, terrifying a group of young carolers and wrecking their performance. Did they deserve to be punished for the failure to prosecute Wilson, a decision that I guarantee none of the protesters knew enough about to discuss competently? Protest leader Marissa Johnson defended the action, telling the news media that “America goes where their pocketbook goes, so today we’re blocking Black Friday. We want you to be uncomfortable shopping.” She and her group also attempted to disrupt a tree-lighting ceremony, got the the mall to shut down four hours early on the busiest shopping day of the year, inconveniencing Seattle shoppers, especially poorer citizens who depend on sales, and the store owners. This kind of protest has all the purpose and expository value of a scream or a grunt. Punishing innocent party A because you are angry about the conduct of party B thousands of miles away in a different city and state is unjust, unfair, and despicable…more so in this instance, when the precipitating incident neither fits the protesters’ complaints nor is understood by those protesting.

UPDATE: On the unethical protest front, five members of the NFL’s St.Louis Rams decided to throw gasoline on the fire by coming onto the field in Sunday’s game against the Oakland Raiders with their hands raised. Unless they read the grand jury testimony and somehow found credible evidence that wasn’t there, their conduct was irresponsible. “Supporters of Brown have maintained that he had his hands up and was surrendering when Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed him,” says the MSNBC story, uncritically. Yes, they have maintained that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because they hitched their outrage to a dud. Fans did not pay premium prices to watch Rams players engage in political protests based on lies and mythology.


Sources: The Blaze,  Mediaite, Legal Ethics Forum, PoliceOne, St. Louis Today


34 thoughts on “Eleven Ferguson Ethics Posts In One!

  1. Having been the Foreman of a local grand Jury I can attest that not all cases involving low income or persons of color end up with an indictment. We turned back several efforts to prosecute based on what we (a group of all whites) determined to be insufficient evidence. The system is not broken unless we (Citizens) who serve on Grand Juries let our emotions cloud our judgment in whether or not to bring charges. Obviously, this Grand Jury did not and I applaud them.

    There is a reason for Grand Jury deliberations to be secret because an indictment suggests potential guilt and that any person brought before us deserves anonymity until a group of citizens hear the prosecution’s evidence. As citizen Grand Jurors we had the ability to question the assumptions and methodology used for seeking charges by the police and the prosecutor.

    While it may be helpful to have both sides present their cases, the purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine probable cause as determined by tests of reasonableness by lay citizens – it is not to determine guilt or innocence.

    I believe that the prosecutor chose to provide every bit of evidence to prevent the accusation that the procedure was biased either way. Had McCullough presented only evidence that would have indicted the officer to calm the community it is equally likely that many would have seen this as pandering to the mob.

    The point is, for all those clamoring for an indictment, had the Grand Jury indicted the officer when a conviction could not have been obtained and then the officer is acquitted rightfully by citizen jurors, would you be as incensed as you are when the citizenry – not the government – decides not to indict? Personally I believe a wrongful indictment simply to placate a group will result in even more anger when an acquittal occurs because the wrongful indictment would be used to reinforce the belief of actual guilt when no guilt ever existed.

  2. When it comes to Grand juries, does the prosecutor only present evidence in cases that he or she believes the accused is guilty? Chris, was this your experience?

    • As I said, if the prosecutor has concluded that the accused isn’t guilty, the prosecutor doesn’t bring charges. Period. To do otherwise would be unethical.

      That means he also doesn’t bring the case to the grand jury. In this case, the prosecutor had no choice: people, politicians, family and activists made a decision not to prosecute politically impossible, so he presented the evidence that he had assessed to the grand jury to assess as well.

    • Sharon:
      In my experience the prosecution presented the facts as it knows them. If they did not believe that they had a case they would not seek charges. It was our job to discern whether or not we the citizens believed that sufficient evidence was presented by the state to level charges against an individual. I can attest that no one on that Grand Jury ever preferred charges on an individual if the state’s case was simply circumstantial and never did we consider the accused’s race as a factor. When charges were preferred we felt that the state had made a compelling case with objective evidence that case should be tried in court.

      In several cases, the states attorney pulled cases from our docket for reasons not shared with us. I can only assume that the prosecutor came into information that was exculpatory or that the witnesses they had were later found to be less than reliable. In any event, we did not get address those cases which indicates to me that the prosecutor felt the case could not be reasonably expected to achieve a successful prosecution. This is exactly what Jack is saying.

      What I was trying to point out is that the Grand Jury is not a trier of fact and goes only by what the state presents. As a result, an indictment is merely the reflection of a one sided case but unfortunately it is often assumed to mean to many in the public that sufficient evidence exists to obtain a conviction. Had the Grand Jury returned an indictment based on emotion or due to fear of reprisals and not the facts then many would automatically assume that their is some evidence of guilt because of the indictment. When the conviction does not occur because of no real wrongdoing then those same people would be more outraged and they would then use the bogus indictment as prima facie evidence of actual wrongdoing. This would be a travesty of justice.

      The most significant ethical issue I have is that the very group that complains of racial profiling is doing exactly the same thing when they claim that the white police officers and prosecutors are corrupt. Exactly how is that different than the claim of walking while black.

  3. I’m really torn about whether to make this comment or not…I have just about had a belly full of Ferguson. There is no reason that I can see for continued protests, there is no reason for an arrest, there is no reason for a trial. What there is, is an unsubstantiated claim of bias, both on the part of Officer Wilson and white people in general. Commenters on this site point to a large percentage of blacks being arrested and ask why. The answer is simple…a large percentage of crimes are committed by black people. They point to a large percentage of blacks being shot by police and ask why. Ask a Chicago cop, or a victim in Chicago. You’ll get an answer you won’t like, but it’ll be true. Certainly a lot more true than blaming the white’s for the black cultures short-comings.

    I really hope I don’t sound like one of the chimpmania’s idiots, but your culture is what YOU make of it. If a disproportionate number of you break the law, expect a disproportionate number of arrests.

    • I’m just sick of these protests and violence too. Any legitimacy went bye-bye when they started burning people’s homes and businesses because of their generalized hate. They are duplicating the mobs and lynching behaviors of a century ago in the ‘opposite’ direction.

      And disrupting a free concert, most likely by kids who have nothing to do with any institution abuse? I’m giving them a grinch award for showing a total lack of balance and fairness.

      • It isn’t the ‘opposite’ direction. It is bizzaro direction. These people claim they are protesting ‘racism’ by destroying a town that is ~70% black. On top of that, they aren’t destroying the ‘white’ parts of town, either. This is like a stereotypical racist lynch mob, up in arms over the actions of some black resident, hanging a random white person to make their point.

        • I thought opposite because they want to lynch and destroy a white man. A mob is mindless and those directing this must be getting off on the power. They’re all nuts, and not in a fun way.

  4. “Zitrin also says, ‘To put it plainly, Mike Brown would have been indicted in a heartbeat had this thing gone the other way, no matter how equivocal the evidence.’ …What does he mean, ‘if the thing had gone the other way?’”

    I think he meant (not at all plainly) that if Brown had successfully overpowered Wilson and either beat him severely or disarmed him and shot him dead with his own service weapon, “Brown would have been indicted in a heartbeat” “no matter how equivocal the evidence” because it would have been a white victim and a black offender, and that always (doesn’t everyone know this?) results in a grand jury indictment, regardless of whether the evidence meets the probable cause standard. To which I reply, based on 40 years as an officer, investigator, field commander and administrator, “Bullshit!”

  5. I’m all for keeping emotions and reasoning separate, or integrated with care. Please may I try an experiment? Consider the emotions first, give them their full respect. Understand them, then move forward to an examination of the ethical princples afterwards. Not coldly or ruthlessly, but with the knowledge that one had taken care of the human beings first and points of logic second.

    The point of public debate has come to mean for me, the attempt to form a consensus view from which a population can be confidently governed and a means by which that entire populatiion can participate in government. Even if the attempt fails, the effort should strengthen what unites us, not what divides us. Let’s put Jack’s agonies over this,, and all the agonies expressed, first.

    I think it might be agreed that all citizens as moral agents, attempting to adjust their behaviour according to what is good and bad in conduct in their own eyes, is agonised by this case and what it has thrown up.

    If so it might also be agreed that consideration of the case should take place some time after the incident. And that in the meantime steps should be taken to reduce the fervour by deliberate intervention of the court and political system in its capacity for taking the emotional initiative.

    For example a population can be asked to join an effort to establish what the important questions are, rather than what the answer is to every baiting and counterbaiting question imaginable. ‘How angry must a man be before that man will lose his grip on his free will and reason so as to charge at a policeman without regard to his safety or the officer’s perceptions?’ might be one of those questions. ‘How angry must a population be before it inflicts hurt on itself to get some attention?’ might be another. ‘What can and cannot be established in reason about the causes of such anger if any?’ might be a third.

    In the UK a famous riot broke out in Brixton in London near where I lived. The government chose to appoint Lord Scarman to enquire. One of the most healing sights in the press, directly after, included photographic and televisual coverage of this venerable member of the establishment walking the streets, asking questions, being shocked at what he was told. Attending carefully to what he said and how he said it. Showing he was unafraid. Whatever the merits and emerits of his report, he earned trust. Ethically that is important I think.

    For the powers-that-be to find some way to show that they give a damn, seems to me the only possible smart ethical move at the moment. Any other word or act including silence and stillness will only raise the rage.

    As for those who pour fire on flames they could and should be asked to justiy their conduct as moral agents, that is to explain a code of morals that regards riot in a democracy to be legitimate protest.

  6. #6: Firing in self-defense is NEVER to kill, nor is it ever to wound, nor is it to scare away. Shooting in self-defense, just like all other actions taken in self-defense are to STOP THE ASSAILANT. It is luck whether or not the assailant ends up dead, only wounded, or completely missed but run away. This is why the law is written that if any action taken to stop an assailant ends up with the assailant dying, the self-defender is protected IF the self-defender’s life was threatened (property also, in some states) AND the actions taken didn’t injure a non-involved party.

    The law isn’t written to say “you can kill whoever you want if they actually take action threatening your life”.

    The other meme anti-self-defense types like to drum out is “self-defense laws empower citizens to be judge, jury and executioner before a crime is even committed”. I honestly don’t know how to argue against that statement since it is so devoid of reason.

    • The other meme anti-self-defense types like to drum out is “self-defense laws empower citizens to be judge, jury and executioner before a crime is even committed”. I honestly don’t know how to argue against that statement since it is so devoid of reason.

      Who has actually argued that?

        • I hear that from time to time, too. “What makes you/them a judge, jury and executioner?”. The basis of that narrative seems to be that violent criminals have unlimited right to due process, and that there is no such thing as a valid defense (of self or others) scenario.

          The counter argument would be that, for the duration of a violent act, the perp essentially suspends their right to due process. Due process is limited to those suspects who surrender peacefully.

          • Or should it be considered that part of “Due Process” is during commission of a crime necessary force may be applied to stop the commission of that crime, and that various cultures differ in how much force is acceptable and who do we allow to apply that force?

            With American systems tending to lean towards more force in protecting the innocent and their property as well as lean towards relying on empowered citizens to protect their own innocence and property as opposed to more Leftists systems that limit force or relegate it to a central authority upon whom stranded subjects must rely for succor in time of dire need.

            • ‘Or should it be considered that part of “Due Process” is during commission of a crime necessary force may be applied to stop the commission of that crime, and that various cultures differ in how much force is acceptable and who do we allow to apply that force?”

              That is a good point. However, they almost ALWAYS say “judge, jury and executioner” which indicates that if someone is shooting up the mall, we need to bring in a judge, 12 jurors, and a possible executioner (all the while allowing the rampage to proceed, because the guy might be innocent for some reason) to decide what to do about the crime in progress. This is over the top stupid, of course, as taken to its logical conclusion you would never use force against anyone for any reason, but that is what they are trying to promote.

          • “I would like a link to such a comment in such a forum.”

            I was going to say, do your own research, but I will do you a favor: Google “Judge Jury Executioner Michael Brown” and you will come up with a TON of hits.

            Race baiting Icon Jessie Jackson had this to say:

            ““It seems to me that the police act as judge, jury and executioner and even on the worse scenario, if [Brown] hit [Wilson] on the face, does that require, at a distance … does that mean you shoot him six times? Four times at point-blank range? I don’t think so,” Jackson said on “Fox News Sunday.”

            Its like looking for snow. In Vermont. In January. Not too difficult.

            • Jackson’s comments are, again, unbelievably ignorant about police work and the use of firearms (the six shots…ugh. Brown kept coming, and that’s not unusual, either). But his is a predominant view.

              • You would think that a 9MM had roughly the same stopping power as a 105 Howitzer, wouldn’t you? I believe that people who make this argument are so busy hating guns, they never bother to learn anything about them. FYI, a 9MM slug is somewhere between a .32 and a .38 slug, and has just about enough powder to get it out of the barrel. If you want to stop somebody first time, every time, I’d go with a .45 ACP, a .44 magnum or .357 magnum, but use both hands, because all three kick like a Missouri mule.

  7. On #8, I don’t see a contradiction between your position and Zitrin’s. It may be a matter of emphasis, or resources, but both of you argue that Wilson’s indictment would be unjust; where he goes further is by asking that everyone be afforded a GJ with both sides’ evidence presented. Not necessarily unethical, but quite possibly unrealistic.

  8. Regarding #7,

    Bloomberg interviews Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter who thinks the prosecutor is biased because his father, a police officer, was killed in the line of duty.

    ‘One of the All-Time Dumbest Public Policy Decisions’
    Nov 25, 2014 11:57 PM CET
    Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter breaks down prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s handling of the Ferguson grand jury process.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.