Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first part is likely true but the second sentence is not proven.
I honestly don't see how anyone, of any race, could have an opinion on this case. There are just not enough facts known. I have no problem with the GJ not indicting, as there are still too many questions, but I don't believe Wilson's testimony is exactly how it happened. I have read the testimony word-for-word and it reads like someone who has had time to compose himself and was coached by police on what to say.
I don't believe that Brown, in the heat of a fight with a police officer, said "here, hold these (cigarillos)." That sure seems like a bunch of BS used to tie Brown to the earlier robbery. I've been in fights. I dropped what I was holding to fight. I didn't hand off what was in my hands to someone else. Anyway, it is very suspicious that he (Wilson) remembers exactly what Brown said at that time and exactly what he handed off (which just so happened to be the items that were allegedly stolen). It sure seems like he was coached, likely by the same Chief who made a point to connect the robbery to the shooting at his press conference.
It's odd, Wilson says he first confronted Brown for walking in the middle of the street, not for being a suspect in a robbery. That doesn't come until later in his (Wilson's) story.
There are just too many questions, too many unreliable witnesses and too many dead suspects. It never should have gone to a grand jury. McCullough knew there was not evidence to indict, yet he sent it to a grand jury anyway so he would not look like the bad guy.
Not enough facts known?
There is a lot more evidence than many murder trials have--- Witnesses only a few feet away present from beginning to end of the incident; several eye witnesses; an audio recording of the shooting. There is only one witness who reported Brown "charged" the officer. Several others say that Brown was staggering toward the officer surrendering.
That's why you have a trial. To sort it out, allow cross-examination of witnesses and defendant, and have a prosecution and a defense.
How are the protests going in other cities? Are they getting out of hand like Ferguson? Our little burg is very quiet, as usual. But then, this area is predominantly white and most of the folks I've spoken to here think Brown had it coming.
Same where I live.
Of course, in my neck of NJ's rural suburbia nobody attacks cops, loots and burns out businesses so to us it's just like watching the chaos that occurs in some third world country.
No metal detectors in schools, bicycles left out at night are there in the morning........you get the picture.
There is a lot more evidence than many murder trials have--- Witnesses only a few feet away present from beginning to end of the incident; several eye witnesses; an audio recording of the shooting. There is only one witness who reported Brown "charged" the officer. Several others say that Brown was staggering toward the officer surrendering.
That's why you have a trial. To sort it out, allow cross-examination of witnesses and defendant, and have a prosecution and a defense.
Several witnesses stated Wilson was yelling at Brown to get down. Brown hadn't listened to any other orders given by Wilson, it wouldn't surprise me if he choose not to listen to that request either.
You only go to trial for a case you are pretty certain you can win, otherwise you waste a bunch of time and money. If it had gone to trial, they would have destroyed Brown, no need to drag a dead boy's name thru the mud just to satisfy the people who can't grasp the concept of physical evidence.
The important data is the physical data. All of the witness testimony varied, there were no two reports that were identical. So the testimony that didn't conflict with the physical evidence would be valued over the testimony that changed from week to week.
One of the witnesses also said that Brown had a gun, and we know that wasn't the case. Another claimed MB wasn't wearing anything on his head. Another one said it was close to 1pm, when it was actually 11:30ish.
I looked at all the evidence for about 4 hours today, and I was sick of it. I don't know how the GJ hung in there for months.
Several witnesses stated Wilson was yelling at Brown to get down. Brown hadn't listened to any other orders given by Wilson, it wouldn't surprise me if he choose not to listen to that request either.
You only go to trial for a case you are pretty certain you can win, otherwise you waste a bunch of time and money. If it had gone to trial, they would have destroyed Brown, no need to drag a dead boy's name thru the mud just to satisfy the people who can't grasp the concept of physical evidence.
The important data is the physical data. All of the witness testimony varied, there were no two reports that were identical. So the testimony that didn't conflict with the physical evidence would be valued over the testimony that changed from week to week.
One of the witnesses also said that Brown had a gun, and we know that wasn't the case. Another claimed MB wasn't wearing anything on his head. Another one said it was close to 1pm, when it was actually 11:30ish.
I looked at all the evidence for about 4 hours today, and I was sick of it. I don't know how the GJ hung in there for months.
Maybe the grand jury was over-whelmed with evidence. As a former federal prosecutor stated:
"when a District Attorney says, in effect, "we'll present the evidence and let the grand jury decide," that's malarkey. If he takes that approach, then he's already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, there's no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and — more importantly — no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown...
Then, when you add to the mix that minorities are notoriously underrepresented on grand juries, you have the potential for nullification — of a grand jury declining to bring charges even when there is sufficient probable cause. That's the real danger to this approach."
The first part is likely true but the second sentence is not proven.
I honestly don't see how anyone, of any race, could have an opinion on this case. There are just not enough facts known. I have no problem with the GJ not indicting, as there are still too many questions, but I don't believe Wilson's testimony is exactly how it happened. I have read the testimony word-for-word and it reads like someone who has had time to compose himself and was coached by police on what to say.
I don't believe that Brown, in the heat of a fight with a police officer, said "here, hold these (cigarillos)." That sure seems like a bunch of BS used to tie Brown to the earlier robbery. I've been in fights. I dropped what I was holding to fight. I didn't hand off what was in my hands to someone else. Anyway, it is very suspicious that he (Wilson) remembers exactly what Brown said at that time and exactly what he handed off (which just so happened to be the items that were allegedly stolen). It sure seems like he was coached, likely by the same Chief who made a point to connect the robbery to the shooting at his press conference.
It's odd, Wilson says he first confronted Brown for walking in the middle of the street, not for being a suspect in a robbery. That doesn't come until later in his (Wilson's) story.
There are just too many questions, too many unreliable witnesses and too many dead suspects. It never should have gone to a grand jury. McCullough knew there was not evidence to indict, yet he sent it to a grand jury anyway so he would not look like the bad guy.
It was proven with blood, DNA, the autopsy and forensic evidence. I'm sure Wilson had an attorney coach him, but every witness and defendant does.
Maybe the grand jury was over-whelmed with evidence. As a former federal prosecutor stated:
"when a District Attorney says, in effect, "we'll present the evidence and let the grand jury decide," that's malarkey. If he takes that approach, then he's already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, there's no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and — more importantly — no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown...
Then, when you add to the mix that minorities are notoriously underrepresented on grand juries, you have the potential for nullification — of a grand jury declining to bring charges even when there is sufficient probable cause. That's the real danger to this approach."
Maybe the grand jury was over-whelmed with evidence. As a former federal prosecutor stated:
"when a District Attorney says, in effect, "we'll present the evidence and let the grand jury decide," that's malarkey. If he takes that approach, then he's already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, there's no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and — more importantly — no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown...
Then, when you add to the mix that minorities are notoriously underrepresented on grand juries, you have the potential for nullification — of a grand jury declining to bring charges even when there is sufficient probable cause. That's the real danger to this approach."
It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If he'd presented less evidence to the GJ, and they'd come to the same conclusion he's have been crucified for withholding evidence.
The D.A.'s job is to make calls on cases based on the evidence and findings from any investigation. If the D.A. knows the guy is guilty, but he can't prove it, then there is no reason to go to court. Can't convict based on hopes and dreams.
For case law examples:
State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony
State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
