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.
Why would any of the witnesses lie? They think they saw something that they didn't. To be fair, each side has it's own crazy witnesses. Like this lady from that article that came out on November 26.
"One woman who had posted racist material online, and was raising money for first responders in support of Wilson, told authorities that she had made a wrong turn on to Canfield and had seen the shooting.
She insisted Brown had charged Wilson as if he had been playing football. The grand jury heard a recording of an FBI agent telling her that her car was not seen in videos, and said the route through Canfield she described did not make sense. She testified she had gotten most of her information from the Internet"
Then there is a few like this;
Under questioning from prosecutors and grand jurors, some witnesses confessed to poor sight, hearing or memory, or acknowledged criminal histories. Some admitted in subsequent contacts with authorities, or the grand jury, that they had filled in gaps in their accounts with bits of information gleaned from friends or the news. One admitted she lied in statements to federal investigators because she wanted to be “a part of something.”
Many witnesses just go along with the popular sentiment. Happened on both sides. That's why the GJ used physical evidence, forensics, you know that science (that liberals love so much when it comes to climate change) to assist in the decision making.
You keep cherry picking the ones you want and I'll cherry pick the ones I want. We have that luxury but a GJ has to look at all of the evidence. They even got to hear Dorian Johnsons testimony that he gave the FBI on Augsut 13th. Something that we cannot hear.
They looked at everything, and made a decision. You don't agree with it, oh well. Win some you lose some.
That's just it though. Normally the D.A. excludes questionable witnesses from the grand jury procedure right from the start. The prosecutors go in with their strongest evidence, against the accused, not the victim. It's usually done in a day. Throwing a bunch of garbage at the jurors was guaranteed to confuse them, and make it difficult for them to come to any sort of sound conclusion.
Also, the fact still remains. There was no reason for Officer Wilson to keep chasing the retreating Brown, even if they had had an altercation at the car. Wilson admitted to a fellow police officer immediately after the incident that he had no knowledge of the stolen cigarellos. So he was basically hassling the young men for walking in the middle of the road to begin with.
Even if there was an altercation at the car, by the time Brown had run 150 feet from the officer's car, he was in no way a threat to the officer's life. At that point, the officer should have waited for back-up to arrive, which they did moments later.
That's just it though. Normally the D.A. excludes questionable witnesses from the grand jury procedure right from the start. The prosecutors go in with their strongest evidence. It's usually done in a day. Throwing a bunch of garbage at the jurors was guaranteed to confuse them, and make it difficult for them to come to any sort of sound conclusion.
Also, the fact still remains. There was no reason for Officer Wilson to keep chasing the retreating Brown, even if they had had an altercation at the car. Wilson admitted to a fellow police officer immediately after the incident that he had no knowledge of the stolen cigarellos. So he was basically hassling the young men for walking in the middle of the road to begin with.
Even if there was an altercation at the car, by the time Brown had run 150 feet from the officer's car, he was in no way a threat to the officer's life. At that point, the officer should have waited for back-up to arrive, which they did moments later.
Your posts are just....
Ridiculous...
Why do you ignore everything and cherry pick? All of this has been VETTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI, EVERYONE....
You are the only one to reach these wild conclusions....
That's just it though. Normally the D.A. excludes questionable witnesses from the grand jury procedure right from the start. The prosecutors go in with their strongest evidence. It's usually done in a day. Throwing a bunch of garbage at the jurors was guaranteed to confuse them, and make it difficult for them to come to any sort of sound conclusion.
Also, the fact still remains. There was no reason for Officer Wilson to keep chasing the retreating Brown, even if they had had an altercation at the car. Wilson admitted to a fellow police officer immediately after the incident that he had no knowledge of the stolen cigarellos. So he was basically hassling the young men for walking in the middle of the road to begin with.
Even if there was an altercation at the car, by the time Brown had run 150 feet from the officer's car, he was in no way a threat to the officer's life. At that point, the officer should have waited for back-up to arrive, which they did moments later.
Or he could do his job and make an effort to apprehend an unarmed suspect that just assaulted him and tried to take his gun.
It's just a decision. A split second decision. It's easy to look back on our decisions afterword and make judgements. In this instance looking back, it's a no brainer, there is no evidence that he broke the law.
Also, it sounds like you are calling all the good people on the Grand Jury to stupid to wade through witness testimony and decide for themselves who seems credible and who is not.
Can you imagine guaranteed outrage if the DA decided not to indict all by himself instead of giving this to a grand jury?
Or he could do his job and make an effort to apprehend an unarmed suspect that just assaulted him and tried to take his gun.
It's just a decision. A split second decision. It's easy to look back on our decisions afterword and make judgements. In this instance looking back, it's a no brainer, there is no evidence that he broke the law.
Also, it sounds like you are calling all the good people on the Grand Jury to stupid to wade through witness testimony and decide for themselves who seems credible and who is not.
Can you imagine guaranteed outrage if the DA decided not to indict all by himself instead of giving this to a grand jury?
And your acting like the GJ is an end all, be all to what actually happened.
With that reasoning you think OJ is innocent and that Casey Anthony should go free.
How about you build an argument for yourself instead of cherry picking others. What do YOU think happened at the car since your so sure that you know every detail.
That's just it though. Normally the D.A. excludes questionable witnesses from the grand jury procedure right from the start. The prosecutors go in with their strongest evidence, against the accused, not the victim. It's usually done in a day. Throwing a bunch of garbage at the jurors was guaranteed to confuse them, and make it difficult for them to come to any sort of sound conclusion.
Also, the fact still remains. There was no reason for Officer Wilson to keep chasing the retreating Brown, even if they had had an altercation at the car. Wilson admitted to a fellow police officer immediately after the incident that he had no knowledge of the stolen cigarellos. So he was basically hassling the young men for walking in the middle of the road to begin with.
Even if there was an altercation at the car, by the time Brown had run 150 feet from the officer's car, he was in no way a threat to the officer's life. At that point, the officer should have waited for back-up to arrive, which they did moments later.
Let’s start with the evidence presented to the GJ. IF as you suggest here, the DA had ONLY gone with the solid evidence instead of EVERYTHING. It would have been over in about 3 hours with the GJ asking the DA why in the world where they wasting their time.
If the DA had just gone with the evidence that was backed up by the forensics, this would have been a 5 minute no-bill.
Then you would be screaming to high heaven why they didn’t present evidence from the others... .The others whose stories (like Dorian Johnsons) that didn’t match the physical evidence.
In the end here are the facts of the case.
2 guys were j-walking down the middle of the road.
A cop comes along and tells them to get out of the middle of the road.
An argument ensues.
At some point one of the j-walkers (Brown) and tries to get his hands on the officer’s gun. The gun goes off.
Now we have resisting, assault and battery and possibly attempted murder of a police officer...
Brown flees
The officer does what he is supposed to do in such cases. He pursues.
The police officer engages the assailant. (Brown)
Brown charged the police officer.
Officer fired at the charging Brown.
Brown stops
Officer stops firing.
Brown charges again
Officer fires more
Brown is hit in the head and falls to the ground.
Officer stops firing.
This one is not bad cop good kid.
This one is good cop bad kid.
The only reason this is even in the public arena is democrats found a good case they knew most white folk would side with the police over and most black folk could be persuaded to side with the dead kid.
Let’s start with the evidence presented to the GJ. IF as you suggest here, the DA had ONLY gone with the solid evidence instead of EVERYTHING. It would have been over in about 3 hours with the GJ asking the DA why in the world where they wasting their time.
If the DA had just gone with the evidence that was backed up by the forensics, this would have been a 5 minute no-bill.
Then you would be screaming to high heaven why they didn’t present evidence from the others... .The others whose stories (like Dorian Johnsons) that didn’t match the physical evidence.
In the end here are the facts of the case.
2 guys were j-walking down the middle of the road.
A cop comes along and tells them to get out of the middle of the road.
An argument ensues.
At some point one of the j-walkers (Brown) and tries to get his hands on the officer’s gun. The gun goes off.
Now we have resisting, assault and battery and possibly attempted murder of a police officer...
Brown flees
The officer does what he is supposed to do in such cases. He pursues.
The police officer engages the assailant. (Brown)
Brown charged the police officer.
Officer fired at the charging Brown.
Brown stops
Officer stops firing.
Brown charges again
Officer fires more
Brown is hit in the head and falls to the ground.
Officer stops firing.
This one is not bad cop good kid.
This one is good cop bad kid.
The only reason this is even in the public arena is democrats found a good case they knew most white folk would side with the police over and most black folk could be persuaded to side with the dead kid.
I didn't know you were there.
The reason this case blew up nationwide is because of so many witnesses going to social media and telling their story. Then the Police response to the protests, and finally the MSM covering the situation after being forced to by Indie news sites and social media outcry.
The reason this case blew up nationwide is because of so many witnesses going to social media and telling their story. Then the Police response to the protests, and finally the MSM covering the situation after being forced to by Indie news sites and social media outcry.
At least get your facts straight.
"The reason this case blew up nationwide is because of so many witnesses going to social media and telling A story"
The reason this case blew up nationwide is because of so many witnesses going to social media and telling their story. Then the Police response to the protests, and finally the MSM covering the situation after being forced to by Indie news sites and social media outcry.
At least get your facts straight.
bull. this was a non story. the media and our president who met with Al Sharpton god only knows how many times kept this stired up.
The facts are CLEAR. this was done to stirr up the community and make white folk distrust "violent blacks"
it was done to keep racial tension up. Mike Brown was a bad guy who did a bad thing and died because of it. but it was convienient and gave the powers that be ammo to stirr the pot.
They played on very real fears by black people. Blacks are stopped more often, shot more often and treated unfairly more often by the police. thats an absolute fact.
White people dont understand that unless they have spent time (i mean real time) with the people who are in that situation.
But whites are going to look at a shooting differently. Obama and the team know that. In this case there was no way most white people were going to buy that Brown was gunned down by a racist cop. But when the president and the ATTY GEN speak... well black people are going to listen. add Al Sharpton to the mix and its a powerder keg.
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.
