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.
Correct, but it is consistent with Wilson's version of events.
Says you. Any forensic scientists or others actually, you know, qualified to make that determination agree with you? Even if you're right, and Wilson is remembering the assault to be worse than it was, what's your point? You agree he was assaulted and punched in the face - you're just quibbling about how badly he was beaten.
Again, consistent with Wilson's testimony. Doesn't prove his version is correct, but it's consistent with his story.
No, but it supports the claim that he did. Are you noticing a pattern here?
It. Doesn't. Need. To. That's the whole point! The proof needs to go the other direction - proving he's guilty. There is no requirement to prove his innocence.
Yes, you "disputed" all those points. I've shown you above why/how you're wrong.
The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt. It is simply to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. It is not a trial.
It is HIGHLY unusual, nearly unheard of, for the accused, in this case Officer Wilson, to be able to spend 4 hours testifying to the grand jury. That is highly prejudicial, and it was the prosecutor's call. Most defense attorneys that I've seen interviewed have said that in their entire careers they were NEVER allowed the luxury of having their client, the accused, present his story to a grand jury.
Questionable witnesses or conflicting testimony is rarely presented to a grand jury. The prosecutor takes the evidence that a crime may have been convicted, his strongest credible witnesses against the accused, and gets an indictment. It is in the trial, that a defense attorney can then present an alternative version of events in favor of the accused. That's a purpose of a trial, not a grand jury.
There were something like 11,000 federal trials in the U.S. last year. In only about 11 of them, did a grand jury fail to vote to indict, i.e. to go to trial. These were federal; this was state--but you get the point.
It's in a trial that everything is supposed to be sorted out, and both sides, the victim, and the accused are represented. The victim, by the way, of course, is represented by the D.A.'s office, by the state, because he is dead and does not have a voice ---in this case, it was so obvious that the D.A. was biased.
By the way, in the entire U.S. grand juries are far less likely to indict a police officer than they do the average citizen--as recent events have made painfully clear. Cops may be just doing a job, but that doesn't mean some of them do not cross the line, and are murderers.
The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt. It is simply to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. It is not a trial.
What about my posts would lead you to believe I didn't know that? Gtownoe's entire thread of discussion in here is not about the GJ, specifically, but about Wilson's guilt/innocence in general - or did you miss him trying (and failing) to play Johnny Cochran at every turn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
It is HIGHLY unusual for the accused, nearly unheard of, for the accused, in this case Officer Wilson, to be able to spend 4 hours testifying to the grand jury. That is highly prejudicial, and it was the prosecutor's call. Questionable witnesses or conflicting testimony is rarely presented to a grand jury. The prosecutor takes the evidence that a crime may have been convicted, his strongest credible witnesses against the accused, and gets an indictment. It is in the trial, that a defense attorney can then present an alternative version of events in favor of the accused. That's a purpose of a trial, not a grand jury.
Yep, I have never claimed the GJ proceedings were typical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
There were something like 11,000 federal trials in the U.S. last year. In only about 11 of them, did a grand jury fail to vote to indict, i.e. to go to trial. These were federal; this was state--but you get the point.
And? If this had gone to trial, the result would have been exactly the same. Would you be satisfied then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
It's in a trial that everything is supposed to be sorted out, and both sides, the victim, and the accused are represented. The victim, by the way, of course, is represented by the D.A.'s office, by the state, because he is dead and does not have a voice ---in this case, it was so obvious that the D.A. was biased.
It was also obvious - to anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear - that this case was going nowhere near a conviction, GJ indictment or no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
By the way, in the entire U.S. grand juries are far less likely to indict a police officer than they do the average citizen.
In the never ending saga of how many eye-roll smilies can I use in one post ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt. It is simply to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. It is not a trial.
And the outcome was ... not enough evidence to indict. Shocking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
It is HIGHLY unusual, nearly unheard of, for the accused, in this case Officer Wilson, to be able to spend 4 hours testifying to the grand jury. That is highly prejudicial, and it was the prosecutor's call. Most defense attorneys that I've seen interviewed have said that in their entire careers they were NEVER allowed the luxury of having their client, the accused, present his story to a grand jury.
And if he hadn't have testified, I'm quite positive you would be in here saying, "Wilson is obviously guilty. Why wouldn't he speak to the GJ? What is he so afraid of?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Questionable witnesses or conflicting testimony is rarely presented to a grand jury. The prosecutor takes the evidence that a crime may have been convicted, his strongest credible witnesses against the accused, and gets an indictment. It is in the trial, that a defense attorney can then present an alternative version of events in favor of the accused. That's a purpose of a trial, not a grand jury.
And the purpose of a prosecutor is not to send as many people to jail as possible - it's to seek the truth.
It's become quite obvious that this case was a turkey and in no way could've gotten a conviction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
There were something like 11,000 federal trials in the U.S. last year. In only about 11 of them, did a grand jury fail to vote to indict, i.e. to go to trial. These were federal; this was state--but you get the point.
Wow. So it's rare not to indict? Don't you think the evidence (or lack thereof) in this case was overwhelming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
It's in a trial that everything is supposed to be sorted out, and both sides, the victim, and the accused are represented. The victim, by the way, of course, is represented by the D.A.'s office, by the state, because he is dead and does not have a voice ---in this case, it was so obvious that the D.A. was biased.
Again, the prosecutor's job isn't to send everyone up the river. If he (or she) believes there isn't enough evidence, they don't press charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
By the way, in the entire U.S. grand juries are far less likely to indict a police officer than they do the average citizen--as recent events have made painfully clear. Cops may be just doing a job, but that doesn't mean some of them do not cross the line, and are murderers.
Yes, some cops are bad. So are some firemen. And postal workers. And engineers. And nurses. And congressmen. (Well, A LOT of congressmen.)
But police have more leeway than the average citizen. As it should be.
If some guy is holding me & my kids hostage and has a knife to my throat or my kids (especially my kids), I would hope that any cop on the scene who has a clean shot would kill that ba$tard at the first opportunity. I don't want ANY cop hesitating thinking, "oh, what if this person is mentally challenged? What if this person is under 18? What if that's a really dull knife that couldn't cut through soft butter?"
Michael Brown set in place a series of events that caused his own death. Thems the facts.
What about my posts would lead you to believe I didn't know that? Gtownoe's entire thread of discussion in here is not about the GJ, specifically, but about Wilson's guilt/innocence in general - or did you miss him trying (and failing) to play Johnny Cochran at every turn?
Yep, I have never claimed the GJ proceedings were typical.
And? If this had gone to trial, the result would have been exactly the same. Would you be satisfied then?
It was also obvious - to anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear - that this case was going nowhere near a conviction, GJ indictment or no.
Yes, I read that, too. And?
Ok, I see your points. But if it had gone to trial, at least there would have been a fair representation for Michael Brown.
There would have been a chance to cross-examine witnesses, like that crazy #40 who had falsified reports to the police before, and had paid into a support fund for Wilson---she testified twice in front of the grand jury. In a trial, she would have been torn to shreds, she had no credibility whatsoever, and she was the one who said that Brown charged Wilson like a linebacker or bull or something---which was oft-quoted on Fox News.
Even expert lawyers have said that this grand jury procedure was very badly done, and was probably designed to get no indictment. That's not fair. It's not justice. It's morally wrong. If Brown had been your son or brother, would you have felt this grand jury procedure was properly handled in a non-prejudicial manner?
The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt. It is simply to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. It is not a trial.
It is HIGHLY unusual, nearly unheard of, for the accused, in this case Officer Wilson, to be able to spend 4 hours testifying to the grand jury. That is highly prejudicial, and it was the prosecutor's call. Most defense attorneys that I've seen interviewed have said that in their entire careers they were NEVER allowed the luxury of having their client, the accused, present his story to a grand jury.
Questionable witnesses or conflicting testimony is rarely presented to a grand jury. The prosecutor takes the evidence that a crime may have been convicted, his strongest credible witnesses against the accused, and gets an indictment. It is in the trial, that a defense attorney can then present an alternative version of events in favor of the accused. That's a purpose of a trial, not a grand jury.
There were something like 11,000 federal trials in the U.S. last year. In only about 11 of them, did a grand jury fail to vote to indict, i.e. to go to trial. These were federal; this was state--but you get the point.
It's in a trial that everything is supposed to be sorted out, and both sides, the victim, and the accused are represented. The victim, by the way, of course, is represented by the D.A.'s office, by the state, because he is dead and does not have a voice ---in this case, it was so obvious that the D.A. was biased.
By the way, in the entire U.S. grand juries are far less likely to indict a police officer than they do the average citizen--as recent events have made painfully clear. Cops may be just doing a job, but that doesn't mean some of them do not cross the line, and are murderers.
I think plenty of people, especially anyone indicted by a grand jury, agree this was a weird procedure. I felt the DA should have recused himself or been forced out the minute he said the GJ would hear 'all the evidence.' That comment told me he didn't believe probable cause existed and was either merely placating political and public pressure, or worse, setting it up to reduce chances of an indictment.
I think plenty of people, especially anyone indicted by a grand jury, agree this was a weird procedure. I felt the DA should have recused himself or been forced out the minute he said the GJ would hear 'all the evidence.' That comment told me he didn't believe probable cause existed and was either merely placating political and public pressure, or worse, setting it up to reduce chances of an indictment.
I think the poor guy's police officer father was shot by a black man when he was just a kid, and police officers are his witnesses and help-mates every single day. I don't think he could see this case clearly, even if he thought he did, maybe even unconsciously. So he may really have believed he was doing the right thing. But I think he failed in his role as D.A. in how he handled this case.
His role as D.A. is to determine, is there enough evidence which which to go to trial. There was an abundance of evidence that excessive force may have been used. That's all that concerned the D.A., or should have concerned him. There was also a case to be made that Wilson acted appropriately. But that's what a trial is for.
The D.A. is there to represent the people, not the accused, and the people of that community reacted with outrage, so he did not represent the interests of the state (the people). He failed.
Also, did you notice how these posters, who weren't even at the scene, dismissed ALL of the testimonies which could have led to an indictment? Food for thought.
I think plenty of people, especially anyone indicted by a grand jury, agree this was a weird procedure. I felt the DA should have recused himself or been forced out the minute he said the GJ would hear 'all the evidence.' That comment told me he didn't believe probable cause existed and was either merely placating political and public pressure, or worse, setting it up to reduce chances of an indictment.
The political and public pressure was for an indictment not a no bill.
So, do you believe we should get rid of the GJ system?
Yes.
And regular juries too.
I think a system like in South Africa, where a Judge and two Assessors decide the verdict is better. They were unable to find non-racist juries in South Africa.
I don't believe in juries because people are just too stupid, and too easily swayed by the dominant people in a group. Most people are not scientists, do not have the slightest understanding of DNA evidence, and just tune out anything that sounds too complex or scientific, in my opinion.
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.
I've shown you above why/how you're wrong.
