Fergy, no guilty
In article , gonjah
wrote: It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? I'd agree in part/ disagree in part. First and foremost this was a high profile case so whatever was going to happen was going to **** off a large swath of voters.. and the prosecutor is an elected office. That was 100% prosecutorial ass covering... and rather blatantly so. He basically punted the decision on charges to the GJ so he could say (either way) this wasn't his decision, but rather the considered decision of the Grand Jurors. I would disagree with the defense attorney part, though. I have read through about 75% of the information he released. He presented evidence on both sides and it seems very thorough and balanced, at least so far in my reading. He knew no matter what happened, he would have a bunch of people calling for his head. So, this was more for the 40% or so of people who wouldn't be ****ed merely because a decision had been made unless it was perceived as a witchhunt. These are the people that really elect any politican to any position. -- ³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.² ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 7:38 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"gonjah" wrote in message ... On 11/27/2014 7:14 AM, trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:07:10 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote: On 11/26/2014 10:36 PM, nestork wrote: trader_4;3313595 Wrote: There is also this notion out there that a black guy can do everything wrong. Commit a felony, ie a robbery at the convenience store. Commit another felony, by striking the officer. Refuse to comply with orders to stop and get on the ground. Curse at cops, give them attitude, start a fight, grab for an cops gun and God knows what else. Then when it ends in them getting shot to death, it's "the cop shot an unarmed black teen". Even if a cop made some error along the way, I reject the notion that a scoundrel can do anything they please, create a deadly situation, and then the cop is still expected to do everything 100% correct and if he does anything wrong, then it's the cop's fault for what happened, racism, etc. I think the more succinct way to put it is that Michael Brown lowered the quality of life in the neighborhood he lived in. Anyone that walks into a convenience store, steals whatever he wants with impunity and punches out the store owner Just for clarification. Per the video we've all seen, MB didn't "punch-out" the store owner. Mike Brown pushed him, a little roughly, out of the way. for any attempt to stop him is a hooligan. In China, hooliganism is punishable by death. That is a silly argument. This isn't China. While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael Brown is out of their lives. I wouldn't go quite that far. The real travesty of justice occurred at the grand jury when the prosecutor acted like the cop's defense attorney. Wilson should have, at least, gone to trial, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the grand jury transcript, but that is what most of the experts I've heard have said. Then again, I don't watch Fox News. I usually get my news from NPR or PRI. Well, that explains why you think most "experts" Sorry I can't be more specific. think he should have gone to trial. Most of the experts in the rest of the media, think otherwise. And they also think Holder at the DOJ has no case at all. That's what I've heard too. The hurdle for the DOJ is pretty high. I don't see how anyone could think the decision is not supported by the evidence. You have one credible eyewitness that completely corroborates the officer's account, including that Brown was charging back. Many of the other alleged eyewitnesses, changed their stories along the way or admitted they didn't even see the key parts of it. The officer;s version was consistent with the forensics. There is no way you'd ever get a conviction. Can you cite a credible source? I'd be interested in reading that in detail. TIA here is but one. http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-doc...223558856.html I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying. Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial. http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/...alfinalup4.png |
Fergy, no guilty
Per nestork:
While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael Brown is out of their lives. I would agree with that assessment. But... From what I have heard so far (especially the Charlie Rose interview last nite) the problem with whole situation is perceived lack of transparency. The Zimmerman thing, for instance: it went to trial and all the arguments on both sides were publicly made. A lot of people didn't like the outcome, but by-and-large they accepted it - because the process was transparent. In this case, the it looked to me like the general perception was that the process was hidden. It might have helped if the grand jury proceeding were televised, but going to trial would have helped a lot more. It also might have lengthened the cooling-down period by virtue of the lag between filing charges and the time of the trial. In addition I heard a lot of cynicism about the prosecutor's conduct: apparently, in the light of history, very un-prosecutor-like. Instead of being aggressive, he just did a data dump to the jury of everything connected with the case and sat back. The kid's dead and he's not going to strong-arm-rob any more innocent store owners - but the public need to see justice served has been denied (rightly or wrongly... but still denied). -- Pete Cresswell |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 8:59 AM, gonjah wrote:
On 11/27/2014 7:38 AM, Pico Rico wrote: here is but one. http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-doc...223558856.html I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying. Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial. http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/...alfinalup4.png Lack of evidence and lying witness proves it should have gone to trial? On what planet? - .. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .. |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 7:53 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , gonjah wrote: It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? I'd agree in part/ Well, that in itself is troubling. disagree in part. First and foremost this was a high profile case so whatever was going to happen was going to **** off a large swath of voters.. and the prosecutor is an elected office. That was 100% prosecutorial ass covering... and rather blatantly so. He basically punted the decision on charges to the GJ so he could say (either way) this wasn't his decision, but rather the considered decision of the Grand Jurors. I would disagree with the defense attorney part, though. I have read through about 75% of the information he released. He presented evidence on both sides and it seems very thorough and balanced, at least so far in my reading. He knew no matter what happened, he would have a bunch of people calling for his head. So, this was more for the 40% or so of people who wouldn't be ****ed merely because a decision had been made unless it was perceived as a witchhunt. These are the people that really elect any politican to any position. Anyone can do the permutations of statements like that. Thanks for being candid. BTW: That's about what I surmised. |
Fergy, no guilty
In article , gonjah
wrote: I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying. Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial. If you will remember that this whole dust up is based on "eyewitness" testimony saying he was shot in the back with his hands up which the forensics and the autopsy should have put to rest. The work of a grand jury is to look at the evidence and decide if there is probable cause to take a person to trial. This is a MUCH lesser burden than beyond reasonable that is needed to convict. If the evidence did not even get that far, why bother with a trial. This below is a nice discussion of the issues: "The Constitution does not consider the grand jury to be a rubber stamp. It is a core protection. It stands as the buffer between the government prosecutor and the citizen-suspect; it safeguards Americans, who are presumed innocent, from being subjected to the anxiety, infamy and expense of a trial unless there is probable cause to believe they have committed a serious offense." "If we are going to uphold our Constitution, it does not matter that thoughtful commentators suppose a public trial would best serve the community. The Fifth Amendment holds that a person has the right *** not to be subjected to a public trial*** - i.e., the right not to be indicted - unless the state can prove to a grand jury that there is probable cause to believe he committed a crime. (emphasis mine) Officer Wilson had a constitutional right not to be indicted in the absence of sufficient evidence. That right to individual liberty outweighs the media's abstract claim that a public trial would serve the public interest." http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...dment-grand-ju ry-protection-still-matter-andrew-c-mccarthy -- ³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.² ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote:
snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2014/11/fergusons_prosecutorial_farce.html There will almost certainly be a civil case, just like when Ron Goldman's family brought a successful civil case against OJ, after OJ was found not guilty in criminal court in a botched criminal trial. Since the officer in this case was not found not guilty the civil case has even a better chance, especially since so much evidence was not presented to the grand jury. |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote: In addition I heard a lot of cynicism about the prosecutor's conduct: apparently, in the light of history, very un-prosecutor-like. Instead of being aggressive, he just did a data dump to the jury of everything connected with the case and sat back. Actually this is probably how the GJ system should work. I will admit seldom does. -- "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." -- Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
SMS wrote: On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. Which is not what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to decide if there is probable cause to think he might have done it. That is a VERY light burden compared to reasonable doubt. If the evidence can' satisfy that burden, then why should it be supposed that the higher burden would have been reached? http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index...ecutorial_farc e.html There will almost certainly be a civil case, just like when Ron Goldman's family brought a successful civil case against OJ, after OJ was found not guilty in criminal court in a botched criminal trial. Since the officer in this case was not found not guilty the civil case has even a better chance, especially since so much evidence was not presented to the grand jury. The civil case has a lower burden than criminal, but still WAY above probable cause. The outcome of the GJ will have no impact on the civil suit whatsoever. -- ³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.² ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 8:21 AM, SMS wrote:
On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2014/11/fergusons_prosecutorial_farce.html ugh! it was ugly. There will almost certainly be a civil case, just like when Ron Goldman's family brought a successful civil case against OJ, after OJ was found not guilty in criminal court in a botched criminal trial. Since the officer in this case was not found not guilty the civil case has even a better chance, especially since so much evidence was not presented to the grand jury. |
Fergy, no guilty
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:21:17 AM UTC-5, SMS wrote:
On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2014/11/fergusons_prosecutorial_farce.html There will almost certainly be a civil case, just like when Ron Goldman's family brought a successful civil case against OJ, after OJ was found not guilty in criminal court in a botched criminal trial. Since the officer in this case was not found not guilty the civil case has even a better chance, especially since so much evidence was not presented to the grand jury. What was the evidence that wasn't presented to the grand jury that is going to help the Brown family in a civil suit? |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 8:21 AM, SMS wrote:
On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2014/11/fergusons_prosecutorial_farce.html There will almost certainly be a civil case, just like when Ron Goldman's family brought a successful civil case against OJ, after OJ was found not guilty in criminal court in a botched criminal trial. Since the officer in this case was not found not guilty the civil case has even a better chance, especially since so much evidence was not presented to the grand jury. The cartoon of the prosecutor holding two gas cans with matches in his mouth. Tragically funny. I think lady liberty blinked. |
Fergy, no guilty
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:24:30 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote:
On 11/27/2014 7:14 AM, trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:07:10 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote: On 11/26/2014 10:36 PM, nestork wrote: trader_4;3313595 Wrote: There is also this notion out there that a black guy can do everything wrong. Commit a felony, ie a robbery at the convenience store. Commit another felony, by striking the officer. Refuse to comply with orders to stop and get on the ground. Curse at cops, give them attitude, start a fight, grab for an cops gun and God knows what else. Then when it ends in them getting shot to death, it's "the cop shot an unarmed black teen". Even if a cop made some error along the way, I reject the notion that a scoundrel can do anything they please, create a deadly situation, and then the cop is still expected to do everything 100% correct and if he does anything wrong, then it's the cop's fault for what happened, racism, etc. I think the more succinct way to put it is that Michael Brown lowered the quality of life in the neighborhood he lived in. Anyone that walks into a convenience store, steals whatever he wants with impunity and punches out the store owner Just for clarification. Per the video we've all seen, MB didn't "punch-out" the store owner. Mike Brown pushed him, a little roughly, out of the way. for any attempt to stop him is a hooligan. In China, hooliganism is punishable by death. That is a silly argument. This isn't China. While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael Brown is out of their lives. I wouldn't go quite that far. The real travesty of justice occurred at the grand jury when the prosecutor acted like the cop's defense attorney. Wilson should have, at least, gone to trial, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the grand jury transcript, but that is what most of the experts I've heard have said. Then again, I don't watch Fox News. I usually get my news from NPR or PRI. Well, that explains why you think most "experts" Sorry I can't be more specific. think he should have gone to trial. Most of the experts in the rest of the media, think otherwise. And they also think Holder at the DOJ has no case at all. That's what I've heard too. The hurdle for the DOJ is pretty high. I don't see how anyone could think the decision is not supported by the evidence. You have one credible eyewitness that completely corroborates the officer's account, including that Brown was charging back. Many of the other alleged eyewitnesses, changed their stories along the way or admitted they didn't even see the key parts of it. The officer;s version was consistent with the forensics. There is no way you'd ever get a conviction. Can you cite a credible source? I'd be interested in reading that in detail. TIA Here'e an article at Newsweek that shows a lot of the conflicting stories, stories that didn't conform with the physical evidence: http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-sho...eliable-287164 Here's more about the lying: http://wreg.com/2014/11/26/some-witn...son-testimony/ Here's former fed prosecutor Guilliani saying he would prosecute the perjurers: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...nesses-perjury |
Fergy, no guilty
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote:
On 11/27/2014 7:38 AM, Pico Rico wrote: "gonjah" wrote in message ... On 11/27/2014 7:14 AM, trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:07:10 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote: On 11/26/2014 10:36 PM, nestork wrote: trader_4;3313595 Wrote: There is also this notion out there that a black guy can do everything wrong. Commit a felony, ie a robbery at the convenience store. Commit another felony, by striking the officer. Refuse to comply with orders to stop and get on the ground. Curse at cops, give them attitude, start a fight, grab for an cops gun and God knows what else. Then when it ends in them getting shot to death, it's "the cop shot an unarmed black teen". Even if a cop made some error along the way, I reject the notion that a scoundrel can do anything they please, create a deadly situation, and then the cop is still expected to do everything 100% correct and if he does anything wrong, then it's the cop's fault for what happened, racism, etc. I think the more succinct way to put it is that Michael Brown lowered the quality of life in the neighborhood he lived in. Anyone that walks into a convenience store, steals whatever he wants with impunity and punches out the store owner Just for clarification. Per the video we've all seen, MB didn't "punch-out" the store owner. Mike Brown pushed him, a little roughly, out of the way. for any attempt to stop him is a hooligan. In China, hooliganism is punishable by death. That is a silly argument. This isn't China. While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael Brown is out of their lives. I wouldn't go quite that far. The real travesty of justice occurred at the grand jury when the prosecutor acted like the cop's defense attorney. Wilson should have, at least, gone to trial, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the grand jury transcript, but that is what most of the experts I've heard have said. Then again, I don't watch Fox News. I usually get my news from NPR or PRI. Well, that explains why you think most "experts" Sorry I can't be more specific. think he should have gone to trial. Most of the experts in the rest of the media, think otherwise. And they also think Holder at the DOJ has no case at all. That's what I've heard too. The hurdle for the DOJ is pretty high. I don't see how anyone could think the decision is not supported by the evidence. You have one credible eyewitness that completely corroborates the officer's account, including that Brown was charging back. Many of the other alleged eyewitnesses, changed their stories along the way or admitted they didn't even see the key parts of it. The officer;s version was consistent with the forensics. There is no way you'd ever get a conviction. Can you cite a credible source? I'd be interested in reading that in detail. TIA here is but one. http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-doc...223558856.html I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying. Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial. http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/...alfinalup4.png Nice, you put the officer on trial because witnesses were lying. How about putting the witnesses who *admitted* they lied on trial for perjury? That;s what should be happening, but it won't because they're black. Good grief. The GJ heard the testimony right from the witnesses. They could see how well their stories held up under questioning. They had the forensic evidence, all the accounts to sort through what made sense and what did not. The GJ included 3 blacks. I'd say their process over months and their decision trumps you looking at some chart on PBS. |
Fergy, no guilty
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:06:03 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per nestork: While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael Brown is out of their lives. I would agree with that assessment. But... From what I have heard so far (especially the Charlie Rose interview last nite) the problem with whole situation is perceived lack of transparency. The Zimmerman thing, for instance: it went to trial and all the arguments on both sides were publicly made. A lot of people didn't like the outcome, but by-and-large they accepted it - because the process was transparent. In this case, the it looked to me like the general perception was that the process was hidden. It might have helped if the grand jury proceeding were televised, but going to trial would have helped a lot more. It also might have lengthened the cooling-down period by virtue of the lag between filing charges and the time of the trial. In addition I heard a lot of cynicism about the prosecutor's conduct: apparently, in the light of history, very un-prosecutor-like. Instead of being aggressive, he just did a data dump to the jury of everything connected with the case and sat back. The kid's dead and he's not going to strong-arm-rob any more innocent store owners - but the public need to see justice served has been denied (rightly or wrongly... but still denied). -- Pete Cresswell Baloney. Justice was served. A GJ is the just process. The GJ included 3 blacks. And unlike most GJ proceedings, in this one they immediately released almost all the information that anyone that cares to find can go see. But that excludes the people that would rather just riot and loot instead. It's time to recognize that nothing will ever satisfy the likes of Al Sharpton and the other lying race baiters. |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 11:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote: On 11/27/2014 7:38 AM, Pico Rico wrote: "gonjah" wrote in message ... On 11/27/2014 7:14 AM, trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:07:10 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote: On 11/26/2014 10:36 PM, nestork wrote: trader_4;3313595 Wrote: There is also this notion out there that a black guy can do everything wrong. Commit a felony, ie a robbery at the convenience store. Commit another felony, by striking the officer. Refuse to comply with orders to stop and get on the ground. Curse at cops, give them attitude, start a fight, grab for an cops gun and God knows what else. Then when it ends in them getting shot to death, it's "the cop shot an unarmed black teen". Even if a cop made some error along the way, I reject the notion that a scoundrel can do anything they please, create a deadly situation, and then the cop is still expected to do everything 100% correct and if he does anything wrong, then it's the cop's fault for what happened, racism, etc. I think the more succinct way to put it is that Michael Brown lowered the quality of life in the neighborhood he lived in. Anyone that walks into a convenience store, steals whatever he wants with impunity and punches out the store owner Just for clarification. Per the video we've all seen, MB didn't "punch-out" the store owner. Mike Brown pushed him, a little roughly, out of the way. for any attempt to stop him is a hooligan. In China, hooliganism is punishable by death. That is a silly argument. This isn't China. While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael Brown is out of their lives. I wouldn't go quite that far. The real travesty of justice occurred at the grand jury when the prosecutor acted like the cop's defense attorney. Wilson should have, at least, gone to trial, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the grand jury transcript, but that is what most of the experts I've heard have said. Then again, I don't watch Fox News. I usually get my news from NPR or PRI. Well, that explains why you think most "experts" Sorry I can't be more specific. think he should have gone to trial. Most of the experts in the rest of the media, think otherwise. And they also think Holder at the DOJ has no case at all. That's what I've heard too. The hurdle for the DOJ is pretty high. I don't see how anyone could think the decision is not supported by the evidence. You have one credible eyewitness that completely corroborates the officer's account, including that Brown was charging back. Many of the other alleged eyewitnesses, changed their stories along the way or admitted they didn't even see the key parts of it. The officer;s version was consistent with the forensics. There is no way you'd ever get a conviction. Can you cite a credible source? I'd be interested in reading that in detail. TIA here is but one. http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-doc...223558856.html I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying. Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial. http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/...alfinalup4.png Nice, you put the officer on trial because witnesses were lying. You missed the definition of "some". Inconsistent testimony wasn't a good enough reason. It would be unusual if the witness matched. You have to account for an almost infinite number of variables...but you know that. I think. How about putting the witnesses who *admitted* they lied on trial for perjury? That;s what should be happening, but it won't because they're black. Good grief. The GJ heard the testimony right from the witnesses. They could see how well their stories held up under questioning. They had the forensic evidence, all the accounts to sort through what made sense and what did not. The GJ included 3 blacks. I'd say their process over months and their decision trumps you looking at some chart on PBS. |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 6:28 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , SMS wrote: On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. Which is not what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to decide if there is probable cause to think he might have done it. That is a VERY light burden compared to reasonable doubt. If the evidence can' satisfy that burden, then why should it be supposed that the higher burden would have been reached? Because the prosecutor chose not present all the evidence. |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 12:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote: Good grief. The GJ heard the testimony right from the witnesses. They could see how well their stories held up under questioning. They had the forensic evidence, all the accounts to sort through what made sense and what did not. The GJ included 3 blacks. I'd say their process over months and their decision trumps you looking at some chart on PBS. Ah, but in the eyes of some, facts don't really matter. What matters is the reports from NPR, DNC, and AJ and JJ. And big O. - .. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .. |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
SMS wrote: On 11/27/2014 6:28 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , SMS wrote: On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. Which is not what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to decide if there is probable cause to think he might have done it. That is a VERY light burden compared to reasonable doubt. If the evidence can' satisfy that burden, then why should it be supposed that the higher burden would have been reached? Because the prosecutor chose not present all the evidence. From what I read he must have come close. Something like 40 or so witnesses, all three autospies, various and sundry forensic evidence. -- ³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.² ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
Oren wrote in news:ok9c7a5a3tccofgjuhoevmq74dmh1ffbfn@
4ax.com: Why are practice targets using black silhouettes? Because most criminals are the dark ones?? |
Fergy, no guilty
Per Kurt Ullman:
In addition I heard a lot of cynicism about the prosecutor's conduct: apparently, in the light of history, very un-prosecutor-like. Instead of being aggressive, he just did a data dump to the jury of everything connected with the case and sat back. Actually this is probably how the GJ system should work. I will admit seldom does. Now that you have said it, I have to agree.... But his conduct did seem to differ with historical conduct... the post about his being an elected official and knowing people were going to want his scalp either way sounded reasonable to me. -- Pete Cresswell |
Fergy, no guilty
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 12:37:01 PM UTC-5, SMS wrote:
On 11/27/2014 6:28 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , SMS wrote: On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote: snip It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like the defense attorney. Was it all for show? It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does. Which is not what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to decide if there is probable cause to think he might have done it. That is a VERY light burden compared to reasonable doubt. If the evidence can' satisfy that burden, then why should it be supposed that the higher burden would have been reached? Because the prosecutor chose not present all the evidence. Please share with us the relevant evidence that the prosecutor did not present to the GJ. Links please. |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Kurt Ullman: In addition I heard a lot of cynicism about the prosecutor's conduct: apparently, in the light of history, very un-prosecutor-like. Instead of being aggressive, he just did a data dump to the jury of everything connected with the case and sat back. Actually this is probably how the GJ system should work. I will admit seldom does. Now that you have said it, I have to agree.... But his conduct did seem to differ with historical conduct... the post about his being an elected official and knowing people were going to want his scalp either way sounded reasonable to me. My more cynical side suggests that in those jurisdictions where it isn't required, 90% of cases go to the GJ do so more for political concerns than legal. But then, I am pretty terminally cynical. (grin) -- "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." -- Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
"SMS" wrote in message
There will almost certainly be a civil case, just like when Ron Goldman's family brought a successful civil case against OJ, after OJ was found not guilty in criminal court in a botched criminal trial. Since the officer in this case was not found not guilty the civil case has even a better chance, especially since so much evidence was not presented to the grand jury. Yeah, cops have really deep pockets. -- dadiOH ____________________________ Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race? Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 7:35 AM, gonjah wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement. I want to believe Wilson, but we can't just ignore the witnesses. No, we can't ignore them, but the Grand Jury had to sift through and determine who lied, who told the truth. Reports show that witnesses changed their story to coincide with what they heard on the new or what others said. Witnesses are not reliable |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 11/27/2014 7:35 AM, gonjah wrote: Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement. I want to believe Wilson, but we can't just ignore the witnesses. No, we can't ignore them, but the Grand Jury had to sift through and determine who lied, who told the truth. Reports show that witnesses changed their story to coincide with what they heard on the new or what others said. Witnesses are not reliable One interesting difference between GJ and trial jury is that the GJurors are encouraged to ask questions of witnesses. -- ³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.² ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
The thing that I can't help thinking is this:
If Wilson believed that Brown was very strong and could easily overpower him, then when Brown ran away and Wilson gave chase, what was Wilson planning to do once he caught Brown? If he managed to catch up to Brown, did he think he could wrestle him to the ground and cuff him? That doesn't sound plasible because Wilson testified that each time Brown punched him in the head, he thought he wouldn't survive another punch. So, when Brown runs away and Wilson gets out of his car to give chase on foot, what does Wilson expect is going to happen if/when he catches Brown? That part doesn't seem to be very well thought out. At that point, it would seem to me that Wilson SHOULD HAVE realized that if he caught Brown, he very well might lose the struggle with him and possibly lose possession of his service revolver to Brown, and possibly even get shot with his own gun. Why didn't Wilson realize that if he caught up with Brown, his only two choices would have been to either shoot Brown or get beaten up by Brown (and possibly shot by Brown). It seems to me that if someone had just punched me several times in the head so hard that I thought they might kill me, chasing after them on foot with no plan as to what to do once I caught up with them isn't a very well thought out plan. It seems to me that if I'm chasing Mike Tyson on foot, what I'm going to do with this Hulk of a man once I catch him would be what I would be thinking about. Did Wilson have a plan at all at that point? Shouldn't he have realized he needed to get back to his car and get a tazer or some pepper spray (because his only other option would be to shoot Brown)? |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 05:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
The GJ heard all that directly from the witnesses, determined how credible each was, saw all the forensics and made their decision based on the totality of it all. And there were three Black folks on the GJ. Their ruling was anonymous. |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/27/2014 04:42 AM, gonjah wrote:
NPR provides a different point-of-view, but sometimes we need to look at both sides NPR = American Pravda. They are not the news. And they take public money, which means all the rest of us pay for their propaganda by being "extorted through the color of authority". Spit! |
Fergy, no guilty
On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:17:10 AM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
The thing that I can't help thinking is this: If Wilson believed that Brown was very strong and could easily overpower him, then when Brown ran away and Wilson gave chase, what was Wilson planning to do once he caught Brown? I don't see in evidence that Wilson did very much chasing at all. He was still close to his patrol car when the final fatal shot was fired. It was Brown who mostly increased the distance between the two, until he reversed course and came charging back at Wilson. He repeatedly ordered Brown to stop and get down on the ground. Had he done that, Wilson may have kept his gun on him to wait for backup to arrive, which was just a few minutes. Alternatively, he could have had him on the ground, kneeling, feet crossed, hands behind his head, fingers interlocked, so he could come up behind him and cuff him. IDK what that PD procedure is for that circumstance. But in general, police are certainly not trained to just let a perp who is a suspect in a robbery and known by Brown for sure to have committed a felony assault on an officer, to just walk away. If he managed to catch up to Brown, did he think he could wrestle him to the ground and cuff him? That doesn't sound plasible because Wilson testified that each time Brown punched him in the head, he thought he wouldn't survive another punch. So, when Brown runs away and Wilson gets out of his car to give chase on foot, what does Wilson expect is going to happen if/when he catches Brown? That part doesn't seem to be very well thought out. It's not like this is the first time this has happened to a cop or that it's unusual for some big, violent suspect to run away. It's a basic part of the job. Good grief. At that point, it would seem to me that Wilson SHOULD HAVE realized that if he caught Brown, he very well might lose the struggle with him and possibly lose possession of his service revolver to Brown, and possibly even get shot with his own gun. I thought we resolved yesterday that it was a semi-automatic SigSauer ..40? Not many police here in the US still carry revolvers as their main service weapon. You're still all mixed up here, who was chasing who, what kind of gun it was, etc. Why didn't Wilson realize that if he caught up with Brown, his only two choices would have been to either shoot Brown or get beaten up by Brown (and possibly shot by Brown). It seems to me that if someone had just punched me several times in the head so hard that I thought they might kill me, chasing after them on foot with no plan as to what to do once I caught up with them isn't a very well thought out plan. You keep making the assumption that he was chasing after Brown with the intent of catching up to him. That isn't what the evidence shows. Brown was still close to his car. Brown had run away, Wilson aimed his gun at Brown and told him to stop. Wilson then charged back at Brown. It was *Brown* who was closing the distance, certainly at the end, when Brown was firing. So, please, stop making it sound like the cop was chasing after him and mowing him down. It seems to me that if I'm chasing Mike Tyson on foot, what I'm going to do with this Hulk of a man once I catch him would be what I would be thinking about. Did Wilson have a plan at all at that point? Shouldn't he have realized he needed to get back to his car and get a tazer or some pepper spray (because his only other option would be to shoot Brown)? Good grief. When the guy has already assaulted you and tried to kill you with your own guy, pepper spray or a taser aren't the implements of choice. Do you even know if he had a taser? Had Brown not charged back at the officer, the likely outcomes would have been: A - Brown complies and gets down on the ground. At that point Wilson probably would have waited for backup. Or he may have gotten Brown into the proper position for cuffing him from behind and tried to cuff him alone. I suppose at that point, if Brown then turned around and tried to come at Brown again, and he shot him point blank, it would be Wilson's fault too. Hell, I guess Wilson should just have stayed in bed that day. That's kind of what the rest of the local, state, and national guard did the days of the riots. B - Brown continues to move away and Wilson follows him at ~ 30 ft distance until backup arrives. I assume you've seen some footage on TV, shows like COPS, where that happens all the time. The cops chase a fleeing suspect? It is part of their job. |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/28/2014 2:36 AM, nestork wrote:
The thing that I can't help thinking is this: If Wilson believed that Brown was very strong and could easily overpower him, then when Brown ran away and Wilson gave chase, what was Wilson planning to do once he caught Brown? If he managed to catch up to Brown, did he think he could wrestle him to the ground and cuff him? That doesn't sound plasible because Wilson testified that each time Brown punched him in the head, he thought he wouldn't survive another punch. His job is to protect the public from thugs. He was performing his duties as trained. He'd have struggled and put himself at risk to protect the rest of us. |
Fergy, no guilty
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:50:10 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote: In article , Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 11/27/2014 7:35 AM, gonjah wrote: Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement. I want to believe Wilson, but we can't just ignore the witnesses. No, we can't ignore them, but the Grand Jury had to sift through and determine who lied, who told the truth. Reports show that witnesses changed their story to coincide with what they heard on the new or what others said. Witnesses are not reliable One interesting difference between GJ and trial jury is that the GJurors are encouraged to ask questions of witnesses. The subject (Wilson) is only allowed to be present when he testified - then leave the room. His attorney is only present when his client is testifying - he cannot cross examine any witnesses or present any exculpatory (evidence tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt) evidence. Wilson is allowed to consult with his attorney if desire during his testimony. You have people complaining about the DA, well, he did not present the case before the GJ - it was two Assistant DA's - females, one was black. If you listen to all the critics, they wanted to bring the guilty ******* in, hurry-up and have a fair trial. A real Kangaroo Court without _any_ evidence of probable cause established. |
Fergy, no guilty
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:36:30 +0100, nestork
wrote: If Wilson believed that Brown was very strong and could easily overpower him, then when Brown ran away and Wilson gave chase, what was Wilson planning to do once he caught Brown? Give him a lollypop, a cupcake or a giant wet kiss? His duty is to follow the suspect (robbery & attempted murder of a police officer), maintain a visual observation and wait for back up. There was no reason for Wilson to believe that Brown was NOT armed. Brown had not yet be restrained and searched for weapons. It would have been justified shooting Brown again. He was a felony suspect. His job is to place him custody. |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
Oren wrote: O The subject (Wilson) is only allowed to be present when he testified - then leave the room. His attorney is only present when his client is testifying - he cannot cross examine any witnesses or present any exculpatory (evidence tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt) evidence. Wilson is allowed to consult with his attorney if desire during his testimony. You sure about part of that? My understanding is that the attorney for the defendant can never be in the GJ room. That is a source of angst for community activists when a cop isn't involved.. You have people complaining about the DA, well, he did not present the case before the GJ - it was two Assistant DA's - females, one was black. And the DA was a Dem, FWIW. -- "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." -- Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/28/2014 10:20 AM, Oren wrote:
If you listen to all the critics, they wanted to bring the guilty ******* in, hurry-up and have a fair trial. A real Kangaroo Court without_any_ evidence of probable cause established. Its is a tightly held left wing religious belief that America is racist. They don't require any proof or evidence. |
Fergy, no guilty
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:39:06 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote: In article , Oren wrote: O The subject (Wilson) is only allowed to be present when he testified - then leave the room. His attorney is only present when his client is testifying - he cannot cross examine any witnesses or present any exculpatory (evidence tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt) evidence. Wilson is allowed to consult with his attorney if desire during his testimony. You sure about part of that? My understanding is that the attorney for the defendant can never be in the GJ room. That is a source of angst for community activists when a cop isn't involved.. I think I'm sure I could be wrong or it depends on the state law. I do know the attorney for the subject / defendant has to be near for consultation. Say Wilson wanted to invoke his 5th amendment right to self-incrimination or wanted advice of his attorney. You have people complaining about the DA, well, he did not present the case before the GJ - it was two Assistant DA's - females, one was black. And the DA was a Dem, FWIW. I admire the way the DA handled this case. He did not fold under pressure from the governor but the Governor (D) screwed the pooch. MO may turn red in the next gubernatorial election :) -- "Don’t confuse me with any facts".-- Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) |
Fergy, no guilty
In article ,
Oren wrote: I admire the way the DA handled this case. He did not fold under pressure from the governor but the Governor (D) screwed the pooch. MO may turn red in the next gubernatorial election :) I agree, although I think it was more politically driven than legally driven. He knew he was going to **** a fair amount of the electorate either way it went, so he punted it to the GJ, then made sure that the presentation was more diligent than usual (at least those that I have been directly involved were more along the lines of ones that proved the old saw about being able to indict a ham sandwich) in presenting the case. -- ³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.² ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
Fergy, no guilty
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:30:29 -0800, Todd wrote:
On 11/28/2014 10:20 AM, Oren wrote: If you listen to all the critics, they wanted to bring the guilty ******* in, hurry-up and have a fair trial. A real Kangaroo Court without_any_ evidence of probable cause established. Its is a tightly held left wing religious belief that America is racist. They don't require any proof or evidence. "You can not rehabilitate a person that has never been habilitated!" -- Convict Guard 101 |
Fergy, no guilty
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:59:38 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote: In article , Oren wrote: I admire the way the DA handled this case. He did not fold under pressure from the governor but the Governor (D) screwed the pooch. MO may turn red in the next gubernatorial election :) I agree, although I think it was more politically driven than legally driven. He knew he was going to **** a fair amount of the electorate either way it went, so he punted it to the GJ, then made sure that the presentation was more diligent than usual (at least those that I have been directly involved were more along the lines of ones that proved the old saw about being able to indict a ham sandwich) in presenting the case. WIKI: "Inculpatory evidence is evidence that shows, or tends to show, a person's involvement in an act, or evidence that can establish guilt. In criminal law, the prosecution has a duty to provide all evidence to the defense, whether it favors the prosecution's case or the defendant's case. Evidence that tends to show a person's innocence is considered exculpatory evidence." The DA could fumble the ball :) |
Fergy, no guilty
On 11/28/2014 12:10 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:30:29 -0800, Todd wrote: On 11/28/2014 10:20 AM, Oren wrote: If you listen to all the critics, they wanted to bring the guilty ******* in, hurry-up and have a fair trial. A real Kangaroo Court without_any_ evidence of probable cause established. Its is a tightly held left wing religious belief that America is racist. They don't require any proof or evidence. "You can not rehabilitate a person that has never been habilitated!" -- Convict Guard 101 sad but ture |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter