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

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

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

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
..

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
..

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

Oren wrote in newsk9c7a5a3tccofgjuhoevmq74dmh1ffbfn@
4ax.com:

Why are practice targets using black silhouettes?


Because most criminals are the dark ones??

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

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.

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

"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

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

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)?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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

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

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