« First « Previous Comments 201 - 240 of 266 Next » Last » Search these comments
Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter
That's my point. I don't want to charge him with a different crime, I want the prosecutor to act like a prosecutor and actually try for an indictment.
I'm familiar with how US law works which is why I know how a grand jury would work for anyone else accused of manslaughter. The prosecutor would not present any conflicting evidence, would not allow any other accused to testify for 4 hours, would not show unreliable witnesses.
The prosecutor's job is to get an indictment. Period.
Unfortunately, this prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor....
Impossible to rethink when he never thought about it the first time.
Personally, I think Wilson would probably have been found not guilty, but it's too bad the grand jury was such a sham.
One need not give credence to lying witnesses to have questions about the grand jury process in this case
Rethink what you wrote.
Exactly what crime are we charging Michael Brown with? Consider this carefully in light of the fact that the grand jury couldn't even bring charges for manslaughter
That's my point. I don't want to charge him with a different crime, I want the prosecutor to act like a prosecutor and actually try for an indictment.
I'm familiar with how US law works which is why I know how a grand jury would work for anyone else accused of manslaughter. The prosecutor would not present any conflicting evidence, would not allow any other accused to testify for 4 hours, would not show unreliable witnesses.
The prosecutor's job is to get an indictment. Period.
Unfortunately, this prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor....
You still don't get it. The case would never get charged. There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with. Even if he did, ANY judge at the preliminary hearing would find that Wilson could not be held to answer...because....tada....no crime had been committed.
Of course you will find this to be true when Eric Holder never files federal charges....same as George Zimmerman. And when a commie thug like Holder doesn't file charges....you truly know that there is nothing there.
That's the crux of it. tatupu is mad because the GJ procedure was not followed. He ignores the fact that this case should never have been taken to the GJ.
The only reason it occurred was to placate the mob, which was a mistake to begin with as it only enraged them further.
The evidence the prosecutor had that was backed up by forensics pointed to "No grand jury needed". His hand was forced by Holder and the feds.
He was not going to sacrifice his integrity by trying to get an indictment where he felt there was no forensics backed evidence, so he basically threw it to the GJ and said, "here, you decide"...
You still don't get it. The case would never get charged.
There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...
You still don't get it. The case would never get charged. There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with. Even if he did, ANY judge at the preliminary hearing would find that Wilson could not be held to answer...because....tada....no crime had been committed.
Of course you will find this to be true when Eric Holder never files federal charges....same as George Zimmerman. And when a commie thug like Holder doesn't file charges....you truly know that there is nothing there.
I think you are confused about how the justice system works. Of course there was potential crime committed. An unarmed man was shot and killed. If you are arguing that the prosecutor shouldn't have gone for an indictment, that's a different discussion. All I can say is that many, many indictments have been returned with less.
That's the crux of it. tatupu is mad because the GJ procedure was not followed. He ignores the fact that this case should never have been taken to the GJ.
I don't ignore it--it's a reasonable argument. But, once you decide to go to a grand jury, it shouldn't be a sham. That's my point.
There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...
If you're going to troll me, you need to try a bit harder.
There is no crime the DA could have charged Wilson with
BS
There are crimes they could have charged Wilson with.
You are innocent until proven guilty. But in this country, for cops, you are innocent unless there is a video proving otherwise and then just maybe there will be a trial and you might be proven guilty.
Your statement borders on idiocy.
Google search any of these convicted cops and tell me which ones were caught on video:
William Ferguson LAPD
David Mack LAPD
Rafael Perez LAPD
James Sexton LA County Sheriffs
That's just off the top of my head.
No troll.
Just telling it like it is. You don't see wogboy or danny front and center, do you? If your case was so compelling where are the demo heavy hitters?
There's a reason the libby "A" team is not arguing in this thread, and have sent the "B" team in instead. They recognize they have no foot to stand on with this argument and don't want it to affect their W/L record...
If you're going to troll me, you need to try a bit harder.
No troll.
Just telling it like it is. You don't see wogboy or danny front and center, do you? If your case was so compelling where are the demo heavy hitters?
lol--why don't you stick to pointing out the "damning evidence" from other posters. Or making bad puns.
That's clearly your strong suit.
It was a sham to have the feds decide it needs to be taken to the grand jury to quell the riots, taking that decision out of the county prosecutor's hands. Left alone, the prosecutor would have never taken it to the GJ, thus making your sham (point) moot.
Since the feds forced it, Holder should have been the one front and center in front of the GJ presenting the evidence...but of course, realizing the obvious outcome given the dearth of evidence, he did not want his batting average affected either.
I don't ignore it--it's a reasonable argument. But, once you decide to go to a grand jury, it shouldn't be a sham. That's my point.
“Having read the transcripts of the grand jury, and having been a prosecutor for thirteen years, I don’t see how this case normally would even have been brought to the grand jury,†Giuliani said.
“This is the kind of case, had it not had the racial overtones and the national publicity, in which the prosecutor would have come to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to bring to the grand jury.â€
http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/giuliani-to-holder-dont-make-federal-case-out-of-ferguson/
ps. my post above is "Damning Evidence"...
No, it's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.
Do you disagree that indictments have been returned on less?
But according to YOU, 'evidence' is just 'opinion'...so my "damning evidence" comment is correct.
Tatupu said: Again--I think folks here have difficulty understating what a fact is. Officer Wilson's testimony is backed by some other witnesses and some of the forensic evidence. But his version is contradicted by several witnesses and some of the forensic evidence is not supportive of his version.
And it also depends on which of Wilson's statements you are listening to--the grand jury or his initial report. You know that he embellished quite a bit in his grand jury statement, right?
In any event, none of it qualifies as a fact.
http://patrick.net/?p=1248144&c=1156052#comment-1156052
ps. my post above is "Damning Evidence"...
No, it's your opinion. And you're entitled to it.
But according to YOU, 'evidence' is just 'opinion'...so my "damning evidence" comment is correct.
Nope--that's not what I said. Some evidence is fact. Some is opinion. A witness observation is not a fact. An analysis of forensic evidence saying it's unlikely x happened is opinion.
Forensic evidence stating the victim was shot 5 times would be fact.
The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?
I'm politically agnostic and could fart something more interesting then the group of squid arguing for an expansion of the govt and larger police state. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to root on the police
Did you even read dodgertardjohn? The guy is likely retarded with his nonsense
If you are unable to grade the various levels of ignorance from the left, I can't help you.
The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?
Nope.
The forensic evidence may show 5 bullet holes, but cannot account for richochets...he could have been shot 4 times, with one richochet causing two of the holes.
Everything is opinion.
Nope--that's not what I said. Some evidence is fact. Some is opinion. A witness observation is not a fact. An analysis of forensic evidence saying it's unlikely x happened is opinion.
Forensic evidence stating the victim was shot 5 times would be fact.
Nope.
The forensic evidence may show 5 bullet holes, but cannot account for richochets...he could have been shot 4 times, with one richochet causing two of the holes.
Everything is opinion
I know you're being ridiculous, but if there were 5 bullets recovered from 5 bullet holes in a body, I would consider a statement that he was shot 5 times as a fact. But I understand your point. Are you happier with--it's a fact that Michael Brown is deceased?
The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?
I'm politically agnostic and could fart something more interesting then the group of squid arguing for an expansion of the govt and larger police state. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to root on the police
Did you even read dodgertardjohn? The guy is likely retarded with his nonsense
What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.
So all that is left is to grasp at straws. The B team...made up of protestors who have admitted they don't care what the evidence shows, MSNBHEE HAW, modern day carny barkers like Al Sharpton, and lower tier left wing PAtnet posters.
The libbies sent in their b team? What is that even supposed to mean?
I'm politically agnostic and could fart something more interesting then the group of squid arguing for an expansion of the govt and larger police state. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions to root on the police
Did you even read dodgertardjohn? The guy is likely retarded with his nonsense
Btw, where did ANYONE in this thread argue for an expansion of the police state?
The Michael Brown incident was about an officer acting in self defense. The only witnesses that contradicted that have been shown to be lying about the incident.
One ricochet...one missed...still opinion, although a rather strong one...
unless you are saying "recovered from the body"....then it's a fact.
tatupu70 says
but if there were 5 bullets recovered from 5 bullet holes in a body, I would consider a statement that he was shot 5 times as a fact.
That depends on your religious beliefs, and your definition of "deceased"...
Are you happier with--it's a fact that Michael Brown is deceased?
Yeah....that.
What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.
What SoftShell meant is that there are left leaning posters here at Pat.net that have the professional knowledge to address this thread, but are choosing not to. SoftShell is hypothesizing, probably correctly, that the reason these posters are not touching this thread is because there is no argument to be made...Officer Wilson did not commit a crime and the evidence backs that.
So all that is left is to grasp at straws. The B team...made up of protestors who have admitted they don't care what the evidence shows, MSNBHEE HAW, modern day carny barkers like Al Sharpton, and lower tier left wing PAtnet posters.
I don't know if you're including me in this rant, but you are completely clueless. You're obviously incapable of nuance and lack the ability to understand the fundamental issue that I'm trying to make. If we allow DAs to act as pawns of the police, making no effort to do their job in front of a grand jury, aren't we one step closer to a police state?
How is it possible to move any closer to a police state
This is already a full blown police state. And there's no shortage of idiots lining up to support the end of freedom
What the hell are you talking about? All the DA did was present witnesses, evidence and all types of other info to the GJ. That IS his job!!
No, that's not his job. His job is to get a conviction (or indictment in this case).
If you have issues with the outcome, go contact those 12 people.
Not sure how many times I can state this. I DON'T have an issue with the outcome. I have an issue with the process.
If you think this is how DAs act for all criminals that are up for indictment, then I can't help you. A DAs job is to get an indictment and conviction. Period. It's not to do the defense attorney's job for him. And that's why I challenge you to find ANY other case where the accused is allowed to speak for 4 hours in front of a grand jury.
How is it possible to move any closer to a police state
This is already a full blown police state. And there's no shortage of idiots lining up to support the end of freedom
No one in their right mind should wish for a police state, but at the same time we must recognize that there are nefarious people out there who won't hesitate to murder if they can snatch a $100 - these 2 forces must be reconciled. We cannot have anarchy as long as this second category of people exists.
Do you want Grand Juries to be eliminated and we go directly to the hangings and guillotines?
Are you on crack? I want DAs to be separate from police.
The accused is always allowed to speak at a GJ. In many cases, the defense lawyer is against it (if he thinks his client is guilty), but in this case, no laws were broken so Wilson decided to talk to the GJ.
Uh, I don't think you have any idea what a grand jury is. Here's a quick primer for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
"Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[16] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all"
From your source:
Is McCulloch’s decision to present all of the evidence to the grand jury controversial?
Yes.
Richard Kuhns, an emeritus professor at Washington University Law School, questioned McCulloch’s approach. “Since he presumably doesn't do this with other cases, the not-so-hidden message must be ‘don't indict.’ One more reason why McCulloch should never have been in charge of the investigation.â€
@dublin
Do you honestly think that there's people out there that would jig you for $100. But the police are here to keep is safe, And because of these police, we are kept safe?
I don't think that's anywhere in the same realm of reality. I honestly believe that this police state presence has probably never stopped one single crime from being committed. Not one potential victim has ever been spared, because of the existence of our police state
I'll take it one step further. I believe t that the police make us all much less safe, And their existence has resulted in unfathomable amounts of crime x and wealth destruction
See, it's NOT about just trying to find the accused guilty but giving the GJ ALL the evidence to make a informed decision!
Your cluelessness never ceases to amaze.
The job of the GJ is to indict (or not). The job of the prosecutor should be to calibrate the charges to what they should be, i.e. if a legitimate case can be made, and then to make the case that this charge is justified. In this case I think that would be either 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or possibly only criminal negligence.
It's pretty hard to argue that a case can not even be made that the cop was at least criminally negligent.
The grand jury isn't supposed to determine if he was, only if it is POSSIBLE that a convincing argument can be made that he was.
Or the same for manslaughter, that is if they had a prosecutor who thought Wilson should be indicted for something.
You're making that up. If he wanted to satisfy the natives as you say, there should have been a trial.
Instead, he basically tried the case all by himself, with the grand jury, while acting basically as the defense attorney with the goal of finding WIlson innocent. It may be true that he (with prejudice?) determined Wilson was probably totally innocent. But that would have probably included extremely stupid leaps, such as ruling out testimony from people who say Wilson shot at Brown while he was running, just because he wasn't hit from behind.
I notice dodgerfan still repeats this, after I mentioned an obvious fact, which is that Brown not being hit from behind does not come close to proving that WIlson didn't shoot at him while he was running away (WE KNOW HALF OF WILSONS SHOTS MISSED). Who knows, maybe the prosecutor is just as ill prepared to really look at the facts objectively as dodgerfan John is.
This was a fraudulent GJ according to many experts, including Supreme court justice Scalia and many others.
Your racial bias never ceases to amaze!!
You're the one bringing race in to this. I'm not assuming that the cops incompetence or worse has anything to do with race. I do think it might have had something to do with why the cop was such pussy. Prbably lived a very sheltered life and was afraid of the scary black man. But who knows. I don't think it's particularly relevant.
« First « Previous Comments 201 - 240 of 266 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/