Ferguson decision is in -- NO INDICTMENT

[Ender]

You are dead wrong on this. It is NOT the purpose of the grand jury process to "prove" anything (with or without "science").

Had Darren Wilson NOT been a cop, he WOULD have been indicted - and he would have been indicted on EXACTLY the same evidence.

The ONLY reason he was NOT indicted is because he is a cop - and because of that, the prosecutors did not want an indictment.

And NONE of this has anything to do with whether Wilson is actually guilty of anything.

It has everything to do with the fact that cops are a priveleged caste.

AMEN, BRO.

 

[jmdrake]

Here, take five minutes and read this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...rivilege-%94-but-rather-%93blue-privilege-%94

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are dead wrong on this. It is NOT the purpose of the grand jury process to "prove" anything (with or without "science").

Had Darren Wilson NOT been a cop, he WOULD have been indicted - and he would have been indicted on EXACTLY the same evidence.

The ONLY reason he was NOT indicted is because he is a cop - and because of that, the prosecutors did not want an indictment.

And NONE of this has anything to do with whether Wilson is actually guilty of anything.

It has everything to do with the fact that cops are a priveleged caste.

That.

Somebody rep Teh Banana for me, I'm out.

 

[euphemia]

It is not the grand jury's role to determine guilt or innocence. It is the gj's job to look at the evendence to see if there is enough to charge someone with a crime. The evidence simply isn't there.

 

[AuH20]

You are dead wrong on this. It is NOT the purpose of the grand jury process to "prove" anything (with or without "science").

Had Darren Wilson NOT been a cop, he WOULD have been indicted - and he would have been indicted on EXACTLY the same evidence.

The ONLY reason he was NOT indicted is because he is a cop - and because of that, the prosecutors did not want an indictment.

And NONE of this has anything to do with whether Wilson is actually guilty of anything.

It has everything to do with the fact that cops are a priveleged caste.

Cops are certainly a privileged caste and by the same token, african americans are as well. You can't even think about touching the hair on their head in this racially polarized climate. You better lawyer up, even in the event that you are defending your property, because it will be twisted as some sort of racial vendetta. It always is.

 

[otherone]

It is not the grand jury's role to determine guilt or innocence. It i sthe gj's job to look at the evendence to see if there is enough to charge someone with a crime. The evidence simply isn't there.

Do you believe everything the government tells you?

 

[otherone]

Cops are certainly a privileged caste and by the same token, african americans are as well.

 

[AuH20]

Think about. Imagine being able to project every personal mistake as a greater conspiracy against your skin color. I can't think of a more privileged position to be absolved of personal, conscious wrongdoing due to past events. Now I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist because it does, but the hand wringing has gotten to the point of ridiculousness. It's very similar to the jewish american community that hides behind the Holocaust when confronted with serious questions about their ethical direction.

 

[orenbus]

It wasn't a cop car that was torched. It was someone's vehicle on the highway. I don't know the details of who/why they did it since it is only a helicopter feed. But they broke down a fence, then rode on the railroad, went to a railroad crossing and several cars were able to get out. Eventually the cops smarted up and figured it out and blocked the railroad crossing and have it blocked now. Cops are starting to approach the burning car cautiously.

Here is a live helicopter feed: http://abc7news.com/live/

Video of the oakland #sideshow last night, part with the van is at around 3:45

 

[orenbus]

You are dead wrong on this. It is NOT the purpose of the grand jury process to "prove" anything (with or without "science").

Had Darren Wilson NOT been a cop, he WOULD have been indicted - and he would have been indicted on EXACTLY the same evidence.

The ONLY reason he was NOT indicted is because he is a cop - and because of that, the prosecutors did not want an indictment.

And NONE of this has anything to do with whether Wilson is actually guilty of anything.

It has everything to do with the fact that cops are a priveleged caste.

Agreed. +Rep

 

[Ender]

It is not the grand jury's role to determine guilt or innocence. It i sthe gj's job to look at the evendence to see if there is enough to charge someone with a crime. The evidence simply isn't there.

BS- and the GJ is unconstitutional.

 

[Ender]

Think about. Imagine being able to project every personal mistake as a greater conspiracy against your skin color. I can't think of a more privileged position to be absolved of personal, conscious wrongdoing due to past events. Now I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist because it does, but the hand wringing has gotten to the point of ridiculousness. It's very similar to the jewish american community that hides behind the Holocaust when confronted with serious questions about their ethical direction.

Really.

Try being black for a while.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It is not the grand jury's role to determine guilt or innocence. It i sthe gj's job to look at the evendence to see if there is enough to charge someone with a crime. The evidence simply isn't there.

You are simply wrong. There is an abundance of sufficient cause for a jury trial in this case. Any of a number of things (the witness accounts, the problematic & conflicting forensics, etc.) would have sufficed to secure a jury trial to sort things out - IF the prosecution had actually wanted one. But the prosecution did NOT want one (because Darren Wilson is a cop) - and that is precisely why they chose to go the "grand jury" route in this case, rather than just file charges and go the "pre-trial hearing" route.

If the prosecutors had directly charged Darren Wilson without a grand jury indictment (as they easily could have done, if they had wanted to), there would have been a pre-trial hearing to determine whether there was sufficient reason to have a trial or not. But the prosecutors did not want that, because they did not want a trial and they knew that any pre-trial hearing judge would all but certainly have ruled that there was sufficient cause for the matter to go to trial. So they took the matter to the grand jury instead, where they knew they would completely control the presentation of all evidence and testimony and therefore could get what they wanted - a "no true bill" decision (which is exactly what they got).

As has been pointed out over and over over, grand juries are rubber stamps for prosecutors. With exceedingly rare exceptions, grand juries give prosecutors what prosecutors want. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, then he gets one. If he doesn't want one (but pretends to try to get one for the sake of public appearances), then he doesn't get one.

Given the murky particulars of this case, if you or I (or anyone else who is not a cop) were in Darren Wilson's place, there is no way in hell that there isn't sufficient reason for a jury trial to sort the matter out. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

 

[orenbus]

Some of this thread's demagogue posters just reminded me of this movie dinner scene, happy thanksgiving.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Michael Brown was a thug. He was a dangerous man. He was not a victim or a martyr. He was a perpetrator.

The mentality displayed in this thread is helping nobody. Believing the media hype is helping nobody. The media made a lot of assumptions. The facts and forensics did not match those assumptions.

Then put the "thug" on trial before executing him. Oh wait...

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Really.

Try being black for a while.

But white men have it so difficult!

[video]https://screen.yahoo.com/white-000000112.html[/video]

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are simply wrong.

I hate to play pile on, but this could go on all day.


Officer states they shot him because “he was just fuck’in laying there and wouldn’t do nothin”.

Shot him 23 times.

No indictment.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...A-Jones-23-Times-for-Walking-Next-to-Sidewalk

 

[Anti Federalist]

Two innocent women delivering newspapers.

Shot at 129 times.

No Indictment.

Just secret "in house" discipline.

 

[Ender]

But white men have it so difficult!

[video]https://screen.yahoo.com/white-000000112.html[/video]

LOL!

 

[Anti Federalist]

Grand Juries Almost Never Indict Police Officers Who Kill Citizens

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/gr...e-officers-kill-citizens/#tYlRqPBvJ785FZq5.99

The failure of the St. Louis County grand jury to hand down an indictment against the officer who fatally shot unarmed teenager Michael Brown caused uproar and protest, but law enforcement experts say that indictments against police officers are rare.

The perceived lack of indictment of police by grand juries could be due to multiple reasons, including a Supreme Court decision in a case involving orange juice, as well as the complex relationships between police departments and district attorneys.

There have been close to 1,000 people killed by police since January 1, 2014, and over 1,750 since May 2013, according to the website FiveThirtyEight.

Against those figures is data from the FBI Crime Reports – based on police departments’ own records – which say that of the 533,895 police officers hired to protect and serve 247 million Americans, 27 officers died in 2013 in the line of duty. In 26 cases, those deaths were caused by males. Fifteen of the men were white, 11 were black, and all had criminal records.

Missing from official records, though, is how many police officers were indicted for excessive force. An independent study in 2010 by researcher David Packman showed 4,841 reports of police misconduct involving 6,613 police officers. Of those misconduct complaints, 3,238 resulted in charges being made, but only 33 percent were convicted and 12 percent incarcerated.

The low number of convictions and incarcerations result in part from a 1989 Supreme Court case involving a diabetic man’s erratic behavior during a trip to a convenience store for orange juice. He needed the beverage to bring up his low blood sugar, but the trip led to a confrontation with police officers, which left him with injuries from head to foot.

In Graham v. Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in his opinion: “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

(Couple that with the CFC and military ROE and now you know why cops will blow you away for twitching funny. - AF)

Rehnquist’s ruling that police can make such determinations quickly took on added significance in the Brown case, particularly since the situation leading up to his death unfolded in approximately 90 seconds. Those skeptical of Rehnquist’s judgment question just how far the justice system should defer to a police officer’s judgment.

Community activists involved in efforts to curb police brutality often state that there isn’t a fair judicial process because the district attorneys usually have close relationships with police departments, making a fair trial impossible. Such points were echoed during the Brown family press conference in Dellwood, near Ferguson, on Tuesday morning.

“We saw how completely unfair this process was. We object properly and loudly on behalf of Michael Brown and his family that this process is broken. The process should be indicted,” Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump told reporters.

“It should be indicted because the continuous, systematic results that is yielded by this process,” Crump added. “And let’s be very honest about this process. We have the local prosecutor who has a symbiotic relationship with the local police, and the local police officers who sit in judgment whether to indict the police when they brutalize or kill a young person from our community, and normally that prosecutor has no relationship or no regards for the young person of color.”

Criminal defense and civil rights attorney Ron Kuby told the Latin Post that the only way for police to be held accountable for crimes they commit against the citizenry is through “an independent statewide prosecutor for police misconduct…that’s the only way you will get police accountability, because local district attorneys are locally elected, they frequently rely on many of the same police officers who are investigating other police officers, and they are very reluctant as a rule to second guess the police involving line of duty killings. Sometimes they won’t even present the case to a grand jury.”