Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[Sunburn74]

Sure you can indict a ham sandwich but unless you have the evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt you're wasting resources. The only reason he put the case/evidence before a grand jury was due to political pressure as he knew no one would accept him just stating there's no evidence of a crime and leaving it at that.

See that's just the thing. Let's say you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. And lets say that most of the evidence supported that it probably wasnt you but it wasnt a slam dunk either. A prosecutor would get a grand jury and present only the evidence that looked bad. He would win the grand jury indictment (again ham sandwich). After that he would say "hey I'm pursuing the death penalty for you. I know you stole that dog. You may try and fight it in court and maybe you win, but if you lose its death". You may fight it but a lot of people take a plea (he offers you 2 months in jail and a sealed record on the conviction for good behavior) and the case never comes down to reasonable doubt a lot of the time. Reasonable doubt sounds great but for a lot of people it never comes down to it at all. That is how the common citizen is treated in most crimes. Prosecutors are not looking to let people off hooks. In fact they gain power and presence for sending more and more people to jail.

Except for cops. They are definitely very soft on cops and really outside of florid corruption do not want to bring charges against their own. Is this right? All we want is equality.

I'm not saying Darren Wilson is innocent or guilty. I'm not saying anything about whether or not he would have won his trial or not. All that's bring raised here is it does appear as if the prosecution is almost shielding him when it would in no way shield a common citizen. To have not achieved an indictment, when any lawyer reviews the steps taken by this cases prosecution the intent is clear.

You really should read that link. It is very intriguing IMO

 

[halik]

See that's just the thing. Let's say you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. And lets say that most of the evidence supported that it probably wasnt you but it wasnt a slam dunk either. A prosectutor would get a grand jury and present only the evidence that looked bad. He would win the grand jury indictment (again ham sandwich). After that he would say "hey I'm pursuing the death penalty for you. I know you stole that dog. You may try and fight it in court and maybe you win, but if you lose its death". You may fight it but a lot of people take a plea and the case never comes down to reasonable doubt a lot of people. That is how the common citizen is treated in most crimes. Prosecutors are not looking to let people off hooks. In fact they gain power and presence for sending more and more people to jail.

Except for cops. They are definitely very soft on cops and really outside of florid corruption do not want to bring charges against their own. Is this right? All we want is equality.

I'm not saying Darren Wilson is innocent or guilty. I'm not saying anything about whether or not he would have won his trial or not. All that's bring raised here is it does appear as if the prosecution is almost shielding him when it would in no way shield a common citizen.

You really should read that link. It is very intriguing IMO

Definitely interesting, but I'm not really liking the prosecutor could've done something "ethically-questionable to satisfy external/political pressure" argument as an example of justice being done...

Also I've yet to read anything suggesting that the extortion-like grand jury process is commonplace.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here we go with the what ifs. The fact of the matter had the grand jury decided there was proble cause of a crime and voted for a "True bill" to indict many of those who are upset would be praising the prosecutor and grand jury for the great job they performed. The fact that the grand jury looked at and reviewed all of the evidence and deemed there was no probable cause of a crime and voted "No bill" the process is now considered broken.

Very few cases go before a grand jury, in most cases the police/state's attorney approach a judge with a probable cause affidavit and if the judge is satisfied the person is charged with a crime.

 

[ivwshane]

Here we go with the what ifs. The fact of the matter had the grand jury decided there was proble cause of a crime and voted for a "True bill" to indict many of those who are upset would be praising the prosecutor and grand jury for the great job they performed. The fact that the grand jury looked at and reviewed all of the evidence and deemed there was no probable cause of a crime and voted "No bill" the process is now considered broken.

Very few cases go before a grand jury, in most cases the police/state's attorney approach a judge with a probable cause affidavit and if the judge is satisfied the person is charged with a crime.

Great! Your side won so I guess there is no need for you to keep posting in this thread then, right?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Oh the poor baby is so butthurt, guess you need to slap on another hand full of Boudreaux's butt paste.

 

[HomerJS]

Here we go with the what ifs. The fact of the matter had the grand jury decided there was proble cause of a crime and voted for a "True bill" to indict many of those who are upset would be praising the prosecutor and grand jury for the great job they performed. The fact that the grand jury looked at and reviewed all of the evidence and deemed there was no probable cause of a crime and voted "No bill" the process is now considered broken.

Very few cases go before a grand jury, in most cases the police/state's attorney approach a judge with a probable cause affidavit and if the judge is satisfied the person is charged with a crime.

Most of the complaints including myself were voiced about the process well before the decision. The process was set up in a way to push GJ towards no true bill.

Two examples:
Doing an evidence dump caused GJ to judge credibility of witnesses between two conflicting stories. This is something a trial jury should do not a grand jury.

In a trial jury during voir dire people would be asked would your opinion be swayed one way or another just because a witness is a member of law enforcement. If you said yes you would be excused from the jury. This never happened.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The grand jury was already seated before this incident occurred. How do you know they weren't asked that question during the selection process?

 

[Blanky]

Sorry I can't help you then. If you don't understand the simple metaphor then that's your problem. I love the reverse racism call though! Nothing says racist like calling everyone else a racist!

Thank you for your confession.

I'm guessing that calling you an idiot makes me one.

Beautiful.

 

[mizzou]

The reason he says he can indict a ham sandwhich is because generally their offices only take slam dunk cases. Of course you can indict them, because you fucking refused charges on 80% of the rest of the cases brought before you. Not hating prosecutors, they have a tough job, but generally that is their MO


If they would have had their way, this slim pickins case against Wilson would have been labeled "REFUSAL", because the probable cause just isn't there. But since everyone is so bitchy and whiny about it, they went ahead and let a jury review it to make that determination.

 

[Sunburn74]

The reason he says he can indict a ham sandwhich is because generally their offices only take slam dunk cases. Of course you can indict them, because you fucking refused charges on 80% of the rest of the cases brought before you. Not hating prosecutors, they have a tough job, but generally that is their MO


If they would have had their way, this slim pickins case against Wilson would have been labeled "REFUSAL", because the probable cause just isn't there. But since everyone is so bitchy and whiny about it, they went ahead and let a jury review it to make that determination.

I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. There is no evidence that prosecutors only take slam dunk cases. Slam dunk cases are the rarity. Think for example with rape where you have a witness right then and there during the crime, who can name the criminal and identify him in a line up. Even with that most rape cases are not slam dunk in any sense. Making a rape case is more about painting a picture than about the facts.

Also think about all the recent exonerated rape cases (or murder cases) and the only evidence against those men: a confused elderly witness, a child in a dark corner, etc. Don't tell me those were slam dunk cases either. Rather those cases where the results of prosecutors who sought prosecutions and knew how to work a nice plea deal.

If anything what prosecutors want to avoid is going to trial, so holding someone's feet to the fire and getting a nice plea deal is often good enough.

 

[HomerJS]

The grand jury was already seated before this incident occurred. How do you know they weren't asked that question during the selection process?

Voir dire is done for trial jurors because both sets of attorneys can ask questions. That's not part of grand jury process.

 

[mizzou]

I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. There is no evidence that prosecutors only take slam dunk cases. Slam dunk cases are the rarity. Think for example with rape where you have a witness right then and there during the crime, who can name the criminal and identify him in a line up. Even with that most rape cases are not slam dunk in any sense. Making a rape case is more about painting a picture than about the facts.

Also think about all the recent exonerated rape cases (or murder cases) and the only evidence against those men: a confused elderly witness, a child in a dark corner, etc. Don't tell me those were slam dunk cases either. Rather those cases where the results of prosecutors who sought prosecutions

These are how rape cases get made: the prosecutor says "hey I'm going hard after you cause I don't play ball with rapists. If we go to trial I'll give life in prison. Or you can take a plea for 2 years and register as a sex offender". The defendant looks at his odds and makes a choice. Often its a plea deal; some go to trial. We like to think that if we're innocent we'd all fight hard in court, but honestly if your feet get held to the fire, you may think about it a little differently. But don't tell me they only take slam dunk cases. If anything what prosecutors want to avoid is going to trial.

I don't expect you to understand that because it sounds crazy, but it is true. Much of it is because the officers themselves don't present the case in a good enough package, some of it is because the prosecutors don't have enough staff to take cases that will likely end up in trial (Very very very few cases ever end in a trial), and some of it is they will file lesser charges for whatever reason, or just merge it with something else.

All you need is probable cause to bring a case before the judge, but typically if that's all you have, it won't even leave the prosecutors desk. If it's a very serious offense, they WILL take it to the grand jury, and it is EXTREMELY rare for a grand jury to not issue a true bill...but this is extremely unusual. If your case is shaky, they just won't do shit with it.

Something like a murder is completely different..in cases like the Mike Brown incident, much more care will be given throughout the process...it's not like McDonalds where you just drive up and wait 5 seconds to figure out what you get. They may even work together to see if they can get enough evidence to indict someone.

 

[mizzou]

Will Ferrell Tweeted something about "how can you have peaceful protests when you show up like this?"

How about you just fucking protest then and don't reinforce the reasons they wear protective gear? That would be the most powerful statement EVER. Here is a completely peaceful protest, and there was ZERO reason to get decked out so heavily. Instead, it just completely reinforced why that tactical team was present.

You were good in Step-Brothers, you suck at social awareness.

 

[Ichinisan]

I think it means "...down [the road]." It makes more sense than "...down [on the ground]."

...or even "his head was down" (as he was charging forward).

 

[mizzou]

...or even "his head was down" (as he was charging forward).

It's a natural reflex likely if you hear shots in front of you or feel the bullets hitting you. Sort of like bracing yourself for a horizontal hail-storm....it's completely unnatural to face it head on.

 

[Ichinisan]

... No common citizen would be afforded the protection offered by the prosecution Darren Wilson was offered. In a country where we are all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law, it leaves a very bad taste. It really is a very good read and explains why a number of reputable lawyers are displeased with the outcome of the case.

No common citizen would be subject to the wilfully-deluded mob hate and rampant factual distortions, which he experienced simply because of his race and profession.

 

[Ichinisan]

Great! Your side won so I guess there is no need for you to keep posting in this thread then, right?

Not following your logic.

Maybe this will put it into perspective:

Great! My side lost so I guess there is no need for me to keep posting in this thread then, right?

What does the outcome have to do with "need" to post in this thread? The mob practiced deliberate self-delusion and nearly all of them still need to understand the same basic facts that the grand jury considered.

 

[Svnla]

Originally Posted by Sunburn74
... No common citizen would be afforded the protection offered by the prosecution Darren Wilson was offered. In a country where we are all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law, it leaves a very bad taste. It really is a very good read and explains why a number of reputable lawyers are displeased with the outcome of the case.

You must be talking about the small business owners (that have NOTHING to do with M. Brown) with their stores/businesses burned, looted, and destroyed by the hysterical mob, right?

 

[DCal430]

Nvm

 

[TechBoyJK]

Great! Your side won so I guess there is no need for you to keep posting in this thread then, right?

"Your side won".

Do you really see this as team effort?

Well I guess you could be right.

There's those who have a grip on reality, understand the situation, and accept the Grand Jury's findings.

And there's those who drank the race baiting koolaid, believe the hype about a 'murderous kid killing cop' and continue to fester about it even though it's been completely debunked.

Mike Brown caused his own death. It's that simple.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Voir dire is done for trial jurors because both sets of attorneys can ask questions. That's not part of grand jury process.

So in other words unless they decided to indict the process is/was broken. Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.

 

[Ichinisan]

So in other words unless they decided to indict the process is/was broken. Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.

Ah, yes. I think he's saying that every single case should lead to indictment or else the process has failed. Doesn't he wonder why they bother with the grand jury at all if there's no decision to be made? :hmm:

 

[ivwshane]

I was making fun of Londo and his continuous butthurt comments. Do look at this a team effort? No but it sure hasn't stopped posters from interrupting the conversation and telling everyone who doesn't agree with them to get over it (kind of like you are doing). So if you have already accepted the outcome and don't question the process then why are you bothering to respond to those that still have questions?

So feel free to ignore mine and others posts who still are looking at the facts, we won't be persuaded by mob mentality (that would be you and your ilk), we will look at the facts and form our own opinion.

"Your side won".

Do you really see this as team effort?

Well I guess you could be right.

There's those who have a grip on reality, understand the situation, and accept the Grand Jury's findings.

And there's those who drank the race baiting koolaid, believe the hype about a 'murderous kid killing cop' and continue to fester about it even though it's been completely debunked.

Mike Brown caused his own death. It's that simple.

Btw, if you are implying that I and others that are still looking at the data are some kool aide drinking, race baiting, hype believing deniers, well tell yourself what ever you want, characterize us however you want, your mind will never change but know that your opinion means zero to me

 

[doubledeluxe]

You're thinking of ABA, the American Bar Association that regulate attorneys...

Lol really?

Ok I got fooled.

 

[ivwshane]

So in other words unless they decided to indict the process is/was broken. Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.

Ah, yes. I think he's saying that every single case should lead to indictment or else the process has failed. Doesn't he wonder why they bother with the grand jury at all if there's no decision to be made? :hmm:

That's not what he said at all. It's not a surprise you don't understand the issue and it certainly sounds like you don't understand the process either.