Fair enough, so..... all the cops who testified against OJ Simpson in the trial in which he was aquitted should have been prosecuted for lying under oath.
In every case in which a black defendant is found innocent, any WHITE cop who testified against the defendant should AUTOMATICALLY be prosecuted for perjury. Every single fucking case and every single fucking white cop. Should be interesting.....
I don't think you understand the process. The grand jury has the right to go over all evidence. If anyone says something be it someone from the street or prosecutor they have the right to question. This is an active process and a great deal of time was spent by the jury. As far as Brown attacking? Yes he did. He went after Wilson and that's the conclusion reached not be me. That the results aren't based on what people wanted isn't anything I care about.
... There is never a wrong day to do the right thing, ...
The racial makeup of St. Louis County is 70% white. What should the racial makeup of the GJ have been in the quest for "fairness"?The fact it was formed in advance doesnt matter on how they voted. The fact it was a racial issue matters. They knew what was going on in town.
Haven't read the witness testimony. Who lied in court and how do we know? Was it pointed out during the grand jury? If a person giving testimony in court is caught lying under oath isn't a perjury charge automatic? (don't actually know if that's the case or not)
During his speech last night, the prosecutor indicated a few witnesses that fabricated their stories. Perjury might not be the crime for lying to a grand jury or during a grand jury investigation, however. It's all I could think to call it.
Buddy,you punch a cop AND go for his gun? 99.9% of the time you=gettin' shot;and deservedly so.
I've seen a cop get knocked out,and woke up and shook the guy's hand that did it.
The Michael Brown vs. cop situation was entirely different.
There was no one around in riot gear to help the officer that had to shoot Michael Brown.Your point isratherentirely moot.
btw .it's "hear" as in hearing..not "here" as in location.
The negative effects of a liberal education system are evident all around nowadays.
Michael Brown is not an exception from that, either.
During his speech last night, the prosecutor indicated a few witnesses that fabricated their stories. Perjury might not be the crime for lying to a grand jury or during a grand jury investigation, however. It's all I could think to call it.
So the jury is watching tv and looking at evidence that hasn't even been presented by the prosecutor? How would the jury know who or what to look at unless the prosecutor gave them the information? So yes the jury can subpoena anyone but unless they are trying to determine the validity of the testimony (which is something they aren't supposed to do), then why would they be looking for counter evidence? A grand jury's job is not to decide whether or not the accused is guilty or whether or not the evidence is faulty or suspect, that's what a trial is for, their job is to conclude whether or not there is a probable cause.
I'm still waiting for more info from you as to where you saw this evidence (ie page numbers).
"The physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury, combined with the witness statements, supported and substantiated by that physical evidence, tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened."
I for one am not shocked in the lack of an indictment, but am seriously disappointed. If you read what McCullogh says, he sounds like a defense lawyer who just won! You have to read twice to confirm that the above statement is coming from the side of the losing prosecution!
...
It is very disappointing and to me it shows that there is a need to re-address conflicts of interest which may be present in the prosecution of police officers and judges.
You're either willfully ignorant about this case, or just intellectually incapable of understanding it, as you've proven in many posts. I'm not sure why you still bother posting in this thread. Actually, that's not true, I know why.So the jury is watching tv and looking at evidence that hasn't even been presented by the prosecutor? How would the jury know who or what to look at unless the prosecutor gave them the information? So yes the jury can subpoena anyone but unless they are trying to determine the validity of the testimony (which is something they aren't supposed to do), then why would they be looking for counter evidence? A grand jury's job is not to decide whether or not the accused is guilty or whether or not the evidence is faulty or suspect, that's what a trial is for, their job is to conclude whether or not there is a probable cause.
I'm still waiting for more info from you as to where you saw this evidence (ie page numbers).
No, there would have been no protests if he went to trial and was found not guilty. That would be justice, and it's all the protesters have wanted from the get go. Just justice, that's all. <---- not seriousAs bad as all the anger is right now.. Wouldn't it be worse if there had been a trial and Wilson was found "not guilty?"
I believe it would be much worse for all parties if this was dragged out in a trial when the evidence shows there was no way he could be convicted.
I understand the logic of thinking "Well at least there was a trial..." But do you honestly believe that would've played well with those who are looting & burning? It would've been an even BIGGER build up and let down. D:
You're either willfully ignorant about this case, or just intellectually incapable of understanding it, as you've proven in many posts. I'm not sure why you still bother posting in this thread. Actually, that's not true, I know why.
I didn't realize the job of the prosecutor was to release all evidence even evidence that hurts his case.
And just which evidence did he have that helped his case? From the way it sounds, none what so ever...
What does that have to do with anything? You answered zero of my questions and you pointed to zero specifics that addressed my questions. Do you have a particular page I should be looking at?
If a prosecutor doesn't have enough evidence to indict then he should have said so and not gone for an indictment in the first place.
If a prosecutor doesn't have enough evidence to indict then he should have said so and not gone for an indictment in the first place.
The link shows what was revealed. Now what page is it on? Sorry I just have facts, not the number. Well I suppose that NPR is part of the White Man's Conspiracy.
As far as a grand jury goes they can get information by power of subpoena. They do not have to take what's given and last night's announcement pointed out that they ordered photos retaken by their own authority. A grand jury does not pronounce guilt, but in determining whether a situation warrants a trial they can and do sift through evidence and testimony. Just cataloging complaints is useless. No, the validity of whatever comes before them is tested. That's proper and essential.
I know you're upset but you should remember that is your fault, not mine. You have many more posts in this "anti-black" thread than I do, and yet you know hilariously little about this case because you are either a troll (hopefully for your case) or have a substantial learning disorder. Being mad at a total stranger over your own inadequacy won't correct it.Lol! Fuck off Why don't you go post in another anti black thread and add one of your insightful comments about gangsta rap?
Feel free to ignore my posts if you can't or don't wish to address my questions.
LMAO!!!!! The person that placed his faith in the media darlings putting forth the false narrative is questioning everything that proved him out to be a fool, a fool lead by the nose by the media. This is so fun to watch.
Or the prosecutor finds out the witnesses he thought he had, didn't actually see the events as they initially described? I personally believe the grand jury proceedings were done primarily to try and appease the angry mob. It didn't appease them. Again, my personal opinion is the grand jury made the correct decision, not only to the specific letter of the law, but the correct decision as to what happened during the encounter between Brown & Wilson.
If the evidence were there to tell a different story, and the grand jury decided to sent this to trial, I would have supported that as the correct decision.
But then again, I am looking at this situation as a conflict between JUST Brown, and JUST Wilson. I am not pitting the entire black race and every injustice done to them against Wilson as the representative of the white race. Which it's pretty dang hard not to believe many out there are thinking.
If you strip the colors away from the skins of Wilson & Brown, there very likely are no mobs, no riots, no burning, no looting, no trial, no grand jury proceedings.
I don't know. This same shit has been argued, not just in the past few months, but years, hell decades this exact argument has gone on. Only thing that changes is the new face to stand the charges of white oppression. It's never-ending. It's never-ending because some don't want it to end.
That is exactly what he should have done but can you imagine what would have happened if he did that? Instead, public pressure forced his hand into having a GJ hearing. The prosecutor's biggest problems are that he was unable to stand his ground against that public pressure (maybe reasonable considering how bad things are even after a GJ hearing) and that he used a "rare" method of handling the GJ hearing that gives the impression of impropriety. If the prosecutor, or the two ADAs handling the actual hearing, guided the jury towards a no bill decision, then that should definitely be revealed and proper disciplinary actions should be held along with the possibility of an outside third party stepping in to handle a new hearing. If, however, there was no impropriety, the fact that he handed off all of the evidence and decisionmaking to the jury is not by itself an improper act, even if rare.