Do you think the public interest was served? Do you think the shopkeepers who's store was looted feels that the public interest was served? Do you think that the protesters or looters feel that the public interest was served? Do you think that Browns parents feel that the public interest was served? Only the Wilson and the police feel that the public interest was served.
If we got a trial, open and in the public, then everyone would be able to see that as a defense attorney did his job to explain how the evidence proves that Wilson is innocent. Wilson would have been acquitted and the protests and rioting would have been much less.
But instead we got a secret sort-of-trial with one person who might have been biased towards siding with wilson, that got to decide what was and was not evidence. All of it told to us afterwards in a very dense document that we have to trust is accurate and not altered by the very people that the protesters are claiming are corrupt.
All the GJ information was made public.
That is what the no-bill decision was based on. Exidence.
Many of the protesters are angry because they feel that the system is corrupt, not that Wilson got away with murder (or not). Giving them a fair and open trial, with a prosecutor what was trying to get a conviction, in other words the adversarial system we are supposed to have, would have satisfied many, if not most, of them.What purpose would a trial have served except to cost money. The outcome would have been the same.
People would not have been satisfied - they wanted blood, not justice.
Look at those here, same concept.
All the GJ information was made public.
That is what the no-bill decision was based on. Evidence.
What purpose would a trial have served except to cost money. The outcome would have been the same.
People would not have been satisfied - they wanted blood, not justice.
Looters and protesters complained because they wanted excuse to their actions, any you want to provide such.
Look at those here, same concept.
Other than dcal, who here has called for blood?
Do you sleep with a nightlight on? How else do you keep all the boogeymen away?
Trials are for when there is enough evidence that the prosecutor feels that they can obtain a conviction, not a railroad attempt of an innocent person.
Trials are for when society believes that someone might be guilty of a crime. You are suggestion that their is a ruling class gets to decide when that is. That is a little too close to true, and that is the problem.
So you're butthurt because you think a cop used excessive force and a jury of his peers found that he didn't.
Of course the system is rigged. When there are terms like "affluenza" thrown around, it's confirmed beyond a shadow of anyone's doubt. The assertion that the system is rigged against any particular group of people, though, is just plain silly. I'm sure a dozen and a half people didn't get together and say "kid was black, so cop gets a pass." And I'm sure that the cop didn't say "he's black, so I'm gonna shoot him."
The bottom line is that he was a criminal, engaged in criminal activity. If you can show me some vast conspiracy of a particular group of people being targetted by cops WITHOUT prior involvement in criminal activity, then be my guest. I'm fairly certain, however, that such data does not exist.
Fact: being a criminal means you live under greater scrutiny. White, black, brown, green, yellow, purple, man, woman, tranny...doesn't matter, that fact is true.
Dari here has also shown his blood thirst.
You and a few others have also stated that the rule of law should have been ignored, that a trial was needed. Justice was only if Wilson was indicted and/or convicted.
Trials are for when there is enough evidence that the prosecutor feels that they can obtain a conviction, not a railroad attempt of an innocent person.
Trials are for when society believes that someone might be guilty of a crime. You are suggestion that their is a ruling class gets to decide when that is. That is a little too close to true, and that is the problem.
Sorry but that's not how the legal system works. If and only when there's probable cause based on evidence that a crime has occurred should a trial be required.
No evidence, no probable cause, no indictment, no trial........period
The Attorney General, a state sponsored position, decides whether to try people or not.Sorry but that's not how the legal system works. If and only when there's probable cause based on evidence that a crime has occurred should a trial be required.
No evidence, no probable cause, no indictment, no trial........period
Sorry but that's not how the legal system works.
If and only when there's probable cause based on evidence that a crime has occurred should a trial be required.
So you are saying that every lawyer who has claimed that indictments that don't end in a true bill are the result of a major fuck up or was the result of the prosecutors wishes, are lying? Or do you think you know more than them? Are you saying that the numbers that show 99%+ of indictments that return a true bill is false?
Let me say this though, I wish it was the way you described and I wish that's how the law worked, the problem is, that's not the reality.
Attorneys have a special duty as officers of the court. Not only are they barred from trying to influence a witness to lie under oath, they also must not call a witness whom they know or believe will lie under oath. And, once an attorney learns that a client or any witness intends to lie under oath, the attorney must inform the witness of the consequences of committing perjury and advise the witness not to do so.
And, regardless of any of the "witness" testimony, the physical evidence - the stuff that doesn't lie, all points to it being a justifiable shooting. Why would he want to indict a man when all of the physical evidence supports his innocence? Anyone with a lukewarm IQ who has read about all of the physical evidence knows that there's no way in the world an honest jury would find him guilty of any crime.
Then they shouldn't even have tried to indict him. They generally don't go through all that bullshit if "anyone with a lukewarm IQ" who has more access to the physical evidence than all of us combined honestly felt no crime had been committed.
With everyone saying that the looting and shit would have gone down the exact same either way, I don't see that as a relevant reason, much less a reason to bastardize our legal system because of PR. IMHO either this case should have went to trial or no grand jury should have been called in the first place. If the prosecutor wanted an indictment he most certainly would have gotten one. He did not, so it was a dog and pony show from the start. Not sure about you but I'm not a big fan of dog and pony shows.
For the record, I've seen absolutely nothing that makes me believe the officer broke any laws or is guilty of anything and a lot that says the opposite. That does not, again imho, absolve the above. Either do your job and bring him to trial or don't (both parts being "his job") but leave the dog and pony show out of it.
Part of the dog and pony show would have been "dictated" by Obama, Holder and the Feds.
They came down on the wrong side again.
Anything that the Feds would have started would have been rigged vs open.
This was able to nip anything in the bud and if the Feds then went forward, it would have shown pure political manipulation due to racial pressure.
Londo doesn't care..the white cop said it was a good shoot, so any other testimony is clearly 100% false. The black kid...I mean thug deserved it in his mind.
Only if the DA thought Wilson should be tried, which he obviously didn't.Only if you are well connected. For the rest of us this is not how the legal system works. That is the problem. We have a plutocracy that decides, based on it's own agenda, who goes to trial and who doesn't.
We know that the average Grand Jury time is less than 2 minutes, and only evidence that supports the D.A. position is presented. If this had been treated like any other case we would be awaiting trial now.
Lot of truth to this. We need a standard process for police shootings that is fair to both parties.Then they shouldn't even have tried to indict him. They generally don't go through all that bullshit if "anyone with a lukewarm IQ" who has more access to the physical evidence than all of us combined honestly felt no crime had been committed.
With everyone saying that the looting and shit would have gone down the exact same either way, I don't see that as a relevant reason, much less a reason to bastardize our legal system because of PR. IMHO either this case should have went to trial or no grand jury should have been called in the first place. If the prosecutor wanted an indictment he most certainly would have gotten one. He did not, so it was a dog and pony show from the start. Not sure about you but I'm not a big fan of dog and pony shows.
For the record, I've seen absolutely nothing that makes me believe the officer broke any laws or is guilty of anything and a lot that says the opposite. That does not, again imho, absolve the above. Either do your job and bring him to trial or don't (both parts being "his job") but leave the dog and pony show out of it.
Yep.Obama didnt control anything here, he just tried to capitalize on it so folks would ignore other, more serious issues.
But he didnt make it happen. Same as Zimmerman, and that black college professor the first week of his presidency.