- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 42,433
- Reaction score
- 12,599
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Prove it.
that's the whole point
there was sufficient probable cause to go to trial
not allowing it to do so, by a manipulated grand jury proceeding, undermines the pursuit of justice and the public's trust in our justice system
your presentation is that there was no witness who saw anything other than that wilson's shooting of brown was a reasonable one
i find that an incredible conclusion
but there were witnesses who saw it as a inappropriate use of force by wilson
which causes there to be probable cause to have a trial to determine where the truth is
but there were witnesses who saw it as a inappropriate use of force by wilson
which causes there to be probable cause to have a trial to determine where the truth is
that's the whole point
there was sufficient probable cause to go to trial
not allowing it to do so, by a manipulated grand jury proceeding, undermines the pursuit of justice and the public's trust in our justice system
While I understand how you (or anyone else) might feel that way it would be incredibly unfair to subject someone that is obviously operating within the bounds of the law to be subjected to the whims of a jury. Besides, would having a trial really have helped this situation? When the evidence was presented that all the physical evidence supported Wilson and that several of the witness statements supporting Brown were either unsupported by physical evidence or made up out of whole cloth it would have been pretty damned hard to get a conviction on anything.
I'm looking through the whole transcript now to find the specifics but last night I heard that blood evidence on the street pretty much proved that Brown had turned and run at Wilson. If that's the case then that pretty much locks down Wilson's version as fact. There was absolutely nothing unfair that the state did in this process. The only unfair thing I've seen so far is that Ferguson got wrecked and any good people that live there will never get the stain of stupid off themselves.
What was the "sufficient probable cause"?
No actual witness, that would be correct. There were a couple who stepped forward as witnesses that weren't even there or were shown to be lying through their teeth (Johnson who all the actual witnesses say was lying). It's a conclusion based upon the evidence which you seem to want to ignore.
Actually, no one seems to care what the officer had to say at all, although as the accused, his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt as the prosecutor basically said in his presentation last night. However, the physical evidence and the testimony that was consistent with the physical evidence and with each other.... was considered.
What we are hearing in this thread, and on the news today, is that some people don't trust the system that we have and would prefer to just use a lynch mob form of "justice."
The news media and "group think" had come to their own conclusions - minus all the evidence. I'm watching a video of Al Sharpton talking about "justice" as if justice had not occurred. He at least is asking people to stop burning things down.
As I watched this last night, I kept hearing a lot of people (including Sharpton and other Black Leaders) talking about how the prosecutor and the Grand Jury made mistakes. How the system was, and is flawed. How the police should not have used tear gas, even in the face of gun fire, rioting, looting and arson.
I keep hearing that the black community has lost confidence in the justice system. Maybe they have some good and reasonable reasons to feel so. But... the reason they are giving today is that as long as the system doesn't come to a conclusion that they agree with, that it is flawed. That is not a legitimate reason.
There was probable cause based on the unbelievability of Wilson's statement alone. It doesn't read true.
There was probable cause based on the unbelievability of Wilson's statement alone. It doesn't read true.
It doesn't read true.
There was probable cause based on the unbelievability of Wilson's statement alone. It doesn't read true.
then explain to me why there was no tissue under brown's nails that would match wilson's testimony
but a singular instance of probable cause, necessitating a trial
Is that a definitive?I think the DA is being generous by not charging them with perjury.
Lets just put it this way. Same exact circumstances but the cop was shot and killed. Brown would have been indicted in 5 minutes.
There was probable cause based on the unbelievability of Wilson's statement alone. It doesn't read true.
Is this what our criminal justice system should be reduced into?
Lets just put it this way. Same exact circumstances but the cop was shot and killed. Brown would have been indicted in 5 minutes.
I don't think it matters if the person lived 6 miles away or 600. They came to someone else's neighborhood and destroyed it. Then went back to their own neighborhoods where their Convenient store, McDonald's, pharmacy, etc. were still standing , not inconvenienced in the slightest.
Is that a definitive?
That is a flawed point as they weren't flawed.very flawed gj proceedings
that is the point
Honestly?That they lied, or he isn't bringing perjury charges?
You do not know that.because the evidence was presented in a very one-sided manner
the presentation was made to focus on that which exculpated wilson and away from the evidence which might convict him
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?