• [BREAKING] Its happening. Grand jury has made a decision about Ferguson.
    2,211 replies, posted
To be quite frank [img]http://puu.sh/d6yKd/66654a2082.png[/img] we're kinda expecting this from you at this point.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580427]If there was actually zero evidence then that would mean that there isn't even a body and that Michael Brown is still alive and well. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] According to precedent, that Brown was shot at all should be enough evidence to return an indictment so that the case can move to trial. [B]Just like I've come to expect people personally attacking me instead of engaging my arguments. If you want to go for a twofer you can leave a comment on my profile telling me I should get banned. One of these days someone might get through to me...[/B][/QUOTE] tbf, you're the one saying me and snowmew are deranged and out of touch with reality, when you expect going to court should be free, same with anything that saves lives.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580414]"Because when people disagree with reality itself then there is no arguing with them." [/QUOTE] Oh, the irony. It is entertaining to read though.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580414]Because when people disagree with reality itself then there is no arguing with them. You and codemaster have demonstrated that you fundamentally do not understand how the indictment process works and apparently I'm the dumb, irrational one for trying to explain it to you. You're beyond help.[/QUOTE] Yet again, let me repeat myself: just because something is [b][i]improbable[/i][/b] does not make it [b][i]impossible[/i][/b]. Your entire argument is basically "because less than 0.01% of grand juries choose not to indict, that number is negligible and any non-indictment is obviously wrong". Do you seriously not see the problem behind that reasoning, especially when applied to this case? Since you're so excited about stating "the facts" here, let me state some of my own: [b]Fact[/b]: there was practically no evidence supporting Wilson's indictment. [b]Fact[/b]: had the public & media not gone crazy over it, the prosecutor would have dropped the case himself. [b]Fact[/b]: grand juries act as "test runs" for full trials, at a much reduced cost. The prosecutor chose it because he knew beforehand that there was no case, but had to prove this so he didn't look like he had an agenda. [b]Fact[/b]: the grand jury decided not to indict because, as the prosecutor knew, there was no evidence supporting a case. Normally speaking, a prosecutor would not go to a grand jury in the first place [b][i]with no evidence[/i][/b]. The case wouldn't be counted in your 0.01% statistic at all. However, in those exceedingly rare circumstances when it is necessary to prove to the public that there is no case, the prosecutor decided to avoid political suicide and formally proceed with a grand jury, avoiding a trial because the outcome would have been exactly the same. [QUOTE=Snowmew;46573443]Grand jury decisions cannot be appealed, but they are also non-binding. A prosecutor can choose to ignore the ruling and proceed with the case, but it will require a preliminary hearing with an actual trial judge, which would practically be a repeat of the grand jury deliberations. Grand juries only exist to bypass the formalities and costs of a trial judge reviewing the evidence to determine if the case should proceed. They do not involve any judges and usually do not even have lawyers (except for the prosecutor). Essentially, they are a test-run to see if the case has any merit; if it does, it continues, but if it doesn't, it is either dropped (thereby eliminating the expense of a full trial) or the prosecutor chooses to override the decision and continue (extremely rare and will probably not happen here). I believe either a grand jury decision or a preliminary hearing is required for a judge to accept a case to go to trial. The family can't appeal because there is nothing to appeal; there is no case. Appealing that decision would just make a trial judge review the same evidence and make the same decision. So while the case is not officially closed, the chances of it proceeding to trial are negligible, unless the prosecutor gets a gun pointed at his head.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46580463]tbf, you're the one saying me and snowmew are deranged and out of touch with reality, when you expect going to court should be free, same with anything that saves lives.[/QUOTE] So for the second time I find myself needing to ask you how much, exactly, you think a human life costs? If a serial killer kills, say, fifteen people, how much money, maximum, should the government be allowed to spend trying suspects until they give up?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580427]According to precedent, that Brown was shot at all should be enough evidence to return an indictment so that the case can move to trial.[/QUOTE] So every time an officer kills someone in the line of duty, they must be charged with a crime and sent to trial even if all the evidence is in their favor? No thanks.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580486]So for the second time I find myself needing to ask you how much, exactly, you think a human life costs? If a serial killer kills, say, fifteen people, how much money, maximum, should the government be allowed to spend trying suspects until they give up?[/QUOTE] They fucking did that with this god damn case. They found literally no proof he was guilty, not a single point. If they brought that serial killer to court and found him with no evidence that he was guilty then they would drop it and look for more suspects. Are you really this thick to think the only reason he should be trialed is because of how rare it is for cops to not be indicted?
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;46580491]So every time an officer kills someone in the line of duty, they must be charged with a crime and sent to trial even if all the evidence is in their favor? No thanks.[/QUOTE] Facepunch decided it's verdict on Michael Brown before his body was even cold (as it tends to do) but I don't think it's the actual popular consensus that there was literally "zero evidence" of wrongdoing on Wilson's part - only in the echo chamber of this corner of the internet.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580524]Facepunch decided it's verdict on Michael Brown before his body was even cold (as it tends to do) but I don't think it's the actual popular consensus that there was literally "zero evidence" of wrongdoing on Wilson's part - only in the echo chamber of this corner of the internet.[/QUOTE] Popular consensus does not make something right. The populace did not know any details of the case beyond what the media fed to them. The testimony released from the grand jury obviously paints a very clear picture, and the public's view was based on eyewitness accounts which were redacted by the eyewitnesses themselves once they were caught lying. I mean, we all think you're being an absolute moron here, but hey, we may not be right.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580524]Facepunch decided it's verdict on Michael Brown before his body was even cold (as it tends to do) but [b]I don't think it's the actual popular consensus that there was literally "zero evidence" of wrongdoing on Wilson's part - only in the echo chamber of this corner of the internet.[/b][/QUOTE] And in the courtroom where the grand jury decided not to indict, the only place that matters.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580524]Facepunch decided it's verdict on Michael Brown before his body was even cold (as it tends to do) but I don't think it's the actual popular consensus that there was literally "zero evidence" of wrongdoing on Wilson's part - only in the echo chamber of this corner of the internet.[/QUOTE] Yeah, there isnt a ton of evidence you can look up for free that show he just did his job. Oh wait, I linked it earlier but you kept saying he should have a retrial just because its rare for a cop to not get indicted.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580524]Facepunch decided it's verdict on Michael Brown before his body was even cold (as it tends to do) but I don't think it's the actual popular consensus that there was literally "zero evidence" of wrongdoing on Wilson's part - only in the echo chamber of this corner of the internet.[/QUOTE] Its an echo chamber if people dont agree with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[url]http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7889143-Video-Ferguson-officer-says-he-never-wanted-to-kill/[/url] Full Wilson ABC interview (45 minutes) [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] Stop feeding the troll people. Ignore his posts.
They should just declare martial law and deploy the National Guard to enforce a curfew for a week while things get cleaned up and order is restored. They should have done that on the first night actually, then there wouldn't have been hundreds of looters and over a dozen arson attacks.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46580715]They should just declare martial law and deploy the National Guard to enforce a curfew for a week while things get cleaned up and order is restored. They should have done that on the first night actually, then there wouldn't have been hundreds of looters and over a dozen arson attacks.[/QUOTE] Things seemed more under control last night. Mostly just mouthy hipsters comparing the cops to Nazis an making a big shit over the whole thing. I think the final count on the first night was 21 arsons, but last night there were hardly any (just a tree on fire, iirc).
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46580715]They should just declare martial law and deploy the National Guard to enforce a curfew for a week while things get cleaned up and order is restored. They should have done that on the first night actually, then there wouldn't have been hundreds of looters and over a dozen arson attacks.[/QUOTE] Honestly, that'd exacerbate the issues. Community doesn't respect the police because of discrimination and they have a sense that they're oppressed by the police force and poorly represented by the local government? Let's declare martial law and give everyone curfews. Sure, it would have reduced violence in the short run, but it would almost certainly be detrimental in the long run - the community would feel totally unrepresented (as they actually are in a case of martial law), and so they'd have even more resentment for the police. Martial law isn't the way to heal a community.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580486]So for the second time I find myself needing to ask you how much, exactly, you think a human life costs? If a serial killer kills, say, fifteen people, how much money, maximum, should the government be allowed to spend trying suspects until they give up?[/QUOTE] You're avatar fits your profile nicely.
so are we just going to ignore the fact that the Prosecuting Attorney for the trial (Robert P. McCulloch) is the president of [URL="http://www.backstoppers.org/board.html"]The BackStoppers Inc.[/URL], (A community revolving around the protection and support of [I]police officers[/I] and firefighters) which was responsible for (and even benefited from) [URL="http://teespring.com/supportdwilson2014"]several[/URL] [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20140826161021/https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser"]fundraisers[/URL] supporting Darren Wilson I dunno, I mean that seems like there might be some conflict of interest there but hey, there's probably some unrelated reason why the National Bar Association is [URL="http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b"]calling bullshit[/URL] on the trial's result
I'd recommend looking at all the evidence yourself and drawing your own conclusions rather than reading into others opinions. The prosecutor allowed [I]all[/I] and I do mean all, witnesses to go before the jury. He held no evidence back. The problem with trying to get a new indictment proceeding is trying to find a jury that isnt predisposed to the case. I think people are just mad because there wasnt an indictment. The problem is that its quite hard to indict an officer in a fatal shooting when he articulates why s/he shot in a way where it fits within the justified legal means of taking of a life. You cant indict a man who didnt break the law. You also cannot assume guilt either because just like everyone else, Wilson is innocent until proven guilty. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=cebceb44;46581344]so are we just going to ignore the fact that the Prosecuting Attorney for the trial (Robert P. McCulloch) is the president of [URL="http://www.backstoppers.org/board.html"]The BackStoppers Inc.[/URL], (A community revolving around the protection and support of [I]police officers[/I] and firefighters)[/QUOTE] [quote] Within hours of the death of a police officer, firefighter, publicly-funded paramedic or EMT his or her family receives a check for $5,000 from The BackStoppers, with assurance of further help. Follow-up Assumption of financial obligations (i.e., mortgage payments, automobile payments, credit card debt, loan debt, taxes, insurance, etc.) as funding permits Health and dental insurance, if needed Elementary and secondary educational assistance grades K–12 (per child: $2,000 per year public, $4,000 per year private) College/vocational tuition assistance to spouse/survivors $1,000 payment to spouse at Christmas $1,000 U.S. Savings Bonds to surviving children at Christmas and on birthday up to age 21 Miscellaneous assistance as approved by board of directors (i.e., home repairs, unusual medical expenses, etc.) Financial counseling These benefits are not all-inclusive and the amounts of assistance indicated are guidelines only and can be increased by the Board of Directors based upon need or other circumstances.[/quote] The BackStoppers supports families of fallen police officers, firefighters, and EMS. Whats so bad about this?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46581407] The BackStoppers supports families of fallen police officers, firefighters, and EMS. Whats so bad about this?[/QUOTE] because people who don't do their research hears "the lead prosecutor has ties to the police" they instantly think it's a conspiracy.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46581407]I'd recommend looking at all the evidence yourself and drawing your own conclusions rather than reading into others opinions. The prosecutor allowed [I]all[/I] and I do mean all, witnesses to go before the jury. He held no evidence back. The problem with trying to get a new indictment proceeding is trying to find a jury that isnt predisposed to the case. I think people are just mad because there wasnt an indictment. The problem is that its quite hard to indict an officer in a fatal shooting when he articulates why s/he shot in a way where it fits within the justified legal means of taking of a life. You cant indict a man who didnt break the law. You also cannot assume guilt either because just like everyone else, Wilson is innocent until proven guilty. The BackStoppers supports families of fallen police officers, firefighters, and EMS. Whats so bad about this?[/QUOTE] I literally just said there was a conflict of interest there. The prosecuting attorney in a trial directly involving a cop should not be the prosecuting attorney if they've built most of their life and business around protecting cops and the whole point of the court system is to prove whether innocent or guilty, but we never even got that far due to the jury's refusal to indict. We never had "Jury finds defendant guilty/not guilty".
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46581479]I literally just said there was a conflict of interest there. The prosecuting attorney in a trial directly involving a cop should not be the prosecuting attorney if they've built most of their life and business around protecting cops[/quote] Probably because his dad, a cop, was killed when he was 12 and doesnt want others to have the experiences he had? [quote] and the whole point of the court system is to prove whether innocent or guilty, but we never even got that far due to the jury's refusal to indict. We never had "Jury finds defendant guilty/not guilty".[/QUOTE] ... the court system returned a No True Bill on all 5 charges. They see fit that he didnt commit a crime. They didnt refuse to indict. They said that there wasnt enough evidence of a crime [I]to[/I] indict. Wilson is an innocent man. The feds might try something, but the jury problem might make this impossible.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46580427]If there was actually zero evidence then that would mean that there isn't even a body and that Michael Brown is still alive and well. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] According to precedent, that Brown was shot at all should be enough evidence to return an indictment so that the case can move to trial. Just like I've come to expect people personally attacking me instead of engaging my arguments. If you want to go for a twofer you can leave a comment on my profile telling me I should get banned. One of these days someone might get through to me...[/QUOTE] You clearly don't have a basic understanding of the criminal justice system in the United States. First off, let me apologize for using the word "zero", I forgot to put in my disclaimer so I'll put it in here: DISCLAIMER: The context of the term 'zero' here is in fact an exaggeration. That being said you do NOT return an indictment on a clear self defense case. The way this went down is that Brown got shot by Officer Wilson. A district at tourney took the homicide case. The DA then made a determination as to whether or not there was a crime committed. My guess is at that point the DA ONLY began the preliminary process because of pressure from the public, as it was most likely already clear to them that this is a 'perfect' self defense case. Regardless, they went with what the public wanted and most likely brought to the jury a complaint containing a murder and manslaughter charge. The jury then got to sit through 70+ hours of inconsistent witness testimony, plus paper and photo evidence from the medical examiners that dealt with Brown and Wilson. From *70+* hours of evidence they determined that it was a 'perfect' self defense case, by which there was NO CRIME COMMITTED. If it were ANYTHING else, they would turn an indictment of manslaughter or police misconduct at the very least. You do NOT indict people unless there is probable cause that they committed a crime. Please, go do some homework. The jury makes the decision as to whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=cebceb44;46581344]so are we just going to ignore the fact that the Prosecuting Attorney for the trial (Robert P. McCulloch) is the president of [URL="http://www.backstoppers.org/board.html"]The BackStoppers Inc.[/URL], (A community revolving around the protection and support of [I]police officers[/I] and firefighters) which was responsible for (and even benefited from) [URL="http://teespring.com/supportdwilson2014"]several[/URL] [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20140826161021/https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser"]fundraisers[/URL] supporting Darren Wilson I dunno, I mean that seems like there might be some conflict of interest there but hey, there's probably some unrelated reason why the National Bar Association is [URL="http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b"]calling bullshit[/URL] on the trial's result[/QUOTE] The jury decided not to indict, not the DA. Another DA could take over just as easily and charge if that were the case.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46581592]Probably because his dad, a cop, was killed when he was 12 and doesnt want others to have the experiences he had?[/QUOTE] So then there's a major turning point in his life that very likely could result in him being biased in favor of cops, that's wonderful even more of a reason he's too close to this whole case [QUOTE=viper720666;46581627]The jury decided not to indict, not the DA. Another DA could take over just as easily and charge if that were the case.[/QUOTE] How the prosecuting attorney presents can make or break an indiction, that's the problem. [quote][URL="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120422/bob-mcculloch-abused-grand-jury-process-ferguson"]The prosecutor gets to present his or her view[/URL], but there's no one to present the opposing view - a rather key feature of the criminal justice system. This isn't a problem when the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty, since the result is an actual trial. But when the prosecutor stage-manages a grand jury into affirming his view of the defendant's innocence, that's it.[/quote]
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46581767]So then there's a major turning point in his life that very likely could result in him being biased in favor of cops, that's wonderful even more of a reason he's too close to this whole case How the prosecuting attorney presents can make or break an indiction, that's the problem.[/QUOTE] So you're implying that he intentionally sabotaged the indictment? Check the OP for the evidence presented.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46581592]Probably because his dad, a cop, was killed when he was 12 and doesnt want others to have the experiences he had?[/QUOTE] Wait this is meant to make it sound like there's less of a conflict of interest?
[video=youtube;tOEpPAzeZ9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEpPAzeZ9A[/video] So apparently this is happening.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46581804]Wait this is meant to make it sound like there's less of a conflict of interest?[/QUOTE] I'm confused how theres a conflict of interest. You're bitching over the county prosecuting attorney. He presented ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE to the jury. He allowed witnesses to testify which had conflicting testimonies with the evidence. He does nothing but submit evidence. Which he did in his fullest capacity. The jury makes the decision. The jury decides how they want to interpret the evidence.
[QUOTE=viper720666;46581791]So you're implying that he intentionally sabotaged the indictment? Check the OP for the evidence presented.[/QUOTE] Sabotaged makes it sound like he did everything in his power to return no indictment, but considering how he's the one presenting it, he can just as easily put everything into his own words. I'm going through autopsy reports and a lot of other things all in heavy legal speak, and the transcripts provided show he's not reading them word for word. He's the final filter all this stuff goes through before reaching the grand jury (who aren't qualified or in a position to decide guilt, just whether there's reason to go to court), so he has a lot of influence on how evidence is perceived. so yeah, intentionally sabotaged. All but two witness testimonies are describing excessive use of force, where Darren Wilson is described to continue firing after Michael Brown fell to his knees, hands raised. Amazingly, those other two witness testimonies were the only ones he didn't try too hard to counter. When Darren presents his testimony, he describes Michael like the Incredible Hulk, referring to him as "it" (it charged at me, shooting only made it angrier, ect.) A lot of dehumanization was allowed, and considering all of this was going on record, [B]any other prosecuting attorney would continuously attempt to get those testifying to refer to people by name, or any other pronoun that isn't 'it'.[/B] All the evidence is there, but again, the prosecuting attorney is the final filter everything goes through before reaching a grand jury. Considering the fact he is extremely close to this case, I don't see why him putting a spin on everything in favor of a cop is so far-fetched.
[QUOTE=Holt!;46581867][video=youtube;tOEpPAzeZ9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEpPAzeZ9A[/video] So apparently this is happening.[/QUOTE] Stream is on standby all of a sudden EDIT:Woops nevermind was just me
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.