People who believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully shot are going to be ignorant and never change their views. The easiest way is to just agree to disagree and save yourself the headache. At the beginning of this mess I really thought Michael Brown was wrongly shot, but as things progressed it obviously showed Darren Wilson had plenty of reasons to engage just like Michael Brown had numerous attempts to prevent this from ending this way.
[QUOTE=MasterKade;46606537]Terrible as he acted, I feel like we shouldn't justify his death either.
The way his parents have reacted also seem completely different than the person Michael Brown seems to be.[/QUOTE]
Its justified, no one is void of the law. If i try to grab a cop's gun and then try to tackle and kill him, then i get shot. It shouldn't be this fucking big of an issue in the first place.
And no shit his parents say otherwise, parents will always defend their kids no matter what they do.
[QUOTE=Apache249;46607449]Correlation, not causation[/QUOTE]
True, then again I'm not quite sure what standard of proof I could possibly do to strictly satisfy a causal relationship (i.e: what causes the fact that police officers hardly ever get indicted?).
In this case, since the prosecutor's grand strategy was to "present all the evidence", something that does not, repeat, does not, happen in other grand jury indictments, I think it is not much of a stretch to think that the prosecution did not want to push the indictment issue - they played both defense and prosecution which is fucked up.
[editline]30th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607458]No. That's not the prosecution's job in a Grand Jury. The prosecutor literally just presents all the available evidence, the Grand Jury decides whether or not to proceed.
Are you really arguing that the prosecutor should have presented biased evidence against wilson, so that the jury would indict him? What the fuck? What sort of justice system could claim to be even remotely fair, if the prosecutor was just presenting evidence due to crowd reactions.[/QUOTE]
That is what prosecutors do all the time!
"Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
Perhaps the fact that declined indictments are so rare shows nothing more than the case against Wilson being extraordinarily weak yet blown way out of proportion.
[QUOTE=Flameon;46607443]That hardly ever happens except for police officers. Why do you think that is?[/QUOTE]
Because instead of complying with the police, criminals want to get away with their crime and will fight tooth and nail to not go to jail? Often resulting in deadly force because they'd rather try to kill a cop than lose their freedom temporarily for stealing some fucking cigars?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607539]Then they really had no evidence TO indict him. The evidence they would indict him on would all be physical evidence (as the eye witness statements had been discredited to hell and back), and the physical evidence all pointed to browns wounds being the result of wilson defending himself.[/QUOTE]
Its not the prosecution job to discredit eye witness statements. Thats the defense's job at the trial. Its the prosecution's job to present the evidence they think will get an indictment. Aka: their best evidence.
[QUOTE=Apache249;46607538]Perhaps the fact that declined indictments are so rare shows nothing more than the case against Wilson being extraordinarily weak yet blown way out of proportion.[/QUOTE]
I would be willing to hear this out if not for the utter bullshit prosecution strategy at the grand jury. What justified them producing contradictory evidence, letting Wilson present his side of the story [not cross-examining him after he told it], and a host of other shit? It doesnt take much of a leap to think that they didn't even wanna try to bring the issue to trial.
[QUOTE=Flameon;46607565]Its not the prosecution job to discredit eye witness statements. Thats the defense's job at the trial. Its the prosecution's job to present the evidence they think will get an indictment. Aka: their best evidence.[/QUOTE]
You... you do know the prosecution allowed all witnesses to testify. All witnesses. Regardless of whether their story contradicted the evidence or not.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46607644]You... you do know the prosecution allowed all witnesses to testify. All witnesses. Regardless of whether their story contradicted the evidence or not.[/QUOTE]
Yes, thats the problem...
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607622]The prosecution didn't even discredit the statements. The statements discredited themselves. They had like 50 statements that all were different things. They had virtually nothing in common with the actual physical evidence, and so were completely thrown out because they were physically impossible.[/QUOTE]
.....whyd they choose to present every single statement?!?!?!
I'm really confused because i feel like you guys keep agreeing with me.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607701]Because if they didn't then people would scream about how racist the justice system is, and that wilson got off because no one got to testify.[/QUOTE]
So basically you are telling me that you don't think you could have picked and chose eye-witness evidence, physical evidence, etc, from the grab bag the prosecution handed the jury to get a true bill?
Flameon went full retard.
You never go full retard.
I don't even understand what point he is trying to make
I'm legitimately confused on your stance on this case, Flameon
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46607768]I'm legitimately confused on your stance on this case, Flameon[/QUOTE]
I think he is saying the persecutors purposely overloaded the Jury with evidence so they would get confused and decline to indict him.
My stance is that in grand jury hearings, the prosecution often cherry picks evidence and presents the best-possible world to get an indictment. They do this because the grand jury hearing is super fucked for defendents usually for example: defense lawyers are not even allowed to be present in the room, and they are definitely not allowed to cross-examine or challenge prosecution evidence. So, in an indictment hearing the jury is spoon-fed one side of the story, the prosecution's side. If that side is convincing, then the jury returns true bill.
This is why the grand jury indicts like 99.9% of all cases brought before it.
Is this a fucked up justice process? Without a doubt. But, what is MORE UNJUST is that this fucked-up process isn't used categorically equally accross the board. What is more upsetting from a indictment-leaning grand jury process is the situations in which they make exceptions. One category of exceptions they make concerns the 'who' of their indictment - police offices are almost never indicted.
Thats what happened with Wilson. Instead of gaming the system as they would have done if Wilson had died in the scuffle or something like that, they decided to not act as a prosecutor and instead act as the defense for wilson. They didn't want an indictment, and its painfully obvious when you view their grand strategy.
[QUOTE=Flameon;46607827]
Thats what happened with Wilson. Instead of gaming the system as they would have done if Wilson had died in the scuffle or something like that, they decided to not act as a prosecutor and instead act as the defense for wilson. They didn't want an indictment, and its painfully obvious when you view their grand strategy.[/QUOTE]
To be honest I'm sure they didn't want an indictment, infact if I remember correctly they admitted this and decided to go with a grand jury so the process is more open and transparent.
What I disagree with is your saying they acted as his defense. If anything the process was as fair as it could have been.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607856]I understand your stance, and can see where you're coming from.
But you're literally advocating for cherry picking. You can't say "the justice system should be equal for all" and advocate for cherry picking at the same time.[/QUOTE]
In a perfect world, the prosecution would give everyone the treatment they gave Wilson. But since we don't live in a perfect world, the imperfect response would be the most just response - treat him like they treat other "criminals". Give him the all-star prosecution response.
They didn't. They didn't want to indite him. Thats the problem. There was enough evidence for an indictment, they chose not to have one (maybe, because of the fiscal concerns you raised earlier). That is whats fucked up.
There should have been a trial. Let the trial determine if Wilson was guilty or not.
[QUOTE=Flameon;46607893]In a perfect world, the prosecution would give everyone the treatment they gave Wilson. But since we don't live in a perfect world, the imperfect response would be the most just response - treat him like they treat other "criminals". Give him the all-star prosecution response.
They didn't. They didn't want to indite him. Thats the problem. There was enough evidence for an indictment, they chose not to have one (maybe, because of the fiscal concerns you raised earlier). That is whats fucked up.
There should have been a trial. Let the trial determine if Wilson was guilty or not.[/QUOTE]
They presented all this evidence though, so how are you saying they had enough evidence for an indictment? They chose not to indict because there was no evidence of wrong doing.
Literally most if not all eye witness testimony was proven to be total bs.
[editline]30th November 2014[/editline]
What the hell are they going to base a case on? The admittedly false eyewitness testimony? Your saying they have evidence of criminal conduct but where is it?
That pretense didn't emerge. The prosecution wasn't like, "Listen, historically we do a pretty fucked up grand jury process but we think its not fair to the defendents or the victims, so we are going to make a change."
They did business as usual when it comes to police officers.
[editline]30th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46607931]They presented all this evidence though, so how are you saying they had enough evidence for an indictment? They chose not to indict because there was no evidence of wrong doing.
Literally most if not all eye witness testimony was proven to be total bs.
What the hell are they going to base a case on? The admittedly false eyewitness testimony? Your saying they have evidence of criminal conduct but where is it?[/QUOTE]
Its the job of the defense to prove the testimony is b.s, no the prosecutions! Maybe the prosecution has the shittiest evidence known to man in trial and the jury is a quick 9-0 for not guilty. But they had enough evidence for a trial, thats all im saying.
There is enough in that report to cherry pick into a trial.
Im being a realist. You are pointing to this trial as if its gonna set a new standard for how the DA treats people in grand jury hearings. That isn't whats going to happen.
[QUOTE=Flameon;46607944]That pretense didn't emerge. The prosecution wasn't like, "Listen, historically we do a pretty fucked up grand jury process but we think its not fair to the defendents or the victims, so we are going to make a change."
They did business as usual when it comes to police officers.
[editline]30th November 2014[/editline]
Its the job of the defense to prove the testimony is b.s, no the prosecutions! Maybe the prosecution has the shittiest evidence known to man in trial and the jury is a quick 9-0 for not guilty. But they had enough evidence for a trial, thats all im saying.
There is enough in that report to cherry pick into a trial.[/QUOTE]
I know what your getting at but its fucked up you seem to be advocating that they cherry pick him into a trail.
i think the fact that they'd rather cry injustice over ferguson instead of an actual case that deserves attention (jonathan ferrell in north carolina) is pathetic.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46607856]I understand your stance, and can see where you're coming from.
But you're literally advocating for cherry picking. You can't say "the justice system should be equal for all" and advocate for cherry picking at the same time.[/QUOTE]
well, if the justice system on one particular branch do cherry pick, then it would only be fair if they did this cherry picking on everyone.
basically, it would be ideal if they never cherry picked, but failing that, it would be better if they always cherry picked, rather than cherry picking when to cherry pick
It's probably the best decision on his part at this time.
I think this whole event pretty much sums up the reason for why police should wear cameras. For their own protection and that of the public.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46606764]No, this thread is full of edgy teens who think that the police are evil because they confiscated their dimebag and let them off with a warning.[/QUOTE]
Never done drugs, not even vaguely interested in doing drugs, but the war on drugs has led to a lot of shitty policies.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46604951]A good man ousted by the media[/QUOTE]
The media has been pretty awful lately. I noticed that they have a huge habit of following Fox News tactics now. They always omit information to make the scenario appear illogically outrageous.
I would have never known that Brown had his fingerprints on Wilson's firearm until I looked at the court evidence myself.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;46608659]The media has been pretty awful lately. I noticed that they have a huge habit of following Fox News tactics now. They always omit information to make the scenario appear illogically outrageous.
I would have never known that Brown had his fingerprints on Wilson's firearm until I looked at the court evidence myself.[/QUOTE]
most mainstream media dont give a shit about the truth and rather be sensationalist as fuck for easy views. in a week they will stop talking about Ferguson because its the same shit. MSNBC this whole time has been saying what if statements as fact, same with really shitty eye witnesses stories being put as fact.
[QUOTE=elowin;46608244]basically, it would be ideal if they never cherry picked, but failing that, it would be better if they always cherry picked, rather than cherry picking when to cherry pick[/QUOTE]
Corruption is okay, but only if you're always corrupt!
[QUOTE=djshox;46606104]no, wilson had room
he goes on record saying that the taser didn't feel comfortable for him. he had the option for non-lethal means, and he decided against it[/QUOTE]
Having seen people Mike Browns size get shot with a taser and keep coming, yea, tasers ain't shit. Plus, poor innocent Mike reached for the officers gun, after assaulting the officer in his car. Cops don't shoot to wound, in fact that is a bad strategy, you shoot to stop the threat, which he did. Also for anyone else, do I need to start posting videos showing people who are unarmed or armed with knives taking down officers with guns? It can be done, and it is done. I'm not a lawyer, i just happened to take advantage of JSO's citizens police academy, whatever I didn't learn from that, I learned when I became a Security Guard.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
