Darren Wilson, Ferguson Officer Who Shot Michael Brown, Resigns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46609169]Corruption is okay, but only if you're always corrupt![/QUOTE]That is simply the way grand jury proceedings work. If you want to change the rules then that's a worth endeavor, but until it applies to everyone it is far more fair to be consistent. Consider the injustice for the millions who were and will continue to be indicted under such practices and never given the chance Darren Wilson had.

all the facts I've heard about this story are the exact opposite as what's been stated in this thread, I'm so confused

[QUOTE=t h e;46610587]all the facts I've heard about this story are the exact opposite as what's been stated in this thread, I'm so confused[/QUOTE] Essentially Wilson is innocent. Brown assaulted him in his vehicle and attempted to take his gun, which prompted Wilson to fight back and shoot Brown. The physical evidence supports Wilson's story, and because that was the most reliable evidence available - as all of the witness testimonies were largely either blatant lies or contradictory to what the physical evidence says - the Grand Jury decided Wilson acted within the bounds of the law when he killed Brown.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46609169]Corruption is okay, but only if you're always corrupt![/QUOTE] i'd really like to know how you can write without being able to read too bad you wont be able to read this, so it will probably stay a mystery forever.

[QUOTE=t h e;46610587]all the facts I've heard about this story are the exact opposite as what's been stated in this thread, I'm so confused[/QUOTE] Well you see, lies and deceit sells papers. Writing an article about "big scary KKK member cop who executes innocent black teenager who has his hands up" makes a much better headline than "Cop shoots and kills adult who attacked him shortly after robbing store". They thrive on lies, just like the Trayvon Martin case, the fabrications are here yet again, but not to the same extremes. But still, the papers wants a race war because that makes paper. When it comes to cases like these, take the mainstream sensationalist media reporting with a truckload of salt.

[QUOTE=Lijitsu;46610690] the Grand Jury decided Wilson acted within the bounds of the law when he killed Brown.[/QUOTE] I thought that's not what the grand jury was suppose to do. Only to decide if it's a case worth bringing to a real trial?

[QUOTE=gastyne;46623265]I thought that's not what the grand jury was suppose to do. Only to decide if it's a case worth bringing to a real trial?[/QUOTE] and they did. they figured that the lack of evidence worthy of prosecuting wilson wasn't worth it to waste time going to trial, so they didn't indict him.

[QUOTE=elowin;46611584]i'd really like to know how you can write without being able to read too bad you wont be able to read this, so it will probably stay a mystery forever.[/QUOTE] I don't know how my reading ability factors into this, I guess you're just looking to attack me personally because you don't have a better response. Regardless, I do not think the answer to corruption in the justice system is to be consistently corrupt so everyone gets fucked over instead of just a few people. If the evidence shows Wilson did not commit any crimes, and you advocate 'cherry picking' evidence to indict him, you're basically saying we should censor evidence in his favour in order to get him convicted for a crime he didn't commit. This isn't a fucking kangaroo court, find another place to live if you want innocent people convicted to satisfy political goals.

[QUOTE=gastyne;46623265]I thought that's not what the grand jury was suppose to do. Only to decide if it's a case worth bringing to a real trial?[/QUOTE] I didn't use the best wording there, sorry. But what BeardyDuck said.