Ferguson Riots

[RockRaines]

But if a jury of people couldn't find probable cause from mere factual statements of witnesses without lawyers picking them apart, what makes you think a trial, with a more stringent standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is going to be anything more than a complete waste of time and money?

There is no way they would have gotten a conviction and the same result as last night would have happened a few months later.

[Balta1701]

But if a jury of people couldn't find probable cause from mere factual statements of witnesses without lawyers picking them apart, what makes you think a trial, with a more stringent standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is going to be anything more than a complete waste of time and money?

Do you believe that

"At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots. Like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him. And the face he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn’t even there, I wasn’t even anything in his way.”

is a statement that would have gone unchallenged in court? Would a jury wind up finding that credible after a cross examination?

 

Because right there is an example of why we have an adversarial system, so that foolish statements like that aren't the basis for whether or not a person goes to jail.

[LittleHurt05]

Yes.

 

The bottom line for me, and no amount of "some people just be itchin to violencts" will really change my mind, is that a cop tried to stop an unarmed teenager from jaywalking and the unarmed teen ended up dead. Doesn't mean Brown acted polite and did not deserve to be arrested, but he ended up dead. That doesn't scream "I'm really good at my job".

 

I'm glad we can agree that attacking a police officer isn't "polite" behavior, lol.

[StrangeSox]

But if a jury of people couldn't find probable cause from mere factual statements of witnesses without lawyers picking them apart, what makes you think a trial, with a more stringent standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is going to be anything more than a complete waste of time and money?

A trial with these prosecutors who were running defense for Wilson would be a sham. A trial with an independent prosecutor who was not deliberately attempting to avoid charges against Wilson would likely not be.

[Jenksismyhero]

I didn't say that. If the prosecutor thought it was a sham charge (he has a bunch of conflicts of interest, so let's take that with a grain of salt), he should have the courage to make the call and explain himself. He shouldn't run an obviously sham GJ in order to give himself a shield and then make himself look like an idiot in the press conference announcing the GJ's findings.

 

As it is, we already wasted "taxpayer money" on a sham GJ.

 

Right, because that would have appeased you. I guarantee you if he had done that you would be b****ing that he should have at least presented the facts to a grand jury or a judge in a prelim hearing. That guy, mistakes and all, was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

[Balta1701]

Right, because that would have appeased you. I guarantee you if he had done that you would be b****ing that he should have at least presented the facts to a grand jury or a judge in a prelim hearing. That guy, mistakes and all, was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Which is why a guy with a clear partnership and bias in favor of the police department due to being the prosecutor who works with that police department should not have been the one making the decision. You just outlined exactly, to the letter, why there should have been a special prosecutor making that decision.

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you believe that

is a statement that would have gone unchallenged in court? Would a jury wind up finding that credible after a cross examination?

 

Because right there is an example of why we have an adversarial system, so that foolish statements like that aren't the basis for whether or not a person goes to jail.

 

Right, and the statemetns of the friend who started this whole surrender thing would have been attacked and his entire credibility for having just committed a crime with this guy would have been at issue for the jury. You're pointing to one statement out of 70 hours of testimony as if that was the smoking gun that would have killed Wilson's credibility. 1) I don't think it would have, because I still see nothing wrong with that. 2) All of the pro-State witnesses would have to undergo the same cross.

 

I say again - you couldn't get a jury to find probable cause, but you think a jury with a standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt is going to come to a different conclusion because some witnesses would be cross examined?

[bmags]

An officer grabs at your throat, you hit him to get him to release, he pulls his weapon and fires hitting you in the hand, you flee, he continues firing after he stands up, you turn and put your hands up and he blows your head off. How does the officer avoid that situation?

 

I'm not certain this is how things went down, but I also don't know why I should believe the officer's version of events as you just did there.

 

I'm asking if 100 officers alone in their car try to cite these kids for jaywalking, how many of them end up shooting the kid to death? How many end up attacked?

[Jenksismyhero]

A trial with these prosecutors who were running defense for Wilson would be a sham. A trial with an independent prosecutor who was not deliberately attempting to avoid charges against Wilson would likely not be.

 

I don't think he did that, but we can agree to disagree. He wanted to present a mock trial, let the grand jury decide, and cover his ass.

[StrangeSox]

Right, because that would have appeased you. I guarantee you if he had done that you would be b****ing that he should have at least presented the facts to a grand jury or a judge in a prelim hearing. That guy, mistakes and all, was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

 

Some dude b****ing on the internet doesn't really matter. He put on what was transparently a sham grand jury hearing. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is why a guy with a clear partnership and bias in favor of the police department due to being the prosecutor who works with that police department should not have been the one making the decision. You just outlined exactly, to the letter, why there should have been a special prosecutor making that decision.

 

So basically any case involving a cop should have a special prosecutor? Is that what you're saying? Because 100% of SA's offices in this country are buddy-buddy with the cops.

[RockRaines]

I'm asking if 100 officers alone in their car try to cite these kids for jaywalking, how many of them end up shooting the kid to death? How many end up attacked?

He wasnt trying to cite them, he was trying to move them out of the middle of the street so cars didnt have to drive around two kids blocking the street.

 

Who knows the answer really? If 100 officers were punched and had their service weapons grabbed while in a car I bet 100 of them would shoot. So much heresay goes into your line of questioning and inference.

[Balta1701]

Right, and the statemetns of the friend who started this whole surrender thing would have been attacked and his entire credibility for having just committed a crime with this guy would have been at issue for the jury. You're pointing to one statement out of 70 hours of testimony as if that was the smoking gun that would have killed Wilson's credibility. 1) I don't think it would have, because I still see nothing wrong with that. 2) All of the pro-State witnesses would have to undergo the same cross.

 

I say again - you couldn't get a jury to find probable cause, but you think a jury with a standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt is going to come to a different conclusion because some witnesses would be cross examined?

We couldn't get a jury to find probable cause in a trial without a prosecutor. I have no idea how things would have gone had there been an actual attempt at a prosecution and neither do you.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think he did that, but we can agree to disagree. He wanted to present a mock trial, let the grand jury decide, and cover his ass.

Prosecutors don't present conflicting or exculpatory evidence against their case at real trials. They don't paint hero cop stories of the defendant at real trials.

 

That's even putting aside that he had already presented a bunch of cases to this same GJ in the typical "5 minute indictment" fashion and then suddenly changes the whole procedure and doesn't even ask for an indictment in this case. It's a very, very clear signal to the GJ what result he wanted. And there's lots of psychological studies out there about that sort of influence, about people wanting to please authority figures etc.

 

But I'm glad you agree that he just did this to cover his own ass, not as a legitimate inquiry.

[Balta1701]

So basically any case involving a cop should have a special prosecutor? Is that what you're saying? Because 100% of SA's offices in this country are buddy-buddy with the cops.

That doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me, particularly in the case of a homicide investigation.

[LittleHurt05]

I'm asking if 100 officers alone in their car try to cite these kids for jaywalking, how many of them end up shooting the kid to death? How many end up attacked?

 

I'd imagine a few of those officers end up dead after being over powered, having their gun taken away and being shot by the "innocent" victim.

[caulfield12]

I'm asking if 100 officers alone in their car try to cite these kids for jaywalking, how many of them end up shooting the kid to death? How many end up attacked?

 

 

If it's not 50% of the officers or higher (would have ended up shooting), then something is seriously wrong with the way this particular situation was approached and Brown was engaged.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

So basically any case involving a cop should have a special prosecutor? Is that what you're saying? Because 100% of SA's offices in this country are buddy-buddy with the cops.

It might be appropriate in any case with a police officer as a defendant. A prosecutor in another area might be buddy-buddy with those PD's, but he won't have a regular working relationship with the specific PD or officer in question.

[Jenksismyhero]

We couldn't get a jury to find probable cause in a trial without a prosecutor. I have no idea how things would have gone had there been an actual attempt at a prosecution and neither do you.

 

They were presented more information with less chance of diminishing that information through cross on a lesser standard and that wasn't enough. I ask again, what the hell is going to be different at trial? Great, a prosecutor isn't going to bring in a defense. Guess what, the defense attorney will bring a defense!

[Jenksismyhero]

Prosecutors don't present conflicting or exculpatory evidence against their case at real trials. They don't paint hero cop stories of the defendant at real trials.

 

 

Ok, but the defense would, so....that information is still getting out there.

 

That's even putting aside that he had already presented a bunch of cases to this same GJ in the typical "5 minute indictment" fashion and then suddenly changes the whole procedure and doesn't even ask for an indictment in this case. It's a very, very clear signal to the GJ what result he wanted. And there's lots of psychological studies out there about that sort of influence, about people wanting to please authority figures etc.

 

Right, he wanted a grand jury to hear all the facts and decide if an indictment should be brought. He wanted it to all be out there. He didn't want to get a sham indictment and bring a meaningless trial if the facts didn't warrant it.

 

But I'm glad you agree that he just did this to cover his own ass, not as a legitimate inquiry.

 

Lol, ok man.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It might be appropriate in any case with a police officer as a defendant. A prosecutor in another area might be buddy-buddy with those PD's, but he won't have a regular working relationship with the specific PD or officer in question.

 

Did this prosecutor have a relationship with Wilson?

[StrangeSox]

Did this prosecutor have a relationship with Wilson?

He has an ongoing relationship with the Ferguson PD.

[Jenksismyhero]

That doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me, particularly in the case of a homicide investigation.

 

Probably should get new judges too. They get to know the police departments pretty well.

[Jenksismyhero]

So to be clear here: In order to prevent an unarmed black teen from being shot after attacking a cop and allegedly rushing after him a second time, we should create an entire new court system to handle the potential charges and trial, right?

[Jenksismyhero]

btw, walking through City Hall, it's interesting to me that half or more of the protesters are young white folks.