OFFICER WILSON PROVEN INNOCENT

I35

I35

5,000+ Posts
NO INDICTMENT!!! Overwhelming evidence shows Brown was the aggressor. It appears as the Officer opened his driver's door that Brown jumped in on top of him trying to take the gun away from the officer and only fled when the gun went off. His DNA was everywhere in the front driving area. Robert McCulloch did a perfect job of giving out all the evidence in great detail.

I feel bad for the Brown family. But everyone wanted justice and Mike Brown did get served his justice. He was a thug out of control and if it didn't happen that day it would have happen soon after. But not before there were more victims of Brown,

Now the authorities can't allow the bad behavior of the bullies trying to force an indictment by dangerous behavior. When Nicole Simpson didn't receive her justice the white community didn't riot. That's how civil behavior should be. Time to move on.
 
Announcing the result at night seems like a stupid idea from a crowd control perspective. Just asking for more trouble in my opinion
 
Murph I agree about the timing.

It seems this behavior is just now acceptable if the black community doesn't get it's way.
 
There was an unprecedented effort to make the evidence in this case available. I'm reminded of one of the favorite quotes from one of my favorite heroes, John Adams: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

The evidence of Wilson's innocence is there in black and white. I'm guessing the rioters aren't much interested in the facts of this case.
 
What a shock! A belligerent thug who just robbed a store and was violent towards the store owner might be aggressive towards a police officer afterwards.
 
The rioters, MSNBC nor that local Sheila Jackson Lee representative were in no way interested in the Justice system.

MSNBC should be held liable for their commentary on Wilson disguised as "news."
 
Facts are stubborn things, but rumor and hearsay are even more stubborn. The initial storyline that the media insisted on pushing - hands in the air, saying "don't shoot", shot in the back while running away... none of which appear now to have been true, are still being repeated as fact by protesters and some media reps. There is no journalistic responsibility, only advocacy and a blind rush to get something in print.

We're living in a society where we can have a commentator go on CNN and actually seriously suggest that a police officer who has been assaulted in his car by someone he knows to have committed a crime (this was the scenario he acknowledged or accepted), should simply stay in his car and drive away once the suspect tried to run off.

And just to clarify... he wasn't proven innocent. The grand jury didn't see enough evidence to indict. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are two different things.
 
The title of this thread is completely false.
As ProdigalHorn stated, the grand jury did not find enough evidence to believe a trial would result in a conviction, on four different charges, from murder to involuntary manslaughter. The officer was not found to be "innocent."
This seemed likely all along, but so did the reaction from the community last night. I can't believe they released the findings late at night like that, it's crazy.
Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything.
 
I have worked with grand juries in the past and they don't decide guilt or innocence. My guess is that none of the prosecutors felt comfortable with the idea of getting an indictment on one of the lesser included offenses because they could not in good faith stand in front of a jury and say they were personally certain beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of anything. If the prosecutor doesn;t feel comfortable with that burden he should not ask the grand jury to indict.

As for timing, my guess is that they figured that the later it was, the colder it was, the smaller the crowd would be. That turned out to be correct, no?

One thought that occurred to me, based upon my own experiences in a couple of riots during my youth: the present day Anarchists are a bunch of wimps compared to my generation.
 
The justice system has spoken. No indictment.

Time for Ferguson to figure out how to heal as a community. I hope the grand jury is smart enough to keep their mouths shut.
 
Gene pool is depleted in Ferguson as proven by the rioting. Burning down your own town is not practical.
 
A significant portion of the black community sees everything through a racial lens. There could be a videotape of Brown assaulting the officer and they'd still be pissed about the no bill. It's a black vs white issue to them, regardless of the facts. When that type of bigotry is mixed with sheer ignorance you get what you saw last night. Sure, there will be those in the media and the black community that insist that there are issues that need to be addressed. They are only half right. There are issues that need to be addressed alright, but they have nothing to do with cops shooting thugs in self-defense. No, the issues that need to be addressed will be ignored and the finger-pointing will begin. The liberals in the msm will be making excuses soon.
 
accurate
when you posted this, "the grand jury did not find enough evidence to believe a trial would result in a conviction, on four different charges, from murder to involuntary manslaughter"
you misstated the purpose of a Grand Jury jury. It is NOT the function of a GJ to only indict cases that will result in conviction.
A Grand Jury's job is only to determine IF criminal charges should be brought.
The Grand Jury ruled that NO criminal charges should be brought. The effect of that is that Wilson will not be charged and the practical effect of that is that Wilson is not guilty of any criminal activity.

Innocence is the absence of guilt.
 
juries don't find people innocent either; they decide guilty or not guilty and not guilty just means the state did not convince them beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, they may not have believed everything Wilson told them and just came to the conclusion that they were not sure he was guilty and so they did not put it to a jury to find what they could not

edited to say they did not put it to a jury
 
Grand juries approach their work in different ways depending on what the case is and how the prosecutors treat it. As a general rule, the prosecutors present them with an indictment, outline what they think the evidence is and the grand jury indicts.

In a case like this that methodology may not work or be used.
The prosecutors may not recommend an indictment and leave it to the grand jury or they might recommend against it. The latter seems more likely given the prosecutors' statement.

Keep in mind that the prosecutor was not in the room when the GJ actually deliberated. Also keep in mind that people who get appointed to grand juries are usually a cut above average and they all, in my experience, take the responsibility very seriously.

The prosecutor here went into some detail to explain why the gj may have made its decision. He also debunked some of the irresponsible junk disseminated by the media over the last few months. If you are not sure someone is guilty, and I don't see how an objective observer could be sure Wilson was guilty, then you don't indict.
 
Huis
I really thought the GJ's function was not to determine innocence or guilt but to determine based on the facts and evidence whether or not someone should b e brought to trial where it would be up to( in most cases) a different jury to decide guilt or innocence.

I am not a lawyer and may be wrong but I didn't think a GJ indicting someone was saying the person was guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top