I didn't say it was the goal. I also didn't say it would prevent anything. It would delay it until the trial is over. I'm not saying what they did was right. I'm saying that regarding this case, it doesn't change Wilson's fate.

 

That's fair, but Wilson's fate aside, you have to respect the integrity of the process and if the allegations being made are true, then it is a HUGE deal. This is the kind of thing that if it happened in a trial, could likely result in a mistrial.

 

I'd analogize it to going to a doctor and them accidentally misdiagnosing you. It's kind of a big deal if they treat you for bladder cancer if you're having a heart attack.

 

I'm really baffled at how in the world, in a case of this magnitude, someone could be so wrong.

 

That's fair, but Wilson's fate aside, you have to respect the integrity of the process and if the allegations being made are true, then it is a HUGE deal. This is the kind of thing that if it happened in a trial, could likely result in a mistrial.

 

I'd analogize it to going to a doctor and them accidentally misdiagnosing you. It's kind of a big deal if they treat you for bladder cancer if you're having a heart attack.

 

I'm really baffled at how in the world, in a case of this magnitude, someone could be so wrong.

 

Agree

Well if this gets any traction, he'll have to go through all of this again with a Special Prosecutor and a more "Friendly" GJ

 

And if he's innocent it's really unfortunate for him, but that's entirely the fault of the prosecutor who presented the evidence in the way they did.

That just means that there was 0 evidence against the officer. Also with internet one can find any article to back up any argument a person might have. I have a question JokersWild24? What do you want to happen here with the Ferguson situation? I really want to hear this.

 

 

I would just hope that the process plays out like it should, because while our legal system isn't perfect and I may be a homer, I think it's the best one in the world.

 

Like I said earlier, if this were the guy in Pennsylvania who shot a police officer and there was some type of error in the grand jury investigation and it potentially led to the wrong result, I'd be just as up in arms.

 

There are rules to the game and you have to respect them, because when you start cutting corners, that's when really bad things happen.

That's fair, but Wilson's fate aside, you have to respect the integrity of the process and if the allegations being made are true, then it is a HUGE deal. This is the kind of thing that if it happened in a trial, could likely result in a mistrial.

 

I'd analogize it to going to a doctor and them accidentally misdiagnosing you. It's kind of a big deal if they treat you for bladder cancer if you're having a heart attack.

I'm really baffled at how in the world, in a case of this magnitude, someone could be so wrong.

 

OJ case was bigger and look how bad the prosecutors screwed up on that case.

OJ case was bigger and look how bad the prosecutors screwed up on that case.

 

I'm too young to remember all the details, but from what I've read... yep.

Some things that I'd like to add:

 

#1. I don't think that the misquoting of the law would be NEARLY as bad if it weren't something the DA had printed out and given to jurors. An attorney may misquote something and say, "strike that... let me rephrase..." something like that and it's not such a big deal. When you start handing out instructions to jurors or making things as firm statements of law that are just incorrect though, it's a much, much, much bigger deal, at least IMO.

 

#2. A better analogy than my going to the doctor with a heart attack and getting treated for bladder cancer: going to the doctor for a heart procedure, and instead of doing the correct, up-to-date procedure, the doctor performs one that the AMA and FDA has outlawed 20 years ago.

 

#3. I really don't know whether Wilson is guilty or innocent and haven't really looked at tons of facts because the sources on both sides seem so biased, but I want to make clear that I hope he's exonerated if innocent and convicted if guilty. All you ask for is that they get it right.

 

#4. I do think that if Wilson is innocent, and this whole process is now shrouded with even more controversy or that he has to go through the whole thing again, then that falls firmly on the DA not doing her job and making what sounds like a very critical mistake on an issue of central importance to the whole case.

Some things that I'd like to add:

 

#1. I don't think that the misquoting of the law would be NEARLY as bad if it weren't something the DA had printed out and given to jurors. An attorney may misquote something and say, "strike that... let me rephrase..." something like that and it's not such a big deal. When you start handing out instructions to jurors or making things as firm statements of law that are just incorrect though, it's a much, much, much bigger deal, at least IMO.

 

#2. A better analogy than my going to the doctor with a heart attack and getting treated for bladder cancer: going to the doctor for a heart procedure, and instead of doing the correct, up-to-date procedure, the doctor performs one that the AMA and FDA has outlawed 20 years ago.

 

#3. I really don't know whether Wilson is guilty or innocent and haven't really looked at tons of facts because the sources on both sides seem so biased, but I want to make clear that I hope he's exonerated if innocent and convicted if guilty. All you ask for is that they get it right.

 

#4. I do think that if Wilson is innocent, and this whole process is now shrouded with even more controversy or that he has to go through the whole thing again, then that falls firmly on the DA not doing her job and making what sounds like a very critical mistake on an issue of central importance to the whole case.

 

I really think you are making a bigger deal of it than it is. If it was that egregious don't you think every news agency going would be beating this thing into the ground?

 

As far as #3, you should review all the evidence presented to the GJ. My 17 y.o. was convinced that Officer Wilson was in the wrong. He reviewed everything presented to the GJ and studied all 3 autopsy reports. He has changed his mind. He said there is no way it could have went down the way the media had portrayed it back in August.

 

Bottom line in all of this is simple, if Brown had not attacked Officer Wilson he would not have been shot.

I think I can help clear up alot here if everyone would take the time to read what the grand jury heard.

 

http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury/

 

I would call to your attention particularly Witness 10:

 

Interview Witness 10

 

I would really call to your attention this document:

 

Witness 40 Journal Entry

 

While this is just the tip of the iceberg of the documents that the Grand Jury heard, these two will help you guys see a clearer picture of the case. The grand jury was not there to debate the problems under lying in the area such as problems between the police and the black community in Ferguson, but was there to look at evidence presented to them to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a indictment of police officer Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. Nothing else mattered. Keep in mind its been pointed out that the two witness I linked above are both African American citizens. I would encourage each that is having problems with this to read the full report of evidence and I think this thread will die quickly.

I'm a bit surprised that the reaction of many is "so what?"

 

We have a DA who either is clueless about the law OR intentionally misled. Whichever you believe to be the case the response should be "GOOD GOD! WHAT IS GOING ON IN FERGUSON?" The grand jury ASKED a question after the ADA confused them about which law they should be using to base their decision. The ADA said "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT."

 

That should end the "so what" discussion. The process has been tainted.

 

This may come as a shock to some but many blacks in America do not believe the justice system works for them like it does for whites. THIS simply backs up their beliefs and is tough to argue. Then add in that unlike 99% of grand juries THIS grand jury was told to come up with their OWN charge instead of the normal 99% of the time when the DA comes to them and says "here's the charge I want you to decide upon." Again, may be a perfectly logical explanation to as to why THIS case was different. However, it only adds to the perception that it's stacked on one side and it's not the side with a darker hue.

 

It's NOT the grand jury's job to decide guilt or innocence. They didn't decide guilt or innocence here.

 

Would Officer Wilson be found not guilty in a trial? Irrelevant. Not the GJ's job. Plus for anyone that says they KNOW he would have been innocent I give you two letters.

 

O and J.

I'm a bit surprised that the reaction of many is "so what?"

 

We have a DA who either is clueless about the law OR intentionally misled. Whichever you believe to be the case the response should be "GOOD GOD! WHAT IS GOING ON IN FERGUSON?" The grand jury ASKED a question after the ADA confused them about which law they should be using to base their decision. The ADA said "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT."

 

That should end the "so what" discussion. The process has been tainted.

 

This may come as a shock to some but many blacks in America do not believe the justice system works for them like it does for whites. THIS simply backs up their beliefs and is tough to argue. Then add in that unlike 99% of grand juries THIS grand jury was told to come up with their OWN charge instead of the normal 99% of the time when the DA comes to them and says "here's the charge I want you to decide upon." Again, may be a perfectly logical explanation to as to why THIS case was different. However, it only adds to the perception that it's stacked on one side and it's not the side with a darker hue.

 

It's NOT the grand jury's job to decide guilt or innocence. They didn't decide guilt or innocence here.

 

Would Officer Wilson be found not guilty in a trial? Irrelevant. Not the GJ's job. Plus for anyone that says they KNOW he would have been innocent I give you two letters.

 

O and J.

 

You're right.

I really think you are making a bigger deal of it than it is. If it was that egregious don't you think every news agency going would be beating this thing into the ground?

 

As far as #3, you should review all the evidence presented to the GJ. My 17 y.o. was convinced that Officer Wilson was in the wrong. He reviewed everything presented to the GJ and studied all 3 autopsy reports. He has changed his mind. He said there is no way it could have went down the way the media had portrayed it back in August.

 

Bottom line in all of this is simple, if Brown had not attacked Officer Wilson he would not have been shot.

 

What instructions was your son given to make a decision as what the grand jury should decide upon? What federal or state law was he basing his decision upon? What does he know the police are allowed to do or not allowed to do in regards to a fleeing suspect?

Several have talked about how easily a G J can be led. I sat on a federal Grand Jury for 6 months and either we were exceptional or people in IN are just more practical. We were not led around by our noses. We asked lots of questions. We liked or disliked the different DA's presentations, but that did not influence our decisions. Some indictments were easy, some cases we never heard the final outcome because they were on-going. Our only job was to determine if there was enough evidence to bring to trial, Period. We all took that very seriously.

Clyde, I'm assuming a man as smart as you has an opinion of whether you think he should have been indicted and if he acted incorrectly. So I'll ask do you think he should have been indicted? If so please point to the piece(s) of evidence that makes you feel that wayy.

 

You and everyone seem to pick apart the process without addressing what actually happened.

Several have talked about how easily a G J can be led. I sat on a federal Grand Jury for 6 months and either we were exceptional or people in IN are just more practical. We were not led around by our noses. We asked lots of questions. We liked or disliked the different DA's presentations, but that did not influence our decisions. Some indictments were easy, some cases we never heard the final outcome because they were on-going. Our only job was to determine if there was enough evidence to bring to trial, Period. We all took that very seriously.

 

When you asked the DA for a clarification on what the current laws are or what law prevails did you get a "don't worry about it?"