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.

 

First, I'll assume that's a compliment so thank you.

 

I cannot answer that. I do not know what the charge the DA could have pursued and even then how do I know the requirements?

 

The process matters so it's not a red herring. If a juror is basing their vote upon the instructions given and said instructions are wrong or muddied up with circular talking and "don't worry about it" then I find it hard to write that off.

 

I've already stated in the end it may not have had an impact. However, you can't muddy up the process intentionally or out of sheer ignorance and then expect everyone to be satisfied.

 

Again, we applaud the jury system and assume it works out. We are assuming here that Officer Wilson would have been found not guilty. Two problems: 1. We don't know that he would have and 2. one side feels they didn't get their day in court. That cannot be discounted.

Has the DA addressed the oddity of not going in with a desired charge like 99% of the time he and other DAs go before a grand jury? If so, what was his reasoning for going the opposite direction in this case? I'm asking. That's not rhetorical. I haven't seen any answers to that one.

One more question (true question): I read that some of the witnesses that said Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown with his hands raised were discredited.

 

Were all of those witnesses discredited? Or just some of them?

 

Here is a link to what each witness testified to:

 

Ferguson Grand Jury: Chart of What the Witnesses Say They Saw | New Republic

 

 

Obviously, there are a lot saying they saw something differently than what others saw. How many of those were discredited?

One more question (true question): I read that some of the witnesses that said Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown with his hands raised were discredited.

 

Were all of those witnesses discredited? Or just some of them?

 

Here is a link to what each witness testified to:

 

Ferguson Grand Jury: Chart of What the Witnesses Say They Saw | New Republic

 

 

Obviously, there are a lot saying they saw something differently than what others saw. How many of those were discredited?

I had heard that every time evidence was shown, their stories changed. From what I've read and heard, it was all of them.

The main culprit in all of the unrest IMO is his friend that ran off and then came back out claiming from the get go that Brown was shot in the back with his hands raised while down on his knees or whatever his exact story was. He drove that narrative while Browns body was still laying in the road.

 

IMO if he doesn't mislead the community and family with lies to begin with they may have looked more openly at the investigation and the evidence. But when a supposed eye witness tells you that he saw him executed in the street I fully understand the initial unrest from the community. What I don't understand is that how many have stuck with his original narrative even after it was proven to be 100% wrong by the evidence.

 

The entire "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" chant is based on a lie perpetrated by his friend immediately after the shooting.

 

IMO the destruction of that community is 90% on his shoulders!

First, I'll assume that's a compliment so thank you.

 

I cannot answer that. I do not know what the charge the DA could have pursued and even then how do I know the requirements?

 

The process matters so it's not a red herring. If a juror is basing their vote upon the instructions given and said instructions are wrong or muddied up with circular talking and "don't worry about it" then I find it hard to write that off.

 

I've already stated in the end it may not have had an impact. However, you can't muddy up the process intentionally or out of sheer ignorance and then expect everyone to be satisfied.

 

Again, we applaud the jury system and assume it works out. We are assuming here that Officer Wilson would have been found not guilty. Two problems: 1. We don't know that he would have and 2. one side feels they didn't get their day in court. That cannot be discounted.

 

It was.

Has the DA addressed the oddity of not going in with a desired charge like 99% of the time he and other DAs go before a grand jury? If so' date=' what was his reasoning for going the opposite direction in this case? I'm asking. That's not rhetorical. I haven't seen any answers to that one.[/quote']

 

He woad the GJ was presented with 5 charges. How is that different than what any other GJ?

Based on what happened according to evidence, the officers testimony and several witnesses, charging him with anything would be ludicrous. He was attacked and shot to defend his life. That right is given to him as a police officer and more importantly as a person.

 

If Dorian Johnson didn't blatantly lie, and several major media outlets fall hook line and sinker for those lies, this case wouldn't have been as news worthy.

 

It doesn't sound as bad when you read "Teenager violently attacks officer and tries to steal his gun, is killed by officer".

 

"Black unarmed teen shot with his hands up by white cop in broad daylight" sounds much worse. I honestly don't know how anyone can read the grand jury information and honestly feel like Wilson did anything wrong.

Based on what happened according to evidence, the officers testimony and several witnesses, charging him with anything would be ludicrous. He was attacked and shot to defend his life. That right is given to him as a police officer and more importantly as a person.

 

If Dorian Johnson didn't blatantly lie, and several major media outlets fall hook line and sinker for those lies, this case wouldn't have been as news worthy.

 

It doesn't sound as bad when you read "Teenager violently attacks officer and tries to steal his gun, is killed by officer".

 

"Black unarmed teen shot with his hands up by white cop in broad daylight" sounds much worse. I honestly don't know how anyone can read the grand jury information and honestly feel like Wilson did anything wrong.

:thumb:

 

Here is an interesting read:

 

Dear Media: How Not to Screw Up the Next Ferguson

Based on what happened according to evidence' date=' the officers testimony and several witnesses, charging him with anything would be ludicrous. He was attacked and shot to defend his life. That right is given to him as a police officer and more importantly as a person. If Dorian Johnson didn't blatantly lie, and several major media outlets fall hook line and sinker for those lies, this case wouldn't have been as news worthy. It doesn't sound as bad when you read "Teenager violently attacks officer and tries to steal his gun, is killed by officer". "Black unarmed teen shot with his hands up by white cop in broad daylight" sounds much worse. I honestly don't know how anyone can read the grand jury information and honestly feel like Wilson did anything wrong.[/quote']

 

Anything that straightforward would seem to negate the need for the DA to play a game of obfuscation.

Anything that straightforward would seem to negate the need for the DA to play a game of obfuscation.

 

Please explain what from the GJ testimony isn't straight forward? The testimony from people that say he was shot with his hands up? It's clear as day to me he did nothing wrong. Evidence, his testimony from the beginning, and several eye witnesses who have more to lose by supporting him than they do to gain, corroborate his version of events.

 

If he was charged and I was a police officer in Missouri, I'd quit. No way I'd want to work in a place where I can't defend myself from someone who is trying to kill me.

Anything that straightforward would seem to negate the need for the DA to play a game of obfuscation.

 

You are assuming the DA's actions were intentional attempt to do that and not a mistake. As stated before I didn't realize attorneys were perfect and never made mistakes.

Anything that straightforward would seem to negate the need for the DA to play a game of obfuscation.

 

I agree it is unfortunate that she did give them the incorrect regulation. In reading the current law I don't think it would have mattered. Very straightforward.

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.

 

Damn Clyde, you must have had some different professors than everyone else at the Facebook and BGP School of Law.

You are assuming the DA's actions were intentional attempt to do that and not a mistake. As stated before I didn't realize attorneys were perfect and never made mistakes.

 

Dude, mistakes like that lead to people losing their license. It's not like she made some small mistake on not saying on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday. You not thinking that this is a huge deal just shows that.