Looks like she told them to ignore the first sheet completely and use the one she had just passed out. She stated the first sheet was correct but had something in it that was wrong so "ignore it totally"

Not sure where the confusion is unless you are just grasping for straws because you don't agree with the decision.

 

No way if I'm on the jury I'm confused by that.

 

From what I can tell the part that was wrong deals with shooting a fleeing felon. Brown was not fleeing. And I think Tennessee v Garner would have covered Wilson anyways.

 

I think it's clearly a mistake, but they seemed to correct it.

 

Also I noticed joker said something about Wilson testifying being rare. That might be true but I'm pretty sure certain states allow the defendant to testify if they want to. Doesn't matter how rare it is, as far as I can tell it's not wrong. It's probably rare, IMO, because in most cases, the defendants attorney advises them not to do it.

From what I can tell the part that was wrong deals with shooting a fleeing felon. Brown was not fleeing. And I think Tennessee v Garner would have covered Wilson anyways.

 

I think it's clearly a mistake, but they seemed to correct it.

 

Also I noticed joker said something about Wilson testifying being rare. That might be true but I'm pretty sure certain states allow the defendant to testify if they want to. Doesn't matter how rare it is, as far as I can tell it's not wrong. It's probably rare, IMO, because in most cases, the defendants attorney advises them not to do it.

Agree with both you and Jumper_Dad.

 

I think it is rare because whatever the defendant says to the GJ is admissible in court and could be used against them should it go to trial, therefore I would guess, as you alluded, the defendants attorney would advise them not to testify.

Agree with both you and Jumper_Dad.

 

I think it is rare because whatever the defendant says to the GJ is admissible in court and could be used against them should it go to trial, therefore I would guess, as you alluded, the defendants attorney would advise them not to testify.

 

 

????

 

These are the people telling me I don't know the law. Thanks, now that makes me feel great.

 

You CANNOT refuse to testify in front of a grand jury once you are there, so if your attorney ever tells you not to testify, you should probably run the other way. Go take try to take the 5th in front of a grand jury and it's this thing called 'contempt of court'.

 

You can probably start out with articles on Wikipedia that will explain it slowly, then work your way up on this stuff.

[/b]

 

 

????

 

These are the people telling me I don't know the law. Thanks, now that makes me feel great.

 

You CANNOT refuse to testify in front of a grand jury once you are there, so if your attorney ever tells you not to testify, you should probably run the other way. Go take try to take the 5th in front of a grand jury and it's this thing called 'contempt of court'.

 

You can probably start out with articles on Wikipedia that will explain it slowly, then work your way up on this stuff.

Hold it! Didn't you say it's rare for them to testify? And maybe you should take it slowly, I wasn't talking about once he's there. You're trying awfully hard to play a game of gotcha and you're looking silly.

 

The news the other day said he wanted to testify. That's what was said, on the news, to be rare because if you say something stupid or incriminating to the GJ it can and will haunt you in court if and when it goes to court.

 

Maybe you should stop trying to act and sound so superior, it comes off rather petty and childish. Again, your problem with me is I called you on something, everyone agreed with me, and you can't seem to handle it. Your problem, not mine.

Hold it! Didn't you say it's rare for them to testify? And maybe you should take it slowly, I wasn't talking about once he's there. You're trying awfully hard to play a game of gotcha and you're looking silly.

 

The news the other day said he wanted to testify. That's what was said, on the news, to be rare because if you say something stupid or incriminating to the GJ it can and will haunt you in court if and when it goes to court.

 

Maybe you should stop trying to act and sound so superior, it comes off rather petty and childish. Again, your problem with me is I called you on something, everyone agreed with me, and you can't seem to handle it. Your problem, not mine.

 

Dude, you are like talking to a brick wall.

 

Yes, you don't have to testify in certain situations, but I'm pretty sure it's not what you were going for here.

 

I said it's rare for someone to testify for 3 hours, yes, and I'll stand by that.

 

How does a grand jury get evidence

 

Just Cause Law Collective : Appearing Before a Grand Jury

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.

 

Save your breath, Clizzy. Nobody is listening and nobody cares. Brown beat the crap out of the officer and got what he deserved. Nobody cares about the system and how blacks perceive it. Come on man. You know this.

And when I say like talking to a brick wall, that's like talking to me sometimes too, so I know what it's like.

Dude, you are like talking to a brick wall.

 

Yes, you don't have to testify in certain situations, but I'm pretty sure it's not what you were going for here.

 

I said it's rare for someone to testify for 3 hours, yes, and I'll stand by that.

 

How does a grand jury get evidence

 

Just Cause Law Collective*Word Filter Violation - Edit Your Post*:*Word Filter Violation - Edit Your Post*Appearing Before a Grand Jury

Pot meet kettle. Get past the chip on your shoulder over me and pay attention.

 

Also I noticed joker said something about Wilson testifying being rare. That might be true but I'm pretty sure certain states allow the defendant to testify if they want to. Doesn't matter how rare it is, as far as I can tell it's not wrong. It's probably rare, IMO, because in most cases, the defendants attorney advises them not to do it.

 

My response to HB:

 

Agree with both you and Jumper_Dad.

 

I think it is rare because whatever the defendant says to the GJ is admissible in court and could be used against them should it go to trial, therefore I would guess, as you alluded, the defendants attorney would advise them not to testify.

Clear now or do you need further explanation? I know what I meant, your misrepresentation of it is meaningless.

You are really getting petty over all this. Acting superior to someone simply because they pointed out where you were wrong is really boorish and beneath you. But if this is how you want people to view you, by all means continue on the way you're going.

 

Save your breath, Clizzy. Nobody is listening and nobody cares. Brown beat the crap out of the officer and got what he deserved. Nobody cares about the system and how blacks perceive it. Come on man. You know this.

 

No one here ever said Brown deserved to die, but Wilson didn't either. If the roles were reversed and Brown were white and Wilson black I'd still feel the same way.

 

The evidence supports Wilson's version of events and proves many key witnesses on the Brown side were either mistaken, or flat out lied. The only reason this case is controversial is because of the media and because of the initial claims that his hands were up and he was killed execution style in broad daylight. We know that isn't true now.

 

If anyone here thinks Officer Wilson is a murderer, or used excessive force, I'd love to hear an argument explaining why.

Pot meet kettle. Get past the chip on your shoulder over me and pay attention.

 

 

 

My response to HB:

 

Clear now or do you need further explanation? I know what I meant, your misrepresentation of it is meaningless.

You are really getting petty over all this. Acting superior to someone simply because they pointed out where you were wrong is really boorish and beneath you. But if this is how you want people to view you, by all means continue on the way you're going.

 

 

Thank you counselor.

Save your breath, Clizzy. Nobody is listening and nobody cares. Brown beat the crap out of the officer and got what he deserved. Nobody cares about the system and how blacks perceive it. Come on man. You know this.

 

The system is the system, doesn't matter which race you are. Just because you perceive it one way doesn't make that perception correct. I deal with plenty of whites, Hispanics, etc. that claim the system is against them too.

 

And yes, Mr. Brown attacked Officer Wilson according to the EVIDENCE. Physical evidence supports this.

Thank you counselor.

You're welcome newbie. :woot:

No one here ever said Brown deserved to die, but Wilson didn't either. If the roles were reversed and Brown were white and Wilson black I'd still feel the same way.

 

The evidence supports Wilson's version of events and proves many key witnesses on the Brown side were either mistaken, or flat out lied. The only reason this case is controversial is because of the media and because of the initial claims that his hands were up and he was killed execution style in broad daylight. We know that isn't true now.

 

If anyone here thinks Officer Wilson is a murderer, or used excessive force, I'd love to hear an argument explaining why.

 

 

We'll never know. The system protected Wilson the way the system always does. You know how OJ Simpson was acquitted? There were 2 white jurors and 1 white alternate. Out of 14 people who would or could have a say in OJ Simpson's case 11 of them were minorities. Ferguson is 68% black yet 9 out of the 12 people on the Grand Jury were white. Miss me with all that evidence crap and facts crap. Between a whitewash on the jury(in a predominately black town) and a prosecutor with ulterior motives there was no way this case was going to trial and that is why blacks do not trust the system.

We'll never know. The system protected Wilson the way the system always does. You know how OJ Simpson was acquitted? There were 2 white jurors and 1 white alternate. Out of 14 people who would or could have a say in OJ Simpson's case 11 of them were minorities. Ferguson is 68% black yet 9 out of the 12 people on the Grand Jury were white. Miss me with all that evidence crap and facts crap. Between a whitewash on the jury(in a predominately black town) and a prosecutor with ulterior motives there was no way this case was going to trial and that is why blacks do not trust the system.

But every time "witnesses" were told about evidence, their story changed. How is this the system's fault or white people's fault? Black witnesses were lying to make a white cop look bad. This isn't only a white problem or a system problem. The blame, oddly enough, is very equal.

Agreed but we just don't know how they would have voted had it been clear. The PERCEPTION of intentional deception hurts the credibility.

 

Don't see how they could vote any other way had it been clear, the law seems pretty clear.