He should have, at the very least, been indicted.

 

Based on what?

The probelm I have with this situation now is the violence. To me folks can protest peacefully all they want, but they have been ginned up by the media and race baiters, and the moment the first rock is thrown, police car tipped over or business broken into, then the protest would be ended if I were in charge.

 

I am glad there are ongoing discussions about police and neighborhood safety, but without a significant portion of the discussion to be about personal responsibility by the residents and what the laws are and why they are in place, then I am fearful this will turn into another way to spend taxpayer money on equipment for police. This as usual will be well intended, but be treating the symptom, not the root cause of the issue.

Ferguson Chief is considering filing charges against Brown's step dad for inciting riots.

Based on what?

 

There was plenty to indict on.

 

It's cool. I get why the prosecutor did what he did. There's selective prosecution all the time.

 

It's fairly obvious from the testimonies given (I'm not even halfway through reading them yet) that an indictment could have been handed down but that the prosecutor either believed Officer Wilson or that there wasn't enough to convict. In any case, I don't fault the prosecutor for handling the grand jury the way he did.

If there was plenty to indict on Im sure Eric Holder would have made sure that Wilson went down in flames just like those buildings did.

If there was plenty to indict on Im sure Eric Holder would have made sure that Wilson went down in flames just like those buildings did.

 

How would the all-powerful Eric Holder go about doing that?

How would the all-powerful Eric Holder go about doing that?

 

He can't on local charges but he still might on federal. The question is does he want his last big case before leaving to be a loss .

 

He also may punt the decision to the next AG.

How would the all-powerful Eric Holder go about doing that?

 

He would have cooked up some "previously un-known security camera footage" that showed officer Wilson killing Michael Brown, and then doing the Icky Shuffle with his sidearm and spiking it next to Brown's dead body.

 

The security-camera footage, obviously, would have been made up by Holder in the top secret government sound-stage where they filmed Neil Armstrong's fake landing on the moon back in 1969.

He can't on local charges but he still might on federal. The question is does he want his last big case before leaving to be a loss .

 

He also may punt the decision to the next AG.

 

Civil rights violations? Good luck with that. Even he doesn't want that one in his lap.

He would have cooked up some "previously un-known security camera footage" that showed officer Wilson killing Michael Brown, and then doing the Icky Shuffle with his sidearm and spiking it next to Brown's dead body.

 

The security-camera footage, obviously, would have been made up by Holder in the top secret government sound-stage where they filmed Neil Armstrong's fake landing on the moon back in 1969.

 

Excellent. :lol2: :lol2:

There was plenty to indict on.

 

It's cool. I get why the prosecutor did what he did. There's selective prosecution all the time.

 

It's fairly obvious from the testimonies given (I'm not even halfway through reading them yet) that an indictment could have been handed down but that the prosecutor either believed Officer Wilson or that there wasn't enough to convict. In any case, I don't fault the prosecutor for handling the grand jury the way he did.

 

What have you seen so far in your reading of testimonies that makes you think there was enough to indict on?

 

This is a serious question since I haven't been able to read the testimonies due to being preoccupied with school at the moment. After finals I plan to look at the evidence and testimony but right now I don't want to do it piece by piece, here and there.

I'm confident it wouldn't have been mentioned here at all if the roles were reversed.

 

 

I think part of it is what we're given in the news as well.

 

Then there's the whole history of things.

 

A black cop killed an unarmed white college student in Alabama, and beat the charge. That doesn't really drum up vocal opinions on either side because white college kids don't really have a history of being oppressed by black police officers in Alabama-- at least if I were guessing. There'll be people who'll say that because he was a police officer he got favorable treatment and there's that history, but it doesn't get ratings, hits, and clicks because it's not really as divisive of an issue. An example of something that is more divisive would be the 'afluenza' kid in Texas.

 

I think people would express condolences if the roles were reversed, and I sincerely mean that. Maybe it's my own laziness, but I don't really go looking up sad, tragic stories without them being brought to my attention.

 

Example: I think people were fully supportive of the police in Pennsylvania and their efforts after an officer was ambushed and killed. Obviously, there's tons less grey area with that one than you'll have in the situation with Michael Brown (grey area about details we can speculate on, but honestly don't really know past our perception of what's been presented), but I can honestly say that I wouldn't hesitate to discuss the issue if the roles were reversed.

 

I don't think that there's a wholly healthy was to take a "that's what you signed up for" type of attitude toward someone's calling and occupation.

 

If the issue has ever been brought up and it's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that during the commission of a crime, someone has intentionally killed an officer in the line of duty, then I'm pretty confident in saying that I've never said anything inconsistent with my support for the death penalty against the perpetrator in that situation.

 

The fact that I'm unaware of the incident itself because it doesn't get the same type of coverage and social attention doesn't mean that I don't care or would decline to discuss the issue, it just means I probably haven't had the opportunity to and/or I'm so in agreement with most everyone else that we're just confirming what we know one another to think.

What have you seen so far in your reading of testimonies that makes you think there was enough to indict on?

 

This is a serious question since I haven't been able to read the testimonies due to being preoccupied with school at the moment. After finals I plan to look at the evidence and testimony but right now I don't want to do it piece by piece, here and there.

 

 

I'll put it this way: Officer Darren Wilson is the only man I've ever heard of testifying before a grand jury for over 2 hours to NOT be indicted.

 

The worn out "you could indict a ham sandwich" is still pretty true. This wasn't a federal case, but in 2010 there were around 162,000 cases prosecuted and only 11 of those saw a grand jury fail to return an indictment (that's the most relevant available data-- key word available).

 

The grand jury is the prosecutor's show. Target/Defendant can't have their lawyer in the room. Some Constitutional rights (e.g., double jeopardy) don't attach at that stage.

 

If you want an indictment, you'll get it. The basic reason why is there's just an extremely low burden of proof and all that you essentially need to show is that there's enough to take it to trial where the actual outcome is decided.

 

All that said, it's also extremely rare that police involved in shootings actually are indicted. Kind of the exception that proves the rule.

 

I thought the ESPN Five Thirty Eight article below was pretty well written and gives good insight into how skewed the numbers are while still being realistic about some reasons why the numbers may not tell the entire story at first glance.

 

 

It?s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson?s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight

There was obviously some prosecutorial bias, as there usually is with cops, which is why cops almost never get indicted.

 

Also, the Ferguson PD obviously acted in a way that would help one of their own stay outta trouble.

 

From HuffPo:

 

From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who appeared to contradict Wilson’s testimony):

 

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

 

2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.

 

3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.

 

4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.

 

5. Wilson did not immediately turn his weapon over to investigators after killing Brown.

 

6. An initial interview with investigators was delayed while Wilson traveled to the hospital with his superiors.

 

7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

 

 

Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation

Sir Charles weighs in on Ferguson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Charles Barkley supports the Ferguson grand jury decision

 

 

 

Kenny Smith responds to Charles Barkley

 

Kenny Smith?s open letter to Charles Barkley about Ferguson | For The Win