And I would like to add... Every one of those "witnesses" who got caught lying to the grand jury ought to be brought up on charges.
Why don't you look at the post above yours. The prosecutor knew there was no case here, why in the hell would he want to pursue it through a trial? The "witness" testimony against Wilson was all BS. His choices were to try to finagle the evidence to fool the grand jury and proceed to a trial, which would be a long drawn out media circus that would prolong the "protests" and violence in Ferguson - and which would with near 100% certainty result in a not guilty verdict for Wilson - or to put all of the evidence out there up front, so that not only the grand jury but the public could access it and see that there was zero case there, and get it over with fast. You'd rather see a case that had no hope of gaining a conviction because the evidence didn't support it go forward just to placate a mob.
Eh, gonna have to disagree on that one. Committing perjury in order to frame a likely innocent man is never OK and shouldn't be tolerated.
No, I would rather see standard precedent respected. While this wouldn't placate everyone most likely it would've been better for Ferguson and the State of Missouri to have followed standard procedure to show that this case wasn't treated any differently than any other case. I'll ask you the same question as I asked Bobby with a twist. Would've you have been fine with this if the prosecutor had diverged from the procedure to try to get a indictment of officer Wilson for reasons that didn't have to do with precedent?
I agree but the standard of perjury is pretty high and eyewitness testimony is known to be fraught with problems. One reason why I've taken all of the eye witnesses in this case with a grain of salt. Anyway if you're so concerned about drawing out the case and the media circus why would you want to prosecute the witnesses when outright perjury will be difficult to prove? This would be just a case of trying people for their POV.
I think you do not understand the prosecutor's options here, or why he did it the way he did it. He could have decided not to seek an indictment, in which case the evidence wouldn't have gotten out there and Ferguson would be a pile of ash right now. He could have attempted to cherry pick the evidence in order to get the grand jury to indict (your "standard precedent), and then go through a long, drawn out media circus trial that would have seen Wilson walk and Ferguson burn, or he could do what he did, which was likely the best way to get all of the evidence out there in the quickest way possible - through a grand jury proceeding. True justice would have seen him not seek an indictment in the first place because the evidence did not support Wilson's guilt in the case. But the "protesters" aren't interested in actual justice, they want a lynching. Since that was never going to happen due to the lack of evidence, a grand jury proceeding in which all evidence was thrown on the table was the best course of action. And all of this prattling about how he somehow did something improper is absurd. He did something somewhat unusual - putting forth all evidence during the grand jury proceedings instead of cherry picking to obtain an indictment - but it is in no way illegal, improper, or anything else of the sort. There is no evidence to support an indictment. The forensic evidence isn't there. The "witness" testimony is a pile of lies. Precedent is irrelevant given the lack of evidence. It never should have been brought before a grand jury in the first place given the lack of evidence, but again - the "protesters" aren't interested in justice, they want a lynching, and the media would have fanned the flames even higher had they not conducted a mini-show trial in the grand jury as they did. And it was the best way to quickly get all of the evidence - or lack thereof, more accurately - out there so people could see there was no case there. Seeing the evidence presented there is no way an honest person who actually cared about the justice system working the way it should could conclude that this case should have gone forward.
Perfect world, I know it's not going to happen. But these people lied in order to try to get a likely innocent man convicted of a crime he did not commit. That is not kosher.
I wouldn't say it was built on a foundation of bull****. That is speculative like everything else in this drama. When you have 15 witnesses and half of them contradict each other and the victim is dead, you have no case. Much like the Travon Martin incident, I am sure this could have been prevented if the officer used a little more sense.
Well, no, not speculative at this point. You perhaps missed the article I linked to on the previous page. Here it is again: Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all. An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back... "Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence," McCulloch said... But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: "It struck my friend in the back." Johnson held to a variation of this description in his grand jury testimony, saying the shot caused Brown's body to "do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him, but he definitely made a jerking movement."... One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not. Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online. Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting. Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have." The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV... Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head." "What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend. Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave. "I ain't feeling comfortable," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-grand-jury-papers-full-inconsistencies-161011644.html It's all bull$hit. These people made stuff up and lied their a$$es off. And like the Trayvon Martin case, this might have been prevented if the dead guy had used a little more sense.
Oh yea, that's the midwest... Hillbilly country. But I'm not debating which area is more racist. Was just pointing out that many of the people who call those people "animals" don't call white people animals when they riot over a hockey game.
@treeman It is speculative (events that followed after Wilson got outta car). Fact - Wilson was attacked in his car, and he had every right to shoot him (as he did). Now, what happened on the street is a bit more complex, based on Officer Wilson's testimony and eye witness accounts.
Neither of which have said a word about this case. (and yes, I saw your pathetic attempts earlier to link them, no need to repost )
Please read the article I posted. Many of the witnesses were found to be lying or making crap up. That's not speculative.
wut Pollock & Maitland, "The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I," vol. II p. 639. To contact the author on this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-25/fergusons-grand-jury-problem Please read before you post.
oh yeah, I forgot. Have to contextualize and guide reading. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-25/fergusons-grand-jury-problem
And just to preempt, and point out before it comes in: There is nothing, nothing that says that the prosecutor cannot present whatever evidence in the grand jury proceeding that he wants. The prosecutor knew this case wasn't going anywhere and could not possibly result in a conviction given the evidence, so better to get it all out now than go through a media circus and wait months for the evidence to come out, only to result in Wilson walking and Ferguson burning. What exactly would waiting have accomplished? Some of you liberals are smart enough to understand this. I know that. But you choose to ignore it due to purely ideological reasons. The prosecutor was well within his rights to do it the way he did it, even if it was unusual. But this was an unusual circumstance in the first place, and he had to tread carefully because of the animals who have been threatening to burn the town down for months and prevent shoppers from buying their PS4s on Black Friday.
Isn't calling the midwest "Hillbilly country" much like calling urban areas "coon capital"? Both are prejudice terms. Or is it ok to use prejudice terms against whites, much like it was ok to use them against blacks 50 years ago?
