There was a trial-like proceeding that under the Supreme Court case you didn't read could be interpreted as a trial. As this has degenerated into a personal ****storm unattached to any arguments, that doesn't really matter. But I will say that it would be nice if you read more often.
Your questions only matter if the prosecutor is fair, partial, and seeking justice. As if you have already declared that he was making a political decision in going to the Grand Jury, by your own admission he is not. but I suppose your opinion is worthless, just like mine, and everybody's.
Here are the two questions you have been ducking again: So, just to clarify, because I want to hear you repeat it as much as possible: You believe that it's OK for a prosecutor to prosecute people for crimes that they do not believe that the individuals have committed, simply to satisfy some need for openness? and Do you believe that, *having seen all of the evidence*, the prosecutor believed that Officer Wilson had committed a crime? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did not commit a crime, what rationale would you ascribe to his pursuing an indictment anyway? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did commit a crime, then do you think that he would have conducted the grand jury proceedings as he did? I eagerly await your answers to these questions.
I believe a prosecutor should seek justice above all else. I believe this prosecutor was under-zealous in that pursuit, and in that framework, a grand jury serves as a terrible precedence for cases like this, where police officers killing unarmed people get a different form of justice than anybody else because they, by default, live and breathe within the current criminal system. Of course that is opinion. The facts for why he would be biased are laid out there. But when it comes to worthless opinion against worthless opinion, I suppose the answer to your questions are that they are worthless---because they lead to opinions.
Well, I believe that he was fair, impartial, and seeking justice. He was well within his rights to seek an indictment - that is in his discretion as a prosecutor. I believe that he did not believe that Wilson had committed a crime, but sought an indictment that he knew he would not get if he presented available evidence, only so avoid claims that he did not even consider the case. It was theater. As I have said several times, I believe that the most fair course of action would have been to not seek an indictment in the first place, but I believe that by presenting all available evidence at the grand jury proceedings he mitigated that consideration somewhat. Do you believe that presenting less than the full range of evidence - actively withholding evidence from the grand jury - would have been the more fair course of action for him to take? Would an impartial prosecutor have withheld such evidence? Justice in this case is seeing Wilson walk. I believe that the prosecutor sought that outcome in a roundabout way. Do you believe that a prosecutor, believing someone to be innocent of a charge, would seek justice by actually going to trial on those charges?
You did not answer the questions. I will post them again momentarily and give you another chance. I just want to emphasize again that you apparently believe "seeking justice" involves pursuing charges against an individual that a prosecutor believes violated no law. Here are the two questions you have been ducking again: So, just to clarify, because I want to hear you repeat it as much as possible: You believe that it's OK for a prosecutor to prosecute people for crimes that they do not believe that the individuals have committed, simply to satisfy some need for openness? and Do you believe that, *having seen all of the evidence*, the prosecutor believed that Officer Wilson had committed a crime? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did not commit a crime, what rationale would you ascribe to his pursuing an indictment anyway? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did commit a crime, then do you think that he would have conducted the grand jury proceedings as he did? I eagerly await your answers to these questions.
I have no qualms with calling it a grand jury proceeding or a trial. I like to think of it as the latter by proxy. You can call it a grand jury proceeding, but factually, it's not quite that either---according to legal precedence.
Red lines, red lines. This page and the previous one show 16 red lines and 10 posts by Northside Storm. It's bizarre. Northside and red lines should get a room. ;-)-
And to pre-empt... I understand that it is the prosecutor's role to do everything in his power to obtain an indictment. They usually withhold evidence - cherry pick it - in order to do this. That is what you wanted to see happen in this case. My point is that this prosecutor - who had access to all of the evidence - quite obviously came to the conclusion upon seeing that evidence that there was no case to be made here. Yet you wanted him to proceed and attempt to take a man to trial with evidence that couldn't even get an indictment anyway... I am gonna keep pointing that out.
If you believe that, then you contradict yourself. You explicitly said he was acting according to political concern.
Here are the two questions you have been ducking again: So, just to clarify, because I want to hear you repeat it as much as possible: You believe that it's OK for a prosecutor to prosecute people for crimes that they do not believe that the individuals have committed, simply to satisfy some need for openness? and Do you believe that, *having seen all of the evidence*, the prosecutor believed that Officer Wilson had committed a crime? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did not commit a crime, what rationale would you ascribe to his pursuing an indictment anyway? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did commit a crime, then do you think that he would have conducted the grand jury proceedings as he did? I eagerly await your answers to these questions.
I believe seeking justice involves appointing a special prosecutor in this case---as do many others. The reasons for that are myriad. Suffice it to say that your worthless opinion conflates with mine but the facts are established as to why this prosecutor had reason to be biased---and what a better course of action would have been.
The whole point of this discussion is that it did not proceed as grand juries do. Anyways, I can admit I made a slip while typing that one word out---it wasn't a trial, though I do not think either term perfectly suits what happened. Regardless, pre-trial deliberations similarly have required a level of openness not commensurate with what was delivered.
There is no contradiction. There was never a chance given the evidence that Wilson would have been convicted, and the best outcome for all would involve avoiding a needless trial and letting Wilson walk. You still haven't adequately explained your rationale for wanting to see a prosecutor attempt to obtain a conviction for a crime from someone whom they did not believe committed that crime. How exactly is attempting to obtain such a conviction "seeking justice" in your mind?
To do what, exactly? To look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion that everyone else with a functioning brain has come to - that insufficient evidence exists for an indictment, much less a conviction? Lulz :grin:
Fixed: The whole point of this discussion is that it did not proceed as grand juries usually do. And the reason for this, of course, is that generally speaking the prosecutor - after seeing the available evidence - believes that an indictment AND a conviction are warranted. Obviously, that was not the case here, hence the unusual steps of presenting all available evidence instead of cherry picking. You do understand that you are arguing that the prosecution should have withheld evidence, don't you?
