No, the best outcome for ALL. Well, everyone but the boneheads picketing in front of Best Buy today. Wilson didn't have to endure an unnecessary trial - you r****ds have already ruined his career and forced him and his family to go into hiding for the rest of their lives, I think sparing him an unnecessary trial whose outcome was already assured is a good outcome for him. The Brown family will also be spared an unnecessary trial, and they can get their "this is injustice" BS out of their system sooner. The city suffered riots, but that was going to happen no matter what the outcome. So yeah, for ALL.
To assure that grand jury proceedings outside of the norm for very specific cases involving police abuse, and questions about how the legal system treats different people differently don't become the norm. You're on the fence between arguing this was the "best way to go"---and arguing the grand jury was "politically motivated" and saying the prosecutor was "seeking justice"---do you see the contradiction in your line of reasoning. you argue he went too far because of politics. That already eliminates impartial, and "seeking justice" as his goals according to your logic.
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. And I will continue to copy and paste them until you answer them.
Well, since questions of police abuse is not relevant to this particular case, I don;t see why we'd need a special prosecutor for it. Unless you are talking about Mr. Brown attempting to abuse a police officer by beating him and trying to take his firearm... Was that what you had in mind? I didn't say he went to far, I merely said I don;t think he should have brought an indictment. But I understand why he did it, and I think the desired outcome was reached anyway. And "seeking justice" involved not putting an innocent man through an unnecessary trial. You still haven't explained why you think that "seeking justice" should involve a prosecutor attempting to pursue criminal charges against someone whom they did not believe committed the crime. You really ought to answer that one too.
Lol, there was insufficient evidence to even obtain an indictment - a fact that you still seem incapable of getting past - much less a conviction. So yeah, the outcome was never in doubt given that range of evidence.
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. And I will continue to copy and paste them until you answer them. And since you keep ducking this one too I will add one more: Please explain why you think that "seeking justice" should involve a prosecutor attempting to pursue criminal charges against someone whom they did not believe committed the crime.
Here, I'll spell it out for you so you don't miss it this time. 1) I believe that given how proceedings went, we will never know whether or not this was a fair proceeding. All we get is a document dump, a dump wherein people have already made some vastly different conclusions. I believe that given the conditions of this proceeding---that it was about a legal system failing for some---full transparency would have been expected. This is not trivial. As some have argued, this grand jury was a very bad check for an underzealous or overzealous prosecutor. A system that does not respect established checks and balances---including the role of open systems with the media and the public able to access proceedings---is one contrary to American traditions. Put another way by Justice Brennan: Public access to court proceedings is one of the numerous ‘checks and balances’ of our system, because ‘contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.’ ” 2) I don't believe the prosecutor was ever inclined to see a crime in anything this case presented, and was under-zealous in pursuing justice given his connections and background, and the context of St.Louis politics. This had implications for how proceedings happened, what the conditions were, and no doubt, what happened within the courtroom that the public could not see. 3) His rationale to pursue a grand jury was to cover his ass, as you have alluded to yourself. This by default, means he was not seeking to be impartial or seeking justice. 4) Under-zealous. See point 2.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>People around the country left an empty seat at their Thanksgiving tables, for Mike Brown, Tamir Rice and others <a href="http://t.co/OohMs9DHvd">http://t.co/OohMs9DHvd</a></p>— Elahe Izadi (@ElaheIzadi) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElaheIzadi/status/538419552405958656">November 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>• <a href="https://twitter.com/140elect">@140elect</a>: Eyewitnesses: Michael Brown running away when shot, put hands up and killed. never charged. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ferguson?src=hash">#Ferguson</a> <a href="http://t.co/DF3uiLwm01">pic.twitter.com/DF3uiLwm01</a></p>— Engr. Michael Miguel (@michaelmiguel_) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelmiguel_/status/538446659638669312">November 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, see the problem here is that given the available evidence, the legal system actually *did* work largely the way it is supposed to in this case. You guys want a lynching, not a just outcome. The available evidence suggests that Brown assaulted a police officer, likely tried to take his firearm, and charged at the officer when ordered to stop. That is a justified homicide by the cop any way you look at it, and there should be no trial given such evidence. But you want a trial anyway. There was never going to be a conviction. Again, for the umpteenth time, there was insufficient evidence to even obtain an indictment, much less a conviction. Whether you want to admit that or not is irrelevant, and the system is designed to utilize available evidence, not the desires of a mob. We have rule of law in this country, not mob rule. Deal with it. I don't believe that the prosecutor was ever inclined to see a crime in this case because the evidence didn't support such a conclusion. The grand jury agreed. Deal with it. Yes it was to cover his a$$. But if you believe seeking justice included not trying to put an innocent man through an unnecessary trial or behind bars, then I believe that is exactly what he did. What you want, on the other hand is the exact opposite of seeking justice. You wanted a lynching in the absence of evidence. You still haven't explained why. Yes, the terrible man failed to withhold evidence from the grand jury. How horrible.
He is a political figure. And as for being partial, that is your assumption. All that I know is that he saw all of the evidence. Why is it so much of a stretch for you to conclude that he did not believe that a crime was committed because there was no evidence that a crime had been committed? The grand jury members saw all of the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient evidence that a crime was committed. Was the prosecutor using mind control on them or something?
Yes, it did. What they don't point out in this graphic is that quite a bit of the witness testimony was complete BS and contradicted by the forensics. I will post this 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
I am gonna keep pointing this out. The standard for probable cause is quite a bit lower than that required in a trial (beyond a reasonable doubt). The prosecutor presented all of the evidence available, and the grand jury concluded that there was insufficient evidence even for probable cause that a crime had been committed. Stop. And. Think. About. That.
Oh, and you still haven't actually answered these questions, so here we go again... 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. And I will continue to copy and paste them until you answer them. And since you keep ducking this one too I will add one more: Please explain why you think that "seeking justice" should involve a prosecutor attempting to pursue criminal charges against someone whom they did not believe committed the crime.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Rudy Giuliani uses Ferguson to take his race baiting to a whole new level <a href="http://t.co/L5z7s3OPYA">http://t.co/L5z7s3OPYA</a> <a href="http://t.co/BcNbhhwtJ0">pic.twitter.com/BcNbhhwtJ0</a></p>— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) <a href="https://twitter.com/TPM/status/538410094086856705">November 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Organizer says Darren Wilson actually has over $1 million after fundraisers & product sales + no legal fees <a href="http://t.co/EPtRVoaQuR">http://t.co/EPtRVoaQuR</a></p>— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/538407709758869505">November 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Part of police training (in areas with large African American communities) should be weekly plain-clothes visits to black churches and similar venues. Sort of like immersion therapy...
