Darren Wilson acquitted.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The evidence showed that Wilson was attacked and defended himself. It was a tragedy, but Wilson did not have an obligation to let himself be killed because the assailant was black.


At best, the evidence showed that it was unlikely that it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson had acted with malice. Under Missouri's state laws it's extremely difficult to convict a police officer of murder (or even manslaughter) for anything done under cover of law.

At worst, the prosecution deliberately slanted the evidence presented to the grand jury to get the result they wanted. There are at least some hints this is so: For example, Darren Wilson's testimony was allowed to proceed with minimal questioning while some of the witnesses who claimed that Michael Brown was surrenduring when shot seemed to be treated as hostile witnesses - every statement they made being challenged.

Dark Archive

Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Perhaps so, though most likely only if they're inner city and get caught up in gang violence.

Even so, if that does happen and the killers are known, they'll likely wind up in jail. A cop can do it in broad daylight and walk without even a trial. It's a little different.


thejeff wrote:

At best, the evidence showed that it was unlikely that it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson had acted with malice. Under Missouri's state laws it's extremely difficult to convict a police officer of murder (or even manslaughter) for anything done under cover of law.

At worst, the prosecution deliberately slanted the evidence presented to the grand jury to get the result they wanted. There are at least some hints this is so: For example, Darren Wilson's testimony was allowed to proceed with minimal questioning while some of the witnesses who claimed that Michael Brown was surrenduring when shot seemed to be treated as hostile witnesses - every statement they made being challenged.

OK, I'll bite. Why did the prosecutor want to lose this case?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Point of fact, the officer was not acquitted. You have to be charged to be acquitted. It was decided to not indict him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:

At best, the evidence showed that it was unlikely that it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson had acted with malice. Under Missouri's state laws it's extremely difficult to convict a police officer of murder (or even manslaughter) for anything done under cover of law.

At worst, the prosecution deliberately slanted the evidence presented to the grand jury to get the result they wanted. There are at least some hints this is so: For example, Darren Wilson's testimony was allowed to proceed with minimal questioning while some of the witnesses who claimed that Michael Brown was surrendering when shot seemed to be treated as hostile witnesses - every statement they made being challenged.

OK, I'll bite. Why did the prosecutor want to lose this case?

Couple of reasons suggest themselves: In general prosecutors work closely with the police and will have trouble if they alienate them. McCullough personally has strong family connections, his father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for St. Louis' police department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.

Despite handling several police shooting cases before, he's never indicted an officer.

And as I said, the released testimony from this investigation suggests such a slant.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:

At best, the evidence showed that it was unlikely that it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson had acted with malice. Under Missouri's state laws it's extremely difficult to convict a police officer of murder (or even manslaughter) for anything done under cover of law.

At worst, the prosecution deliberately slanted the evidence presented to the grand jury to get the result they wanted. There are at least some hints this is so: For example, Darren Wilson's testimony was allowed to proceed with minimal questioning while some of the witnesses who claimed that Michael Brown was surrenduring when shot seemed to be treated as hostile witnesses - every statement they made being challenged.

OK, I'll bite. Why did the prosecutor want to lose this case?

He entered into the legal profession because his father was killed by a black man.

He regularly uses and permits the use of racial slurs in his work office.

He has historically sided with the police in his cases without exception.

Collectively, these offered probable cause for a prejudice or bias in his actions. When this was brought up and he was asked to recuse himself from the case, he refused. At the very minimum, this decision compromised the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.

EDIT: sniped by 29 minutes, that's what I get for double checking my facts for accuracy.

Liberty's Edge

And just to be clear, he didn't lose anything, and this wasn't a case. There's no incentive for him to convince the jury to indict (beyond the whole justice thing but that is so last millenium).


Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:

At best, the evidence showed that it was unlikely that it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson had acted with malice. Under Missouri's state laws it's extremely difficult to convict a police officer of murder (or even manslaughter) for anything done under cover of law.

At worst, the prosecution deliberately slanted the evidence presented to the grand jury to get the result they wanted. There are at least some hints this is so: For example, Darren Wilson's testimony was allowed to proceed with minimal questioning while some of the witnesses who claimed that Michael Brown was surrenduring when shot seemed to be treated as hostile witnesses - every statement they made being challenged.

OK, I'll bite. Why did the prosecutor want to lose this case?

His father was a police officer, killed by a black man. He wanted to be a cop, he has several other relatives that are or were officers, his mom was a police dispatcher. He has historically not got indictments on police officers accused of crimes.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.


Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.


BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.

Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?

Because this wasn't a trial. It was a grand jury. You may want to look that up if you don't know what it means.

Grand Lodge

Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Just as a white person is statistically more likely to be killed by a white person than a police officer or a white woman is statistically more likely to be killed by her spouse than a police officer.

But hey, I'm Australian. Our gun deaths (even via cop) are few.


Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Prosecution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?

There was no trial. This was a grand jury hearing. None of things you suggest are normal for a grand jury hearing. The grand jury is ONLY for establishing probable cause. That's it. This entire procedure has been a farce.


Fergurg wrote:


Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?

Are you saying there should have been a trial, or that you didn't want a trial? It sounds like you wanted a trial...

Just a quick note... there is nothing stopping the prosecutor from bringing Wilson before a new grand jury tomorrow...


Having actually read a lot of the transcripts (not the whole thing yet), I was very impressed with the impartiality and professionalism of the prosecutors.

There are basically two dueling narratives - the Darren Wilson narrative and the Dorian Johnson narrative. The evidence I have reviewed so far is showing the Wilson narrative to be more credible and more backed by evidence.


BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Prosecution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
There was no trial. This was a grand jury hearing. None of things you suggest are normal for a grand jury hearing. The grand jury is ONLY for establishing probable cause. That's it. This entire procedure has been a farce.

If the witnesses making the accusation aren't telling the truth, and the physical evidence validates the defendant's story, why shouldn't that be a reasonable part of determining whether or not probable cause exists?


Fergie wrote:
Just a quick note... there is nothing stopping the prosecutor from bringing Wilson before a new grand jury tomorrow...

That question came up on one of the talk shows. Yes, the prosecutor could, but he has a big hurdle: a jury of 12 people just ruled that there wasn't even enough evidence to charge Wilson. Is there really a chance that a jury from the same pool of people are going to convict him, when the standard is much higher?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Just a quick note... there is nothing stopping the prosecutor from bringing Wilson before a new grand jury tomorrow...
That question came up on one of the talk shows. Yes, the prosecutor could, but he has a big hurdle: a jury of 12 people just ruled that there wasn't even enough evidence to charge Wilson. Is there really a chance that a jury from the same pool of people are going to convict him, when the standard is much higher?

If the prosecutor actually wanted a indictment, I would say that there is a 100% probability of an indictment. I think it would take about an hour.

And if you don't get an indictment, just try again.

I don't think a jury trial would result in a conviction, but I think it requires a jury trial.


Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Prosecution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
There was no trial. This was a grand jury hearing. None of things you suggest are normal for a grand jury hearing. The grand jury is ONLY for establishing probable cause. That's it. This entire procedure has been a farce.
If the witnesses making the accusation aren't telling the truth, and the physical evidence validates the defendant's story, why shouldn't that be a reasonable part of determining whether or not probable cause exists?

Because that isn't what probable cause is. Just having witnesses is probable cause. Full stop. The veracity of their claims is a matter of fact that should be uncovered in a trial. It isn't the responsibility of the GJ to determine matters of fact.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the grand jury proceeding was fair, whether or not the outcome of that proceeding was what it should have been, and whether or not Darren Wilson was in any way justified in what he did (morally or legally).

It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response. It is an utter disgrace and makes a sham out of everything that so many so-called protesters are instead engaging in violence, theft, looting, intimidation, and domestic terrorism-- against a whole lot of innocent civilians caught underfoot-- make no mistake, the riots aren't hurting the police, they're just providing justification for a much harsher crack-down.

And any Federal "civil rights action" done as a response to the riots is likely to be just as much of a warped, biased, unfair circus as the worst possible interpretation makes the Grand Jury proceeding out to be-- at the very least, it can no longer be open, fair, and a genuine inquiry for justice now-- the aftermath of the "Rodney King" Riots and the subsequent Federal trial provides the example of what happens next if the Feds get involved in seeking "justice" after this.

All of this makes a total mockery of the idea that we humans, particularly in the United States, are so wonderfully civilized-- the breakdown of society and the sheer capacity of man to be thoroughly "inhumane" to his fellow man once again rears its head on our own soil. Fortunately, unlike the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, I'm retired from the military now and will not have to be one of the Soldiers sent out to put down this latest display of barbarism and ignorance. I'm still not going to sleep well tonight.


DM Barcas wrote:

Having actually read a lot of the transcripts (not the whole thing yet), I was very impressed with the impartiality and professionalism of the prosecutors.

There are basically two dueling narratives - the Darren Wilson narrative and the Dorian Johnson narrative. The evidence I have reviewed so far is showing the Wilson narrative to be more credible and more backed by evidence.

That's because Wilson wasn't cross examined and the "prosecution witnesses" were.


The 5th Amendment requires an indictment before trial. If the evidence does that cross the probable cause threshold before the defense gets to present, the chances of winning at trial are roughly zero.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the grand jury proceeding was fair, whether or not the outcome of that proceeding was what it should have been, and whether or not Darren Wilson was in any way justified in what he did (morally or legally).

It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response. It is an utter disgrace and makes a sham out of everything that so many so-called protesters are instead engaging in violence, theft, looting, intimidation, and domestic terrorism-- against a whole lot of innocent civilians caught underfoot-- make no mistake, the riots aren't hurting the police, they're just providing justification for a much harsher crack-down.

And any Federal "civil rights action" done as a response to the riots is likely to be just as much of a warped, biased, unfair circus as the worst possible interpretation makes the Grand Jury proceeding out to be-- at the very least, it can no longer be open, fair, and a genuine inquiry for justice now-- the aftermath of the "Rodney King" Riots and the subsequent Federal trial provides the example of what happens next if the Feds get involved in seeking "justice" after this.

All of this makes a total mockery of the idea that we humans, particularly in the United States, are so wonderfully civilized-- the breakdown of society and the sheer capacity of man to be thoroughly "inhumane" to his fellow man once again rears its head on our own soil. Fortunately, unlike the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, I'm retired from the military now and will not have to be one of the Soldiers sent out to put down this latest display of barbarism and ignorance. I'm still not going to sleep well tonight.

The breakdown in society happened when Brown's corpse was left to bake on a public street for 4 hours in the middle of the summer. Everything subsequent to that is a reaction to that breakdown.


Did you actually read his testimony? I did not get any impression that they were going easy on him. Dorian Johnson was treated with an even lighter touch, even though a few of his statements were contradicted by evidence.

None of Wilson's statements were contradicted by physical evidence, which seems to be what the prosecutors challenged others on.


DM Barcas wrote:
The 5th Amendment requires an indictment before trial. If the evidence does that cross the probable cause threshold before the defense gets to present, the chances of winning at trial are roughly zero.

If you allow the accused to testify without cross examination in every case then you would find that it often looks like that guy is innocent...


BigDTBone wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the grand jury proceeding was fair, whether or not the outcome of that proceeding was what it should have been, and whether or not Darren Wilson was in any way justified in what he did (morally or legally).

It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response. It is an utter disgrace and makes a sham out of everything that so many so-called protesters are instead engaging in violence, theft, looting, intimidation, and domestic terrorism-- against a whole lot of innocent civilians caught underfoot-- make no mistake, the riots aren't hurting the police, they're just providing justification for a much harsher crack-down.

And any Federal "civil rights action" done as a response to the riots is likely to be just as much of a warped, biased, unfair circus as the worst possible interpretation makes the Grand Jury proceeding out to be-- at the very least, it can no longer be open, fair, and a genuine inquiry for justice now-- the aftermath of the "Rodney King" Riots and the subsequent Federal trial provides the example of what happens next if the Feds get involved in seeking "justice" after this.

All of this makes a total mockery of the idea that we humans, particularly in the United States, are so wonderfully civilized-- the breakdown of society and the sheer capacity of man to be thoroughly "inhumane" to his fellow man once again rears its head on our own soil. Fortunately, unlike the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, I'm retired from the military now and will not have to be one of the Soldiers sent out to put down this latest display of barbarism and ignorance. I'm still not going to sleep well tonight.

The breakdown in society happened when Brown's corpse was left to bake on a public street for 4 hours in the middle of the summer. Everything subsequent to that is a reaction to that breakdown.

Four hours from the time of the shooting is par for the course on just about every killing I've been involved with. It takes a while to process a scene.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

He was a policeman accused of killing a black "thug". The chances of a guilty verdict were pretty much zero anyway.
As for the rioting, which is more heinous: rioting over a perceived unjustified killing of a young man by the "forces of law and order" or rioting after your team lost a game? Which receives more condemnation and which is treated as just the way things are?
EDIT And as for those damn Bostonians throwing the tea into the bay in protest at tax laws. How can such willful destruction of private property be condoned by anyone?


DM Barcas wrote:

Did you actually read his testimony? I did not get any impression that they were going easy on him. Dorian Johnson was treated with an even lighter touch, even though a few of his statements were contradicted by evidence.

None of Wilson's statements were contradicted by physical evidence, which seems to be what the prosecutors challenged others on.

Yes, and there were at least a dozen places in his testimony where a prosecutor actually trying to serve the public interest would have followed up with questions regarding Wilson's complete mishandling of every aspect of the encounter and his nearly willful attempts to escalate the situation rather than maintain peace. The fact that the very first question wasn't, "in this neighborhood people often walk in the street, why did you choose this man to harass?" is extremely telling in itself.


BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Prosecution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
There was no trial. This was a grand jury hearing. None of things you suggest are normal for a grand jury hearing. The grand jury is ONLY for establishing probable cause. That's it. This entire procedure has been a farce.
If the witnesses making the accusation aren't telling the truth, and the physical evidence validates the defendant's story, why shouldn't that be a reasonable part of determining whether or not probable cause exists?
Because that isn't what probable cause is. Just having witnesses is probable cause. Full stop. The veracity of their claims is a matter of fact that should be uncovered in a trial. It isn't the responsibility of the GJ to determine matters of fact.

I looked this up, under FindLaw.com. Very interesting stuff, but according to them, you are incorrect about grand juries. Here are the highlights:

FindLaw.com wrote:
How Does a Grand Jury Differ from a Preliminary Hearing? While all states have provisions in their laws that allow for grand juries, roughly half of the states don't use them. Courts often use preliminary hearings prior to criminal trials, instead of grand juries, which are adversarial in nature. As with grand juries, preliminary hearings are meant to determine whether there is enough evidence, or probable cause, to indict a criminal suspect.

So this is an adversarial situation.

FindLaw.com wrote:
Grand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.

In other words, the grand jury has a lot of discretion as to what they will hear, and they chose to hear the questioning of the witnesses.

I also looked up the legal definition of probable cause in their legal dictionary and found this:

FindLaw.com Legal Dictionary wrote:
a reasonable ground in fact and circumstance for a belief in the existence of certain circumstances (as that an offense has been or is being committed, that a person is guilty of an offense, that a particular search will uncover contraband, that an item to be seized is in a particular place, or that a specific fact or cause of action exists)

What you described, the idea that witnesses alone was enough, does not meet the standard, especially when the evidence contradicts what they are saying.


Finn wrote:
It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response. It is an utter disgrace and makes a sham out of everything that so many so-called protesters are instead engaging in violence, theft, looting, intimidation, and domestic terrorism-

And what % of people protesting are engaging in this? What kind of coveratge is it getting?

This is not a protest of one event. This is a rather heavy sack of flour that broke the camels back. You have a police force that felt comfortable putting in paperwork admitting they got the wrong guy, beat him up, and charged him with assault for bleeding on an officer. (and that actually turned out to be a lie...) If the system is not going to correct that what are people supposed to do?


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response.

Where would you prefer they riot?


He wasn't indicted due to his testimony. If it was just his testimony, he would have been indicted.

The biggest reason were the supposed witnesses themselves. Many of them had to be lying.

Why?

Because their testimonies all conflict and sometimes say the opposite things. One states Brown Ran away, while another says he was walking towards and then collapsing towards. One says Browns hands never got above shoulder level, whilst another said that he had his hands raised above his head.

Even a poor defense attorney could get his client off with witnesses that conflict that terribly with each other. The stories conflict so badly, that none of them are considered truly reliable.

You can't get a conviction off of witnesses that contradict each other so radically!

Point blank.

If they indicted and charged, they'd have lost. The supposed witnesses did the case in themselves. There probably were some good witnesses, but the ones that had something to burn, something to try to push...who thought they were all that by trying to say something that wasn't true...they were the true downfall of the opportunity to indict.

Without reliable witnesses and a story that cohesively comes from them...it then falls to physical evidence.

That showed Brown's blood in the vehicle consistent with a struggle and shooting. It showed Brown's blood on the actual weapon as if Brown had his hands on it. The angle of the shots from the evidence presented corroborated that it was probably done in the manner that was stated by Wilson (and supposedly some other witnesses that refused to come out public due to fear that they would have retaliation done to them).

However, that doesn't mean Wilson was innocent, it simply means because a bunch of false witnesses botched this Grand Jury up so badly with their false testimonies, there was NOTHING to go on EXCEPT the physical evidence.

They more effectively botched the Grand Jury investigation up than anything a prosecutor or anyone else could. The made it obviously impossible to win a court case against Wilson...which would be the purpose of the indictment in the first place...

If you can't win an indictment, and it's obvious...well...that's when you don't indict.

The Exchange

Helaman wrote:
Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Just as a white person is statistically more likely to be killed by a white person than a police officer or a white woman is statistically more likely to be killed by her spouse than a police officer.

But hey, I'm Australian. Our gun deaths (even via cop) are few.

As opposed to deaths in custody...if you happen to be aboriginal. Take the death of a police officer in the northern territory. He was king hit in a nightclub. What wasnt admitted to at the trial of the killer was that the dead police oficer was drunk, off duty, and had just got done sexually assaulting the daughter of his assailant (he slipped his hand up her skirt for a grope). That along with the CCTV footage of the assault was supressed by the prosecution. The other police officer there with him was not subjected to questioning.


Sissyl wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response.
Where would you prefer they riot?

So... riot party at Finn's place?


yellowdingo wrote:
Helaman wrote:
Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Just as a white person is statistically more likely to be killed by a white person than a police officer or a white woman is statistically more likely to be killed by her spouse than a police officer.

But hey, I'm Australian. Our gun deaths (even via cop) are few.

As opposed to deaths in custody...if you happen to be aboriginal. Take the death of a police officer in the northern territory. He was king hit in a nightclub. What wasnt admitted to at the trial of the killer was that the dead police oficer was drunk, off duty, and had just got done sexually assaulting the daughter of his assailant (he slipped his hand up her skirt for a grope). That along with the CCTV footage of the assault was supressed by the prosecution. The other police officer there with him was not subjected to questioning.

Aboriginal deaths in custody is a highly complex issue and should be addressed elsewhere, this thread is about the volatile and complex issue or race & policing in the US.

Not sure that you Dingo my favourite crazy Northern Territorian can improve the situation by bowling tangentialy topical Yorkers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response.
Where would you prefer they riot?

Other people's towns, I guess.

Since supposedly that's what everyone else is doing. People from all over Missouri are flocking to Ferguson to enact these riots and looting and arson, and everyone who lives in the town is 100% innocent of these crimes. It's those damn invaders, making them look bad!

Or at least that's what people keep telling me.

The Exchange

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Helaman wrote:
Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Just as a white person is statistically more likely to be killed by a white person than a police officer or a white woman is statistically more likely to be killed by her spouse than a police officer.

But hey, I'm Australian. Our gun deaths (even via cop) are few.

As opposed to deaths in custody...if you happen to be aboriginal. Take the death of a police officer in the northern territory. He was king hit in a nightclub. What wasnt admitted to at the trial of the killer was that the dead police oficer was drunk, off duty, and had just got done sexually assaulting the daughter of his assailant (he slipped his hand up her skirt for a grope). That along with the CCTV footage of the assault was supressed by the prosecution. The other police officer there with him was not subjected to questioning.

Aboriginal deaths in custody is a highly complex issue and should be addressed elsewhere, this thread is about the volatile and complex issue or race & policing in the US.

Not sure that you Dingo my favourite crazy Northern Territorian can improve the situation by bowling tangentialy topical Yorkers.

Does your wife know i'm Your favourite?

The Exchange

Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?

Why not. That Wilson took the life of brown is not in dispute. The only grounds under which a life can be taken is if brown resisted arrest under charge of treason. For Wilson to do so in violation of those grounds is treason.

Grand Lodge

yellowdingo wrote:
Helaman wrote:
Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Just as a white person is statistically more likely to be killed by a white person than a police officer or a white woman is statistically more likely to be killed by her spouse than a police officer.

But hey, I'm Australian. Our gun deaths (even via cop) are few.

As opposed to deaths in custody...if you happen to be aboriginal. Take the death of a police officer in the northern territory. He was king hit in a nightclub. What wasnt admitted to at the trial of the killer was that the dead police oficer was drunk, off duty, and had just got done sexually assaulting the daughter of his assailant (he slipped his hand up her skirt for a grope). That along with the CCTV footage of the assault was supressed by the prosecution. The other police officer there with him was not subjected to questioning.

I was more arguing the statistics on Black people need to focus on violence within their own community rather than what happened in Ferguson.

As for the incident you cited or deaths in custody, yep unfortunately power does indeed seem to corrupt irrespective of the country.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
Why not. That Wilson took the life of brown is not in dispute. The only grounds under which a life can be taken is if brown resisted arrest under charge of treason. For Wilson to do so in violation of those grounds is treason.

Do you actually believe this to be true or do you know its false and just hope saying things like it often enough will eventually make it true?


ShadowcatX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
Why not. That Wilson took the life of brown is not in dispute. The only grounds under which a life can be taken is if brown resisted arrest under charge of treason. For Wilson to do so in violation of those grounds is treason.
Do you actually believe this to be true or do you know its false and just hope saying things like it often enough will eventually make it true?

It's yellowdingo. True and False are a load of mangoes.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
Why not. That Wilson took the life of brown is not in dispute. The only grounds under which a life can be taken is if brown resisted arrest under charge of treason. For Wilson to do so in violation of those grounds is treason.
Do you actually believe this to be true or do you know its false and just hope saying things like it often enough will eventually make it true?
It's yellowdingo. True and False are a load of mangoes.

Its saner than to suggest that if violence in response to a failure to prosecute over a police involved shooting exceeds the ten million (9 million for taking a life in payout + 1 million to train a new officer) it costs the state to prosecute its own it becomes more economically efficient to prosecute the officer. So at around 98 incidents a year, the expense would need to be a billion dollars a year to the judicial budget. The most prized asset in the judicial economy being the training of an officer, the exchange rate would be ten officers per African American and a thousand a year at the current rate of violence. I believe that the current rate of loss of officers in the line of duty was about ten to fifteen percent of that exchange rate.

I think we all prefer legal accountability


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

He wasn't indicted due to his testimony. If it was just his testimony, he would have been indicted.

The biggest reason were the supposed witnesses themselves. Many of them had to be lying.

Why?

Because their testimonies all conflict and sometimes say the opposite things. One states Brown Ran away, while another says he was walking towards and then collapsing towards. One says Browns hands never got above shoulder level, whilst another said that he had his hands raised above his head.

Even a poor defense attorney could get his client off with witnesses that conflict that terribly with each other. The stories conflict so badly, that none of them are considered truly reliable.

You can't get a conviction off of witnesses that contradict each other so radically!

Point blank.

If they indicted and charged, they'd have lost. The supposed witnesses did the case in themselves. There probably were some good witnesses, but the ones that had something to burn, something to try to push...who thought they were all that by trying to say something that wasn't true...they were the true downfall of the opportunity to indict.

Without reliable witnesses and a story that cohesively comes from them...it then falls to physical evidence.

That showed Brown's blood in the vehicle consistent with a struggle and shooting. It showed Brown's blood on the actual weapon as if Brown had his hands on it. The angle of the shots from the evidence presented corroborated that it was probably done in the manner that was stated by Wilson (and supposedly some other witnesses that refused to come out public due to fear that they would have retaliation done to them).

However, that doesn't mean Wilson was innocent, it simply means because a bunch of false witnesses botched this Grand Jury up so badly with their false testimonies, there was NOTHING to go on EXCEPT the physical evidence.

They more effectively botched the Grand Jury investigation up than anything a prosecutor or anyone else could. The made it...

Funny thing, if the prosecutor wanted to go to trial, he wouldn't need to present more than 1 witness. The fact that he knowingly presented multiple witnesses that had conflicting statements indicates he did not in fact want a trial. And it is the responsibility of a trial jury to determine the veracity of statements, not a grand jury.

Federally, there were over 160,000 cases brought before grand juries last year. 11 of them did not get an indictment. Attorneys have a saying, "You can indict a ham sandwich."


Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Leading cause of violent deaths in Utah in the past 5 years is by police officer. It recently surpassed prison deaths, gang violence, and domestic abuse. Granted it is Utah.


Disappointing.

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Darren Wilson acquitted. All Messageboards