Just as an aside, this does NOT mean that the case is over.
In fact, not indicting still leaves multiple arenas for the case to continue otherwise, by others and other organizations.
We probably haven't seen the end of this by any shot.
It would probably be EASIER to win a civil case or a case that goes in a different direction.
It also doesn't necessarily mean that Wilson is innocent, it means that the belief is there was no case that could be won against him in regards to the specific charges that would have been leveled.
Specifically, there are unanswered questions. AS I previously stated, Wilson's testimony isn't actually what I'd call open and close...and there are multiple holes that might be able to be exploited. In addition, the full question of whether Brown had to die or not, is still open for debate.
Even with a struggle in the vehicle, the only real excuse for how many times Wilson shot was that he was scared (and I can believe that, as many people who are scared probably would shoot time after time after time). It still could be seen as excessive, and one has to wonder if he really thought Brown's fists were lethal weapons or if that was an exaggeration.
In fact, there are multiple facets in Wilson's testimony that sound like an exaggeration. The biggest obstacle to overcome is the physical evidence, but civil courts are not as necessarily as discriminating in that arena as other courts.
Also, who knows what the Feds will do? I believe that's still an open avenue as well.
Hopefully not. Otherwise things will get uglier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, I can only assume you have no idea what grand juries are for or how they work based off of your statements. Not to mention that many of your statements are not backed up by the actual evidence.
Why would the only witness brought before a grand jury ever be the defendant? That makes literally no sense. Since defendants being brought before a grand jury is an anomaly, and his testimony was more or less unchallenged by anything resembling a reasonably competent prosecutor, one can reasonably assume in this case they wanted to let him walk. You say yourself that there are glaring holes, not to mention his various stories don't line up, but the prosecutor never pressed him on these.
They could have gone with any of the eye witnesses that said Brown had his hands up, had them testify, and with the physical evidence provided gotten an indictment. That is of course if the prosecutor actually wanted to proceed with a case, which he was clearly biased against ever doing in the first place.
The only indication that Brown touched the officer's weapon is from Wilson's testimony, since they didn't take finger prints of the gun. Not to mention that they didn't follow the proper chain of evidence for the gun.
The reason for a grand jury is to see if you have enough evidence to make a case - not to see if that case will hold up. That there may be contradictory evidence is irrelevant - that is up to a trial jury to determine the validity of different conflicting sources.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Police war on black people? Overturned by statistics! Math can't lie!
Black people distrusting the police? All the fault of farrakhan, Sharpton and race baiters! There has never been an issue with police and black people. Any aberrations are strictly anecdotal.
Yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out of the thread.
Makes me wonder how many incidents need to happen until it's not an 'anomaly.' Let's ignore that every 'anomaly' is a black life being ended, that each one of these 'random happenstance' is another person who's life is taken simply because some trigger happy monster needed to feel like a big man and hide behind a badge.
No, let's do you one better, let's blame black people for this. Let's blame them for white people hating them. That's totally justified, it's all black people's fault, that'll make the white guilt go away.
I appreciate threads like this because it shows me who's a decent person, and who literally couldn't care less about others.
GreyWolfLord, I can only assume you have no idea what grand juries are for or how they work based off of your statements. Not to mention that many of your statements are not backed up by the actual evidence.
Why would the only witness brought before a grand jury ever be the defendant? That makes literally no sense. Since defendants being brought before a grand jury is an anomaly, and his testimony was more or less unchallenged by anything resembling a reasonably competent prosecutor, one can reasonably assume in this case they wanted to let him walk. You say yourself that there are glaring holes, not to mention his various stories don't line up, but the prosecutor never pressed him on these.
They could have gone with any of the eye witnesses that said Brown had his hands up, had them testify, and with the physical evidence provided gotten an indictment. That is of course if the prosecutor actually wanted to proceed with a case, which he was clearly biased against ever doing in the first place.
The only indication that Brown touched the officer's weapon is from Wilson's testimony, since they didn't take finger prints of the gun. Not to mention that they didn't follow the proper chain of evidence for the gun.
The reason for a grand jury is to see if you have enough evidence to make a case - not to see if that case will hold up. That there may be contradictory evidence is irrelevant - that is up to a trial jury to determine the validity of different conflicting sources.
Considering what my occupation was...I'd say I have a pretty good idea of what Grand Juries do.
AS far as the defendant goes, you were the one who brought up only using one witness. If there is only one witness in this situation, it's going to be the officer.
Point blank. You wanted to have only one witness. That's the witness they would use.
The others that you mention, no single testimony is going to be strong enough to go against the officers...so that's a fail.
And the physical evidence is FAR more than what Wilson stated, so that's not going to work with any single witness.
The best chance for an unfair and unjust indictment (which really defeats the entire purpose) is to toss the evidence and go off of Wilson's testimony, which is particularly weak.
The evidence of Brown's hands on the gun, is DNA evidence. Same for the vehicle. There's blood in the Vehicle at spots which could only occur if Brown was in the vehicle (or part of brown) at the time of the shooting.
I highly doubt Brown was sitting face forward on Wilson's lap being friendly.
TheJEFF...
Only reason I used Wilson as the sole witness, is because someone brought up only using one witness (which in this instance would have been absurd...but if that situation would be done, it would have been the officer. There ARE instances where the only witness is the officer, and hence that situation...if there can only be one witness, it normally will be the officer).
NO, my view was on the physical evidence. Wilson's testimony is almost inconsequential in view of what the physical evidence showed.
I thought I made that abundantly clear. With Wilson's testimony only, and no physical evidence, you most likely would have an indictment.
People are trying to focus on that because that's the weakest part of the thing, but in truth, the hard evidence is what is the convincing part.
If I were the one making the decision, the overwhelming part that would have convinced me was NOT Wilson's testimony, but the physical evidence they showed of the Blood on the weapon, in the vehicle, and location of shots which actually correlated a lot of what Wilson and three other testimonies stated in regards to the events and were actually explainable.
The physical evidence does not state when Wilson drew his weapon or how or when, it simply shows what I stated, Brown was in the vehicle (illegally), a struggle most likely happened for the weapon (showing that at that point, an officers life probably was in danger), and that shots happened at close range.
That makes for a basically closed case right there. You have to have a preponderance of evidence to go against that. First, you have to show that there was no instance where the officer's life was in danger, which means explaining how someone's DNA was in a vehicle in a spot it shouldn't have been and than DNA was also on the weapon in a spot where it shouldn't have been indicating a struggle over that weapon.
Of course you could say Brown was romantically sitting on Wilsons lap at that time, and they were doing some rather unique things with a weapon...as I suppose the physical evidence could support that too...but that's far less likely than the real charges brought up and would have been far harder to prove.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Police war on black people? Overturned by statistics! Math can't lie!
Black people distrusting the police? All the fault of farrakhan, Sharpton and race baiters! There has never been an issue with police and black people. Any aberrations are strictly anecdotal.
Even more, when did the police war on black people end? If we're going to claim there isn't one now. There obviously was one back in the Jim Crow days or before.
When and how did we switch over from "Police and laws are actively targeting black people" to "Racism is over. Blacks are just more likely to be criminals."?
And how did we manage to do it while never having a time when the numbers show blacks not coming off worse?
thejeff, I'm ripping off mattress tags while loitering and selling crack to impressionable white upper middle class youth, I'll have to get back to you on that.
Besides, all racism ended in 1969. Or was it in 1866? I can never be sure.
So, how common is it for Grand Juries to hear testimony from the person they might be indicting? Without some form of immunity?Considering what my occupation was...I'd say I have a pretty good idea of what Grand Juries do.GreyWolfLord, I can only assume you have no idea what grand juries are for or how they work based off of your statements. Not to mention that many of your statements are not backed up by the actual evidence.
Why would the only witness brought before a grand jury ever be the defendant? That makes literally no sense. Since defendants being brought before a grand jury is an anomaly, and his testimony was more or less unchallenged by anything resembling a reasonably competent prosecutor, one can reasonably assume in this case they wanted to let him walk. You say yourself that there are glaring holes, not to mention his various stories don't line up, but the prosecutor never pressed him on these.
They could have gone with any of the eye witnesses that said Brown had his hands up, had them testify, and with the physical evidence provided gotten an indictment. That is of course if the prosecutor actually wanted to proceed with a case, which he was clearly biased against ever doing in the first place.
The only indication that Brown touched the officer's weapon is from Wilson's testimony, since they didn't take finger prints of the gun. Not to mention that they didn't follow the proper chain of evidence for the gun.
The reason for a grand jury is to see if you have enough evidence to make a case - not to see if that case will hold up. That there may be contradictory evidence is irrelevant - that is up to a trial jury to determine the validity of different conflicting sources.
It depends on the situation. I believe the officers normally are witnesses anyways.
In regards to a Grand Jury, when a witness is called, they are not necessarily told whether they are the target of it or merely a witness. However, they are entitled to a defense lawyer. They can inquire whether they are the target.
They can be offered immunity, or a deal worked out with the attorney. They attorney cannot be in the room, BUT, the attorney can be in the hall right outside the room, and the witness can go out to confer with the attorney as desired, including asking about how they should answer specific questions.
It IS a subpoena however. The target can refuse to testify in regards to a fifth amendment. An officer will more likely offer testimony.
It is very common for Grand Juries to hear testimony from someone they will be indicting. Sometimes the victim can get some immunities from various things (perhaps the target thinks they will be indicted for one thing, but there's something else they will be, or sometimes they know they are the target but the defense attorney has worked out a deal so that they can't be charged for some smaller things, but the larger case still stands).
Much of it depends on if the target even realizes they are being targeted and not simply a witness, and what deals are done behind the scenes.
Additionally, many feel, when in consultation with a defense attorney, that by presenting their side of the situation, they can only help their own case. This is especially true if they know they can confer with the attorney during the proceedings (just not in the same room, they have to go out of the area to consult with the attorney, but can do so extremely often).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
worked well enough for the guy in ferries county.I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you?I absolutely, positively, 100% think the police are statistically more likely to shoot a black person then a white person, given the same set of circumstances. Maybe it is different in other areas, but that seems to be the case where I live. For example, in my county, there was a wealth white guy in a wealthy area who SHOT AT POLICE WITH AN AK-47 - he left uninjured. Compare that with the black vet who was killed by police - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
I'm not sure what case you're referring to.
Regardless I'm not interested.
You people may dismiss my posts are trolling if you prefer, but don't get upset with me when I point out that the most likely outcome will happen most of the time. Yes, you can probably find cases of white people not getting shot when they should have and black people getting shot when they shouldn't. This is what is known as anecdotal evidence.
The overwhelming body of evidence that is statistics doesn't support a police war on black people. I do however accept the notion that black people don't trust the police.
The fact that black people don't trust police is due to them being told their entire lives that they shouldn't, that the system is out to get them. I blame this on race-baiters like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and their ilk.
Regardless, I'm done with this thread and further discussion serves no purpose. The justice system has ruled, the evidence supports the police officer. Case closed.
Could you please find a link for statistics on the race of people shot by police officers? Or just statistics at all on the number of people shot by police officers?
Any claim to such statistics is purely imaginary, because what data is available is minimal at best. There are 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the US, but only 750 have actually submitted the data that they are federally required to report, that's about 0.4%.
Of the data that is submitted, there is no oversight or control to ensure that the data is accurate.
Your claims of statistics are spurious at best, when it comes to officer shootings.
The data submitted for 2012 showed 400 justifiable homicides.
The data from journalists suggests that at least 1000 people were killed by the police in the same year.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Police war on black people? Overturned by statistics! Math can't lie!
Black people distrusting the police? All the fault of farrakhan, Sharpton and race baiters! There has never been an issue with police and black people. Any aberrations are strictly anecdotal.
Even more, when did the police war on black people end? If we're going to claim there isn't one now. There obviously was one back in the Jim Crow days or before.
When and how did we switch over from "Police and laws are actively targeting black people" to "Racism is over. Blacks are just more likely to be criminals."?
And how did we manage to do it while never having a time when the numbers show blacks not coming off worse?
thejeff, I'm ripping off mattress tags while loitering and selling crack to impressionable white upper middle class youth, I'll have to get back to you on that.
Besides, all racism ended in 1969. Or was it in 1866? I can never be sure.
As a suburban honkey, I can't really offer perspective on what it means to be a person of color in America, but I remember specifically being told that Obama's election meant the U.S. was officially post-racial society.
[derail]But as a woman, I can definitely say I don't feel safe around most cops either. Being gay doesn't do anything to alleviate my fears or the overly-cautious behaviors I often take around them...[/derail] but at least I can be stealthy-lez and usually sneak by under the guise of suburban honkey. People of color can't fall back on that trick.
worked well enough for the guy in ferries county.I fully encourage you test that theory by grabbing a gun and threatening some police officers then. Have fun.You don't actually think police are less likely to shoot an armed/violent white criminal than they are a black one do you?I absolutely, positively, 100% think the police are statistically more likely to shoot a black person then a white person, given the same set of circumstances. Maybe it is different in other areas, but that seems to be the case where I live. For example, in my county, there was a wealth white guy in a wealthy area who SHOT AT POLICE WITH AN AK-47 - he left uninjured. Compare that with the black vet who was killed by police - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
I'm not sure what case you're referring to.
Regardless I'm not interested.
You people may dismiss my posts are trolling if you prefer, but don't get upset with me when I point out that the most likely outcome will happen most of the time. Yes, you can probably find cases of white people not getting shot when they should have and black people getting shot when they shouldn't. This is what is known as anecdotal evidence.
The overwhelming body of evidence that is statistics doesn't support a police war on black people. I do however accept the notion that black people don't trust the police.
The fact that black people don't trust police is due to them being told their entire lives that they shouldn't, that the system is out to get them. I blame this on race-baiters like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and their ilk.
Regardless, I'm done with this thread and further discussion serves no purpose. The justice system has ruled, the evidence supports the police officer. Case closed.
Police war on black people? Overturned by statistics! Math can't lie!
Black people distrusting the police?...
Yes typical white supremacy at it's finest. If they didn't see it or experience it themselves? It doesn't exist or only exists in their (black peoples) minds as they are a lying race of liars who lie. and led by their noses and are incapable of thinking for themselves or counting their own experiences. AWESOME.
Honestly I dont even know how you do it Freehold DM. You have the patience of several saints.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I was actually on the Grand Jury here in Idaho for six months.
The prosecutor never called any of the defendants we were indicting to testify. From what I remember, we'd usually only hear from one or two witnesses--the detective on the case, the victim, or if it was a drug case we'd hear from a lab guy about testing the sample of drugs they bought.
Of course, we almost exclusively heard rape and undercover drug bust cases (the one exception was a child abuse case), so that could be a factor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people seem to believe that actual, true color blindness is a thing (it isn't), and that white privilege is therefore an illusion (again, it isn't), or even that so much as acknowledging white privilege is itself inherently racist simply because it involves acknowledging that different races exist (no, seriously).
The bottom line: White people such as myself have very little credibility when it comes to truly understanding the black experience in America, but it doesn't take a genius to see that that experience differs from my own...and generally not in a good way. I think we white people should mostly just let black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word. Right now, they seem to be saying that they're tired of getting shot by the police. Maybe, just maybe, that's because they're tired of getting shot by the police, as opposed to the "they're all criminals" narrative being offered?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we white people should mostly just let the black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word.
While I agree with most of your post, listen but verify is always a good approach to ANY piece of information.
I think we white people should mostly just let the black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word.While I agree with most of your post, listen but verify is always a good approach to ANY piece of information.
This statement is the definition of white privilege.
Some people seem to believe that actual, true color blindness is a thing (it isn't), and that white privilege is therefore an illusion (again, it isn't), or even that so much as acknowledging white privilege is itself inherently racist simply because it involves acknowledging that different races exist (no, seriously).
The bottom line: White people such as myself have very little credibility when it comes to truly understanding the black experience in America, but it doesn't take a genius to see that that experience differs from my own...and generally not in a good way. I think we white people should mostly just let black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word. Right now, they seem to be saying that they're tired of getting shot by the police. Maybe, just maybe, that's because they're tired of getting shot by the police, as opposed to the "they're all criminals" narrative being offered?
I read an interesting article yesterday link. Apparently, 91% of an average white american's social network is white and 75% of white americans have entirely white social networks.
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.
The police in Ferguson seem to constantly have trouble keeping stories straight too, I will observe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This statement is the definition of white privilege.I think we white people should mostly just let the black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word.While I agree with most of your post, listen but verify is always a good approach to ANY piece of information.
no. Verification is important. The last time things weren't verified, we ended up with Roots.
no. Verification is important. The last time things weren't verified, we ended up with Roots.This statement is the definition of white privilege.I think we white people should mostly just let the black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word.While I agree with most of your post, listen but verify is always a good approach to ANY piece of information.
Challenging the veracity of claims by an entire group presupposes that you are a member of a superior group. It's a disgusting statement.
|
So to the economics of revolution, how horrible a place America would be if 'the oppressed' felt they needed to take the lives of ten to a hundred police officers for every African American. Now
Imagine if the state contemplated the elimination of ten to a hundred african americans every time one police officer died in the line of duty.
Challenging the veracity of claims by an entire group presupposes that you are a member of a superior group. It's a disgusting statement.no. Verification is important. The last time things weren't verified, we ended up with Roots.This statement is the definition of white privilege.I think we white people should mostly just let the black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word.While I agree with most of your post, listen but verify is always a good approach to ANY piece of information.Not necessarily. Is it reasonable for black people to challenge the veracity of assumptions held by the majority of whites?
Mind you, I think the veracity of these claims has been shown again and again.
That's where the priviledge comes in. The opinions of black people about all the crap that spews forth from the mouths of white people have NO IMPACT on the lives of those white people. The reverse is not true.
Ideally you gather enough information and think it through so that you have a conclusion rather than an assumption. Its a very complicated intersection of culture, geography, history, economics, and yes more than a little racism.
Yeesh, all this on a claim to trust but verify.
Actually wait, I think listen but verify was the first statement. Trust may be the missing factor here.
Listen, trust, AND verify might be the optimal method.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
