No charges for officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, after follow-up probe

[Grumblenuts]

Do you believe Wilson committed a crime in the shooting of Brown? And if so, what crime?

He's been cleared for murder and manslaughter. Beyond that I've had no interest. I'm disappointed that he wasn't charged, but I accept that an honest effort was made to put him on trial.

 

[JoeMoma]

Don't be an idiot. I said "outside of this case..is irrelevant" Meaning, it is irrelevant to this case.

So when you and others simplify it all to a matter of innocence until proven guilty according to our law in general, oh, that's fine. But when the prosecutor alludes to other charges, whether criminal or civil, still being considered obviously based on the evidence in this case, you jamb on the total exoneration brakes and begin speculating like crazy about his "innocence" lol.

Two questions:

1.) What other charges?

2.) When did he allude to them?

He never alluded to any other charges because as far as I know, there are none.

So now you speculate that he didn't really allude to other possible charges because that hinges upon what you know, and since you don't know of any, there must be none. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Again, this is what he said:

"I also want to be clear that our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson. The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

In other words, they haven't yet prepared a case beyond murder or manslaughter. That doesn't mean they can't or won't. Maybe?.. Maybe not?.. Maybe more was expected from a civil case if they waited for a criminal conviction first?.. Maybe not?.. Who knows? Not me. Not you either.

Seeing that this review of the case is over and it was decided again not to press any charges in this case, it is highly unlikely there will be any criminal charges against Wilson in this case.

A civil case is a different animal all together. If the Brown family wants to hire a lawyer and sue Wilson, there is nothing stopping them. If they haven't already sued Wilson in a civil case, chances are that it is because they have been advised by lawyers that their chance of winning is slim to none.

 

[JoeMoma]

Do you believe Wilson committed a crime in the shooting of Brown? And if so, what crime?

He's been cleared for murder and manslaughter. Beyond that I've had no interest. I'm disappointed that he wasn't charged, but I accept that an honest effort was made to put him on trial.

Why are you disappointed that he wasn't charged? Do you believe that he did not behave properly in the shooting of MB?

 

[Billiejeens]

However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."

Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.

Then why mention it?

Because of what Bell said about the investigation not exonerating Wilson. Try to follow the quotes!

I'm asking Bell
It's a rhetorical question.
You ignorant ****!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you believe Wilson committed a crime in the shooting of Brown? And if so, what crime?

He's been cleared for murder and manslaughter. Beyond that I've had no interest. I'm disappointed that he wasn't charged, but I accept that an honest effort was made to put him on trial.

Why are you disappointed that he wasn't charged? Do you believe that he did not behave properly in the shooting of MB?

Yes.

 

[JoeMoma]

However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."

Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.

Then why mention it?

Because of what Bell said about the investigation not exonerating Wilson. Try to follow the quotes!

I'm asking Bell
It's a rhetorical question.
You ignorant ****!

If you are "asking Bell" or simply asking a rhetorical question, then you should not have replied directly to my post, quoting me with your post. Quoting my post implies that you are asking me the question in your post. You need to learn some message board etiquette You Ignorant ****!

 

[Billiejeens]

However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."

Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.

Then why mention it?

Because of what Bell said about the investigation not exonerating Wilson. Try to follow the quotes!

I'm asking Bell
It's a rhetorical question.
You ignorant ****!

If you are "asking Bell" or simply asking a rhetorical question, then you should not have replied directly to my post, quoting me with your post. Quoting my post implies that you are asking me the question in your post. You need to learn some message board etiquette You Ignorant ****!

No.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Don't be an idiot. I said "outside of this case..is irrelevant" Meaning, it is irrelevant to this case.

So when you and others simplify it all to a matter of innocence until proven guilty according to our law in general, oh, that's fine. But when the prosecutor alludes to other charges, whether criminal or civil, still being considered obviously based on the evidence in this case, you jamb on the total exoneration brakes and begin speculating like crazy about his "innocence" lol.

Two questions:

1.) What other charges?

2.) When did he allude to them?

He never alluded to any other charges because as far as I know, there are none.

So now you speculate that he didn't really allude to other possible charges because that hinges upon what you know, and since you don't know of any, there must be none. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Do you?

He is a paid, elected prosecutor, chosen to administer the law. It is not within his job description to allude to other possible charges. It is his job to either charge or not to charge and be forthcoming and inform his constituents of his intentions. If there were other possible charges then it behooves him as an elected and paid prosecutor, pursuant to judicial ethics and procedures to make that known.

Again, this is what he said:

"I also want to be clear that our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson. The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

Bullshit. He needs to be charged with wrongdoing in the first place in order to be cleared of it. Bell is full of shit.

Here's the thing, every case has evidence. The question is, does the evidence point to murder or manslaughter in this case? Since they don't feel they can prove it, the answer must be no. Therefore, he is cleared of wrongdoing.

In other words, they haven't yet prepared a case beyond murder or manslaughter.

It's been six ******* years and the evidence has been studied at length, TWICE and they still can't charge him. How long are they going to drag this out just to placate the family and the angry mobs that simply can't accept the fact that Brown fucked up when he attacked an officer?

That doesn't mean they can't or won't. Maybe?.. Maybe not?.. Maybe more was expected from a civil case if they waited for a criminal conviction first?.. Maybe not?.. Who knows? Not me. Not you either.

If more evidence comes to light, then they must do what they must do. Until then, they just need to drop it.

I've studied this case. I've read the DOJ report and numerous articles on the matter and watched both of the convenience store surveillance videos. It was a justified shooting on Wilson's part. Brown attacked Wilson and was shot in the hand and later, as he was walking away, realized he had been shot and then turned around and started advancing on Wilson again. Wilson then shot Brown to defend himself. Case closed.

You know what's ironic? While there have been questionable and unjustified police shootings since Ferguson, all the looting, burning, assaulting and destruction of property that has gone on since then began with a case where the shooting was actually justified. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't be an idiot. I said "outside of this case..is irrelevant" Meaning, it is irrelevant to this case.

So when you and others simplify it all to a matter of innocence until proven guilty according to our law in general, oh, that's fine. But when the prosecutor alludes to other charges, whether criminal or civil, still being considered obviously based on the evidence in this case, you jamb on the total exoneration brakes and begin speculating like crazy about his "innocence" lol.

Two questions:

1.) What other charges?

2.) When did he allude to them?

He never alluded to any other charges because as far as I know, there are none.

So now you speculate that he didn't really allude to other possible charges because that hinges upon what you know, and since you don't know of any, there must be none. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Do you?

He is a paid, elected prosecutor, chosen to administer the law. It is not within his job description to allude to other possible charges. It is his job to either charge or not to charge and be forthcoming and inform his constituents of his intentions. If there were other possible charges then it behooves him as an elected and paid prosecutor, pursuant to judicial ethics and procedures to make that known.

Again, this is what he said:

"I also want to be clear that our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson. The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

Bullshit. He needs to be charged with wrongdoing in the first place in order to be cleared of it. Bell is full of shit.

Here's the thing, every case has evidence. The question is, does the evidence point to murder or manslaughter in this case? Since they don't feel they can prove it, the answer must be no. Therefore, he is cleared of wrongdoing.

In other words, they haven't yet prepared a case beyond murder or manslaughter.

It's been six ******* years and the evidence has been studied at length, TWICE and they still can't charge him. How long are they going to drag this out just to placate the family and the angry mobs that simply can't accept the fact that Brown fucked up when he attacked an officer?

That doesn't mean they can't or won't. Maybe?.. Maybe not?.. Maybe more was expected from a civil case if they waited for a criminal conviction first?.. Maybe not?.. Who knows? Not me. Not you either.

If more evidence comes to light, then they must do what they must do. Until then, they just need to drop it.

I've studied this case. I've read the DOJ report and numerous articles on the matter and watched both of the convenience store surveillance videos. It was a justified shooting on Wilson's part. Brown attacked Wilson and was shot in the hand and later, as he was walking away, realized he had been shot and then turned around and started advancing on Wilson again. Wilson then shot Brown to defend himself. Case closed.

You know what's ironic? While there have been questionable and unjustified police shootings since Ferguson, all the looting, burning, assaulting and destruction of property that has gone on since then began with a case where the shooting was actually justified. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Sounds lovely. You've inspired me to review some Missouri AG law, their Sunshine statutes in particular, and,.. yeah, bullshit. You've got opinions based in a lot a nothin' there, bud. But you're certainly entitled. Bark it all out of your system here. Beats taking it out on some innocent person over there..

 

[ding]

Don't be an idiot. I said "outside of this case..is irrelevant" Meaning, it is irrelevant to this case.

So when you and others simplify it all to a matter of innocence until proven guilty according to our law in general, oh, that's fine. But when the prosecutor alludes to other charges, whether criminal or civil, still being considered obviously based on the evidence in this case, you jamb on the total exoneration brakes and begin speculating like crazy about his "innocence" lol.

Two questions:

1.) What other charges?

2.) When did he allude to them?

He never alluded to any other charges because as far as I know, there are none.

So now you speculate that he didn't really allude to other possible charges because that hinges upon what you know, and since you don't know of any, there must be none. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Do you?

He is a paid, elected prosecutor, chosen to administer the law. It is not within his job description to allude to other possible charges. It is his job to either charge or not to charge and be forthcoming and inform his constituents of his intentions. If there were other possible charges then it behooves him as an elected and paid prosecutor, pursuant to judicial ethics and procedures to make that known.

Again, this is what he said:

"I also want to be clear that our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson. The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

Bullshit. He needs to be charged with wrongdoing in the first place in order to be cleared of it. Bell is full of shit.

Here's the thing, every case has evidence. The question is, does the evidence point to murder or manslaughter in this case? Since they don't feel they can prove it, the answer must be no. Therefore, he is cleared of wrongdoing.

In other words, they haven't yet prepared a case beyond murder or manslaughter.

It's been six ******* years and the evidence has been studied at length, TWICE and they still can't charge him. How long are they going to drag this out just to placate the family and the angry mobs that simply can't accept the fact that Brown fucked up when he attacked an officer?

That doesn't mean they can't or won't. Maybe?.. Maybe not?.. Maybe more was expected from a civil case if they waited for a criminal conviction first?.. Maybe not?.. Who knows? Not me. Not you either.

If more evidence comes to light, then they must do what they must do. Until then, they just need to drop it.

I've studied this case. I've read the DOJ report and numerous articles on the matter and watched both of the convenience store surveillance videos. It was a justified shooting on Wilson's part. Brown attacked Wilson and was shot in the hand and later, as he was walking away, realized he had been shot and then turned around and started advancing on Wilson again. Wilson then shot Brown to defend himself. Case closed.

You know what's ironic? While there have been questionable and unjustified police shootings since Ferguson, all the looting, burning, assaulting and destruction of property that has gone on since then began with a case where the shooting was actually justified. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Sounds lovely. You've inspired me to review some Missouri AG law, their Sunshine statutes in particular, and,.. yeah, bullshit. You've got opinions based in a lot a nothin' there, bud. But you're certainly entitled. Bark it all out of your system here. Beats taking it out on some innocent person over there..

Bark it all out of your system here? Beats taking it out on some innocent person over there?

That's your response? Really?

Seems to me he had a well thought out and conscientious post. Maybe you are the one who needs to bark it out so you don't take it out on an innocent person in your life. I can only assume that since you brought this up out of left field so to speak, that you have had some experience in taking your frustrations out on innocent people in your life.

 

[gulfman]

Wilson should sue the Brown family

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Don't be an idiot. I said "outside of this case..is irrelevant" Meaning, it is irrelevant to this case.

So when you and others simplify it all to a matter of innocence until proven guilty according to our law in general, oh, that's fine. But when the prosecutor alludes to other charges, whether criminal or civil, still being considered obviously based on the evidence in this case, you jamb on the total exoneration brakes and begin speculating like crazy about his "innocence" lol.

Two questions:

1.) What other charges?

2.) When did he allude to them?

He never alluded to any other charges because as far as I know, there are none.

So now you speculate that he didn't really allude to other possible charges because that hinges upon what you know, and since you don't know of any, there must be none. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Do you?

He is a paid, elected prosecutor, chosen to administer the law. It is not within his job description to allude to other possible charges. It is his job to either charge or not to charge and be forthcoming and inform his constituents of his intentions. If there were other possible charges then it behooves him as an elected and paid prosecutor, pursuant to judicial ethics and procedures to make that known.

Again, this is what he said:

"I also want to be clear that our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson. The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

Bullshit. He needs to be charged with wrongdoing in the first place in order to be cleared of it. Bell is full of shit.

Here's the thing, every case has evidence. The question is, does the evidence point to murder or manslaughter in this case? Since they don't feel they can prove it, the answer must be no. Therefore, he is cleared of wrongdoing.

In other words, they haven't yet prepared a case beyond murder or manslaughter.

It's been six ******* years and the evidence has been studied at length, TWICE and they still can't charge him. How long are they going to drag this out just to placate the family and the angry mobs that simply can't accept the fact that Brown fucked up when he attacked an officer?

That doesn't mean they can't or won't. Maybe?.. Maybe not?.. Maybe more was expected from a civil case if they waited for a criminal conviction first?.. Maybe not?.. Who knows? Not me. Not you either.

If more evidence comes to light, then they must do what they must do. Until then, they just need to drop it.

I've studied this case. I've read the DOJ report and numerous articles on the matter and watched both of the convenience store surveillance videos. It was a justified shooting on Wilson's part. Brown attacked Wilson and was shot in the hand and later, as he was walking away, realized he had been shot and then turned around and started advancing on Wilson again. Wilson then shot Brown to defend himself. Case closed.

You know what's ironic? While there have been questionable and unjustified police shootings since Ferguson, all the looting, burning, assaulting and destruction of property that has gone on since then began with a case where the shooting was actually justified. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Sounds lovely. You've inspired me to review some Missouri AG law, their Sunshine statutes in particular, and,.. yeah, bullshit. You've got opinions based in a lot a nothin' there, bud.

You asserted without any evidence or knowledge that Bell was alluding to other charges when you knew no such thing. So don't give me shit about opinions based on "nothin'".

But you're certainly entitled. Bark it all out of your system here. Beats taking it out on some innocent person over there.

Take what out on who over where? The **** are you talking about?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You asserted without any evidence or knowledge that Bell was alluding to other charges when you knew no such thing.

Great.

The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

Not being cleared "of any and all wrongdoing" means what then to you coming from a County Prosecutor?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You asserted without any evidence or knowledge that Bell was alluding to other charges when you knew no such thing.

Great.

The question on whether we can prove a case at trial is different than clearing him of any and all wrongdoing...

Not being cleared "of any and all wrongdoing" means what then to you coming from a County Prosecutor?

From this particular prosecutor? It means: "In spite of the ethical and judicial code that I remain unbiased and in spite of the fact that the evidence does not support a charge of murder or manslaughter in this case, I still think that Wilson is guilty of murder or manslaughter because I want the mobs to continue to revile Wilson and continue to riot, loot, burn and destroy."

Do you remember what else Bell said? Some of the other comments he made are even more damning than this one. One of the things he said: “(This announcement is) one of the most difficult things I’ve had to do as a prosecutor,...”

He wanted to prosecute Wilson, pure and simple. And the fact that the evidence does not support a charge is a disappointment to him, rather than simply the logical result of an unbiased, objective investigation.

Think about that: The evidence does not support murder or manslaughter but the prosecutor still thinks he's guilty of murder or manslaughter. Legally and ethically speaking, this is just plain fucked up.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, makes no sense. The news was his announcing the official end of investigating charges against Wilson for murder or manslaughter. Over. Kaput. Done. Sounds like you should be relieved. Very happy. Celebrating. But you don't trust his word on that so choose to eat worms instead. Whatever. Enjoy!

 

[TheParser]

It is encouraging to know that occasionally there IS some justice in this country.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sorry, makes no sense. The news was his announcing the official end of investigating charges against Wilson for murder or manslaughter. Over. Kaput. Done.

I'm not the one who has a problem with their not being able to charge Wilson, Bell is.

Sounds like you should be relieved. Very happy. Celebrating. But you don't trust his word on that so choose to eat worms instead. Whatever. Enjoy!

The issue is not whether or not I am happy with the conclusion, the issue is that Bell is not happy with it.

If he had simply stated the results and conclusion and left it at that I would not have an issue. I have a problem with the fact that Bell was clearly biased and was hoping he would be able to press charges.

Beyond stating the results, he should have kept his mouth shut. Bell chose to state the fact that the evidence does not support a murder charge while at the same time stating his opinion that Wilson is still guilty of wrongdoing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, enjoy them worms if that makes you happy. Meanwhile, I see nothing continues to support your repeated thesis. Logic dictates otherwise given much of the evidence legally kept hidden will now become public automatically due to the investigation's official end. You just can't imagine other criminal charges being considered nor a civil suit at this point. Bully for you.

 

[ding]

Again, enjoy them worms if that makes you happy. Meanwhile, I see nothing continues to support your repeated thesis. Logic dictates otherwise given much of the evidence legally kept hidden will now become public automatically due to the investigation's official end. You just can't imagine other criminal charges being considered nor a civil suit at this point. Bully for you.

It's like you don't even know how to read. Ghost of a Rider is being entirely reasonable.

Your problem is that you can't admit you are wrong. There is video footage of the shooting, what other evidence do you need?

And I'm pretty sure everyone can imagine there will be a civil suit filed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, enjoy them worms if that makes you happy. Meanwhile, I see nothing continues to support your repeated thesis. Logic dictates otherwise given much of the evidence legally kept hidden will now become public automatically due to the investigation's official end. You just can't imagine other criminal charges being considered nor a civil suit at this point. Bully for you.

It's like you don't even know how to read. Ghost of a Rider is being entirely reasonable.

Your problem is that you can't admit you are wrong. There is video footage of the shooting, what other evidence do you need?

And I'm pretty sure everyone can imagine there will be a civil suit filed.

If you could read you'd know what Ghost of a Rider has already said about that. Not what you imagine, poser.