Obviously not. Wilson was completely exhonerated.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Obviously not. Wilson was completely exhonerated.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Some of the thugs who testified falsely however are finding themselves under indictment for perjury.
Star Witness in Mike Brown Case Likely to Be Charged With Perjury MrConservative.com Mr. Conservative is the top website for news political cartoons breaking news republican election news conservative facts and commentary on political elections
Sucks to be you.
Obviously not. Wilson was completely exhonerated.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Some of the thugs who testified falsely however are finding themselves under indictment for perjury.
Star Witness in Mike Brown Case Likely to Be Charged With Perjury MrConservative.com Mr. Conservative is the top website for news political cartoons breaking news republican election news conservative facts and commentary on political elections
Sucks to be you.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
I honestly feel sorry for your three working brain cells that you tax them so much with your posts.Obviously not. Wilson was completely exhonerated.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Some of the thugs who testified falsely however are finding themselves under indictment for perjury.
Star Witness in Mike Brown Case Likely to Be Charged With Perjury MrConservative.com Mr. Conservative is the top website for news political cartoons breaking news republican election news conservative facts and commentary on political elections
Sucks to be you.
Please explain to me why you right wing turds call liberals Stalinists and NAZI's, when the form of government you right wing turds endorse is EXACTLY what Stalin and Hitler practiced and the exact opposite of what liberals endorse?
You right wing turds have ZERO understanding of justice and how to safeguard justice.
As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not men. But you have decided the opposite. You have given a man holding power unbridled trust and no check of that power. It is EXACTLY what totalitarian governments do.
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”
John Adams
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”
John Adams
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams
“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”
John Adams
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
There appears to be an inconsistency in several of your statements. In your Permalink #37, you challenged someone who said Officer Wilson had to take action to Keep Brown from getting away. You stated, “Brown was not running asshole.” Now you state “The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.”
It really doesn't matter because the evidence conclusively shows that Brown could not have been running away when he was shot. The forensic evidence shows that all the shots entered Brown's body from the front, none from the back. Since it is impossible to shoot a man in the front while his back is to you, it is self-evident that Michael Brown was not running away from Wilson. The blood trail also proves beyond a doubt that Brown was advancing towards the officer, not running away The blood trail began some distance away from where the body was found proving that even after being hit Brown kept coming towards Wilson.
You are correct in noting the differences between a grand jury and a trail jury. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). In this particular case, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do and I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would you prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.
PS: In Permalink #40 The Rabbi gave you a link to the grand jury evidence. I don't think you've read it and you should.
I honestly feel sorry for your three working brain cells that you tax them so much with your posts.Obviously not. Wilson was completely exhonerated.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Some of the thugs who testified falsely however are finding themselves under indictment for perjury.
Star Witness in Mike Brown Case Likely to Be Charged With Perjury MrConservative.com Mr. Conservative is the top website for news political cartoons breaking news republican election news conservative facts and commentary on political elections
Sucks to be you.
Please explain to me why you right wing turds call liberals Stalinists and NAZI's, when the form of government you right wing turds endorse is EXACTLY what Stalin and Hitler practiced and the exact opposite of what liberals endorse?
You right wing turds have ZERO understanding of justice and how to safeguard justice.
As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not men. But you have decided the opposite. You have given a man holding power unbridled trust and no check of that power. It is EXACTLY what totalitarian governments do.
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”
John Adams
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”
John Adams
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams
“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”
John Adams
Today's liberals are really Progressives. They share the same philosophy as fascists. They want state control of every aspect of citizens' lives so they can improve them. They want state control of every facet of the economy so they can make it risk-free. The similarities between what Mussolini believed and what Bernie Sanders believes are striking.
Wilson was never indicted because he did nothing wrong. He was subject to who knows how many investigations. The political pressure from the White House on down must have been enormous to indict him. But they couldn't. BEcause the evidence was clear, after 3 autopsies on the poor Mr Brown. Brown was an out of control thug posing a danger to a police officer. Officer responded appropriately and neutralized the threat.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
There appears to be an inconsistency in several of your statements. In your Permalink #37, you challenged someone who said Officer Wilson had to take action to Keep Brown from getting away. You stated, “Brown was not running asshole.” Now you state “The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.”
It really doesn't matter because the evidence conclusively shows that Brown could not have been running away when he was shot. The forensic evidence shows that all the shots entered Brown's body from the front, none from the back. Since it is impossible to shoot a man in the front while his back is to you, it is self-evident that Michael Brown was not running away from Wilson. The blood trail also proves beyond a doubt that Brown was advancing towards the officer, not running away The blood trail began some distance away from where the body was found proving that even after being hit Brown kept coming towards Wilson.
You are correct in noting the differences between a grand jury and a trail jury. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). In this particular case, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do and I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would you prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.
PS: In Permalink #40 The Rabbi gave you a link to the grand jury evidence. I don't think you've read it and you should.
There is no inconsistency. You are just confused.
Brown was not running away when Wilson first confronted the two boys. Wilson created a confrontational situation when Wilson unprofessionally said "get the **** on the sidewalk". If Wilson believed Brown was a hostile suspect, he should have waited for backup and not tried to confront Brown alone. With backup, NO shots would have been needed to apprehend the suspect.
Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.
15 witnesses say Wilson fired while Brown was running away.
16 witnesses said Michael Brown put his hands up while being gunned down.
7 witnesses said Michael Brown was kneeling while still being fired upon.
6 witnesses said Wilson continued firing once Brown was on the ground.
There was probable cause to elevate the case to a jury trial, complete with cross examination. But the prosecutor UNethically decided that Officer Wilson was innocent all by himself and UNethically abused the Grand Jury process.
If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. Instead of a jury, a government agent decided another government agent was innocent. His story went unquestioned... It is right out of Stalin's modus operandi.
The fact that you folks on the right have ZERO understanding of what justice is and what it isn't is mind boggling.
I am not defending the govt without question, moron. I am looking at the facts presented and deciding based on that and my knowledge of the law that the officer was correct in his action. The lack of legal prosecution against him confirms my view.I honestly feel sorry for your three working brain cells that you tax them so much with your posts.Obviously not. Wilson was completely exhonerated.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
Some of the thugs who testified falsely however are finding themselves under indictment for perjury.
Star Witness in Mike Brown Case Likely to Be Charged With Perjury MrConservative.com Mr. Conservative is the top website for news political cartoons breaking news republican election news conservative facts and commentary on political elections
Sucks to be you.
Please explain to me why you right wing turds call liberals Stalinists and NAZI's, when the form of government you right wing turds endorse is EXACTLY what Stalin and Hitler practiced and the exact opposite of what liberals endorse?
You right wing turds have ZERO understanding of justice and how to safeguard justice.
As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not men. But you have decided the opposite. You have given a man holding power unbridled trust and no check of that power. It is EXACTLY what totalitarian governments do.
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”
John Adams
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”
John Adams
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams
“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”
John Adams
Today's liberals are really Progressives. They share the same philosophy as fascists. They want state control of every aspect of citizens' lives so they can improve them. They want state control of every facet of the economy so they can make it risk-free. The similarities between what Mussolini believed and what Bernie Sanders believes are striking.
Wilson was never indicted because he did nothing wrong. He was subject to who knows how many investigations. The political pressure from the White House on down must have been enormous to indict him. But they couldn't. BEcause the evidence was clear, after 3 autopsies on the poor Mr Brown. Brown was an out of control thug posing a danger to a police officer. Officer responded appropriately and neutralized the threat.
Yet YOU are the one who is defending the government without question...
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
There appears to be an inconsistency in several of your statements. In your Permalink #37, you challenged someone who said Officer Wilson had to take action to Keep Brown from getting away. You stated, “Brown was not running asshole.” Now you state “The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.”
It really doesn't matter because the evidence conclusively shows that Brown could not have been running away when he was shot. The forensic evidence shows that all the shots entered Brown's body from the front, none from the back. Since it is impossible to shoot a man in the front while his back is to you, it is self-evident that Michael Brown was not running away from Wilson. The blood trail also proves beyond a doubt that Brown was advancing towards the officer, not running away The blood trail began some distance away from where the body was found proving that even after being hit Brown kept coming towards Wilson.
You are correct in noting the differences between a grand jury and a trail jury. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). In this particular case, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do and I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would you prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.
PS: In Permalink #40 The Rabbi gave you a link to the grand jury evidence. I don't think you've read it and you should.
There is no inconsistency. You are just confused.
Brown was not running away when Wilson first confronted the two boys. Wilson created a confrontational situation when Wilson unprofessionally said "get the **** on the sidewalk". If Wilson believed Brown was a hostile suspect, he should have waited for backup and not tried to confront Brown alone. With backup, NO shots would have been needed to apprehend the suspect.
Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.
15 witnesses say Wilson fired while Brown was running away.
16 witnesses said Michael Brown put his hands up while being gunned down.
7 witnesses said Michael Brown was kneeling while still being fired upon.
6 witnesses said Wilson continued firing once Brown was on the ground.
There was probable cause to elevate the case to a jury trial, complete with cross examination. But the prosecutor UNethically decided that Officer Wilson was innocent all by himself and UNethically abused the Grand Jury process.
If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. Instead of a jury, a government agent decided another government agent was innocent. His story went unquestioned... It is right out of Stalin's modus operandi.
The fact that you folks on the right have ZERO understanding of what justice is and what it isn't is mind boggling.
You said, “Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.” But if Brown was running away when the shooting started, what made him decide to turn around and go back towards Wilson while shots were still being fired. The scenario you propose doesn't make sense.
Here is what happened according to the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson: There were shots fired from inside the police car when Brown and Wilson were engaged in a struggle. The shots frightened Brown who did run a short distance with officer Wilson in pursuit (no shots were fired during the chase). When Brown stopped running so did Wilson. Brown then turned and faced Wilson. Wilson ordered him to get on the ground; However, Brown charged towards Wilson instead and that is when Brown was shot multiple times. At no time did Officer Wilson fire at Brown as he was running away. However, even if he did, at that point Brown would have been considered a dangerous felon and Wilson had the right to use deadly force to prevent his escape. When A dangerous felon is running away a policeman has the right to put a bullet in his back to stop him. You can debate whether or not Brown was in fact a dangerous felon. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate and I say he was.
You said, “If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. ..” Apparently you are the only one in the whole damn country who never heard of George Zimmerman. Do you remember what happened when he was acquitted?
One last thing: The prosecutor presented witnesses that gave testimony favorable to Wilson and those who testified against him (the link below summarizes the testimony of the witnesses). There is no evidence that the grand jury proceedings were unfair in any way. It is the jurors who decided not to indict, not some agent of the government as you suggest. The jurors weighed the testimony of the various witnesses against the forensic evidence to arrive at their decision. You must think the jurors were stupid and easily flim-flammed by some unscrupulous slick-talking prosecutor.
Ferguson Grand Jury Chart of What the Witnesses Say They Saw The New Republic
It was apparent that some witnesses on both sides were less than truthful, some eventually admitting on the stand that their entire testimony was fabricated. You actually need to read the entire transcript, including the forensic evidence; then and only then will you be in the same position the jurors were.
OK, you have the last word. I have wasted all the time I am going to on this matter.
Well other than Zimmerman having to leave home because he was targeted for killing by angry blacks.
Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
There appears to be an inconsistency in several of your statements. In your Permalink #37, you challenged someone who said Officer Wilson had to take action to Keep Brown from getting away. You stated, “Brown was not running asshole.” Now you state “The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.”
It really doesn't matter because the evidence conclusively shows that Brown could not have been running away when he was shot. The forensic evidence shows that all the shots entered Brown's body from the front, none from the back. Since it is impossible to shoot a man in the front while his back is to you, it is self-evident that Michael Brown was not running away from Wilson. The blood trail also proves beyond a doubt that Brown was advancing towards the officer, not running away The blood trail began some distance away from where the body was found proving that even after being hit Brown kept coming towards Wilson.
You are correct in noting the differences between a grand jury and a trail jury. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). In this particular case, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do and I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would you prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.
PS: In Permalink #40 The Rabbi gave you a link to the grand jury evidence. I don't think you've read it and you should.
There is no inconsistency. You are just confused.
Brown was not running away when Wilson first confronted the two boys. Wilson created a confrontational situation when Wilson unprofessionally said "get the **** on the sidewalk". If Wilson believed Brown was a hostile suspect, he should have waited for backup and not tried to confront Brown alone. With backup, NO shots would have been needed to apprehend the suspect.
Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.
15 witnesses say Wilson fired while Brown was running away.
16 witnesses said Michael Brown put his hands up while being gunned down.
7 witnesses said Michael Brown was kneeling while still being fired upon.
6 witnesses said Wilson continued firing once Brown was on the ground.
There was probable cause to elevate the case to a jury trial, complete with cross examination. But the prosecutor UNethically decided that Officer Wilson was innocent all by himself and UNethically abused the Grand Jury process.
If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. Instead of a jury, a government agent decided another government agent was innocent. His story went unquestioned... It is right out of Stalin's modus operandi.
The fact that you folks on the right have ZERO understanding of what justice is and what it isn't is mind boggling.
You said, “Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.” But if Brown was running away when the shooting started, what made him decide to turn around and go back towards Wilson while shots were still being fired. The scenario you propose doesn't make sense.
Here is what happened according to the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson: There were shots fired from inside the police car when Brown and Wilson were engaged in a struggle. The shots frightened Brown who did run a short distance with officer Wilson in pursuit (no shots were fired during the chase). When Brown stopped running so did Wilson. Brown then turned and faced Wilson. Wilson ordered him to get on the ground; However, Brown charged towards Wilson instead and that is when Brown was shot multiple times. At no time did Officer Wilson fire at Brown as he was running away. However, even if he did, at that point Brown would have been considered a dangerous felon and Wilson had the right to use deadly force to prevent his escape. When A dangerous felon is running away a policeman has the right to put a bullet in his back to stop him. You can debate whether or not Brown was in fact a dangerous felon. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate and I say he was.
You said, “If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. ..” Apparently you are the only one in the whole damn country who never heard of George Zimmerman. Do you remember what happened when he was acquitted?
One last thing: The prosecutor presented witnesses that gave testimony favorable to Wilson and those who testified against him (the link below summarizes the testimony of the witnesses). There is no evidence that the grand jury proceedings were unfair in any way. It is the jurors who decided not to indict, not some agent of the government as you suggest. The jurors weighed the testimony of the various witnesses against the forensic evidence to arrive at their decision. You must think the jurors were stupid and easily flim-flammed by some unscrupulous slick-talking prosecutor.
Ferguson Grand Jury Chart of What the Witnesses Say They Saw The New Republic
It was apparent that some witnesses on both sides were less than truthful, some eventually admitting on the stand that their entire testimony was fabricated. You actually need to read the entire transcript, including the forensic evidence; then and only then will you be in the same position the jurors were.
OK, you have the last word. I have wasted all the time I am going to on this matter.
Hello? Do you live on the planet named "Earth"? Do YOU remember what happened when George Zimmerman was acquitted? NOTHING...no riots, no violence...NOTHING.
The waste of time is trying to explain what is and isn't justice to someone incapable of understanding it.
The prosecutor was the "decider", not We, the People...
Prosecutor Used Grand Jury to Let Darren Wilson Walk - The Daily Beast
Well other than Zimmerman having to leave home because he was targeted for killing by angry blacks.Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
There appears to be an inconsistency in several of your statements. In your Permalink #37, you challenged someone who said Officer Wilson had to take action to Keep Brown from getting away. You stated, “Brown was not running asshole.” Now you state “The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.”
It really doesn't matter because the evidence conclusively shows that Brown could not have been running away when he was shot. The forensic evidence shows that all the shots entered Brown's body from the front, none from the back. Since it is impossible to shoot a man in the front while his back is to you, it is self-evident that Michael Brown was not running away from Wilson. The blood trail also proves beyond a doubt that Brown was advancing towards the officer, not running away The blood trail began some distance away from where the body was found proving that even after being hit Brown kept coming towards Wilson.
You are correct in noting the differences between a grand jury and a trail jury. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). In this particular case, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do and I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would you prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.
PS: In Permalink #40 The Rabbi gave you a link to the grand jury evidence. I don't think you've read it and you should.
There is no inconsistency. You are just confused.
Brown was not running away when Wilson first confronted the two boys. Wilson created a confrontational situation when Wilson unprofessionally said "get the **** on the sidewalk". If Wilson believed Brown was a hostile suspect, he should have waited for backup and not tried to confront Brown alone. With backup, NO shots would have been needed to apprehend the suspect.
Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.
15 witnesses say Wilson fired while Brown was running away.
16 witnesses said Michael Brown put his hands up while being gunned down.
7 witnesses said Michael Brown was kneeling while still being fired upon.
6 witnesses said Wilson continued firing once Brown was on the ground.
There was probable cause to elevate the case to a jury trial, complete with cross examination. But the prosecutor UNethically decided that Officer Wilson was innocent all by himself and UNethically abused the Grand Jury process.
If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. Instead of a jury, a government agent decided another government agent was innocent. His story went unquestioned... It is right out of Stalin's modus operandi.
The fact that you folks on the right have ZERO understanding of what justice is and what it isn't is mind boggling.
You said, “Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.” But if Brown was running away when the shooting started, what made him decide to turn around and go back towards Wilson while shots were still being fired. The scenario you propose doesn't make sense.
Here is what happened according to the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson: There were shots fired from inside the police car when Brown and Wilson were engaged in a struggle. The shots frightened Brown who did run a short distance with officer Wilson in pursuit (no shots were fired during the chase). When Brown stopped running so did Wilson. Brown then turned and faced Wilson. Wilson ordered him to get on the ground; However, Brown charged towards Wilson instead and that is when Brown was shot multiple times. At no time did Officer Wilson fire at Brown as he was running away. However, even if he did, at that point Brown would have been considered a dangerous felon and Wilson had the right to use deadly force to prevent his escape. When A dangerous felon is running away a policeman has the right to put a bullet in his back to stop him. You can debate whether or not Brown was in fact a dangerous felon. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate and I say he was.
You said, “If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. ..” Apparently you are the only one in the whole damn country who never heard of George Zimmerman. Do you remember what happened when he was acquitted?
One last thing: The prosecutor presented witnesses that gave testimony favorable to Wilson and those who testified against him (the link below summarizes the testimony of the witnesses). There is no evidence that the grand jury proceedings were unfair in any way. It is the jurors who decided not to indict, not some agent of the government as you suggest. The jurors weighed the testimony of the various witnesses against the forensic evidence to arrive at their decision. You must think the jurors were stupid and easily flim-flammed by some unscrupulous slick-talking prosecutor.
Ferguson Grand Jury Chart of What the Witnesses Say They Saw The New Republic
It was apparent that some witnesses on both sides were less than truthful, some eventually admitting on the stand that their entire testimony was fabricated. You actually need to read the entire transcript, including the forensic evidence; then and only then will you be in the same position the jurors were.
OK, you have the last word. I have wasted all the time I am going to on this matter.
Hello? Do you live on the planet named "Earth"? Do YOU remember what happened when George Zimmerman was acquitted? NOTHING...no riots, no violence...NOTHING.
The waste of time is trying to explain what is and isn't justice to someone incapable of understanding it.
The prosecutor was the "decider", not We, the People...
Prosecutor Used Grand Jury to Let Darren Wilson Walk - The Daily Beast
Prosecutorial discretion is a bedrock principle. There was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong. There was no evidence Zimmerman did anything wrong either, which is why the prosecutor there, bowing to political pressure, bypassed the grand jury and brought the case directly to the petty jury.
It is a petit jury, not a petty jury. The petty jury are the idiots who post here.Well other than Zimmerman having to leave home because he was targeted for killing by angry blacks.Do you understand American law procedures or do you always operate under Stalin rule of law, and mimic the show trial statement of the policia?
The SOLE job of a Grand Jury is to decide if there is probable cause. The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.
In a REAL trial in America, Wilson's testimony would be subject to CROSS-EXAMINATION...as would all other testimonies. It IS how this should have been handled...in AMERICA comrade...
There appears to be an inconsistency in several of your statements. In your Permalink #37, you challenged someone who said Officer Wilson had to take action to Keep Brown from getting away. You stated, “Brown was not running asshole.” Now you state “The testimony of Dorian Johnson and numerous other witnesses who said Wilson fired as Brown was running away was enough probable cause to elevate the case to a REAL trial.”
It really doesn't matter because the evidence conclusively shows that Brown could not have been running away when he was shot. The forensic evidence shows that all the shots entered Brown's body from the front, none from the back. Since it is impossible to shoot a man in the front while his back is to you, it is self-evident that Michael Brown was not running away from Wilson. The blood trail also proves beyond a doubt that Brown was advancing towards the officer, not running away The blood trail began some distance away from where the body was found proving that even after being hit Brown kept coming towards Wilson.
You are correct in noting the differences between a grand jury and a trail jury. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). In this particular case, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do and I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would you prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.
PS: In Permalink #40 The Rabbi gave you a link to the grand jury evidence. I don't think you've read it and you should.
There is no inconsistency. You are just confused.
Brown was not running away when Wilson first confronted the two boys. Wilson created a confrontational situation when Wilson unprofessionally said "get the **** on the sidewalk". If Wilson believed Brown was a hostile suspect, he should have waited for backup and not tried to confront Brown alone. With backup, NO shots would have been needed to apprehend the suspect.
Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.
15 witnesses say Wilson fired while Brown was running away.
16 witnesses said Michael Brown put his hands up while being gunned down.
7 witnesses said Michael Brown was kneeling while still being fired upon.
6 witnesses said Wilson continued firing once Brown was on the ground.
There was probable cause to elevate the case to a jury trial, complete with cross examination. But the prosecutor UNethically decided that Officer Wilson was innocent all by himself and UNethically abused the Grand Jury process.
If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. Instead of a jury, a government agent decided another government agent was innocent. His story went unquestioned... It is right out of Stalin's modus operandi.
The fact that you folks on the right have ZERO understanding of what justice is and what it isn't is mind boggling.
You said, “Once Wilson began firing at Brown THAT is when Brown ran away. The fact that no bullets entered from the rear is not proof Wilson didn't fire while Brown was running away.” But if Brown was running away when the shooting started, what made him decide to turn around and go back towards Wilson while shots were still being fired. The scenario you propose doesn't make sense.
Here is what happened according to the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson: There were shots fired from inside the police car when Brown and Wilson were engaged in a struggle. The shots frightened Brown who did run a short distance with officer Wilson in pursuit (no shots were fired during the chase). When Brown stopped running so did Wilson. Brown then turned and faced Wilson. Wilson ordered him to get on the ground; However, Brown charged towards Wilson instead and that is when Brown was shot multiple times. At no time did Officer Wilson fire at Brown as he was running away. However, even if he did, at that point Brown would have been considered a dangerous felon and Wilson had the right to use deadly force to prevent his escape. When A dangerous felon is running away a policeman has the right to put a bullet in his back to stop him. You can debate whether or not Brown was in fact a dangerous felon. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate and I say he was.
You said, “If there had been a trial, regardless of the outcome, it would have defused public outrage and protests. Most people trust a public trial to issue justice. ..” Apparently you are the only one in the whole damn country who never heard of George Zimmerman. Do you remember what happened when he was acquitted?
One last thing: The prosecutor presented witnesses that gave testimony favorable to Wilson and those who testified against him (the link below summarizes the testimony of the witnesses). There is no evidence that the grand jury proceedings were unfair in any way. It is the jurors who decided not to indict, not some agent of the government as you suggest. The jurors weighed the testimony of the various witnesses against the forensic evidence to arrive at their decision. You must think the jurors were stupid and easily flim-flammed by some unscrupulous slick-talking prosecutor.
Ferguson Grand Jury Chart of What the Witnesses Say They Saw The New Republic
It was apparent that some witnesses on both sides were less than truthful, some eventually admitting on the stand that their entire testimony was fabricated. You actually need to read the entire transcript, including the forensic evidence; then and only then will you be in the same position the jurors were.
OK, you have the last word. I have wasted all the time I am going to on this matter.
Hello? Do you live on the planet named "Earth"? Do YOU remember what happened when George Zimmerman was acquitted? NOTHING...no riots, no violence...NOTHING.
The waste of time is trying to explain what is and isn't justice to someone incapable of understanding it.
The prosecutor was the "decider", not We, the People...
Prosecutor Used Grand Jury to Let Darren Wilson Walk - The Daily Beast
Prosecutorial discretion is a bedrock principle. There was no evidence Wilson did anything wrong. There was no evidence Zimmerman did anything wrong either, which is why the prosecutor there, bowing to political pressure, bypassed the grand jury and brought the case directly to the petty jury.
