BoltProspects Community Forums

BoltProspects Community Forums (http://boltprospects.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Room (http://boltprospects.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   News of the Day II (http://boltprospects.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10386)

WaiverWire 11-26-2014 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 176172)
Why this is total BS is, his entire case was presented in a grand jury hearing for Confirmation of Probable Cause to indict, by a County Prosecutor who has never indicted police officers and whose father was, in fact, a police officer killed in the line of duty.

The symbiotic relationship between the County Prosecutor's office and the Ferguson PD allows for this kind of situation. The County Prosecutor is supposed to represent the people of the county. I'm sure that this is typically the case, but apparently it is NEVER the case when the public is victimized by the police. Remember, this is the same police force that arrested the wrong man, beat him nearly to death and then cited him for destruction of police property when he had the gall to get his blood on their uniforms.

The facts are disputed in this case. There are questions that remain. An indictment would have allowed for the truth to be explored in a trial(one I have no doubt would have lead to Wilson's acquittal). Instead, McCulloch allows the defense to present their case at a grand jury hearing. A grand jury hearing with NO trial jury sequestration? Also, what the hell kind of defense attorney lets their client speak for four hours in front of a Grand Jury? I'll tell you what kind. The kind that knows the Prosecutor is on their side and going to use kid gloves with their client. Now, Wilson isn't protected under the 5th Amendment and Double Jeopardy. A new prosecutor could indict and/or a federal prosecutor could indict as well. This is a disservice to Wilson and his rights as well as it doesn't clear him of anything. It leaves it all dangling above his head still. Not to mention what it leaves the community thinking, Christ.

Best thing that can come out of this is to have body cameras be mandatory and for the people of Ferguson to elect a new Prosecutor.

You really do need to take a "chill pill". I suggest that you take the time and read the grand jury report, which I have been doing.

First off the officer asked to be heard at the hearing. You see in a normal grand jury hearing a prosecutor will only allow those in the grand jury to hear what he, the prosecutor, wants them to hear. However in this case the prosecutor allowed any and all evidence they had to be heard. He provided and "open discovery" of all the facts. In most cases the defense has to subpoena the prosecution for the "discovery". I was amazed he did this and thought it was a very good idea. He allowed anyone in the community to come forward and be heard, and some did just that.

Some of the most damning Michael Brown evidence was told by members of his own community. Many of these same witnesses also had refused to talk to the media. But when they talked to the police and the FBI, who are part of the DOJ, and after they told what they saw and where they were when they say it they became very creditable as their statements were not in conflict with the physical evidence from the scene like some others. These are the same witnesses that Eric Holder is going to have to except as they were interviewed by his own people, the FBI.

If you read the report you will read how Brown's DNA was found on Wilson's weapon. When Wilson tells the grand jury how he received the injuries, they then see the photos days later and guess what....the story matches. Then you have witnesses that tell of a struggle in the car, not like the one that Brown's companion was telling.

You will read how witnesses tell the grand jury that when Brown ran form the vehicle, Wilson followed. But when Brown stopped so did Wilson. These witnesses claim that Wilson was very loud in his commands. They then say that Brown turned and ran at Wilson, stopping once. Then he charged with his head down like a bull. When he was about 8-10 feet away Wilson shot again. Way is this so important? Because remember the leak that the fatal shot was to the top area of the head? As if someone was charging with their head down???

Was there other avenues or tactics that Wilson could had used? I can think of one, but I really do not if it would had helped. But one has to remember that when things are moving as fast as they are, and are as violent as they are, and one is wondering what will happen if this guy gets my gun as he tried before just seconds ago you may not think of all the possibilities that are available to you.

If and when you read the report you will see that Wilson was not the one, according to witnesses, that was the aggressor. Wilson asked 2 people to get out of the street, a busy street. Why not just comply? Or was Brown afraid that he was going to be arrested for his actions at the store? And for the record in Florida he did commit a robbery and could serve 15 years in FSP.

What is happening is much more than Brown and Wilson. Just listen to what the protestors are saying and those that have been in the crowds. They say it is the frustrations of lack of jobs, and that they have no say or that no one is doing anything for them. That I think is a deeper problem.

I was a law enforcement officer for 31 1/2 years. I can tell you first hand there are racists in the departments, but there are racists on both sides. I could tell you stories that would make you just shake your head while mumbling how sad. Some went out and did their job and put their bias aside. Others did not.

WaiverWire 11-26-2014 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 176174)
It honestly doesn't matter at this point who's story is right and who's is wrong. Honestly I give the cop more creedence than the friend at this point, as you can tell he is blatantly lying from the first few sentences of that article. That said, give me a break if you think the officer was saying words as he says he did. What cop speaks like that, especially a bad part of town?

But, ask I stated, it doesn't matter at this point. There is a much larger issue in that the prosecutor acted how a defense attorney would act, and all the (very valid) questions that people are raising in defense of the police officer are arguments to be made in court in front of a jury of peers, not one-sided in front of a grand jury. The issue is not the officer being found not guilty, it is that he doesn't even have to face a trial. The grand jury is only convened to decide if there is probable cause for a trial. You honestly think there is not probably cause? As the old saying goes, a prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted (or in 2010, 159,989 out of 160,000). Ask yourself this. Do you honestly believe the grand jury is presented the information this way if he is looking to indict a drug trafficker? A gang member homicide?

You can ask any lawyer/professor (and I would add leave out those such as the NAACP and those who defend the police, make it non-biased) and they will at the very least tell you that the prosecutor acted in a way that never happens, and that he could definitely have presented probable cause for an indictment. Now, a lot of those same expert admit based on the grand jury records released that the officer probably gets off. But at least there is a day in court.

But this prosecutor released everything, not just what he would to use for a "true bill". To be honest with you I hate grand juries. They are far to one sided. But in this case he released everything. Even the interviews that the FBI did and that are now in the hands of the DOJ. And when reading the report it is these interviews, which are all recorded, that are the most damning to Brown.

But then, you would feel much better if the grand jury herad just enough to hand up a "true bill" so the officer would be brought before a court and spend millions of dollars, that I am sure he does not have, to come to a not guilty verdict as you suggest would happen?

BurnTHalO 11-26-2014 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 176177)
But this prosecutor released everything, not just what he would to use for a "true bill". To be honest with you I hate grand juries. They are far to one sided. But in this case he released everything. Even the interviews that the FBI did and that are now in the hands of the DOJ. And when reading the report it is these interviews, which are all recorded, that are the most damning to Brown.

But then, you would feel much better if the grand jury herad just enough to hand up a "true bill" so the officer would be brought before a court and spend millions of dollars, that I am sure he does not have, to come to a not guilty verdict as you suggest would happen?

Yes, yes I would. Because that is what everyone else gets to go through as well. His story sounds very good. He did a great job under the cross-examination. Oh yeah, that doesn't happen here. The grand jury's job is not to hear all of the evidence and then make a decision of guilt, their job is to determine if there is probable cause for a jury to make that decision. I admit BASED OFF OF WHAT CURRENTLY IS AVAILABLE, a not-guilty verdict is probable. However, it's amazing how things change when put under the microscope and scrutinized in a court of law. FYI, with this case, if you think he would have spent a dime of his own money, you are out of your mind. This prosecutor for whatever reason had no desire to try this case, and he made sure he didn't have to.

You want my bottom line on this, it's upsetting because it is blatant that police are getting preferential treatment from prosecutors. And there is no possible way you can deny that preferential treatment was shown here.

WaiverWire 11-26-2014 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 176178)
You want my bottom line on this, it's upsetting because it is blatant that police are getting preferential treatment from prosecutors. And there is no possible way you can deny that preferential treatment was shown here.

Disagree 100%.

He will have his day in court as you know the family will take him and the department to civil court.

And if he had been charged the department would had fired him, thus they would be off the hook for his legal bills.

His union could pick them up, but I am sure they do not have that kind of money on hand and if like the Florida PBA not the best of attorneys. His only other recourse would be to request donations.

And I do not see how anyone could be upset as this grand jury did something that many do not do. Not only did they hear all evidence but they recorded everything they did and released it to the public.

For your reading

https://www.documentcloud.org/public...16877-ferguson

BurnTHalO 11-26-2014 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 176180)
Disagree 100%.

He will have his day in court as you know the family will take him and the department to civil court.

And if he had been charged the department would had fired him, thus they would be off the hook for his legal bills.

His union could pick them up, but I am sure they do not have that kind of money on hand and if like the Florida PBA not the best of attorneys. His only other recourse would be to request donations.

And I do not see how anyone could be upset as this grand jury did something that many do not do. Not only did they hear all evidence but they recorded everything they did and released it to the public.

For your reading

https://www.documentcloud.org/public...16877-ferguson

I'm talking donations. How much did Zimmerman get? Plus pro bono work?

And you disagree that police get preferential treatment? The numbers are staggering. Going to a grand jury for civilians, no indictment occurs 0.0069% of the time. Numbers I have seen for example in Dallas for police was something like 1 out of 81 WERE indicted.

I'm upset because all you need to do is listen to the prosecutor after the decision (or all of the experts who have been in thousands of courtrooms) to realize that the only reason this is not going to a trial is because he acted as if he was the officer's defense attorney, not a representative of the people attempting to show probable cause. My issue is not with what the grand jury found based off of what was presented, my issue is that what was presented is what a jury should see, along with cross examinations and counter arguments. Showing all the evidence is fine, but putting up witnesses that you do not get to cross examine and try to shake is not giving a fair trial.

WaiverWire 11-26-2014 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 176181)
I'm talking donations. How much did Zimmerman get? Plus pro bono work?

And you disagree that police get preferential treatment? The numbers are staggering. Going to a grand jury for civilians, no indictment occurs 0.0069% of the time. Numbers I have seen for example in Dallas for police was something like 1 out of 81 WERE indicted.

I'm upset because all you need to do is listen to the prosecutor after the decision (or all of the experts who have been in thousands of courtrooms) to realize that the only reason this is not going to a trial is because he acted as if he was the officer's defense attorney, not a representative of the people attempting to show probable cause. My issue is not with what the grand jury found based off of what was presented, my issue is that what was presented is what a jury should see, along with cross examinations and counter arguments. Showing all the evidence is fine, but putting up witnesses that you do not get to cross examine and try to shake is not giving a fair trial.

BTO it was not a trial. And to think it was is wrong. It was the presentation of the facts. And what was so rare is that they let the grand jury see all the facts, not just what the prosecutor wanted them to see as is the case most of the time.

12 citizens of that county listened to these interviews and the evidence. They looked at the laws of Missouri. The prosecutor gave them 5 options to consider for a "true bill". Not one "true bill" was handed up as they could not get the 9 required yes votes that are needed for a "true bill".

Now the whole proceedings have been posted on the internet. I just do not see how much more open the prosecutor can be.

But in the end there will always be those that do not like the findings and claim bias, no matter who's side you are on. But it is our system and I think it is a pretty good one.

WaiverWire 11-26-2014 03:34 PM

And now we have the New York Times publishing Wilson's home address. What a crap thing to do knowing he has had many death threats.

I sure hope Missouri has a law that protects his address as confidential like we have here in Florida. Even being retired you need my permission to publish my address.

ZeykShade 11-26-2014 04:23 PM

12 citizens listened to the defense's argument. It's just that it was presented to them by the Prosecutor and the defendant.

How many other cases has McCulloch taken to a Grand Jury in an attempt to get an indictment? How many of those defendants did he allow to testify? How many defendants ever get to have evidence that supports their defense heard in a Grand Jury?

What McCulloch did is incredibly rare. If you don't see that as "Preferential" in any way, then:
http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/461...df58dd97ee.jpg

ChaseSpace 11-26-2014 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 176157)
Wait till all the facts are in. There was been more leaks and garbage about this incident that in the end have proven to be false. Anyone that jumps to this conclusion based on something Anonymous, or anyone else for that matter, says without providing the evidence is a fool.

Thing is among the hacktivist crowd Anonymous has a lot of sway. If they say something damning about someone or something and then rile their crowd up they can reek even more havoc in an already devastated area.

the_narrow_way 11-27-2014 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 176167)
The problem is that the youth, the black and Hispanic communities are frustrated because they can not find a good paying job. These groups came out in force in 2008 and 2012 and elected what they thought was going to be a change. That change never came.

Because the Obama administration was stone-walled, ignored, and resisted at a level never-before seen. That's not the voter's fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 176174)
That said, give me a break if you think the officer was saying words as he says he did. What cop speaks like that, especially a bad part of town?

Maybe it didn't happen here, maybe it did, but, it's very naive to think that coarse language is not used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 176180)
And I do not see how anyone could be upset as this grand jury did something that many do not do. Not only did they hear all evidence but they recorded everything they did and released it to the public.

Which isn't their job. At first glance it appears the prosecutor went above-and-beyond in an effort in fairness. However, by doing that it interrupted the normal legal process, and allowed this grand jury to pass a judgment inappropriate to their purpose. This case should have gone to a normal trial. That was the only way it could have a chance at being fair. The fact that the prosecutor here is a wanna-be cop who couldn't hack it whose cop father was killed by a black man in the line of duty speaks volumes to me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.