Union: Ferguson officer does not expect charges

[TruthSeeker11]

I do think there are problems with a prosecutor in a jurisdiction where he has the autonomous authority to bring a charge or not, refers the case to the GJ to avoid the political backlash of him actually doing his job, yes. When the referral was announced, the "prosecutor" said he was going to provide the GJ with all the available evidence, meaning the evidence that points towards guilt (his job) and the evidence that points towards justifiable homicide (not his job). Under that circumstance if the GJ were to indict, that same "prosecutor" would stand before a jury of Wilson's peers after playing both sides of the fence in the GJ. I question the "prosecutor's" objectivity, yes indeed I do.

As far as the GJ requiring my "assistance," I am discussing the case just like everybody else. If I express an opinion, I will provide a rationale for how I came to that opinion, just like I did above. That rationale will be firmly based in what I believe the law is intended to protect/accomplish/allow/prohibit. It's a discussion board. People have varying view points. What's your beef?



We aren't going to see anything if the GJ doesn't indict, and we aren't going to know how much weight they gave to the "prosecutor's" defense of Wilson in coming to their decision. The jurors on the GJ will likely never be identified, and the "prosecutor" can't talk about the proceedings, so the only people who may (or may not) come forward are the witnesses who testified, and they'll come with whatever baggage and agendas they possess. Only a public proceeding can answer the unanswered questions, and if there's no indictment, that will be the precise reason there will never be public proceedings on the matter.

A more apt analogy would be that a bigfoot hunter who has considerations on both sides of the show/don't show the world the evidence of his successful hunt tells us that he never caught bigfoot after first telling us that he's got a giant book deal as long as he keeps the capture secret until the book is released. And then when the book is released, nothing but the fact of the capture is revealed. No details on the hunt. No details on the anthropology or biology. The hunter just says "Take my word for everything. Bigfoot exists and the proof is that I say so in my book!"

We could play analogy games from now until the GJ's decision is released, but you will not convince me that a prosecutor who announced to the world that he was going to present the defense side of the argument alongside of his "own" side allowed or encouraged the members of the GJ to look at probable cause, which is what their job is. If for some reason it's important to you that I see this as an insignificant case, or see the questions I have as trivial, you're going to be very frustrated with discussing this with me.

Blues

It is really no surprise that cops get away with the things that they do. After all, the very people that could do something about them, are in all reality, the cops co-workers and friends. They are all employed by the same entity and at the end of the day, they are all on the same "team" and their entire careers and retirement are funded by costing the tax payers money ... at the front door and the back door too! Each and every career listed below does not work in your best interest and mostly serves to profit/gain off of the citizen ...

The REALITY of the JUST US system ...


- The police officer who writes you a ticket or arrest you or shoots you - works for the STATE

- The attorney that you hire - is Licensed by the STATE

- The prosecutor who wants to put you in jail/prison - works for the STATE

- The Judge who oversees the court proceedings - works for the STATE

- The jail/prison that you go to - all employees there - work for the STATE

- The probation/parole officer that you get assigned to - works for the STATE

- All fines and fees that are assessed to you by the court - goes to the STATE

[chicom]

I do think there are problems with a prosecutor in a jurisdiction where he has the autonomous authority to bring a charge or not, refers the case to the GJ to avoid the political backlash of him actually doing his job, yes. When the referral was announced, the "prosecutor" said he was going to provide the GJ with all the available evidence, meaning the evidence that points towards guilt (his job) and the evidence that points towards justifiable homicide (not his job). Under that circumstance if the GJ were to indict, that same "prosecutor" would stand before a jury of Wilson's peers after playing both sides of the fence in the GJ. I question the "prosecutor's" objectivity, yes indeed I do.

As far as the GJ requiring my "assistance," I am discussing the case just like everybody else. If I express an opinion, I will provide a rationale for how I came to that opinion, just like I did above. That rationale will be firmly based in what I believe the law is intended to protect/accomplish/allow/prohibit. It's a discussion board. People have varying view points. What's your beef?



We aren't going to see anything if the GJ doesn't indict, and we aren't going to know how much weight they gave to the "prosecutor's" defense of Wilson in coming to their decision. The jurors on the GJ will likely never be identified, and the "prosecutor" can't talk about the proceedings, so the only people who may (or may not) come forward are the witnesses who testified, and they'll come with whatever baggage and agendas they possess. Only a public proceeding can answer the unanswered questions, and if there's no indictment, that will be the precise reason there will never be public proceedings on the matter.

A more apt analogy would be that a bigfoot hunter who has considerations on both sides of the show/don't show the world the evidence of his successful hunt tells us that he never caught bigfoot after first telling us that he's got a giant book deal as long as he keeps the capture secret until the book is released. And then when the book is released, nothing but the fact of the capture is revealed. No details on the hunt. No details on the anthropology or biology. The hunter just says "Take my word for everything. Bigfoot exists and the proof is that I say so in my book!"

We could play analogy games from now until the GJ's decision is released, but you will not convince me that a prosecutor who announced to the world that he was going to present the defense side of the argument alongside of his "own" side allowed or encouraged the members of the GJ to look at probable cause, which is what their job is. If for some reason it's important to you that I see this as an insignificant case, or see the questions I have as trivial, you're going to be very frustrated with discussing this with me.

Blues

Are you that naïve to think that a trial would be a shining light of truth and justice? Trials are intricate dances around the information. Manipulation, exclusion, distortion are the tactics used in the overall strategy of controlling information. Then politically charge the whole affair, and the jockeying becomes exponential.

You think a trial will get to the bottom of the whole incident? Ha. It will spiral into 50 different levels of confusion, and you'll end up knowing less than when this began.

When all is said and done, people still won't be satisfied.

But then again, it would give you something to talk about.

[abvp]

Are you that naïve to think that a trial would be a shining light of truth and justice? Trials are intricate dances around the information. Manipulation, exclusion, distortion are the tactics used in the overall strategy of controlling information. Then politically charge the whole affair, and the jockeying becomes exponential.

You think a trial will get to the bottom of the whole incident? Ha. It will spiral into 50 different levels of confusion, and you'll end up knowing less than when this began.

When all is said and done, people still won't be satisfied.

But then again, it would give you something to talk about.

Trials are often about winning and putting notches on a belt.

[Aetius Romulous]

I don't think the larger issue, the issue propelling the protests, will much depend on this announcement. All this particular shooting is, is a starting gun. Folks will be in the streets regardless, albeit a ruling in Wilsons favor would add an entirely different complexion to the matter.

[Oscar Wilde]

Union: Ferguson officer does not expect charges

Neither do I ....

O.W.

[BluesStringer]

Are you that naïve to think that a trial would be a shining light of truth and justice? Trials are intricate dances around the information. Manipulation, exclusion, distortion are the tactics used in the overall strategy of controlling information. Then politically charge the whole affair, and the jockeying becomes exponential.

You think a trial will get to the bottom of the whole incident? Ha. It will spiral into 50 different levels of confusion, and you'll end up knowing less than when this began.

When all is said and done, people still won't be satisfied.

But then again, it would give you something to talk about.

I've promulgated two main thoughts; 1) Comparatively-speaking, there is a mountain of probable cause to bring a charge. 2) Without a charge, followed by a trial, answers to the questions raised by that mountain of probable cause will never reach any level of public understanding.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't believe I'm naive about anything. I believe that the public has a right to know as much as we can about what leads to any decision, especially when there's a death at the hands of a government agent involved. I wasn't happy with the verdict in OJ Simpson's trial, but I have as much information as the jury did to know why I wasn't happy with it (or them). I wasn't happy with the verdicts in the Ramos/Cicinelli trial (the killers of Kelly Thomas), but I have as much information as the jury did to know why I wasn't happy with it (or them), and as well have all the information I need to know whether or not to trust Fullerton, CA's DA's Office, and like I'm concerned will happen here as well, the answer to that question is an unequivocal "No!"

As to "having something to talk about," I notice you're talking about the Brown/Wilson case too, so again I have to ask, what's your beef?

ETA: Since nobody's gone off the rails far enough to accuse me of having the same view(s) as Obama or Holder in the Brown/Wilson case, I'll preempt such brainless tripe by stating unequivocally that I would object just as strenuously to DoJ's involvement in this case as I am to the notion of the "prosecutor" using political calculations to avoid making his own decision on whether to charge or not charge by handing that responsibility off to a secret panel who can never be held accountable for their decision(s). This is not a civil rights case in any way, shape, manner or form. It's a homicide case that is either justifiable under the law, or not, period.

[rlm1966]

You know if they want to riot I say let them. But a couple of things should be made clear to all parties. The state should make it crystal clear that no charges will be brought against anyone who takes out any would be looter. They should also make it clear that looters will be subject to not only being shot, but arrest and if those they attempted to loot choose to lawsuits for actual damages as well as punitive and loss of income damages .

As to the department of justice sticking their noses into this mess, start arresting fed employees that are interfering with the way they run their state. I am sure that they can come up with a whole host of charges including rico if they use their imaginations just a little.

Now if the people want to just wander around shouting slogans but not inflicting any damages that is their right, but if they veer off that path just a little perhaps store owners with guns and motivation will give them pause to reflect upon the possible journey they are beginning to embark upon.

[chicom]

I've promulgated two main thoughts; 1) Comparatively-speaking, there is a mountain of probable cause to bring a charge. 2) Without a charge, followed by a trial, answers to the questions raised by that mountain of probable cause will never reach any level of public understanding.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't believe I'm naive about anything. I believe that the public has a right to know as much as we can about what leads to any decision, especially when there's a death at the hands of a government agent involved. I wasn't happy with the verdict in OJ Simpson's trial, but I have as much information as the jury did to know why I wasn't happy with it (or them). I wasn't happy with the verdicts in the Ramos/Cicinelli trial (the killers of Kelly Thomas), but I have as much information as the jury did to know why I wasn't happy with it (or them), and as well have all the information I need to know whether or not to trust Fullerton, CA's DA's Office, and like I'm concerned will happen here as well, the answer to that question is an unequivocal "No!"

As to "having something to talk about," I notice you're talking about the Brown/Wilson case too, so again I have to ask, what's your beef?

ETA: Since nobody's gone off the rails far enough to accuse me of having the same view(s) as Obama or Holder in the Brown/Wilson case, I'll preempt such brainless tripe by stating unequivocally that I would object just as strenuously to DoJ's involvement in this case as I am to the notion of the "prosecutor" using political calculations to avoid making his own decision on whether to charge or not charge by handing that responsibility off to a secret panel who can never be held accountable for their decision(s). This is not a civil rights case in any way, shape, manner or form. It's a homicide case that is either justifiable under the law, or not, period.

1) It's not your state.

2) They are going to do their thing their way without your consent, or mine.

You don't always get what you wish for, but you always get what you need.

My beef is in your absolute distrust of your fellow citizens. The grand jury is made up of CITIZENS. We are not even talking about govt employees.

If they get it wrong, it's on them.

You want to rid a legal institution because it doesn't suit your fancy? Want your cake and eat it too.

Let them decide how they'll proceed in Missouri.

[FaithfulSkeptic]

many witnesses say the victim was running away---there should be a trial

And his mother says he was a good boy.

[FaithfulSkeptic]

BREAKING VIDEO: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV

Interesting collection of details. The one thing that bothers me, however, is if you look at the picture that has "Ending Line B" at the bottom of it, where's the pine tree that should be behind the two cops? Look at the two aerial views that follow, and strike the same "line B" and there should be a pine tree there ... about where the red "C" ( cut-off ) is in the picture.