4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
There will be sympathy riots and violence against random whites in all the usual places.
Like that movie where one night a year everyone gets a free pass on crime.
Darren Wilson testifies in front of grand jury
- Thread starter toubab
- Start date
There will be sympathy riots and violence against random whites in all the usual places.
Like that movie where one night a year everyone gets a free pass on crime.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
No, liberal opinion is loud opinion. Doesn't make it public opinion. More people identify conservative than liberal.
Huffpo is large in number of unique visitors, but not in page views or time on page. Liberals show up for the opening hymn and bow out early. Content isn't that important.
There are a few rabid ones, no different than here. I would guess 75-80 of the board here leans liberal, but most are not rabidly so, or interested in learning all the words to the third verse. They chime in on the chorus if it is not football season or the weather is too foul for a picnic.
Liberal opinion and conservative opinion are both public opinion.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
This is from New York, but I suspect that Missouri isn't that different.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
Based on how google analytics works the "bow out early" comment is an unknown.
Someone could find a link to that page, like in the OP, go to it, spend 30 min reading it then close the tab and it would show as zero time on page. That would apply whether the person is a conservative or liberal.
Or are you suggesting liberals do the above, while conservatives visit the page linked in the OP and then spend time viewing other pages on the site so there's a non-zero time on the page linked in the OP?
Missouri is different from New York. Going to a Grand Jury is not required. It's an option for the DA.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Not more then 12 people give a flying fuck about the DRUG INFUSED HULKING THUG being dead....he means NOTHING...is a mere stat
That no one cares is obvious, cause similar DEATHS of WHITES and BLACKS are ignored
The REASON the death is made a big deal of is to distract from real world events, to poison the minds of MINORITIES for the UPCOMING elections.....the absolute disaster the administration and minions have been, they need a distraction
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT
That no one cares is obvious, cause similar DEATHS of WHITES and BLACKS are ignored
The REASON the death is made a big deal of is to distract from real world events, to poison the minds of MINORITIES for the UPCOMING elections.....the absolute disaster the administration and minions have been, they need a distraction
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
I meant the part about the "accused" testifying.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Ferguson Lowlifes Make Demands, Issue Threats
First they seize on a pretext to burn down their own neighborhoods in order to poke us in the eye. Then they demand we pay to rebuild their neighbors so that they can burn them down again — or else they will burn them down again.
In August, rioters burned down a QuikTrip and several other businesses in Ferguson in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting.
Now, protesters are threatening that there will be “hell to pay” if government officials don’t rebuild the businesses the residents burned down.
Speaking with CBS, one protester, identified as “Gunny,” said, “To be honest, if they don’t come and restore these neighborhoods for these people, like when you gotta go travel miles to Walmart to get gas and stuff like that, it should be right here. If they don’t restore this community for people who stay here it’s gonna be hell to pay.”
“Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs,” a second protester added.
“We tired of being looked at as another species,” one of the men told CBS. “Ain’t even like we human.”
I didn’t say it, he did.
Brace yourself for a liberal cliché that has degenerated into enough of a lie to trigger the gag reflex.
“The men told us they’re looking for a hand up, not a handout,” said CBS reporter Mark Stassmann. “And all of them said they could have been Michael Brown.”
Hopefully that doesn’t mean all of them have broken the faces of police officers.
The liberal media’s precious little darlings.
First they seize on a pretext to burn down their own neighborhoods in order to poke us in the eye. Then they demand we pay to rebuild their neighbors so that they can burn them down again — or else they will burn them down again.
In August, rioters burned down a QuikTrip and several other businesses in Ferguson in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting.
Now, protesters are threatening that there will be “hell to pay” if government officials don’t rebuild the businesses the residents burned down.
Speaking with CBS, one protester, identified as “Gunny,” said, “To be honest, if they don’t come and restore these neighborhoods for these people, like when you gotta go travel miles to Walmart to get gas and stuff like that, it should be right here. If they don’t restore this community for people who stay here it’s gonna be hell to pay.”
“Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs,” a second protester added.
“We tired of being looked at as another species,” one of the men told CBS. “Ain’t even like we human.”
I didn’t say it, he did.
Brace yourself for a liberal cliché that has degenerated into enough of a lie to trigger the gag reflex.
“The men told us they’re looking for a hand up, not a handout,” said CBS reporter Mark Stassmann. “And all of them said they could have been Michael Brown.”
Hopefully that doesn’t mean all of them have broken the faces of police officers.
Yes, it's rare for a potential defendant to testify before a grand jury, and that's true everywhere in the country, so far as I know.
Interesting and informative article:
http://time.com/3399022/ferguson-michael-brown-darren-wilson-grand-jury/
"Grand Jury Process Raises Questions About a Ferguson Indictment"
"The ongoing grand jury proceedings may suggest the prosecutor is trying to avoid backlash if Wilson isn't indicted"
"Officer Darren Wilson testified this week in the grand jury investigation into his shooting of Michael Brown, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newspaper’s scoop was unusual. Unlike most criminal-justice proceedings in the U.S., grand juries are highly secretive. Leaking information about them is a criminal act.
More
6 Children, 2 Adults Dead in Florida ShootingGun Fatality Rates Vary Wildly By State, Study FindsStill United! Scotland Remains Part of Britain After Historic Vote NBC NewsMurder-Suicide Horror: Dad Kills Daughter, Six Grandkids NBC NewsObama: 'Americans Are United' in Fighting ISIS Terror Threat NBC News
But perhaps it should no longer be surprising to see the investigation take an interesting turn. More than a month after Brown’s death in Ferguson, Mo., the grand jury appears to be nowhere near a decision on whether Wilson should be charged. And the road to justice has been paved with strange decisions.
Several elements of the grand jury’s proceedings have been uncommon, according to legal experts surveyed by TIME. None of these decisions are necessarily improper. But together they have raised eyebrows. “This is not your regular St. Louis grand jury case,” says Susan McGraugh, a veteran Missouri criminal-defense attorney and law professor at St. Louis University.
The investigation has been fraught from the start. Residents of Ferguson, who have massed in protests each day since Brown was killed on Aug. 9, immediately cast doubt on the impartiality of McCulloch, who has been the county’s elected prosecuting attorney since 1991. McCulloch’s father, a police officer, was killed in the line of duty by a black suspect. Critics have pointed to his record of charging police-involved shootings and suggested that his background may cloud his judgment in the case. There were early murmurs that McCulloch would recuse himself or be replaced by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. Instead, McCulloch has delegated the task of presenting evidence to two senior attorneys in his office.
The first unusual decision taken by the prosecutor’s office, experts say, was not to recommend a specific charge for Wilson. Instead, the prosecutors are presenting evidence as it becomes available, and leaving it up to the grand jury to decide what the evidence warrants.
To some members of the community, the decision was taken as a sign that McCulloch may be trying to avoid an indictment. “To present a case to a grand jury, without any direction or instructions with regard to what you want them to achieve,” says Adolphus Pruitt of the St. Louis NAACP, “gives the best odds that an indictment will not occur.”
McCulloch has ordered that all testimony in the case be transcribed. This is rare, because it can be used against witnesses in future legal proceedings. In addition, McCulloch has pledged to immediately release full transcripts and audio recordings of the panel’s testimony in the absence of an indictment. This too is highly unusual.
The prosecutor’s office, which did not respond to an interview request from TIME, has said these decisions were designed with transparency and openness in mind. But they may also be a way to head off criticism. “It will take the heat off McCulloch if the grand jury comes back with something that the public doesn’t like,” says McGraugh.
Without a charging recommendation, the grand jury has the option to indict Wilson on either first- or second-degree murder, or either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. “If they return an indictment for either murder or manslaughter, no one’s going to care that he didn’t have a charging recommendation,” says Jens David Ohlin, a professor at Cornell Law School. “If, on the other hand, they don’t return an indictment, he can deflect any criticism and say I presented all the evidence to the grand jury, and in their wisdom they decided.”
There is a greater chance that the jury declines to return an indictment than the public may expect, Ohlin says. “It’s a very difficult case.
With three blacks and nine whites, the grand jury’s composition reflects the demographic makeup of the county, which is roughly one-quarter black. It was empaneled before Brown was shot, and began hearing evidence shortly after. The proceedings could prove unusually lengthy. Authorities originally suggested they expected a decision on whether to charge Wilson by mid-October. But a circuit judge recently extended the panel’s term, giving them until Jan. 7 to decide whether to charge the officer in connection with Brown’s death.
The case is complex, and justice is often slow. But within the community, there are suspicions that the protracted proceedings are a way to drag out the case until the anger on the streets fades—and, perhaps, to gain the benefit of winter weather that might deter protesters.
It won’t work, warns Pruitt of the NAACP. “If there’s no true bill,” he says, “as a community, we are going to be thrust right back into the same discontent and civil disobedience we experienced the first time around.”"
It's all going pretty much as I anticipated, after I figured out which side was up.
http://time.com/3399022/ferguson-michael-brown-darren-wilson-grand-jury/
"Grand Jury Process Raises Questions About a Ferguson Indictment"
"The ongoing grand jury proceedings may suggest the prosecutor is trying to avoid backlash if Wilson isn't indicted"
"Officer Darren Wilson testified this week in the grand jury investigation into his shooting of Michael Brown, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newspaper’s scoop was unusual. Unlike most criminal-justice proceedings in the U.S., grand juries are highly secretive. Leaking information about them is a criminal act.
More
6 Children, 2 Adults Dead in Florida ShootingGun Fatality Rates Vary Wildly By State, Study FindsStill United! Scotland Remains Part of Britain After Historic Vote NBC NewsMurder-Suicide Horror: Dad Kills Daughter, Six Grandkids NBC NewsObama: 'Americans Are United' in Fighting ISIS Terror Threat NBC News
But perhaps it should no longer be surprising to see the investigation take an interesting turn. More than a month after Brown’s death in Ferguson, Mo., the grand jury appears to be nowhere near a decision on whether Wilson should be charged. And the road to justice has been paved with strange decisions.
Several elements of the grand jury’s proceedings have been uncommon, according to legal experts surveyed by TIME. None of these decisions are necessarily improper. But together they have raised eyebrows. “This is not your regular St. Louis grand jury case,” says Susan McGraugh, a veteran Missouri criminal-defense attorney and law professor at St. Louis University.
The investigation has been fraught from the start. Residents of Ferguson, who have massed in protests each day since Brown was killed on Aug. 9, immediately cast doubt on the impartiality of McCulloch, who has been the county’s elected prosecuting attorney since 1991. McCulloch’s father, a police officer, was killed in the line of duty by a black suspect. Critics have pointed to his record of charging police-involved shootings and suggested that his background may cloud his judgment in the case. There were early murmurs that McCulloch would recuse himself or be replaced by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. Instead, McCulloch has delegated the task of presenting evidence to two senior attorneys in his office.
The first unusual decision taken by the prosecutor’s office, experts say, was not to recommend a specific charge for Wilson. Instead, the prosecutors are presenting evidence as it becomes available, and leaving it up to the grand jury to decide what the evidence warrants.
To some members of the community, the decision was taken as a sign that McCulloch may be trying to avoid an indictment. “To present a case to a grand jury, without any direction or instructions with regard to what you want them to achieve,” says Adolphus Pruitt of the St. Louis NAACP, “gives the best odds that an indictment will not occur.”
McCulloch has ordered that all testimony in the case be transcribed. This is rare, because it can be used against witnesses in future legal proceedings. In addition, McCulloch has pledged to immediately release full transcripts and audio recordings of the panel’s testimony in the absence of an indictment. This too is highly unusual.
The prosecutor’s office, which did not respond to an interview request from TIME, has said these decisions were designed with transparency and openness in mind. But they may also be a way to head off criticism. “It will take the heat off McCulloch if the grand jury comes back with something that the public doesn’t like,” says McGraugh.
Without a charging recommendation, the grand jury has the option to indict Wilson on either first- or second-degree murder, or either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. “If they return an indictment for either murder or manslaughter, no one’s going to care that he didn’t have a charging recommendation,” says Jens David Ohlin, a professor at Cornell Law School. “If, on the other hand, they don’t return an indictment, he can deflect any criticism and say I presented all the evidence to the grand jury, and in their wisdom they decided.”
There is a greater chance that the jury declines to return an indictment than the public may expect, Ohlin says. “It’s a very difficult case.
With three blacks and nine whites, the grand jury’s composition reflects the demographic makeup of the county, which is roughly one-quarter black. It was empaneled before Brown was shot, and began hearing evidence shortly after. The proceedings could prove unusually lengthy. Authorities originally suggested they expected a decision on whether to charge Wilson by mid-October. But a circuit judge recently extended the panel’s term, giving them until Jan. 7 to decide whether to charge the officer in connection with Brown’s death.
The case is complex, and justice is often slow. But within the community, there are suspicions that the protracted proceedings are a way to drag out the case until the anger on the streets fades—and, perhaps, to gain the benefit of winter weather that might deter protesters.
It won’t work, warns Pruitt of the NAACP. “If there’s no true bill,” he says, “as a community, we are going to be thrust right back into the same discontent and civil disobedience we experienced the first time around.”"
It's all going pretty much as I anticipated, after I figured out which side was up.
It gets cold in the St. Louis area in January. Not good rioting weather.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
It's Ok. s 4st pointed out yesterday, the usual suspects will inflame other locales. Weathers nice in January in LA.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Very nice.. Your lot regularly pillories BDS for wishing harm to someone's family (and rightly so).
But when you do it it's DIFFERENT.
What "usual suspects" would those be exactly?
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Here is another news item. Apparently, the defendant or whatever he is called, is not allowed to have a lawyer present. Even so, there is no requirement that he testify. http://fox2now.com/2014/09/17/stlto...arren-wilson-testified-before-the-grand-jury/
Potential defendants are never required to testify before grand juries, so far as I know. It's also the case they usually cannot have a lawyer present, if they appear, and it's my understanding their lawyer cannot speak to the grand jury in any case.
Thanks for the article:
"ST. LOUIS (KTVI) – Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson reportedly testified before the Grand Jury Tuesday. It would be the fourth time Wilson has given his account of the shooting of an unarmed Michael Brown. None of those accounts are yet public. Wilson has given several interviews with police and now yesterday’s reported testimony before the Grand Jury. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that officer Wilson talked to grand jurors for four hours.
He did that without an attorney, as is required under the grand jury rules. StLToday reporter Robert Patrick learned of Wilson`s Court testimony Tuesday. He said, ‘Other than that we know he`s talked to St. Louis County Police investigators twice, Federal investigators once and the person who told us about this told us that he has been `cooperative.`’
We don’t yet know what Wilson said. St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch said he will ask a Judge to release all of the grand jury evidence, which would include Officer Wilson’s testimony, if there is no indictment.
Also, the Grand Jury is reportedly picking up the pace since its term ended last week. The 12 members gave the Court their schedules regarding when they can meet to review the Ferguson shooting case. They will now be meeting more frequently than the once a week schedule they maintained in the beginning."
I think the fact Wilson voluntarily testified before this grand jury is significant.
Why Darren Wilson Isn't in Cuffs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/why-darren-wilson-isnt-in_b_5857104.html
"All of the most recent protests in Ferguson over the slaying of Michael Brown seem recent since the protestors have all asked for the same thing: That is to slap the cuffs on Darren Wilson, the officer who gunned down Brown on August 9. The reasons given for Wilson's freedom by some are that the prosecutors and cops almost never arrest and charge other cops with misconduct, the St. Louis County Prosecutor is a bigot, and there's no smoking gun piece of evidence to base an arrest on. These are all powerful blocks to clamping the cuffs on Wilson. But they aren't the prime reasons. The single biggest barrier to arrest and prosecuting police officers in the use of deadly force in the shootings of unarmed civilians -- even those who have committed no crimes or are even suspected of crimes at the time of the shooting, as is the case with Brown -- is the ancient self-shielding uttered by the officer of the magic words, "I feared for my life or the life of others."
These words are codified in law in many states. Missouri is one of them. It's called the Missouri Defense of Justification Statute. It flatly says that an officer can use deadly force when "he or she reasonably believes" it's necessary to protect life. The operative words are "reasonably believes." Translated, that means that there is no written code, rule, or guideline for what exactly reasonable belief is or means. It's purely a judgment call by the officer at the moment he or she draws his or her pistol and opens fire. The litany of "reasonable beliefs" can fill up a small phone book. The suspect was reaching for a knife, gun, toothpick, holding a cell phone, tugging at his waistband, had his hands in his pocket, there was sudden movement of his vehicle. In the case of Brown, Wilson claims he was charging at him.
A world-class Freudian analyst couldn't decipher exactly what was in an officer's mind, what anger, fears he had, real or imagined, or perception of danger that caused him to resort to deadly force. Fortunately for Wilson, and the countless other officers that have wantonly killed unarmed civilians in recent years, there's absolutely no danger that the officer would be subject to a factual test to determine what perceived threat of supposedly life curtailing danger ever really existed. The encoded practice is to take the officer's word that he or she felt that they would die if they didn't blaze away.
If this sounds like a virtual license to kill, it is. And this almost certainly will be the way Wilson's battery of attorneys will play it if he is ever hauled into a court docket. No matter how many eyewitnesses call him a blatant liar, and swear as they have repeatedly done in interviews that Brown had his hands up and attempted to surrender, Wilson's attorneys will simply counter that he "reasonably believed" that Brown posed a threat to his life.
The bitter reality is that there is no ironclad standard of what is or isn't acceptable use of force. It almost always comes down to a judgment call by the officer. In the Rodney King beating case in 1992 in which four LAPD officers stood trial, defense attorneys turned the tables and painted King as the aggressor and claimed that the level of force used against him was justified.
The two New York City cases involving the killing cops of unarmed African immigrant, Amadou Diallo in 1999, and unarmed Sean Bell in 2006, the cops were tried but were acquitted. In each case, they claimed that they feared for their lives. The jury believed them and acquitted them. Then there's another piece to the sorry picture of how police who kill with little to no justification get away with it. That's the public.
In a Gallup survey that measured overall confidence in police, the police topped out among the three highest-rated institutions out of 17 tested in terms of whites' confidence, behind only the military and small business. They are the one that make up the majority on juries that inevitably hear the rare cases against police officers charged with the overuse of deadly force.
Despite overwhelming evidence that police do profile minorities, lie, cheat, and even commit crimes, jurors still are far more likely to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than witnesses, defendants, or even the victims, especially minority victims.
St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCullough has had many chances to bring charges against officers in his county that have killed unarmed suspects. He's only brought one case. This is not because of wanton pro-police bias, though that's obviously a powerful disincentive for him to bring charges. He knows like virtually all prosecutors that as long as Wilson has the near impregnable shield of being able to say "I feared for my life" when confronting Brown it's near impossible to put the cuffs on him."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/why-darren-wilson-isnt-in_b_5857104.html
"All of the most recent protests in Ferguson over the slaying of Michael Brown seem recent since the protestors have all asked for the same thing: That is to slap the cuffs on Darren Wilson, the officer who gunned down Brown on August 9. The reasons given for Wilson's freedom by some are that the prosecutors and cops almost never arrest and charge other cops with misconduct, the St. Louis County Prosecutor is a bigot, and there's no smoking gun piece of evidence to base an arrest on. These are all powerful blocks to clamping the cuffs on Wilson. But they aren't the prime reasons. The single biggest barrier to arrest and prosecuting police officers in the use of deadly force in the shootings of unarmed civilians -- even those who have committed no crimes or are even suspected of crimes at the time of the shooting, as is the case with Brown -- is the ancient self-shielding uttered by the officer of the magic words, "I feared for my life or the life of others."
These words are codified in law in many states. Missouri is one of them. It's called the Missouri Defense of Justification Statute. It flatly says that an officer can use deadly force when "he or she reasonably believes" it's necessary to protect life. The operative words are "reasonably believes." Translated, that means that there is no written code, rule, or guideline for what exactly reasonable belief is or means. It's purely a judgment call by the officer at the moment he or she draws his or her pistol and opens fire. The litany of "reasonable beliefs" can fill up a small phone book. The suspect was reaching for a knife, gun, toothpick, holding a cell phone, tugging at his waistband, had his hands in his pocket, there was sudden movement of his vehicle. In the case of Brown, Wilson claims he was charging at him.
A world-class Freudian analyst couldn't decipher exactly what was in an officer's mind, what anger, fears he had, real or imagined, or perception of danger that caused him to resort to deadly force. Fortunately for Wilson, and the countless other officers that have wantonly killed unarmed civilians in recent years, there's absolutely no danger that the officer would be subject to a factual test to determine what perceived threat of supposedly life curtailing danger ever really existed. The encoded practice is to take the officer's word that he or she felt that they would die if they didn't blaze away.
If this sounds like a virtual license to kill, it is. And this almost certainly will be the way Wilson's battery of attorneys will play it if he is ever hauled into a court docket. No matter how many eyewitnesses call him a blatant liar, and swear as they have repeatedly done in interviews that Brown had his hands up and attempted to surrender, Wilson's attorneys will simply counter that he "reasonably believed" that Brown posed a threat to his life.
The bitter reality is that there is no ironclad standard of what is or isn't acceptable use of force. It almost always comes down to a judgment call by the officer. In the Rodney King beating case in 1992 in which four LAPD officers stood trial, defense attorneys turned the tables and painted King as the aggressor and claimed that the level of force used against him was justified.
The two New York City cases involving the killing cops of unarmed African immigrant, Amadou Diallo in 1999, and unarmed Sean Bell in 2006, the cops were tried but were acquitted. In each case, they claimed that they feared for their lives. The jury believed them and acquitted them. Then there's another piece to the sorry picture of how police who kill with little to no justification get away with it. That's the public.
In a Gallup survey that measured overall confidence in police, the police topped out among the three highest-rated institutions out of 17 tested in terms of whites' confidence, behind only the military and small business. They are the one that make up the majority on juries that inevitably hear the rare cases against police officers charged with the overuse of deadly force.
Despite overwhelming evidence that police do profile minorities, lie, cheat, and even commit crimes, jurors still are far more likely to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than witnesses, defendants, or even the victims, especially minority victims.
St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCullough has had many chances to bring charges against officers in his county that have killed unarmed suspects. He's only brought one case. This is not because of wanton pro-police bias, though that's obviously a powerful disincentive for him to bring charges. He knows like virtually all prosecutors that as long as Wilson has the near impregnable shield of being able to say "I feared for my life" when confronting Brown it's near impossible to put the cuffs on him."
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
It generally means a "reasonable person". I.e., would the average person react in the same way?
But yes, it does allow a lot of leeway.
And that's the question members of the grand jury will be asking themselves, as they put themselves in Wilson's shoes.
about_average
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Posts
- 11,430
Maybe. Or they may ask themselves, "Are there enough unknowns that this should go to trial to find out what really happened?"
Were Wilson's actions "reasonable" is more likely a question for a trial.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
That aint how it works, fool. The trial isn't the investigation, its an evidentiary hearing where the facts are determined. The prosecutor or cops can always direct file if they think they have the goodies, they don't, so theyre going thru a grand jury.
I would think the members of the Grand Jury would base their decision as to indictment on their personal opinion of Wilson's actions, and whether they were reasonable. I assume they would consider themselves to be reasonable people.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Just as many of them will be putting themselves in the innocent UTE's shoes...
They saw The Story on TV.
Just as many of them will be putting themselves in the innocent UTE's shoes...
They saw The Story on TV.
You may be right, but I'm sure you realize that's not what they are supposed to do. There will be no indictment of Brown, so they should not concern themselves with being in his shoes.
Similar threads
