One thing is for sure. The Ferguson PD needs a lot more diversity. In this day and age, there’s no excuse for an all-white PD in a half-black community. The same probably goes for the whole CJ system.
So, the Grand Jury were actually given the correct Missouri law? Fascinating. Looks like there was no misconduct, even ignoring the fact that it’s an irrelevant law.
It’s laughable that people still think this case should have gone to trial. A prosecutor should not take a case unless he expects to win, that’s basic legal ethics. He was certain to lose this case, and if the judge agreed with the Grand Jury that there was not enough evidence to proceed, the trial jury would not have been called to make a decision either.
It’s just a shame that the prosecutor didn’t have the balls to throw this case out immediately.
I suggested he might recuse himself. I don’t recall saying anything like “Put a person he believes committed no crime under arrest, fingerprint him, make him post bond, etc…” A simple upward scrolling will confirm that, unless you prefer the aroma of things pulled out of your ass?
Would the assignment of a special prosecutor, one more deserving of the respect of the black community have prevented riotous and destructive behavior? I don’t know, but then, neither do you. Of course, I’m not claiming to know. And, “of course”, you are.
If you have a moment, could you submit your Certificate of Clairvoyance for our inspection?
From your own cite:
Grand juries rarely indict law enforcement officials.
Would you say that this indicates that this is a frequent occurrence?
Correct. But, to compensate for that, the level of “proof” needed to indict is WAY less than to convict at trial. If the jury could not even get to “probable cause”, there is no way the trial could have gotten to “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Garner stated that a police officer may be sued civilly under federal law if he shoots a non-violent fleeing felon. It does not say that the State of Missouri must view the same thing as a criminal offense. In that sense, it was a correct statement of the law.
ETA: But it is irrelevant. The physical evidence conclusively shows that Brown was not fleeing when he was shot.
Of course, nobody was shot for or while running away, so while this may be wrong, it’s nonetheless irrelevant.
I’ve already tried to explain this to him, but it’s not sunk in yet… Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Hentor likes to make up facts to fit some scenario that he pulls out of his ass. He never lets the actual facts interfere with his theories.
Put those goal posts back where you got them!
We were disagreeing about the relative frequency with which prosecutors failed to get a true bill from an empanelled Grand Jury. That frequency remains 11 out of 162,351. These are U.S. Department of Justice statistics. Yes they’re a couple of years old, and no they do not include every state and municipality. Nevertheless, I remain confident that failure to indict when the prosecutor requests an indictment qualifies as ‘infrequent’.
The quote you offer above is that of a blogger, without attribution except that it comes from my cite. Were you trying to impart to it the same significance as the Justice Department statistics?
If in fact it is a true statement (and you are welcome to provide citations so demonstrating) then we will be left to wonder why that might be. Could it be because in almost all cases the law enforcement official has done absolutely nothing wrong? Or might there be other factors in play? Perhaps the blogger thinks there may be, because the sentence immediately following that one says
Again, those statistics are for Federal Grand Juries. Was this one? You’re comparing apples and oranges.
No, they do not include ANY state and municipality.
Is a grand jury finding, as in this case, a bar to a future grand jury investigation of the same matter? I didn’t read all the posts in this thread, so sorry if I missed it.
I have not made up a single fact, here or elsewhere motherfucker. I defy you to find an example of me doing so, you lying sack of shit.
No. No double jeopardy, since this was not a trial.
You made up the “fact” that the law was misrepresented to the jury, that the Supreme Court decision wasn’t mentioned, and you continue to claim that Wilson may have fired at Brown’s back.
We now know all of those are false, yet you continue to claim them Which makes you either a liar or an idiot. Given the way you respond, my money’s on liar. You know you’re wrong, but you don’t have the balls to admit it. You’re a sad, pathetic troll.
I mentioned in one thread, I can’t remember if it’s this one, that this is actually a good reason for not going to trial with weak evidence. It’s conceivable that evidence could turn up in the future that would make a conviction likely, so there’s no sense in using the one opportunity at this point.
Something else those clamouring for a show trial fail to understand.
You should actually read ALL of your own cites, bitch. It would spare you some embarrassment.
Now you’re just being stubborn. If you believe that the statistics for states and municipalities are so dramatically different that prosecutors failing to get requested indictments can be legitimately characterized as <the opposite of unusual> then you’re welcome to bring 'em on. But you can’t. Because they’re not. Hence the joke about prosecutors and ham sandwiches. Sucks to be caught out like that, huh?
The only embarrassment I feel is on your behalf. But hey, enjoy your trolling. It’s not a particularly good substitute for thinking, but I suspect it’s all you can manage.
Actually, I should probably stop arguing with you. It’s a bit like poking an angry hamster, mildly amusing but ultimately unfair, and if I do it too much I’ll start to feel like a bully.
So what you’re saying is that grand juries are rubber-stamp panels which exercise no free thought and always deliver whatever indicdtment the government asks for.
And you’re upset that this one didn’t and actually did its job?
And people call me a “fascist”.