Did you clip the actual point of what I said - commenting specifically to someone who feels that the Grand Jury delivered a ruling of Not Guilty - for any specific reason?
Anyway, let Steophan know that Wilson was not proven Not Guilty in a court of law which is what he seems to think and what I was actually addressing? Ktxbye.
I want a trial. And no strawmen.
I don’t think I’ll get both, but maybe in the future you can help me with one of them. Thanks in advance.
You are a fucking moron. There’s no need for cross examination as there’s no case to answer. It’s not the case that he’s probably guilty but it needs to be made certain by a trial. There is no case. What about that don’t you understand? There is nothing that could be revealed under cross examination - short of an admission that he didn’t actually fear death or injury, and that wouldn’t happen - that could show guilt.
Funny how you prove projection with two simple sentences.
No-one, in the history of American jurisprudence, has even been proven not guilty in a trial court. Never. That’s not what happens, and not the purpose of a trial.
Are you really this stupid, or are you trolling? Or are you just another dickhead who just wants to see the police suffer, because they won’t let crooks and arseholes go around bullying people?
Of course you do. But it was found that there is no probable cause to go to trial. That’s how the system works.
Why? We know that the evidence is insufficient to provide a guilty verdict, so what purpose would a trial serve?
And don’t pretend that the evidence could prove him guilty. No-one who understands how the justice system works could look at the evidence and decide otherwise.
So you’re saying that you would prefer grand juries to be rubber stamps.
I have presented evidence that what happened is not how Grand Juries work or are designed to work. Even Scalia agrees with me. That’s why it’s a sham.
You can feel free to think this was how it “should” work but that flies in the face of presented evidence.
Except none of that is at all relevant. Even if he was lying about every single one of those things, he still could not have been found guilty. The only way, with the evidence we have, that that could have happened would have been an admission that he was not, in fact, in fear of death or serious injury when he fired at Brown.
How about answering my questions first. I’ll repeat them:
Are you getting enough fiber? Did you seriously just accuse someone of wanting thugs to have free reign over our nation because that person disagrees with you?
Whatsamatta you?
Or he could have been found guilty. Juries often frown on defendants whose stories wither away and are filled with inconsistencies when under cross-examination. This is why many defendants are not put on the stand.
I guess you didn’t know any of this, which is why you don’t think cross-examination (or lack thereof) is a big deal.
He’s just losing his argument and throwing a tantrum.
That’s incorrect. If there was some illegality or breaking of the rules in how this Grand Jury worked, the opponents are welcome to sue.
No, actually he couldn’t. That’s the whole fucking point. He literally could not have been legally found guilty by a jury, and any judge who (wrongly) sent the case to the jury would be obliged to overrule a guilty verdict.
A jury may not find someone guilty when the evidence doesn’t support it. In this case, there is no probable cause that a crime was committed, so it is legally impossible for him to be found guilty.
I will also add that this is more evidence that you still somehow feel that the Grand Jury could have said he was guilty. They couldn’t have.
But you do feel that they can (and did) say he was not guilty. Which they couldn’t have.
I’ll chalk this up to you just not knowing what Grand Juries are for and how they usually operate, despite the fact that this has been presented above, and leave it at that.
So what you’re telling me is that if the grand jury had returned an indictment, a trial was held, and Wilson were found not guilty on all charges, you would be completely and totally satisfied with that verdict?
So why didn’t it just get the “rubber stamp” treatment then?
Anyway, you’re just being an asshole now and I’m done with you. Of course he could have been convicted. And we will never know. Because the sham of a Grand Jury means that he won’t be tried and have the input of people who actually wanted to prosecute and didn’t punt.
The fact that you feel that this sham of a Grand Jury means that he couldn’t have been convicted amuses me. I wouldn’t point to a kangaroo court as predictive of what might happen in a real, impartial trial. But you do.
I am laughing at you as the last thing I do before I ignore you.