You ask a lot of questions. I happen to have a good answer to this one in my breast pocket but until you have the courtesy to answer mine, you can pound sand.
So you’re saying you would have preferred that the grand jury be a rubber stamp.
It’s the evidence, or more importantly the lack of it, that shows he couldn’t have been convicted, you fucking ignorant, trolling twat. If there was a reasonable probability of conviction it would have been sent to trial. I love the fact that you think a rubber stamp Grand Jury is a sensible thing, but one that sees all the evidence is a sham. That shows beyond any doubt that you don’t give the tiniest shite about justice, and just want to see as much punishment as possible heaped onto Wilson, despite the demonstrable impossibility of him being guilty.
You’re a dangerous, deluded moron, and I can only hope that neither you nor anyone you care about is ever accused of a crime and treated the way you want Wilson treated.
Arsehole.
No, that would be you. To paraphrase, “I’m putting you on ignore so I don’t have to deal with being unable to refute your arguments”
But that would require them dealing with facts and evidence, not unsupported assertions and bullshit. It’ll never happen, they’ll just stick to lying on the internet and burning shit down.
Yes, it was.
I will find it interesting, though, that some links in the posts I found went to opinions that weren’t written by random Internet users, and they were not addressed by any responses. I will also note that some speculations were dismissed as “conspiracy theories” without any acknowledgement that we KNOW that the police in this country have such a history, current and otherwise, of racism that it creates a context in which such speculations are, IMO, reasonable and justified.
One last related thing: one of the rallying cries I this thread seems to be: “how can you distrust the evidence?!” I posted on that a little while back, and some of the attitude behind it at times still seems to bespeak to me an ignorance of certain historical contexts and current realities when it comes to race in this country. (I’m really tempted to say “white privilege” here, but I think the way I put it seems more accurate. :))
Technically true, perhaps, but theres plenty on record of innocent men convicted. So, perhaps “impossible” is to precious a word to be squandered so.
My comment wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.
Right, just people who want vengeance rather than justice. Which is a strawman because I don’t think anyone here feels that wa. Who does? Can you point them out to us?
Look in the mirror, scarecrow.
I never said it was illegal, as you well know, unless you need to work on your remedial reading comprehension.
I said - more accurately, I posted experts saying - that the Grand Jury was done in a manner completely at odds with how nearly all Grand Juries operate and was at odds with what their purpose is. That is unequivocally true.
So it was directed at me? Can’t make up your mind, I see. Well, you can add that to the long list of other things you’re wrong about.
Ok. Let’s try this. What is the purpose of a Grand Jury?
Let’s try this: How was this Grand Jury completely different than almost every other Grand Jury and why was that?
I’d also like to point out that you’re a liar. Lest anyone ever think you’re not.
You’re the one that claimed this Grand Jury “was at odds with what their purpose is”. So - what is the purpose of a Grand Jury?
I already linked to his New Yorker piece, but here’s how Jeffrey Toobin would answer this question - the headline is “How Not to Use a Grand Jury” so I think that goes to show it does address how to use it:
And let’s examine what Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia says is the “function” of a Grand Jury:
If you care to lecture Scalia on the function of Grand Juries, feel free to do so. I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear from you.
And the Grand Jury found that there was no foundation on which the charge could be made. After seeing all the evidence. It seems you have a problem with a decision being made after seeing all the evidence, when you think a different one could have been made if only part of the evidence was shown. That hardly suggests that you support justice.
Indeed. That’s why I specifically put “legally impossible”. There have been innocent people illegally convicted, but there have also been innocent people convicted when there has been sufficient evidence for probable cause. If that evidence exists, then it’s legal for the jury to convict, in the sense that the judge or an appeal court can’t overturn it on the grounds of lack of evidence.
I would point out that this position assumes an implicit trust in the integrity of the evidence, the cops who gathered it, and the prosecutor who presented it. If you’re talking to anyone who doesn’t share that trust in EVEN ONE of those three things (and I personally think that the atmosphere created by past and current corruption and racism has made such distrust reasonable for WAY too many people), then you can talk about the role of the grand jury all you like, but it’s kind of irrelevant to the debate.
(To be clear: I’m not necessarily talking about anyone you’ve personally interacted with, in this thread or elsewhere.)
Then its a pity the court cannot declare Mr. Brown legally alive, it would be such a comfort to his family.