Can Officer Darren Wilson Receive A Fair Trial?

a reply to: StealthyKat

Sorry StealthyKat but I have zero use for cops nowadays. Not a one of them. There was a time when they had a motto, "Protect and Serve" but that is no longer the case in the USA. They've even removed it from the cars and the Supreme Court has affirmed they are not required to protect anyone.

As far as crap wages here's what they make nowadays:


Source

Granted not big money but still more that a great percentage of the population.

Also I don't accept the broad brush argument I hear regarding cops. There are so many bad ones now and any good ones are silent it doesn't make much difference.

While we are talking about this cops just murdered a guy in Utah because he couldn't hear their commands due to wearing earphones. Cops in the US are totally out of control. That's how I see it anyway and I've been here for a long, long time.

yes of course he can receive a fair trial
the question is will he
or will the media decide the result

a reply to: Bassago
I can understand that feeling. However, most people don't realize that being a police officer can be a lot like being in combat. They sometimes see horrific murder, car wrecks etc. They see very gruesome things and see the absolute worst of humanity every single day. This can be hard on the psyche. That being said, it is never justification for 'going off"...it's the job. In my opinion they should make a lot more though....and I think there should be mental help if they need it, because of what I mentioned earlier.

I respect your opinion and your right to say it.

Wasn't there a trial recently where they stated that you can't shoot someone running away from you in the back and call it as self defense?

a reply to: JHumm

Yep....but if they are running toward you it's the opposite

a reply to: Walkingsenseless

Youre assuming he will be tried. Maybe not. In this country youre innocent 1st...until you are proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers.

And he may not even be charged with anything, no matter what you think.

a reply to: Walkingsenseless

Did George Zimmerman have a fair trial?

What gives a cop the benefit of the doubt?

Nope. He will not get a fair trial because TPTB will be anticipating what will happen if he goes free, so evidence won't matter. They will shaft him because of fear of riots, attacks, looting, etc..
If for some strange reason that the evidence does find him innocent, and he should be freed, then people in that state better get the hell out because it will turn into a nightmare, about like LA did. The whole state will be looted, attacked, etc., etc.. You can count on that.

The evidence is what should lead in this case. Not fear or "what ifs".

a reply to: HandyDandy
Exactly. People involved in "high profile" cases always have that same problem in our country.

a reply to: Fylgje
Many people said the same of florida if zimmerman was found not guilty as well.

a reply to: Walkingsenseless

He sealed his fate with the action of his trigger finger.

The guy he shot and killed without a jury trial?

Here is the way it will work in the USA:
First there has to be an investigation. The investigators will look into the actions of both the victim and the suspect in this case. The officer right now, until he does go to trial, is innocent. After the investigation, if that prosecuting feels that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, it goes to a grand jury. There the evidence is presented and a verdict of yes or no is given. If the grand jury is convinced that the evidence warrants the charges, then it goes to where he is arraigned and arrested on the charges. Bail is set and the trail date is set after that. During that time frame both lawyers involved will conduct their own investigation into the incidents, and talk to witnesses, take statements and look into the background of both. And then will come the bargaining and seeing what the other side will offer and accept. If he takes a plea deal, there will be no trial and it is wrapped up rather quickly. If he does not, and one is offered, then it goes into a lengthy trial, and ultimately where it gets a lot of coverage.

Ultimately, the law has to be observed and followed for better or for worse, and if he Is not found guilty, or gets a lesser sentence, the people protesting and rioting will be still upset. And this will not happen in Ferguson, it will be moved to another location, a change of venue, possibly even another state if they cannot find a jury that can be fair and impartial in the state.


Mind you that only will happen if the investigation finds and concludes that he acted outside of the law and what was required. So much is now in the hands of the investigators themselves.

But then again, who would want to serve on that trial, without a guarantee of being fully anomious with no chance of their name being released? I would not, as I would not want to deal with the aftermath of said trail, as the Jury is going to be targets, by both sides, caught in the middle.

a reply to: StealthyKat

...he kept shooting the kid in the back, on the ground, when he was very likely already dead.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: StealthyKat

...he kept shooting the kid in the back, on the ground, when he was very likely already dead.

We don't know that.... here is a couple accounts of the events supposedly:

Article

#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
[crosstalk]
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
[crosstalk]
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
[crosstalk]
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

and here is from of friend of the officer, so take it for what it's worth:

This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:
Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

We need to let the investigation proceed and find out what happened.

I guess I don't know why a trial of any sort would be needed . The criminal is gone

At least he has the opportunity for a trial, can't say the same thing about Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Ezell Ford and countless others killed while unarmed.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

And you know this for a fact how?

a reply to: Walkingsenseless

There are so many events involved and so much controversy along with a fear for his safety and most likely to be press free...

I have to say a fair trial is impossible...

In other words the odds are heavily in his favor...

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: StealthyKat

...he kept shooting the kid in the back, on the ground, when he was very likely already dead.

We don't know that.... here is a couple accounts of the events supposedly:

Article

#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
[crosstalk]
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
[crosstalk]
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
[crosstalk]
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

and here is from of friend of the officer, so take it for what it's worth:

This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:
Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

We need to let the investigation proceed and find out what happened.

You are right. The witness statements appear to have been wrong so my statement was wrong.

I still think the shooting was unjustified as the cop was in his car an armed and the teen was on foot and unarmed. The cop could have gotten in his car and waited on back up.

originally posted by: StealthyKat
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

And you know this for a fact how?

I was going off of the witness statements. They appear to be falsified. I was wrong I just didn't think anyone would lie about something so obviously detectable.

See my post immediately above for the reason as to why I think the cop was still in the wrong and unjustified.

P.s. im going to bicycle across the US. When I get to New Orleans can I set up a tent in your yard?