Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

a reply to: intrptr

The courts, the police are one in the same, when they say long arm of the law, the courts and administration of law enforcement, including judges comprise the body, so for any body, why would you ever find your arm at fault or any appendage worthy of amputation if by all accounts they are doing exactly what you wish or will them to do ?
People that are acting super shocked about this to me seem to be very naive if they have not realized this is how it will always work, unless you render law enforcement completely separate from the criminal justice system by making them contractors, rendering any statements they make inadmissible, disarming them and lastly holding them to high standards contractually as serving the public and taxpayers that pay their salaries, any bad reports over 3, witnessed by citizens will mean termination.
Yes this is all fantasy, but you see my point I hope.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Oh, he was a 6'4" 292 lb. "kid ".

Wilson is 6'4"" and 210, trained in physical restraint and had a gun. So what?

But justice was done. Deal with it.

Justice is served in an open court trial where conflicting testimony is presented under oath in front of everyone. You say there was no conflicting testimony…

Thanks judge…

Yes agreed.

I keep reading and listening to the news about how officer Wilson could have used non-lethal force - such as a taser.

How it is now being questioned why he didn't even have his taser on him that day.

I was merely sharing an example of the use of tasers and how the outcome could have possibly been the same.

Thanks for the holiday wishes.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: UnBreakable

Oh, he was a 6'4" 292 lb. "kid ".

Wilson is 6'4"" and 210, trained in physical restraint and had a gun. So what?

But justice was done. Deal with it.

Justice is served in an open court trial where conflicting testimony is presented under oath in front of everyone. You say there was no conflicting testimony…



Thanks judge…

There was conflicting testimony, apparently deemed too ridiculous to consideer being presented to a jury, being that the physical evidence (like the autopsy) contradicted witness statements, like Brown was shot in the back with Wilson standing over him. There were no back wounds.

"Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back.

Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.

Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, said the grand jury had to weigh testimony that conflicted with physical evidence and conflicting statements by witnesses as it decided whether Wilson should face charges.

"Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence," McCulloch said"
bigstory.ap.org...

Ferguson was quiet last night. But Los Angeles (predictably) had more protesters and separate protests, with agitators running thru traffic, hitting vehicles:

www.latimes.com...
FERGUSON PROTESTS IN LOS ANGELES
"I would hope that (in) any future protests, people will think about the need to do it legally," LA Police Chief Beck said. "I think that there is sympathy for the point of view of these folks, but I think that sympathy is waning as they infringe on other people's rights."

Now the focus is shifting to the Grand Jury and other actions/processes curiously skewed toward Wilson from the beginning:

www.newser.com...
CRITICISM OF DARREN WILSON'S ACTIONS AFTER THE SHOOTING
"Darren Wilson drove himself back to the station by himself, cleaned the blood off himself, and checked his own gun into evidence, all of which runs against Justice Department advice on how to handle evidence and crime scenes.

"Gov. Jay Nixon has rejected calls for special prosecutors to present the case to another grand jury. The director of Washington University's Juvenile Law and Justice Clinic said yesterday that a special prosecutor should be brought in, as the grand jury transcripts indicate the "prosecution quite unusually adopted a defense stance, injecting the idea of justified homicide into the process well before Wilson testified."

(This is looking more and more like a staged event to start a race war ...)

a reply to: Shamrock6

Actually the chief would be the head cop.

Aww, crap. Call him or them what you will, the cops investigated the cops.

The prosecutor is just that: a prosecutor.

In an open trial, yah.

The prosecutor presented evidence for both sides.

I thought there was no "both sides" before a Grand Jury? And how can the prosecutor be allowed to present "both sides" anyway? You don't see a problem with that? That is one reason why the justice system is broken. How impartial is it to let the state accuse/defend one of its own?

Go read how a grand jury actually works and what it does before commenting on how it didn't do its job.

Like I said, cops rarely prosecute cops. See?

a reply to: UnBreakable

There was conflicting testimony, apparently deemed too ridiculous to consideer being presented to a jury, being that the physical evidence (like the autopsy) contradicted witness statements, like Brown was shot in the back with Wilson standing over him. There were no back wounds.

Thanks for at least admitting there was "conflicting" testimony. There is no "apparently deemed ridiculous" after that. Thats the red flag for a grand Jury. Thats why it should go to trial.

Thats why it should be allowed to go to trial

.

a reply to: intrptr

If the autopsy show no entrance wounds to Brown's posterior and an 'eyewitness' testifies that they saw Wilson shoot Brown in the back..... How do you describe it?
I would call it lying.

a reply to: phinubian

People that are acting super shocked about this to me seem to be very naive if they have not realized this is how it will always work, unless you render law enforcement completely separate from the criminal justice system…

In a grand jury "proceeding" (or hearing or pre trial investigation) (whatchamacallit)…

Letting the "justice" system present evidence for or against one of their own is completely impartial. One indicator of how that very system is broken.

Thats my only point. It should be impartial, (read that Non partisan). Of course thats impossible the way its set up now, isn't it.

a reply to: butcherguy

If the autopsy show no entrance wounds to Brown's posterior and an 'eyewitness' testifies that they saw Wilson shoot Brown in the back..... How do you describe it?

In open court? Or behind closed doors? Behind closed doors thats called here-say. Second hand here-say.

I would call it lying.

Thanks judge…

Further: So far, all the replies to me here are focusing on one 'eyewitness' that either recanted or mistook what actually happened. Just one. There are others who didn't recant and claim they saw Brown being shot while his hands were up…

the bullet holes to the under side of his arm do reflect that. A pathologist for the defense attorney for Mr. Brown was allowed to see the autopsy results and he concurred.

"Hands up!"

"Don't Shoot!"

See you in court…

Oh, never mind.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: UnBreakable

There was conflicting testimony, apparently deemed too ridiculous to consideer being presented to a jury, being that the physical evidence (like the autopsy) contradicted witness statements, like Brown was shot in the back with Wilson standing over him. There were no back wounds.

Thanks for at least admitting there was "conflicting" testimony. There is no "apparently deemed ridiculous" after that. Thats the red flag for a grand Jury. Thats why it should go to trial.



Thats why it should be allowed to go to trial



.

The conflicting evidence was included in the evidence to the grand jury but based on that they even felt there was no need to progress to a jury trial. They considered ALL the evidence. With your apparent vast legal expertise, you should file your own lawsuit on appeal. You seem to have no problem wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits that have no chance of going nowhere.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.
bigstory.ap.org...

Regardless of whatever conflicting evidence there is, the ATS "jury" is set against a fair and impartial trial in open court.

Until an open trial and verdict, there will be nothing but ongoing "conflict" about it.

Sweeping it all under the rug is justice denied. And indicative of not only the status quo in Ferguson but in Macrocosm the closed minds of America as well?

Geez I hope none of you or yours gets gunned down in broad daylight by a cop under suspicious circumstances and then told it was justified and there is no need for a trial to find out.

a reply to: UnBreakable

The conflicting evidence was included in the evidence to the grand jury but based on that they even felt there was no need to progress to a jury trial.

Yah, I heard the "no verdict" verdict. The head cop announced it on TV.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Interesting how your replies to me only show my part in the reply I made to you. Kind of out of context and one sided.

Hey, just like a certain proceeding in Ferguson.

Yah, I know thats what happens when you click quote…

originally posted by: intrptr




Regardless of whatever conflicting evidence there is, the ATS "jury" is set against a fair and impartial trial in open court.



Until an open trial and verdict, there will be nothing but ongoing "conflict" about it.



Sweeping it all under the rug is justice denied. And indicative of not only the status quo in Ferguson but in Macrocosm the closed minds of America as well?



Geez I hope none of you or yours gets gunned down in broad daylight by a cop under suspicious circumstances and then told it was justified and there is no need for a trial to find out.

I'm positive that none of mine will 'get gunned down in broad daylight by a cop'. There's nothing suspicious about what happened. Why? Because the people I know respect LE enough that when they walk down the middle of the street after stealing cigars and assaulting a shop owner (sarcasm) won't tell a cop to F off after being asked to move to a sidewalk, then approaching a cop and assault him while trying to take his gun, telling him he's too much of a p*ssy to shoot them, and won't charge the cop after being shot twice. If they do, I feel they would deserve it. The people I know won't escalate a situation with a LEO.

You don't need to do any thing wrong…

"Hands up."

"Don't shoot."

originally posted by: intrptr

The "defense attorney" (as you put it) was the head cop i.e., the "District Attorney". Cops presenting evidence against cops.

Again, how fair and impartial is that going to be?

The DA is not a cop. Not only is he not "head cop", he's not even a rookie. You appear to still not be real clear on the structure of the judicial system. How do you expect to even begin to fight what you do not understand?

Don't play , Duh it wasn't a trial, I have said that repeatedly.

Then why did you insist on trying to evaluate a grand Jury determination within a trial framework?

The problem should be obvious to anyone that when you let the cops investigate themselves and present the evidence against themselves to a "non trial" Grand Jury, there will a jaded outcome.

While there ARE "cops who investigate cops", the DA is not one of them. Ever hear of IA or Internal Affairs? Ever had to sit through a grilling by them?

Ever been a DA with political ambition and got wind of a potential bad cop to fuel your fantasies of grandeur?

I'm guessing "no" is the answer to all of the above. I'm further guessing you've never even been close, or even thought it all the way through.

Heres one more… a murder suspect should never be allowed to testify before a grand jury on his own behalf…

If Wilson wasn't a cop, you think any DA would let that happen?

The DA let the murder suspect testify on his own behalf. Verrry impartial.

Wilson didn't "testify". There is no testimony in a Grand Jury. "Testimony" is what happens at trials. Grand Juries review evidence to see if it is strong enough to warrant a trial. Wilson gave a statement, as did some 60 other people, including Brown's parents. Bold move, if you ask me. Do you know WHY lawyers usually prevent suspects from giving statements? 5th Amendment, US Constitution. It is potentially self-incriminating, if they are guilty of a crime. It can FORCE a True Bill of Indictment. THAT is why lawyers try to prevent suspects from giving their own statements to Grand Juries. it's not a law that they can't - but they sure as hell take a chance if they DO.

It appears that this case was not strong enough to warrant an indictment, even WITH the suspect's statement.

Fancy that.

a reply to: intrptr

As was just pointed out in the post above me, the DA is in NO WAY associated with the police.

It also seems abundantly evident that this particular DA seemed to WANT an indictment which us why the results were intentionally delayed.

a reply to: intrptr

Defense attorney for Mr Brown?? What are you on about. Are you completely ignorant if the US judicial system??

And no, the coroner and experts agreed all wounds were from the front...did you even read the findings?

Also, witnesses did not confirm that he was shot with hands raised or in the back. I think you are using info from the media and not the grand jury. Again, all evidence seems to support the officers version of the events. Do you know why no witnesses confirmed it? Because the few that made wild claims were absolutely and completely refuted by the actual evidence...one claimed he was shot in the back, point blank while standing over the body...yeah, so where is that wound??

Did you ignore the eyewitness accounts that said he charged the officer head down??

a reply to: intrptr

No, because the grand jury determines what testimony may be believable. In this case they determine the testimony was most likely inaccurate when compared with the medical and physical evidence. I'm sorry you don't understand how this works.