To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Post Reply New Topic

In addition to that, from what I understand, all of the physical evidence does agree with the officer's account.

Plus, it'd suck being in a society where you get arrested and thrown in jail based on what "eyewitnesses" say.

Yeah, no thanks. That's actually a real police state.

No, justice is seeking the truth even if it means there are expenses to be paid. IMO governments should cover legal fees in criminal cases.

wrt. the public interest, it is not new age, nebulous, or "to placate a crowd". Googling shows that this is a geographical problem. In the UK, in this context, "the public interest" is literally what you were describing earlier - it's a judgement about the likelihood of conviction plus whether convicting this person would actually serve any purpose. I am sorry for any confusion on that matter. Worth noting that pretty much whenever that term is used it does not mean "what the public want" or "interesting to the public" - appreciate that might be difficult for Aspies to grasp, I know it confused me at first.

LNH is LoveNotHate. I am assuming, perhaps erroneously, that given that they have already posted three cases where they believed the witness was supporting Wilson's account of the final seconds of Brown's life, they would have posted any more that supported them, or you or Dill or anyone else would have.

Two witnesses plus Wilson versus about 28 witnesses (and then one witness - Brown's best friend - thrown out for obviously lying). If you would like to examine the evidence yourself then feel free. I have only read the first 13 accounts and it is possible I am not remembering them properly or I missed a crucial word. You're not really in any position to accuse me of a biased interpretation of evidence that you freely admit you haven't read.

No, that's kinda how our justice system works.

I'm trying really hard to assume good faith but when you argue that witnesses do not count as evidence at all I really struggle to do so. I am sure thousands of people are rightfully arrested and charged on little more than witness evidence annually. Of course witnesses are fallible, but I really hope you can provide some clarification on your remarks there...

Are you claiming that only three people testified that Brown was advancing on the officer and that twenty eight are saying that he had surrendered?

This may help

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/

- More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)

Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.

-More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.

-There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.

-Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.

You in the UK? It's the same, but you have government officials going over the evidence and determining if there's enough rather than common citizens.

Witnesses only count when they back up the physical evidence that's there. Physical evidence doesn't lie.

For example, if witnesses state someone was shot in the back, but the autopsy shows this to be wrong, then those witness accounts mean nothing.

In other words, from your point of view, if the witness did not testify to something, it was the same as if the witness testified in such a way as to say that Officer Wilson is guilty?

Let's look at at that chart:

Charged Police Car or Officer: 7 yes - 5 no
Reach into or interact with police car: 11 yes - 3 no
Officer fired repeatedly at Brown after Brown went down: 6 yes- 7 no (what physical evidence supports this at all?)
Brown put hands at waist: 5 yes - 2 no
Facing officer when fired upon: 17 yes - 1 no
Running away when fired upon: 15 yes - 5 no (in spite of the evidence?)
Put hands up when fired upon: 16 yes - 2 no

The chart doesn't indicate how he put up his hands or if he was moving at the officer with his hands in the air. Having one's hands in the air does not necessarily mean that one is surrendering.

Also note that a number of the entries involve the same witness testifying differently on different occasions.

I only presented information.

Also, many witnesses are missing from the above chart. For example, Witness 40 who says Brown charged the officer.

Wasn't he stopped for jaywalking?

The actual robbery and jaywalking means little in regards to determining if the self-defense was justified.

It'd come up in criminal court though to show the character of Brown (kinda different if he was stealing bread for his poor ma compared to violently stealing components to make blunts).

At best, you provided someone's opinion. A rather biased opinion at that.

If Brown had really been standing 100 yards away from Wilson and Wilson was shooting at him with a handgun, hitting him would be a pretty tough shot. Hitting the side of a barn at that distance with a handgun isn't very difficult -- hitting a human at that distance with a handgun in the "heat of battle" is more a matter of luck unless you practice at hitting targets from that far away.

Also, if he was hit by a bullet at 100 yards, that was an amazing fall since he fell only about 8 to 10 feet away from Officer Wilson.

Perhaps it was the witness who was standing 100 feet away. One thing for sure, Brown could be hit with a bullet with his hands in the air at 100 yards and fall to the ground at 8 to 10 feet.

If, as it appears from the actual evidence, Brown was only 8 to 10 feet away when he fell, it's a good thing that Officer Wilson finally hit him with a shot that disabled him because Brown could have been on him in a second or two, took the firearm away, and used it against Wilson.

Without the head shot, Brown could have beaten Wilson to death when hitting fisticuffs range. Brown was larger and stronger.

I'm pretty sure Wilson was almost dry on ammo in the pistol after the last shot, and reloading would have been out of the picture.

2 shots in the car. 1 round failed to fire in the car (manually ejected). 2 confirmed misses outside. 6 hits on Brown outside. That leaves a possible 2 rounds left (12+1 for a .40 P229). So, he had 2 possible shots left to stop Brown (a CNS shot would be needed here).

He's really lucky he hit Brown in the head.

So even if a 2/3 majority of the jury determine that a trial is warranted, there won't be a trial? It's not like the guy would go to prison or face the death penalty as a result of what the grand jury determined...

That seems... stupid, actually, to consider the decision as to whether or not to hold a trial to be as important as the decision of the trial itself.

A majority vote is needed for probable cause of a crime committed. I think 9 of 12 have to vote for it.

I don't know what charges were investigated, but generally when you kill someone and it goes to criminal court, you're going to be locked up until the verdict (you know, you're dangerous to the community).

(Whatever you think of the Grand Jury process, it's definitely better than just having one government official determining if a crime was committed or not.)