To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Post Reply New Topic

Pot smoker, no. Shoplifter, yes -- he would not have come to the attention of the police if he had not robbed that store.

If the citizens of Ferguson want Sheriff Taylor and Deputy Fife to maintain the peace, then they had better start acting like the citizens of Mayberry.

But if instead they continue to act like punks, thugs, thieves, and all-around troublemakers, they will continue to have a police force that is on edge and ready to use deadly force whenever possible.

Ferguson has the police force it deserves.

@Eric - Neither of those examples are comparable.

Accidentally acquiring a $10 note is not comparable to murder or manslaughter.

Being near people who are looting is not comparable to multiple witnesses saying you shot a man who was not a threat to you.

It is important to consider both the gravity of Wilson's alleged crime and the strength of the evidence against him, which I note you didn't feel the need to review before you declared him not guilty.

Didn't say that it was. What I was saying that if the prosecution has no discretion about whether or not to prosecute what might be interpreted to be a crime, then there are going to be incredibly many prosecutions over the most minor issues.

How about self defense? If someone breaks into your home in a home invasion and you shoot them to defend yourself and your family, should you go to trial? Don't you think that the prosecutor should have any discretion? Should he be requited to do everything possible to convict the person for murder when the person rightfully defended himself?



If the prosecutor MUST prosecute every instance that someone, somewhere may think that a crime may have occurred, then he would still have to prosecute each and every one of them.



Other witnesses did say that he posed a threat. Are you saying that the prosecutor should automagically believe those who say that he wasn't a threat rather than those who said he was a threat? Keep in mind that some of those who claimed that he wasn't a threat reportedly changed what they were telling the police after the autopsy clearly showed them to be wrong.

And if it goes to trial, the prosecutor might present those who claim there was no threat but you can bet that the defense would put those who claimed that he was a threat on the witness stand. Do you think that the jury will arbitrarily choose to believe the prosecution witnesses but not the defense witnesses?

Do you think that the jury won't have plenty of reasonable doubt?

You are arguing against a straw man.

I did not say the prosecution should have no discretion, and I certainly did not say that they should prosecute whenever someone may think that a crime may have occurred. They should only prosecute when it is in the public interest. One such case might be when witnesses say that a man was not threatening a police officer when he was shot dead. You compared that to being tricked by a forged note, implying (if not explicitly stating) that you believe the two to be comparable.

Sometimes it is necessary to prosecute someone who shoots a home invader. It depends on the evidence. Again, straw man. Whatever is in the public interest - it's not in the public interest to prosecute people who shoot in self defence, but it is to prosecute people who shoot burglars who get caught and try to run away.

As I understand it, two witnesses have said that he was a threat. One claimed in his police interview that he was stood 100 yards away. There were about 30 witnesses. I haven't read about half of them, but I'm sure if they supported Wilson then LNH would have cherry picked them by now.

So I think the word of 28 people versus 3 people is a good prima facie case. Even if you throw out the biased one, it's still a strong case.


Again, you are arguing against a straw man.

I believe the purpose of indictment is not to work out if there is reasonable doubt, merely whether there is a prima facie case in the public interest. The mention of reasonable doubt is therefore a red herring.

I think the balance of evidence warrants a trial where the witnesses can be cross examined, their stories can really be challenged, and the jury can come to a verdict. I think the verdict would probably be "not guilty", but then justice would have been done.

I thought it was about justice. Prosecuting someone merely to placate a crowd is hardly justice.



LNH?



28 versus 3? Are you intentionally interpreting the words of the 28 in such a way to support your case?


Again, you are arguing against a straw man.

I believe the purpose of indictment is not to work out if there is reasonable doubt, merely whether there is a prima facie case in the public interest. The mention of reasonable doubt is therefore a red herring.[/quote]

I'm glad you aren't a prosecutor.

The purpose of the grand jury is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to put someone on trial for a crime. It is NOT about some new-age public interest. The public interest has nothing to do with the matter.



Justice is subjecting the officer to a million dollars or more in attorney fees for the privilege of defending his life?

Why don't you start a campaign to do away with grand juries? After all, you seem to be convinced that they serve no purpose at all other than some nebulous "public interest" that has nothing to do with the justice system.

The witnesses that contradict Wilson are themselves contradicted by the physical evidence.

Hence, you go with the physical evidence.

The witnesses don't contradict self-defense anyway.

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?