Michael Brown decision due soon ...

Post Reply New Topic

State your opinions before the decision is released.

Mr. Brown was shot eight times. The forensic evidence, and eyewitnesses back up the officer's story that a fight occurred while the officer was in his car.

The disagreement seems to be what happened afterwards. The officer says Mr. Brown charged him, while some eye witnesses say that Mr. Brown was surrendering.

EDIT: "A pair of experts, including Melinek – a forensic pathologist from San Francisco – and St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham, told reporters on Wednesday that Brown’s wounds were consistent with Wilson’s explanation of events". [source 1]

It would seem like a slam-dunk for the prosecutor to get an indictment, however, some have suggested the prosecutor is too pro-police, and should recuse himself.

The grand jury was given a range of criminal charges to consider:
- from first-degree murder
- involuntary manslaughter
- the option of not indicting the officer.

Will the officer be indicted ? If so, which charge ?

sources:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/forensic-exp ... wn-autopsy

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 24 Nov 2014, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Of course not.

It's not going to matter either way. The officer will likely get off clean and unrest in Missouri will continue no matter what the decision will be.

He won't be indicted. The people will riot, loot and burn things. Thus says the amazing Kreskin.

This wasn't even a real trial. The prosecution threw the case out by inviting the jury to "make up their own minds". They didn't even try to get an indictment.

you have to keep this in the context of what is happening.

Russell Brand puts it quite eloquently.

^^^
too many people here just wanna be part of the corrupt power structure so they can get their share of the spoils.

It wasn't even a "trial" in the normal sense.

Its point is to show if there's grounds for a criminal case. If you can't show that by the evidence, then there's no way in hell they would kick it up with an indictment.

A jury of common citizens went through the evidence and found that there were no grounds. That's the point, they're supposed to make up their own minds.

Incompetent prosecuting. There was no challenge to Wilson's claims, even though the witnesses don't entirely support him and he obviously got some things wrong (for example, he talks up Brown's size, even though they are the same height).

I think there were grounds for a trial but there would probably not have been a conviction. The prosecutor should probably be fired or demoted.

Brown was close to 1/3rds larger than Wilson though. That's a large gap. Mass is generally more important than height.

They can only show the evidence they have. People talk about poor questions asked (typical legal banter going on for ages to see if they can get a slip), but that's not the point of a Grand Jury.