Officer Wilson to not be federally charged

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
Unfortunately, witnesses lie all the time. That's why you have trials - to try to get to the truth of the matter.


Exactly.

Which is why this case should have gone to trial at some point.

I don't think Wilson would have been convicted, honestly. It just seems awfully silly (suspicious?) that there wasn't a trial.


Well, no. The Grand Jury weighed all that and came back with a no bill. That's what they do. If you can't get a charge from a grand jury, it's a really, really, weak case.

End of story, at least that chapter of it.

Generally, "you can indict a ham sandwich".

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
What amazes me is why some work effortlessly to make things that are borderline to be political, when they could be discussed without going over that line...


They call those people "trolls," JHZR2. They like to make the most out of any and everything, including nothing. We have them on Credit Boards, and a certain "large women" site I was on, with.. nothing but low self-esteem, time, and elitism. And the "large women" site was headquartered in? Massachusetts. The credit site? Florida. And the way they handle problems is SO vastly different.

Keeping a strong will and learning "internet manners" makes the experienced posters from the.. shock jockeys, or, trolls.

They blow things out of proportion.

They talk about topics not discussed.

They outright LIE.

We already know that I am enthusiastic enough that the read on me... varies, with who you ask.

But trolls are bad. And BITOG has far fewer than it used to.

Respectfully submitted.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Al Sharpton emphatically stated that "they" did not need facts. "They" needed justice. Sharpton said that an investigation would only confuse matters.

Obama has stated that Sharpton is his "go-to-guy" when it comes to racial issues. He said Sharpton's advice and counsel is important and represents his promise to bring people together and to better understand his point of view.
+1 The Sharpie/Jessie Clown Car has moved on to other financially rewarding "outrages".

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Sharpton owes the IRS 4.5 million dollars but will never pay a nickel because of his standing(?) in the black community. The man's a political hack. Why MSNBC hired that stooge is beyond me, but I haven't watched that station since that hooting pos showed up.
Their audience stays away in droves.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.

 

[CourierDriver]

anyone got pics of Ferguson today..........

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
Unfortunately, witnesses lie all the time. That's why you have trials - to try to get to the truth of the matter.


Exactly.

Which is why this case should have gone to trial at some point.

I don't think Wilson would have been convicted, honestly. It just seems awfully silly (suspicious?) that there wasn't a trial.


Well, no. The Grand Jury weighed all that and came back with a no bill. That's what they do. If you can't get a charge from a grand jury, it's a really, really, weak case.

End of story, at least that chapter of it.


That's only true if the prosecutor earnestly and straightforwardly pursues an indictment. According to his own statements in the press conference immediately after the proceedings, that's very clearly not what he did.

He had officer Wilson testify. He presented witnesses that were everywhere on the credibility spectrum. He gave "all sides" of the case.

In other words, at best, he tried to use the Grand Jury as a court lite, which is not how it's set up. At worst, he was intentionally trying to confuse the Grand Jury so they wouldn't indict. Either way, he basically poked holes in (what was supposed to be) his own case and kept them on full display.

He's lucky the Grand Jurors can't talk about what happened.


I thought the transcripts of the grand jury had been made public?

Prosecutors have a special function in the system, and they have their own set of rules that they are required to follow. Every other lawyer in the system is an advocate, defense lawyers, and attorneys for private parties advocate for the success of their client - the job of the prosecutor, bluntly, is to do justice.

Caveat: I don't know how Missouri does things, here, state court prosecutors generally just file an information to start the criminal process. Grand juries are rare occurrences.

If, after his investigators turned it over to him, he sees there is no case to prosecute, his duty is not to prosecute it. You don't put people on trial to appease a mob in our system.

Arguably, if he felt there was no case, it shouldn't even have gone to a grand jury but we all know why it did. They're usually highly one sided affairs, hence the old saw about being able to get even ham sandwiches indicted. If he chose to present exculpatory evidence in addition to inculpatory evidence, I don't see anything wrong with that - it was his grand jury.

Apparently even the Feds thought this case was a stinker. That says a lot.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Win
If, after his investigators turned it over to him, he sees there is no case to prosecute, his duty is not to prosecute it. You don't put people on trial to appease a mob in our system.

Arguably, if he felt there was no case, it shouldn't even have gone to a grand jury but we all know why it did. They're usually highly one sided affairs, hence the old saw about being able to get even ham sandwiches indicted. If he chose to present exculpatory evidence in addition to inculpatory evidence, I don't see anything wrong with that - it was his grand jury.

I mean, you said it: if he didn't want to prosecute, his duty was not to prosecute.

Once he made the decision to prosecute, whatever the motivation for that decision, his job became that of a prosecuting attorney. He should have done it as such.

Either way, he screwed up, apparently on purpose.


Originally Posted By: Win
Apparently even the Feds thought this case was a stinker. That says a lot.

Isn't the standard of evidence for a Federal indictment harder to meet?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d


Originally Posted By: Win
Apparently even the Feds thought this case was a stinker. That says a lot.


The standard of evidence for a Federal indictment is harder to meet.


How so?

Civil = preponderance of evidence ( in most instances, not all ). Criminal = beyond reasonable doubt.

The elements of the crimes may be different and probably are. That's not the same thing as burden of proof.

I had some experience, unfortunately, with this division of DOJ years ago. I think if they thought they could get him, they would have gone for it.

 

[Mystic]

A lot of people do not understand how it works. There has to be enough evidence so that a Grand Jury is called. And in this case according to what I have found out there was not enough evidence of foul play to even call a Grand Jury. But the DA called one anyway because of the situation in Ferguson and to prove that everything was being done to make sure justice was done.

The Grand Jury decided to not indict Wilson. That should be the end of it. If the Grand Jury would have decided to indict Wilson there would be a trial. Holden ordered a federal investigation and again there was no evidence to file federal chargers against Wilson.

Exactly what level of proof is required by some people here? I think some people would not be satisfied unless they had lynched Wilson from the highest tree. The Grand Jury did not find enough evidence to indict Wilson! The Federal investigation did not find enough evidence to indict Wilson!

 

[antiqueshell]

Of course he won't be federally charged. He did NOTHING, wrong.
Absolutely nothing. The guilt lies at the perps dead feet.
If you attempt to assault a law officer you could be killed.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Isn't the standard of evidence for a Federal indictment harder to meet?
my emphasis added.

Well, that goes back to the grand jury thing.

Here, the federal prosecutors use grand juries to start the criminal process, unless the defendant waives indictment and agrees the process can go forward on an information. This happens when a plea deal has already been made in advance - indictment waived, information filed, plea agreement filed.

If it goes strictly by grand jury, you're back to the ham sandwich thing - a proceeding so one sided even the proverbial ham sandwich can be indicted if that's the way the prosecutors want to run it.

So, no, I don't see why it would be harder. It's just a stinker of a case.

 

[Mystic]

What a lot of people here do not understand is that lethal force is justified if somebody tries to take a gun away from a police officer (or sheriff's deputy, etc.). It does not matter if that police officer has the correct amount of 'command presence' or not and it does not matter if the police officer is a man, a woman, white, black, or whatever.

The reason lethal force is justified is because if somebody did manage to take a gun away from a police officer it is highly likely they are going to use that handgun to shoot the police officer and possibly other people as well.

The officer I know who was working at the Colorado State Fair and a guy tried to take his gun away did not shoot the guy who tried to take the gun away. But that individual who tried to take the gun away did go to the hospital. He was not feeling too good after he went for that officer's gun. And that officer had plenty of 'command presence.' He was rock hard and I would not want to get into a fight with him.

Now if somebody tries to take a police officer's gun away, they are unsuccessful and try to run away, the officer probably will not shoot. But the evidence is that Michael Brown charged at Wilson.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Win
If it goes strictly by grand jury, you're back to the ham sandwich thing - a proceeding so one sided even the proverbial ham sandwich can be indicted if that's the way the prosecutors want to run it.

...You keep making my points for me.

A Grand Jury proceeding is supposed to be one-sided. This one wasn't.

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.



To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.

I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.

A public servant shouldn't have to leave his own country just because there is some kind of huge misunderstanding of the facts and the way the law sees this kind of situation.

Where would he go, Canada? I wouldn't want to have to go there. They call their dollars loonies, for one thing *(cause that's what they are).

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
What a lot of people here do not understand is that lethal force is justified if somebody tries to take a gun away from a police officer (or sheriff's deputy, etc.). It does not matter if that police officer has the correct amount of 'command presence' or not and it does not matter if the police officer is a man, a woman, white, black, or whatever.

The reason lethal force is justified is because if somebody did manage to take a gun away from a police officer it is highly likely they are going to use that handgun to shoot the police officer and possibly other people as well.

The officer I know who was working at the Colorado State Fair and a guy tried to take his gun away did not shoot the guy who tried to take the gun away. But that individual who tried to take the gun away did go to the hospital. He was not feeling too good after he went for that officer's gun. And that officer had plenty of 'command presence.' He was rock hard and I would not want to get into a fight with him.

Now if somebody tries to take a police officer's gun away, they are unsuccessful and try to run away, the officer probably will not shoot. But the evidence is that Michael Brown charged at Wilson.


Well said. Notice how very few people focus on the crux of the matter. Brown charged at Wilson, and assaulted him as well, the officer was COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in his actions as the officers life was in imminent danger, deadly force can and will be used, and is completely legal.

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

The reason lethal force is justified is because if somebody did manage to take a gun away from a police officer it is highly likely they are going to use that handgun to shoot the police officer and possibly other people as well.


Now if somebody tries to take a police officer's gun away, they are unsuccessful and try to run away, the officer probably will not shoot. But the evidence is that Michael Brown charged at Wilson.




Yeah, the job is dangerous and the courts will generally support them when they are threatened in the line of duty. And cops get shot with their own guns a LOT-- so much that they are testing those guns with the fingerprint id safety .

It is too bad about the Brown kid in a way, because he just graduated from High school. Problem is he didn't have a job so he was out on the street and did a small robbery. He may or may not have eventually reformed if given the chance, but grabbing for Wilson's gun was a fatal mistake.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.


To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.

I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.

A public servant shouldn't have to leave his own country just because there is some kind of huge misunderstanding of the facts and the way the law sees this kind of situation.

Where would he go, Canada? I wouldn't want to have to go there. They call their dollars loonies, for one thing *(cause that's what they are).


The people calling for his head care nothing for facts of any kind and never will...they simply want blood. If he stays...there is a very real chance he will be murdered.

 

[turtlevette]

I don't understand why Wilson went after Brown after the initial shot as he was running away. Why not stay in your vehicle and radio for backup and ambulance. I've seen and been stopped with 2 or 3 cars involved for stupid traffic tickets.

It seems over aggressive to me.

There needs to be a sea change in policing in this country. This is not Russia or Nazi Germany. So many people are upset over nothing? Harassment has to stop. Stop people who are dangerous. Leave others alone. Be fair and equitable in your policy.

 

[Mystic]

If somebody is charging at you then you have to take action. And Michael Brown had committed a felony by trying to take Officer Wilson's gun and attacking the officer. So Officer Wilson was sort of obligated to go after Brown. Because Brown was a fleeing felon. Wilson probably had a portable radio and if Brown had continued to flee Wilson could have used his portable radio. He could have called for backup and an ambulance while he went after Brown. In fact I think Wilson did radio for backup.