Ferguson Megathread

[Greed and Death]

You source oversimplifies the issue and a long story short the ADA likely gave correct instructions.

How about long story medium, so you explain how correct information was given, and don't expect us to take you at your word?

He is referring to Tennessee v. Garner which was a civil case to recover for constitutional rights violation(Sec. 1983).

How a civil case, even one by the supreme court, affects the statutory definition of murder in a state is questionable, especially when it is being argued to require the state expand its definition of murder.

[Seangoli]

Perhaps the best decision would be to have another grand jury decide without the cop presenting his defense.

EDIT: It's stuff like this situation that could have been entirely prevented had he been wearing a body camera. In that the issue would have been almost crystal clear.

My understanding is Missouri allows the defendant the option of testifying at the grand jury.

I'm fairly certain any accused in any jurisdiction is allowed to request the option of testifying before the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury can in turn either refuse or accept the request as they see fit. The person linking to Scalia's decision grossly misunderstood what was being said. An accused does not have the intrinsic right to speak before a grand jury, but they are still allowed the request to do so. The Grand Jury isn't forced to hear the testimony, nor can it compel the person, but there is nothing against the laws regarding the issue for them to grant said request to hear the testimony. In fact, at least reading federal statute, the accused is specifically allowed to request to appear before the Grand Jury. It's not a common occurrence, and the accused are generally advised against it, but there is nothing barring the Grand Jury from granting a request.

Outright refusing the accused the request, and outright refusing the Grand Jury the option to grant the request, however, would likely lead to all sorts of fun Supreme Court decisions, not the least of which having to do with tampering with the Grand Jury process.

[Des-Bal]

So the DA presented more information than usual, that information was published, and the defendant testified, all very unusual. It's almost like he was trying to present all the details of the case and offer the kind of transparency that was initially being called for rather than convince people to get their hopes up for an unachievable conviction which may have led to you know mass fucking rioting.

[Gauthier]

So the DA presented more information than usual, that information was published, and the defendant testified, all very unusual. It's almost like he was trying to present all the details of the case and offer the kind of transparency that was initially being called for rather than convince people to get their hopes up for an unachievable conviction which may have led to you know mass fucking rioting.

In other words, trying to hold an entire trial at an indictment hearing to throw the game.

[The UK in Exile]

So the DA presented more information than usual, that information was published, and the defendant testified, all very unusual. It's almost like he was trying to present all the details of the case and offer the kind of transparency that was initially being called for rather than convince people to get their hopes up for an unachievable conviction which may have led to you know mass fucking rioting.

Except he's not the DA, he's the prosecuting attorney.

So I guess they expected him to fucking prosecute people.

[Des-Bal]

In other words, trying to hold an entire trial at an indictment hearing to throw the game.

In other words dressing up in a horse costume and summoning rain. We're just saying random words right?

[Gauthier]

In other words, trying to hold an entire trial at an indictment hearing to throw the game.

In other words dressing up in a horse costume and summoning rain. We're just saying random words right?

Oh look, you're spouting crap to try and refute a factual observation. Still bending over backwards in defense of the status quo I see.

[Des-Bal]

Oh look, you're spouting crap to try and refute a factual observation. Still bending over backwards in defense of the status quo I see.

It wasn't really an observation it was a string of words you made in response to a post without actually addressing anything in said post. You've created a fantasy world where anyone who disagrees with you is propping up the police state and leaving that place of madness to address what's actually happening would leave you exposed. Your response to this situation appears to be throwing out strawman arguments and hoping somebody will pick one up. We've declared the justice system a tool to placate the masses ,a move I strongly disagreed with during Zimmerman, and all that's happened here is that it was that it was used to that effect again. A conviction was not possible here based on the evidence and had the grand jury said otherwise it would have just allowed the shitstorm to go on longer and possibly end more explosively.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

I've only read 18 parts of the grand jury transcript but sonfar the evidence is overwhelmingly against Wilson. I don't see how you Americans could botch a trial so badly.

[Des-Bal]

I've only read 18 parts of the grand jury transcript but sonfar the evidence is overwhelmingly against Wilson. I don't see how you Americans could botch a trial so badly.

Wasn't really botched so much as people don't like the outcome.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

I've only read 18 parts of the grand jury transcript but sonfar the evidence is overwhelmingly against Wilson. I don't see how you Americans could botch a trial so badly.

Wasn't really botched so much as people don't like the outcome.

Well judging from the grand jury statement the majority wanted an indictment but 4 or so jurors blocked the indictment. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this is a clear cut case of manslaughter, possibly murder as Wilson admits he refused to carry a taser and fired 12 rounds into him. You shouldn't need 12 rounds to kill anyone...

[The UK in Exile]

Oh look, you're spouting crap to try and refute a factual observation. Still bending over backwards in defense of the status quo I see.

It wasn't really an observation it was a string of words you made in response to a post without actually addressing anything in said post. You've created a fantasy world where anyone who disagrees with you is propping up the police state and leaving that place of madness to address what's actually happening would leave you exposed. Your response to this situation appears to be throwing out strawman arguments and hoping somebody will pick one up. We've declared the justice system a tool to placate the masses ,a move I strongly disagreed with during Zimmerman, and all that's happened here is that it was that it was used to that effect again. A conviction was not possible here based on the evidence and had the grand jury said otherwise it would have just allowed the shitstorm to go on longer and possibly end more explosively.

Because no matter how many people say the police gunned someone down. Its impossible to get a conviction as long as you can find one person who says otherwise.

[Gauthier]

Oh look, you're spouting crap to try and refute a factual observation. Still bending over backwards in defense of the status quo I see.

It wasn't really an observation it was a string of words you made in response to a post without actually addressing anything in said post. You've created a fantasy world where anyone who disagrees with you is propping up the police state and leaving that place of madness to address what's actually happening would leave you exposed. Your response to this situation appears to be throwing out strawman arguments and hoping somebody will pick one up. We've declared the justice system a tool to placate the masses ,a move I strongly disagreed with during Zimmerman, and all that's happened here is that it was that it was used to that effect again. A conviction was not possible here based on the evidence and had the grand jury said otherwise it would have just allowed the shitstorm to go on longer and possibly end more explosively.

Bull Fucking Shit. Zimmerman going to trial and being found Not Guilty buried any argument that going to trial would result in a bigger and longer rioting. It was the appearance that Michael Brown's life isn't even worth conducting a trial to determine if Wilson was guilty or not in the first place that set off the rioting. But hey, you probably agree that Brown's life wasn't worth shit to put Wilson on trial over.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Wasn't really botched so much as people don't like the outcome.

Well judging from the grand jury statement the majority wanted an indictment but 4 or so jurors blocked the indictment. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this is a clear cut case of manslaughter, possibly murder as Wilson admits he refused to carry a taser and fired 12 rounds into him. You shouldn't need 12 rounds to kill anyone...

Let me see if I can find the image again, but the bullet wounds on Michael Brown's autopsy would seem to imply that only three hits were fatal, and the neck and chin shots may not have been instantly fatal.

[Dyakovo]

I've only read 18 parts of the grand jury transcript but sonfar the evidence is overwhelmingly against Wilson. I don't see how you Americans could botch a trial so badly.

Wasn't really botched so much as people don't like the outcome.

No, it was botched.

[Des-Bal]

Well judging from the grand jury statement the majority wanted an indictment but 4 or so jurors blocked the indictment. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this is a clear cut case of manslaughter, possibly murder as Wilson admits he refused to carry a taser and fired 12 rounds into him. You shouldn't need 12 rounds to kill anyone...

A grand jury requires a vote of 9-3 or better to indict. A trial requires a unanimous verdict to find someone guilty. If you can't get 9 out of 12 to say indictment is possible you absolutely can't get twelve out twelve to say he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That's not an error it's exactly how it's supposed to work.

Having done absolutely no plumbing into the depths of this thread I can say with certainty that several people have already explained you shoot someone until they no longer pose a threat. The witness testimony was WILDLY inconsistent and very fluid as more details came out and that probably had the most to do with why they reached the decision they did.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Well judging from the grand jury statement the majority wanted an indictment but 4 or so jurors blocked the indictment. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this is a clear cut case of manslaughter, possibly murder as Wilson admits he refused to carry a taser and fired 12 rounds into him. You shouldn't need 12 rounds to kill anyone...

Let me see if I can find the image again, but the bullet wounds on Michael Brown's autopsy would seem to imply that only three hits were fatal, and the neck and chin shots may not have been instantly fatal.

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

[Des-Bal]

But hey, you probably agree that Brown's life wasn't worth shit to put Wilson on trial over.

And there we go. "You're with me or agin me!" Silliness.

[Inyourfaceistan]

A grand jury requires a vote of 9-3 or better to indict. A trial requires a unanimous verdict to find someone guilty. If you can't get 9 out of 12 to say indictment is possible you absolutely can't get twelve out twelve to say he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That's not an error it's exactly how it's supposed to work.

Yep. A trial would have just been a big waste of money and time for the same damn verdict anyway...

Having done absolutely no plumbing into the depths of this thread I can say with certainty that several people have already explained you shoot someone until they no longer pose a threat. The witness testimony was WILDLY inconsistent and very fluid as more details came out and that probably had the most to do with why they reached the decision they did.

That and there were witnesses who supported officer Wilson's side of the story.
Of course they must have been self-racist liars *nods*

[The UK in Exile]

Well judging from the grand jury statement the majority wanted an indictment but 4 or so jurors blocked the indictment. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this is a clear cut case of manslaughter, possibly murder as Wilson admits he refused to carry a taser and fired 12 rounds into him. You shouldn't need 12 rounds to kill anyone...

A grand jury requires a vote of 9-3 or better to indict. A trial requires a unanimous verdict to find someone guilty. If you can't get 9 out of 12 to say indictment is possible you absolutely can't get twelve out twelve to say he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That's not an error it's exactly how it's supposed to work.

Having done absolutely no plumbing into the depths of this thread I can say with certainty that several people have already explained you shoot someone until they no longer pose a threat. The witness testimony was WILDLY inconsistent and very fluid as more details came out and that probably had the most to do with why they reached the decision they did.

Wildly inconsistent with what?

why, the officers testimony of course!

[Des-Bal]

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

It was the kids fault for not dying instantly giving Wilson the opportunity to say a cool one liner before calling for the coroner. That's just not how guns work.

[Gauthier]

But hey, you probably agree that Brown's life wasn't worth shit to put Wilson on trial over.

And there we go. "You're with me or agin me!" Silliness.

I see you didn't even bother with nonsensical shit to try and distract from how I pointed out Zimmerman's trial is proof that your claims of extensive rioting from a full trial is full of it.

[Des-Bal]

Wildly inconsistent with what?

why, the officers testimony of course!

The physical evidence, each others testimony, the autopsy pretty much whatever you please.

[Gauthier]

Yep. A trial would have just been a big waste of money and time for the same damn verdict anyway...

That and there were witnesses who supported officer Wilson's side of the story.
Of course they must have been self-racist liars *nods*

And the Zimmerman trial kept Florida from rioting. Waste of money right?

[Des-Bal]

I see you didn't even bother with nonsensical shit to try and distract from how I pointed out Zimmerman's trial is proof that your claims of extensive rioting from a full trial is full of it.

I thought it would be sufficient to point out the utter insanity of what you just said. Also you don't seem to understand how proof works as one incident not precipitating a riot does not mean that any similar incident is incapable of precipitating a riot.