It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

page: 101
138
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: phinubian

No, the courts and the police are NOT related...are you even from the US? In some Euro countries they are related and police are actually considered lawyers or judges. Not so in the USA. Completely different branches of local government.




posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

That same evidence was looked at by 12 jurors, they were in unanimous agreement, even the black ones...so yeah.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Taggart

I wouldn't be in that position in the first place...

And if an officer told me to get out of the street, no matter how much of a jerk I thought he was I'd do it...it's illegal to walk on the road.

However witness and physical evidence does indeed show he was shot from the front in a seemingly charging position.
edit on 27-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


Wilson didn't "testify".

---

Wilson gave a statement,

Oh. i see… he didn't defend himself then, got it.

I know exactly how impartially the grand jury was manipulated. Regardless of what we may think from behind our keyboards I can see that without a trial there will be no closure for the people of Ferguson. Maybe in a different venue, perhaps. Away from the local jurisdiction to insure impartiality?

As is we have a system there that will exonerate itself no matter how many times they look themselves over… Indicative of the systemic problem there behind the "legal" facade.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


No, because the grand jury determines what testimony may be believable. In this case they determine the testimony was most likely inaccurate when compared with the medical and physical evidence.

Thats what I mean by they aren't supposed to decide that. Like everyone keeps pointing out when its convenient to, "its not a trial".


I'm sorry you don't understand how this works.

Only a fair an impartial trial will work for the people of Ferguson. Reviewing evidence of gunshot wounds and eyewitness testimony according to what the DA showed to the grand jury his not impartial.

You say the gunshots didn't come from behind, so what. I never said they did. I said review it in court, not behind closed doors.

Thats my only point.

"We don't need to go to trial" is an insult to the people of Ferguson. Shows whats really going on there.

"You don't need to have a trial or see the evidence, go on about your business, move along, move along…



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrptr

As was just pointed out in the post above me, the DA is in NO WAY associated with the police.

It also seems abundantly evident that this particular DA seemed to WANT an indictment which us why the results were intentionally delayed.


Of course he did. People who think otherwise are not thinking through the volume of political brownie points he could have gotten by prosecuting such a high profile case.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu




Wilson didn't "testify".



---



Wilson gave a statement,


Oh. i see… he didn't defend himself then, got it.



I know exactly how impartially the grand jury was manipulated. Regardless of what we may think from behind our keyboards I can see that without a trial there will be no closure for the people of Ferguson. Maybe in a different venue, perhaps. Away from the local jurisdiction to insure impartiality?





As is we have a system there that will exonerate itself no matter how many times they look themselves over… Indicative of the systemic problem there behind the "legal" facade.



Wilson didn't need to defend himself since there was no trial. He was only required to give a statement to the grand jury. You'd think with all the astute legal minds obtained by the Brown family (Crump and some other guy I saw on the news who said he was also a lawyer for the Browns) plus having Sharpton, Holder, and Obama shilling for them, they could have persuaded the city to at least find something. But there was NOTHING there. Some people on here need to take a basic civil law course at a community college.
edit on 27-11-2014 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu


Wilson didn't "testify".

---

Wilson gave a statement,


Oh. i see… he didn't defend himself then, got it.



By George, I think he's getting it!

Absolutely correct - he did NOT defend himself. One only defends against charges leveled. No indictment, no charges. "Defense" is a part of the adversarial trial system, in court.

I think you may be beginning to finally understand parts of the legal system!





I know exactly how impartially the grand jury was manipulated.



Of course you do. You had no understand of how they work, but an intimate understanding of how to make the NOT work. Do you also "fix" other things that you don't know the operation of?




Regardless of what we may think from behind our keyboards I can see that without a trial there will be no closure for the people of Ferguson.



It's a small, self-segregated (but seemingly pretty destructive) part of "the people of Ferguson" who are having a hissy, not "The People of Ferguson".

They've had their "closure". It's not our responsibility to force them to accept it.

Unless they keep on burning crap down in their tantrum.




Maybe in a different venue, perhaps. Away from the local jurisdiction to insure impartiality?



You really mean "keep hounding him until we get the results the mob wants", right?




As is we have a system there that will exonerate itself no matter how many times they look themselves over… Indicative of the systemic problem there behind the "legal" facade.



gain an understanding of it, THEN work to fix it. if you "fix" it before you even know how it works, it may never work again when you try to put it back together... or is that really what you're after?



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

But the failure to bring any charges against a white officer who shot an unarmed black teenager in murky circumstances has set off a new storm of protests and questions about the objectivity of the grand jury process.

In an unusual step, Mr. McCulloch had said he would present all known witnesses and evidence and instead of recommending an indictment, as is usually the case, let the jurors decide for themselves what if any charges to bring.


Right there. Instead of the usual grand jury process,, lol. I didn't know the DA had the authority to do that. What objectivity? All those people that say the Gand Jury "decided" can shut up now.


Link to Times article



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
So we are at the point of saying that the DA wanted this indictment but just could not get it?!
If the DA wanted this indictment, he would of gotten it.
He was the one presenting all the evidence and letting wilson 'give a statement' for four hours.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


By George, I think he's getting it!

Absolutely correct - he did NOT defend himself. One only defends against charges leveled. No indictment, no charges. "Defense" is a part of the adversarial trial system, in court.

Of course he "defended" himself… He stated he was shooting at demons.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Why would they "shut up"? In YOUR OWN QUOTE, right there in black and white at the bottom, it says "let the jurors decide for themselves what if any charges to bring."

"Let the jurors decide" - that's English - it means... the Grand Jury "decided".



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable


Wilson didn't need to defend himself since there was no trial.

I see. Good thing, too. His "defensiveness' would be cross examined in a real trial.

You bet his statement was defensive and went unchallenged.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu




By George, I think he's getting it!



Absolutely correct - he did NOT defend himself. One only defends against charges leveled. No indictment, no charges. "Defense" is a part of the adversarial trial system, in court.


Of course he "defended" himself… He stated he was shooting at demons.


You, my friend, are the true racist. You'r using the term 'demon' which is racially charged language. This country is screwed. The pc will say if smeone looks angry it's akin to using the "N"-word, I guess.

"Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler basically called Officer Darren Wilson a racist, basing that deduction on what he said was ‘racially charged language‘ that Wilson used in his testimony.

Wilson described in his testimony to the grand jury the look on Michael Brown’s face as that of demon when Brown was trying to get his gun, saying that’s how angry he looked:

“And when I grabbed him, the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan,” Wilson said of his struggle with Brown. “That’s just how big he felt and how small I felt just from grasping his arm.” Wilson told grand jurors that when he and Brown struggled over the officer’s gun, Brown “had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.”

Again Butler called this ‘racially charged language‘ and proceeded to say that Wilson didn’t see or respect Michael Brown as a human being, but rather Wilson only saw him as a threat.

Instead of challenging or even making some cleanup remark, Jake Tapper just ignores it".
therightscoop.com...
edit on 27-11-2014 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Not only do you misrepresent what I say but you misinterpret what the article said…


"let the jurors decide for themselves what if any charges to bring."

"Let the jurors decide" - that's English - it means… the Grand Jury "decided".

Decided on what charges to bring, not on whether to go to trial. Read it again. What is unprecedented is the switch from whether to indict to whether to bring charges… big difference.



In an unusual step, Mr. McCulloch had said he would present all known witnesses and evidence and instead of recommending an indictment, as is usually the case, let the jurors decide for themselves what if any charges to bring.

Read it twice if you have to. Then avoid the issue as usual.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable


You, my friend, are the true racist. You'r using the term 'demon' which is racially charged language.
[
Wilsons words, not mine.


In four hours of vivid testimony before the St. Louis County grand jury in September describing his shooting of Michael Brown, the officer said Mr. Brown, 18, had looked “like a demon” when he first approached him.


times article

Now you are calling me names (true racist), too? Mods, don't remove the post it exposes the same bias as Wilson when he called Brown a "demon".



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You don't know what an indictment is do you? It's the bringing up of charges against a person...

So when the jury didn't choose to charge, it means they didn't indict. To go to trial it has to be an indictment.

I think it's best for any reputation you may have left to exit this discussion.
edit on 27-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


You don't know what an indictment is do you? It's the bringing up of charges against a person…

They decide whether or not to go to trial, thats it.

They decide if there is enough evidence, not whether its real or not. That is for a real trial, not a Grand Jury.

Looks like we just uncovered the crux of it huh?

Obviously an unarmed "suspect" was shot to death… check.

There are conflicting reports and evidence… check.

Townsfolk are upset… check

Better have a trial… whoops. Not enough evidence… wait, not enough "good" evidence.

No trial, sorry about any inconvenience…


check



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So we are at the point of saying that the DA wanted this indictment but just could not get it?!
If the DA wanted this indictment, he would of gotten it.


That involves a presumption of dishonesty on the part of the DA. Do you have concrete evidence of DA dishonesty? I'd be interested to get hold of that if you do.




He was the one presenting all the evidence and letting wilson 'give a statement' for four hours.



Exactly! See above for why that is a really bad idea unless you are trying to force a trial.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

How is it a bad idea to let one person tell one side of the story and not have any one question it objectively?

The ball was in the DA's hands, what ever outcome he wanted since he was the one presenting the evidence and then framing it, he would of got.
Just like a lot of legal experts are saying as of late.



new topics

top topics



 
138
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join