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: 102
138
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Because in a GJ, the accused, if guilty, often incriminates themselves. The longer they talk, the better chance of them contradicting their own story. That's why so many attorneys ask their clients not to make a statement unless ordered to.
edit on 27-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Grand Jury does...

Again, you're just making yourself look foolish and digging your hole deeper.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu

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



Only if you did first, because that was a direct quote from YOUR quote. I didn't read the article - I presumed you were quoting it accurately - was I wrong?




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.



I'm not sure how much less one can understand the process. I thought we were already at the rock-bottom of understanding it, and then new depths of failure to comprehend are plumbed. The Grand Jury was given a range of 5 charges they could bring in an indictment. Now, it might be argued that was an attempt to force a trial, and say they were only given a choice of 5 charges - but that's not quite how it works. One has to first determine if ANY charges will be brought before one can decide WHICH charges are to be brought.

It's not a "big difference" as you claim. A "True Bill of Indictment" IS bringing charges.




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.


I did. It still says the same thing it did the first time. McCulloch didn't recommend indictment, and the Grand Jury made up their own mind sans that recommendation. They ALWAYS make up their own mind, recommendation or not. that's kinda what grand Juries are FOR. They wouldn't be needed at all if the DA's "recommendation" were always followed - you could then just get it from the DA, and avoid the expense and hassle of convening a grand Jury.

Do you understand how "recommendations" work?

My waiter "recommended" the roast duck, but I "decided" on steak instead. I was in no way bound to eat duck just because it was recommended.



edit on 2014/11/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

They have a better chance at contradicting their own story when they are getting crossed examined, not when they are just freely giving a 'statement'.
Also would that not have been his first official statement of the events?
How can he contradict something he never gave.
No one was there to objectively question his statement like there would be in a trial.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
You guys are focusing on one issue again and leaving out the rest. How a grand jury works…

is irrelevant to that it was manipulated… heres a post from someone to me in a different thread…

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Spider879

Black should not be synonymous with poverty and crime but this is not how many in the majority community view us and they act accordingly



Exactly! When you want a new reality, you have to MAKE a new reality.It's what All of us have to do when we are faced with the old reality that we don't like - and that's exactly what I'm saying. Thugging out and rioting isn't going to get us there. How is thugging out and rioting supposed to change the majority community's view that young Blacks are thugs and gangstas? I would think that would tend to confirm that view rather than dispel it. It then becomes an endless feedback loop. More death, more destruction.

Folks got to break that loop, or it just won't ever be broken.

Folks got to stop acting thug if they don't like being treated thug.

The way to change institutional anything is the jump right in and change it - making it stronger via reaction-reaction-reaction will NEVER work to end it.

It won't happen over night, but it WILL happen - but folks got to MAKE it happen. Someone has to take the lead and start it, or it won't get started. endless back and forth reaction isn't cutting it.

Take the lead.

Be a leader.

Someone HAS to.

Dr King marched. Dr King spoke, Dr King DIDN'T burn stuff down and destroy. What do you suppose he thinks of all this as it's unfolding? Dr King would have been called a "Tom" by those crowds of destroyers I saw in feeds from Ferguson. The one guy I saw trying to get them not to destroy WAS called a "Tom" for his efforts. S'ok - they don't have to feel any shame - I'm ashamed enough of them for the both of us.

Look I am waay closer to your position than you may think, I have already addressed what I think the correct course Black folks and allies should take in regards to the Ferguson case I believe that was on pg 23 or 24, and while Dr King was peaceful and made organised protest these were largely disorganized and leaderless,another thing people are looking for some magical black leader that don't really exist,if I asked the average white citizen who is your " white leader" they will undoubtedly take offense but point you to their local council man or women ,they would hardly think of Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson, in the case of Ferguson whether through apathy or whatever the mostly white community leaders in an overwhelmingly black portion of that city let them down,include Law enforcement this is not to say that a majority white city council and police dept could not do an ouuut standing job representing that community(Ie content of character ) but the very recent history of the local power dispelled that notion.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That post is also as ridiculous as what you've posted...

A DA IS A PROSECUTOR!!

And again, this DA WANTED an indictment.

Good DA's who win cases can move on to bigger and better political offices.

Edit: For you to think it was manipulated is laughable. Considering the DA allowed evidence to be presented that was obviously wrong shows if anything the manipulation was to see an indictment.
edit on 27-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Not ones that indict cops!
If you think there is no corruption in police departments and local politics then I don't know what to tell you.

What gives you the idea that he wanted to indict wilson so bad?



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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?



I already explained it once, above, but maybe you can't be bothered to read the thread, so I'll do it again - just this once. The US Constitution has this part called "the Bill of Rights". One of the items on that list is #5, the "Fifth Amendment". It's there to guard one against being forced to self-incriminate. lawyers, as a rule, advise their clients to not say anything because, as the Miranda warnings used to tell folks, "anything you say can and will be used against you". So you are well advised not to say anything at all. The accused cannot be compelled to testify EVEN DURING A TRIAL. He doesn't have to say anything at all, ever, and is usually best advised to say nothing at all especially before the trial.

It is risky in the extreme to give a statement to the Grand Jury, of all people. They are there deciding if you will go to trial. You don't want to push that over the wrong edge.

Wilson's statement WAS questioned, extensively. It was questioned by something like 60 other statements, as well as piles and piles of physical evidence and several thousand pages of documents which apparently supported it, and the grand Jury evidently decided from those criteria that no crime was committed.

If YOU have new evidence not presented to them, you are welcome to try and reopen the case. If you have such evidence, I'm sure there are people in Ferguson who would like to have a word with you.




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.



Baloney. You have not presented evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the DA, and that would most certainly be a requirement to invalidate the Grand Jury and for him to get "whatever outcome he wanted". That is the REASON for grand Juries - they take that decision out of the DA's hands.

I AM curious, however, as to what specific evidence you believe the DA willfully withheld.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
since some of the info has been made public we can now answer the question of did they have probable cause to indict and the answer is clearly yes. one reason to have such an event is to find out if any contridicting witness accounts exist. they do exist and we even have witnesses that are missing persons. we now find ourselves asking if there is guilt or not on the officer and that is the wrong question. the correct question is was there probale cause and there are several different aspects of this that warrents probable cause for at least the lesser of charges.

the one reccommending no charges has reason that makes him in a situation that he himself could be biased and that alone is reasons people are at unrest over the cover up that took place. remember you do not have to look for guilt but simply a reason to take a deeper look at the case in an open court.

how hard would it be for any of you to silence 12 people that will remain nameless except to the ones that the charges were pointed at and ones that had reason to want silence about this and the departments past. none of that points to guilt but the need for a deeped more transparent look at the shooting.
edit on 27-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


You guys are focusing on one issue again and leaving out the rest. How a grand jury works…

is irrelevant to that it was manipulated… heres a post from someone to me in a different thread…

www.abovetopsecret.com...


What - so he thinks "civilian agencies" should have done the investigation? Like Magnum P.I. or something? If that's all you want, I'm good with contracting public service to private agencies - that's how I made a goodly portion of my money in my life - contracting my services to government. It's the American way! If that's all you want, I'll do it myself - for the right price.

How something works is in NO way irrelevant to it being manipulated. As a matter of fact, knowing how it works is crucial to that. If you don't believe that, go ahead and soup up your car without knowing how it works, or overclock your computer without knowing how it works.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

There is no doubt in my mind that our positions are not that far apart. The "magical Black leader that don't really exist" you mention will never be found, until the people find it within themselves.

People cannot expect the leaders of what they percieve to be another community to represent them unless they are willing to integrate into that community, rather than segregate themselves by employing mob violence, which only further alienates all involved.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Spider879



There is no doubt in my mind that our positions are not that far apart. The "magical Black leader that don't really exist" you mention will never be found, until the people find it within themselves.



People cannot expect the leaders of what they percieve to be another community to represent them unless they are willing to integrate into that community, rather than segregate themselves by employing mob violence, which only further alienates all involved.






givin the history of what black americans have went through i do not feel that the stance of assimilate or die is fair or reachable in any time manner that serves to put out the fires. Letting segerated communities govern themselves with the same laws we do will work.

Many of the post here have come down to basicaly just accept the no bill because it is law and that our system is based on law and is infallable. We all know one can not point me to a part of our gov. or laws that is not corrupted in some form at this point. Even you yourself had a thread that basically told us that without training and expierence in combat and such then the odds are that we would be here debating your unfair demise because of a trigger happy cop or several. Would that have been justice? Can you see the similarities.
I get that you have not really taken sides outright here but i just thought of your thread and seen how it may have been much the same if things did not go well for you then.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

Why are you attempting to censor ATS members? Hell, the post you quoted doesn't even talk about indictments.

Also, perhaps you seem to have a misunderstanding as to how a grand jury works. There were 12 members on this grand jury. In order to return a true bill, 9 of them would have had to find probable cause and vote accordingly. This did not happen, so no true bill was returned. They do not have to agree unanimously. 8 jurors might have found probable cause, and still no true bill would be returned because the other 4 did not find probable cause.


originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Rocker2013

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

Your remarks gives the impression that you think that they do have to all agree, or if you know how this works already, you are intentionally misleading other members reading your remarks. It would be illegal for McCulloch to release the voting results, so we don't know how many did or didn't find probable cause. We know only that fewer than 9 found probable cause.
edit on 20Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:35:16 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

givin the history of what black americans have went through i do not feel that the stance of assimilate or die is fair or reachable in any time manner that serves to put out the fires. Letting segerated communities govern themselves with the same laws we do will work.



Everyone has history - everyone. I don't think it proper for me to base my "now" on what other people - my ancestors - went through back "then". I would be doomed to failure in life if I did, because "now" is NOT "then".

"Assimilate" is not a fair characterization, but I can accept that perhaps I was not clear. "assimilation" implies the absorption of one into the other, and the one absorbed essentially disappears. If that's the way it was taken, I can see why people would have problems with it. There is no particular reason that the one would have to lose themselves and become the other - that would seem to be to be self-defeating, an extinction. I'm not much in favor of human extinctions - there have been plenty enough of those on this continent already, not to mention all of the ones that have occurred on other continents.

"Integration" would be a better term - coming together as a coherent whole, a sum of it's parts, rather than a loss if parts of it. Nothing can lose parts of itself, even through "absorption", and still remain fully functional. "Integration" was a buzz phrase of the Civil Rights movement, but I have begun to question if "integration" was really the goal. Now, some 50 years later, we are all subject to the same laws. If I rush a cop and try to injure or disarm him, after already showing myself to be combative, I have the same right as any other American to be shot dead. We are a long way from "integration" if my rights are just not good enough for the next guy along the line, and he wants his different.

I'm not sure what you are proposing as a solution - "separate but equal"? That was rejected years ago. Put people on reservations? That has worked for some, but not well for all - and it's not a course I can recommend myself. Barbed wire and camps to enforce the separation? I doubt that would go over well. Balkanization of America? I.e. self-governing enclaves of otherness, islands of strangers? I think we can see from Ferguson, not to mention a few other places, that such would burn brightly until they burned themselves out into ashes. Would you invest into a business in an area where it would likely be ashes one sunny morning? I wouldn't. I wouldn't invest much in the way of resources at all into an area where I can expect nothing but hostility. How then would such self-governing areas survive?




Many of the post here have come down to basicaly just accept the no bill because it is law and that our system is based on law and is infallable. We all know one can not point me to a part of our gov. or laws that is not corrupted in some form at this point.



We are either subject to the law, or we are not - we are lawless. It can't be both ways. I'm ok with either way, but decide on one or the other, IF we don't like some particular of the law, change it from within - but one would have to GET within to do that, as a prerequisite... and that would involve an integration. Trying to force a change from outside is generally viewed as an invasion, and not received well. We can either work together, or fall apart, and I can see which direction it looks like that is headed.




Even you yourself had a thread that basically told us that without training and expierence in combat and such then the odds are that we would be here debating your unfair demise because of a trigger happy cop or several. Would that have been justice? Can you see the similarities.



There are similarities, but there are differences as well. One difference is that I was armed. I had every intention of sending whomever was intent on troubling me to meet their maker. When I found them to be cops, all geared up for SWATting me, I had to reevaluate. had I persisted in belligerence at that point, armed or not, they would have been well within their rights to drop me like a pole-axed steer. It would not have been an "unfair" demise at all at that point, in spite of the fact that initially they had the wrong house. At that point, it would have been a brand new, unanticipated danger to them.

That was resolved through something like diplomacy - talking it out and sorting it out. If instead I had firebombed their vehicles, I would expect there to have been a different outcome. Had I continued the assault and had they turned me into a pile of hamburger, then yes, it would have been just.

I doubt any of it would have been debated here at all under those circumstances. I doubt that you would have ever heard of it to make it a subject of debate. It's possible, though - there is an ATS member a few miles from here who might have picked up on it and made a thread.




I get that you have not really taken sides outright here but i just thought of your thread and seen how it may have been much the same if things did not go well for you then.



Oh, I HAVE taken sides - just not the sides others would define for me - not the "Black" side nor the "White" side, because I don't like the divisions they're trying to force us into. I've staked out the side that doesn't allow for a race-based "us" or "them" division among the people. That's the corral we are being herded into, and I'm kicking at the goad.

I don't think it would have been the same thing - there might have been a thread on it, but I'm pretty sure there would not have been riots and destruction over it... and if there had been, I would have been ashamed that those people doing so had ever called themselves "brothers" and thereby tried to co-opt my demise to fit their own agenda.

I would have deeply resented being so objectified, and would not have cared in the least what color the destructors had been. I would only have cared that they were being destructive, and trying to use ME as an excuse for their own wantonness.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


Considering the DA allowed evidence to be presented that was obviously wrong shows if anything the manipulation was to see an indictment.

Why bring evidence that isn't evidence?

At least you admit he manipulated the evidence and or outcome.


edit on 27-11-2014 by intrptr because: changed



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu


How something works is in NO way irrelevant to it being manipulated. As a matter of fact, knowing how it works is crucial to that.

That was my point earlier that you also argued against.

I think I'm done here on this one. I'm going to go fondle my storm trooper gear, pump some iron and beat off to RoadHouse.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Because he WANTED the jurors to have enough doubt to indict...again, it has been clear to me at least from the beginning that this DA wanted to indict.

Fortunately it appears the Jurors used just the facts



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I literally just got done doing the same thing...



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Why is it so clear that he wanted this indictment?
Just your personal opinion?
DA's that want indictment's get the indictments since they present the case and spin it the way they want!




top topics



 
138
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join