Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

This has been an open-and-shut case for many people. The facts, of which only two people know for sure, have never been important in this debate.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Must have been a loud grunt. If he was more than 30 yards away (or was it 150?), sound must carry real well.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

And of course, before the prosecutor did everything in his power to protect Wilson, the police department that should have been doing an investigation that might have yielded the type of evidence that would have led to a conviction were doing everything they could to avoid doing such an investigation until it was too late.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Has anyone explained the decision not to test the gun for fingerprints?

They just let Wilson go on and on and on about how much Brown was sweating and how he must have gotten stuff all over that.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The explanation was "fuck you, we're police officers and he was a black thug whose life wasn't valuable." It's mostly subtext, though.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The stat was something that Nate Silver used, and has gotten a lot of talk, but it refers to federal grand juries, which this was not.

And yes, a grand jury can be quickly return an indictment when the case is clear cut.

Or, in a case like this it can be used to investigate.

This case wasn't clear cut. Without the political/public pressure, the DA may have never even brought it to a grand jury.

Also, most defendants don't take the opportunity to testify before a grand jury. Their lawyer is not even allowed in the room. So, the grand jurors don't usually have the subject of the investigation's side of the story.

The threshold for an indictment remains relatively low, and unlike a jury trial, the decision does not have to be unanimous. If the grand jury, who heard the evidence, and had a chance to evaluate the witnesses, why don't we trust that they made the right decision?

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Without political and public pressure, the local police and local government wouldn't have kept their high-fives for Wilson in private that night.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Debating between Salty Stain or Off-the-Rails Rick as your train name for this thread.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Hmm ... I wonder why this particular defendant took the opportunity to testify to the Grand Jury?

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Because they didn't hear evidence.

They heard narration.

You can't possibly read the Wilson testimony and think that was an examination. That was a How I Spent My Weekend essay.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Wilson reminded me a bit of Bernie Goetz the guy who turned vigilante and shot the black youths on NYC Subway. I Wilson got beaten up by some black kid in school somewhere along the line. He just looks like the type of guy that would have been teased as a youth and became a cop to get respect.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

A. He wasn't a defendant.

2. The only reason a subject of a grand jury investigation would choose to testify would be because he was absolutely secure in the belief that he was not guilty of any crime. And, it's the only reason a lawyer would allow him to.