Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

No doubt that Ram fans are going to enjoy the post game DWI check points
on way home from game.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The clichéd "began reaching for something" line is taken straight from unwritten cop handbook in the chapter on how to beat the rap for shooting someone. Because as long as the cop claims he saw him reaching for a potential weapon it's always theoretically reasonable to say he believed himself in imminent fear for his life--and every cop knows it. When I read that line I could just picture his cop buddies advising him when concocting his story "now make sure at the end you say you saw him reaching inside his pants..."

Where Wilson inserted that line in his story was just ludicrous ...while running forward Brown supposedly simultaneously reaches inside his pants to grab something, despite the fact there was nothing inside there to grab... Yet appears an awful lot of people believe it anyways because, you know, white cop's word vs. punk black kid's....

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Have we found a single prosecutor that has said he thinks he could get a conviction of Wilson with the evidence/witnesses available?

Even one?

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The purpose of a grand jury is not, and never has been, to determine the feasibility of an eventual conviction.

The purpose of this grand jury was to basically rubber-stamp whatever the prosecutor wanted but was too much of a pussy to do himself.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Forget the decision, I'm more puzzled now by the poor planning last week to prevent
the looting in Ferguson. I mean they had months to have a rock solid plan for
what preventative measures would be put in place.

When the decision was coming down that place should have been crawling with National Guard.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Nah, the powers that be allow a grace period of free looting and rioting. This is out of the '92 LA riots playbook (pictured here).

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Of course it is. That's exactly what it is.

A prosecutor cannot bring a case to trial that he doesn't think he has a reasonable expectation for a conviction. Any prosecutor will tell you that.

A trial is not supposed to be some crap shoot. That wouldn't be fair to the defendant, and there's no reason for the state to invest the time, or the public's money in a case they don't think they can win.

And, you know this.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Wow, there are some great old pics from the 92 riots:


Here's two of the legendary Korean heroes.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The Flat Screen has made looting a hell of a lot easier nowadays. Those big box
TVs required 2 looters at a time.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The simple answer is we don't know. Wilson could've unraveled under cross-examination just like some of the other witnesses did. The simple fact that they cross-examined some witnesses and not, um, the only living participant in the incident, raises a major flag.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

This story, and the grand jury's finding, has been pretty widely reported.

I've yet to find a single prosecutor (or former prosecutor) say he'd want to take the case to trial.

Why is that? Are there dozens of them out there that just can't get the attention of the media to share their thoughts? Or, do none exist?

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Am I correct in thinking that it's the actual grand jury that does the cross examination and
not attorneys? It would seem to be a big difference compared to people who do that stuff for
a living.