• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson LIVE announcement video feed links here [W:60, 267]

how do you know that they were wrong? there was no trial

Because all the evidence was presented and the fact that Johnson was lying through his teeth was confirmed by actual witnesses. Because some who claimed to be witnesses were in reality shown to be somewhere else altogether and made up their testimony against Wilson. Because the one guy (Johnson) that you are relying upon as telling the truth was in fact a fellow suspect in a strongarm robbery and the actual witnesses to a one say that Johnson was helping assault Wilson.
 
i don't know
which is why a trial is needed to make that determination

Insufficient evidence for the trial, as proven in the GJ proceedings.

Next.
 
You can't cross examine physical evidence.

But, if you want to put Dorian Johnson on the stand and make him admit that he participated in the assault, that would be ****ing hillarious.

one example of how that trial necessity is applicable to physical evidence

wilson asserted that brown scratched him/his face
yet there was no material under brown's nails as would be expected from someone who had so scratched another
there might be a very good explanation for that non-result
but it is one which could be answered in a trial setting
or the inability to have a reasonable explanation might cause one to conclude that wilson was not being honest in his testimony. and if he lied about that, what else was he lying about
 
i want the truth to emerge
wilson may have been justified in the shooting
but he may not have been
a jury trial would have allowed me to come to a determination i believed to be just

What part of Grand Jury and 12 jurors deciding that there was insufficient evidence for a trial do you not comprehend?
 
Insufficient evidence for the trial, as proven in the GJ proceedings.

Next.

very flawed gj proceedings
that is the point
 
one example of how that trial necessity is applicable to physical evidence

wilson asserted that brown scratched him/his face
yet there was no material under brown's nails as would be expected from someone who had so scratched another
there might be a very good explanation for that non-result
but it is one which could be answered in a trial setting
or the inability to have a reasonable explanation might cause one to conclude that wilson was not being honest in his testimony. and if he lied about that, what else was he lying about

All of this would have been covered in GJ.

Repeating the same thing over and over will not make it true.
 
but did all of the witnesses, whose testimony was in conflict with wilson's, admit they lied?
i don't think so
and i would want a trial to be able to sort out the truth from the fabrication
which is why i believe a finding of probable cause - NOT probable guilt - NOT probable innocence - should have been rendered by the grand jury

Did they admit they lied? According to what McCulloch said last night, yes. And you can see in the evidence their admissions.
 
What part of Grand Jury and 12 jurors deciding that there was insufficient evidence for a trial do you not comprehend?

because the evidence was presented in a very one-sided manner
the presentation was made to focus on that which exculpated wilson and away from the evidence which might convict him
 
Did they admit they lied? According to what McCulloch said last night, yes. And you can see in the evidence their admissions.

which causes the question
why would a prosecutor place before the grand jury the testimony of non-witnesses who admitted they were non-witnesses to events
that alone shows the bias of the prosecutor before the grand jury
 
All of this would have been covered in GJ.

Repeating the same thing over and over will not make it true.

but that is my point
there was no adversarial proceeding. no one was present to question why the absence of skin tissue under the fingernails would call wilson's testimony about that matter to be incredible
 
but did all of the witnesses, whose testimony was in conflict with wilson's, admit they lied?
i don't think so

According to every news channel including MSNBC, yes they did. The ones who didn't were shown to not be there in the first place and were making **** up. The actual witnesses who were there and did witness the event tell the same story, it is Wilson's story.

and i would want a trial to be able to sort out the truth from the fabrication
which is why i believe a finding of probable cause - NOT probable guilt - NOT probable innocence - should have been rendered by the grand jury

Again, you need to gain a greater understanding of how the legal system works. If you can't even get past a GJ, you have no chance at trial unless you're counting on the jury disregarding the evidence.
 
one example of how that trial necessity is applicable to physical evidence

wilson asserted that brown scratched him/his face
yet there was no material under brown's nails as would be expected from someone who had so scratched another
there might be a very good explanation for that non-result
but it is one which could be answered in a trial setting
or the inability to have a reasonable explanation might cause one to conclude that wilson was not being honest in his testimony. and if he lied about that, what else was he lying about

The physical evidence doesn't prove probable cause to warrant a charge, then a trial. How do you justifify throwing The Constitution out the window?
 
because the evidence was presented in a very one-sided manner
the presentation was made to focus on that which exculpated wilson and away from the evidence which might convict him

24 volumes of evidence, and you are still going to cry?

All of the local, state, and Federal eyes on the GJ proceedings, and you are going to cry about that, too?

I have been on GJ and capital juries, and I have confidence in the process.

Better yet, send some of your own money to the Brown family, and convince them to file a civil action.

Better buy some more tissues, because nothing will change.

kleenex.jpg
 
which causes the question
why would a prosecutor place before the grand jury the testimony of non-witnesses who admitted they were non-witnesses to events
that alone shows the bias of the prosecutor before the grand jury

The bias of the prosecutor?

The GJ heard and saw all the evidence, including the major disparity in some of the "eyewitness" accounts. This was all presented.

The GJ did not find that Wilson committed a crime and that's why they didn't indict him. It's what they're sworn to do. Decide if a crime was committed...
 
which causes the question
why would a prosecutor place before the grand jury the testimony of non-witnesses who admitted they were non-witnesses to events
that alone shows the bias of the prosecutor before the grand jury

Because the people said they were witnesses, so they were called to testify. Only after their testimony was scrutinized by the jurors, themselves, was their testimony determined to be inaccurate or made up.
 
Because the people said they were witnesses, so they were called to testify. Only after their testimony was scrutinized by the jurors, themselves, was their testimony determined to be inaccurate or made up.

We'll skop all that crap and just interrogate Darren Wilson and base the verdict on his presentation, alone.
 
According to every news channel including MSNBC, yes they did. The ones who didn't were shown to not be there in the first place and were making **** up. The actual witnesses who were there and did witness the event tell the same story, it is Wilson's story.



Again, you need to gain a greater understanding of how the legal system works. If you can't even get past a GJ, you have no chance at trial unless you're counting on the jury disregarding the evidence.

that's the whole point
there was sufficient probable cause to go to trial
not allowing it to do so, by a manipulated grand jury proceeding, undermines the pursuit of justice and the public's trust in our justice system
 
Back
Top Bottom