• 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!

Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?


  • Total voters
    48
The prosecutor didn't want a trial, that's #1.- Why we're not looking forward to a trial and #2.- Why what has happened, has happened.

If the prosecutor had wanted a trial, there would be a trial.
He maneuvered this case so that the grand jury got him out of a tight spot.

Can't have a trial when there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.
 
Can't have a trial when there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.

Well you can. It's just bad prosecuting.

I fully believe that if there wasn't such pressure, from in town all the way up to the White House, this would've never made it even to a grand jury because there just wasn't a truly strong case for conviction.

He wasn't going to purposefully "throw" the hearing, but by no means was he going to go out of his way to try and get an indictment for something that he felt would never stand up in court because doing so would be doing his job poorly.
 
This wasn't a grand jury. That 1990 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, now THAT was a Grand Jury. :cool:
 
Huh - interesting reading.

I had not read anything about the prosecutor.

I do find it strange that, in spite of this, that Ferguson voter turnout in November was very low.

With all of this baggage, the prosecutor has never been voted out of office for 23 years.

It seems, then, that they have a prosecutor that they deserve.



People who don't vote shouldn't complain about who gets elected.
 
Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

When even Antonio Scalia calls you out, you have a problem.
 
People who don't vote shouldn't complain about who gets elected.

Except for those who are not eligible to vote. For those who are and choose not to, absolutely.
 
you've had what, 24-48 hours to find in that 45 minute clip where Wilson argues Brown fled further than the 30-40 feet Stephanopolous asked about and Wilson seemed to agree with.

Where's the timestamp where he says how much further he fled?
Shall I keep waiting for your reply with this info?
:doh
This is again your failure to understand what you heard. As already pointed out, multiple time already

There is no controversy.
 
This is again your ability to provide what was asked for.
It was already provided.
You are again showing everybody you are dishonest.

There is no controversy, just your inability to understand what you hear and read.
 
It was already provided.
You are again showing everybody you are dishonest.

There is no controversy, just your inability to understand what you hear and read.

provide it again then, must have missed it. simple. a timestamp.
 
I'll ignore the balance of your "unbiased" take on the matter and focus on the bolded part. Can you tell me the process for a prosecutor in the US to indict someone? You seem to be implying that it's a matter of choice on the part of the prosecutor - that's not my understanding of the American system, but then I'm just a Canadian so I could be wrong.
1. In order to indict someone, the grand jury has to decide that the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor shows probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. While the prosecutor cannot choose the grand jury's decision, he can present the evidence in a way that pushes them to a certain conclusion - either by emphasizing certain witness testimonies, providing evidence that isn't necessary to confuse the jury, withholding some evidence and so on. Because prosecutor's have so much power in this sense, they usually get indictments whenever they want them. That's where the phrase, "you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to" comes from.

In addition, since you seem to know, how many other shootings by police officers in this prosecutor's jurisdiction have taken place over the past 23 years and how many were not presented to a grand jury, because clearly only those not presented to a grand jury can be held as solely the responsibility of this prosecutor, wouldn't you agree?

2. At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).

Ferguson tragedy becoming a farce - The Washington Post
20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting : News
St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades : News
 
1. In order to indict someone, the grand jury has to decide that the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor shows probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. While the prosecutor cannot choose the grand jury's decision, he can present the evidence in a way that pushes them to a certain conclusion - either by emphasizing certain witness testimonies, providing evidence that isn't necessary to confuse the jury, withholding some evidence and so on. Because prosecutor's have so much power in this sense, they usually get indictments whenever they want them. That's where the phrase, "you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to" comes from.



2. At least 12 shootings total and 4 shootings in which a grand jury was used. One of those shootings involved a case where the prosecutor in question made untrue statements about witness testimony and a federal investigation later revealed that the officers in the case had lied when they said that the Black men they killed were driving towards them (the reason they gave for shooting them 21 times).

Ferguson tragedy becoming a farce - The Washington Post
20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting : News
St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades : News

1. As I said in a previous comment, I think it's commendable that a prosecutor would lay out all the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, so that the time of grand juries and courts isn't wasted first by only hearing half a story and then by having a trial where a conviction is impossible to get. From your words, you seem to feel that getting an indictment at all costs, even if there's no crime, is preferable - I disagree.

2. I certainly hope, if your assertions are true, that both the officers and the prosecutor were charged because perjury is a serious charge and shouldn't go unchallenged, at least in my view.
 
This is again your ability to provide what was asked for.

I'm not sure what your issue is, and I probably shouldn't butt in, but the sequence of events seems to be that Brown struggled with Wilson for Wilson's gun, in the car and vicinity of the car at which point the gun fired and Brown was injured. Following that, Brown started to flee and got about 150 feet from Wilson, trailing blood from his injury, and then started back towards Wilson when Wilson ordered him to stop. Brown didn't just stop in his place, 150 feet away, but started to return to where Wilson was and Wilson fired at him and the final, fatal shot happened when Brown was about 35 feet away.

That may not be your issue, but that's the evidence as I understand it.
 
I'm not sure what your issue is, and I probably shouldn't butt in, but the sequence of events seems to be that Brown struggled with Wilson for Wilson's gun, in the car and vicinity of the car at which point the gun fired and Brown was injured. Following that, Brown started to flee and got about 150 feet from Wilson, trailing blood from his injury, and then started back towards Wilson when Wilson ordered him to stop. Brown didn't just stop in his place, 150 feet away, but started to return to where Wilson was and Wilson fired at him and the final, fatal shot happened when Brown was about 35 feet away.

That may not be your issue, but that's the evidence as I understand it.

the body was found 150 feet from the vehicle.
 
the body was found 150 feet from the vehicle.

No, I believe the body was found closer to the vehicle.

Edit: You're correct - I believe I'd heard the number 35 but that may have been an initial estimate in yards, not feet.

My point was that there was a blood trail away from the vehicle that went further away from the vehicle than where the body was found, meaning that Brown went further away from the vehicle and then came back towards the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.

He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.

He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.

He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.

His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.

His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.

His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.

Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.


maybe, just maybe you should consider the evidence

Documents from the Ferguson grand jury

it is available for ALL to read.....but be forewarned

it isnt what you were told it is......this is where reality comes into play

so go through it, and then tell us what was thrown

and how you would have gotten an indictment

i will be here.......
 
No prosecutor who wants to stay one would tank a grand jury hearing.

true and when the most damning witnesses against the target are proven to be liars, that doesn't help getting an indictment
 
He provided the grand jury with far more information than is usually provided to a grand jury. This is referred to as a "data dump", or dumping so much data on a grand jury that it's difficult for them to sort through it all.

He conducted the presentation of evidence to the grand jury like it was trial, without the benefit of cross examination.

He conducted the press conference like he was a defense attorney for Wilson even though he's supposed to work on behalf of the state and the victim, Brown.

He has not indicted a police officer in a shooting in the entire 23 years he's been the prosecutor.

His police officer father was killed by a black man in the line of duty.

His brother, nephew and cousin are all police officers in St. Louis.

His mother was a clerk for the St. Louis PD for 20 years.

Yeah, he threw it. If someone hasn't indicted a police officer for 23 years, why would he start now? There was no chance and I hope he's investigated by the federal government.

The DA gave the grand jury TOO much information?! What a bizarre complaint. Hiding information, yes. But TOO MUCH info?

Really, in your view, the DA should have been someone who knows nothing about being a police officer and hated cops.
 
I'm not sure what your issue is, and I probably shouldn't butt in, but the sequence of events seems to be that Brown struggled with Wilson for Wilson's gun, in the car and vicinity of the car at which point the gun fired and Brown was injured. Following that, Brown started to flee and got about 150 feet from Wilson, trailing blood from his injury, and then started back towards Wilson when Wilson ordered him to stop. Brown didn't just stop in his place, 150 feet away, but started to return to where Wilson was and Wilson fired at him and the final, fatal shot happened when Brown was about 35 feet away.

That may not be your issue, but that's the evidence as I understand it.

30 feet is considered the closest a person can be to you where you can reliably stop the person with a firearm. Once the distance is less than 30 it is considered highly likely the person will reach you. It's not like Westerns where you shoot the bad gun and he instantly drops dead - however good guys often are only wounded.

Another Hollywood myth is that if you point a gun as someone and tell them to put up their hands that is what they do. In fact, while they may hesitate at first, most young people will 1.) run or 2. charge.

That Brown violently assaulted the officer shows he was not intent to submit. The charging 300 young man would be unstoppable to most people. Then it would be the 300 pound young man fighting the smaller officer for his own sidearm. That he ran showed he did not intend to surrender. At 300 pounds he couldn't likely outrun the officer either. So he turned again back towards the officer.

Then what happened is the question, isn't it?
 
Keep in mind that the trial was to determine whether or not charges could be laid, not whether or not Wilson was guilty. From Justice Scalia:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

Most Americans have a pretty solid knowledge of the grand jury system here. The grand jury looks at information provided to them, and ascertains whether or not the lowest possible standard of "probable cause" has been met. If so, the jury will indict. In this case, after review of the rock-solid forensic evidence backing Officer Wilson's account, the jury decided that there wasn't even "probable cause" for an indictment, let alone the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" required at trial.

This is a political firestorm created based upon what we now know were fabrications, falsifications, exaggerations and outright lies, which the scientific evidence completely obliterated. Even now idiots are continuing a stupid "hands up, don't shoot" mantra despite the fact that evidence proves that his hands were not up and that he was moving rapidly toward the officer before the first shots were fired.

What we are now seeing is a plethora of people, egged on by ratings-greedy media, saying, "screw the facts, we want war!" I for one refuse to participate in such idiocy.
 
the body was found 150 feet from the vehicle.

The only thing that matters is that the body fell within ten feet of where Officer Wilson was standing when the final shot was fired, evidenced by forensic evidence proving that Michael Brown was indeed moving rapidly toward the officer and had nearly reached him before he finally fell.
 
The only thing that matters is that the body fell within ten feet of where Officer Wilson was standing when the final shot was fired, evidenced by forensic evidence proving that Michael Brown was indeed moving rapidly toward the officer and had nearly reached him before he finally fell.

That he fell 10 feet away and was not shot in the back answers it, doesn't it?
 
30 feet is considered the closest a person can be to you where you can reliably stop the person with a firearm. Once the distance is less than 30 it is considered highly likely the person will reach you. It's not like Westerns where you shoot the bad gun and he instantly drops dead - however good guys often are only wounded.

Another Hollywood myth is that if you point a gun as someone and tell them to put up their hands that is what they do. In fact, while they may hesitate at first, most young people will 1.) run or 2. charge.

That Brown violently assaulted the officer shows he was not intent to submit. The charging 300 young man would be unstoppable to most people. Then it would be the 300 pound young man fighting the smaller officer for his own sidearm. That he ran showed he did not intend to surrender. At 300 pounds he couldn't likely outrun the officer either. So he turned again back towards the officer.

Then what happened is the question, isn't it?

I don't disagree - logic tells me the officer acted in the only way he could.
 
Back
Top Bottom