View Poll Results: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    14 25.00%
  • No.

    30 53.57%
  • I don't know...

    12 21.43%
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80

Thread: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

  1. #21
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    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.
    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. 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?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    There you go still trying to suggest such an absurdity.
    Your lack of understanding the evidence does not a controversy make.

    There is no controversy.
    Which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

    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?

  3. #23
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,833
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Perhaps pedantic, but . . .

    "Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?"

    Not sure but I don't think that it was a 'trial'. I think it's a grand jury 'hearing'.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Just curious what the consensus is.
    "Throw"? No, not in the way you're likely implying.

    What I think is that the Prosectuor in no way, shape, or form thought there was a legitimate case to be made here that had any true hope of gaining a guilty plea and the only reason it even made it to the grand jury was because of public pressure all the way up to the White House.

    Without that pressure, based on the evidence, I'm not sure if the prosecutor would've even bothered to go through this process.

    However, due to pressure he was forced to do so. As such, he was essentially being pressured into persuing a case he likely felt was a waste of his time, a waste of the tax payer dollars, and a sure fire loss. It's hard to put together a significantly sound argument for something you have absolutely zero conviction in and believe is absolutely wrong. So as such, I think he tried to go the most neutral route possible which was to provide every bit of information possible to the grand jury and let them come to their conclussion.

    Essentially, I think he didn't want an indictment because he knew there was no way there'd be a legitimate way to argue for a conviction in this case, which is bad for his job, bad for the people he represents, and just generally not smart prosecuting. So he made no significant effort to GET an indictment, but I don't think he did anything to purposefully NOT get one either.

    There's a saying that you can indict a ham sandwich. What's lost with that saying is that it's assumed the prosecutor DESIRES an indictment. Those that are indicted by grand juries tend to have a high conviction rate, precisely because prosecutors typically don't bother trying to get an indictment except in cases they think they stand a high chance of getting a conviction or forcing a plea deal. If they don't actually think conviction is likely they will typically forgo trying hard to get an indictment, as a failure to convict hurts them professional and their constituents fiscally.

    This particular ham sandwich was felt to have little to no chance of being found guilty given the witnesses statements that matched up with the forensic evidence, and so the prosecutor did not make extensive effort to get an indictment (probably because he had no intent to take the case in the first place, save for political pressure). I think that's different than "throwing" the hearing, which would imply he was actively sabatoging it rather than simply not going out of his way to try and win it.

  5. #25
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Just curious what the consensus is.


    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.
    Last edited by shrubnose; 12-02-14 at 12:02 PM.

  6. #26
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,810

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    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.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    This wasn't a grand jury. That 1990 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, now THAT was a Grand Jury.

  9. #29
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,713

    Re: Did the prosecutor throw the Darren Wilson grand jury trial?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    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.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •