• 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
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.
No, I believe that a prosecutor presenting the evidence to a grand jury like he's the defense attorney is absurd and should be investigated. He didn't provide the jury with the whole story; he gave the jury most of the evidence and then spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story - that's the exact opposite of his job.
 
No, I believe that a prosecutor presenting the evidence to a grand jury like he's the defense attorney is absurd and should be investigated. He didn't provide the jury with the whole story; he gave the jury most of the evidence and then spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story - that's the exact opposite of his job.

Interesting observations from someone who did not analyze the evidence, and was not present at the GJ proceedings.
 
No, I believe that a prosecutor presenting the evidence to a grand jury like he's the defense attorney is absurd and should be investigated. He didn't provide the jury with the whole story; he gave the jury most of the evidence and then spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story - that's the exact opposite of his job.
This could be a fair point. What's relevant is not only what evidence he presented, but also which evidence he may NOT have presented. He has broad discretion in choosing, and can easily help frame a case toward his desired outcome, if he wants to.

Note: Applies to pretty much any case anywhere as a generic point, as well.
 
Two thoughts.

1) I have no idea what he did...but I will assume he did not 'throw' it until I see substantial evidence to th contrary.

and 2) I will be glad when all this Ferguson nonsense is done...it has been galactically overblown, imo (except for the victim, the cop and their loved ones).

A cop killed someone in America. If the victim is 'black' and the cop is 'white'..everyone freaks out. Almost any other 'race' combination and almost no one gives a sh!t.

America needs to stop this 'race' obsession.
 
No, I believe that a prosecutor presenting the evidence to a grand jury like he's the defense attorney is absurd and should be investigated. He didn't provide the jury with the whole story; he gave the jury most of the evidence and then spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story - that's the exact opposite of his job.

again

look at my previous post

what testimony wasnt given?

what evidence wasnt presented?

he actually presented more do to the notoriety of the case.....and releasing all grand jury documents is very unusual

maybe blacks need their own police force, and own trial section....you apparently dont like the system we currently have
 
No, I believe that a prosecutor presenting the evidence to a grand jury like he's the defense attorney is absurd and should be investigated. He didn't provide the jury with the whole story; he gave the jury most of the evidence and then spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story - that's the exact opposite of his job.

You'll have to provide evidence of your assertions. It's my understanding that the prosecutor didn't present a case - what's your proof that he "spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story"? Secondly, in most cases, a prosecutor is the one who decides whether or not an alleged "crime" should be pursued in the courts and it is the prosecutor who empanels a grand jury to hand down an indictment because he/she believes a crime has been committed and the accused is the perpetrator. That's not what happened here - the prosecutor did not believe a crime had been committed by Officer Wilson, but he was pressured into doing so by the Justice Department and the State - both forms of political pressure attempting to overpower judicial reason.

And again, your first sentence betrays your bias. You seem to believe that an indictment, no matter how much a sham or a travesty of justice, is the goal of a grand jury proceeding. I believe it's a prosecutor's job to seek the truth as a means of finding justice and sometimes that means no indictment and no show trial just because the ignorant mob wants one.
 
Can't have a trial when there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.


Yup.
Normally that thing would never even have been presented to a Grand Jury.
 
No, I believe that a prosecutor presenting the evidence to a grand jury like he's the defense attorney is absurd and should be investigated.
He didn't provide the jury with the whole story; he gave the jury most of the evidence and then spun the evidence to defend Wilson's story
- that's the exact opposite of his job.

Who said?
 
...maybe blacks need their own police force, and own trial section....you apparently dont like the system we currently have

In my view, what this case proves, is that some blacks need to start accepting the consequences of their own personal actions and start being productive and contributing members of society at large and their own communities more specifically. You just have to listen to Michael Brown's mother explain away her husband's incitement to riot following the grand jury not handing down an indictment. Mr. Head, on a platform before the crowd in front of the government location where the prosecutor announced the grand jury decision, viciously and arrogantly yells over and over to the crowd to "burn this m****r f****r down". What does his wife and Michael Brown's mother have to say about that - "oh, he was just angry and his words meant nothing - it was just words and not actions" - she likewise dismisses her son as a "good boy" who never did anything wrong. And the media props these two violence enablers up as models for blacks in America when the mother is a complete failure at raising a decent son and the step-father should be charged and tried for inciting the violence that visited their community.

Nothing will ever change or improve in America as it relates to race until the violent segment of black culture and life is eradicated and it will only be eradicated if blacks themselves rise up against it. Michael Brown's parents are representative of the problem and only make matters worse.
 
I find it personally fascinating that a seemingly signigicant proportion of a minority are upset that the accused wasn't adequately railroaded when the people who are often railroaded in these situations are members of this minority. If you want to be taken seriously, don't complain one day about being railroaded by the process then turn around and complain when the process doesn't railroad someone else.
 
In my view, what this case proves, is that some blacks need to start accepting the consequences of their own personal actions and start being productive and contributing members of society at large and their own communities more specifically. You just have to listen to Michael Brown's mother explain away her husband's incitement to riot following the grand jury not handing down an indictment. Mr. Head, on a platform before the crowd in front of the government location where the prosecutor announced the grand jury decision, viciously and arrogantly yells over and over to the crowd to
"burn this m****r f****r down".
What does his wife and Michael Brown's mother have to say about that - "oh, he was just angry and his words meant nothing - it was just words and not actions" - she likewise dismisses her son as a "good boy" who never did anything wrong. And the media props these two violence enablers up as models for blacks in America when the mother is a complete failure at raising a decent son and the step-father should be charged and tried for inciting the violence that visited their community.

Nothing will ever change or improve in America as it relates to race until the violent segment of black culture and life is eradicated and it will only be eradicated if blacks themselves rise up against it. Michael Brown's parents are representative of the problem and only make matters worse.


I believe he yelled "burn this bitch down".
 
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.

None of that is meaningful except to you.
 
Can't have a trial when there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.
No, you lie and convince the person you have their balls nailed to a wall and push for a plea bargain instead.

Oh, wait, you meant if a police officer is accused. Never mind.
 
Good morning Bubba - I believe he yelled both.
Probably did scream both... but should he ever be arrested for inciting to riot, if you're Sharpton or you live in Ferguson the uncertainty is enough for an acquittal.
 
Probably did scream both... but should he ever be arrested for inciting to riot, if you're Sharpton or you live in Ferguson the uncertainty is enough for an acquittal.

One is just as bad as the other - I don't see any uncertainty. Never fear though, Eric Holder won't be pursuing a civil rights or hate crimes investigation against the brotha.
 
of course the procecuter would not cause the city of fuguson to get sued...green is more powerful than black and white put together!!!!!this is what s happening in all the police shooting citizen cases in the united states money!!!! I rest my case let me tell you something folks!! my girlfriend was side swiped by a city bus the bus driver had been drinking the were no passengers on board she could smell the alcohol.. she works at cedar sanai hospital a doctor ran over to the scene and he could smell alcohol on the driver.. she called the police and they did not do a dui check on driver at the seen. even though she said she could smell him..with alcohol .. they kept her away from him they never put him in a police car...all the city did was settle to get car fixed..we never found out about the driver and the drinking
 
Last edited:
thank you I knew he threw the case... I knew it before it went the grand jury
 
excuse me sir.... police are never railroaded.... they are better than citizens... what country do you live in if we accidently hurt someone a citizen will get sued if a police makes a mistake .....oh well ...well I thought it was like this... it looked like he was getting something.he should not have moved that fast....ooops....well he is dead now!!!!lets go to lunch zed ...... haven't you notice that citizens are cattle to the police not people or human beings...when they go to work
 
and 2) I will be glad when all this Ferguson nonsense is done...it has been galactically overblown, imo (except for the victim, the cop and their loved ones).

A cop killed someone in America. If the victim is 'black' and the cop is 'white'..everyone freaks out. Almost any other 'race' combination and almost no one gives a sh!t.

The second paragraph helps to explain why the first will not happen any time soon. Black lives matter.
 
The second paragraph helps to explain why the first will not happen any time soon. Black lives matter.

All lives matter...equally.

A 'black' killed should warrant ZERO more or less notoriety then a person of any other 'race' getting killed.
 
All lives matter...equally.

I don't believe you. Because when you say this:

A 'black' killed should warrant ZERO more or less note worthiness then a person of any other 'race' getting killed.

You reveal just how blind you are to the systematic oppression of blacks.
 
I don't believe you. Because when you say this:



You reveal just how blind you are to the systematic oppression of blacks.


if it was 1963, i might agree with you

now....NFW

most of the issues of the black community are caused by themselves

the movement away from the "family", the lack of true leadership in the communities, the lack of emphasis placed upon their children to set the bar high, and the victim mentality that seems to permeate throughout

I live near DC, and one of my best friends is a pastor in SE

He lives this on a daily basis......
 
Back
Top Bottom