• 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!

Grand Jury Could Hear Michael Brown Case Evidence Wednesday

I have a general questions - first: Before the investigation is completed, before we have all the evidence (such as whether or not the officer that shot Brown was attacked prior to shooting him).. exactly what Civil Rights have been violated to be investigated by Obama and Holder??????

Next question: How many people here know that a Grand Jury Indictment means nothing as far as true guilt or innocence????

Another question: Did you know that a Grand Jury is only given testimony hand picked by the Prosecutor with no defense attorney's allowed to even be in the room?

Further question: Did you know that a judge is not even in the room to keep the prosecutor from saying outright lies???

Nest to last question: Do you think that even if a Grand Jury indicts the officer, that people will stop the violence and mayhem in the streets?

Last question in two parts: Do you think that a Grand Jury Indictment will lead to a conviction in a court, and; Do you think that if the LEO is not convicted in any court case brought after the Grand Jury Indictment that the protestors will accept the verdict?
 
Excon said:
:doh
The prosecutor will be bringing all the evidence to the GJ. Did I say I knew all of it?

But of that we do know, it is in the Officer's favor. Do you really doubt that?

Everything released or provided through other sources, except for the initial friend and cohorts statements (which not only sound, but have been proven by other evidence to be contrived), have all been in favor of the Officer.

So instead of you engaging in your ridiculous and irrelevant antics of distraction, how about we go over each piece of the known evidence?
Click to expand...

There is no way that any prosecutor at this point will present any evidence to the Grand Jury that might lead to anything but a Bill of Indictment. No way...

The Grand Jury's outcome is all but set. Which is but the beginning of the rights of the officer being trampled in the name of "Social Justice." Mark my words.
 
Beaudreaux said:
There is no way that any prosecutor at this point will present any evidence to the Grand Jury that might lead to anything but a Bill of Indictment. No way...

The Grand Jury's outcome is all but set. Which is but the beginning of the rights of the officer being trampled in the name of "Social Justice." Mark my words.
Click to expand...

It does, unfortunately, seem that way, despite the mounting evidence against the prosecution's case. No regard of the search for the truth. :(
 
Beaudreaux said:
.. exactly what Civil Rights have been violated to be investigated by Obama and Holder??????
Click to expand...
None known.
But a LEO shooting a citizen as initially describe white on black (execution style) would be an Officer depriving a citizen of their "rights" and would deserve an investigation. That is if the allegations were shown to at least have some validity to then.
In this case they don't.
So this is Obama and Holder jumping the gun over nothing more than a falsely perceived racial issue.
I am kind of surprised that they haven't cancelled the GJ and appointed a special prosecutor like they did in Zimmerman's case.
Which was of course done to appease.
Edit - Oops, I hope i haven't spoken too soon.

Beaudreaux said:
Next question: How many people here know that a Grand Jury Indictment means nothing as far as true guilt or innocence????

Another question: Did you know that a Grand Jury is only given testimony hand picked by the Prosecutor with no defense attorney's allowed to even be in the room?

Further question: Did you know that a judge is not even in the room to keep the prosecutor from saying outright lies???
Click to expand...
Yes.
And while I wasn't specific in regards to what you mention, I pretty much have shown I knew such by my comments to Montecresto.


Beaudreaux said:
Nest to last question: Do you think that even if a Grand Jury indicts the officer, that people will stop the violence and mayhem in the streets?
Click to expand...
For a short time possibly.


Beaudreaux said:
Last question in two parts: Do you think that a Grand Jury Indictment will lead to a conviction in a court, and; Do you think that if the LEO is not convicted in any court case brought after the Grand Jury Indictment that the protestors will accept the verdict?
Click to expand...
Based on what we do know, there should be no true bill issued.
But of course that is dependent on what we known and not on what the Prosecutor will be presenting.
And no, nothing but sacrificing the Officer will suffice in the short term.

anderson-cooper-ferguson.jpg

“You’ve Killed Our Kind 4 Years
But Won’t Sacrifice 1 Cop
For Justice & To Save A Community & These Businesses”​








*UPDATE* St. Louis Media REPORT –
Dorian Johnson Recants Media Statement ?
- Tells Authorities “Big Mike” Did Try For Officers Gun
Grand Jury Charges “Unlikely”… *UPDATE* –
But Special Prosecutor Might Be Assigned Anyway

[...]
breaking-wilson-justified.jpg

Dorian Johnson Recants | “Big Mike” Did Try For Officers Gun​
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
There is no way that any prosecutor at this point will present any evidence to the Grand Jury that might lead to anything but a Bill of Indictment. No way...
Click to expand...
You do not know that and I seriously doubt it.
There would be such a huge gaping hole in the information provided to the GJ that it would be obvious to them. And with what is already known in the public sphere, really unlikely.
And while I say unlikely, that does not mean impossible.


Beaudreaux said:
The Grand Jury's outcome is all but set.
Click to expand...
I am sure that is true.
But again, if all the evidence that we know of is presented, they will have no choice but to not return a true bill.
So if they do return one we know bs is afloat.

Or if they don't return a true bill and the Gov. appoints a special prosecutor, we will still know bs is afloat.

Beaudreaux said:
Which is but the beginning of the rights of the officer being trampled in the name of "Social Justice."
Click to expand...
May or may not be.






Beaudreaux said:
Mark my words.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you think they are important, and everybody should pay homage to them if they are correct?

What if they are wrong?
Should those who have marked your words then turn around and pillory you for being wrong?

iLOL Mark my words. :doh
Look, I know they are only words, but they are overly dramatic and not needed.
 
Last edited:
I think the WH pretty much knows the facts of the case including those that have not been released. The fact that Obama hasn't opened his yap about Brown looking like his son or talking about police "acting stupidly" means the facts of the case support the police narrative. He's just sending Holder as a political move and to join the other d-bags who have already gone to Ferguson.
 
Fishstyx said:
There in lies the catch 22. Either they don't proceed based on the evidence (if its solid in Wilson's defense, the FBI will come to the same conclusion), Ferguson is gonna burn. Or, the go forward knowing he'll be acquitted down the road, Ferguson is gonna burn when the verdict is reached. Either way, violence is likely. Frankly, National Guard in position, FBI there in full force, might be better off just yanking the band-aid off now.

Orrrr, the evidence is there to counter Wilson's version and he is charged and sent to prison. In the mean time, Ferguson burns. Frankly, those that are stirring up trouble (not the peaceful protestors) don't really give a crap about this issue, they view it as an opportunity to get away with vandalism, robbery and other crimes.
Click to expand...

Isnt the officer benefited by grand jury involvement? If the evidence supports him, then it is officially scrutinized under our justice system and he his validated. If I were him and I made a justified use of force like this *and it was made this public* I'd want my innocence verified just as publicly.

Because IMO right or wrong at this point, this guy will be viewed as guilty unless they provide as much transparency as possible (and probably even then by some unfortunately).
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Don't know if I'm allowed to participate in this thread. I didn't bring my tin foil hat.
Click to expand...

Well, its not like when you do participate.....that you have a clue about anything. So don't even sweat it.

Oh and I figured that wouldn't stop you from using such in that Helmet you need.
 
poweRob said:
Don't know if I'm allowed to participate in this thread. I didn't bring my tin foil hat.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...





If you don't wear it shiny-side out, you're wasting your time putting it on.

Just sayin' :roll:




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
Erod said:
The "truth" is too often what most conveniently distracts from facing the real truth. People really avoid looking in the mirror these days.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...





'Truthiness' won't help the situation in Ferguson or anywhere else in the USA.

It will take some color-blind real justice to do that.

I don't expect to see that anytime soon anywhere in the USA.

Not going to happen.

Because too many people with power are opposed to it.




Anyone who's never been a young Black man in the USA has no idea what they have to put up with on a daily basis.

Justice in the USA is not color-blind.


Deal with it or don't deal with it, your choice.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
I realize you think that, but that is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Wilson will be convicted, of something. If--and that's a big ass if--the grand jury doesn't idict him, the DOJ will convict him of some federal crime. Because, if the grand jury doesn't come back with an idictment, the **** is really going to hit the fan.
 
apdst said:
Wilson will be convicted, of something. If--and that's a big ass if--the grand jury doesn't idict him, the DOJ will convict him of some federal crime. Because, if the grand jury doesn't come back with an idictment, the **** is really going to hit the fan.
Click to expand...
You do not know that.

So let me ask you. Why do you think the Guard is there while the Police are still handling the rioters?
 
apdst said:
Wilson will be convicted, of something. If--and that's a big ass if--the grand jury doesn't idict him, the DOJ will convict him of some federal crime. Because, if the grand jury doesn't come back with an idictment, the **** is really going to hit the fan.
Click to expand...

In the case of differeing accounts of what happened, why shouldn't it go to trial? I'm not saying he is guilty, but it is quite clear there are differing accounts and if people are lying it will be found out in trial where experts can examine the evidence and give their testimony to that evidence.

Just because it goes to trial does not mean the officer is guilty.
 
TheNextEra said:
In the case of differeing accounts of what happened, why shouldn't it go to trial? I'm not saying he is guilty, but it is quite clear there are differing accounts and if people are lying it will be found out in trial where experts can examine the evidence and give their testimony to that evidence.

Just because it goes to trial does not mean the officer is guilty.
Click to expand...

If the grand jury doesn't find sufficient evidence, it shouldn't go to trial. Why? Because that's the law.
 
apdst said:
If the grand jury doesn't find sufficient evidence, it shouldn't go to trial. Why? Because that's the law.
Click to expand...

Well the evidence is the guy is dead and there is differing testimony in regards to the shooting and the autopsy shows he was shot at a distance. That's sufficient right there.
 
Excon said:
You do not know that.

So let me ask you. Why do you think the Guard is there while the Police are still handling the rioters?
Click to expand...

The National Gaurd is there--IMO--in case the situation turns into total mayhem; or, it was a panic filled decision made in haste.
 
TheNextEra said:
In the case of differeing accounts of what happened, why shouldn't it go to trial?
Click to expand...
Because evidence is weighed.
And in this case one side is far more believable and corroborated while the other is not and keeps falling apart little by little but in major ways.
 
apdst said:
The National Gaurd is there--IMO--in case the situation turns into total mayhem; or, it was a panic filled decision made in haste.
Click to expand...
So you wouldn't you say they are there in advance, because it is already known that he wont be charged?
 
TheNextEra said:
Well the evidence is the guy is dead and there is differing testimony in regards to the shooting and the autopsy shows he was shot at a distance. That's sufficient right there.
Click to expand...

It is? I believe that's debatable.
 
Excon said:
So you wouldn't you say they are there in advance, because it is already known that he wont be charged?
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that, yes.
 
Excon said:
Because evidence is weighed.
And in this case one side is far more believable and corroborated while the other is not and keeps falling apart little by little but in major ways.
Click to expand...

And the grand Jury will decide that. If it merits a trial, there will be one. My main point is just because there is a trial does not mean the officer is guilty.
 
apdst said:
It is? I believe that's debatable.
Click to expand...

It is debatable and that is why it is going to go before a grand jury. If the evidence is deemed appropriate there will be a trial. It still doesn't mean the officer is guilty.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well the evidence is the guy is dead and there is differing testimony in regards to the shooting and the autopsy shows he was shot at a distance. That's sufficient right there.
Click to expand...


sufficient for what charge?

the only issue here is whether or not the shooting was justified and warranted

what led to the shooting, and was the officer in fear for his life, or others around him

and even if there are no criminal charges, he can still be disciplined and removed from the force pending the internal affairs review

this has a LOT of parts to it....and over the next few days, we may get additional facts released

right now, based upon evidence known.....its a tossup for me....just not sure
 
gdgyva said:
sufficient for what charge?

the only issue here is whether or not the shooting was justified and warranted

what led to the shooting, and was the officer in fear for his life, or others around him

and even if there are no criminal charges, he can still be disciplined and removed from the force pending the internal affairs review

this has a LOT of parts to it....and over the next few days, we may get additional facts released

right now, based upon evidence known.....its a tossup for me....just not sure
Click to expand...

Well we will find out. Personally, I'll take the view of experts of law rather than some random internet poster that thinks he is a lawyer.

It's going to go to a grand jury and they will decide if there is sufficient evidence, not you and not me.
 
TheNextEra said:
It is debatable and that is why it is going to go before a grand jury. If the evidence is deemed appropriate there will be a trial. It still doesn't mean the officer is guilty.
Click to expand...

Your examples of sufficient evidence are debatable. Those examples, alone are sufficient, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom