• 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 would disagree with that, yes.
That's weird, especially given all the other speculation you have engaged in.
Oh well. :shrug:
 
Your examples of sufficient evidence are debatable. Those examples, alone are sufficient, IMO.

As you said, it is your opinion. Mine is different. We'll see how it rolls out.
 
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.
The point is that they do not have to, nor should they, as it is already known.
No one should be subjected to a trial that does not have to be. Especially as the evidence already points to the shooting being justified.
 
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.

There are lawyers on TV that van't speak proper English opining about this case. Even though I disagree with you, I would take your opinion over their's. ;)
 
The point is that they do not have to, nor should they, as it is already known.
No one should be subjected to a trial that does not have to be. Especially as the evidence already points to the shooting being justified.

Exactly! Which is the purpose of a grand jury.
 
That's weird, especially given all the other speculation you have engaged in.
Oh well. :shrug:

You asked if I agree that the state already knows the grand jury isn't going to indict. No, I don't bekieve they KNOW that.
 
The point is that they do not have to, nor should they, as it is already known.
No one should be subjected to a trial that does not have to be. Especially as the evidence already points to the shooting being justified.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I reject that you are a law expert.
 
Exactly! Which is the purpose of a grand jury.
No it really isn't.
It is the purpose of the DA to determine such. Not push it off on a GJ.
 
You asked if I agree that the state already knows the grand jury isn't going to indict. No, I don't bekieve they KNOW that.
No. I asked if you believed the Guard were already in place because they knew there was not going to be any charges.
 
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I reject that you are a law expert.
No it isn't just an opinion.
Our legal system is not there to charge innocent people. That is not opinion.

The evidence in this case shows the shooting was justified. There is no reason to charge him or even present the evidence to a GJ.
We already know what it shows.
 
No it isn't just an opinion.
Our legal system is not there to charge innocent people. That is not opinion.

The evidence in this case shows the shooting was justified. There is no reason to charge him or even present the evidence to a GJ.
We already know what it shows.

It is YOUR opinion there isn't enough evidence. Yes, it is.

You are NOT a legal expert and your opinion is rejected. Don't like it, go pound sand.
 
It is YOUR opinion there isn't enough evidence.
:doh
That is an opinion based on fact.
There is no credible witness for that side of the story. The stories sound contrived and have already been proven to be false in part.

Like I said, the evidence is weighed.


So all you are doing is talking nonsense.
Which is why you are trying to cast aspersion instead of debating the evidence.
 
What's the grand jury for, then?
There purpose is not to bring charges on innocent people, or to make a showing.
There is absolutely no valid reason to present a GJ with information when it is already known that information clears the Officer of any wrong doing.
If it was unclear, yes, give it to them and let them decide. But this isn't one of those cases.
 
:doh
That is an opinion based on fact.
There is no credible witness for that side of the story. The stories sound contrived and have already been proven to be false in part.

Like I said, the evidence is weighed.


So all you are doing is talking nonsense.
Which is why you are trying to cast aspersion instead of debating the evidence.

If what you say is fact it wouldn't be going to a grand jury. Sorry, your comments are nothing but OPINION.

Your "legal expertise" is rejected. If there wasn't evidence to be looked at a Grand Jury wouldn't happen.
 
If what you say is fact it wouldn't be going to a grand jury. Sorry, your comments are nothing but OPINION.

Your "legal expertise" is rejected. If there wasn't evidence to be looked at a Grand Jury wouldn't happen.
No that isn't true.
If it is going to a GJ as reported, it is for appeasement purposes.
WHich is not what the GJ was designed for.
 
I think the version the Grand Jury will be pretty simple.

Brown robbed a convenience store by force. A policeman responded to the call and confronted Brown, who then tried to reach for the officer's gun. The officer's eye socket was injured in the scuffle, but he gained control of his gun. Brown fled, but the officer trained his weapon on him and attempted to arrest him. Brown turned with his hands up, but as the two got closer, Brown bum rushed the officer, who then discharged six shots into Brown and killed him.

That seems to be the basic sequence of events, plus or minus, as many of these "witness" accounts continue to fall apart.

As such, no indictment should be forthcoming. Then, Katy bar the doors as the racists descend on Ferguson.
 
No that isn't true.
If it is going to a GJ as reported, it is for appeasement purposes.
WHich is not what the GJ was designed for.

Yet again, more of your opinion. It is your opinion that is the reason. When will you realize the difference between a fact and opinion?
 
Yet again, more of your opinion. It is your opinion that is the reason.
And again wrong.
You deflecting from discussing the evidence speaks volumes.

When will you realize the difference between a fact and opinion?
Just more non-factual opinionated distraction from you. Figures.
 
And again wrong.
You deflecting from discussing the evidence speaks volumes.

No it is nothing but your opinion I'm wrong and one that I reject. Nothing of fact has been spoken by you.
 
No it is nothing but your opinion I'm wrong and one that I reject. Nothing of fact has been spoken by you.
Just more non-factual opinionated distraction from you. Figures.
 
Just more non-factual opinionated distraction from you. Figures.

Just more opinions from you. Figures you still don't know the difference between fact and opinion. What an ego you have.
 
Just more opinions from you. Figures you still don't know the difference between fact and opinion. What an ego you have.
And again you are wrong.
Have you discussed the evidence here yet? Nope. You were given to opportunity to do so instead of engaging in deflection. Yet you still haven't.
That is fact. Not opinion.
Do try to learn the difference.
 
breaking-wilson-justified.jpg

And just in case the above announcement doesn't pan out, someone has made a nice link for it.

BREAKING NEWS! Dorian Johnson states Mike Brown assaulted Officer.
 
And again you are wrong.
Have you discussed the evidence here yet? Nope. You were given to opportunity to do so instead of engaging in deflection. Yet you still haven't.
That is fact. Not opinion.
Do try to learn the difference.

Nope it is opinion and nothing more. You need to learn the difference. You are not saying fact just because you claim it.
 
Back
Top Bottom