• 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!

Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown

By Robert Patrick rpatrick@ ~ ... and Kim Bell kbell@ ~ ...


ST. LOUIS • Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson testified for almost four hours Tuesday in front of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating his Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, a source with knowledge of the investigation said Wednesday.

Wilson was not obligated to testify, and also has spoken with St. Louis County investigators twice and federal investigators once, the source said. The source said that Wilson had been “cooperative.”

[...]


Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown : News


Unlikely his attorney would have allowed him to testify if he thought charges were going to be brought.


And for those who do not know. Dorian Johnson has already testified also.
 
Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown

By Robert Patrick rpatrick@ ~ ... and Kim Bell kbell@ ~ ...


ST. LOUIS • Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson testified for almost four hours Tuesday in front of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating his Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, a source with knowledge of the investigation said Wednesday.

Wilson was not obligated to testify, and also has spoken with St. Louis County investigators twice and federal investigators once, the source said. The source said that Wilson had been “cooperative.”

[...]


Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown : News


Unlikely his attorney would have allowed him to testify if he thought charges were going to be brought.


And for those who do not know. Dorian Johnson has already testified also.

Sounds to me like Officer Wilson is an honorable man and regardless of attorney advice wanted to let his side of the story be told because he feels he acted appropriately.

I'm glad to see this happen - personally, I've seen far too many police officers here in Toronto refuse to cooperate with investigations into incidents where a member of the public is seriously injured or killed.
 
Sounds to me like Officer Wilson is an honorable man and regardless of attorney advice wanted to let his side of the story be told because he feels he acted appropriately.
While I agree with the sentiment, I have no idea how you arrived at such underlined conclusions. For all we know it is exactly what his attorney wanted. :shrug:
 
While I agree with the sentiment, I have no idea how you arrived at such underlined conclusions. For all we know it is exactly what his attorney wanted. :shrug:

I came to that conclusion because it happens here all the time - what we refer to as a "subject" officer as opposed to "witness" officers are almost always advised by police union legal counsel not to say a word and not to cooperate with any investigation. I think it does more harm than good, but I'm not a lawyer. I just think it's refreshing to see this happen in such a high profile matter as this Ferguson case and it makes me feel more comfortable in my initial support for the officer's actions from the limited information we had.
 
The Feds will burn him for civil rights violations.
 
The Feds will burn him for civil rights violations.
Highly unlikely.


Didn't you say that about Zimmerman also?
 
While I agree with the sentiment, I have no idea how you arrived at such underlined conclusions. For all we know it is exactly what his attorney wanted. :shrug:

Depends greatly on the situation, I doubt most attorneys would want someone to testify in front of the grand jury given how much media and government attention this case has drawn. Appearing before the grand jury can still put someone in a position of having to take the 5th on a challenging question, which may or may not be critical in the grand jury returning a charge.
 
Sounds to me like Officer Wilson is an honorable man and regardless of attorney advice wanted to let his side of the story be told because he feels he acted appropriately.

This is possible.

It is also possible that he is dishonorable and felt that he could lie well enough in person to cover up an unnecessary killing.

I cannot draw a conclusion based upon the fact that he testified.

I would be very interested to hear WHAT he said and how it compares to objective forensic evidence and other witness testimony... but everything is secret right now.

I can neither condemn nor support this man without some hard facts to scrutinize.
 
Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown

By Robert Patrick rpatrick@ ~ ... and Kim Bell kbell@ ~ ...


ST. LOUIS • Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson testified for almost four hours Tuesday in front of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating his Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, a source with knowledge of the investigation said Wednesday.

Wilson was not obligated to testify, and also has spoken with St. Louis County investigators twice and federal investigators once, the source said. The source said that Wilson had been “cooperative.”

[...]


Ferguson officer appears before grand jury on shooting of Michael Brown : News


Unlikely his attorney would have allowed him to testify if he thought charges were going to be brought.


And for those who do not know. Dorian Johnson has already testified also.


They're off to a good start with Officer Wilson spending 4 hours testifying, his side of the event has been told. Glad they are moving rather quickly in this, and continue to move forward.
 
This is possible.

It is also possible that he is dishonorable and felt that he could lie well enough in person to cover up an unnecessary killing.

I cannot draw a conclusion based upon the fact that he testified.

I would be very interested to hear WHAT he said and how it compares to objective forensic evidence and other witness testimony... but everything is secret right now.

I can neither condemn nor support this man without some hard facts to scrutinize.

That's fair comment - my position is based on the fact that officers seldom testify unless compelled to do so and if they are subject officers almost never until the matter goes to trial after charges are laid. To preempt all that, particularly when his own legal counsel is not allowed to be present for the questioning, leads me to believe he's got nothing to hide. He could also be stupidly overconfident, but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.
 
Re: Grand Jury Reportedly hears from officer


Recording the entire hearing, so that they can release all information if he is not indicted. I find that interesting.. and.. again.. makes me think there is exculpatory evidence and they do not expect an indictment to be handed down.
 
Is Dorian Johnson the kid who was with Brown in the store and on the street that night?

I know another has already answered, but yes that is him.

DJ2.jpg


DJ.jpg


10_n.jpg
 
Depends greatly on the situation, I doubt most attorneys would want someone to testify in front of the grand jury given how much media and government attention this case has drawn. Appearing before the grand jury can still put someone in a position of having to take the 5th on a challenging question, which may or may not be critical in the grand jury returning a charge.
Of course, which is why this is unusual and more likely than not points to the Officer having nothing to hide.
 
To preempt all that, particularly when his own legal counsel is not allowed to be present for the questioning, leads me to believe he's got nothing to hide. He could also be stupidly overconfident, but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

:yt





It is also possible that he is dishonorable and felt that he could lie well enough in person to cover up an unnecessary killing.
Many a thing could be possible :doh, yet some just are not likely, like the above.
 
That's fair comment - my position is based on the fact that officers seldom testify unless compelled to do so and if they are subject officers almost never until the matter goes to trial after charges are laid. To preempt all that, particularly when his own legal counsel is not allowed to be present for the questioning, leads me to believe he's got nothing to hide. He could also be stupidly overconfident, but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

I could be wrong, but believe his lawyer was present. But, otherwise I agree with you. There are so many things about this case that make me suspect they really do not expect charges to be brought. I realize that some will claim bias, but I suspect it is far more likely that they've seen thee vidnece and are just doing this as a show to help appease a certain part of the population.
 
Sounds to me like Officer Wilson is an honorable man and regardless of attorney advice wanted to let his side of the story be told because he feels he acted appropriately.

I'm glad to see this happen - personally, I've seen far too many police officers here in Toronto refuse to cooperate with investigations into incidents where a member of the public is seriously injured or killed.


McCulloch has pledged to present every witness and every shred of evidence to let the grand jurors independently decide whether to indict Wilson, without the prosecutor making a recommendation. Magee has said that prosecutors will help witnesses navigate legal issues.


Sounds like some wisdom has prevailed. In the "unique" US Grand Jury system, this is as close to fair as you're going to get, fairer if they're were mandated to present ALL the evidence not just that which points to guilt.

No matter the outcome, because of the initial bungling and mis-reporting, no matter what the outcome, people will still line up on their favorite side.
 
I could be wrong, but believe his lawyer was present. But, otherwise I agree with you. There are so many things about this case that make me suspect they really do not expect charges to be brought. I realize that some will claim bias, but I suspect it is far more likely that they've seen thee vidnece and are just doing this as a show to help appease a certain part of the population.

No lawyer present. In the Grand Jury in MO, it's only the 12 jurors, the prosecutor, and the witness. He could have his lawyer present only if he pleads the 5th.
 
Re: Grand Jury Reportedly hears from officer

Recording the entire hearing, so that they can release all information if he is not indicted. I find that interesting.. and.. again.. makes me think there is exculpatory evidence and they do not expect an indictment to be handed down.
Exactly. And doing so would possibly have the effect of thwarting any bogus Civil Rights violation charge as well.
 
Sounds like some wisdom has prevailed. In the "unique" US Grand Jury system, this is as close to fair as you're going to get, fairer if they're were mandated to present ALL the evidence not just that which points to guilt.

No matter the outcome, because of the initial bungling and mis-reporting, no matter what the outcome, people will still line up on their favorite side.

Yup.

It takes 9 of them to proceed with charges against him.
 
Yup.

It takes 9 of them to proceed with charges against him.

Actually Missouri law allows an indictment without a true bill if 7 or 8 grand jurors vote to indict.
 
Back
Top Bottom