• 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 LIVE announcement video feed links here [W:60, 267]

The physical evidence doesn't prove probable cause to warrant a charge, then a trial. How do you justifify throwing The Constitution out the window?

then explain to me why there was no tissue under brown's nails that would match wilson's testimony
but a singular instance of probable cause, necessitating a trial
 
Last edited:
but that was not the issue i was presenting
my point was to look at the face of the cop, photographed at the emergency room immediately after the incident
and by looking at that photo to conclude how truthful the cop's testimony was when asserting that he believed the next blow to that face could have been fatal
View attachment 67176385
and i asked the forum community to ask themselves, is this the face of a shooter who reasonably believed the next punch to it could have proven fatal? was the cop being honest in his grand jury testimony?

Brown was a big kid. If he had hit Wilson and Wilson had lost control of his weapon, then what? The bottom line here is that once Brown assaulted Wilson, Wilson was obligated to arrest him. It went bad after that but if Brown wouldn't have been confrontational, we'd be talking about immigration.
 
The bias of the prosecutor?

The GJ heard and saw all the evidence, including the major disparity in some of the "eyewitness" accounts. This was all presented.

The GJ did not find that Wilson committed a crime and that's why they didn't indict him. It's what they're sworn to do. Decide if a crime was committed...

the grand jury did their job
they heard the evidence and rendered an opinion
they could not control that they were manipulated by a one-sided presentation
it is that flawed prosecutorial presentation that is the basis for the grand jury outcome
if you want peace, work for justice
it didn't happen here
 
Because the people said they were witnesses, so they were called to testify. Only after their testimony was scrutinized by the jurors, themselves, was their testimony determined to be inaccurate or made up.

but this exhibits the bias of the prosecutor
to place the non-witnesses on the stand to testify they did not see the events unfold
 
that's the whole point
there was sufficient probable cause to go to trial
not allowing it to do so, by a manipulated grand jury proceeding, undermines the pursuit of justice and the public's trust in our justice system
I just don't get where you find there was sufficient probable cause. If there was any manipulation, it started with how the media covered this story by stating things over and over that were false causing many to form an opinion based on hearsay.
 
In order to ACTUALLY believe that justice was NOT served here...you would have to believe a conspiracy theory so incredible it would make the 9/11 conspiracies look like small potatoes. Think about all the twists and turns you have to go through to believe such nonsense. OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS -including one with a handwritten letter- described the event the SAME WAY THE OFFICER DID. the witnesses who's stories DIDN'T match up with the officer ALSO didn't match with the DNA and physical evidence at the scene(by the way, those people should be thrown in jail for perjury_).
 
Last edited:
I just don't get where you find there was sufficient probable cause. If there was any manipulation, it started with how the media covered this story by stating things over and over that were false causing many to form an opinion based on hearsay.

i believe it was a flawed grand jury proceeding because it was a one-sided manipulation by the prosecutor
a prosecutor who has a natural alliance with the police force whose testimony is useful to the prosecutor when he is prosecuting cases
he was asked to recuse himself
and he would not
why
 
In order to ACTUALLY believe that justice was NOT served here...you would have to believe a conspiracy theory so incredible it would make the 9/11 conspiracies look like small potatoes. Think about all the twists and turns you have to go through to believe such nonsense. OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS -including one with a handwritten letter- described the event the SAME WAY THE OFFICER DID. the ones who's stories don't match up also don't match with the DNA and physical evidence at the scene(by the way, those people should be thrown in jail for perjury_).
all it would require is a belief that the prosecutor engaged in a flawed grand jury presentation
 
the grand jury did their job
they heard the evidence and rendered an opinion
they could not control that they were manipulated by a one-sided presentation
it is that flawed prosecutorial presentation that is the basis for the grand jury outcome
if you want peace, work for justice
it didn't happen here

It wasn't a one sided presentation. It followed the standards of all grand jury proceedings.
 
We'll skop all that crap and just interrogate Darren Wilson and base the verdict on his presentation, alone.

Actually, no one seems to care what the officer had to say at all, although as the accused, his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt as the prosecutor basically said in his presentation last night. However, the physical evidence and the testimony that was consistent with the physical evidence and with each other.... was considered.

What we are hearing in this thread, and on the news today, is that some people don't trust the system that we have and would prefer to just use a lynch mob form of "justice."

The news media and "group think" had come to their own conclusions - minus all the evidence. I'm watching a video of Al Sharpton talking about "justice" as if justice had not occurred. He at least is asking people to stop burning things down.

As I watched this last night, I kept hearing a lot of people (including Sharpton and other Black Leaders) talking about how the prosecutor and the Grand Jury made mistakes. How the system was, and is flawed. How the police should not have used tear gas, even in the face of gun fire, rioting, looting and arson.

I keep hearing that the black community has lost confidence in the justice system. Maybe they have some good and reasonable reasons to feel so. But... the reason they are giving today is that as long as the system doesn't come to a conclusion that they agree with, that it is flawed. That is not a legitimate reason.
 
In order to ACTUALLY believe that justice was NOT served here...you would have to believe a conspiracy theory so incredible it would make the 9/11 conspiracies look like small potatoes. Think about all the twists and turns you have to go through to believe such nonsense. OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS -including one with a handwritten letter- described the event the SAME WAY THE OFFICER DID. the ones who's stories don't match up also don't match with the DNA and physical evidence at the scene(by the way, those people should be thrown in jail for perjury_).

The prosecutor said last night he won't go after them for perjury. That's probably a bone being thrown, and it's wrong. Perjury is a serious matter.
 
but this exhibits the bias of the prosecutor
to place the non-witnesses on the stand to testify they did not see the events unfold

Seriously?

They had no idea that these people were or were not actual witnesses until their testimony was given and measured against the physical evidence, the testimony of other witnesses, and cross examined by the jurors themselves.

By your standard, it would appear that you think the prosecutors office knew what had happened without, and before, hearing all the evidence. That is not possible.
 
I feel awful for the officer and I really feel for his wife and his family. I'm a mother....I can't imagine seeing posts and tweets and shout outs to kill him and people acting like monsters as they did last night all because the evidence wasn't there to bring charges against him.

It's a sick and twisted world we live in that this is going on.

What I find particularly ironic that the same community that utilized civil rights groups and legislation to protect themselves after generations of "mob justice" was screaming the loudest to do the same.

The facts didn't matter, they attacked their own shops, and they attacked other minorities who had nothing to do with this.

Freaking amazing.
 
i believe it was a flawed grand jury proceeding because it was a one-sided manipulation by the prosecutor
a prosecutor who has a natural alliance with the police force whose testimony is useful to the prosecutor when he is prosecuting cases
he was asked to recuse himself
and he would not
why

So in other words, you're claiming this was a conspiracy, run by the prosecutor with the approval of theoretically many other people.

How did this same man with a "natural alliance" with the police force manage to convince these witnesses to admit to the Grand Jury that they lied about their original statements that Wilson was at fault? Bribery?
 
Re: Ferguson LIVE announcement video feed links here

We all have our biases in such events. I do find it interesting that you refer to Brown as an 18 yr old "that he can't control". You are aware, I hope, that police officers are authorized to use deadly force in situations where a suspect "can't be controlled" and is a danger.

It will be interesting, at least for me, to see the transcripts of the evidence provided should that become available. We're not likely to hear from Officer Wilson until years from now when the federal and civil actions have run their course. Since he agreed to testify in this grand jury process, I want to hear what he had to say about the situation and his mindset.
It's easy for armchair critics to claim he didn't need to use the force he did
- that ignores daily life as a police officer.



And it's just as easy for other critics to claim that he did need to use the force that he did.

If we weren't there at the time none of us (Including me!) really know what happened and what the results should be.

I will say that this won't be over for Officer Wilson anytime soon.
 
that's the whole point
there was sufficient probable cause to go to trial
not allowing it to do so, by a manipulated grand jury proceeding, undermines the pursuit of justice and the public's trust in our justice system

Grand Juries determine whether or not there is a case against a particular defendent strong enough to warrant going to trial. The prosecutor has every advantage in a grand jury proceeding. The only way a preliminary hearing could have benefitted the prosecution is if it was overseen by a judge who was vulnerable to political pressure. If anything, a preliminary hearing would have been more favorable to the defense than a grand jury as the defendant is the one denied an advocate in a grand jury proceeding, not the prosecution.
 
i disagree
from what i have seen it was a one sided presentation which sought to exculpate wilson from responsibility for his actions
read this and see how reasonable it sounds:
Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally. - Vox

No, Ezra Klein's opinion isn't relevant, sorry.

Or perhaps he has no idea how a grand jury works either.

What "other side" were you looking to have presented? The witnesses were all allowed to testify - the ones who were sympathetic to Brown. And most of them admitted they lied, misstated, or weren't even there. That's the other side of a grand jury process. It was presented. Including physical evidence and not one, not two, but three autopsy reports.
 
Fact, Michael Brown just robbed a store.
Fact, Michael Brown was noticed by police for walking in the middle of a road.
Fact, Michael brown charged a cop.
Fact, Miachel brown was shot for his poor choices and threatening actions.


Motive, opportunity, and means. A grand jury would not be able to indict on this.
 
No, Ezra Klein's opinion isn't relevant, sorry.

Or perhaps he has no idea how a grand jury works either.

What "other side" were you looking to have presented? The witnesses were all allowed to testify - the ones who were sympathetic to Brown. And most of them admitted they lied, misstated, or weren't even there. That's the other side of a grand jury process. It was presented. Including physical evidence and not one, not two, but three autopsy reports.

but there were witnesses who saw it as a inappropriate use of force by wilson
which causes there to be probable cause to have a trial to determine where the truth is
 
but there were witnesses who saw it as a inappropriate use of force by wilson
which causes there to be probable cause to have a trial to determine where the truth is

Have you read every piece of evidence that was released?

If so, please point to the witness testimony that contradicts the Grand Jury's findings. Which specific eyewitness?
 
but there were witnesses who saw it as a inappropriate use of force by wilson
which causes there to be probable cause to have a trial to determine where the truth is

No, there weren't. And the evidence does not support a trial.
 
No, there weren't. And the evidence does not support a trial.

your presentation is that there was no witness who saw anything other than that wilson's shooting of brown was a reasonable one
i find that an incredible conclusion
 
i believe it was a flawed grand jury proceeding because it was a one-sided manipulation by the prosecutor
a prosecutor who has a natural alliance with the police force whose testimony is useful to the prosecutor when he is prosecuting cases
he was asked to recuse himself
and he would not
why
You can think what you want but the governor could have ordered him removed from the proceedings and he refused to.

First the attempt was to smear the police department as being incompetent/racist. And then after the verdict phase two must be to smear the Grand Jury process as being shady.

When the Hell does all this stop and people start coming to grips with what really occurred?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom