• 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!

Exclusive: George Stephanopoulos Interviews Police Officer Darren Wilson

The DA presented all the evidence that was available. How would that guarantee an acquittal?

Because all the evidence (in this case) could only lead to one logical conclusion... I agree with CJ, though. The angry mob forced Mcculloch to bring the case to the GJ. He didn't want to.. He knew there was no case there.
 
Because all the evidence (in this case) could only lead to one logical conclusion... I agree with CJ, though. The angry mob forced Mcculloch to bring the case to the GJ. He didn't want to.. He knew there was no case there.

There's not a prosecuted in the world that would take a case to trial, knowing that most of his witnesses are lying.
 
The DA presented all the evidence that was available. How would that guarantee an acquittal?

It's not a matter of acquittal, since it's not a trial.

As I understand it, a DA is not required to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury when seeking an indictment. By presenting all evidence in this matter, including evidence that works against indictment, the defendant may avoid a trial. I was simply suggesting that if this was done in all cases, it's likely that there would be fewer costly, time consuming trials.
 
I need to stop using question marks for rhetorical questions.

It is evident that allowing wilson to testify unchallenged before the GJ was an excellent move for someone the DA NEVER treated as "the accused".

Secondly, it is also evident that wilson did not need a defense attorney as the FPD and the DA worked as his defense team.

Again, knowledge of how a GJ works would be quite helpful. It's interesting how desired results get spun to explain why it wasn't achieved. Perhaps you would have preferred evidence be hidden so your preconceived guilt would stand a chance.
 
I was surprised at how young Wilson looked. In the still photos released earlier he looks like a man in his late 30s at least (he is 28).
 
Again, knowledge of how a GJ works would be quite helpful. It's interesting how desired results get spun to explain why it wasn't achieved. Perhaps you would have preferred evidence be hidden so your preconceived guilt would stand a chance.

It is done everyday. That is the procedure for seeking an indictment. That is exactly what I suggested.
"Perhaps you would have preferred evidence be hidden so your preconceived guilt would stand a chance"

Whether ^^^this is a rhetorical statement or a question missing a question mark...it proves YOU are not familiar with the purpose of a Grand Jury and the normal protocol of a DA seeking an indictment.

Furthermore...if you believe every suspect is given the same treatment that Wilson gave given...you clearly don't have a clue of the GJ procedure.
 
Wilson didn't shoot him an more until he got out of the car and was pursuing Brown. I don't see that in your account.

Well, it was just one sentence, so....


According to Wilson's police interview he shot his gun off at least twice inside the car....and Michael Brown's blood was all over Wilson's right hand. Then Brown backed away from the car and took off running, then Wilson got out of his car yelled for him to stop and turn around....which Brown did. The rest is highly debatable whether or not Brown was trying to surrender or charge the officer.
 
It is done everyday. That is the procedure for seeking an indictment. That is exactly what I suggested.


Whether ^^^this is a rhetorical statement or a question missing a question mark...it proves YOU are not familiar with the purpose of a Grand Jury and the normal protocol of a DA seeking an indictment.

Furthermore...if you believe every suspect is given the same treatment that Wilson gave given...you clearly don't have a clue of the GJ procedure.

The procedure was followed, the evidence did not support indictment, and your bias is duly noted.

I assure you, as evidenced by your insistence, that my knowledge of GJ procedure is fully secure and accurate. Perhaps you could achieve the same level of knowledge some day.
 
There's not a prosecuted in the world that would take a case to trial, knowing that most of his witnesses are lying.

True, and many legal experts have indicated it would be nearly impossible to get a guilty verdict from a court trial. So, what would be the point of even brining it other than some people are so emotionally invested in this case.
 
It is done everyday. That is the procedure for seeking an indictment. That is exactly what I suggested.


Whether ^^^this is a rhetorical statement or a question missing a question mark...it proves YOU are not familiar with the purpose of a Grand Jury and the normal protocol of a DA seeking an indictment.

Furthermore...if you believe every suspect is given the same treatment that Wilson gave given...you clearly don't have a clue of the GJ procedure.

You are correct.. However in most cases in which the prosecutor know they have no chance of winning... They don't even take it to a GJ. In this case, where the prosecutor knew there was zero chance of winning, they were forced to be an irrational mob mentality calling for supposed "justice".
 
Well, it was just one sentence, so....


According to Wilson's police interview he shot his gun off at least twice inside the car....and Michael Brown's blood was all over Wilson's right hand. Then Brown backed away from the car and took off running, then Wilson got out of his car yelled for him to stop and turn around....which Brown did. The rest is highly debatable whether or not Brown was trying to surrender or charge the officer.
Witnesses said Brown charged toward Wilson, to my knowledge.
 
Witnesses said Brown charged toward Wilson, to my knowledge.

one witness confirmed wilson's story
watch that witness' testimony be impeached in this video:
 
one witness confirmed wilson's story
watch that witness' testimony be impeached in this video:


So where are the stories are people charging toward police officers.
 
one witness confirmed wilson's story
watch that witness' testimony be impeached in this video:



I'm sorry. I tried. I couldn't make it past the absolutely inane comment that if officers shot at every unarmed person that ran to them there would be thousands and thousands dead. :roll: What a frigging dummy.
 
I'm sorry. I tried. I couldn't make it past the absolutely inane comment that if officers shot at every unarmed person that ran to them there would be thousands and thousands dead. :roll: What a frigging dummy.

your loss. he made a very compelling argument against the manner in which the grand jury was manipulated by the prosecutor
 
your loss. he made a very compelling argument against the manner in which the grand jury was manipulated by the prosecutor

Possibly. I have a hard time with Odonnell in the first place, then to start with such a silly argumentright at the beginning? I made a second attempt and skippped a little bit in.. the next thing I saw was just as dumb.. Something about the guy originaly said he saw him walking on the sidewalk during the police interview then in GJ testimony changed that to walking in the street closer to the curb... :roll:
 
Possibly. I have a hard time with Odonnell in the first place, then to start with such a silly argumentright at the beginning? I made a second attempt and skippped a little bit in.. the next thing I saw was just as dumb.. Something about the guy originaly said he saw him walking on the sidewalk during the police interview then in GJ testimony changed that to walking in the street closer to the curb... :roll:

this was the ONE witness whose story aligned with wilson's
and that point was this ONE witness did not even get right that brown and johnson were not walking on the sidewalk ... the very premise given by wilson for immediately approaching them

and notably, the prosecutor dismissed other witness testimonies because of the inaccuracies within them. he was quite selective in the testimony he pushed. the one beneficial to wilson. despite its many flaws
 
this was the ONE witness whose story aligned with wilson's
and that point was this ONE witness did not even get right that brown and johnson were not walking on the sidewalk ... the very premise given by wilson for immediately approaching them

and notably, the prosecutor dismissed other witness testimonies because of the inaccuracies within them. he was quite selective in the testimony he pushed. the one beneficial to wilson. despite its many flaws

Yes, witnesses.. Not the greatest.. which is why you need forensics in support. The other witnesses you described as being dismissed, were dismissed as their testimony didn't match the forensics in some cases compeltely contradicted by the forensics..
 
this was the ONE witness whose story aligned with wilson's
and that point was this ONE witness did not even get right that brown and johnson were not walking on the sidewalk ... the very premise given by wilson for immediately approaching them

and notably, the prosecutor dismissed other witness testimonies because of the inaccuracies within them. he was quite selective in the testimony he pushed. the one beneficial to wilson. despite its many flaws

The witnesses that were dismissed 1) changed their stories to match the physical evidence, 2) their story didn't match the physical evidence, 3) admitted they didn't see the whole incident, or 4) admitted they didn't see the incident at all.
 
The witnesses that were dismissed 1) changed their stories to match the physical evidence, 2) their story didn't match the physical evidence, 3) admitted they didn't see the whole incident, or 4) admitted they didn't see the incident at all.

and this witness' testimony - the only witness whose story aligned with wilson's - failed criteria numbers 1 and 2
 
and this witness' testimony - the only witness whose story aligned with wilson's - failed criteria numbers 1 and 2

In what meaninful way did the witnesses testimony not match that of the physical evidence? And, no... saying he was walking on the sidewalk or in the street near the curb is not meaningful. Some details being incorrect, are to be expected...

This is not the same as the blood trail supporting that Brown kept coming towrads the officer, as W10 (and Wilson) indicated - which is meanginful.. This is not the same as multiple witnesses saying Brown got shot in the back (which we know is untrue) and is meanginful .... This is not the same as a witness indcating that the first shot was to Brown's head then the officer approached and unloaded into a kneeling and surrendering Brown - which we also know is untrue and would be meaningful.

I admittedly couldn't get through the ridculousness of Odonnel's report... but from the two piece I saw.. It's dumb. Maybe you can summarize what you found so good about it...
 
In what meaninful way did the witnesses testimony not match that of the physical evidence? And, no... saying he was walking on the sidewalk or in the street near the curb is not meaningful. Some details being incorrect, are to be expected...

This is not the same as the blood trail supporting that Brown kept coming towrads the officer, as W10 (and Wilson) indicated - which is meanginful.. This is not the same as multiple witnesses saying Brown got shot in the back (which we know is untrue) and is meanginful .... This is not the same as a witness indcating that the first shot was to Brown's head then the officer approached and unloaded into a kneeling and surrendering Brown - which we also know is untrue and would be meaningful.

I admittedly couldn't get through the ridculousness of Odonnel's report... but from the two piece I saw.. It's dumb. Maybe you can summarize what you found so good about it...
You nailed it.
:thumbs:
 
one witness confirmed wilson's story
watch that witness' testimony be impeached in this video:

O'Donnell, as well as his take on it, is idiotic.

He attaches to much importance to the mentioning of one of the witnesses in a press conference. :doh
He assumes what retell means as it could mean he had already told it to the press or it could simply be the fact that the idiot O'Donnell got this from the FBI interview so of course he already told it to the other investigative agency which there is a record of. :doh
And then he wrongly assumes what this means. "I seen the two guys walkin' down the street on the same sidewalk that I was on ..."
The witness clearly says they were walking down the Street. And as he said street, his following use of sidewalk would indicate he that it was the same street of the sidewalk he was on.

The guy is clearly saying they were in the street.
O'Donnell just doesn't like the verdict, probably because of his anti-gun nuttery and is grasping.
So no, he didn't impeach anything and he made no compelling argument.
If he had been able to present that foolishness to the GJ, they would have laughed him out of the room.

your loss. he made a very compelling argument against the manner in which the grand jury was manipulated by the prosecutor

No he didn't.
He made some absurd statements that he can't back up.

He neglected to tell you (lied) that there were other witnesses that said Brown was moving toward the Officer. Witness 48 specifically indicated that Brown was running at the Officer.

He doesn't get it and never will.

He says there is no real reason to believe Officer Wilson's account of Brown charging him.
That is bs.
There is reason to believe such and such an assertion is credible.


He charges the Officer shooting at him. D'oh!


Of course Brown charging Wilson is credible.
 
Back
Top Bottom