• 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!

Federal charges unlikely for Darren Wilson in Ferguson case, officials say

Ockham

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
CNN said:
By Sara Sidner, Pamela Brown and Greg Botelho, CNN
Updated 1414 GMT (2214 HKT) January 22, 2015


(CNN)A federal investigation has not found enough evidence to charge Darren Wilson for depriving Michael Brown of his civil rights, according to multiple sources familiar with the probe. This would be the second time the former police officer has avoided standing trial in the black teen's fatal shooting last summer in Ferguson, Missouri.

The FBI joined local officials in interviewing more than 200 people -- and looked at much the same evidence -- as a St. Louis County grand jury that decided in November not to indict Wilson, who is white, on any charges in Brown's death. That federal law enforcement agency has now completed its investigation into the August shooting and sent its findings to the Justice Department, a law enforcement official and a separate U.S. official said Wednesday.
Based on that probe, Justice Department prosecutors won't recommend civil rights charges against Wilson because there is not sufficient evidence to support them, a U.S. official told CNN.
The New York Times first reported the development Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Federal charges unlikely for Darren Wilson in Ferguson case, officials say - CNN.com

Apparently the civil rights case is closing on the Ferguson outrage of Wilson's shooting of Brown. That the DoJ is not pursuing this is to me... surprising. Granted it's very difficult to prove firstly, and second there has to be all sorts of qualifying events that - according to reports - do not seem to be present for a civil rights prosecution to move forward.

First the grand jury acquitted Wilson of any wrong doing, now the Feds are saying a civil rights prosecution is not going to happen. That however doesn't preclude a wrongful death suit to be filed against Wilson, which has a much lower level of qualification to find fault. That may be the next shoe to drop.
 
Well at least even the DOJ had to admit Wilson was right. The wrongful death should also be **** canned.
 
MrVicchio said:
Well at least even the DOJ had to admit Wilson was right.
Click to expand...
The wrongful death should also be **** canned.
Click to expand...



100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
 
DoJ is obviously racist. :lol:
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean he's not either.
 
shrubnose said:
The man doesn't have a piece of paper that says that he's innocent of anything. He's still possibly facing a civil suit.
Click to expand...

He can't go to jail for that.
 
shrubnose said:
The man doesn't have a piece of paper that says that he's innocent of anything. He's still possibly facing a civil suit.
Click to expand...

The innocent man will never go to jail.

That's the first and foremost concern to get out of the way.

Once the civil cases (should they occur) get shot down, the innocent man will not be leeched from by inferior subrioters.
 
Ockham said:
Federal charges unlikely for Darren Wilson in Ferguson case, officials say - CNN.com

Apparently the civil rights case is closing on the Ferguson outrage of Wilson's shooting of Brown. That the DoJ is not pursuing this is to me... surprising. Granted it's very difficult to prove firstly, and second there has to be all sorts of qualifying events that - according to reports - do not seem to be present for a civil rights prosecution to move forward.

First the grand jury acquitted Wilson of any wrong doing, now the Feds are saying a civil rights prosecution is not going to happen. That however doesn't preclude a wrongful death suit to be filed against Wilson, which has a much lower level of qualification to find fault. That may be the next shoe to drop.
Click to expand...

You cant find proof of something if it doesnt exist.
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Using that logic it means no one can ever be found innocent.
 
Ockham said:
Using that logic it means no one can ever be found innocent.
Click to expand...

Well when they poll juries it's either, 'guilty' or 'not guilty.' :)
 
Lursa said:
Well when they poll juries it's either, 'guilty' or 'not guilty.' :)
Click to expand...

That's true. Yet, that same legal system in which a jury is a part, states "innocent" until proven guilty, which I believe came to the United States through English Common Law, and first seen in US Law in 1894 in Coffin v. U.S., "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty". Coffin v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

which means they don't have a case which means they can't prove what he said he did.
which means he was innocent of what they were trying to convict him of.

in your opinion you might think him guilty, but so far 2 courts of law have not found enough evidence to support that he did anything wrong.
 
shrubnose said:
The man doesn't have a piece of paper that says that he's innocent of anything. He's still possibly facing a civil suit.
Click to expand...

The court does not determine innocence
 
Ockham said:
Federal charges unlikely for Darren Wilson in Ferguson case, officials say - CNN.com

Apparently the civil rights case is closing on the Ferguson outrage of Wilson's shooting of Brown. That the DoJ is not pursuing this is to me... surprising. Granted it's very difficult to prove firstly, and second there has to be all sorts of qualifying events that - according to reports - do not seem to be present for a civil rights prosecution to move forward.

First the grand jury acquitted Wilson of any wrong doing, now the Feds are saying a civil rights prosecution is not going to happen. That however doesn't preclude a wrongful death suit to be filed against Wilson, which has a much lower level of qualification to find fault. That may be the next shoe to drop.
Click to expand...

Well good.

The DOJ just seems to have clawed back a smidgeon of respect.

While true, this doesn't curb the abusive civil law suits that are bound to follow, making this poor man's and his family's life a living hell, unfortunately.
 
ludin said:
which means they don't have a case which means they can't prove what he said he did.
which means he was innocent of what they were trying to convict him of.

in your opinion you might think him guilty, but
so far 2 courts of law have not found enough evidence to support that he did anything wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



B.S.

He hasn't been in a court of law yet.

But that day may come.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who isn't convicted is found not guilty.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile that statement with this:

"The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty". Coffin v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
 
shrubnose said:
Who said that he could? :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually your point is irrelevant to the thread. Criiminal charges are being brought against him.

/thread
 
shrubnose said:
B.S.

He hasn't been in a court of law yet.

But that day may come.
Click to expand...

Should people be charged with crimes, or charged civilly, when there isnt enough evidence to support the charges?

This has been concluded, what, 3 times now?

If it's ok to invent a basis to charge people and drag them thru the courts to make people 'feel' better, we're all in trouble.

Is there some reason the standards of evidence should be dismissed for this cop? Or is the implication that there has been deception in releasing evidence?

Seems odd that there is extra - ordinary scrutiny for this cop.
 
shrubnose said:
100 % wrong.

That's not what they said, they said that they couldn't find enough evidence to get a conviction.

That doesn't = innocent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Which is entirely irrelevant since the justice system doesn't find anyone innocent, they just find them not guilty. Darren Wilson is not guilty.
 
Ockham said:
Using that logic it means no one can ever be found innocent.
Click to expand...

That is true, no one is ever found innocent in any court of law in the land. That's not how the system works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom