Michael Brown shooting II

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Brown took cigars or cigarillos and didn't pay, then intimidated the store owner when approached. There is video.

I see the confusion. That was a strong arm robbery, not shoplifting.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looks like Piaget Crenshaw didn't see most of what she claimed to have seen in her media interviews.

Witness 16.

Imagine that

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is an unusual case that requires a different approach, imo.

It was not so much an unusual case as it was simply a case the whole country was watching and waiting to disect, IMO.

But I am glad to see you agree that the GJ approach taken was not the usual one.

Presenting all of the evidence is appropriate.

In this case, I agree it was appropriate. Because of the circumstances of this case, and the end goal of having all the evidence available for examination.

Defendants are usually invited to testify to the GJ, few accept. Wilson's acceptance was unusual.

Yes, because when a case normally goes the GJ, it is because they are going to indict. then the case goes to trial. Having a defendant testify tips the prosecution off to the defense. So that would typically be a bad move.

It doesn't look like the charges were presented that way.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/
He said prosecuting attorneys presented five potential indictments to the grand jury, and all were rejected.

The openness and thoroughness has been very good, imo.

I don't disagree. I think it's good as well. My claim was, it's not usual.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looks like Piaget Crenshaw didn't see most of what she claimed to have seen in her media interviews.

Witness 16.

Skeptics were pointing this out all along. Not only would stories change when the "witness" was in front of a DA instead of Oprah, but that some stories never made it on Oprah at all.

None of this was written in the Gospel of St. Michael, so it was ignored by the Apostles.

 

[Checkmite]

Saw the released medical photos. Officer Wilson's fractured eye socket and bleeding ear are particularly nasty. Certainly not images for the squeamish.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Looks like Piaget Crenshaw didn't see most of what she claimed to have seen in her media interviews.

Witness 16.

Thanks for the witness # -> name.

She is also one of the ones I had in mind.

I think it seems pretty likely that one or more witnesses will have given testimony to the grand jury that differs from their public interviews. Especially witnesses like Dorian Johnson.

Does your response mean you don't think that will happen ?

 

[NoahFence]

Nothing says 'i want peace' more than screaming to the mob 'burn this bitch down'

Pathetic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What about the half dozen people we're told saw something else?

We are? What are their names and can we read what they say they saw?

There is a lot of evidence to go through.

Here is one link:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html

If/when someone matches up some witness numbers to names, I would be interested in seeing that.

Have at it. Witness 10 is a good one to start with...

 

[Distracted1]

Then he messed with a dude with a gun....gee whiz shocking how that turned out. Happens everyday just so happens that this gets made into a racial issue that doesn't exist.
I couldn't help but laugh when our racist POTUS was pitching his alternate reality split screen with the riots.... that will be his legacy playing his fiddle while Rome burns around him.
The only real question I asked myself today when I went out was should today be open carry or concealed?

Thanks for reminding me why I am still a Liberal.
I am going to go get a shower now.

 

[LTC8K6]

Saw the released medical photos. Officer Wilson's fractured eye socket and bleeding ear are particularly nasty. Certainly not images for the squeamish.

It's a good thing they appear to have played little role in the GJ decision...

 

[LTC8K6]

I believed Wilson would not be charged, but I am still stunned at how much the evidence and witnesses support Wilson's story.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Idiot family attorney on CNN now "The process is broken because it didn't agree with our version of the facts".

ETA: Wow, how did this guy pass the bar? He can barely string two sentences together.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I believed Wilson would not be charged, but I am still stunned at how much the evidence and witnesses support Wilson's story.

I'm not. Enough had leaked out that made it obvious that was the direction is was going. Plus, common sense dictated it.

 

[WildCat]

Where do you expect to find a more reliable account of that, than what was presented to the Grand jury?

Oprah, Al Sharpton, Benjamin Crump, Facebook, Socialist Workers International, and Twitter of course.

 

[WildCat]

No, I haven't shown any evidence at all that it's unusual in MO.

Because we have all just sat through months of news articles and commentary explaining how all of those things are not the normal way of conducting a Grand Jury.

I could provide links of District Attorneys and other Court officers stating as much, if I thought that would satisfy you. But I feel it will just devolve into arguing silly minutia.

If you want to believe that this GJ was conducted in a typical fashion, have it at. I think the people in this thread willing to have an honest discussion about the case know better.



What's the point - Did I or someone claim otherwise ?



Your opinion on how GJs should be conducted has nothing to do with the way GJ are actually conducted.

This is the way the GJ was conducted, and the way they all should be conducted. That other GJs are designed to rubber-stamp an indictment for a prosecutor does not make them the correct or preferred way.

 

[WildCat]

Both of them discuss this case in particular and why/how its grand jury is unusual



I did, you just didn't click.

Can you paraphrase what they said, in your own words?

No, I don't think that there should be grand juries. They just do whatever the prosecutor wants. A significant majority of the time, rubber stamping indictments. In this case, it was not issuing an indictment.

Now you're making even more unsupported statements. Provide some evidence that this GJ decided the way they did not because of careful examination of the evidence presented to them, but to rubber-stamp what the DA wanted.

 

[WildCat]

Looks like Piaget Crenshaw didn't see most of what she claimed to have seen in her media interviews.

Witness 16.

But did her check from Oprah clear?

 

[Tony Stark]

Someone claiming to be Michael Brown's best friend (and Dorian's cousin) told a detective and an FBI agent, in the presence of his lawyer, that Wilson executed Brown while he was on his knees, hands in the air and begging for his life. Just for the hell of it, I guess. They clearly don't believe him, as they keep on reminding him that he's under oath and that lying is illegal.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371027-interview-witness-35.html

Does anybody know if this guy has been in the media telling lies?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/
He said prosecuting attorneys presented five potential indictments to the grand jury, and all were rejected.

The charges were not presented as a "smorgasbord", though. Which is what I believe you claimed. They were presented and explained properly.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, because when a case normally goes the GJ, it is because they are going to indict.

Perhaps because typically a case such as this, with so much evidence in Wilson's favor, in normal circumstances the DA would not have even bothered with the GJ because there was simply no evidence with which to charge?

That's what made this case unusual, it was presented to the GJ in a futile attempt to placate the lynch mob.