Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike! said:
In a word, "No". And I'm sure you'll find others here who agree. It's well documented (If you'd bother to read...) that several who were quite happy to tell there store to the TV cameras, that when actually testifying before the GJ, changed their story from previous accounts, to better fit the now known facts, or recanted completely.
But if you want to cling to a blind fantasy, I doubt anyone here will change your mind.
Click to expand...

Interesting...well thanks for your response! I have no doubt some of the witnesses tailored their story...and that's unfortunate. But it seems to me if they were gonna make something up they'd say Brown was shouting "I give up!" (fantasy version) not "OK,OK" (seems like reality to me). Would have been good to let a full jury trial hash it out.
 
qayak said:
How many prosecuting attorneys you know raise money for the people they are supposed to be prosecuting? :rolleyes:

http://aattp.org/fair-trial-st-louis-prosecuting-attorney-raising-funds-for-darren-wilson/
Click to expand...

Did you read to the end?

This statement was released after the relationship between Darren Wilson fundraising efforts and Backstoppers was made public:

Contrary to recent posts on social media, BackStoppers is not participating in or has benefited from any fund raising activity involving the Ferguson matter. We scrutinize our contributions and if we receive funds involving the Ferguson matter, those funds would be rejected by the Board of Directors.​
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like there is no relationship, that the whole thing is basically an invented scandal.
 
stanfr said:
Would have been good to let a full jury trial hash it out.
Click to expand...

Good for whom? And why?

It would have been great for the media, because then they get a circus. Can't see any benefits for anyone else, and given the reality of witness intimidation, I can't see any benefit to the truth either.
 
BasqueArch said:
No worries, all's well that ends well. I'm glad to hear you agree that "The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]"
So why the bitchin.
Click to expand...

No bitchin from me :) I think the evidence could be presented in ways to favor either side. I would have liked to have seen a vigorous debate in court rather than a one-sided charade.
 
Ziggurat said:
Good for whom? And why?

It would have been great for the media, because then they get a circus. Can't see any benefits for anyone else, and given the reality of witness intimidation, I can't see any benefit to the truth either.
Click to expand...

yep, might as well get rid of jury trials...they suck at determining the truth. Honestly, they do. I can't tell you how many times ive seen juries arrive at bad decisions just because they are easily manipulated or don't understand all of the evidence--especially when it comes to forensics or scientific evidence. We need a system where only long-time JREF members are allowed to be jurors. :cool:
 
stanfr said:
yep, might as well get rid of jury trials...they suck at determining the truth. Honestly, they do. I can't tell you how many times ive seen juries arrive at bad decisions just because they are easily manipulated or don't understand all of the evidence--especially when it comes to forensics or scientific evidence. We need a system where only long-time JREF members are allowed to be jurors. :cool:
Click to expand...

O.J. Simpson.
 
WildCat said:
I can't take anyone seriously who still clings to the notion that Mike Brown didn't rob the convenience store.
Click to expand...

Per Mike Brown's mom:
"McSpadden said that image of her son on video shouldn’t define him."

Sounds like even his parents are part of the cabal trying to frame him for the convenience store robbery!
 
stanfr said:
Im going by news accounts--I don't have time to read a gazillion pages of documents. So, you don't believe that two witnesses heard Brown say 'OK'?
Click to expand...

Well then, there's your problem. Try going to the original sources, the GJ Documents and testimony instead of believing what you hear on the news.

I can't get this image out of my head....

Suspect: I want a Lawyer...

Twenty minutes later in walks stanfr

stanfr: I haven't bothered looking at the evidence, but they said on the news you did it, so I've made up my mind you're pleading guilty.

Suspect: Damn, man, give me another lawyer, this one is loco!
 
stanfr said:
Sigh....because hopefully at full trial they would have had a prosecutor who actually cross-examined Wilson, and would not have reversed their role by playing defense counsel for him. But sadly, that may be too much to ask for in our system as it stands. Incidentally, we don't know how this jury voted...we would have if it had gone to trial.
Click to expand...

How do you know that they didn't cross examine him if you haven't read the GJ transcripts?

And even if they didn't, the physical evidence confirms his story.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
yep, might as well get rid of jury trials...they suck at determining the truth. Honestly, they do. I can't tell you how many times ive seen juries arrive at bad decisions just because they are easily manipulated or don't understand all of the evidence--especially when it comes to forensics or scientific evidence. We need a system where only long-time JREF members are allowed to be jurors. :cool:
Click to expand...

You seem to be the one claiming that that the GJ got it wrong after they looked at all the evidence.
 
stanfr said:
yep, might as well get rid of jury trials...they suck at determining the truth. Honestly, they do.
Click to expand...

That was pathetic.

The purpose of a jury is not to determine the truth. The purpose of a jury is to determine if the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the government's case is true, if it cannot meet the burden of proof required, then the jury must not convict.

If the government has no chance of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt (and note that their inability to do so may have nothing to do with what the truth is), then there is no point in bringing the case to a jury trial, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. That statement does not in any way mean that in cases where the government does have a chance at meeting this standard, a jury serves no purpose, because of course it does, and nothing I've ever said suggests otherwise.
 
WildCat said:
What do you think the conflict of interest was? Use your own words.
Click to expand...

A group that was fundraising for Wilson claims that money was going to an organization that was led by the person prosecuting him. That organization disavowed any knowledge (of course, after this was made public) but it doesn't matter, even the appearance of impropriety is enough for a conflict to exist. It was really absurd to have this prosecutor on the case in the first place--there have been gobs of stories as to why that was so.
 
stanfr said:
A group that was fundraising for Wilson claims that money was going to an organization that was led by the person prosecuting him. That organization disavowed any knowledge (of course, after this was made public) but it doesn't matter, even the appearance of impropriety is enough for a conflict to exist. It was really absurd to have this prosecutor on the case in the first place--there have been gobs of stories as to why that was so.
Click to expand...

I think you're in the wrong sub-forum, conspiracy theories are that way-->
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom