Where is probable cause mentioned in the 5th Amendment? Have you read the 5th Amendment yet? It's not very long.
It's the standard of proof, that is what we are talking about here. All the 5th amendment does is declare the right to a grand jury. Im not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Because injustices exist elsewhere it should have been done in this case? What is the interest of society in that, and how does that serve the interests of justice?
Who said it was unjust? The burden in a GJ is
low, capiche?
What's debatable about the forensics? The forensics helps identify which witness testimony is suspect, as well as other things like the witness who swore that there was another officer in the car with Wilson, did you find that credible? The GJ didn't.
What, you've never seen expert witnesses debate forensics? You know, at trial, which is public and where witnesses can be heavily cross-examined.
The distance was a few inches (the car) to 20 feet or less. The physical evidence confirms that part.
According to you it does. I think it a trial would have been a good way to determine those facts.
And there is a witness who said there was another cop in the car with Wilson. When there is conflicting witness testimony, and there almost always is, you have to look at which ones most closely match the physical evidence. Does the witness testimony that says he was shot while surrendering match the physical evidence?
I don't know, why not let a jury decide? Again, you seem to be drawing
your conclusions based on snippets of the GJ testimony, which some have argued was tailored by the prosecutor to be heavily in favor of Wilson.
You cannot charge in this case unless a Grand Jury indicts (that 5th Amendment you're unfamiliar with), and the GJ did not indict based upon the evidence presented to them.
Your ignorant sarcasm doesn't help your argument any. I've never said that it shouldn't have gone to a GJ--where you got that idea I haven't a clue. What I have said is that the burden of proof in a GJ is very low, which is why a return of no-bill is extremely rare. Whether that is a good thing or not is irrelevant, it is what it is. The first mistake here was not appointing a special prosecutor, but that is just the first mistake...
What witness testimony favoring indicting Wilson did you find credible and why?
It isn't my job to determine who is credible here--that is a jury's function. And that credibility would be best determined in a full trial where lawyers could cross-examine the heck out of the witnesses--it just is not usual or fair for that level of inquiry to occur at the GJ stage. Anyone who has any experience with the criminal justice system knows that.
But It is quite clear that many of the witnesses gave testimony that Brown was shot while fleeing, shot while putting his hands up, shot while down etc--you've seen the chart posted here. From my reading of the various witness statements, there is more that supports a finding of probable cause than that favors letting Wilson walk. Whether they are credible or not should have been determined at trial. There was enough to meet the initial burden, and that is what you seem to be missing, mainly because of your unfamiliarity with our justice system. I could just as easily ask you if you think Wilson's testimony is plausible. Personally, the only way I think I could believe Wilson's story is if Brown were committing suicide--and I haven't seen any stories about him being suicidal.
