So will the black jury members be considered racist as well?
I would like to see ivwshane's answer to this question. :thumbsup:
Getting close to the no indictment. They want to be home for Thanksgiving.
They're already home. They only meet on Wednesdays.
- Merg
According to a CNN report they will be meeting tomorrow as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Let me ask you this. You have been accused of having potentially committed a crime. As part of the system of legal protections we all enjoy you are not automatically subject to a ruinous trial but instead are given the right of a grand jury hearing to determine if there is sufficient basis for a trial. If the evidence warrants it then it goes to trial. If not then no. Now let's get rid of that process. I and another accuse you of rape. How deep are your pockets? I ask because you are "just going to trial" and there's no need to determine if the accusations have sufficient merit.
Google justice for treyskittles idiot.
Make ready, be ready. Have a plan and be ready. Don't be a victim. Survive the hoarde with whatever weapon you have.
I can't fucking wait. Bring it on.
Thanx for that. It brought a smile to my lips and some chocolate milk to my nose.
Shane has indicated he is okay with an indictment irrespective of guilt, just to appease a lynch mob. This is why we can't have nice things.
Please let it be known regardless if this so called grand jury returns an indictment, it doesn't change this thug with a badge guilt. One way or another justice needs to be served, if not by a jury, then perhaps other means.
Please let it be known regardless if this so called grand jury returns an indictment, it doesn't change this thug with a badge guilt. One way or another justice needs to be served, if not by a jury, then perhaps other means.
The only reason we won't see an indictment is if this so called grand jury is full of racist who support the murder of blacks.
In other words, the rule of law should not apply according to you.![]()
That plus allowing the governor time to get the Guard positioned and prepared.IMIO - The reason this is taking so long they are trying the case not having a probable cause hearing.
No way in hell it takes this long. I was recently a juror in a 2x murder trial. It took us 1 day shy of 4 weeks. Remember this was the actual trial.
The bar for grand jury to indict is much lower then the actual trial.
I'd agree that is usually the case, but usually is not always. If Brown was sufficiently high, would he even be thinking in terms of right and wrong versus simple desire fulfillment?Normally I'd agree, but it has been born out time and time again that people don't just do major "thuggish" crime out of the blue like how he did it.
By thuggish, the term of thug is a person that uses physical violence or threat thereof as coercion to get what they want.
Smoking some weed? That's small stuff. Had he simply tried to swipe something at the store when he thought no one was looking is small stuff too.
But he went in there intentionally to use physical violence to take those cigars by force. By rule, no one does that out of the blue. Here are the process steps that will cause a person to do something like that by rule.
1) They have worked up to that level of criminal action by a escalating pattern of criminal activity. Even pure sociopaths have an escalation pattern in testing how far they can push boundaries to see what they can get away with before pushing for more.
2) They are on some hard narcotics that have completely blown away their judgement and inhibition (weed doesn't do this)
3) They had a negative life altering event recently. A death of a loved one would be an example of this or the loss of a job the person had been doing for a long time and loved. Those aren't the only two examples though.
4) They had a psychotic break or snap. Again there would be a pattern leading up that event of psychotic episodes
5) Massive peer pressure where the person was forced by other worse criminals through some level of coercion to do the crime. The person committing the crime because they are forced to do so tends to show in their actions and voice at the time clues that it is something they don't really want to be doing.
That's all proven stuff. Micheal Brown doesn't fit the pattern for anything but number 1 based on the video and what was reported at the time of his robbery. It doesn't look like he's having a psychotic break, or under some the influence of some hard narcotics. He doesn't look to be pressured into doing what he is doing either, which if that was the case the ones pressuring him would have been waiting for him to exit the store. He wouldn't have gone off with just his friend to jaywalk for the hell of it down the middle of the street nearby.
He didn't have any major negative life altering events that would lead to this behavior.
By the video he looked comfortable in his actions and what he was doing. There was no hesitation in his actions. He did everything in full view of cameras as well as witnesses in broad daylight, and knew he was doing so. A person doesn't do those things unless they are confident they will get away with their actions. It wasn't a smash and grab either. He went in, grabbed what he wanted, and strode purposefully out of that store without hesitation nor remorse. That can all be plainly seen in his actions and demeanor.
Again, a person doesn't just do that out of the blue at all. His actions in that store bespoke of a thug that had done similar things before and gotten away with it.
Hope you are armed and mobile dude. Best of luck if the protesters riot.I live/work in St. Louis.
Even some of the smartest, educated black people I know can't wrap their mind around Wilson NOT being indicted and get upset thinking about it.
I really worry that the protest culture taking the area is dead set on rampaging over this.
The only reason we won't see an indictment is if this so called grand jury is full of racist who support the murder of blacks.
Were I on that Grand jury, I'd be handing down my decision to acquit (assuming that's how it goes) from as far away from Missouri as I could get.Yup. I think that's why everyone thinks the decision will be released then. Until then though, they had only met once a week.
- Merg
Problem with internet forums are we don't have much to go on to determine if you are being satirical, or if that's your actual beliefs.
Let me ask you this. You have been accused of having potentially committed a crime. As part of the system of legal protections we all enjoy you are not automatically subject to a ruinous trial but instead are given the right of a grand jury hearing to determine if there is sufficient basis for a trial. If the evidence warrants it then it goes to trial. If not then no. Now let's get rid of that process. I and another accuse you of rape. How deep are your pockets? I ask because you are "just going to trial" and there's no need to determine if the accusations have sufficient merit.
I don't think many would be against Wilson going to trial provided the evidence and witness testimony before a grand jury provided probable cause that a crime was committed. If not, they should return a "No Bill" decision and no trial would be required.
Google justice for treyskittles idiot.
Make ready, be ready. Have a plan and be ready. Don't be a victim. Survive the hoarde with whatever weapon you have.
I can't fucking wait. Bring it on.
Again with this skittles crap?
Perknose
Forum Director
Two thoughts here. First, a person is not a bone and a person's life or freedom should never be sacrificed to appease others.Were,
There have been scapegoats throughout history. Jesus was crucified even though Pilate openly acknowledged he was innocent. Pilate did it to keep the peace.
A bone of some kind must be thrown to the aggrieved parties in Ferguson or there is a very good chance of explosive, expensive and deadly violence. Hopefully I am exaggerating the threat (which I have a tendency to do) but I fear that I am not.
My thoughts are not so much controversial as pragmatic. Of course they could open a pandora's box of mob justice which would be awful as well. I am just glad I don't have to deal with this tar baby.
You missed my point.
That was my point.
Something springs to mind here regarding your point. The prosecutor presented all the evidence, including exculpatory evidence which is not normally done, rather than building his best case for indictment. On one hand this is good, as it represents a prosecutor not believing there is sufficient evidence to make a case but recognizing that his community has a significantly different position. On the other hand, by presenting exculpatory evidence (even including testimony) the prosecutor also made it more difficult for the Grand Jury to indict than is normal with cases presented to them. (Or at least, assuming the Ferguson grand jury system works the same way as ours.)You missed my point.
That was my point.
Were,
There have been scapegoats throughout history. Jesus was crucified even though Pilate openly acknowledged he was innocent. Pilate did it to keep the peace.
A bone of some kind must be thrown to the aggrieved parties in Ferguson or there is a very good chance of explosive, expensive and deadly violence. Hopefully I am exaggerating the threat (which I have a tendency to do) but I fear that I am not.
My thoughts are not so much controversial as pragmatic. Of course they could open a pandora's box of mob justice which would be awful as well. I am just glad I don't have to deal with this tar baby.
