Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 167 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
To be clear I don't support violence against him. If this grand jury fails, then a new grand jury is needed. They need to keep doing this until he is indicted.

In other words, guilty until proven guilty, undeserving of any of the presumptions and protections every other citizen has a right to. That's mob rule/"justice" even if you involve the courts.
 
Last edited:

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
To be clear I don't support violence against him. If this grand jury fails, then a new grand jury is needed. They need to keep doing this until he is indicted.

Did you know there's not enough evidence win a case if they do press charges?

Did you know that?

Did you know that the evidence we have supports Darren Wilson's version of the events?

Did you know that?
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,319
9,171
136
Demographics have the African-American population in the U.S. at ~12%. This grand jury has that demographic at 25% representation. Just pointing those numbers out in case anyone wants to claim the jury is racially biased just by those numbers alone.

I'd be more concerned about the demographics of the area that the grand jury was representing.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
You misunderstood. I meant after he's indicted, however many GJs it'll take, try him until he's convicted. However many trials it takes.

That's even worse. You really are insufferably ignorant. This applies EVEN MORE:
In other words, guilty until proven guilty, undeserving of any of the presumptions and protections every other citizen has a right to. That's mob rule/"justice" even if you involve the courts.

Edit: thought it was DCal clarifying his position when it was actually a criticism of his position specifically trying to point out when the line would have been crossed.
 
Last edited:

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
It is scary when we have posters with posts like these. Goodness. Talk about clueless and ignorant.

Proven? That is doubtful.

In any event, won't this whole problem go away if we just throw Wilson in jail for a couple of years? Wouldn't it be worth it to avoid the rioting and mayhem? I get the feeling that the violence will never stop until we as a nation do something to punish Wilson (regardless of whether he did anything wrong or not).


To be clear I don't support violence against him. If this grand jury fails, then a new grand jury is needed. They need to keep doing this until he is indicted.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
So it is possible that Wilson might resign according to various news outlets.

Link

According to the article, he will resign only if he isn't charged. Hmmmm.

Remember that CHP officer? That beat the crap out of a woman ? Yeah, he didn't get charged, and got to resign, keeping all his benefits.

You or me caught on video beating someone like that? We would immediately be arrested and be in jail for a while right now, but a cop? Get out of jail free card. Nice to have that double standard.

Right now he has the protection of the police union and as an officer that may find himself under trial, it is probably best to not resign as there are probably some legal/financial benefits for him.

However, I think the gist of it is that he would resign with no indictment as how could he possibly remain a police officer in Ferguson anyway?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,067
8,083
136
To be clear I don't support violence against him. If this grand jury fails, then a new grand jury is needed. They need to keep doing this until he is indicted.

If the people feel wronged and feel the need to protest until they get results in their favor, I can't fault them for that. I also appreciate that this case is quite difficult. I cannot say if the officer acted in good conduct or not. I do know he was assaulted by a criminal who had just robbed a store. Yet none of that really matters if Brown was later surrendering.

How to determine if Brown was rushing forward or surrendering must be easier with the evidence the GJ has before them. To me, such facts mean everything. Whether I'd convict Wilson or not.

Back to the people... is their demand for a trial justifiable? Given the circumstances it might be. The fatal shooting on the street isn't a clear cut case of an officer defending himself. So this protesting speaks to the GJ system, whether anyone trusts or accepts it.

However, what if Wilson is acquitted in a trial? Or faces repeated hung juries? What if a conviction is not possible, no matter the lengths we go. How much is enough to seek the truth, and justice? How much must Wilson be ruined for what may be an act of self defense?

It would be un-American to simply accept the killing of an unarmed person without due cause. So too, would it be un-American to refuse to accept an officer's right to self defense. As hateful and wrong it would be to protest in favor of unconditional acquittal, so too is it hateful and wrong to protest for unconditional conviction.

I wonder what the protestors truly stand for, if not vengeance?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
That isn't the way this process works, if a "No Bill" decision is given that's it for this case.


There is no rule against double jeopardy with grand jury. A state can have a grand jury trial for the same charge multiple times.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
To be clear I don't support violence against him. If this grand jury fails, then a new grand jury is needed. They need to keep doing this until he is indicted.

Are you for fucking real or just trolling?

I believe double jeopardy applies also to grand jury decisions. You simply can't keep pushing the reset button until you get a result YOU like. EDIT... I am wrong. "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach in a grand jury proceeding, or bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so."

You would rather see him indicted with little evidence to support it and allow the man to then go through a trial where he'll obviously be found innocent anyway? *** BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FUCKING PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I seriously hope you find yourself in the fight of your life someday and are at the mercy of the judicial system. Then, maybe then you'll realize how utterly out of fucking touch you are.
 
Last edited:

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,326
136
There is no rule against double jeopardy with grand jury. A state can have a grand jury trial for the same charge multiple times.
Someone else mentioned that. How can that be legal unless there's new evidence? I know it's not the same as a trial but it doesn't sound right.

Regardless, here, the solicitor can direct indict without the GJ so if they want a trial, they can get it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
If all they wanted was a proper trial, I'd agree.

Yet this sort of example is why I must condemn the protestors.

I listened to the clip. Did not hear what was quoted in article. Also the cursing at cops was being done by a few people in group who were close to recording.

I think 3 were arrested.

Slight misrepresentation by National Review but not surprised.