Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 175 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
So MOM was a talking head on CNN about 1/2 hour ago and said the reason for the delay was so that the defense team could be notified. If he was indicted, that would give him ample time to come in and be arraigned, and have a bond hearing before being wisked off to a safe place. So maybe there is an indictment given the time involved so far.

CNN also seemed to think it was relevant to point out that Darren Wilson got married a month ago to another Furguson police officer. So now the angry mob will be out to find out who she is in order to harass, threaten, etc or find him.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Are the names of the grand jury public? I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake.

FYI that isn't a threat. I am just wondering if names are public.
 
Last edited:

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Are the names of the grand jury public? I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake.

FYI that isn't a threat. I am just wondering if names are public.

You were active in the thread when it was mentioned several times that the members of a GJ are anonymous and legally have to remain that way. A member of a GJ can not out themselves as such without facing charges for doing so.

"I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake."

Sure... Not a threat but one that implies if they aren't protected by anonymity that they would be under threat of harm if they didn't indict Wilson.

Stay classy!
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Are the names of the grand jury public? I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake.

FYI that isn't a threat. I am just wondering if names are public.

Do tell, what is the "right" thing?
 

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Are the names of the grand jury public? I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake.

FYI that isn't a threat. I am just wondering if names are public.


No. The are kept private and by law they are supposed to not go public that they were on the grand jury.

- Merg
 

Sulaco

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2003
3,825
44
91
Are the names of the grand jury public? I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake.

FYI that isn't a threat. I am just wondering if names are public.

You are such a piece of human filth.

The different side of the same scum coin that Spidey is on.

You're both cowards and losers of the lowest order.
 

Blanky

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 2014
2,457
12
46
Are the names of the grand jury public? I hope they do the right thing, for their own sake.

FYI that isn't a threat. I am just wondering if names are public.
So they can be put down like rabid dogs if they don't indict?

I think probably they do indict.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
This prosecutor has done so many things to doom this hearing to fail...

Leaks

Not turning the proceeding to a special prosecutor then not doing his job and prosecute it. He just does an evidence dump to a bunch of civilians who wind up trying the case, which is not supposed to happen.

Not waiting until morning to announce decision. Endangering protestors and police.


He didn't want to soil his hands with the case and then proceeded to not do his job.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
This prosecutor has done so many things to doom this hearing to fail...

Leaks

Not turning the proceeding to a special prosecutor then not doing his job and prosecute it. He just does an evidence dump to a bunch of civilians who wind up trying the case, which is not supposed to happen.

Not waiting until morning to announce decision. Endangering protestors and police.


He didn't want to soil his hands with the case and then proceeded to not do his job.

I agree, he needs to be disbarred. Can we write to the Missouri State Bar and demand he be investigated and disbarred.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
This prosecutor has done so many things to doom this hearing to fail...

Leaks

Not turning the proceeding to a special prosecutor then not doing his job and prosecute it. He just does an evidence dump to a bunch of civilians who wind up trying the case, which is not supposed to happen.

Not waiting until morning to announce decision. Endangering protestors and police.


He didn't want to soil his hands with the case and then proceeded to not do his job.

Wow... So much fail with you.

He did his job... to the letter. They didn't need a special prosecutor as even the DOJ didn't find civil rights violations.

"He just does an evidence dump to a bunch of civilians who wind up trying the case, which is not supposed to happen"

That is what a fucking Grand Jury is... civilians and you and everyone should be grateful that grand juries are. HE released all the evidence so there would be no question from anyone that the grand jury saw everything. He wasn't tried by the grand jury - that isn't their responsibility and you know it. Stop fucking trolling.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Wow... So much fail with you.

He did his job... to the letter. They didn't need a special prosecutor as even the DOJ didn't find civil rights violations.

"He just does an evidence dump to a bunch of civilians who wind up trying the case, which is not supposed to happen"

[That is what a fucking Grand Jury is... civilians and you and everyone should be grateful that grand juries are. HE released all the evidence so there would be no question from anyone that the grand jury saw everything. He wasn't tried by the grand jury - that isn't their responsibility and you know it. Stop fucking trolling.

Hate to break it to you genius but GJs are probable cause hearings not the actual trial.

For example if the GJ goes into judging the credibility of one witness vs another that is what a trial is for.

Also prosecutors are supposed to prosecute the case. That is not what was done.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Hate to break it to you genius but GJs are probable cause hearings not the actual trial.

For example if the GJ goes into judging the credibility of one witness vs another that is what a trial is for.

Also prosecutors are supposed to prosecute the case. That is not what was done.

This GJ did not try the case as I already said... Maybe you should go back and read your initial comment again and read where I quoted you... You are the one who insistes the GJ tried him. That simply is not possible and you know it.

Genius.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
I am devastated, it has been leaked, no indictment. Corruption and evil won.

That is the difference right there. While I have leaned towards the innocence of Officer Wilson, I would accept a GJ indictment of him as truth.

You and those that are hell bent on finding an innocent man guilty of anything will never accept the GJ decision if he isn't indicted.

Speaks volumes about you and yours.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,962
140
106
liberal grievance mongering media ready to go into full mongering mode..they want lots of street combat with the cops and looting video.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I spoke to my wife about this. She said she would vote to indict NOT because of the officer's guilt or evidence but because she would fear retribution.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I spoke to my wife about this. She said she would vote to indict NOT because of the officer's guilt or evidence but because she would fear retribution.

What? You have a wife? From your comments in this thread and this forum, anyone would think you are pre-teen. Remember how society must make Darren Wilson pay, regardless if he did anything wrong or not from your own words?