Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by SlurpeeDad

Posted by LeeCR7

Posted by MandJZ
Funny, the DIRECT QUOTE from the testimony given by Wilson says he did NOT back up his car to block Brown, but rather that Brown CHARGED the car.

So which is it?

This is why there should have been an indictment. If the evidence is unclear, confusing, or contradictory, a trial is in order to clarify and sort it out.

That is exactly right. What people seem to forget is that this was not a trial. This was simply to determine whether there was enough evidence to go to trial. The bar for that is so much lower. Because there was so much confusion (conflicting witness statements, police reports that were never written, and much more) it should have gone to trial. If he was found not guilty after a trial, I would have no problem with that. But that didn't happen.

This, by the way, transcends this particular situation. Grand juries almost always believe police officers' version of events. I read an article that said out of something like 400 cases brought against police officers (in 2012, I think), only 30 were indicted. Ultimately, only half of those are convicted. I have nothing but respect for cops (my sister is NYPD) but they, like all of us, must be held accountable. They may deserve of little leeway, but not a free pass.

I am astounded by people's dismissal of how the black residents of Freguson feel. Of course they should not be looting or setting fire to things (I did read it was mainly people from out of town, but have not read any confirmation about that). That is ridiculous and completely ineffective. But, luckily, most of us will never know how it feels to be part of a system that you don't trust, that doesn't seem invested in protecting you. They have completely justifiable anger, even if they are expressing it in an unacceptable way.

And at the end of the day, when Officer Wilson is sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with his new wife, the family of Michael Brown will have an empty seat at their table. Our anger and fear seem to be obscuring basic compassion.

I don't know about you, but I am going to believe a police officer over a known criminal every day of the week. It makes sense that most grand jury's will believe the cop.

You want to talk about compassion. How about compassion for the man that he robbed and shoved to the side while walking out of his store. How about that same man that doesn't have a store anymore because animals (yes, I said animals) looted and destroyed his. Let's have compassion for him. Let's have compassion for the Officer Wilson, and his family, he was just doing his job and happened to be the police man that was near Brown. He was the one that was attacked and punched while in his car. And, for everyone that says Brown was unarmed, it was was brought to my attention that the second an officer is attacked, the attacker is no longer unarmed. He has the potential to grab the officer's gun and use it against him and others.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

This. All this.


Robert Reich
Here's what I hope we've learned from the debacle in Ferguson, Missouri:

(1) When there’s conflicting evidence about whether an unarmed person has been murdered by a police officer, a public jury trial is the appropriate process for determining guilt or innocence, not a grand jury in which there’s no opportunity to cross examine the accused.

(2) The role of the media isn’t to guess whether someone is guilty or innocent, or to give the accused free airtime to explain his side of the story (as did ABC this morning). It is to report the news.

(3) Poor, minority communities deserve community policing that builds trust, including minority police officers, rather than law enforcement that’s viewed by a community as repressive.

(4) Armed law enforcement personnel should be equipped with body cameras of the sort now used in many communities to assure responsible behavior.

(5) There is no excuse for looting, burning, or other forms of violence. Innocent people are harmed or killed. Communities may not recover for years. Trust is further destroyed.

Other lessons?

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Obviously everyone who is questioning why Wilson did what he did does not understand two things. First, when you are threatened by a perp, armed or unarmed, you must defend yourself. Once Brown went for his gun (and forensic evidence proved that this was in fact the case), he was no longer an unarmed man. It is very easy for some of you to judge why he did what he did, working in jobs where your life isn't on the line on a day to day basis, but the reality is you can't even begin to know what it was like to be Wilson that night. It has been proven that Brown was antagonistic and threatening, both by forensic evidence and witness testimonies and Wilson was simply doing his job. He did not do or say anything to make it about race, he simply wanted to go home at the end of the night, not end up in a bodybag. Cops are taught to use deadly force if their lives are in jeopardy and Wilson believed that his was. He had never used his weapon before that night, but he felt that in this situation, he had to. I am sorry that many of you cannot understand what it must have been like to be in his situation, but I think any cop would have done the same thing. Darren Wilson is not guilty of any crime. If you want cops who let criminals run loose for fear of confrontations, then we will live in a dangerous scary world. Cops are here to protect us against people who do the same things that Michael Brown did that night. It is a shame that he decided to get high, rob a store, and then attack a police officer. If only he made better choices, he would still be alive today and Darren Wilson's life would not be in shambles.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by luckyinlove

Obviously everyone who is questioning why Wilson did what he did does not understand two things. First, when you are threatened by a perp, armed or unarmed, you must defend yourself. Once Brown went for his gun (and forensic evidence proved that this was in fact the case), he was no longer an unarmed man. It is very easy for some of you to judge why he did what he did, working in jobs where your life isn't on the line on a day to day basis, but the reality is you can't even begin to know what it was like to be Wilson that night. It has been proven that Brown was antagonistic and threatening, both by forensic evidence and witness testimonies and Wilson was simply doing his job. He did not do or say anything to make it about race, he simply wanted to go home at the end of the night, not end up in a bodybag. Cops are taught to use deadly force if their lives are in jeopardy and Wilson believed that his was. He had never used his weapon before that night, but he felt that in this situation, he had to. I am sorry that many of you cannot understand what it must have been like to be in his situation, but I think any cop would have done the same thing. Darren Wilson is not guilty of any crime. If you want cops who let criminals run loose for fear of confrontations, then we will live in a dangerous scary world. Cops are here to protect us against people who do the same things that Michael Brown did that night. It is a shame that he decided to get high, rob a store, and then attack a police officer. If only he made better choices, he would still be alive today and Darren Wilson's life would not be in shambles. [/QUOTE.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by MC09

Posted by LeeCR7

If you read the documents released by the grand jury, you will see that there are conflicting witness testimonies. Some agree with Wilson's account while others do not. All agree there was a struggle in the car, Brown ran away, then stopped and came back. Some say he was charging (well, one witness says that) while others just saw the movement; still others said he was stumbling forward, hurt.

The forensic evidence does prove there was a shot in the car and the Michael Brown was not shot in the back (as some witnesses originally claimed). It proves that Brown did come back (again, all witnesses agree with this). However, it does not prove that he was "antagonistic and threatening." That is an interpretation of the evidence, which should be left up to a jury at trial, which this wasn't. Again, the conflicting testimony warranted a jury trial. Both Brown and Wilson deserved that. Now Wilson is not vindicated nor found not innocent; it was simply found that there was not enough evidence to go to trial.

We should respect our police officers. But we should also question them when needs be. That is our responsibility as citizens. And we certainly don't have to demonize either Michael Brown or Officer Wilson in pursuit of either of those things.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Message edited 11/26/2014 6:39:56 PM.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by Goobster

Exactly.

Or my dad, a now retired PO, who pulled a man (not white, but not black) over for rolling through a stop sign. Something small like that. Well, the man had a WOMAN tied up in the trunk (who he KIDNAPPED and CARJACKED). The man had BOMBS wrapped all over his body and wrestled with my father to BLOW him up. Yes. All 100% true. I am lucky my dad had the strength to control this animal so that he didnt DIE because of some crazy person. So as Slurpee dad said, I will believe any officer ANY day over a CRIMINAL and coincidentally, BROWN WAS A CRIMINAL. Well look at that. Sometimes where there is SMOKE there is FIRE.

Dear GOD, have some concept of what OFFICERS face daily. They PUT THEIR LIVES on the LINE for THUGS who disregard the law, disregard THEIR authority and yep, steal packs of cigarettes. LIFE ON THE LINE.

Message edited 11/26/2014 7:01:16 PM.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Alright. I hear what some are saying about the "need for a trial" to further examine the, in some opinions, "conflicting witness testimony"... I read the above posts of "all said there was a struggle at the car but not all said they could see Brown later charge the officer". So what is being said is, since it's not 100% crystal clear we need to examine it further at trial. Here's the thing though - the bar for indictment is much lower than the bar for a conviction at a trial. I have sat on a jury in both a grand jury and a criminal case jury. I have also testified as a witness in both a grand jury and a criminal case before a state Supreme Court justice. The requirements to obtain an indictment are much less than once that indictment goes through, what is needed at trial to convict. If there are all these "conflicting reports" and what some are viewing as inconsistencies in the testimony that they are reading HOW (and I'm not trying to be nasty) but HOW ON EARTH do you think they will get a conviction -- remember, a conviction needs to be BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Not, wellllllll there's a chance.... Or welllllllll that doesn't really add up 100%. There needs to be NO room for reasonable doubt. If there's uncertainty in witness statements and evidence then you cannot, according to the law, convict.

When a judge charges a jury -- which means, at the end before they go deliberate and make their decision, when he charges the jury he explains this in such detail that it's like he is talking to four year olds. I know, I've been there. And he goes out of his way to say IF you have ANY doubt in the evidence presented you CANNOT render a guilty verdict.

So I'm not sayin what's the point of going to trial but I'm kind of saying, if there wasn't enough evidence to indict there sure as hell is not enough concrete evidence to convict. And that's a fact regardless of if you hate the cop or love Brown or whatever your opinion is. Opinions cannot factor in when sitting on a jury. That's another thing they tell you so many times, it's like a broken record.

So, I mean I'm confident he would have been acquitted at trial so I almost wish he went so then people would stop harping on this --- however, I think the outcome would have been the same, only instead it would be not guilty followed by rioting and it's not fair and hang him high, etc.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by MC09

Posted by Goobster

Exactly.

Or my dad, a now retired PO, who pulled a man (not white, but not black) over for rolling through a stop sign. Something small like that. Well, the man had a WOMAN tied up in the trunk (who he KIDNAPPED and CARJACKED). The man had BOMBS wrapped all over his body and wrestled with my father to BLOW him up. Yes. All 100% true. I am lucky my dad had the strength to control this animal so that he didnt DIE because of some crazy person. So as Slurpee dad said, I will believe any officer ANY day over a CRIMINAL and coincidentally, BROWN WAS A CRIMINAL. Well look at that. Sometimes where there is SMOKE there is FIRE.

Dear GOD, have some concept of what OFFICERS face daily. They PUT THEIR LIVES on the LINE for THUGS who disregard the law, disregard THEIR authority and yep, steal packs of cigarettes. LIFE ON THE LINE.

Police officers are absolutely 100% to be respected (as is every other human being on this earth) and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis and putting their lives on the line on a daily basis is incredibly admirable and not something most people can do. That's why we trust and respect our law enforcement officials to protect us and do what most of us can't on a daily basis. But, does that mean a police officer is NEVER to be questioned? His/her actions are NEVER to be questioned? Has there NEVER been an incidence of a police officer who misuses his/her authority or makes a bad judgment call? Police officers are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us do. They are charged with enforcing the law, but they are certainly not above it. All anyone in this case is asking for is the right to go to trial and question the conflicting reports, testimonials and evidence. Should Officer Wilson be found not guilty, then so be it.

ETA: It is actually more frightening to me that a few posters on this thread seem to be suggesting that they prefer a police state that gives law enforcement full authority to exercise their power, where a police officer is never to be questioned and ambiguous reports and testimonials are never to be clarified and brought to trial and given due process... is that really what you prefer in a democratic country???

Message edited 11/26/2014 7:10:25 PM.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by MC09

Posted by Goobster

Exactly.

Or my dad, a now retired PO, who pulled a man (not white, but not black) over for rolling through a stop sign. Something small like that. Well, the man had a WOMAN tied up in the trunk (who he KIDNAPPED and CARJACKED). The man had BOMBS wrapped all over his body and wrestled with my father to BLOW him up. Yes. All 100% true. I am lucky my dad had the strength to control this animal so that he didnt DIE because of some crazy person. So as Slurpee dad said, I will believe any officer ANY day over a CRIMINAL and coincidentally, BROWN WAS A CRIMINAL. Well look at that. Sometimes where there is SMOKE there is FIRE.

Dear GOD, have some concept of what OFFICERS face daily. They PUT THEIR LIVES on the LINE for THUGS who disregard the law, disregard THEIR authority and yep, steal packs of cigarettes. LIFE ON THE LINE.

Police officers are absolutely 100% to be respected (as is every other human being on this earth) and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis and putting their lives on the line on a daily basis is incredibly admirable and not something most people can do. That's why we trust and respect our law enforcement officials to protect us and do what most of us can't on a daily basis. But, does that mean a police officer is NEVER to be questioned? His/her actions are NEVER to be questioned? Has there NEVER been an incidence of a police officer who misuses his/her authority or makes a bad judgment call? Police officers are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us do. They are charged with enforcing the law, but they are certainly not above it. All anyone in this case is asking for is the right to go to trial and question the conflicting reports, testimonials and evidence. Should Officer Wilson be found not guilty, then so be it.

ETA: It is actually more frightening to me that a few posters on this thread seem to be suggesting that they prefer a police state that gives law enforcement full authority to exercise their power, where a police officer is never to be questioned and ambiguous reports and testimonials are never to be clarified and brought to trial and given due process... is that really what you prefer in a democratic country???

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Message edited 11/26/2014 7:21:06 PM.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by SlurpeeDad

Posted by MC09

Posted by Goobster

Exactly.

Or my dad, a now retired PO, who pulled a man (not white, but not black) over for rolling through a stop sign. Something small like that. Well, the man had a WOMAN tied up in the trunk (who he KIDNAPPED and CARJACKED). The man had BOMBS wrapped all over his body and wrestled with my father to BLOW him up. Yes. All 100% true. I am lucky my dad had the strength to control this animal so that he didnt DIE because of some crazy person. So as Slurpee dad said, I will believe any officer ANY day over a CRIMINAL and coincidentally, BROWN WAS A CRIMINAL. Well look at that. Sometimes where there is SMOKE there is FIRE.

Dear GOD, have some concept of what OFFICERS face daily. They PUT THEIR LIVES on the LINE for THUGS who disregard the law, disregard THEIR authority and yep, steal packs of cigarettes. LIFE ON THE LINE.

Police officers are absolutely 100% to be respected (as is every other human being on this earth) and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis and putting their lives on the line on a daily basis is incredibly admirable and not something most people can do. That's why we trust and respect our law enforcement officials to protect us and do what most of us can't on a daily basis. But, does that mean a police officer is NEVER to be questioned? His/her actions are NEVER to be questioned? Has there NEVER been an incidence of a police officer who misuses his/her authority or makes a bad judgment call? Police officers are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us do. They are charged with enforcing the law, but they are certainly not above it. All anyone in this case is asking for is the right to go to trial and question the conflicting reports, testimonials and evidence. Should Officer Wilson be found not guilty, then so be it.

ETA: It is actually more frightening to me that a few posters on this thread seem to be suggesting that they prefer a police state that gives law enforcement full authority to exercise their power, where a police officer is never to be questioned and ambiguous reports and testimonials are never to be clarified and brought to trial and given due process... is that really what you prefer in a democratic country???

I have read most of this thread and haven't seen anyone saying that they want the law enforcement to have full authority to exercise their power. What I said, and I think others have said, is that I will believe what a Police Officer says over a known criminal and therefore understand why most grand jury's side with the officer.

Officer Wilson not indicted....

This footballer has the best take on everything I've seen so far...if anyone's interested.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850926/NFL-player-s-heartfelt-Facebook-reaction-Ferguson-decision-aftermath-goes-viral.html

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by MC09

Posted by SlurpeeDad

Posted by MC09

Posted by Goobster

Exactly.

Or my dad, a now retired PO, who pulled a man (not white, but not black) over for rolling through a stop sign. Something small like that. Well, the man had a WOMAN tied up in the trunk (who he KIDNAPPED and CARJACKED). The man had BOMBS wrapped all over his body and wrestled with my father to BLOW him up. Yes. All 100% true. I am lucky my dad had the strength to control this animal so that he didnt DIE because of some crazy person. So as Slurpee dad said, I will believe any officer ANY day over a CRIMINAL and coincidentally, BROWN WAS A CRIMINAL. Well look at that. Sometimes where there is SMOKE there is FIRE.

Dear GOD, have some concept of what OFFICERS face daily. They PUT THEIR LIVES on the LINE for THUGS who disregard the law, disregard THEIR authority and yep, steal packs of cigarettes. LIFE ON THE LINE.

Police officers are absolutely 100% to be respected (as is every other human being on this earth) and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis and putting their lives on the line on a daily basis is incredibly admirable and not something most people can do. That's why we trust and respect our law enforcement officials to protect us and do what most of us can't on a daily basis. But, does that mean a police officer is NEVER to be questioned? His/her actions are NEVER to be questioned? Has there NEVER been an incidence of a police officer who misuses his/her authority or makes a bad judgment call? Police officers are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us do. They are charged with enforcing the law, but they are certainly not above it. All anyone in this case is asking for is the right to go to trial and question the conflicting reports, testimonials and evidence. Should Officer Wilson be found not guilty, then so be it.

ETA: It is actually more frightening to me that a few posters on this thread seem to be suggesting that they prefer a police state that gives law enforcement full authority to exercise their power, where a police officer is never to be questioned and ambiguous reports and testimonials are never to be clarified and brought to trial and given due process... is that really what you prefer in a democratic country???

I have read most of this thread and haven't seen anyone saying that they want the law enforcement to have full authority to exercise their power. What I said, and I think others have said, is that I will believe what a Police Officer says over a known criminal and therefore understand why most grand jury's side with the officer.

It's saying the same thing. The statement is implied. I prefer to reserve my judgment based on EVIDENCE rather than emotion or solely because someone carries a badge or because my uncle is a cop putting his life on the line to do his job and, therefore, NO ONE understands what it's like to be a cop, etc.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Posted by SlurpeeDad

Posted by MC09

Posted by SlurpeeDad

Posted by MC09

Posted by Goobster

Exactly.

Or my dad, a now retired PO, who pulled a man (not white, but not black) over for rolling through a stop sign. Something small like that. Well, the man had a WOMAN tied up in the trunk (who he KIDNAPPED and CARJACKED). The man had BOMBS wrapped all over his body and wrestled with my father to BLOW him up. Yes. All 100% true. I am lucky my dad had the strength to control this animal so that he didnt DIE because of some crazy person. So as Slurpee dad said, I will believe any officer ANY day over a CRIMINAL and coincidentally, BROWN WAS A CRIMINAL. Well look at that. Sometimes where there is SMOKE there is FIRE.

Dear GOD, have some concept of what OFFICERS face daily. They PUT THEIR LIVES on the LINE for THUGS who disregard the law, disregard THEIR authority and yep, steal packs of cigarettes. LIFE ON THE LINE.

Police officers are absolutely 100% to be respected (as is every other human being on this earth) and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis and putting their lives on the line on a daily basis is incredibly admirable and not something most people can do. That's why we trust and respect our law enforcement officials to protect us and do what most of us can't on a daily basis. But, does that mean a police officer is NEVER to be questioned? His/her actions are NEVER to be questioned? Has there NEVER been an incidence of a police officer who misuses his/her authority or makes a bad judgment call? Police officers are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us do. They are charged with enforcing the law, but they are certainly not above it. All anyone in this case is asking for is the right to go to trial and question the conflicting reports, testimonials and evidence. Should Officer Wilson be found not guilty, then so be it.

ETA: It is actually more frightening to me that a few posters on this thread seem to be suggesting that they prefer a police state that gives law enforcement full authority to exercise their power, where a police officer is never to be questioned and ambiguous reports and testimonials are never to be clarified and brought to trial and given due process... is that really what you prefer in a democratic country???

I have read most of this thread and haven't seen anyone saying that they want the law enforcement to have full authority to exercise their power. What I said, and I think others have said, is that I will believe what a Police Officer says over a known criminal and therefore understand why most grand jury's side with the officer.

It's saying the same thing. The statement is implied. I prefer to reserve my judgment based on EVIDENCE rather than emotion or solely because someone carries a badge or because my uncle is a cop putting his life on the line to do his job and, therefore, NO ONE understands what it's like to be a cop, etc.

You want it to say the same thing, but it isn't. There is a reason that 100% of officers involved in grand jury's don't end up avoiding indictment; evidence must be heard, and take priority. That being said, prior to hearing evidence, it has been my experience to trust the officer over the KNOWN CRIMINAL. Brown was a known criminal, not Johnny Good Samaritan.

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Re: Officer Wilson not indicted....

Officer Wilson not indicted....

Can attorneys on here speak to the need for a trial if there is one piece of conflicting information in a grand jury setting? Also, what is the standard to indict ? Preponderance of the evidence ? Personally, my reading has led me to believe that the evidence clearly exonerated the cop of any wrong doing. It was quite compelling and one small contradiction does not negate extensive forensic evidence and eye witness accounts that point to one conclusion.