Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[Mark Davis]

Anyone in LA go by and see if those idiots have figured out how to get by that chain link fence yet above the 110?

 

[njherdfan]

Also finally found GJ testimony of Witness 40. This is the "Dang if that boy didn't charge at the cop like a football player" person that lots of Pro-Wilson stories are quoting.

She says that she doesn't consider herself racist because in order to be racist you have to say it to a person's face. She admits to being bipolar (which she is not receiving treatment for) and that she has had memory issues ever since she was in a car accident. She also admits to saying to an FBI agent that she googled Michael Brown to "find out what the gold thing was that dropped" (a reference to her journal entry, which, again, was not produced to anyone until a good deal after the incident and after she'd been interviewed as a claimed witness). She also testified that she "didn't know" how she ended up at the apartment complex where the shooting happened (she "got a GPS the next day"). She volunteered herself as a witness, she was not tracked down by the police or FBI. Here's a quote from the testimony about how her statements to police and statement now don't line up entirely: "Q: Okay. So you were not telling the truth initially? A: Okay. I'm sorry. ... I guess not, no."

Wow. That's insane.

 

[MaxThreshold]

MC, I know you and I disagree on the outcome, but I applaud you taking the time and doing this. Too many people make decisions on emotion and what you are doing is what everyone should do and that is get facts before you jump to conclusions.

Is he really looking for all the facts? Or is he just trying cherry pick information to support what he wants to be true? Stay tuned...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I know this is from August, but I thought those of you who are blind and completely judgmental should see this. If it's been posted before, sorry. Some should probably see it again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html

Cool. That raises my faith in humankind a little bit, though I'm still at a Smoo-like level of pessimism.

 

[GoBirds]

Question regarding the youtube video claiming to be surveillance footage of the store, is that really him? Big kid.....heck of a lot bigger than the photo they show on the news all the time if so.

 

[mcintyre1]

Just finished reading the police interview with and grand jury testimony of Witness 48, who appears to be a key corroborator of Wilson's version of events.

She indicates that she was seated in the 2nd row of a minivan facing directly toward Wilson's SUV while Brown stood in front of the driver's window. She was about "two car lengths" away. She indicated she saw Brown with his arms "in front of him" but that she couldn't see that he was doing anything with his hands. She indicates she did not see any significant movement of Brown or the SUV at this time, and describes him as "standing there". She turns to talk to her sister and hears two gunshots, looks back at to see Brown running away. From there, she largely confirms Wilson's version of the shooting (that Brown stopped, turned, and "charged" at Wilson).

However, there are a couple of points that differ significantly from Wilson's story. 1) she says that Wilson did not have his gun drawn until after Brown charged at him, at which point he drew his weapon and fired the fatal series of shots. She is asked to be sure of this point several times and confirms that she is adamant that Wilson did not have his gun drawn when he left the vehicle. This conflicts with Wilson's testimony and that of other witnesses. She is not asked to clarify this discrepancy during her GJ testimony. 2) She says that as Brown turns and charges Wilson, that he raised both of his arms to shoulder height (as if he was "thinking of putting his hands up", in her words) before charging at Wilson as if performing a football tackle. She is asked explicitly is Brown ever reached his hands down toward his waist, to which she explicitly answers "no" and if she is sure of that point, which she is. This also conflicts with Wilson's testimony and at least one other witness account. Again, she is not asked to clarify this discrepancy. 3) After she says that Brown was "running" toward Wilson, she is asked how far Brown traveled while running before being shot. She responds "2 or 3 feet". This confuses the prosecutors, as she also claimed that it looked like Brown was trying to (and by her testimony, she believed it was possible) tackle Wilson "into the car". We know from crime scene evidence that Brown's body came to a rest a full 50 yards away from the vehicle. That's a long ### tackle. The prosecutors get her to estimate the total distance Brown traveled toward Wilson from start of run to death and she indicates 15 feet. At the very least, she's terrible about estimating distances (they ask her if she feels she is good at estimating distance, to which she responds "yeah, I'm pretty good").

Additionally, she mentions that she thinks Brown got what he deserved for "robbing from a store and fighting with a cop." This appears to take the prosecutors by surprise, as they immediately ask her to clarify that statement. She then admits that she did not see Brown fight with the officer.

Seems to me that a prosecutor seeking an indictment would grill her deeper on those inconsistencies.

Personally, this would make it MORE likely, not less, that Brown charged, even if it does conflict with Wilson's story.

I guess I was more trying to point out that discrepancies in testimony that conflicted with Wilson's story were grilled on by the GJ, leading to some of the witnesses outing themselves as unreliable or questionable. There seems to be a pattern so far of no such grilling having been done for witnesses that helped Wilson's case.

Good thing McIntyre1 - Internet Detective is on the case. I'm sure you found something the Grand Jury missed. You're definitely on to something here. Have you forwarded your findings to Eric Holder?

Yeah, #### me for wanting to see things with my own eyes, right?

That's good that you're looking into things yourself, but what I don't understand is your apparent disregard for various other witnesses who indicated that Brown turned around and moved toward Wilson? Perhaps evaluating credibility of multiple witnesses and how that assists in painting a picture of what happened that day is a bit more complex than drawing from the single example you provided?

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not disputing that Brown moved toward Wilson after he turned around. I posted my account of what I think happened several pages ago and indicated that Brown moved toward Wilson in that account. I just question whether he was "charging like a demon" while moving towards Wilson. That strikes me as unlikely, given what I've read of the encounter. I also don't think it is likely that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away, based on what I've read.

 

[mcintyre1]

Also finally found GJ testimony of Witness 40. This is the "Dang if that boy didn't charge at the cop like a football player" person that lots of Pro-Wilson stories are quoting.

She says that she doesn't consider herself racist because in order to be racist you have to say it to a person's face. She admits to being bipolar (which she is not receiving treatment for) and that she has had memory issues ever since she was in a car accident. She also admits to saying to an FBI agent that she googled Michael Brown to "find out what the gold thing was that dropped" (a reference to her journal entry, which, again, was not produced to anyone until a good deal after the incident and after she'd been interviewed as a claimed witness). She also testified that she "didn't know" how she ended up at the apartment complex where the shooting happened (she "got a GPS the next day"). She volunteered herself as a witness, she was not tracked down by the police or FBI. Here's a quote from the testimony about how her statements to police and statement now don't line up entirely: "Q: Okay. So you were not telling the truth initially? A: Okay. I'm sorry. ... I guess not, no."

Wow. That's insane.

For those that want to see this for themselves, here's a link to the document that contains the testimony of Witness 48 (starting page 17) and Witness 40 (starting page 96).

So far, for me, Witness 48 appears the most credible in support of Wilson's account. I listed my issues with her testimony above that I wish had been followed up on, but overall she comes across as reasonable and confident in what she saw.

 

[ArbyMelt]

so Witness 48 was with her family in the minivan .... did any of her family testify?

 

[mcintyre1]

so Witness 48 was with her family in the minivan .... did any of her family testify?

Unsure yet, I haven't been able to identify their accounts. Though it is possible I'm not remembering the connection of being in a minivan (I just read witness 48's grand jury testimony earlier this afternoon). It looks like they did at least get interviewed by the police, but I again haven't been able to find those accounts yet. I'll reply if I do.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

If the prosecutor wanted an indictment, he would have got an indictment. There was obviously probable cause. He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think there is enough discrepancy between witnesses that this should have gone to trial.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don't trust the cops or the criminals. But a group of citizens said this is a big nothingburger of a case. I do trust them somewhat more.

Exactly

problem is we arent supposed to trust criminals...police on the other hand SHOULD be trusted ....which is why its worse when you cant

But, funny enough, in this case the officer's story has been shown to be accurate and true.

How so? There were multiple eyewitnesses who testified to versions of the events that differ from Wilson's, and as several of us have shown here there are elements of his story that flat-out don't make sense.

The best you can say is that his story hasn't been shown to be false ... possibly because he wasn't subjected to cross-examination or any sort of challenge whatsoever by the prosecutor.

in your mind

 

[General Tso]

Anyone in LA go by and see if those idiots have figured out how to get by that chain link fence yet above the 110?

LOL.

 

[mcintyre1]

Just found this excellent article summarizing 19 of the witness accounts on 5 key questions. Super helpful, but doesn't attempt to analyze the credibility of any of them.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just found this excellent article summarizing 19 of the witness accounts on 5 key questions. Super helpful, but doesn't attempt to analyze the credibility of any of them.

How do you get 43% of 6 people.

Percentage is based on the responses from six eyewitness accounts. The other eyewitnesses either didn't see this particular event or they were unsure of their answer. Those statements were not included.

 

[Sand]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

 

[mcintyre1]

Just found this excellent article summarizing 19 of the witness accounts on 5 key questions. Super helpful, but doesn't attempt to analyze the credibility of any of them.

How do you get 43% of 6 people.

Percentage is based on the responses from six eyewitness accounts. The other eyewitnesses either didn't see this particular event or they were unsure of their answer. Those statements were not included.

good catch. My guess is they probably made the graphic when they were counting more than 6 (maybe lumped more into "unsure" by final edit?).

EDIT: I'm a dummy, they list 7 accounts, 3/7 = 42.8%. The caption is wrong.

 

[GoBirds]

I don't trust the cops or the criminals. But a group of citizens said this is a big nothingburger of a case. I do trust them somewhat more.

Exactly

problem is we arent supposed to trust criminals...police on the other hand SHOULD be trusted ....which is why its worse when you cant

But, funny enough, in this case the officer's story has been shown to be accurate and true.

How so? There were multiple eyewitnesses who testified to versions of the events that differ from Wilson's, and as several of us have shown here there are elements of his story that flat-out don't make sense.

The best you can say is that his story hasn't been shown to be false ... possibly because he wasn't subjected to cross-examination or any sort of challenge whatsoever by the prosecutor.

in your mind

....which functions a little different.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I did not know that Micahel Brown and Darren Wilson are both 6' 4" (80lb difference in weight). Most of the pictures I have seen made Brown look giant-size and Darren about 5' tall.

 

[Apple Jack]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

Zero, huh?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I don't trust the cops or the criminals. But a group of citizens said this is a big nothingburger of a case. I do trust them somewhat more.

Exactly

problem is we arent supposed to trust criminals...police on the other hand SHOULD be trusted ....which is why its worse when you cant

But, funny enough, in this case the officer's story has been shown to be accurate and true.

How so? There were multiple eyewitnesses who testified to versions of the events that differ from Wilson's, and as several of us have shown here there are elements of his story that flat-out don't make sense.

The best you can say is that his story hasn't been shown to be false ... possibly because he wasn't subjected to cross-examination or any sort of challenge whatsoever by the prosecutor.

in your mind

....which functions a little different.

Real witnesses are often unreliable, but for this case, some of the so called witnesses were not even at the scene when the shooting happened.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

 

[Soonerman]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

No it's not.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment.

No its not. If the prosecutor judges that no crime has been committed, his job is to employ prosecutorial discretion and drop the matter.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I did not know that Micahel Brown and Darren Wilson are both 6' 4" (80lb difference in weight). Most of the pictures I have seen made Brown look giant-size and Darren about 5' tall.

Like Hulk Hogan attacking a five year old.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Any of you lunatics going to spend time with friends or family over the holiday weekend?

Debating with other maroons in this thread is probably more important.

 

[Mark Davis]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment.

No its not. If the prosecutor judges that no crime has been committed, his job is to employ prosecutorial discretion and drop the matter.

Yeah this is what I remembered from what little bit of law classes I've had. That's one part of the argument for indictment I don't understand. Most of the arguments have been centered on the "he should have only presented the evidence that looked favorable to a potential prosecution" train of thought. By that logic he could charge anyone for most anything by slanting evidence and finding anyone willing to testify to it, no matter the facts. That kind of prosecution would be what I'd think should really draw protests.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Any of you lunatics going to spend time with friends or family over the holiday weekend?

Debating with other maroons in this thread is probably more important.

Dude this is IMPORTANT !!!!! Trumps family ,friends and dead birds .

 

[njherdfan]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment.

No its not. If the prosecutor judges that no crime has been committed, his job is to employ prosecutorial discretion and drop the matter.

Sure, in theory. But in practice, prosecutors rely on witnesses far more unreliable than any that were used in this case all the time. As has been established:

1. The prosecutor didn't cross-examine any of the witnesses that supported Wilson's story.

2. The prosecutor didn't make any sort of affirmative argument about how the GJ should return an indictment, which NEVER happens.

3. The Supreme Court has made it explicitly clear that the prosecutor has no duty to reveal exculpatory evidence in a GJ proceeding.

What the prosecutor in this case did is a complete reversal of what a prosecutor normally does in front of a GJ. If you want to argue that it's because this prosecutor normally attempts to act as a detached observer in GJ proceedings that's one thing, but we all know that's not the case. The prosecutor essentially abdicated his role as a zealous advocate in this specific case because he didn't want to indict Wilson, although he very easily could have.

 

[Sand]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

 

[Abraham]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

 

[jonessed]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

No, it's not. At least it's not supposed to be that way in a GJ setting.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Handy chart showing what each witness said on key questions.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

Really ? It seems to me that there are thousands of people all across the country ,let alone Ferguson, that wanted this to go further..

 

[Patrick Bateman]

What world do you all live in?? Do you know how rare it is for a prosecutor not to get an indictment? It simply means that there is probable cause. The bar is set very low for probable cause. The suspect was unarmed, and the cop shot 12 times?? That's probable cause.

 

[jonessed]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

Really ? It seems to me that there are thousands of people all across the country ,let alone Ferguson, that wanted this to go further..

He's referring to the GJ.

It doesn't really matter what a few thousand protestors want. We don't have a vigilante justice system.

 

[Abraham]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

Really ? It seems to me that there are thousands of people all across the country ,let alone Ferguson, that wanted this to go further..

Which explains perfectly why we live in a republic, not a democracy. The majority is usually uninformed and incapable of making decisions using objectivity.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

Really ? It seems to me that there are thousands of people all across the country ,let alone Ferguson, that wanted this to go further..

He's referring to the GJ.

It doesn't really matter what a few thousand protestors want. We don't have a vigilante justice system.

hey he said community ,not me

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

What world do you all live in?? Do you know how rare it is for a prosecutor not to get an indictment? It simply means that there is probable cause. The bar is set very low for probable cause. The suspect was unarmed, and the cop shot 12 times?? That's probable cause.

That's not probable cause here.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

He simply wanted Wilson to walk. Just that simple.

He knew there was zero chance of a conviction and that the facts led toward a justified shooting. So instead of making a unilateral decision (which in a normal world he could have and it would have been fine) he turned it over to the grand jury and had them go through everything. At least then the grand jury, who acts as the community, can have a say in what happens. I don't see how he can be faulted for anything he did here.

You can't be serious. It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment. The DA did everything that he could to exonerate Wilson. There's a reason why he's 0-5 when getting an indictment on a cop. Dig deeper.

Yes, yes I am. And, as noted, that is an un-#######-believable train of thought there. No, he didn't. Perhaps there were 5 innocent cops? No need to dig deeper when the community decided that this case didn't even deserve to go to trial.

Really ? It seems to me that there are thousands of people all across the country ,let alone Ferguson, that wanted this to go further..

Which explains perfectly why we live in a republic, not a democracy. The majority is usually uninformed and incapable of making decisions using objectivity.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

What world do you all live in?? Do you know how rare it is for a prosecutor not to get an indictment? It simply means that there is probable cause. The bar is set very low for probable cause. The suspect was unarmed, and the cop shot 12 times?? That's probable cause.

That's not probable cause here.

Oh yes it is.

 

[squistion]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Yes, if they want to keep their job.

 

[Abraham]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

The prosecutors job is to make sure justice is served, not get indictments.

 

[jonessed]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more.

The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence. Their job is not to go in seeking an indictment (although it often works that way).

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

The prosecutors job is to make sure justice is served, not get indictments.

:facepalm:

 

[Courtjester]

At least it is easy to tell who the people that actually are involved in the legal system and the people that just watch CSI in this thread.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

 

[jonessed]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

It's the prosecutors job to get an indictment? That is stupid. Seriously.

Stupid? It happens 99% of the time.

In Federal cases. The states vary more. It's not supposed to work like that anyway. The prosecutor's job in a GJ setting is to present the evidence.

All of the evidence. This never happens. You know as well as i do, that the evidence produced is at the discretion of the Prosecutor. It's not a trial, just a precursor. There is not guilt or innocence, just probable cause for the case to go forward. Clearly, there was probable cause in this case. Without question.

That's up to the GJ to decide.

What the prosecutor has done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EjQarf7ajg