The madness of Fergerson
- Thread starter skyraider
- Start date
There are already reports of shooting in Ferguson.
To get a grand jury indictment all you need is run'o-the-mill probable cause. The prosecutor already has a history of not prosecuting cops, and he didn't want to be seen as doing it again, and rather than risk a probable cause indictment, he gave the grand jury a virtual trial, complete with defense testimony. So now he gets to sit back and go, "Hey, it wasn't me! It was the citizen grand jury!" I think they should have indicted him and let the evidence come out in open court. That way nothing is hidden. If he's found not guilty at trial, so be it. But at least that would be transparent. What they did here is not exactly a step in the direction of engendering trust.
Sorry, but it's hard to muster any sympathy for Rodney King considering his rap sheet and the facts of the case. This guy was - simply put - a common criminal, convicted felon, and another big guy on drugs and/or alcohol that wouldn't follow police commands. That's also called STUPID.
His criminal activities and drug problems continued until the day he died. Fast forward to 2014 and there seems to be no progress made in alleviating the glorification of criminals, gangs, misogyny and drugs in America's black culture. Michael Brown was involved in drugs and petty theft the day he was shot during an altercation with a police officer. Considering the disparity of the crime stats among the black community perhaps a little introspection on their part might be in order instead of trying to blame everybody else for their problems. But so long as Al, Jessie, Holder, Obama and their ilk are around there won't be much chance of that.
As in a lot of cases with police, they didn't even have to do a grand jury. I did read somewhere that there might have been a concern with going straight to a trial because of the risk a seated jury would face. A lot of people were involved in the investigation outside of Ferguson police. Doing a public trial may taint some of the witness testimony because they are questioned publicly.
Doing it in this fashion where grand jurors can ask questions, you likely get a more honest response because they aren't being questioned in front of their neighbors.
The family can file a wrongful death suit, but I doubt that will go anywhere based on what I have heard so far.
Question:
Has double jeopardy clause attach with grand jury proceedings or is that limited to a jury trial?
Has double jeopardy clause attach with grand jury proceedings or is that limited to a jury trial?
It's limited to a trial. Double jeopardy is about being found not guilty at a trial, and then being tried again for the same crime. A grand jury is simply about whether or not to file charges in the first place, guilt or innocence is not determined.
That's precisely the case. Judging from the damage done by the mobs last night one can imagine what would have happened to the homes - or lives - of any witnesses that might have given public testimony favorable to officer Wilson's defense. After exhaustive evaluation of the evidence they determined there was no probably cause to bring charges against Officer Wilson. Justice has been served, but these rioters and anarchists didn't want justice - they wanted revenge.
Wow, so you think that someone should be arrested, have a trial, and put through the legal process, all without evidence of even probable cause, for political reasons? This coming from someone who posts comments about how unfair the legal process is, but apparently wants more to be put through it. Love the irony.
Last edited:
That is what I thought.
So, consider this. Officer Wilson has never been tried. IF new evidence, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he did wrong, he can still be tried, and convicted, in a jury trial. Had the DA taken the evidence he had, with all the holes, contradictions, lies, recants, etc, the forensic evidence that backs Wilson's version, into court, he likely would have lost, then Wilson would not be able to be tried with the new evidence.
This grand jury, which was in place prior to the shooting, decided that, with 1000 pieces of available evidence, that charges could not be brought against Wilson. If more comes up, he can still be tried.
Had he been tried, and was found not guilty, the riots would still have taken place.
Incorrect. It's obvious you don't know how the grand jury process works, nor how this one differed wildly from the norm. There actually is enough evidence for probable cause, including medical examiner testimony. There is also conflicting evidence, in favor of the defense. But conflicting evidence in favor of a defendant is almost never presented to a grand jury by a prosecutor looking for an indictment, because he won't get an indictment if he does. And the defendant sure as hell doesn't testify in front of the grand jury in his own defense. That practically guarantees a no true bill decision. The prosecutor is prosecutor, not a defense attorney. But that's exactly what happened in this one.
The prosecutor should have made the call himself on not prosecuting, or gotten an indictment like normal and then let it all come out at trial.
Typically a prosecutor does make the decision. I think the grand jury route had to be done because too many thought he was tied too much to the police. Add in the feds investigating and I think his choices were pretty limited. Have to remember, that much of the presented evidence came from the feds and not the local police. I think he made the right call in these circumstances. I don't think you put the guy through a trial if you already know you won't have enough evidence to convict him on something. The grand jury is more or less a confirmation of that.
If he was tried, and found not guilty, would they trust that? I doubt if they would.
A local minister here says that the ONLY justice in this case would be to see Officer Wilson prosecuted, tried, convicted and jailed. He stated that anything less was not justice, no matter what a jury or grand jury said. This the same minister who was in charge of the "protest" today in front of the Federal Court Building in Detroit. I believe his name was Smith.
I expect the same from a Federal "investigation". The "justice department" has little credibility these days, ignoring laws, not enforcing them, bending them, etc.
I would agree IF, and ONLY IF, that special prosecutor had ZERO ties to Holder, the Obama Administration, the Democrat or Republican parties, or any of their off shoots.
No need to wonder.