D-Day for Michael Brown Grand Jury

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

How could the Prosecutor say "some of the witnesses were lying" and yet not charge the witnesses with perjury??

What kind of prosecutor does that?

They were interviewed by FBI so they are under the Federal Jurisdiction. Read the transcripts I posted in the other topic. The Special Agent warns people several times about lying

Also how do you know he hasnt or won't charge them?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

It's not about whether he presented too much or not. it's about how he presents it, his disposition towards the case.

I never said I was a Brown supporter (you assumed that). Matter of fact, in my earlier post, I said, the verdict would have most likely gone in favor of the officer if it went to trial.

What was his disposition? Were you there? Was there video?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

That is a reasonable argument. In this case, however, the prosecutor by his account during that release speech on Monday night already had his mind made up. He was more like a defense attorney..lol

Seriously, the dead guy's body was left on the street for more than 3 hours. Bro, How insane is that? That seriously reeks...That might be even enough.

I mean, all they were looking for "probable cause" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

At least, they should have indicted him based upon probable cause for involuntary manslaughter. And then let the case go to court. It really stinks.

As for the forensics, it can be interpreted in the different ways depending on what side you're on . So again, if the prosecutor was really interested in charging the officer, he could have done a far better job than just presenting evidence to the GJ.

What does the part in bold have to do with the prosecutor, the Grand Jury or anything else?

The Forensics can't really be interpreted too far. If the Forensices show bullet wounds in the front you can't say he was shot in the back

[Praxeas]

Watch video why it took so long

http://fox2now.com/2014/09/08/medica...d-for-4-hours/

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He did not believe the evidence pointed to guilt but he saw the anger of the Community and rather than declining to prosecute left it up to someone else

I heard some Legal experts on CNN claim that sometimes, as prosecutors, they did not KNOW if they had a case or not and would present all the evidence to a Grand Jury to see what they came up with

Further more, what some were expecting the Prosecutor to do was HIDE a lot of evidence and only present unfavorable evidence towards Wilson.

That's not justice. That's vigilante justice. You might as well change the system to Guilty till proven innocent (which will never happen if we allow the public emotions to be the jury)

It's not the job of the Grand Jury to determine innocence or guilt. It just has to determine probable cause. Let the verdict be determined in a trial court, not by the grand jury.

And they could not even determine probable cause for involuntary man slaughter??

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They were interviewed by FBI so they are under the Federal Jurisdiction. Read the transcripts I posted in the other topic. The Special Agent warns people several times about lying

Also how do you know he hasnt or won't charge them?

Some described what happened at critical moments, he said, only to concede “in subsequent interviews” or testimony that they didn’t actually see what they were describing.

It’s not a matter of people lying, he suggested. Asked by a reporter if he was contemplating perjury charges against any witness, McCulloch answered with a definitive no. “I think they truly believe that’s what they saw, but they didn’t,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ong/?tid=hp_mm

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What does the part in bold have to do with the prosecutor, the Grand Jury or anything else?

The Forensics can't really be interpreted too far. If the Forensices show bullet wounds in the front you can't say he was shot in the back

It speaks volumes of the character of the police system in that town. Even when a confirmed criminal is shot, protocol is to get said person to the hospital immediately.

It speaks volumes of the probable cause for man slaughter or at least involuntary man slaughter.

It shows how valueless the life of the boy was to the officer, which PROBABLY influenced the officer's decision to shoot.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

It speaks volumes of the character of the police system in that town. Even when a confirmed criminal is shot, protocol is to get said person to the hospital immediately.

It speaks volumes of the probable cause for man slaughter or at least involuntary man slaughter.

It shows how valueless the life of the boy was to the officer, which PROBABLY influenced the officer's decision to shoot.

Would that also be true if the cop had been black?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

It's not the job of the Grand Jury to determine innocence or guilt. It just has to determine probable cause. Let the verdict be determined in a trial court, not by the grand jury.

And they could not even determine probable cause for involuntary man slaughter??

Nobody said it was the GJ's Job to determine guilt or innocent. You missed the point entirely

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

It speaks volumes of the character of the police system in that town.

No it does not. Research what happened and why it happened that way

I remember when we had that huge bank robber in LA and a suspect lied on the ground bleeding to death. People asked why they did not call an ambulance in to take him or the fire department

The reason was they did not know how many suspects there were. They don't send Firemen or civilians into dangerous situations

Nor does the Prosecutor have anything to do with the Police activities or vice versa