Michael Brown Debate
Michael Brown debate
#
Perhaps you should first of all read the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. It doesn't say most of that at all, that's just one particular interpretation of it. The problem is, unlike at a trial, there was no cross examination. In fact, the prosecution didn't ask ONE SINGLE CRITICAL QUESTION in 4 hours of his testimony. You know, such as why On August 15th Wilson and his chief put out a statement saying 'he wasn't aware of any robbery report', and then in his testimony it was all about the robbery report. Or what happened in the 2 hours after Wilson left the scene with his police union rep before being initially questioned and checked over by medics (because that police rep *totally* couldn't have clocked Wilson in the face to bolster his claims after coming up with that story - yeah, completely impossible.
I also see you don't understand what the role of a grand jury is. It's not to examine evidence of innocence.
If anything officer Wilton's rights were ignored when he was subject to grand jury without any due process.
Sorry, dead wrong. The purpose of a grand jury is only to see if there was probable cause that a crime may have been committed. What evidence is presented is selected by the Prosecutor. There is no defense attorney, no defense presentation. It's not about guilt or innocence, only to see if there's the bare minimum of evidence that there may have been a crime. It's EXACTLY the same barrier as a police officer has in order to stop you, probable cause.
This should never have gone to a grand jury, as with Zimmerman, the screaming for justice (ie trial and sentencing) was due to mob rule and not to adherence to the legal system.
Since you don't understand even what a Grand Jury is, and how it works, you really are in no position as to if it should have gone to one.
There was a very good reason why it went to a Grand Jury, and that's because there was probable cause for a crime. In fact the prosecutors own statement
#
Perhaps you should first of all read the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. It doesn't say most of that at all, that's just one particular interpretation of it. The problem is, unlike at a trial, there was no cross examination. In fact, the prosecution didn't ask ONE SINGLE CRITICAL QUESTION in 4 hours of his testimony. You know, such as why On August 15th Wilson and his chief put out a statement saying 'he wasn't aware of any robbery report', and then in his testimony it was all about the robbery report. Or what happened in the 2 hours after Wilson left the scene with his police union rep before being initially questioned and checked over by medics (because that police rep *totally* couldn't have clocked Wilson in the face to bolster his claims after coming up with that story - yeah, completely impossible.
I also see you don't understand what the role of a grand jury is. It's not to examine evidence of innocence.
If anything officer Wilton's rights were ignored when he was subject to grand jury without any due process.
Sorry, dead wrong. The purpose of a grand jury is only to see if there was probable cause that a crime may have been committed. What evidence is presented is selected by the Prosecutor. There is no defense attorney, no defense presentation. It's not about guilt or innocence, only to see if there's the bare minimum of evidence that there may have been a crime. It's EXACTLY the same barrier as a police officer has in order to stop you, probable cause.
This should never have gone to a grand jury, as with Zimmerman, the screaming for justice (ie trial and sentencing) was due to mob rule and not to adherence to the legal system.
Since you don't understand even what a Grand Jury is, and how it works, you really are in no position as to if it should have gone to one.
There was a very good reason why it went to a Grand Jury, and that's because there was probable cause for a crime. In fact the prosecutors own statement