Ferguson Verdict

[flyenby]

How can people demand the verdict be changed, who has seen the evidence or read the transcript ? The pro athletes and celebrities who are pissed are fools...

[strupgolf]

Yea, did you hear Kobe Bryant this week, really sad. Hell, even King O had a chance to tell his people how things work, but didn't. Oh well, they had OJ, we have Wilson. Game over, lets move on.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by strupgolf

Yea, did you hear Kobe Bryant this week, really sad. Hell, even King O had a chance to tell his people how things work, but didn't. Oh well, they had OJ, we have Wilson. Game over, lets move on.

please do not compare this situation with that of OJ. further, it is not 'tit for tat'.

[strupgolf]

I know.

[jyl]

A one-chart summary of every Ferguson eyewitness's grand jury testimony - Vox

Summary of witness testimony.

[stomachmonkey]

The growing consensus that is starting to emerge is the Grand Jury process was mishandled and deliberately managed in a manner that was all but guaranteed to result in a specific outcome.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by flyenby

How can people demand the verdict be changed, who has seen the evidence or read the transcript ? The pro athletes and celebrities who are pissed are fools...

I'd say that the key problem is ignorance. An example would be you, there was no "verdict". A grand jury looked at some evidence and heard from the cop and decided not to indict the cop for homicide. So there will be no trial and therefore no verdict.

Subtle distinction, I know, but still.

People are pissed, including the American Bar Association and most major newspaper's editors because of the way the GJ was conducted. Normally, a prosecutor calls a GJ for the purpose of securing an indictment and argues the evidence in front of the jurors as well as guides them through the evidence and rakes the suspect over the coals with tough questioning. The suspects, (or subjects), are not allowed to have their lawyers present during this process and it is always quite easy for a good prosecutor to at least create enough doubt to get an indictment and hold a trial where both sides will argue their cases, present witnesses and try to show who is lying. Someone is lying in this homicide, that's not in question.

A prosecutor's job is to prosecute. A defense lawyer's job is to exonerate. This cock sucker forgot which side he was on and did everything in his power to insure that the cop who shot the kid did not have to face trial. He did not argue the evidence, he did not even question the cop in front of the GJ, (Wilson was only questioned by the jurors), and he did a "document dump" on them where he simply unloaded a mountain of evidence and data on them and they had to sort through it and try to make sense of it all. This was unprecedented in the eyes of most professional legal observers. Normally, the prosecutor guides the jurors through the evidence carefully, presenting only the pieces necessary to secure an indictment so that he can have a trial. Then at the trial, where both sides get their day in court, there will be a verdict.

He decided beforehand that the cop was innocent of wrongdoing and did everything in his power to protect him. If you Fox News watching, ignorant sacks of dung understood the legal system at all, (your duty as an American, really), you would know why a lot of people are unhappy that this cop will not have his day in court. His story does not add up, unless you've already made up your mind that he could not possibly be lying because he shot a "thug". You probably know nothing about the very recent history of the Ferguson PD and their record with the community they police, the time the city charged a guy with destruction of govt. property for bleeding on a cop's uniform after they beat the schit out of him, etc.

There is more to the story. But stay ignorant. It's your duty.

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

The growing consensus that is starting to emerge is the Grand Jury process was mishandled and deliberately managed in a manner that was all but guaranteed to result in a specific outcome.

The growing consensus by whom? Crump had already decided the GJ was wrong before the report was released. Holder is continuing to 'investigate'. Obama said the anger was justified. Momma doan bleeve a word ovit. Stepdaddy wanna burn the expletive down! Who knows what Sharpton is saying but I'm sure he's amongst the growing 'consensus'.

[BeyGon]

there it is, from someone that made up their mind regardless of the facts of the case-Denis. good to hear from you too. Now back to MSNBC for you.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by jyl

A one-chart summary of every Ferguson eyewitness's grand jury testimony - Vox

Summary of witness testimony.

That's amazing. A real news source.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

The growing consensus by whom? Crump had already decided the GJ was wrong before the report was released. Holder is continuing to 'investigate'. Obama said the anger was justified. Momma doan bleeve a word ovit. Stepdaddy wanna burn the expletive down! Who knows what Sharpton is saying but I'm sure he's amongst the growing 'consensus'.

The growing consensus among legal experts. It's overwhelming. You would know this if you read newspapers or got information from a respected news source. Nice attempt at Ebonics, though.

Originally Posted by BeyGon

there it is, from someone that made up their mind regardless of the facts of the case-Denis. good to hear from you too. Now back to MSNBC for you.

I've made up my mind that there should be a trial. So if that is what you mean, yes, I think the dead guy should get his day in court, represented by a prosecutor. Then people would have to accept a verdict, one way or the other. And I do not watch MSNBC, or any other television news with very rare exceptions. Nice to hear from a scholar like you.

[Law_of_groove]

Moderators. Is this ok on this site?

Mr. Speeder, your anger serves no purpose. Anger is a diagnosable mental disorder. I sincerely hope you seek professional help for this disorder.

Originally Posted by speeder

I'd say that the key problem is ignorance. An example would be you, there was no "verdict". A grand jury looked at some evidence and heard from the cop and decided not to indict the cop for homicide. So there will be no trial and therefore no verdict.

Subtle distinction, I know, but still.

People are pissed, including the American Bar Association and most major newspaper's editors because of the way the GJ was conducted. Normally, a prosecutor calls a GJ for the purpose of securing an indictment and argues the evidence in front of the jurors as well as guides them through the evidence and rakes the suspect over the coals with tough questioning. The suspects, (or subjects), are not allowed to have their lawyers present during this process and it is always quite easy for a good prosecutor to at least create enough doubt to get an indictment and hold a trial where both sides will argue their cases, present witnesses and try to show who is lying. Someone is lying in this homicide, that's not in question.

A prosecutor's job is to prosecute. A defense lawyer's job is to exonerate. This cock sucker forgot which side he was on and did everything in his power to insure that the cop who shot the kid did not have to face trial. He did not argue the evidence, he did not even question the cop in front of the GJ, (Wilson was only questioned by the jurors), and he did a "document dump" on them where he simply unloaded a mountain of evidence and data on them and they had to sort through it and try to make sense of it all. This was unprecedented in the eyes of most professional legal observers. Normally, the prosecutor guides the jurors through the evidence carefully, presenting only the pieces necessary to secure an indictment so that he can have a trial. Then at the trial, where both sides get their day in court, there will be a verdict.

He decided beforehand that the cop was innocent of wrongdoing and did everything in his power to protect him. If you Fox News watching, ignorant sacks of dung understood the legal system at all, (your duty as an American, really), you would know why a lot of people are unhappy that this cop will not have his day in court. His story does not add up, unless you've already made up your mind that he could not possibly be lying because he shot a "thug". You probably know nothing about the very recent history of the Ferguson PD and their record with the community they police, the time the city charged a guy with destruction of govt. property for bleeding on a cop's uniform after they beat the schit out of him, etc.

There is more to the story. But stay ignorant. It's your duty.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Law_of_groove

Moderators. Is this ok on this site?

Mr. Speeder, your anger serves no purpose. Anger is a diagnosable mental disorder. I sincerely hope you seek professional help for this disorder.

What makes you think I'm angry? I pimp-slap ignorance and trample over stupidity with a smile on my face.

And "anger is a diagnosable mental disorder"? No, son, it isn't. Stop making things up and posting them on the Internet. Go back outside and play.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by speeder

snip...
He decided beforehand that the cop was innocent of wrongdoing and did everything in his power to protect him. If you Fox News watching, ignorant sacks of dung understood the legal system at all, (your duty as an American, really), you would know why a lot of people are unhappy that this cop will not have his day in court. His story does not add up, unless you've already made up your mind that he could not possibly be lying because he shot a "thug". You probably know nothing about the very recent history of the Ferguson PD and their record with the community they police, the time the city charged a guy with destruction of govt. property for bleeding on a cop's uniform after they beat the schit out of him, etc.

There is more to the story. But stay ignorant. It's your duty.

with this, it is you that seems ignorant: the past history has nothing to do with the evidence of the MB shooting and whether or not the shooting was justified.

i've read the record, as presented by the media, about the treatment of black folks in ferguson. if one tenth of it is true, it is a shameful record. however, that is a separate issue that should be investigated.

[speeder]

What's next around here? Sadness and joy are also mental disorders? How about wistfulness and rancor? Deep regret? Why stop at one emotion, it's discriminatory.

lol...

[ossiblue]

Not all experts condemn the use of the Ferguson Grand Jury.

Some further reading:

The Michael Brown grand jury process was fair - The Washington Post

Willoughby: Grand jury deciding Ferguson case was right move :: WRAL.com

Ferguson and the Prosecutor’s Approach to the Grand Jury | North Carolina Criminal Law

The use of the GJ in Ferguson may have been unusual but not unprecedented and the circumstances surrounding the incident were far from normal. There is more than one side to a story and more than one way in which a grand jury is used. Did the prosecutor use the GJ correctly? Yes. Did he use it correctly in this incident? That is the arguable point.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by speeder

What's next around here? Sadness and joy are also mental disorders? How about wistfulness and rancor? Deep regret? Why stop at one emotion, it's discriminatory.

lol...

how about you stop acting like douchenozzle with the new guy....

[Law_of_groove]

If this is really how you are, you need help! I know some people act differently on the internet so maybe you are normal in real life. yes, anger is diagnosable. Your posts make me think you are going to the top of a clock tower with a rifle.

Seek help guy.

[widebody911]

[nynor]

Originally Posted by Law_of_groove

Moderators. Is this ok on this site?

Mr. Speeder, your anger serves no purpose. Anger is a diagnosable mental disorder. I sincerely hope you seek professional help for this disorder.

don't worry about speeder.... not everyone here has the same issues as he does to overcome with vitriol and meanness.