How rare was Wilson's no true bill decision from a grand jury ?

[Spamature]

If you are going to shoot someone it helps to be a cop that is for sure.

That data is from a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and covers October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. Over that time period, over 193,000 federal offenses were investigated, about 16 percent of which were declined for prosecution. That leaves just over 162,300 offenses that the government tried to prosecute. And the grand jury decided against doing so 11 times, finding no true bill or a lack of evidence to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If you are going to shoot someone it helps to be a cop that is for sure.

That data is from a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and covers October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. Over that time period, over 193,000 federal offenses were investigated, about 16 percent of which were declined for prosecution. That leaves just over 162,300 offenses that the government tried to prosecute. And the grand jury decided against doing so 11 times, finding no true bill or a lack of evidence to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

Which proves what?

If you do enough of X, you're going to come across something rare. Do you marvel at it when it happens? You can, but it's nothing more than it is, an exception.

What in the evidence suggests a conspiracy?

 

[Spamature]

Which proves what?

If you do enough of X, you're going to come across something rare. Do you marvel at it when it happens? You can, but it's nothing more than it is, an exception.

What in the evidence suggests a conspiracy?

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy. I posted how rare it is for a grand jury to decide the way they did in comparison to the other 163000 times they have decided cases.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy. I posted how rare it is for a grand jury to decide the way they did in comparison to the other 163000 times they have decided cases.

Right.. just randomly starting threads displaying random facts?

No reason behind it?

 

[Boca]

If you are going to shoot someone it helps to be a cop that is for sure.

That data is from a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and covers October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. Over that time period, over 193,000 federal offenses were investigated, about 16 percent of which were declined for prosecution. That leaves just over 162,300 offenses that the government tried to prosecute. And the grand jury decided against doing so 11 times, finding no true bill or a lack of evidence to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

WTF are you trying to say....that 11 time out of 162,300 that a grand jury declined to prosecute is a conspiracy?

 

[Spamature]

WTF are you trying to say....that 11 time out of 162,300 that a grand jury declined to prosecute is a conspiracy?

Where did I ever say it was a conspiracy ? I posted the stats on how rare this kind of decision is. How about you tell me what you think about the numbers I posted instead of telling me what I think about them ?

 

[Spamature]

Right.. just randomly starting threads displaying random facts?

No reason behind it?

It's a relevant number don't you think with all of the prefacing that went on that Wilson would not be indicted. Less than one in ten thousand chance of anything happening is not normally treated with a shrug.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

If you are going to shoot someone it helps to be a cop that is for sure.

That data is from a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and covers October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. Over that time period, over 193,000 federal offenses were investigated, about 16 percent of which were declined for prosecution. That leaves just over 162,300 offenses that the government tried to prosecute. And the grand jury decided against doing so 11 times, finding no true bill or a lack of evidence to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

What haters just won't admit is that the Wilson grand jury was a sham - there was no effort to acquire an indictment.

 

[Charcat]

Read the evidence. There was no cause for an indictment. Why did you want him indicted,"edited"? Think he committed murder?

 

[Boca]

Where did I ever say it was a conspiracy ? I posted the stats on how rare this kind of decision is. How about you tell me what you think about the numbers I posted instead of telling me what I think about them ?

I asked what you're trying to say. What's the point in other words?

Yes 11 times out of 162,000 is rare...so what?

Surely it's important to you for some reason

Why not share it with us?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Read the evidence. There was no cause for an indictment. Why did you want him indicted, McJerk? Think he committed murder?

That was for a jury to decide. There was certainly probable cause.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I asked what you're trying to say. What's the point in other words?

Yes 11 times out of 162,000 is rare...so what?

Surely it's important to you for some reason

Why not share it with us?

An example for you...

Wilson's attorney said he used to be a prosecutor who ran grand juries and he NEVER ran a grand jury the way the Wilson grand jury was run.

Even Wilson's attorney said that.

 

[Spamature]

I asked what you're trying to say. What's the point in other words?

Yes 11 times out of 162,000 is rare...so what?

Surely it's important to you for some reason

Why not share it with us?

I posted last night during the DA news conference that his presentation sounded as if Brown was the defendant. All he talked about was how unreliable witnesses testimony was and how bad social media and media was in general when it came to relating facts about the case and Browns action prior to the incident and Wilson's police call with a child who couldn't breathe.

None of this had anything to do with the actual shooting.

He spoke about anything that had to do with the actual shooting. You know the reason he sent this case to the grand jury in the first place. This was odd to me. Now I find something odd about how rare it is for a grand jury to decide no bill on all counts.

So you have to ask, what else is anomalously in this case. I guess I will withhold an opinion until more information comes out. But this case seems to be veering into uncharted territory.

 

[Boca]

Right.. just randomly starting threads displaying random facts?

No reason behind it?

I've tried getting him to reveal the reason myself...no luck!

Maybe he has one, maybe he doesn't...you know how Spam is? He always sees something he thinks is important but doesn't know what it is.

Best guess is that because federal grand juries seldom return an indictment, Spam''s convinced that the Ferguson grand jury, a county affair, was rigged or something.

He just didn't know how to express the thought?

 

[Boca]

You know the reason he sent this case to the grand jury in the first place.

Yeah. I do. It's because the Constitution requires it.

 

[Spamature]

I've tried getting him to reveal the reason myself...no luck!

Maybe he has one, maybe he doesn't...you know how Spam is? He always sees something he thinks is important but doesn't what it is.

Best guess is that because federal grand juries seldom return an indictment, Spam''s convinced that the Ferguson grand jury, a county affair, was rigged or something.

He just didn't know how to express the thought?

NO it the opposite those grand juries only missed returning an indictment 11 times out of 163000. I would guess that the number are similar for local grand juries. So you have to wonder what was so different about this case.

 

[Spamature]

Yeah. I do. It's because the Constitution requires it.

No it doesn't. He could have charged the man and had an arraignment then preliminary hearing before a judge like they do with most cases.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yeah. I do. It's because the Constitution requires it.

Oy.

 

[resident_evil]

If you are going to shoot someone it helps to be a cop that is for sure.

That data is from a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and covers October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. Over that time period, over 193,000 federal offenses were investigated, about 16 percent of which were declined for prosecution. That leaves just over 162,300 offenses that the government tried to prosecute. And the grand jury decided against doing so 11 times, finding no true bill or a lack of evidence to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

You do understand that a prosecutor has an ethical obligation not to prosecute a person if he/she believes the person not to have committed the alleged crime? If the MO prosecutor decided that Wilson did not do a crime, his only other ethical choice is to burden the Grand Jury with the weight of all the available evidence and let them decide whether to prosecute or not. It is not that difficult to get.

 

[Boca]

No it doesn't. He could have charged the man and had an arraignment then preliminary hearing before a judge like they do with most cases.

Yes it is....when there's a determination of probable cause to be made. Not necessary for a bank robber arrested outside the bank with a mask and a bag of money. The purpose of grand juries is to prevent the state from willy nilly charging people with crimes.

Sort of like that Angela Corey witch who took the Zimmerman case from a grand jury and charged him with 2nd degree murder. Alan Derschowitz said she should have been fired and charged with a crime herself.

This prosecutor had more sense.