Yikes. What a whitewash

[Bugsy McGurk]

Even the prosecutor's summary of events reveals conflicting evidence on all major points. And he failed to provide a clue as to why the police officer was supposedly justified in riddling Brown with bullets. And he even said that Brown's body was found 153 feet from Wilson's police car!

But not enough evidence to even go to trial? Wow.

Just goes to show that, while a prosecutor who wants to indict a ham sandwich can get it done, a prosecutor who doesn't even want to suggest charges to a grand jury can get them to not indict a cop who riddled an unarmed young man with bullets. Unarmed!

A disgraceful process from start to finish.

 

[Dino]

Even the prosecutor's summary of events reveals conflicting evidence on all major points. And he failed to provide a clue as to why the police officer was supposedly justified in riddling Brown with bullets. And he even said that Brown's body was found 153 feet from Wilson's police car!

But not enough evidence to even go to trial? Wow.

Just goes to show that, while a prosecutor who wants to indict a ham sandwich can get it done, a prosecutor who doesn't even want to suggest charges to a grand jury can get them to not indict a cop who riddled an unarmed young man with bullets. Unarmed!

A disgraceful process from start to finish.

Actually, as always, you're a disgraceful liar from start to finish.
The prosecutor has been highly detailed in explaining the differing witness stories, and then why they didn't hold water. He told why the shots were taken and in great detail as to where and how many. He explained why the shooting was justified and explained the movements of Brown and how they amounted to a threat to Wilson.
You either heard, or simply posted, quite selectively.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Actually, as always, you're a disgraceful liar from start to finish.
The prosecutor has been highly detailed in explaining the differing witness stories, and then why they didn't hold water. He told why the shots were taken and in great detail as to where and how many. He explained why the shooting was justified and explained the movements of Brown and how they amounted to a threat to Wilson.
You either heard, or simply posted, quite selectively.

Nonsense. He made no such findings, not does he even have any authority to make such findings.

All he could do was what he did do - summarize (albeit in an obviously biased fashion) all the wildly divergent evidence. It's not up to him to argue why the evidence against Wilson "didn't hold water" - it's usually up to the prosecutor to make the case that the evidence against a defendant DOES hold water. The defendants then gets indicted and there is a trial - an open trial, with full cross-examination, and the jury makes a decision.

This was a secret kangaroo court that will garner the respect of no fair person.

 

[Dino]

Nonsense. He made no such findings, not does he even have any authority to make such findings.

All he could do was what he did do - summarize (albeit in an obviously biased fashion) all the wildly divergent evidence. It's not up to him to argue why the evidence against Wilson "didn't hold water" - it's usually up to the prosecutor to make the case that the evidence against a defendant DOES hold water. The defendants then gets indicted and there is a trial - an open trial, with full cross-examination, and the jury makes a decision.

This was a secret kangaroo court that will garner the respect of no fair person.

Just admit it, you weren't listening.

I heard exactly the specifics as to why Wilson was not indicted. And what Brown was doing 153 feet from the car.

You care absolutely nothing for the truth, or the attack on the officer that precipitated the incident.

You'd side with the violent thug who engaged in a robbery, an assault, and then punched an officer and wrestled the officer for his gun.

Why? Because you're a liberal lowlife piece of scum? Best answer I can come up with.

 

[MrMike]

So, if the rioters go all ape-shit crazy and start crap you feel it's justified?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Just admit it, you weren't listening.

I heard exactly the specifics as to why Wilson was not indicted. And what Brown was doing 153 feet from the car.

You care absolutely nothing for the truth, or the attack on the officer that precipitated the incident.

You'd side with the violent thug who engaged in a robbery, an assault, and then punched an officer and wrestled the officer for his gun.

Why? Because you're a liberal lowlife piece of scum? Best answer I can come up with.

You're doing what you always do - blindly ranting instead of thinking.

You ignored what I just said and vented your rage instead.

Anyway, so much for the hooey that Brown rushed Wilson at his care. 153 feet! What a crock.

But not even probable cause!

Amazing stuff.

 

[Spamature]

Just admit it, you weren't listening.

I heard exactly the specifics as to why Wilson was not indicted. And what Brown was doing 153 feet from the car.

You care absolutely nothing for the truth, or the attack on the officer that precipitated the incident.

You'd side with the violent thug who engaged in a robbery, an assault, and then punched an officer and wrestled the officer for his gun.

Why? Because you're a liberal lowlife piece of scum? Best answer I can come up with.

What did he say Brown was doing 153 away from the car ?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So, if the rioters go all ape-shit crazy and start crap you feel it's justified?

Who starts the crap is far from clear, eh?

I have said from Day 1 that the the cloak of secrecy surrounding the case was guaranteed to create chaos. And so it is.

 

[Dino]

You're doing what you always do - blindly ranting instead of thinking.

You ignored what I just said and vented your rage instead.

Anyway, so much for the hooey that Brown rushed Wilson at his care. 153 feet! What a crock.

But not even probable cause!

Amazing stuff.

You weren't listening at all. The first shots weren't taken 153 feet from the car, were they?

So it seems you want to blame everyone else but the deceased, blame the process, misrepresent the presented evidence, ignore the justification for the shots fired, and chronically whine though the thorough explanation was given.

100% dishonesty from you, like always.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

You weren't listening at all. The first shots weren't taken 153 feet from the car, were they?

So it seems you want to blame everyone else but the deceased, blame the process, misrepresent the presented evidence, ignore the justification for the shots fired, and chronically whine though the thorough explanation was given.

100% dishonesty from you, like always.

You're just blindly ranting again.

Try to calm down and respond to what I said, if you can.

 

[SW48]

All of the evidence will be supposedly posted online so you all don't have to just talk about what the prosecutor said

 

[Dino]

You're just blindly ranting again.

Try to calm down and respond to what I said, if you can.

You went to "ranting" after only three posts?

Such an early concession! I never knew you to give up so easily.
Sorry for ruining your "whitewash" and "sham" hooey. You're completely wrong (again) and once again creating an alternate reality in which you appear correct.

 

[Lukey]

Anytime the police kill an unarmed citizen, a) there is something wrong and b) there should be a complete and open investigation/hearing. Not a secret grand jury...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Anytime the police kill an unarmed citizen, a) there is something wrong and b) there should be a complete and open investigation/hearing. Not a secret grand jury...

Precisely. Everything was kept secret from Day 1. They even issued a police report that said nothing. Complete secrecy caused the unrest.

 

[middleview]

Nonsense. He made no such findings, not does he even have any authority to make such findings.

All he could do was what he did do - summarize (albeit in an obviously biased fashion) all the wildly divergent evidence. It's not up to him to argue why the evidence against Wilson "didn't hold water" - it's usually up to the prosecutor to make the case that the evidence against a defendant DOES hold water. The defendants then gets indicted and there is a trial - an open trial, with full cross-examination, and the jury makes a decision.

This was a secret kangaroo court that will garner the respect of no fair person.

Since all of the evidence is available it is hardly an example of a secret kangaroo court. Let's be fair with the facts as we know them....
1. Michael Brown had stolen items from the convenience store and had physically threatened the clerk when confronted. This was on film. It shows that Brown didn't mind using his size to intimidate others.
2. He punched a police officer and struggled with the officer for his gun. That is indisputable given the bruise on the cops face and the blood and GSR in the car.
3. Yes, Brown was 150 ft away from the car. Irrelevant. How far away from the cop was he? The cop clearly gave chase after Brown had assaulted him and ran away. You seem to be saying that because Brown was retreating from the police car that the cop should have let him go.....I'm thinking no...it was the cop's job to apprehend him.
4. The narrative that Brown was shot in the back was false.
5. The narrative that Brown had his hands in the air is doubtful.
6. The report shows that Brown was moving towards Wilson...based on where the first instance of blood was found and where Brown ended up....25 ft closer to Wilson.

Those are the facts as we know them....nothing else matters. The looting of liquor stores and shops was just how those who are prone to breaking the law act when they think there is an excuse.....The looters are lucky I was not in charge of the police on scene. I think deadly force is an appropriate response to arson.

 

[trapdoor]

Nonsense. He made no such findings, not does he even have any authority to make such findings.

All he could do was what he did do - summarize (albeit in an obviously biased fashion) all the wildly divergent evidence. It's not up to him to argue why the evidence against Wilson "didn't hold water" - it's usually up to the prosecutor to make the case that the evidence against a defendant DOES hold water. The defendants then gets indicted and there is a trial - an open trial, with full cross-examination, and the jury makes a decision.

This was a secret kangaroo court that will garner the respect of no fair person.

Grand Juries are considered investigative bodies, not "court action" per se -- they review evidence and make a determination based on the evidence as to whether or not charges should be brought. That's why their deliberations are kept secret, so that evidence can't be held against a suspect before charges have been leveled at that suspect.

Frankly, I prefer preliminary hearings, which are also aloud for in lieu of Grand Juries under Missouri state law. A preliminary hearing is held in public, and a prosecutor presents evidence to a judge in open court, and the judge makes a determination as to whether or not there is enough evidence to bring charges to a jury. The big difference is that the preliminary hearing takes place in public.

In my experience (quite a lot of it for someone who never practiced law) prosecutors in Missouri prefer grand juries for high profile cases, and preliminary hearings for more common cases. I speculate (and I admit that it is speculation) is because the grand jury takes some of the onus off of the prosecutor. In a preliminary hearing the prosecutor is arguing in favor of charges -- in a grand jury (at least in theory) he's only presenting evidence.

As a reporter, I always hated grand juries -- there was never any way to get information so as to actually report on a case.

 

[Lukey]

Precisely. Everything was kept secret from Day 1. They even issued a police report that said nothing. Complete secrecy caused the unrest.

Haha! Me and Bugsy agree on something. There is hope for the future...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Since all of the evidence is available it is hardly an example of a secret kangaroo court. Let's be fair with the facts as we know them....
1. Michael Brown had stolen items from the convenience store and had physically threatened the clerk when confronted. This was on film. It shows that Brown didn't mind using his size to intimidate others.
2. He punched a police officer and struggled with the officer for his gun. That is indisputable given the bruise on the cops face and the blood and GSR in the car.
3. Yes, Brown was 150 ft away from the car. Irrelevant. How far away from the cop was he? The cop clearly gave chase after Brown had assaulted him and ran away. You seem to be saying that because Brown was retreating from the police car that the cop should have let him go.....I'm thinking no...it was the cop's job to apprehend him.
4. The narrative that Brown was shot in the back was false.
5. The narrative that Brown had his hands in the air is doubtful.
6. The report shows that Brown was moving towards Wilson...based on where the first instance of blood was found and where Brown ended up....25 ft closer to Wilson.

Those are the facts as we know them....nothing else matters. The looting of liquor stores and shops was just how those who are prone to breaking the law act when they think there is an excuse.....The looters are lucky I was not in charge of the police on scene. I think deadly force is an appropriate response to arson.

Again, that would be a fine closing statement after a trial. The legal issue at this point was simply probable cause.

 

[middleview]

Precisely. Everything was kept secret from Day 1. They even issued a police report that said nothing. Complete secrecy caused the unrest.

Sadly there was far too much information out in the media....every single fictional account was sensationalized. Shot in the back....grabbed by the throat from inside the SUV..."Hands up, don't shoot"....

A bunch of bangers looted stores...Michael Brown was the excuse.

 

[middleview]

Again, that would be a fine closing statement after a trial. The legal issue at this point was simply probable cause.

Take it up with the jury....it was their decision, not the prosecutor.