To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Page 5 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Nov 2014, 11:31 am

Magneto wrote:

So, he was either putting his head down preparing to charge, or keeling over from being shot, when the fatal shot entered his skull...

I think this ought to have been investigate further, hence they should have had a manslaughter charge - with an actual trial jury who's job it is to discern as much of the truth as possible, not a jury who just think that's their job.

They did three autopsies, had numerous forensic doctors look at the evidence, many witnesses that supposedly saw what happened, did a FBI investigation as well as a police investigation ... what's left to investigate ?

The prosecutor said the witnesses mostly back up officer Wilson, specifically that Brown charged Wilson.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/wi ... -says.html

"The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer".

If you charge officer Wilson with manslaughter, then you need to explain why these "crediable" witnesses are lieing.

Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

27 Nov 2014, 12:57 pm

Actually, no, because this was not a manslaughter trial. The proper place to demostrate that he is innocent is at an actual trial, not at a jury deciding whether or not they ought to have a jury discuss whether or not he's guilty (seriously, that's too... meta).

Something which seems to have slipped most peoples minds. Again, Wilson was not on trial. As pointed out by others, it is the job of a trial jury to determine the credibility of witnesses. If we only held trials when guilt was beyond reasonable doubt... well, why bother with the expense? Just autoconvict.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Nov 2014, 1:08 pm

Magneto wrote:

just to clarify ... I didn't say indict him .. I said charge him .. once they charge him with manslaughter then the burden of proof is on the state to make their case .. which would mean discrediting these "credible witnesses" to establish evidence that said manslaughter event did happen .... the state is required to *prove* their case beyond a reasonable doubt .. the jury doesn't have to do anything if the state can't prove their case ...

at least one Zimmerman juror said afterwards, "the state failed to prove their case .... "

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Nov 2014, 3:53 pm

Can't believe I'm agreeing fully with Magneto and Jacoby

Dillogic wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Most of the witnesses, and indeed Wilson's testimony itself, indicate Brown was walking towards Wilson, not running. Read the witness reports or you're as bad as the people who say Brown had surrendered.

You sure? Wilson said Brown took off at him when he turned around (at a hop when someone starts to gain speed quickly). That's in the video interview. Is that different than the testimony? I recall reading some saying Brown was rushing Wilson when I read bits of the eyewitness accounts.

If he was walking, then Wilson could have retreated, which could allow for manslaughter (though I doubt he'd be found guilty of that).

210 pounds to about 300. That's another weight class. Wilson isn't all that big for his height.

OK, I double checked Wilson's police interview and he does say that Brown ran at him after previously using more ambiguous language.
Of the eyewitness reports I read (15 reports from 12 witnesses out of 30 reports), I think only one fully supported Wilson's account and I think that was the guy who changed his story three times (Witness 12). It might have been Witness 10 though. I'm having some trouble getting them to load now.

Here's the relevant section of Wilson's court testimony (full transcription):

Quote:

That was all done, like I said, the first step, his first stride coming back towards me. As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn’t. I shoot a series of shots. I don’t know how many I shot, I just know I shot it. I know I missed a couple, I don’t know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk or flenched. I remember having tunnel vision on his right hand, that’s all, I’m just focusing on that hand when I was shooting. Well, after the last shot my tunnel vision kind of opened up. I remember seeing the smoke from the gun and I kind of looked at him and he’s still coming at me, he hadn’t slowed down. At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn’t. I shoot another round of shots. Again, I don’t recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him. And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn’t even there, I wasn’t even anything in his way. Well, he keeps coming at me after that again, during the pause I tell him to get on a the ground, get on the ground, he still keeps coming at me, gets about 8 to 10 feet away. At this point I’m backing up pretty rapidly, I’m backpedaling pretty good because I know if he reaches me, he’ll kill me. And he had started to lean forward as he got that close, like he was going to just tackle me, just go right through me.

Sounds like he was backpedaling. I don't think the accounts I read mentioned that.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Nov 2014, 4:19 pm

This site has highlighted portions for their testimony regarding the "charging". For each testimony scroll down to the highlighted portion.

Witness 10: Mr. Brown did some kind of movement. Never put his hands up. Turned around, and charged the officer. Mr. Brown paused then the officer stopped firing. Then Mr. Brown resumed the charge, and the officer fired.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ss-10.html

Witness 14: said the officer loudly told Mr. Brown to stop but Mr. Brown kept coming towards him.

Witness 40 said Mr. Brown charged the officer like a football player

Can't go through them all .. but right now I believe the prosecutor when he says there are many credible African American witnesses that support officer Wilson's version.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Nov 2014, 4:46 pm

Link from above:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ss-10.html

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

27 Nov 2014, 5:15 pm

12 people spent 3 months poring over every detail in every "eye-witness" account and every piece of material evidence; all without being told what to believe by the popular Media.

[opinion=mine]

I believe that people who are dis-satisfied with their findings are simply disappointed that they won't be seeing a cop -- any cop -- become the blood sacrifice for the ills and evils that a small, uncivilized portion of society has brought upon itself.

Further, it is just plain stupid to protest against events and institutions that are located far, far away from Ferguson, and by people who have never even been to Missouri. The organizers of these protests have just been waiting for an excuse to smash windows, overturn cars, and loot stores, and they got their excuse when a white cop was found un-indictable for shooting a black man in self-defense, after the black man had taken illegal drugs, robbed a store, and attacked the cop to steal his gun.

The Grand Jury should be applauded for its efforts in the use of cool-headed reason to examine the facts of the case before reaching a verdict, instead of being swayed by public opinion and media manipulation.

It's now up to the Federal government to complete its own investigation. I doubt that they will find the officer any more culpable of wrong-doing that did the Grand Jury.

[/opinion]

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Nov 2014, 6:42 pm

LoveNotHate:

- witness 10 was 100 yards away
- witness 14 does not say or imply that Brown charged

So that's just witness 40 then...

Fnord:

So Brown's death was justified, in part, because he was a pot smoker and a shoplifter?

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

27 Nov 2014, 7:24 pm

Magneto wrote:

I don't think that prosecutors really like to go to the time and expense necessary to prosecute a case that they are most likely to lose.

I doubt that any of us would want to see prosecutors prosecute a case where they truly believe the person being prosecuted is innocent of charges.

If it were you that could be prosecuted, would you really like to have to spend a million dollars or more on lawyers fees for a case in which you are innocent just because someone else thinks that you should be prosecuted and let the jury determine if you are innocent?

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

27 Nov 2014, 8:18 pm

I would classify a prosecutor's act of prosecuting someone he thinks is innocent to be malicious prosecution.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Nov 2014, 8:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

LoveNotHate:

- witness 10 was 100 yards away
- witness 14 does not say or imply that Brown charged

So that's just witness 40 then...

True, I think by "charging" they may mean headed directly towards.

The witnesses vary by what speed Mr.Brown was moving. As you said earlier, "walking" seems to be the majority opinion. Some say "fast walking/trotting", some say "taking steps", it is open to interpretation if the ones who say"charging" mean he was moving fast, or not.

It makes sense he was in a football player position as some reported him lurched over probably due to being shot. That would explain why he got hit in the top of the head as he approached.

Several witnesses reported him not responding to the officer's repeated request to stop.

For Manslaughter
==============
"Missouri law states that an officer may shoot someone who is reasonably feared to pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the officer or another person. Courts have ruled that officers may also shoot to stop someone suspected of a killing or grievous injury from fleeing if they pose others a serious threat".
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... no-charges

Seems like Mr. Brown posed at least a risk of serious injury to the officer, so no reason to indict for manslaughter.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 27 Nov 2014, 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

27 Nov 2014, 8:37 pm

So apparently Misouri law makes it extremely easy to claim self-defense. It's a lot easier than what I would've thought. I had heard that self-defense is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant when it's used. This made me think that the case of Darren Wilson should go to trial. It'd be much easier to prosecute if it becomes "guilty until proven innocent" the moment Darren Wilson claims self-defense.

It doesn't actually work like that in Misouri. I'm not sure how many places actually function that way nowadays.

Here's an article explaining why it's so hard to prosecute Darren Wilson: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-conviction-will-be-basically-impossible

All Darren Wilson has to do is testify that it was self-defense. That's enough evidence to protect him as long as the prosecution can't contradict it. He says he's innocent and that makes him innocent just because he says so.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

27 Nov 2014, 9:10 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:

All Darren Wilson has to do is testify that it was self-defense. That's enough evidence to protect him as long as the prosecution can't contradict it. He says he's innocent and that makes him innocent just because he says so.

Not just his word, rather, evidence showing that it was self-defense. You know, forensics.

The burden of proof it on people to prove that he wasn't justified to use lethal force. It's the same everywhere (English speaking countries).

As of now, no jury in the world could prove that it wasn't justified with all the evidence. There needs to be something quite spectacular, such as video of the entire thing, to change that (which would be odd based on the physical evidence anyway, unless Wilson manipulated it all, like kicking around shell casings, shooting the inside of his car, pouring Brown's blood on the ground in specific locations, and other movie-tier shenanigans).

seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

28 Nov 2014, 1:42 am

Dillogic wrote:

seaturtleisland wrote:

Not just his word, rather, evidence showing that it was self-defense. You know, forensics.

The burden of proof it on people to prove that he wasn't justified to use lethal force. It's the same everywhere (English speaking countries).

As of now, no jury in the world could prove that it wasn't justified with all the evidence. There needs to be something quite spectacular, such as video of the entire thing, to change that (which would be odd based on the physical evidence anyway, unless Wilson manipulated it all, like kicking around shell casings, shooting the inside of his car, pouring Brown's blood on the ground in specific locations, and other movie-tier shenanigans).

I just find the bolded part interesting because I was taught in high-school law that it's the opposite. The burden of proof is on the defense when self-defense is claimed. I'm not claiming to know anything just because of a high-school course it's just that the contradiction draws my attention.

This Wikipedia article also suggests that the burden of proof would be on the defendant if self defense is claimed: Affirmative defense

I've also heard the same thing on numerous other occasions.

It's not like a Wikipedia article, a high school course, and hearsay, are credible sources (even when they're combined together) but I've heard it so many times that it is a surprise to learn that the burden of proof would be on the prosecution.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Nov 2014, 2:16 am

seaturtleisland wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

seaturtleisland wrote:

It would really depend on the state. In some states, a claim of self defense doesn't need all that much proof to claim. For example, instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt", it may only be "by a preponderance of the evidence".

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

28 Nov 2014, 6:09 am

seaturtleisland wrote:

... but I've heard it so many times that it is a surprise to learn that the burden of proof would be on the prosecution.

When it goes to criminal court, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution and needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. Prior to that, whether it goes to criminal court is defined by if there's evidence showing that any wrongdoing was done (it's not determining guilt).

Which is why an indictment would be entirely unwarranted in this case going by the evidence, and would probably be breaking some law itself, but I don't know which one.

(I did Criminal Justice, taught by police officers. Self-defense was my favorite part to learn.)

Page 5 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury Post Reply New Topic

To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury