To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Post Reply New Topic

Here are the documents

The rule is, you must justify your decision based on the documents above. Remember, you're not asking whether the accused is guilty, but whether it warrants a more thourough investigation and an actual trial.

I have yet to really look at the documents, but I will state my current view - there is enough to charge the accused with manslaughter, but not with murder. This may change later.

State your view, then start presenting your case.

People are saying "witness 40" account [page 7 in your evidence listing] supports non-indictment.

The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”

The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn’t stop.”

This witness backs up officer Wilson's account.

One must, however, bear in mind the matter of perspective. What looks to one person like someone stepping forward whilst in pain may appear to another (such as Wilson) as them preparing to charge.

Is Witness 40 the journal entry? I think it definitely shows why teaching joined up writing is a bad idea... I don't suppose there's a transcription available anywhere?

See also - what charges did Ferguson jury consider? Given these options, I don't think indictment would make sense. If imperfect self defense was an option, I would be inclined to suggest that. But given those options, I agree with the jury.

So, my current stance is - the jury were correct in their decision.

No charges for anything.

First, the officer clearly had the right to self defense. When faced with a thug who had just tried to take his firearm away, the only possible thing he could do was to shoot.

Second, imagine what happens if charges are filed. The witnesses were all over the place. The thug's friends were self-servingly claiming that he had given up while the other witnesses generally indicated that he was moving toward the cop at up to a full charge.

So the prosecution would have to put the thugs friends on the stand to try to make the case. Those thugs would likely be easy pickings for a defense attorney intent on showing them to be the thugs that they are. Furthermore, the defense attorney would have plenty of witnesses who would testify that the thug was advancing on the cop. At best (for the prosecution), there would be enormous reasonable doubt.

Unless the trial is fixed with the complicity of the judge, the case would be unwinnable for the prosecution. It is inconceivable that the prosecution could prevail with an honest judge.

The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor. The defense rests in the absence of credible evidence against Wilson.

What the grand jury says doesn't really impress me, you have to understand that cops in this country are above the law and are not held to the same standards we are. They are all drilled on what to say when they shoot somebody and Officer Wilson's story reeks of it. I believe Wilson and Brown got into a struggle and that Wilson retaliated and killed Mike Brown, I do not believe Wilson reasonably feared for his life. I base this on my experiences and knowledge of cops, I base this just on common sense that you wouldn't charge a cop that has already shot you like some rhino. We heard all these stories for months about how badly Wilson got beat up, look at the pictures! I look worse getting out in the morning, it's a joke.

What this country needs is body cameras on all police, these statists always like to say if we're doing nothing wrong we got nothing to hide well the shoes on the other foot now. What are YOU trying to hide?

I hate police shooting people; however, like posters above have said that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. This is why I believe that cops should have to wear a camera on their persons. This seems like the best way to police the police.

Jacoby, even if being a cop is (weak) evidence in favour of P(guilty) for a cop picked at random, due to the number of bullies in the police force (which, given that the job attracts bullies...), it is nowhere near enough for P(guilt) > reasonable doubt. Otherwise such logic could be used in other cases - or indeed in this one, since Brown was black and blacks are disproportionately represented among (convicted) criminals...

Regardless, the question is whether there is enough evidence to warrant a prosecution, *not* whether he was guilty or not. Having not dug into the evidence yet, I have not decided on this one, though I'm swaying between manslaughter indictment or none at all.

I do think the justice system needs to be reformed, and that there should be multiple juries who aren't communicating with each other, in order to reduce the possibility of groupthink leading to an incorrect outcome.

But if anyone has evidence that the jury was rigged - evidence, not hearsay - please make a new thread, I'd be very interested in it.

Question: If Mike Brown was white and Officer Wilson was black, do you think the outcome of the grand jury's decision to not indict Officer Wilson would have been any different?

I feel the cause is well intentioned, but this case is a bad example for the cause.

It is not all that compelling, this case

I think the vilification of Wilson in the absence of evidence, is unfortunate. In this case there is not even the slight circumstantial character evidence to back up mal intent.

Lets go through the process and see what will come up.