Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[Clever_Iggy]

These reporters are awful.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by jar_e

That police officers are afforded more rights then your average citizen to uphold the law and do their job?

There's a reason why officer involved shootings in North America are usually never indicted and never seen a courtroom. There is rarely enough evidence to indict in the US system and rarely enough evidence to ever see a conviction in the Canadian system. This is a grand jury, a jury of peers, that are not indicting Wilson. They have seen the evidence, heard testimony. As much as we like to put cops on a stake, they are afforded the same rights as being innocent until proven guilty just as anyone else.

A jury of his peers (albeit a grand jury) had decided not to indict. This shouldn't be a shock. The whole thing was 50/50 anyways and even if he was indicted, his chance of conviction was slim to nil anyways.

You may think the system is flawed, corrupt, what have you. But they put it to a grand jury to see if there was enough. And there wasn't. You can't pick and choose when to use the justice system.

Oh the irony.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

These reporters are awful.

LOL how about his answer to that question though, essentially: to not be shot, the kid shouldn't have been there. Wow.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Really?

The article is obviously baiting in the sense that it says the three options cops aren't indicted are because:

1) Juror Bias
2) Prosecutor Bias
3) Public Pressure to bring the case forward

They clearly miss the fourth where heaven forbid a police shooting is an incredibly unique situation where the accused, an officer sworn to uphold the law, has a vastly different set of rights and responsibilities compared to your normal accused. Police are afforded more rights and powers then your normal citizen under the Criminal/Penal Code. I know people are disappointed and there is a basis for moral outrage. However, given comparables, this is really no surprise.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Oh the irony.

How so? That article even admits its purely speculation at the end.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by jar_e

As much as we like to put cops on a stake, they are afforded the same rights as being innocent until proven guilty just as anyone else.

So how about a god damn trial?

Jesus Christ. If there's not enough evidence to prosecute, then so be it.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by jar_e

How so? That article even admits its purely speculation at the end.

The police seem to be able to pick and choose whenever any officer is involved.

There is no reason why a trial should not be run in this case.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Acey

So how about a god damn trial?

Jesus Christ.

Blame the US Justice system? The Grand Jury decided that there was not enough evidence to indict.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by DOOM

The police seem to be able to pick and choose whenever any officer is involved.

Once again, how so? Please give specific examples how the police "pick and chose" in this case.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Acey

So how about a god damn trial?

Jesus Christ. If there's not enough evidence to prosecute, then so be it.

What the prosecutor said was that, in this case, the evidence was not sufficient to get to lay charges. It wouldn't have passed a preliminary hearing just as it didn't pass through a grand jury.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Acey

So how about a god damn trial?

Jesus Christ. If there's not enough evidence to prosecute, then so be it.

If there's not enough for a trail though, as they thought, why even bother with it, when the decision is automatically going to be not guilty? It's a waste of time and money.

Just to appease those who "want justice", doesn't mean you waste money unnecessarily.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Blame the US Justice system? The Grand Jury decided that there was not enough evidence to indict.

Yes, the US Justice system is horrible, we've established that... not sure what you're trying to say.

Why does a secretive process get to make that determination and not a criminal trial? I agree that there's no way they get a conviction out of this... just somewhat opposed to the concept of a grand jury is all.

[transplant99]

Yeah it appears many don't understand what happened here...there cant be a trial because the grand jury said there is not enough reason to hold one. Nothing the DA can do about that.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

What the prosecutor said was that, in this case, the evidence was not sufficient to get to lay charges. It wouldn't have passed a preliminary hearing just as it didn't pass through a grand jury.

Which is complete BS given some of the witnesses statements.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Andrew Zimmern ‏@andrewzimmern 52s52 seconds ago
Hmmmm

In 2010, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases. Grand juries declined to indict in 11 of them.
http://53eig.ht/1xw6UdY

Federal court is so different. That is a completely useless comparison. US attorney's also have a 97% conviction rate.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yeah it appears many don't understand what happened here...there cant be a trial because the grand jury said there is not enough reason to hold one. Nothing the DA can do about that.

Understanding and thinking the whole process was a sick ####ing joke aren't mutually exclusive.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Which is complete BS given some of the witnesses statements.

And when many of them were confronted with multiple conflicting witness statements and scientific evidence based on three separate autopsies that were consistent with each other, they admitted that they didn't see the shooting, only saw parts of the shooting, only saw the aftermath of the shooting or were just repeating what they had heard on the streets.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Which is complete BS given some of the witnesses statements.

Which one's? the one's that support the idea that Brown was an innocent victim? Or the one's that say that Brown was assaulting officer Wilson?

[PeteLFan]

What a disgrace.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yes, the US Justice system is horrible, we've established that... not sure what you're trying to say.

Why does a secretive process get to make that determination and not a criminal trial? I agree that there's no way they get a conviction out of this... just somewhat opposed to the concept of a grand jury is all.

It could have also been a preliminary hearing which would have come after charges and would have been decided by a single judge. Not sure that would have been better.