FERGUSON, MISSOURI

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
That is because it wasn't a trial it was a grand jury proceeding. There isn't a judge present in a grand jury proceeding. The proceeding is run entirely by the prosecutor. Regardless of how you feel about the facts of the case it was a rigged game. In a normal grand jury proceeding grand jurors are just given the bare outline of the case from the reasons to indict point of view and the prosecutor recommends the charges.

The role is not for the prosecutor to present reasons not to indict the accused. The grand jury isn't supposed to weigh evidence for and against that is the role of the trial jury. The grand jury's role is to simply determine looking at the facts from a worse case point of view for the defendant is there enough evidence to go to trial?

In this case prosecutor took on the role of defense attorney and presented reasons not to indict the accused, and that was a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deviation of how ever other criminal case is handled in that state and most others.

The case should have went to trial like any other, but the refs jumped in and sabotaged the case making sure it wouldn't never get in front of a jury where both sides of the case would have been presented.

Your analogy of blaming the victim for not winning is invalid as the victim's team was never given a chance to get out on the court. It would be like if you were on an away basketball team headed to your game in a bus and half way there the referees are out in the road, they stop the bus and then they flatten all the tires to keep you from getting to the game.

FYI: Grand Juries also don't require unanimous opinions like a normal jury trial does.

I argue given the unusual nature of this proceeding it looks exactly like Mississippi in 1967.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pearlguy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: rayxtwo
6 white males, 3 white women, 1 black male, 2 black women.

Ray

---

Interesting...but not earth shattering. Curious as to why Brown's lawyer wouldn't have tried for more black jurors ? Perhaps easier to "pass blame" when you don't win ???

Thanks ray

---

---

That's not quite the way I understood how the evidence is presented but neither here nor there and I think you are dead wrong about steering them away from indictment. I think that the powers that be wanted nothing more than to be able to at least take this to trial, if for nothing else to sooth the tensions that everyone knew would arise.
If they could offer up Wilson as the sacrificial lamb, I think they would in a heartbeat. There's just no way in hell they could ever get a conviction, the evidence didn't even support an indictment.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
That is because it wasn't a trial it was a grand jury proceeding. There isn't a judge present in a grand jury proceeding. The proceeding is run entirely by the prosecutor. Regardless of how you feel about the facts of the case it was a rigged game. In a normal grand jury proceeding grand jurors are just given the bare outline of the case from the reasons to indict point of view and the prosecutor recommends the charges.

The role is not for the prosecutor to present reasons not to indict the accused. The grand jury isn't supposed to weigh evidence for and against that is the role of the trial jury. The grand jury's role is to simply determine looking at the facts from a worse case point of view for the defendant is there enough evidence to go to trial?

In this case prosecutor took on the role of defense attorney and presented reasons not to indict the accused, and that was a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deviation of how ever other criminal case is handled in that state and most others.

The case should have went to trial like any other, but the refs jumped in and sabotaged the case making sure it wouldn't never get in front of a jury where both sides of the case would have been presented.

Your analogy of blaming the victim for not winning is invalid as the victim's team was never given a chance to get out on the court. It would be like if you were on an away basketball team headed to your game in a bus and half way there the referees are out in the road, they stop the bus and then they flatten all the tires to keep you from getting to the game.

FYI: Grand Juries also don't require unanimous opinions like a normal jury trial does.

I argue given the unusual nature of this proceeding it looks exactly like Mississippi in 1967.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pearlguy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: rayxtwo
6 white males, 3 white women, 1 black male, 2 black women.

Ray

---

Interesting...but not earth shattering. Curious as to why Brown's lawyer wouldn't have tried for more black jurors ? Perhaps easier to "pass blame" when you don't win ???

Thanks ray

---

---

That's not quite the way I understood how the evidence is presented but neither here nor there and I think you are dead wrong about steering them away from indictment. I think that the powers that be wanted nothing more than to be able to at least take this to trial, if for nothing else to sooth the tensions that everyone knew would arise.
If they could offer up Wilson as the sacrificial lamb, I think they would in a heartbeat. There's just no way in hell they could ever get a conviction, the evidence didn't even support an indictment.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
You are right and that is the whole problem it wasn't presented like it would have been in every other grand jury proceeding in that state. In this case they even let the accused testify and give his version of events without having to be subject to cross examination.

It was rigged and it stinks.

Furthermore, indictment in this state requires 9 of the 12 grand jurors to agree. So all the prosecutor had to do was convince 4 of the twelve jurors not to indict the officer. Again in a grand jury proceeding the prosecutor controls what evidence is presented and what is not there is no opposing counsel that can object to any of the evidence or the manner in which it was presented. There is no judge present to keep the prosecutor honest.

Bottom line is Brown's family didn't get a fair trial and process which is what they deserved. I doubt if Obama has the balls to do it, but the Feds need to step in and pop the county government, police force and prosecutors office for civil rights violations.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
That is because it wasn't a trial it was a grand jury proceeding. There isn't a judge present in a grand jury proceeding. The proceeding is run entirely by the prosecutor. Regardless of how you feel about the facts of the case it was a rigged game. In a normal grand jury proceeding grand jurors are just given the bare outline of the case from the reasons to indict point of view and the prosecutor recommends the charges.

The role is not for the prosecutor to present reasons not to indict the accused. The grand jury isn't supposed to weigh evidence for and against that is the role of the trial jury. The grand jury's role is to simply determine looking at the facts from a worse case point of view for the defendant is there enough evidence to go to trial?

In this case prosecutor took on the role of defense attorney and presented reasons not to indict the accused, and that was a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deviation of how ever other criminal case is handled in that state and most others.

The case should have went to trial like any other, but the refs jumped in and sabotaged the case making sure it wouldn't never get in front of a jury where both sides of the case would have been presented.

Your analogy of blaming the victim for not winning is invalid as the victim's team was never given a chance to get out on the court. It would be like if you were on an away basketball team headed to your game in a bus and half way there the referees are out in the road, they stop the bus and then they flatten all the tires to keep you from getting to the game.

FYI: Grand Juries also don't require unanimous opinions like a normal jury trial does.

I argue given the unusual nature of this proceeding it looks exactly like Mississippi in 1967.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pearlguy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: rayxtwo
6 white males, 3 white women, 1 black male, 2 black women.

Ray

---

Interesting...but not earth shattering. Curious as to why Brown's lawyer wouldn't have tried for more black jurors ? Perhaps easier to "pass blame" when you don't win ???

Thanks ray

---

---

That's not quite the way I understood how the evidence is presented but neither here nor there and I think you are dead wrong about steering them away from indictment. I think that the powers that be wanted nothing more than to be able to at least take this to trial, if for nothing else to sooth the tensions that everyone knew would arise.
If they could offer up Wilson as the sacrificial lamb, I think they would in a heartbeat. There's just no way in hell they could ever get a conviction, the evidence didn't even support an indictment.

---

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
You are right and that is the whole problem it wasn't presented like it would have been in every other grand jury proceeding in that state. In this case they even let the accused testify and give his version of events without having to be subject to cross examination.

It was rigged and it stinks.

Furthermore, indictment in this state requires 9 of the 12 grand jurors to agree. So all the prosecutor had to do was convince 4 of the twelve jurors not to indict the officer. Again in a grand jury proceeding the prosecutor controls what evidence is presented and what is not there is no opposing counsel that can object to any of the evidence or the manner in which it was presented. There is no judge present to keep the prosecutor honest.

Bottom line is Brown's family didn't get a fair trial and process which is what they deserved. I doubt if Obama has the balls to do it, but the Feds need to step in and pop the county government, police force and prosecutors office for civil rights violations.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
That is because it wasn't a trial it was a grand jury proceeding. There isn't a judge present in a grand jury proceeding. The proceeding is run entirely by the prosecutor. Regardless of how you feel about the facts of the case it was a rigged game. In a normal grand jury proceeding grand jurors are just given the bare outline of the case from the reasons to indict point of view and the prosecutor recommends the charges.

The role is not for the prosecutor to present reasons not to indict the accused. The grand jury isn't supposed to weigh evidence for and against that is the role of the trial jury. The grand jury's role is to simply determine looking at the facts from a worse case point of view for the defendant is there enough evidence to go to trial?

In this case prosecutor took on the role of defense attorney and presented reasons not to indict the accused, and that was a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deviation of how ever other criminal case is handled in that state and most others.

The case should have went to trial like any other, but the refs jumped in and sabotaged the case making sure it wouldn't never get in front of a jury where both sides of the case would have been presented.

Your analogy of blaming the victim for not winning is invalid as the victim's team was never given a chance to get out on the court. It would be like if you were on an away basketball team headed to your game in a bus and half way there the referees are out in the road, they stop the bus and then they flatten all the tires to keep you from getting to the game.

FYI: Grand Juries also don't require unanimous opinions like a normal jury trial does.

I argue given the unusual nature of this proceeding it looks exactly like Mississippi in 1967.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pearlguy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: rayxtwo
6 white males, 3 white women, 1 black male, 2 black women.

Ray

---

Interesting...but not earth shattering. Curious as to why Brown's lawyer wouldn't have tried for more black jurors ? Perhaps easier to "pass blame" when you don't win ???

Thanks ray

---

---

That's not quite the way I understood how the evidence is presented but neither here nor there and I think you are dead wrong about steering them away from indictment. I think that the powers that be wanted nothing more than to be able to at least take this to trial, if for nothing else to sooth the tensions that everyone knew would arise.
If they could offer up Wilson as the sacrificial lamb, I think they would in a heartbeat. There's just no way in hell they could ever get a conviction, the evidence didn't even support an indictment.

---

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99
I still disagree with ya Mal, this whole thing is being gone through with a fine tooth comb, the prosecutor would have to have a death wish to play it as you suggest. Hell he's made public (I understand this isn't SOP?)every piece of evidence that the grnd jury got, you think it's not gonna be dissected by every legal scholar from here to timbukto? and he's not gonna get called on it? Kinda absurd thinking my man.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: BobOrme
It was rigged in that there were three different autopsies. It was rigged in that there was a federal investigation, the results of which were presented to the grand jury. It was rigged in that the POTUS sent representatives to the city to inflame the situation....looks like you are carrying that baggage too.

There have been plenty of civil rights violations concerning this case, but they have nothing to do with Michael Brown's death. Every business owner and employee whose livelihood has been destroyed by thugs encouraged by race baiting leftists have suffered civil rights violations....looks like you are carrying that baggage too in that I see nothing from you condemning the violence. That will soon become a bag too heavy to carry, if it isn't already.

The Brown family didn't get a fair trial? FOR WHAT? Their son, who already had a serious criminal history, robbed a store and attacked a police officer, was shot by the police officer. The only trial the Brown family should receive is one where their ability to raise their children is in question.

I don't doubt Holder will pursue other charges against Wilson, even though he has resigned from the DOJ. There haven't been enough people already hurt, nor enough businesses and jobs destroyed. Class and race warfare are part and parcel of this administration.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
You are right and that is the whole problem it wasn't presented like it would have been in every other grand jury proceeding in that state. In this case they even let the accused testify and give his version of events without having to be subject to cross examination.

It was rigged and it stinks.

Furthermore, indictment in this state requires 9 of the 12 grand jurors to agree. So all the prosecutor had to do was convince 4 of the twelve jurors not to indict the officer. Again in a grand jury proceeding the prosecutor controls what evidence is presented and what is not there is no opposing counsel that can object to any of the evidence or the manner in which it was presented. There is no judge present to keep the prosecutor honest.

Bottom line is Brown's family didn't get a fair trial and process which is what they deserved. I doubt if Obama has the balls to do it, but the Feds need to step in and pop the county government, police force and prosecutors office for civil rights violations.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2
That is because it wasn't a trial it was a grand jury proceeding. There isn't a judge present in a grand jury proceeding. The proceeding is run entirely by the prosecutor. Regardless of how you feel about the facts of the case it was a rigged game. In a normal grand jury proceeding grand jurors are just given the bare outline of the case from the reasons to indict point of view and the prosecutor recommends the charges.

The role is not for the prosecutor to present reasons not to indict the accused. The grand jury isn't supposed to weigh evidence for and against that is the role of the trial jury. The grand jury's role is to simply determine looking at the facts from a worse case point of view for the defendant is there enough evidence to go to trial?

In this case prosecutor took on the role of defense attorney and presented reasons not to indict the accused, and that was a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deviation of how ever other criminal case is handled in that state and most others.

The case should have went to trial like any other, but the refs jumped in and sabotaged the case making sure it wouldn't never get in front of a jury where both sides of the case would have been presented.

Your analogy of blaming the victim for not winning is invalid as the victim's team was never given a chance to get out on the court. It would be like if you were on an away basketball team headed to your game in a bus and half way there the referees are out in the road, they stop the bus and then they flatten all the tires to keep you from getting to the game.

FYI: Grand Juries also don't require unanimous opinions like a normal jury trial does.

I argue given the unusual nature of this proceeding it looks exactly like Mississippi in 1967.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pearlguy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: rayxtwo
6 white males, 3 white women, 1 black male, 2 black women.

Ray

---

Interesting...but not earth shattering. Curious as to why Brown's lawyer wouldn't have tried for more black jurors ? Perhaps easier to "pass blame" when you don't win ???

Thanks ray

---

---

That's not quite the way I understood how the evidence is presented but neither here nor there and I think you are dead wrong about steering them away from indictment. I think that the powers that be wanted nothing more than to be able to at least take this to trial, if for nothing else to sooth the tensions that everyone knew would arise.
If they could offer up Wilson as the sacrificial lamb, I think they would in a heartbeat. There's just no way in hell they could ever get a conviction, the evidence didn't even support an indictment.

---

---

---