The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

@BillRM,

Grand juries are always held without a "defendant", moron, because Grand Juries are held to find fact about a set of events and whether it was a culpable event, whether anyone is a probable culprit and then they make a charge. At that point there's an indicted defendant. Until he's indicted, he's a "witness". That's why one isn't represented by legal assistance testifying at a Gran Jury. Refusing to answer any question can lead to being charged with a crime. Only a Prosecutor presents evidence and witnesses. There is no cross examination (one reason a Prosecutor shouldn't present a witness he knows is lying.)

Hell, mooky, there's no "defendant" until someone is arraigned in court or indicted by Grand Jury. An un-arraigned person is the accused.

Where'd you learn about US justice? The Soviet Union? What do you have against "Due Process"?

MP for three years. Really?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Have you even looked at some of these pictures of people beaten bloody in the face? How in the world can those instances be considered justified?

Not sure what pictures you are talking about, but most likely they can be justified simply by considering all the facts.

revelette2 wrote:

Being shot nine times is just excessive no mater how you look at it.

Liar. (And by now you clearly know better, so yes, your untrue statement is a lie.)

revelette2 wrote:

Brown was not a superhuman getting bigger coming at Wilson

No one claimed he was superhuman. The fear was that he was an ordinary dangerous human.

revelette2 wrote:

the way he unlawfully described during his testimony.(In a grand jury setting the defendant is not even supposed to testify)

Nonsense. Stop making things up already.

revelette2 wrote:

I am not saying at some point Brown didn't try to go for his gun, I am just saying there are missing facts to the story and the prosecutor was not interested in just getting to the facts as he already has openly admitted in the press.

In general, those missing facts cannot be gotten to at all.

You making up gibberish and trying to pass it off as fact certainly doesn't help to clarify anything.

0 Replies

Quote:

In St Louis, Darren Wilson was permitted to testify, and he injected the defenses of a justified use of force and self-defense. The testimony by Darren Wilson is very unusual, because normally the suspect or, if charges have been filed, the accused, does not have an opportunity to testify before a grand jury. Indeed, in United States v. Williams(1992), the US Supreme Court observed that the accused neither has a right to testify nor to have the prosecution present exculpatory evidence (favorable to the defendent) to the grand jury.

source

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Sorry but once most DAs would just love to have a target of a grand jury testifying before it and the reason it is not common is that the target lawyer normally do not see any benefits of doing so.

As far as not having a right to demand to be hear that is completely separate issue from why most targets do not in fact testify before a grand jury.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You may be right in that it is not against the rules for a defendant to testify. (I misunderstood)

However, the fact that Wilson did testify and for so long and so many witnesses allowed to testify who were favorable to the accused and the fact that the prosecutor did allow false testimony from witnesses who were not even there and admitted such at a press conference and the fact that the prosecutor brought in so much exculpatory evidence when he did not have to is a pretty good indication he had no intention of allowing an indictment.

Hopefully a higher court will revisit the issue at some point. But I don't hold out hope.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

...is a pretty good indication he had no intention of allowing an indictment.

You do realize that prosecutors have every right to not issue an indictment if they don't want to do so?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

Being shot nine times is just excessive no mater how you look at it.

Well I guess if you look at it without any knowledge of terminal ballistics, and with out any experience or training in combat tactics, and if you get all you knowledge from the liberal media, and have never put your life on the line in defense of others, and are some meely-mouthed arm chair asshole whiner, then yeah...it makes perfect sense. Drunk

(dumb ass)

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

fact that the prosecutor brought in so much exculpatory evidence when he did not have to is a pretty good indication he had no intention of allowing an indictment.

LOL the very fact that there was so must exculpatory evidence existing to be brought before the grand jury would imply that no indictment IE no true bill was called for!!!!!!!

Wasting resources on a trial where there is not even the low standard of probable cause existing might make the race baiters happy but would serve no other useful purpose.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

I can not understand why revelette2 can not understand that when deadly force is called for you keep shooting until the threat is over whether that take one round of a hundred rounds.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

Grand juries are always held without a "defendant", moron, because Grand Juries are held to find fact about a set of events and whether it was a culpable event, whether anyone is a probable culprit and then they make a charge. At that point there's an indicted defendant. Until he's indicted, he's a "witness". That's why one isn't represented by legal assistance testifying at a Gran Jury. Refusing to answer any question can lead to being charged with a crime. Only a Prosecutor presents evidence and witnesses. There is no cross examination (one reason a Prosecutor shouldn't present a witness he knows is lying.)
Hell, mooky, there's no "defendant" until someone is arraigned in court or indicted by Grand Jury. An un-arraigned person is the accused.
Where'd you learn about US justice? The Soviet Union? What do you have against "Due Process"?
MP for three years. Really?

Oh BOOB, people in glass houses...

You are lecturing someone on the law???
Thats like Homer Simpson teaching nuclear physics. WHAT-A-DUMB-ASS

Since the Fifth Amendment protects the privilege to refuse to answer, no witness can be punished for refusing to answer a question on the basis of asserting the Fifth Amendment.

A lawyer contacts the federal prosecutor and asks whether his client is a target, subject, or witness. Targets (potential defendants) are people whom the prosecutor intends to charge in the indictment. Subjects are people whom the prosecutor might charge, but would prefer to use to strengthen the government’s case against the target(s).

If the prosecutor tells the attorney that the client is a target, the attorney tells the prosecutor that his client will be taking the Fifth to all questions and requests that his client be excused or released from the subpoena.

If the prosecutor tells the attorney that the client is a subject, the attorney will typically respond by asking the prosecutor what he wants in exchange for immunity.

As is the case with the target, the subject also can assert the Fifth and refuse to answer questions.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

I can not understand why revelette2 can not understand that when deadly force is called for you keep shooting until the threat is over whether that take one round of a hundred rounds.

Thats because this dumb ass operates from a position of "arm chair expert"...and has never heard a shot in anger...certainly has never been in fear of loss of life by immediate threat.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Dear Bobsal,
These are REAL news clips and video footage of what happened in Ferguson. By real news I mean news that needs things like facts, and sources, and proof before they put things on the news. There was a fake gun, stolen cigars, and a video of that guy robbing the store before the incident. The only evidence that WASN'T there was a video of a cop gunning down an unarmed man from a distance. I am asking why do you think that is? The body is on camera, the mans dead body is on camera, even a guy shrugging, is on camera. No one wanted to show their video of that cop shooting that man with his arms up. More than likely because that is NOT what happened. But the EVIDENCE is definately in the cops favor on that one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7WIju-nAoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgcIN_RJ7Tk

1 Reply

@tony5732,

BOOB is not at all altruistic, that much is evident.
BOOB doesnt give a rats ass about facts...he's got an aganda...he hates the police.
He obviously is very angry at them and that can only mean he was busted for something HE felt was unjustified.
Thats why he goes on these tirades.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Well don't just call him names, make him think and logically explain how because some cops are idiots all cops must be bad. Have him back up his "guardian" news crap and show where this "real news" gets their information from. He will have no choice but to open his eyes or make himself look stupid. Maybe he even knows something I don't. Last time I checked though stereotypes are ignorant and stupid. So is grouping everyone's ethical values together by what jobs they do to put food on the table, or dare I say, skin color.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Meanwhile goooooooeyjohn posts all the hate stuff and that makes me a hater???

Racist asshat.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You do realize that prosecutors have every right to not issue an indictment if they don't want to do so?

Yes, which is what that prosecutor should have done rather than that circus of a Grand Jury designed to prove Wilson innocent to the world without a trial.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Bingo.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Two of the shots went to the head, why did he need to shoot twice to the head in order to put down the threat? How much of a threat could he be after he was shot the first time in the head, much less so many times in the arm? That is what I meant by superhuman. The autopsy's said four hit his right arm. Wilson testified he shot two from his car prompting Brown to escape the car, then Wilson got out of the car and called for backup. Surely, one of those shots before the fatal one would have put out the threat long enough for backup to come? I mean I know Brown was big, but he was not "Hulk Hogan" on a movie getting bigger with each shot. If you ask me, Wilson was simply scared of the big demon and shot him as many times as he could once Brown hit him the face and might have tried to go for his gun. We don't really know if Brown finally had his hands up or not, and I suggest, neither does Wilson. If you read his testimony, he seemed like a guy in a grip of a complete meltdown during the whole thing.

Wilson: Struggle with Brown was like fighting 'Hulk Hogan'

Michael Brown's Autopsy: What It Can (and Can't) Tell Us

2 Replies

The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know