Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

ThePilgrim

The Grand Jury

Recommended Posts

This is not about whether or not Darren Wilson was justified or not in the shooting but about the defects in our grand jury system and the consequences.

We all have our opinions of what occurred because of what we have been told by the MSM, but do we really know the truth, whatever it is.  

I honestly don't know if I do or not.  :scratchchin:

 

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-what-did-your-expect-a-real-jury-decision-the-system-is-not-designed-that-way/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading released documents from the Grand Jury, they interviewed many before they arrived at their decision. There was not enough evidence to send Wilson to trial. Sadly many residents of Ferguson, along with many instigators from the outside, are rioting because they are too childish to accept the decision. According to NPR, Ferguson Police have made 80 arrests since the decision was handed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect they came ready to riot either way the jury went:

 

As it was, they riot because there's no justice

 

If he was found liable and was to go to trial, they would have rioted, because it proved there was racism.

 

There was no good decision from a damage-contrl point of view, just the right thing.

 

Concerning the article, for someone who seems to know a bit about grand jury and court proceedings, he's either ignoring or ignorant concerning the fact the regular court hearings routinely ignore and reject a lot of testimonies and witnesses, and often, innocent people have gone to prison because it was expedient for them to suffer instead of someone else. Had this gone to a standard, open jury trial, he could never have gotten a fair trial, because it would have been a media circus and he would have been found guilty. And good luck finding an unbiased jury.

 

Of course, HAD it gone to trial, and HAD he been found innocent, in an open, transparent proceeding, people would still insist it was unfair and rigged, like in Florida with the guy there, whose name has escaped me for a moment. And of course, no mention now of the Federal Government's DOJ involvement, that they found the same outcome-no words from Eric Holder, because of course, even though he's a raging liberal, they will excoriate him as an Uncle Tom.

 

No, no outcome would have been good enough-they came to be angry, to riot, to destroy, and nothing would have stopped it.

 

By the way, have you heard now that its the police's fault for all the damage, because "they let the city burn" because they weren't violent enough in stopping the rioters? Again, catch-22, darned if they stopped them, darned if they didn't. Pardon my potty mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those calling the shots among the black "protestors" had already announced they were going to "protest" no matter the outcome. Yet a chief of police down there stated that he didn't forsee anything like last night happening. Well, considering virtually everyone else did, if he didn't then he needs to be replaced.

 

Considering all the evidence the Grand Jury had access to, which we now have, it seems this is a pretty clear case. The fact black agitators don't care about the evidence or facts is nothing new. To them, that's a "white thing" and used to "keep the black man down".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can remember times when police in America were reliable. They had themselves under control and saw their role as helpful to citizens and investigators of crimes. They took care not to bring charges against innocent people and to kill citizens without cause. Police would put their lives on line in order to avoid making a mistake in the use of their power.
 
Those times are gone forever. The police have been militarized, especially after 9/11, but even before. Police are taught to regard the public, especially any suspect or traffic offender as a potential threat to the police. The new rule taught to police is to apply violence to the suspect or offender in order to protect the police officer, and to question suspects only after they are safely secured, it they are still alive after being beaten, tasered, or shot.
 
This police training, together with police incompetence, which is difficult to understand in these days of GPS addresses, results in massive assaults in the homes of totally innocent American civilians who have done no wrong, but, despite their innocence, lose family members and pets to gratuitous police violence.
 
Taxpayers pay the police to investigate crimes, not to attack members of the public. But the police have been taught to see their role as protecting themselves from a criminally-
inclined public, black and white.
 
Police reside in the executive branch, and since 9/11 the executive branch has succeeded in removing itself from accountability to law and to the Constitution. This unaccountability has filtered down to the militarized police who can now murder with impunity as their numerous murders of citizens are given a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police began to really take a bad turn under Clinton, when he began the push for multi-jurisdictional forces, the local police and sheriffs taking training with Federal law enforcement and military, trying to get them all basically under a militarized, federalized way of thinking. Us vs Them.  

 

I was military police, but was even then never militarized. We drove Ford Explorers, and while we wore camo, because it was the uniform of the day, yet our basic equipment was no different than what local police used. We had no armored vehicles, no M-16's, only .45's and shotguns. This was in '90-'93. Now everyone looks like SWAT team members, everything is 'tactical' in nature, and as we saw with the Michael Brown case, everything is a potential federal issue. Hate to admit it, but the Federal Attorney general had no legal right to be involved in a local police case-the feds can't just waltz in whenever they like, they don't have jurisdiction. This is another way that they act like rulers and kings. A sheriff can remove federal officers, and feds have to check with the local law enforcement before they can do anything in any district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are correct that the militarization of the police and the increasing control of the police by the federal government has been a real prOBlem and it's only getting worse.

 

In the Ferguson case I don't think this was a factor as it seems clear the officer asked the perp to stop walking in the middle of the street and the perp mouthed off, refused to leave the street and then proceeded to assault the officer. At some point the perp tried to get the officers gun and was shot in his hand. The perp began to leave and the officer ordered him to halt. The perp charged the officer, as one eyewitness described it "as if he were a football player going for a tackle". Armed or not, a 6' 4", 300 pound man charging at a much smaller man is a serious threat, especially when they have already shown total disregard for the law and a willingness to cause harm or worse. The officer shooting the man seems justified in this situation.

 

That said, in many other situations around the country I believe the police are trained to quickly go to drastic, violent, even life-threatening actions are too quickly. They are also trained to take an "us vs. them" attitude and approach, along with a manner of superiority. These actions tend to inflame situations rather than calming them.

 

It's interesting to watch how the police in some other countries deal with criminals and suspects in a much more rational, calm and measured approach than do most American police. I'll often be watching such and think of what would have happened to that suspect had he been dealing with American police...and it wouldn't have been good for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are correct that the militarization of the police and the increasing control of the police by the federal government has been a real prOBlem and it's only getting worse.

 

In the Ferguson case I don't think this was a factor as it seems clear the officer asked the perp to stop walking in the middle of the street and the perp mouthed off, refused to leave the street and then proceeded to assault the officer. At some point the perp tried to get the officers gun and was shot in his hand. The perp began to leave and the officer ordered him to halt. The perp charged the officer, as one eyewitness described it "as if he were a football player going for a tackle". Armed or not, a 6' 4", 300 pound man charging at a much smaller man is a serious threat, especially when they have already shown total disregard for the law and a willingness to cause harm or worse. The officer shooting the man seems justified in this situation.

 

That said, in many other situations around the country I believe the police are trained to quickly go to drastic, violent, even life-threatening actions are too quickly. They are also trained to take an "us vs. them" attitude and approach, along with a manner of superiority. These actions tend to inflame situations rather than calming them.

 

It's interesting to watch how the police in some other countries deal with criminals and suspects in a much more rational, calm and measured approach than do most American police. I'll often be watching such and think of what would have happened to that suspect had he been dealing with American police...and it wouldn't have been good for them!

I would have a better chance of believing all that if all the witnesses, including Wilson would have been cross examined.  The prOBlem with this whole proceeding is the man doing the prosecuting in this case has had a father and other members of his family on the very same police force as Wilson and the prosecutor really had no insentive to find the truth in the matter.  Too many axes to grind.  As I said earlier, I really don't know what is the truth in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have a better chance of believing all that if all the witnesses, including Wilson would have been cross examined.  The prOBlem with this whole proceeding is the man doing the prosecuting in this case has had a father and other members of his family on the very same police force as Wilson and the prosecutor really had no insentive to find the truth in the matter.  Too many axes to grind.  As I said earlier, I really don't know what is the truth in this case.

From the sound of it they did a very good jOB examining the witnesses. Several of the witnesses admitted, when they were finally before the Grand Jury, that their testimony was either a lie or they had simply repeated what they had heard elsewhere.

 

All of these were "cross examined" so to speak since in the Grand Jury system each member of the Grand Jury can ask questions of those on the stand.

 

The threshold for finding prOBable cause to refer a case to trial is very low in a Grand Jury and after three months going over this case the Grand Jury determined there wasn't prOBable cause to even think the lowest considered charge had any merit.

 

From all the evidence available it seems clear this young man rOBbed a store, pushed the store clerk/owner around, threatened him, went out walking in the street disrupting traffic by refusing to move for cars, then when confronted by the officer and told to get out of the street, this young man decided to not only ignore the officer but to attack him through the car window. After a struggle the assailant then started to walk off until the officer ordered him to stop at which point he turned and charged the officer from a close distance. Several eyewitnesses testimonies present this as what happened and the autopsy results and the officers testimony agree.

 

Which brings up another point, the police officer volunteered to give testimony to the Grand Jury and subject himself to any question they had. That's very unusual that the subject of a Grand Jury investigation would agree to such let alone volunteer. Most refuse since they aren't allowed to have a lawyer with them.

 

I don't see any wrongdoing or cover-up in this particular case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your points of view make me glad I don't live there.

 

When two terrorists murdered a soldier, Lee Rigby on the London streets and waited for the police to arrive then one charged the police with a matchet and the other with a gun, it seems they wanted the police to shoot them so they could become martyrs.  The police managed to shoot and wound them both and they are now serving sentences.

 

These were actual murders, not unarmed suspects.

 

John, I don't suppose you would feel the same if it was your son. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing so many want to ignore is the fact that Brown was not shot until he began charging at Wilson.  He'd already proven his thuglike behavior when he beat Wilson unmercifully back at the Tahoe.  And here he was rushing toward Wilson again. 

What was Wilson to do?  He used his gun to protect himself.  He fired a few shots.  Brown stopped momentarily, then began rushing him again.. even though he OBviously was hit by the officer's gunfire.  So the officer fired a few more shots, the fatal blow being the bullet to the top of the head as Brown bent over in a tackle position, bearing down upon him.

Let's face the facts.  Brown tried to bully a cop and bit off more than he could chew.  Three separate autopsy's (by Prosecution ME, Defense ME, & F.B.I. ME) confirm Wilson's side of the story.  People need to accept the Grand Jury's ruling and strive to teach their children proper ways to act when confronted by Law Enforcement Officer's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your points of view make me glad I don't live there.

 

When two terrorists murdered a soldier, Lee Rigby on the London streets and waited for the police to arrive then one charged the police with a matchet and the other with a gun, it seems they wanted the police to shoot them so they could become martyrs.  The police managed to shoot and wound them both and they are now serving sentences.

 

These were actual murders, not unarmed suspects.

 

John, I don't suppose you would feel the same if it was your son. 

This large young man charged from a distance of what would have been about three steps for him to reach the officer. That officer had the choice to either shoot or allow himself to be tackled by a huge man that likely would have beat him to death.

 

As sad as I would be, if one of my sons chose a life of crime and rebellion which eventually led to the confrontation as in this case, I would have to agree the officer fired his gun in justified self-defense.

 

I don't say this lightly. I absolutely believe that American police have been turned into something they shouldn't have been turned into. There are uncountable cases of police brutality, abuse of power, use of excessive force and I'm very much against all of that. I believe the police forces should be returned to local control and should be trained in more traditional police procedures rather than the current militarized, aggressive and confrontational style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all the evidence released, I think it was pretty OBviously self defense.

 

have you guys seen the video of the black cop who shot the unarmed white man in Utah?  Google it.....I was pretty speechless when I looked into it.    They are already saying it was a valid shot...but it was nothing like how Wilson was attacked by Brown.  Yet nOBody has heard of it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid you are totally wrong Miss Daisy.  OJ was as guilty as sin.  As far as the kid, the black thug. He appears to me to be a jerk and a punk.

My prOBlem with this whole Ferguson incident is not thinking that the dead kid was an angel.  Maybe he deserved to be blown away by a cop whom I think should have not been in a policemans uniform and maybe he did.  I will let God sort that out.  My prOBlem is with the way the whole fiasco was handled by the powers that be.  The man running the grand jury OBviously was not an unbiased person.  The governor of the state of Missouri should have appointed a special prosocutor from somewhere else in the state to handle the grand jury investigation, not someone so close to the Ferguson police department and the people in it.  If you really looked at the info I have posted on this site you know that the prosecutor has relatives who have served in the police department.  This was not an unbiased investigation and it was not intended to be.

It may not be worth much but that is my opinion.

 

I may not be very smart but I am not a left wing idealog who thinks people should be treated with kid gloves just because they are poor or black, or green for that matter.  How did OJ the butcher get into this thing anyway?

 

Sorry if I sound a little upset . . . . I am.  I do not think your innuendo was called for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If PO Wilson was kin to McCulloch, you might have a valid argument. But there is no evidence that he is.

The outcome would have been the same no matter which Prosecutor was brought in. There just was not enough convincing evidence against Wilson for it to go to trial.

Witnesses contradicted themselves, were proven that what they claimed happened never happened. Autopsies from three different sources, fanily/Defense, Prosecutor, & F.B.I. all came to the same conclusions in their examination of the body.

America needs to just accept he fact that Wilson was justified in his actions that fateful August afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't officer Wilson been a cop?

 

Other than speculations from the liberal media there is no evidence the prosecutor has before or during this case been biased for or against anyone. To say that someone who has certain life experiences is incapable of being OBjective or carrying out their duties faithfully would mean nearly everyone would have to be removed from their post.

 

One of the reasons the prosecutor cited for sending this case before a Grand Jury was to place the evidence in the hands of twelve jurors to determine if there was any prOBable crime committed by the officer rather than him making the determination on his own (as he can do as the prosecutor).

 

Why are we not trusting the 12 jurors made the right decision after reviewing evidence, asking questions, even questioning the officer, for three months? Why is their ruling in this case the only one being complained about? No one is complaining about their ruling on any of the other cases they have determined over their term as a Grand Jury.

 

What did the officer do that was illegal? What did the officer do that wasn't in the line of duty and in a manner he would have employed with anyone else in a similar situation?

 

An over six foot man weighing about 300 pounds physically attacked the much smaller officer after he was told he needed to stop blocking traffic in the street. Afterwards this large man refused lawful orders to halt and put his hands up. Instead the large man turned and charged the officer at which point the officer fired his gun in self-defense.

 

Other than deciding to neglect his police duties and not confront the large man for blocking traffic what was the officer supposed to do other than what he did? What should have been a simple exchange:

 

Officer: "You can't walk in the street blocking traffic, move it to the sidewalk."

Offender: "Yes, sir." (followed by him actually going to the sidewalk)

Contact over.

 

Instead the large man walking in the street CHOSE to be rebellious, CHOSE to mouth off to the officer, CHOSE to assault the officer through the window of his vehicle, CHOSE to try and take the officers gun, CHOSE to refuse to halt and put his hands up, CHOSE to make an attack charge at the officer, CHOSE the risk of being shot and killed.

 

This large man was a part of a criminal street gang. There are pictures of him flashing their gang signs online, which is something these gangs won't tolerate anyone but their members doing. He had a history of being a bully and criminal. He had marijuana in his system at the time of the incident. Immediately prior to the incident he rOBbed, assaulted and threatened store clerk. He CHOSE to live that lifestyle which everyone knows leads to violence, prison and possible death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What did the officer do that was illegal? What did the officer do that wasn't in the line of duty and in a manner he would have employed with anyone else in a similar situation?"

 

Why ask me these questions?  This was not a jury trial!  This was a grand jury investigation.  There was no cross examination of officer Wilson by an opposing attorney.  The only attorney in the room that questioned officer Wilson was the prosecutor and he was not being adversarial as he would be in any other grand jury investigation.  The purpose of a prosecutor in a grand jury situation is to get an indictment.  The purpose of this particular grand jury was not to get an indictment.

 

As far as the jurors asking guestions of officer wilson or any of the other witnesses.  Did they cross examine as an experienced atttrial attorney would.  How can anybody think they could.  The prosecutor led them through this thing toward his own ends which was for the city, state and federal governments to end this whole affair.  "If a prosecuting attorney wants to get an indictment against a ham sandwich he will get one."  That is not a quote from me but from an attorney.

 

So, it is not possible for me to know the truth or falsity of what officer wilson says.

 

As far as what would have happened if the grand jury had returned a true bill.  OBviously this whole case would have gone before a judge and a jury.  The charge would have been for manslaughter and not murder as is constantly intimated, because noone but the extremely biased believes it was murder.  Those who use the word murder in this case are using extreme hyperboly.  The charge would have been involuntary manslaughter.  In all prOBability officer Wilson would have been exonerated.

 

Why go through all this.  Because if you or I or any other members of this forum had killed a man on the street and all the hoohaw followed that followed this incident we would have been indicted and tryed by a judge and jury.

 

This country supposedly is governed by laws, not by men.  That being the case is it proper and rational to raise a class of citizens called law enforcement above the law. . . . beyond the reach of justice.  Some are held above the law an that is why only a few have any respect for the law left.  You may have. . . . I may have. . . . but few have.  That is why all the crazies and criminals and just plain citizens are out in the streets of America today raising a ruckus.  You may think they are all just crazies and criminals, but they are not.  There are those who are sick and tired of the way they are being treated by the people who have been placed in power over them and (I suppose it makes me a unchristian) I am one of them.  I don't go out in the street and rabble rouse and demonstrate because, well thats just not me.  

 

Land of the Free, home of the Brave, and JUSTICE for all is what we are told we have from our first breath we breath in this land.  It is what we were promised, it is what we should expect, it is what we should get, and we ain't gettin' it!  So what do a people do?  You know all people aren't christian, all people aren't like you and me, some people are not as level headed as we are (well you anyway, not so sure about the levelness of my head).  When some people lose everthing they think they can afford to lose they lose it, those are the times we are in.

 

Anyway to end this diatribe, I will say this.  If this whole incident had been handled in a proper manner according to law there would undoubtedly be people in the streets causing trouble . . . . there would just be a lot less of them.  Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those raising a ruckus are not criminals?  Hmmm, throwing bottles at police, throwing rocks at police, breaking and entering business establishments, vandalizing, arson, shooting firearms in public, etc..

Not sure what town you live in, Pilgrim, but I am pretty sure throughout the rest of America those acts are criminal acts.  And those committing those acts are criminals, whether you want to admit it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those raising a ruckus are not criminals?  Hmmm, throwing bottles at police, throwing rocks at police, breaking and entering business establishments, vandalizing, arson, shooting firearms in public, etc..

Not sure what town you live in, Pilgrim, but I am pretty sure throughout the rest of America those acts are criminal acts.  And those committing those acts are criminals, whether you want to admit it or not.

What I actually said: That is why all the crazies and criminals and just plain citizens are out in the streets of America today raising a ruckus.  You may think they are all just crazies and criminals, but they are not.  There are those who are sick and tired of the way they are being treated by the people who have been placed in power over them and (I suppose it makes me a unchristian) I am one of them.  I don't go out in the street and rabble rouse and demonstrate because, well thats just not me.  

 

Please quote me and not twist what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here, the Police Complaints Commission would have to investigate any death at the hands of police.  They would take evidence from witnesses and make a considered judgment over a period of time.  Meanwhile the officer concerned would prOBably be suspended till the result of the enquiry was announced and then he would either be charged or reinstated.  

 

Over there you seem to have a kangaroo court which reaches a verdict in a few hours.  When the riots which should have been OBvious after such a verdict, I saw om TV a police force and National Guard, in a black area in which every face was white, looking like an occupation force.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I just came across this morning: "We Are the Enemy: Is This the Lesson of Ferguson?"

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/john-w-whitehead/the-purpose-of-racism/

I agree the federalizing of the police forces, turning them into quasi-military forces trained to have an "us vs. them" mentality, trained to conduct affairs in a military manner, is a real prOBlem.

 

This, however, doesn't seem to have a bearing on the incident between Brown and Wilson. That case is clearly one of a large criminal-minded man choosing to attack an officer of the law asking him to stop walking in the street. When a six-foot-plus, 300 pound man charges at you, even with you holding a gun, that's a clear sign of danger and justifiable cause to use deadly force to protect your life.

 

What happened afterward was a mess by nearly all around. The blacks in the area proceeded to fabricate stories and spread lies about Brown and the incident. The media spread the lies as fact and even once revealed to be lies they either continued to spread some of them or simply dropped them without explaining they did so because they were untrue. The police force went into military mode.

 

Two days after this incident a black police officer shot and killed an unarmed young white man. There was no media interest since that story couldn't be used to fuel racial fires as they like.

 

While there are still some good cops out there, it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to do their jOBs as they should due to pressure from above. I know of several State, county and local police who retired early or simply switched careers because they refused to become a part of what the police force was being turned into. Several of the State officers tried to raise public awareness of the prOBlems, not only the turning of the police into a military force but also the use of the police to target "soft targets" for the sake of raising revenue for the State through the mass issuance of fines while "hard targets", real criminals, were not being pursued with the full force of the law.

 

The Grand Jury system is a part of the justice system that's not new. NOBody complains about the use of Grand Juries unless there is a high profile "sensitive" case that a Grand Jury rules on in a way certain folks don't like.

 

The American police forces should be returned to local control and restored to being true police forces made up as much as possible of locals who care about the community and people and hold to the "old" concept of "to serve and protect". This won't happen, especially with the vast powers in the hands of the Republican created, unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 24 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...