Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Grand Jury


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Members

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/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...