Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

He didn't call on the accused to testify. As far as I understand it, Wilson volunteered his testimony and was not called to testify by the prosecutor or the grand jury.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about this case that simply are not true.

He's the one who said that about the physical evidence corroborating Wilson. Who put Wilson's statement in front of the grand jury? Why?

The prosecution is not required to present all evidence at a grand jury hearing, and in fact even presenting all the 'good' evidence is not normal. They want to present enough to get an indictment without revealing their entire strategy to the defense.

But in this case the prosecutor presented not only his case, but the defense's case as well...and he presented the defense's case better, apparently. Now, what single factor do you think most inclined him to follow this unusual course?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That is all.

Lord let this be the first time MobBoss has said something true.

 

[MobBoss]

Lord let this be the first time MobBoss has said something true.

Yeah, the part where I said you're making crap up is totally true.

Every accused should get such a grand jury effort by the prosecution.

Each case stands on its own merits.

 

[tetley]

My understanding is that a grand jury hearing is a bit of a litmus test for the prosecutor, to see if they have enough evidence to go to trial. And if that's the case, then you throw in a little of the defense arguments to see how the jury will react. Doesn't mean the prosecutor was not biased or threatened, but that's my understanding.

 

[JollyRoger]

Each case stands on its own merits.

With a cop meriting special deference by the prosecutor.

 

[MobBoss]

With a cop meriting special deference by the prosecutor.

You don't know this Jolly.

And seriously, this thing even has the attention of the White House. It's going to be examined in every detail imaginable, and in consideration of that I find it pretty hard to imagine that any prosecutor would do any less than the best job possible given what is at stake.

I think its easy for you to claim this, and have a few posters here nod their heads in support, but really, if you take a long look at this, what you are suggesting is pretty implausible.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You don't know this Jolly.

And you don't know different, bub.

 

[JollyRoger]

You don't know this Jolly.

By the prosecutor's own words, he presented it differently than a normal prosecutor would. Plus, tell me how many accused get hundreds of hours worth of grand jury time?

 

[Commodore]

You act like all the protesters are looting and rioting.

If the prosecutor recognize the sensitive nature of the announcement, he wouldn't have made his long winded closing argument at 8:30 pm and he wouldn't have spent 20 minutes trolling before making the announcement.

C'mon JR, think for yourself. Right now you are just parroting what the talking heads on CNN were saying.

And I assume by "trolling" you are referring to his comments about all the media speculation and social media rumor-mill stirring people up more than they should have been? If so, again you are just parroting CNN and he was simply stating the truth. The media and all the twitter-junkies had Wilson convicted as soon as this incident occurred and did everything they could to get people fired up about it. I happen to agree with the prosecutor that the media handled the coverage of this in a very irresponsible manner by engaging in the wild speculation and pretending to have all the facts when they really didn't. The role of the media is to just report the news, not express opinions or speculate.

The events that have taken place tonight also destroy the legitimacy of the protests in Ferguson. Sure not all of them are looting and rioting, but you don't see any of the "peaceful" ones doing much to stop the violent ones now do you? Also, the "peaceful" ones occupied I-44 briefly and stopped traffic before police cleared them out. They were told beforehand and given warnings during the protest that protesting in the street would constitute unlawful assembly, but protesting on the sidewalk was fine. So by the violent ones looting and the "peaceful" ones ignoring and purposely disobeying police orders, the protestors have demonstrated they are not interested in the rule of law and only want to cause trouble.

 

[MobBoss]

And you don't know different, bub.

You're right, I don't, but I do have a brain, and the accusation Jolly is giving just doesn't make any logical sense at all, especially given the amount of attention this case has at a national level.

None.

By the prosecutor's own words, he presented it differently than a normal prosecutor would. Plus, tell me how many accused get hundreds of hours worth of grand jury time?

Again, each case stands on its own merits. In this particular case, there was a very large amount of eyewitness testimony, plus a staggering amount of forensic evidence to be addressed.

This is simply another claim by you that just holds no weight what-so-ever. As in all things legal, it took as long as it took - each and every case is different.

And the sad thing there is YOU KNOW THIS, and still insist on making irrational claims.

 

[JollyRoger]

CNN is parroting me.

Just as Chief Justice Roberts did in the Obamacare case.

Again, each case stands on its own merits. In this particular case, there was a very large amount of eyewitness testimony, plus a staggering amount of forensic evidence to be addressed.

This is simply another claim by you that just holds no weight what-so-ever. As in all things legal, it took as long as it took - each and every case is different.

And the sad thing there is YOU KNOW THIS, and still insist on making irrational claims.

I had a Federal indictment brought down on a client after a few days at most and the number of witnesses and documentary evidence was staggering. In fact, when the Feds turned over the evidence to me, there were hundreds of hours of audio, tens of thousands of pages of documents, and dozens of witnesses. I am sure my client got the ham sandwich treatment before the grand jury, just as most accused do. Show me one case where the prosecutor spent hundreds of hour in grand jury regarding a non-cop suspect.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're right, I don't, but I do have a brain, and the accusation Jolly is giving just doesn't make any logical sense at all, especially given the amount of attention this case has at a national level.

Your willingness to assume that 'anyone with a brain' will see things the way you do is the bright spot of humor in a grim situation. Thanks bub.

 

[Commodore]

He's the one who said that about the physical evidence corroborating Wilson. Who put Wilson's statement in front of the grand jury? Why?

The prosecution is not required to present all evidence at a grand jury hearing, and in fact even presenting all the 'good' evidence is not normal. They want to present enough to get an indictment without revealing their entire strategy to the defense.

But in this case the prosecutor presented not only his case, but the defense's case as well...and he presented the defense's case better, apparently. Now, what single factor do you think most inclined him to follow this unusual course?

He didn't present any case. All accounts so far indicate the prosecutor essentially handed all the evidence to the grand jury and basically told them to sort it out. That is still a highly unusual way to go about the grand jury hearing, but it seems you are dedicated to making this prosecutor out to have nefarious intentions, and that is simply not the case at all.

Please, I urge you to put your preconceived notions about this case aside and look at all the evidence and the grand jury process. The right decision was made here, and you can't really accuse me of being a cop apologist since a search of my posting history will show that I very rarely side with the police on these matters.

 

[JollyRoger]

He didn't present any case. All accounts so far indicate the prosecutor essentially handed all the evidence to the grand jury and basically told them to sort it out.

Show me one case where he took such a nonchalant attitude with a non-cop suspect.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He didn't present any case. All accounts so far indicate the prosecutor essentially handed all the evidence to the grand jury and basically told them to sort it out. That is still a highly unusual way to go about the grand jury hearing, but it seems you are dedicated to making this prosecutor out to have nefarious intentions, and that is simply not the case at all.

Please, I urge you to put your preconceived notions about this case aside and look at all the evidence and the grand jury process. The right decision was made here, and you can't really accuse me of being a cop apologist since a search of my posting history will show that I very rarely side with the police on these matters.

No, it isn't really an unusual way to go about it...if you are trying to lose. Other than that I really don't see any reason to go about it in this particular unusual way. If you can come up with any plausible theory as to why this prosecutor presented this case this way other than an intent to lose I'll give it respectful consideration.

For the record, when I say cop apologist it has never been intended to apply to you.

 

[Commodore]

Show me one case where he took such a nonchalant attitude with a non-cop suspect.

I'll give you that. He handled this in a very unconventional manner. But putting the prosecutor and his failings aside; was the decision reached by the grand jury the wrong one considering the physical evidence?

 

[MobBoss]

I had a Federal indictment brought down on a client after a few days at most and the number of witnesses and documentary evidence was staggering. In fact, when the Feds turned over the evidence to me, there were hundreds of hours of audio, tens of thousands of pages of documents, and dozens of witnesses. I am sure my client got the ham sandwich treatment before the grand jury, just as most accused do. Show me one case where the prosecutor spent hundreds of hour in grand jury regarding a non-cop suspect.

Did your clients case have National impact? The attention of the White House? The potential to have rioting in the streets if not done to its fullest extent possible?

No?

I see. Thanks for proving my point that each case is different.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'll give you that. He handled this in a very unconventional manner. But putting the prosecutor and his failings aside; was the decision reached by the grand jury the wrong one considering the physical evidence?

"Final 10 shots"

148 feet

Sounds like a case for a petit jury to get right or wrong.

 

[MobBoss]

Your willingness to assume that 'anyone with a brain' will see things the way you do is the bright spot of humor in a grim situation. Thanks bub.

Again, in a case with huge stakes at hand, locally and possibly nationally, with attention from even the White House, what you are suggesting simply makes no logical sense what-so-ever.

None.

 

[JollyRoger]

Did your clients case have National impact? The attention of the White House? The potential to have rioting in the streets if not done to its fullest extent possible?

No?

I see. Thanks for proving my point that each case is different.

Justice is justice. Each accused should get the full treatment that this killer got.