will be indicted by the grand jury. The standard for indictment is very, very low – all it takes is for 9 jurors to conclude that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and that Officer Wilson committed that crime. We are not talking about reasonable doubt at this point. His life is effectively ruined if he gets indicted.
More likely than not means 51% on the scales of Lady Justice. Suppose the GJ concludes that Officer Wilson honestly but unreasonably believed his life was in danger. Is he off the hook? Only for murder - I presume negligent homicide/invol ms would still apply. Merely bc some witnesses support his story does not bar an indictment. The GJ can choose to believe the witnesses that say Brown had his hands up. That is why I say that for purposes of being indicted, it comes down to whether the jury believes the officer honestly thought his life was in danger and whether the collaborating evidence also shows this was a reasonable belief. Garner does not directly apply here. That case goes to civil liability. The state “defense of others” defense requires “imminent danger” to a third party. We don’t have that here- even if the bad guy is a known killer and beats up the officer and runs away, the officer still can’t shoot him. Only if the bad guy is immediately about to harm a third party is this allowed. There is so much conflicting evidence here I really have no idea how this one will turn out. As an aside, Governor "I think I'll go to Europe and look presidential rather than address the ebola mess" Perry is not helping - his attys are trying to get grand jury transcripts. If the Wilson grand jury has any fear that their vote will become public, they are going to indict.Also, Tennessee v. Garner may come in to play as well. That was a SCOTUS decision stating that the police may shoot at a fleeing suspect if the officer believes he is a threat to society. With the strong armed robbery, the assault on the cop, Brown reaching for the cops gun, etc. all that would be more than enough to enable a jury to reach that conclusion.
Finally, depending upon the officers injury, his defense could quite possibly reasonably claim that he was concussed or some other minor brain injury to not allow him make a more rationale decision outside the car. Now that is way off into the speculation realm, I understand that, and unlikely as well but I point that out to show just how much of an uphill struggle it would take to get a conviction here, even if the GJ binds him over for trial, which appears to be very much in doubt at his point, especially when he appeared before them for 4 hours.
And we totally agree that there was no chance him/his team would let him take the stand at the GJ if they weren't 100% of his innocence. From what I understand, it is very unusual for a potential defendant to do so.
According to the NY Times, forensics matches officer's version of events and states some eye witnesses will back him up as well.
No civil rights case can be made at this point and the officer gave 4 hours of testimony to the grand jury.
The dead teens friend was convicted for lying to the police in 2011 and said the cop shot his friend in the back when the evidence shows all shots came from the front.
Will liberals accept the truth? Will they help calm the cop hating hysteria in Ferguson so innocent people don't get hurt
for the first two shots inside the car. It seems that Brown retreated and we can’t tell from this account whether the officer reasonably perceived Brown charging back towards him when the fatal shot was fired (fatal shooting justified), or surrendering (fatal shooting not justified).
But I have to assume (1) that the officer testified that he perceived Brown charging back toward him and, therefore, he did feel imminently threatened; and (2) there is collaborating evidence to support this view; and (3) that the officer comes off as a credible witness.
Otherwise, his attys would never have let him testify before the grand jury. Giving testimony to a grand jury only makes sense for the truly innocent. That Wilson decided to testify, however, tells me that he really believes this is what happened. His credibility on the stand obviously will be key
Based on the article, it states that more than one witness has stated that Brown was moving toward the cop at the time of the shooting outside the car. That alone would clear him. And even if there are witnesses saying the officer shot the kid in cold blood, as you well know when there are discrepancies in eyewitness testimony among the eyewitnesses themselves, that would benefit the defense if the cop indeed becomes a defendant at some point.
Also, Tennessee v. Garner may come in to play as well. That was a SCOTUS decision stating that the police may shoot at a fleeing suspect if the officer believes he is a threat to society. With the strong armed robbery, the assault on the cop, Brown reaching for the cops gun, etc. all that would be more than enough to enable a jury to reach that conclusion.
Finally, depending upon the officers injury, his defense could quite possibly reasonably claim that he was concussed or some other minor brain injury to not allow him make a more rationale decision outside the car. Now that is way off into the speculation realm, I understand that, and unlikely as well but I point that out to show just how much of an uphill struggle it would take to get a conviction here, even if the GJ binds him over for trial, which appears to be very much in doubt at his point, especially when he appeared before them for 4 hours.
And we totally agree that there was no chance him/his team would let him take the stand at the GJ if they weren't 100% of his innocence. From what I understand, it is very unusual for a potential defendant to do so.
I put corroborating in quotes because as I was reading the quotation from the witness it sounded to me that it was more corroboration than not. That is until I got to the end where the witness still classified it as murder. I would hope the GJ would give more weight to his repetition of facts than to his interpretation, but this tells me that police-race relations are fucked in places like Ferguson when this type of contradictory thinking exists.
will be indicted by the grand jury. The standard for indictment is very, very low – all it takes is for 9 jurors to conclude that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and that Officer Wilson committed that crime. We are not talking about reasonable doubt at this point. His life is effectively ruined if he gets indicted.
More likely than not means 51% on the scales of Lady Justice. Suppose the GJ concludes that Officer Wilson honestly but unreasonably believed his life was in danger. Is he off the hook? Only for murder - I presume negligent homicide/invol ms would still apply.
Merely bc some witnesses support his story does not bar an indictment. The GJ can choose to believe the witnesses that say Brown had his hands up. That is why I say that for purposes of being indicted, it comes down to whether the jury believes the officer honestly thought his life was in danger and whether the collaborating evidence also shows this was a reasonable belief.
Garner does not directly apply here. That case goes to civil liability. The state “defense of others” defense requires “imminent danger” to a third party. We don’t have that here- even if the bad guy is a known killer and beats up the officer and runs away, the officer still can’t shoot him. Only if the bad guy is immediately about to harm a third party is this allowed.
There is so much conflicting evidence here I really have no idea how this one will turn out.
As an aside, Governor "I think I'll go to Europe and look presidential rather than address the ebola mess" Perry is not helping - his attys are trying to get grand jury transcripts. If the Wilson grand jury has any fear that their vote will become public, they are going to indict.
Also, Tennessee v. Garner may come in to play as well. That was a SCOTUS decision stating that the police may shoot at a fleeing suspect if the officer believes he is a threat to society. With the strong armed robbery, the assault on the cop, Brown reaching for the cops gun, etc. all that would be more than enough to enable a jury to reach that conclusion.
Finally, depending upon the officers injury, his defense could quite possibly reasonably claim that he was concussed or some other minor brain injury to not allow him make a more rationale decision outside the car. Now that is way off into the speculation realm, I understand that, and unlikely as well but I point that out to show just how much of an uphill struggle it would take to get a conviction here, even if the GJ binds him over for trial, which appears to be very much in doubt at his point, especially when he appeared before them for 4 hours.
And we totally agree that there was no chance him/his team would let him take the stand at the GJ if they weren't 100% of his innocence. From what I understand, it is very unusual for a potential defendant to do so.
If you're scared, just say so. I won't hold it against you, well not too much at least. lol
I will agree that it's surprising for any one that knows how the system works to say a single word to a grand jury. It's unusual for attorneys to allow their clients to testify in front of a grand jury for good reason.
I don't have a clue how this is going to turn out, I haven't followed the case anywhere near close enough to come to an educated opinion on his guilt or innocence. I know most people made up their mind the moment they heard about the case, based strictly on their political leanings, but I kind of like to make up my own mind on these matters, and that requires looking at the facts which I confess, I have not done.
The reasonable people on the right on this board have NOT made up their mind. You won't find a single post here where I have said the officer is innocent.
I have consistently said that I don't have all the facts and have an open mind about his guilt. Imo, the evidence and my experience with these type of cases is that it is extremely difficult to get a conviction.
Remember, it was liberals here like DA who immediately said Brown was murdered. The guys on the right here challenged that assertion. Because some of us said it was premature to convict the cop, again, that does not mean we thought he was innocent.
As more and more facts have emerged, I believe more strongly now than I did when I first heard this case that the cop will not be convicted. Mari has softened his stance greatly as well, initially saying he thought it was an illegal shooting. He moved as the facts changed.
I don't think you will find posts from NDBF, Ed, etc that have said this cop is innocent. We have said to hold off judgement until the forensics came in (it did, it helps the cop)', witnesses have their say, the cop makes a statement etc.
It was some liberals that spoke in absolutes on this case, much like media elite liberals did with Trayvon, not conservatives.
First off, let's agree that there are both reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of the aisle. My remarks are not directed at them, but just like with OJ, Zimmerman et al, the vast majority of people had a predisposition to which side of the debate they would fall, well before reading anything but the headline. This is a fact that simply can't be disputed.
I will agree that from my rather conservative POV, it appears to me that the libs are the ones who were the biggest offenders in this case, but even if true, you can't deny that both sides are guilty of this behavior on a whole multitudes of issues.
I just wanted to differentiaite, on this specific issue, that one side leaped to a conclusion without all the facts while the other side was trying to slow the train down to Hatersville.
It seemed like you lumped everyone together and we're making a "pox on all their houses" argument that does have merit in other issues as you state, but just not this particular one.
We'll have to speak about OJ and Zimmerman another time. Lol. I have actually compared this case to the Zimmerman case here. Many, many similarities, imho.
Not the least of which is that the libs immediately jumped on the "hate bandwagon" while us racists wanted to ask a few questions before executing the "white guy" who turned out to be not white at all. I just loved how they needed to create a brand new term "white Hispanic" just to cover their own racism. lmao
Will we ever get the final results of the Zimmerman civil rights investigation? Or will they find out what everyone else knows and just pretend they never investigated and sweep it under the rug? Ya, that's what I think will happen.
I was def speaking about a jury trial. I just believe the chances are greater now that the GJ will not indict than I did at first. I still think it is more likely than not they will indict, and that may be for personal preservation reasons and political pressure sadly.
Again, based on the facts we have here that are known, I just can't imagine a jury trial of any charge will be met with a conviction.
There will be anywhere from 25-75% of that jury that will put themselves in the shoes of that cop. They will know going into that trial that Brown was a bad kid, they will know that the officer and his family has had to go into hiding and has received numerous death threats and even if most of them think he may have done something wrong, they will think he has already been punished enough, especially if they think, like I do, that the officer was placed in a very, very difficult spot.
and, if he is indicted, his life will never be the same, even if acquitted. I suspect the media will put enormous pressure on the state court to televise the trial.
But he reportedly testified for 4 hours under questioning of the DA without any defense atty or judge to protect his position. Surely he and his attys thought out every step of what happened and he honestly described what happened.
Virtually all excessive force cases begin with a victim who refuses to obey police orders and acts belligerent. And if you raise your hands close to your body, you are just asking for trouble bc the officer can't be sure you are not going for some gun. I can see outside observers perceiving the "rising of the hands" very differently from the officer. Let's ope the GJ likewise makes this distinction.
When you are stopped on the street by the police, that is not the time to show how tough you are. Better to be an "internet tough guy" like so many members of this Board who call other posters names without suffering the normal real life consequences.
I'd love to see his rap sheet.
But he reportedly testified for 4 hours under questioning of the DA without any defense atty or judge to protect his position. Surely he and his attys thought out every step of what happened and he honestly described what happened.
Virtually all excessive force cases begin with a victim who refuses to obey police orders and acts belligerent. And if you raise your hands close to your body, you are just asking for trouble bc the officer can't be sure you are not going for some gun. I can see outside observers perceiving the "rising of the hands" very differently from the officer. Let's ope the GJ likewise makes this distinction.
When you are stopped on the street by the police, that is not the time to show how tough you are. Better to be an "internet tough guy" like so many members of this Board who call other posters names without suffering the normal real life consequences.
It's interesting that you, after all being the chief apologist for the police, on excessive for issues would confirm somewhat what I've been saying all along on this issue. There is a policing problem in this nation. We are the only westernized nation that allows our police to place their safety above that of the citizen. Only in this country does a citizen have to concerned that they have to move or react the right way in order to NOT to be shot or brutally a attacked by police and this is especially true if you are a minority. Our police are trained to escalate rather than de-escalated interactions with citizens. We allow officers a free pass, because they "feared for their life". I don't know how many times I've heard this bullshit when officers fire weapons when they did not have to. We ask juries to think act act like an officer of the law, instead of evaluating form the victims perspective and we as a society are conditioned to give these guys a pass. We allow officers to shoot first and ask questions later because there is no accountability in the system and we grant them "qualified immunity". When they held liable for excessive force, it's the tax payer that ultimately pays the victim. In NYC, the city has paid over 500M in civil suits over the past decade related to excessive force and rights violations claims.
This officer will not be charged because he feared for his life, no matter what the circumstances were or how wrong he was. After all, it's a white cop killing a young black man. An in a country where a black man is 21 more times likely to get shot by law enforcement, this is par for the course.
But he reportedly testified for 4 hours under questioning of the DA without any defense atty or judge to protect his position. Surely he and his attys thought out every step of what happened and he honestly described what happened.
Virtually all excessive force cases begin with a victim who refuses to obey police orders and acts belligerent. And if you raise your hands close to your body, you are just asking for trouble bc the officer can't be sure you are not going for some gun. I can see outside observers perceiving the "rising of the hands" very differently from the officer. Let's ope the GJ likewise makes this distinction.
When you are stopped on the street by the police, that is not the time to show how tough you are. Better to be an "internet tough guy" like so many members of this Board who call other posters names without suffering the normal real life consequences.
The easiest solution to prevent tax dollars from being payed out to victims. Would be for the victims to decline suing the municipality.
This officer will not be charged because he feared for his life, no matter what the circumstances were or how wrong he was. After all, it's a white cop killing a young black man. An in a country where a black man is 21 more times likely to get shot by law enforcement, this is par for the course.
But he reportedly testified for 4 hours under questioning of the DA without any defense atty or judge to protect his position. Surely he and his attys thought out every step of what happened and he honestly described what happened.
Virtually all excessive force cases begin with a victim who refuses to obey police orders and acts belligerent. And if you raise your hands close to your body, you are just asking for trouble bc the officer can't be sure you are not going for some gun. I can see outside observers perceiving the "rising of the hands" very differently from the officer. Let's ope the GJ likewise makes this distinction.
When you are stopped on the street by the police, that is not the time to show how tough you are. Better to be an "internet tough guy" like so many members of this Board who call other posters names without suffering the normal real life consequences.
.......the forensics back up his version of events. The question to ask, if blacks in Ferguson or anywhere else for that matter accept it. In race matters like this it's always best to be as transparent as possible with information and not try to hold anything back, just release everything.
Yeah because that doesn't happen in America.
POS !! I'm glad that Cop got in a head shot !
Whenever stopped by a police officer and asked to show your ID or asks you to do something, just obey his orders. If you are not guilty and not done anything illegal , there is no reason not to obey. Don't run away as it will be perceived as being guilty of something.
The last thing someone wants to do is attack the police officer. That is a BIG NO