General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWilson needs a fair and impartial trial
Injustice is served as he will have to go thru life being known as the bad cop who shot down an innocent man. The prosecutor in his grand jury hearing denied Wilson justice. Wilson should demand he be tried in an open and fair trail to try and clear his name.
Anything besides a fair trial is justice denied and badly served.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Socal31
(2,491 posts)After seeing and hearing the DA during the announcement, it was fairly obvious who needs to be investigated.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)He is guilty of something and the only way justice can be served is through a proper trial which Wilson should demand be given him.
Otherwise he will be in a living hell the rest of his life.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)and in the next breath say that he's guilty of something? It appears that you aren't actually interested in a fair trial, but rather a reinforcement of your own opinion.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Shooting down and killing an unarmed person. Of that there is no doubt.
The trial would be a matter of just how far his guilt goes and what penance he should pay, if any.
As it stands, no one has all the evidence laid out in one place with judicially fair questioning and discovery of the Truth. Which is what trials are designed to do.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)Legally, he's guilty of absolutely nothing.
You seem to think that had there been a trial, he would have been found guilty of a crime.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He has not been found guilty, but he hasn't been found innocent either. His guilt or innocence is in question.
Unlike many similar situations, there is no question: Wilson killed Brown. The shooting itself was brutal -- some say up to 12 bullets were fired and while Brown was at some distance from Wilson, apparently trying to get away or returning. That is unclear. A lot of things are unclear.
A trial with sharp cross-examinations would clarify things. I think a trial is needed.
Which of the witnesses were telling the truth? Which were confused but well meaning?
What law applies? Can a police officer shoot someone because that someone insults the officer?
To what extent was Wilson responsible for escalating a minor incident into a very violent incident? Was he responsible for that at all? Did he have, as a police officer, a duty to try to diffuse an angry situation? Did he have the right to assault Brown by opening his police car door so as to hit Brown and brush Johnson? Did he really know about the theft of the cigarillos when he backed up his car to confront Brown for Brown's angry statement?
There are many, many questions that should be answered in a trial. The ultimate question is whether the killing was really self-defense or was Wilson looking for an opportunity to use his gun on someone? Wilson will probably be found innocent because in a trial, the jury would have to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Wilson gets the benefit of the doubt. But a life has been lost, a young life, and as the OP states, at this point Wilson has not been deemed innocent. He is neither guilty nor innocent. The Grand Jury does not determine guilt or innocence. It determines whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The Grand Jury tried to determine guilt or innocence. That was not its job. When around 12 bullets are fired at an unarmed person, there should be a trial of the person who fired the shots.
Can anyone shoot anyone and then just claim he did it because he was scared and it's OK? I don't think so. Would a reasonable police officer have been that frightened in that situation? What alternatives would a reasonable police officer have had under those circumstances?
It may be legally or socially permissible to give Wilson a free killing just because he was a police officer, but, as a society, we should not accept that standard.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)At least in a legal sense. As individuals, we are all free to say that he's guilty or innocent in our opinion, and we don't need a trial in order to form those opinions.
Police officers have the right, in certain circumstances, to fire their weapons at, at even to kill, other people. It's up to the GJ, or often, the judge at a preliminary hearing, to determine whether or not a crime was committed, and if it was, to indict the person or person that they believe may have committed that crime.
You are correct that the GJ doesn't declare guilt or innocence, but an indirect way, they actually do that very thing. When the St. Louis county GJ determined that no crime had been committed, they in essence left Wilson's legal status of "innocent' in place.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)evidence in the case.
The question is whether the circumstances in this case were such that Wilson was justified in killing Brown. There is evidence that Brown reached for the gun. Wilson says he was afraid, and that may be true. But could Wilson have avoided the confrontation? Did Wilson have any reason other than his pride and maybe racism or just being in a bad mood to back up and confront Johnson and Brown? Did Wilson maybe start the cycle of violence? Can a police officer start a violent confrontation over very little and then claim that he killed in self-defense?
Should Wilson have called for back-up before backing up and confronting Johnson and Brown?
These are questions that should be answered.
"officers have the right, in certain circumstances, to fire their weapons" etc. The trial could have helped to define what those circumstances are in Missouri law.
Did you watch the Lawrence O'Donnell show in which O'Donnell told the story about how the assistant prosecutor gave the grand jury COPIES of a Missouri law on the right of a police officer to shoot a fleeing suspect that had been overturned long ago by the US Supreme Court? It is worth watching.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Because someone that just robbed a convenience store, assaulted an old man, attacked a police officer and allegedly tried to wrestle his gun away, doesn't seem very innocent to me.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)
brer cat
(27,576 posts)
neverforget
(9,513 posts)
Response to LostInAnomie (Reply #3)
Post removed
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)uppityperson
(116,017 posts)a threat. Even if he shoplifted cigars, that is not a death penalty crime. 
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Those are facts.
Where did I say that stealing cigars was a death penalty crime?
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)He was gunned down by Wilson illegally, immorally and for no good reason. Wilson acted as jury, judge, executioner.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Please don't ever serve on any jury, because with a mindset like yours justice would never be served, Lost. Just don't do it. Here you have decided a verdict already without even a spoonful of evidence or a drop of a fair hearing. People like that should never be allowed anywhere near a jury room.
Have a nice day!
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)You know like video:
Or, the word of his friend that was with him during the robbery:
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But could be called evidence. But what you have done with a bit of evidence is subvert justice and come to a conclusion without using any form of good judicial balance.
People who do such things should never be allowed on a jury. Please remember that.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Got it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It is quite evident that you have made up your mind without having ALL the evidence presented to you in a fair and balanced manner. You have already made up your mind.
Such people are easily excluded from jury duty and now you see why I ask you stay away from such duty.
You are on a tear with Wilson was right to shoot and kill an unarmed man. Gawd forbid you ever, NEVER sit in official judgement of anyone!!
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Links please.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Visual bruising on Wilson's Jaw
And a medical report that says his jaw is contused
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370726-darren-wilson-medical-records.html
What more do you need?
BootinUp
(51,298 posts)Good work.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Did Wilson overpower a 6'5" 300lb man from a seated position and pull him inside?
BootinUp
(51,298 posts)and struggling to free himself when Wilson threatened to shoot him. How many times have we seen police keep beating people until they stop moving, basically once a policeman gets his hands on someone they expect that person to stop struggling or they escalate their efforts to subdue.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)Neither was 300#. Funny how you misrepresent or ignore proven facts like that.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Shame on me for rounding up 1/36th of his weight.
How exactly does Wilson's height make a difference if he's seated in a car?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)They were the same height and Darren Wilson was in much better shape.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)... from a seated position.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)doesn't make it hard to try, and heavy people aren't necessarily more stable, or less likely to be pulled off balance.
The weight difference doesn't mean that Darren Wilson was helpless or felt like a 5-year-old dealing with Hulk Hogan, or whatever ridiculous thing Wilson said.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Try moving close to 300lbs that is resisting you from a seated position.
As you can see in this vid: http://i.imgur.com/f5yGFH4.webm
It isn't like Brown was hardly obese or slow.
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)into his car frame had nothing to do with that?
Wow, the demon can punch the side of someone's face which is away from him.
There is absolutely no other way Wilson could have gotten a bruise on his jaw except Michael somehow punching the side away from him?
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)If Wilson was facing toward him and Brown threw a punch with his left hand, where do you think it would land?
BootinUp
(51,298 posts)who didn't like it being nicely asked to use the sidewalk and then tried to run through 10 bullets like a charging bull.
saintsebastian
(41 posts)Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you? Mike Brown was innocent because he was never brought before a trial. He was innocent because a jury of his peers never determined that he was guilty. He was never afforded due process, because Ofc. Wilson took it upon himself to play judge, jury and, most tragically, executioner.
Also, as another commented said, there is absolutely no proof that Mike Brown tried to wrestle the officer's gun away.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)BootinUp
(51,298 posts)
TexasProgresive
(12,729 posts)So Wilson was judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney and executioner of Michael Brown. Brown did not get a fair trial to determine guilt.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
uppityperson
(116,017 posts)found guilty, still had to "go thru life being known as the bad cop who shot down an innocent man"? Even if he was not found guilty, he still will, and should, have to live with the consequences of his actions that day. Being "the bad cop who shot down an innocent" TEENAGER.
Is "justice" really concerned with Wilson?
Igel
(37,526 posts)Think "Zimmerman." There were two options available for a lot of people--have him found guilty or be considered a man who wasn't punished for his crime.
Acquittal didn't clear his name. There is no verdict of "innocent". Just "not guilty."
If you don't like Zimmerman, try OJ. OJ's reputation wasn't cleared. But public opinion that was against him has just been mostly forgotten or rendered irrelevant by time, while those who believed he was innocent all the time still stand by him. Like Zimmerman's supporters do. (There being three categories of people: those who think the only reasonable verdict was 'guilty', those who think he was innocent, and those who just look and say, 'Not my call, I assume the jury had more information than I do.' Only one shows any degree of social trust or humility, whether we're talking Zimmerman or OJ.)
If the GJ was correct, and I've seen little evidence or reasoned argument that showed it wasn't, then the trial would be fair and a waste of time. In fact, if the GJ was correct, it's unethical to trial Wilson: It would involve a lot of cost and publicity for both sides, only to have him acquitted or the case thrown out in pre-trial hearings.
For many, that's enough: If it costs Wilson an arm and a leg, as long as it makes him suffer then it's a good process. That has the goal of retribution, with the verdict prejudged and justice being what penalty and punishment can be exacted.
(I've seen lots of argumentation that the GJ in the Wilson case wasn't correct. Usually it relies on outside testimony by people with axes to grind, or on partial information, or prejudges the reliability of witnesses or even weights witnesses over forensics. A lot of it is ad hominem and begs the question. Given that kind of "analysis," no judge can ever be fair unless it reaches the predetermined verdict. Some would like a kangaroo trial.)
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You would be one of the few who argues that.
Many legal scholars would argue that the GJ was unbalanced. Just a media show which subverted justice.
Wilson as a cop was the first leg in the justice system. He was a part of it. OJ and Zimmerman were not, yet they both got trials. Now we have a cop who is getting no trial?
No one who believes in our justice system as a bulwark against injustice would argue the case the way you have.
Do you have a bias?
avebury
(11,196 posts)Prosecutor's office. Considering that the Prosecutor's office has been found to intentionally have presented false information (i.e. a cop can legally shoot an unarmed man running away from him - which is not true), apparently found anybody that disagreed with Wilson's story suspect and those that sided with Wilson to be credible, and so much more, you can really question the quality of the GJ presentation. The Prosecutor's office operated in such a way as to defend Wilson, and as such had no business running the GJ process. No other subject to a GJ process has ever received such favorable treatment.
The GJ process and finding was tainted to say the least.
sheshe2
(97,553 posts)Wilson needs a fair trial really? You just said Wilson needs a fair trial? WTF! At least Wilson is alive and well telling his bullshit side of the story! Your deep concern is for Wilsons torment of having shot down an innocent man. He shows no remorse, he has said he was doing his job! He saw a demon after all. AT LEAST HE IS ALIVE AND CAN TELL HIS STORY! So who the fuck is standing for Michael Brown!? Do you think maybe Michael deserves a fair trial an open and honest one, not the monkey court of the GJ behind closed doors?
What about Michaels fair trial and justice for him, he was badly served here, yet your concern is for the white cop. Well fuck him and sadly so sadly your racist attitude. I for one am so bloody tired of black men targeted and white men standing for there killers. It breaks my heart.
Now this I agree with when it is about Michael Brown!
Yet you did not mean Michael, only the racist Cop needs justice.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) Give me a break.Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I see it too.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts).... and decided there wasn't even probable cause of a crime, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
And would a trial really, truly "clear his name"? Zimmerman was acquitted at trial; do most DUers see him as an innocent man because of this?
Autumn
(48,954 posts)Rec #5 
avebury
(11,196 posts)rest of his life as a murderer and the Ferguson PD as a totalitarian regime. Because Bob MCCallough's office ran a patently obvious flawed GJ process that results in credibility issues for the GJ hearing and his office. Those who have long suspected Wilson's actions and the way the whole matter has been handled have absolutely no reason to buy into the GJ results. Like is or not, Wilson's reputation is permanently damaged and not likely to be rehabilitated anytime soon.