General Discussion

4139

(2,008 posts)

40. Key verbiage

Reply to rhett o rick (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 08:18 PM

Dec 2014

"defendant in any criminal prosecution"

Wilson is not a defendant and there is not a prosecution

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

ThinkProgress: How One Woman Could Hit The Reset Button In The Case Against Darren Wilson [View all] Fumesucker Dec 2014 OP

if only... n/t libdem4life Dec 2014 #1

Had me going there for a second; but Wilson is not a defendant and... 4139 Dec 2014 #2

I don't read it to say that Wilson had to have been arrested before the court rhett o rick Dec 2014 #39

Key verbiage 4139 Dec 2014 #40

But your key verbiage is in an "or" statement. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #43

So How Do We Put Pressure On Maura McShane To Appoint A Special Prosecutor?..... global1 Dec 2014 #3

Much as I despise MO Governor Jay Nixon, the article does him a dis-service when it KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #4

calling branford for additional comment... BootinUp Dec 2014 #5

. ReRe Dec 2014 #7

I didn't try to make a joke BootinUp Dec 2014 #8

I interpreted your comment... ReRe Dec 2014 #10

gotcha BootinUp Dec 2014 #11

Ask and you shall receive . . . branford Dec 2014 #13

Thank you, sir. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #32

I only have a problem with your last sentence. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #46

I have no special insight into behind the scenes activity at the DOJ. branford Dec 2014 #47

I don't doubt that we won't see any action from the Conservatively run DoJ. nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #48

If the DOJ had the evidence for a federal indictment, a case would quickly follow. branford Dec 2014 #49

I don't buy that shit for a minute. Reading the transcript shows that this case rhett o rick Dec 2014 #51

How does the Obama administration benefit from NOT charging Wilson branford Dec 2014 #52

Would you agree that the Oligarchy would like to see race riots? nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #55

No, but that doesn't answer my question. branford Dec 2014 #57

If you can't recognize the hand of the Oligarch Rulers in this, then we are on rhett o rick Dec 2014 #61

Thanks for that review. You listed three possible conflicts McCullough has. There is another sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #58

I believe you are referring to "The "Backstoppers" organization. branford Dec 2014 #59

can we start to distinguish between Democrats and Dixiecrats again please? librechik Dec 2014 #60

St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch should be charged with accessory to murder after the fact nakocal Dec 2014 #6

Now we're talking. Hear's to obscure laws who's time has come. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #9

k&r... spanone Dec 2014 #12

Even if somehow you bring it to trial where will you get evidence to convict? Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #14

that's what a trial is for noiretextatique Dec 2014 #15

The grand jury saw all of the evidence and concluded that there wasn't even probable cause, Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #17

keep repeating, that, and like Fox viewers noiretextatique Dec 2014 #23

They saw statements favorable to Brown challenged .... kwassa Dec 2014 #41

Prosecutors don't take unwinnable cases to trail Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #21

this one never even tried noiretextatique Dec 2014 #24

You choose to ignore all the physical evidence Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #27

You are wrong. kwassa Dec 2014 #42

Physical evidence doesn't have to give a reason for Wilson to get out of the car Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #53

You are wrong again. kwassa Dec 2014 #54

No, You are wrong. Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #56

In short: this case is an absolute trainwreck and would inevitably end in acquittal. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #16

Yeah, dont pick at that scab, might find some real ugly shit underneath it, like a murder. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #28

Only in your personal opinion, unsupported by this grand jury. kwassa Dec 2014 #44

You reinforce my opinion that the best hope is a civil suit. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #18

Wilson may not actually have to testify. branford Dec 2014 #19

Didn't Wilson's grand jury testimony waive his Fifth Amendment right? Jim Lane Dec 2014 #25

You raise some interesting questions. branford Dec 2014 #31

The waiver issue seems to be unclear. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #35

I agree, the waiver issue is unclear. branford Dec 2014 #37

I don't know the facts of Wilson's appearance. (n/t) Jim Lane Dec 2014 #45

Any civil suit would be against the town Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #20

No, the suit would be against the town and against Wilson individually Jim Lane Dec 2014 #22

Wilson can't be sued individually Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #26

Even if negligence or intent can be shown, no cop can ever be held civilly liable? NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #29

It's a very, very high bar Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #30

The issue would be whether Wilson could have acted in good faith. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #34

In the Eric Garner case it won't be that high Jim Lane Dec 2014 #36

Ironically, the officer's breach of established NYPD guidelines may inure to the benefit of the City branford Dec 2014 #38

It could cut both ways. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #50

Lee-Lee is generally correct. branford Dec 2014 #33

At issue is whether Wilson is perceived to be acting under authority... brooklynite Dec 2014 #62