- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Was officer Wilson not indicted
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:44 pm
because he is white? Or was he not indicted because the lack of evidence was so obvious that it overrode the intense pressure to indict him for something?
If I was on that GJ, it would have had to have been glaringly obvious that Officer Wilson did NOTHING wrong for me to vote not to indict. The pressure would be there for me to indict and let all the facts come out in court, if there was a slight possibility that he did something criminal.
If I was on that GJ, it would have had to have been glaringly obvious that Officer Wilson did NOTHING wrong for me to vote not to indict. The pressure would be there for me to indict and let all the facts come out in court, if there was a slight possibility that he did something criminal.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:46 pm to Jax-Tiger
No evidence, and way too much eyewitness accounts of him Bum-rushing the cop, but there is still Obama/Holder for Whitey to worry about/divide America plan 34 in action...
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:47 pm to Jax-Tiger
As I understand it from Sharpton and crew, the problem is that the prosecutor let the grand jury hear all the facts.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:48 pm to Jax-Tiger
There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:49 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:correct.
if there was a slight possibility that he did something criminal.
So Wilson not indicted.
The same would have been the case for George Zimmerman btw.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:53 pm to tigerskin
quote:
As I understand it from Sharpton and crew, the problem is that the prosecutor let the grand jury hear all the facts.
fricking facts.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:56 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
because he is white?
Holy shite
Posted on 11/25/14 at 6:23 pm to 2close2Gainesville
quote:
quote:
because he is white?
Holy shite
Hey, ask the Reverend Al, he can explain it better than I can...
Posted on 11/25/14 at 6:47 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
No evidence, and way too much eyewitness accounts of him Bum-rushing the cop, but there is still Obama/Holder for Whitey to worry about/divide America plan 34 in action...
I know a federal prosecutor and he said he cannot see the officer being charged. The federal threshold is higher than the state threshold.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 12:33 am to WPBTiger
In the interview with George Step, Wilson said the Hulk Hogan figure ran away from the car. When he turned, he had one hand inside his pants and one hand in a fist. And he was moving toward him in anger.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:46 am to Jax-Tiger
Glad the jury didn't pussy out. I thought they would indict out of fear. This has nothing to do with race. Race baiters like Sharpton and anti-American figures like Obama and Holder are fueling chaos just to push their own agenda. Sharpton has made millions swindling the ignorant black community. Fact is a criminal didn't obey the orders of an officer and got buried into the ground, plain and simple.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:30 am to Jax-Tiger
You seem to think its a good idea to just go to trial and figure it all out there.
You go to court when there is compelling evidence to do so. The GJ has not seen it nor the local DA I would assume.
Thank gawd we have the Holder JD looking into it.
You go to court when there is compelling evidence to do so. The GJ has not seen it nor the local DA I would assume.
Thank gawd we have the Holder JD looking into it.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:34 am to Jax-Tiger
As we all know, if there had been a trial and Wilson had been found not guilty, the rioters would have respected the finding of the jury and there would not have been any riots/looting.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:35 am to goatmilker
This is incorrect. You go to trial when there is probable cause. There is not normally a defense in the grand jury, here there was. If you want to argue that there should be a defense for every grand jury hearing then that's an argument to make. But to say we do it differently for this one case contradicts the notion of equal protection under the law.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:36 am to Jax-Tiger
It wasn't lack of evidence.
It was sufficient evidence to show he did what he is supposed to do and put down a violent criminal.
It was sufficient evidence to show he did what he is supposed to do and put down a violent criminal.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 12:04 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
There is not normally a defense in the grand jury, here there was.
There was no defense presented to the GJ.
The prosecutor just allowed ALL of the evidence to be presented not just the evidence a prosecutor would present who is trying to get the GJ to rule there was enough evidence to warrant going to trial.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:25 pm to Jax-Tiger
He wasn't indicted because he's a cop. I believe Bob McCulloch would have protected a Black cop the same way he protected Wilson.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:33 pm to trackfan
quote:
He wasn't indicted because he's a cop.
Partly IMO. A normal citizen does this, and he's in deep shite, but remember, this guy fit the description(and was the guy) of a guy that just committed a felony. Uh, that changed everything, and that cop did his duty IMO..
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:20 pm to Jax-Tiger
I normally enjoy getting in debates with my liberal friends. But the last 36 hours, this hasn't been fun. They have gone of the deep end, and there is no amount of logic and reason that can bring them back.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:23 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
The pressure would be there for me to indict
Why, because other people are protesting and think that he should be indicted? That's a ridiculous attitude to have.
quote:
He wasn't indicted because he's a cop.
I didn't know you were on the jury.
This post was edited on 11/26/14 at 2:25 pm
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News