Started By
Message
locked post

Was officer Wilson not indicted

Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:44 pm
Posted by Jax-Tiger
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Member since Jan 2005
24734 posts
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.

Posted by CamdenTiger
Member since Aug 2009
62368 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:46 pm to
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 by tigerskin
Member since Nov 2004
40026 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:47 pm to
As I understand it from Sharpton and crew, the problem is that the prosecutor let the grand jury hear all the facts.
Posted by PuntBamaPunt
Member since Nov 2010
10070 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:48 pm to
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
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123776 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:49 pm to
quote:

if there was a slight possibility that he did something criminal.

correct.
So Wilson not indicted.

The same would have been the case for George Zimmerman btw.
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98716 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:53 pm to
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 by 2close2Gainesville
Huge
Member since Sep 2008
4795 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 4:56 pm to
quote:

because he is white?


Holy shite
Posted by Jax-Tiger
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Member since Jan 2005
24734 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 6:23 pm to
quote:

quote:
because he is white?


Holy shite


Hey, ask the Reverend Al, he can explain it better than I can...
Posted by WPBTiger
Parts Unknown
Member since Nov 2011
30866 posts
Posted on 11/25/14 at 6:47 pm to
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 by matthew25
Member since Jun 2012
9425 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 12:33 am to
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 by Sleazy E
Member since Jan 2014
1768 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:46 am to
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 by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
64156 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:30 am to
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.
Posted by northLAgoomba
The Cooper Road, Ratchet City, LA
Member since Nov 2009
3787 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:34 am to
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 by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:35 am to
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 by Tiger n Miami AU83
Miami
Member since Oct 2007
45656 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 7:36 am to
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.
Posted by DawgfaninCa
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
20092 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 12:04 pm to
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 by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:25 pm to
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 by CamdenTiger
Member since Aug 2009
62368 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:33 pm to
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 by LSUFanHouston
NOLA
Member since Jul 2009
37007 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:20 pm to
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 by Tom288
Jacksonville
Member since Apr 2009
20980 posts
Posted on 11/26/14 at 2:23 pm to
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
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram