The coverage by the media was a big reason the prosecution lost the case. Everyone was so desperate to paint the cop guilty, that misinformation was delivered by the media, which the defense used against the prosecution. It also didn't help that many of the witnesses for the prosecution exaggerated the facts or blatantly lied on the stand, which the defense proved. That really doesn't help the prosecution build a strong case.
The coverage by the media was a big reason the prosecution lost the case. Everyone was so desperate to paint the cop guilty, that misinformation was delivered by the media, which the defense used against the prosecution. It also didn't help that many of the witnesses for the prosecution exaggerated the facts or blatantly lied on the stand, which the defense proved. That really doesn't help the prosecution build a strong case.
TL, DR: The physical evidence showed there wasn't a case against Wilson.
The coverage by the media was a big reason the prosecution lost the case. Everyone was so desperate to paint the cop guilty, that misinformation was delivered by the media, which the defense used against the prosecution. It also didn't help that many of the witnesses for the prosecution exaggerated the facts or blatantly lied on the stand, which the defense proved. That really doesn't help the prosecution build a strong case.
The defense didn't prove/disprove anything. No defense attorneys are involved in a grand jury proceeding.
The coverage by the media was a big reason the prosecution lost the case. Everyone was so desperate to paint the cop guilty, that misinformation was delivered by the media, which the defense used against the prosecution. It also didn't help that many of the witnesses for the prosecution exaggerated the facts or blatantly lied on the stand, which the defense proved. That really doesn't help the prosecution build a strong case.
The defense didn't prove/disprove anything. No defense attorneys are involved in a grand jury proceeding.
The coverage by the media was a big reason the prosecution lost the case. Everyone was so desperate to paint the cop guilty, that misinformation was delivered by the media, which the defense used against the prosecution. It also didn't help that many of the witnesses for the prosecution exaggerated the facts or blatantly lied on the stand, which the defense proved. That really doesn't help the prosecution build a strong case.
Yeah... No defense is a Grand Jury makes it very easy to get an indictment. So when there is no indictment, you can be confident the evidence is shit.
If it were a white person that was shot, there would have been no Grad Jury. The prosecutor just would have said no evidence of murder and moved on. Barely made the news. Since the person shot was black, it spun out of control and the prosecutor was forced to take it to the next step so there could be no accusation of a cover up or special treatment. The black family received a much more thorough examination of the facts that a white family would have. Everyone should feel confident that justice was served in this case. If you don't, then you are letting prejudice and racism cloud the facts of this case. Throwing an innocent person in prison to appease and angry mob is not justice. As MLK said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
If it were a white person that was shot, there would have been no Grad Jury. The prosecutor just would have said no evidence of murder and moved on. Barely made the news. Since the person shot was black, it spun out of control and the prosecutor was forced to take it to the next step so there could be no accusation of a cover up or special treatment. The black family received a much more thorough examination of the facts that a white family would have. Everyone should feel confident that justice was served in this case. If you don't, then you are letting prejudice and racism cloud the facts of this case. Throwing an innocent person in prison to appease and angry mob is not justice. As MLK said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
From the reports I've read about his wildly aggressive actions, it kind of sounds like Brown smoked real chronic (weed laced with crack or coke) or had his blunt dipped (in PCP or embalming fluid).
Maybe I'm crazy and especially if I'm 6'5" 285 lbs, but I wouldn't expect to strong-arm rob a minimart of Swishers (for my blizzies), disregard and then confront an officer of the law, escalate the situation further by assaulting the officer in his own vehicle, and finally expect to survive it all.
This cult of victimization and woe-is-me attitude only perpetuates the underlying problem which is black on black crime. They could make the whole Ferguson police force (or Chicago's) black and it still wouldn't solve any problems.
Of course the jaded part of me thinks losers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't want solutions because then they wouldn't be able to raise money to fund their lifestyles as they pretend to actually address the real issues.
Are you surprised his liberal white guilt is making his vagina bleed profusely? If so you may need to PM SATANS_FAGGOT IrishDawg22
That's pretty much happened with my friend and the millions of other guilty white liberals and race baiters. They aren't seeing the facts objectively because they don't want to. I didn't bother responding to the text because a) it wasn't worth dignifying with a response and b) he has a history of throwing hissy fits over things like these.
"PassionPassion 2:54PM I hate PMs, but why should I post an explanation of how the prosecutor completely manipulated and misused the grand jury process in a way that almost guaranteed there would be no indictment? As an attorney (which I am), why should I bother explaining how the presentation of "facts" to the grand jury was completely one-sided and skewed? I love all these arm-chair Perry Masons who don't understand (or who don't want to understand) how the prosecutor ensured that the grand jury would receive the "facts" in the most favorable light to darren wilson. wilson basically was able to give a speech about his side of the story, but there was NO cross-examination of him, his background, or his version of the facts. Why should I bother posting FBI statistics showing that police officers are 21 times more likely to kill black men than their white peers? Why should I bother citing examples of armed white men NOT getting shot by police, but countless armed AND unarmed black men getting blown away because white police were "in fear?" Considering the intelligence and social views of people on this website, my efforts would be pointless, so fuck it."
Comments
What are your thoughts?
SATANS_FAGGOTIrishDawg22Assume the fat lip, and the marking on face and neck are all fake.
Maybe I'm crazy and especially if I'm 6'5" 285 lbs, but I wouldn't expect to strong-arm rob a minimart of Swishers (for my blizzies), disregard and then confront an officer of the law, escalate the situation further by assaulting the officer in his own vehicle, and finally expect to survive it all.
While somewhat off point, Rudy does have a point about this outrage and what the fundamental problem is. If black Americans are responsible for 93% of the deaths of other black Americans, then where are the protests demanding better from their own community? dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846928/Rudy-Giuliani-wants-focus-black-black-crime-not-police-brutality-saying-white-cops-wouldn-t-needed-weren-t-killing-other.html
This cult of victimization and woe-is-me attitude only perpetuates the underlying problem which is black on black crime. They could make the whole Ferguson police force (or Chicago's) black and it still wouldn't solve any problems.
Of course the jaded part of me thinks losers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't want solutions because then they wouldn't be able to raise money to fund their lifestyles as they pretend to actually address the real issues.
Posted without comment:
"PassionPassion 2:54PM I hate PMs, but why should I post an explanation of how the prosecutor completely manipulated and misused the grand jury process in a way that almost guaranteed there would be no indictment? As an attorney (which I am), why should I bother explaining how the presentation of "facts" to the grand jury was completely one-sided and skewed? I love all these arm-chair Perry Masons who don't understand (or who don't want to understand) how the prosecutor ensured that the grand jury would receive the "facts" in the most favorable light to darren wilson. wilson basically was able to give a speech about his side of the story, but there was NO cross-examination of him, his background, or his version of the facts. Why should I bother posting FBI statistics showing that police officers are 21 times more likely to kill black men than their white peers? Why should I bother citing examples of armed white men NOT getting shot by police, but countless armed AND unarmed black men getting blown away because white police were "in fear?" Considering the intelligence and social views of people on this website, my efforts would be pointless, so fuck it."