Ferguson shooting grand jury verdict

[Bocefish]

Because just about every bleeding heart liberal, including Obama & Holder, CNN, MSNBC rushed to judgement before all the facts were revealed.

We still don't have all the facts and yet people are still rushing to judgement.

Oh really?

The Grand Jury made their decision on the 70 plus hours from the 60 or so witness testimonies, physical evidence and autopsy results, all of which supported Officer Wilson's testimony along with what the credible witnesses said.

Feel free to scroll up to my previous post where all the evidence the Grand Jury had is posted.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Yeah. Look at the transcripts. People were found to be liars.

So all the eyewitnesses that claimed he wasn't attacking were found to be liars? Where does it say that?

 

[Teagan]

Cops didnt have to sprinkle anything on him as he had done enough wrong already to justify being shot. I do love me some Chappelle though. I need to break out those DVDs soon I think and rewatch them again

And it says it in the testimonies. Im not gonna go read and quote stuff for you. You go read it. You asked for a link and I told you where to find it.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Feel free to scroll up to my previous post where all the evidence the Grand Jury had is posted.

The post where you cherry picked the one dude that supported your side? Cop could be totally in the right here but we have no idea.

And it says it in the testimonies. Im not gonna go read and quote stuff for you. You go read it. You asked for a link and I told you where to find it.

So you couldn't find that part or you made it up? I'll keep looking I guess

 

[Teagan]

Feel free to scroll up to my previous post where all the evidence the Grand Jury had is posted.

The post where you cherry picked the one dude that supported your side? Cop could be totally in the right here but we have no idea.

And it says it in the testimonies. Im not gonna go read and quote stuff for you. You go read it. You asked for a link and I told you where to find it.

So you couldn't find that part or you made it up? I'll keep looking I guess

No, im NOT gonna do your reading for you. I have no reason to make stuff up as evidence is evidence and it's not my job to go finding things for you that have already been posted.

And i believe he meant the video of the evidence being read video. If you dont care to read the transcripts look at that instead. Oh it also says people lied in their witness statements there too I believe. Im not gonna quote it but yeah not everyone told the truth obviously and were found to not be anywhere near the scene at all in some instances.

 

[Gen]

This has a good breakdown & infographic about which witnesses saw what: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/

Closest thing I can see to calling them liars is:

McCulloch highlighted the variations in witness accounts during the grand jury press conference. “In subsequent interviews with law enforcement, or their testimony before the grand jury, many of the same witnesses acknowledged that they didn’t actually see the shooting,” McCulloch said. “Some were running for cover. Some were relating what they heard from others or as I said, what they assumed happened.” But many witnesses held steadfast to their interviews. “Several other witnesses maintained their original statement that Mr. Brown had his hands int he air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot,” McCulloch said.

Does anyone have anything more specific than "read the testimony"? I skimmed it but didn't see much relating to them being" found to be liars".

 

[Bocefish]

Feel free to scroll up to my previous post where all the evidence the Grand Jury had is posted.

The post where you cherry picked the one dude that supported your side? Cop could be totally in the right here but we have no idea.

And it says it in the testimonies. Im not gonna go read and quote stuff for you. You go read it. You asked for a link and I told you where to find it.

So you couldn't find that part or you made it up? I'll keep looking I guess

Here is the place you can find what the GJ had to go on: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson ... dence.html

 

[Bocefish]

This has a good breakdown & infographic about which witnesses saw what: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/

Closest thing I can see to calling them liars is:

McCulloch highlighted the variations in witness accounts during the grand jury press conference. “In subsequent interviews with law enforcement, or their testimony before the grand jury, many of the same witnesses acknowledged that they didn’t actually see the shooting,” McCulloch said. “Some were running for cover. Some were relating what they heard from others or as I said, what they assumed happened.” But many witnesses held steadfast to their interviews. “Several other witnesses maintained their original statement that Mr. Brown had his hands int he air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot,” McCulloch said.

Does anyone have anything more specific than "read the testimony"? I skimmed it but didn't see much relating to them being" found to be liars".

http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-docume ... 58856.html

 

[Bocefish]

Here is recent poignant posting from New Orleans Saints NFL player Benjamin Watson worth sharing:

At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.

I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.

I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michae ... st-n257291

 

[PunkInDrublic]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

What a joke

 

[Shaun__]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

What a joke

That was a shocking video!

 

[Gen]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

What a joke

That is fucking nuts.

Related, an article on how the police mishandled evidence & failed to follow protocols: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html a lot of convenient mistakes made!

 

[Bocefish]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

What a joke

A joke indeed because officer Wilson fired on Brown in self-defense rendering all of that MSNBC report moot. The eye witnesses along with all the physical evidence bears that out.

Look up current Missouri law and you will find officer Wilson's actions were 100% lawful.

 

[MrRodry]

About the radio being on a different channel did anyone stop to think maybe it was changed during the initial attack on Wilson in his car? That it got hit in the attack. Or that maybe thats what he had it on and in the heat of a moment after being physically assaulted he just forgot to change it back? People wanna judge and jump to conclusions and take apart every thing they would have done differently but everyone forgets what it's like to be attacked with adrenaline running and no time to make decisions and all that goes with that. Mistakes do happen but the bigger mistake in all of this was Browns choices to attack someone.

He had the time to make a call and he had a gun that failed a couple of times.

Considering that and the fact that he is chasing a person that made him feel like a "five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan" - I think checking if your radio is actually working should be one of his priorities, mainly because you can't properly apply the "Fire Until He Stop Moving" technique if your gun decides to fail.

 

[Bocefish]

:-D On the brighter side...

 

[camstory]

The Grand Jury made their decision on the 70 plus hours from the 60 or so witness testimonies, physical evidence and autopsy results, all of which supported Officer Wilson's testimony along with what the credible witnesses said.

That is actually not the case. "supported Officer Wilson's testimony" I'm sure the same statement has been made numerous times in the last few days, and it is unfortunate because it is misleading. A grand jury's returning an ignoramus, or no indictment is not the same as supporting the evidence in favor of the defendant. It is not the GJ's charge to judge one way or the other, but rather to decided if there is sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment. The fact that the GJ did not indict does not mean their decision supports anything. It may appear that it does, but in fact in legal terms it does not. It may seem a distinction that is splitting hairs, but it is like all such legal distinctions, based on sound reason.

I do support your post of NFL player Benjamin Watson reflection. I think it was a very insightful, beautifully so, and perhaps sums up this whole thing better than anything else I've read. He loses me only in the very last paragraph, but I think he finds love in the gospel, and I am not one to question ones path to love, it is the destination that matters.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Badass pic

 

[eclipse76]

Badass pic
http://i.imgur.com/RXkWOkV.jpg

How is it related to the thread though??

 

[PunkInDrublic]

How is it related to the thread though??

How is a pic of a huge protest related to this thread? lol idk I guess it isn't related, still badass tho.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Related but not as badass.

 

[Teagan]

About the radio being on a different channel did anyone stop to think maybe it was changed during the initial attack on Wilson in his car? That it got hit in the attack. Or that maybe thats what he had it on and in the heat of a moment after being physically assaulted he just forgot to change it back? People wanna judge and jump to conclusions and take apart every thing they would have done differently but everyone forgets what it's like to be attacked with adrenaline running and no time to make decisions and all that goes with that. Mistakes do happen but the bigger mistake in all of this was Browns choices to attack someone.

He had the time to make a call and he had a gun that failed a couple of times.

Considering that and the fact that he is chasing a person that made him feel like a "five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan" - I think checking if your radio is actually working should be one of his priorities, mainly because you can't properly apply the "Fire Until He Stop Moving" technique if your gun decides to fail.

I said that in regards to someone asking why he didnt call for back up. He thought he had. He made the call. It was just on the wrong channel at the time. If it was moved in the assault or he had it on a different channel and in all the hub bub forgot to change it to the main one I do not know. But again i'll say when the shit is going down sometimes things that are "common sense" like changing a channel go by the way side due to shit happening. Your brain literally changes chemically. Fight or flight and adrenaline pumping you have a different thought process going on. Youre being assaulted and someone is trying to grab your gun to kill you, it is perfectly understandable his first thought was not on the channel but to get the call out, protect himself, and stop this lunatic on the loose. Your brain is not on details but on big picture stuff. That is not an officers fault either but how a normal working brain works.
I dont know if you have ever been physically attacked where you have had actual fear of your life but if you have then you would get it. I have been and things in your brain change drastically and what may be clear in a time of calm is not there. You are thinking survival and safety only. Not what channel a radio is on.
Think of it like a horror movie. Everyone says omg how dumb why would you go in there or go there and how stupid are these people. But its made to be realistic as people in life and death situations dont always make the best life and death choices.

 

[Felicity]

While I think Officer Wilson used poor judgement, and I honestly don't have an opinion whether he did it in self defense or malice because only he will know that and live with that. I would like to point out that he was on the police force for 8 years and never used his gun until this incident. Good people make bad decisions which is the same with Mike Brown. I think they are both to blame.

 

[camstory]

You know something seems a bit strange to me about the wrong channel call thing. I'll be honest, everything I know about this, has come from post here, or links provided here, and I have not really studied the details very much at all. That said, I want to ask if anyone can answer what may be an easy question? (if I did not still have a turkey, banana nut bread, to cook, and a 10 mile min ride to get in, I would research it myself, but I do so,,,) Was the call made on the non primary channel verified? The reason I ask - all police agencies have at least one secondary channel/frequency. These are usually referred to as tactical channels, and are used for instances when there is an emergency on the primary channel, (code 33 here) that requires the primary channel to be dedicated to only traffic of that emergency. Like a high speed chase, hostage situation, robbery/burg in progress, etc. So all other traffic of units not involved is routed to a tac channel. Sometimes tac frequencies are used when there is an ongoing non-emergency taking place, like a auto accident that requires continued monitoring for auto traffic control, medical evacuations, tow vehicle request, etc. In these situations that traffic is often routed to a tac channel, so it does not impede traffic on the primary channel.

From what I understand officer Wilson's call for help was made on one of these secondary channels? If that is the case, there should be some record of that call. Here the Tac channels are monitored by dispatch even when there is no expected traffic, and here all emergency frequencies, fire, medical, and police are recorded, ( i think mandated by law), and I had assumed that was the case everywhere, but you know about that whole assume thing.

Thanks for the help in advance.

 

[Bocefish]

The Grand Jury made their decision on the 70 plus hours from the 60 or so witness testimonies, physical evidence and autopsy results, all of which supported Officer Wilson's testimony along with what the credible witnesses said.

That is actually not the case. "supported Officer Wilson's testimony" I'm sure the same statement has been made numerous times in the last few days, and it is unfortunate because it is misleading. A grand jury's returning an ignoramus, or no indictment is not the same as supporting the evidence in favor of the defendant. It is not the GJ's charge to judge one way or the other, but rather to decided if there is sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment. The fact that the GJ did not indict does not mean their decision supports anything. It may appear that it does, but in fact in legal terms it does not. It may seem a distinction that is splitting hairs, but it is like all such legal distinctions, based on sound reason.

I do support your post of NFL player Benjamin Watson reflection. I think it was a very insightful, beautifully so, and perhaps sums up this whole thing better than anything else I've read. He loses me only in the very last paragraph, but I think he finds love in the gospel, and I am not one to question ones path to love, it is the destination that matters.

It's early, waiting on coffee to brew but how is what I said that not the case or misleading? The credible testimonies, physical & forensic evidence that was provided supported Wilson's testimony so the GJ decided not to indict.

If you deem the word "supported" as incorrect, feel free to replace it with one of your choosing, that is, if you can find the time. :lol:

 

[PunkInDrublic]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_71a79204-ff00-5070-9d1e-96098250e723.html

Not that it isn't already pretty obvious to most but more proof of how big of a joke this all was.

 

[MrRodry]

@Teagan_Chase - I understand this concept and I have been in situations were I was in danger/physically assaulted but when Wilson decided to pursue Brown on foot carrying a gun that is - supposedly - not working, the concept of "thinking survival and safety only" is not on the picture.

The Grand Jury made their decision on the 70 plus hours from the 60 or so witness testimonies, physical evidence and autopsy results, all of which supported Officer Wilson's testimony along with what the credible witnesses said.

That is actually not the case. "supported Officer Wilson's testimony" I'm sure the same statement has been made numerous times in the last few days, and it is unfortunate because it is misleading. A grand jury's returning an ignoramus, or no indictment is not the same as supporting the evidence in favor of the defendant. It is not the GJ's charge to judge one way or the other, but rather to decided if there is sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment. The fact that the GJ did not indict does not mean their decision supports anything. It may appear that it does, but in fact in legal terms it does not. It may seem a distinction that is splitting hairs, but it is like all such legal distinctions, based on sound reason.

I do support your post of NFL player Benjamin Watson reflection. I think it was a very insightful, beautifully so, and perhaps sums up this whole thing better than anything else I've read. He loses me only in the very last paragraph, but I think he finds love in the gospel, and I am not one to question ones path to love, it is the destination that matters.

It's early, waiting on coffee to brew but how is what I said that not the case or misleading? The credible testimonies, physical & forensic evidence that was provided supported Wilson's testimony so the GJ decided not to indict.

If you deem the word "supported" as incorrect, feel free to replace it with one of your choosing, that is, if you can find the time. :lol:

Excerpts from this article, weirdly titled Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation:

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. “I think it was his blood,” Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Page 10

2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.

The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, didn’t take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he hadn’t been equipped with a recorder and hadn’t tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn’t write up any notes soon after the fact. “I didn’t take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me,” the officer stated.

The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson’s first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.

P. 38

3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.

An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared “self-explanatory.”

“Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there,” the examiner told the jury.

The examiner also noted that he or she hadn’t been able to take pictures at the scene -- as is standard -- because the camera's batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown’s body.

P.33

Notice that the first supervising officer on the crime scene described it as having a "chaotic nature" while it was just another case of "somebody shot somebody" to the medical examiner.

4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.

Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.”

P.41

There is more 3 topics on this article but I think these show the diligent care some members of this P.D. had in gathering and collecting evidence from this case.

 

[Teagan]

@Teagan_Chase - I understand this concept and I have been in situations were I was in danger/physically assaulted but when Wilson decided to pursue Brown on foot carrying a gun that is - supposedly - not working, the concept of "thinking survival and safety only" is not on the picture.

It's absolutely in the picture. A man just assaulted you and tried to take your gun then failing to do so was trying to escape. An officer will pursue that person on foot working gun or not. That's their training as survival and safety is not only your own but others as well. As far as he knew back up was on the way as well. His instinct and training would have him choose the fight in fight or flight and pursue a criminal who is running.
Also hand guns just jam sometimes. Ive had it happen dozens of times at the range just in one visit. You fix it and try again. Regardless of he could fix his or not he would still pursue a fleeing criminal. He would have no way of knowing the criminal would try to turn around and attack him again but Brown did and luckily for the officer his gun didnt misfire again or he himself would probably be dead. In that instance this case would probably never made national news.

 

[camstory]

how is what I said that not the case or misleading? The credible testimonies, physical & forensic evidence that was provided supported Wilson's testimony so the GJ decided not to indict.

Well, I will start by saying that it is not the job, or charge of a Grand Jury to consider what supports or does not support the accused's testimony. Unlike a trial jury, or petit jury, a grand jury is not charged with deciding guilt or innocence based on a preponderance of the evidence. A grand jury is charged only with determining if there is evidence enough to justify the accused standing trail for a crime.

If instructed correctly, a grand juror should not consider their personal beliefs of whether the accused is guilty of the crime/s being considered, but only if there be sufficient evidence to believe that a crime under consideration may have been committed.

It is not a great analogy, but it is sort of like the half full/half empty question. A grand jury is to consider if the glass is half empty, regardless of any consideration that, that might also be considered half full. That is, they are not to consider the fullness of the glass, (that which would support the innocences of the accused), but only to consider the emptiness of the glass, (that which supports there is reason to believe there may have been a crime committed by the accused). Not a great analogy b/c it is not really a half full/half empty question, (where full=inocent & empty=guilty) b/c they are not charged with the task of finding guilt or inocentes, (or with anything that supports that one way or the other). It might be more accurate to say the grand jury is charged with considering the water with no regard to the fullness or emptiness of the glass, or the glass at all. But I will leave it at that, b/c I may be wondering off the point a bit.

I added "If instructed correctly" at least once above, and could have added it the start of almost every sentence, as was my urge. I did not, but felt urged to b/c there were things that happened involving this (Ferguson) grand jury proceeding that I would say were wrong, or incorrect, but at best varied greatly from the guidelines of both a federal or a California Grand Jury proceeding. (The fact that this grand jury was instructed by the prosecutor, and not the judge, is just one of those things.)

I had also thought it was very unusual for the testimony of the accused to even be allowed - it is only allowed in very rare circumstances in Ca., and then only after special request has been sought and given, and then usually only in part. No one had brought that up, but it was bugging me enough, that after a little checking have found that it is indeed very unusual, and one could argue that its inclusion fundamentally removes/breaks part of the foundation of which a Grand Jury proceeding was originally and continually has been built upon.

I will make another post in a while, after checking some facts, but it appears that this grand jury is unlike any Grand Jury in history, and that the rules of this grand jury were made up at random, much like the randomness with which I have decided to capitalize grand Jury.

 

[camstory]

Because I am convinced that there is no more honest journalism, or at best, that you can not know true honest journalism any longer b/c the best media outlets are not consistently without bias, both left and right, I tend to pay 0 attention to huge media bonanzas. That is why up until the news of the decision of the GJ came out I knew next to nothing about this case. I still prolly know far less than most in this thread. But I have only posted about what I do know.

I do not know if officer Wilson committed any crime in killing Brown. (I am of the opinion that Brown maybe had dead coming, but in no way can that justify any crime that may have been committed by officer Wilson, and it is an opinion that I know to be my own personal bias, as is the opinion that more than a few cops are capable of killing without cause. And those opinions/bias I reserve and try to not let them influence my examination of the facts.)

I know something of the law, and understand some of the fundamental building blocks of some of what makes up our criminal law process. After just a little research into the grand jury process that took place in this case, I am truly outraged. One of the fundamental pieces of a grand jury, a piece that is a cornerstone of its structure, was removed in this case. Because a grand jury is charged with the sole task of determining if there be evidence sufficient to justify an indictment on criminal charges, and therefore a trail of the accused, and not to consider the innocence of the accused, anything deemed to be exculpatory evidence, should not be allowed. That is, any evidence that suggest the innocence of the accused, should be non admissible in a grand jury proceeding. This is because you do not want the grand jurors to be basing their decision on any consideration of the innocence of the accused. It is a fundamental piece of the build of a grand jury. It can not function as it is meant to without the basic fundamental rules on which it is based. (Changing one of the rules is like saying in Monopoly that if you role a number which you don't like, one that puts you on someone elses property with hotels, and you don't want to pay the rent, you can put your playing piece ((the race car)) in your pocket until your next role, when you get to start at GO and collect $200. The game will not work that way!)

Not only was there exculpatory evidence allowed in this grand jury, it was all allowed. It is as if the prosecutor thought, well a little exculpatory evidence would taint the proceeding, but if I put all the exculpatory evidence in front of the jury, that should do it. It's fucking crazy! Even if you feel sure officer Wilson committed no crime, you still should be outraged at how the GJ came to that conclusion. I doubt it will happen, but at this point the only just course would be to have a trial

 

[Jesse0328]

It's easy to "Monday morning quarterback" an event like this. Even if the grand jury did indict, in my opinion, I don't think there was enough evidence to prove that the officer intended to commit any crime.

In the end, I think that this incident again opens up the dialog regarding the relationship between the police and the public. Hopefully some good will eventually come out of this. I believe that with the cost of body cameras dropping, they will eventually become as commonplace as cruiser cameras in a few years. Body cameras only help protect both the public and the police themselves by helping to provide context into police/public interaction. Cameras obviously help identify bad police activity, but also potentially neutralize any false police brutality claims.