<p>Pointing out loaded language that’s inconsistent with fact isn’t contempt, no matter where you grew up. Though there’s no shortage of people doing so, the use of the word “execution”, lacking a clear statement of intent by Wilson to kill a black man, that day, or that month, year, before his time on earth was done, isn’t very defensible. </p>
<p>Grew up in the south, that bastion of white privilege, and never ever thought that grappling with a cop - of any color - would do anything other than put me in the ground. Maybe if the grappling was while he was efficiently subduing me… no, that would have just earned a thorough beating.</p>
<p>I will agree with poetgrl about bad times coming, but I don’t think much of it can be laid at economic differences… being poor didn’t always mean being stupid. </p>
<p>I’m a reasonable person and I am not satisfied with the inconsistencies and gaps in information about what happened. Too many things just do not add up. What young black man would charge toward a police officer holding a gun? I DON’T think Wilson acted in a premeditated manner, but I DO think he somehow got into a situation he was ill-prepared for and overreacted. Whether this would count as “excessive use of force” under the law would be up to the legal experts to decide. </p>
<p>some of these responses are still missing the whole point of a grand jury. The prosecutor is supposed to present one side. In the a Wilson case, the prosecutor presented both sides, not solely the case against. This put the jurors in the obvious position of weighing the evidence. They’re not supposed to weigh the evidence or the credibility of one side over the other. Do you see the difference? The minute you present both sides, the jurors naturally make a call between who’s right and who’s wrong - but without the attorney for the other side there to question anything. Making a call about which facts are most credible and who’s telling the truth is a trial jury’s job! </p>
<p>Real life example: the prosecutor presented to us the case of a school girl who said her dentist touched her sexually while she was sedated. We heard what she said the dentist did. We voted on whether to indict. We indicted. Now, was the girl lying? Was the girl so sedated that she was confused? I have no idea. We didn’t hear the dentist’s side of the story, and it’s none of our business. If the girl told the truth, the prosecutor had a case. End of story. </p>
<p>The distinction here is that this case is so highly charged that the prosecutor took to a grand jury a set of facts that he knew didnt rise to the level of probable cause and absent the public outcry, would never have been taken before a grand jury at all.</p>
<p>But ultimately there is still a federal investigation, so the hysteria is unwarranted. Either charges will be brought by the DOJ and a trial will occur, or no charges will be brought and people will then either accept that a tragedy is not always a crime or assume that the Obama/Holder DOJ Is racist and corrupt.</p>
<p>Hayden, maybe you’re right, but the prosecuter calls the accused not to “hear his side of the story”, but to interrogate them. Usually, the accused will take the fifth because his testimony could be used against him in the trial.</p>
<p>Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States. He has held his position throughout the entirety of this investigation and will make the final decision about how to proceed here.</p>
<p>I do not think that suspects are prohibited from appearing before grand juries. The quote from Scalia in post #393 seems to me to say that suspects do not have the right to appear before the grand jury but that does not mean that prosecutors cannot choose to let them appear. </p>
<p>I do agree that the prosecutor clearly did not want an indictment in this case. Whether that is the right outcome I really don’t know. </p>
<p>For those of you who are following this closely (we don’t have cable TV so I haven’t been listening to the news at all-just checking in to a few news sites), I have a question. I read one mention that the autopsy found marijuana in Michael Brown’s system – has that been confirmed? I recall a case in Colorado a few months ago where a husband killed his wife and there was some evidence that he had been using marijuana and people were speculating about a possible link.</p>
<p>Collegealum, when I said he presented both sides, I don’t mean hearing the accused. I meant all the witnesses that testified on behalf of officer Wilson. The prosecutor included many witnesses that testified in support of Wilson - and there was not a single person there to question or challenge a single word they said. That turned the jurors into tryers of fact and perverted the grand jury system. </p>
<p>Look, I have no way of knowing what happened in the actual incident. I am more interested in making sure our system of justice is protected. So long as only one side is represented, we no longer have a jury system. The prosecutor is supposed to speak for “the people” and specifically for the victim. That was his job, and he failed. This is the sort of stacking the deck that makes people feel they have no voice, and leaves them frustrated, angry, and hopeless. </p>
<p>This angle is one of the dumbest angles for those who know about the effects of marijuana from studying its effects in a pharmacology course at my Science public magnet and from observing its effects on dozens of college classmates during undergrad. This included hardcore stoners. </p>
<p>Marijuana tends to make one relaxed, lethargic, sleepy and sometimes extremely hungry. As I posted on an earlier thread on this case, if someone has imbibed large doses of marijuana, he/she’s much more likely to be slowly meandering his/her way towards sources of food…not start violent fights with other folks including LEOs. </p>
<p>And from taking with some medical doctor friends at a small party this past weekend, they’re much more adamant about folks who feel marijuana increases the likelihood of starting fights or committing acts of violence a la Wilson’s account are in their words “scientifically illiterate idiots”. </p>
<p>Possibly not. But the job of the grand jury is not to convict or acquit. Their job is not to say if the person is guilty. Their job is to find out if a crime may have been committed by the person they’re looking at. </p>
<p>Did you read what you wrote Hayden? “so long as only one side is represented, we no longer have a jury system” while complaining in the same post that both sides were presented.
Maybe there really wasn’t evidence that would have led to an indictment in this specific case. I don’t think there was. There were more than a few people who testified dishonestly, which certainly corrupted the process. </p>
<p>In a case where the shooter was black or both parties were the same race with the same facts, there probably wouldn’t have been a grand jury proceeding at all.</p>
<p>Depending on when the confirmation hearings appear, holder may or may not still be the head of DOJ. It’s immaterial. </p>
<p>The fact remains that many legal experts are confounded by the way this GJ was run. In a case like this, those in authority have a responsibility to not only be above reproach, but to be meticulous in their ethics, even to the point of seeming harsh. </p>
<p>Any time somebody in power in this country fires a weapon at a civilian, we need to take a good long look at how that happened. The police rely on being in a position of authority. Authority is given, not taken. This case seems to ignore that dangerous fact. </p>
<p>I can name others like the IRS scandal which does the same and bothers me for a similar reason. Those in power have got to start answering to the people in this country. The natives on all sides are getting very restless. </p>
<p>Whoa, cobrat, I guess a high school science course and a few friends who get high tells us all we need to know about this.</p>
<p>There is a good deal of evidence that marijuana can contribute to psychosis. It’s true that the more typical effects are what you describe, but of course typical does not mean universal.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be so sure about that as if one was an LEO, the DA may have soft-pedaled the evidence to favor the LEO based on his prior history of favoring LEOs in previous cases he’s tried. </p>
<p>Poetgrl, there were two very long, hard looks. Local and federal. The complaint about the local process is that it was too inclusive, not that it was not inclusive enough. I see a tragedy, not a crime. The federal question is different and I will respect whatever outcome.</p>
<p>I’ll tell you what, though. If there is no indictment in my area, I will fall on the floor in shock. If there is no indictment it will be an absolute outrage and I will be the first to call it that. However, I think there will be one.</p>
<p>"This angle is one of the dumbest angles for those who know about the effects of marijuana from studying its effects in a pharmacology course at my Science public magnet and from observing its effects on dozens of college classmates during undergrad. "</p>
<p>Yes, we know, you’re more of an expert than anyone else on pot because you alone have seen pot smokers. None of the rest of us ever have. </p>