(December 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: No, the prosecutor shouldn't always push for an indictment. That's how innocent people wind up in jail, the courts get cluttered up with frivolous and unwinnable cases, and cost the taxpayers and innocent defendants millions of dollars in legal costs. Plus You don't want a trial if you don't think there is a good chance of conviction. If the case is weak and a criminal trial results in an acquittal the courts don't get a second chance at it. It is over. On the other hand Darren Wilson can still be indicted and tried at this point should new evidence become available.

As far as all police shooting going to trial that's just silly. Yes police officers should be held to higher not lower standard. Yes there should be an independent investigation by an unrelated agency. But you are saying the cop that just shot somebody while they were in middle of murdering a bus load of kids should be charged with a crime and tried.

I feel like you don't know how the criminal justice system works. I didn't say police officers should always be charged with a crime. You never get the opportunity to be indicted if you haven't been charged with a crime.
If a police officer is charged with a crime they should always go to trial. If a police officer shoots someone who is murdering a bus full of kids, he wouldn't be charged and therefore there would be no indictment or trial. 0.o

So yes, if a police officer is charged with a crime the prosecutor should always push for indictment.

Uh, Losty.... An indictment is equal to being formally charged with a crime. That's literally what an indictment is.

Ugh CD that's not the point you're not going to be up for indictment if you shot a man who was murdering children.

(December 5, 2014 at 6:01 pm)Losty Wrote: Ugh CD that's not the point you're not going to be up for indictment if you shot a man who was murdering children.

No kidding.

I was responding to the last sentence of your post which seemed a bit confused to me.

As far as I'm aware, we're not talking about cases where there isn't any ambiguity or controversy.

(December 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(December 5, 2014 at 6:01 pm)Losty Wrote: Ugh CD that's not the point you're not going to be up for indictment if you shot a man who was murdering children.

No kidding.

I was responding to the last sentence of your post which seemed a bit confused to me.

As far as I'm aware, we're not talking about cases where there isn't any ambiguity or controversy.

I know but this is what happened, I was like "the prosecutor should always push for indictment" and then he was like "nuh uh because then we would have to indict officers who shoot guys murdering kids" and then I was just trying to explain why that doesn't make any sense.

(December 5, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Chad32 Wrote: He shot someone that's confirmed by video to have been some distance from him with his hands up.

I'm pretty sure that there is no video of Wilson shooting Brown. There are videos of people claiming Brown had his arms up when he was. There are witnesses claiming Wilson was shot in the back. There are still more witnesses that say it happened about the way Darren Wilson said it happened. The grand jury heard all those accounts, and they were shown the physical evidence.

Other witnesses wouldn't talk about what they saw because they said they were afraid of retaliation from the community. That's right. They weren't afraid of the police. They were afraid of their neighbors.

The physical evidence says Brown was not shot in the back. Testimony saying he was can be discounted. At least one of the people that initially said he was shot in the back later recanted and admitted he didn't actually see the shooting.

Something else the physical evidence says is that Michael Brown wasn't just standing there with his hands up when he was shot from some distance. The distribution of spent shell casings in relation to Michael Brown's body support Wilson's account that Michael Brown was moving forward towards Wilson and that Wilson was backing away from Brown as he was shooting.

Did they have an estimated distance? That's more important in my opinion.

(December 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: As far as all police shooting going to trial that's just silly. Yes police officers should be held to higher not lower standard. Yes there should be an independent investigation by an unrelated agency. But you are saying the cop that just shot somebody while they were in middle of murdering a bus load of kids should be charged with a crime and tried.

What's the problem with that, Pops? Day One of the trial, charges are laid, even before the prosecutor gets to make an opening statement, the defense can ask for dismissal of charges -- "Your Honor, there was a busload of kids [or fill in your open-shut case here], we're asking the charges be dismissed based on the principle of clear and present danger." The judge can dismiss prima facie based on the principle of necessity, right? "Yeah, that busload of kids was in danger, let the cop off."

But -- whenever a representative of the government kills a citizen, there should be some sort of accountability, and that officer should have to prove the need to kill a citizen, don't you agree? He should have legal representation. He should have the right to bring up his side. But the citizenry should be given a clear, evidenced justification, shouldn't they?

The grand jury process is flawed in that it allows the local prosecutor to sculpt the presented evidence, as you yourself have noted. Clearly, there should be a more objective means for handling deaths caused by government agents.

The government certainly has the resources, to do this, and it is certainly in the interest of society at large, right?

I mean, it's cheaper than riots.

(December 5, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: As far as all police shooting going to trial that's just silly. Yes police officers should be held to higher not lower standard. Yes there should be an independent investigation by an unrelated agency. But you are saying the cop that just shot somebody while they were in middle of murdering a bus load of kids should be charged with a crime and tried.

What's the problem with that, Pops? Day One of the trial, charges are laid, even before the prosecutor gets to make an opening statement, the defense can ask for dismissal of charges -- "Your Honor, there was a busload of kids [or fill in your open-shut case here], we're asking the charges be dismissed based on the principle of clear and present danger." The judge can dismiss prima facie based on the principle of necessity, right? "Yeah, that busload of kids was in danger, let the cop off."

But -- whenever a representative of the government kills a citizen, there should be some sort of accountability, and that officer should have to prove the need to kill a citizen, don't you agree? He should have legal representation. He should have the right to bring up his side. But the citizenry should be given a clear, evidenced justification, shouldn't they?

The grand jury process is flawed in that it allows the local prosecutor to sculpt the presented evidence, as you yourself have noted. Clearly, there should be a more objective means for handling deaths caused by government agents.

The government certainly has the resources, to do this, and it is certainly in the interest of society at large, right?

I mean, it's cheaper than riots.

No, as I said an independent investigation yes. But you don't just charge someone with a crime (i.e. indict them, Losty) just because of who they are without sufficient evidence that a crime was actually committed. Besides, the mod is going to do what the mob is going to do. What makes you think an acquittal at trial would draw any different reaction than the grand jury's no true bill?

That's a really sinister poll....when you think about it. Ever been shot, wonder how that might affect ones conclusion?