FERGUSON

[Jenny A]

---

Negative DP,

The purpose of the grand jury is to establish if there is probable cause to bring a prosecution and not if there's any case at all to be considered as you suggest. Probable cause is a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true.

A lot of investigation went into this case. Are you suggesting the prosecutor only present evidence to the grand jury which supports prosecution? It seems to me the prosecutors job here is to lay out all the evidence and then argue that it is probably true a crime was committed. At times the prosecutor might sound like a defense attorney especially when he presents evidence which would support a defense if the Grand Jury brings an indictment. If the Grand Jury doesn't buy the prosecutors argument that the totality of evidence suggests a crime was committed....after seeing all the evidence the prosecutor has available to him....then it simply doesn't buy the prosecutors argument. The point of the Grad Jury is to insure that prosecutions are based on probable cause and not reasons which are arbitrary and capricious.

Regarding your last comment that there was a conflict of interest because the prosecutor was local....well that's pretty much always the case. If officer Roscoe issues you a traffic ticket in Hazard County, the prosecutor is going to be from Hazard County. They aren't going to bring in a federal prosecutor just because there is a "conflict of interest".

---

---

Even if we were giving him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that he had personal events in his life regarding cops and death, should have been enough for him to remove himself from the case.

---

You are stuck on one case, this is not about one case. This is about a system that favors law enforcement and prosecutors. The lawyers and prosecutors I have been seeing in media say that the way this guy did it is way out of the norm and should NOT have been conducted the way this guy did. These were not laypeople saying this, these were people in the same profession.

Just like you only listen to rich people who side with you and not rich people who side with me.

---

Now I can tell you that it was NOT a 12 -0 vote. And I would bet when those grand jurors who did vote to send him to trial get interviewed you will not listen to them.

The entire thing stunk since day one. Since when is it department procedure to NOT write a report and then when you hand one over to investigators it contains no details.

And on top of that Wilson claimed to be scared of Brown. That is utter bullshit. You find me one training book for police where it says to physically confront a suspect while sitting down at a tactical disadvantage?

I'll tell you what happened. Wilson had had a long shift, was probably annoyed he had to go on another call. AND he testified before the conflicted started that he called for backup. Now if you are so scared why the hell would you reach for the cigars while sitting down at at tactical disadvantage?

Wilson jumped the gun because his training teaches him to dominate the situation. He was worried about the evidence, not Brown's size. If he had been worried he would have positioned the vehicle further away, gotten out of the car at a distance and been in a standing position at a tactical advantage.

---

I see a Black/white issue. Where the hell do the rich come into it? You have a bug-a-boo about this.

This will go to a civil suit and Brown's family will win. There will be no prosecutor alone to select a stacked jury. Wilson will be subject to a much greater degree tougher questions than he got during this grand jury trial.

It's not likely to go to civil court for the simple reason that police acting in their capacity as police officers generally have immunity from civil lawsuits. That immunity can be overcome, but the standard is pretty high. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rig...ights.html