Featured What now for Officer Wilson?

Like I said, as a PROSECUTOR, you set yourself up to be able to PROSECUTE. You don't do things that will not allow you to prosecute if you want to prosecute.

That's why prosecutors generally only present enough information to grand jurys to lead them to believe there is enough evidence to warrant pressing charges and resolving everything with a trial.

He essentially undercut the process and had the grand jury go through the forensics and scientific evidence and any other available evidence when that is to be done by a trial jury.

In order to keep the public from thinking that there is an abuse of power, you don't want the grand jury to do what they did in this case.

As a prosecutor, if someone is shot and killed and you've got eye-witnesses who are willing to testify that they saw it happen a certain way, that's ALL you need to present because that's all the probable cause that's needed for a grand jury to set a ham sandwich up to be prosecuted.

If the eye-witnesses are to be discredited, that's for the defense attorney to handle. And the process stays aboveboard and public. Same thing with any forensic and scientific evidence that affirms Officer Wilson's version of the story. That should have been presented to a jury of his peers.

Now because of the way things were done, it just looks like you had a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute, IMO.

 

Show me evidence of this.

 

How Does a Grand Jury Work?


The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies. Grand jury members may be called for jury duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month. Regular court trial juries are usually 6 or 12 people, but in the federal system, a grand jury can be 16 to 23 people.

The grand jury is one of the first procedures in a criminal trial, if used at all. See FindLaw's Criminal Procedure section for more articles, including Criminal Procedure FAQ and How are Criminal Charges Brought Against Someone?
How Does a Grand Jury Differ from a Preliminary Hearing?

While all states have provisions in their laws that allow for grand juries, roughly half of the states don't use them. Courts often use preliminary hearings prior to criminal trials, instead of grand juries, which are adversarial in nature. As with grand juries, preliminary hearings are meant to determine whether there is enough evidence, or probable cause, to indict a criminal suspect.

Unlike a grand jury, a preliminary hearing is usually open to the public and involves lawyers and a judge (not so with grand juries, other than the prosecutor). Sometimes, a preliminary hearing proceeds a grand jury. One of the biggest differences between the two is the requirement that a defendant request a preliminary hearing, although the court may decline a request.
Grand Jury Proceedings

Grand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.

However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence. This serves two purposes:

It encourages witnesses to speak freely and without fear of retaliation.
It protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html#sthash.k2MVPYpI.dpuf

 

Show you evidence of what?

 

Are you just purposely vapid today? I said it was my opinion.

 

Never mind I just debunked your entire post.

 

You didn't debunk a thing. You affirmed what I said. If a prosecutor wants to prosecute, he can and will present evidence that assures he can.

This prosecutor did the opposite.

 

Wilson might get a book deal and retire for life a multi-millionaire.

 

I would not be surprised if he is satisfied with being alive.

 

Give me a break. You said"

The Grand Jury can and does look at actual evidence more than just testimony of supposed witnesses. You insisted that they are not supposed to do that and this prosecutor went to far. The normal practice of Grand Jury's is to look at actual evidence. Neither this prosecutor nor this Grand Jury did anything out of the norm or illicit as you implied in your "opinion".

You also said:

This is false. What does happen according to the info I provided is:

So yes I did debunk it.

 

No you didn't. But if it makes you feel better to think you did

 

He should write a book on government transparency.

 

He certainly has seen it from an interesting perspective.

 

Neither is being fake. Thought you'd like to know.

 

Wilson did himself no favors when he uttered the words "I have a clear conscience". Look, I tend to believe his account, seeing it appears the grand jury did its due diligence before rendering their decision. But I think he should have chosen better words to say, imo...

 

Yeah, I'm with you here. Something to the effect "I never wanted to kill anyone, I'm sorry it had to come to that, I offer condolences to the family."

 

Wilson's major faux pas was allowing Brown to get to his car. He should have gotten out of the car as soon as Brown started towards his vehicle, imo...