Man Who Filmed Eric Garner Being Choked Says Grand Jury Was Rigged

[Zaac]

"White privilege" is a myth.

I'll add that to the stack with "Black people can't be racists".

 

[Don]

I say a travesty in both cases because I believe that due process was bypassed in each case.

I don't care if you think Officer Wilson was guilty or innocent in Ferguson, if you can spend two months reviewing evidence, then there is plenty to send the case to trial.

The prosecutors have chosen TWICE to do so.

It is indeed a travesty of justice.

The grand jury wasn't convened to determine officer Wilson's guilt or innocence. They were supposed to be determining if there was ample evidence to warrant an indictment and letting a jury decide.

That's why AGAIN, it clearly points to two prosecutors not attempting to prosecute.

You do realize that the other side of that coin is NOT that they had enough evidence? But that they spent extra time trying to find evidence that indicated wrong-doing on the officer's part, with the intent of "we're gona find this guy guilty"? Until they reached a point that they realized the evidence would never support a guilty verdict, and that a trial would only waste more of the tax-payers' money?

Unless, of course, your argument is that we should have put the officer on trial simply to appease someone's feelings about social injustice ... in which case, why have a justice system at all? Let's just go back to a judge for every 10 families like they instituted in the Old Testament, and we can all go see our particular judge about anything we want, any time we want.

 

[Don]

I say a travesty in both cases because I believe that due process was bypassed in each case.

I don't care if you think Officer Wilson was guilty or innocent in Ferguson, if you can spend two months reviewing evidence, then there is plenty to send the case to trial.

The prosecutors have chosen TWICE to do so.

It is indeed a travesty of justice.

The grand jury wasn't convened to determine officer Wilson's guilt or innocence. They were supposed to be determining if there was ample evidence to warrant an indictment and letting a jury decide.

That's why AGAIN, it clearly points to two prosecutors not attempting to prosecute.

You do realize that the other side of that coin is NOT that they had enough evidence? But that they spent extra time trying to find evidence that indicated wrong-doing on the officer's part, with the intent of "we're gona find this guy guilty"? Until they reached a point that they realized the evidence would never support a guilty verdict, and that a trial would only waste more of the tax-payers' money?

Unless, of course, your argument is that we should have put the officer on trial simply to appease someone's feelings about social injustice ... in which case, why have a justice system at all? Let's just go back to a judge for every 10 families like they instituted in the Old Testament, and we can all go see our particular judge about anything we want, any time we want.

 

[Zaac]

You do realize that the other side of that coin is NOT that they had enough evidence? But that they spent extra time trying to find evidence that indicated wrong-doing on the officer's part, with the intent of "we're gona find this guy guilty"?

You do understand that THAT is NOT the purpose of the grand jury. They don't FIND anything. The prosecutor presents what he wants to present in order to push them towards an indictment. And it's just not a difficult thing to do.

Not to mention they have released the "evidence". It wouldn't have taken but a fraction of any of that evidence to push a "normal" case to trial if the prosecutors wanted to prosecute.

As I said, they don't say you can prosecute a ham sandwich for nothing. It's just that easy to do IF the prosecutor wants to do it.

Until they reached a point that they realized the evidence would never support a guilty verdict, and that a trial would only waste more of the tax-payers' money?

You just reinforced my point that due process was bypassed. Grand juries aren't convened to save tax payers money. They aren't convened to determine if the evidence will support a guilty or innocent verdict.

They are convened to say whether there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial and letting a jury look at the full slate of evidence and decide innocence or guilt.

TWICE now in two weeks, they have come back after months of viewing evidence and done nothing. If there's not enough evidence to warrant a trial, then what have they been doing for those months reviewing evidence?

Unless, of course, your argument is that we should have put the officer on trial simply to appease someone's feelings about social injustice ... in which case, why have a justice system at all?

You tell me because apparently the JUSTICE of the Justice System is only available to some. These cases have done nothing butt illustrate a corruption of the justice system because what has occurred TWICE was NOT due process.

The officers should have been put on trial because the abundance of evidence that needed to be sifted through demanded the legally prescribed trial by a jury of their peers, and not some kangaroo grand jury court that bypasses due process if the prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

"Every time you see me you want to arrest me, I’m tired of this, this stops today…"

And he was correct, btw.

 

[Revmitchell]

Garner's family came out today saying that they disagree with the court but this is in no way a race issue.

 

[carpro]

Garner's family came out today saying that they disagree with the court but this is in no way a race issue.

But it'll do for an excuse for some violence and looting.