are not angry with this grand jury decision. They say justice has prevailed in this case.

Funny dat.

Racists are racists

The poster said that people who are pleased with the Ferguson decision are also upset by the OJ decision.

That doesn't imply that people who are upset with with the OJ decision are happy with the Ferguson decision.

With that said, such broad statements are never going to be true 100% of the time - but your experience does not run counter to the poster's statement.

Some people will accept a GJ decision if it agrees with their opinion, but not with a GJ decision that does not.

Throughout that trial and I never understood why.

I dont understand the connection, but it seems that there's a high percentage of football fans who are also right-wingy conservative.

Oh, I know, that's a big generalization, but that's how it seems from my observations.

in the US, me, agreed with the OJ verdict. Never thought he did it. Don't bother telling me how dumb I am. I will never accept the civil trial verdict.

This was SO damn slanted and biased - from the get-go. They went all out to make sure this murder would walk free. That grand jury was a joke. That entire "examination" of the "facts" was a fraud. Only one side was presented. At least there WAS a prosecution in the OJ case - even while completely and ridiculously bungled. Here? There wasn't even a prosecution. The prosecutor was protecting the perpetrator. And there was NO ONE speaking for the victim. This was more one-sided than mitch mcconnell.

that the ONLY witness to a fight in the car....is Wilson himself....and he was never cross examined.

My god....people come on get a grip on reality.....Dorian Johnson does not suppirt Wilsons story...

And Wilson's fairy tale does not corroborate the physical evidence. Dorian Johnson's does. That is exactly why we need a trial. The news media keeps stating, and everyone just accepts, that Brown attacked Wilson for no reason and then charged into bullets. Not only is it so unlikely as to be impossible, it's pure fabricated bullshit.

reading Wilson's GJ testimony. http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/

There were a couple points where I flat out laughed that went, almost, completely unchallenged. The first place was Wilson's testimony that he ASKED Michael and Dorian, "{something to the effect of} Hey guys, what's wrong with walking on the side walk" before ASKING them to take it to the side walk. This testimony went unchallenged.

He, then, testified that Dorian said, "We're almost to our destination." And the prosecutor made a point of asking Wilson, whether those were Dorian's exact words, and Wilson answered that they were.

This struck me as odd, especially in light of 1) who, that has had an encounter with the police would believe that Wilson used those words ... asking gently for Michael and Dorian to "pretty please ... walk on the sidewalk"?

And who, that has spoke with a youngish, urban youth (read: young Black kid) would believe Dorian used that language? Who talks like that? Cops do!

Further, after you read through it, tell me the prosecutor did anything but present Wilson in anything but the most favorable light.

Those are the words Dorian Johnson used. He says it himself. He said it in a few interviews. It's probably the only thing that Wilson didn't lie about.

I'll have to go back and read Dorian's testimony ... I must have missed that part.

Do you recall whether the prosecutor asked Dorian, whether those were the words he used to the time ... as the prosecutor did with Wilson?

I read so much testimony and documents the last few days, I can't recall positively. I will try to find it.

Information on it.

that's not surprising as people clean up/dress up their language in official settings.

My question is, why would a prosecutor that is challenging many aspects of a witness' testimony not question unusual language of that witness; but confirm it with the accused?

Most likely to make Darren Wilson seem more reliable and his memory of the horrific event, good. "See, Darren Wilson remembers everything! Every word. And you know it's true because that is the word Dorian himself says he said. So Wilson is the truth teller. The god."

That sounds exactly like copspeak to me.

Interview of Dorian Johnson (with Mike Brown duri…:

I do not believe he said "destination" to Wilson ... (for the reasons I've stated, i.e., dressing up language in "official" settings vs. responding in the street).

I watched probably every interview with this kid and that's how he speaks. That first interview was just a day after and before he had an attorney. He's been pretty consistent and said his quotes are what was said.

The word "destination" would not be commonly used in day-to-day conversation.

Young black guys speak much more informally in day-to-day life.

Seems that was for the cameras.

But I do believe that was what he said. I have no problem believing it. Seems to be his manner of speech

I believe he was capable of using that very word and did.

Last edited Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course he's capable of using the word, and he did correctly in front of the cameras. My point, like I said is, young black guys speak much more informally to each other.

And that's from experience.

And btw, how many other people use the word "destination" in every day speech instead of — "I'm just going down the street, or I'm just going around the corner"?

People don't ask a friend: "What's your destination?"

They ask: "Where are you going?"

I'm "experienced" in modern usage of the english language by the younger generation also. You don't know what Dorian Johnson said to wilsonthepig when wilsonthepig was rude and verbally abusive to thee two young men being young and walking probably carefree in the street. He is quite able to have used the word destination and contrary to your low regard for young Mr. Johnson's linguistic abilities, I will believe he answered wilsonthepig in that manner.

I just posted that "of course he's capable of using the word "destination."

I have no "low regard" for his linguistic abilities as you say, I just know how people speak informally.

It's nothing more than that. Well, there is something more. I think Wilson lied to make himself look better when he said Johnson used the word in their confrontation. He didn't want it to come out that he himself initiated the confrontation by telling Johnson and Brown to "get the fuck on the sidewalk" instead of "guys, how about using the sidewalk?" And another reason is is that that word is just what cops used in their reports and event descriptions, even though Wilson, the killer, didn't file a report.

And let me ask you, it's no big deal, but do you use the word "destination" in day-to-day speech?

Be honest.

but I have used it as say, on the radio coming into base camp, reporting that destination would be reached in however many minutes ect...ETA at destination when i was dispatcher, a friend of mind always asking what's the ETA at destination ect......for young Mr. Johnson to say we're almost at our destination does not seem too much of a stretch.....but I leave open the possibility that wilsonthepig used that description of the words used in his interaction with these two young black males that left one bullet riddled body executed and lying bleeding in the streets for five hours. Yep it's definitely a possibility that wilsonthepig was trying to dress up his murder scenario. I'll give you that.

maybe the same ballpark. Wilson using that word is a possibility as a way to show his limited ability to articulate a more than one or two syllable word. Dorian Johnson DID use the word and the proof is in the videos that were recorded very close to the incident that resulted in the execution of Michael Brown. I will never back away from that being a certainty.

I just think it's unlikely that he used that word in the confrontation with Wilson.

Just as Wilson didn't say to them — "Why not used the sidewalk, fellas" instead of "Get the fuck on the sidewalk."

You can continue with the argument as I thought we were on the same side in understanding that a murder was committed, but I'm done with this back and forth.

saying Young Mr. Johnson is not capable of formulating then articulating the word destination? Correct? Because he's part of the 'thug' group feared and hated as "demons", right? I think you're playing to the camera and you're showing your 'bad' side. Really.

that young Mr. Johnson used that word destination in his response to wilsonthepig. People who say it's not an appropriate answer to come from a younger person to a person who was a police officer are wrong. All who question yor ability to think critically are wrong...and trying to obfuscate the issue that wilsonthepig murdered young Mr. Brown.....they really have broken all the straws they have reached for to proves wilsonthe pig did not execute this young black man while acting in the capacity of a racist, cowardly and fearful white man hiding behind his badge and 'authority'.....

truth about Brown "charging" at him because the head shots, the kill shots, were coming in at a downward angle, consistent with him "charging"

He forgets to mention the downward angle is ALSO consistent with what SEVERAL Witnesses said that Brown was injured, falling forward, surrendering when the kill shots occurred.

He used the loophole of the grand jury to give an illusion of a trial, and now idiots are using the word "exonerated." It is the most odious ploy I can even imagine. It's one thing for a prosecutor to be soft or incompetent at trial, which is bad enough. This was the DA purposely working to make sure Wilson was never charged, including handing a statute to jurors that said is was legal for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985!!!!!

GJ what the error was, just that there was one.

FIX

I've been told the fix was legal. If it is, then that needs to be changed immediately. These prosecutors are complicit.

I wrote this post with an excerpt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025880996

The ADA built up Wilson's story before he even testifies. Johnson did use the word "destination" but his entire testimony proves such things as why Wilson's car was at a strange angle, blocking traffic--because he backed up and almost hit Brown & Johnson. Why there was a struggle at the car, but no bruises on Wilson's face because Mike Brown was "punching him so hard it might be fatal." Instead, Wilson grabbed Brown by the neck and pulled him toward the car. Because there's no reason in the whole wide world why anyone but someone incredibly high would (which the toxicology report proved Brown was not) would attack a nice, polite policeman out of the blue. Especially someone unarmed. The whole grand jury was fixed from the beginning. I'm so mad about it, I can barely think about it without going ballistic.

I had to listen to racist former co-workers discussing "poor Wilson," facing that "demon" who'd just committed a "strong-arm robbery." They sure know how to spout the racist propaganda they undoubtedly heard on FOX or in their churches.

I would certainly be fired for going off on idiots like that. Sorry you have to.

And, I'm pretty sure it was because of my anti-racist stance. The guy who fired me couldn't give me a legitimate reason, so he just said "we're going in a different direction." I think that's code for "we're gonna find someone who'll tolerate/agree with our bigotry."

Bastards. I hope you find a much better place. Working with poisonous people really drags down the soul.

This boils down to police immunity. Even police who break down the wrong door and kill someone are rarely if ever charged with a crime. They are given great latitude for human error and having to make immediate life and death decisions. If he believed for an instant, even erroneously, that Brown was trying to disarm him, he did exactly what every law enforcement training program would advise. ..which is the other standard, did he depart from established training practices? It's tough.

I don't believe his story completely. ..even without the police immunity it is a tough case...beyond a reasonable doubt that is...

into an unarmed person? Don't they carry tasers anymore?

Then there is the phenomenon of what happens to people once they begin shooting in a stress situation. ..more human error/condition

Sylvester Stallone movie, it is real life, and death.

And we better change just about everything when it comes to police.

ENTIRE communities have rules about not even talking to the police, how in the HELL Can we think this makes any sense at all!

Statement to police if they are reporting a crime or was a witness to some incident. ..if they are being questioned as a suspect to decline, ask if they are under arrest...if so ask for a lawyer, if not, without another word, leave. It is the reality of the criminal justice system.

The concept of community policing has become a vacant talking point negated by the overused claim of "officer safety" which has become an excuse for abuse in any circumstances.

Of course what I wrote was only the very tip of the story. Other things included; keep your hands visible, don't speak unless spoken to, do as you're told, be patient, never touch a cop, never run from police. If there are others involved as in a car accident stand quietly by your car and let the other people involved swarm the cop, listen to everything said, wait for the officer to approach you, then calmly tell your story specifically disputing any inaccuracies you heard previously. If someone objects to something you say, shut up and let them speak then respond calmly addressing only the officer...never argue or address the other party no matter how shook up the person is....etc.

I spent many years dealing with police almost daily. ..hundreds of them with only a few bad results....and I was often in a position of adversity with them.

but understand ... your life experience (and that of your kids) is likely very different from those experiencing the disparity in treatment. Whereas, everything that you have suggested are reasonable, it does not affect the mentality of the cop that sees Black and sees "thug", at best, or criminal.

If more people conducted themselves as I have described, regardless their race, there would be less problems. The reality is, people let their excitement, anger, rage, anxiety, etc control them, when the police arrive they create an out of control situation screaming, arguing, and everyone talking at once. The police's job is to get control of the situation. The more difficult people make that, the more the police escalate their authority. What we see on "Cops".. chaos. ..is what police walk into often.

None of this excuses racism in police. It does explain why society has granted police near blanket immunity for mistakes and errors in judgement.

if that's what you desire to cover tracks, it's pretty simple actually. A murder/execution occurred and wilsonthepig was "exonerated". Pretty simple, for the prosecutor and the GJ, actually.

Or we can acknowledge the necessity. We all make mistakes and have errors of judgment at work. In most professions mistakes and errors in judgements aren't life and death. In those professions that are, there are statutory allowances to hold those professionals harmless, at least from criminal prosecution and limitations of civil liability. If every morning you got ready for work you knew an error could put you in jail, would you do that job? How much would you require to be paid if you did? Reality....

to say to rationalize executions in the streets if that is what you need, then fine. The color of the skin is the operative motivation for these who might "make a mistake or error in judgement" in a majority of cases like Michael Brown. Reality is, a persons skin color can cause them to be the victim of a summary execution, while a different lighter skin color can have them on the ground with hands behind their heads. Your reality is NOT everyone's reality. But privilege does color ones view I would say. So you're entitled to your rationalized reality concerning police and people of color, I live that reality every day. As far as "statutory allowances" , they know this and that's why it is so easy for them to pull a trigger on someone of color. Wilsonthepig and MANY like him are not professionals in any sense of the word except as an executioner/murderer. Period.

We will never agree. If you agree we need law enforcement, what protections do we allow those willing to do this work?

Again, I noticed you failed to answer, what immunity/protection would you require to take a job like this? Without immunity/protection every time you had to make a split second decision which failure to make could result in your life and misjudgement could result in your loss of freedom, loss of retirement, loss of home, loss of your kids college fund?

No, you can't have it both ways.

of many on here, lately. In a vicious, racist society like this one we do need police. But with restraints on what they can and cannot do in the "split second of decision". I know THEY ARE trained in how to make those decisions so you and your way of protecting murderers and executioners disguised as police is transparent and obvious. And being a vietnam vet, I know split second decision making. And while you claim I want it both ways, all I want is fair and balanced due process in our justice system, not bodies full of holes that any excuse will exonerate as justified, you want only your way. Allow all these racist police officers to stay on the street, murdering and executing people that they deem are "demons" and threats who were resisting and/or reaching into their waistband". You want it one way and that is that they continue murdering and executing. NO WE WILL NEVER AGREE!!!! I don't side with discounters of a serious policing problem nor enablers of those serious policing/racial problems. Stay in your la la land. You're too transparent and obvious to be taken seriously in the real world.

I would have said go back to freeper land. There's been too many posers on DU lately and they get annoying. I get enough of that on open forums and they make me feel violated when they post here.

have observed and felt the same way. In fact some on here make me shower I feel so filthy after reading their garbage.... seriously though, the world is full of them and never shall they win without a fight.

I wouldn't mind if they were identified and blocked from DU - then we can lower our water bills lol.

You haven't a clue what I want because you're too busy accusing everyone of racism to engage in actual discussion.

Last edited Tue Dec 2, 2014, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

you're excusing and enabling the racist. What other obvious conclusion about your words and racism enabling rationalizations is possible? You don't have to answer, it's NONE....

is what you just witnessed. When it happens again tomorrow, it will be a no bill too. Just like every story you've ever heard about police kicking in the wrong door and killing an innocent person...no bill every time...why? Because of statutory immunity we have given police.


Notice that again I have not stated my opinion of this, only the reality of the situation.

telling me, 'teaching me' anything I don't know. Police have wide ranging immunity ESPECIALLY when it comes to the execution, harassment and murder of people of color. I understand what you're saying and your opinion of this particular 'incident' with wilsonthepig murdering Michael Brown and getting exonerated for it by that so-called statutory immunity. This travesty WAS EXPECTED by many people using the simplest of critical thinking tools when it comes to white immunity for killing and murdering people of color. IT HAS ALWAYS been this way in the minority community. Your opinion can be surmised by your continued usage/explanation of why wilsonthepig was exonerated for murder. Your opinion needs to be stated openly, which I will not hold my breath waiting for. You're going to tell me the reality of why racists get a pass for murder......

Last edited Tue Dec 2, 2014, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

to will never acknowledge reality. Too wrapped up in some fantasy world that actually is very dangerous and knows mo bounds.

He said he was sick of hearing about it, and if that kid (Brown) hadn't been a thug, he wouldn't have been shot. I tried soooo hard to stay calm, looked him directly in the eye and said "why do you believe what Wilson said?". Of course his response was that Wilson was a cop and I replied that there are plenty of bad cops, the badge doesn't magically transform a person and sometimes it makes them worse.

I then said "you have sons, right?" (he does).

Then I went on to say "Wilson's response after the grand jury decision was all I need to know about what kind of person he is. Regardless of what went down, the words Wilson used to describe Brown were appalling and completely insensitive and disrespectful to Brown's grieving family. Wilson intentionally portrayed himself as a victim which is easy to do when the victim is dead, and clearly has zero remorse for the loss of life caused by his hands. Wilson had a platform to say whatever he wanted, unchallenged. What he chose to say did not represent a compassionate, honest man. How would you feel if he said those things about your dead son? Wouldn't you want a trial?

My coworker looked at me, I could see the wheels starting to turn, and then he changed the subject. Frustrating.

since, as a parent, he should be more empathetic than most.

I've gotten to the point now when anyone uses the word 'thug' in the context of Mike Brown or the Ferguson Resistance, I simply accuse him or her of being a 'racist pig' and don't bother engaging any further. Because people who use the word 'thug' would be only too happy to use the "N-word," were there no taboo against using it. They default to "thug" as the substitute or code word for it.

Are there thugs? Yes. Will I discuss Mike Brown or Ferguson with anyone characterizing Mike Brown as a 'thug'? Fuck no.

....ESPECIALLY because he used the word thug. When it was clear the parent angle didn't work and my coworker just wasn't capable of seeing Brown as a human being, I gave up. All he watches is Fox News anyway, so what did I expect?

It is more than sad, it's fucking tragic.

McCulloch stated that the GJ heard testimony from all of the witnesses, including those that did not support Wilson's version. Wilson told his story to the GJ and they asked him questions. I'm having trouble believing that 12 out 12 on a trial jury would convict when 9 out of 12 on the GJ couldn't find a basis to even indict.

I'm not aware of any facts the GJ did not have access to. Are you?

You are "... not aware of any facts..."

And with that you should just log off, turn off your computer and hide.

Your support of justice being corrupted is quite a disgrace.

At the end of the day, the GJ acted on the evidence and they got all of it. Corrupted would mean that pertinent facts were withheld and that's not what happened.

You should take my advice and log off.

Your idea that you know what happened is just garbage.

The quality of the evidence wasn't ascertained because there was no challenge to it. Particularly Wilson's testimony.

this is a half-baked fake trial, choreographed by McCulloch to get Wilson out of an indictment.

I have learned so much here over the years.

And the one main thing is that the more I learn the more I realize that there is so much more to be learned.

Welcome to DU... and watch out for my 'fan' club members. They will try to eat you. Heh.

As for me, I am but a small cog in the DU wheel. But thanks for the compliment!

witnesses were contradictory and not remembering correctly. He discredited them before the GJ ever heard their testimony. Ask yourself if you would have believed them after that.

As a practical matter, that would have come up in a trial when the defense attorney would have ripped those witnesses apart

If the witnesses on which the indictment is based will get shredded by the defense, what good are they? If McCulloch got an indictment based on testimony that the GJ did not know was tainted, what would he do in court? If he didn't use them in the trial, he'd have no case and if he did, the defense would make him look stupid. What would you have done?

heard many of those witnesses talking on TV and they did not contradict each other to the extent that their testimony was useless. What he did was keep anyone who's story did not protect Wilson from testifying.

You can ignore it if you want but most of us here on DU heard their testimony. The GJ was not allowed to.

He acted as a defense lawyer not a prosecutor.

He said that some witnesses changed their testimony when the forensic evidence contradicted their version of what happened (e.g. statements that Brown was shot in the back when the autopsy confirmed that to be untrue) or witnesses who later admitted that they did not actually see what happened. Like it or not, witnesses like that would probably be more damaging than helpful to the prosecution's case in an actual trial.

and the whole law enforcement system in Ferguson MO has not proved themselves all that reliable. It is hard to believe them.

President Obama yesterday talked about this not being just Ferguson MO and he is correct. There have been too many shootings of unarmed victims and the police using fear and lies to cover them up. Something has to be done about it. This cannot continue. Remember how we all talked about winning hearts and minds in the ME. Maybe we need to look at this idea in our own communities. Who is filling our jails?

and aimed his weapon at Brown when he was retreating, so those witnesses did have accurate accounts of what happened. All the bullets are not accounted for so they could have been shot at Brown's back as he was leaving, but they missed their mark.

Then there is the issue of the GJ getting an old statute saying that cops could shoot at fleeing suspects when that was not true because of a change in the law some 3 decades ago.

It's obvious that the DA wanted to cherry-pick what he would use from the witnesses to fit his agenda of not having Wilson stand trial.

Wilson told his story and the prosecutors asked him questions ... questions that were not designed to confront; but rather, questions that just helped the accused get his story out.

Question: Why would a prosecutor, at the beginning of questioning ask about Wilson's height and weight?

I was under the impression that they did. As far as the height and weight were concerned, I would say it goes to whether Brown, with his height and weight constituted a credible threat.

why should they? The prosecutor had been asking all the questions that got to all the important information for the past 10 months they had been seating, why would that change.

While the prosecutor told them "this is going to be a very different process", he should have add, "I'm turning this process on it's head ... It will be different primarily because in all of the previous cases I led you to the result I wanted ... an indictment. In this case, I will be leading you to the result I want, as well ... a No True Bill. You will have to find the evidence to indict on your own."

Personally, I think it's more accurate to say that McCulloch did not want to take the case to the GJ, but let's accept your framing (As a practical matter, there isn't much difference). The obvious question is why not. I can think of three possible answers:

1.) McCulloch considered the evidence and what various witnesses had to say, and believed Wilson's version of what happened. In other words he concluded that Wilson's use of deadly force was justified. Many people don't agree with that, but you have to concede it's possible that McCulloch believed that in good faith. If this is true, you cannot fault him for not wanting an indictment.

2.) McCulloch did not believe he had enough evidence to successfully prosecute Wilson. IMO, this scenario happens frequently and explains why it is rare for a GJ to return no true bill. If a prosecutor reasonably believes he doesn't have a case, he'd be wasting his time and the GJ's time seeking an indictment. Beyond that, if he did get an indictment, he might well look stupid in court when the defense shreds his case. Considering what McCulloch said about witnesses changing their testimony, this scenario is very plausible in my opinion. Would you honestly expect a prosecutor to seek an indictment for a case he believes he can't win?

3.) McCulloch believed Wilson had committed a crime, but chose to conduct the investigation in a way that would minimize the chances of an indictment. IOW, McCulloch just wanted to protect Wilson and placed no value on seeking justice for Brown. This, of course, is possible and if it's true, it would be an egregious corruption of the justice system.

None of can know what was actually in McCulloch's mind, but I think that what he said at the press conference can give an insight. Considering that testimony and evidence was released to the public, the feds were conducting their own investigation and were (I believe) present in the GJ room, I think it's reasonable to accept what McCulloch said as the truth. I watched the press conference and I believe that either 1.) or 2.) are much more likely than 3.). For 3.) to be credible, you'd have to believe that McCulloch would deliberately ignore or misrepresent evidence and testimony on a very high profile case with the Justice Department looking over his shoulder. I find it very hard to believe that's what actually happened. If it did happen that way, I would expect that the Justice Department would act and to date, they have not. For me, 3.) is out

I don't know whether 1.) or 2.) is the truth, but either would put McCulloch in a difficult position. Normally, if a prosecutor doesn't believe a crime has been committed or believes he can't win, he doesn't go the GJ. That wasn't an option in this case, so what could McCulloch do? IMO, the only option he had was to present everything and let the GJ decide.

The bit about telling the GJ he didn't want an indictment makes no sense. If he had actually done that, you and everyone would have been justifiably screaming about it (and the GJ would have asked why he was wasting their time).

I know that Black people face a lot of injustice and there is much work to be done in this area. The anger and disappointment is understandable, but this was a difficult case and looking at it objectively, I don't see how it could have played out differently.

who has NEVER seen an indictment worthy case where a cop did the shooting ... history, and my life's experience, does not afford me such faith.

Now, here's a teaching moment:

You are one of the better posters on DU and I enjoy exchanging views with you.

I'm glad you were willing to hear the lesson. Whenever someone says they looked at something "Objectively"/"Dispassionately"/"Logically, or any such descriptor of their process, they are implying that those that disagree/see things different, did not.

I guess I'm sensitive to this because PoC (and women) get that a lot; but more, looking at things objectively, dispassionately, and logically, is what I do for a living ... even when I did not like where my inquiries take me!

correction until the very end of the case.

would Wilson's attorney ever allow Wilson to testify to the GJ at all, if he had not first received assurances that no indictment of his client would be forthcoming? Presumably, anything Wilson said to the GJ could be used against him if the case went to trial, so what attorney in his or her right mind would risk letting his or her client testify to a GJ unless the attorneys already knew there would be no indictment?

I have never seen a convincing explanation of this. To me, the fact that Wilson testified in the GJ suggests he or his attorneys already knew there would be no indictment, i.e., the fix was in.

So here's what I want to know: what discussions did McCulloch and his staff of little Eichmanns have with Wilson's attorneys prior to Wilson's appearance and what offers were made during those discussions? I think McCulloch should be compelled to answer that question under penalty of perjury.

And the basis to not indict was "we believe everything Wilson told us".

The question for the Grand Jury wasn't whether or not he was guilty, but whether there was enough evidence that a crime could possibly have been committed. The fact that there are different accounts of what happened and proof that at least one time Wilson lied in his testimony(standing over the body) should have been more than enough to indict.

The question was, is there probable cause.

Definition: A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought.
Whether or not a crime has possibly been committed. Same fucking thing.

to the grand jury. As in, he should have presented witness accounts where Brown was shot execution-style with his hands up, without telling the grand jury about witnesses retracting or changing their stories, or admitting that they had not actually seen the shooting. And that he should have withheld forensic evidence when it contradicted such witness accounts. My issue with this approach is yes, an indictment clearly could have been obtained with such a strategy, but at the subsequent trial all the evidence would be presented, the witnesses with changing stories would be demolished by the defense, and there would inevitably be an acquittal.

I'm sure you have a lot to contribute and look forward to reading your comments.Though I no longer spend as much time here. DU has proven to be as full of authoritarians, unwitting/latent/outright racists, and sheeplike followers as anywhere else. Every Mike Brown thread, the same infuriating ignorance and flagrant stupidity. Not everyone, but enough to poison the well. Sigh...

But that law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985. Then, two weeks later, after Wilson had testified, they told the jurors the law didn't really apply any more but they didn't say how. In effect, once Mike Brown ran away, it was no longer legal for Wilson to shoot at him because his life was not in danger.

Here is a video explaining it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5879866

Watch it and let me know if you think the grand jury was given proper information to interpret "the facts" that were presented.

So the correct law was fresh in their minds when they began the deliberations.

What part of the law was in error?

Can you link to where the DA office went out of their way to make sure the GJ knew exactly what the mistake was and in light of the details of the case why the mistake was a HUGE ONE?

Can you show us where that happened, please?

In no way did the ADA explain how the old law was incorrect. In fact, when a juror asked for clarification another ADA stated, "We don't need a law class."

So no, the correction was not "fresh in their minds."

You are making a ton of assumptions based on ignorance of the proceedings. If you would like to watch the video and then answer, you might be enlightened.

There are conflicting accounts from eyewitnesses.

Like everybody else, I wish this was caught on camera, but I feel most people would still see what they wanted to.