Gotta wonder......

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
It isn't being "ignored". Nor is it an attempt to blame the officer. Rather, it is an attempt to make absolutely certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt that justice is done, whether it be to exonerate Officer Wilson or not. I would think Officer Wilson would be all for that.

Do you honestly believe that if this was to go to a trial and Wilson was again found not guilty, that the protestors and racial agitators would admit they were wrong and allow Wilson to go on with his life? These people have far too much invested in their own verdicts to ever admit they were wrong imo. The fact that the supporters refuse to condemn Brown's actions tells me their blindness will not be cured by any verdict.

We're talking, at this point, about reopening another Grand Jury investigation, not going to trial, necessarily. If Wilson has nothing to hide, I still would think Wilson would be all for putting this to rest. With the new information regarding the alleged bias and other alleged mistakes made by the DA's office, getting things straight and right would be a high priority, IMO. Regardless of whether or not anyone's "blindness" will be cured isn't the issue. Justice is.

So I'm assuming the evidence and the witnesses will all be the same right?

Assume anything you like. At this juncture, we just don't know. If a new Grand Jury is reconvened, it would necessarily be a new independent prosecutor that conducts the investigation. There are some who are saying the first Grand Jury investigation was rigged in Officer Wilson's favor before it even began. If that is the case, then a new, independent prosecutor would be appropriate. That there was even a possibility of the appearance of impropriety by the prosecution in this case should, IMO, have been reason enough to recuse/step aside and let another independent prosecutor take over. That's my opinion.

I don't know if another decision not to charge Officer Wilson would be the final result of another investigation. But, given the societal sentence being placed on him, I would think he would welcome further exoneration from an independent investigation to help him regain his life - that is, if he has nothing to hide.

Plus this gives the lying witnesses more time to practice their lies.

Including Officer Wilson?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
It isn't being "ignored". Nor is it an attempt to blame the officer. Rather, it is an attempt to make absolutely certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt that justice is done, whether it be to exonerate Officer Wilson or not. I would think Officer Wilson would be all for that.

Do you honestly believe that if this was to go to a trial and Wilson was again found not guilty, that the protestors and racial agitators would admit they were wrong and allow Wilson to go on with his life? These people have far too much invested in their own verdicts to ever admit they were wrong imo. The fact that the supporters refuse to condemn Brown's actions tells me their blindness will not be cured by any verdict.

We're talking, at this point, about reopening another Grand Jury investigation, not going to trial, necessarily. If Wilson has nothing to hide, I still would think Wilson would be all for putting this to rest. With the new information regarding the alleged bias and other alleged mistakes made by the DA's office, getting things straight and right would be a high priority, IMO. Regardless of whether or not anyone's "blindness" will be cured isn't the issue. Justice is.

So I'm assuming the evidence and the witnesses will all be the same right?

Assume anything you like. At this juncture, we just don't know. If a new Grand Jury is reconvened, it would necessarily be a new independent prosecutor that conducts the investigation. There are some who are saying the first Grand Jury investigation was rigged in Officer Wilson's favor before it even began. If that is the case, then a new, independent prosecutor would be appropriate. That there was even a possibility of the appearance of impropriety by the prosecution in this case should, IMO, have been reason enough to recuse/step aside and let another independent prosecutor take over. That's my opinion.

I don't know if another decision not to charge Officer Wilson would be the final result of another investigation. But, given the societal sentence being placed on him, I would think he would welcome further exoneration from an independent investigation to help him regain his life - that is, if he has nothing to hide.

Plus this gives the lying witnesses more time to practice their lies.

Including Officer Wilson?

If he is only a witness, then why waste more time on this?

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
It isn't being "ignored". Nor is it an attempt to blame the officer. Rather, it is an attempt to make absolutely certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt that justice is done, whether it be to exonerate Officer Wilson or not. I would think Officer Wilson would be all for that.

Do you honestly believe that if this was to go to a trial and Wilson was again found not guilty, that the protestors and racial agitators would admit they were wrong and allow Wilson to go on with his life? These people have far too much invested in their own verdicts to ever admit they were wrong imo. The fact that the supporters refuse to condemn Brown's actions tells me their blindness will not be cured by any verdict.

We're talking, at this point, about reopening another Grand Jury investigation, not going to trial, necessarily. If Wilson has nothing to hide, I still would think Wilson would be all for putting this to rest. With the new information regarding the alleged bias and other alleged mistakes made by the DA's office, getting things straight and right would be a high priority, IMO. Regardless of whether or not anyone's "blindness" will be cured isn't the issue. Justice is.

So I'm assuming the evidence and the witnesses will all be the same right?

Assume anything you like. At this juncture, we just don't know. If a new Grand Jury is reconvened, it would necessarily be a new independent prosecutor that conducts the investigation. There are some who are saying the first Grand Jury investigation was rigged in Officer Wilson's favor before it even began. If that is the case, then a new, independent prosecutor would be appropriate. That there was even a possibility of the appearance of impropriety by the prosecution in this case should, IMO, have been reason enough to recuse/step aside and let another independent prosecutor take over. That's my opinion.

I don't know if another decision not to charge Officer Wilson would be the final result of another investigation. But, given the societal sentence being placed on him, I would think he would welcome further exoneration from an independent investigation to help him regain his life - that is, if he has nothing to hide.

Plus this gives the lying witnesses more time to practice their lies.

Including Officer Wilson?

If he is only a witness, then why waste more time on this?

Well played, H, well played, indeed. But flawed in its intent. Officer Wilson is a key witness in all of this because Michael Brown is dead, remember?

If one is interested in having a grand jury look at something, maybe they should be considering whether or not to charge Louis Head with inciting a riot . . .
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/...stepfather/19777847/

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
It isn't being "ignored". Nor is it an attempt to blame the officer. Rather, it is an attempt to make absolutely certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt that justice is done, whether it be to exonerate Officer Wilson or not. I would think Officer Wilson would be all for that.

Do you honestly believe that if this was to go to a trial and Wilson was again found not guilty, that the protestors and racial agitators would admit they were wrong and allow Wilson to go on with his life? These people have far too much invested in their own verdicts to ever admit they were wrong imo. The fact that the supporters refuse to condemn Brown's actions tells me their blindness will not be cured by any verdict.

We're talking, at this point, about reopening another Grand Jury investigation, not going to trial, necessarily. If Wilson has nothing to hide, I still would think Wilson would be all for putting this to rest. With the new information regarding the alleged bias and other alleged mistakes made by the DA's office, getting things straight and right would be a high priority, IMO. Regardless of whether or not anyone's "blindness" will be cured isn't the issue. Justice is.

So I'm assuming the evidence and the witnesses will all be the same right?

Assume anything you like. At this juncture, we just don't know. If a new Grand Jury is reconvened, it would necessarily be a new independent prosecutor that conducts the investigation. There are some who are saying the first Grand Jury investigation was rigged in Officer Wilson's favor before it even began. If that is the case, then a new, independent prosecutor would be appropriate. That there was even a possibility of the appearance of impropriety by the prosecution in this case should, IMO, have been reason enough to recuse/step aside and let another independent prosecutor take over. That's my opinion.

I don't know if another decision not to charge Officer Wilson would be the final result of another investigation. But, given the societal sentence being placed on him, I would think he would welcome further exoneration from an independent investigation to help him regain his life - that is, if he has nothing to hide.

Plus this gives the lying witnesses more time to practice their lies.

Including Officer Wilson?

If he is only a witness, then why waste more time on this?

Well played, H, well played, indeed. But flawed in its intent. Officer Wilson is a key witness in all of this because Michael Brown is dead, remember?

The purpose of the grand jury was to determine if charges were to be brought against office Wilson, he is not required to testify against himself, but cooperated by choice. He is the potential accused, not a witness.

PrintSmith wrote: If one is interested in having a grand jury look at something, maybe they should be considering whether or not to charge Louis Head with inciting a riot . . .
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/...stepfather/19777847/

Was wondering when someone might bring this into the discussion. Why not have a Grand Jury look into both this incident and the first grand jury investigation?

Why not just bring charges against the original prosecutor if there is "new evidence?"

ZHawke wrote: Why not have a Grand Jury look into both this incident and the first grand jury investigation?

Why not also have a Grand Jury investigate whether or not President Obama and AG Holder incited the riots? And while you are at it, investigate perjury charges against the witnesses who changed their stories?

This could be dragged out forever. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste.

HEARTLESS wrote: Why not just bring charges against the original prosecutor if there is "new evidence?"

Exactly, but there is no new evidence, otherwise every network would be waving it around non stop. How about we bring charges to the scumbags who destroyed the future of an entire town while we're at it?

HEARTLESS wrote: The purpose of the grand jury was to determine if charges were to be brought against office Wilson, he is not required to testify against himself, but cooperated by choice. He is the potential accused, not a witness.

You're right - he was the "accused" in this investigation. And, you are also right he chose to give testimony. That, in and of itself (his testimony) is unusual according to what I've researched:

In St Louis, Darren Wilson was permitted to testify, and he injected the defenses of a justified use of force and self-defense. The testimony by Darren Wilson is very unusual, because normally the suspect or, if charges have been filed, the accused, does not have an opportunity to testify before a grand jury. Indeed, in United States v. Williams(1992), the US Supreme Court observed that the accused neither has a right to testify nor to have the prosecution present exculpatory evidence (favorable to the defendent) to the grand jury.

www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/explained-wh...on-case-was-unusual/