Gotta wonder......

Couldn't it also be said that failure to include exculpatory evidence was done to "sway" the decision of the grand jury? And yet we recognize that there is no requirement for a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Why convene another grand jury?

Obviously you haven't been following the previous conversation as to "why".

I followed the opinion pieces posted by you from the articles, and say, if there is evidence of wrong doing BRING CHARGES!

Where, in anything I posted, did I say there was "wrong-doing"? Questions regarding the process? Yes. "Wrong-doing"? Please show me where I said that.

PrintSmith wrote: Couldn't it also be said that failure to include exculpatory evidence was done to "sway" the decision of the grand jury? And yet we recognize that there is no requirement for a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

Of course it could, P. But that isn't the issue here, now is it?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Why convene another grand jury?

Obviously you haven't been following the previous conversation as to "why".

I followed the opinion pieces posted by you from the articles, and say, if there is evidence of wrong doing BRING CHARGES!

Where, in anything I posted, did I say there was "wrong-doing"? Questions regarding the process? Yes. "Wrong-doing"? Please show me where I said that.

No one has any idea what you say, you hide behind articles you post, deflect, deny, avoid, redirect rather than answer.

HEARTLESS wrote: No one has any idea what you say, you hide behind articles you post, deflect, deny, avoid, redirect rather than answer.

Hiding behind your own post, deflecting, denying, avoiding, and redirecting rather than answering. I'll take your response as a "you have nothing".

ZHawke wrote: Officer Wilson, innocent or guilty of a crime, has arguably already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. His defenders cry out for everyone to accept his innocence. His detractors cry out for "justice". He's already arguably a wealthy man as a result of his "fame" in this incident. He's hitting the interview circuit, but he's also having to take measures to protect himself at all times. Living in constant fear for one's own safety isn't something I'd want to wish on my own worst enemy. If he's completely and totally innocent, then, especially, this kind of life isn't something I would wish on him. And, even if he is, in fact, completely and totally innocent of a crime, it's a matter of opinion whether or not he should "profit" financially from an incident such as this one.

Where did you see that Wilson is "hitting the interview circuit" and where did you see he is getting paid? I'm only aware of the one ABC interview and just one unsubstantiated story that he got paid for it.

And let's say this case went to trial and Wilson is found not guilty. Do you really think that will make him safer? Will the people who want to kill him now change their mind? I don't see that George Zimmerman is any safer now after a unanimous not guilty verdict, do you?

pineinthegrass wrote: Where did you see that Wilson is "hitting the interview circuit" and where did you see he is getting paid? I'm only aware of the one ABC interview and just one unsubstantiated story that he got paid for it.

And let's say this case went to trial and Wilson is found not guilty. Do you really think that will make him safer? Will the people who want to kill him now change their mind? I don't see that George Zimmerman is any safer now after a unanimous not guilty verdict, do you?

You're right. Perhaps I should have said Officer Wilson has done an interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, and it was disclosed by a source that a mid to high six figure payment was allegedly made to Officer Wilson. Multiple media outlets are also pursuing the possibility of landing further interviews with him.

There have also been stories about donations to Officer Wilson, whether direct or indirect remains shrouded, allegedly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As far as if the case does go to trial, that's premature. Zimmerman did go to trial. Wilson, unless a prosecutor (either the current one or another, independent one) chooses to take it in that direction, will not face a criminal trial. Civil? Perhaps. But criminal? No.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Couldn't it also be said that failure to include exculpatory evidence was done to "sway" the decision of the grand jury? And yet we recognize that there is no requirement for a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

Of course it could, P. But that isn't the issue here, now is it?

The issue from your perspective, near as I can figure, is that the prosecutor may have "swayed" the grand jury with what, and how, he presented to that grand jury. If I have that incorrect, by all means, please clarify what "the issue here" is.

If there is no issue with a prosecutor "swaying" a grand jury based upon what he believes should be done in the one instance, why is it "an issue" in the other?

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Couldn't it also be said that failure to include exculpatory evidence was done to "sway" the decision of the grand jury? And yet we recognize that there is no requirement for a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

Of course it could, P. But that isn't the issue here, now is it?

The issue from your perspective, near as I can figure, is that the prosecutor may have "swayed" the grand jury with what, and how, he presented to that grand jury. If I have that incorrect, by all means, please clarify what "the issue here" is.

If there is no issue with a prosecutor "swaying" a grand jury based upon what he believes should be done in the one instance, why is it "an issue" in the other?

Because this isn't the "other", now is it?

Of course it is. You see no problem with a prosecutor presenting to the grand jury only evidence which might indicate a person has committed a crime in an effort to "sway" the finding of the grand jury, but you do see a problem with the prosecutor choosing to include exculpatory evidence in an effort to "sway" the finding of the grand jury. Why is it OK for the prosecutor to "sway" the grand jury in the one instance and not in the other?