I was speaking in regards to- your theory of no victim no crime.
Which I spoke to. In practice, petty crimes are rarely prosecuted with an uncooperative victim - but it doesn't matter anyway. Brown is dead. You're off on another side-issue tangent.
If this goes to trial- and Wilson gets acquitted- would YOU be okay with it? Or would you just deem the grand jury as not "fair and objective" people (regarding your comment from this morning).
My comment this morning was in reference to the Grand Jury, not a trial jury. A trial jury has a much tougher standard to meet than a Grand Jury does. Beyond a reasonable doubt for the trial jury, and probable cause for the Grand Jury. Probable cause in this case might be...oh...I don't know....at least
four eye-witnesses saying that Brown was either attempting to surrender or already injured so bad that he was falling to the ground when the kill shot(s?) were delivered.
Many people have been convicted of 1st Degree Murder and gotten the death penalty on lesser evidence than that, so go ahead and pretend those four witnesses don't rise to the level of probable cause to indict if you want, but
don't pretend that I was talking about a hypothetical trial jury when I said that.
You're one of the few (or maybe two people)- who repeatedly, from day one- have been certain of Wilson's guilt
And you, lady, are full of crap. I have been
way more objective than certainly
you have been. I have listened to what's been said by witnesses and described their accounts as a "problem" for Wilson. I have adjusted my willingness to accept Johnson's account at face value because of the release of information regarding lying in the past. I have talked about the legal issues that will be sussed out at trial and said that I doubt there even
will be a trial. I have said
*if* witness testimony holds up to scrutiny, and
*if* Wilson is shown to have fired when Brown was trying to surrender, he should burn, and the fact that you or anyone else can't find it within yourselves to even agree with me on that statement says a helluva lot more about your lack of objectivity than it does about mine. If four eye-witnesses can't add up to probable cause to indict for the Grand Jury, you're damned skippy that would say to me that the Grand Jury is
not populated by fair and objective people, but I haven't determined that Wilson is guilty. I've only determined that there's enough evidence to reach the probable cause standard, and that he should go to trial.
Meanwhile, you've dismissed witnesses based on "prejudice." You've accepted as fact one account from a radio talk-show caller and an as-yet unidentified, anonymous voice in the background of a video. Your self-described "prejudice" wouldn't even allow you to try to understand what one of the witnesses was saying, so he's dismissed from your overall evaluation of the case.
- but you have as much information as the rest of us. You've never swayed from your position - despite & in addition to the trickle of new evidence released here and there.
And again, you are full of crap. The only thing I haven't swayed from is trying to stick to the issues that would matter in a trial. You, not so much.
I'm really doubting that you'd find any due process as legitimate if the end result falls in Wilson's favor.
That depends entirely on how legitimately the investigation and trial is run, again,
if there ever is a trial. There are people on this forum who think Zimmerman got away with murder. Nearly everyone in America thinks OJ Simpson got away with a double-murder. I think Johannes Mehserle got away with murdering Oscar Grant, Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli got away with murdering Kelly Thomas, and I think it's more likely than not that Byron Vassey will get away with murdering Keith Vidal. If you don't know anything about any of those people or their cases, that's understandable, but the fact is, people second-guess prosecutions all the time. In this case I'm less concerned about any potential jury than I am about the state being responsible enough to prosecute an employee of the state. But we'll see. If, after critical scrutiny of either live streaming or transcripts of a potential trial, I find fault with how it went, I've got as much right as you did to be critical of Jody Arias' not-guilty verdict to be critical of Wilson's. If it seems to me the trial was run fairly, I'll shrug my shoulders and forget about it, and whether or not you "doubt" me on that is of no concern to me.
Blues