Posted by burnsy483 on 12/1/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 12/1/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Does the feeling that the system is unfair (which it may be or may have been) obligate the DA to indict?  Or the Grand Jury?

If the DA indicts out of obligation in order to assuage the community in spite of facts he knows do not lead to a prosecution, does that lead to violation of another citizen's rights?  Is that okay because of the general good?

Are the community's reactions, i.e. protests and riots, even relevant to that question?

Nope.

The DA can choose to not bring charges against Wilson. Or he can bring charges. Or he can take it to the grand jury. But the point of the grand jury is to present the prosecution's side and argue for indictment. Maybe the evidence against a wilson was so weak that not changing him was the right move. But, in that case, it should have never been sent to the grand jury. This was a farce, the DA made no effort to get an indictment.

Would it have been better if the DA did not take this to a grand jury, if in fact the evidence was so weak? (which it appears it was)

I don't know if better is the right word. More honest? More straightforward?

Maybe.

If I were somehow personally attached to this, I'd want the DA to come out and say something like, "...terrible tragedy...questions persist...but there just isn't enough evidence to win at trial, therefore charges will not be filed."

But I don't live in Ferguson and I'm not personally connected to the case. And, to someone who is, I could see how that would be incredibly unsatisfying.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2014 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/1/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 12/1/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Does the feeling that the system is unfair (which it may be or may have been) obligate the DA to indict?  Or the Grand Jury?

If the DA indicts out of obligation in order to assuage the community in spite of facts he knows do not lead to a prosecution, does that lead to violation of another citizen's rights?  Is that okay because of the general good?

Are the community's reactions, i.e. protests and riots, even relevant to that question?

Nope.

The DA can choose to not bring charges against Wilson. Or he can bring charges. Or he can take it to the grand jury. But the point of the grand jury is to present the prosecution's side and argue for indictment. Maybe the evidence against a wilson was so weak that not changing him was the right move. But, in that case, it should have never been sent to the grand jury. This was a farce, the DA made no effort to get an indictment.

Would it have been better if the DA did not take this to a grand jury, if in fact the evidence was so weak? (which it appears it was)

Uh, no.   The DA would have been forced to resign just like Wilson did.  

I'm sure even you will admit that Wilson's poor decision making absolutely contributed to Brown's death. Maybe he didn't deserve jail, but he certainly deserved to lose his job.

The DA was in a no-win situation.

If he chooses not to press charges, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for protecting a corrupt and racist PD.

If he chooses to go to the grand jury and does not get an indictment, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

If he chooses to press charges, or if he gets an indictment from the grand jury, then he is compelled to try an un-winnable case, after which he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

Pick your poison.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
The DA was in a no-win situation.

If he chooses not to press charges, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for protecting a corrupt and racist PD.

If he chooses to go to the grand jury and does not get an indictment, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

If he chooses to press charges, or if he gets an indictment from the grand jury, then he is compelled to try an un-winnable case, after which he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

Pick your poison.

I absolutely prefer a trial over nothing. But I would have had less of a problem with a straightforward, "there isn't enough evidence to try this case," than the farce of a grand jury that happened.

And I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with a loss at trial. I've said it several times, I'm not sure Wilson did anything wrong.

Wrong in a criminal sense. Not wrong in a "*******, dude, you're a ******* idiot, how did you allow that to happen, you're fired" sense.

What qualifies him to be a consultant or public speaker?  He's only 28 years old, with only five years of service as a police officer.

Posted by moy23 on 12/1/2014 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Wrong in a criminal sense. Not wrong in a "*******, dude, you're a ******* idiot, how did you allow that to happen, you're fired" sense.

I'm sure he's glad to trade his job for his life. He said his conscience is clean.

He seems like a smart enough guy to recover - it was his decision to resign, and probably the right decision to get off the street. Maybe book and movie deal money in the short term, consulting police departments and seminars/key note speaking in the long term?

yeahno. No one is hiring him to consult. He'll probably struggle to find work in the short term and will need to find a career unrelated to law enforcement.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
The DA was in a no-win situation.

If he chooses not to press charges, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for protecting a corrupt and racist PD.

If he chooses to go to the grand jury and does not get an indictment, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

If he chooses to press charges, or if he gets an indictment from the grand jury, then he is compelled to try an un-winnable case, after which he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

Pick your poison.

I absolutely prefer a trial over nothing. But I would have had less of a problem with a straightforward, "there isn't enough evidence to try this case," than the farce of a grand jury that happened.

And I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with a loss at trial. I've said it several times, I'm not sure Wilson did anything wrong.

Why should there be a trial at all if the evidence points against it?  

This particular case is not about the lack of evidence, but about the fact that the evidence points toward innocence.  

If  we put people on trial in spite of the evidence, that's a bad thing; don't you think?  We don't put people on trial to prove their innocence - we do it to determine guilt.  It's foundational.

Posted by silentpadna on 12/1/2014 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
The DA was in a no-win situation.

If he chooses not to press charges, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for protecting a corrupt and racist PD.

If he chooses to go to the grand jury and does not get an indictment, he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

If he chooses to press charges, or if he gets an indictment from the grand jury, then he is compelled to try an un-winnable case, after which he comes under fire from the community and from BL for not trying hard enough.

Pick your poison.

I absolutely prefer a trial over nothing. But I would have had less of a problem with a straightforward, "there isn't enough evidence to try this case," than the farce of a grand jury that happened.

And I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with a loss at trial. I've said it several times, I'm not sure Wilson did anything wrong.

Why should there be a trial at all if the evidence points against it?  

This particular case is not about the lack of evidence, but about the fact that the evidence points toward innocence.  

If  we put people on trial in spite of the evidence, that's a bad thing; don't you think?  We don't put people on trial to prove their innocence - we do it to determine guilt.  It's foundational.

What Taint said. There is still a lot we don't know. And now, without a trial, those unknowns go away.

You say that there's a lot that WE don't know.  That doesn't mean that there's a lot that the DA doesn't know, or that the grand jury didn't know when they rendered their decision.

You have positioned yourself to stay in denial that this may have been not only an acceptable outcome, but possibly or probably the appropriate outcome

Posted by moy23 on 12/1/2014 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 7:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 12/1/2014 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Wrong in a criminal sense. Not wrong in a "*******, dude, you're a ******* idiot, how did you allow that to happen, you're fired" sense.

I'm sure he's glad to trade his job for his life. He said his conscience is clean.

He seems like a smart enough guy to recover - it was his decision to resign, and probably the right decision to get off the street. Maybe book and movie deal money in the short term, consulting police departments and seminars/key note speaking in the long term?

yeahno. No one is hiring him to consult. He'll probably struggle to find work in the short term and will need to find a career unrelated to law enforcement.

Time will tell. I would bet cops will line up to hear his story, how he dealt with the media, etc. How many cops across the nation wore I am Darren Wilson bands? The St Louis police just filed a compliant with the NFL for allowing the rams players to do the hands up don't shoot gesture during a game. Not everyone thinks this guy is toxic, especially police officers that can relate.

Maybe he consults, maybe he doesn't. Not every consultant has years of experience in an industry. Wilson has experience that very few cops have.... Experience being in the national spotlight and how to handle that pressure. Some 20 year vets can't teach you that and it's something police departments around the country are concerned about - especially with how easy things go viral nowadays.

Maybe he writes a book. Stacey Koon raised over $4 million writing "Presumed Guilty: The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair". One of the other officers that was sentenced in the King case got out of jail and went to law school. At 28, Darren Wilson will be fine. What, he lost a $60,000 a year job? He can replace that.

You're as bad as BL.  Say something dumb, then double down when called out on it.

You're making Wilson out as "super cop", who has somehow become a master of dealing with the media when in the crosshairs of controversy.

He is/was just a regular cop, doing his job.  Nothing more, nothing less.