Should they have Indicted Darren Wilson? (Ferguson)

[Koakuma_Heaven]

(apologies if a topic on this already exists, I couldn't find one)

 

I'm sure everyone's heard of this case and the riots in Ferguson, for an overview of the situation check out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30193354

 

The bare facts (as I understand them)

 

Police Officer Darren Wilson was driving his police car when he encountered Michael Brown and a friend.

 

Officer Wilson fired 12 bullets, at least 7 of which struck Brown.

 

Brown died from the bullet wounds sustained to his head and chest.

 

 

What actually happened is, of course, unknown, there are lots of different witness accounts, three separate autopsy reports and hundreds of experts, celebrities and news media giving their opinions.

Obviously there's a lot more to this situation then just this one shooting, I have my own opinions on American race relations and uses of lethal force but those are two entire topics in themselves, what I'm wanting to debate here is should Officer Darren Wilson go to trial for the shooting?

 

My personal opinion is that Wilson should definitely have been indicted, it's obvious that there's still a lot of debate over exactly what happened, what do you do if you're unsure someone has committed a crime? you put them on trial. Wilson may be innocent or he may not be, but refusing to indict him smacks more of the early days of this case with the police insisting they had to protect their officer against potential revenge attacks than of actually believing that his innocence is beyond doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

[hrtbrk]

I think Jon Stewart said it best. Of course he should have been indicted but people can argue the "evidence" (somehow). However, how the cop in the Eric Garner case didn't get any indictment when its fully caught on tape is just... what in the world?!?!

[SillySilenia]

Yes, I feel he should have been indicted. One way or another, he will remain associated with this case.

 

If he handled things correctly, then he has a much stronger standing if he can say "I was found to be not guilty by a jury that has carefully examined all evidence." than if all he can say is "I was never indicted."

 

If he did not handle things correctly, it should be addressed and he should, depending on the actual findings and judging, be punished for it. ("Depending on the actual findings" in that depending on the exact events that took place, it could be that he should never have shot at all, it could be that he was in his rights to open fire but should have stopped firing after the first, the third or the eleventh bullet, etc. It could even be that he did handle things incorrectly but not to the degree that a prison sentence would be considered appropriate. There just is too much about this case that is not certain.)

[siniri]

I don't know. What I do know is that the evidence against him was presented in a court before a grand jury. The burden of proof at the grand jury level is "probable cause" (i.e. there's at least a 30 to 51% chance that evidence of a crime will be found"), which is a much easier standard to pass than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of certainty needed for a conviction at trial. The grand jury is made up of citizens that are supposed to represent the general population. They hear evidence (I believe it's only from the prosecution; the defense has to wait until trial to present any counter-evidence) and decide whether there's enough evidence to indict (move it towards trial). Going before a grand jury doesn't count as a trial, so if the prosecution were to get more evidence at a later time, they could go back to the grand jury and try for an indictment again.

 

I haven't viewed the evidence in this case. I don't know how the evidence was presented, or if there were any prejudicial pieces of evidence that were allowed that shouldn't have been. The prosecution was supposed to present the best case they had. I don't know whether they did. But if all the evidence that had come to light was presented, then apparently there wasn't enough evidence to even meet the "probable cause" standard for burden of proof, which means that with the defense's counter-evidence, there wouldn't have been enough evidence to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. {This is different from the Trayvon Martin case, in which the prosecutor initially refused to even present the case to the grand jury. Once it did go to the grand jury, they indicted because it met "probable cause." The jury acquitted because they felt it didn't meet "beyond a reasonable doubt."}

 

Regardless of the facts in this particular case, however, I think we have a serious problem with police and gun culture in the U.S. We seem to be heading back to the Wild West, where everyone (especially the police) can shoot first and ask questions later, and as long as they say they felt threatened, they're allowed not just to walk free, but continue owning guns (and working in law enforcement, in the case of cops). This gun culture combined with the (mostly subconscious*) racism of American culture, is a dangerous combination. A lethal one. It results in kids being gunned down for having toy guns. In deaf people being gunned down when they try to show a card saying "I'm deaf" to the police (or even just for not obeying an officer's verbal "commands" from behind their back in a timely manner). In mentally or physically ill people being shot or tasered or choked to death instead of being given help. In a young woman being shot through a screen door for knocking on a door asking for help after she had a car accident. {These are all real examples, not hypothetical ones.}

 

It results in police officers facing more danger at work, as public trust is breached again and again. Which just feeds the vicious circle.

 

*Subconscious racism is insidious. Nearly everyone knows (or at least says) racism is wrong, and would deny being the slightest bit racist themselves. But many people are, and when you're not even willing to examine yourself and see in what ways you've subconsciously become racist because of the culture, you're going to stay that way. And teach it to others (e.g., your children). If you look at a person of color and assume that they're less intelligent, or poorer, or lazier, or more likely to be a criminal, or more likely to have resisted the police, or more likely to make a big deal out of "nothing" because they assume everyone is racist, guess what? You've got prejudices.

 

(Sorry, I know you said you didn't want lethal force/race brought up, but they're inherent to the case. I'm not going to second-guess a grand jury without personal knowledge of a case. The U.S. has substantial issues with its justice system, police culture, and gun culture. We need to work to change those. In Ireland, the full name of police officers is "guardians of the peace." They don't usually carry guns. And so they don't usually end up killing "suspects.")

[Shelley]

The case with Micheal Brown was just a tipping point, kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back. What I see people arguing across social media is the details of the Micheal Brown case and what did or didn't happen. But that's negating the point. The Michael Brown case happened at the right place at the right time. You can see the difference in the Trayvon Martin case, shot in cold blood. He didn't have the community of support that Michael Brown had. The truth is that racial discrimination is alive and prevalent. It's been decades since the Civil War reconstruction era yet we still haven't lived up to the "Civil Rights" amendment. It's disgraceful.

 

...and here we are living in a community where officer Darin Wilson will be receiving a half-million dollar Christmas present from the donations of sympathetic Americans.

[Dan!elle]

Let me just throw something out there. I served on a 12 person jury recently and I have an idea what has happened and what will continue to happen now for a while in lieu of these events. If one person on the jury is unsure if someone should be indited or found guilty of a crime (the difference between grand jury and trial jury) then it's an automatic dismissal or not guilty decision. From my understanding, there were at least 6 white males on this grand jury in a still fairly racist part of the country. The lawyers representing the two sides in this case did not have a say in who sat on the jury, since the grand jury sits for multiple cases, sometimes for as long as a few years. Since it was not sent to trial, the lawyers did not have the luxury of selecting who they would like to sit on the jury, to find the most honest and unbiased people around. With that being said, I have no idea who these people are, but if just ONE was a racist who looked at the evidence and twisted it in their mind to see something else, that's why Darren Wilson wasn't indited. It's incredibly sad that one person's ignorance can cause such an uprising, but I have to say, I think that's exactly what happened (fueled by race or not, maybe just pure ignorance). I know that when I sat on the trial jury we had to explain quite a few things to a 21 year-old because she was not sure how certain things worked exactly (like some basics of how to buy a used car for example). If everyone on a jury does not agree, it's a dismissal or not guilty decision. It's that simple.

 

I can only hope that as a whole we can figure out what has been done wrong and move ahead some day. However, with such extremists lately I find this hard to imagine. But can I PLEASE just say, even if Michael Brown was robbing a store, why on earth can you not use a tazer!? Take him down if you must, but kill him? I can't see the need for it with the availability of a much safer (I know it isn't the safest, but still) option. So yes, he should have been indited, but instead he's getting famous from being a disgrace to America and police officers.

[Aquamentis12]

The evidence mainly supports Wilson. Even from African-American witnesses. There's just not enough evidence against him. I've heard the guy, Dr. Bodden(sp?) the family brought in for a private autopsy, and from what he said, it SOUNDS like combined with the majority of the witness testimony. (I've heard witness 10 tells almost the exact the same story as former officer Wilson) The way the trail of blood went and all. It all sounds like it matches up. What irritates me, is the rioters terrorizing the city and outlying area. Even stores with signs of support for Michael Brown up, those stores too were ransacked, looted and burned to ashes. The rioters imho, have no regard for the people there, and don't care about Michael Brown, or they wouldn't have done that. Let's also remember that Michael Brown is on security tape robbing a store and roughing up the brother of the owner on his way out. I won't speak ill of the dead, but that is a fact in the case too. That and that whole, hands up thing never happened from what I've heard according to what's been reported. Since it's done with, I really don't intend on reading through the records, I wouldn't know where to find them anyway. But yeah, me reading through the records wouldn't change anything. Wouldn't help or hurt.

 

Now the grand jury in New York, the Garner case, I think they got that one wrong. Because Negligent Homicide was one of the charges that could've been brought. Even if it's an accident, it still shows Negligence. One thing not getting much play in that story, was that one of the police, was, I heard, african-american, and she didn't step in either after Garner said he couldn't breathe. Yes, he should not have resisted arrest. Despite what the Mayor said, this is partially on him, imho. Because under him was the policy of CRACKING DOWN on people selling "loosies" Cigs that aren't in the packs. Singles, loose from the pack. These would mean the city doesn't get their $6-$7 tax per pack. Mr. Garner I heard had been arrested 9 times for this same thing, and the only reason the police came, was because a shop owner said he was causing possible customers to walk away.

 

In both cases, people didn't listen to the police, if they had complied I seriously doubt any of this would've happened in either case. Also, people blame the grand juries. I've also heard it reported these grand juries were in place, in both cases MONTHS before either tragic loss of life happened.

The loss of life is never good, but when it does happen, it's best to not jump to conclusions right off the bat until the evidence has been collected.

 

Since the feds are butting into local affairs, we'll see if they can dig up some evidence that this was racial, but I don't believe they will in either case. I say "butting in" because they weren't asked to come in. They did it on their own.

 

If civil cases get filed, suing the Cities and/or the officers involved in either of these tragic cases, the evidence (now public) from may make it difficult for the survivors to bring their case. Though in the Garner case, I think the odds are much better for them to win. Especially with that cell-phone video that we've probably ALL seen a hundred times by now. That video is in main part why I have such a hard time believing that the NY case was no-indictment. I'm more than ready for the insanity following both deaths to calm though. People who are continuing to whip up this frenzy are people who I think should NOT be listened too. They're only widening the rift, probably imho, for personal gain so they can maintain their standings in the nation. I seriously doubt most people my age, (35 and younger) would even get this riled if people weren't MISREPRESENTING the facts. An informed populace is a just populace imo.

[hrtbrk]

The case with Micheal Brown was just a tipping point, kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back. What I see people arguing across social media is the details of the Micheal Brown case and what did or didn't happen. But that's negating the point. The Michael Brown case happened at the right place at the right time. You can see the difference in the Trayvon Martin case, shot in cold blood. He didn't have the community of support that Michael Brown had. The truth is that racial discrimination is alive and prevalent. It's been decades since the Civil War reconstruction era yet we still haven't lived up to the "Civil Rights" amendment. It's disgraceful.

 

...and here we are living in a community where officer Darin Wilson will be receiving a half-million dollar Christmas present from the donations of sympathetic Americans.

This. He didn't resign because he feared for his safety or there was any compromising position. He resigned because he got $1 million dollars ($500k in donations and did a $500k TV interview) and could retire. Gross, really really gross.

[Aquamentis12]

This. He didn't resign because he feared for his safety or there was any compromising position. He resigned because he got $1 million dollars ($500k in donations and did a $500k TV interview) and could retire. Gross, really really gross.

Huh, I hadn't heard about that. I know he's not getting anything from the city, neither the city itself nor the police. He wasn't there long enough to earn a penchant, and he's not being given a severance from anywhere either. So he will need money. His wife, who is pregnant, is also on the force there. She, and even his folks are getting death threats and crud. I don't see any problem with people wanting to help him. I mean, he WAS defending himself and all. And he'll probably never get into another police force, because it would cause no end of trouble for whichever precinct he'd attempt to join. He'll probably have to learn a new vocation, and even then, probably wait for things to calm down before he could apply anywhere else for work. So that money will come in hand for simply surviving for awhile. I think that if that interview on ABC netted him 500k, for him, fine, but I don't think ABC, if that's where the money came from, should've offer so much. On the flipside, it was an open for him to get out exactly what he remembered about that night. And if you saw the interview. George Stefanapolis(sp?) Really laid into him, almost like he WANTED Wilson to say the wrong thing, or try to ferret out any kind of inconsistencies in the recounting of events that Wilson told.

 

There's an old saying about Grand Juries, that before a Grand Jury, you could indict a Ham Sandwich. I really think they got the Ferguson matter right. I feel bad for Michael Brown's family, losing a son. But he DID sorta bring it on himself. If he had only done as Wilson said, he might have had to cool his heels for a night or so in Jail until whatever charges might have been brought against him for petty theft and assault (on the store owner's brother while trying to leave after the theft). Anyway, I'd say a couple nights in the pokey would, I'm SURE, have been preferential to death. They also said there was Cannibus in Michael Brown's system when he died. I never touch the stuff, but while I've heard it usually mellows people out, there ARE some I've heard (same source on MSNBC (ages ago)) that for some it CAN heighten their aggressions.

 

I'm fully against Mob-Rule. And that's what's going on with these "false protesters" who specifically are the ones who are doing the rioting and looting. In Ferguson, they burned over 20 buildings, INCLUDING A CHURCH to the ground. Most of the owners of the businesses that were looted and destroyed, were owned by other people of color. Where is JUSTICE for them? They had NOTHING to do with it. The Governor couldn't even be FOUND that first night when the decision of the Grand Jury came down. I think the Missouri governor is having his last term in office. No WAY in hell should he get re-elected after calling for a state of emergency for a week before the decision, and NOT deploy the National Guard into Ferguson that very same night! Irresponsible and unforgivable negligence, talk about dereliction of duty! Nor the Mayor of Ferguson, NOR the Lieutenant Governor could get hold of Governor Nixon that night! Where the hell was HE?!