No. What would have been most fair would be never having the grand jury in the first place due to the lack of evidence of a crime and direct evidence of lack of crime. Not to mention, compensation for the officer's loss of income. But we don't live in a society that values fairness, we live in one that looks to target police officers who are just doing their jobs. So the prosecutor felt that the mob wouldn't accept him doing his job the way it should have been done (see: Zimmerman case), so he took bogus charges to a grand jury to try to protect his butt as best he could.
Wilson never lost income. He was sidelined with full wages.
And secondly, you are right, what would have been most fair for all concerned is that this go to trial, the grand jury hearing took as long as a trial anyway.
And really, please, police officers serve the people, not the other way around. If they stuff up, then they should be held accountable. To demand that people just look the other way at any hint of impropriety is why there are bad cops on the force anyway and why corruption is so rife. It is not the prosecutor's job to protect the backside of the police officer who may have acted improperly. That is the role of a defense attorney.
You aren't that naive -- but perhaps that hypocritical: It stands to reason that the prosecutor put witnesses on the stand who lied about seeing Wilson shoot Brown in the back. Where's your outrage over that? The reality here is that you don't care about the truth, you only care about going after an innocent cop.
Did you not see what I said previously about his putting any witnesses he knew were lying before the grand jury and allowing them to perjure themselves? Did you not see why I questioned why he was not pressing charges against all of those who perjured themselves? Let me guess, selective reading...
But that's my point: from what we can surmise, he did produce witnesses who lied AGAINST the cop. But you - and MSNBC - don't care about that. You don't care that the prosecutor was even-handed -- you want a anti-cop biased prosecutor.
Where did I say I did not care about that? Can you please support that claim please? Show me where I said that I did not care about those who lied against Wilson on the stand. Far from it. I said the exact opposite. I suggest you support that claim with a link or retract.
*Cough* But you haven't been saying that! *Cough*
This entire thread has been about anti-prosecution witnesses. That's all the "outrage" has been over. That's hypocritical! The pro-prosecution witnesses wouldn't be part of the discussion unless I brought it up!
It's always funny when people start using giant bold letters as though it makes them more correct.
Far from it, I said from the moment he admitted he knew witnesses were lying on the stand that what he did was wrong, regardless of what side they were supporting. Witness 40 was the most spectacular lying person, she was never a witness, so to declare her as a witness is to make it even more of a farce, because she was invited to testify before the grand jury as a material witness, when they knew she was never there before they put her on the stand. Just like the witness who claimed to have seen Brown shot in the back. I had even said earlier that his testimony was always questionable because of his close relationship to Brown.
I outlined the logic that forced him into that course of action. Feel free to address it.
Your logic was tantamount to 'oh people will be mean to me'.. Please. He should have done his damn job as he is legally required to do it.
Why don't you ask the Zimmerman prosecutor that?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/florida-trayvon-martin-case/
Bells, just in case you forgot what you claimed in your first post, here it is again:
You're saying that the prosecutor purposely painted a picture of an innocent officer Wilson using lying witnesses. But an hour ago, you acknowledged that the lying almost certainly went both ways. So don't try to pretend that you're after fairness here: you're angry at the prosecution because you didn't get the result you wanted, not because it wasn't fair: because as far as we know, it
was fair.
I also thought the Zimmerman prosecutor was also an incompetent twat, what's your point?
I admitted that it went both ways in the other threads about this, when he admitted to have allowed people to perjure themselves. But you know, you'll just ignore that because it does not suit, does it?
I said right from the start when this broke that regardless of which way the hearing went, his knowingly allowing people to lie under oath, and not once having corrected or advised the jury that they were lying as an officer of the court is legally required to do, turned that hearing into a farce. I had also declared weeks ago, that because that hearing was such a farce, because it had the appearance of having a prosecutor so biased right from the get go, it will never give Wilson or Brown's family any closure, because there will always be questions, there will always be doubts. But again, that does not suit, does it, so you'll just ignore that as well.
joepistle said:
This has been repeated over and over again, but I will repeat it one more time. It appears Bells and others don't understand and may not want to understand that a grand jury isn't a criminal trial jury. They keep acting as if the grand jury is a criminal trial jury, and it isn't. A grand jury is an investigative body. It isn't a criminal trial jury. The grand jury investigated the case to see if it could find probable cause of a crime. It investigated. It talked to all the witnesses. It talked with those who lied on both sides of this issue. It looked at all the evidence. As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, the grand jurors were free to directly ask any and all the questions they want of the witnesses. The grand jury didn't acquit Wilson. It found was no crime, therefore there was no probable cause to indict Officer Wilson.
Wouldn't it be grand if police couldn't talk to anyone who might tell them a lie while investigating crimes? That is essentially what Bells is arguing for.
Oh can it Rush *rolls eyes*. It was said weeks ago and repeatedly by myself and others that a grand jury hearing is meant to be impartial. This hearing was so out of the ordinary that it ended up being a one sided trial, with no cross examination. In short, the prosecutor treated it like a criminal trial and he was the defense attorney. There was no fairness to that hearing. Even the juror that is suing to be allowed to tell their side of what they were told and just how that case was mischaracterised to them and how badly it was handled and how different it was to all other grand jury hearings saw that. And I suspect that juror may not be the first or the last.
Corruption within the system? Look away folks, pretend it doesn't exist... That has been the gist of your argument about this case Joe.