Summations Only

When somebody is killed by a bullet, we do assume it's a crime until it's been shown to be otherwise. At least we should and we should make that assumption equally whether the victim is a young black man with a criminal record or a middle-aged white grandmother who's never had a parking ticket.

I'm not and I haven't. As I said, I'm assuming one thing: a cop killed someone. How can you determine if a crime was committed if there is no trial?The grand jury process does not determine if there was a crime or not. It determines if the prosecutor has presented enough evidence to go to trial.Without a trial, there is no determination if there was a crime. Listen Faith, I know what the "Black Lives Matter" protest is about.You are the one who is asking: "how can they say black lives matter when they don't protest all the black on black crime?"It is apparent that you do not understand what the "Black Lives Matter" protest is about.But instead of hearing me out and trying to understand it, you are going to dig your heels in and insist that you're assumptions are correct.Well, you're just going to continue to misunderstand what this is all about.It is not about the particulars of these individual cases.Its about the whole justice system and how cops don't have to go to trial if the prosecutor doesn't want to get them in trouble.

So you think every time a criminal dies at the hands of a cop there should be a trial? Are you nuts?

Oh my fucking god can you even read English!?

There should definitely be an investigation to see whether or not a trial is necessary.

Even that is a little short-sighted. There currently is, actually, an investigation process but it is part of the problem.The grand jury process involves the prosecutor not only choosing the evidence, but also choosing the jury. It is solely up to the prosecutor whether or not a trial happens. Too often, the prosecutor is on the cops side from the get go, and they purposefully fail to present enough evidence to get the cop indicted.The results in nobody policing the police.I'll have to dig them up if anyone cares, but the numbers are pretty ridiculous.When its a grand jury against a normal citizen, there's an indictment 99% of the time.When its a grand jury against a cop, there's an indictment 1% of the time.The grand jury process is fucked and it needs to be changed.

I agree. The process should be more rigorous. And independent of the jurisdiction in which the event occurred. In Canada, for example, a shooting by municipal police is sometimes investigated by the RCMP. I think it should always be investigated by an outside agency.Faith seems to be suggesting that the current system is fine or that it should be relaxed even more in favour of police officers.

I haven't said anything about the system as such, I don't know if it should be improved, perhaps it should. All I've said is that in the case of the grand jury for the Ferguson situation the witness evidence and other evidence that came out in opposition to the party line that pictured Michael Brown as an innocent victim ought to be conclusive that he was no such thing. Sometimes it's possible to make such a judgment without a trial that makes a trial unnecessary. I don't know what sort of additional evidence could possibly change the facts that came out about the pattern of the blood spots, the direction of the bullets and some witness testimony that made it clear that the cop was acting entirely in self defense. You can't answer such facts with the sort of generalizations that Cat Sci has been giving.The other cases are easy enough to figure out yourself from the videotaped evidence with little else. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How about the witness who probably lied about being at the scene of the shooting? Is that evidence that you should consider?"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson | The Smoking Gun "The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him like a football player, head down, is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a complete fabrication, The Smoking Gun has learned.

​

Sandra McElroy did not provide police with a contemporaneous account of the Brown-Wilson confrontation, which she claimed to have watched unfold in front of her as she stood on a nearby sidewalk smoking a cigarette.

​

Instead, McElroy waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident."So does that change your opinion Faith? She wasn't interviewed at the scene, we don't even know that she was there at the time (probably wasn't), and she has a history of lying. Credible, do you think?

Sounds to me like her testimony shouldn't count. What else would you like to know?

You know, FACTS are what is needed here. So if this is really a fact then it's good to know it. All I'm saying is that the facts appear to show that Wilson acted in self defense. The facts toward this end included more than the testimony of one witness, they include other witnesses as well as forensic evidence about the blood spots and direction of the bullets. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, shouldn't that be a question handled in a trial? See, that's what people are asking for, a regular jury trial.

Seems to me that she should be prosecuted for perjury as the story suggests and her testimony should be stricken from the grand jury record so whatever still stands can be seen without that influence. If it was her testimony that exonerated Wilson and there is no other exonerating testimony, then sure, it seems to me a trial is in order. Even the investigators doubted her testimony, why is this information coming out now?You are the first person to bring this up but people have been calling the grand jury decision unjust without the slightest hint that there was anything wrong like this, all on the basis of the kind of conspiratorial suspiciousness that Cat Sci has been expressing.Thanks for providing a fact for a change.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe because this testimony was presented to a prosecutor's Grand Jury, and the prosecutor has a vested interest in keeping the police happy.Maybe because a Grand Jury is inherently secret, so this woman had to be investigated by outside sources since all we knew at the time she was 'witness 40'.Maybe because the prosecutor had no reason to bring up this woman's questionable history, & every reason to hide it.

No, that is not all that you've said. You also said this:

quote:

---

It seems that Black Lives only really matter to the black community when a white cop was the cause, even in his attempt to stop a criminal or when it was a complete accident, but not when black criminals are the cause,.

---

And that is what I have been trying to explain to you, what the "Black Lives Matter" actually means.Do you now understand why they are not protesting black on black crime?