Washington Post: Physical Evidence Supports Wilson's Account of Brown Shooting

[JRP1994]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?postshare=4371417358696906

[Marokai Backbeat]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

[Türkisblau]

Jesse Jackson and co. have got to start choosing better martyrs.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

This.

[Mister Mets]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

It would show the pointlessness of a trial.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

This.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

It would show the pointlessness of a trial.

Do you consider every trial where the accused is found not guilty to be "pointless"? The reason why we have trials is to present conflicting evidence and testimony before a grand jury to decide guilt. The physical evidence presented appears to support Darren Wilson's account, but it is by no means a "not guilty" verdict.

[Torie]

You need enough evidence to establish probable cause that a person committed a crime to proceed with a prosecution thereof. "Maybe" isn't enough.

[Mister Mets]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

It would show the pointlessness of a trial.

Do you consider every trial where the accused is found not guilty to be "pointless"? The reason why we have trials is to present conflicting evidence and testimony before a grand jury to decide guilt. The physical evidence presented appears to support Darren Wilson's account, but it is by no means a "not guilty" verdict.

Given the grand jury decision, there isn't much question that Wilson would have been found not guilty during a course of a regular trial where the standard for conviction is much higher (beyond a reasonable doubt.)

A trial where the accused is very likely to be found Not Guilty is pointless.

A trial should only occur when the prosecutor is confident about guilt. I've heard some arguments that people wanted a trial to get to the truth, but that doesn't always happen. When there are ambiguities, it favors the defense.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

It would show the pointlessness of a trial.

Do you consider every trial where the accused is found not guilty to be "pointless"? The reason why we have trials is to present conflicting evidence and testimony before a grand jury to decide guilt. The physical evidence presented appears to support Darren Wilson's account, but it is by no means a "not guilty" verdict.

Given the grand jury decision, there isn't much question that Wilson would have been found not guilty during a course of a regular trial where the standard for conviction is much higher (beyond a reasonable doubt.)

A trial where the accused is very likely to be found Not Guilty is pointless.

A trial should only occur when the prosecutor is confident about guilt. I've heard some arguments that people wanted a trial to get to the truth, but that doesn't always happen. When there are ambiguities, it favors the defense.

Agreed.

There's also the chance that a few very motivated jurors manage to convince the other jurors to "make a statement", and a fraudulent conviction results.

If the physical evidence backs up Wilson's account, then it's the grand jury's duty not to put his fate up for trial.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

This.

Yeah, this is my problem with the whole Ferguson fiasco. I am "pro Wilson" in the sense that I don't think he is a cold blooded killer but the way the police handled this made the rioting unavoidable. This should be a lesson for police all around the country as how to not handle incidents like this.

[Türkisblau]

Jesse Jackson and co. have got to start choosing better martyrs.

Shut up idiot.

I'm not the one flying in the face of all evidence and the justice system in favor of Michael Brown and his supporters who have tried destroying the rule of law. It's time to find a clear cut case of racism in the system (which I'm not arguing doesn't exist)to make an example of instead of one wherein the officer was just doing their job.

[Deus Naturae]

Maybe it totally does.

Would've been nice to hear that argued in a trial.

This.

Yeah, this is my problem with the whole Ferguson fiasco. I am "pro Wilson" in the sense that I don't think he is a cold blooded killer but the way the police handled this made the rioting unavoidable. This should be a lesson for police all around the country as how to not handle incidents like this.

The police response to the protests and the manner in which the decision was presented are separate issues from whether or not Wilson should've been indicted.

[CountryClassSF]

Normally, an open-shut self defense case like this wouldn't make a grand jury.  It's true that grand juries indict "ham sandwiches", but that is because 999 times out of 1,000, a DA is not going to bring a case to a grand jury unless he is actively seeking an indictment AND he believes that he can meet a reasonable doubt standard with a petit jury.

Many on the left are ill-informed in this regard.  The DA in STL County, McColluch, a Democrat by the way, should be lauded for his transparency and unprecedented lengths he went to to ensure the grand jury had access to all of the facts. 

Note that McColluch could have unilaterally decided that he was not going to take the case to a grand jury, and refuse to file an information.  He chose instead to present the case to a grand jury that was already beginning its service.  They had a choice of multiple charges from Murder-1 all the way down to involuntary manslaughter. They returned a no bill on all of them.

Yet, its interesting that McColluch is essentially being attacked for providing the grand jury with all of the facts and letting them decide.  They would have rather he had not done that so that the grand jury *would* indict? Sorry, but if this case cannot meet a probable cause standard, it certainly can't meet a reasonable doubt standard in a court of law.

Many on the left would typically support this kind of transparency on the part of prosecutors, but it appears some TV commentators are grossly uninformed.