The U.N. decides not to look into this and reject the parents plea. The article included a purported quote from "chair member, Dr. Amancio Dominguez" on the supposedly rejected plea: "The sense of entitlement these people displayed is reprehensible" said chair member, Dr. Amancio Dominguez in an interview with National Report. "We deal with legitimate and widespread instances of human rights violations, and frankly the issues presented to us here are not even a blip on our radar. It is in our opinion after reviewing all the evidence that the officer in question committed absolutely no wrong doing." He continued, "While I feel for loss endured by these two individuals, I believe they are blinded by grief, and this is simply not the forum which to project those feelings. My colleagues and I went over the surveillance footage, as well as other evidence documented in the case, and we believe that Michael Brown is indeed guilty of the acts of which he is being charged."
video of ofcr Wilson after shooting and dispatch tapes now available. http://www.stltoday.com/news/multim...tml_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html
I think it's pretty clear at this point that there won't be an indictment. If there was, there'd be no reason to drag it out and try to lessen the impact. Hopefully all of the businesses and law abiding citizens in the area have had a chance to prepare, and arm themselves, to keep the rioters and looters at bay this time around.
I think they are just waiting for the weather conditions to cooperate to announce the GJ decision. A weeknight, bitter cold with sleet/snow would be my prediction.
Why are you all so afraid of an open and public trial? Due process is ONLY served by an open trial. This BS about due process being a closed grand jury is completely ignorant. Aside from that, the courts have already ruled that Ferguson police violated constitutional rights to free assembly and the press. What is more scary than 5,000 protesters is when the government tramples on civil liberties.
Who's afraid of an open/public trial? But ... A trial for what? The grand jury is there to decide if there is even enough to warrant a trial. At this point, most of the facts coming out appear to point to the protesters not wanting an open trial b/c then everyone would know the rioting/looting was all a BS excuse for just being ignorant asshats.
So youre volounteering to pay for this expensive, lengthy, drawn out process? Do you understand its about ten times easier to get an indictment from a grand jury than ever get a conviction in court? If they just charged him and drug him into court a good lawyer would have it thrown out in about 3 minutes for lack of evidence. As prosecutors say, they can indicte a ham sandwich, a conviction is another story.
The undeniable facts are that Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. Everything else is conflicting accounts. Obviously Wilson would be charged with some version of murder, from there let due process run in the open. Nobody trusts a secret grand jury from the exact same group that was just found to be in violation of civil rights.
Since I'm a resident here I already am paying for it so yes, 100% absolutely. Do you understand that NO one trusts that grand jury? How many grand juries have been rigged? Even the conservative Washington Post knows what a farce this grand jury is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2226ca-3a82-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html
Not much conflicting about Mike's blood being inside the police car. There's only 1 way that happens, and it isn't by him being a big, innocent teddy bear just walking down the street, minding his own business. Sorry he was a dumbass, but too effin bad. There are plenty of reasons an officer may have to kill in the line of duty that don't rise to the level of charges needing a trial.
The blood in the car is not exonerating evidence. Again, you seem to want to skip the trial based on 1 fact. And there are plenty of reasons for what happens next if this doesn't go to trial. Im just saying, a public trial removes all doubt.
A public trial would cost millions of dollars and the end result would be the same. The shoot would be deemed good and the shitheads would still riot.
Except, presumably, when you are the one trampling on those civil liberties. This is not Europe where you are guilty before being proved innocent. First, there is no evidence of the commission of a crime. The grand jury is there to weigh the evidence and determine IF a crime has been committed. If the grand Jury determines there is sufficient evidence, then they will issue an indictment and an open and public trial would follow. That is due process, What you are suggesting is to let a vigilante mob put someone on trial. A mob who has just about as much evidence as you or me. Which is nothing more than rumors and speculation. Officer Wilson is being given his due process under the fifth amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
People are going to riot, perhaps. But they will have a whole lot less support after a public trial. I disagree 100% that there is no difference. You all have to get off the cost of the trial, which is a pittance of the cost to society of no trial.
You might want to review Hurtado v California because the 5th amendment does not apply here. Damn Supreme Court always getting in the way...
