Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I hope officer Wilson has the sense to leave the country.
To be honest I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and try Wilson. Let the TV cover it and maybe that will shed enough light on the case for those that insist he is guilty.
I think if I were Wilson I might volunteer to be tried, just to thoroughly explain my side to the public.
This is about as absurd a statement as I've read in a while.
But before you or anyone comments on it, I want you all to think about this ...
What you're suggesting is that despite a GJ criminal investigation, and a federal civil rights investigation, both of which came back with no indication of indictment, you think Wilson should be charged anyway.
Sir or Ma'am, we have a small document called the Constitution and within it is the Bill of Rights. Please read number V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouse crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..."
It is the sworn duty of the prosecutors (both state and federal) to ONLY bring cases to trial which they believe have merit against the accused. If they have doubt of the plausibility of such charges, they can turn to a GJ for a second decision. IOW - the prosecutors have a responsitiblity to either charge the suspect of their own accord, or turn to the GJ if they think the case may be "iffy" and need another opinion from the public. MOST of the time, the prosecutors will act directly; they will bring charges based upon their own teamwork and decisions. But occasionally, they can turn to a GJ and ask for a "second opinion", as it were. The GJ process is given a WIDE and BROAD sense of empowerment; they can DIRECTLY question witnesses, command any appearance, and see far more evidence than a trial jury ever would. Trial jurys ONLY get to see what is presented, and they cannot ask direct questions of witnesses, nor can they call additionall witnesses. While it is true that a prosecutor may attempt to persuade a GJ one way or another, the GJ has a very distinct and powerful program to do exactly what they what as deeply as they want, regardless of what the prosecutor may or may not desire.
Also, it is no more or less my sowrn duty as a Deputy to ONLY arrest people for crimes I have probable cause to believe they committed. I don't get to just "guess" or "have a hunch" that someone might have committed a crime, and then toss them in jail to await their "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" (no. VI in the Bill of Rights). I, too, am bound by the concept that entire legal system will ONLY charge those in which we belive exists a credible and articuable presentment of facts to accuse a suspect. My legal duty is no more or less important, or effective, than is that of a prosecutor.
For you to suggest that Wilson be charged, regardless that two separate systems fully cleared him, is offensive to me in the most base way imaginable; it directly contradicts the sense of fair, equitable treatment of ALL PEOPLE in the Bill of Rights.
Now, I fully understand that your full post wasn't really intended to deride Wilson, but perhaps made moreso as a comment to poke the "system" and reveal it's inner workings for all to see. It's my belief that your comment was really to expose the justice system and not pick on Wilson directly. But ...
It just flys in the face of the full-faith efforts of our Founding Fathers to not make a mockery of the legal system, and protect ALL persons from injustice, as best can be provided. Whereas some protesters certainly believe that Brown's rights were violated, it does not make it "just" to ignore the full process and charge Wilson, just to make a point that he's innocent. The state and federal investigative systems have already ruled; there is no need for a trial of any nature.
One caveat here; a personal civil trial may well come about from the family for "wrongful death" of Brown by Wilson, but it will probably be a hard one to prove from the evidece we're all aware of. This is not unlike the tort case against OJ Simpson; he won his criminal trial and lost the civil case brought by the families Nicole and Ron. However, there was PLENTY of evidence to convict Simpson in that civil sense. Regarging Brown V. Wilson here, it would be a long, uphill battle for the family because the evidence shows Wilson had reasonable fear for his life and the shooting was justified. Should they file, a judge would first decide if there was merit to the case; it should end there, but probably wont ...
In short, the system is not set up to prove people innocent by trying them; they are presumed innocent until proven quilty. That presumption of innocense extends into the investigation and bringing of charges, not just at trial. We don't try people to prove them quiltless!