Jump to content

Ferguson


CraigS

Recommended Posts

A lady shot herself accidentally and died there the other day, she bought the weapon to protect herself in regards to this situation. 

 

I am amazed that more of that stuff doesn't happen when people go buy guns and have no clue how to handle them safely.  They figure they can just buy one and wave it around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice when the looked at the evidence.

 

I liked the DA saying how many people came forward with information and once they were shown the actual physical evidence they changed their stories. Then most said that they did not actually see the shooting but heard about it. That did not stop them from coming in to claim that they were witnesses. 

 

It sounds like there should have been indictments for perjury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americas trash on full display!  Just like cock roaches the lights (sun) come on and they run and hide lights go out (sunsets) they come out in full force!

 

Which begs the question: What genius made the decision to announce the no-bill at 8 pm local time?  At least make these animals wake up early to destroy their own neighborhood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen a lot of comments and questions on why there was no indictment (mostly from Brown family attorneys) so that Officer Wilson could defend himself in open court and prove his innocence. There have also been comparison with OJ and why he was indicted and had to “prove his innocence” (I have no clue about that one).

 

There are provisions in state and federal law for using deadly force in self defense. There is no requirement that you prove that you are innocent under those laws. The burden is on the state to prove that you did not have valid self defense.

I have been to several instances of self defense in my 31 years in law enforcement where the person that used up to deadly force was not arrested or ever charged. That is because there was not even enough proof to indict. They didn't have to prove they were innocent in court when there wasn't enough evidence that they weren't in the first place. Remember that the burden of proof on an indictment is the same as an arrest. In other words, to have enough information to indict then the state would have the same information at the scene to arrest Wilson. They did not.

The laws on self defense have the built in provision that the state has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense did not exist. It is not enough to merely say that a guy is dead so there has to be a trial. It is not that way for anyone.

While it is easy to say that causing the death of someone is some form of homicide and it only takes probable cause (meaning more likely the person is guilty than innocent) to indict, that is not taking self defense into issue which does not exist for most other crimes. For example if a person is indicted for a robbery, there is not defense to prosecution that the robbery was justified. There can be no claim that yes I committed the robbery but it was justified so don't indict me. That is not true in use of force which has such defenses that have to be overcome by the state/DA.

People say that the officer got some kind of special treatment but as I stated above, I have seen many people that were not arrested or ever charged. They were not police officers and the last one that I was at which was early this year, it was a black man killing another black man in what was basically a street fight. The man that shot and killed the other was not arrested and was never charged. Why? Because he had a claim of self defense and there was not enough proof that he did not have the right of self defense. If he was not ever arrested in a crime or later charged for a homicide and made to prove that he was not guilty, how does it show Wilson got special treatment?

In the OJ case, he did not claim self defense and his claim was that he was not even there. For that reason his case has nothing in common with the Wilson case other than someone died. Wilson admits to killing Brown and his version was backed up by several witnesses and the physical evidence. As the DA stated last night when questioned by a pot stirring reporter, all of the witnesses that saw Brown charging at Wilson were black.

There was no indictment in the Wilson case because the burden of proof was not met and probably not even close. It is also the same reason that the special prosecutor did not go to a grand jury in the Zimmerman case because she knew that there was not enough evidence to indict by a grand jury, much less convict, but she wanted a trial and FL allows an indictment without a grand jury.

 

So when did this country change from the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty to you have to prove you are innocent? I am not talking about public opinion such as in these forums but in court. That is exactly what some people wanted in this case, for Wilson to prove that he is not guilty. Sorry but that is not the way the system including the US Constitution and Texas Constitution are written. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined



×
×
  • Create New...