(12-11-2014 03:59 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That's my point. Why would they even admit this as evidence?

It was a person's testimony. They had to admit it, furthermore, they discredited several testimonies that didn't match the autopsy. I couldn't read most of the gobbledygook this evil white devil jotted down anyways. I would have thrown it out as soon as I saw their first paragraph.

Really? Where does it say that all evidence need to be seen by the grand jury? So just any old joe shmo could say they were a witness, make up a story, and it has to be admitted as evidence? Since when?

Since I don't know when, but the media is living off of several people that admitted false testimony that the Grand Jury tossed out after those same people said they just wrote down what Johnson said. But it wasn't tossed until they admitted to not being an actual witness.

I could be wrong, I just don't think it adds up when you write that first paragraph that has nothing to do with what happened. It was probably written by some black chick.

I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

(12-11-2014 04:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

Like I said, as soon as I decoded my way through that first paragraph, I would have tossed it out. There were plenty of other people that had well written witness accounts. And I'd still like to see Witness #40.

(12-11-2014 04:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

Like I said, as soon as I decoded my way through that first paragraph, I would have tossed it out. There were plenty of other people that had well written witness accounts. And I'd still like to see Witness #40.

Exactly. But it wasn't thrown out. It was admitted as legitimate evidence. Isn't it possible that the grand jury had too much evidence and couldn't make a sound determination as to what exactly happened that day?

(12-11-2014 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

Like I said, as soon as I decoded my way through that first paragraph, I would have tossed it out. There were plenty of other people that had well written witness accounts. And I'd still like to see Witness #40.

Exactly. But it wasn't thrown out. It was admitted as legitimate evidence. Isn't it possible that the grand jury had too much evidence and couldn't make a sound determination as to what exactly happened that day?

Not at all, they had other eye witness accounts that matched word for word with the autopsy and Wilson's testimony. I would have just tossed this one for what it said in the first paragraph. You don't tell someone why you went there, and then make it about race. You tell them what you saw.

When making a decision to put a person on trial, possibly for his life, how can you have TOO MUCH information?

I don't agonize over this death and I don't feel compelled to spend hours reviewing the evidence.

(12-11-2014 05:16 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

Like I said, as soon as I decoded my way through that first paragraph, I would have tossed it out. There were plenty of other people that had well written witness accounts. And I'd still like to see Witness #40.

Exactly. But it wasn't thrown out. It was admitted as legitimate evidence. Isn't it possible that the grand jury had too much evidence and couldn't make a sound determination as to what exactly happened that day?

Not at all, they had other eye witness accounts that matched word for word with the autopsy and Wilson's testimony. I would have just tossed this one for what it said in the first paragraph. You don't tell someone why you went there, and then make it about race. You tell them what you saw.

So you saying that there is no way they could have made a mistake?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(12-11-2014 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

Like I said, as soon as I decoded my way through that first paragraph, I would have tossed it out. There were plenty of other people that had well written witness accounts. And I'd still like to see Witness #40.

Exactly. But it wasn't thrown out. It was admitted as legitimate evidence. Isn't it possible that the grand jury had too much evidence and couldn't make a sound determination as to what exactly happened that day?

Hahaha...so you're saying that the people are too stupid to sort through the evidence presented on their own, and need someone to pre-filter it for them? Who do you propose should decide where that evidentiary cutoff is?

This type of thought sadly reminds me of a story from not too far back when Democratic leadership fought tooth and nail to prevent the removal of a "D", "R", or "I" in front of names on election ballots, as minorities "wouldn't know who to vote for". What would we do without someone hand-holding us all along the way?
LINK

I thought that was what the DA was supposed to do.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(12-11-2014 07:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you saying that there is no way they could have made a mistake?

All of them? Doubtful. I think the only mistakes made that day were by Brown and his pal. First they should have paid for Sweets, then they should have walked on the sidewalk like normal people instead of the street like they owned it. Brown would still be alive had he acted like a normal kid. I think that's what the Grand Jury sees.

(12-11-2014 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm just blown away that they would allow this as evidence.

Like I said, as soon as I decoded my way through that first paragraph, I would have tossed it out. There were plenty of other people that had well written witness accounts. And I'd still like to see Witness #40.

Exactly. But it wasn't thrown out. It was admitted as legitimate evidence. Isn't it possible that the grand jury had too much evidence and couldn't make a sound determination as to what exactly happened that day?

And doesn't our legal system require a jury to find not guilty, and by extension a grand jury to no-bill, if that is the case?
And if the grand jury had too much evidence, what of that evidence would be excluded at trial?
So wouldn't a trial court jury, by your definition, have too much evidence and therefore be forced to find not guilty?
And if that's the case, what purpose is served by indicting?

Fit's still mad that Wilson wasn't indicted, even though he said that if he wasn't indicted he'd be content with the GJ's decision.

(12-12-2014 10:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Fit's still mad that Wilson wasn't indicted, even though he said that if he wasn't indicted he'd be content with the GJ's decision.

I remember when he said that.