WITNESS NUMBER 10.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Are they under oath? Wilson ranted for hours, and if you think he didn't slant the Testimony in his favor you are delusional. And no before you ask.

Please link me to the vid of Wilson ranting for hours. Thanks in advance little E.

I was watching CNN and some Dimtard complained the DA called 19 people to the stand to testify that they saw nothing. He said that it was an unfair tactic meant to enhance Wilson's story. I lol'ed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Yet Wilson chose to do so anyways, ...

Most LE agencies have a written policy that an officer is required to testify regarding officer related shootings (or excessive force inquiries) and although they may exercise their 5th amendment rights it can, and is, used as a basis for termination for insubordination for refusing to "cooperate' in the investigation.

So the "cooperation" of the officer is not compelled, but if he desires any future in LE he will do so, unless the broader picture indicated he may be convicted of the crime and risk going to prison, which amounts to a death sentence in many cases.

Besides: Irrespective of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, his refusal to testify in the minds of most people (particularly those who are predisposed to his guilt) is that his exercise of those rights "PROVES" HE IS GUILTY (that is ... until they are in the "barrel" then they want ALL their rights!).

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rioseco

This time the bad fell, while the good prevailed.

Thank you judge Judy,

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Please link me to the vid of Wilson ranting for hours. Thanks in advance little E.

I was watching CNN and some Dimtard complained the DA called 19 people to the stand to testify that they saw nothing. He said that it was an unfair tactic meant to enhance Wilson's story. I lol'ed.

You must have been the only one who didn't read the release.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Yes, grand jury testimony is subject to the full pains and penalties of perjury.

Wilson did not rant, he testified, which he was not obligated to do. In fact, most defense lawyers would never allow their client to testify before a grand jury, since the defense lawyer cannot help in any way.

Yet Wilson chose to do so anyways, and was questioned by both the DA and the members of the jury for over 4 hours.

Witness #10 was telling that exact story from the first hour after the shooting occurred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEoNbJYMsE

Fast forward to about 6 minutes into the video. As you can see, the police are still just arriving on the scene, beginning crowd control, and an EMT even goes over to check on Michael Brown. So at this point, there is absolutely no media spin, Wilson himself hasn't given a statement yet.

Yet somehow, the person speaking off camera gives an account of what happened that precisely tracks the statement that Wilson would give later that same day, and would continue to repeat, unchanged throughout this entire sorry mess.

Know why this witness's account and Wilson's account track, and do not change? They have the benefit of being TRUE. After more than 3 months, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the lame stream media, still have yet to ever report on this recording, or the clear implications this video has in fully exonerating Wilson.

He made a statement was no cross, and it was hours.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

He made a statement was no cross, and it was hours.

There is no "cross" before a grand jury.

[i'va biggen]

My point exactly.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

My point exactly.

So? There isn't for white people either. Or brown, .... you name the color!

Are you advocating changing the grand jury system ...

.... to accommodate Black people?

Grand jurors can ask questions and the grand jury has subpoena powers.

The inquiry is merely whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and if the jurors believe the action was "justified" there is no crime.

It happens more than you think ... "no bills' are issued by the grand jury.

5th 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, ...."

You get the same protection as Wilson does.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So? There isn't for white people either. Or brown, .... you name the color!

Are you advocating changing the grand jury system ...

.... to accommodate Black people?

Grand jurors can ask questions and the grand jury has subpoena powers.

The inquiry is merely whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and if the jurors believe the action was "justified" there is no crime.

It happens more than you think ... "no bills' are issued by the grand jury.

5th 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, ...."

You get the same protection as Wilson does.

There you go again, quoting that pesky Constitution.
We certainly can't let some old antiquated document get in the way of pandering to a major voting block and keeping Race Baiters and Poverty Pimps in the money.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

There you go again, quoting that pesky Constitution. We certainly can't let some old antiquated document get in the way ....

Yea, I apologize. Some call its provisions "legal technicalities" .... at least ..

.... until they get into trouble ... then it's a "fundamental right."

Law enforcement officers have an annoying habit of "lawyering up" too!

[CuteOldGuy]

Just a guess, but I think the forensic evidence carried the day. The witnesses gave essentially two different stories. Relying on witness testimony alone, there would be no choice but to indict.