Ferguson Trial: Justice served, or not?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30188737

Thousands of people protested the verdict given by the jury of the Ferguson Trial: Officer Wilson is cleared of charges.

Jury decides that Michael Brown attacked the police officer and the latter turned his gun on the adolescent in self-defence.

Justice served?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30188737

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

517340

North Korea is mocking the US for their legal system.

North Korea.

Self defence? If I so much pluck a hair from a burglar who broke into my house I'm in the wrong over here. So how can killing someone be a justified action for anything? So far all the 'defence reasons' I've seen have been "Oh but Michael Brown was a thief", "He attacked the police officer" "He gave him a mean look", "He beat up the shop owner", how does any of that justify his murder?

My Dad taught me that even if I were in a life-threatening situation, incapacitate the offender, never kill, because then you'll be in the wrong. If darren wilson shot Michael Brown in the leg it's still be a case of the consistent police brutality going on over there, but Michael brown would still be alive.

Reply 2

Ggmu!

How the **** didn't they indict him???

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

Dodgypirate

Original post by Ggmu!

How the **** didn't they indict him???

Posted from TSR Mobile

Seems like the evidence presented to the jury showed that Brown did in fact try to jump Wilson.

Reply 4

Ggmu!

Another police killing of a black youth, all those rap clichés have some truth I suppose.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

tibis

jk idgaf rly.

officer should have had and used a tazer but still, do not attack police officers if u do not want to get shot.

Reply 6

james22

Almost all the witnesses were proven unreliable (some admitted that they hadn't actually seen what happened, and were just repeating what they heard from others). There wasn't really any evidence of wrongdoing so he wasn't indited.

Reply 7

Dodgypirate

The 12 year could have stuck his hands up and NOT have taken off the tape which would have signalled the gun was indeed a replica and not the real thing.

Poor parenting skills, on too of poor common sense skills, lead to the unfortunate killing of a youngster.

I agree the force used by the police was harsh at times, but try put yourself in the scenario when the police officer didn't know the boy's intention.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 8

Dodgypirate

Original post by james22

The evidence given forward by both parties was poor - that much is clear - but what are we to do other thank accept the Grand Jury's verdict.

Reply 9

james22

Original post by Dodgypirate

The evidence given forward by both parties was poor - that much is clear - but what are we to do other thank accept the Grand Jury's verdict.

The defence needs no evidence, it is for the procecution to give the jury sifficiant evidence. The officer does not need to prove a thing here.

Reply 10

Dodgypirate

Original post by james22

The defence needs no evidence, it is for the procecution to give the jury sifficiant evidence. The officer does not need to prove a thing here.

This is a murder trial, of course both parties need it.

Reply 11

demx9

justice was served for Darren

Reply 12

james22

Original post by Dodgypirate

This is a murder trial, of course both parties need it.

No. Innoccent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the total burden of proof. The defendent could do nothing at all and proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt would still apply.

Reply 13

yo radical one

Original post by james22

No. Innoccent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the total burden of proof. The defendent could do nothing at all and proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt would still apply.

I see what you mean, but if the defense (that is the police-officer's team) are claiming that the shots were fired in self-defense, that is, implicitly, an accusation being made against Brown.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 14

james22

Original post by yo radical one

Was it proven that Michael Brown attacked the police officer and that he shot in self-defense, or did the officer claim it was self-defense and it was the case that Brown's representatives were unable to disprove this claim?

I see what you mean, but if the defense (that is the police-officer's team) are claiming that the shots were fired, that is, implicitly, an accusation being made against Brown.

The officer claimed self defence, and the prosecution failed to disprove this as almost all the witness testimonies fell apart and were discarded.

Reply 15

yo radical one

Original post by james22

The officer claimed self defence, and the prosecution failed to disprove this as almost all the witness testimonies fell apart and were discarded.

So I take it US law operates under the assumption that the person claiming self-defense is not lying and it's up to the other side to overturn this assumption

Is this the right protocol and is it the same in this country?

Reply 16

james22

Original post by yo radical one

IIRC you can use any valid defense in a murder case, and it is for the prosecution to prove it wrong. If you claim self defense the prosecution needs to show that it wasn't, and in this case with the kid having a replica gun it is fairly reasonable to assume self defense.

Reply 17

the bear

Did they not have a video like when that motorist was beaten up by LA's finest ?

Reply 18

BitWindy

I think justice was served, looking at the reports of the court proceedings and the accounts of witnesses.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwise, to be honest. It seems as if people are disappointed that their indignation-boner ended in blue balls.