Did the Ferguson, Missouri Grand Jury make the right decision?

Asked by: Benjamin_Manus
  • If they are successful enough to be in the grand jury, we should trust them.

    In the year of 2014, so far 11 police officers have been shot dead by black men. When Michael Brown approached Officer Wilson he tried to reach for his gun, Michael is a 6'4", 200 pound black man, if Michael was a white man and had reached for his gun and given that 11 of our most trusted officers who are supposed to protect us, were killed, it didn't matter of his race, he felt that his life was in danger and he was forced to shoot him.

  • Of course they did.

    Seeing that there was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges means the prosecution had no case. To take it to trial would have just postponed the inevitable. It would also have dragged the case on further causing even more riots. About the only people that believe the officer was guilty are those who believed the false statement by Dorian Johnson and those who just repeated what he said.

  • The ferguson grand jury made the right decision.

    The grand jury saw thousands of pages of documents and heard from 60 witness's. I can't judge their decision until I've spent hours and hours in a court room reviewing thousands of pages of evidence and listening to hundreds of witnesses. Michael Brown robbed a store. He assaulted the store keeper. He than assaulted a cop. If a cop asks you to do something you should show respect. They work hard and put their lives on the like for your safety. Even if cops request is stupid just do it to avoid the trouble. Michael Brown was looking for trouble. He tried to grab the officers gun. His blood was found on the offices uniform, gun and car and he had gun res on his clothes. He had a shot in the hand from close range. This 300 pound 6 foot 4 criminal than charged a cop as his blood trail went on for 20 feet. What would you do if a 300 man had assaulted you and was charging. As terrible as his death was he was not the unarmed angel the media is depicting him as. Sooner or late he was you to hurt someone.
    Remember Dorion Jonson is a known lier. He told us Brown was shot in the back But 3 autopsies show he was shot in the front. He participated in the robbery. He is not trustworthy.
    This race baiting has led to many anti white hate crimes. In St. Louis a Bosnian immigrant named Zemir Begic was hammered to death by a group to black teens who yelled "kill white people" they had just attended a Michael Brown rally. A man names Chris Chafer was beaten by a group of blacks as revenge for Brown. In aushut a white marine was beaten in Mississippi outside a Waffle House for a Brown by a group of blacks. Black on white crime is much more common than white on black crime. There are 60,000 white on black crimes a year and 1,000,000 black on white crimes a year. There are 20,000 black on white rapes, 10,000 black on white gang rapes, 30 white on black rapes and 0 white on black gang rapes each year according to the national crime victimization survey. These brutal crimes aren't reported on. I would like to see as much outrage about the murderers of Channon Christian, Chris Newsom, Melinda McCormick, David Santucci, Bob Staright, Nancy Straight, Kevin Shiflet, David Dunlap, Whitney Butler and Kelli O'laughlin as Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin got. Because these victims were white and their killers were black this is unlikely.
    Out of the 7000 murderers of black people a year 93% are by other black people. Most of this is gang related. If we want to help black people we have to work to fix the high rates of poverty and unemployment in their communities.
    The grand jury's decision was right.

  • Absolutely right decision.

    The evidence was clear that Brown assaulted the officer, not the other way around. In fact, for those who are saying that the jury had too little evidence -- they had way TOO MUCH. The prosecution presented them with EVERYTHING they had, to try and ensure themselves a victory. It was almost like a trial rather than a grand jury. But even with all that incriminating evidence, Wilson still was declared innocent. The jury also said, "There is NO PROBABLE CAUSE" that Wilson be declared guilty; they didn't say "Not enough evidence, but to be safe we'll let him go". They were VERY certain of their decision.
    And then you see protestors walking around in shirts that say "Gone to soon" [sic] and "I can't breath" [sic], also involving a similar event that happened soon after in NY or something. All sorts of conservative media is making fun of it, and I can see why. It demonstrates ignorance. Protestors love to go out and rally against something they know nothing about.
    Racism certainly does exist in this country, and even more so than 50 years ago, when we considered it to be at its peak. However, the modern definition of racism is confined to white hates black racism, but black hates white, or white hates white, or black hates black have all passed out of all media reference. I can guarantee that if Brown had been white, or Wilson had been black, the same thing would have occurred, but the media wouldn't have pounced on it, and there would be no protest.

  • He wasn't racist

    #1: Darren Wilson was defending himself from Michael Brown, and though there are many different takes on what actually happened, there wasn't enough evidence to indict him.
    #2: I agree with Astal3: just because the cop was white and brown was not, many say the cop was racist. That is not necessarily true, it could've been vice versa.
    #3: The grand jury is supposed to make decisions off of facts, not emotion. They didn't have enough facts to indict him, and even though they might've thought what he did was wrong or racist, that would be going off emotion and not facts. They look at it from and un-biased, constitutional point of view.

  • This case is ridiculous

    Regaurdless of the evidence the sheer amount of public pressure should qualify for a mistrial. People riot and tear up their own neighboorhood for weeks because they didn't like that the cop wasn't indicted because he defended himself from some thug? Really? What is wrong with people. This race card America is stuck under is getting old.And honestly they couldn't give a crap less about Mr brown. They just wanted to loot. And look what they did. So yes. I rejoice in the fact tht at least some of our justice system actually does its job and doesn't cave in to people's racist crap.

  • There was not enough evidence.

    The grand jury that decided not to indict Sergeant Darren Wilson did not have sufficient evidence to make a decision. In this document (written by me) you can see an account-for-account basis on what happened:


    Not enough evidence was collected and with the conflicting witness statements, it was extremely hard to tell what actually happened. Darren Wilson should have been convicted for the killing of Michael Brown.

  • No, he should have been indicted.

    What with the conflicting testimonies, the Missouri Grand Jury should have indicted Darren Wilson. Obviously there are several different accounts on what certain witnesses say happen, and allowing the case to go to court would let the prosecution form a coherent timeline as to what actually happened (as well as the defense).

    Aside from that, I think that if any person, regardless of their race and whether they're a cop or not, kills an unarmed man that was running away, they should at the very least go to trial.

  • Should have gone to trial

    The instructions to the grand jury were incorrectly presented based on outdated state law. Federal laws should have been introduced that would have trumped the state law cited.

    Due to this complete over-site, as well as, a lack of determination to prosecute this case by the DA, due to his close relationships with law enforcement officers. Based on an overabundance of witness testimony this case should have gone to trial.

    A trial would have reduced the protests over an injustice that took place in the killing of Mike Brown.

  • Brown was wrong, but he shouldn't have died for what he did.

    Wilson couldn't have shot Brown in the leg a couple of times to keep him down, he just had to kill him? So what if he was "looking for trouble"? Not everyone is an obedient angel who does exactly what they should. That's why there are police. But does that kind of action deserve death? How much more, then, would a serial killer deserve death? Does everyone who believe the grand jury made the correct decision support capital punishment?
    Human life is valuable, and American cops these days are getting too gun-happy. Put one toe out of line and pay with your life. Play with a toy gun like Rice and say goodbye. A police's job is to protect, not to go around shooting everyone who is a potential threat to themselves.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.