🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

officer not be charged in michael brown case

Wait a minute, Bell said:

“The question for this office was a simple one: Could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Darren Wilson shot Micheal Brown he committed murder or manslaughter under Missouri law? After an independent and in-depth review of the evidence, we cannot prove that he did,” Bell said.

Then he goes on to say:

"But", he said, “our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”

He's not charging Wilson with a crime and so won't go to trial and in turn Wilson will not be convicted. But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean? Is this his way of passing judgment on Wilson and implying he is guilty nevertheless?
 
Wait a minute, Bell said:

“The question for this office was a simple one: Could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Darren Wilson shot Micheal Brown he committed murder or manslaughter under Missouri law? After an independent and in-depth review of the evidence, we cannot prove that he did,” Bell said.

Then he goes on to say:

"But", he said, “our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”

He's not charging Wilson with a crime and so won't go to trial and in turn Wilson will not be convicted. But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean? Is this his way of passing judgment on Wilson and implying he is guilty nevertheless?

He is trying to have it both ways and it’s bullshit.

He knows our justice system IS NOT DESIGNED TO PROVE INNOCENCE. You are guilty or not guilty. There is not enough evidence to prosecute, so you Move on.

What a gutless statement. Shameless.
 
But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean?
It means they also cannot say with any confidence that what he did is not murder or manslaughter.

That's not how it works. You are innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is some obscure proviso I don't know about, since there will be no charges and thus no trial, in the eyes of the law, Wilson is innocent.
 
But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean?
It means they also cannot say with any confidence that what he did is not murder or manslaughter.

That's not how it works. You are innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is some obscure proviso I don't know about, since there will be no charges and thus no trial, in the eyes of the law, Wilson is innocent.
NO NO NO, according to the left anyone they dislike MUST be guilty. No trial no Facts NO evidence is needed.
 
A six foot four 290 pound guy violently robs a carryout. He manhandles some little old guy. And steals a box of cigars. A felony.

Then he and an accomplice go walking right down the middle of the street, cigar box in hand, to gloat in pride, as if they think they own the fucking road or something.

A police officer drives by and tells the punks to GTFO of the road.

Then a moment later the cop hears on the radio that a 6'4" 290 black male just robbed a carryout and took a box of cigars. And the cop thinks, hey! I just saw the suspect!

So he backs up the car to investigate. Brown then attacks the officer, breaks his face, and tries to steal his sidearm. 2 more violent felonies.

Michael Brown earned his Darwin award.
 
But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean?
It means they also cannot say with any confidence that what he did is not murder or manslaughter.

That's not how it works. You are innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is some obscure proviso I don't know about, since there will be no charges and thus no trial, in the eyes of the law, Wilson is innocent.
Technically "not guilty," but he is innocent among people not driven by "racial justice"
 
But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean?
It means they also cannot say with any confidence that what he did is not murder or manslaughter.

That's not how it works. You are innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is some obscure proviso I don't know about, since there will be no charges and thus no trial, in the eyes of the law, Wilson is innocent.
Technically "not guilty," but he is innocent among people not driven by "racial justice"

JoeB and I had a long running debate about the Ferguson incident and during that time I did a lot of research. After thoroughly studying the events of that day, I found absolutely nothing to indicate that Wilson acted inappropriately or outside the bounds of police procedures.

They didn't charge him then and six years later they still aren't able to charge him, let alone prove it, and the idiot prosecutor has the gall to say Wilson is not exonerated. Jesus what a prick.
 
Wait a minute, Bell said:

“The question for this office was a simple one: Could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Darren Wilson shot Micheal Brown he committed murder or manslaughter under Missouri law? After an independent and in-depth review of the evidence, we cannot prove that he did,” Bell said.

Then he goes on to say:

"But", he said, “our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”

He's not charging Wilson with a crime and so won't go to trial and in turn Wilson will not be convicted. But Wilson is not exonerated? What the fuck does that mean? Is this his way of passing judgment on Wilson and implying he is guilty nevertheless?
It means they are cowardly scum afraid of the black lawless mob who they bend over for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top