Without wading through 42 pages here, can people please tell me whether you feel, in your opinion, based on the evidence as you know it, the cop should've been let off (as he was) or found guilty. Please provide the overwhelming evidence that supports your stance. Thank you.
I'm very curious and have heard so many different things regarding the incident.
Since when did overwhelming evidence become the standard even at a trial, much less at a grand jury proceeding?
A brief comparison of typical grand jury proceedings for a civilian, vs. those for Wilson, as gleaned from various interviews:
[c]Typical Wilson
Prosecutor suggests the correct charges No charges suggested
Suspect gets cross-examined if they testify Suspect not cross-examined
Only evidence favorable to charges are brought Evidence not supporting charges used
Incriminatory witnesses questioned loosely Incriminatory witnesses questioned strictly
Exculpatory witnesses questioned strictly Exculpatory witnesses questioned loosely[/c]
I heard at least four different lawyers say that that McCulloch sounded more like a defense lawyer than a prosecuting attorney. If this had been a civilian shooting, there would have been a bill to indict.
That said, having seen the bruise on Wilson's face, I can see where his pain may have created a more hysterical reaction than usual. Although, it's odd how he was bruised on the side of his face that normally faces the passenger window.
https://gawker.com/these-are-the-photos-of-darren-wilsons-bruises-1662997813
Ultimately, Wilson's version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny:
https://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side