02-15-2016, 04:32 AM
(02-15-2016, 04:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You lost me again.
If there is conflicting eyewitness testimony then both sides have to be weighed against each other. But there is no conflicting eyewitness testimony to dispute that the officer was guilty of giving racial profiling orders.
As for officer Wilson, he very well may have been innocent. But there should have been a legitimate grand jury hearing instead of the circus they put on to make sure he walked. That was a perfect example of the trash you get when the defendant and the prosecutor are on the same side. That should never happen.
It is still an allegation. What is that saying or question the judge ask the jury?
Something that goes: If there is any doubt, even in the slightest that the defendant might innocent then you must deliver a not guilty.
I am not sure if that is accurate.
Now having multiple officers against 1 is very compelling, but reasonable doubt would, to me suggest, that those officers might have an agenda or ax to grind with the accused. Which would lead to the an acquittal.
