Someone burned down brown seniors church.
Ferguson?
- Thread starter ark steel
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
Nobody loves Vis. I guess it's because he stands for truth, justice, and the American way, and the rest of us just don't get it.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 122
- Points
- 43
The DA is the president of an organization that helped fund raise for Wilson's defense.
And it's a 3 day ban.
Still it's nice to see how well you all treat Tibs
Last edited:
IIRC, the only reason a Grand Jury was called was because the prosecutor recused himself because his father (a cop) was shot and killed by a black man when he was a child. He wanted to remove all trace of personal bias from the situation.
And yet, NBC continues to call these thugs "protesters".
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 122
- Points
- 43
Could people fitting both descriptions be present?
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,837
- Reaction score
- 4,787
- Points
- 113
I am having a hard time trying to understand what type of person would side with a violent mob of criminals over law abiding, hard working people who are trying to protect their livelihood. The case and verdict is almost an afterthought at this point to me. It seems to have simply served as an excuse for a large group of people to get a chance to let their inner criminal out. And I'm supposed to feel sympathetic to their plight. I feel sorry for the innocent people in that community that are being brutalized by these poor "victims". However, if they are trying to pay homage to Michael Brown I supposed they are doing a god job....considering he had just brutalized and looted somebody himself a few minutes before he got killed. Just doing their part to keep his memory alive.
Last edited:
Tend to agree on how you've explained the process. And I've watched EVERY episode of Law & Order, including SVU and Criminal Intent spanning over 10 years.
Screw that race baiting hydrocephalic, Tawana Brawley pimping, lying **** sucker.
Nice, Tibs....thought better of you.
In addition to the inability to use correct grammar it appears that the dead, young, sweet child pictured did not understand how to make a peace sign.
But, apparently, an inability to read for yourself.
Which organization would that be? I'm unable to find much on the subject.
Tibs was being treated as well or as poorly as his treatment of others dictated like everyone else here.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 7,061
- Points
- 113
I was skeptical of the officers account from the start. I still am but I will abide by the Grand Jury finding trusting that after more than 200 hours of examining evidence and testimony the Grand Jury, that included three black members, got the decision right. That being said I want to offer solutions to prevent this from happening again.
1) Lets put body cameras on every police officer that patrols. It would protect the public from bad officers and protect good officers from unfounded claims.
2) End all departmental review of complaints against officers. All complaints should be reviewed by an independent, disinterested third party agency.
3) End all departments having "Internal Affairs" divisions. Letting police departments investigate their own officers is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. A state law enforcement agency or LEO agency from another county as far away from the effected department as possible should investigate criminal complaints against officers .
4) Terminate any officer that is involved in a lawsuit relating to their duties where they are found responsible for monetary damages or are forced to settle out of court.
5) Any use of deadly force should involve a mandatory unpaid suspension and court proceedings.
1) Lets put body cameras on every police officer that patrols. It would protect the public from bad officers and protect good officers from unfounded claims.
2) End all departmental review of complaints against officers. All complaints should be reviewed by an independent, disinterested third party agency.
3) End all departments having "Internal Affairs" divisions. Letting police departments investigate their own officers is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. A state law enforcement agency or LEO agency from another county as far away from the effected department as possible should investigate criminal complaints against officers .
4) Terminate any officer that is involved in a lawsuit relating to their duties where they are found responsible for monetary damages or are forced to settle out of court.
5) Any use of deadly force should involve a mandatory unpaid suspension and court proceedings.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
libs ripping libs
great video........get the popcorn
CNN’s Jones, Lemon Rip into Each Other over Ferguson Protests
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-jones-lemon-rip-into-each-other-over-ferguson-protests/
great video........get the popcorn
CNN’s Jones, Lemon Rip into Each Other over Ferguson Protests
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-jones-lemon-rip-into-each-other-over-ferguson-protests/
Yes, the DA recommends an indictment. That is the point of presenting to the grand jury. You say, "Not in this case." Are you saying the DA made a recommendation of no indictment? The grand jury is impaneled to hear evidence and determine probable cause. They are instructed in their role, and for better or worse, getting put on a grand jury is not a brief process.
In California, grand jury members serve for 6 months (or did when I was in law school), and serve 3 days per month. They hear dozens of cases. After hearing 4-5 cases, the grand jury members know the process. I honestly don't know what you are referring to when you say, "Not in this case," but if I had to guess, I suspect that the grand jury had been in session for more than a month, had returned several indictments and therefore knew their role quite well. I am admittedly spitballing on this and don't know enough about this grand jury to suggest that what I say is a fact.
Regarding contradictions, my answer is the same for every witness and every contradiction. If the contradiction is on a key issue, and is something that the witness described without equivocation, and provided the contradictory version only after learning that the original story would fail, then I am dubious of the witness' credibility. If the contradiction was on a marginally relevant issue, or was something the witness described as an estimate, etc., then the contradiction is less important. If the contradiction was on a marginally relevant point, and was provided as an equivocal response ("I think," "give or take"), and was then changed without there being a "need" to do so, then the contradiction has minimal importance.
But changing the key facts once the objective evidence disproves the original description makes the witness basically unbelievable in my mind.
And hey, what is your experience with grand juries? You ever worked for the DA or Attorney General?
The DA wants to get an indictment. However, prosecutors very often - nearly always - presented all important evidence to the grand jury. In my experience, they do so to get insight as to how the jury will view the evidence on balance, and how much weight they give the exculpatory evidence. The prosecution gets a free "look" at how the jury will view the evidence. Finally, if the evidence is such that the prosecutor cannot get an indictment, then he or she has basically no interest in taking the case before a jury with the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Therefore, most prosecutors present pretty much all evidence to the grand jury, inculpatory and exculpatory. Doing so is nearly equivalent to presenting your case to a mock jury (which I do with basically every case I take to trial).
Are you saying the prosecutor slanted evidence, or withheld important evidence, or denigrated inculpatory evidence? Those are the only ways he could have hurt the likelihood of getting an indictment.
Of course they granted use immunity. A defendant cannot be compelled to testify before a grand jury without use immunity. The grand jury proceedings are confidential, but at least in my state, the criminal defendant can assert 5th amendment privilege and demand use immunity.
But like I say, the criminal defendant rarely testifies in grand jury proceedings since there is basically no benefit to doing so - none. The grand jury can and will proffer an indictment even where the defendant denies the allegation. The "probable cause" standard is low enough that the defendant's denial means little. Further, as you point out, the defendant can then be contradicted, challenged based on physical evidence, and his or her testimony will give the prosecution a huge advantage by providing a map of the defendant's strategy at trial.
So, how about you? When did you work for the DA?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
None of those make sense to me. Number 5 is just asinine. So cops get into a gun fight with bank robbers and kill one. So they are suspended and charged with a crime? Sorry but that is just insane.
No doubt. But at this point, with the tremendous damage done Monday night, and the significant police and National Guard presence, those out on the streets are going to be a much higher percentage of hooligans than for an impromptu protest.
The first night of the Rodney King verdict, about 1,000 protesters gathered outside the criminal courts building in downtown Los Angeles. Those were protesters. Then, somebody lit a guard shack on fire. That clown was a thug.
After the first night, more than 1,000 more fires were lit, and thousands upon thousands of people looted stores, and dozens of shots were fired at the fire department personnel trying to put out the fires. All of those people were thugs.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 7,061
- Points
- 113
What about the items on this list don't make sense Vader? I can explain the reasoning behind them if you would like me too?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,406
- Reaction score
- 4,149
- Points
- 113
I agree with body cameras. I have been saying that for years if you want both criminals to quit lying and get rid of dirty cops making both parties responsible for their actions all you need is accountability. A body camera would do that IMHO.
You must not have read any of his previous posts if you were expecting his latest post to make sense.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,005
- Reaction score
- 5,931
- Points
- 113
Everybody who is outraged over this knows who Michael Brown and Travon Martin were, but ask them to name just one of the thousands of young black men killed by gang violence this year and I bet they're stumped.
So do they really care about young black men be killed, or do they just enjoy getting worked-up over occasional alleged racially motivated killings?
So do they really care about young black men be killed, or do they just enjoy getting worked-up over occasional alleged racially motivated killings?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
What's the reasoning behind suspending an officer without pay and criminal prosecution because he was in a gun fight with a bank robber?
Body cameras only see from the front of a police officer. It can't see behind him and is a very limited field of vision. I have no problem issuing police officers these tools. However, it isn't the be all end all of every issue.
You can't end all internal reviews. It makes no sense. The police are on a budget and can't hire outside agencies to review every single minor offense against a cop. You are basically just asking for cops to stay in the precinct building and never leave.
You also want to get rid of internal affairs but want a state law enforcement agency from a far away county to investigate. So you want a specific state agency in every county? Remember no internal affairs in any county so these are "state" police of some sort in every single county. Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? No state has a policing agency in all their counties. Hell most only have a main headquarters in the capitol and satellite stations in a handful of counties. The expense of this would be unreal. Mississippi has 82 counties. You want 82 different state run agencies? Good luck with that.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
NO JUSTICE!! NO PEACE!!NO JUSTICE!! NO PEACE!!NO JUSTICE!! NO PEACE!!NO JUSTICE!! NO PEACE!!NO JUSTICE!! NO PEACE!!NO JUSTICE!! NO PEACE!!
WHITE LIVES MATTER TOO!!
http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/201...e-18-yr-old-gil-collar-killed-by-a-black-cop/
WHITE LIVES MATTER TOO!!
http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/201...e-18-yr-old-gil-collar-killed-by-a-black-cop/
I think basically all of us agree on this. The cameras tend to moderate police behavior, and in the event a confrontation occurs, the video tells the tale.
For the Rodney King riots, I suggested that the pet phrase be, "No justice, no receipts."
