Congressional Black Caucus: Ferguson Decision a Slap in the Face to Blacks

[BULLDOG]

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

 

[hadit]

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Where did you get your law degree? I ask because you write like you presume to have knowledge about how grand juries are supposed to operate. How many transcripts like these have you studied that you know what is supposed to happen and what is not? Are you a lawyer, or are you working off something someone else told you was wrong?

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

And if they also refused to indict, would you then agree that there was no murder, that the officer was acting within the guidelines to which he was trained, and there is no need for rent-a-mobs to stage scripted protests?

Yes, even though your implication that I support "rent-a-mobs" is wrong in any case.

 

[hadit]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

And if they also refused to indict, would you then agree that there was no murder, that the officer was acting within the guidelines to which he was trained, and there is no need for rent-a-mobs to stage scripted protests?

Yes, even though your implication that I support "rent-a-mobs" is wrong in any case.

Fair enough. I sense that you are, however, in the minority among those expressing outrage at this event.

 

[the_human_being]

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

Says the one who supports the protestors burning buildings.

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Noooo. It's the Pros.'s job to make sure justice is served for all.
He knew there wasn't a chance Wilson was guilty of even picking his nose in public.
The Pros. saved the State millions of dollars and the result would have been the same and the 'Special Needs Tree Dweller' negroes would have shit in their own nest anyway.
You, in your ludicrous LIB dreamworld actually believe the Pros. ought to have gone against his moral and legal responsibilities. You're fucked in the head.
Would you want him to charge YOU with a crime he KNEW you didn't commit just because the word 'Prosecutor' is in his job title?
Wise up pal.

Absolutely. He did a lot better than did the state prosecutors in the Travon Martin case who brought the case and lost after costing Florida a ton of money. It is the prosecutor's job to prosecute cases with which there is merit that a case exists.

 

[BULLDOG]

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Where did you get your law degree? I ask because you write like you presume to have knowledge about how grand juries are supposed to operate. How many transcripts like these have you studied that you know what is supposed to happen and what is not? Are you a lawyer, or are you working off something someone else told you was wrong?

If you have a specific question about what I say, ask it.

 

[hadit]

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Where did you get your law degree? I ask because you write like you presume to have knowledge about how grand juries are supposed to operate. How many transcripts like these have you studied that you know what is supposed to happen and what is not? Are you a lawyer, or are you working off something someone else told you was wrong?

If you have a specific question about what I say, ask it.

I'm asking if your certainty that something is amiss comes from your own study of American law or from something you read on the internet from someone who wants you to think something is amiss. Is that specific enough?

 

[the_human_being]

If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict,

But he didnt face a trial at all. Thats the important difference

That's why we have Grand Juries, to determine if there is evidence of a crime that should be prosecuted.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No he means just a normal grand jury not one where the prosecutor is defending one party...I know that seems unreasonable to you but if you look into it...

Ok, so you can't present any evidence that it was a farce.

What about a normal Grand Jury do you object to? You make it seem like I'm asking for an abnormal GJ or something

 

[airplanemechanic]

Absolutely. He did a lot better than did the state prosecutors in the Travon Martin case who brought the case and lost after costing Florida a ton of money. It is the prosecutor's job to prosecute cases with which there is merit that a case exists.

Is it not clear enough to you? A case clearly exists. A white dude shot a black dude.

Case closed. Gotta be murder. You can't possibly justify shooting any black man if you're white. If you're black, that's fine, nobody gives a shit. But if you a cracka, you better shut the fuck up and let the nigga attack you. Any shooting in self defense is racist.

 

[the_human_being]

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Witness Number Ten, who appears to be a Black witness, gave testimony in direct support of what the police office said. That witness said Brown never raised his hands over his head and that he charged the police officer so fast that it amazed him that a man as big as Brown could run so fast. He also testified that Brown had a demonic look on his face as did the police officer. Remember, when Brown stole the cigars, he first left the store and immediately turned around, stalked back in and grabbed the store's clerk around the throat. Sounds like that's the way he did in this case too. He fought the officer, turned away and then wheeled around and charged back toward the officer. The officer put a mad dog down. Anyone else would have done the same. Justified homicide.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

And if they also refused to indict, would you then agree that there was no murder, that the officer was acting within the guidelines to which he was trained, and there is no need for rent-a-mobs to stage scripted protests?

Yes, even though your implication that I support "rent-a-mobs" is wrong in any case.

Fair enough. I sense that you are, however, in the minority among those expressing outrage at this event.

That's the problem. Many assume that the entire protest is based on demanding their preconceived beliefs. It's not. This entire situation has been one of the police, prosecutor, and virtually the entire system thumbing their noses at the protesters. From leaving the boy's body in the street for four hours to fox broadcasting nationally the pictures of that guy with facial injuries and claiming it was Wilson's injuries. This is about the extreme militarization by the police and constant disregard for proper procedure, and the arrogance that showed no intention of changing, as much as it is about one person's death. However, if you just lump the entire group together and label them all as thugs and rioters, it's easier to continue disregarding the real problems.

 

[BULLDOG]

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Where did you get your law degree? I ask because you write like you presume to have knowledge about how grand juries are supposed to operate. How many transcripts like these have you studied that you know what is supposed to happen and what is not? Are you a lawyer, or are you working off something someone else told you was wrong?

If you have a specific question about what I say, ask it.

I'm asking if your certainty that something is amiss comes from your own study of American law or from something you read on the internet from someone who wants you to think something is amiss. Is that specific enough?

Sure. Some of my study does come from creditable sources on the internet that deal with matters of law. Not just a website that happens to have an article about this case, and some of it came from my 4 years as a paralegal. I know....You're going to say I'm not a lawyer, so I can't know, but I did sit in on grand jury proceedings regularly, and you don't have to be Clarence Darrow to read the transcripts and see this is nothing like a normal case.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You don't know the facts of the case and you're not happy. Sorry. All the shots were from the front, blacks at the scene corroborated the cops story.

A thug is dead. The world goes on.

 

[BULLDOG]

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Witness Number Ten, who appears to be a Black witness, gave testimony in direct support of what the police office said. That witness said Brown never raised his hands over his head and that he charged the police officer so fast that it amazed him that a man as big as Brown could run so fast. He also testified that Brown had a demonic look on his face as did the police officer. Remember, when Brown stole the cigars, he first left the store and immediately turned around, stalked back in and grabbed the store's clerk around the throat. Sounds like that's the way he did in this case too. He fought the officer, turned away and then wheeled around and charged back toward the officer. The officer put a mad dog down. Anyone else would have done the same. Justified homicide.

Sure. Read the entire transcript. Witness 10 originally told the police he was 100 yards from the incident when it happened, and he was not sure of what movements he saw Brown make. When he testified before the GJ he said it was 50 to 75 yards, but he was still not sure of the movements Brown made. An attorney in a trial would have torn that apart. He changed his testimony by as much as half, and he wasn't sure of what he saw anyway,but the GJ never had that pointed out to them. I'm still not sure how they tried to explain the body being almost 150 feet from the car.

 

[the_human_being]

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.

Witness Number Ten, who appears to be a Black witness, gave testimony in direct support of what the police office said. That witness said Brown never raised his hands over his head and that he charged the police officer so fast that it amazed him that a man as big as Brown could run so fast. He also testified that Brown had a demonic look on his face as did the police officer. Remember, when Brown stole the cigars, he first left the store and immediately turned around, stalked back in and grabbed the store's clerk around the throat. Sounds like that's the way he did in this case too. He fought the officer, turned away and then wheeled around and charged back toward the officer. The officer put a mad dog down. Anyone else would have done the same. Justified homicide.

Sure. Read the entire transcript. Witness 10 originally told the police he was 100 yards from the incident when it happened, and he was not sure of what movements he saw Brown make. When he testified before the GJ he said it was 50 to 75 yards, but he was still not sure of the movements Brown made. An attorney in a trial would have torn that apart. He changed his testimony by as much as half, and he wasn't sure of what he saw anyway,but the GJ never had that pointed out to them. I'm still not sure how they tried to explain the body being almost 150 feet from the car.

Can you yourself distinguish the distance at night of 50 to 100 yards with any accuracy when an altercation is ongoing? The car had little to do with anything at that point. Both men had left the car.

 

[the_human_being]

You don't know the facts of the case and you're not happy. Sorry. All the shots were from the front, blacks at the scene corroborated the cops story.

A thug is dead. The world goes on.

I'm just glad it happened in Missouri. Can you imagine had it happened in Birmingham, Alabama? Martial Law would be declared and there would be federal troops all over the place.

 

[dannyboys]

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

He told the Governor. to take him off the case if he wanted to.
The Governor stated publicly he had total trust in the Pros.

 

[dannyboys]

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

Did you learn all your legal knowledge from the private Swiss school you attended?

 

[dannyboys]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

So now the robbery suspect was "killed on site"?
Permanent Ignore.
You are one stupid fuck.

Sight, not site. Two completely different things. You say he was a thug who robbed a store and resisted arrest, so there can't be any racism. Do you think every other person who the cops think might have robbed a store should be killed? One of us is a stupid fuck, but it's not me.

And you are so stupid as to claim Wilson shot the 'Tree Dweller' for robbing a store?
Speaking of "stupid fucks" when you say "every other person" does that mean to you like every second person? Naughty girl! Your Swiss english teacher would not be impressed!
Jesus Christ! It's like going into a 'Special Needs' class and trying to have a conversation about which Tubi package I should buy for my F12.
Stick around though. I like to print out your moronic posts and send them to my friends.
I know you'll never let us down. LOL
BTW. Can you tell us how many times you've flown across the Atlantic 'MARGO'!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAA HAAAAA
I'm lovin this!
You're 'tells' are perfect.