Ferguson Juror Suing to Speak Out About Mudled Case

[Nutz]

No opinion, as far as I am concerned, the whole thing is over. Regretfully, here we go again...(yeah, that racist and the others from both sides will have a great time with this.

Ferguson grand juror sues seeking right to speak about his reactions to the evidence - The Washington Post

 

[TooTall]

No opinion, as far as I am concerned, the whole thing is over. Regretfully, here we go again...(yeah, that racist and the others from both sides will have a great time with this.

Ferguson grand juror sues seeking right to speak about his reactions to the evidence - The Washington Post

He/she wants to write a book and make money off of this tragedy. Greed will prevail.

 

[Katzndogz]

If he or she blabs enough he or she will be locked up. There is a lifetime gag order.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

 

[Nutz]

If he or she blabs enough he or she will be locked up. There is a lifetime gag order.

That's why it is suing, dumb ass. God racists are fucking stupid.

 

[Nutz]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

How about giving this guya voice? Notice I didn't say anything about MB. I mean, if the prosecutor lied can you tell me why that information is not important without trying to make this about defending MB?

Or should we just hush this guy up for no reason after everyone claimed they wanted all the info"?

 

[Nutz]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

How about giving this guya voice? Notice I didn't say anything about MB. I mean, if the prosecutor lied can you tell me why that information is not important without trying to make this about defending MB?

Or should we just hush this guy up for no reason after everyone claimed they wanted all the info"?

I actually have no problem with that. But I think conventional wisdom tells us that if he/ she is allowed to share her opinions - it would be at least 3 years after the verdict to avoid nonsense.

 

[Nutz]

No opinion, as far as I am concerned, the whole thing is over. Regretfully, here we go again...(yeah, that racist and the others from both sides will have a great time with this.

Ferguson grand juror sues seeking right to speak about his reactions to the evidence - The Washington Post

He/she wants to write a book and make money off of this tragedy. Greed will prevail.

I think you are right. I am sure there is a sheister(sp) lawyer behind all of this, looking to profit off the book deal and more.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

How about giving this guya voice? Notice I didn't say anything about MB. I mean, if the prosecutor lied can you tell me why that information is not important without trying to make this about defending MB?

Or should we just hush this guy up for no reason after everyone claimed they wanted all the info"?

I actually have no problem with that. But I think conventional wisdom tells us that if he/ she is allowed to share her opinions - it would be at least 3 years after the verdict to avoid nonsense.

To avoid scrutiny you mean. 3 years pass and what? You're suddenly going to declare this ISNT over? Lol

 

[ClosedCaption]

Suddenly book deals are bad? Lol

Oh OK

 

[Nutz]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

How about giving this guya voice? Notice I didn't say anything about MB. I mean, if the prosecutor lied can you tell me why that information is not important without trying to make this about defending MB?

Or should we just hush this guy up for no reason after everyone claimed they wanted all the info"?

I actually have no problem with that. But I think conventional wisdom tells us that if he/ she is allowed to share her opinions - it would be at least 3 years after the verdict to avoid nonsense.

To avoid scrutiny you mean. 3 years pass and what? You're suddenly going to declare this ISNT over? Lol

Scrutiny has a time limit? 3 years at the least...why? Because of high profile, racially energized, polarizing cases like this where the misuse of a word - or an alternative interpretation of opinion - causes riots, death and magnified hate.

 

[Nutz]

Suddenly book deals are bad? Lol

Oh OK

I hope you aren't directing that at me. I have no idea where you could discern that thought...it is manufactured.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

How about giving this guya voice? Notice I didn't say anything about MB. I mean, if the prosecutor lied can you tell me why that information is not important without trying to make this about defending MB?

Or should we just hush this guy up for no reason after everyone claimed they wanted all the info"?

I actually have no problem with that. But I think conventional wisdom tells us that if he/ she is allowed to share her opinions - it would be at least 3 years after the verdict to avoid nonsense.

To avoid scrutiny you mean. 3 years pass and what? You're suddenly going to declare this ISNT over? Lol

Scrutiny has a time limit? 3 years at the least...why? Because of high profile, racially energized, polarizing cases like this where the misuse of a word - or an alternative interpretation of opinion - causes riots, death and magnified hate.

Well the case is about a month old and you're saying it's over. Will that somehow change in 36 months? Lol.. Come on

 

[ClosedCaption]

Suddenly book deals are bad? Lol

Oh OK

I hope you aren't directing that at me. I have no idea where you could discern that thought...it is manufactured.

Oh my badi didn't know that you supported it. Good.

 

[Nutz]

Funny because at one time everyone wanted all the information to come out. So the prosecutor released everything them did multiple interviews and press conferences. But now since there is someone who disagrees who actually saw all the evidence people want him.... Only this guy to shut his mouth because..IDK... they want all the facts presented

Considering they did everything different than a normal case I don't see the problem especially when the prosecutors story seems to be different than the jurors.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

Its over...I don't understand why one would fight so hard for a thug. That is the big problem with the libs...they pick the wrong battles and destroy any chance for sincere dialogue.

How about giving this guya voice? Notice I didn't say anything about MB. I mean, if the prosecutor lied can you tell me why that information is not important without trying to make this about defending MB?

Or should we just hush this guy up for no reason after everyone claimed they wanted all the info"?

I actually have no problem with that. But I think conventional wisdom tells us that if he/ she is allowed to share her opinions - it would be at least 3 years after the verdict to avoid nonsense.

To avoid scrutiny you mean. 3 years pass and what? You're suddenly going to declare this ISNT over? Lol

Scrutiny has a time limit? 3 years at the least...why? Because of high profile, racially energized, polarizing cases like this where the misuse of a word - or an alternative interpretation of opinion - causes riots, death and magnified hate.

Well the case is about a month old and you're saying it's over. Will that somehow change in 36 months? Lol.. Come on

Nothing will change, except public attitudes and knee jerk reactions.

 

[Nutz]

Suddenly book deals are bad? Lol

Oh OK

I hope you aren't directing that at me. I have no idea where you could discern that thought...it is manufactured.

Oh my badi didn't know that you supported it. Good.

I support a grand juror being able to discuss their opinions, like regular jurors (there is a name for that). Nonetheless, with a Grand Jury, it is secretive for a reason. To prevent innocent people's names from being destroyed after an investigation determined them to be innocent of any wrong doing. Just because this is a high profile case and 'inquiring minds want to know,' doesn't mean we need to sacrifice righteous principles to satisfy a social issue.

I stated earlier, 3 years at the least...the more I think about it, it should be 7 years minimum.

 

[Katzndogz]

No matter how long you feel the gag order should be in effect. The judge ordered lifetime.

 

[Nutz]

No matter how long you feel the gag order should be in effect. The judge ordered lifetime.

I thought it was MO state law that prevented Grand Jurors from discussing cases.

Either way...you are a useless fucking racist.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

This won't be allowed because the last thing the court wants is further exposure of their shady and shabby attempt at prosecution.