Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
What's really funny is how some people seem able to invent narratives for others - simply sharing a quote of someone central to an investigation explaining themselves more fully than had previously been presented. You're so fucking welcomeIt's funny how people seem to conveniently deny how the system works, when it fits their narrative.
That is the problem...........'the process' as you say is now not 'due process' but the political process.
In a nutshell the politicians are too sensitive to the demands of radical blacks and their running dog, the MSM.
I can think of no other society wherin the minority was allowed to oppress the majority.
The war against white people
I would hope by now that it is clear to everyone that the protesting, rioting, looting, vandalism and anarchy that has gripped this nation has nothing to do with justicewww.leader-call.com
OK. Righteous shoot. Got it. Maybe this will end it? I feel sorry for Officer Wilson and his family and the family of the dead.A new review of the 2014 police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, of 18-year-old Michael Brown has concluded that no murder or manslaughter charges against former officer Darren Wilson are warranted.
The five-month secret review of the August 2014 fatal shooting led St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell to conclude he couldn't prove those allegations in a court of law, he said Thursday.
However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
He said the reinvestigation into the actions of Wilson, who is white, for the death of Brown, who was Black — which sparked unrest in Ferguson long before America had learned the name of George Floyd — was necessary.
"Because of the significance of this case to this community and because the family asked, I believed it was necessary to conduct a reexamination of the evidence in the case and come to our own conclusion," Bell said.
No charges for officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, after follow-up probe
The review fo the fatal 2014 police shooting was kept secret because "we didn't want to create a circus," St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell said.www.nbcnews.com
Justice is served. Poor IQ2
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
He's a political hack reopening an investigation that was never going to result in charges, let alone a conviction.
He announced the results days before local primaries.
Word is, Kim Gardner isn't very popular and might lose the Dem primary on August 4th, to her competent opponent, Mary Pat Carl.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
Part of the political process, yes.
Nothing you said, changed anything I said. So.... thanks for stopping by?What's really funny is how some people seem able to invent narratives for others - simply sharing a quote of someone central to an investigation explaining themselves more fully than had previously been presented. You're so fucking welcomeIt's funny how people seem to conveniently deny how the system works, when it fits their narrative.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
Apparently, free big screen TVs only last 6 years in Ferguson...I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
How many times do you have to re-investigate something? The police department investigated. The State investigated, and Obama's DOJ investigated.
Now we're 6 years later... and doing another probe?
At some point, this is no longer about due diligence, and more about political witch hunting.
This is nefarious here. Honestly. The man has been proven innocent 3 times, by people doing everything in their power to crucify him, and failed 3 times... so 6 years later they are trying again.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
He's a political hack reopening an investigation that was never going to result in charges, let alone a conviction.
He announced the results days before local primaries.
Word is, Kim Gardner isn't very popular and might lose the Dem primary on August 4th, to her competent opponent, Mary Pat Carl.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
Part of the political process, yes.
Whatever you want to call it. I still don't see a problem here.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
He's a political hack reopening an investigation that was never going to result in charges, let alone a conviction.
He announced the results days before local primaries.
Word is, Kim Gardner isn't very popular and might lose the Dem primary on August 4th, to her competent opponent, Mary Pat Carl.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
Part of the political process, yes.
Whatever you want to call it. I still don't see a problem here.
Good for you.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
He's a political hack reopening an investigation that was never going to result in charges, let alone a conviction.
He announced the results days before local primaries.
Word is, Kim Gardner isn't very popular and might lose the Dem primary on August 4th, to her competent opponent, Mary Pat Carl.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
Part of the political process, yes.
Whatever you want to call it. I still don't see a problem here.
Good for you.
You too. Hopefully the venting helped.
Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
Then why mention it?
Because the hack prosecutor mentioned lack of exoneration.
I think this was the right call.
Re-opening the "investigation" was a political hack job.
I wouldn't go that far.
But I'm glad they got this one right.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. What was the reason, other than politics?
But I'm glad they got this one right.
They got it right in 2014. No legitimate reason to investigate any further.
Why do any cases get re-opened? This isn't the only case that has gotten re-opened. I wouldn't call those political hack jobs either.
Just part of the process.
Why do any cases get re-opened?
New evidence, new witnesses, recanting of old witnesses, discovery of police or prosecutorial malfeasance in the original case or, in this instance, politics.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
If you think there was anything inappropriate in the handling of this case, then I encourage you to write them a letter.
He's a political hack reopening an investigation that was never going to result in charges, let alone a conviction.
He announced the results days before local primaries.
Word is, Kim Gardner isn't very popular and might lose the Dem primary on August 4th, to her competent opponent, Mary Pat Carl.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the process and there's nothing nefarious here.
Part of the political process, yes.
Whatever you want to call it. I still don't see a problem here.
Good for you.
You too. Hopefully the venting helped.
You know, living in Chicago, I'd be more surprised to see a Dem politician not acting like a hack.
No charge is necessary to be innocent.Innocent of what exactly? He was never charged to begin with.Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
Because of what Bell said about the investigation not exonerating Wilson. Try to follow the quotes!Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
Then why mention it?
No charges being filed for murder or manslaughter doesn't mean he's innocent of other crimes. He's communicating the guy ain't completely out of the woods yet. Alternatively, believe whatever you want.No charge is necessary to be innocent.Innocent of what exactly? He was never charged to begin with.Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
A new review of the 2014 police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, of 18-year-old Michael Brown has concluded that no murder or manslaughter charges against former officer Darren Wilson are warranted.
The five-month secret review of the August 2014 fatal shooting led St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell to conclude he couldn't prove those allegations in a court of law, he said Thursday.
However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
He said the reinvestigation into the actions of Wilson, who is white, for the death of Brown, who was Black — which sparked unrest in Ferguson long before America had learned the name of George Floyd — was necessary.
"Because of the significance of this case to this community and because the family asked, I believed it was necessary to conduct a reexamination of the evidence in the case and come to our own conclusion," Bell said.
No charges for officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, after follow-up probe
The review fo the fatal 2014 police shooting was kept secret because "we didn't want to create a circus," St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell said.
Justice is served. Poor IQ2
As far as I know, you also may be guilty of some crime, but in the eyes of the law you are presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law of a crime. The burden of our justice system is to convict, not exonerate.No charges being filed for murder or manslaughter doesn't mean he's innocent of other crimes. He's communicating the guy ain't completely out of the woods yet. Alternatively, believe whatever you want.No charge is necessary to be innocent.Innocent of what exactly? He was never charged to begin with.Exoneration isn't necessary since one is presumed innocent in our system of justice.However, Bell said, "Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson."
