Ferguson cop
Some statists do attribute spirituality to their governments. Most, however, do not.Quote: rudeboyoiWhat is believing in god but believing in a higher power?
That is far from accurate. Targets of grand juries are almost always subpoenaed. The confusion appears to stem from the question of compelling testimony. The Fifth Amendment is usually cited, although the First has lately become used. At any rate, prosecutors frequently resort to the tool of offering immunity.Quote: beachbumbabsOfficer Wilson was allowed to tell his side of the story. The prospective defendant almost NEVER gets to tell his side of the story to a GJ.
The grand jury is not the forum for that.Quote: beachbumbabsNo one spoke for the dead kid. Especially not the prosecutor, who normally does.
Quote: rudeboyoiIve provided links to what was wrong with those indictment procedures. Scroll back a few pages and take a read.
I've read them, as well as others. I still stand by what I said. You would have done the exact same thing if you were in the Cop's situation. And you would hopefully not have done the same thing in Browns situation (well I doubt you would ever be in his situation hopefully).
if somebody far bigger than you starts punching you in the face, you are going to shoot him, and rightfully so.
But even if the Cop was 100% guilty and in the wrong (which nobody who evaluates it thinks), that is not even slightly an excuse for the violence and lootings of the "protestors"....
Quote: SanchoPanzaEven non-religious fanatics "take away" life. So what.
No where near the amount of lives taken away by religious fanatics.
That is a frighteningly big yes for the growing number of countries where Sharia Law is taking hold.Quote: rudeboyoiIn order for this to be true you have to accept the scripture that is law. By your logic an infidel getting killed is okay because the quran says its okay. I reject all forms of scripture.
Enduring prejudicial hardships and in diminishing numbers. Just ask the Copts.Quote: rudeboyoiI live right here. Do you also believe that non-muslims dont live in muslim countries?
Proportionately? It would certainly be interesting to see the numbers. After all, some of those numbers quoted here for the 20th century can definitely be questioned for how much religion did inspire their perpetrators or whether religion was just used as a ready-made off-the-shelf excuse.Quote: rudeboyoiNo where near the amount of lives taken away by religious fanatics.
Quote: SanchoPanzaEnduring prejudicial hardships and in diminishing numbers. Just ask the Copts.
I believe it was Douglas Murray who said: "Muslims talk endlessly about minority rights when they are a minority. When they are a majority, the discussion is nowhere to be had".
Its true to some degree even in liberal Muslim countries. You think its tough to be gay in America? Try being Gay in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Gaza. There is only one Middle Eastern Country where you can be gay and its not a Muslim country.
And to the other side. You think there is a war on Christians in America? Try living in the Middle East.
You think Atheists are distrusted in America? Try living in the middle east...
And I don't think I even need to mention views on Jewish people.
I wouldn't even want to try being a member of an even larger segment of the population -- the female population.Quote: GandlerI believe it was Douglas Murray who said: "Muslims talk endlessly about minority rights when they are a minority. When they are a ma Try being Gay in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Gaza. There is only one Middle Eastern Country where you can be gay and its not a Muslim country.
Quote: GandlerI've read them, as well as others. I still stand by what I said. You would have done the exact same thing if you were in the Cop's situation. And you would hopefully not have done the same thing in Browns situation (well I doubt you would ever be in his situation hopefully).
if somebody far bigger than you starts punching you in the face, you are going to shoot him, and rightfully so.
But even if the Cop was 100% guilty and in the wrong (which nobody who evaluates it thinks), that is not even slightly an excuse for the violence and lootings of the "protestors"....
Lets accept the premise that the cop was in the wrong. You can reject it later. Is property more important than someones life?
How would you like to get shot in the head while you're walking down the street for no reason at all?
You wouldn't? Well guess what's stopping that from happening...
The kid was walking down the street when the cop saw him. The cigar store thing is not at issue; the cop is not trying to find the kid for that. He just sees 2 kids walking down the middle of the street and so HE starts the confrontation by challenging them for doing that. OK, fine, must be a city ordinance or something. But that's all that's happened from the COP's perspective initially.
Nobody can verify what got said to whom, but the cop ends up claiming he was hit twice in the face, hard, while sitting in the car talking to the kid. Kid is to his left out the window; he's seated in the driver's seat. The only bruise on his face is on the lower right side of his face, the side away from the kid. How does that even happen? I think it's most likely the cop had already pulled his gun and, when (if) the kid reached for it (the cop claims he did), he pulled it away (assuming the cop's right-handed) and hit himself in the face with it. But I wasn't there. It's just not physically possible to land a hard blow on the side of the face opposite from where the kid was standing, and doesn't make sense that there's no injury evident to the close side or the front of his face if he actually got hit. ( I did see a picture where there was a reddish scratch on the back of the cop's neck).
The kid ends up shot right then (according to the policeman) and staggers away, 50-60 feet. If the cop is afraid of the kid (he claims he is from getting hit in the car) because of his size, why does he get out of the car? Except to hunt the kid down and finish killing him, seems to me. The correct move is to keep your distance and your car and wait for back-up, not continue a close confrontation with deadly force. But the cop is the aggressor in this.
The kid is 6'4 and 290 at the autopsy. The cop's testimony is that he "felt like Hulk Hogan" when he grabbed the kid's arm, like he (the cop) was tiny. Yet the cop himself was 6'4 and 210, and the cop was trained for physical confrontation and arrest (come-alongs, holds, whatever), the kid wasn't. Pure crap from the cop about their relative sizes, and the only pictures of the cop in the media are shot from eye level or above, diminishing his size subconsciously.
So, to me, the cop was the instigator and the pursuer. The eyewitnesses who saw anything other than the kid "charging back towards the cop" (why would he do this? Again, not logical - even if he tried to grab the gun while near the car, when he got hurt he moved away, which is what any child, animal, whatever does. He's not the one who's going to come at the cop; the cop went at him) - the eyewitnesses who reported that's what the kid did were discounted. The info released made the kid seem like a trapped wounded animal, but he wasn't trapped, he was on an open street and moving away, hurt. And yet he got shot 9 more times, all from a distance of 30 feet or more, and the last one when he was already down was a killing shot to the top of his head? It doesn't add up.
And now it may never add up. Because what got released as the "truth" was only part of the information.
If this is YOUR son, wouldn't you want some answers? Some clarification of inconsistencies? I sure would. That's what a trial is for.
Quote: sc15For the no government idea..
How would you like to get shot in the head while you're walking down the street for no reason at all?
You wouldn't? Well guess what's stopping that from happening...
Peoples inherent morality that killing people is bad. Police cant magically appear to protect you nor do they have any obligation to do so.
Quote: beachbumbabsHere are a few things I have problems with in this case:
The kid was walking down the street when the cop saw him. The cigar store thing is not at issue; the cop is not trying to find the kid for that. He just sees 2 kids walking down the middle of the street and so HE starts the confrontation by challenging them for doing that. OK, fine, must be a city ordinance or something. But that's all that's happened from the COP's perspective initially.
Nobody can verify what got said to whom, but the cop ends up claiming he was hit twice in the face, hard, while sitting in the car talking to the kid. Kid is to his left out the window; he's seated in the driver's seat. The only bruise on his face is on the lower right side of his face, the side away from the kid. How does that even happen? I think it's most likely the cop had already pulled his gun and, when (if) the kid reached for it (the cop claims he did), he pulled it away (assuming the cop's right-handed) and hit himself in the face with it. But I wasn't there. It's just not physically possible to land a hard blow on the side of the face opposite from where the kid was standing, and doesn't make sense that there's no injury evident to the close side or the front of his face if he actually got hit. ( I did see a picture where there was a reddish scratch on the back of the cop's neck).
The kid ends up shot right then (according to the policeman) and staggers away, 50-60 feet. If the cop is afraid of the kid (he claims he is from getting hit in the car) because of his size, why does he get out of the car? Except to hunt the kid down and finish killing him, seems to me. The correct move is to keep your distance and your car and wait for back-up, not continue a close confrontation with deadly force. But the cop is the aggressor in this.
The kid is 6'4 and 290 at the autopsy. The cop's testimony is that he "felt like Hulk Hogan" when he grabbed the kid's arm, like he (the cop) was tiny. Yet the cop himself was 6'4 and 210, and the cop was trained for physical confrontation and arrest (come-alongs, holds, whatever), the kid wasn't. Pure crap from the cop about their relative sizes, and the only pictures of the cop in the media are shot from eye level or above, diminishing his size subconsciously.
So, to me, the cop was the instigator and the pursuer. The eyewitnesses who saw anything other than the kid "charging back towards the cop" (why would he do this? Again, not logical - even if he tried to grab the gun while near the car, when he got hurt he moved away, which is what any child, animal, whatever does. He's not the one who's going to come at the cop; the cop went at him) - the eyewitnesses who reported that's what the kid did were discounted. The info released made the kid seem like a trapped wounded animal, but he wasn't trapped, he was on an open street and moving away, hurt. And yet he got shot 9 more times, all from a distance of 30 feet or more, and the last one when he was already down was a killing shot to the top of his head? It doesn't add up.
And now it may never add up. Because what got released as the "truth" was only part of the information.
If this is YOUR son, wouldn't you want some answers? Some clarification of inconsistencies? I sure would. That's what a trial is for.
The kid must've given the cop SOME reason to shoot him. Maybe the cop told him to stop because they were acting suspiciously (they did just rob a store, so they'd have reason to react suspiciously to a cop telling them to stop). This is an inner city area we're talking about. The cops are going to have itchy trigger fingers because a lot of these kids are armed and dangerous.
And if it's your son, maybe you did a good enough job raising him so he's not a criminal who deserves to get shot like a dirty animal. Most people don't have to worry about this kind of thing happening because their kids aren't walking around looking suspicious and giving cops a reason to shoot them.
Quote: beachbumbabsHere are a few things I have problems with in this case:
The kid was walking down the street when the cop saw him. The cigar store thing is not at issue; the cop is not trying to find the kid for that. He just sees 2 kids walking down the middle of the street and so HE starts the confrontation by challenging them for doing that. OK, fine, must be a city ordinance or something. But that's all that's happened from the COP's perspective initially.
Incorrect. He was walking in the middle of traffic when the cop saw him. You do not walk in the middle of traffic by mistake. It was intentional and something tough guys "in the hood" like to do. They like the idea that they are disrupting things and people will not do anything about it. Those who never get out of their peaceful suburbs and gated communities do not seem to get this.
And yes, it is "a city ordinance or something" that you do not walk in a lane of traffic to intentionally disrupt it.
Quote:Nobody can verify what got said to whom, but the cop ends up claiming he was hit twice in the face, hard, while sitting in the car talking to the kid. Kid is to his left out the window; he's seated in the driver's seat. The only bruise on his face is on the lower right side of his face, the side away from the kid. How does that even happen? I think it's most likely the cop had already pulled his gun and, when (if) the kid reached for it (the cop claims he did), he pulled it away (assuming the cop's right-handed) and hit himself in the face with it. But I wasn't there. It's just not physically possible to land a hard blow on the side of the face opposite from where the kid was standing, and doesn't make sense that there's no injury evident to the close side or the front of his face if he actually got hit. ( I did see a picture where there was a reddish scratch on the back of the cop's neck).
How on earth would the cop hit himself in the face with his gun when he had it pulled? Have you ever held a gun even for target practice? Trained people do not hold a gun anywhere near their face. If a gun goes off near your face you risk powder burns to your eyes. You have no aim and no control.
Quote:The kid ends up shot right then (according to the policeman) and staggers away, 50-60 feet. If the cop is afraid of the kid (he claims he is from getting hit in the car) because of his size, why does he get out of the car? Except to hunt the kid down and finish killing him, seems to me. The correct move is to keep your distance and your car and wait for back-up, not continue a close confrontation with deadly force. But the cop is the aggressor in this.
He gets out because it is the cop's job to go after the suspect. Cops can't call 9-1-1 and can't hide. A dangerous, continuing action situation is not going to be one where the cop can wait for backup. In any case I cannot believe you think the cop just wanted " to hunt down and finish killing" the kid. Serious? You hate cops and support the criminal this much?
Quote:
If this is YOUR son, wouldn't you want some answers? Some clarification of inconsistencies? I sure would. That's what a trial is for.
No, a trial is for when there was enough evidence that a crime was committed to try the person who committed it.
I have to think, Babs, that if in your neighborhood there were kids shoplifting stores and walking in the road you were trying to drive on that you would have a bit of a different take on things. The kid was a simple thug. He instigated everything that happened. Now more thugs are destroying their city.
Quote: beachbumbabsHere are a few things I have problems with in this case:
The kid was walking down the street when the cop saw him. The cigar store thing is not at issue; the cop is not trying to find the kid for that. He just sees 2 kids walking down the middle of the street and so HE starts the confrontation by challenging them for doing that. OK, fine, must be a city ordinance or something. But that's all that's happened from the COP's perspective initially.
I don't see a problem here. Two people walking down the center of a street (on the double yellow line).
Quote:
Nobody can verify what got said to whom, but the cop ends up claiming he was hit twice in the face, hard, while sitting in the car talking to the kid. Kid is to his left out the window; he's seated in the driver's seat. The only bruise on his face is on the lower right side of his face, the side away from the kid. How does that even happen? I think it's most likely the cop had already pulled his gun and, when (if) the kid reached for it (the cop claims he did), he pulled it away (assuming the cop's right-handed) and hit himself in the face with it. But I wasn't there. It's just not physically possible to land a hard blow on the side of the face opposite from where the kid was standing, and doesn't make sense that there's no injury evident to the close side or the front of his face if he actually got hit. ( I did see a picture where there was a reddish scratch on the back of the cop's neck).
If the cop is inside the car, facing outside the window (ie: turned 90 degrees to his left).....and someone is outside the car and is punching the cop....which hand is he going to hit him with? Let's say I'm in Michael Brown's shoes, am I going to punch him with my right hand or my left? If I use my right hand, there's maybe 6 inches between the back of the door and the left side of Wilson's face. If I use my left hand, there's about a foot between the front of the door and the right side of Wilson's face.
Quote:
The kid ends up shot right then (according to the policeman) and staggers away, 50-60 feet. If the cop is afraid of the kid (he claims he is from getting hit in the car) because of his size, why does he get out of the car? Except to hunt the kid down and finish killing him, seems to me. The correct move is to keep your distance and your car and wait for back-up, not continue a close confrontation with deadly force. But the cop is the aggressor in this.
He just shot someone (while in the car). The "correct" thing to do is wait inside the car? Oh please. He's going to wait (5 minutes?) before back up shows up?
Quote:
The kid is 6'4 and 290 at the autopsy. The cop's testimony is that he "felt like Hulk Hogan" when he grabbed the kid's arm, like he (the cop) was tiny. Yet the cop himself was 6'4 and 210, and the cop was trained for physical confrontation and arrest (come-alongs, holds, whatever), the kid wasn't. Pure crap from the cop about their relative sizes, and the only pictures of the cop in the media are shot from eye level or above, diminishing his size subconsciously.
The cop was inside a car and sitting down. You aren't as strong sitting down than standing up. Think about it. Try fighting someone when you're sitting down and he's standing up. You ain't gonna win.
Quote:
So, to me, the cop was the instigator and the pursuer. The eyewitnesses who saw anything other than the kid "charging back towards the cop" (why would he do this? Again, not logical - even if he tried to grab the gun while near the car, when he got hurt he moved away, which is what any child, animal, whatever does. He's not the one who's going to come at the cop; the cop went at him) - the eyewitnesses who reported that's what the kid did were discounted. The info released made the kid seem like a trapped wounded animal, but he wasn't trapped, he was on an open street and moving away, hurt. And yet he got shot 9 more times, all from a distance of 30 feet or more, and the last one when he was already down was a killing shot to the top of his head? It doesn't add up.
No, it's not logical to charge at someone, especially a cop. People don't always do the most logical thing. By saying "it isn't logical to do that" makes it seem like you're arguing that it didn't even happen. Is it logical to steal from a store? No. Did it happen? Yes. (Unless you think the video is botched.) Is it logical to walk down the center of the street? Did that happen?
I don't know about you, but if someone's charging at me (mind you, someone that already attacked me and tried to take my gun), I'm not going to stop shooting until I'm positive he's down. I don't know if the man (stop calling him a "teenager" or a "child".....he's a man, 6'5'' and 300 lbs) that's charging at me is f****** up on some drugs or what. He could have been on PCP for all I know. Shoot until I'm positive he's down or has stopped charging.
Quote:
And now it may never add up. Because what got released as the "truth" was only part of the information.
If this is YOUR son, wouldn't you want some answers? Some clarification of inconsistencies? I sure would. That's what a trial is for.
Was only "part" of the information?
Those who claimed Brown was shot execution style or with his hands in the air later reported that was just what they heard (word of mouth) and didn't actually see what happened, but that's what they heard.
I don't know what it's called (press conference maybe? or the press release? when the guy was announcing was happened and that Wilson wasn't indicted)....one of the people asked if the people who initially told a story that "didn't match up" (shot execution style / hands in the air)....the person asked if those people would be charged with perjury / lying to the police. And the answer was no -- they would not be charged.
After all, when people are interviewed and asked of their eyewitness account....the stories aren't all going to be 100% the same. And generally, people don't "see" what happened the same way. Have you ever seen and believed something happened one way, but later realized that's not actually how it played out?
It's only fair to present both sides' stories here:
Mike Dice's presentation:
Rev. Carlton Lee's presentation:
So a Black Church was torched. What's next? Will a White Church be burnt?
"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind." by Mahatma Gandhi
So is Wall St. and Congress. Kings and aristocrats used to not be subject to laws until the people rioted and gave them a wedgie into submission.Quote: EvenBobPrisons are full of people who say they
don't believe in the law, or the law doesn't
apply to them. That's why we have prisons,
they think alike and should all be together.
And lefties say FNC is "biased." At least now we know what newscast some folks here must be watching when they show views they show.
Quote: onenickelmiracleSo is Wall St. and Congress. Kings and aristocrats used to not be subject to laws until the people rioted and gave them a wedgie into submission.
that's a typical occupy Wallstreet talking point...
I saw some facebook meme last night that said "you ate angry at looting on Ferguson but not the looting on Wallstreet?"
It's s cheap point for a number of reasons. Mostly because you can't excuse one wrong by pointing to some body else doing wrong.
Secondly there is a difference between physical violence and taking advantage of systems. It's like comparing an AP to a robber.
Quote: rudeboyoiLets accept the premise that the cop was in the wrong. You can reject it later. Is property more important than someones life?
Absolutely. If a criminal was going to rob you of every asset you had and you could stop him by lawfully killing him would you do it?
That's an easy yes for anybody but an idiot progressive.
Quote: Gandlerthat's a typical occupy Wallstreet talking point...
I saw some facebook meme last night that said "you ate angry at looting on Ferguson but not the looting on Wallstreet?"
It's s cheap point for a number of reasons. Mostly because you can't excuse one wrong by pointing to some body else doing wrong.
Secondly there is a difference between physical violence and taking advantage of systems. It's like comparing an AP to a robber.
I hope you are not getting your financial news from facebook.lol
I have a hard time understanding how you went from being a Ron Paul supporter to your current meme? He was extremely correct, you know?
I hope you will read and try to understand what this article really means to the US. Ferguson is but a distraction. Just like all the others.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/article/grandmaster-putins-golden-trap It is why, Ron was trying to inform the dwts crowd during the election. What determines the price of oil if not supply and demand?
and a judge setting bail is kidnapping.
It gives the word 'naive' a whole new
meaning.
Quote: petroglyphI hope you are not getting your financial news from facebook.lol
I have a hard time understanding how you went from being a Ron Paul supporter to your current meme? He was extremely correct, you know?
I hope you will read and try to understand what this article really means to the US. Ferguson is but a distraction. Just like all the others.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/article/grandmaster-putins-golden-trap It is why, Ron was trying to inform the dwts crowd during the election. What determines the price of oil if not supply and demand?
I posted that meme quote because of its ignorance, and to show how foolish some people are, not because I beleive it.
If I got any of my news or views from facebook I would not be the way I was, since 90% of my friends are disgustingly liberal.
That site has an agenda, to promote and sell gold... though I do agree with a gold standard.
And Ferguson is not a distraction to the small buisness owners trying to survive getting plundered.
As for Ron Paul. I Prefer his son, Rand Paul is closer to my views. I hope he runs in 2016. But as I said before, I became more Neoconservative, because I do support foreign interventions and Federal Strength. That being said I would probaprobably vote for Ron if he runs again simply because he is honest even if I disagree with him on a lot. But Rand Paul seems to be the way of the future.
Quote: EvenBobI still can't get over arresting a criminal
and a judge setting bail is kidnapping.
It gives the word 'naive' a whole new
meaning.
Same kind of liberal that used to say a husband having sex with his wife was rape no matter what way back when. Or that the poor "had their wealth stolen by the rich" despite the fact that they were always poor and can show no theft. Good to point to and show what some people really believe.
I responded in context and you did not yet again, so naturally you cannot understand. Read your own posts and you'll explain your troubles to yourself.Quote: Gandlerthat's a typical occupy Wallstreet talking point...
I saw some facebook meme last night that said "you ate angry at looting on Ferguson but not the looting on Wallstreet?"
It's s cheap point for a number of reasons. Mostly because you can't excuse one wrong by pointing to some body else doing wrong.
Secondly there is a difference between physical violence and taking advantage of systems. It's like comparing an AP to a robber.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI responded in context and you did not yet again, so naturally you cannot understand. Read your own posts and you'll explain your troubles to yourself.
No you didn't since that reply was not even to a post I made (you were replying to somebody else)......
I just jumped on that statement since it sounds like an Occupy mentality....
Quote: AZDuffmanSame kind of liberal that used to say a husband having sex with his wife was rape no matter what way back when. Or that the poor "had their wealth stolen by the rich" despite the fact that they were always poor and can show no theft. Good to point to and show what some people really believe.
Sorry this stuff is more like conservative, or libertarian.
Let's see more like Eric Frein, anti-federal government, anti-police, freedom from near everything.
Too bad whoever's doing is probably broke so I wouldn't be able to sue their estate for the damages caused to me.
The odds of having criminal charges filed against you for killing them is slim to none if you run over an idiot standing in the middle of a highway.
Quote:It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
In short Wilson testifying or evidence beneficial to Wilson is out of line. Correct?
Quote: onenickelmiracleI responded in context and you did not yet again, so naturally you cannot understand. Read your own posts and you'll explain your troubles to yourself.
That is funny:)
It is not the first time I responded to Gandlers post when it is not what he meant. To be fair, I get misunderstood as well.
Gandler, save us all some keystrokes and invest in a [sarc] tag.
If you disagree with the link provided it would be acceptable to disagree with the story, not blanket dismissal of a story. The gold site of course has an agenda, as does this site.
Quote: petroglyphThat is funny:)
It is not the first time I responded to Gandlers post when it is not what he meant. To be fair, I get misunderstood as well.
Gandler, save us all some keystrokes and invest in a [sarc] tag.
If you disagree with the link provided it would be acceptable to disagree with the story, not blanket dismissal of a story. The gold site of course has an agenda, as does this site.
No because he was replying to somebody else which is why the follow on comment does not fit/make sense when aimed at me ...
And I am skeptical of all sites that sell overpriced gold and use fear as a marketing campaign (IE: the currency is going to collapse invest in gold now! Type sites...). There is a reason they have the stories that they have.
To say Ferguson Riots are a distraction is to say all of the main stream media is part of some conspiracy to put focus where the goverment desires.... it is important to people getting their buisness looted....
The only agenda this site has is to inform people and news to some degree (gambling/vegas news). This site has never tried to sell me anything. I know they have ads, but what site doesnt.
Quote: onenickelmiracle
Duplicate post
Quote: bobsimsAbsolutely. If a criminal was going to rob you of every asset you had and you could stop him by lawfully killing him would you do it?
That's an easy yes for anybody but an idiot progressive.
Thank you! This silliness of "is property more important than life?" is just that, silly. When someone uses force to take your property unjustly, how can you be certain that they will stop at your property and not decide to keep you from ever testifying against them? They have judged that your labor, and possibly your life, is worth less than their immediate gratification to be obtained by taking what you rightfully possess. AND, the theft was not the reason that this man was shot. Once he attacked the police officer (repeatedly, no less), he had declared himself to be a threat to the officer's life. If this happened to you or me, we would be entirely justified in shooting until the threat (not necessarily the person) was eliminated.
Quote: rxwineJustice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams,
Quote:It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
In short Wilson testifying or evidence beneficial to Wilson is out of line. Correct?
Exactly. Thank you for finding that.
Quote: AZDuffmanCNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ‘peaceful’
And lefties say FNC is "biased." At least now we know what newscast some folks here must be watching when they show views they show.
Wow, so leftist media vermin are going out of their way to cover up for criminal, parasitic, terroristic minorities? I'm shocked, shocked I say, hey hey.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: rxwineJustice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams,
Quote:It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
In short Wilson testifying or evidence beneficial to Wilson is out of line. Correct?
Exactly. Thank you for finding that.
Presenting exculpatory evidence is not out of line if the prosecutor has doubts about the reasonableness of the case and COUNTLESS of potential defendants have testified before a grand jury (its a regular practice in my jurisdiction for defense attorneys to allow it if the defendant's state of mind will turn the case). There just isn't a right to it and being denied the opportunity is not a basis to later overturn a conviction.
Quote: beachbumbabsHere are a few things I have problems with in this case:
The kid was walking down the street when the cop saw him. The cigar store thing is not at issue; the cop is not trying to find the kid for that. He just sees 2 kids walking down the middle of the street and so HE starts the confrontation by challenging them for doing that. OK, fine, must be a city ordinance or something. But that's all that's happened from the COP's perspective initially.
Did you even read his testimony? Wilson testified that initial contact was made for blocking traffic, THEN that he recognized the clothes Brown was wearing from the liquor store call. He also testified that he called backup for that reason.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Nobody can verify what got said to whom, but the cop ends up claiming he was hit twice in the face, hard, while sitting in the car talking to the kid. Kid is to his left out the window; he's seated in the driver's seat. The only bruise on his face is on the lower right side of his face, the side away from the kid. How does that even happen? I think it's most likely the cop had already pulled his gun and, when (if) the kid reached for it (the cop claims he did), he pulled it away (assuming the cop's right-handed) and hit himself in the face with it. But I wasn't there. It's just not physically possible to land a hard blow on the side of the face opposite from where the kid was standing, and doesn't make sense that there's no injury evident to the close side or the front of his face if he actually got hit. ( I did see a picture where there was a reddish scratch on the back of the cop's neck).
This is a very bad mishmash of fact, speculation, and failure to use your imagination. If I am standing at your driver's side door, and you turn your head to the left to see me... wouldn't it be easy to hit me in the face with your left hand? Of course its possible. You make the insane assumption that Wilson is lock-necked staring forward the entire time!
Your theory is that Wilson hit himself in the face with his gun? LOL. That's quite a contrivance.
Quote: beachbumbabs
The kid ends up shot right then (according to the policeman) and staggers away, 50-60 feet. If the cop is afraid of the kid (he claims he is from getting hit in the car) because of his size, why does he get out of the car? Except to hunt the kid down and finish killing him, seems to me. The correct move is to keep your distance and your car and wait for back-up, not continue a close confrontation with deadly force. But the cop is the aggressor in this.
It's not illegal, wrong, or violative of typical procedure to pursue someone who is a suspect in a theft and assault on a police officer.
Quote: beachbumbabs
The kid is 6'4 and 290 at the autopsy. The cop's testimony is that he "felt like Hulk Hogan" when he grabbed the kid's arm, like he (the cop) was tiny. Yet the cop himself was 6'4 and 210, and the cop was trained for physical confrontation and arrest (come-alongs, holds, whatever), the kid wasn't. Pure crap from the cop about their relative sizes, and the only pictures of the cop in the media are shot from eye level or above, diminishing his size subconsciously.
This very bad point is spewing all over the internet. Wilson didn't say Brown towered over him in height--- he said he man-handled him with strength. Have you ever fought someone with 80 pounds on you? I have. Its like the difference between your typical NFL wide receiver and your typical NFL defensive tackle. If he isn't pure lard the guy with an 80 pound advantage will absolutely manhandle the lighter guy.
Quote: beachbumbabs
So, to me, the cop was the instigator and the pursuer.
Both of which he had a legal right to do.
Quote: beachbumbabs
The eyewitnesses who saw anything other than the kid "charging back towards the cop" (why would he do this? Again, not logical - even if he tried to grab the gun while near the car, when he got hurt he moved away, which is what any child, animal, whatever does. He's not the one who's going to come at the cop; the cop went at him) - the eyewitnesses who reported that's what the kid did were discounted. The info released made the kid seem like a trapped wounded animal, but he wasn't trapped, he was on an open street and moving away, hurt. And yet he got shot 9 more times, all from a distance of 30 feet or more, and the last one when he was already down was a killing shot to the top of his head? It doesn't add up.
The blood trail unambiguously demonstrates that Brown moved back toward Wilson. Your post also states as fact that Brown was "already down" when the final shot was fired. There's conflicting testimony on that. If you listen to the audio the time between the 2nd to last and last shots are very short and don't leave enough time for the "execution shot" theory.
Quote: beachbumbabs
If this is YOUR son, wouldn't you want some answers? Some clarification of inconsistencies? I sure would. That's what a trial is for.
Trials do NOT exist to clarify inconsistencies. That's what an investigation is for.
And that is the primary function of grand juries--investigation.Quote: captainmajorTrials do NOT exist to clarify inconsistencies. That's what an investigation is for.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhy dont protesters carry riot shields too?
Hard to carry big screen TV's and quarts of
expensive vodka when one hand is carrying
a shield. Duh..
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: rxwineJustice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams,
Quote:It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
In short Wilson testifying or evidence beneficial to Wilson is out of line. Correct?
Exactly. Thank you for finding that.
Pretty selective reading here. The subject does not have a right to testify or present exculpatory evidence. This is now and has been a matter of prosecutor's discretion. Next time try to read all the way to the period.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-spending-his-afternoon-focusing-on-ferguson-2014-12
I think a lot of issues that need to be discussed are on the agenda and I would applaud the meeting at a different time. Holding it now gives a false legitimacy to Sharpton and also makes it seem like the President thinks that someone's civil rights were violated in spite of the evidence out there so far.
A street thug took on a cop. He had more than one way out--like not escalating the confrontation--but he choose to escalate. That is really all there is out there at this point in spite of all the spin people are trying to put on it. There could always be more to it, but none has been shown yet.
I am fine with the protest, its peaceful (no cars burned) and this is America.
Now the local Police association is demanding an apology.
So I geuss the police are allowing protests as long as you apologise?????????????????
ridiculous.
Whats next, thought crime.
Quote: terapinedSome of the Rams players protested at the game with the gesture their hands up.
I am fine with the protest, its peaceful (no cars burned) and this is America.
Now the local Police association is demanding an apology.
So I geuss the police are allowing protests as long as you apologise?????????????????
ridiculous.
Whats next, thought crime.
Not the first "hands up" protest in the NFL this year. Not the first group to demand an apology for something that did no harm to anyone.
Best way the cops can get satisfaction is to tune out the Rams or/and the NFL. If the players want to side with a thug, well it is just one more reason to tune the league out.
Quote: terapinedSome of the Rams players protested at the game with the gesture their hands up.
I am fine with the protest, its peaceful (no cars burned) and this is America.
Now the local Police association is demanding an apology.
So I geuss the police are allowing protests as long as you apologise?????????????????
ridiculous.
Whats next, thought crime.
The players are participating in a event that is the "product" being sold by the NFL. It is clearly established that they don't have the right to do/say anything they'd like while representing that product--look what happens when one wears the wrong logo item... The NFL has a right to demand conduct that represents the NFL in the proper light.
The NFL took no action against them, which is probably the right decision.
You are allowed to protest in any manner you wish (peacefully) but it doesn't necessarily follow that you can protest inside of a venue controlled by your employer and while representing them. The police have the right to demand an apology; the NFL has a right not to issue one and to not punish the protesters.
Quote: rudeboyoiHow blind can people be? Police are thugs. Kidnappings (arrest). Home invasions (no knock raids). Theft of property (civil asset forfeiture).
If you think arrests are tantamount to kidnapping, then I suggest that you seek help.
Everyone I hope will at least consider, at least in the furthest recesses of they're mind, that we are being played. As the saying goes in poker, if you look around the table and can't spot the sucker, you're it.
This whole race baiting, people dividing, msm created frenzy is designed, so no one will consider, the mechanization by which we lose our freedom, democracy and the fruit of our own labor.
Does anyone even still remember the "ebola" scare, the presidential "pardon" of 5 or so million undocumented inhabitants, or the election? The news of the country and the world is much more then fits on a 15 minute loop.
