RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson

RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson

Officer Wilson WILL be charged with a crime

2% (1)

Officer Wilson will NOT be charged with a crime

38% (14)

I could not care less

11% (4)

Who is officer Wilson

16% (6)

Regardless of the decision Wilson is guilty

19% (7)

Regardless of the decision Wilson is innocent

11% (4)

Total Votes : 36

(last vote on : 12/8/2014 3:18:50 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/4/2014 5:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But cloudboy he knew there was no law that he could bring charges on... so he did the next best thing... he figured a way to make ALL the evidence available to the public... very unusual but an attempt to be as transparent as possible. Butch Laws he could have brought charges on: 2nd degree murder (and a bunch of lesser included charges) use of excessive force by a LEO failure to file a police report But he chose not to instruct the grand jury about any of those potential charges or any charges at all so how where they supposed to vote out an indictment even if they wanted to? except for the trivial matter that the evidence didn't support any of these There was more than probable cause for all of them. If you don't understand what probable cause means perhaps you should shut the fuck up. If you think that them not seeing what you want them to means they ignored probable cause maybe it is you who should follow Lincoln's admonition that it is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/4/2014 5:22:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But cloudboy he knew there was no law that he could bring charges on... so he did the next best thing... he figured a way to make ALL the evidence available to the public... very unusual but an attempt to be as transparent as possible. Butch Laws he could have brought charges on: 2nd degree murder (and a bunch of lesser included charges) use of excessive force by a LEO failure to file a police report But he chose not to instruct the grand jury about any of those potential charges or any charges at all so how where they supposed to vote out an indictment even if they wanted to? except for the trivial matter that the evidence didn't support any of these There was more than probable cause for all of them. If you don't understand what probable cause means perhaps you should shut the fuck up. WOW what a surprise DK didn't agree with someone so they should SHUT THE FUCK UP! HAHAHAH just so we all know... Probable Cause Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution so according to DK the jurors were NOT reasonably intelligent! They couldn't be, they disagree with him.

cloudboy -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/4/2014 5:52:31 PM)
At least I'm not relying on the Washington Times for information. Your translation is so far off it is hard to bother with it. A prosecutor is not interested in being fair, he's interested in prosecuting. Defense lawyers, trials, and pre-trial procedures insure "fairness." For instance, a prosecutor does not introduce evidence of a possible "unlawful search" when he seeks to prosecute someone for a crime. No, he goes for the throat. In this case the prosecutor simply "didn't prosecute," and that is unusual for a grand jury proceeding.

BitYakin -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/4/2014 6:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy At least I'm not relying on the Washington Times for information. Your translation is so far off it is hard to bother with it. A prosecutor is not interested in being fair, he's interested in prosecuting. Defense lawyers, trials, and pre-trial procedures insure "fairness." For instance, a prosecutor does not introduce evidence of a possible "unlawful search" when he seeks to prosecute someone for a crime. No, he goes for the throat. In this case the prosecutor simply "didn't prosecute," and that is unusual for a grand jury proceeding. do quotes from legal scholars change meaning depending on what newspaper they are printed in? or are you saying they were misquoted? no a prosecutor is interested in WINNING CASES, getting an indictment on a case he KNOWS he cannot win, its just a waste of taxpayer money... as for my translation, so far I haven't heard a single quote from any lawyer, judge or law professor that has said anything other than unusual but as FAIR as I have ever seen... so I can only conclude your objection is to the FAIRNESS of it what exactly IS your objection then??? that it wasn't a witch hunt? that it was LEGAL but unusual? do tell what is your objection???

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/4/2014 6:43:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy At least I'm not relying on the Washington Times for information. Your translation is so far off it is hard to bother with it. A prosecutor is not interested in being fair, he's interested in prosecuting. Defense lawyers, trials, and pre-trial procedures insure "fairness." For instance, a prosecutor does not introduce evidence of a possible "unlawful search" when he seeks to prosecute someone for a crime. No, he goes for the throat. In this case the prosecutor simply "didn't prosecute," and that is unusual for a grand jury proceeding. do quotes from legal scholars change meaning depending on what newspaper they are printed in? or are you saying they were misquoted? no a prosecutor is interested in WINNING CASES, getting an indictment on a case he KNOWS he cannot win, its just a waste of taxpayer money... as for my translation, so far I haven't heard a single quote from any lawyer, judge or law professor that has said anything other than unusual but as FAIR as I have ever seen... so I can only conclude your objection is to the FAIRNESS of it what exactly IS your objection then??? that it wasn't a witch hunt? that it was LEGAL but unusual? do tell what is your objection??? His objection is that Wilson isn't hanging from a cross on top of the Arch.

cloudboy -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/4/2014 8:33:54 PM)
The Washington Times is a biased, right-wing rag owned by religious zealouts. Google "List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to washington times" and let me know what you find. See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

DomKen -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 3:00:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But cloudboy he knew there was no law that he could bring charges on... so he did the next best thing... he figured a way to make ALL the evidence available to the public... very unusual but an attempt to be as transparent as possible. Butch Laws he could have brought charges on: 2nd degree murder (and a bunch of lesser included charges) use of excessive force by a LEO failure to file a police report But he chose not to instruct the grand jury about any of those potential charges or any charges at all so how where they supposed to vote out an indictment even if they wanted to? except for the trivial matter that the evidence didn't support any of these There was more than probable cause for all of them. If you don't understand what probable cause means perhaps you should shut the fuck up. If you think that them not seeing what you want them to means they ignored probable cause maybe it is you who should follow Lincoln's admonition that it is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Do you really not know how easy it is reach the level of probable cause in a criminal case? Why don't you show us all how there wasn't probable cause that Wilson didn't commit 2nd degree murder then? The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause#United_States

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 4:20:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The Washington Times is a biased, right-wing rag owned by religious zealouts. Google "List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to washington times" and let me know what you find. See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times This, from the boy who quotes Huffpo and KOS

PeonForHer -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 4:52:22 AM)
quote: See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times quote: Thanks for that link. Hilarious! It even makes our own Daily Mail look balanced by comparison!

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 8:17:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But cloudboy he knew there was no law that he could bring charges on... so he did the next best thing... he figured a way to make ALL the evidence available to the public... very unusual but an attempt to be as transparent as possible. Butch Laws he could have brought charges on: 2nd degree murder (and a bunch of lesser included charges) use of excessive force by a LEO failure to file a police report But he chose not to instruct the grand jury about any of those potential charges or any charges at all so how where they supposed to vote out an indictment even if they wanted to? except for the trivial matter that the evidence didn't support any of these There was more than probable cause for all of them. If you don't understand what probable cause means perhaps you should shut the fuck up. If you think that them not seeing what you want them to means they ignored probable cause maybe it is you who should follow Lincoln's admonition that it is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Do you really not know how easy it is reach the level of probable cause in a criminal case? Why don't you show us all how there wasn't probable cause that Wilson didn't commit 2nd degree murder then? The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause#United_States Simple, the evidence, even testimony by blacks, demonstrated that it was not murder, there simply was no case. I see you have chosen to ignore Lincoln's advise.

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 8:21:44 AM)
The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 8:56:31 AM)
That's not the standard -- that would be trying the case in the grand jury. The question is whether there's a good case by the prosecution. Here, the prosecution made a mess of it.

cloudboy -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 9:01:22 AM)
Don't read or quote either. I don't want biased information or spin. I want facts and analysis and in-depth reporting.

DomKen -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 3:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. Nope. The probable cause standard is a very low hurdle. The old saw about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich exists for a reason. In this case there was no doubt that Wilson was the killer so an indictment should have been a forgone conclusion. Wilson would have been free to assert his self defense claim as an affirmative defense at trial where it would be subject to aggressive cross examination and the full rules of evidence.

DomKen -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 3:50:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times Thanks for that link. Hilarious! It even makes our own Daily Mail look balanced by comparison! When I was stationed in D.C. in the latter part of Raygun Ronnie's tenure the DoD had decided that the Washington Post was too much of a liberal rag to allow on base and had replaced it with the Times in all the vending machines. So every morning when I came out of my BEQ I'd pass a newspaper box and see the headlines. This was in the middle of Iran-Contra and the rest of the news was covering little else but it never appeared above the fold in the Times. It was like they were reporting the news from another planet.

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 3:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Don't read or quote either. I don't want biased information or spin. I want facts and analysis and in-depth reporting. Werent you quoting the dirt worshipers at Mother Jones the other day, as well

dcnovice -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 8:43:33 PM)
quote: dirt worshipers This term was unfamiliar to me, so I Googled it. Found two interesting definitions at Urban Dictionary: a racial slur towards native americans because they worship nature life. Dale(native american) is a dirt worshipper and sun god worshipper. * * * Derogatory name for someone who practices any of a number of Pagan/Wiccan/Druidic faiths. Named because these religeons usually prescribe a close relationship with nature. Many followers also exhibit strong opinions regarding the environment due to their beliefs. Looks like the dirt worshipers finally got the sawmill closed.

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 8:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. Nope. The probable cause standard is a very low hurdle. The old saw about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich exists for a reason. In this case there was no doubt that Wilson was the killer so an indictment should have been a forgone conclusion. Wilson would have been free to assert his self defense claim as an affirmative defense at trial where it would be subject to aggressive cross examination and the full rules of evidence. It isn't did he likely kill Brown it is did he likely killed Brown illegally. I understand that you can't see the distinction, but it is a big one.

BitYakin -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 11:09:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The Washington Times is a biased, right-wing rag owned by religious zealouts. Google "List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to washington times" and let me know what you find. See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times sooo you are saying those lawyers and professors do not exist? or you are saying the newspaper changed their quotes to something other than what they actually said? ok how bout this, maybe you can find some article where a law professional says what happened was either illegal or unfair? I don't care if it came out in the mickey mouse club comic book, if the people exist and said what they said, then where its reported doesn't make it any less true...

BitYakin -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/5/2014 11:21:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The Washington Times is a biased, right-wing rag owned by religious zealouts. Google "List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to washington times" and let me know what you find. See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times I also noticed you had no response to well ANYTHING I said, except to say how BAD that newspaper is maybe you could answer ONE of the 1/2 dozen or so questions I asked? you know like how a prosecutor wants to win cases not just throw LOSING cases before the courts maybe you could comment on THAT? maybe you could answer that last question? ya know the one, "what is your objection?" if it wasn't LEGAL surely some lawyer by now would have pointed that out, don't ya think? if it wasn't FAIR, maybe just ONE law professional might have expressed that opinion, JUST ONE? could you point us to a SINGLE ARTICLE anywhere, ya know from one of your more REPUTABLE SOURCES, that points out something unfair or illegal? you say my source SUCKS, OK show us your source...

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625