• [BREAKING] Its happening. Grand jury has made a decision about Ferguson.
    2,211 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;46581475]because people who don't do their research hears "the lead prosecutor has ties to the police" they instantly think it's a conspiracy.[/QUOTE] Honestly, watching a single episode of Law & Order will display the ties the police and the district attorney's office has.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46581993]Hey guess what. You'll love this: If they felt as though he was too close to the case, they wouldn't have let him present the case in the first place. The justice system has a way of dealing with that. Keep being ignorant and screaming that wilson is guilty, because the US justice system has already spoken. God damn, its like you have no idea how the justice system works and don't have access to the internet to look it up.[/QUOTE] Hey, guess what. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/21/ferguson-protesters-want-prosecutor-replaced/14411337/"]70,000 people[/URL] were pushing for the removal of McCulloch from this case, and he [URL="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119172/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-mcculloch-should-step-aside"]still refused to step down[/URL]. He refused to let someone else take this case. god damn, everyone's up in arms when some FCC chairman lobbied for comcast years ago, but when a more blatant conflict of interest happens here, everyone's saying all's fine and fair in the land of liberty
[QUOTE=Holt!;46581867][video=youtube;tOEpPAzeZ9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEpPAzeZ9A[/video] So apparently this is happening.[/QUOTE] There are protests here in Lone Tree, Colorado, too. One of the most upper class, whitest neighborhoods in the Denver metro area. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=cebceb44;46582056]Hey, guess what. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/21/ferguson-protesters-want-prosecutor-replaced/14411337/"]70,000 people[/URL] were pushing for the removal of McCulloch from this case, and he [URL="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119172/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-mcculloch-should-step-aside"]still refused to step down[/URL]. He refused to let someone else take this case. god damn, everyone's up in arms when some FCC chairman lobbied for comcast years ago, but when a more blatant conflict of interest happens here, everyone's saying all's fine and fair in the land of liberty[/QUOTE] Because Justice should not be at the whim of the populace. It's based on fact, not misguided, uneducated emotion.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582056]Hey, guess what. [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/21/ferguson-protesters-want-prosecutor-replaced/14411337/"]70,000 people[/URL] were pushing for the removal of McCulloch from this case, and he [URL="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119172/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-mcculloch-should-step-aside"]still refused to step down[/URL]. He refused to let someone else take this case. god damn, everyone's up in arms when some FCC chairman lobbied for comcast years ago, but when a more blatant conflict of interest happens here, everyone's saying all's fine and fair in the land of liberty[/QUOTE] How many people asked the president to step down? Threaten to impeach him? Sue him? And yet hes been in office for 6 years. Didnt step down. If you, as a prosecuting attorney, are swayed by public opinion than you should not be in such a position.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46581344]so are we just going to ignore the fact that the Prosecuting Attorney for the trial (Robert P. McCulloch) is the president of [URL="http://www.backstoppers.org/board.html"]The BackStoppers Inc.[/URL], (A community revolving around the protection and support of [I]police officers[/I] and firefighters) which was responsible for (and even benefited from) [URL="http://teespring.com/supportdwilson2014"]several[/URL] [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20140826161021/https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser"]fundraisers[/URL] supporting Darren Wilson I dunno, I mean that seems like there might be some conflict of interest there but hey, there's probably some unrelated reason why the National Bar Association is [URL="http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b"]calling bullshit[/URL] on the trial's result[/QUOTE] Woah this is fucking huge
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46582089]How many people asked the president to step down? Threaten to impeach him? Sue him? And yet hes been in office for 6 years. Didnt step down. If you, as a prosecuting attorney, are swayed by public opinion than you should not be in such a position.[/QUOTE] People have been asking the president to step down because people still have a hard time believing he was born in America. People have asked him to step down because he's of a different political party. It's hardly the same thing. It's not even close. Are you even paying attention when I say conflict of interest? Are you just ignoring that, or do you believe that he, in no way, could be biased in favor of cops, despite several things saying otherwise? That this apparent lack of bias led to a fair trial, and that all's said and done? Are you trying to say that McCullough, as a prosecuting attorney, had no influence in the jury's decision? I'm not even sure how to respond to you, because you all seem to be sidestepping all this by saying a conflict of interest shouldn't matter. In the legal system, that should actually completely totally matter. like what the hell, guys
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582161]And now we get to waste a fuckton of money on the federal circuit trying the same guy, with the same evidence. Because people can't accept that wilson didn't do a damn thing wrong.[/QUOTE] isn't this basically saying "justice shouldn't matter if it's expensive" again what the hell
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582148]People have been asking the president to step down because people still have a hard time believing he was born in America. People have asked him to step down because he's of a different political party. It's hardly the same thing. It's not even close.[/quote] Ignorance is ignorance, regardless of how you feel about it. [quote]Are you even paying attention when I say conflict of interest? Are you just ignoring that, or do you believe that he, in no way, could be biased in favor of cops, despite several things saying otherwise? That this apparent lack of bias led to a fair trial, and that all's said and done? Are you trying to say that McCullough, as a prosecuting attorney, had no influence in the jury's decision?[/quote] The District Attorney wants another kill on his belt. He wants another person serving time. The only conflict of interest is he works on the board of a charity organization that helps the widows of the cops who are killed by scumbags like Mike Brown. [quote]I'm not even sure how to respond to you, because you seem to be sidestepping all this by saying a conflict of interest shouldn't matter. In the legal system, that should actually completely totally matter. like what the hell, dude[/QUOTE] It's hard to respond to you because you refuse to take common sense into the fight.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582146]No. Not it's not. I just love that the federal courts have been pulled into this. Thanks, now we'll get to waste more money arguing about an innocent mans actions. Great.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that saving money is better than a fair trial?
The money that would have been spent on an actual trial is instead going to be spent on rebuilding Ferguson's community after this fucking rioting bullshit stops.
[QUOTE=darunner;46582170] The District Attorney wants another kill on his belt. He wants another person serving time. The only conflict of interest is he works on the board of a charity organization that helps the widows of the cops who are killed by scumbags like Mike Brown. [/QUOTE] Yes he does that, but why would there be a charity to support Darren Wilson [url]http://teespring.com/supportdwilson2014[/url]
[QUOTE=Holt!;46581867][video=youtube;tOEpPAzeZ9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEpPAzeZ9A[/video] So apparently this is happening.[/QUOTE] Imagine if they protested about stuff that's actually in Britain.
[QUOTE=Deng;46582212]Imagine if they protested about stuff that's actually in Britain.[/QUOTE] I can't believe I heard them chant "Fuck the police" I laughed a little harder than I should.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582211]Yes he does that, but why would there be a charity to support Darren Wilson [url]http://teespring.com/supportdwilson2014[/url][/QUOTE] Because there are stupid individuals. Profiteering off of this case is low down and cheap. The former is an actual charity organization that helps people's families is different.
[QUOTE=darunner;46582256]Because there are stupid individuals. Profiteering off of this case is low down and cheap. The former is an actual charity organization that helps people's families is different.[/QUOTE] it links to the charity organization...
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582000]Sabotaged makes it sound like he did everything in his power to return no indictment, but considering how he's the one presenting it, he can just as easily put everything into his own words. I'm going through autopsy reports and a lot of other things all in heavy legal speak, and the transcripts provided show he's not reading them word for word. He's the final filter all this stuff goes through before reaching the grand jury (who aren't qualified or in a position to decide guilt, just whether there's reason to go to court), so he has a lot of influence on how evidence is perceived. so yeah, intentionally sabotaged. All but two witness testimonies are describing excessive use of force, where Darren Wilson is described to continue firing after Michael Brown fell to his knees, hands raised. Amazingly, those other two witness testimonies were the only ones he didn't try too hard to counter. When Darren presents his testimony, he describes Michael like the Incredible Hulk, referring to him as "it" (it charged at me, shooting only made it angrier, ect.) A lot of dehumanization was allowed, and considering all of this was going on record, [B]any other prosecuting attorney would continuously attempt to get those testifying to refer to people by name, or any other pronoun that isn't 'it'.[/B] All the evidence is there, but again, the prosecuting attorney is the final filter everything goes through before reaching a grand jury. Considering the fact he is extremely close to this case, I don't see why him putting a spin on everything in favor of a cop is so far-fetched.[/QUOTE] You sound like the idiots on CNN trying to make a up a big conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582263]You mean the trial that would have been really expensive, so they used a grand jury instead to see if the charges could even stick, because trials ARE REALLY EXPENSIVE? The same grand jury who just found not enough evidence to convict, but people are pushing for a trial anyway, where the same evidence (which was just deemed not enough to convict) will be presented? The same trial that would likely end in wilson walking free AGAIN? That trial?[/QUOTE] are you aware that there is a conflict of interest in the first trial that won't exist in the the second trial you know what else is really expensive? LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CONGRESS DOES like if you think that a fair trial is worth less than money i would love to see your reaction on America's Military Budget
When the trial is completely unnecessary because the man in question is clearly innocent, then yes. Fuck yes.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582180]Are you saying that saving money is better than a fair trial?[/QUOTE] I'm not going to explain this again - there would not have been a trial at all, because there was no substantial evidence. The prosecutor would have had to stand up, then sit back down again. The only reason a grand jury decision was made is because people threatened him and accused him of being corrupt. He wanted to explain to the world that there really was no basis for a trial. It's not about saving money, it's about the fact that no judge would have even bothered to hear the case, because it would have been a complete farce. To jam it through the justice system wastes time and money, which could be applied to cases with actual merit to them. This is just an angry, misinformed mob demanding a trial based on hearsay and disproven eyewitness accounts. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582290]are you aware that there is a conflict of interest in the first trial that won't exist in the the second trial[/QUOTE] What conflict of interest? You seriously expect a [b]prosecutor[/b] to not have any friendly relations to law enforcement? Do you need a moment to think that through? [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582290]you know what else is really expensive? LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CONGRESS DOES like if you think that a fair trial is worth less than money i would love to see your reaction on America's Military Budget[/QUOTE] Yes, because those people are chanting about our congressional spending on the military. What in the world made you think that this has any relevance to this event? Do you need a map? Because you really are lost here.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582324]What conflict of interest? You seriously expect a [b]prosecutor[/b] to not have any friendly relations to law enforcement? Do you need a moment to think that through? [/quote] omfg not even what I'm saying. Idk if a prosecuting attorney is affiliated with a charity for the person he's prosecuting then that's a conflict of interest [quote] Yes, because those people are chanting about our congressional spending on the military. What in the world made you think that this has any relevance to this event? Do you need a map? Because you really are lost here.[/QUOTE] omfg not even what I'm trying to get across it is unrelated, but I'm just saying if you're bitching about the cost of the fair trial there's literally a million other things to bitch about
Who is Ferguson [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Didn't read the thread" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582386]omfg not even what I'm saying[/QUOTE] Then what are you saying? That the prosecutor should have guided the deliberations according to the obvious agenda that he has [b]supporting the families of dead police and firefighters[/b]? Are you out of your mind? Do you even realize how practically offensive that is to those families, that their financial support is coming from some evil man that corrupts the judicial system? [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582386]omfg not even what I'm trying to get across it is unrelated, but I'm just saying if you're bitching about the cost of the fair trial there's literally a million other things to bitch about[/QUOTE] Yeah, and? Because there are other problems in the world, suddenly we should start trying every single person who gets baselessly accused of a crime, because maybe it isn't so bad that we waste money? How does that even make sense? "Yes, boss, you need to spend $2,000 on my work computer, but it's OK because you just spent $500,000 on unnecessary renovations, so since you wasted all that money against our will, I deserve to have more money wasted on me for no reason."
I guess what we have different opinions on what is fair trial or not? If any element of the trial had a conflict of interest then imo there needs to be a retrial.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582431]I guess what we have different opinions on what is fair trial or not? If any element of the trial had a conflict of interest then imo there needs to be a retrial.[/QUOTE] well there really was not a trial to begin with. I've said previously, and continuously, its going to be hard to have another indictment hearing. Its hard to find people who arent predisposed to this matter
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582431]I guess what we have different opinions on what is fair trial or not? If any element of the trial had a conflict of interest then imo there needs to be a retrial.[/QUOTE] It was a conflict of interest because of a donation drive? for fucks sake, he put ALL the evidence on the fucking jury's table, including the witness testimonies that said brown was innocent. The jury made their decision, but suddenly its the DA's fault when he only fucking read what they said.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582427]Then what are you saying? That the prosecutor should have guided the deliberations according to the obvious agenda that he has [b]supporting the families of dead police and firefighters[/b]? Are you out of your mind? Do you even realize how practically offensive that is to those families, that their financial support is coming from some evil man that corrupts the judicial system? [/quote] what is god's name are you on about like WHAT. did you even look at ANY of the links I posted? the charity that was affiliated with a fundraiser that sold t-shirts saying "I SUPPORT DARREN WILSON" and that's PRETTY QUESTIONABLE imo you're putting words into my mouth and it's actually scary
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582431]I guess what we have different opinions on what is fair trial or not? If any element of the trial had a conflict of interest then imo there needs to be a retrial.[/QUOTE] No, we have differing opinions on what constitutes a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is when a fiduciary exploits their responsibility for personal gain. It would be absolutely impossible to find a prosecutor that does not have ties to the police, financial or otherwise.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;46582289]You sound like the idiots on CNN trying to make a up a big conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] Everything's deemed a conspiracy theory these days, isn't it It can literally be just him thinking "Man, I like cops, I don't want to be the one to get this guy charged with anything" If that qualifies as a conspiracy for you, then literally nothing anyone ever says to you can change your opinion because you'll always outright ignore what they say Same goes for everyone else. There's a blatant conflict of interest here, and everyone's passing it off as "not important enough" Prosecutors have some ties to law enforcement, you've all made that point like three times now. Evidence has been presented to the jury, you've made that point like seven times now. This particular case isn't like every other case, though. [B][I][U]The prosecutor's father was a cop, and he runs a damn support fund for cops. That's more than just "some ties."[/U][/I][/B] Evidence presented to the jury in any way by this person is likely to be led in a certain direction, in favor of the cop. This is the problem. Literally who the fuck cares if it costs money to retrial in a higher court, [I]somebody died.[/I] There's so much conflicting evidence, from eyewitness reports to the results of an autopsy, and we'll never see how that holds up in a court of law because we'll never get that far. Because, again, the prosecutor was biased. How hard is it to understand this situation doesn't fall in line with your typical court case? and by the way, Wikipedia says a conflict of interest is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. Don't you dare write off that definition because "it's wikipedia". This particular situation definitely fits that description.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582477]No, we have differing opinions on what constitutes a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is when a fiduciary exploits their responsibility for personal gain. It would be absolutely impossible to find a prosecutor that does not have ties to the police, financial or otherwise.[/QUOTE] not the point, it was directly related to DARREN WILSON, not cops in general you have a nack for bending my words, this is like twice you've did it
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582461]what is god's name are you on about like WHAT. did you even look at ANY of the links I posted? the charity that was affiliated with a fundraiser that sold t-shirts saying "I SUPPORT DARREN WILSON" and that's PRETTY QUESTIONABLE imo you're putting words into my mouth and it's actually scary[/QUOTE] You keep misunderstanding a conflict of interest. Do you have any proof that the shirt is being sold by Backstoppers? No. It's being sold by a private, separate fund supporting Wilson. They choose to donate part of their money to Backstoppers. So what you're saying is that because someone chose to gave the organization money, the organization is therefore responsible for the actions of that person. Right. Here's $500, I just robbed a bank. Whoops, now you're liable for robbing a bank. [QUOTE=cebceb44;46582488]Same goes for everyone else. There's a blatant conflict of interest here, and everyone's passing it off as "not important enough" Prosecutors have some ties to law enforcement, you've all made that point like three times now. Evidence has been presented to the jury, you've made that point like seven times now. This particular case isn't like every other case, though. [B][I][U]The prosecutor's father was a cop, and he runs a damn support fund for cops. That's more than just "some ties."[/U][/I][/B] Evidence presented to the jury in any way by this person is likely to be led in a certain direction, in favor of the cop. This is the problem. [/QUOTE] No, there's not. Did you read the posts? Did you visit the website? Just because the prosecutor's father is a cop (a common theme among law and law enforcement - families tend to stick to the profession) and because he runs a support fund for [b]families of dead cops - not cops themselves[/b], all of a sudden he is "likely" to corrupt the case, even though [b]that didn't actually happen, because he went out of his way to bring forth each and every eyewitness and shred of evidence[/b]? Can you find any evidence which he suppressed? Oh, wait, you can't. So how does that make him corrupt again? Because he put forth an honest, objective, complete story of the case, instead of focusing on the unfounded eyewitness accounts and discarding all of that evidence that disproved their stories? [QUOTE=cebceb44;46582488]Literally who the fuck cares if it costs money to retrial in a higher court, [I]somebody died.[/I] There's so much conflicting evidence, from eyewitness reports to the results of an autopsy, and we'll never see how that holds up in a court of law because we'll never get that far. Because, again, the prosecutor was biased. How hard is it to understand this situation doesn't fall in line with your typical court case?[/QUOTE] Oh, okay, so every time somebody dies, we should cram a trial through the lower intestinal tract of the judicial system. Got it. The "conflicting evidence" were the eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable - take a criminal law class, please) against [b][i]all of the other evidence[/i][/b]. We'll never see how that holds up in a court of law because in a grand jury - where standards of evidence are [b]much less strict[/b] - everybody agreed that the evidence was against indictment. If this got jammed into a courtroom, where the standards are [b]higher[/b], the eyewitness accounts would probably be discarded completely. The judge isn't going to magically say "oh all of this empirical evidence? Fuck that. This eyewitness saying that Brown was executed at point blank obviously is telling the truth." The prosecutor was not biased. Bias, in a criminal trial, would be indicated by suppressing evidence. That didn't happen here. Stop making this claim. [QUOTE=cebceb44;46582488]and by the way, Wikipedia says a conflict of interest is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. Don't you dare write off that definition because "it's wikipedia". This particular situation definitely fits that description.[/QUOTE] I can write off that definition, because it's Wikipedia. If you cited Wikipedia on a law school report, you would probably be expelled.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.