[BREAKING] Its happening. Grand jury has made a decision about Ferguson.
2,211 replies, posted
you have to be a fucking moron if you think all prosecutor's don't have ties with the police and the ones that do are corrupt.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;46582536]you have to be a fucking moron if you think all prosecutor's don't have ties with the police and the ones that do are corrupt.[/QUOTE]
not even what I'm saying or implying
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;46582536]you have to be a fucking moron if you think all prosecutor's don't have ties with the police and the ones that do are corrupt.[/QUOTE]
Well that's good then, because we're not talking about all prosecutors
we're talking about this one particular prosecutor
this one particular prosecutor who's father was a cop (who was killed on the job), and who runs a support fund for cops
[url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies[/url] Just gonna leave this here.
TL;DR most of the 'eye-witnesses' stories were very inconsistent/outright lies.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582555]Well that's good then, because we're not talking about all prosecutors
we're talking about this one particular prosecutor
this one particular prosecutor who's father was a cop (who was killed on the job), and who runs a support fund for cops[/QUOTE]
God forbid people have lives. This prosecutor should clearly be disbarred because he runs a financial support fund for [b]families of deceased cops[/b] with no links to any legal or court issues.
Loving these boxes from you two guys though. I might have enough to build my own cardboard courtroom and hold biased grand jury deliberations! That'd be sweet.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582530]I can write off that definition, because it's Wikipedia. If you cited Wikipedia on a law school report, you would probably be expelled.[/QUOTE]
you're part of the problem when you do this.
There's no true dictionary definition of conflict of interest, because it's a concept, not a word.
The description I gave you is valid because it's a description that, over time, many users on a site dedicated to knowledge have decided was a great one to keep at the top of an article on that particular concept.
Quit throwing away statements made by other people if they don't match your narrow criteria, please.
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582600]God forbid people have lives. This prosecutor should clearly be disbarred because he runs a financial support fund for [b]families of deceased cops[/b] with no links to any legal or court issues.
Loving these boxes from you two guys though. I might have enough to build my own cardboard courtroom and hold biased grand jury deliberations! That'd be sweet.[/QUOTE]
I never said he should be disbarred, literally what the fuck
[B][I][U]This is what I'm saying:[/U][/I][/B]
He should be held off from this one particular case. He's too close to it.
He's free to pursue the other thousand not directly involving the indictment of a cop.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;46582565][url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies[/url] Just gonna leave this here.
TL;DR most of the 'eye-witnesses' stories were very inconsistent/outright lies.[/QUOTE]
I don't have a problem with the grand jury's decision. However, i do have a problem with how lax the guidlines for using deadly force are. The face of officer wilson wasn't even bruised, it was just red. "he shoved me/he is running towards me, better empty my gun into him"
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582600]Loving these boxes from you two guys though. I might have enough to build my own cardboard courtroom and hold biased grand jury deliberations! That'd be sweet.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck do you mean "biased jury deliberations" tell me where my bias is
speaking of bias weren't you the one who made that awful post about how you dismissed someone's claim on here because they were literally black
[QUOTE=aydin690;46582646]I don't have a problem with the grand jury's decision. However, i do have a problem with how lax the guidlines for using deadly force are. The face of officer wilson wasn't even bruised, it was just red. "he shoved me/he is running towards me, better empty my gun into him"[/QUOTE]
So getting punched in the head multiple times isnt enough to fear for your life.
I'll remember that next time.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582611]you're part of the problem when you do this.
There's no true dictionary definition of conflict of interest, because it's a concept, not a word.
The description I gave you is valid because it's a description that, over time, many users on a site dedicated to knowledge have decided was a great one to keep at the top of an article on that particular concept.
Quit throwing away statements made by other people if they don't match your narrow criteria, please.[/QUOTE]
Conflict of interest [URL="https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/e14db401df7f552e86256ca6005211b7?OpenDocument"]is defined[/URL] in state statutes or judicial codes.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582658]speaking of bias weren't you the one who made that awful post about how you dismissed someone's claim on here because they were literally black[/QUOTE]
I dismissed it because they were a troll account, and they got banned soon after. But hey, put words in my mouth right after complaining that I do the same to you.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582630]We're throwing away statements because they're bullshit. You guys are literally going to call for retrial after retrial until wilson dies of old age. You're going to keep screaming about conflicts that don't exist every time he's aquitted, and nothing will change that. Thank fucking god the justice system doesn't succumb to mob rule like you want it to.[/QUOTE]
I want to hear you answer these questions clearly, just so I can understand if we're on the same page, if that's alright with you.
You've been replying to me in a way that always seems to [I]sidestep this question[/I] or say that[I] it doesn't matter if this issue ever existed in the first place[/I].
I can't tell whether you actually just don't care about this whole thing, or if you truly see nothing wrong with it.
Do you believe that, given the circumstances, there isn't any single prosecutor out there who wouldn't be as close to the case as Robert McCulloch is?
Are you telling me there isn't any chance that the results of this indictment could have been swayed due to his own [I][U]specific[/U][/I] personal relation to cops (his father and the company he currently runs)?
Do you believe a conflict of interest regarding his position in this trial exists?
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46582667]
I dismissed it because they were a troll account, and they got banned soon after. But hey, put words in my mouth right after complaining that I do the same to you.[/QUOTE]
I'm not putting words into my mouth that's literally what you did.
You said "Like, I don't want to make the connection, but..." and posted a picture of a selfie of a black person that was connected to the account
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582677]I want to hear you answer these questions clearly, just so I can understand if we're on the same page, if that's alright with you.
You've been replying to me in a way that always seems to [I]sidestep this question[/I] or say that[I] it doesn't matter if this issue ever existed in the first place[/I].
I can't tell whether you actually just don't care about this whole thing, or if you truly see nothing wrong with it.
Do you believe that, given the circumstances, there isn't any single prosecutor out there who wouldn't be as close to the case as Robert McCulloch is?
Are you telling me there isn't any chance that the results of this trial could have been swayed due to his own [I][U]specific[/U][/I] personal relation to cops (his father and the company he currently runs)?
Do you believe a conflict of interest regarding his position in this trial exists?[/QUOTE]
There was no trial. All the evidence was laid out for the grand jury to decide to go to trial or not. There was no trial. Do you understand what a grand jury is?
There was no "I object" or back and forth. There was presenting all the evidence, including pro-Brown witness testimony, and letting the jury decide if there was enough evidence to go to trial.
There was no trial, the prosecution laid out all the evidence they had and that's it, they did not argue a case because this was not a trial. Do you understand that this was not a trial?
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;46582693]There was no trial. All the evidence was laid out for the grand jury to decide to go to trial or not. There was no trial. Do you understand what a grand jury is?[/QUOTE]
I've been repeating myself for so long that everything's beginning to fall together. I know how a grand jury decides on an indictment, but thanks for the correction.
regardless of that, my questions up there still stand.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582715]I've been repeating myself for so long that everything's beginning to fall together. I know how a grand jury decides on an indictment, but thanks for the correction.
regardless of that, my questions up there still stand.[/QUOTE]
Except you don't because all of your questions were about a trial, when there was no trial.
And as for your question about a new prosecutor, they wouldn't have done anything different. All they can do is lay the evidence they have out for the jury's decision. That's it. They do not argue a case.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46582663]So getting punched in the head multiple times isnt enough to fear for your life.
I'll remember that next time.[/QUOTE]
No, in a lot of countries, including Canada, it's not.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582702]If there was a conflict of interest he would have been removed AS REQUIRED BY LAW. He wasn't. Obviously the conflict of interest here is in people who can't realize that wilson shot and killed a black guy completely legally as per defined MO state laws, and in keeping with federal laws as well.
Your proof of his "overly close relationship" is based around a false interpitation of what his charity does, and quite frankly it's absoutely laughable that you're screaming about a "fair trial" while simultaniously screaming that the grand jury was obviously biased because they did't rule how you wanted.[/QUOTE]
He grew up with a father as a cop, who anyone in that situation would see him as a hero. he lost his father when he died on the job. That's rough for a kid at the age of 12. He set up a support fund for cops and other emergency services. This person sees cops in a really good light, and might not want to be involved in charging one with a crime. I don't know how you seem to miss the connection here.
by the way, you're doing the sidestepping thing again. they were literally yes or no questions.
Law's not perfect, and I want to hear your own opinion.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582748]In the US it is. Assault is a felony, most states authorize deadly force to halt a felony.[/QUOTE]Not even beginning to mention the whole "He was grabbing for Darren Wilson's gun" thing.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;46582727]Except you don't because all of your questions were about a trial, when there was no trial.
And as for your question about a new prosecutor, they wouldn't have done anything different. All they can do is lay the evidence they have out for the jury's decision. That's it. They do not argue a case.[/QUOTE]
they're about the indictment, don't make them about anything else.
And prosecutors aren't robots. They can easily sway a grand jury's decision from the questions they do and don't ask, to the order they present the evidence.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582677]
Do you believe that, given the circumstances, there isn't any single prosecutor out there who wouldn't be as close to the case as Robert McCulloch is?[/quote]
I dont think McCulloch is close to the case at all. Wilson is not a family member nor coworker. They do not have a relationship to each other. I believe that McCulloch is/was capable of taking this case on.
[quote]
Are you telling me there isn't any chance that the results of this indictment could have been swayed due to his own [I][U]specific[/U][/I] personal relation to cops (his father and the company he currently runs)?[/quote]
No, I dont. He doesnt decide the case. He presents evidence to the jury, which he did fully, and they decide the case. The jury was convened in May, long before this incident happened so he obviously could not rig that.
[quote]
Do you believe a conflict of interest regarding his position in this trial exists?[/QUOTE]
No I dont. Prosecutors work along side officers in their position. daily. every single prosecutor.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582750]He grew up with a father as a cop, who anyone in that situation would see him as a hero. he lost his father when he died on the job. That's rough for a kid at the age of 12. He set up a support fund for cops and other emergency services. This person sees cops in a really good light, and might not want to be involved in charging one with a crime. I don't know how you seem to miss the connection here.
by the way, you're doing the sidestepping thing again. they were literally yes or no questions.
Law's not perfect, and I want to hear your own opinion.[/QUOTE]You're asking stupid trap questions and propping up ever shifting goal posts any time your points get shot down. You however will just go "No they weren't!" because the answers aren't confirming what you want to be correct.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582748]In the US it is. Assault is a felony, most states authorize deadly force to halt a felony.[/QUOTE]
simple assault is not a felony jesus christ man.
Let me rephrase the question a bit since i've accidently been using "trial" as shorthand for "event where a grand jury considered evidence and decided whether or not to indict"
Do you believe that, given the circumstances, there isn't any single Prosecuting Attorney out there who wouldn't be as close to this event as Robert McCulloch is?
Are you telling me there isn't any chance that the results of this indictment could have been swayed due to his own specific personal relation to cops (his father and the company he currently runs) and how he might've gone through this case?
Do you believe a conflict of interests exists regarding his position as the Prosecuting Attorney, and how he might've presented evidence to a Grand Jury?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46582771]Prosecutors work along side officers in their position. daily. every single prosecutor.[/QUOTE]
The job literally demands they work with law enforcement on various levels.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582769]they're about the indictment, don't make them about anything else.
And prosecutors aren't robots. They can easily sway a grand jury's decision from the questions they do and don't ask, to the order they present the evidence.[/QUOTE]
This wasn't a trial. They presented evidence. There was no guilty or not guilty plea.
The grand jury is the one who holds the power, not the prosecutor. They're the ones who ask for more evidence or ask questions, the grand jury dictates the proceedings and the prosecutor presents the evidence and explains the law. The defense is typically not there, and there is no judge. You don't understand a grand jury, and its quite clear from your "questions".
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46582782]You're asking stupid trap questions and propping up ever shifting goal posts any time your points get shot down. You however will just go "No they weren't!" because the answers aren't confirming what you want to be correct.[/QUOTE]
I've been asking the same damn questions over and over again, and I haven't gotten a straight answer, only statements of "Well the law says..."
The law isn't perfect. I want actual opinions from the people i'm talking with here.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46582271]it links to the charity organization...[/QUOTE]
It [I]references [/I]the charity organization. That doesn't mean they're associated.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;46582818]I've been asking the same damn questions over and over again, and I haven't gotten a straight answer, only statements of "Well the law says..."
The law isn't perfect. I want actual opinions from the people i'm talking with here.[/QUOTE]
People's opinions don't fucking matter. Your opinion doesn't matter, not in the slightest. No amount of opinions and bitching will change reality. If opinions of random dickheads mattered then Darren Wilson wouldn't have gotten a trial because he would have been hung from a goddamned street light within a week of the incident. And you have gotten answers, but as I said, they don't say what you want them to.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;46582817]This wasn't a trial. They presented evidence. There was no guilty or not guilty plea.
The grand jury is the one who holds the power, not the prosecutor. They're the ones who ask for more evidence or ask questions, the grand jury dictates the proceedings and the prosecutor presents the evidence and explains the law. The defense is typically not there, and there is no judge. You don't understand a grand jury, and its quite clear from your "questions".[/QUOTE]
holy shit
I understand how these things work. The Jury asks the questions, buy you're conveniently leaving out how the prosecutor is the one who answers those questions.
That's what matters here.
The prosecutor is the filter through which all evidence passes through.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46582845]People's opinions don't fucking matter. Your opinion doesn't matter, not in the slightest. No amount of opinions and bitching will change reality. If opinions of random dickheads mattered then Darren Wilson wouldn't have gotten a trial because he would have been hung from a goddamned street light within a week of the incident. And you have gotten answers, but as I said, they don't say what you want them to.[/QUOTE]
so then do you just not care about this case or what
I'm asking for all of your specific opinions because I've been having a hard time figuring out if it even matters to any of you that this might've been mishandled.
I've heard that a conflict of interest might exist, but it's too expensive to re-trial
I've heard that it is impossible because the law said no
I've heard that, despite everything, McCulloch apparently gives about as much shits about cops as anyone else, and is performing his task like a robot without any opinions
I've yet to receive an answer on if it bothers anyone here that a case might've been mishandled. I don't think I'm ever going to get a yes or no to that answer.
I've gotten plenty of "It Wasn't"s, but no evidence to explain why except "The Law" and "you're clueless and looking too much into things, ceb".
You guys just don't care.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.