(November 28, 2014 at 1:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Would you have preferred the closed police investigation? Don't you think that might be part of the problem to begin with? I appreciate that they at least went grand jury..I just fail to see why they didn't do it right...if they were going to go through the trouble at all.

Doing it right means prosecuting someone if it is probably true a crime was committed. Doing it wrong means prosecuting someone simply to appease the mob. It was done right because it went to a grand jury who saw a shitload of evidence and then decided a crime had probably not been committed. Had the grand jury decided that a crime had probably been committed it would then be correct to send it to trial (and that is exactly what would have happened if it was probably true a crime was committed).

Doing it right means that we are all treated equally under law. It's kind of a right that we have. That this cop was given an extra helping of ice cream doesn't bode well for that. If I ever find myself having shot someone to death under questionable circumstances I hope the state, and particularly the prosecutorial arm of the state, is ready to go to bat for me -before an actual trial begins-. Somehow...I doubt that this would be the case.

It is, again, not the job of the grand jury to decide whether or not a crime has probably been committed. They decide whether or not there is grounds to prosecute. It's the job of the prosecution..in a trial...to establish that a crime has been committed, and that the defendant is guilty of that crime. The prosecution, in this case, acted as defense counsel -pre trial. That doesn't seem a bit odd to you?

How many times do I have to say this before you get it into your head. I don't think that they would have been able to convict him. Regarding whether or not he did anything that we could convict him for..I just don't see it........as Jenny pointed out, the boys in blue have considerable leeway.

That's not my fucking objection, end of. We do charge people, and prosecute them - and later find that they acted in self defense (for example). It happens. Just didn't happen here, but it could have, and should have...and even the cop would have benefited...hell -only- the cop would have benefited.

Just like economics, you try to concoct an argument no one is making.

There is a saying in prosecution lawyers "You can indict a ham sandwich". You are ignoring that from the start the is a separate and unequal standard for policing the police and policing the public. An none of the lawyers I have seen on tv, have said even with the way this went down, is normally the way it goes. Prosecutors are not paid to be defense lawyers. Even the infamous Marsha Clark of the OJ case, said no matter the intent of this prosecutor it should not have been conducted the way it went down.

Just like you argue with economic issues, you have a separate but equal or "more special" mentality in your thought process. You side with Wilson because you want to side with him. And again, this isn't even about one case, this is about you ignoring the bigger picture which leads to conditions long term.

I do not believe Wilson in this case, not because of just this case. I do not believe him because cops are trained to dominate from the start. I also do not believe him being afraid of Brown, otherwise why pull up that close in a seated position at a tactical disadvantage which no one disputes.

You do what most humans do. You cherry pick what you want to see and have the same selection bias and sample rate error. Nobody sane person should argue that cops should not be allowed to do their job. But just like you argue economics, you have a double standard and fail to see that. No civilian would have gotten away with what Wilson did, regardless if you think he had no ill intent. A civilian under similar circumstances at a minimum would have gone to trial.

(November 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Doing it right means that we are all treated equally under law. It's kind of a right that we have. That this cop was given an extra helping of ice cream doesn't bode well for that. If I ever find myself having shot someone to death under questionable circumstances I hope the state, and particularly the prosecutorial arm of the state, is ready to go to bat for me -before an actual trial begins-. Somehow...I doubt that this would be the case.

Well if you are in that situation, make statements like "I feared for my life, I thought he had a weapon....his hand was in his waistband". If a couple of witnesses corroborate your story, your case might not even go before a grand jury.

(November 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is, again, not the job of the grand jury to decide whether or not a crime has probably been committed. They decide whether or not there is grounds to prosecute. It's the job of the prosecution..in a trial...to establish that a crime has been committed, and that the defendant is guilty of that crime. The prosecution, in this case, acted as defense counsel -pre trial. That doesn't seem a bit odd to you?

It is certainly true that it is the grand jury job to decide if it probably true that a crime was committed. They exist as the arbiter of probable cause.

(November 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How many times do I have to say this before you get it into your head. I don't think that they would have been able to convict him. Regarding whether or not he did anything that we could convict him for..I just don't see it........as Jenny pointed out, the boys in blue have considerable leeway.

That's not my fucking objection, end of. We do charge people, and prosecute them - and later find that they acted in self defense (for example). It happens. Just didn't happen here, but it could have, and should have...and even the cop would have benefited...hell -only- the cop would have benefited.

If you do not think they would have been able to convict the cop, why do you keep advocating the cop be tried? You want to appease the mob and that is not a good reason to prosecute someone.

(November 28, 2014 at 8:37 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Doing it right means that we are all treated equally under law. It's kind of a right that we have. That this cop was given an extra helping of ice cream doesn't bode well for that. If I ever find myself having shot someone to death under questionable circumstances I hope the state, and particularly the prosecutorial arm of the state, is ready to go to bat for me -before an actual trial begins-. Somehow...I doubt that this would be the case.

Well if you are in that situation, make statements like "I feared for my life, I thought he had a weapon....his hand was in his waistband". If a couple of witnesses corroborate your story, your case might not even go before a grand jury.

(November 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is, again, not the job of the grand jury to decide whether or not a crime has probably been committed. They decide whether or not there is grounds to prosecute. It's the job of the prosecution..in a trial...to establish that a crime has been committed, and that the defendant is guilty of that crime. The prosecution, in this case, acted as defense counsel -pre trial. That doesn't seem a bit odd to you?

It is certainly true that it is the grand jury job to decide if it probably true that a crime was committed. They exist as the arbiter of probable cause.

(November 28, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How many times do I have to say this before you get it into your head. I don't think that they would have been able to convict him. Regarding whether or not he did anything that we could convict him for..I just don't see it........as Jenny pointed out, the boys in blue have considerable leeway.

That's not my fucking objection, end of. We do charge people, and prosecute them - and later find that they acted in self defense (for example). It happens. Just didn't happen here, but it could have, and should have...and even the cop would have benefited...hell -only- the cop would have benefited.

If you do not think they would have been able to convict the cop, why do you keep advocating the cop be tried? You want to appease the mob and that is not a good reason to prosecute someone.

Holy crap are you slow.

We are arguing conditions, laws and climate.

You once again are making arguments we are not making.

He should have been put on trial. Grand Juries are not the actual trial itself. You do not have them to determine guilt or innocence, that is what the regular trail is for.

That prosecutor should have removed himself regardless of intent due to the fact he had close ties with a cop being murdered prior. What played out was not what happens normally in a grand jury. And especially this case it was a cop being given different treatment than anyone else would have. Plenty of lawyers who have been both prosecutors and defense lawyers have said this particular case was way out of bounds of the norm for what usually happens.

You keep regurgitating the same crap with this issue as you do with economics.

Marsha Clark, who prosecuted OJ Simpson was a PROSECUTOR too. Now you are buying this prosecutor's story because it fits your narrative. I point out another prosecutor who disagrees with you, that this is case is not normal in the way it was done, you don't listen.

Just like when I point out COSTCO and Nick Hanauer as examples of the private sector agreeing with me and not you.

The prosecutor's job is not to act as a defense lawyer. But that is exactly what he did. The entire process was a show trial, conducted by a person who acted like a defense lawyer. And on top of that the climate of the laws in that state like far too much of the country favor law enforcement rather than treating them like humans equal to the public, but not above the public.

You put someone in a position to kill and give them a licence to do it, that is what they are going to do.

(November 27, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: You haven't seen as much of the evidence as the Grand Jury.

The appeal to vague additional evidence now, is it? Why should I just assume mitigating circumstances when the evidence at my disposal indicates there are none? If you're going to convince me of something I'll need actual evidence, not just the lazy assertion that there is some.

Quote:And you're allowed to say any stupid thing you want to say, there's probably no stopping you in any case.

And we end on an ad hom. Classy.

Sorry, I didn't notice you were a troll.

(November 28, 2014 at 8:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: You want to appease the mob and that is not a good reason to prosecute someone.

Despite popular perception, something doesn't become true by virtue of being repeated. I've already explained why. If you want to have a conversation, try reading what the other person writes. This apparatus is designed -to protect us from the mob-. It can only do that when we use it. That cop is going to be forever guilty in our cultural conscience now - because this was poorly handled. Do you understand that? No one's interests were served here. It's a shame because it would have taken little to no effort on the states part - all they had to do....was what they do 9-5, day in and day out, any other day of the week. What's the score now, one guy is dead, another can't continue at his chosen career, and public trust is eroded.....am I missing some good thing that was accomplished by any of this?

(November 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: Doing it right means

I suppose you have not yet had the opportunity to watch that new show, How to get away with murder, which basically explains precisely how lawyers convince the jury that an obviously guilty man is innocent.

It happens in real life, and the show is merely a reflection of that.

It is an awesome show, of course, but guilty people should not be allowed to go free.

(November 28, 2014 at 11:11 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Heywood Wrote: Doing it right means

I suppose you have not yet had the opportunity to watch that new show, How to get away with murder, which basically explains precisely how lawyers convince the jury that an obviously guilty man is innocent.

It happens in real life, and the show is merely a reflection of that.

It is an awesome show, of course, but guilty people should not be allowed to go free.

Life is full of trade offs. If a right to privacy exists...it will make it easier for people like Minimalist to traffic child pornography. If the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" some guilty people will go free. Nirvana is not for this world and no amount of legal wrangling will make it so. Some people will always get away doing bad things and this is especially true in a free society.

(November 29, 2014 at 12:35 am)Heywood Wrote: especially true in a free society.

Except that America is the furthest thing from a free society. In fact, other countries tend to exemplify free societies better than the horrible job America has done.

The only thing free in America is the one percent's allowance to ruin the country minute by minute.