(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.
