|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 25 2014 11:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:32 RCMDVA wrote:
This prosecutor is going back and ripping witnesses for like the 5th time. Eyewitness reports are notoriously bad. This is the rare case where the prosecutor was basically acting as a defense attorney at a grand jury trial. It's supposed to be the other way around. And what are you basing this statement on? https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/immediate-release-10-31-20141.pdf"In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch explained that while “[n]ormally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses,” in this case “all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony.” In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in a cop or two to briefly outline the evidence and then “ask” the grand jury to indict, in this case he has decided that the grand jury will hear from actual witnesses and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony." The prosecutor has unavoidable biases that have led to him taking extraordinary actions in making sure that the grand jury decides on no charges. The normal indictment rate is over 90%, including cases with far less evidence of wrongdoing.
Okay, so you would rather give the grand jury selective evidence -- instead of making a full disclosure -- in an effort to stack the deck to get an indictment? Sheer brilliance. I'm sure Putin would be interested in your take on proper due process.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 25 2014 12:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 11:57 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:32 RCMDVA wrote:
This prosecutor is going back and ripping witnesses for like the 5th time. Eyewitness reports are notoriously bad. This is the rare case where the prosecutor was basically acting as a defense attorney at a grand jury trial. It's supposed to be the other way around. And what are you basing this statement on? https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/immediate-release-10-31-20141.pdf"In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch explained that while “[n]ormally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses,” in this case “all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony.” In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in a cop or two to briefly outline the evidence and then “ask” the grand jury to indict, in this case he has decided that the grand jury will hear from actual witnesses and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony." The prosecutor has unavoidable biases that have led to him taking extraordinary actions in making sure that the grand jury decides on no charges. The normal indictment rate is over 90%, including cases with far less evidence of wrongdoing. Okay, so you would rather give the grand jury selective evidence -- instead of making a full disclosure -- in an effort to stack the deck to get an indictment? Sheer brilliance. I'm sure Putin would be interested in your take on proper due process.
You are aware that that is what grand juries routinely do right? That that is the basis of the grand jury system? You are a lawyer for fuck's sake.
|
1 officer reported injured. Gun fire also being reported.
|
|
|
On November 25 2014 12:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:57 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:32 RCMDVA wrote:
This prosecutor is going back and ripping witnesses for like the 5th time. Eyewitness reports are notoriously bad. This is the rare case where the prosecutor was basically acting as a defense attorney at a grand jury trial. It's supposed to be the other way around. And what are you basing this statement on? https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/immediate-release-10-31-20141.pdf"In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch explained that while “[n]ormally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses,” in this case “all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony.” In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in a cop or two to briefly outline the evidence and then “ask” the grand jury to indict, in this case he has decided that the grand jury will hear from actual witnesses and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony." The prosecutor has unavoidable biases that have led to him taking extraordinary actions in making sure that the grand jury decides on no charges. The normal indictment rate is over 90%, including cases with far less evidence of wrongdoing. Okay, so you would rather give the grand jury selective evidence -- instead of making a full disclosure -- in an effort to stack the deck to get an indictment? Sheer brilliance. I'm sure Putin would be interested in your take on proper due process. You are aware that that is what grand juries routinely do right? That that is the basis of the grand jury system? You are a lawyer for fuck's sake.
I know exactly what grand juries are for. They aren't meant to be full-fledged trials simply as a consequence of the necessity for judicial economy. However, how can you possibly complain when, in one circumstance, the DA decides to give the grand jury everything out of an abundance of caution? Think about what you're arguing. It makes zero sense.
|
On November 25 2014 11:48 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 11:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:41 Slaughter wrote:
12 shots? Lol makes that statement that the police chief said near the start of this seem even more comically bad. 12 shots sounds like a lot though to me (who has no experience with this type of thing). Go look up the studies on police accuracy firing their weapons under duress. It is "hilariously" bad. I've heard the Military has problems with that too. The problem of bad accuracy has been around for a while, I remember when I was younger when that vid of a police officer getting into a fire fight and killed by some random dude he pulled over was a thing because he wasn't ready/good with that type of situation.
The military doesn't care too much though because there's typically no risk of hitting innocents. They miss so much because most of their shots are suppressing fire, basically just trying to keep the enemy too scared to poke their heads out.
|
On November 25 2014 12:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:57 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:32 RCMDVA wrote:
This prosecutor is going back and ripping witnesses for like the 5th time. Eyewitness reports are notoriously bad. This is the rare case where the prosecutor was basically acting as a defense attorney at a grand jury trial. It's supposed to be the other way around. And what are you basing this statement on? https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/immediate-release-10-31-20141.pdf"In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch explained that while “[n]ormally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses,” in this case “all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony.” In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in a cop or two to briefly outline the evidence and then “ask” the grand jury to indict, in this case he has decided that the grand jury will hear from actual witnesses and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony." The prosecutor has unavoidable biases that have led to him taking extraordinary actions in making sure that the grand jury decides on no charges. The normal indictment rate is over 90%, including cases with far less evidence of wrongdoing. Okay, so you would rather give the grand jury selective evidence -- instead of making a full disclosure -- in an effort to stack the deck to get an indictment? Sheer brilliance. I'm sure Putin would be interested in your take on proper due process. You are aware that that is what grand juries routinely do right? That that is the basis of the grand jury system? Y ou are a lawyer for fuck's sake.
Or course he is, can't you tell alone by the way he phrases arguments? :p
well another sad case leaving the wound open and festering like crazy for black america.
|
|
|
Looks like it's about to get interesting.
|
|
|
Aaaaaand here comes the tear gas.
|
On November 25 2014 12:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:07 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 12:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:57 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:32 RCMDVA wrote:
This prosecutor is going back and ripping witnesses for like the 5th time. Eyewitness reports are notoriously bad. This is the rare case where the prosecutor was basically acting as a defense attorney at a grand jury trial. It's supposed to be the other way around. And what are you basing this statement on? https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/immediate-release-10-31-20141.pdf"In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch explained that while “[n]ormally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses,” in this case “all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony.” In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in a cop or two to briefly outline the evidence and then “ask” the grand jury to indict, in this case he has decided that the grand jury will hear from actual witnesses and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony." The prosecutor has unavoidable biases that have led to him taking extraordinary actions in making sure that the grand jury decides on no charges. The normal indictment rate is over 90%, including cases with far less evidence of wrongdoing. Okay, so you would rather give the grand jury selective evidence -- instead of making a full disclosure -- in an effort to stack the deck to get an indictment? Sheer brilliance. I'm sure Putin would be interested in your take on proper due process. You are aware that that is what grand juries routinely do right? That that is the basis of the grand jury system? You are a lawyer for fuck's sake. I know exactly what grand juries are for. They aren't meant to be full-fledged trials simply as a consequence of the necessity for judicial economy. However, how can you possibly complain when, in one circumstance, the DA decides to give the grand jury everything out of an abundance of caution? Think about what you're arguing. It makes zero sense.
I'm saying this is the rare case where the prosecutor was not acting as one. It is not usual for a prosecutor to give such evidence at a grand jury trial. His duty is to present the state's best case, not an even-handed analysis that lets the grand jury decide his guilt.
|
what a terrible decision by the communications guy Obama has. Now you have a speech by Obama split screened next to video of civil unrest.
He literally just told people not to break car windows as there was footage of people breaking a car window and trying to flip it.
tear gas now out.
|
On November 25 2014 12:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:07 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 12:00 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:57 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:40 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 11:32 RCMDVA wrote:
This prosecutor is going back and ripping witnesses for like the 5th time. Eyewitness reports are notoriously bad. This is the rare case where the prosecutor was basically acting as a defense attorney at a grand jury trial. It's supposed to be the other way around. And what are you basing this statement on? https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/immediate-release-10-31-20141.pdf"In his Oct. 31 press release, McCulloch explained that while “[n]ormally, homicide cases are heard by the grand jury in a concise manner with one or two investigators summarizing complex medical and scientific evidence, other physical evidence, and the statements of all witnesses,” in this case “all witnesses with any relevant evidence are being summoned to the grand jury to give their sworn testimony.” In other words, while McCulloch would normally send in a cop or two to briefly outline the evidence and then “ask” the grand jury to indict, in this case he has decided that the grand jury will hear from actual witnesses and weigh actual evidence from both sides before deciding whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Officer Wilson committed a felony." The prosecutor has unavoidable biases that have led to him taking extraordinary actions in making sure that the grand jury decides on no charges. The normal indictment rate is over 90%, including cases with far less evidence of wrongdoing. Okay, so you would rather give the grand jury selective evidence -- instead of making a full disclosure -- in an effort to stack the deck to get an indictment? Sheer brilliance. I'm sure Putin would be interested in your take on proper due process. You are aware that that is what grand juries routinely do right? That that is the basis of the grand jury system? You are a lawyer for fuck's sake. I know exactly what grand juries are for. They aren't meant to be full-fledged trials simply as a consequence of the necessity for judicial economy. However, how can you possibly complain when, in one circumstance, the DA decides to give the grand jury everything out of an abundance of caution? Think about what you're arguing. It makes zero sense. I'm saying this is the rare case where the prosecutor was not acting as one. It is not usual for a prosecutor to give such evidence at a grand jury trial. His duty is to present the state's best case, not an even-handed analysis that lets the grand jury decide his guilt.
Hey, just be honest and say that you wanted the DA to only show the grand jury evidence that would secure an indictment. There's no prejudice when a full disclosure is made.
|
Isn't that what I said? I said his job was to present the state's best case. If you want to overhaul the grand jury system you should be starting with the disadvantaged people who are fucked over by it every day and subsequently forced to settle or go through a grueling trial process. If you wanted a full trial xdaunt maybe we should have had a full trial.
I shouldn't have to spell out this is another clear example of white upper middle class advantage in the justice system. Something that the people in Ferguson are upset about. If he was a typical Ferguson resident he would have been indicted on the facts presented by a typical DA. Period. And you wonder why the people of Ferguson are upset.
|
Yep, all the other places I've checked are like "DEAR GOD SPLIT SCREEN"
|
|
|
On November 25 2014 12:21 IgnE wrote:
Isn't that what I said? I said his job was to present the state's best case. If you want to overhaul the grand jury system you should be starting with the disadvantaged people who are fucked over by it every day and subsequently forced to settle or go through a grueling trial process. If you wanted a full trial xdaunt maybe we should have had a full trial.
No, that is not their job. Prosecutors are ethically prohibited from burying evidence that exonerates defendants. They are officers of the court first and foremost, and advocates for the state second. That is why so many attorneys called for the head of the DA in Florida after the extent of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case came to light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
