|
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 12:42 IgnE wrote:
xDaunt now advocating for balanced evidence review in every grand jury. Hell we might as well start allowing the accused to be present with an attorney. A sort of trial-before-the-trial.
I'm not advocating for any change to the grand jury system. I'm just pointing out the obvious that there's no harm in making a fuller presentation to the grand jury. Let's pretend that this grand jury was considering charges against some poor black kid instead of this cop. I doubt you'd be complaining about full disclosure then.
|
the grand jury system needs an overhaul; since there's clearly too much variation in how cases are presented to them. Either use it to give everyone a fair shot, or just use it as the investigatory/charging tool it mostly is.
you're missing the point xdaunt; he'd be happy if that poor black defendant was getting full disclosure in the grand jury. The problem is he doesn't; so the results for the officer and the poor black kid aren't even; they're getting different justice.
It's like back when sentencing guidelines were put in to make sure similar situations got similar punishments, rather than varying widely based on the individual judge.
|
On November 25 2014 12:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:42 IgnE wrote:
xDaunt now advocating for balanced evidence review in every grand jury. Hell we might as well start allowing the accused to be present with an attorney. A sort of trial-before-the-trial. I'm not advocating for any change to the grand jury system. I'm just pointing out the obvious that there's no harm in making a fuller presentation to the grand jury. Let's pretend that this grand jury was considering charges against some poor black kid instead of this cop. I doubt you'd be complaining about full disclosure then.
Yes there fucking is harm. You can't allow people to have special treatment. Equal treatment under the law. And you wonder why people in Ferguson are upset. The same conservatives in favor of the "rule of law" are now making excuses for this DA who shirked his duty to present the state's case, assuming unto himself the right to act as both prosecutor and defender, to give this poor white cop who found himself in a bad situation a break.
|
On November 25 2014 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It's okay because the cops are here to protect us and those shootings are all justified. right? RIGHT?
|
On November 25 2014 12:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:42 IgnE wrote:
xDaunt now advocating for balanced evidence review in every grand jury. Hell we might as well start allowing the accused to be present with an attorney. A sort of trial-before-the-trial. I'm not advocating for any change to the grand jury system. I'm just pointing out the obvious that there's no harm in making a fuller presentation to the grand jury. Let's pretend that this grand jury was considering charges against some poor black kid instead of this cop. I doubt you'd be complaining about full disclosure then. Yes there fucking is harm. You can't allow people to have special treatment. Equal treatment under the law. And you wonder why people in Ferguson are upset.
This is hilarious. You don't even give a shit about whether the guy is innocent. You just want to string up a white guy to make up for all of the injustices against black people.
|
|
|
On November 25 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:46 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:42 IgnE wrote:
xDaunt now advocating for balanced evidence review in every grand jury. Hell we might as well start allowing the accused to be present with an attorney. A sort of trial-before-the-trial. I'm not advocating for any change to the grand jury system. I'm just pointing out the obvious that there's no harm in making a fuller presentation to the grand jury. Let's pretend that this grand jury was considering charges against some poor black kid instead of this cop. I doubt you'd be complaining about full disclosure then. Yes there fucking is harm. You can't allow people to have special treatment. Equal treatment under the law. And you wonder why people in Ferguson are upset. This is hilarious. You don't even give a shit about whether the guy is innocent. You just want to string up a white guy to make up for all of the injustices against black people.
it's not unreasonable to care more about the process than the individual outcome.
|
On November 25 2014 12:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:46 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:42 IgnE wrote:
xDaunt now advocating for balanced evidence review in every grand jury. Hell we might as well start allowing the accused to be present with an attorney. A sort of trial-before-the-trial. I'm not advocating for any change to the grand jury system. I'm just pointing out the obvious that there's no harm in making a fuller presentation to the grand jury. Let's pretend that this grand jury was considering charges against some poor black kid instead of this cop. I doubt you'd be complaining about full disclosure then. Yes there fucking is harm. You can't allow people to have special treatment. Equal treatment under the law. And you wonder why people in Ferguson are upset. This is hilarious. You don't even give a shit about whether the guy is innocent. You just want to string up a white guy to make up for all of the injustices against black people. it's not unreasonable to care more about the process than the individual outcome.
And how does unjustly warping the process to fuck over a white guy demonstrate that one cares about the process instead of an individual outcome?
|
Looking at numbers and averages; probably around 7 black youths were killed today, and yesterday, and the day before, and so on.
Pity there isn't more focus on those; they're far more numerous a problem. They don't seem to get on the news at all though.
|
Lol man. You have a twisted sense of what "warping the process" means. The process was warped so that he wasn't indicted. You are a lawyer. You are supposed to know how grand juries ordinarily work. It's a single prosecutor presenting the state's case without a defense attorney present.
|
On November 25 2014 12:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:50 zlefin wrote:On November 25 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:46 IgnE wrote:On November 25 2014 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 12:42 IgnE wrote:
xDaunt now advocating for balanced evidence review in every grand jury. Hell we might as well start allowing the accused to be present with an attorney. A sort of trial-before-the-trial. I'm not advocating for any change to the grand jury system. I'm just pointing out the obvious that there's no harm in making a fuller presentation to the grand jury. Let's pretend that this grand jury was considering charges against some poor black kid instead of this cop. I doubt you'd be complaining about full disclosure then. Yes there fucking is harm. You can't allow people to have special treatment. Equal treatment under the law. And you wonder why people in Ferguson are upset. This is hilarious. You don't even give a shit about whether the guy is innocent. You just want to string up a white guy to make up for all of the injustices against black people. it's not unreasonable to care more about the process than the individual outcome. And how does unjustly warping the process to fuck over a white guy demonstrate that one cares about the process instead of an individual outcome?
you are now outright lying and/or trolling.
Since you well know no one mentioned warping the process; but merely following the same process everyone else follows; which was not done in this case (an already proven point, though you can debate the effects of how normal procedure was not followed).
|
I love how he is depicting this poor white guy as the victim.
|
wtf I heard about the militarization of the police force, but that armed vehicle on the vice stream a couple of minutes ago really is fucking scary. I know of riot vehicles that pale to the size and fearsomeness of that thing.
|
|
|
Black lives do matter, yet somehow I suspect they're talking about the few shot by police rather than the dozen murdered every day. If I was there in person I'd ask them, but I'm not, anyone local up for that?
|
Because nowadays in the US everything is racial rather than say having a rational discussion about Black on Black crime.
|
On November 25 2014 12:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:31 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:in this kind of case, appearance of justice is more important than justice itself imo. charge the guy with anything so he gets his day in court, even if you know he will be cleared down the way. Everybody is somewhat happy and you dont need the army, the fbi and military grade riot police to contain the shitquake. take the story of this 12 years old kid who got shot in a Cleveland park by the cops because he had a fucking toygun. the people has to have the impression those guys are held accountable, even if the system doesnt  How would you like to be frivolously charged with a crime and have the pleasure of living the next year of your life in fear of having your life ruined and facing the prospect of a nice, big six-figure attorney bill?
Maybe that fear will be a useful deterrent for whites to join a police force chiefly responsible for paroling a mostly black area, which will open up more spots for blacks, thus improving policing!
|
On November 25 2014 12:54 IgnE wrote:
Lol man. You have a twisted sense of what "warping the process" means. The process was warped so that he wasn't indicted. You are a lawyer. You are supposed to know how grand juries ordinarily work. It's a single prosecutor presenting the state's case without a defense attorney present.
In what universe does providing a grand jury with all of the evidence constitute prejudicial error -- particularly when we're talking about whether an individual is to be criminally indicted? To the extent that there's any "error," it is clearly of the harmless variety, particularly when the individual is not indicted.
Y'all are no better than a lynch mob. Robespierre would be proud of many of the posters around here.
|
On November 25 2014 13:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 12:54 IgnE wrote:
Lol man. You have a twisted sense of what "warping the process" means. The process was warped so that he wasn't indicted. You are a lawyer. You are supposed to know how grand juries ordinarily work. It's a single prosecutor presenting the state's case without a defense attorney present. In what universe does providing a grand jury with all of the evidence constitute prejudicial error -- particularly when we're talking about whether an individual is to be criminally indicted? To the extent that there's any "error," it is clearly of the harmless variety, particularly when the individual is not indicted. Y'all are no better than a lynch mob. Robespierre would be proud of many of the posters around here.
and i'm sure joseph de maistre would be proud of you
|
Seriously, wtf. That tone, haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
