Congressional Black Caucus: Ferguson Decision a Slap in the Face to Blacks

[hadit]

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

At some point, you have to let people do their jobs. I mean, we can second guess ANY prosecutor, ANY jury, ANY court decision if we don't like the outcome. In fact, had there been a trial and the officer found not guilty, the same people would still be yammering on about how wrong it all is. To far too many people, any outcome other than the one they want is simply unacceptable, and no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to change their minds. The bottom line here is that the officer's life is basically over. He's going to have to move very far away in the middle of the night to have a hope of a somewhat normal life.

 

[dannyboys]

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

He told his boss to remove him if he wanted to. His DEM!!!!!!!!!!! boss made it very clear he had every confidence the Pros. would do a proper honourable job........which he did.
It doesn't matter. The Tree Dwellers frankly don't have the brains to be able to understand reality.
So be it.

 

[Katzndogz]

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

Everything that was collected as evidence was also given to federal authorities.

The prosecutor's job is to prosecute. He wants a trial. That's why grand juries so seldom return a no true bill. If the grand jury did not return an indictment on any of the possible charges its because the evidence was overwhelming. Whether we heard it or not the grand jury did.

 

[BULLDOG]

If a particular community doesn't want a police presence on their streets, then maybe we should let them have exactly what they claim they want. Pull all police presence out. Or would they be happier if young thugs are killed by police officers that have the same color skin?

Do you feel the same about the Congressional Prayer Caucus, The Tea Party Caucus, House Republican Israel Caucus, and all the other caucuses, or do you just think blacks shouldn't be allowed to have one of the long list of specific interest groups? Of course, I would never accuse you of being a disgusting racist, but it sure looks like that.
Caucuses of the United States Congress - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

Unless you are privy to everything the jury saw, you have no standing to make that remark.

Isn't that the point? The information that we do have leads a reasonable person to believe the grand jury was conducted in a highly irregular way, and raises a lot of questions as to why.

That's the point. "The information that we do have" is information carefully picked, groomed, and presented so as to tell the story a certain way. It is not a trivial matter to identify what is totally accurate and what has been manipulated. That's why, I believe, the grand jury took as long as they did, because they knew there were some just waiting for any excuse to break windows, steal things, and burn things.

Possible except for the fact that the grand jury didn't control how long or complete the inquiry was. That was all the prosecutors decision. It was obvious that a protracted period was only increasing the unrest, but he continued with the irregularities anyway. A reasonable person could believe he conducted a mock trial without the ground rules of a trial instead of the short grand jury inquiry that was called for to put the jurors in the position of determining guilt or innocence instead of just whether the case should go to trial.

 

[dannyboys]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

So now the robbery suspect was "killed on site"?
Permanent Ignore.
You are one stupid fuck.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

At some point, you have to let people do their jobs. I mean, we can second guess ANY prosecutor, ANY jury, ANY court decision if we don't like the outcome. In fact, had there been a trial and the officer found not guilty, the same people would still be yammering on about how wrong it all is. To far too many people, any outcome other than the one they want is simply unacceptable, and no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to change their minds. The bottom line here is that the officer's life is basically over. He's going to have to move very far away in the middle of the night to have a hope of a somewhat normal life.

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

 

[BULLDOG]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

So now the robbery suspect was "killed on site"?
Permanent Ignore.
You are one stupid fuck.

Sight, not site. Two completely different things. You say he was a thug who robbed a store and resisted arrest, so there can't be any racism. Do you think every other person who the cops think might have robbed a store should be killed? One of us is a stupid fuck, but it's not me.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

Everything that was collected as evidence was also given to federal authorities.

The prosecutor's job is to prosecute. He wants a trial. That's why grand juries so seldom return a no true bill. If the grand jury did not return an indictment on any of the possible charges its because the evidence was overwhelming. Whether we heard it or not the grand jury did.

I'll agree that the jury was overwhelmed, but not in the way you imply.

 

[hadit]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

So now the robbery suspect was "killed on site"?
Permanent Ignore.
You are one stupid fuck.

Sight, not site. Two completely different things. You say he was a thug who robbed a store and resisted arrest, so there can't be any racism. Do you think every other person who the cops think might have robbed a store should be killed? One of us is a stupid fuck, but it's not me.

Let's be honest here. Had the suspect gotten out of the street when he was told to, and not tried to steal the officer's weapon, AND not assaulted the officer, he would not be dead now.

 

[WelfareQueen]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

So now the robbery suspect was "killed on site"?
Permanent Ignore.
You are one stupid fuck.

Sight, not site. Two completely different things. You say he was a thug who robbed a store and resisted arrest, so there can't be any racism. Do you think every other person who the cops think might have robbed a store should be killed? One of us is a stupid fuck, but it's not me.

Go for a Cop's gun....? Yeah...the moron deserved to be shot. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

He told his boss to remove him if he wanted to. His DEM!!!!!!!!!!! boss made it very clear he had every confidence the Pros. would do a proper honourable job........which he did.
It doesn't matter. The Tree Dwellers frankly don't have the brains to be able to understand reality.
So be it.

So you think everything every Democrat does is representative of every Democrat, so does everything that every repub does represent every repub? A republican in Illinois was caught having sex with a pumpkin in his back yard last week. Should people not allow you near their garden now?

 

[hadit]

So, list the irregularities. TIA

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

At some point, you have to let people do their jobs. I mean, we can second guess ANY prosecutor, ANY jury, ANY court decision if we don't like the outcome. In fact, had there been a trial and the officer found not guilty, the same people would still be yammering on about how wrong it all is. To far too many people, any outcome other than the one they want is simply unacceptable, and no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to change their minds. The bottom line here is that the officer's life is basically over. He's going to have to move very far away in the middle of the night to have a hope of a somewhat normal life.

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

 

[Katzndogz]

If a particular community doesn't want a police presence on their streets, then maybe we should let them have exactly what they claim they want. Pull all police presence out. Or would they be happier if young thugs are killed by police officers that have the same color skin?

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

Unless you are privy to everything the jury saw, you have no standing to make that remark.

Isn't that the point? The information that we do have leads a reasonable person to believe the grand jury was conducted in a highly irregular way, and raises a lot of questions as to why.

That's the point. "The information that we do have" is information carefully picked, groomed, and presented so as to tell the story a certain way. It is not a trivial matter to identify what is totally accurate and what has been manipulated. That's why, I believe, the grand jury took as long as they did, because they knew there were some just waiting for any excuse to break windows, steal things, and burn things.

Possible except for the fact that the grand jury didn't control how long or complete the inquiry was. That was all the prosecutors decision. It was obvious that a protracted period was only increasing the unrest, but he continued with the irregularities anyway. A reasonable person could believe he conducted a mock trial without the ground rules of a trial instead of the short grand jury inquiry that was called for to put the jurors in the position of determining guilt or innocence instead of just whether the case should go to trial.

A trial would have included a defense. In a grand jury proceeding there is no presentation of a defense. The sole purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether a crime occurred and what the charges should be. The grand jury hears everything. The defense isn't present and does not get to object as they do in a trial.

In this case presentation of the evidence took so long because the jury met only once a week. They were not sequestered. In addition to the evidence presented in the proceedings they also heard every story, rumor and threat. The grand jury had everything including wild internet claims of cold blooded murder.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

So now the robbery suspect was "killed on site"?
Permanent Ignore.
You are one stupid fuck.

Sight, not site. Two completely different things. You say he was a thug who robbed a store and resisted arrest, so there can't be any racism. Do you think every other person who the cops think might have robbed a store should be killed? One of us is a stupid fuck, but it's not me.

Let's be honest here. Had the suspect gotten out of the street when he was told to, and not tried to steal the officer's weapon, AND not assaulted the officer, he would not be dead now.

Got it. Jaywalking and pushing away from an officer is now a crime punishable by being killed
on the spot. You do know all those pictures shown on fox and reported to be where the cop was beat up were just more lies don't you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.
Next, a grand jury decision is usually a one day affair where the basic facts of the case are presented, and the grand jury is only asked to determine if a reasonable jury might be able to find a guilty verdict after a complete trial. In this case, it was stretched out for months, presenting multiple witnesses. This never happens. The grand jury was overwhelmed with information in a highly irregular semblance of a trial without the rules of a trial, such as cross examination. It is almost unheard of for a defendant to be questioned before a grand jury. This guy testified for
four hours just before the decision was made. These are just a few of the irregularities that could make reasonable people doubt the fairness and validity of such a highly watched case. Even you must see that this looks like an effort to thumb their noses at the way any other grand jury would be conducted.

What you call "irregularities" can also be called "the jury making absolutely sure their decision is the best one based solely on the evidence presented".

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

At some point, you have to let people do their jobs. I mean, we can second guess ANY prosecutor, ANY jury, ANY court decision if we don't like the outcome. In fact, had there been a trial and the officer found not guilty, the same people would still be yammering on about how wrong it all is. To far too many people, any outcome other than the one they want is simply unacceptable, and no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to change their minds. The bottom line here is that the officer's life is basically over. He's going to have to move very far away in the middle of the night to have a hope of a somewhat normal life.

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

 

[BULLDOG]

If a particular community doesn't want a police presence on their streets, then maybe we should let them have exactly what they claim they want. Pull all police presence out. Or would they be happier if young thugs are killed by police officers that have the same color skin?

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

Unless you are privy to everything the jury saw, you have no standing to make that remark.

Isn't that the point? The information that we do have leads a reasonable person to believe the grand jury was conducted in a highly irregular way, and raises a lot of questions as to why.

That's the point. "The information that we do have" is information carefully picked, groomed, and presented so as to tell the story a certain way. It is not a trivial matter to identify what is totally accurate and what has been manipulated. That's why, I believe, the grand jury took as long as they did, because they knew there were some just waiting for any excuse to break windows, steal things, and burn things.

Possible except for the fact that the grand jury didn't control how long or complete the inquiry was. That was all the prosecutors decision. It was obvious that a protracted period was only increasing the unrest, but he continued with the irregularities anyway. A reasonable person could believe he conducted a mock trial without the ground rules of a trial instead of the short grand jury inquiry that was called for to put the jurors in the position of determining guilt or innocence instead of just whether the case should go to trial.

A trial would have included a defense. In a grand jury proceeding there is no presentation of a defense. The sole purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether a crime occurred and what the charges should be. The grand jury hears everything. The defense isn't present and does not get to object as they do in a trial.

In this case presentation of the evidence took so long because the jury met only once a week. They were not sequestered. In addition to the evidence presented in the proceedings they also heard every story, rumor and threat. The grand jury had everything including wild internet claims of cold blooded murder.

All those things listed were certainly not to be expected in normal grand jury inquiries, but things a prosecutor would do to overwhelm a grand jury and to keep from going to trial on a particular case he didn't want to prosecute.

 

[Conservative65]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

Says the one who supports the protestors burning buildings.

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

 

[Conservative65]

If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

It's the police department's fault a bunch of good for nothing thugs steal and burn down buildings. Right. They're making a bunch of sorry people do that.

 

[the_human_being]

And negroes wonder why the other races on the planet despise them. It's impossible to have any rational conversation with them.
Billions and billions of the 'Maker's' money has been flushed down the toilet trying to help the negroes help themselves.
Nothing. Nowhere has worked.......EVER!
They just destroyed what was left of the shithole they live in.
Now the 'leaders' like the fucking race whore is going to demand the 'gubbermint' spend the 'Maker's' tax money to rebuild the shithole. You watch.

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

Suspect??? He was hardly a suspect. The robbery was recorded. It was a strong-arm robbery. He could have given himself up without fighting with the police officer. He was a thug and was killed. Get over it. Brown was no choir boy.

 

[the_human_being]

If a particular community doesn't want a police presence on their streets, then maybe we should let them have exactly what they claim they want. Pull all police presence out. Or would they be happier if young thugs are killed by police officers that have the same color skin?

I've never heard of the other caucuses. Obviously they have a degree of irrelevancy that the Black Caucus doesn't have. So, if there are other special interest caucuses, the Black Caucus would be appropriate.
However, the members of the Black Caucus, I would think have a stature to keep. They should be, in essence in the image of ML King, the greatest man of the African American race. Never be race baiting, but standing above race as we would like all Americans to be.

That's why the comment of Representative Fudge was wrong. She did not listen to the facts of the judgment and the law that found Wilson "not guilty" of any crime. She was predisposed of guilt before the decision came down. For someone on that Committee and as a representative in Congress, that was wrong.

The Grand jury did not, and can not find anyone not guilty. This was not a trial. They only determine whether to return criminal charges. There were many irregularities in the way this grand jury was conducted, and there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. There could have still been a trial where all evidence would have been presented, but the prosecutor behaved more as a defense attorney for the cop than a prosecutor. Fudge's remarks were certainly reasonable.

Unless you are privy to everything the jury saw, you have no standing to make that remark.

Isn't that the point? The information that we do have leads a reasonable person to believe the grand jury was conducted in a highly irregular way, and raises a lot of questions as to why.

That's the point. "The information that we do have" is information carefully picked, groomed, and presented so as to tell the story a certain way. It is not a trivial matter to identify what is totally accurate and what has been manipulated. That's why, I believe, the grand jury took as long as they did, because they knew there were some just waiting for any excuse to break windows, steal things, and burn things.

Possible except for the fact that the grand jury didn't control how long or complete the inquiry was. That was all the prosecutors decision. It was obvious that a protracted period was only increasing the unrest, but he continued with the irregularities anyway. A reasonable person could believe he conducted a mock trial without the ground rules of a trial instead of the short grand jury inquiry that was called for to put the jurors in the position of determining guilt or innocence instead of just whether the case should go to trial.

Yes, it was a total waste of taxpayer money and grand jury time. A police department investigation would have ruled the shooting as justified.