Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.
oh wait.
you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?
Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.
How was this a "travesty of justice", because it didn't go your way? Were the jurors racist? Do the facts even matter to bigots like you?
Do proper procedures and true justice matter to you? Or is it your blind allegiance to government when it protects thugs with badges?
Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.
oh wait.
you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?
Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.
How was this a "travesty of justice", because it didn't go your way? Were the jurors racist? Do the facts even matter to bigots like you?
Do proper procedures and true justice matter to you? Or is it your blind allegiance to government when it protects thugs with badges?
Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
None of.....all that.....changes the fact that the facts of the case didn't warrant a true bill of indictment to charge Officer Wilson with a crime. So I conclude I was right, you just didn't like the outcome, facts be damned.
The population of Ferguson is 60% black. The police force is 94% white. That alone says a great deal. The people and the cops do not have a positive, healthy working relationship. It is really the responsibility of the police force to create a good environment, and they clearly have not done so.Just so we get this fact clear going forward...
YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.
However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
its the responsibility of the police really?
funny. I don't think that is the polices responsibility. I think it's one of the duties of citizenship and being an adult to create a good community. The police assist us by investigating and arresting those who commit crimes.
it's a mans duty to take care of his family. To protect them. To love them. To teach them to follow the law. To work to provide for them.
instead we have people like yourself saying it's someone elses responsibility. Is it any wonder that we have the crime problem we do? Or that we have riots in response? If everyone thinks it is someone elses responsibility then no one actually does what needs to be done.
we need to teach the men to step up and be men. Do your duty to yourself, your family, your community, and your God and you will be free.
samples.jbpub.com/9780763771386/Ross_71386_CH08_115_130.pdEmergence of the Problem of Poor
Police–Community Relations
The notion of police–community relations derives from Sir Robert Peel’s
principles of law enforcement. As you may recall, before the creation of the
first modern police department, it was the duty of every able-bodied person
to take their turn at the watch, thereby contribute to the policing of their
community. If there was a threat to the community, the night watch would
raise a hue and cry. This would wake up the community, and its citizens
would collectively repel an attack from wild animals or intruders, help put
out a fire, and so on. Why did this break down?
Early History of Police–Community Relations
Developments during the early part of the 20th century (e.g., the advent of
motorized vehicles, the development of more efficient mass transportation systems,
police officers not living in the same jurisdiction in which they patrolled)
led to a breakdown in police–community relations. In short, there are numerous reasons for poor police community relations. These can include:
• Socialization of children by parents to fear/distrust the police
• Hostility toward the police
-Confidence in police ability has decreased
• Less contact by police with citizens
• Bad cops (rude, corrupt, violent)
• Some veteran officers would rather not deal with the community
• Police are not the best communicators
• Police and citizens have different perspectives on how crime is
caused and how to respond to it.
These factors in whole or in part prompted police reformers to search for
appropriate solutions. One of the more notable was the integration of the
human relations movement into law enforcement The human relations
movement and some astute police executives believed that police had to
move beyond simply being responsible for enforcing the law and actually
connect with the communities they policed (Radalet and Carter, 1994,
p. 23). Some of the initial attempts to increase awareness and techniques of police–community relations were started with the introduction of human
relations training into police training academies (Radalet and Carter, 1994;
Bayley and Mendelsohn, 1969). Human relations consisted of a series of
techniques to both better understand how individuals behaved in groups
and to improve their productivity and cooperation in organizational
contexts.
http://bprd.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6798203243-volume 2.pdfThe role and functions of the police in general are:
...preserve, promote and protect human rights and interests of weaker sections,
backward classes, poor, weak and the downtrodden.
Building and maintaining community trust is the cornerstone of successful policing and law.
No one cares about the Senate, and OJ got away with murder just like Wilson. What a stupid puss you are.Damn, they whined like hell over losing the Senate and now a MONTH later they're obsessing over this
I bet they felt this way when Oj Simpson got away with murdering not ONE, but TWO white people ONE HIS WIFE
You are nothing but a POS Liar. This OP is BULL SHIT.Just so we get this fact clear going forward...
YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.
However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
The population of Ferguson is 60% black. The police force is 94% white. That alone says a great deal. The people and the cops do not have a positive, healthy working relationship. It is really the responsibility of the police force to create a good environment, and they clearly have not done so.Just so we get this fact clear going forward...
YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.
However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
its the responsibility of the police really?
funny. I don't think that is the polices responsibility. I think it's one of the duties of citizenship and being an adult to create a good community. The police assist us by investigating and arresting those who commit crimes.
it's a mans duty to take care of his family. To protect them. To love them. To teach them to follow the law. To work to provide for them.
instead we have people like yourself saying it's someone elses responsibility. Is it any wonder that we have the crime problem we do? Or that we have riots in response? If everyone thinks it is someone elses responsibility then no one actually does what needs to be done.
we need to teach the men to step up and be men. Do your duty to yourself, your family, your community, and your God and you will be free.
It is absolutely amazing to me that you people deny that it's the responsibility of the police to establish and maintain a good relationship with the community they serve. What do you think, that the police can behave in any way they choose, and the people are supposed to insure they create and maintain a good relattionship with the police. That's absurd. Obviously none of you have studied law enforcement, not even a little. Or you are all being totally intellectually dishonest.
This is a small passage from a chapter in a text which one would read when studying law enforcement. It oulines how the police department needs to create and maintain a good relationship with the public it serves. This is not some idea I came up with. Everyone who has any knowledge of this subject knows that part of being a good police department is for everyone in the department to follow procedures that would create a good relationship with the public they served. It's so obvious that I find it unbelievable people don't know this.
samples.jbpub.com/9780763771386/Ross_71386_CH08_115_130.pdfEmergence of the Problem of Poor
Police–Community Relations
The notion of police–community relations derives from Sir Robert Peel’s
principles of law enforcement. As you may recall, before the creation of the
first modern police department, it was the duty of every able-bodied person
to take their turn at the watch, thereby contribute to the policing of their
community. If there was a threat to the community, the night watch would
raise a hue and cry. This would wake up the community, and its citizens
would collectively repel an attack from wild animals or intruders, help put
out a fire, and so on. Why did this break down?
Early History of Police–Community Relations
Developments during the early part of the 20th century (e.g., the advent of
motorized vehicles, the development of more efficient mass transportation systems,
police officers not living in the same jurisdiction in which they patrolled)
led to a breakdown in police–community relations. In short, there are numerous reasons for poor police community relations. These can include:
• Socialization of children by parents to fear/distrust the police
• Hostility toward the police
-Confidence in police ability has decreased
• Less contact by police with citizens
• Bad cops (rude, corrupt, violent)
• Some veteran officers would rather not deal with the community
• Police are not the best communicators
• Police and citizens have different perspectives on how crime is
caused and how to respond to it.
These factors in whole or in part prompted police reformers to search for
appropriate solutions. One of the more notable was the integration of the
human relations movement into law enforcement The human relations
movement and some astute police executives believed that police had to
move beyond simply being responsible for enforcing the law and actually
connect with the communities they policed (Radalet and Carter, 1994,
p. 23). Some of the initial attempts to increase awareness and techniques of police–community relations were started with the introduction of human
relations training into police training academies (Radalet and Carter, 1994;
Bayley and Mendelsohn, 1969). Human relations consisted of a series of
techniques to both better understand how individuals behaved in groups
and to improve their productivity and cooperation in organizational
contexts.
Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.
oh wait.
you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?
Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.
How was this a "travesty of justice", because it didn't go your way? Were the jurors racist? Do the facts even matter to bigots like you?
Do proper procedures and true justice matter to you? Or is it your blind allegiance to government when it protects thugs with badges?
Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
None of.....all that.....changes the fact that the facts of the case didn't warrant a true bill of indictment to charge Officer Wilson with a crime. So I conclude I was right, you just didn't like the outcome, facts be damned.
What form of 'justice' allows one party to testify for hours without any cross examination? You folks keep proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were born with tiny little brains that can only function on the level of a child.
You are nothing but a POS Liar. This OP is BULL SHIT.Just so we get this fact clear going forward...
YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.
However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
The population of Ferguson is 60% black. The police force is 94% white. That alone says a great deal. The people and the cops do not have a positive, healthy working relationship. It is really the responsibility of the police force to create a good environment, and they clearly have not done so.Just so we get this fact clear going forward...
YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.
However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
Well they were sure screaming bloody murder for Mommy Big Government to protect them from Ebola now weren't they? No guns or brains were mentioned.Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
Conservatives can protect themselves with their guns and their brains. Second of all, Conservatives accept government agency when it comes to the general welfare (roads, military, hospitals etc..) Get your head out of your ass.
You are nothing but a POS Liar. This OP is BULL SHIT.Just so we get this fact clear going forward...
YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.
However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
The child mind chimes in...
I guess my reply at your level of intelligence has to be "I know you are, but what am I"
Well they were sure screaming bloody murder for Mommy Big Government to protect them from Ebola now weren't they? No guns or brains were mentioned.Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
Conservatives can protect themselves with their guns and their brains. Second of all, Conservatives accept government agency when it comes to the general welfare (roads, military, hospitals etc..) Get your head out of your ass.
It's called you guys being gun-loving pussies, running to Mommy when the serious shit starts. And why, because only Mommy Big Government can handle that shit.Well they were sure screaming bloody murder for Mommy Big Government to protect them from Ebola now weren't they? No guns or brains were mentioned.Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
Conservatives can protect themselves with their guns and their brains. Second of all, Conservatives accept government agency when it comes to the general welfare (roads, military, hospitals etc..) Get your head out of your ass.
Ebola= deadly disease, preventable by not allowing infected in. It is called common sense- something libs have none of.
It's called you guys being gun-loving pussies, running to Mommy when the serious shit starts. And why, because only Mommy Big Government can handle that shit.Well they were sure screaming bloody murder for Mommy Big Government to protect them from Ebola now weren't they? No guns or brains were mentioned.Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
Conservatives can protect themselves with their guns and their brains. Second of all, Conservatives accept government agency when it comes to the general welfare (roads, military, hospitals etc..) Get your head out of your ass.
Ebola= deadly disease, preventable by not allowing infected in. It is called common sense- something libs have none of.
What I am you couldn't begin to understand, and don't play big man on the Internet when you scream for the government, that you hate, to protect your sorry fearful ass.It's called you guys being gun-loving pussies, running to Mommy when the serious shit starts. And why, because only Mommy Big Government can handle that shit.Well they were sure screaming bloody murder for Mommy Big Government to protect them from Ebola now weren't they? No guns or brains were mentioned.Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
Conservatives can protect themselves with their guns and their brains. Second of all, Conservatives accept government agency when it comes to the general welfare (roads, military, hospitals etc..) Get your head out of your ass.
Ebola= deadly disease, preventable by not allowing infected in. It is called common sense- something libs have none of.
you fucking idiot. Why don't you invite some poor africans with ebola into your house. Are you this stupid or are you just a troll?
It's called you guys being gun-loving pussies, running to Mommy when the serious shit starts. And why, because only Mommy Big Government can handle that shit.Well they were sure screaming bloody murder for Mommy Big Government to protect them from Ebola now weren't they? No guns or brains were mentioned.Conservatives bitch about the government but they always cry the loudest for it to protect them when the shit hits the fan.
Conservatives can protect themselves with their guns and their brains. Second of all, Conservatives accept government agency when it comes to the general welfare (roads, military, hospitals etc..) Get your head out of your ass.
Ebola= deadly disease, preventable by not allowing infected in. It is called common sense- something libs have none of.
you fucking idiot. Why don't you invite some poor africans with ebola into your house. Are you this stupid or are you just a troll?
It is absolutely amazing to me that you people deny that it's the responsibility of the police to establish and maintain a good relationship with the community they serve. What do you think, that the police can behave in any way they choose, and the people are supposed to insure they create and maintain a good relattionship with the police. That's absurd. Obviously none of you have studied law enforcement, not even a little. Or you are all being totally intellectually dishonest.
Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.
oh wait.
you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?
Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.
How was this a "travesty of justice", because it didn't go your way? Were the jurors racist? Do the facts even matter to bigots like you?
Do proper procedures and true justice matter to you? Or is it your blind allegiance to government when it protects thugs with badges?
Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
None of.....all that.....changes the fact that the facts of the case didn't warrant a true bill of indictment to charge Officer Wilson with a crime. So I conclude I was right, you just didn't like the outcome, facts be damned.
What form of 'justice' allows one party to testify for hours without any cross examination? You folks keep proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were born with tiny little brains that can only function on the level of a child.
