Reply With Quote
Wrong.
The question in the civil rights investigation is whether or not civil rights were impinged. What do you think the question in a homicide investigation is?
You are ignorant AND dumb. NICE!
It's amusing you continue arguing any of this having already admitted to not reading the witness statements and instead relying on a highly flawed PBS chart
Wrong.
The question in the civil rights investigation is whether or not civil rights were impinged. What do you think the question in a homicide investigation is?
You are ignorant AND dumb. NICE!
The feds will conclude Wilson was not actively impinging civil rights when he was in fear for his life and used necessary force to stop Brown. If you can't see how both investigations are tied to lethal force I'm not sure what to say. It will be amusing to watch you try and spin the Feds decision to bring no civil charges against Wilson.
I'm sure that is exactly how the decision and disposition will read. . . .
It's amusing you call me simpleton while thinking use of lethal force and whether or not it was justified won't be a factor in the civil rights investigation.
Again, what will be your excuse when no civil rights charges are brought?
Excuse? What a naive paradigm you have. I don't think like you do. Sorry.
I called you a simpleton because you are using that as the basis for it being the 'same conclusion' between a civil rights and homicide investigation. You don't understand what that means but it is there still the same, simpleton.
Explain how you think then you haven't done much of it in fact all you've done is dodge questions.
What civil rights violation did Wilson commit?
After reading the witness testimonies should this have even gone to a grand jury?
Was hands up don't shoot a false narrative that was forced by threat of violence?
Can Michael Brown in fact run?
If Wilson was indicted do you think he would have been charged with murder?
Still aren't grasping the scope of the conflict of interest. Not surprising frankly.
Still refuses to answer simple questions. Why such a coward?
There will always be a somewhat of a conflict of interest when a DA prosecutes a cop, that is just a product of how our justice system is currently set up.
In this particular case, what wrong doings are you accusing McColluch of? Did he withhold evidence? Testimonies? Too much evidence? Where did his conflict of interest lead to Wilson being no billed? After reading all the testimonies, which I hope you have finally done, would the result have been any different with a different DA?
In this particular case your conflict of interest angle is moot as it never should have gone to a grand jury to begin with. It's been proven the hands up don't shoot narrative was all a lie.
And answer these please.
Again my statements subsume your premise. You don't understand and stamp your feet but it is what it is. The GJ proceedings were corrupted by a clear conflict of interest within the prosecutor running it.
I already addressed the conflict of interest in my above post. You are really acting cowardly on an anonymous message board by refusing to answer questions because you dont like the answers. At least boutons has the stones to stick with his original narrative even when he knows he's wrong. You on the other hand pull the move.
You didn't question whether or not there was a conflict of interest. You questioned the impact as if that matters when it comes to legal rights and the issue of fairness.
And what is this stupidity of constancy as if being obstinate and pigheaded is the preferred behavior? I'm done with this thread. I'll be in the other one on the actual subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
