Reply With Quote
Evidence?
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Prosecutors take complaints, assemble witnesses and evidence and present them to a Grand Jury. What am I missing in this case? Are you accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing?
He said build the case and you are being intentionally obtuse.
Evidence?
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Prosecutors take complaints, assemble witnesses and evidence and present them to a Grand Jury. What am I missing in this case? Are you accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing?
With bringing up the conflict of interest, why on Earth would you limit it to the GJ proceedings and not everything that the DA and local police do together in their relationship? Further, prosecutors use cops to investigate and do legwork in building and presenting cases regardless if they end up as witnesses.
You're dissembling by being intentionally obtuse and evasive. I have to say for someone that says that nothing matters here, you are being quite the coward.
you're missing that prosecutors work with, depend on the police for evidence to pad their career with convictions. Prosecutors who go after police can't expect cooperation from police.
Most prosecutors have their own investigators however, I'm not sure that's the case in Ferguson.
I'm just wondering what everyone thinks this prosecutor did that did not afford Michael Brown justice.
Police shootings are not that common but, in most cases, the local prosecutor handles officer-involved shootings, except when the evidence shows the officer may have been in the wrong. A bunch of activists yelling about "hands up, don't shoot," doesn't cons ute evidence that Officer Wilson did anything wrong.
As it stands, this prosecutor went above and beyond; he turned all the evidence -- ALL OF IT -- over to a Grand Jury, gave them 5 separate indictments on which they could deliberate, and then let the system work.
Exactly what are you accusing this prosecutor of?
I'm not being obtuse, I sincerely don't see a problem with the way this case was handled except that the Prosecutor opened himself up to the types of attacks you are launching by caving to demand made by people not related to the case and went against his initial finding which was that there wasn't any evidence that warranted indictment. The same thing the Grand Jury found.
Are you saying he gave them fabricated exculpatory evidence?
Are you saying he withheld incriminating evidence?
Are you saying he misrepresented evidence?
What are you saying?
So, what did this prosecutor ignore so that he could ensure future cooperation of the police?
Where's his wrongdoing, boutons?
A prosecutor goes for indictments based on enough evidence to convict. This exonerator, a bogus prosecutor for this case, who chooses what to present the GJ, presented all kinds of exonerating evidence (which is role of the defender in court, not of the prosecutor).
What would this prosecutor have had to present, if not the exculpatory evidence? There wasn't any incriminating evidence. , he didn't even want to present the case -- because there wasn't one.
What do cross examination mean?
In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding? Absolutely nothing.
Bull , all he had to do is bring up one of the witnesses saying brown was trying to surrender and nothing more to get the indictment. Instead he cross examined and discredited their testimony while hand waving at pot.
OTOH, Wilson was able to testify like all other defense witnesses and was never crossed. Specifically what I have heard at issue is how the pictures from the hospital show no bruising around the face and the like where the man he described as a demon of great strength supposedly beat him to the point of being scared. He was never questioned how his supposed radio call right before pursuit never ended up on any recording or any other manner of thing someone actually seeking an indictment would attempt.
Really then why did the prosecutor cross examine prosecution witnesses and not defense like the suspect then?
DAs never work with the police.
Ever.
This is what we learned today.
lol
Unfortunately, the forensic evidence and more credible witness statements discounted those that claimed Brown was surrendering. And, this was known before the prosecutor was harangued into taking the case to a Grand Jury. I'm not sure what you don't understand about a professional prosecutor, the people elected, making a judgment on a case under his jurisdiction. To knowingly present evidence or witness statements he knew to be counter to the truth - just to obtain an indictment - would be a worse offense than what you are apparently accusing him. Which, by the way, I'm still not sure what wrongdoing he's being accused of.
You've come the closest by suggesting he should have fudged the evidence in order to gain an indictment and that it was wrong that he didn't.
Actually, the photos do show contusions and swelling. The photos were taken fairly contemporaneous to the event and it's possibly bruising wasn't yet evident.
In any case, there is credible witness testimony that Michael Brown was leaning through the patrol vehicle window and wailing away on Officer Wilson.
Please elaborate.
You're a poor student.
You're a poor judge of sarcasm.
would you want admitted lying witnesses brought in front of you GJ hearing?
He wants a dishonest prosecutor to present a biased case so the Officer who killed Michael Brown can be tried for a crime he didn't commit.
What do strawman mean?
And that is exactly what the prosecutor is claiming to have done. You're too stupid to realize the logical extensions of what you say.
you two fumbling around trying to speak for me
I want an unbiased special prosecutor to handle all investigations and prosecution of law enforcement officials. I want the law enforcement bill of rights repealed or find a DoJ with the balls to test it's muster with the 14th amendment.
So, you're not alleging this particular prosecutor did anything wrong; you just want the process changed. That's a fair statement.
I want an unbiased special prosecutor to handle all investigations and prosecution of law enforcement officials. I want the law enforcement bill of rights repealed or find a DoJ with the balls to test it's muster with the 14th amendment.
That would have been useful in this case. The special prosecutor would have ignored public pressure, looked at all the evidence, and say there is no case to go before a grand jury.
Wrong is a word of many meanings. I don't know that he did anything illegal but that is as far as I will go. I think the corrupt nature of DA run GJ for cops is wrong and he is an active participant in the travesty.
The issue is that the conflict of interest is a corruption that calls into question of the legitimacy of the proceedings. You can cherry pick arguments and witness statements from such a system all you like but there it still is.
I'm kind of wondering from where Fuzzy would have chosen the special prosecutor. Most people considered for the job also have a prior, friendly relationship with law enforcement.
I'm not opposed to the idea, mind you, but, I think it at least needs to be shown the current prosecutor has acted in a manner that denied justice to those involved in the case. I also think having a special prosecutor selected for every case in which a police officer is involved is impractical. The people elect their District Attorneys to make the determinations inherent in the office. If they lose confidence in the DA, replace him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions