The Ferguson Indictment (on Justice)

[ElNono]

Okay. I guess the mob holding torches had absolutely nothing to do with the Prosecutor's decisions...even though he said they did.

It shouldn't. If it did, that's entirely on the prosecutor. AFAIK, he could've excused himself from the case too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm talking about the interview subject selection of the news article.

Your stupidity is killing your reading comprehension.

I never mentioned a particular section of the article, not sure why you are clinging on to a few quotes.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It shouldn't. If it did, that's entirely on the prosecutor. AFAIK, he could've excused himself from the case too.

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

[Yonivore]

It shouldn't. If it did, that's entirely on the prosecutor. AFAIK, he could've excused himself from the case too.

You're right. But, it goes to how the Grand Jury proceeding in this case got so ed up.

[ElNono]

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

This prosecutor choose to bring the case in front of a grand jury, and he choose to conduct the proceedings the way he did. That's entirely on him, no excuses.

Could a different prosecutor have acted a different way and we could be waiting for a trial now? Sure, it wouldn't be surprising at all. Would it change the outcome? I don't know. There's obviously a different bar to clear in a trial vs a grand jury.

Ultimately, I'm not concerned with the current outcome. The concern is in the process this case brought to light.

[ElNono]

You're right. But, it goes to how the Grand Jury proceeding in this case got so ed up.

I don't think it's this case particularly at all. There's plenty of other cases where this seemingly parallel rules of grand jury proceedings happen (as point out in TSA's article).

[boutons_deux]

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

well of course you don't. dead n!gg@s is the right-wing strategy.

if a prosecutor has REALLY wanted an indictment (Ferguson's guy wanted no trail), then he would have presented ONLY inculpating evidence, NOT all the exonerating "evidence", and NOT let Wilson testify in his own defense for 4 hours. Then all the evidence would have been thoroughly vetted in a TRIAL to see if it, witnesses really stood up to serious examination.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never mentioned a particular section of the article, not sure why you are clinging on to a few quotes.

Because that is what you quoted to make your argument. It just goes to show you are not trustworthy to make an intelligent, unbiased statement.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're right, they did. And, when they couldn't intimidate the Grand Jury into returning the indictment, they burned down the town. Frankly, he would have been better off telling the mob to pack sand that an indictment wasn't going to be sought. While it would have instigated the crowd sooner, they wouldn't have been as organized as they were on the day the Grand Jury announced.

So your point of him being forced was horse . Thanks for agreeing with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

After reading the testimonies and evidence presented do you actually think the outcome would have been different had there been a special prosecutor? I sure don't.

The point is that a different prosecutor would have presented a different case. You are too dimwitted to get that no one is arguing that the GJ in this case came to the 'wrong conclusion' given the case that was shown.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because that is what you quoted to make your argument. It just goes to show you are not trustworthy to make an intelligent, unbiased statement.

for s sake there were like two quotes out of ten paragraphs I've got you in a tailspin

I wasn't making an argument dip . I was simply showing that the way Wilson's was handled by the DA is no different than other officer involved shootings. If you'd take the time to remove the stick I shoved up your ass you'd realize I'm agreeing with there always being a conflict of interest.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The point is that a different prosecutor would have presented a different case. You are too dimwitted to get that no one is arguing that the GJ in this case came to the 'wrong conclusion' given the case that was shown.

Or a different prosecutor would not have suc bed to public pressure and brought no case at all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Or a different prosecutor would not have suc bed to public pressure and brought no case at all.

I won't discount that as a possibility. OTOH, you dismiss the idea that they might seek and get an indictment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wasn't making an argument dip . I was simply showing that the way Wilson's was handled by the DA is no different than other officer involved shootings.

The bolded is an argument. It also so happens to be besides the point. Fumble around some more for us.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The bolded is an argument. It also so happens to be besides the point. Fumble around some more for us.

Never said it was right or wrong and no, it is not besides the point.

What makes the Wilson case unusual and worrisome to an extent is that in that instance, the prosecutor actually tried the case to the grand jury and went to some length to provide the grand jury with evidence concerning Officer Wilson's defense.

It appears that the Wilson case was presented much like all other officer involved shootings.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I won't discount that as a possibility. OTOH, you dismiss the idea that they might seek and get an indictment.

Having ACTUALLY read the testimonies and evidence I can confidently say even a special prosecutor would not seek to get an indictment against Wilson, doing so would be in bad faith.

[Th'Pusher]

Having ACTUALLY read the testimonies and evidence I can confidently say even a special prosecutor would not seek to get an indictment against Wilson, doing so would be in bad faith.

You're so emotionally invested in this incident. Everyone has pretty much conceded the outcome and you're beating the horse like a virgin bangs his . You're so single issue. You're so narrow. You're so embarrassing

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Having ACTUALLY read the testimonies and evidence I can confidently say even a special prosecutor would not seek to get an indictment against Wilson, doing so would be in bad faith.

And again a different prosecutor would present different evidence, make different arguments, present a different set of witnesses, asked the witnesses different questions, etc. You are incredibly ignorant to the entire process and continue to fumble around the topic.

Fuzzy talk to me about testimony so I can feel vindicated because of the decision.

over and over and over again. It took you two weeks to finally catch up to the conflict of interest and the broader issue. You still want to talk about the witness testimony. Push has you right about the embarrassment part.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're so emotionally invested in this incident. Everyone has pretty much conceded the outcome and you're beating the horse like a virgin bangs his . You're so single issue. You're so narrow. You're so embarrassing

Everyone has conceded the outcome? Lock the thread Kori conversation is done.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And again a different prosecutor would present different evidence, make different arguments, present a different set of witnesses, asked the witnesses different questions, etc. You are incredibly ignorant to the entire process and continue to fumble around the topic.



over and over and over again. It took you two weeks to finally catch up to the conflict of interest and the broader issue. You still want to talk about the witness testimony. Push has you right about the embarrassment part.

what different evidence? It was all presented. You haven't read concerning the case how can you even make that claim?
I've been trying to get you to respond to all your claims you made pre testimony release without quoting all of them for all to see and give you a chance to admit you were wrong and you've curled up repeatedly, who is really the one embarrassed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what different evidence? It was all presented. You haven't read concerning the case how can you even make that claim?
I've been trying to get you to respond to all your claims you made pre testimony release without quoting all of them for all to see and give you a chance to admit you were wrong and you've curled up repeatedly, who is really the one embarrassed?

You think that because that is what Wilson's PD's investigation came up with that that is all that could be presented as evidence. Still fumbling around I see.

And as the PBS graphic showed there were more than half that said he had his hands up and surrendering. Remember when you got butthurt and made that thread because I called you incompetent with your Breitbart response? I would discuss the nature of eye witness testimony and all that but you are determined to cling to McCulloch's defense of Wilson. You are dumb.

[Yonivore]

You think that because that is what Wilson's PD's investigation came up with that that is all that could be presented as evidence. Still fumbling around I see.

And as the PBS graphic showed there were more than half that said he had his hands up and surrendering. Remember when you got butthurt and made that thread because I called you incompetent with your Breitbart response? I would discuss the nature of eye witness testimony and all that but you are determined to cling to McCulloch's defense of Wilson. You are dumb.

What evidence did the Prosecutor not present? Even all those witnesses that made statements of "hands up, don't shoot" were made available to the Grand Jury.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What evidence did the Prosecutor not present? Even all those witnesses that made statements of "hands up, don't shoot" were made available to the Grand Jury.

Evidence generated by a investigative body without a even clearer conflict of interest would be a good start. I'm not sure but at the same time you still have a defacto corrupt investigation.

You guys cannot get past that. No statement from the suspect before his GJ hearing. A on site medical examiner that has a battery for her camera would be two good starts off the top of my head. I am sure that a trained investigator could come up with quite many more.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You think that because that is what Wilson's PD's investigation came up with that that is all that could be presented as evidence. Still fumbling around I see.

And as the PBS graphic showed there were more than half that said he had his hands up and surrendering. Remember when you got butthurt and made that thread because I called you incompetent with your Breitbart response? I would discuss the nature of eye witness testimony and all that but you are determined to cling to McCulloch's defense of Wilson. You are dumb.

Why are you referencing a PBS graphic that was not even close to accurate?

Since you are finally ready to discuss the witness testimonies does that mean you have actually read them?

[boutons_deux]

why are you referencing witness testimonies ?

the exonerator's ENTIRE GJ show was a Kangaroo farce of TRIAL to convict Brown and a defense of the exonerator's buddy Wilson.

Let me guess, you believed thzt dubya, head, rummy, feith, rice that Saddam did 9/11, had WMD and was going to hit America, mobile weapons labs, etc, etc?