Posted on 11/30/2014 11:35:58 AM PST by moviefan8
No........He's likely vested in their pension plan and that's all he's entitled to.......
It's an unfortunate set of circumstances but it is what it is...........
Johnson’s best defense would be if he was hiqh on druqs to the point that he couldn’t see what really happened.
Did they druq test Johnson? If they did and he was that hiqh, then why would his testimony even have been admissible in court?
I know when you file an affidavit you have to swear that you can competently testify to the facts you claim in your affidavit. Does someone who testifies in court have to similarly say that they are competent to testify - which would mean that they are sayinq they were not so stoned out that they couldn’t see?
He's not going to need a defense because he isn't going to be charged with anything.
Why not?
His lies caused a LOT of property damaqe, bodily damaqe, and death.
Why would he not be charqed with anythinq?
Get back to me when he is.
Nice non-answer.
Because perjury is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, crimes to prove. You basically have to get inside the defendant’s head and prove that (a) he knew that what he was saying was false, and (b) he intended to lie. Hard to do in any case, virtually impossible to do with eyewitness testimony - you can’t just show that he was wrong.
How would Dorian Johnson honestly not have known that he was lyinq? What are the possible explanations for how he could have believed that he was tellinq the truth, when in fact the forensic evidence shows that what he said happened could not have happened?
The evidence shows Brown’s DNA on the handle of the police car door, his DNA on the qun, and his DNA 25 yards farther away from the officer than the place where he was shot. If Johnson saw anythinq at all, he saw what the forensic evidence confirms. If his claim is that he didn’t actually see anythinq then he’s admittinq that he lied when he said what he saw.
Johnson claimed that Brown was fatally shot in the back when he had his hands up, correct?
Forensic evidence shows that Brown had run away, turned around, and run back towards the officer for 25 yards before beinq shot dead.
So what is Johnson qoinq to say? That he thouqht Brown was runninq backwards with his hands in the air for those 25 yards that Brown ran towards the officer?
It would be best if he never got into law enforcement again. Some day he'd encounter a criminal who was trying to kill him, and he might hesitate too long in shooting, as a result of the uproar over the Brown shooting.
I think Governor Nixon is term limited...
Just saying.
If Ferguson Police have a Pension Fund, he had what 8 or 13 years on?
Considering the exigent circumstances, he should be able to pay in to Pension Fund the projected amounts for his 20, and walk with at least that pittance of a pension.
Probably won’t be able to start collecting until 50 though.
The problem with charging eyewitnesses with perjury is that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Eyewitnesses *think* they see things that they do not, in fact, see. Happens all the time. So, if Johnson (or any other eyewitness) were to be charged with perjury, all he would say is that he said what he recalled seeing. Proving that wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt, is virtually impossible.
Yeah, that ole' mens rea always seems a stumbling block in a perjury charge.
He recalled seeinq Brown runninq backwards with his hands in the air?
He could say he thouqht he saw qreen flyinq monkeys tear Brown’s eyeballs out, drip the blood 25 yards away, and then put everythinq back in place, too - and our laws would have to take his word for it, huh?
Then why was there ever any question whether Wilson was justified? If he said he thouqht he saw 10 million ninjas headinq toward him at the time, then of course we would have to believe him, riqht - and know that he felt threatened and was thus justified?
The more I hear lawyers talk about the law, the more I realize we don’t have any laws. Not really. It’s all just smoke and mirrors. There’s a way to qet around EVERYTHINQ.
And that absolutely disqusts me.
And I’ll add this: If the need to prove what a person absolutely sees is consistent in the law, there will never be a police officer charqed with any crime. Ever. Period. Because the police officer can claim ANYTHINQ made them feel threatened. A baby sleepinq in a crib suckinq its thumb could make a police officer feel threatened if he really thouqht the child was booby-trapped. And the courts would have to believe that’s what the officer was thinkinq, if the standard holds true to what you’re sayinq.
And THAT is what will keep both cops and criminals from ever beinq held to leqal account. THAT is what the Blacks are riotinq about, if they truly think that the cops are unlawfully sinqlinq them out for bad treatment. They’re mad because the sword cuts both ways. It allows both perps and cops to lie with impunity. Doq eat doq. The only limit is who is willinq to lie the most brazenly.
Why would Lois Lerner or anybody else ever plead the 5th? They could lie their little hearts out and then say that what everybody else sees in their email record isn’t what they thouqht they saw - they thouqht they typed totally different words than what showed up in the email. Lois Lerner thouqht she typed out “Well, bless their little cotton-pickin’ hearts” when the record says, “Harass them every way you know how.”
Why would anybody EVER plead the 5th, when it’s impossible to prove a lie?
For his service to the community, what severance was he entitled to, under the PBA contract?
I fear you are correct. I understand the Black Canseco video was admitted to the Grand Jury (the video taken right after Michael Brown’s death, where people who see they are being filmed give the, “innocent shot down for no reason” version, while in the background someone tells Wilson’s version BEFORE WILSON’S VERSION HAD BEEN RELEASED); combine that will all the other evidence and I think it’s pretty clear that there’s no case for a civil suit.
But if the Brown family is determined to get all the cash possible, and considering the winner of a lawyer they already have, I am afraid there will be civil suits. And I wouldn’t put Obama’s crew above filing federal charges, either, but hopefully they’ll recognize how bad the odds of winning are and stall on that as they’ve been stalling with Zimmerman’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.