Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bigbob

I agree with no indictment. I don’t think they would have taken this long to announce it if there was one.


496 posted on 11/24/2014 3:36:37 PM PST by CityCenter (In remembrance of Buckley, my beloved beagle who passed on 11/3/2014.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies ]


To: CityCenter

They need 9 out of 12 to indict, the evidence would have to be pretty firm.

No telling what kind of monkey wrench the communists in DC at the DOJ and WH have thrown into the works though.


507 posted on 11/24/2014 3:43:39 PM PST by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]

To: CityCenter

“I agree with no indictment. I don’t think they would have taken this long to announce it if there was one.”

Oh you mean that the side that thinks the officer should not be indicted is not a threat. That such side is not going to go on a rampage and start killing and burning if it is announced that Holder and the mob have managed to antagonize the jury into indicting. Therefore there would be no reason to wait unless there is no indictment.


511 posted on 11/24/2014 3:45:06 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]

To: CityCenter

And I didn’t intend for my comment to sound racist, but I can’t see anything but an all (or nearly all) black jury that is hell-bent on an anti-police agenda would indict.


522 posted on 11/24/2014 3:47:51 PM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson