Posted on 11/29/2014 9:50:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Use Bigger Bullets
Yes it is.
But my understanding is that in most states a prosecutor has no legal obligation to submit a balanced review of the evidence to the grand jury. He's prohibited from presenting evidence he knows or reasonably suspects is false.
But unlike during the trial, he is not obligated to present excuplatory evidence.
No, I'm not really comfortable with this, but then the grand jury hearing isn't intended to be a "pre-trial," which is what the Wilson hearing turned into.
BTW, the prosecutor could also have legally not presented any evidence to the jury that would fit the "narrative." But instead apparently he gave it all to them.
Reminds me of that scene in “Demolition Man” where the future cops located Simon Phoenix with surveillance cams and began celebrating that they had solved the crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bOQitInC84
Best solution is to establish a policy that maximum deadly force will be used anytime a person stopped by legitimate authority attempts to rebel or attack the arresting officer.
The numbers of the rebellious will reduce and law enforcement will return to normalcy.
Stupid “what if” article. Wilson did his job, Brown got himself rightly killed. End of story.
Fortunately for the innocent people of Ferguson, the cop did everything the way it actually happened. This hard-working store owner will be the Gentle Giant's last victim. Ever. Death penalty for petty theft and simple assault? I'm okay with that when it is a natural consequence of thuggish actions.
That’s some mighty fine armchair quarterbacking there, Mr Dunphy.
One simple solution would have been to have two cops in the cruiser.
A video recording of events probably would have stopped this matter from going past stage one.
Black cops in black neighborhoods, and then it wouldn’t matter, so far as the rabble rousers go. Even though it would be black vs establishment, it would still be black on black, and that’s not an important issue.
Another solution is for cops to quit serving racially hostile areas where they are obviously not appreciated nor wanted. Let inner city plantations solve their own problems. The federal government supports them. Let the federal government provide everything for them.
Yes it is.
But my understanding is that in most states a prosecutor has no legal obligation to submit a balanced review of the evidence to the grand jury. He's prohibited from presenting evidence he knows or reasonably suspects is false.
But unlike during the trial, he is not obligated to present excuplatory evidence.
No, I'm not really comfortable with this, but then the grand jury hearing isn't intended to be a "pre-trial," which is what the Wilson hearing turned into.
BTW, the prosecutor could also have legally not presented any evidence to the jury that would fit the "narrative." But instead apparently he gave it all to them.
IOW, the protestors are absolutely correct. Had the prosecutor wanted to obtain an indictment he absolutely could have. So he obviously didn't want to. You can consider this an example of the blatant racism embedded in the American legal system, or an example of a person doing his ethical best under very trying circumstances. Take your pick.
I agree, the operative words being “common sense”. The parameters are different for a cop than for the rest of us though (ie, they run towards trouble when the rest of us would run away from it).
Even simpler than that. The deceased knew he’d just committed a crime. When the officer merely asked him and his wingman to get out of the road, he could have - and should have - beat feet to the sidewalk and quietly disappeared to go make blunts of his ill-gotten Swisher Sweets. Act innocent and respectful, tell the nice officer, “Yes sir, thank you sir. I’ll be on my way now, sir. Have a good day and stay safe.” Officer Wilson did not know of the robbery and that he was facing the perp. Take that “lucky” break and get outta Dodge. Nobody shoots. Nobody dies.
The writer is armchair policing.
So he went above and beyond, presenting the evidence to a grand jury to see if they agreed with him that there was no probable cause to hold the officer for trial. This is a different use of the grand jury than normal, a fact that seems to escape the attention of the race baiters who simply wanted an indictment. He wasn't using the grand jury to get an indictment, but to ask whether his view that there should be no indictment was correct. Instead of pushing a point of view, he kept the presentation of evidence neutral, and showed both sides. And they agreed with him. Problem? If so, the solution is to rely on what the prosecutor believed all along, that there should be no indictment.
Toobin's "best by" date has long since expired. He is an affirmative action hack.
I wish this reporter would demonstrate his methods of subduing 300 pound drug addled gang members attacking him on tv. Popcorn time!
According to Juan Williams on Fox, the officer when he feared for his life should have just run and driven away ...
A white friend of mine about 25 years ago in Brooklyn was shot in the arm by a cop for not complying and it had absolutely nothing to do with racism. He was pulled over because they thought he was driving a stolen car and they told him to put his hands on the dashboard and being the wise ass he was he jumped out of the car yelling “What the F is this?” and BANG! He was damn lucky and incredibly he won $100k in a lawsuit even though HE was 100% at fault. This kind of stuff happens because idiots like him have no respect for the cops so when the cops pull them over or ask them to do something they pull attitude, what crap like these Furgeson “protests” that are fully sanctioned by the Obama cabal do is they promote even more disrespect for the cops which is going to get more blacks killed.
I don’t have nearly the same faith in videos as many fokks, but I think they can be more useful than not.
People see what they want to see. To this day there are folks that insist a video of a plane smashing into the WTC clearly doesn’t show a plane.
The fallback position in these arguments is always, “they didn’t have to *kill* him!” Like the cop or citizen is supposed to risk or worse, submit to, injury or even death just to keep from killing some feral thug.
Let me guess, with one of those Hollywood-style expert snipers who always hit what they’re aiming at...
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.