No, what people, including you, have done is endlessly repeat falsehoods or irrelevant tidbits. You and those like you are doing exactly what our right wing whacko friends do all the time. The evidence is very clear. You just choose not to admit it. The facts don't lie. "These are the highlights of the physical evidence that I have reviewed in the case, compared to Wilson’s testimony. Based on my initial read, so far as I can see there are no significant inconsistencies between the physical evidence and Wilson’s grand jury testimony. Other reviews have likewise not identified readily-apparent examples of problems with Wilson’s testimony. For example, a review of the grand jury testimony by three Associated Press reporters noted numerous examples of witness statements inconsistent with the physical evidence, but offered no examples from Wilson’s testimony." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
Once again, you deliberately miss the point. The prosecutor has admitted to allowing witnesses perjure themselves in the grand jury hearing. He admitted that Witness #40, the one who presented testimony that so directly matched Wilson's account, was not even present for the shooting and that she had gotten all the information she presented to the grand jury from the media and the release of Wilson's testimony. This isn't even touching on the fact that the prosecutors also openly and deliberately lied to the grand jury about the law and statutes and then deliberately misrepresented said laws and statutes. As for the evidence, no, it clearly does not match. Because for it to have occurred as Wilson claimed and testified to, Brown could not have been running. You may think it does, but it does not. It only does match up if you believe witness #40, you know, the one who lied about having been there and said it happened just like Wilson said it did.. Not only did the prosecutor invite people to perjure themselves, with witness 40, he invited her back and put her back on the stand with her loose papers she'd apparently written the account on.. The account that had appeared in the media the day before she approached the authorities and presented herself as a witness who apparently saw it all happen. The prosecutor admitted to asking anyone who saw anything to come forward and present themselves to the grand jury. Are you now saying this did not happen? McCulloch told local radio station KTRS that he had decided to put witnesses forward to testify regardless of their credibility. “Early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” he said. “I knew somebody would be critical of whatever I did,” he said. “I thought it was important to present anybody and everybody, and some that were, yes, clearly not telling the truth, no question about it.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In her grand jury testimony, “Witness 40” described in detail how Michael Brown bent down “in a football position” and charged at officer Darren Wilson – an account often quoted in discussion of the case by rightwing commentators such as Fox News’s Sean Hannity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “This is a lady who clearly wasn’t present when this occurred, and she recounted this statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson’s actions, right down the line,” said McCulloch, “even though I’m sure she was nowhere near the place.” “The thing that changed in her story several times was the reason she had to be in Canfield that day,” he continued. The Smoking Gun alleged that McElroy’s testimony to the grand jury was also fabricated. “I believe there is a clear preponderance of evidence,” William Bastone, the editor of The Smoking Gun, told the Guardian. “We’d never have posted a story accusing her of perjury – and identifying her – if we weren’t 100% certain.” This, too, appeared to be corroborated by McCulloch. “There are people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath. Some lied to the FBI – even though they aren’t under oath, that’s another potential federal offence.” He added that he had allowed them to testify anyway because he had felt “it was much more important to present the entire picture”. He said his department was not planning to pursue perjury charges. Extraordinary claims such as you are now making deserve extraordinary evidence. I would suggest you present it. Or are you going to pull a McCulloch and present lies and hope no one notices? I do not particularly care about your repeating yourself. You are on record as declaring that prosecutors lying and letting witnesses perjure themselves is how grand jury proceedings should be. Do you think this level of criminal dishonesty is acceptable? Are you aware that lawyers who knowingly allow people to lie on the stand are breaking the law? One has to wonder why he let her lie so much and then invited her back to present more "evidence" by way of her journal and used that to prove to the grand jury that Wilson was telling the truth. Not to mention the fact that he just openly admitted that he knew she and other witnesses were lying and he let them perjure themselves anyway.. The irony of this is that they questioned and openly doubted anyone who did not corroborate Wilson's testimony and made it seem as if they were lying. But others who did corroborate Wilson's testimony were treated like star witnesses, including witness #40, who not only was not there when the shooting occurred, but she gathered all the information she apparently 'saw' from McCulloch releasing Wilson's testimony to the media the day before.. She was McCulloch's star witness.. A witness he just openly admitted was lying and he knew she was lying. The FBI investigators certainly knew, since they discounted her the day before McCulloch put her in front of the grand jury because not only was she lying about having been in Ferguson, but also because she was literally repeating Wilson's testimony from the day before and also the fact that she has done this sort of thing before when she tried to lie to police investigators in a kidnapping case to insert herself into that case..
And, off she goes again. Like a wind-up toy, repeating the same things over and over. Bang the little drum, toy soldier. Once more, a thread is forced away from the original premise by someone who just wants to talk about what she wants to talk about... regardless of whether that particular focus has been done to death elsewhere - or rather, rejected as a result of counter argument. It isn't that this is at all uncommon. It is, rather, that other posters have been shut down for much the same "crime" without any real chance of equilibrium being achieved. So once again, I ask: Is this forum where it needs to be? Can there be any real trust in "moderation", under these circumstances? And, once again with due reference to the topic at hand: How can authority argue about the action of another authority, when said actions are duplicated at all levels of society? How can the authority here, in this place, argue about authority overstepped elsewhere, when the motive behind that overstep it is demonstrated so readily when perceived need dictates? The phrase "How can they even look themselves in the mirror" springs to mind. Yet as a phrase, it loses impact. The mirror, in this case, is authority acting to defend itself, rather than defend a universal ideal. It has become readily apparent that the very thing admonished and hated by those in authority here, is the same practice they emulate in pursuit of that ideal. Perhaps they subscribe to the idea that the ends justify the means. I'd be fine with that. As long as it was admitted honestly.
Name one. And quit repeating that empty claim unless you can provide an example. Every reference I have made regarding inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony is to physical fact on the record, and Wilson's testimony also on the record. Every assertion I have made regarding the relative credibility of the various witnesses is firmly supported by evidence admitted by every principal in the case. For example, Wilson stated that he retreated several feet - between 10 and 26 - while firing at Brown. The professional, expert, audio analysis of the recorded gunshots specifies that all ten gunshots came from within a one meter circle. Thus Wilson's testimony is inconsistent with that piece of physical evidence. This inconsistency might have an explanation exonerating Wilson, but to date no such explanation has been made public. The inconsistency is not trivial - the implications for Wilson's account are profound. This is not a falsehood, not a tidbit, and centrally relevant. Likewise the location of the shell casings, the extent and location of the bruises on Wilsons face and neck, the position of Brown's body, the location of the bloodstains, the timing of the gunshots, and the wounds made by the 50% of the bullets that hit Brown. As far as the witnesses, I do hope we are not going to see anyone with a claim to reason repeat any claims of superior credibility for the witness - the sole witness - that fully supported Wilson's account. There can be few less credible witnesses whose testimony has ever been accepted in a major court proceeding. Any of the witnesses contradicting Wilson would have to be considered more credible than that unfortunate and disturbed individual - agreed?
No, I got the point. The point is the evidence doesn't support your conclusions. Just because a journalists wants to juice his/her article and call a witness a "star witness" it doesn't make it so. As I said before, the prosecution presented ALL WITNESSES to the grand jury and without bias. There were many witnesses. And their were more witnesses against Brown who clearly were lying and subsequently changed their testimony as more of the facts were released to the public. The prosecutor let the grand jury hear all witnesses. The prosecutor didn't have a star witness. Nor did he encourage any of them to lie (i.e. commit perjury). This prosecutor allow witnesses to tell their story, nothing more, nothing less. No matter how much you want to complicate this issue and hide in the complication, it really isn't that complicated. And this prosecutor did nothing wrong, morally or legally. The star witnesses for Wilson were the forensic scientists. You are on record as misrepresenting the facts and what I said. Unfortunately Bells, this is nothing new for you. It is a straw man and it is what our friends on the conservative end of the spectrum do in abundance too. Do you have evidence this prosecutor lied as you claimed? Do you have any evidence the prosecutor did anything untoward or illegal? No you don't. But it sounds good, so hey why should you care about veracity? And it is very apparent you don't care about the truth. You like the lynch mobs made up your mind long before the investigation was completed. You don't need or want evidence, truth or reason, you just want Wilson's hide. What I said, once again for your edification, was that all grand juries should be conducted in this way. Grand juries should hear both sides of the case. Grand juries should hear all sides and see all the evidence as they did in this case, not just the preselected snippets a prosecutor decides to present to the grand jury. You are arguing prosecutors should be biased toward lynch mobs and should persuade grand juries to frivolously indict citizens. You are a little late, The French Revolution ended centuries ago. That isn't they way we operate, nor should it be. Unfortunately, when people cannot argue with evidence, they argue about process as you have done and continue to do in an effort to hide the gapping holes and vacuous nature of your positions and claims. The evidence is clear. And the evidence clearly indicts Brown and exonerates Wilson.
And other people pointed out that the idea is a foolish one, that cannot work. Grand juries exist, separately from trial juries, for very good reason. We have trials by jury, rather than grand jury hearings, to establish guilt or innocence. The reason is that only in a trial can a jury hear both sides - or any side, really - of a case. Nobody who has been arguing with evidence agrees with that statement. And your basic problem with the physical reality of the situation is made clear every time you bring Brown's thug nature into your replies - which is very frequently. Brown's criminal and thuggish nature is irrelevant. "Indicting" Brown has nothing to do with this. The topic is Wilson's shooting him in the middle of the street, unarmed, in apparent panic and visible incompetence. Yes, he did. Presenting false witnesses is suborning perjury. Abetting false witness is encouraging perjury. No, that's not what he did. Read the transcripts, consult the evidence - the prosecutor denigrated and questioned some witnesses, and allowed others complete and unquestioned latitude (including repeat testimony, going home to consult their "notes", etc) ; he encouraged and guided some witnesses, and discouraged and cast doubt on others. The ones he encouraged seem to have been lying. The ones he cast doubt on seem to have been testifying honestly to what they saw. He never argued the case for Wilson's guilt.
And he has admitted the ones he encouraged were actually lying. For Joe to claim he simply let them tell their story is ridiculous. The grand jury is not there for story telling. The prosecutor is not there to allow witnesses to perjure themselves. The fact that he allowed the witness he knew was lying to go home and consult her notes.. That literally blows my mind. What in the hell was he thinking? What he did was illegal in every sense of the word.
The Marquis: Why don't you address the content if you disagree with it, rather than engaging in an ad hominem attack? Reading through the thread, it looks like there was a fairly natural progression from the opening premise to the present discussion. Anyway, here's your chance. The opening premise was this: So, what's your take on the opening premise, The Marquis? Agree? Disagree? Reasons? Is this what you want to discuss? And do you think this can be done independently from a discussion of how the verdict was reached? So is this a complaint about moderation, then? If so, it's probably in the wrong thread. I suggest you start a new one in Site Feedback or Open Government and say what you really want to say. And please provide examples, not just vague accusations. Otherwise, I will have very little concrete substance to work with. Are you saying that the Ferguson shooting is an allegory for activities of the moderators on sciforums? That would seem at first glance to be drawing a long bow, but I'm interested in hearing your argument in full. Suggestion: Perhaps it would help if you stated what you're talking about in clear language, rather than vaguely alluding to parallels between unnamed events.
Violent extremists are cowards because they can only fight defenseless women and children. The terrorist would get their butt kicked if they took on men and warriors as their opponents. These terrorists dishonor Allah because their actions imply Allah is a coward and bully, since they assume cowardly actions will please their God. Stealing to please a father, would not please an honest father. It might please a criminal father. Therefore killing innocents women and children will not please a warrior father, but only a cowardly bully father. They dishonor their god by reflecting him as a bully and coward, inferred by the way they try to please him. I am no expert but wasn't Mohammad a warrior. Therefore he would be pleased by exceptional valor not cowardly deeds.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
I've got a logical solution on how to judge if a situation of death by cop is justified or not: If the result doesn't fit the crime, it's a case of police overstepping their authority. You don't deserve to die if you sell cigarettes and resist arrest or rob a store. What "could" happen or what "has" happened in similar circumstances is irrelevant. The result must fit the crime or the act. If you can't subdue and arrest someone who hasn't used deadly force themselves without killing them, you are not doing your job or you don't have the proper equipment, knowledge and/or backup to do your job effectively.
This is wrong on so many levels. Fits right in with Bells and Tiassa, though. If they play their cards right, they might pick up a new follower.
Warriors are not the same as terrorists. A terrorist would be like a professional football player, going to a junior high school playground, and then playing full contact football with small kids to appear tough to the crowd. The warrior is different in that he plays with other professional football players who are as good as him, knowing he has to be his best or he will get hurt. If the terrorists claim to do this for their God, this implies their God condones bullies and therefore would need to be a bully himself. No dad would condone his son picking on the weak and helpless, unless that dad was also a bully. A dad who is peaceful would expect his son to live in peace. Or a dad who was prize fighter, would spank his son for this and expect him to compete at the highest level or else he would feel dishonored by his son. There is a mirror, with the terrorists saying their god is a bully and not a man of peace and/or courage. The old tradition of killing women and children, came after the deciding battle. If two sides were competing as mortal enemies, the males would defend their village or city from attack. If the invaders broke down the defenses and won the day, they might then kill all the children and the pregnant women, then rape all the rest of the females to disrupt the entire culture with new DNA. Mortal enemies will regroup in a generation if the children were allowed to remain. This might end in a different result. The bullies assume relative reference and seem to think backwards is the same as forward; irrational or bullies are the same as warriors.
Wow, you're doing this kind of thing again? Let me guess, you support the suffocation of unarmed black men by police because I think it is wrong to strangle someone until they stop breathing and die? *Rolls eyes* Really Trooper, there comes a point where you must realise that this kind of thing is just weird. Because this following me around everywhere I post (at one point, to a thread about animals and trying to throw it off topic) to make little snide comments about Tiassa and I is childish. Not to mention somewhat obsessive and just downright weird. Do you not have better things to do with your time? If you have a complaint to make, then take your complaint to the correct forum. Okay? Have I made myself clear enough for you? You obviously have a major problem with me, and I'll be frank, I don't really care about you enough to care about the issue you have with me. I'd just really appreciate it if you took your issue and your complaint to the appropriate forum and through the appropriate channels and stopped coming across like such an obsessive weirdo. Thank ye kindly.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you not see the silliness in explaining the correct way of going about killing other humans? All terrorists start out as brave warriors learning the trade of men to protect their people. It's all the same. If they really want to protect people they might consider finding another hobby besides warfare.
Well it is a little more complicated than that, but yeah, the police in New York clearly lost control of the situation and they should have been able to handle that situation without resorting to violence. And the choke hold should only be used in instances of life and death, and clearly the use of the choke hold was inappropriate in this case. It's not like the choke hold hasn't been controversial, because it has been controversial for decades. It is risky and that is why it should only be used in extreme circumstances, and it wasn't warranted in this case.
I would like to know what they were saying to each other before it got physical. Like was Garner still denying he was selling cigarettes or did he basically admit it and still refused to comply? Because, in a way, it says something about your interpersonal skills if you can't talk someone who is truly caught in the act into complying peaceably. If you're any other person but a cop and you have a verbal disagreement with anyone on what they are doing and then your next action is to try to physically take them down, an act that without proper preparation can result in making things worse, I have to seriously consider your sanity. If physical force is your go-to solution for every little problem, I'm not surprised things don't go well for you no matter who you are.
Doing what, calling you out on your stupidity and bullshit? Let me guess, you're glad that two officers were assassinated, right? You're an attorney? That's a hoot.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sure you are.
I am not a cop. But if I told you to stop walking away from me and you didn't stop and I then assumed you had drugs or were a violent criminal and so ran you down and tackled you or shot at you, that would be insane behavior on my part, when in reality, all you might have been doing was walking away from me. I would get arrested for that. But if you have a uniform on it somehow changes that whole dynamic. Every little action or disobedience of a civilian suddenly is a potential death sentence. That can't be right. That CAN'T be right. People can't walk around and live in a society like that. There has to be some middle ground there.
