some great analysis in the New Rebpulic on why so many people are pissed and distrustful.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
As far as victory lap and a the sorrow of a black kid getting killed....Please...
A bunch of folks feigning their sadness over some poor kid. Meanwhile in the real world, jails have plenty of Michael Browns and the same folks here couldn't give two shits about someone that would be serving 5-15 years for robbery, menacing, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest...
But lets pretend some give a crap because it is popular to do so. And lets put an officers life in the balance for the same piece of crap...But no it is me with the issue...lol
I think the DA was brilliant. He knew he didn't have a case which based on the evidence has been obvious. He also knew that the people of Ferguson would never be satisfied. So he took it out of his hands and put it in the GJ's hands.
He knew if he said no charges would be filed, the idiots would do what they did and he knew he didn't have a case against Wilson. So he took himself and really the office out of the equation. And now all the evidence is an open book...of course the evidence is not of anyones interest here and certainly not the criminals in the streets of Ferguson masquerading as protestors.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
some great analysis in the New Rebpulic on why so many people are pissed and distrustful.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
Should he have recused himself? Perhaps, particularly if he worked closely with the department and especially if he knew the officer. That could certainly be construed as a mistake.
But using a grand jury for an investigative purpose made sense in this case. Get witnesses under oath, let them vet the evidence and see if testimony is reasonably consistent with statements made to investigators previously. Maybe what turns up changes your mind. Because if as a prosecutor you don't believe that probable cause exists to go forward with a charge you have an ethical obligation not to bring charges.
But prior to that happening i posted an apology to you PA Giants. My first post in it was uncalled for and I am sorry. I was quite tanked due to having to deal with us putting down our dog of 12 years yesterday and was not thinking clearly.
Because they knew the idiots would set the place on fire and wanted to let people get home safely. Based on the events, seems like a smart decision. People can only loot and set fire to things at night?
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
it is very detailed and the forensics and science back up his story. If you dont read that and look at the forensics and diagrams of blood trails and body placement you shouldnt be commenting.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Or, the rioting was inevitable and at least this way the streets are empty of everyone else.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
It's been said over and over they did it because they wanted rush hour traffic and kids to be home. I think that's a perfectly rational reason.
RE: RE: From the evidence there was never a case here
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
No rational reason? Of course there is a rational reason to announce this at 9pm at night. After what happened in Ferguson in the wake of the incident, the city feared that more rioting, looting, arson, and vandalism would occur (which it did to no one's surprise). The destruction didn't happen because it was announced at night. The destruction happened because there were enough people who saw fit to commit destructive acts after hearing the decision.
As such, the city wanted to make sure that innocent people had time to get home from work-- and more importantly, they wanted to make sure that children could get home safely from school.
If the announcement were made during the day, the protests would have led to rioting and destruction anyway, and then it was more likely that innocent bystanders and children would be caught out in public.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
Was not aware that there were server problems last night. I wasn't on BBI last night. What I saw this morning was a reasonable discussion until the DA spoke and then it veered off the tracks. In particular, I saw an "ignorant" woman become the subject of an personal attack post that had been repeated verbatim at least 10 times, with a few threads inserted in between the repetition. Besides that, discussion, even argument, had been virtually disappeared, being replaced by other personal attack posts coming from all sides.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
Seems like a pretty giant stretch to even attempt that "argument" when you consider how long (days/weeks) the "protests" lasted initially. Announcing it at 8 am, wasn't going to stop rioting. At best the rioting would've been delayed until nightfall. At worst, as you said, innocent bystanders would've been dragged into the middle.
RE: RE: RE: From the evidence there was never a case here
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
Got any proof of that? I don't think that is true.
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
FWIW when he collapsed he was right at the feet of one officer.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Those people still have to get home. And if you think it still wouldn't have been bad, you are being naive.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
You base this on your extensive knowledge of the mentality of protesters, rioters and looters (three distinct groups of people) and of the living habits of residents of the greater St. Louis area, no doubt.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Haha. Yes, because the anger died down after 12 hours when the incident first happened...
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
It was one of the pot shots that was repeated verbatim at least 10X. I now am aware that the server problem may have played a part in that.
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
Regardless of your positon in a this, I saw these same points made last night and I wondered the same thing then
I am confused by the first point. I heard he ws considered 'pro-police'. Based on what? He's the DA and works closely with law enforcement every day.
Not sure where the GJ leaks came from but problem number one in this case was all the incorrect information reported as fact that just wasn't true. The only relevant leaks I heard were regarding the officer taking a shot to the face from the victim.
While I do not disagree with that, Ididn't he say he did not present the cae to the GJ but had two assistants do it? (sorry if wrong on that). Regardless he released the GJ info to the public last night and mroe importantly, GJ are not trials, the DA's job is to lay out the evidence for consideration and explain to the GJ what their job is.
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
Lazy. You could've at least linked one of the "original" Brown-Ferguson threads where I'm sure it's mentioned.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves.
Link - ( New Window )
A bunch of folks feigning their sadness over some poor kid. Meanwhile in the real world, jails have plenty of Michael Browns and the same folks here couldn't give two shits about someone that would be serving 5-15 years for robbery, menacing, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest...
But lets pretend some give a crap because it is popular to do so. And lets put an officers life in the balance for the same piece of crap...But no it is me with the issue...lol
He knew if he said no charges would be filed, the idiots would do what they did and he knew he didn't have a case against Wilson. So he took himself and really the office out of the equation. And now all the evidence is an open book...of course the evidence is not of anyones interest here and certainly not the criminals in the streets of Ferguson masquerading as protestors.
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
If the DA was trying to get a just, balanced outcome, he made a horrible series of errors, regardless of whether Wilson was actually guilty of anything. One can make a strong case, I think, that had he let this go to a jury, as he almost certainly could have, the bitterness and violence would have been diminished greatly.
And since thread this will ultimately go away anyway, a certain ignorant woman on this site and a certain smug, self-important person from PA who probably blew up the other thread can go bleep themselves. Link - ( New Window )
Should he have recused himself? Perhaps, particularly if he worked closely with the department and especially if he knew the officer. That could certainly be construed as a mistake.
But using a grand jury for an investigative purpose made sense in this case. Get witnesses under oath, let them vet the evidence and see if testimony is reasonably consistent with statements made to investigators previously. Maybe what turns up changes your mind. Because if as a prosecutor you don't believe that probable cause exists to go forward with a charge you have an ethical obligation not to bring charges.
You did not deserve what i posted, my apologies
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Or, the rioting was inevitable and at least this way the streets are empty of everyone else.
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Quote:
why the hell would they release this verdict at 9pm at night?
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
Actually, Mike in St Louis (I believe that's his handle) explained the rational last night. First, it was 8 pm CST (Fergusson is NOT on the East Coast). But they released it at 8 pm to ensure all children had an opportunity to get home from school safely (I think he mentioned many/most schools in the area had already announced closures for the rest of the week). Further, it allows citizens that had to work a chance to get home safely without having to worry about getting caught in the cross-fire of a riot.
Not even sure what your 2nd point is referring too. Rioting was possible with any outcome, but obviously a near certainty with a no bill. The fact the rioting has become a "distraction" from the real issues is on the rioters/media not the prosecuting office.
So, St Louis County Prosecuting Office - 1
giantfanboy - 0
It's been said over and over they did it because they wanted rush hour traffic and kids to be home. I think that's a perfectly rational reason.
Quote:
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
He knew he didn't have a case and sent it to the GJ.
Let 12 of your peers decide.
What else was there to do? Put on a trial because a mob demands it?
It's not suppose to work that way.
Even in this horrendous case.
there is no rational reason.
so you would have to assume one of two things
1. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office is completely incompetent which does not reflect well on their argument of the case
2. the St. Louis County Prosecuting office did this intentionally knowing that rioting would happen .. the rioting of course becoming the story rather than the verdict.
No rational reason? Of course there is a rational reason to announce this at 9pm at night. After what happened in Ferguson in the wake of the incident, the city feared that more rioting, looting, arson, and vandalism would occur (which it did to no one's surprise). The destruction didn't happen because it was announced at night. The destruction happened because there were enough people who saw fit to commit destructive acts after hearing the decision.
As such, the city wanted to make sure that innocent people had time to get home from work-- and more importantly, they wanted to make sure that children could get home safely from school.
If the announcement were made during the day, the protests would have led to rioting and destruction anyway, and then it was more likely that innocent bystanders and children would be caught out in public.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
That was enough for me.
Is there an argument to be made that it still would have been beneficial to announce during the day instead of at night? Perhaps, though I disagree. Either way, acting as if if there were "no rational reason" to do so is nothing more that blind contempt for the city.
Seems like a pretty giant stretch to even attempt that "argument" when you consider how long (days/weeks) the "protests" lasted initially. Announcing it at 8 am, wasn't going to stop rioting. At best the rioting would've been delayed until nightfall. At worst, as you said, innocent bystanders would've been dragged into the middle.
Quote:
In comment 12001115 Stan from LA said:
Quote:
And apparently Brown was a punk/liquor store robber/bully, etc. Not a sympathetic figure.
I'm more concerned with the other case on video shortly afterwards where a black guy got shot by 2 other cops for basically doing nothing. Now that was really outrageous. And what's going on with that?
Are you talking about the case where the black guy walked towards the police with a knife yelling "shoot me"??
Yeah, except he didn't have a knife. That was made up by the cops.
Got any proof of that? I don't think that is true.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
FWIW when he collapsed he was right at the feet of one officer.
You would think some common sense would have prevailed, but for some people, and not all, common sense is not a quality they have..
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Those people still have to get home. And if you think it still wouldn't have been bad, you are being naive.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
You base this on your extensive knowledge of the mentality of protesters, rioters and looters (three distinct groups of people) and of the living habits of residents of the greater St. Louis area, no doubt.
As Obama said last night, it does make for some compelling television.
If you wanted to minimize the reaction you do this at 9:30 AM People are at work, kids in school, commute over, and the later risers not up. Much easier to let the anger dissipate, deal with the smaller crowds at the start and transition into peaceful times after dark then.
Haha. Yes, because the anger died down after 12 hours when the incident first happened...
Quote:
I posted on the thread this morning that if anyone wanted to print or save it they had 1/2 an hour to do so, 'cause it was going to be deleted. And I waited for more than a half hour.
BBI was having problems leading to the repetitive posts, but the poster to whom you're referring wasn't saying anything objectionable (she was actually correct about the grand jury where I was not) and people were predictably taking potshots at her based on other interactions.
It was one of the pot shots that was repeated verbatim at least 10X. I now am aware that the server problem may have played a part in that.
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife.
LINK - ( New Window )
1) The DA didn't recuse himself, even though he had close ties to the police, and his father was a cop who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
2) In October, the Washington Post reported a number of GJ leaks, nearly all favorable to Wilson.
3) The prosecutor had the option of pushing for an indictment and letting the world see what the GJ saw. He didn't. The level of proof necessary to get true bill and let a regular jury decide guilt is a tiny fraction of that needed to convict.
Regardless of your positon in a this, I saw these same points made last night and I wondered the same thing then
I am confused by the first point. I heard he ws considered 'pro-police'. Based on what? He's the DA and works closely with law enforcement every day.
Not sure where the GJ leaks came from but problem number one in this case was all the incorrect information reported as fact that just wasn't true. The only relevant leaks I heard were regarding the officer taking a shot to the face from the victim.
While I do not disagree with that, Ididn't he say he did not present the cae to the GJ but had two assistants do it? (sorry if wrong on that). Regardless he released the GJ info to the public last night and mroe importantly, GJ are not trials, the DA's job is to lay out the evidence for consideration and explain to the GJ what their job is.
Quote:
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
LINK - ( New Window )
Quote:
BTW Stan...if we're talking about the same case
halfback20 : 3:33 pm : link : reply
it was Kajieme Powell. There was some inconsistencies in the very beginning because the Chief said he had the knife over his head...in reality he had it down by his side...I've googled it and can't find anything saying that he did not have a knife.
You didn't look hard enough. Link right here saying he didn't have a knife. LINK - ( New Window )
Lazy. You could've at least linked one of the "original" Brown-Ferguson threads where I'm sure it's mentioned.
That won't play too well.