|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:13:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 3:35 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:23:42 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:59:47 -0800, jps wrote: The cop was a complete dick. The kid lost his cool, the cop ****ed up the altercation in a big way. Didn't call for backup, jumped out of his car and began shooting even though Brown was fleeing. === More nonsense. Brown was not shot in the back, not even once. Go ahead and dismiss. Stick your head in the sand, it won't make any difference to me. The kill shot is now understood to be 150 feet between Wilson and Brown but Wilson was justified because he feared for his life. Damn, jps, didn't Luddite just say they couldn't identify the 'kill shot'? Maybe I misread. No John, I didn't say "they" couldn't identify the kill shot. I said, "Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots. Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?" That's a question, not a statement of fact. You have a tendency to put words in people's mouths and then run with what you think they said. My but you're quick. Actually, Dep'ty, I didn't say you said anything. I asked a question, which you so kindly and graciously answered. Seems like you're using that 'put words in people's mouths and then run with what you think they said' phrase quite a bit lately. Maybe you should read carefully before you start accusing. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Ever hear of Kathy?
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:37:51 -0800, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:50:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 2:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify getting killed. === That is not what got him killed and I think you know that. What got him killed was trying to grab the cops gun. That is tantanount to attempted murder and no cop of any color will let that stand. I agree if that's what happened. I just don't know what happened afterwards for sure and neither does anyone else it seems. My guess is that it initially went down the way the GJ determined it went and Wilson was justified in at least the first couple of shots fired. After that the story gets less certain. As I understand it, the law requires every shot to be justified in a deadly force situation. Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots. Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown? We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided. If I were defending myself, the justification would be, "Is the guy down? No? Next shot." I'm thinking a cop would not do a complete analysis of the scenario before each round. Do you really think such would be required? I believe the law says that each shot fired must be justified from an immediate threat to the officer's life. It's not justify it once and then fire off the whole magazine. Before you and others jump to the conclusion that I think Wilson's actions were not justified ... that is not the case. My gut feel is they probably were. However, there are many conflicts in the witness's accounts, some of which were discounted and dismissed by the prosecuting attorney team. One that stands out in my mind is the video of the two white construction workers who raised their hands (imitating Brown) during the shooting and commented that he was surrendering. That video was played many times by the media but you don't see it much anymore. My guess is that Wilson was on a roll. Even when Brown was hit and surrendering Wilson continued to fire. I'm now hearing the kill shot may have come from 150 feet away. If so, it's murder. The 'kill shot *may* have come from 150 feet away'. Luddite says, "...which one killed Brown?" Now you throw up your *may* crap. Jeeez. (Did I get it right that time Mr. Dep'ty?) -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:27:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury. At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.) Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute. She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond. Here is what she told the jurors: “Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United States supreme court cases. So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn’t comply with the law.” She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the original State statute. Alizadeh's response to the juror's question: “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.” Well what was the difference? Was it significant to the case? My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon and they changed that part. Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters. Brown's fatal wound was not in the back.. Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was walking away. But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard. That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation. The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected when she learned of the federal ruling. Could be. But no attempt was made to explain what the change was and, when one of the jurors asked if a federal court can over rule a state statue her answer was basically, "don't worry about it". That's simply because the change was so miniscule that she brushed it off. Oh my gosh, I left out the word 'may'. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:27:26 AM UTC-8, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:27:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury. At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.) Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute. She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond. Here is what she told the jurors: "Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases. So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the original State statute. Alizadeh's response to the juror's question: "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that." Well what was the difference? Was it significant to the case? My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon and they changed that part. Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters. Brown's fatal wound was not in the back.. Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was walking away. But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard. That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation. The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected when she learned of the federal ruling. Could be. But no attempt was made to explain what the change was and, when one of the jurors asked if a federal court can over rule a state statue her answer was basically, "don't worry about it". That's simply because the change was so miniscule that she brushed it off. Oh my gosh, I left out the word 'may'. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) Is this proof of too many stories from too many listeners. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 7:22 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:37:51 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:50:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 2:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify getting killed. === That is not what got him killed and I think you know that. What got him killed was trying to grab the cops gun. That is tantanount to attempted murder and no cop of any color will let that stand. I agree if that's what happened. I just don't know what happened afterwards for sure and neither does anyone else it seems. My guess is that it initially went down the way the GJ determined it went and Wilson was justified in at least the first couple of shots fired. After that the story gets less certain. As I understand it, the law requires every shot to be justified in a deadly force situation. Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots. Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown? We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided. If I were defending myself, the justification would be, "Is the guy down? No? Next shot." I'm thinking a cop would not do a complete analysis of the scenario before each round. Do you really think such would be required? I believe the law says that each shot fired must be justified from an immediate threat to the officer's life. It's not justify it once and then fire off the whole magazine. Before you and others jump to the conclusion that I think Wilson's actions were not justified ... that is not the case. My gut feel is they probably were. However, there are many conflicts in the witness's accounts, some of which were discounted and dismissed by the prosecuting attorney team. One that stands out in my mind is the video of the two white construction workers who raised their hands (imitating Brown) during the shooting and commented that he was surrendering. That video was played many times by the media but you don't see it much anymore. My guess is that Wilson was on a roll. Even when Brown was hit and surrendering Wilson continued to fire. I'm now hearing the kill shot may have come from 150 feet away. If so, it's murder. The 'kill shot *may* have come from 150 feet away'. Luddite says, "...which one killed Brown?" Now you throw up your *may* crap. Jeeez. (Did I get it right that time Mr. Dep'ty?) No Clara, you didn't. "Luddite" never said the kill shot may have come from 150 feet away. Check your attributions before you shoot your mouth off. You are blending comments other people made (jps) with comments I made. I suspect it's just old age and poor eyesight. If not, it's dishonesty. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:51:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 5:31 PM, KC wrote: On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury. At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.) Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute. She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond. Here is what she told the jurors: “Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United States supreme court cases. So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn’t comply with the law.” She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the original State statute. Alizadeh's response to the juror's question: “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.” Well what was the difference? Was it significant to the case? My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon and they changed that part. Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters. Brown's fatal wound was not in the back.. Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was walking away. But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard. That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation. The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected when she learned of the federal ruling. No way, it was a setup all the way. Do the math, he was a white cop, the kid was black.. There simply is only one way this could go down knowing the cop is a Klans man and the kid was an Alterboy bringing his granny to church when he was run down four times and shot thirty times in the back... I mean, the evidence is there, and I even hear there is a video tape... Sharpton told me.... Here. Apparently you haven't seen or don't remember this. It doesn't prove it happened this way but it's an eye witness account that was apparently dismissed by the DA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU Photographer must have great ears, or adding words after the fact. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:17:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 8:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:53:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 3:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:58:52 -0800, jps wrote: You cannot take a life because it satisfies your ego. === Of course not but you can make an arrest when someone assaults you. If the suspect resists arrest with force that's not ego, that's self defense. All of this talk about Brown being shot running away is nonsense. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it. My biggest question is what happened to the amateur video of the two, white construction workers who, while watching the shooting, raised their hands as if imitating Brown and commented that he was surrendering? Are you saying that while the shooting was taking place someone was videotaping two white construction workers who seemed to be imitating Brown? This photographer, with bullets going every which way, was taping the construction workers? I'd have my doubts too. Maybe the major media decided it was a bit farfetched. In other words another made up story by CNN for maximum ratings, huh? There you go putting words into another's mouth and then running with them. Did I mention CNN or maximum ratings? Here. This is another youtube video that includes some discussion about it. Decide for yourself if it's real or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMY1R1LLbtQ See earlier comments. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 7:23 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:35:37 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:00:06 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury. At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.) Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute. She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond. Here is what she told the jurors: "Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases. So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the original State statute. Alizadeh's response to the juror's question: "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that." Well what was the difference? Was it significant to the case? My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon and they changed that part. Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters. Brown's fatal wound was not in the back.. Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was walking away. But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard. That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation. Bu..bu...buu...buuut Wilson is white and Brown is brown and Wilson and the prosecutors all work for the city of Ferguson. The couldn't prosecute one of their own, could they? The whole fiasco stinks to high heaven. Wilson had a defense attorney where he should have faced a prosecutor looking for any reason to put him on trial. I'll bet you agree that Brown was a little sweetheart, don't you? Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify getting killed. The transcripts of the GJ meetings and instructions by the Prosecutor's office are available to read if you want to wade through them all. I haven't read or seen all of them but the legal beagles who have feel that the Prosecution was very selective in terms of who's testimony was allowed and who's was discredited and trashed. That's what all the hullabaloo is all about. BS. The "hullabaloo" started before any of that was even known. The protest are all about the portrayal of Brown as a victim by the media. He beat a cop in his car and tried to take his gun, then charged him in the street. That's why he was shot, not for stealing a box of cigars. Don't try to re-write history. Brown's stepfather is now being investigated for inciting a riot with his "Burn the bitch down!" comments. Good! However, the media is guilty as well. No re-writing of history by me. Yes, the protests began before the transcripts of the GJ proceedings were released because of multiple eye witness accounts that Brown was trying to surrender at one point. The GJ transcripts suggests that testimony and evidence appear to have been suppressed. Consider the video of the two construction guys, one of whom put his hands up in the air and claimed Brown was saying, "Ok, ok". According to the guy who took the video the police weren't interested in seeing it. Now, assume that video *did* make it to the GJ for their review. They had already been programed with an obsolete state statute that permits police to use deadly force under circumstances that the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional back in 1985. If the GJ viewed the video with that statue as a guide as to the law, they may have come to the conclusion that Wilson was justified in continuing to fire even though Brown had stopped and turned. It wasn't until the day before the GJ announced their decision that the Assistant Prosecutor announced to the GJ that "some" of that statute didn't apply. She never told them what part or parts didn't apply and when questioned about it by the GJ, answered, "don't worry about it". |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com