BoatBanter.com - Ever hear of Kathy?

On 12/3/2014 7:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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".

Was the ADA intentionally leaving the GJ wondering what parts of that
statute were unconstitutional? Was she intentionally sabotaging her own
case?