Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. So railroad the guy? |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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? -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps 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.” Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? |
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 1:00 PM, 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. So, you really don't believe in the law and the constitution as long as the white guy gets railroaded? Never mind, we already know the answer... |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 1:00 PM, 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. Thousands of daily protesters and demonstrators, whites and blacks, from LA to Boston, New York City, WashDC, Florida and many other states/cities agree. That's the root of this whole thing. |
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? I think the 'stupid stuff' referred to walking down the yellow line. He made the point that white kids got hassled for that also. It is also true that there have been white kids shot for very little or no reason. They just don't make the news, even if shot for no reason by a black cop. But of course you know that. It just doesn't support the agenda you, Toad, and jps like. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:24:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:00 PM, 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. Thousands of daily protesters and demonstrators, whites and blacks, from LA to Boston, New York City, WashDC, Florida and many other states/cities agree. That's the root of this whole thing. The hundreds of millions who are *not* protesting, whites and blacks, from ... and etc., are staying home. That's the tap root of this whole thing. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500, "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. Nope, but attacking a cop in his car just may get one shot. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Anybody hear from Joe? | ASA | |||
If you want to hear... | General | |||
If you want to hear... | General | |||
What's this I hear ? | ASA | |||
How would you like to hear this in TV? | ASA |