Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/14 5:27 PM, 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".



This was a high-vis case. Every aspect of it was discussed in detail by
the staff at the prosecutor's office every day. Presenting the wrong
info to the jury wasn't a mistake. We have allowed the police in this
country to get out of control and in many areas they are backed up by
crooked prosecutors.

There are very few if any police shootings of suspects in England,
France, Japan, and Germany, yet there are many hundreds of such
shootings here every year. The modus operandi here for the cops seems to
be "shoot first so you don't have to ask questions later."

But hey, it's mostly non-white kids the cops seem to be shooting, and
that pleases the righties, right?

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 5:27 PM, 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 was not right. It was a legitimate question and deserved an answer
even though the ADA knew the change wouldn't affect this case.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 5:41 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/2/14 5:27 PM, 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".



This was a high-vis case. Every aspect of it was discussed in detail by
the staff at the prosecutor's office every day. Presenting the wrong
info to the jury wasn't a mistake. We have allowed the police in this
country to get out of control and in many areas they are backed up by
crooked prosecutors.

There are very few if any police shootings of suspects in England,
France, Japan, and Germany, yet there are many hundreds of such
shootings here every year. The modus operandi here for the cops seems to
be "shoot first so you don't have to ask questions later."

But hey, it's mostly non-white kids the cops seem to be shooting, and
that pleases the righties, right?

Yada Yada Yada. Let me guess. A little birdie told you all about it.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

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

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/14 5:41 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/2/14 5:27 PM, 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".



This was a high-vis case. Every aspect of it was discussed in detail by
the staff at the prosecutor's office every day. Presenting the wrong
info to the jury wasn't a mistake. We have allowed the police in this
country to get out of control and in many areas they are backed up by
crooked prosecutors.

There are very few if any police shootings of suspects in England,
France, Japan, and Germany, yet there are many hundreds of such
shootings here every year. The modus operandi here for the cops seems to
be "shoot first so you don't have to ask questions later."

But hey, it's mostly non-white kids the cops seem to be shooting, and
that pleases the righties, right?


Forgot this:

Trigger Happy Cops


THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a
police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that
civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in
America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data
compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably� killed by
police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only
is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a
crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their
weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012
the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of
Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely
to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the
police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot
and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits
killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only
specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have
access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a
firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual
number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police
shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a
known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a
fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with
murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan
Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal
shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake
of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to
their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and
killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen
each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep
history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians
are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its
colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings
of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.

http://tinyurl.com/pyuvf2u

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 5:40 PM, True North wrote:
KC
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
- show quoted text -
" 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.... "

What the 'ell is an "Alterboy"?? Does that mean he wears a ponytail and acts girlish?


What the hell is " 'ell "?

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 5:42 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:27 PM, 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 was not right. It was a legitimate question and deserved an answer
even though the ADA knew the change wouldn't affect this case.


This is just one of many reasons people are protesting about how this
whole thing was handled.

The old statute was handed out to the jurors at the *beginning* of the
GJ process. The prosecutors didn't know at that time what testimony or
evidence would become available. The old statutes covered the police in
any circumstance.

Only after the testimony and evidence had been sorted, allowed or
dismissed and just before the jury made their decision was the subject
of the "expired" statute introduced with a bunch of legal goobly-gook
that didn't even emphasize the significant changes.

ADA covering her ass. That's my opinion.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 6:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:42 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:27 PM, 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 was not right. It was a legitimate question and deserved an answer
even though the ADA knew the change wouldn't affect this case.


This is just one of many reasons people are protesting about how this
whole thing was handled.

The old statute was handed out to the jurors at the *beginning* of the
GJ process. The prosecutors didn't know at that time what testimony or
evidence would become available. The old statutes covered the police in
any circumstance.

Only after the testimony and evidence had been sorted, allowed or
dismissed and just before the jury made their decision was the subject
of the "expired" statute introduced with a bunch of legal goobly-gook
that didn't even emphasize the significant changes.

ADA covering her ass. That's my opinion.




You are certainly entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to Loot
and burn businesses .

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 6:52 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 6:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:42 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:27 PM, 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 was not right. It was a legitimate question and deserved an answer
even though the ADA knew the change wouldn't affect this case.


This is just one of many reasons people are protesting about how this
whole thing was handled.

The old statute was handed out to the jurors at the *beginning* of the
GJ process. The prosecutors didn't know at that time what testimony or
evidence would become available. The old statutes covered the police in
any circumstance.

Only after the testimony and evidence had been sorted, allowed or
dismissed and just before the jury made their decision was the subject
of the "expired" statute introduced with a bunch of legal goobly-gook
that didn't even emphasize the significant changes.

ADA covering her ass. That's my opinion.




You are certainly entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to Loot
and burn businesses .


But I was having so much fun ....

Here's another opinion:

I think that unfortunately the election of our first black president
resulted in unrealistic expectations by some and a reawakening of
suppressed racism in others. The only ones who
benefit are the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:46:34 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:34:05 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.

Yes, it's not the same sort of absolute language employed by the
right. Those on the left still believe in the benefit of the doubt.
Not so much on the right.

I can see you must have thought long and hard to come up with bit of
rationale.

There's 'benefit of the doubt' and guessing.

It could well be that tomorrow will get to the bottom of things. The
confrontation may have been about the pistol Michael Brown might have
concealed under his t-shirt. It appears that Brown may have been
reaching for a concealed weapon in his sock when he bends over just
before looking at what appears to be a young lady in pink pants. The
young lady looks back in what could well have been abject fear of
being eyeballed by such a big guy. There are so many scenarios that
could be made of that video that one could possibly find the clerk
guilty of ingrained racism.
--

"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 12:48:37 -0800, jps 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.

Plenty of reason for Wlson to stand trial, even if it's for
manslaughter.

Didn't you earlier say he was a murderer? Now why are you letting him
off so easy?
--

"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 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.

Suppose the big hulk of a guy just keeps on coming?

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.

Yup, the 'eye witnesses' may have been a bit biased also, no?

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.


Perhaps it was shown to be bull****? Just guessing here.
--

"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 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.
--

"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 12/2/2014 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?

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

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:01:44 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in?

He *may* have paid for the cigars. And, he *may* have had a sawed off
shotgun under his t-shirt.
--

"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 16:19:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 4:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in?



According to the article no robbery report was called in by the shop
owner/proprietor. Could be someone else I suppose.
If it was called in, it should be in the police logs.


Where is that in the article cited?
--

"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 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 3:34 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.


I had not watched that video for a while so I opened my mind a little
and watched it from the perspective portrayed in the article.

There's no evidence of anything that positively looks like a robbery
going on. Brown seems calm at the counter. The proprietor didn't look
overly excited when he came out to where Brown and his little buddy were
standing. It's entirely possible no "robbery" was taking place, just a
dispute about the purchase of some cigars.

The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the
attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding
a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report
of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars.

Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops?


Where in the article is a statement by the attorney. How am I missing
this?
--

"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 12/2/2014 8:40 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:19:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 4:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in?



According to the article no robbery report was called in by the shop
owner/proprietor. Could be someone else I suppose.
If it was called in, it should be in the police logs.


Where is that in the article cited?
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)


Listen, the cop has a private security force made of off duty cops 24 7
now.. How hard is it to think the shop owners lawyer, not being under
oath to the press would say he didn't report a robbery? Do the frekin'
math, they already trashed his place twice, and tried to burn it, you
think he wants the death threats he would get if he told the truth to
the media.. They would paint a target on his head the way they did Wilson...

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 8:42 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 3:34 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.


I had not watched that video for a while so I opened my mind a little
and watched it from the perspective portrayed in the article.

There's no evidence of anything that positively looks like a robbery
going on. Brown seems calm at the counter. The proprietor didn't look
overly excited when he came out to where Brown and his little buddy were
standing. It's entirely possible no "robbery" was taking place, just a
dispute about the purchase of some cigars.

The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the
attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding
a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report
of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars.

Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops?


Where in the article is a statement by the attorney. How am I missing
this?
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)


You aren't, it's made up so the racists here have no moral problem
running with it...

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:34:01 PM UTC-8, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

John, you left out one of the main lines:

"While it is difficult to be 100% certain,..."

In other words, the writer tries to sound like an expert witness, but in reality, doesn't have a clue.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 10:59 PM, 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.

There were 3 autopsies and all 3 agree he was not shot in the back but
don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant.

jps is well known here for making up stories as he goes along.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 11:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:12:15 -0800, jps wrote:

Yup, six times. Now I'm hearing that the final kill shot was from 150
feet away.

Who are you listening to. The GJ testimony, based on the blood drop
evidence is that brown was less than 20 feet away and advancing on
Wilson.


The furthest blood spot was about 35 feet away from the car.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 11:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?

We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided.


It is not secret now. The prosecutor released the whole transcript.


Funny how far off the talking points are in the face of that fact. A
morally corrupt bunch know all they have to do is say the GJ lied, etc,
and their silly story will be bought by the MSM.. I mean, look at this
hands up don't shoot.. If the gesture is supposed to represent what
happened in Ferguson, it should be done with fists out front saying "I
will kill you, please don't shoot"...

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 10:57 PM, 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

Punching a cop and going for his gun does tho.


I am starting to think dick has been replaced by a harry sock puppet...
wonder how long ago Dick left.... Hey Tim, why not give him a call and
see if he is aware of the silly **** he is "saying" here?

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in?



According to the article no robbery report was called in by the shop
owner/proprietor. Could be someone else I suppose.
If it was called in, it should be in the police logs.
True. Or on the 911 tape.
That is

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

True North wrote:
KC
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
- show quoted text -
" 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.... "

What the 'ell is an "Alterboy"?? Does that mean he wears a ponytail and acts girlish?

You should have studied in school.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 12:04 AM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote:
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?

Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the
counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They
didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery.

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.

This guy is going to get sued, as is the town.

The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves
to be disbarred.



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars

Read this (from your source):

"Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed
African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have
hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as
they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown
six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of
what they intended.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to
show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the
amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos,
pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not
afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been
because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it
was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know
what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate
him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he
put his hands on him."

How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the
author 'attempts' to portray as fact.

Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by
calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he
had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days
is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda!

He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an
innocent, murdered, american teenager."

Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't
be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

...Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in?



According to the article no robbery report was called in by the shop
owner/proprietor. Could be someone else I suppose.
If it was called in, it should be in the police logs.
True. Or on the 911 tape.
That is


You are still addressing issues that have not been cited.. I think you
are being played. "according to the article".. lol!

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?

We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided.


It is not secret now. The prosecutor released the whole transcript.

How about a black athlete say?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6254688.html

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/2/2014 8:42 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have
just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation
at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are
the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was
leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be
intimidating the proprietor.

Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police
communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved
if not true.

Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story?


It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation.

Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call
the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars


The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the
attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding
a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report
of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars.

Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops?


Where in the article is a statement by the attorney. How am I missing
this?


You didn't miss it. It's not in the article cited by jps (above).
However, it *is* stated in other sources that the neither the shop owner
or any employee made the call to the police. According to them the call
was made by a customer in the store. Here is one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

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?
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 14:01:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 4:52:39 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:46 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:35 PM, jps 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?



And I wonder where the video of Brown saying "I'm gonna' kill me a white
cop today, wish I had a gun but I don't need one"? Must have been buried...


The video I am referring to exists and has been shown many times by the
media, including your favorite channel, Fox News.

What "video" are you referring to?

Making **** up again? How harryesque.. tell me please when did I ever say Fox was my favorite channel? I know, I didn't, you are just incapable of asking a question without crying out for approval from your buds, dude, you really have nothing to be ashamed of here, we all know where you're coming from...

Sometimes Luddite will put words in peoples' mouths and then run with
them (or words to that effect).
--

"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 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 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.

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".