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!)