| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 7:27 AM, Poco Loco 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 part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/14 7:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:27 AM, Poco Loco 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 part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. I must say it is fun watching you *out* the racists.  -- I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers. After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 7:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:27 AM, Poco Loco 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 part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. In another case, maybe. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
|
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 3:42 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 12/3/2014 12:20 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:49:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. Only if Brown was shot in the back ... and he wasn't. When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger. Brown had already demonstrated that he would kick Wilson's ass in a fair fight. Fortunately for Wilson, cops do not have to fight fair. They give them a gun. BTW if this case goes the other way and Wilson does get prosecuted, you can kiss the idea of female officers goodby. 99% of them would never win a fair fight with a guy like Brown. The same is true of most male officers. I don't disagree however I don't recall a command by Wilson to "get on the ground" when Brown turned around appearing in the transcripts. Maybe I missed it? Wilson ordered Brown and Johnson to get on the sidewalk, but that was at the beginning of the altercation. Should Wilson have said please get on the ground or I will shoot you? While he was spewing all of that oration Brown would have had time to physically engage Wilson. Dead perp or dead cop, which do you prefer? "Get on the ground" is a standard command used by the police to gain control of a fluid situation. I don't know if Wilson had time to make this command. Greg commented (above), "When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger." All I said was that I had not seen the command given in the GJ transcripts. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 5:24 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 12/3/2014 3:42 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/3/2014 12:20 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:49:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. Only if Brown was shot in the back ... and he wasn't. When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger. Brown had already demonstrated that he would kick Wilson's ass in a fair fight. Fortunately for Wilson, cops do not have to fight fair. They give them a gun. BTW if this case goes the other way and Wilson does get prosecuted, you can kiss the idea of female officers goodby. 99% of them would never win a fair fight with a guy like Brown. The same is true of most male officers. I don't disagree however I don't recall a command by Wilson to "get on the ground" when Brown turned around appearing in the transcripts. Maybe I missed it? Wilson ordered Brown and Johnson to get on the sidewalk, but that was at the beginning of the altercation. Should Wilson have said please get on the ground or I will shoot you? While he was spewing all of that oration Brown would have had time to physically engage Wilson. Dead perp or dead cop, which do you prefer? "Get on the ground" is a standard command used by the police to gain control of a fluid situation. I don't know if Wilson had time to make this command. Greg commented (above), "When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger." All I said was that I had not seen the command given in the GJ transcripts. Is it your position that if it is not in the GJ transcript it didn't occur? It's another unanswered question, so I don't know if he did or didn't. I also don't recall any reports of witnesses saying that Wilson told Brown to "get on the ground". To the contrary, witnesses have stated that Brown turned around and Wilson continued shooting. I wasn't there. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/4/2014 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:49:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/3/2014 3:42 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/3/2014 12:20 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:49:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. Only if Brown was shot in the back ... and he wasn't. When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger. Brown had already demonstrated that he would kick Wilson's ass in a fair fight. Fortunately for Wilson, cops do not have to fight fair. They give them a gun. BTW if this case goes the other way and Wilson does get prosecuted, you can kiss the idea of female officers goodby. 99% of them would never win a fair fight with a guy like Brown. The same is true of most male officers. I don't disagree however I don't recall a command by Wilson to "get on the ground" when Brown turned around appearing in the transcripts. Maybe I missed it? Wilson ordered Brown and Johnson to get on the sidewalk, but that was at the beginning of the altercation. Should Wilson have said please get on the ground or I will shoot you? While he was spewing all of that oration Brown would have had time to physically engage Wilson. Dead perp or dead cop, which do you prefer? "Get on the ground" is a standard command used by the police to gain control of a fluid situation. I don't know if Wilson had time to make this command. Greg commented (above), "When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger." All I said was that I had not seen the command given in the GJ transcripts. Page 227 line 4&5 "I tell him to get on the ground, get on the ground." Thanks. I missed it completely and I looked twice. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 3:42 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 12/3/2014 12:20 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:49:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The part the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional is pretty significant. Only if Brown was shot in the back ... and he wasn't. When he turned around and approached the officer, not following the orders to "get on the ground", he was presenting a clear and present danger. Brown had already demonstrated that he would kick Wilson's ass in a fair fight. Fortunately for Wilson, cops do not have to fight fair. They give them a gun. BTW if this case goes the other way and Wilson does get prosecuted, you can kiss the idea of female officers goodby. 99% of them would never win a fair fight with a guy like Brown. The same is true of most male officers. I don't disagree however I don't recall a command by Wilson to "get on the ground" when Brown turned around appearing in the transcripts. Maybe I missed it? Wilson ordered Brown and Johnson to get on the sidewalk, but that was at the beginning of the altercation. No it wasn't dumb ass... the beginning of the altercation is when the big dumb **** reached in the car and nailed the cop.... geeze.. how hard is that. ****, by your logic his parents raising him to act like an animal in public is what started the altercation.... Should Wilson have said please get on the ground or I will shoot you? While he was spewing all of that oration Brown would have had time to physically engage Wilson. Dead perp or dead cop, which do you prefer? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Anybody hear from Joe? | ASA | |||
| If you want to hear... | General | |||
| If you want to hear... | General | |||
| What's this I hear ? | ASA | |||
| How would you like to hear this in TV? | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
