| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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. Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and read. The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything. It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok". |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and read. The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything. It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok". The photographer claims he heard the construction worker say the things that were written in quotes on the video - no? Therefore, in my opinion, the photographer must have had some good ears. Who's Clara? |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/3/2014 8:10 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and read. The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything. It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok". The photographer claims he heard the construction worker say the things that were written in quotes on the video - no? Therefore, in my opinion, the photographer must have had some good ears. Who's Clara? No. The comments made by the construction worker were obtained by a direct interview of him. The amateur photographer simply recorded what you see in the video. In an interview he said he offered it to the police but they weren't interested in it. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:22:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/3/2014 8:10 AM, John H. wrote: On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and read. The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything. It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok". The photographer claims he heard the construction worker say the things that were written in quotes on the video - no? Therefore, in my opinion, the photographer must have had some good ears. Who's Clara? No. The comments made by the construction worker were obtained by a direct interview of him. Oh! OK. The amateur photographer simply recorded what you see in the video. In an interview he said he offered it to the police but they weren't interested in it. Sounds like good reason for pillaging and plundering. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Anybody hear from Joe? | ASA | |||
| If you want to hear... | General | |||
| If you want to hear... | General | |||
| What's this I hear ? | ASA | |||
| How would you like to hear this in TV? | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
