Ah yes, was thinking of Scalia. The Harvard law professor can comment on whatever he wants. His opinion counts as much as mine.
Both of you diverge on whether a grand jury was the best course of action. Given that you sometimes don't read material--- and Noah is a Bloomberg columnist who is a Harvard law professor on the history of America's legal traditions---when he says "when was the last time you heard of a grand jury decision causing a riot? Well … never. That's because grand juries are obscure relics of past practice"---negating your point, I think it's worth quite a bit more.
"This impulse was seriously misguided, as the riots show." I have a problem with this. Are we really going to assume anyone is rioting because of this unusual Grand Jury???? This is implying people would be less outraged in Ferguson and riot less if the prosecutor single handed decided to rule the case as self-defense and policy shooting. I don't think the people burning down businesses and looting knows anything about or even gives two shet about what a Grand Jury is. They were rioting before and after the fact.
Its the initial verbal confrontation that I wonder about, however it does not give a person a right to turn a verbal confrontation into a physical one. When a person physically attacks another, they give up their rights to play the victim card.
It is in fact speculative because the eye witness testimony (that has actually been verified, I'm not talking about the people who claimed to be there when they weren't) still differs from that of Officer Wilson. Therefore, the jury and the people can only speculate the accounts of that afternoon, which is a part of why there was no indictment, besides the obvious evidence that he attacked him inside of the vehicle, no one actually knows the exact events that occurred on the street. I'm not saying Officer Wilson is lying, I'm just saying the events outside of the car are speculative.
The best course of action from a justice standpoint would have been to not seek an indictment at all since the evidence didn't warrant it. But with a horde of angry Obama-voters threatening to burn the town down if they didn't get a lynching, the prosecutor elected to go to the grand jury, even though he knew there wasn't grounds for it and that he would never, under any circumstances, get a conviction in a trial. It was a political decision from the start. Surely you are not too dense to understand that? Oh, and BTW - quoting something a Scalia clerk said concerning a different case does not equate to Scalia commenting on this case. So please, don't try that again. Remember, I will always call you out on your BS.
Well no, it's really not all that speculative. That's what forensics are for, and they supported Wilson's version of events. The fact that Brown was not shot in the back, the fact that he had powder burns on his hand, and several other indisputable facts all coincide with Wilson's story and show the testimony of many of the witnesses to be complete and utter BS. As did the testimony of several of the witnesses which supported Wilson's version of events...
And apollo correctly noted that the "protesters" weren't rioting so much because of the grand jury decision; they were giong to riot no matter what, and had already done so before. The grand jury proceeding was simply a way of getting all of the evidence out there while avoiding a trial that never should have taken place in the first place, and finally putting closure to at least one legal aspect of the case. Although I don;t expect a Harvard law prof who writes for a libtard rag to get that distinction.
You think Bloomberg is a rag? Call me out all you want but LOL. What sources are you using for your uncited rant? Do you even know about the history of grand juries in America? Justice Scalia's note can only be seen in the lens of people who know these things. Are your rantings uninformed opinions---are they founded in any facts ?
I'm reading through some of the evidence myself for fun I think what happened in the car was established pretty well by forensics alone, except for what was said between them, that we will never know for sure We know Brown was facing the cop when he was shot because of the autopsy, we actually do know that he was going forward towards the police because there was a blood trail leading towards Wilson. The thing that isn't clear with forensics or testimonies is whether Brown had his hands up while he was going towards Wilson. But then again I don't know what the laws are, is Wilson legally allowed to shoot Brown if the former had his hands up WHILE charging towards him.
The most striking similarity is that both terms were developed and used by whites. The starkest disparity is the extent to which your genealogy, socioeconomic or professional experiences align you with the former group, and separate you from the latter. One of the drawbacks of belonging to the ethnic majority is that half the invective against you is self-referential if you examine your own family tree's migratory, criminal and occupational history long enough. But hey, you got to say a slur in some pseudo-rhetorical context, so congratulations.
oh, right, BRILLIANT. Let's politically use prosecutorial discretion to quell fears that the justice system is rigged politically---which is the best course of action from a justice standpoint. are you even reading yourself at this point
LOL so I take it you are not a fan of President Obama using prosecutorial discretion in a political fashion to effect a mass amnesty, eh? Again, please point out where this prosecutor did anything illegal? He did something unusual, that is all. Ya got nothin' here.
If he was stationary with his hands up then he shouldn't have been shot. If he was charging with his hands up - as appears likely - then he was still a threat. If you are charging at someone it doesn't matter where your hands are, your intent is clear and it is not good. People who are charging at someone are not trying to surrender.
what? I have never argued what the prosecutor did was illegal---it was improper, and most definitively not the best course of action. You've lost the plot. your arguments contradict one another, and now you are trying to assume views I hold on a completely unrelated topic.
LOL, "improper" is a matter of opinion. Show me the procedural rule he violated. Show me the law he violated. If you can't do it then it's your opinion, the law prof's opinion, etc - and completely irrelevant. I think you are close to a meltdown. Your arguments have gone nowhere, your "side" has no case here, you can't lynch the guy you wanted, and now you are throwing out whatever you can find in the hopes of making something stick. We are now down to listening to you try to convince us that your opinion about the impropriety of the prosecutor's actions carry some sort of legal weight and should somehow nullify the results of the case. I will get the popcorn...
Much like your intuition regarding the likelihood of perjury or feasibility of prosecuting it wholesale.
