NO. "Ferguson" is about a case that never should have even moved to a grand jury proceeding, much less to a trial. You prattle on about openness and fairness and how a trial should have been held anyway, but you fail to acknowledge that you are talking about putting a likely innocent man through that just to satisfy your desire t watch it on TV. All of the other garbage that you and your side has read into this - the alleged racism, the alleged police abuse - are fictions dreamed up in your own minds. They were never real aspects of this case. You want to use the legal system to "make a point" about some larger social injustice, but guess what? That is not what the legal system is here for. It is here to adjudicate guilt or innocence in criminal cases, not to soothe your ego or satisfy your desire to write societal wrongs. Of course, I know that none of that registers with you or any other libtards, because... well, The Cause is what's important. Not justice.
And again, since you apparently did not catch it the first time, all of the evidence and everything that occurred in the proceedings have already been released to the public. It's out there. The only difference is that we didn't get a freaking live play-by-play or get to watch it on TV, but the result is the same: all of the evidence is out there, and Wilson walks. Which is the exact outcome we would have had with a trial. As I said, not my ideal course of action, but the outcome is the same. And the r****ds out there protesting and rioting are clearly gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of the outcome and regardless of the facts of the case.
So, just to clarify, because I want to hear you repeat it as much as possible: You believe that it's OK for a prosecutor to prosecute people for crimes that they do not believe that the individuals have committed, simply to satisfy some need for openness? I just want to drive home that this is what you are saying, though you will surely try to weasel out of it.
Question for ya: Do you believe that, *having seen all of the evidence*, the prosecutor believed that Officer Wilson had committed a crime? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did not commit a crime, what rationale would you ascribe to his pursuing an indictment anyway? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did commit a crime, then do you think that he would have conducted the grand jury proceedings as he did? Think hard about this. There is really only one logical answer here...
This is worthless opinion. This is fact: an open and transparent criminal court system has been seen as an essential facet of America for decades, and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
Do you believe the prosecutor was fair and balanced given the context of this case? Do you believe that legal proceedings here were proper? If you do, that's worthless. If not, what has made you change your opinion?
Oh, I see. My belief that the legal system exists in order to adjudicate guilt or innocence and not in order to placate mobs is simply my opinion? Um, OK. Oh, BTW - nice attempt to evade the question and change the subject. But hey, we all love colorful graphics, even if they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Nope, sorry, but it is an actual fact that 1) all of the evidence presented in the grand jury proceedings have ben made public, and 2) Darren Wilson is walking. Sorry, but those are not opinions, they are facts. Perhaps we need to back up a little bit here... According to Dictionary.com: fact [fakt] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5. Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. opinion [uh-pin-yuh n] Spell Syllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. 4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case. 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion. 6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I mean, I was hoping we wouldn't need to get this low, but apparently we do.
You did not answer the question. I am waiting. Still. As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours. Although I have already answered this several times...
Here are the two questions you have been ducking again: So, just to clarify, because I want to hear you repeat it as much as possible: You believe that it's OK for a prosecutor to prosecute people for crimes that they do not believe that the individuals have committed, simply to satisfy some need for openness? and Do you believe that, *having seen all of the evidence*, the prosecutor believed that Officer Wilson had committed a crime? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did not commit a crime, what rationale would you ascribe to his pursuing an indictment anyway? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did commit a crime, then do you think that he would have conducted the grand jury proceedings as he did? I eagerly await your answers to these questions.
You want to use the legal system to "make a point" about some larger social injustice ^worthless opinion. Don't presume to think for others.
1) Public access to the trial was closed. ^ Fact. Your worthless opinion is that this is trivial. It isn't.
LOL, YOU want to use the legal system to make a point about some larger social injustice. I want it to do what it was designed for: adjudicate guilt or innocence. Projection alert... :grin:
There was no trial. There was a grand jury proceeding, and all evidence presented was released to the public at its conclusion. ^ Fact.
Your questions only matter if the prosecutor is fair, partial, and seeking justice. As if you have already declared that he was making a political decision in going to the Grand Jury, by your own admission he is not. but I suppose your opinion is worthless, just like mine, and everybody's.
Here are the two questions you have been ducking again: So, just to clarify, because I want to hear you repeat it as much as possible: You believe that it's OK for a prosecutor to prosecute people for crimes that they do not believe that the individuals have committed, simply to satisfy some need for openness? and Do you believe that, *having seen all of the evidence*, the prosecutor believed that Officer Wilson had committed a crime? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did not commit a crime, what rationale would you ascribe to his pursuing an indictment anyway? If you think that the prosecutor was convinced that Ofc. Wilson did commit a crime, then do you think that he would have conducted the grand jury proceedings as he did? I eagerly await your answers to these questions.
...that was a quote of yours. I'm sorry I didn't put it into a quote box, but man, please read your own words more carefully.
I can keep copying and posting these all day. Every time I do it just emphasizes the point that you are ducking them. :grin:
