As alluded to many times, a grand jury proceeding is a very poor check on overzealous or underzealous prosecutors. Part of that reason is because of the "rubber-stamp" nature of them. For there to be a precedent set that police officers are the only ones who have the privilege of this "rubber-stamp" exculpatory hearing, well, that's a very poor precedent for a case that was all about how legal systems reserve special rights for some, and deny them for others.
You mean the father figure of an 18 year old thug, bully, un-convicted felon that refused to follow an officer's request to quit breaking the law, then assaulted the officer and attempted to take his gun only to be killed by it and now has a large portion of the black community rioting/err protesting because they obviously think they should be able to do that with no consequences is also encouraging them to riot? Nahhh...say it ain't so... It's pathetic that most of the 'eyewitnesses(all black)' say he was shot in the back and running away and such when it was apparently he was not; even from the forensics guy brought in by the thug's parents. Still, this evidence doesn't matter...black 18 year old shot by white cop...lets riot. Black folks think this will help racial profiling and relations in the future because of their protest? They just took a few steps back. Great job. I'm sure Racist River is proud...
We are talking about procedure, not outcome---incidentally. Of course, we will never know if the outcome was 100% there based on the flawed proceedings. You've admitted the proceedings were flawed, we're just arguing about which way.
Between taking down five crime families, first-wave junk bond corruption and running one of the largest and most diverse cities in a hemisphere for a decade, I have no trouble valuing Giuliani's perspective.
LOL, I love the ending where the license board said they can't punish him because this crook doesn't have any license to begin with. This story is both horrible and funny.
If you still don't get why it's important to have open proceedings in a case that reeks of a legal system that unfairly punishes some and finds special ways to exonerate others then you'll never get why "sunshine is the best disinfectant". That's a premise America is built on---and it's a large part of the rule of law you espouse. A part that was flouted by this proceeding that will shed doubt on the legal system, and do nothing but cause more pain for both sides.
To make it even easier: 1) I think the drive for openness is something that would have helped this case immensely. I believe it is a constitutional principle that was flouted, if not by the letter, than by spirit. If the loaded question you offered was between seeking conclusions and openness (a false dilemma that could be resolved with proceedings that do have precedent)---I would choose openness, especially for this case. So yes, ya, hell yes, f**k yes. 2) I believe he was inclined towards that conclusion anyways even before the evidence---so no. 3) Political ass-covering, meaning he was using this as a political card, and failing at it because in his rush to make it seem like something was happening, used legal proceedings with no precedent, creating a new category for a "special case". 4) No, he would have been overzealous, and still the grand jury would have been a terrible check and balance. Which, disregarding the nature of this prosecutor, is why it was a terrible choice to go this route.
No, I have stated - repeatedly - that I do not believe that an indictment should not have been sought in the first place, but I do understand why it went that way. YOU believe that the proceedings were flawed, I believe that there was nothing flawed in the process, it was just unusual. The prosecutor took an unusual tack in actually throwing all available evidence out there, but it was well within his discretion for him to do so. What you wanted was for the prosecution to cherry pick the facts and withhold evidence from the grand jury in order to trick them into handing out an indictment. You won't phrase it that way, but that is exactly what you want. You are arguing for withholding evidence from the grand jurors. There is no way around that.
Well the case reeks of nothing of the sort except in your own imagination, but I don;t remember where I said that I don;t believe in openness in such proceedings. Could you jog my memory for me and link to the post where I said that? YOU on the other hand seem to not believe that available evidence should dictate how a court proceeding - be it a trial or a grand jury proceeding - should go. You have STILL failed to acknowledge that the grand jury saw all of the available evidence and decided that no probably cause existed to arrest Officer Wilson for the commission of a crime. I still await your comment on this.
Since you STILL haven't answered the questions... Here are the 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? and Please explain why you think that "seeking justice" should involve a prosecutor attempting to pursue criminal charges against someone whom they did not believe committed the crime. I eagerly await your answers to these questions. And I will continue to copy and paste them until you answer them.
You are either gonna answer these questions - ACTUALLY answer them, not continue to sidestep them - or you are gonna continue to look like a fool here. Although I suspect that you have no good answer for them... Tell ya what. Give me a direct answer on ONE question and I will stop asking you three of them: Do you believe that it is acceptable for a prosecutor to charge an individual with a crime if the evidence does not indicate to the prosecutor that that individual has committed the crime? Answer this one - directly, fully, you can even just use a yes or no response - and we can end this pain.
So when white people riot they are called idiots and when black people riot they are called animals.... Ok, gotcha. The midwest is "hillbilly country" and I never heard of many white folks having injustices done towards them in the "coon capital"... Big difference.
Northside Fart is a complete fool who is just wasting your time (and everyone else's). You are a racist.
See, the answer to that question *should* be an immediate and resounding "No, of course not". The alternative... well, that would be sorta hard to explain, no? The silence is deafening.
They're loaded questions based on flawed premises and context. Like---do you believe in the Constitution of the United States? Do you believe in legal precedence? Do you believe in a transparent and open court system? Do you believe in unbiased prosecutors who don't play politics? Two can play at this game, but I refuse to care about your gotcha mentality, and your seeming inability to understand what the points at discussion are. I say yes to your question, now answer mine or address my points, or we don't have a discussion.
I am arguing for a more transparent process, one that did not scramble to create legal precedents from somebody whose impartiality and political nature on the subject has been questioned numerous times. All the evidence, impartially eh? Sure. Sounds like exactly the kind of impartial process that is best kept closed and hidden away from the public eye. http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nvestigation-as-prosecutor-and-governor-clash
How that evidence was framed by the prosecutor plays a huge influence on what happened. Given that there is reason to believe that the prosecutor was biased, and that this process was closed (but what we do know from it makes it seem as if the prosecutor's office was not "seeking justice" but was framing it)---like you said a grand jury is usually a "rubber stamp"---because of the lack of openness that question will always linger. It will be a factor in increasing tensions.
