You have presented no evidence that he is biased in this case. Feel free to present it when you find it.
Well, you've been prattling about openness without actually saying that. OK then, I would not dispute that. I agree that all aspects of a court case, unless there is a danger of polluting the witness or jury pools, should be open to public scrutiny. But I for one am completely OK with those proceedings being open after the fact. This ensures accountability but removes the circus atmosphere that surrounds high profile trials and such. There is absolutely no need for live play-by-plays to be broadcast in these proceedings - that does nothing but breed speculation, suspicion, and frankly hatred for those looking in from the outside. I feel that it is sufficient to have the proceedings subject to public scrutiny. after the fact. You disagree - fine. We both have our opinions on the matter. I am of course right and you are of course completely wrong as always, but we will simply differ.
I almost never delve into the D&D but thought I would share some facts from my personal experience around blacks. But seriously, who in their right mind would attack a police officer? Oh yeah "F**k da police" as they say. Well police are allowed to use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened, am I right?
No, questioned by you, yet not in this particular case. Your questions are of a general nature - "this guy is too soft on cops" essentially - and have no bearing on this case. You are using that term incorrectly. The prosecutor deviated from the norm in presenting more evidence than is usually presented in these proceedings - he didn't cherry pick - but there is no legal precedent to ignore or violate. You are confusing the two concepts, and it pretty much invalidates your argument. Translation: he didn't withhold evidence from the grand jury as most prosecutors do when they believe a suspect to actually be guilty of a crime. The proceedings are closed as a matter of procedure - that is not new. They are ALL closed hearings. And that special prosecutor would have reached the same conclusion viewing the same evidence. Tensions would have been the same. We would still have people shutting down malls and burning Sam's stores because they are morons and they aren't actually following what is happening. If you think appointing a special prosecutor would have changed the outcome in any way, I have a bridge to sell ya... I am starting to think that you don't actually understand what that term means... Whether it was proper is - as per my original post - a matter of opinion. As to whether it was a good course of action, it beats the shiite out of trying a man with clearly insufficient evidence evidence to support the charges. You may not have noticed, but the "good options" were extinguished the second Al Sharpton and Co. arrived to set up business. I understand that you believe that. You are free to believe what you want. I wouldn't hold my breath for the Supreme Court to take this up though. There was never a case here. I understand it perfectly well. And it is not I who has driven this to absurdity, it is you with your extreme and ridiculous ideas about how cases should be adjudicated. You fail to understand that criminal cases are adjudicated based upon the available evidence; when insufficient evidence exists the case does not move forward. Your failure to grasp this basic concept of jurisprudence is frankly frightening. You babble about the dangerous legal precedents being set here, but you yourself would advocate for a prosecutor to have the power to charge people in the face of clearly insufficient evidence to support the charge. Non only would that create an unGodly mess of a legal logjam with frivolous cases, it would deprive countless individuals of their constitutional right to a fair trial. But of course, in Leftist utopias, laws do not rule, men do. Mobs do. And you could round up all the people you wanted and throw whatever charges you could dream up at them, send them to the gulag or re-education camp and be done with them. That's what you really want, this is just a tiny reflection of that peeking out of the shadows of your dark and twisted mind. Says you. With your worthless opinion. I'd like to hear these alternatives. I have presented two, and both had pretty much the same outcome - Wilson walking (this is gonna happen no matter what, so suck it), and the morons rioting. I'd like to hear the alternative that would have avoided at least the latter outcome. Real world, please.
I must say this: I do find it fairly entertaining that NS Storm and others here feel that their opinions actually matter. They don't. Someone fancies himself a modern day Clarence Darrow, I think, when he's much closer to an Anonymous anarchist (hell, probably is). But the flailing and posturing is entertaining to watch. We are all just pi$$ing in the wind.
Whelp. I am out for the night. If I don;t come back tomorrow I believe that NS Storm has left us plenty of ammo to carry on the fight. Just talk about what a great idea it would be to give prosecutors the power to charge people with crimes without any supporting evidence. Sleep tight.
Well your first post was very generalizing to say the least. Even if Ferguson is ghetto, that doesn't make all of the people living there fit your perception.
All the looting and burning of other people's property sure keeps true to the stereotype. It's what Michael Brown would have wanted anyways.
You do know that lotta people there are outsiders as well, right? N how do you know if MB would of wanted that anyways? I hope you're not a cop or anything, like I said your perception is very dangerous.
Your lack of punctuation and poor writing leads me to believe that you are one of the protesters. Have fun.
What's justified? To beat up on a cop until he shoots you for fear of his own life? The jury made the right decision. Let it burn.
Credibility...??? I don't 5h1t what you eat that I need credit from you. Posters on here referring to other people as animals and you bypass them and jump on me because I said the midwest is hillbilly country. They had a freakin TV show called the Beverley Hillbillies... Lol... Back up off me.
