He initiated the situation because that was his job. He is a cop that confronts law breakers. He was not fired, if he didn't confront law breakers he would have been.
No, I am simply not bothered by the process (beyond my belief that the prosecutor should not have pursued charges at all - but for the 3,968th time I understand why he did what he did), and I am not terribly interested in entertaining your moaning and groaning about it. You are concerned with the process because you cannot argue the substance or evidence of the case. And your complaints about the process are frankly laughable anyway, as you still cannot get past the fact that while the prosecution did something unusual, they did not in fact break any laws or procedural rules. I don't feel the need to discuss it because there is nothing to discuss. There's no "there" there, it's all in your (and lefty pundits with no other arguments to make) head. You can complain all you want about it, but nothing will come of it - nor should it. Why don't you do some real good and go scare some kids at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony or something. VIDEO: Ferguson Protesters Crash Christmas Tree Lighting, Traumatizes Children’s Choir and Makes Them Cry http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/29/video-ferguson-protesters-crash-christmas-tree-lighting-traumatizes-childrens-choir-and-makes-them-cry/ White Hipster Ferguson Protesters Ruin Christmas Tree Lighting for Kids http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/white-hipster-ferguson-protesters-ruin-christmas-tree-lighting-for-kids/ Seems to be a new trend. I am sure you would fit right in there.
It's a change from saying that you thought it was not improper in any way, and the "best course of action". I hope you understand more about the legal system, and why this was more than "unusual". Good progress. And no, contrary to what you think, this isn't some zero-sum game where "your arguments" win, so we can all be happy about riots, deaths, resignations, and flawed legal proceedings---it's a learning experience. One that shouldn't be replicated.
Now, I do realize that my links are poison to most libtards and no one will read this. But for those of you who are not so far gone that evidence and reasoned arguments don't have the same affect on you as a cross does a vampire, this is a good one, and this author presents my arguments much more effectively than I can myself. Some relevant excerpts: Progressive Mythography Officer Wilson should never even have been brought before the grand jury. ...Once you’ve got that, none of the rest matters. In fact, at the hands of the left-leaning punditocracy, the rest was pure Alinsky: a coopting of language — in this instance, the argot of grand-jury procedure — to reason back to the ordained conclusion that “justice” demanded Wilson’s indictment for murder. And, of course, his ultimate conviction. I could spend the rest of the day rehearsing why these legal claims are specious. Particularly risible is the story line that the grand jury convened by St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was a sham — a story line that is itself an elaborate fraud. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich, we were lectured, because the state’s burden in a grand-jury proceeding is so scant. Prosecutors need not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, as they must do at trial; they merely need show probable cause that a crime was committed — and by the person of whom it was alleged — and a trial should therefore be held. There was conflicting testimony about who the aggressor was in the Wilson–Brown confrontation; therefore, the story line goes, there was more than enough cause to indict Wilson and let the ultimate determination of guilt — and you can be sure they mean guilt — be made at a public trial. McCulloch instead used the grand jury to exculpate Wilson, a white (cop) privilege that a black defendant could never dream of obtaining. To describe this as nonsense is a slander on nonsense. It is freely conceded that the grand-jury inquest into Brown’s killing was more a political than a legal exercise. That, however, was the result of intimidation by the Left’s race-mythology agitators — very much including the president and the attorney general of the United States. It was clearly not aimed at benefitting Wilson. In a typical case, prosecutors rely on the low probable-cause threshold applicable in grand-jury investigations only for the purpose of limiting how much evidence they need to present. Contrary to another regnant myth, guilt is not in doubt in most criminal cases. Overwhelmingly, they are open-and-shut, often supported by post-arrest confessions. As a result, the grand jury can appear to be a pro forma exercise — a cookie-cutter procedure the Constitution requires before an accused person can be convicted of a crime he not only clearly committed but to which he will almost certainly plead guilty. On the other hand, when convinced that the subject of an investigation either is innocent or is incapable of being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors do not present the case to the grand jury. That’s because their focus is the trial, not the indictment. If, after preliminary investigation, prosecutors do not assess the evidence as strong enough to convince a trial jury to render a unanimous guilty verdict, they dismiss the case on the basis of their own professional judgment — it never sees the grand-jury room. At a proper trial, Wilson could not have been convicted of murder. That does not mean what happened was not horrible — it was. It does not mean Wilson is not civilly liable (although I doubt that he is). It simply means the circumstances of the shooting do not meet the high criminal-law standards for either intentional homicide or the criminally irresponsible causing of death. The critics’ claim that Wilson’s innocence is put in doubt by “conflicting testimony” is legally and factually frivolous. Legally, our system resolves all doubt in favor of the accused — as the Left is apt to remind us when a terrorist is in the dock, this is called the “presumption of innocence.” Factually, the chatter about “conflicting testimony” falsely implies that all testimony is created equal. In reality, accounts given by anti-Wilson witnesses, where not patently fabricated, tended to be discredited by forensic evidence. The forensics, instead, corroborated the exculpatory testimony — much of which came from African-American witnesses, a fact that undermines the myth and therefore goes largely unnoticed. The grand-jury rules are more permissive than those that govern criminal trials, but prosecutors are still ethically barred from asking the grand jury to rely on testimony they believe is false, inaccurate, or unconvincing. Add to that the facts that Wilson’s own testimony would have powerfully influenced a jury (as a credible defendant’s testimony always does), and that Wilson would have had the benefit of Missouri law, which looks favorably on the use of deadly force by police officers who are endangered in attempting to make an arrest. A jury would have acquitted Wilson in short order — assuming for argument’s sake that the judge had not dismissed the case for lack of evidence before letting it get to jury deliberations. If the Michael Brown shooting were an ordinary case, a grand jury would never have been asked to consider indicting Officer Wilson. McCulloch, the chief prosecutor, directed his office to present it to the grand jury because it was not an ordinary case — because it was a racially charged case in which Al Sharpton’s notorious “No Justice, No Peace” demagoguery was amplified by the community organizers in the White House and the most politicized Justice Department in American history. Ordinarily, prosecutors unilaterally decide whether or not to seek an indictment and, in the rare instance when anyone asks why they decided as they did, are restrained by investigative-secrecy protocols from explaining their decision. But McCulloch was understandably unwilling to make a unilateral judgment for which he would have been unable to defend himself from inevitable charges of racism. He thus directed his office to make an exhaustive presentation to the grand jury. It was both a Pontius Pilate–style abdication that made the community, rather than himself, accountable for the charging decision; and a vehicle that, with the court’s blessing, enabled him to disclose the voluminous evidence justifying the decision not to indict... Full Article available here: http://www.nationalreview.com/node/393642/print
You either have a terrible memory or are simply incapable of keeping track of people's positions. I still maintain that nothing improper occurred - I have said that repeatedly. I said as much in the very post you quoted, LOL. As for the best course of action, I have also said repeatedly that I would have preferred to see the prosecutors not pursue the case in the first place, but I understand why they did - for political reasons. As you are quite aware, of course... My position on these things hasn't changed in any way. Go back and re-read all of my statements in this thread - I said the same thing days ago that I am saying now. If anything, it seems that you keep trying to change the subject as soon as you encounter an argument that you can't contend. Par for the course for you, though.
He could have waited for backup. I don't think he should be prosecuted, but he could have been smarter. Do you think he could have kept his job? Can he get another job? He is probably going to go write a book or work for fox news or maybe his supporters will pay for him.
All they did was present all the evidence, this wasn't "like a trial". They presented all the evidence they had and the grand jury said there was no cause. I'm not a big fan of petitions in the first place because all they are is a list of names that were willing to go along with whatever narrative they were sold. Also, I don't think that the argument they were making was legitimate. Had he ever been accused of bias when trying murder cases in the past? Why would this case be any different than any other murder case he dealt with? It really wouldn't because Micheal Brown wasn't a fleeing felon, he was an attacker. Completely different set of rules. Interesting, but that is void of context so I'll refrain from comment. His duty isn't to get an indictment, it's to seek justice....you know, because it's a nation of laws. By presenting all the facts of the case to the grand jury, they got true justice even though that meant no indictment. Most of the time that a prosecutor goes to a grand jury, it's because he thinks the guy is guilty and wants to see if another panel agrees so he shows them his point of view, in this case, he didn't think the guy was guilty based on the evidence but was forced to go to a grand jury because of a lynch mob in the streets and political pressure. He has a duty as a prosecutor to not prosecute someone that he believes to be innocent. Well I pointed out how the governor was in CYA mode because he completely bungled the situation with the national guard allowing the city to burn, your "legal experts" are only pointing out that the situation was irregular....which I agree with there never should have been a grand jury to begin with as there was no case, and a large part of the community were responsible for burning buildings and looting because they didn't get to string up an innocent man.....I'm not too concerned about them.
Has your knowledge of the prosecutor been augmented? You have repeatedly claimed that "there was no reason to believe this prosecutor was biased". I think your position is steeped in a bias that cannot be resolved: Seeing as you view this as a "side vs side" issue, a primitive view on politics, your position changing is not what I was aiming for. It just looks ridiculous now that you say nothing improper happened without addressing any of my questions. Fortunately, I'm not the sort of person who will copy + paste them seven times. But my questions are on-topic---always were. They will lead you to directly addressing the original point of contention.
A large part of your argumentation is based on assumption. You assume that 70,000 petition signers are criminals and that a large part of those 70,000 are burning the community down (based on?) so their views are invalidated. You assume the viewpoints of legal experts I've cited, and you're assuming wrong---I won't repost them, please go back in the thread and read the argumentation if you're interested. This wasn't just "unusual". And now you're assuming the governor is biased because of the National Guard incident---but you can't swallow the fact that the prosecutor may have been biased because he has long links with law enforcement in Ferguson, his father was a police officer who was murdered, he made several biasing statements on the affair including condemning the governor, and he's misrepresented grand jury testimony in cases where the police have killed people. What context do you require for point 4?
All of those questions are answered by the r****ded rage people have over his actions, not a judgement on his job performance.
And you have shown no compelling evidence of bias in this case whatsoever. I understand that you think that you have, but you haven't. There you go again, always projecting. Your questions are drivel. Why bother? I have repeatedly challenged you to demonstrate where any law or procedural rule was violated; this would demonstrate that something improper had occurred. You cannot demonstrate this. I mentioned it days ago: you confuse the words "improper" and "unusual". The prosecution was well within their rights to do it the way that they did it. You seem to not understand this, and I am not going to waste too much time trying to explain simple concepts that are yet beyond your understanding. Your questions have not been on topic at all. You refuse to discuss the evidence or the substance of the case. You cannot demonstrate any impropriety or actual bias in this case. Your arguments have been absurdly weak. There's really not much to discuss with you, since you will not discuss anything of substance.
No, I assume that they are either weak minded or biased, which I think is a solid assumption. That 70k is approximately 2.3% of the population of the area, essentially they found the crazies and got them to sign a petition...big whoop. The fun thing about legal experts, is that there are so many of them out there that you can find one to support just about any narrative. The fact that you were arguing earlier that a grand jury being secret is something unusual makes me think that you aren't reading the right "legal experts" Well the governor DID screw up, and it is his fault that the lynch mob was allowed to burn the town. Some strange allegations of bias by the prosecutor is nothing more than grasping for straws. Do you think there was enough evidence for a conviction? That's all that matters. If there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction then it's irrelevant because all you'd be doing is wasting taxpayer money in a futile effort to throw an innocent man in jail. What context do you require for point 4?[/QUOTE] For example, do you know if the eyewitness testimony cited was in line with physical evidence? If not, it's easy to disregard. There was testimony in this case that Wilson stood over Brown's body and shot him multiple times in the head....obviously that was easy to ignore.
Improper not in accordance with accepted rules or standards, especially of morality or honesty. You are confusing the words improper with illegal, or being deliberately obstructive, as your initial statement said "nothing illegal or improper". Anyways, now that you're refusing to discuss the substance, and going back to ad hominem argumentation, I guess there is no use in us discussing. Bye.
Northstrom has lost the argument (as usual) and (as usual) claims the other side is using ad hominem arguments. Must be frustrating to always get dominated, every single time.
standard [stan-derd] Spell Syllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin noun 1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model. 2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards. 3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach. 4. an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn't been up to his usual standard. 5. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father's standards. 6. a grade of beef immediately below good. 7. the authorized exemplar of a unit of weight or measure. The usage of the term "standard" as you are trying to apply it is more akin to an opinion; a more relevant definition would relate to legal standards, where a certain threshold must be met or may not be exceeded. Again, you can't do anything with that in this case - no rules were broken. Demonstrate where the prosecution did anything immoral or dishonest. You can't. They literally threw all of the evidence on the table and left it to the grand jury - sorta hard to characterize that as dishonest or immoral. LOL, why would you make such a dumb assumption - that I would refuse to discuss substance? I have been trying to get you to discuss substance for days now, and you still won't do it. Pathetic. But totally expected from you.
For example, do you know if the eyewitness testimony cited was in line with physical evidence? If not, it's easy to disregard. There was testimony in this case that Wilson stood over Brown's body and shot him multiple times in the head....obviously that was easy to ignore.[/QUOTE] Can you get 70k people in the area to sign a petition ascertaining the impartiality of the prosecutor? If it's so easy to get "all of the crazies". My argument about grand juries is that if you're going to conduct one like this outside of the scope of what grand juries usually are, then it becomes something else---something that verges on a pre-legal proceeding that was declared unconstitutionally closed. You think ensuring an open, transparent, and fair legal proceeding in a case like this is a "waste of taxpayer's money"? The entire nation is seething with opinions about this case, the fact that you think even appointing a special prosecutor was not worth considering given the community response is mind-boggling. Why did this case have to be "unusual" the way it was? Now for your latter point--- So the context is, he misrepresented a case where testimony in line with conclusions from a later federal investigation were displayed---a similar case that he took through a similar unusual route, with a similar erosion of trust the first time around. http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357
Give me time and some manpower and put me in an area of 3 million people and I could get 70k people to sign a petition to ban oxygen.
Well, you can free up time, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who want to take argumentation on this topic to an extreme, so not sure what is stopping you.
FWIW, as somebody who has started and been a part of a lot of petitions, getting 70k people to sign something is more difficult than you think it is.
