bush_cheney2004 Posted December 3, 2014 Report Posted December 3, 2014 Wilson will not be indicted for any crimes...he may face a civil action from Michael Brown's parents, after they beat the raps for inciting a riot and armed robbery. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted December 3, 2014 Report Posted December 3, 2014 There is much more than zero chance. That's one reason various investigations are still under way. Zero point zero, zero, zero 1. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 3, 2014 Report Posted December 3, 2014 Zero point zero, zero, zero 1. I think your math might be a bit ...shady. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Wilson will not be indicted for any crimes...he may face a civil action from Michael Brown's parents, after they beat the raps for inciting a riot and armed robbery. Oh yeah, guaranteed they'll go that route. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Wilson will not be indicted for any crimes...he may face a civil action from Michael Brown's parents, after they beat the raps for inciting a riot and armed robbery. I wouldn't bet too heavily on that. There is already a petition for federal prosecution that has far exceeded the 100k signatures to require a WH response. And the bar association is reviewing the MCculloch corruption in the case. Quote
sharkman Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) Wilson will not be indicted for any crimes...he may face a civil action from Michael Brown's parents, after they beat the raps for inciting a riot and armed robbery. They might not beat the rap for inciting a riot. Saying he wants a peaceful protest and then screaming for a riot within 24 hours seems premeditated. Edited December 4, 2014 by sharkman Quote
Shady Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 I wouldn't bet too heavily on that. There is already a petition for federal prosecution that has far exceeded the 100k signatures to require a WH response. And the bar association is reviewing the MCculloch corruption in the case. The criminal justice system isn't based on petitions. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 The criminal justice system isn't based on petitions. Maybe do a little research before you post. Quote
Shady Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Maybe do a little research before you post. What kind of research? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 What kind of research? A petition in excess of 100k signatures requires a response from the White House in this type of case. The request is for federal prosecution of the case and the petition has far exceeded that number. Now, nobody can twist Obama's arm beyond requiring a response, but it could result in another GJ being convened to rehear this case. Which may be reasonable based on the poor conduct of the last one. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 There's no evidence of poor conduct, and there's nothing Obama can do about a state grand jury. There's no evidence that federal charges will be laid, because there's no evidence Wilson's actions were wrong. You've shown nothing to the contrary. Quote
Shady Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 A petition in excess of 100k signatures requires a response from the White House in this type of case. The request is for federal prosecution of the case and the petition has far exceeded that number. Now, nobody can twist Obama's arm beyond requiring a response, but it could result in another GJ being convened to rehear this case. Which may be reasonable based on the poor conduct of the last one. That's just not true. The Department of Justice is almost done it's own review of the Ferguson incident regarding a civil rights violation, which has a much higher bar than a grand jury. That's it. There is no response from the White House after that. Btw, I could get 100k signatures supporting Obama's impeachment. So what? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 There's no evidence of poor conduct, and there's nothing Obama can do about a state grand jury. There's no evidence that federal charges will be laid, because there's no evidence Wilson's actions were wrong. You've shown nothing to the contrary. And of course, the DoJ/FBI already aided in the investigation leading up to the Grand Jury....... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 That's just not true. The Department of Justice is almost done it's own review of the Ferguson incident regarding a civil rights violation, which has a much higher bar than a grand jury. That's it. There is no response from the White House after that. Btw, I could get 100k signatures supporting Obama's impeachment. So what? Obviously you've done no research. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 There's no evidence of poor conduct, and there's nothing Obama can do about a state grand jury. There's no evidence that federal charges will be laid, because there's no evidence Wilson's actions were wrong. You've shown nothing to the contrary. There is evidence of misconduct. The asst. prosecutor handed out a paper to the GJ which contained a reading of the law that says when cops are allowed to shoot someone fleeing. That particular law was deemed unconstitutional 20 years ago. If you don't see that as misconduct or at least incompetence, then you must be blind. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Actually, a suspect deemed to be dangerous can be shot no matter where they're going. In this case, all the evidence says he was headed back towards the officer. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Actually, a suspect deemed to be dangerous can be shot no matter where they're going. In this case, all the evidence says he was headed back towards the officer. Instructing a GJ to conduct it's decision based on unconstitutional law you think is fine? Wilson was allowed to testify for something like 4 hours, and of course no cross. Once again, completely outside the prescribed conduct of a GJ hearing. How much more do you need to raise an eyebrow? Oh yeah, I forgot, willful blindness. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 You do realize that if there were a cross, it would be the defence lawyer, right? They don't get to come to these proceedings, because it's weighted in the prosecutions favour. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 You do realize that if there were a cross, it would be the defence lawyer, right? They don't get to come to these proceedings, because it's weighted in the prosecutions favour. You do realize that, for instance, the phony outdated law the asst. prosecutor gave the jury was totally weighted in favor of defense? And that's only one, although a major one, of the procedural failings of this case. Quote
Shady Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Instructing a GJ to conduct it's decision based on unconstitutional law you think is fine? That never happened. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 That never happened. Oh yes it did. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 You do realize that, for instance, the phony outdated law the asst. prosecutor gave the jury was totally weighted in favor of defense? And that's only one, although a major one, of the procedural failings of this case. I see, so you think a cross by the defense would have increased the changes of charges being brought? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 I see, so you think a cross by the defense would have increased the changes of charges being brought? Of course it would have. Quote
Shady Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 Oh yes it did. No it didn't. As with almost all of what you've said, it's factually incorrect. Hopefully at some point you'll get some kind of closure, and learn to accept the grand jury decision, as well as the mountain of evidence that supported it. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 4, 2014 Report Posted December 4, 2014 No it didn't. As with almost all of what you've said, it's factually incorrect. Hopefully at some point you'll get some kind of closure, and learn to accept the grand jury decision, as well as the mountain of evidence that supported it. I've already done my research on this but here's somewhere you might start. Go look up who Kathy Alizedah is and what she is accused of doing. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.