View Poll Results: Which statement about McCulloch is closest to the truth?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • He intentionally manipulated the grand jury into falsifying evidence

    8 50.00%
  • He presented evidence in a biased manner.

    1 6.25%
  • He presented evidence in an objective manner.

    7 43.75%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Did Ferguson Prosecutor McCulloch manipulate grand jury into falsifying testimony???

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Did Ferguson Prosecutor McCulloch manipulate grand jury into falsifying testimony???

    Excerpts:

    "A Missouri lawmaker is calling for an investigation of St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, saying he "manipulated" the grand jury in the Ferguson case. McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.

    "State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, saying she believes McCulloch helped sway the grand jury into the decision not to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed.

    ""Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said. He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I guess primus is the only to vote so far
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I guess primus is the only to vote so far
    What does this statement mean?

    " the only to vote so far...."

    Huh?

    Should probably spell check your posts before you attempt to call someone out randomly. Otherwise it just looks dumb...
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    ""Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said. He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said."
    Did McCulloch expose her testimony as untruthful? (Notice how I'm avoiding calling it pergured testimony?)

    Would that be the same prosecutor who demonstrated that several "witnesses" against Wilson made stuff up or just repeated what they saw on TV while claiming to have been present and eyewitnesses?

    And just because I am dumber that a box of hammers, how did McCulloch "manipulate" the grand jury into falsifying testimony? Yeah, I know hope and pray you probably meant that McCulloch is accused of manipulating witnesses into falsifying testimony they gave to the grand jury.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    If I remember the televised news release where the Grand Jury decision was released the Prosecutor made it quite clear he presented all the evidence available. Even going so far to say that several witnesses had changed their claims/statements during the course of the investigation some in an effort to mesh with other evidence released during the investigation.

    And per my understanding since the Grand Jury proceedings are a venue in which to determine if criminal charges are warranted, he went far beyond what he was required to do to convince the grand jury to indict. Of course, I don't believe it was his intent to have the officer indicted and was using the grand jury process to seem to step back from prosecutorial discretion to press charges or not.

    IMO, Riots were a given in this situation---- Either riots to complain about the lack of indictment or riots in celebration of the indictment!

    As to the poll questions--- I do believe he manipulated the Grand Jury. He presented the case to get the decision he wanted. I don't see any criminality in this process though--- I do see some who are not happy with the resultant decision however.

    And as a final edit---- I answered the poll in the affirmative to the last question..... He did present the case in an objective manner!

    Even though it has me standing with Primus---- (see the 3rd line below in my signature!)
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 12-19-2014 at 11:16 PM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What does this statement mean?

    " the only to vote so far...."

    Huh?

    Should probably spell check your posts before you attempt to call someone out randomly. Otherwise it just looks dumb...
    Only one vote for the prosecutor presented the facts in an objective manner.
    Duh. Only a cop falacing fanboy could believe that.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    He had a crazy woman as a main witness ... say no more

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    A crazy lying felon, and the prosecutor KNEW it. It is illegal in most states for an attorney to put a witness on the stand they KNOW is going to lie. This guy did exactly that.
    It is illegal for an attorney to suborn perjury, which is the act of encouraging someone to commit perjury. I'm not sure how an attorney is to know exactly what a person will say under oath. In fact, our entire practice of putting a witness under oath is based on the premise that a person is less likely to lie either having taken a solemn oath to tell the truth, or at least when it is 100% clear that any lie would be subject to perjury penalties.

    I think some folks are putting the prosecutor in an impossible catch-22. If he doesn't let witnesses testify who offer testimony that would support an indictment, he is clearly gaming the system away from an indictment. If he let's such witnesses testify, then points out to the public that their testimony is completely at odds with forensic evidence he is accused of suborning perjury?

    Perhaps a little but too much anti-cop bias going on here.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    He needs to be Nifonged.
    From The Urban Dictionary:

    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Dictonary

    Nifonged describes the railroading or harming of a person with no justifiable cause, except for one's own gain. It is someone being taken advantage of unfairly by someone without scruples or morals. It is created more in disdain of North Carolina/Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong, and his screwing of 3 Duke University Lacrosse Team members and helping to inflame a tense racial situation for his own glory, ego, and political gain.
    Are you using this board to advocate for illegal conduct toward another person in violation of the rules of the forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by forum rules
    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    Or did I misunderstand your use of the term "nifonged"?

    Charles

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    3 folks actually think the DA did a fine job ... lol

    suckers

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What does this statement mean?

    " the only to vote so far...."

    Huh?

    Should probably spell check your posts before you attempt to call someone out randomly. Otherwise it just looks dumb...
    Man you hadn't even posted in this thread and I was already picking on you.
    I was pissy from just having come from begging my local LEO chief to sign off on a Class III item.
    I apologize.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    And it is not hard to figure out which ones...
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Man you hadn't even posted in this thread and I was already picking on you.
    I was pissy from just having come from begging my local LEO chief to sign off on a Class III item.
    I apologize.
    He didn't deny it, just made a stink because you smelled it. Your instincts were spot on.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Man you hadn't even posted in this thread and I was already picking on you.
    I was pissy from just having come from begging my local LEO chief to sign off on a Class III item.
    I apologize.
    No apology needed. We are good brother.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    If I remember the televised news release where the Grand Jury decision was released the Prosecutor made it quite clear he presented all the evidence available. Even going so far to say that several witnesses had changed their claims/statements during the course of the investigation some in an effort to mesh with other evidence released during the investigation.

    And per my understanding since the Grand Jury proceedings are a venue in which to determine if criminal charges are warranted, he went far beyond what he was required to do to convince the grand jury to indict. Of course, I don't believe it was his intent to have the officer indicted and was using the grand jury process to seem to step back from prosecutorial discretion to press charges or not.

    IMO, Riots were a given in this situation---- Either riots to complain about the lack of indictment or riots in celebration of the indictment!

    As to the poll questions--- I do believe he manipulated the Grand Jury. He presented the case to get the decision he wanted. I don't see any criminality in this process though--- I do see some who are not happy with the resultant decision however.

    And as a final edit---- I answered the poll in the affirmative to the last question..... He did present the case in an objective manner!

    Even though it has me standing with Primus---- (see the 3rd line below in my signature!)
    So a lawyer has no responsibility to insure that the testimony of a witness HE IS CALLING is bat-chit crazy?

    We found out ... another POS gov't official IMO.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    My three choices were:

    He intentionally manipulated the grand jury into falsifying evidence

    I've already addressed this, but once again WTF? How can a grand jury falsify evidence? This option makles no sense and thus was disregarded


    He presented evidence in a biased manner.

    Well, of course he did. Every prosecutor presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. Just as every defense attorney presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. The question might be: Why did McCullogh bother with a grand jury if he had no intention of prosecuting Wilson?


    He presented evidence in an objective manner.

    It all depends on what your definition of "objective" is. Perhaps you are trying to ask if the evidence was presented in a (to coin a phrase) fair and balanced manner, with no bias towards any particular outcome? That would probably be the most desirable objective; seek the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Another objective might be to use the grand jury to bolster a decision to use prosecutorial discretion and not file charges. Yet another objective might be to lay the foundation for a civil suit relating to damage of reputation.

    (Of the three, only the third objective listed is ethically reprehensive.)

    Given the flaws in the questions, I could not cast a vote for any.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    My three choices were:

    He intentionally manipulated the grand jury into falsifying evidence

    I've already addressed this, but once again WTF? How can a grand jury falsify evidence? This option makles no sense and thus was disregarded


    He presented evidence in a biased manner.

    Well, of course he did. Every prosecutor presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. Just as every defense attorney presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. The question might be: Why did McCullogh bother with a grand jury if he had no intention of prosecuting Wilson?


    He presented evidence in an objective manner.

    It all depends on what your definition of "objective" is. Perhaps you are trying to ask if the evidence was presented in a (to coin a phrase) fair and balanced manner, with no bias towards any particular outcome? That would probably be the most desirable objective; seek the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Another objective might be to use the grand jury to bolster a decision to use prosecutorial discretion and not file charges. Yet another objective might be to lay the foundation for a civil suit relating to damage of reputation.

    (Of the three, only the third objective listed is ethically reprehensive.)

    Given the flaws in the questions, I could not cast a vote for any.

    stay safe.
    Yes, just like Nifong, he did the very same thing that McCulloch did, and was disbarred for it. Putting up a witness that is not credible and he knew the testimony was lies he should be prosecuted. There is a clear record of witness 40's fubars that were known well before she testified to the grand jury. She was a convicted felon, a nut case, who numerous times inserted herself into investigations making up stories. Yet this idiot put her on the stand anyway. This is not the GJ's fault, he clearly violated the trust of the people, and his oath.

    He even admitted it in an interview trying to put a positive spin on putting a liar on the stand to commit perjury and not bothering to tell the GJ it was perjury.

    This “lady clearly wasn't present,” McCulloch said. “She recounted a story right out of the newspaper,” backing up Wilson's version of events.

    Keep in mind this was his star witness.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-20-2014 at 03:03 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Anyone who doesn't think this smells to high heaven has their head in the sand or is a cop apologist.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  18. #18
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    What he did is evil. But it is exactly the way the system is setup to work.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    This is why prosecutors should have zero to do with grand juries.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    This is why prosecutors should have zero to do with grand juries.
    +1!!!!!!
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    McCulloch did not preside over the GJ. Two of his assistants did. He gave the GJ a brief on the extension of their time and what to expect being GJ members the the GJ went about doing there work. Admin stuff. A start witness, who lied, was supporting DWs version. She saw nothing, the physical evidence proved this.

    Yes, he did is job and his assistants presented the fact objectively. It is what it is.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is what it is.
    Indeed.

    Do you believe there was some delegation from McCulloch to his assistants, or did they likely act independently?
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Indeed.

    Do you believe there was some delegation from McCulloch to his assistants, or did they likely act independently?
    McCulloch admitted allowing the GJ to hear false testimony. He could have put it off on his subs, but he didn't because we all know he was in charge. In many states that is a crime, Mike Nifong was disbarred and prosecuted for the very same thing.

    But hey MB deserved to die, he was black, big, and a demon with Hulk Hogan strength.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-21-2014 at 06:29 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Anyone who doesn't think this smells to high heaven has their head in the sand or is a cop apologist.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf
    But hey MB deserved to die, he was black, big, and a demon with Hulk Hogan strength.
    I'm no cop apologist. We've had a couple of rank cases here in my area that actually do stink to high heaven. But in both the victims were white so no national press.

    A few weeks ago a couple of cops made contact with a fellow carrying a sword in a shopping mall area. They claim he ended up lunging at them and then running, sword in hand, toward a crowded area. They shot him. This time the "victim" was black and all kinds of local outrage. The initial stop and subsequent shooting perhaps have room for some questions. But why the questions so much more vocally and visibly when the "victim" is black, rather than white? No doubt black lives matter, but do they matter more than white lives? Do the lives of long-time criminals or even first time violent offenders matter more than the lives of cops just based on respective races?

    I tire of the race card. I don't think MB "deserved to die". But neither did the officer deserve to die, nor even be beaten to a pulp. We can berate the officer for his tactical mistakes in which he "allowed himself" to be assaulted. But did he deserve to be assaulted?

    No doubt that cops make contact with or even detain individuals far more often than "The Truth" or "WalkingWolf" do. But once an interaction has started, for whatever reason, I wonder how either of you two would respond to being physically assaulted and/or someone trying violently and illegally to take your gun from you.

    When someone physically assaults an armed person (private citizen or cop) I simply can't muster too much sympathy if that someone ends up with some gun shot wounds. And when a heretofore law-abiding person (including a cop) tells me he was assaulted, and there is physical evidence to back up that testimony I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt over a violent criminal or even someone with known mental illness. It is what I would do for WalkingWolf or "The Truth" or any other private citizen. It is what I will do for the cops.

    Show me evidence the cop wasn't assaulted, or first engaged in grossly illegal and violent conduct to which someone responded in legitimate self-defense, and I'll condemn the cop just as I would any other criminal.

    Did the cop deserve to get beat? Did he deserve to die? Was he entitled to defend himself?

    It seems to me the grand jury heard just about every witness who claimed to be a witness. They were presented all the physical evidence available. They chose not to indict.

    Show me the DA's office withheld evidence that would have called for an indictment and I'll get concerned.

    But you all are pissed that there wasn't an indictment after he allowed a less-than-fully-credible witness to testify, which testimony if believed would have lead to an indictment? I'm not following the logic.

    At the end of the day, we believe it is better for 10 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted. Do you believe that when the person who stands accused wears a badge? Or do you reserve the right for yourself while denying it to others?

    Charles

  25. #25
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I'm no cop apologist. We've had a couple of rank cases here in my area that actually do stink to high heaven. But in both the victims were white so no national press.

    A few weeks ago a couple of cops made contact with a fellow carrying a sword in a shopping mall area. They claim he ended up lunging at them and then running, sword in hand, toward a crowded area. They shot him. This time the "victim" was black and all kinds of local outrage. The initial stop and subsequent shooting perhaps have room for some questions. But why the questions so much more vocally and visibly when the "victim" is black, rather than white? No doubt black lives matter, but do they matter more than white lives? Do the lives of long-time criminals or even first time violent offenders matter more than the lives of cops just based on respective races?

    I tire of the race card. I don't think MB "deserved to die". But neither did the officer deserve to die, nor even be beaten to a pulp. We can berate the officer for his tactical mistakes in which he "allowed himself" to be assaulted. But did he deserve to be assaulted?

    No doubt that cops make contact with or even detain individuals far more often than "The Truth" or "WalkingWolf" do. But once an interaction has started, for whatever reason, I wonder how either of you two would respond to being physically assaulted and/or someone trying violently and illegally to take your gun from you.

    When someone physically assaults an armed person (private citizen or cop) I simply can't muster too much sympathy if that someone ends up with some gun shot wounds. And when a heretofore law-abiding person (including a cop) tells me he was assaulted, and there is physical evidence to back up that testimony I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt over a violent criminal or even someone with known mental illness. It is what I would do for WalkingWolf or "The Truth" or any other private citizen. It is what I will do for the cops.

    Show me evidence the cop wasn't assaulted, or first engaged in grossly illegal and violent conduct to which someone responded in legitimate self-defense, and I'll condemn the cop just as I would any other criminal.

    Did the cop deserve to get beat? Did he deserve to die? Was he entitled to defend himself?

    It seems to me the grand jury heard just about every witness who claimed to be a witness. They were presented all the physical evidence available. They chose not to indict.

    Show me the DA's office withheld evidence that would have called for an indictment and I'll get concerned.

    But you all are pissed that there wasn't an indictment after he allowed a less-than-fully-credible witness to testify, which testimony if believed would have lead to an indictment? I'm not following the logic.

    At the end of the day, we believe it is better for 10 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted. Do you believe that when the person who stands accused wears a badge? Or do you reserve the right for yourself while denying it to others?

    Charles
    Well I don't remember mentioning race.

    I think I can answer your question by saying that I believe cops should be held to a little bit higher standard in regards to lethal force than they are currently. Maybe training in certain departments is insufficient, I don't know. The problem is the propensity of some cops to agitate a situation using their authority which could have been approached in a different manner without the situation escalating to the level of violence.

    I'm not a Mike Brown apologist either. Eric Garner, little bit different story. Either way, I do not believe that the death of the "perpetrator" was the only outcome of either situation.

    Just like the wise ones on this forum suggest to activists that they settle matters in court instead of on the street, the same should be true of police. I'm not saying there isn't a time and a place for lethal force, but it would benefit society if it were a little more rare.
    Last edited by The Truth; 12-21-2014 at 11:39 PM.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •