0
Anvilbrother

Riots over a shoting turn into free jordans and 40's

Recommended Posts

Quote

How can you say he did not do so?



He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty.

Hey Rush, isn't it very hard to believe that the Race Industry, the Race Baiters, Race Pimps and the Lamestream Liberal Media weren't powerful enough to sway two Grand Juries? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

How can you say he did not do so?



He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty.

Hey Rush, isn't it very hard to believe that the Race Industry, the Race Baiters, Race Pimps and the Lamestream Liberal Media weren't powerful enough to sway two Grand Juries? :)


Agreed
The same can be said for big money NOT being able to buy elections

On a good note, the jury looked at the evidense and made a decision that that race industry, race baiters, race pimps, the lamestream media AND the left does not like.
Good fair people are still in the majority despite the best efforts of the groupls listed above
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"How can you say he did not do so?" He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty.



Ok so first off you are wrong neither one of us were talking about guilt or innocence. Both of us were talking in terms of legal or illegal.

We both know that a grand jury's job is to decide to indite a person who might have committed a crime. A crime is an unlawful act punishable by the state. The grand jury did not indite the officer therefore there was no evidence that showed he did anything unlawful therefore he was legal in what he did.

Please show me in my replies to him where I stated guilt or innocence and not lawful or unlawful?

Furthermore my reply of this
Quote

How can you say he did not do so?


was in his reply of this
Quote

Well, first the prosecutor would have needed to have a desire to indict him and present evidence accordingly.



Which is what you stated was this
Quote

He didsn't say that. He was outlinging the process, since you appearred to have some trouble with it. Since you indicated you believed the Grand Jury had declared the officer not guilty.



Has nothing to fucking do with this
Quote

guilty.



He was implying that the prosecutor did not have a desire to have him indited and presented the evidence accordingly.

In which I stated
Quote

How can you say he did not do so?
He presented EVERYTHING he knew about the case and every witness he could find. He even presented things not normally shown, and it was wildly commented in the media about it being unorthodox.

I can tell you the prosecutor wanted to do everything in his power to get the monkey off his back, and lay out everything he could to 12 other people to get a fair shake on this thing. He did not care one way or the other he knew how important it was for people to look back and say he did not hide anything.



It seems that you were the one that
Quote

appearred to have some trouble with it.

your misspellings not mine.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The grand jury did not indite the officer therefore there was no evidence that showed he did anything unlawful therefore he was legal in what he did.



No. it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal. That does not mean a finding of legal.

Not being able to prove something illegal does not automatically mean it is legal.

Quote

your misspellings not mine.



Thanks, there are a couple in your post as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal.



Dude
this IS our legal system
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Quote

it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal.



Dude
this IS our legal system


Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense.

Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. :S:S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

Quote

Well, first the prosecutor would have needed to have a desire to indict him and present evidence accordingly.



How can you say he did not do so?
He presented EVERYTHING he knew about the case and every witness he could find. He even presented things not normally shown, and it was wildly commented in the media about it being unorthodox.

I can tell you the prosecutor wanted to do everything in his power to get the monkey off his back, and lay out everything he could to 12 other people to get a fair shake on this thing. He did not care one way or the other he knew how important it was for people to look back and say he did not hide anything.



Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.



So your implying that in front of 300+ million Americans following the story, massive media coverage, and under local, state, federal close watch by the likes of those such as Attorney General Eric Holder the prosecutor purposely an intently pulled a shady magic trick and got the officer off?

I'm gonna go with the more likely story that the prosecutor wanted to lay out all the information he could in order to get the jury to the best decision they could. This guy did not stand up there and "fuck over the black people" right in front of their face to get the officer off while they damn near literally burned the front of the courthouse he was standing in....

This guy knew the death threats the officer was getting, the amount of pressure put on him and his office from the public for an indictment, and the possibility of his life on the line. I seriously doubt this guy stood up and said you know what fuck you im gonna rig the system to get this cop off.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***

Quote

Well, first the prosecutor would have needed to have a desire to indict him and present evidence accordingly.



How can you say he did not do so?
He presented EVERYTHING he knew about the case and every witness he could find. He even presented things not normally shown, and it was wildly commented in the media about it being unorthodox.

I can tell you the prosecutor wanted to do everything in his power to get the monkey off his back, and lay out everything he could to 12 other people to get a fair shake on this thing. He did not care one way or the other he knew how important it was for people to look back and say he did not hide anything.



Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.

Tell this guy

http://www.thenation.com/blog/191593/inconvenient-political-truth-st-louis-prosecutor-democrat

Quote

An Inconvenient Political Truth: That St. Louis Prosecutor Is a Democrat



what you are ignoring is the whole think in MO is political.
All the bs has NOTHING to do with getting so called justice
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

Quote

Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.



So your implying that in front of 300+ million Americans following the story, massive media coverage, and under local, state, federal close watch by the likes of those such as Attorney General Eric Holder the prosecutor purposely an intently pulled a shady magic trick and got the officer off?

I'm gonna go with the more likely story that the prosecutor wanted to lay out all the information he could in order to get the jury to the best decision they could. This guy did not stand up there and "fuck over the black people" right in front of their face to get the officer off while they damn near literally burned the front of the courthouse he was standing in....

This guy knew the death threats the officer was getting, the amount of pressure put on him and his office from the public for an indictment, and the possibility of his life on the line. I seriously doubt this guy stood up and said you know what fuck you im gonna rig the system to get this cop off.



Let's try again, this time think about it in the context of your statements in this thread.

Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.

Twice in one day is pretty heroic.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe you should read Justice Scalia's description of how a grand jury should be conducted BEFORE making a fool of yourself again.

Publicly attack me by calling me a fool all you want.

Quote

neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.



I dont give a shit what Justice Scalia said. Its rare but not unheard of for a defendant to testify to a grand jury. Darren Wilson got an opportunity that was not constitutionally or statutorily required to be provided to him, but it wasn't illegal or unheard of.

I will once again ask you to answer my question.

Quote

So your implying that in front of 300+ million Americans following the story, massive media coverage, and under local, state, federal close watch by the likes of those such as Attorney General Eric Holder the prosecutor purposely an intently pulled a shady magic trick and got the officer off?



And I am going to state once again

Quote

I'm gonna go with the more likely story that the prosecutor wanted to lay out all the information he could in order to get the jury to the best decision they could. This guy did not stand up there and "fuck over the black people" right in front of their face to get the officer off while they damn near literally burned the front of the courthouse he was standing in....

This guy knew the death threats the officer was getting, the amount of pressure put on him and his office from the public for an indictment, and the possibility of his life on the line. I seriously doubt this guy stood up and said you know what fuck you im gonna rig the system to get this cop off.



Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago

******

Quote

it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal.



Dude
this IS our legal system


Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense.

Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. :S:S

Incorrect. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial for the specific charges.

No shit Sherlock....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

*********

Quote

it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal.



Dude
this IS our legal system


Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense.

Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. :S:S

Incorrect. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial for the specific charges.

No shit Sherlock....

therefore he is inocent
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

************

Quote

it means there is no evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what he did was illegal.



Dude
this IS our legal system


Says the man who thinks legal cases end in findings of innocense.

Gravity, you are right, the grand jury decided that what the officer did was legal. :S:S

Incorrect. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial for the specific charges.

No shit Sherlock....

therefore he is inocent

No, therefore there will be no charges/indictement.

Therefor there will not be a trial to determine whether he is guilty or not guilty.

I am not even being accused of anything, but as my wife and ex-wife will tell you, I am far from innocent.

(I really don't understand why you have such a hard time understanding that court proceedings do not announce people as innocent. Pretty simple concept, but you really seem to struggle with it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Untrue and inaccurate.
"No bill"



If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty

period
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

******Untrue and inaccurate.
"No bill"



If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty

period

Now you are getting it.

which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

*********Untrue and inaccurate.
"No bill"



If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty

period

Now you are getting it.

which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY

We have a whole lot of "innocent" folks in jails, then, don't we?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

************Untrue and inaccurate.
"No bill"



If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty

period

Now you are getting it.

which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY

We have a whole lot of "innocent" folks in jails, then, don't we?
So you are saying they were not proven guilty?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

*********Untrue and inaccurate.
"No bill"



If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty

period

Now you are getting it.

which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY

Yes that is the catchphrase. But since courts determine guilty or not-guilty, the catchphrase is not completely accurate. Not that uncommon for catchphrases, since their guiding principle is catchiness, not thruthiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***************Untrue and inaccurate.
"No bill"



If not taken to trial he can not be found guilty

period

Now you are getting it.

which in this country, under our justice system means inocence, UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY

We have a whole lot of "innocent" folks in jails, then, don't we?
So you are saying they were not proven guilty?

There are a lot of people in jail who haven't even been to trial. Some may never even go to trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0