That's right, Sharpton could get at him through Holder but considering cooperation between the Feds and local LEO I don't think that will happen based on the evidence.
You people realize that Wilson's not completely in the clear yet, right?
Fair enough, so..... all the cops who testified against OJ Simpson in the trial in which he was aquitted should have been prosecuted for lying under oath.
In every case in which a black defendant is found innocent, any WHITE cop who testified against the defendant should AUTOMATICALLY be prosecuted for perjury. Every single fucking case and every single fucking white cop. Should be interesting.....
That's right, Sharpton could get at him through Holder but considering cooperation between the Feds and local LEO I don't think that will happen based on the evidence.
Fair enough, so..... all the cops who testified against OJ Simpson in the trial in which he was aquitted should have been prosecuted for lying under oath.
In every case in which a black defendant is found innocent, any WHITE cop who testified against the defendant should AUTOMATICALLY be prosecuted for perjury. Every single fucking case and every single fucking white cop. Should be interesting.....
The FEDs are HIGHLY HIGHLY motivated to get him, so they are going to do EVERYTHING in their power to nail him. He is nowhere near out of the woods.
Agreed if they lied. Not sure why that's a surprise.
Troll on.
There's a difference in testifying truthfully, but evidence presented is not enough to obtain a conviction and testifying or giving statements multiple times and giving conflicting versions each time.
- Merg
You are the jackass proposing this kind of idiocy, not me. I just took it to it's braindead conclusion.
Q:Where was Mike Brown's mammy @ teaching him to not steal,rob and attack the police?
Obviously she did not do that.
The state raises monsters y'all.
I think you miss the point. At the end of the day, this trial is about police power going unchecked. There has been a dramatic rise in police related shooting, despite crime and on the job police injuries/deaths falling (the justification for these police shootings).
At the end of the day, it comes down to the populace trying to reel in an increasingly militarized out of control police force. There is never a wrong day to do the right thing, and this maybe the right time to really question whose side the police force is on.
I think you miss the point. At the end of the day, this trial is about police power going unchecked. There has been a dramatic rise in police related shooting, despite crime and on the job police injuries/deaths falling (the justification for these police shootings).
This affects us all. You here about cases of mistaken identity (there was a case a while back about an innocent white man who's home was invaded by police leading to his death. The reason for the death: a false tip from a meth abusee who had stolen the victim's car) and cases of bystander injury (there was a baby burned by a stun grenade thrown into a home) and etc. There are innumerable stories about people being arrested for small things like public intoxication and being absolutely assaulted and hospitalized by police for saying a few clever words whilst drunk. Even routine traffic stops have been an issue (I remember reading about a white family driving through texas late at night who were pulled over illegally and the situation simply escalated out of control. There was also quite a bit of video taped proof of bullying, intimidation, and flat out lying by both police and prosecutors in that case. There's also the case of that gentleman in SC who was gunned down by a police officer for presenting a wallet as asked by that police officer).
At the end of the day, it comes down to the populace trying to reel in an increasingly militarized out of control police force. There is never a wrong day to do the right thing, and this maybe the right time to really question whose side the police force is on.
And thats not even touching the very relevant racial undertones that are present in this case. '
I agree there has been more media reporting, but do you have any data that backs up the claim you just made?
People who fail to see the bigger picture fail to see social injustice. It can always be about just a case. Rosa parks being arrested was just about an old lady who wasn't following the law and got what she deserved by being thrown in jail. Luckily some people and history itself can see beyond just the specifics of one case.Sorry, but no. At the end of the day, this isn't about some bigger picture, it's specifically about this case, where a guy apparently made the fatal mistake of attacking a cop. I see no way that has anything to do with unchecked police power.
I'm sure there are plenty of real cases of police abuse of power, this is not one of them and trying to build some sort of movement on that notion isn't going to do anything positive.
Perhaps it varies from state to state. As a former owner of a business leasing retail space, I recall there being exclusions for the items I mentioned. I do remember acts of war being mentioned also. But...my recollection may be incorrect and I no longer have the policy to refer to. It's all a side issue within the thread anyway.Commercial property insurance (or even a BOP) is most likely going to cover this.
Acts of war - not covered. Civil unrest and rioting, generally covered.
And there are no special premiums to cover this. It's part of the policy. And the insurance company can not call the business and attempt to extort additional premiums out of them knowing that some rioting/looting may occur.
Sunburn74 you sound like you wanted the prosecutor to do what they did in the Trayvon Martin case - bypass a grand jury and indict someone for murder purely due to political pressure even though the evidence proved he shot in self defense.
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/03/19/crimes-police-aggression-increasing/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm
People who fail to see the bigger picture fail to see social injustice. It can always be about just a case. Rosa parks being arrested was just about an old lady who wasn't following the law and got what she deserved by being thrown in jail. Luckily some people and history itself can see beyond just the specifics of one case.
i don't understand how the physical evidence supported no indictment when there were clear inconsistencies in wilson's story... the most obvious one being that brown's body was 3x further away from the police suv than what wilson stated. once an unarmed man is over 100ft away from you and you're holding a gun i think any threats to your immediate safety are pretty much eliminated.
i don't understand how the physical evidence supported no indictment when there were clear inconsistencies in wilson's story... the most obvious one being that brown's body was 3x further away from the police suv than what wilson stated. once an unarmed man is over 100ft away from you and you're holding a gun i think any threats to your immediate safety are pretty much eliminated.
i don't understand how the physical evidence supported no indictment when there were clear inconsistencies in wilson's story... the most obvious one being that brown's body was 3x further away from the police suv than what wilson stated. once an unarmed man is over 100ft away from you and you're holding a gun i think any threats to your immediate safety are pretty much eliminated.
Ever heard of TESTILYING. Cops are notorious for lying under oath. They are BY A WIDE FUCKING COUNTRY MILE the most suspectible witness to lying under oath.
You people realize that Wilson's not completely in the clear yet, right?
O'Mara says he believes the federal investigation into Wilson's actions will lose steam.
"A federal investigation for civil rights violation is very difficult to accomplish," he said. You really have to show that the person acted with the intent to take away your civil rights, meaning I did what I did because you're black.
It appears the "truth", or forensic "evidence" in this case, supports Brown instigated his fate. This truth is being essentially ridiculed in the popular media by what/who is getting all the attention, and "violently" opposed - quite literally. But will it ever be accepted as self evident? Or will we throw "truth" out the window because it gets in the way of "the ends justifying the means"? In other words, because social injustice exists (and it does seem to) lets use this example, no matter how inappropriate, as the poster child to fight that cause. *sigh*All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.