Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[cubby1223]

The prosecutor is an elected official, he can be recalled at any time. Why haven't the people of St Louis county began the recall process yet? Is it because it is mostly white supremacist who live in St Louis county?

You can hold whatever inner feelings you want about any subject matter.

But until you actually do some legwork to provide evidence that your "theories" have any merit, nobody is ever going to take you seriously. You are a troll.

There are answers to why you are always so confused grasping at anything to explain your version of reality.

If you're here simply to irritate people, you're doing a bang-up job.

If you're here because you want people to believe you know what you're talking about, you need to actually provide evidence you know what you're talking about.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The prosecutor is an elected official, he can be recalled at any time. Why haven't the people of St Louis county began the recall process yet? Is it because it is mostly white supremacist who live in St Louis county?

Awesome.

From Wiki based on the national census.

The racial makeup of the city was 67.4% African American, 29.3% White, 0.5% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 0.4% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races. Hispanic and Latino of any race were 1.2% of the population.

Now the population of the county is about reversed but I'd love you to show any reasonable (say non-unicorn) type evidence that the overwhelming number of whites are white supremicists. That's what it would require. Good luck.

 

[CZroe]

The prosecutor is an elected official, he can be recalled at any time. Why haven't the people of St Louis county began the recall process yet? Is it because it is mostly white supremacist who live in St Louis county?

Or could it be that you are absolutely wrong about everything including your base assumptions?! Noooooooooooo.

 

[TechBoyJK]

The prosecutor is an elected official, he can be recalled at any time. Why haven't the people of St Louis county began the recall process yet? Is it because it is mostly white supremacist who live in St Louis county?

Dude, St. Louis is a black city. I'm white, and everyday it's obvious to me that I'm a minority.

What's funny is after all this, yesterday I had a 'get out of the street' moment with a cop.

I was crossing Tucker Blvd, which is a busy St. Louis street in downtown. 4 lanes each way. Traffic was stopped, so I just ran across the street rather than go down to the corner.

As I get to the other side, sure enough I realize the large black man walking down the street was a Sheriff's deputy. Large black dude, and rather built. We're talking like Dwayne Johnson.

He shook his head at me and said 'you really need to use the cross walk'.

You know what didn't cross my mind? Telling this large, armed man to fuck off. And most certainly not fighting with him for telling me what to do. I said "i'm sorry", and put my head down in obedient shame and tried to avoid eye contact. Why? BECAUSE I WASNT GOING TO FUCK WITH A COP over something so fricking petty.

So.. white guy, in street illegaly being instructed by a black cop, to get out of the road.

Sound familiar?

 

[Darwin333]

The prosecutor also knows some pro-Brown witnesses who absolutely perjured themselves. They are black. Should he prosecute them, the city will likely be burned and looted once again.

Personally I lean toward indicting and prosecuting this woman because her perjury is apparently habit and pattern, even though he'd have a difficult time proving she wasn't actually there. But I can certainly understand why the prosecutor would elect to give her a pass and avoid further charges of selective justice.

I highly doubt it will burn but regardless, if we allowed mob rule to dictate how and which laws are enforced the LEO would be going to trial.

I still don't see the town burning if he indicts all people who claimed they were there but were in fact not and can be proven not to have been at the scene. Perjury is usually hard to prove but claiming you witnessed something when you were on the other side of town is a slam dunk.

 

[cabri]

I highly doubt it will burn but regardless, if we allowed mob rule to dictate how and which laws are enforced the LEO would be going to trial.

I still don't see the town burning if he indicts all people who claimed they were there but were in fact not and can be proven not to have been at the scene. Perjury is usually hard to prove but claiming you witnessed something when you were on the other side of town is a slam dunk.

Should a black person get indicted for testifying against Wilson; you will have the same situation as before.

Truth or not, it will be spun/reported/perceived that this is round #2 of the system out to put down the black person.

The agitators do not dare about the truth - we saw how they handled the GJ verdict.

Just like the people here within this thread - evidence does not matter, it is emotions and race that matter to them.

 

[Fern]

No one is "butthurt." I'm simply telling you to F-O-L-L-O-W.

The question in your edit was MY QUESTION that you originally responded to. Why are you asking me to answer my own question?! I don't know the answer. I don't know the relevant law or even know that one exists. THAT'S WHY I ASKED HIM. I was tired of him assuming it existed and assuming that it prohibited exculpatory evidence and drawing further conclusions from those assumptions. I don't know how you thought I was talking about witnesses committing perjury or whatever and I don't know why you start demanding that I answer my own question when I point that out.

If your question is about the responsibility of a DA to present exculpatory evidence in a GJ proceeding please be aware that the Dept of Justice rules it to be presented.

9-11.233

Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence

In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts' supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department's policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.233

However, I do not know if this rules applies to state proceedings, and if not, if Missouri has a similar rules of its own.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Perjury, its a crime! Like serisouly dude, you should totally look it up!

My gripe isn't with the GJ decision, its with the DA not indicting people he admits that he knows committed felonies. Why do some people get to commit felonies, blatantly spitting in the face of the damn DA, and walk away scott free while others commit mere misdemeanors and get charged? Why are people like you for selective enforcement of the law? Or do you think the law doesn't matter as long as it gives you the outcome you desire?

So how should the law be applied in your opinion? Which groups of people should get passes on certain laws and which shouldn't?

Fwiw, the GJ reached the right decision. Has absolutely nothing to do with the other crimes committed.

I don't think perjury charges are often pursued unless it's the 'defendant' that committed it.

I think this is for a number of likely valid reasons including that of 'good public policy'. If you start indicting witnesses on charges of perjury I think it likely your pool of people voluntarily coming forward to testify will shrink to practically nothing.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The prosecutor also knows some pro-Brown witnesses who absolutely perjured themselves. They are black. Should he prosecute them, the city will likely be burned and looted once again.

Agreed.

Personally I lean toward indicting and prosecuting this woman because her perjury is apparently habit and pattern, even though he'd have a difficult time proving she wasn't actually there. But I can certainly understand why the prosecutor would elect to give her a pass and avoid further charges of selective justice.

I question whether she could actually be convicted of perjury. She has mental health issues and is known to be delusional. This sets her up for the defense that she didn't have any intent to lie. I.e., she really believes what she says.

I question whether it's moral or ethical to pursue perjury charges. Basically, you're convicting her for her mental health issues. That's wrong, particularly so given that the AG appears to have had prior knowledge of her mental health issues.

I question whether it's good policy etc. Why waste the time and resources? I doubt she'd be given jail/prison time. If he could get jail/prison time for her, why bother? Jail/prison costs taxpayers money. That would be a waste.

The PR would be bad. It would look like selective prosecution. That's not good for a number of reasons.

Fern

 

[DCal430]

We should look for evidence of this prosecutor encouraging perjury, I am sure we will find it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We should look for evidence of this prosecutor encouraging perjury, I am sure we will find it.

Yeah, like you find electricity here:

 

[CZroe]

We should look for evidence of this prosecutor encouraging perjury, I am sure we will find it.

Yeah! Let's turn from lynch mob to witch hunt!

 

[TechBoyJK]

We should look for evidence of this prosecutor encouraging perjury, I am sure we will find it.

If you care enough to keep trolling this forum, why don't you go look for the evidence and do something about it?

 

[Darwin333]

Why do some people get to commit crimes and not be prosecuted? That's your major point of contention? Are you insane?

I hope you sided with Republicans when Obama declared the federal government would no longer prosecute certain crimes relating to illegal immigration.

Selective prosecution goes on ALL THE TIME. The court systems do not have the capacity to put all crimes on trial. There is a massive logistical problem to overcome before we can even begin to get angry over selective prosecution.

Well you see, I like to dabble in this realm I call facts. Fact of the matter is that the US has more prisoners, both per capita and total, than any other nation in the world and that includes China. We have a clean 50% of the worlds prison population. That fact tells me that we make plenty of time.

Besides, you were butthurt over me wrongfully replying to you, why are you now engaging in my reply when originally you were just butthurt over my accidental reply?

Then you go and double-down on stupid. Congrats.

The prosecutor currently meets 4 of the 5 required items to be charged with a felony as stated by legal experts. The felonious witnesses are the only ones that could testify to the fith requirement. Doubling down you say? I think not, just following actual facts versus whatever emotional reasoning you seem to be grasping at.

Edit: Yes, that is exactly my point of contention. The rule of law not being applied equally is exactly my point of contention. Perjury is against the law and I happen to agree that perjury should be against the law, especially when a mans life, livelihood and family can be taken by said perjury. I'm pretty sure that's why we made it illegal in the first place.

I am willing to bet a months pay that if perjury caused him to be indicted that you would want that perjurer to be charged. You got the outcome that you wanted so no other crimes matter huh? Hypocrite

 

[Darwin333]

Can they charge Michael Brown with other felonies if he is not alive to dispute them?

I believe they can but I'm not entirely sure nor would I see the point. Can't sentence a dead man.

What's your point?

 

[DCal430]

Why the h*ll would a murder victim be charged with any crime. Disgusting, here an innocent man was gunned down by a thug with a badge because of the color of his skin and you keep attacking him. Sad really.

 

[Sulaco]

Why the h*ll would a murder victim be charged with any crime. Disgusting, here an innocent man was gunned down by a thug with a badge because of the color of his skin and you keep attacking him. Sad really.

What does it feel like being that stupid? Does it hurt at all? Does it affect your health?

Or does it just motivate you to troll that much harder and better?

In other news, I find the startling absence of ivwshane to be a deafening silence that speaks volumes.

 

[CZroe]

Why the h*ll would a murder victim be charged with any crime. Disgusting, here an innocent man was gunned down by a thug with a badge because of the color of his skin and you keep attacking him. Sad really.

Awful lot of brainless and incorrect assumptions in this post. You can't seriously be this stupid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why the h*ll would a murder victim be charged with any crime. Disgusting, here an innocent man was gunned down by a thug with a badge because of the color of his skin and you keep attacking him. Sad really.

I don't think it's 430. It's 420, right?

Considering that the Feds went through this (read Holder and Obama) and didn't find any grounds for action you really look worse than usual. If you think Holder is a white supremacist then now is your chance to say so.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Why the h*ll would a murder victim be charged with any crime. Disgusting, here an innocent man was gunned down by a thug with a badge because of the color of his skin and you keep attacking him. Sad really.

Hey, I think you got the wrong thread.

This is about the death of Mike Brown, the 18yo idiot thug from St. Louis who attacked a cop, tried to take his gun, then charged at him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey, I think you got the wrong thread.

This is about the death of Mike Brown, the 18yo idiot thug from St. Louis who attacked a cop, tried to take his gun, then charged at him.

When this all started we had people coming to conclusions in advance of an investigation. Some stuff was pretty wild, and no one was more off the wall than DCal. I see he's regressed.

 

[cabri]

Why the h*ll would a murder victim be charged with any crime. Disgusting, here an innocent man was gunned down by a thug with a badge because of the color of his skin and you keep attacking him. Sad really.

Awful lot of brainless and incorrect assumptions in this post. You can't seriously be this stupid.

You are talking about one who worships NK as the ideal living/political climate:\

 

[x26]

Dude, St. Louis is a black city. I'm white, and everyday it's obvious to me that I'm a minority.

What's funny is after all this, yesterday I had a 'get out of the street' moment with a cop.

I was crossing Tucker Blvd, which is a busy St. Louis street in downtown. 4 lanes each way. Traffic was stopped, so I just ran across the street rather than go down to the corner.

As I get to the other side, sure enough I realize the large black man walking down the street was a Sheriff's deputy. Large black dude, and rather built. We're talking like Dwayne Johnson.

He shook his head at me and said 'you really need to use the cross walk'.

You know what didn't cross my mind? Telling this large, armed man to fuck off. And most certainly not fighting with him for telling me what to do. I said "i'm sorry", and put my head down in obedient shame and tried to avoid eye contact. Why? BECAUSE I WASNT GOING TO FUCK WITH A COP over something so fricking petty.

So.. white guy, in street illegaly being instructed by a black cop, to get out of the road.

Sound familiar?

You better "Check Your Privilege"

 

[werepossum]

I highly doubt it will burn but regardless, if we allowed mob rule to dictate how and which laws are enforced the LEO would be going to trial.

I still don't see the town burning if he indicts all people who claimed they were there but were in fact not and can be proven not to have been at the scene. Perjury is usually hard to prove but claiming you witnessed something when you were on the other side of town is a slam dunk.

Can he prove she was on the other side of town at the time?

As far as mob rule, that this went to the grand jury at all was mob rule. Considering the good ol' boy network commonly agreed to exist between prosecutors and cops (who MUST be on the same side for the legal system to work) mob rule is pretty much our only protection against rogue or simply criminally wrong cops, at least until we have some sort of automatically triggered system in place.

Agreed.

I question whether she could actually be convicted of perjury. She has mental health issues and is known to be delusional. This sets her up for the defense that she didn't have any intent to lie. I.e., she really believes what she says.

I question whether it's moral or ethical to pursue perjury charges. Basically, you're convicting her for her mental health issues. That's wrong, particularly so given that the AG appears to have had prior knowledge of her mental health issues.

I question whether it's good policy etc. Why waste the time and resources? I doubt she'd be given jail/prison time. If he could get jail/prison time for her, why bother? Jail/prison costs taxpayers money. That would be a waste.

The PR would be bad. It would look like selective prosecution. That's not good for a number of reasons.

Fern

The main reason I'd say prosecute her is that she has a history of making such (apparently) racially driven accusations. That needs to stop. I high doubt at this point that any prosecutor would accept her as a credible witness even were she undeniably a witness to an event, but we don't need people like her raising racial animus and generally screwing around with the system.

I don't think it's 430. It's 420, right?

Considering that the Feds went through this (read Holder and Obama) and didn't find any grounds for action you really look worse than usual. If you think Holder is a white supremacist then now is your chance to say so.

Judging by this poster it's 430 if you lace it with LSD, PCP, acid and perhaps a bit o' ergot.

 

[TechBoyJK]

crickets.. crickets..