On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 1:00:27 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It wasn't just presented to a grand jury. The FBI conducted a full
investigation. Eric Holder could have brought a case, had there been
*any* justification, *any* basis for doing so. The fact that he and
Obama didn't speaks volumes about the truth.
As to the witness count, I'm sure your numbers are BS. For
starters, several of the witnesses changed their stories multiple
times, had no credibility. Several others admitted they were
totally lying, had not really seen it, etc. But none of that matters
to the BLM or you. Just ignore reality and go with the BS narrative,
one that was made up before the body was even cold or any investigation
had been conducted. We had the full investigation, including forensics,
that fully supported the officer's version of events. Case closed,
but the black lies go on.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:23:14 -0800 (PST), trader_4
I posted the links to the official records months ago when this was a
hot topic. That you choose to ignore the actual facts is your
problem, not mine. The facts were presented to you. Holder can't
bring a case for murder here. It's the states issue.
?> >> >Wrong. The DA is required by law to present Exculpatory Evidence to ?> >> >the Grand Jury.
. . . grand juries normally hear only the evidence and witnesses selected by
the prosecutor. There is no constitutional requirement that exculpatory
evidence be presented to the grand jury, United States v. Williams, 504 U.S.
36 (1992), and it often isn't.
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 10:53:31 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
No one said Holder can bring a case for murder. But he certainly
can bring a case for civil right violations by the police, which is
exactly what it would be if the cop had gunned down an innocent
black guy with his hands up. The fact that he didn't speaks for
itself. But Black Lies Matter.
You keep mixing up two issues. One is whether an killing took place
and whether someone should be charged with it. The other is whether a
civil rights violation occurred. You can have the first without the
second. Holder only deals with the second.
And you continue to ignore the fact that in the eyes of the Feds (and
Pols) half a loaf is better than none. The civil rights violation is a
heavy fist to bring down on a government agent (or anyone else, for that
matter) You seem to think it's a parking ticket. It's not.
It's also easier to prove up than homicide and yet... for all their
weeping, wailing and innuendo the Feds walked away from this case.
There's no doubt that a killing took place. The issue is justification.
The St Louis DA and Grand Jury did not think there was. If there was,
the Feds would have and should have brought the civil rights violation
charges and they didn't. Their bringing the civil rights case would
have in no way impeded or precluded state prosecution of Wilson for
murder, manslaughter, or anything else.
The bottom line is that even the US Attorney's office, openly hostile to
law enforcement in this context walked away from this sham of BLM
You've told us what you think. No one is guessing. Lots of people
with years of experience said the DA handled this case terribly and
presented a biased view. The DA admitted he put people on the stand
he thought were lying. When was the last time you saw a prosecutor
say he purposely presented testimony from people he thought were
Watch this and it's all laid out. It's damning to the DA
The grand jury is NOT a trial. It is NOT there to determine innocence
or guilt. It's only purpose is to determine whether there is enough
evidence to warrant a charge. If the DA presents witnesses he KNOWS
are lying what do you think his motives are? They sure as hell aren't
to present a coherent case.
If asshole crusher doesn't get any opposing posts then maybe he will stop
littering the neighborhood. I don't have enough time to read all his crap
and have given up. He's got his own opinion and don't confuse him with
facts. Over & out.
This message has been cleaned by MessageCleaner.exe v2.17
I remember in high school these two students-guy and gal (dating each other)
would pull the pranks, notes, lies, etc. The teacher warned them if they did
it again they would be disciplined by a boot in the ass. Seeing a challenge
they both acted out again. Sure enough the punishment was carried out,
right at the time in the classroom. Both got the boot. The couples
miscalculation was that the teacher was the soccer & asst. football coach.
Well placed goals!
Unknown to us (kids) he had a reputation for that. At the start of the
semester when he laid down the rules he didn't clearly state this would be
the punishment but rather there would be consequences of actions.
I never heard of any repercussions but they behaved from then on.
In my remembrance of this I recall I really liked his class and learned from
him without really applying myself. Got excellent grades.
Then there is the male teacher that would have the girls sit in his lap. I
didn't even hear or imagine or comprehend what sexual abuse was. One day he
wasn't there. Heard no facts or rumors. Probably pensioned him off.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:18:08 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
That's true. Most didn't want to get paddled although a few saw it as
a source of pride. It was as much physiological as physical. What we
have now is NO escalation of "force" in an educational sense or
setting. The teacher can't do a damn thing so things boil till they
call the cop, who is the only one who can lay hands on a student. And
the cops feel no restraint whatsoever, all their training is to beat
people into submission. It should have been handled without the cop
and 30 years ago it would have been EVERY TIME. We do the same thing
in our schools we do in society, instead of fixing the root causes we
just add more and more laws and more and more police to FORCE you to
obey. That's not a strategy for long term success. It's hardly the
way anyone would run their business if they wanted it to be a success.
Part of the problem is that we refuse to toss the bad kids out of
school because it's become a babysitting service. So there's no price
to pay if you're a "bad kid". And the blame lies with the liberals
and teachers unions.
I've talked to many teachers and they ALL say the same thing, they
have no authority in their class anymore, they not only can't tell the
kids anything, they can't say anything that might hurt the kids
delicate feelings, they can't get rid of the troublemakers, and when
it comes to actual teaching they have to stick exactly to pre-written
lesson plans, they have to point at and write things certain ways
because that federal grant the school got requires them to do it THAT
way. Most teachers HATE their job now and want out.
I watched interviews of the other students who were in the room. If a
child refused to put down their phone at home and come to dinner and
the parent upended the chair the child was in causing their head and
other body parts to smash into the floor sustaining injuries needing
treatment, and video of it was shown to the child protection folks is
there any doubt in your mind that the child would very likely be
removed, at least temporarily, from the home and the parents
investigated for child abuse? Kids have been removed for less. But
you condone this kind of abuse apparently. Not even the police chief
could stomach it but it's ok with many of the folks here. Says
something about you folks.
If it was a matter of a kid not putting down the phone I may agree with
you. This girl went beyond that and refused to do anything asked of
her. She also punched the officer. Do you allow your kids to punch
you? Defy you? Tell us, please how you would handle your 16 year old
daughter throwing a punch at you.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.