Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Look up the definition of the term complicit (when used in a legal context). You'll see for yourself that they were not.

I'm far less willing than you to implicate Joe and Josephine Sixpack relaxing on their couch watching the Dallas Cowboys for not having personally investigated every detail of every drug arrest in their town. Chances are they've heard of the ravages of cocaine/narcotic abuse and they supported the arrest of (what a crooked cop made to appear as) drug dealers. That doesn't make them complicit or racist. It makes them normal.

Do you dig deeply into the details of every drug arrest made in your hometown? Are you personally responsible for each and every bad cop busted in your town?

Fine. You defend the most defensible persons available, Mr & Mrs Sixpack. Well, even the Sixpacks served as good citizens and true on all those juries that convicted all those coke dealers, wrongly. But they believed the heroic police, the professional prosecutors, and the honorable judges. Do you defend each and all of the latter, too?

Ask yourself why you rush to defend Mr. and Mrs Sixpack, while not even SEEING that you are avoiding the culpability of the criminal justice system in the Tulia cases?

Not to mention the criminal justice system everywhere else. Like, could it be that Tulia isn't a wild outlier, totally untypical of the rest of our civilization?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Grand juries are reliable, as much as they are at all, only when used for the limited purpose of acting as a check on over-zealous prosecutors. They have no ability at all to correct for under-zealous ones.

They still had far more information than anyone here, yet there are folks here comfortable characterizing the event as an execution or murder. Grand jurors are allowed to ask any questions they wish of the witnesses. Why are you so willing to assume that your fellow citizens are so cavalier with their responsibilities and were willing to be led around by the nose?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Fine. You defend the most defensible persons available, Mr & Mrs Sixpack. Well, even the Sixpacks served as good citizens and true on all those juries that convicted all those coke dealers, wrongly. But they believed the heroic police, the professional prosecutors, and the honorable judges. Do you defend each and all of the latter, too?

Ask yourself why you rush to defend Mr. and Mrs Sixpack, while not even SEEING that you are avoiding the culpability of the criminal justice system in the Tulia cases?

Not to mention the criminal justice system everywhere else. Like, could it be that Tulia isn't a wild outlier, totally untypical of the rest of our civilization?

Ain't hindsight beautiful?

BTW, you didn't respond to whether or not you personally investigate the details of every drug arrest in your community. I'm left assuming you don't. By your logic, you are accordingly complicit in the misdeeds of bad cops in your own community and any racism that may influenced or facilitated their misdeeds.

Catching corrupt cops ain't necessarily an easy thing. They know about the law, rules of evidence, court procedure, etc. Police corruption is a decidedly bad thing. It doesn't follow that it is an inherently racist thing.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Do you honestly feel that the grand jury didn't make any judgments as the relativity credibility of the 60 witnesses while weighing their testimony against the physical evidence (and their previous statements) during their 70 days reviewing this case? I don't.

Do you honestly feel that the prosecution team didn't make a concerted effort to cast a pall of doubt over any evidence casting Wilson's actions and testimony in a negative light? Do you feel that, conversely, they bent over backwards in casting their pet witnesses like McIlvoy in the best possible light?

Was allowing her testimony to run into a second day so that she could bring in her fictional journal done in the interest of justice?

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I'm sure they did. I'm just pointing out that some of the info you sneer at here might, on investigation, be quite relevant to a trial jury.

And I will continue to sneer upon things such as "a coworker told me Wilson was in the KKK," "there are whispers that Wilson is a pot-smoker," "Wilson's ex-wife hates him," and "Wilson's mother was a skank."

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Do [i]you[i/] honestly feel that the prosecution team didn't make a concerted effort to cast a pall of doubt over any evidence casting Wilson's actions and testimony in a negative light? Do you feel that, conversely, they bent over backwards in casting their pet witnesses like McIlvoy in the best possible light?

Was allowing her testimony to run into a second day so that she could bring in her fictional journal done in the interest of justice?

John

I don't know (and have no way of knowing). But I'm fully open to an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct if one is warranted.

[Rajoo]

There was a lot of information too that led up to the Iraq war but lacked credibility which very few questioned. Very same principle applies here. Lot of information but consider the sources and the vested interests. Ferguson PD, the DA who was under pressure to recuse himself and the Grand Jury process; wrought with conflicts of interest.

So you accept the testimony verbatim of a surgeon in a medical malpractice case? Or bring in other surgeons and guess whose side they will take? Hint: they too carry malpractice insurance and really cannot practice without it.

Now after the Grand Jury verdict in NY on the Garner case, would any informed rational citizen trust the Grand Jury process? That's your problem with the law and order types, strong arguments with a weak case and you have to keep repeating yourself. Rings hollow.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Like I said...don...good luck with getting a straight answer.

Finn...the dark prince of "...yes, but...". Catch it...right here on Political Chat.

The fucking answer finn is, no they don't receive equal treatment.

Put an officer in fear of his life? Get equal treatment.

Fucking apologists.

If I do what Brown did? I get shot, deservedly.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

There was a lot of information too that led up to the Iraq war but lacked credibility which very few questioned. Very same principle applies here. Lot of information but consider the sources and the vested interests. Ferguson PD, the DA who was under pressure to recuse himself and the Grand Jury process; wrought with conflicts of interest.

So you accept the testimony verbatim of a surgeon in a medical malpractice case? Or bring in other surgeons and guess whose side they will take? Hint: they too carry malpractice insurance and really cannot practice without it.

Now after the Grand Jury verdict in NY on the Garner case, would any informed rational citizen trust the Grand Jury process? That's your problem with the law and order types, strong arguments with a weak case and you have to keep repeating yourself. Rings hollow.

What's your solution?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

They still had far more information than anyone here, yet there are folks here comfortable characterizing the event as an execution or murder. Grand jurors are allowed to ask any questions they wish of the witnesses. Why are you so willing to assume that your fellow citizens are so cavalier with their responsibilities and were willing to be led around by the nose?

Why do you keep throwing strawmen at me? Why are you so very determined to make me wrong?