Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, everybody goes to law school so they be a dumb fuck when asked about the law.
Yep, that's why they pass the bar exam because they don't know shit.
No cop ever killed anybody before so why would a lawyer ever look this shit up right?

When people this smart make mistakes this big it's because they think we are all fucking dumb.

Originally Posted by Axeman

Except as Dyna Mo pointed out above you:

"In fact, she corrected her blunder later:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to effect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out, what we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law . . . and so the statute for the use of force to effect an arrest in the State of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme, I'm sorry, United States Supreme Court cases. So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law. (Emphasis added)."

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

And that's just perfect isn't it; because now every dumb fuck in the world believes it was a mistake.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you actually think attorneys are smart?

you do realize the bell curve applies to law grads and the fucking bar right? well, I will explain to you what that means- that means ~50% of everyone who grads law school and passes the bar are on the wrongside of that curve. That means the barely did not flunk.

You think some ferguson Missouri assistant DA is smart because she passed law school and the bar?

dude, schister lawyers see you from a mile away huh.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you oughta be thanking your lucky fucking stars she blundered, this gives the DOJ even more fodder to open a case against wilson.

FTR, IMO this should have never gone to the grand jury it should have gone directly to trial.

Hopefully the DOJ will pick it up and make a case out of it.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Oh, so you freely admit that the people involved in the grand jury process were incompetent?

Well, we already know that.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I don't feel lucky that someone fucked up and someone else can fix it later, like maybe.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Oh, so you freely admit that the people involved in the grand jury process were incompetent?

Well, we already know that.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Yes, I freely admit that. In fact, I have serious issues with how they completely waxed past his eye witness testimony. He opens more questions than answers them but they did not even attempt to dig further by asking the hard questions, questions that certainly would have been asked him if he were standing trial.

on top of that, this prosecutorial misleading (unintentional or not) of the GJ. Even her attempt to clear the record was a blunder. she's over her head or something I don't know, nevertheless, I trust the DOJ will take it from here and Wilson will stand trial.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

DOJ actually doesn't have to do anything to get Wilson to trial.
All that is needed is for a trial judge to agree to hear the case.

The grand jury is just one way to see if a trial should occur, it's not needed at all by a judge to start a trial.

His trial could start tomorrow if a judge wanted it to.

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, everybody goes to law school so they be a dumb fuck when asked about the law.
Yep, that's why they pass the bar exam because they don't know shit.
No cop ever killed anybody before so why would a lawyer ever look this shit up right?

Originally Posted by dyna mo

hear what case? there is no case. that's what a grand jury is supposed to do, look at the evidence and decide if there is a case, they decided no case, i.e., there is no case for any trail judge to agree to hear. the DOJ can open a separate case though and that is what needs to happen here.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

His trial could start tomorrow if a judge wanted it to.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

From what I read on this page, the grand jury might not indict but the trial can proceed anyway if a judge thinks the case is strong.

How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

From what I read on this page, the grand jury might not indict but the trial can proceed anyway if a judge thinks the case is strong.

How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

Originally Posted by baddog

I have to wonder if you personally know anyone that has gone to law school.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Ok, I see. But what you mean is the prosecutor, not a judge, could continue the prosecution of a case regardless of a grand jury outcome.

Originally Posted by Horatio Caine

You are getting him confused

Originally Posted by baddog

I am sorry, do you have a link that supports that theory? Just for the record, a judge is not a prosecutor.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

well, he is emotional right now.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

You think some ferguson Missouri assistant DA is smart because she passed law school and the bar?

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Dude, I'm sipping bourbon and chilled out.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You are so full of hate.

One would like to think that the Missouri assistant DA would be... One of the top attorneys in the state. Although that might not say much being as it's Missouri.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Ok, I see. But what you mean is the prosecutor, not a judge, could continue the prosecution of a case regardless of a grand jury outcome.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, I fucked up and just assumed that a prosecutor would want the case to continue and ask a judge.

Now that was dumb of me in this case.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

context, not snippets.

::::::::::::

The message seems clear. Martin Luther King Jr. saw violence as a legitimate form of protest.

That assertion, however, couldn?t be more wrong.

King understood the cause of rioting in the mid ?60s, but he hardly approved of them.

King made his comment to Mike Wallace of CBS News in 1966 as his leadership and strategy of non-violence was being theatened by more militant activists like Stokely Carmichael.

?If every Negro in America turns their back on non-violence, I?m going to stand up as the lone voice and say this is the wrong way,? he said in a speech, then reiterated the point in the interview with Wallace.

?I think for the Negro to turn to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral,? he said.

Wallace pressed King, noting that younger leaders had a different approach, and King acknowledged the new leaders were advocating violence, a strategy that had its followers.

?I don?t think these leaders will be able to make a real dent in the Negro community in terms of swaying 22 million Negroes to this particular point of view. And I contend this cry of ?Black Power? is at bottom a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice the reality for the Negro.

?I think we?ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard and what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear the economic plight of the Negro poor which has worsened over the last few years,? he said.

?Riots are self defeating and socially destructive,? he said.

Originally Posted by Cherry7

The idea that violence does not work is laughable coming from the US government which has unleased more violence on the World and its own people than most others.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, I fucked up and just assumed that a prosecutor would want the case to continue and ask a judge.

Now that was dumb of me in this case.

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Do you think people with power give it up without a struggle?

Originally Posted by Horatio Caine

Don't let those whities discourage you. I find your posts very entertaining. Prosecutor, judge. Whats the difference?

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yeah, I fucked up and just assumed that a prosecutor would want the case to continue and ask a judge.

Now that was dumb of me in this case.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I hear ya man. A white cop killed a black dude so lets charge every black person we can with a crime to fix that.

Originally Posted by crockett

Why just arrest him, they should be arresting anyone they can identify. I'm all for people's right to assemble and protest, but they only assemble to loot and vandalize.

Originally Posted by John_Galbani

Wow, black people riot again in America?

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Are you actually this stupid?

OK, let me explain what I did to you here.

I accused the prosecutor of not wanting to prosecute the case by pretending that I fucked up by thinking a prosecutor would do that in this case.

Got it.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

10 race/black riots since 1980, your point?

Mass racial violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Horatio Caine

Just out of curiosity has there been any Indian, Asian or Latino riots since 1980's?

Originally Posted by Axeman

A prosecutor would never bring this case to trial, as its not winnable. Even Jeffery Tobin of CNN, had to agree after he went through what was presented to the grand jury. He said though he agreed its easy to get an indictment if wanted, its also his duty to not bring forth a case to a grand jury, that they know they can't win. And Tobin said there is no jury that would convict. And he was solidly in the Brown camp until he went through the evidence. Specifically the forensics, and the 6 or so witnesses that were never in the media, that he didn't know about, but pretty much backed up the forensics and Wilson's account of events.

As for the DOJ bringing a case, that's just never going to happen. Their burden of proof for a civil rights violation is WAY higher than a regular trial. They have to prove that Brown was killed because he was black, and that Wilson sought him out for this reason. That is never going to happen in this case. There is just nothing in the evidence to suggest this was the case. Especially since the most vocal witnesses at the start, were proved to be wrong based on forensics, but many also recanted and changed their testimonies and facts came out, such as the autopsy.

I could see the Brown family trying a civil case though. Don't think they win, but that is at least plausible.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I can examine a bullet wound and tell you 18,000 stories of how it got there; but a good eye witness is only going to tell you one story over and over again.

Certain wounds can be determined to have caused death and therefore would most likely be
the last shots fired;
but after that, it's just pulling shit out of one's ass to form a scenario of when and how each shot was fired.

If I took a human like manikin and posed it several times to shoot it as if I was in a struggle with it and recorded it on video tape; then I'd like to give it to 10 coroners to
tell me what happened to the manikin.
Not a single one of their scenarios would match to the video tape.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Really strange.... I saw the father of Michael Brown shouting "Burn this bitch down" during a riot and hours later a dozen buildings were on fire causing millions of dollars of damage. Why haven't they arrested him for inciting a riot?

I mean... He was the center of the protest and he was yelling out to everyone at the protest to "burn the bitch down" and that's exactly what they did.

Originally Posted by JJ Gold

Axl Rose was arrested for inciting a riot in St. Louis and all he did was go home early.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I can examine a bullet wound and tell you 18,000 stories of how it got there;

Originally Posted by JJ Gold

Axl Rose was arrested for inciting a riot in St. Louis and all he did was go home early.