Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 16, 2014 11:16:26 GMT -5
"I'm not going to defend the prosecutor, but I'm not also going to make baseless accusations either without any proof." Have you read through the proceedings? The prosecutor aggressively cross examines witnesses whose testimony contradicts the police narrative. When it comes to Wilson, he treats him with kid gloves, asks soft, leading questions, and doesn't challenge him on inconsistencies in his story. It's in stark contrast to his tactics with other witnesses. He should have recused himself in the first place. This has been discussed on this board, across tons of news stories, commentaries, analyses. I assume that since you're posting so much on this subject it means you have a decent knowledge of the incident, but apparently that's not your style. "And you never answered my question on what you would do if you were the officer in the hypothetical situation described above." Well the thing is I'm not a trained law enforcement officer. So my answer hardly seems relevant as anything other than an emotional distraction. "I probably should stop posting in this thread, but I want to make sure people hear the other side of the story." Well that was my point, what IS the other side of the story. You just keep challenging other people telling them they don't know what they know and be open minded and you're just here to tell the other side of the story. What are you telling? I don't see you offering the other side of the story, just pedantry and lame appeals to reason as if everyone else is being loony about things. Your arguments are way less substantive than you're pretending, and you're treating other people's views as if they are inherently more unreasonable than yours. You're not being the voice of reason, you're expressing your opinion. When people confuse the two, it can be obnoxious. I'd respect your opinion if you offered it. So what about that chain of custody for the evidence? What about Wilson's laughable testimony? What about the difference in treatment of witnesses? What about the inconsistencies in Wilson's story between reports? What about the prosecutor not recusing himself (if he thought this was so politically charged that it needed to go to a grand jury, clearly he was not the man to be running it)? Regarding the prosecutor possibly recusing himself, I think the best avenue is for DA's offices to have special prosecutors on staff whose job it is to handle cases involving law enforcement or other public officials. That would be the best way to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I do agree it could be a conflict of interest for a prosecutor to be asked to prosecute someone they've potentially worked with closely over the years. You obviously don't want to hear my side of the story, but that doesn't mean I haven't presented a number of arguments for the other side. I have explained federal use of force policies, use of force case law, how law enforcement officers are trained on use of force, and my own personal experiences with use of force incidents. These are specific examples based on fact and law; please explain how these constitute "pedantry and lame appeals"? By "lame appeals," are your referring to my appeal that people wait until all the facts come out and both sides are presented before judging a situation? That certainly sounds like a reasonable and logical appeal to me. I'm not confusing reason and my opinion; I've presented both. I presented laws and facts, and I've also presented my own personal experiences and opinions. And I think I've been pretty clear on which is which. I'm not going to either defend or criticize the evidentiary chain of command or the prosecutor's handling of the grand jury proceeding. I was not personally present for the gathering of evidence, or the grand jury proceeding, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to definitively take a side. I also suspect you weren't present for either, so I'm not sure you're qualified to critique them either. As for the use of force aspect, I've been clear in my previous posts that my support is conditional based on the veracity of the statements. And just because some talking heads on CNN criticize something, doesn't mean it's true. You seem very convinced the prosecutor intentionally sabotaged the case; have you ever participated in a grand jury proceeding? Have you worked as a prosecutor? Have you received formal training on DOJ use of force policies and case law? Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions, but my biggest disappointment on this issue is the media's failure to present all sides and facts. From the coverage I've seen, there hasn't been any discussion of relevant case law, use of force policies, and use of force training. All I've seen is self-professed experts, activists, journalists, and defense attorneys all on one side of the issue. Serious question: have you had any negative personal experiences with law enforcement?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 16, 2014 11:53:27 GMT -5
"I have explained federal use of force policies, use of force case law..." That's my point. You're not commenting on whether or not the incident or grand jury were handled properly, you just keep telling people how these processes work and that nobody really knows what's going on. People have formed opinions on this incident and how it handled. You just keep asking them further questions and telling them the law. As if nobody but you understands how information works.
"By "lame appeals," are your referring to my appeal that people wait until all the facts come out and both sides are presented before judging a situation?" Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The facts have come out and both sides have presented them. You keep telling people they don't know anything. There's a ton of information on this - the incidents are over unless the feds get involved. Do we have your permission to discuss yet?
"I'm not going to either defend or criticize the evidentiary chain of command or the prosecutor's handling of the grand jury proceeding. I was not personally present for the gathering of evidence, or the grand jury proceeding, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to definitively take a side. I also suspect you weren't present for either, so I'm not sure you're qualified to critique them either." Lol. Well let me explain it to you - they completely botched the evidentiary chain of command. I was not there personally, true. In fact, I am not at most events that turn into national conversations. However, I don't pretend to lack the ability to make an informed opinion. You keep 'not defending or criticizing' things that just happen to not line up with the official narrative.
As for your last paragraph, which is another lame appeal that completely calls into question the ability of anyone to have an opinion unless they've been directly involved with the incident - yes, actually I have participated in grand jury proceedings and I have worked as a prosecutor (second seat). One of my parents was a prosecutor and I grew up having discussions about these issues at the dinner table since I was a child. I've brought up very specific reasons why I think this case has been mishandled on this and other threads. Maybe instead of attacking my credibility, you can go after my arguments. I have had some negative experiences with law enforcement. I've also had some great ones around the dinner table, at holidays, on the streets, and professionally. Could you try a little harder to discount my views, I don't think you're being blatant enough about it.
"All I've seen is self-professed experts, activists, journalists, and defense attorneys all on one side of the issue." There aren't necessarily 'sides' to an issue. I hear apologists for violent police calling everyone else's motivation into question, but lacking any sort of ability for self-analysis. Maybe, just maybe people are upset at these unarmed Americans being killed with impunity by police. I guess technically that is one 'side' to the discussion. What side are you on exactly?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Dec 16, 2014 14:03:59 GMT -5
Regarding the prosecutor possibly recusing himself, I think the best avenue is for DA's offices to have special prosecutors on staff whose job it is to handle cases involving law enforcement or other public officials. That would be the best way to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I do agree it could be a conflict of interest for a prosecutor to be asked to prosecute someone they've potentially worked with closely over the years Is there a reason that a special prosecutor would need to be connected to a DA's office? In the NY proposal, the special prosecutor would be part of the Attorney General's office, and it looks like when NY did this in the 1970's, the special prosecutor was a separate entity from the DA's offices and all of the DA's opposed the move ( www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-11/how-special-prosecutors-can-help-bring-police-to-justice). Decoupling a special prosecutor from the DA's office seems like a no-brainer in terms of avoiding conflicts of interest.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 16, 2014 15:40:09 GMT -5
Regarding the prosecutor possibly recusing himself, I think the best avenue is for DA's offices to have special prosecutors on staff whose job it is to handle cases involving law enforcement or other public officials. That would be the best way to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I do agree it could be a conflict of interest for a prosecutor to be asked to prosecute someone they've potentially worked with closely over the years Is there a reason that a special prosecutor would need to be connected to a DA's office? In the NY proposal, the special prosecutor would be part of the Attorney General's office, and it looks like when NY did this in the 1970's, the special prosecutor was a separate entity from the DA's offices and all of the DA's opposed the move ( www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-11/how-special-prosecutors-can-help-bring-police-to-justice). Decoupling a special prosecutor from the DA's office seems like a no-brainer in terms of avoiding conflicts of interest. Yes, I agree. I should have said Attorney General's office because then it would be in a completely different office. Good catch.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 16, 2014 16:29:49 GMT -5
"I have explained federal use of force policies, use of force case law..." That's my point. You're not commenting on whether or not the incident or grand jury were handled properly, you just keep telling people how these processes work and that nobody really knows what's going on. People have formed opinions on this incident and how it handled. You just keep asking them further questions and telling them the law. As if nobody but you understands how information works. "By "lame appeals," are your referring to my appeal that people wait until all the facts come out and both sides are presented before judging a situation?" Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The facts have come out and both sides have presented them. You keep telling people they don't know anything. There's a ton of information on this - the incidents are over unless the feds get involved. Do we have your permission to discuss yet? "I'm not going to either defend or criticize the evidentiary chain of command or the prosecutor's handling of the grand jury proceeding. I was not personally present for the gathering of evidence, or the grand jury proceeding, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to definitively take a side. I also suspect you weren't present for either, so I'm not sure you're qualified to critique them either." Lol. Well let me explain it to you - they completely botched the evidentiary chain of command. I was not there personally, true. In fact, I am not at most events that turn into national conversations. However, I don't pretend to lack the ability to make an informed opinion. You keep 'not defending or criticizing' things that just happen to not line up with the official narrative. As for your last paragraph, which is another lame appeal that completely calls into question the ability of anyone to have an opinion unless they've been directly involved with the incident - yes, actually I have participated in grand jury proceedings and I have worked as a prosecutor (second seat). One of my parents was a prosecutor and I grew up having discussions about these issues at the dinner table since I was a child. I've brought up very specific reasons why I think this case has been mishandled on this and other threads. Maybe instead of attacking my credibility, you can go after my arguments. I have had some negative experiences with law enforcement. I've also had some great ones around the dinner table, at holidays, on the streets, and professionally. Could you try a little harder to discount my views, I don't think you're being blatant enough about it. "All I've seen is self-professed experts, activists, journalists, and defense attorneys all on one side of the issue." There aren't necessarily 'sides' to an issue. I hear apologists for violent police calling everyone else's motivation into question, but lacking any sort of ability for self-analysis. Maybe, just maybe people are upset at these unarmed Americans being killed with impunity by police. I guess technically that is one 'side' to the discussion. What side are you on exactly? I think you make some decent points in your response. Hopefully, I can clarify some of my positions that perhaps weren't articulated properly. I'm not taking sides on the evidentiary issues or the grand jury proceedings because I don't feel I've read enough to make definitive statements on those two aspects of the case. I think what I was trying to say that regardless of how much information is in the media, there is still a lot that is not. There is no video of the incident, and witness statements can be unreliable and contradictory. That's been my experience over the years and that's why I didn't want to judge that proceeding. Certainly, grand jury proceedings can vary by jurisdiction and whether it's federal or state. This particular grand jury proceeding was not anything like I've experienced personally, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions about it. Since you were a prosecutor, what do you feel were the problems with this grand jury proceeding? You're wrong in accusing me of defending any type of official narrative. I've seen too much corruption and incompetence in the government to ever take any "official narrative" at face value. However, I also don't like the media narrative which in my opinion is anti-law enforcement without presenting information regarding use of force case law and policies as a counterpoint to the theme that you can't shoot an unarmed man. It's just wrong to perpetuate the myth that an officer can only use deadly force if the suspect has his own weapon. There are plenty of examples of the legal use of deadly force when a suspect doesn't have his own weapon. You were a prosecutor so I'm sure you're familiar with the Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, which set the standard for police use of force based on "objective reasonableness." This is the standard that resulted from that case: The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The objective test requires the court to envision a reasonable officer and ask this question: Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, could such an officer believe that the force was reasonable? This is the kind of information I wish was more in the national discussion instead of an overly simplistic observation that since the suspect was unarmed, deadly force wasn't justified. If we use this "Objective Reasonableness" standard, then I think the NY officer fails this test. However, in the Ferguson case, I think the answer is more difficult. Brown definitely assaulted Wilson, but the real question in my opinion (as a reasonable officer) is whether Brown tried to take his gun. If he did, I think Wilson was correct in using deadly force. If he didn't, it would be harder to prove deadly force was objectively reasonable. Wilson would have to be able to articulate that since Brown was so much bigger and stronger than him, and was physically overpowering him, that he could have killed him with his bare hands. And in your last paragraph, yes, I see what you're trying to do...I assume you're calling me one of the "apologists for violent police" and suggesting I'm on the other side of people upset about "unarmed Americans being killed with impunity by police." I'm no apologist for anyone who commits an unlawful violent act. Whether they are law enforcement or a private citizen, they deserve to be held accountable. However, I think we should all do what the Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to do: look at each incident separately based on the "totality of the facts and circumstances." I don't know why you'd think I'm an apologist for violent police as I've made it very clear I didn't support the actions of the NY officer based on the totality of those circumstances. However, I think we can all agree the Ferguson incident is incredibly different. And as I've said before, I'm simply commenting on the use of force issue in these two cases. I respect your personal experience and opinions, but I definitely disagree with some of your conclusions about me and this issue. But I do think an honest, informed debate on this issue is very important. Unfortunately, I think that is difficult because of the way the media reports on these incidents.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 17, 2014 10:36:50 GMT -5
I appreciate the response. I think we still end up on different sides, but I understand where you're coming from.
I think one of the frustrations, and I don't mean this directed at you, is that many people use some of the indefinite aspects of the incidents (witness statements, media coverage, etc.) to claim that there's not enough information generally, or that there will never be, to have an informed view of how it went down.
Personally, my view on Ferguson is from reading the grand jury release. The prosecutor's approach to it, from being so easy on Wilson to not questioning any of the gaps in evidence gathering or handling thereof, especially compared to how he went after other witnesses, just doesn't pass the legal smell test. Of course prosecutorial discretion is a pretty large thing to be able to hide behind, and many people are using the outcome of the grand jury to claim that there is no more need for discussion.
Challenge the police narrative, and people will barrage you with racist comments and the standard talking points. Obviously I'm not talking about you, but it made my reaction to certain points you brought up closer to you fitting that mold, and not on the exact points you were making. I apologize for that.
Ultimately, I just don't see the 'issue' here. The police are killing unarmed Americans and not facing any punishment. There are racial elements involved. There is an ugly cult-like aspect of police culture involved. There is a general distrust of government involved (and I don't mean old white people 'keep your hands off my medicare' style, I mean actual existential conflict between some Americans and the police). It's very true that each incident needs to be analyzed and discussed on its particular merits. People on this board are generally pretty good at doing that.
But the one consistent thing across these, pretty much no matter what the particular circumstances are, is that the police go unpunished. It's a serious problem that doesn't just stop with police homicides. Pepper spray and flash bang grenades are commonly used. They're using LRAPs in New York City!!!!! The people are being treated worse and worse by the state, but because black people are the face of victimhood, conservatives don't care. I'm really uninterested in the conservative 'we're not racist, how dare you' response to that. If they actually cared about government power and overreach, the killing of unarmed Americans with impunity should probably be something they care more about than say, a freeloading racist rancher who has lost his case in the courts each time. That got armed militiamen to his side. Police kill a few black men and you'll somehow get the entire conservative movement on the side of fatal use of force against Americans. It's painfully consistent.
So while each case needs to be analyzed on its own merits, the trend has consistently been authority wins. It becomes politicized, peaceful protestors are mocked and demonized (as non-right wing protestors always are), conservatives jump on the side of government power, and the details of the case are obfuscated and eventually don't matter, because it becomes political theater. People are tired of it, and the trend is consistent enough with this being a legitimate issue to protest even if there are some caveats or unanswered questions about exactly what happened.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 17, 2014 11:13:07 GMT -5
Why was #JohnCrawford shot dead for picking up a toy gun in Walmart when this is what's happening in Kroger?
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 17, 2014 18:16:54 GMT -5
I appreciate the response. I think we still end up on different sides, but I understand where you're coming from. I think one of the frustrations, and I don't mean this directed at you, is that many people use some of the indefinite aspects of the incidents (witness statements, media coverage, etc.) to claim that there's not enough information generally, or that there will never be, to have an informed view of how it went down. Personally, my view on Ferguson is from reading the grand jury release. The prosecutor's approach to it, from being so easy on Wilson to not questioning any of the gaps in evidence gathering or handling thereof, especially compared to how he went after other witnesses, just doesn't pass the legal smell test. Of course prosecutorial discretion is a pretty large thing to be able to hide behind, and many people are using the outcome of the grand jury to claim that there is no more need for discussion. Challenge the police narrative, and people will barrage you with racist comments and the standard talking points. Obviously I'm not talking about you, but it made my reaction to certain points you brought up closer to you fitting that mold, and not on the exact points you were making. I apologize for that. Ultimately, I just don't see the 'issue' here. The police are killing unarmed Americans and not facing any punishment. There are racial elements involved. There is an ugly cult-like aspect of police culture involved. There is a general distrust of government involved (and I don't mean old white people 'keep your hands off my medicare' style, I mean actual existential conflict between some Americans and the police). It's very true that each incident needs to be analyzed and discussed on its particular merits. People on this board are generally pretty good at doing that. But the one consistent thing across these, pretty much no matter what the particular circumstances are, is that the police go unpunished. It's a serious problem that doesn't just stop with police homicides. Pepper spray and flash bang grenades are commonly used. They're using LRAPs in New York City!!!!! The people are being treated worse and worse by the state, but because black people are the face of victimhood, conservatives don't care. I'm really uninterested in the conservative 'we're not racist, how dare you' response to that. If they actually cared about government power and overreach, the killing of unarmed Americans with impunity should probably be something they care more about than say, a freeloading racist rancher who has lost his case in the courts each time. That got armed militiamen to his side. Police kill a few black men and you'll somehow get the entire conservative movement on the side of fatal use of force against Americans. It's painfully consistent. So while each case needs to be analyzed on its own merits, the trend has consistently been authority wins. It becomes politicized, peaceful protestors are mocked and demonized (as non-right wing protestors always are), conservatives jump on the side of government power, and the details of the case are obfuscated and eventually don't matter, because it becomes political theater. People are tired of it, and the trend is consistent enough with this being a legitimate issue to protest even if there are some caveats or unanswered questions about exactly what happened. Yes, I think we finally do understand each other's perspectives. It's obvious we've both had different life experiences and those have shaped our views of this issue. I may not completely agree with your first 4 paragraphs here, but I appreciate your opinions and the rational way in which you present them. And I completely agree that there is mistrust of the government, and that it is prevalent on all parts of the political spectrum. This is not a good time to be working for the federal government, trust me! I tell people every day, if you think you hate the government now you should come work for them! However, I think the thing that bothers me is the stereotyping of police as racist and brutal. I can't speak for others' experiences, but in two decades I just have never seen that at all. I'm not naive, or blindly protecting colleagues, I just honestly have never seen an incident of excessive force or witnessed a racially motivated incident by a law enforcement officer. I've worked for a number of agencies, I've worked with literally hundreds of federal/state/local agencies in every state in the country, and I haven't seen this supposed epidemic. However, I've personally been subjected to verbal abuse and racist insults on many occasions by suspects/bystanders, etc. In my experience, and the experience of hundreds of other agents and officers I talk with, there is an epidemic that is getting worse...but it's the increase in disrespect, disobedience, and violence directed at law enforcement officers. I'm sure people will disagree with that, but that's been my experience. From talking to older law enforcement officers, years ago excessive force and racial profiling was much more prevalent and it was done with impunity. However, if you talk to any law enforcement officer they will probably all tell you the same thing: the pendulum has definitely swung the other way in recent years. The training on proper use of force/profiling, etc. has gotten much better and even though it may not seem like it to some, there are more consequences now for violations than many years ago. Plus, there is intense scrutiny by the media, politicians, activists, and anyone with a cell phone camera. This scrutiny may be off-base and unfair at times, but the good aspect is it has made it very difficult for bad actors to continue with improper techniques. I think the problem is that the media didn't cover police use of force issues as frequently in the past, but right now are desperate to find the latest allegation of excessive force. This emphasis by the media on this issue makes it seem like incidents are increasing, but in my opinion it's just the reporting of them that's increased. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these incidents don't occur or that they shouldn't be scrutinized, just that I don't agree with the media's assessment that these incidents are increasing in number. However, it still is good for everyone to have this discussion and understand all the different points of view. I'm glad you brought up LRAPs and other weapons/equipment that you feel may be unnecessary. Another aspect of this debate that the media has sensationalized is the supposed "militarization" of the police. I think everyone can agree that law enforcement has enhanced weaponry and body armor from even just 20 years ago. But I completely disagree with the media's assertion this weaponry is unnecessary and can be used to oppress and intimidate law abiding citizens. The reason for the enhanced weaponry is very simple: criminals kept improving their weaponry and the police had to play catch up. Wouldn't you want the police to have the same caliber weapons as the criminals? The watershed event was the North Hollywood bank shootout with the two robbers in full body armor and automatic assault rifles. 100 cops with pistols and revolvers couldn't penetrate their armor or stop these two guys, so the cops had to go to a nearby gun store and grab a bunch of high-powered rifles. How ridiculous that 100 police officers were outgunned by two bank robbers. If you were going to arrest a suspect who is in the Russian mafia, would you want to be armed only with a nice little .38 revolver? I don't think most Americans realize how heavily armed many of these criminal groups are these days. The Mexican drug cartels operating inside our country, MS-13, many different international organized criminal groups, street gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs are better armed than the militaries of some countries. I also have to disagree with your stereotyping of conservatives/Republicans. I've known many Democrats who are incredibly racist, and many Republicans who are extremely tolerant. For the record, I'm neither...I hate Democrat and Republican politicians equally... Again, these are just my personal observations from the past two decades. I'm sure others have different experiences. But I've worked in the public sector and the private sector, for law enforcement agencies and non-law enforcement agencies, and in my experience law enforcement officers are the most honest, honorable, brave, selfless, and patriotic people I've ever met. Along with many colleagues, I've risked my life, and almost lost my life, many times protecting this country and its citizens. That's why it makes me so upset when I feel all law enforcement officers are unfairly stereotyped and labeled. I'm not at all defending the bad actors or the use of excessive force, just the unfair generalization perpetuated by some people and the media.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Dec 17, 2014 19:45:19 GMT -5
Witness 40 is a lying racist who was nowhere near the shooting. www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236Since posters are speaking about the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, has anyone read Witness #40 testimony of the altercation which collaborates with Officer Wilson's? Conservatives or viewers of Fox News may be familiar with quotes from this witness as Sean Hannity has quoted her numerous times via his show. The famous quote being: " The big kid turned around and had his arms out with an attitude and the cop just stood there. Dang, if that kid not start running right at the cop like a football player, head down." Direct quote from Witness #40 testimony and submitted as evidence to the "Grand Jury" by Ferguson's District Attorney Robert P. McCulloch.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 18, 2014 10:50:03 GMT -5
Witness 40 is a lying racist who was nowhere near the shooting. www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236Since posters are speaking about the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, has anyone read Witness #40 testimony of the altercation which collaborates with Officer Wilson's? Conservatives or viewers of Fox News may be familiar with quotes from this witness as Sean Hannity has quoted her numerous times via his show. The famous quote being: " The big kid turned around and had his arms out with an attitude and the cop just stood there. Dang, if that kid not start running right at the cop like a football player, head down." Direct quote from Witness #40 testimony and submitted as evidence to the "Grand Jury" by Ferguson's District Attorney Robert P. McCulloch. Oops! How long before she's indicted for perjury?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 20, 2014 20:29:38 GMT -5
Sadly, there are now two more men in NYC that can't breathe. I wonder if De Blasio will attend their funerals.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Dec 20, 2014 22:08:39 GMT -5
Amazing to me how a Police Union can turn a horrible tragedy like this and natural rallying event into a reason to dislike Police Unions.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Dec 20, 2014 22:42:13 GMT -5
Sadly, there are now two more men in NYC that can't breathe. I wonder if De Blasio will attend their funerals. Really? These officers are dead a few hours and people are falling all over themselves to point fingers of blame and disgust at politicians & protestors instead of praying for these officer's families.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 21, 2014 0:09:10 GMT -5
Sadly, there are now two more men in NYC that can't breathe. I wonder if De Blasio will attend their funerals. Really? These officers are dead a few hours and people are falling all over themselves to point fingers of blame and disgust at politicians & protestors instead of praying for these officer's families. I didn't realize the two are mutually exclusive.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Dec 21, 2014 22:07:58 GMT -5
Really? These officers are dead a few hours and people are falling all over themselves to point fingers of blame and disgust at politicians & protestors instead of praying for these officer's families. I didn't realize the two are mutually exclusive. It's not, but let's at least be honest about what is going on here. Police Unions have staked out the ground that "supporting police" and holding them accountable for mistakes are actually mutually exclusive. Wear a shirt wanting justice for Tamir Rice? Police union demands an apology ( www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cleveland-police-union-head-tamir-rice-shirt-pathetic) Wear a shirt "Hands up Don't Shoot"? Police union demands an apology ( www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/11/30/stl-police-officers-association-condemns-rams-display/19721979/) Tell your son to do everything a police officer says because it could be misinterpreted? Police union wants to ban you from funerals because even though that is exactly the behavior they want, the way you said it kinda sorta makes them look bad.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 21, 2014 22:29:52 GMT -5
That's pretty much the public union playbook.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 23, 2014 13:52:09 GMT -5
What! A union standing up for its members? No way. Who knew TC was actually Scott Walker?
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Dec 23, 2014 14:30:29 GMT -5
Oops! How long before she's indicted for perjury? Unless the Federal Govt. moves in, I doubt Ferguson's District Attorney Robert P. McCulloch would press perjury charges.
Further note: After Witness 40 gave her testimony to the DA's office and the FBI, Robert McCulloch still submitted her testimony as evidence to the Grand Jury.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 23, 2014 15:05:23 GMT -5
Oops! How long before she's indicted for perjury? Further note: After Witness 40 gave her testimony to the DA's office and the FBI, Robert McCulloch still submitted her testimony as evidence to the Grand Jury.
At least he didn't discriminate, providing several known liars as witnesses against Officer Wilson.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 23, 2014 15:15:20 GMT -5
Further note: After Witness 40 gave her testimony to the DA's office and the FBI, Robert McCulloch still submitted her testimony as evidence to the Grand Jury.
At least he didn't discriminate, providing several known liars as witnesses against Officer Wilson. Of course, he attempted to find holes in many witnesses' stories. Wish he had done the same for Wilson.
|
|