What does it say about the rest of the trial when we know the supposed prosecutor was purposely allowing false testimony from a psycho racist (in support of the defense)?

And as I recall, everyone in this forum knew in advance that there would be no civil rights case.

I believe the testimony of MB friend was allowed as well - which changed more than once IIRC.

I haven't gone to bat for the police in the Rice and Garner cases, so perhaps try evaluating each on a case by case basis?

The cop's testimony is that MB hulked up and charged headfirst into a storm of bullets, growing stronger as each bullet hit him. If that doesn't set of your bull**** alarm then I don't know what does.

That case was discussed ad nauseum in the thread, so I don't feel like continuing about it here. The bad guys won and it can't be reversed. The only good thing that came of it is people are more riled up now about cops murdering people, so we're possibly a little closer to broader change taking place.

I was the guy who repeatedly said that I trust in juries to come to fair decisions because I see it happen again and again. They hear the biased and unbiased witnesses of one side and also hear the biased and unbiased witnesses of the other side and surprisingly get to the truth of the matter.

I would have been happy to see them indict Wilson because I know that to do so the jury would have had to see solid reasons to back an indictment, and I was happy to see them not indict him because it means they saw good reason not to indict.

People in threads tend to focus on one fact and think it trumps everything else, but in truth it is the jury which has spent hours looking at lots of facts that best come to the right decision.

At some point a jury will get to consider the death of this girl and I am confident that they will get it right. I feel no reason to rush to judgment.

Except I don't trust a jury to get it right when they're intentionally being mislead by the "prosecutor" and presented with false information.

Edit: and they sure didn't get it right in the Eric Garner case, so no, I don't have much faith in general in a GJ's ability to indict a cop (edit: especially when the victim is a black [person/demon take your pick] ).

Actually that is a good example of people thinking one thing trumps all other facts, what they saw on the video.

But the GJ evaluated all the facts including some big ones:
The long time difference between time of video and time of death.
The health of Garner.
The law that one must know there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.


I wasn't on the jury, nor were you, but I know that they were not looking for one thing to trump all other information but were working to get to the truth. I trust their verdict more than any of the mostly uninformed conclusions declared with unjustified certainty of correctness on a public forum.

You, sir, are a patriot.

17 year old girl killed in the lobby of the police station in Longview, TX. Reportedly she "brandished a weapon" and attacked 3 officers but the police spokesman did not identify the type of weapon. The 3 officers were placed on paid leave.

http://www.news-journal.com/news/loc...26edddc56.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...cess-was-fair/

This was written before it was known that the prosecutor presented exculpatory testimony that any reasonable person would have strongly suspected was perjured.

I'm assuming you're talking about the racist lady(who was discredited by the same prosecution), but what about the witness that said MB was on his knees before Wilson shot him in the head?

Where would you have drawn the line? Hell DJ said MB didn't strike Wilson, Wilson shot MB in the back, and that MB wasn't going forward for the fatal blow. The physical evidence debunks all the those. Would you remove his testimony? Racist lady said that she had evidence. She was allowed to present it. It was then debunked and had no effect on the case.

From the beginning, the goal of this grand jury was to present all of the evidence to determine whether or not there was criminal intent. Ham sandwiches aside, this isn't typically what a grand jury does, so it's understandable when most people don't get the unusual process. Politicizing the event doesn't help with the rhetoric. From that, we get only 11 people weren't indicted out of 120k type statistics(or even repeating of debunked racist lady comments) that have nothing to do with this case but make for amazing headlines.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL cops hitting the civil forfeiture jackpot:

Fairfax SWAT team raids high stakes Great Falls poker game, seizes cash, terrifies players

I mean, is SWAT seriously needed here? You think some guy at a home game in one of America's richest neighborhoods is gonna shoot a cop over a $500 misdemeanor?

Yes, of course the prosecutor shouldn't present any evidence he believes to be false. Obviously.

I don't know how you think you're defending the integrity of this proceeding by pointing out that lots of likely-perjured testimony was presented in a freak proceeding that bears little resemblance to the last 120,000 grand jury cases.

Defending is not really my aim...closer to the opposite at least as far as integrity goes. Now that everything has come out, it's obvious that Wilson is/was never serving jail time. The grand jury on those grounds is a sham, though, the actual goal of the grand jury, that is a public/politicized trial of Darren Wilson, was a success(?), or at least exactly what it was made out to be: to determine whether he was guilty(unusual grand jury), not to present that he was(usual grand jury).

Witnesses are saying the car hit the cop after he blew the girl away. Watch how the "official" story by the police changes in the next couple days.

SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT! STAND BACK!

*Pepper sprays random people*

So, the drone that crashed into the white house lawn?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2094408

cliffnotes: pilot was a drunk government employee, no charges will be filed.

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency:

In 2013, a digital map provided by NGA misplaced Tubbataha Reef by eight miles, leading to USS Guardian's grounding. The NGA later admitted to human error.

If you added "and executioner" you could have made a good point.

My brain is spinning, how exactly does the bolded work? Resisting what arrest? Turtles all the way down sort of thing?

She should be grateful they didn't choke her to death

"Resisting arrest" in California includes interfering with cops, even if you are not the original target.

Also, not an "undercover police officer". Plain clothes cop.

In that case, the cop is probably going to get screwed for not following proper procedure. He should have beaten the **** out of her while repeatedly yelling, "Stop resisting!"

feared for his life obv

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/w...nowball-fight/

"Someone called about a gun" seems like a bolder strategy than the old standy "he was reaching for his waistband." Surely the calls are all recorded right?