How a Grand Jury works:

1. Open Mic Contest
2. If there is reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused presented by the random people allowed to speak, then vote no bill!


GJGE Duffee

Irrelevant since he had THC in his system.

Please proceed, governor.

is duffee from smp?

that's the kind of forward thinking they need in their "when is it okay to kill a defenseless black person" thread

Thc lol.

I think he was joking.


I hope he was joking.

That's the type of joke people make at folks like Duffee so I'm a bit confused lol

Hard to really compare cases where the prosecutor actually believed in to one where the DA pretty well said in his press conference that the physical evidence supported Wilson's version of innocence.

A prosecutor has a duty to seek justice, actually review the evidence and decide if there is enough evidence to get a conviction prior to going to the GJ. The fact evidence is in conflict is not a reason to go to trial, a DA still needs to determine what happened, what he can show at trial and does he have credible witnesses which are not inconsistent with the physical evidence. If the DA actually thought Wilson shot him while surrendering and believed he could establish that, then the GJ failure to return an indictment should not be the end of the case he should impanel a new GJ.

20k....that is spectacular. No it wouldn't help them but it would be a huge boost the economy

The LAPD's official story is that Ezell Ford was on top of one of the officers, took control of his gun, so the officer drew his backup gun, reached around him and shot him in the back at close range.

Yes, seriously. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bee57...angeles-police

So he fired directly towards... himself?

An article I read earlier made it sound like the police changed their story. It was a Huff post article tho, so...

I've been pretty disgusted with the police actions in Ferguson, NYC and Cleveland in the past few months. However, this LAPD explanation actually sounds believable, especially since the autopsy stated that Ford had muzzle burns on his back. Assuming it is true that Ford was shot while grappling on the ground with an officer, why would an officer standing over them bend down to shoot him by placing the muzzle against his back? Furthermore, if Ford was on top of the officer, would another officer actually shoot Ford in the back, with the possibility that the officer below might be hit by the exiting bullet?

1) No. Here's a Bill Maher-style new rule. A cop's version of a shooting gets the same weight as any other person explaining why they aren't guilty of a crime. We know they have a reason to lie, we know their cop friends back up their lies. So the cop's story is X, the mom of the victim's story is Y, null hypothesis is that they are equally credible.

2) OK, so the officer gained a back mount on Ford, pulled a gun, and shot him. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than shooting at yourself through a person, or the partner of the cop shooting at someone grappling with his partner. Even for a cop, shooting at two people wrestling with each other seems dumb.


3) Hey so after all that **** about how ****ing impossible it is for cops disarm a guy with a gun, which is why they have to murder 12 year olds playing with toys, kinda seems like it's pretty easy to get a cop's gun away from him? (Or, in Mike Brown's case, forfeit your life by placing a cop in fear that his gun will be taken from him)

Contact high. Why else would a cop fire directly towards... himself?

Is duffee in the reveal stage of a Andy Kaufman long-con?

Maybe he just does the understand what happens when the government made it illegal for asylum seekers to get work, they are an immigrant group "getting a free ride" I guess, but not out of choice. He might be a slightly educated ignorant person and not a wholly uneducated one.

I however would bet he thinks economic migrants travel to just get benefits, which isn't just a misunderstanding of human nature but is more or less impossible given the uber super narrow requirements to do so.

Usa has one of the most progressive tax structures in the world. Time to walk it back further.

I assume you back brought sweeping legislation to take guns off the streets similar to what worked in Australia, right?

Well color me surprised. You're right. Learned something today.

How believable is their explanation when witnesses contradicted them and they were literally forced by the mayor to reveal the autopsy report? What does that tell you?

Just think about how the shoot into the back would work physically, either the cop has a dominant position or he is face to face and literally reached around to shoot with his wrist at a crazy 90 degree angle, also it was a through and through so he couldn't be exactly on top either and given the cops claim one cop fired into his side and another his back I assume the ballistics at least back this up. He would just fire into the guys side every time in such a position fighting for his life, which makes one wonder exactly who held which gun when assuming there even was a struggle at some point in the entire event (not even a given imo).

"Right after the shooting happened, witnesses did say that Ezell Ford was shot in the back—that he was laying down trying to comply with officers' orders," Cannick told us. "It would seem that way from the autopsy report."
http://www.laweekly.com/informer/201...ide-by-la-cops

Note these are the witnesses whose story didn't even fit the physical evidence so could be dismissed according to the cops, until they had to release the physical evidence report and now suddenly they were wrong in a totally different way.

Also it really makes you wonder how often stuff like this gets suppressed by the cops when there is a fatal shooting.

Yeah don't rly have time to type up a full reply to those posts but basically this. I'm aware circumstances are different in Australia to the US, but the question then becomes why is this the case? Why does the US incarcerate by far more people than any other developed country, and yet still continue to suffer high rates of violent crime?

I posed that question to a right-winger once and their answer was "Because other developed countries don't have so many blacks", an answer which at least had the virtue of honesty. I'm guessing this is a privately held opinion among many on the right.

The point is that when a state of war exists between police and the community, it might not be best to give the police bigger guns and look the other way when they misuse them. Instead you should probably try to figure out why this is only the case in the US and not any other developed country. Can we talk about gun control? Nope. How about inequality then? Nope. Racism? Nope. A pragmatic approach rather than WAR with regard to drugs appears to be finally becoming a bit of a bipartisan issue (only a few decades too late) but the suggestion there might be any other root cause to problems in the US is still met, essentially, with "let me tell you something about the Negro". The US can't have the wrong system, ergo it has the wrong people.

Capitol gains tax is relatively low in the USA.

Estate taxes are middling.

Complicates the progressive picture as these taxes are very important to rich people.

Meh EITC tho

Poor people pay very very little in taxes in the U.S. system.

Not sure what any of this has to do with gentle giants tho