Here is your entire post so that we can eliminate the lame "you didn't quote me accurately" crap.

 

 

 

You made a declarative statement in your last paragraph. All I can do is go by what you say. The prelude to the statement is simply you discrediting, perhaps correctly, statements that have been made. So I didnt leave out anything of importance. You said if....then... Hard to misconstrue.

Give it up, Clyde. You can't unring the bell. You mischaracterized my position with a partial quote and a misleading paraphrase. I know what my own position is. I know what you omitted and I know that your characterization of my position was totally inaccurate. You don't get to decide what parts of my posts are "of importance."

 

Anybody who has followed this thread knows that I have never said anything that approaches the position that you attributed to me. I have never implied, nor would I every imply that we should simply take Officer Wilson's word that he shot Brown in self defense.

 

How many times are you going to try to pull this crap?

The problem I see is that if he would recuse himself in this case, then the next nasty case that came along, he would have set a precedent.

 

It doesn't matter who the prosecutor in this case is. If the Grand Jury does not return an indictment, they riot. If they do indict and he is acquitted, they riot. Anything short of the death penalty, they will riot.

 

 

The next nasty case that comes along won't have this kind of publicity and a bloodthirsty public though.

The next nasty case that comes along won't have this kind of publicity and a bloodthirsty public though.

You're assuming way too much of the media. These days, they think it's their job to fan the flames. That's the problem with too many "news" outlets 24/7, not to mention social media.

Probably the last thing the people trying to control the situation in Fergueson needed: an officer who was actively patrolling the area referencing himself as "a killer" in online messages less than a three years ago and who has a history of making comments about religion and political leaders that are described as "incendiary".

 

St. Louis officer suspended after video comments - San Antonio Express-News

 

 

 

What's worse: a St. Louis officer who posts online that protestors should, "be put down like rabid dogs". Seriously, this is something Borat would say in character as a joke. Someone missed social media training hour at orientation. This is a guy trusted with a gun and authority. I'm going to say that he showed signs of ignorance that should have been noticed long before it got to the point that he'd endanger his job by posting something like that online from his personal Facebook account for everyone to see.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_44544bee-b353-5f86-aeb2-d13238a9fdc2.html

Thought this was interesting. Fundraisers for Officer Darren Wilson have surpassed fundraisers for Michael Brown in terms of the number of dollars raised.

 

Cash raised for Mo. cop surpasses Brown donations

A reporter is claiming that he has sources stating Brown was possibly a suspect in a murder investigation.

 

Here's a link.

 

AOL.com Article - Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown's juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect - Linkis.com

A reporter is claiming that he has sources stating Brown was possibly a suspect in a murder investigation.

 

Here's a link.

 

AOL.com Article - Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown's juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect - Linkis.com

 

I obviously have no way of knowing if Michael Brown was a murder suspect, but I do know that Charles C. Johnson is a notorious hack who has been caught several times making fraudulent claims under the guise of "journalism." So, until or unless something concrete emerges, I would advise anyone to take his claim with a lot of salt and tequila.

Edited August 29, 201412 yr by Habib

I obviously have no way of knowing if Michael Brown was a murder suspect, but I do know that Charles C. Johnson is a notorious hack who has been caught several times making fraudulent claims under the guise of "journalism." So, until or unless something concrete emerges, I would advise anyone to take his claim with a lot of salt and tequila.

 

Apparently theres a lawsuit in court so we should find out for sure if he's being truthful or not....unless they rule that they don't have to release it.

Apparently theres a lawsuit in court so we should find out for sure if he's being truthful or not....unless they rule that they don't have to release it.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on them ordering a release of a juvenile record, especially if it's been ordered to be sealed, and that's whether he's guilty or innocent.

I wouldn't hold my breath on them ordering a release of a juvenile record, especially if it's been ordered to be sealed, and that's whether he's guilty or innocent.

On what basis would Brown's juvenile record remain sealed after his death? The justification for them being sealed at all would seem to rest on not saddling him with a criminal record for crimes committed as a juvenile. Upon an adult's death, the release of the juvenile record can do him no harm, and the public's right to know the truth should trump a portion of the community's desire for revenge.

 

IMO, if Brown committed violent crimes as a juvenile, then his record should be made public at some point - before a decision not to indict Wilson for any crime is announced, or during the trial to allow a jury to evaluate the credibility of differing accounts of the shooting and events that preceded it. If Brown had a violent past before assaulting the store owner, then disclosing that fact sooner might have helped avert the looting and vandalism of 100 or more Ferguson businesses.

On what basis would Brown's juvenile record remain sealed after his death? The justification for them being sealed at all would seem to rest on not saddling him with a criminal record for crimes committed as a juvenile. Upon an adult's death, the release of the juvenile record can do him no harm, and the public's right to know the truth should trump a portion of the community's desire for revenge.

 

IMO, if Brown committed violent crimes as a juvenile, then his record should be made public at some point - before a decision not to indict Wilson for any crime is announced, or during the trial to allow a jury to evaluate the credibility of differing accounts of the shooting and events that preceded it. If Brown had a violent past before assaulting the store owner, then disclosing that fact sooner might have helped avert the looting and vandalism of 100 or more Ferguson businesses.

 

I'd say that attorneys for his family would make arguments about the potential for it improperly influencing the jury.

I'd say that attorneys for his family would make arguments about the potential for it improperly influencing the jury.

I am sure that they would make that argument. If I were Officer Wilson's attorney, I would argue that portraying Michael Brown as a teenage gentle giant just getting ready for college improperly biased the jury pool against Wilson. The misinformation and negative publicity that has surrounded this case will make it very difficult for Wilson to receive a fair trial.

 

If Brown had been white, the media would be suing to unseal any criminal record that he might have had as a juvenile because it might either support or undermine Wilson's account of what happened prior to the shooting. The media seems strangely disinterested in determining the truth about Brown's past. Do they fear being labeled racists?

I am sure that they would make that argument. If I were Officer Wilson's attorney, I would argue that portraying Michael Brown as a teenage gentle giant just getting ready for college improperly biased the jury pool against Wilson. The misinformation and negative publicity that has surrounded this case will make it very difficult for Wilson to receive a fair trial.

 

If Brown had been white, the media would be suing to unseal any criminal record that he might have had as a juvenile because it might either support or undermine Wilson's account of what happened prior to the shooting. The media seems strangely disinterested in determining the truth about Brown's past. Do they fear being labeled racists?

 

Agreed. Sometimes, the jury won't be allowed to hear any evidence of past crimes because to do so there could be rules like the defense having to put character into issue or something similar, which would be extremely stupid of them to do (usually what people on TV shows like Law & Order call "opening the door" or something like that), or there will be rules barring it because of the danger that the jury thinks that just because they committed a crime in the past, that they'd done so that time too. Different States have different rules too, so I'm not really sure how things would apply there as well.

I am sure that they would make that argument. If I were Officer Wilson's attorney, I would argue that portraying Michael Brown as a teenage gentle giant just getting ready for college improperly biased the jury pool against Wilson. The misinformation and negative publicity that has surrounded this case will make it very difficult for Wilson to receive a fair trial.

 

I

 

Zero chance he gets convicted unless a video comes out that we don't know about.

Joker do you think Wilson will be indicted based on what we know? Do you think he should be?