Featured Calling for dead cops is not peaceful protesting!

It was too bypassed and he should be disbarred. He was hired to prosecute and he intentionally presented evidence to dissuade bringing an indictment.

That is NOT justice.

No they weren't. The DA's office was established to prosecute on behalf of a government.

No it does not. It exists to PROSECUTE on behalf of the government.

The trouble arose when the man hired to prosecute said it would take months to review the evidence and decide if there would be an indictment. Legal red flag and a clear sign of a prosecutor who doesn't want to prosecute.

He obfuscated the justice process deliberately and should be disbarred.

 

Why do you have this insistence that due process was bypassed? Who, other than yourself, has claimed that? What is the purpose of a grand jury, if you would rather every case, regardless of evidence or merit, should just go to trial?

Now you claim that the prosecutor "obfuscated" the process. How? Since when is presenting all the available evidence equitable to obfuscation? You are now claiming the prosecutor should be disbarred. Here's a nice fact for you, prosecutors don't prosecute every case that comes across their desk. You're acting like the prosecutors should blindly fire accusations toward a jury in the hopes that someone will agree. Just because you have a prosecutor does not mean you have a case. If he had presented only partial evidence (which is far closer to obfuscation than what he actually did) and essentially tricked the grand jury into indictment, then Officer Wilson would've been arraigned and likely housed at a prison somewhere or under house arrest until the trial, which would likely be many months in the making. Both sides would review the evidence, a jury pool would be established, all after the trial was moved, because Ferguson and St. Louis would not provide fair trials for Wilson. All done at tax-payer expense, and all for a case that, once every shred of evidence was exposed, the jury would, almost assuredly, come to the same conclusion the grand jury reached. How many tax dollars do you want to take away from better causes so that you can have a sense that social justice was accomplished? This case has already cost one person their life (Michael Brown, and the evidence shows that happened by his own making), and it has cost one person their job and will likely force them to move (it's unlikely Officer Wilson can stay in that town). How many more people need to fall for you, Zaac?

As an aside, Zaac, not wanting to waste money does not equate to a love of money. I don't appreciate you trying to cast that pall on my argument, as everyone here knows what the love of money is associated with. The fact stands that this trial would've been a waste of tax-payer dollars that could've gone to far better causes. You, and the mob whipped up by inaccurate media accounts, are the only ones who think that there was a merited case against Officer Wilson.

 

It's clear that Zaac has drunk the "Hands-up-don't-shoot" Kool-aid.

 

Because it was.

I don't know. I'm not basing my claims on what other folks have said. But I'm sure I can find some for you.

The MAJORITY of them do because the bar is so low. The purpose of a grand jury is to decide if there's ample evidence to warrant a trial based upon the charges the prosecutor asks to bring against a defendant.

By deliberately trying not to prosecute.

When presenting all of the evidence runs contrary to you prosecuting.

I didn't say they did. But they generally come out of grand jury's with an indictment. The numbers are overwhelming, except when police officers are involved.

Why would It seem like I'm acting like that? I simply said that a prosecutor is supposed to try to prosecute. He is NOT supposed to try and present evidence that runs contrary to getting a prosecution.

??? What's that got to do with anything? He's assigned because there is a case. He has to decide what charges to bring if there hasn't been an arrest and an indictment. If he doesn't want an indictment, don't send it to a grand jury. But you don't purposely send a case to a grand jury and present info that will dissuade them from indicting when your job is to prosecute.

That's EXACTLY what is done in darn near every grand jury hearing. He's the PROSECUTOR. He's trying to PROSECUTE. He's only supposed to present evidence that helps him to prosecute.

It's the DEFENSE attorney's job to present evidence that he hasn't that doesn't help his prosecuting case.

Why on earth would he not follow the same procedures with Officer Wilson that every other person has to go through? It's a clear bypassing of due process.

That's due process. It's not new.

You're talking a bunch of crap now. Don't talk to me about any better causes. A man was killed by a police officer. Use the tax dollars to go through the process that we've already put in place to deal with these situations. So don't go making excuses over tax dollars.

Not a single person needs to fall for me Tony. But this foolishness about money you keep raising while bypassing due process is perhaps one of the primary reasons Blacks speak of the injustice of the Justice System.

You're starting to sound really silly here. We waste money everyday sending thousands of cases to trial because the bar is so low to get a grand jury indictment. They say you can indict a ham sandwich because the bar is so low that you could. Are all of those cases wasting money too? If so, then fix the broken system and stop making excuses for a prosecutor not doing his job.

You cast that pall on your own argument by trying making the saving of tax dollars a legitimate excuse for the prosecutor not doing his job.

And there you go again casting that pall on your own argument. What better cause is there than to go through due process of dealing with someone who has killed someone else rather than continuing to perpetuate this notion that justice isn't blind or fro the all as we like to say?

And you and the mob whipped up by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are the only ones who think that when a black person is killed, it's okay for a prosecutor hired to prosecute to deliberately bypass due process so that there is no indictment.

Whether or not the case merited a trial is decided by a grand jury and generally in the space of days , not months. why? Because indictments under any circumstance are not difficult to get.

Goodness, the grand jury process is so routine in most jurisdictions that it's literally just a formality. The prosecutor asks and the prosecutor gets.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury


On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.

But McCulloch chose a different path.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

 

I hope that kool-aid you drank tasted great. Because it has obviously settled your mind. You claim no one needs to fall for you, yet you are calling for the prosecutor's job, basically because he did NOT withhold evidence. That's just silly. If it weren't for the fact that I have a Christmas dinner to attend today, I would argue you further.

 

He didn't do his job. His job isn't to put forth ALL the evidence. It's to prosecute. He deliberately maneuvered to not prosecute so disbar him.

The thing that's silly is you keep talking about this but it's clear that you are either ignoring what a prosecutor is hired to do or you don't care because he saved the taxpayers money.

No need to. I can see you're more concerned about money than justice. Enjoy your dinner.

And yall and this kool-aid. Repeating what Sean Hannity says really doesn't help.

 

The prosecutor and the grand jury did an excellect job. Zaac has turned into a wannabe legal expert.

But all he really wants is to have things happen his way. Kind of childish the way he keeps hammering away and doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

He didn't just drink the Kool aide. He's drowning in the stuff.

What you really have to keep in mind is that he is only here to disrupt, mislead and misdirect.

 

So says the man giving his opinion of a legal matter.

So says the man who is always arguing that he too is right.

That Sean Hannity flavored kool-aid seems to be very popular on here.

That's right because if you're not in line with the unBiblical, the unChristlike, the anti-Obama, and anti-Black everything on this board, you are disrupting, misleading and misdirecting.:laugh:

Sorry that I can't be your little puppet.

 

What gets me is you are actually mad about the fact that we have found an honest lawyer. Instead of someone who willfully distorts the facts in order to get their way, we actually have a lawyer here who chose not to game the system in order for him to make an extra buck, and instead presented all evidence. You're the one who decided that presenting all facts is somehow now to be considered obfuscation. And again, you're calling for his job, yet you said no one needed to fall to satiate your appetite for so-called "justice."

You know what, Zaac, I regret having ever mentioned the tax-payer aspect. A simple part of common dialogue concerning high-profile state court cases has so leeched your attention that you've cast me as being overly concerned about money when that is not the case. It is merely one aspect of the overall case that you are neglecting to look at because you'd rather the mob have gotten their way than for the case to have proceeded as it did.

See my response above. I apologize for even bringing the money aspect into the discussion. I hope you're a big enough man to apologize for casting a false and negative pall on my character.

Just so you know, I don't listen to Rush, or Hannity, or any of these characters you have tried to lump me in with. Just because I don't share your passion that Officer Wilson should've been tried on the 6 o'clock news does not mean I'm some sycophant to Republican mantras. I wish I could say the same of you and your gullibility to the media's false portrayal of this case and the actions of Officer Wilson.

 

That would be a lie. If he were an honest lawyer, he would have done what he was hired to do instead of doing otherwise.

Foolishness and NOT his job. He's salaried. He wasn't making any extra money. His JOB isn't to present all the evidence so you can stop with that defensive dishonesty.

Anyone with an understanding of what he did should be calling for his job on a number of issues including the one I brought up.

You mentioned the money and you kept mentioning the money angle. So your regret comes at your own making as you have so noted. If it weren't true, you shouldn't have kept going to the well.

What is this? Say one thing out one side of your mouth and then something else out the other and think I'm not listening? :laugh: You've gone to that well again. And again, it is NOT an aspect of the overall case. Justice and the rule of law shouldn't have anything to do with the "cost" of the case to taxpayers.

See my response above. You say you apologize but proceeded to do the same thing.

Just so you know, I didn't say that you did. But just so that you know, I do listen so I know where the "phrasings" are coming from.

See, there you go again pretending to, like another poster, takke the high road while spitting in my face at the same time.. I didn't say anything about believing the media's portrayal of anything. And even if I had, how would that be any different from you choosing to believe the political right's portrayal that the media was falsely portraying anything?

I spoke to what the prosecutor didn't do that he was hired to do. So there isn't even any reason for us to be talking about any media portrayal of Officer Wilson.

 

So an "honest" lawyer would deliberately obscure the truth by not presenting all evidence?

If his job is supposed to be limited to only presenting certain evidence, then why did the system allow him to present evidence that he knew would be damaging to his own case? Why not simply institute a rule that a prosecutor may only present evidence, no matter how deceptive or false, that only supports his case?

So would you say any time a prosecutor presents all evidence instead of evidence that only supports him should be barred from practice?

What do you think would have happened if the lawyer had withheld evidence and taken the case to trial, only for all evidence to then come to light? Do you really think a trial jury would see the same evidence and somehow come to a conclusion that Wilson murdered Michael Brown?

And I noted that I regret that choice on my part. I brought in a common piece of discussion among people when talking about such high-profile cases, especially when the evidence as presented is so overwhelming against the case the media has presented. You have turned the money aspect on me in a way that I did not foresee, and it has taken away from the judicial discussion. I regret having gone down that road, Zaac.

In what way is this double-speak or, as you put it, "Say(ing) one thing out one side of your mouth and then something else out the other?" You have demonstrated a desire to see further action on this case. You have stated that some sort of charge should have come against Wilson, even though the evidence presented as corroborated Wilson's testimony and has silenced many of the "eyewitnesses" who later recanted their stories.

I've been accused many times of being a Limbaugh or Hannity parrot because I am rather conservative in my views. I do not listen to either man. I have noticed that the people who most often accuse others of "listening to Rush" or "listening to Hannity" actually listen to them more than the person they are accusing.

I certainly don't want you to think that I'm "spitting in your face," Zaac. If it came off as such, then you have my sincere apologies. I might ferociously argue a point with someone, and I may quote them to drive home points they have made, but I have never knowingly "spat in someone's face" in a debate. It's difficult for me to "choose to believe the political right's portrayal that the media was falsely portraying" when the evidence has shown that the 'political right' got this one right. The media did falsely portray this case. Why? Because, and I use the word correctly here, it is a money maker for them. Racially charged headlines, particularly in the case of a death, bring in viewers in droves and drives up ad revenue. I know that sounds callous and harsh, but I didn't make the rule on that one. There's a reason news stories about a black man killing a white man rarely rate the evening news, when a story about a white man killing a black man garners hours of coverage. It's a guaranteed increase in revenue for the network. Blame the system on that one.

 

Stop playing. He's the prosecutor. It's not his job to present all the evidence so you can stop acting like it is.

The system allows him to do what he did. And the same system provides the remedy against him for doing what he did. God allows us to do whatever we want too. That doesn't mean there isn't gonna be a price to be paid.

What on earth do you think a prosecutor is supposed to do? He's supposed to only present evidence that supports his case. You're just talking silly now.

It's the same thing with a defense attorney. Even if he knows his client is guilty, if he starts presenting evidence in such a way that he is deliberately not defending his client, he can be disbarred.

Yep. That's what a trial is for. There is NEVER any reason for a prosecutor to present ALL the evidence to a grand jury unless he doesn't want to prosecute. Any 1st year law student can tell you that.

What do you mean? That's what happens in nearly 99% of the cases. Prosecutors, when sending cases to grand juries, rarely if ever, present ALL the evidence.

They run that risk all the time of evidence coming out during trial that damages their case. That's why defense attorneys have to do their homework too. That's how due process is supposed to work. The prosecutor indicts and the defendant gets his day in court to disprove what the prosecutor says.

The prosecutor is not supposed to bypass the process.

But in this case, you had a prosecutor do what the defense attorney would normally do in a trial. But there was no trial. Why? Because that due process was denied because the prosecutor decided he didn't want to prosecute.

Man you're talking some out right prejudicial unjustice right now. This is the kinda crap that keeps people at odds with the justice system.

I don't care if they would have seen the same evidence or not during the trial. That's up to a defense attorney to pull out.

The prosecutor is supposed to be trying to prosecute. He isn't supposed to be trying to present evidence that dissuades a prosecution.

from one end of the country to the other, at the city, county, state and federal level, you can see that if a prosecutor wants to indict, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion with grand juries.

But you keep talking about him presenting all the evidence. SMH. That's NOT HIS JOB with a grand jury.

Then please stop talking about it and I won't mention it.:thumbsup:

You said you regretted mentioning it and in your next statement went right back to talking about it as one aspect of the case.

Nope. The case is done unless the DOJ wants to do something. This is a separate issue. I've demonstrated a desire to see the law upheld. He deliberately didn't do his job. He should be disbarred and removed from his position.

What I have stated is that Wilson should have been indicted and the case sent to trial. If you've got two months of evidence that you present to a grand jury, than there is more than enough probable cause available for an indictment and a jury trial.

Oh gosh. I've told you already. I listen all the time. I listen to conservative talk. I listen to liberal talk and anything in between. I like to know what people are saying.

And you don't have to listen to the shows for me to know that your comments are the direct result of repeating what someone else has parroted from listening to the shows.

I get it. That's how things work. People hear it one place. It gets blogged and reposted and talked about and people like the way something was said and they adopt the talking point. The folks on the left do it. The folks on the right do it.

But Tony, that's not what we've been talking about. The media is always sensationalizing and getting ahead of the actual facts.

I'm talking about a prosecutor who well knew that it is rare, if ever, that a prosecutor will present ALL of the evidence to a grand jury especially while not giving them any direction. There is simply no reason to do so unless you don't want to prosecute.

I take issue with Officer Wilson in that he is so callous that he killed a man and says he would do everything again the same way. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I can't help but take issue with that . But maybe he doesn't know Jesus. But my feelings about the aforementioned has nothing to do with my feelings about the prosecutor.

The bar is so low for getting a grand jury indictment that the prosecutor wouldn't have had to do anything but show the jury a picture of Michael Brown's dead body and tell them that he was shot by Officer Wilson's gun but they weren't sure if the shooting was warranted. BOOM! Indictment.

That's literally how easy it is. Over several years time, you could probably count on one hand the number of grand jury hearings nationwide in which ALL available evidence is placed before a grand jury. It doesn't happen because it just isn't necessary.

The grand juries essentially work for the same jurisdiction as does the prosecutor. There's no reason for a grand jury to not give a prosecutor an indictment unless the prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute.

That's when you give them ALL the evidence. That's when you don't give them instruction about what to charge the defendant with.

He didn't want to prosecute and needs to be disbarred for making a mockery out of the judicial process.

But that shouldn't have any bearing on a prosecutor doing his job.

 

You understand you are giving that guy what he wants. He feeds off of it. It excites and invigorates him. He is an extremists in the vein of Malcolm X and the BLM. He really should be left alone.

 

Yeah, but there's a perverse pleasure in it...like torturing a cat by playing a laser pointer along the wall and floor and watching it struggle.

 

You ole debbil!! :smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

You are not torturing him, you are giving him what he wants.

 

Yep, there you go politely spitting in my face again while feigning to want to have a discussion.

 

Quit whining.

You have routinely "spit in" everyone's face here.