An inconvenient truth

[pjdude1219]

Well not for a long time now. As with your Kos reference you have to go back more than a century to find substance for that argument. There are undoubtedly departments like Ferguson. But that doesn’t mean they are commonplace. And it is unfair to taint Officer Wilson for the offenses of others. Because some people in the Ferguson Police Department were and are racists, it doesn’t mean everyone in the department are racists. If you have evidence of Officer Wilson’s racism, now is the time to show it. The DOJ report certainly didn’t find it.

now you being as intelectually dishonest as micheal is. it wasn't just some the entire police department was thick with racism.

Officer Wilson certainly did pay a price for protecting his life. He lost his job and his career.

and yet he got away with murder.

The evidence shows Officer Wilson was just protecting his life. That is a fact you find unpleasant but it has been validated by the grand jury and now the Department of Justice.

you mean the same grand jury that has a member suing the prosecuter for intentionally misleading the jury on the law and misrepresenting what happened?

quit your petulent childish whinying. he was a racist prick who should have never been a cop who gunned someone down because he could and got off because of an improperly conducted grand jury which you've claimed was the way they are done there for implicently stating almost all grand juries are improperly conducted thats on you and your racism[/QUOTE]

 

[joepistole]

From his lawyers.. There is nothing in the DoJ report that exonerates him. At all. Quite the contrary. The report held there was not enough evidence to indict him. That does not mean he is innocent. Just not enough evidence to indict.
You have a history of this Joe.

Yes I do have a history of using fact and reason. Yeah, DOH finding hold there isn’t enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson and it gives reasons for that conclusion like witness testimony and the physical evidence. That exonerates Officer Wilson. You do know what the word “indictment” means?

Like when you keep reminding everyone that the President and the Attorney General is black and would they really let a white person get away with it, etc..

Oh, and how many times constitutes “keeps reminding”, one? You keep bringing up the issue. Per my last post, if the race card you have been playing has any merit, you would have to conclude Attorney General Holder and President Obama are racist against blacks which obviously they are not. The unpleasant fact for you is that the DOJ findings validate the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ report found no fault with the prosecutor or the grand jury.

Your posts are full of such racist commentary.

Oh, like what? As I said before truth, fact and logical argument are not racist. If you could make a fact based cogent argument rather than the plethora of illogical arguments you have been giving, you would have a case. But you haven’t and you cannot so you will not. Calling me names will not make your argument any more tenable.

It doesn't bother me. What it does is make you look a foolish.

Ok, more ad hominem. If it doesn’t bother you then why did you bring it up? Based on your repeated personal attacks, I don’t think you are worried about my image.

He may have been employed as a police officer, but once he retired, he was no longer a police officer. To identify him as "officer" is to claim that he still somehow retains the privileges that goes with the title. He does not have any such privilege. He is no longer an officer of the law.
Police officers do not retain life long titles.

And where is the evidence for that assertion? Let me guess it is with your other assertions.

You missed the point of the article. Lynchings were popular 130 years ago. It was a popular way of killing black people, to set an example to other black people to remind them of their place. Hence the similarities between lynchings and police shooting unarmed black men. It is to remind the black community that their lives do not matter and the result of such killings, 130 years ago and today is exactly the same. Police officers always get away with it. Same as white people who lynched black people 130 years ago. The excuses are the same for both, the justifications are the same for both and the result is the same for both.
I highlighted the relevant bit.

No I didn’t. You were quite clear.

Do you even read what you quote?
The reason I ask is that what you quoted says exactly what I have been saying. What the DoJ report found is that it lacked the evidence to prosecute, so they are not prosecuting. It does not exonerate him. Just says that they lack the evidence to prosecute. At no time did they say he was innocent. Just that they lacked the necessary evidence to prosecute.

Yes I did, the question is did you. You are once again doing what you have consistently done throughout this discussion. You are cherry picking. Apparently the portion of the material I referenced which validated the grand jury findings didn’t register with you. You know the portion which explains the physical evidence and credible eye witness testimony validates the actions of Officer Wilson and the grand jury findings?
Further, you have been arguing for months now that there was plenty of evidence to prosecute Officer Wilson if only that nasty prosecutor hadn’t allowed one witness to testify before the grand jury. So when you now say the DOJ validates what you have been saying, that just isn’t true Bells. You have been complaining about the nasty prosecutor and how the grand jury incorrectly concluded there was no evidence upon which to charge Officer Wilson from the onset of this affair.

You do realise that not prosecuting Wilson has nothing to do with what went on in the grand jury hearing, right?

And what is your basis for that claim? I know you have been repeatedly told what a grand jury does, but apparently you still don’t understand the role of a grand jury. The grand jury had everything to do with not charging Officer Wilson that was the whole point of the grand jury, to determine if a crime had been committed and who to indict if anyone. What went on the grand jury had everything to do with not charging Officer Wilson.

You are once again trying to say in a not so subtle round about way that because Obama and Holder are black, that their not prosecuting Wilson means he is innocent and not racist.

Noting the race of Attorney General Holder and President Obama isn’t racist. Pointing out the absurdity of your argument isn’t racist either. You are the one who has consistently played the race card in this discussion. And if you have read any of my previous posts related to Attorney General Holder or President Obama, you would know I am a supporter of each. And that isn’t racist either.

That in itself is racist. What? Are you of the belief that black people always defend black people? That like will always support like? This argument of yours is offensive and racist because you appear to be arguing that "they", being black people, will always stick together. That because Obama and Holder are black, that they are somehow of one belief, for example. This is like when bigots claim they have black friends and therefore they cannot be racist.

Did I say black people always defend black people? No I didn’t. You did. One of the reasons I like President Obama and Attorney General Holder is because they are not racists. You have consistently played the race card with the grand jury and the prosecutor and now you have Attorney General Holder and President Obama validating the findings of the Ferguson grand jury. So was Attorney General Holder and President Obama fooled too by that nasty prosecutor? Are Attorney General Holder and President Obama also racists? Are you willing to call them racists as you have with the Ferguson prosecutor? Are you willing to cross that line?

Link me where the DoJ report on Wilson even uses the word "exonerate".

Seriously Bells…? This may come as a surprise to you but in the English language we have many words which mean the same thing they are called synonyms. Just because the word “exonerate” isn’t used in the text, it doesn’t mean that the text as a whole doesn’t exonerate Officer Wilson. I thought you were smarter than that.

It does not. Far from it. It just says there was not enough evidence to prosecute. In legal terms, it just means they do not have enough to convict, so they do not prosecute. It does not mean he is innocent. Just means that there is not enough evidence against him to prosecute.

Well yes it does say there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute, but it also says more than that. It says there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute because the credible eye witness testimony and the physical evidence indicate Officer Wilson was justified in his use of deadly force. You are cherry picking again.

You mean like when you determined that Brown was guilty of a crime without trial?
The writing was on the wall for Wilson right from the start.
Why?
Because police officers always get away with killing unarmed black people.

LOL..that is nonsensical hyperbole. Where is your evidence to back that up? You have none as has been repeatedly pointed out. The DOJ report finds, contrary to your claims, Officer Wilson was justified because the physical evidence and the credible witnesses indicated Officer Wilson was justified.

 

[Bells]

Part I

Yes I do have a history of using fact and reason.

If you say so. I am yet to see evidence of this.

Yeah, DOH finding hold there isn’t enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson and it gives reasons for that conclusion like witness testimony and the physical evidence. That exonerates Officer Wilson. You do know what the word “indictment” means?

DOH? A deer? Or Homer Simpson?

You really do not know what exonerates means?

You are yet to provide an example in the DoJ report that even uses the word "exonerates". Yet you keep using it. When I say they did not prosecute, that is what the actual reports says.

Even in what you linked. You are using words that 1) you clearly do not know the meaning of and 2) does not even appear in the report.

Mr Wilson is not innocent. There is just not enough evidence to prosecute and guarantee a conviction. The bit that I highlighted in what you quoted from the report, read it and read it well. And use a legal dictionary to figure out what the terms mean.

Oh, and how many times constitutes “keeps reminding”, one? You keep bringing up the issue. Per my last post, if the race card you have been playing has any merit, you would have to conclude Attorney General Holder and President Obama are racist against blacks which obviously they are not. The unpleasant fact for you is that the DOJ findings validate the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ report found no fault with the prosecutor or the grand jury.

You are doing it again. You have been repeating this like it is a mantra and it is a very racist mantra at that. Once again, it points to the belief that because they are black, then they would stick together. It is kind of perverse and obscene.

Are you incapable of not resorting to racist rhetoric?

Yes, Obama and Holder are black. No, that does not mean Wilson is innocent because the DoJ is not prosecuting him. No, that does not mean Obama and Holder are racist. Yes, the colour of Obama and Holder have nothing to do with the case itself.

Oh, like what? As I said before truth, fact and logical argument are not racist.

The fact that you keep pointing out the colour of Holder and Obama for one. The fact that you keep using terms like "lynching" in describing this particular issue, while knowing the connotations of that term, especially in the context of which it is being used. In short, you are making a mockery of "lynching". Are you aware of what a lynching is? Of how it was used in America and against whom? Or did your history class skip by that period in American history?

If you could make a fact based cogent argument rather than the plethora of illogical arguments you have been giving, you would have a case. But you haven’t and you cannot so you will not. Calling me names will not make your argument any more tenable.

How have I called you names?

Ok, more ad hominem. If it doesn’t bother you then why did you bring it up? Based on your repeated personal attacks, I don’t think you are worried about my image. J

I bring it up because it goes directly to the psyche of those who defend Wilson and what he did. That police officers are somehow above the law. That deference and almost fawning way in which you describe him and speak of him.

And where is the evidence for that assertion? Let me guess it is with your other assertions. J

You want evidence that he is no longer a police officer?

This isn't common knowledge?

No I didn’t. You were quite clear.

You clearly missed it. Perhaps you fail to notice the ideology behind lynching black people and police killing black people who aren't even armed. Well not perhaps, you clearly do.

Yes I did, the question is did you. You are once again doing what you have consistently done throughout this discussion. You are cherry picking. Apparently the portion of the material I referenced which validated the grand jury findings didn’t register with you. You know the portion which explains the physical evidence and credible eye witness testimony validates the actions of Officer Wilson and the grand jury findings?

You mean the part where they say there is not enough evidence to prosecute him? That does not say exonerates. Just that there is not enough evidence to prosecute. You can keep trying I suppose, but you are yet to provide where they even use the word exonerate or words that have that meaning. How it works is that if the prosecutor does not think there is enough evidence for a conviction, they will not prosecute. Does not mean they are innocent, just not enough to prosecute. As I noted before, the guy who raped me was never prosecuted. Does not mean he was exonerated. Wilson was never pardoned, nor were the words "not guilty" ever used. That is not what the report states. Had the report stated that he was pardoned, then you might have a point. But it does not. Savvy? Get it now?

Further, you have been arguing for months now that there was plenty of evidence to prosecute Officer Wilson if only that nasty prosecutor hadn’t allowed one witness to testify before the grand jury. So when you now say the DOJ validates what you have been saying, that just isn’t true Bells. You have been complaining about the nasty prosecutor and how the grand jury incorrectly concluded there was no evidence upon which to charge Officer Wilson from the onset of this affair.

You cannot even point out where it even says "exonerates" in the report. Or absolve, for example.

You also seem to be confused between Wilson and the prosecutor and the grand jury hearing..

And the fact that you find the thought of a prosecutor deliberately inviting people to lie to the grand jury funny says a lot about your ideology and the very notion of justice and the law.

Yes there was more than enough to prosecute. But in America, police officers are not prosecuted for shooting unarmed people, especially unarmed black people. This is the reality of America. The floodgates would be open.

And what is your basis for that claim? I know you have been repeatedly told what a grand jury does, but apparently you still don’t understand the role of a grand jury. The grand jury had everything to do with not charging Officer Wilson that was the whole point of the grand jury, to determine if a crime had been committed and who to indict if anyone. What went on the grand jury had everything to do with not charging Officer Wilson.

Do you think the grand jury hearing and the DoJ report are one and the same thing?

You are aware that they are two completely different things, right? You do understand that, don't you?

 

[Bells]

Part II

Noting the race of Attorney General Holder and President Obama isn’t racist. Pointing out the absurdity of your argument isn’t racist either. You are the one who has consistently played the race card in this discussion. And if you have read any of my previous posts related to Attorney General Holder or President Obama, you would know I am a supporter of each. And that isn’t racist either.

Oh hey look.. Once again you resort to "I have black friends and therefore cannot be racist" argument.

Did I say black people always defend black people? No I didn’t. You did. One of the reasons I like President Obama and Attorney General Holder is because they are not racists. You have consistently played the race card with the grand jury and the prosecutor and now you have Attorney General Holder and President Obama validating the findings of the Ferguson grand jury. So was Attorney General Holder and President Obama fooled too by that nasty prosecutor? Are Attorney General Holder and President Obama also racists? Are you willing to call them racists as you have with the Ferguson prosecutor? Are you willing to cross that line?

You infer. For example:

So you think President Obama and Eric Holder would allow a black man to be openly murdered on a street and not take any kind of action?

In other words, would a black President and a black Attorney General allow a black man to be openly murdered on a street and not take any kind of action?

You aren't clever enough to play such word games.

I think the system is racist because crimes like this continue to occur and police officers get away with it and are not indicted. Because this is how the system works. The reason people protest against it is because this is so expected, so normal and it should not be.

Seriously Bells…? This may come as a surprise to you but in the English language we have many words which mean the same thing they are called synonyms. Just because the word “exonerate” isn’t used in the text, it doesn’t mean that the text as a whole doesn’t exonerate Officer Wilson. I thought you were smarter than that.

So says the guy who thought lather meant laughter..

Now, please quote the synonyms for exonerate in the report. There are a few. Find me in the report where they say that he was exonerated, pardoned, absolved from any guilt of shooting Brown.. Lack of evidence to prosecute does not = exonerate.

Well yes it does say there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute, but it also says more than that. It says there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute because the credible eye witness testimony and the physical evidence indicate Officer Wilson was justified in his use of deadly force. You are cherry picking again.

And you are inserting words and meanings into the report that are not even in the report. It doesn't exonerate him. The report clearly details why there is not enough evidence to prosecute him.

The DoJ does not have the legal capacity to exonerate or pardon or find someone not guilty. All it could do was investigate and determine if there was a case - in other words, the DoJ investigated the evidence and determined there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

Understand now?

If the DoJ could exonerate people or pardon them or absolve them from guilt or find people guilty, you would not need a court system or even a criminal justice system. Hence why the DoJ cannot in any way, shape or form pardon Wilson or find him not guilty - ie exonerate him. All it can do is determine if there is enough evidence to prosecute or not.

I do not quite know how to explain this using smaller words.

LOL..that is nonsensical hyperbole. Where is your evidence to back that up? You have none as has been repeatedly pointed out. The DOJ report finds, contrary to your claims, Officer Wilson was justified because the physical evidence and the credible witnesses indicated Officer Wilson was justified.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/12/08/system-wont-indict-cops-killing-black-men/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/evidence-of-things-we-all-see
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349

That's just from the front page of a google search. First 4 links on google.

And they didn't say he was justified either.

 

[joepistole]

Part I
If you say so. I am yet to see evidence of this.

Of course you don’t. Ideologues aren’t able to see evidence and reasons which runs contrary to their beliefs.

DOH? A deer? Or Homer Simpson?

LOL, is that the best you can do Bells…making an issue of a typo?

You really do not know what exonerates means?

The real question is do you know what exonerate means.

You are yet to provide an example in the DoJ report that even uses the word "exonerates". Yet you keep using it. When I say they did not prosecute, that is what the actual reports says.

Actually, I have. It’s the part you keep ignoring…you know…the part which validates the finding of the Ferguson grand jury and debunks the allegations you have made about Officer Wilson.

Even in what you linked. You are using words that 1) you clearly do not know the meaning of and 2) does not even appear in the report.

I linked to the actual Department of Justice report. I used their words. Now, the report didn’t use the word exonerate. But it did

Mr Wilson is not innocent. There is just not enough evidence to prosecute and guarantee a conviction. The bit that I highlighted in what you quoted from the report, read it and read it well. And use a legal dictionary to figure out what the terms mean.

As previously pointed out, it isn’t unusual that there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute innocent people. Additionally, this isn’t Russia. There is never a guarantee of conviction in our system of justice.

You are doing it again. You have been repeating this like it is a mantra and it is a very racist mantra at that. Once again, it points to the belief that because they are black, then they would stick together. It is kind of perverse and obscene.

LOL, seriously Bells….?

Are you incapable of not resorting to racist rhetoric?

Oh hogwash! That is just more ad hominem from you. You cannot win on fact and reason, so you bring out all the illogical arguments.

Yes, Obama and Holder are black. No, that does not mean Wilson is innocent because the DoJ is not prosecuting him. No, that does not mean Obama and Holder are racist. Yes, the colour of Obama and Holder have nothing to do with the case itself.

You have been calling anyone who disagrees with you racist. Now, Attorney General Holder and President Obama are in that column. The recently released report from Attorney General Holder’s office agrees with what I have been saying since this discussion began and debunks what you have been claiming. So being consistent, you should be claiming President Obama and Attorney General Holder are also racists. But you are not consistent. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t make them racist Bells. You are abusing the word.

On one hand we have people like you who see racists behind every argument. And on the other we have people like Republican Secretary of State of Kansas peddling the notions that President Obama has made it impossible to prosecute blacks for civil rights violations and will soon make it illegal to prosecute blacks for any crime. Both are absurd positions.

The fact that you keep pointing out the colour of Holder and Obama for one. The fact that you keep using terms like "lynching" in describing this particular issue, while knowing the connotations of that term, especially in the context of which it is being used. In short, you are making a mockery of "lynching". Are you aware of what a lynching is? Of how it was used in America and against whom? Or did your history class skip by that period in American history?

You keep bringing up the issue of Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s race. So if you object, then stop bringing it up. Yes, I have used the word lynching to describe what you and others of your ilk have tried to do with Officer Wilson and it is an apt descriptor. You were not and are not interested in fact and reason with respect to Officer Wilson. You and others like you had convicted Officer Wilson even before the investigation had been completed.

Yes, I am well aware of the practice of lynching, apparently more so that you. The practice of lynching wasn’t confined to only one race. There were plenty of white people lynched too. Perhaps you are the one who skipped history classes.

How have I called you names?

Calling someone a racist isn’t name calling in your book? I think most people will disagree with you on that one.

I bring it up because it goes directly to the psyche of those who defend Wilson and what he did. That police officers are somehow above the law. That deference and almost fawning way in which you describe him and speak of him.

LOL, oh, and just what words have I used that would lead a reasoned person to conclude I have “fawningly” described Officer Wilson? I haven’t described Officer Wilson at all. And you know my psyche too? Are you psychic? You are making stuff up again Bells.

I don’t know Officer Wilson. How can I describe him? What I don’t like is when people are railroaded regardless of their profession or race. You were and continue to railroad Officer Wilson. You had convicted him even before the investigation had been completed. You had no evidence to even establish probable cause and you still have no such evidence. But you never let a little thing like no evidence get in your way.

Where did I ever say police officers were above the law? Probably from the same place where make the claim you know my psyche and that fawning allegation. I never said that Bells. You are making stuff up again. It’s another one of those illogical arguments you are so fond of. If police officers violate the law they should be fully prosecuted. But they or anyone else for that matter shouldn’t be frivolously prosecuted. They shouldn’t become scapegoats. If Officer Wilson violated the law, he should be prosecuted. But to do that you need evidence. And as reinforced with the recently released DOJ report, you have none.

You want evidence that he is no longer a police officer?
This isn't common knowledge?

Ok, Officer Wilson lost his job. He was forced by circumstance to resign…nothing new there.

You clearly missed it. Perhaps you fail to notice the ideology behind lynching black people and police killing black people who aren't even armed. Well not perhaps, you clearly do.

Did I? I don’t think so. You need evidence. The only thing you have going for you is the testimony of discredited witnesses.

You mean the part where they say there is not enough evidence to prosecute him? That does not say exonerates. Just that there is not enough evidence to prosecute. You can keep trying I suppose, but you are yet to provide where they even use the word exonerate or words that have that meaning. How it works is that if the prosecutor does not think there is enough evidence for a conviction, they will not prosecute. Does not mean they are innocent, just not enough to prosecute. As I noted before, the guy who raped me was never prosecuted. Does not mean he was exonerated. Wilson was never pardoned, nor were the words "not guilty" ever used. That is not what the report states. Had the report stated that he was pardoned, then you might have a point. But it does not. Savvy? Get it now?

I think you need to take your own advice and look up the definition of the word “exonerated”. I mean the part were the DOJ report specifically debunks your argument claims.

I am sorry you were raped. But that doesn’t make every man rapists. The Ferguson Police Department had and probably still has racists in it, but that doesn’t make Officer Wilson guilty of any crime in the shooting of Brown.

You are quibbling over words because that is all you have left. The DOJ report clearly debunks your claims about Officer Wilson in the Brown shooting case.

 

[joepistole]

You cannot even point out where it even says "exonerates" in the report. Or absolve, for example.

You are being silly now.

You also seem to be confused between Wilson and the prosecutor and the grand jury hearing..

Oh, and what would lead you to that conclusion?

And the fact that you find the thought of a prosecutor deliberately inviting people to lie to the grand jury funny says a lot about your ideology and the very notion of justice and the law.

First, you have no evidence to indicated the prosecutor “deliberately” invited “people to lie” before the grand jury. Second, this demonstrates your continuing unwillingness or inability to understand what a grand jury is and its role in our criminal justice system. As has been endlessly brought to your attention, the grand jury is an investigative body. It investigates potential criminal cases in order to find probable cause. Should investigators not talk to people because they might lie to them? That is basically the argument you are making.

This yet again demonstrates you inability to understand the role of the grand jury.

Yes there was more than enough to prosecute. But in America, police officers are not prosecuted for shooting unarmed people, especially unarmed black people. This is the reality of America. The floodgates would be open.
Except there isn’t, the grand jury didn’t find any credible evidence to prosecute Officer Wilson and now after a thorough investigation the DOJ has reached the same conclusion.
And a simple Google search shows your claim that police officers is blatantly false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States

Do you think the grand jury hearing and the DoJ report are one and the same thing?
You are aware that they are two completely different things, right? You do understand that, don't you?

No, but they studied the same issues and came to the same conclusions. The DOJ investigation was conducted exclusively by highly trained professionals and was far more comprehensive and had more resources available to them than the grand jury.
The real question here is do you understand? And the answer is apparently not.

 

[pjdude1219]

First, you have no evidence to indicated the prosecutor “deliberately” invited “people to lie” before the grand jury. Second, this demonstrates your continuing unwillingness or inability to understand what a grand jury is and its role in our criminal justice system. As has been endlessly brought to your attention, the grand jury is an investigative body. It investigates potential criminal cases in order to find probable cause. Should investigators not talk to people because they might lie to them? That is basically the argument you are making.

This yet again demonstrates you inability to understand the role of the grand jury.

pull your fucking head out of your ass joe. the PROSECUTER IS BEING SUED BY A MEMBER OF THE GRAND JURY FOR LYING TO THEM. yes we know the grand jury is an investigative body but they didn't get to invesitgate. it was a show trial designed to get wilson off. you may think grand juries are used to get people off but their not. the only people grand juries give this pass to our cops which you have convientently ignored yet again


http://www.scribd.com/doc/257917414/Ferguson-Grand-Juror-Doe-Opposition-to-Dismiss#scribd
YOU ARE WRONG deal with it.

 

[Billy T]

From today's ChinaDaily. Much of the world (people of color at least) hold this view of US.

It is not accurate - Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson's revolver would not hold 9 shots.

 

[joepistole]

pull your fucking head out of your ass joe. the PROSECUTER IS BEING SUED BY A MEMBER OF THE GRAND JURY FOR LYING TO THEM. yes we know the grand jury is an investigative body but they didn't get to invesitgate. it was a show trial designed to get wilson off. you may think grand juries are used to get people off but their not. the only people grand juries give this pass to our cops which you have convientently ignored yet again


http://www.scribd.com/doc/257917414/Ferguson-Grand-Juror-Doe-Opposition-to-Dismiss#scribd
YOU ARE WRONG deal with it.

You need to take your own advice. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the juror isn't suing the prosecutor because he allegedly lied to them, but because the juror wants the customary gag order on grand juries removed. And it will likely be thrown out as a frivolous law suit.


http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-pros...-to-discuss-darren-wilson-case-202149357.html

It's a fact, instead of this continual misrepresentation of facts, how about dealing honestly with the truth? Take your own advice and deal with it.

 

[joepistole]

Part II
Oh hey look.. Once again you resort to "I have black friends and therefore cannot be racist" argument.
You infer. For example:
In other words, would a black President and a black Attorney General allow a black man to be openly murdered on a street and not take any kind of action?
You aren't clever enough to play such word games.

Did I say I had black friends? No I didn’t. You are making stuff up again. The only one playing word games here is you my friend. You have been accusing anyone with the temerity to be honest and objective racist. If you want to be consistent, you will now have to call Attorney General Holder and President Obama racists too. Because they don't agree with you either.

I think the system is racist because crimes like this continue to occur and police officers get away with it and are not indicted. Because this is how the system works. The reason people protest against it is because this is so expected, so normal and it should not be.

As previously pointed out, a simple Google search can easily disprove your assertion. People do get away with crimes (e.g. OJ Simpson). But that doesn’t mean Officer Wilson did anything wrong in the Brown case. You are scapegoating Officer Wilson for all the ills you perceive in our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system isn’t perfect. I don’t know of one that is. But it is certainly better than anything else I have seen. Under our system of justice, people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. People are not convicted without evidence or for political reasons and thank God for that.

So says the guy who thought lather meant laughter..

Making stuff up again I see, nothing new there.

Now, please quote the synonyms for exonerate in the report. There are a few. Find me in the report where they say that he was exonerated, pardoned, absolved from any guilt of shooting Brown.. Lack of evidence to prosecute does not = exonerate.

I have already posted those words. Your steadfast refusal to recognize them won’t change anything. It won’t make them go away. I’ll post a few of those words again for your edification.

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.”

And you are inserting words and meanings into the report that are not even in the report. It doesn't exonerate him. The report clearly details why there is not enough evidence to prosecute him.
The DoJ does not have the legal capacity to exonerate or pardon or find someone not guilty. All it could do was investigate and determine if there was a case - in other words, the DoJ investigated the evidence and determined there was not enough evidence to prosecute.
Understand now?
If the DoJ could exonerate people or pardon them or absolve them from guilt or find people guilty, you would not need a court system or even a criminal justice system. Hence why the DoJ cannot in any way, shape or form pardon Wilson or find him not guilty - ie exonerate him. All it can do is determine if there is enough evidence to prosecute or not.
I do not quite know how to explain this using smaller words.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/12/08/system-wont-indict-cops-killing-black-men/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/evidence-of-things-we-all-see
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349
That's just from the front page of a google search. First 4 links on google.
And they didn't say he was justified either.

Quoting partisan opinion pieces which can easily be disproved with a Google search isn’t convincing. And yes the DOJ did say Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. I'll repeat myself for the third time.

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.”

Now you can quibble that the report didn’t use the “justified”. But any reasonable interpretation of that sentence would lead an objective reader to conclude the writer thought Officer Wilson’s actions were justified.

You should stop worrying about word size and focus more on the meaning of the actual words used in the report. Your quibbling over words is just a distraction from the fatuous nature of your arguments.

By the way, only you have used to word pardon and you have used it appropriately here. Pardon means to forgive. There is nothing to forgive in the Brown case as there is no guilt. Exoneration is to find someone guiltless, “to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime or responsible for a problem, bad situation, etc.” Exoneration isn’t a special power that is confined to a court as you seem to think it is although courts (triers of fact) do exonerate defendants.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

 

[Bells]

Of course you don’t. Ideologues aren’t able to see evidence and reasons which runs contrary to their beliefs.

That's the problem Joe. You have only provided talking points and even used words that others used to describe "Officer Wilson". As I noted previously, the only people who still refer to him as that instead of Darren Wilson, are those who are trying to claim he is exonerated.. Right wing nutbag sites and a lot of it is white supremacist sites. You aren't providing anything original in this thread, just repeating the same talking points they spouted. What's going to be next? You are going to thank him for serving?

LOL, is that the best you can do Bells…making an issue of a typo?

Was making a point of asking if this was you using "fact and reason".

The real question is do you know what exonerate means.

Yes I do. And nowhere in that DoJ report do they say anything that even resembles its meaning.

Which begs the question, why are you so convinced that he has been exonerated?

Actually, I have. It’s the part you keep ignoring…you know…the part which validates the finding of the Ferguson grand jury and debunks the allegations you have made about Officer Wilson.

I linked to the actual Department of Justice report. I used their words. Now, the report didn’t use the word exonerate. But it did

It didn't use the word exonerate, but it did.....? Are you confused again?

It didn't exonerate him. It just said they were not prosecuting because of lack of evidence.

As previously pointed out, it isn’t unusual that there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute innocent people. Additionally, this isn’t Russia. There is never a guarantee of conviction in our system of justice.

There is always a guarantee of non-conviction when it is a police officer and a black person who is dead.

LOL, seriously Bells….?

Yes seriously. You keep going back to this same argument and it is a stupid argument.

Oh hogwash! That is just more ad hominem from you. You cannot win on fact and reason, so you bring out all the illogical arguments.

You are resorting to racist rhetoric. Would you prefer I use prettier words to not insult your delicate sensibilities?

You have been calling anyone who disagrees with you racist. Now, Attorney General Holder and President Obama are in that column. The recently released report from Attorney General Holder’s office agrees with what I have been saying since this discussion began and debunks what you have been claiming. So being consistent, you should be claiming President Obama and Attorney General Holder are also racists. But you are not consistent. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t make them racist Bells. You are abusing the word.

I didn't say it made them racist. I am saying your repeatedly referring to their colour and saying that they, because they are black, would not have allowed Wilson to get away with it, is racist. And you have been doing this over and over again. You repeatedly ignore the point that has been made since the start of this thread and you are being so obtuse that the only thing you have to rely on is a type of "I have black friends so I cannot be racist" argument.

You have been trying to insert words into the report for pages now. Words and meanings that do not exist in the report and now you claim that the report agrees with you. Altering reality to suit and fit into your personal views does not reality make..

You keep bringing up the issue of Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s race. So if you object, then stop bringing it up. Yes, I have used the word lynching to describe what you and others of your ilk have tried to do with Officer Wilson and it is an apt descriptor. You were not and are not interested in fact and reason with respect to Officer Wilson. You and others like you had convicted Officer Wilson even before the investigation had been completed.

It is hard to not bring it up when you keep saying this crap over and over again. And my ilk? What? The side that disagrees with tainting a jury and rigging a hearing to make sure a police officer gets off killing someone who is unarmed? How dare I! How awful of me.

Yes, I am well aware of the practice of lynching, apparently more so that you. The practice of lynching wasn’t confined to only one race. There were plenty of white people lynched too. Perhaps you are the one who skipped history classes.

Yes there were. Between the 1880's and the 1930's, around 300 who were lynched, were white. The number for blacks? What do you think it is? You know, since you know more than I do about it..

EJI researchers documented 3959 racial terror lynchings of African Americans in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia between 1877 and 1950 – at least 700 more lynchings of black people in these states than previously reported in the most comprehensive work done on lynching to date.​

Whites were lynched for belonging to the wrong political persuasion or the wrong side of the North or South. Blacks were killed for being black. Which do you think had a bigger and lasting impact on a people and their collective history?

Calling someone a racist isn’t name calling in your book? I think most people will disagree with you on that one.

Maybe. But you and photizo are the main people being racist in this thread. Photizo for his claims about black people and you for your assertion that Holder and Obama are black, so this means that they would not allow black people to be killed in the US.

LOL, oh, and just what words have I used that would lead a reasoned person to conclude I have “fawningly” described Officer Wilson? I haven’t described Officer Wilson at all. And you know my psyche too? Are you psychic? You are making stuff up again Bells.

You are missing the point again..

I don’t know Officer Wilson. How can I describe him? What I don’t like is when people are railroaded regardless of their profession or race. You were and continue to railroad Officer Wilson. You had convicted him even before the investigation had been completed. You had no evidence to even establish probable cause and you still have no such evidence. But you never let a little thing like no evidence get in your way.

Well to you he is still a police officer. Tell me, if he stopped you and told you to pay a fine, would you pay it?

Where did I ever say police officers were above the law? Probably from the same place where make the claim you know my psyche and that fawning allegation. I never said that Bells. You are making stuff up again. It’s another one of those illogical arguments you are so fond of. If police officers violate the law they should be fully prosecuted. But they or anyone else for that matter shouldn’t be frivolously prosecuted. They shouldn’t become scapegoats. If Officer Wilson violated the law, he should be prosecuted. But to do that you need evidence. And as reinforced with the recently released DOJ report, you have none.

From the fact that you still refer to him as an officer, even though he is no longer an officer.

Ok, Officer Wilson lost his job. He was forced by circumstance to resign…nothing new there.

Darren Wilson resigned. That and receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars since the shooting... He wasn't forced out. He won't need to work again for a very long time. Other police officers kill black people and remain as police officers. The officer that killed Eric Garner is still a police officer. Wilson though?

Two GoFundMe pages open for him raised around half a million dollars. There are other fund raising sites specifically set up to raise money for him. He doesn't need to work for a while. There are still sites asking for more. People are still sending him money. Some even send him cash in the mail.

No one forced him to resign.

Did I? I don’t think so. You need evidence. The only thing you have going for you is the testimony of discredited witnesses.

For what? You are the one crowing that he wasn't prosecuted after the grand jury farce that anyone and everyone with an ounce of legal understanding saw from the start that it was a farce and rigged to make sure he would not be prosecuted.

I am sorry you were raped. But that doesn’t make every man rapists. The Ferguson Police Department had and probably still has racists in it, but that doesn’t make Officer Wilson guilty of any crime in the shooting of Brown.

You missed the point. Not being prosecuted does not mean that they are innocent. Understand now?

 

[Bells]

Did I say I had black friends? No I didn’t. You are making stuff up again.

Analogies escape you, don't they?

The only one playing word games here is you my friend. You have been accusing anyone with the temerity to be honest and objective racist. If you want to be consistent, you will now have to call Attorney General Holder and President Obama racists too. Because they don't agree with you either.

Who said they disagreed with me? It was already established a long while ago in this thread that there was not enough evidence for a civil rights prosecution. Which is what the DoJ was investigating. So I fail to see what point you are trying to make and why you are relying on Holder and Obama again.. Are you once again trying to inject their colour into this discussion? Name dropping? What exactly is the point of bringing them up again?

As previously pointed out, a simple Google search can easily disprove your assertion. People do get away with crimes (e.g. OJ Simpson). But that doesn’t mean Officer Wilson did anything wrong in the Brown case. You are scapegoating Officer Wilson for all the ills you perceive in our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system isn’t perfect. I don’t know of one that is. But it is certainly better than anything else I have seen. Under our system of justice, people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. People are not convicted without evidence or for political reasons and thank God for that.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Police officers are never found guilty for killing unarmed black people. This is the reality of what it is in the US. Few even make it to trial.

Do you understand now?

Making stuff up again I see, nothing new there.

Oh?

Lather? Laughter isn’t “lather”. Maybe it would be helpful to pull that dictionary out again.

That wasn't you?

I have already posted those words. Your steadfast refusal to recognize them won’t change anything. It won’t make them go away. I’ll post a few of those words again for your edification.

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.”

That is still not an exoneration. Especially when taken in context that you left out, where they clearly point out that there was simply not enough evidence to prosecute in what would have been a civil rights prosecution.

Quoting partisan opinion pieces which can easily be disproved with a Google search isn’t convincing.

You didn't click on those links, did you?

Please disprove them. Especially for all of the black people killed in the Gawker link. Unless of course you are going to claim that Eric Garner's killer was indicted, for example. I await your disproving what was in those links with great anticipation. Especially this one, which was linked and you are claiming can be easily disproved:

On Wednesday, a grand jury declined to indict Daniel Pantaleo, the white Staten Island police officer with a past record of race-related misconduct who was caught on video putting Eric Garner in a chokehold that lead to Garner’s death during an arrest for selling loose cigarettes. On the video, which went viral, Garner can be heard yelling “I can’t breathe” over and over. Chokeholds have been banned by the New York Police Department for 20 years, and the coroner ruled Garner’s death a homicide. But as in Ferguson, the grand jury decided that no crime worth punishing had been committed. We don’t know what Pantaleo said to the grand jury, or why they let him off. But since killing an unarmed suspect is so rarely treated as a crime, there’s little reason for police to believe that it should be.​

Are you saying this is easily disproved with a google search? Please disprove it.

And yes the DOJ did say Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. I'll repeat myself for the third time.

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.”

Now you can quibble that the report didn’t use the “justified”. But any reasonable interpretation of that sentence would lead an objective reader to conclude the writer thought Officer Wilson’s actions were justified.

You should stop worrying about word size and focus more on the meaning of the actual words used in the report. Your quibbling over words is just a distraction from the fatuous nature of your arguments.

By the way, only you have used to word pardon and you have used it appropriately here. Pardon means to forgive. There is nothing to forgive in the Brown case as there is no guilt. Exoneration is to find someone guiltless, “to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime or responsible for a problem, bad situation, etc.” Exoneration isn’t a special power that is confined to a court as you seem to think it is although courts (triers of fact) do exonerate defendants.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

Thus far, at least 3 people are disagreeing with your inserting exonerate in the gist of the DoJ report against Wilson...

In this instance, not only do you completely miss the point of the DoJ report, you also miss what they were actually investigating. They didn't exonerate him. They just advised there was not enough evidence to prosecute him in a civil rights trial. In short, there is not enough evidence to prosecute Wilson for the racially motivated shooting of Brown. They did not absolve him of guilt. And taking one sentence out of context of the report as a whole does not make you right. Understand now?

 

[Photizo]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ld-dies-after-being-shot-by-officer/24552525/

 

[joepistole]

Analogies escape you, don't they?

Oh boy, more ad hominem. You have created a tribute to sophistic argument.

Who said they disagreed with me? It was already established a long while ago in this thread that there was not enough evidence for a civil rights prosecution. Which is what the DoJ was investigating. So I fail to see what point you are trying to make and why you are relying on Holder and Obama again.. Are you once again trying to inject their colour into this discussion? Name dropping? What exactly is the point of bringing them up again?

Another sophistic argument, why am I not surprised? So is it your position now that Officer Wilson acted reasonably? Because that is what the DOJ report said. You have argued for months, since before the incident had been investigated that Officer was guilty of murder and should have been arrested, tried and convicted. You argued, the grand jury should have indicted Officer Wilson and if only the prosecutor had prohibited one witness from testifying before the grand jury, Officer Wilson would have been charged with some wrong doing. The DOJ report dispels that belief.

So unless you are going to now say you have been kidding all these months, yeah, the DOJ report isn’t consistent with what you have been saying since day one.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Police officers are never found guilty for killing unarmed black people. This is the reality of what it is in the US. Few even make it to trial.
Do you understand now?

What you didn’t read that list of police officer convictions? Do you need me to repost the list? Contrary to your assertion police officers do get indicted, tried and convicted when there is evidence of criminal wrong doing.

You are implying police officers are rampantly murdering unarmed black men in the US, and you have absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. The percentage of people killed by police officers in the US every year is infinitesimal. That includes all races.

If you have evidence of something untoward, now is the time to show it. But you don’t have evidence. You are just pulling stuff out of the derriere.

That is still not an exoneration. Especially when taken in context that you left out, where they clearly point out that there was simply not enough evidence to prosecute in what would have been a civil rights prosecution.

Except, I didn’t leave anything out, you did. And you have done it consistently throughout this thread.

Who Yes it is. That is yet another sophistic argument. You can, and I am sure you will, continue to ignore most of the DOJ report because it isn’t consistent with your beliefs. The DOJ report clearly debunks each of your assertions point by point and concludes there is no evidence of wrong doing on the part of Officer Wilson.
As stated and quoted in my last post, the report concludes Officer Wilson acted reasonably when he shot Brown. I don’t know you more explicit the DOJ report can be.
QUOTE="Bells, post: 3282209, member: 4807"]You didn't click on those links, did you?
Please disprove them. Especially for all of the black people killed in the Gawker link. Unless of course you are going to claim that Eric Garner's killer was indicted, for example. I await your disproving what was in those links with great anticipation. Especially this one, which was linked and you are claiming can be easily disproved:
On Wednesday, a grand jury declined to indict Daniel Pantaleo, the white Staten Island police officer with a past record of race-related misconduct who was caught on video putting Eric Garner in a chokehold that lead to Garner’s death during an arrest for selling loose cigarettes. On the video, which went viral, Garner can be heard yelling “I can’t breathe” over and over. Chokeholds have been banned by the New York Police Department for 20 years, and the coroner ruled Garner’s death a homicide. But as in Ferguson, the grand jury decided that no crime worth punishing had been committed. We don’t know what Pantaleo said to the grand jury, or why they let him off. But since killing an unarmed suspect is so rarely treated as a crime, there’s little reason for police to believe that it should be.

Yes, I did look at them. Eric Garner’s killer wasn’t indicted. I am on record as saying NYPD mismanaged that incident and I disagreed with the grand jury. I don’t think murder chargers were warranted because it lacked criminal intent. But one incident does not a pattern make.

Are you saying this is easily disproved with a google search? Please disprove it.

I did, didn’t you read it?

Thus far, at least 3 people are disagreeing with your inserting exonerate in the gist of the DoJ report against Wilson...
In this instance, not only do you completely miss the point of the DoJ report, you also miss what they were actually investigating. They didn't exonerate him. They just advised there was not enough evidence to prosecute him in a civil rights trial. In short, there is not enough evidence to prosecute Wilson for the racially motivated shooting of Brown. They did not absolve him of guilt. And taking one sentence out of context of the report as a whole does not make you right. Understand now?

Three people, so that makes you right? I don’t think so. I can probably guess who they are.

I’ll once again repeat the DOJ summary:

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.” - DOJ

You have contended all along Officer Wilson didn’t act reasonably, and you maintained there was enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson. That isn’t what the DOJ report says. It specifically debunks all of your assertions one by one. And anyone who is interested can read it. I previously posted a link to the DOJ document in its entirety.

 

[Bells]

You do not appear to understand what I am saying. I said that police officers always get off if they kill black people. You claim you could disprove this with a quick and simple google search. I am still waiting for you to do so.

Chop chop!

And sophistic now? I see you are using a word of the day dictionary. I notice how you tend to use one word each day and each day results in multiple use of said word. Three times in one post. I am impressed.

You may view my argument as invalid, however you are yet to actually disprove any of it. Misrepresenting one sentence in a report is not working for you. You continue to ignore reality. I haven't ignored the report Joe. The point you deliberately miss is that the report does not exonerate Wilson. Even what you have quoted clearly supports what I said, that the DoJ was not prosecuting because of lack of evidence to prosecute. It is not an exoneration.

Just as when you claimed that you could disprove that police officers always get off if they kill black people and that you could disprove the links I provided which support the fact that they do get off if they kill black people. You claim you disproved it, but it was not in this thread. Instead, you admitted that Eric Garner's killer got off.. Which once again supports what I have been saying. The links I provided gave numerous examples. You said you could disprove it all with google. I asked you to disprove even one. You failed to do so. Just as you failed to disprove any of the links I provided, as you claimed you easily could with google. Still waiting. And you are still fluffing your way through it and still to support your contention that you can disprove it.

 

[joepistole]

You do not appear to understand what I am saying. I said that police officers always get off if they kill black people. You claim you could disprove this with a quick and simple google search. I am still waiting for you to do so.

Chop chop!

And sophistic now? I see you are using a word of the day dictionary. I notice how you tend to use one word each day and each day results in multiple use of said word. Three times in one post. I am impressed.

You may view my argument as invalid, however you are yet to actually disprove any of it. Misrepresenting one sentence in a report is not working for you. You continue to ignore reality. I haven't ignored the report Joe. The point you deliberately miss is that the report does not exonerate Wilson. Even what you have quoted clearly supports what I said, that the DoJ was not prosecuting because of lack of evidence to prosecute. It is not an exoneration.

Just as when you claimed that you could disprove that police officers always get off if they kill black people and that you could disprove the links I provided which support the fact that they do get off if they kill black people. You claim you disproved it, but it was not in this thread. Instead, you admitted that Eric Garner's killer got off.. Which once again supports what I have been saying. The links I provided gave numerous examples. You said you could disprove it all with google. I asked you to disprove even one. You failed to do so. Just as you failed to disprove any of the links I provided, as you claimed you easily could with google. Still waiting. And you are still fluffing your way through it and still to support your contention that you can disprove it.

LOL.. drop the pretenses Bells, you believe what you want to believe evidence, truth, and reason be damned. It's just that simple.

You can't handle truth and reason, hence the heavy reliance on fallacious argument.

 

[Bells]

LOL.. drop the pretenses Bells, you believe what you want to believe evidence, truth, and reason be damned. It's just that simple.

You can't handle truth and reason, hence the heavy reliance on fallacious argument.

Hmm..

Quoting partisan opinion pieces which can easily be disproved with a Google search isn’t convincing.

I said "Because police officers always get away with killing unarmed black people.".. You said it was "nonsensical hyperbole" and demanded I support my claims. I provided you with the links which you claimed you could easily disprove with a google search.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/12/08/system-wont-indict-cops-killing-black-men/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/evidence-of-things-we-all-see
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349

Please disprove them.

 

[billvon]

I said "Because police officers always get away with killing unarmed black people.".. You said it was "nonsensical hyperbole" and demanded I support my claims. I provided you with the links which you claimed you could easily disprove with a google search.

Here is an example of a white officer who shot and killed an unarmed black person - and was convicted of first degree manslaughter. Thus they do not always get away with it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...for-fatally-shooting-unarmed-teen-in-back.ece

 

[Bells]

Here is an example of a white officer who shot and killed an unarmed black person - and was convicted of first degree manslaughter. Thus they do not always get away with it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...for-fatally-shooting-unarmed-teen-in-back.ece

Thank you billvon. That is one, with a 4 year conviction of first degree manslaughter.

And what do you think makes this case a stand out? How did they manage to get a conviction?

The reason they were able to convict is simply because Harrison's partner testified against him. But how often does this happen?

Now I await Joe disproving the links I provided with great anticipation.

But thanks for that billvon. Was a rare find. And it is exceptionally rare. To put it into some perspective, look at the NYPD:

In 179 fatalities involving on-duty NYPD cops in 15 years, only 3 cases led to indictments — and just 1 conviction​

The one conviction resulted in no prison time.

One interesting aspect of this is that a jury is less likely to convict a police officer that has killed someone, even unlawfully, but are more likely to convict in instances of fraud.

Juries - both grand juries and trial juries - tend to "give every possible benefit of the doubt" when it comes to police officers who have killed while on-duty, Dr Stinson says.

But the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings make it hard to know why that was.

He adds this tendency to not charge does not exist as strongly for police officers investigated for non-violent crimes, including corruption cases.​

 

[joepistole]

Hmm..
I said "Because police officers always get away with killing unarmed black people.".. You said it was "nonsensical hyperbole" and demanded I support my claims. I provided you with the links which you claimed you could easily disprove with a google search.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/12/08/system-wont-indict-cops-killing-black-men/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/evidence-of-things-we-all-see
http://www.thenation.com

Hmm..



I said "Because police officers always get away with killing unarmed black people.".. You said it was "nonsensical hyperbole" and demanded I support my claims. I provided you with the links which you claimed you could easily disprove with a google search.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/12/08/system-wont-indict-cops-killing-black-men/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/evidence-of-things-we-all-see
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349
Please disprove them.

/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349
Please disprove them.

Disprove what? You area the person making the extraordinary claims, it's not my job to prove your beliefs. Those links don't prove your assertion that cops are not prosecuted when they violate the law. Hell most of your links don't even make that claim. So for starters, those links don’t say what you seem to think they say. Only one goes so far as to make the absolutes you have made. And it floats a massive conspiracy theory, for which it has absolutely no evidence. The bottom line is you have no evidence to support your claim that police are not indicted for crimes because they manipulate the grand jury process –even with your golden links. Your issue appears to be with the jury process. Now in the past you have denied you have a problem with the jury process, but then you keep contradicting that claim with periodic attacks on the jury process…such as the one you just referenced.

Additionally and as previously stated, the authors of the articles you referenced were pushing a political agenda. They weren’t objective observers, so it shouldn’t be shocking they offered virtually no evidence to support their claims. It was mostly demagogic rhetoric. It’s the Fox News equivalent. There is a difference between demagogic rhetoric and reasoned discussion. That fact seems to elude you.

And finally, you ignore inconvenient evidence. Your claims and the material in your “golden” links have been repeatedly disproven. First by the links I referenced which listed police officers who had been not only indicted but convicted of crimes like manslaughter and murder, and then by Bilvon. And you did what you always do, ignore fact and evidence which is inconsistent with your ideological beliefs.

In your last post it appears you are finally backing off your absolutes that cops never get indicted in the US. Your latest claim is that it is exceedingly rare. Well, as previously pointed out to you, police involved shootings are exceedingly rare. So it should be expected that convictions of police officers for murder or manslaughter should also be exceedingly rare as well. That should be viewed as a good thing, not a bad thing. Just how many cops do you think we need to indict and convict every year? Are you arguing for a quota system, where we indict and convict police officers based not on evidence but on some quota system you and your fellows scheme up in order to be "fair"? Justice isn't a statistic. Justice should be rooted in evidence and rational thought. Wrong doers regardless of social class should be held accountable for the crimes the commit. And in a similar vein we shouldn't hold innocents accountable for crimes they have not committed.