No, defense lawyers. Defense lawyers are the ones with the low burden of proof and therefore the incentive - mandate even - to call unreliable witnesses. A witness who they doubt is telling the truth may still have enough credibility to create doubt in the eyes of the jury. Their mandate practically requires them to call witnesses who they believe are lying. Prosecution witnesses, on the other hand, must be believed beyond a reasonable doubt. Jeez, why are you pretending to have no idea how the legal system works?Prosecutors, maybe.
Agreed.Witness 40 perjured herself. We know this.
She was known to be lying before she took the stand. We know this as well.
No. If that were true, every time a witness commits perjury, the person who put them on the stand would be liable. The reality here is the opposite: McCulloch demanded the truth from the witnesses he called and challenged them when they lied. There was no subornation of perjury; he did exactly the opposite.McCulloch facilitated her perjury by choosing to put her on the stand.
I asked you to clarify and you didn't, but I still think I figured out what you mean:Taking McCulloch's argument with a presumption of good faith, the question arises why other people don't get this process and protection. This question remains unanswered.
The officer received no protection. He was maliciously persecuted by mob rule. He lost his job and was not compensated for it. His life is basically ruined. There never should have been a grand jury hearing in the first place. His city let him down -- they failed to protect him.
Is that what you meant by "who gets this process"? I suppose the answer today is that any time a non-black man kills a black man, they can expect to be maliciously prosecuted/persecuted by an an angry mob of thugs and have their life ruined. Yay, justice!
Malicious fantasy - lie, even, since you put it in quotes and you damn sure know you made it up. He never said or even implied any such thing. In fact, he did the opposite: he demanded the truth from his witnesses and cross examined them when he believed they were lying.McCulloch's argument that, "Yes, I deliberately broke the law..."
Nonsense. I posted a coherent, complete, concise logical description of the prosecutor's options in post #33 and you didn't even bother responding.What they get back from the people supporting law enforcement is the equivalent of those who simply disdain the police. That is to say, all the questions remain unanswered, as such.
Even you can't manage a sustained, coherent argument.
Did you forget who started this thread and why? The thread was started to make accusations that a crime was committed. Responses can only be responses to that. The burden of proof and responsibility for providing a sustained, coherent argument lays on you and your side. I can do nothing more than use my truth racket to return your crap, one flaming ball at a time.It's just detached blocks of information, personal superstitions asserted as fact, and so on.
Lol -- you half agreed! Again, you (and your side) are the one making the claim of a crime and doing so with one-liners of "detached blocks of information, personal superstitions asserted as fact, and so on." I can only respond to what you give me.To wit: "Still not true. If it were, jails would be filled with lawyers." I mean, where do you get this stuff?
And by the way, now that we have the truth in front of us -- now that we all know for sure that McColluch demanded the truth from the witnesses, these continued claims of subornation of perjury aren't mere fantasises anymore: you are lying, just like Bells and iceaurea. You can't hide behind empty fantasy anymore. Acknowledge the truth!
Indeed: in this case, the lawyer in questionMost lawyers have a formal escape route insofar as they can claim to not have known the witness was lying.
1. Swore the witness an oath to tell the truth.
2. Asked for the truth.
3. Challenged the known or believed lies.
There is nothing anywhere resembling subornation of perjury in there. It's exactly the opposite.
You and your side are the ones making things up as they go along, hiding in fantasy and ignoring the truth as best you can to try to perpetuate the fantasy. With the previous list, I have indeed turned the tables because while we started this thread with just your side's baseless fantasy accusations, now we know those accusations are false. You can't hide behind ignorance anymore. Trying to do so when the truth is staring you in the face is lying.Perhaps you can come up with something a little more intelligent and a little less cowardly than hiding in myth.
*Ahem*: You are the one alleging a crime occurred. So you are the one who must provide evidence of it. Even if I had provided nothing, it would still be enough to point out (as I did at the beginning) that you are not providing evidence to support your accusations.There is a bloc of argument in these discussions that has no real use for evidence...