Re: Ferguson discussion

277
Fukshot wrote:I'm pretty sure this meets the measure of suborning perjury.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/19/ ... were-lying
To this end, she was wildly successful and her testimony has now been quoted by Sean Hannity and Fox News hundreds of times as a form of evidence that Mike Brown "charged at Darren Wilson like a football player."
But people will swear up and down that he got what was coming.
Magnited we stand.

AMD-65
Service Six
10/22
Bersa Thunder UCP 9
Mak-90 (RIP)

Re: Ferguson discussion

279
dougb wrote:
bigstones wrote:And stinkier:
Some witnesses were clearly lying when they spoke to a grand jury about the August police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., according to St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Robert McCulloch. In an interview about the case Friday, the prosecutor says he won't seek perjury charges...
..."It's a legitimate issue. But in the situation — again, because of the manner in which we did it — we're not going to file perjury charges against anyone. There were people who came in and yes, absolutely lied under oath. Some lied to the FBI — even though they're not under oath, that's another potential offense, a federal offense. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ntent=2045
American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
Advocate
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/profe ... bunal.html
Of course, if these witnesses were not allowed to present their stories, then the charge would be made that evidence was suppressed by a biased prosecutor. So no matter what was done, the prosecutor was at fault, it was a conspiracy to blame the innocent victim who was turning his life around but was blown away because he couldn't resist attacking an evil cop, who had the audacity to defend his life with a gun.

(inhale) (exhale)
The bottom line is: a young unarmed black man who may or may not have stolen a box of cigars lies dead in the street, shot by a police officer, yards and yards away from where he supposedly attacked the officer.

So the Prosecutor uses the Grand Jury in an almost unheard of manner.

There are numerous evidentiary and custody of evidence mistakes like not dusting Officer Wilson's gun for Michael Brown's fingerprints even though Officer Wilson claimed Michael Brown grabbed the gun.

Officer Wilson was allowed unprecedented leeway like driving himself to the station and washing up before being interviewed.

Officer Wilson was never challenged even when his testimony was at odds with his earlier statements or when it was at odds with the physical evidence.

The Prosecutor's office grossly misstated the law with respect to when an officer can use deadly force and their corrections were half-hearted at best.

Now the Prosecutor admits that he presented testimony to the Grand Jury which he knew was perjured and in clear violation of professional standards required of all attorneys if not a violation of criminal law.

Your response to all that: "Move on. Nothing to see here. Clearly justice was done."

Although I do find it amusing the way you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe this was a full, fair and complete investigation.

Re: Ferguson discussion

280
Harvard and University of Chicago professors claim the Brown shooting was about "gun violence."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015 ... story.html
Yet this oppositional framing makes it easy to overlook the common enemy facing both sides: gun violence. The most constructive thing each side could do to address their concerns is work together to reduce the availability of guns to people everyone agrees shouldn’t have them.
They contend if police did not have the expectation of encountering guns they would not be inclined to shoot. So their focus is on guns.
Those worried about both police safety and communities plagued by police shootings should work together in pushing for measures that can reduce the availability of guns to people who are at high risk for harming themselves or others. Federal law already prohibits many high-risk groups — such as teenagers and people previously convicted of a felony offense — from possessing firearms, but these laws suffer from significant loopholes and inadequate enforcement.
So more laws to not enforce must be needed. Here are their new ideas to solve the problem:
  • -One handgun per month limit.
    -Universal background checks ("for the 30 to 40 percent of all gun transactions that occur between private parties").
    -More ATF compliance inspections of FFLs per year.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Ferguson discussion

282
LibShooter wrote:
Fukshot wrote:I'm pretty sure this meets the measure of suborning perjury.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/19/ ... were-lying
I'm pleased that people are not simply shaking their heads in dismay and walking away from this thing. They're still in the fight.

It may be cold here but I have no doubt that things will continue to be interesting.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Ferguson discussion

283
As the Ferguson anniversary got underway, Ferguson Market & Liquor was allegedly being guarded by armed staff to stave off a repeat of the trashing the business got during the 2014 unrest.
https://twitter.com/TreyYingst/status/6 ... 00/photo/1
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eris, Google [Bot] and 3 guests