Ferguson Police should be outlawed Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/30/2014 6:53:00 PM (view original):

The BL-spin.   "Yeah, maybe the cops were exonerated but Lollie did exactly what he said he did!!!"

Are you that hard up for attention that you're having a sort-of argument with someone you claim you're blocking?
11/30/2014 9:02 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 11/30/2014 6:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/30/2014 5:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/30/2014 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Since ferguson is old news already. Let's check in on Chris Lollie.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/11/14/lollie-lawsuit

"St. Paul Police announced that the Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Commission had "exonerated" the three officers who arrested Lollie on charges of trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing legal process, charges that officials dropped after Lollie's arrest."


The videos are really pretty good. If I heard correctly it sounds like lollie said he had weed in his pocket. Anyways... Enjoy.
LOL

The video shows Lollie doing exactly what he said he did. He sat down in a public place and did nothing wrong.
Cops exonerated as well.... So like I said being right at the wrong time equals being wrong. He could have handled the situation differently and saved himself the legal tasing.
Yep, the police exonerated by the police. Shocker.

We know Lollie was completely innocent because the police didn't kill him.
11/30/2014 9:04 PM
DougOut
Posts: 44417 (7)
Hall of Famer
124
Prospect
  This thread is dead.  Get on the Doug train!
11/30/2014 9:07 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:11:00 PM (view original):
That's my point. The failure is on the DA for not being able to get the case to trial.
That's cause there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!
I'm sure, had he wanted to, he could have cleared probable cause. He clearly didn't want to
Are you telling me there was probable cause that a cop who was attacked in his car by a thug twice his size did NOT fear for his life before killing brown? Officers can legally shoot to kill if they feel they are in imminent danger.
I'm telling you that, had the DA wanted to, he could have indicted Wilson, he didn't need the grand jury. It goes back to the community's mistrust of the local justice system.
I'm actually OK with the decision. I've also heard the argument of "The only reason this went to a grand jury was because there would be so much more outrage if it didn't."

At the end of the day, if you attack a police officer, you should understand you may get killed. He has a gun and is allowed to shoot you if you attack him.

12/1/2014 11:42 AM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:11:00 PM (view original):
That's my point. The failure is on the DA for not being able to get the case to trial.
That's cause there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!
I'm sure, had he wanted to, he could have cleared probable cause. He clearly didn't want to
Are you telling me there was probable cause that a cop who was attacked in his car by a thug twice his size did NOT fear for his life before killing brown? Officers can legally shoot to kill if they feel they are in imminent danger.
I'm telling you that, had the DA wanted to, he could have indicted Wilson, he didn't need the grand jury. It goes back to the community's mistrust of the local justice system.

If the evidence clearly showed no crime to the DA, why would he "want to".  Furthermore, in handing it to the grand jury, if they see the same thing as the DA, why would they "want to" indict?  And why would the DA push for an indictment?  They had all kinds of options.  They could have easily "cleared the bar" themselves...

12/1/2014 12:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

The DA sent it to a jury because he didn't see enough evidence to indict.   He did that because we know how refusing to indict would have went over. 

12/1/2014 12:51 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by silentpadna on 12/1/2014 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:11:00 PM (view original):
That's my point. The failure is on the DA for not being able to get the case to trial.
That's cause there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!
I'm sure, had he wanted to, he could have cleared probable cause. He clearly didn't want to
Are you telling me there was probable cause that a cop who was attacked in his car by a thug twice his size did NOT fear for his life before killing brown? Officers can legally shoot to kill if they feel they are in imminent danger.
I'm telling you that, had the DA wanted to, he could have indicted Wilson, he didn't need the grand jury. It goes back to the community's mistrust of the local justice system.

If the evidence clearly showed no crime to the DA, why would he "want to".  Furthermore, in handing it to the grand jury, if they see the same thing as the DA, why would they "want to" indict?  And why would the DA push for an indictment?  They had all kinds of options.  They could have easily "cleared the bar" themselves...

I'm not sure the evidence "clearly showed no crime." Regardless of that, the DA obviously didn't want to take this to trial. Maybe that's the right call, maybe it isn't. Again, there are a lot of unknowns.

Knowing that he didn't want to take it to trial, it's easy to see how that impacted the way the case was presented to the grand jury. The grand jury was shown exculpatory evidence (which is insane) and the DA allowed Wilson to testify and then actively worked to discredit other witnesses--treating their testimony more like a cross examination than a presentation of evidence (even threatening some with perjury charges). Because of that manipulation, the grand jury's decision doesn't independently validate the decision of the DA, it just mirrors the will of the DA.
12/1/2014 1:26 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 12/1/2014 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:11:00 PM (view original):
That's my point. The failure is on the DA for not being able to get the case to trial.
That's cause there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!
I'm sure, had he wanted to, he could have cleared probable cause. He clearly didn't want to
Are you telling me there was probable cause that a cop who was attacked in his car by a thug twice his size did NOT fear for his life before killing brown? Officers can legally shoot to kill if they feel they are in imminent danger.
I'm telling you that, had the DA wanted to, he could have indicted Wilson, he didn't need the grand jury. It goes back to the community's mistrust of the local justice system.
I'm actually OK with the decision. I've also heard the argument of "The only reason this went to a grand jury was because there would be so much more outrage if it didn't."

At the end of the day, if you attack a police officer, you should understand you may get killed. He has a gun and is allowed to shoot you if you attack him.

I guess we'll never know what really happened.
12/1/2014 1:26 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 12/1/2014 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:11:00 PM (view original):
That's my point. The failure is on the DA for not being able to get the case to trial.
That's cause there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!
I'm sure, had he wanted to, he could have cleared probable cause. He clearly didn't want to
Are you telling me there was probable cause that a cop who was attacked in his car by a thug twice his size did NOT fear for his life before killing brown? Officers can legally shoot to kill if they feel they are in imminent danger.
I'm telling you that, had the DA wanted to, he could have indicted Wilson, he didn't need the grand jury. It goes back to the community's mistrust of the local justice system.

If the evidence clearly showed no crime to the DA, why would he "want to".  Furthermore, in handing it to the grand jury, if they see the same thing as the DA, why would they "want to" indict?  And why would the DA push for an indictment?  They had all kinds of options.  They could have easily "cleared the bar" themselves...

I'm not sure the evidence "clearly showed no crime." Regardless of that, the DA obviously didn't want to take this to trial. Maybe that's the right call, maybe it isn't. Again, there are a lot of unknowns.

Knowing that he didn't want to take it to trial, it's easy to see how that impacted the way the case was presented to the grand jury. The grand jury was shown exculpatory evidence (which is insane) and the DA allowed Wilson to testify and then actively worked to discredit other witnesses--treating their testimony more like a cross examination than a presentation of evidence (even threatening some with perjury charges). Because of that manipulation, the grand jury's decision doesn't independently validate the decision of the DA, it just mirrors the will of the DA.
Perhaps the DA "didn't want to take this to trial" because he didn't see enough evidence that Wilson committed a crime to warrant issuing charges.  And neither did the grand jury.

Should he/they have checked with you first?

12/1/2014 1:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No.  Just convict Wilson of something without bothering with all that evidence crap and BL is happy.
12/1/2014 1:41 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/30/2014 9:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/30/2014 6:53:00 PM (view original):

The BL-spin.   "Yeah, maybe the cops were exonerated but Lollie did exactly what he said he did!!!"

Are you that hard up for attention that you're having a sort-of argument with someone you claim you're blocking?
So, yes?
12/1/2014 1:43 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 12/1/2014 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 11/28/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/28/2014 9:11:00 PM (view original):
That's my point. The failure is on the DA for not being able to get the case to trial.
That's cause there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!
I'm sure, had he wanted to, he could have cleared probable cause. He clearly didn't want to
Are you telling me there was probable cause that a cop who was attacked in his car by a thug twice his size did NOT fear for his life before killing brown? Officers can legally shoot to kill if they feel they are in imminent danger.
I'm telling you that, had the DA wanted to, he could have indicted Wilson, he didn't need the grand jury. It goes back to the community's mistrust of the local justice system.

If the evidence clearly showed no crime to the DA, why would he "want to".  Furthermore, in handing it to the grand jury, if they see the same thing as the DA, why would they "want to" indict?  And why would the DA push for an indictment?  They had all kinds of options.  They could have easily "cleared the bar" themselves...

I'm not sure the evidence "clearly showed no crime." Regardless of that, the DA obviously didn't want to take this to trial. Maybe that's the right call, maybe it isn't. Again, there are a lot of unknowns.

Knowing that he didn't want to take it to trial, it's easy to see how that impacted the way the case was presented to the grand jury. The grand jury was shown exculpatory evidence (which is insane) and the DA allowed Wilson to testify and then actively worked to discredit other witnesses--treating their testimony more like a cross examination than a presentation of evidence (even threatening some with perjury charges). Because of that manipulation, the grand jury's decision doesn't independently validate the decision of the DA, it just mirrors the will of the DA.
Perhaps the DA "didn't want to take this to trial" because he didn't see enough evidence that Wilson committed a crime to warrant issuing charges.  And neither did the grand jury.

Should he/they have checked with you first?

"[A]nd neither did the grand jury"

That's my point. The DA shaped the case so that the grand jury found exactly how he wanted them to find. They didn't come to their conclusion independently. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but let's not pretend that the grand jury is anything other than political insulation for the DA.
12/1/2014 1:47 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Jeez, you're not giving the Grand Jury a shred of credit.  They're not puppets.  Nor are they rubber stamps.  All of them and the DA know more about the case than any of us. 
12/1/2014 2:34 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
I would also add that political insulation for the DA in this context appears to be a pretty wise move.  What would you have done, if you knew what the DA knew?  That if you left the racial context out - this case on it's facts would never be chargeable. 

Further, if you were a DA and knew you didn't have a case, why would you go to trial?  It's not your job to trial because the public wants you to. 

12/1/2014 2:38 PM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
BL knows that he's on the wrong side of this argument.  Or maybe he doesn't.  Either way, he's far too stubborn to ever admit that he's wrong.  Once he places his stake in the ground, he'll argue to the bitter end.  Which is usually when everybody else gets tired of listening to him repeat himself over and over and over again, and just check out of the conversation.
12/1/2014 2:40 PM
◂ Prev 1...70|71|72|73|74...142 Next ▸
Ferguson Police should be outlawed Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.