BoltProspects Community Forums

BoltProspects Community Forums (http://boltprospects.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Room (http://boltprospects.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   News of the Day II (http://boltprospects.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10386)

the_narrow_way 11-27-2014 09:05 AM

In other news:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...-solar/2207845

I hope you stupid %(^&* who voted for Rick Scott are happy. Big business wins again.

WaiverWire 11-27-2014 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 176244)
Because the Obama administration was stone-walled, ignored, and resisted at a level never-before seen. That's not the voter's fault.

He was??? Have you not forgotten he had control of both chambers his first two years :duh:


And just yesterday Senator Chuck Shumer, one who spoke many times about getting the ACA done came out and said that they made a huge mistake and instead of spending time on the ACA they should have spent more time on the economy and jobs. But they did not. And now we are seeing the results as people are fed up that they can not find a good job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 176244)
Maybe it didn't happen here, maybe it did, but, it's very naive to think that coarse language is not used.

Street talk. It happens every day in law enforcement. But in today's world we are smart enough to know not to be the first one's to talk that way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 176244)
Which isn't their job. At first glance it appears the prosecutor went above-and-beyond in an effort in fairness. However, by doing that it interrupted the normal legal process, and allowed this grand jury to pass a judgment inappropriate to their purpose. This case should have gone to a normal trial. That was the only way it could have a chance at being fair. The fact that the prosecutor here is a wanna-be cop who couldn't hack it whose cop father was killed by a black man in the line of duty speaks volumes to me.

By allowing them to see all of the facts they saved their community the anguish over a trial, one that the prosecutor would had been trying, and Officer Wilson's defense team ripping the prosecutors case to shreds. And yes, through "discovery" the defense would have had access to the names and the witnesses statements/recordings that the police and the FBI found that came forward. (you know the same statements Eric Holder has to deal with)

One witness, who was black and elderly, came forward and said that he saw the incident and wanted to tell the truth as he was upset that the youth of the community would tell lies about what happened just because they do not like the police. He said that he was upset that he heard such things like Wilson standing over Brown and repeatedly shooting him, or that Wilson shot Brown in the back or that Brown had placed his hands in the air and was trying to surrender.

I like how some who were sworn in told the grand jury they never saw what had happened even though they gave statements to police/FBI that they did.

This is why Florida now has a law that makes it perjury to give the police a false or mis-leading statement.

I worked the area of "Suitcase City" for almost 25 years. I know that there are those in the community that will lie about what you do just because they want you in trouble. I also know that there are many more that will come to your aid and defense in those communities as these communities are just areas of people who have been dealt a bad hand and are making the most of it.

These are the people that need our protection from the thugs of the world.

Welcome to the real world. Welcome to my ex-world, which were the best days of my life helping those in need and making their down and out world a little safer for them.

WaiverWire 11-27-2014 10:23 AM

A good read on CNN today:

He is resigning and will leave law enforcement.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/dar...html?hpt=hp_t1


Quote:

"I met Darren Wilson approximately one hour after the incident," his attorney, Greg Kleoppel, told CNN. "That statement has been consistent one hour after the shooting, the following interview with the St. Louis County detective and on August 10 when it was recorded at the St. Louis County Police Department."

Bruntrager said the officer went through a series of interviews.

"Before he testified before the grand jury, he was also interviewed by the FBI and the Justice Department. They came in and gave him an exceedingly rigorous interview, where they didn't leave any question unasked," he said.


Quote:

Days after he fatally shot an unarmed black teen in August, Officer Darren Wilson was cutting grass when he was told his home address was circulating online.

Within three hours, he'd grabbed some bags and gone into hiding, according to his attorneys.

"He had to leave the grass, literally, half mowed," his lawyer, Neil Bruntrager, told CNN's Don Lemon late Wednesday

Since then, he's stayed under the radar by moving from house to house, including briefly living with one of his lawyers, and spending time watching movies in dark theaters to avoid detection.

ZeykShade 11-27-2014 11:32 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/w...y-364273731666


1) Allow Defense to make their case in a Grand Jury.
2) Immediately prior to Defendant testimony, give Statute to Jurors.
3) Make sure that the Statute you hand to Jurors is one that was found Unconstitutional in 1985 and actually allows cops to shoot fleeing suspects.
4) Realize your mistake WEEKS after Jurors have heard defendant testimony and likely already made their decision.
5) Rather than explain why the statute you gave them before was found unconstitutional, tell them to "Don't worry about that right now." and "We don't want to have a law class here."

ZeykShade 11-27-2014 11:35 PM

Quote:

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

WaiverWire 11-28-2014 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 176268)
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/w...y-364273731666


1) Allow Defense to make their case in a Grand Jury.
2) Immediately prior to Defendant testimony, give Statute to Jurors.
3) Make sure that the Statute you hand to Jurors is one that was found Unconstitutional in 1985 and actually allows cops to shoot fleeing suspects.
4) Realize your mistake WEEKS after Jurors have heard defendant testimony and likely already made their decision.
5) Rather than explain why the statute you gave them before was found unconstitutional, tell them to "Don't worry about that right now." and "We don't want to have a law class here."

I am sorry for what I am about to say, but are you really that f***ing stupid ZeykShade? I am really sorry that you chose that link from MSNBC, you see even the person speaking did not know what the hell he was talking about. I guess this is why their ratings are so low.

Let me clue you in on something. Brown was not fleeing as MSNBC would want you to believe. He was not shot in the back as social media wanted everyone to believe. He was running towards the officer, and some black witnesses said he had his head down and was running at full speed from a distance of about 20 feet. Well guess what, even I would had shot him, if I feared for my life, after the encounter that took place in the car.

So please tell me, what would you do? Place yourself in that car being beaten and someone tried to take your firearm. You feared that if he got your firearm he would use it on you. Then the person runs away but turns around and runs back at you. What would you do? And remember you only have seconds to decide. Are you going to let this guy tackle you and get your firearm? Are you going to try to run away and hope you are faster? Or are you going to let a robbery suspect kick the crap out of you and possibly kill you? It's your call ZeykShade. Or are you going to not even attempt to follow this guy so you can direct your back ups as to where to go? Are you not going to follow this guy, who just committed a robbery and battered a police officer, and allow him to maybe take a hostage? Put on those big boy pants ZeykShade and tell us all what you would do in a situation like this. You see these are just some of the things that we as law enforcement officers have to think about. Make the wrong choice and reek the wrath of all, or even make the right choice and reek the wrath of all. So please take the time to tell us what would you do.

And it is not unheard of for someone to speak before the grand jury who is the subject of the investigation. But if the State subpoenas you they are giving you "conditional immunity" and anything you say can not be used against you. But by allowing Wilson to testify on his own free will then they can us any statements he makes against him in court.

Like I said yesterday, read the grand jury report instead of listening to the media like MSNBC. Stand up and make your own decision instead of some out let or tweet making it for you.

As for Antonin Scalia, if you read the report and take out the testimony of Wilson you will find that the grand jury had no choice based on the facts in question. And please, please remember that the interviews were conducted by county, state and federal agents. Yes the same federal agents that are trying to put a case together for Eric Holder. There is not one single, reliable, interview by the FBI that disprove what the three autopsies said happened. Eric Holder has a very tough road to make a case.

So please do not tell us that Eric Holder or the FBI withheld someone's statements from this grand jury. That would be a crime and an injustice to the people of Ferguson.

BurnTHalO 11-28-2014 07:34 AM

Why would Holder not giving a statement to the Grand Jury be a crime? Not saying it happened, but isn't a Federal and local case completely separate, and they do not need to hand over all evidence to each other? Doesn't matter much, but I genuinely don't know about that.

The horse has been beaten to death by now, but I will reiterate, since you have seen a lot of grand jury cases (I presume), how many that you attended/had any part of had all information presented over the course of months, defendants allowed to present their side of the story, and prosecutors not trying to get an indictment?

Flycoon 11-28-2014 07:45 AM

There needs to be a sea change in the role of police (maybe policing again?) and scrapping the focus on becoming paramilitary groups and treating citizens as if they are recruits subject to orders. Like "Get the f out of the street".

Maybe this has been the devolution of police and criminal justice in general since 9/11, I don't know. If someone looks suspicious, get him.

WaiverWire 11-28-2014 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 176271)
Why would Holder not giving a statement to the Grand Jury be a crime? Not saying it happened, but isn't a Federal and local case completely separate, and they do not need to hand over all evidence to each other? Doesn't matter much, but I genuinely don't know about that.

The horse has been beaten to death by now, but I will reiterate, since you have seen a lot of grand jury cases (I presume), how many that you attended/had any part of had all information presented over the course of months, defendants allowed to present their side of the story, and prosecutors not trying to get an indictment?

This was a joint investigation with local, state and federal law enforcement. Some of the statements/interviews/recordings were conducted by all three agencies. Maybe all were not present, but they did share all the information.

And just how stupid would it make Holder and the Obama White House if they did hold back information? Do they not want to see justice served?

With holding of evidence is indeed a crime I do not care who you are. The DOJ was part of this investigation, a very big part. To date none of their investigators found one shred of evidence that supports what Brown's friend to law enforcement and/or what those who alleged what they saw. Some of these same people told the grand jury they were caught up in the moment and saw nothing.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 176272)
There needs to be a sea change in the role of police (maybe policing again?) and scrapping the focus on becoming paramilitary groups and treating citizens as if they are recruits subject to orders. Like "Get the f out of the street".

Maybe this has been the devolution of police and criminal justice in general since 9/11, I don't know. If someone looks suspicious, get him.

We really do not know who said what first do we Flycoon. But the truth is that many law enforcement officers will treat you like you treat them. Cuss a LEO and they will treat you the same. When I first became a LEO if you cussed at me you went to jail. My first Sheriff said to treat everyone like I, the sheriff, would treat them. But if they are disrespectful toss them in my hotel on Morgan St.

I would suggest that anyone on this site contact HCSO and request a ride along. Ask for District 1 and I assure you that you will see your eyes open up wide. You will see deputies that truly care about the people in their zones. You will also see how some of these people, which is a very small minority, treat those there to help them.

If you don't want to do that then pick out a courtroom and go watch. It is an eye opener for many. I remember this one USF student I stopped for running a red light, and I mean he blew it by at least 10 seconds as he was not paying attention. He gave me all sorts of grieve while I was writing him the ticket. He told me he would see me in court. I told him that was his choice but I also told him he needs to check his attitude at the courtroom doors. Well he did not. After the judge found him guilt the fool opened his mouth to one of the nicest judges, who is now a federal judge, I had ever meet. She gave him 30 days. He missed his final exams and spent Christmas in jail.

To this day I have taught my kids to treat others like you want to be treated. It does work.

ZeykShade 11-28-2014 11:48 AM

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/728098...ilson-evidence

LOL. Grand Juries aren't treated like normal trial juries. They're not sequestered and they get very little supervision. Basically you had a group of people given way more information than the vast majority of Grand Juries are given. To top it off, they were given almost no supervision of what to do with the information. In some cases, they were given bad information.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.