100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Babysteps, National Bar takes its place | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The compliance of which I speak, is during the arrest. To answer your question compliance would involve ceasing the attack and surrendering. In Brown's case he would be compliant by stopping and turning around, but the moment he started running at the cop, he became a threat once again. It seems there was evidence of a point blank hand wound received by Brown in the officer's car, along with gun powder residue and blood, all collaborating the officer's story. Would find it hard to explain what Brown's left hand was doing inside the police car on the opposite the window near where the officer's gun would be. Also, not sure why Brown never put his hands in the air to show he was surrendering. IF he were, in fact, surrendering. Makes more sense to me the Brown, who had a history of violent, aggressive behavior, would turn and charge the cop out of anger, than a scenario in which ran, almost got away, then turned to surrender without putting his hands in the air. Exactly, that is enough evidence to bring in reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed. Also what is the National Bar Association going to do? He can't be retried as double jeopardy would apply. there isn't a reasonable doubt standard in a GRAND JURY,and there is also not a double jeopardy attached as it is not a TRIAL,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 12/04/14 09:49 PM
|
|
..."The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s..." I'm extremely disappointed that the President of the NBA has forgotten so much about The Law and the purpose of a Grand Jury to pander to *popular*, ill-informed opinion. ANY Grand Jury's ultimate end-goal is determine if prosecution is worth the time, money, and effort to possibly secure a conviction. Since the law in Missouri says that any citizen may shoot - to kill, if necessary - anyone whom they believe is about to commit a felony AND allows for police officers to shoot - to kill, if necessary - fleeing suspects and the forensic evidence shows the halted suspect was fleeing and then back-tracked towards the officer successful prosecution to a desired 'guilty' outcome could not be achieved. Oh, and if you feel like I'm repeating myself - and the facts of the matter - incessantly...I am. Every single time you bring up another *fascinating* aspect of this same, old, tired story which ignores all the facts of the matter in an attempt to spin it into something it is not... ...and can never be. Wonder which one of us will grow tired of it, first?  the evidence only showed he turned around,, when people are being shot they may move a bit from original positions,,,,,lol but, if it is correct, and I haven't reviewed, that Missouri allows death to anyone 'believed' to be about to commit a felony, I would question that law and what justifies 'belief' that a felony would be committed,,, and, at the very least, a JURY should be able to question and review if there was enough to justify such a 'belief' or believe it existed,,,, but to deny any accountability, is to some of us,, tragic,, and if supported by law,, is all the more reason for protests and discussion to revisit such a BROAD authority over others lives to be given to police (or anyone else) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Ms Harmony...
such potential used debating those who sea but semantics of what it self wish to peer at. for to speak words designed to uncover who doth sea far outweigh words to refute who doth not sea. smiles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..."The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s..." I'm extremely disappointed that the President of the NBA has forgotten so much about The Law and the purpose of a Grand Jury to pander to *popular*, ill-informed opinion. ANY Grand Jury's ultimate end-goal is determine if prosecution is worth the time, money, and effort to possibly secure a conviction. Since the law in Missouri says that any citizen may shoot - to kill, if necessary - anyone whom they believe is about to commit a felony AND allows for police officers to shoot - to kill, if necessary - fleeing suspects and the forensic evidence shows the halted suspect was fleeing and then back-tracked towards the officer successful prosecution to a desired 'guilty' outcome could not be achieved. Oh, and if you feel like I'm repeating myself - and the facts of the matter - incessantly...I am. Every single time you bring up another *fascinating* aspect of this same, old, tired story which ignores all the facts of the matter in an attempt to spin it into something it is not... ...and can never be. Wonder which one of us will grow tired of it, first? the evidence only showed he turned around,, when people are being shot they may move a bit from original positions,,,,,lol but, if it is correct, and I haven't reviewed, that Missouri allows death to anyone 'believed' to be about to commit a felony, I would question that law and what justifies 'belief' that a felony would be committed,,, and, at the very least, a JURY should be able to question and review if there was enough to justify such a 'belief' or believe it existed,,,, but to deny any accountability, is to some of us,, tragic,, and if supported by law,, is all the more reason for protests and discussion to revisit such a BROAD authority over others lives to be given to police (or anyone else) Nahhhh...he didn't "move around after being shot"; the forensic evidence proved he went away, after being shot, and then turned to head BACK in the direction from which he'd come - he returned TOWARDS the gun. The forensic evidence shows he was then shot AGAIN, this time in the head, and THAT'S where he (finally) fell. I gave you the citation to a legitimate source regarding the current laws in Missouri in ANOTHER thread in which this same topic was discussed. In addition to providing a hotlink (so all you had to do was click on the hypertext), I also quoted, verbatim, the verbiage so all you had to do was read it, without lifting a finger or flicking your wrist. There's really no reason to continue to deny that that IS The Law with which the Grand Jury was working. Unless, of course, there's another agenda upon which YOU'RE working. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..."The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s..." I'm extremely disappointed that the President of the NBA has forgotten so much about The Law and the purpose of a Grand Jury to pander to *popular*, ill-informed opinion. ANY Grand Jury's ultimate end-goal is determine if prosecution is worth the time, money, and effort to possibly secure a conviction. Since the law in Missouri says that any citizen may shoot - to kill, if necessary - anyone whom they believe is about to commit a felony AND allows for police officers to shoot - to kill, if necessary - fleeing suspects and the forensic evidence shows the halted suspect was fleeing and then back-tracked towards the officer successful prosecution to a desired 'guilty' outcome could not be achieved. Oh, and if you feel like I'm repeating myself - and the facts of the matter - incessantly...I am. Every single time you bring up another *fascinating* aspect of this same, old, tired story which ignores all the facts of the matter in an attempt to spin it into something it is not... ...and can never be. Wonder which one of us will grow tired of it, first? the evidence only showed he turned around,, when people are being shot they may move a bit from original positions,,,,,lol but, if it is correct, and I haven't reviewed, that Missouri allows death to anyone 'believed' to be about to commit a felony, I would question that law and what justifies 'belief' that a felony would be committed,,, and, at the very least, a JURY should be able to question and review if there was enough to justify such a 'belief' or believe it existed,,,, but to deny any accountability, is to some of us,, tragic,, and if supported by law,, is all the more reason for protests and discussion to revisit such a BROAD authority over others lives to be given to police (or anyone else) Nahhhh...he didn't "move around after being shot"; the forensic evidence proved he went away, after being shot, and then turned to head BACK in the direction from which he'd come - he returned TOWARDS the gun. The forensic evidence shows he was then shot AGAIN, this time in the head, and THAT'S where he (finally) fell. I gave you the citation to a legitimate source regarding the current laws in Missouri in ANOTHER thread in which this same topic was discussed. In addition to providing a hotlink (so all you had to do was click on the hypertext), I also quoted, verbatim, the verbiage so all you had to do was read it, without lifting a finger or flicking your wrist. There's really no reason to continue to deny that that IS The Law with which the Grand Jury was working. Unless, of course, there's another agenda upon which YOU'RE working. Yes, when people are running away and TURN AROUND< they will then be facing the thing that they ran from no forensics to prove that he then 'charged' at the officer or in any way did anything besides get shot full of six bullets,,, I have no agenda, except that police should not get a free card to just take lives because people make them 'afraid',, they are in the wrong profession if that's the case and that lives deserve to be accounted for by the justice system through trial and jury, WHICH ALMOST AWAYS is approved by grand juries,, except if its a cop taking the life of some 'thug' when everything is just excused and defended and families are left with no closure,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
when everything is just excused and defended and families are left with no closure,,, Like the alleged victims of Bill Crosby? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Fri 12/05/14 08:03 AM
|
|
Yes, when people are running away and TURN AROUND< they will then be facing the thing that they ran from no forensics to prove that he then 'charged' at the officer or in any way did anything besides get shot full of six bullets,,, Ummmm...unfortunately, the forensics DO prove it...and collaborate the officer's version. Two shots were fired while the officer was in the car; the suspect's body matter was found both inside the police car AND on the outside of the police car's driver's side door...placing the suspect EXACTLY where the officer testified he was. More shots were fired as the suspect was fleeing and one of them hit him; the officer testified he fired off shots in the suspects direction and knew that one hit him because he saw his body jerk. After hitting him, the officer testified that the suspect then turned and began coming back TOWARDS the officer for several feet, closing the gap between them and thus, closing the gap between the suspect and the gun. The forensic evidence shows a trail a blood leaving the car, moving several yards away and then a trail of blood doubling back and returning in the same direction from its furthest away-point. The officer testified that's when he then fired off several more shots, including the fatal shot to the suspect's head, which entered the skull from the top of the head. This supports the scenario described: that the suspect was lunging towards the officer, in a football tackle-like move. It appears that you are choosing to provide a new definition for the term "a fleeing suspect" - one that better supports your fictional account of the events, so as to better support your agenda. |
|
|
|
|
