Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
It would appear that while the grand jury has a lot of power the prosecutor is very influential in shaping the environment in which they work.
Excuse me, but wouldn't this be true of all prosecutors. Even federal ones.
This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.
Shall we disqualify applicants for prosecutor if they have police in their families? How about federal prosecutors . . . or federal attorneys general who have a background in so-called civil rights movements and affiliations with radical groups. How about Presidents who also have such backgrounds or families who are affiliated with anti-American values and who wish to fundamentally transform the nation as well as disregarding the Constitution rather than upholding their oath to defend it?
Shall we selectively decide? Is that "fair"? I believe the word "fair" is big with you.
I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly.
Thank you. Although I would be more confident if you actually said that the state is the proper, yes--Constitutionally proper--jurisdiction for managing the process. Not the federal government.
That's not to say it would change the outcome but the people would likely have more faith the process. Seems like there's a high potential for a conflict of interest.
Omigosh. We have come to a place and time when every action can be considered a conflict of interest. Aren't all interests in conflict with someone else's interest in a wholly fractured society in which every third person has a different interest? How have we come to be so divided? How have we drifted from a society which largely had fundamentally uniform values to one in which conflicting "perspectives" are more the norm? A place where "seems like," "perspective," "perhaps, maybe, not sure, appear . . ." and the like hold sway over definite statements?
Spence, "it seems like" there would be "a high potential of conflict of interest" no matter who "they" appointed as prosecutor. It would certainly "seem" so if Eric Holder appointed one.
Stunning in that you have a video which clearly show an officer using an improper use of force against someone who while agitated didn't appear to be an imminent threat to the police or those around him. I believe the officer didn't intend to kill him and the guys health likely played a big factor. But even if you give the police the benefit of doubt it's not a free for all.
|
It "seems" that the victim did consider it a free for all. He didn't "seem" to think that he needed to obey the police, and that he could tell them to leave him alone. Even though he was doing something illegal.
Threaded Mode