Al Sharpton to meet with Obama over Ferguson

[buckman]

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by buckman

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amen

[Fly Rod]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...dia/ar-BBgio9c

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The job of the prosecutor is to present the information they choose to the grand jury so they can determine probable cause.

In the Ferguson case they assigned a prosecutor with a long history of bias towards the police. The long rambling defense of Wilson was bizarre and only reinforced that belief.

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ moves to keep local prosecutors from handling cases like this to ensure the integrity of the process is maintained.

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Less expected than the Ferguson verdict.

Again, the deceased swattd ta th ecops as they tried to handcuff him. NO ONE deserves to die for that, but does anyone believe this guy would be dead if he let the cops do what they tried to do? I didn't see cops on a death hunt in this video, I saw cops approaching this guy with lots of caution and reserve. It escalated AFTER the deceased refused to let the cops handcuff him, and once again, you don't get to do that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The job of the prosecutor is to present the information they choose to the grand jury so they can determine probable cause.

THe grand jury is not a mere sponge that only soaks up the information presented by the prosecutor. Grand jury members can ask questions and demand evidence.

In the Ferguson case they assigned a prosecutor with a long history of bias towards the police.

Who be "They"? Since prosecutors, for the most part, prosecute the case brought by police, you'ld think that, yeah, their "bias" was be toward the police. And in most cases, when charges are brought against police, the police, in trial by jury, are usually found justified. This, in sum. would create "a long history of bias towards the police." Perhaps, you could mention some of the vast number of prosecutors that "they" could have assigned who don't have a built in "bias" toward the police

The long rambling defense of Wilson was bizarre and only reinforced that belief.

In contrast to the usual, the grand jury trial transcript was made public, so the WHOLE proceeding, including all the evidence is there, not just your characterization of a "long rambling defense."

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ moves to keep local prosecutors from handling cases like this to ensure the integrity of the process is maintained.

It wouldn't surprise me either. It wouldn't surprise me if this DOJ would like to nationalize all criminal cases, especially those involving race, to "ensure the integrity of the process." Never mind that the DOJ is not a shining example of integrity. Never mind that centralization of power is what would most likely ensure corruption of the process since it would be unchallenged.

It would not surprise me if this, as well as all preceding progressive administrations did, would continue to make moves which transfer the power of the States to the Federal Government. It wouldn't surprise me if the trajectory of the States becoming agents of the Federal Government continues, and, eventually the States will be dissolved as sovereign entities becoming merely geographic locations on the map of one, unified, State.

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Why stunning? I am not influenced in this matter by media bias. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. If there was some intentional corruption in the process, it would be one of the duties of the free press to expose that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why stunning? I am not influenced in this matter by media bias. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. If there was some intentional corruption in the process, it would be one of the duties of the free press to expose that.

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. This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.

I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly. 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.

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.

[detbuch]

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.