Glory Days;1726119 wrote:So the FOP shouldn't support their officers until proven guilty? I mean, that is the point at where wrongdoing is proven right?

Isn't that almost word for word what I said?

gut;1726254 wrote:I own a "hands off, don't loot" shirt

I would pay money for that.

So did McCulloch yet I didn't hear you complaining about him?

He had no financial interest in not pandering to the crowd, and while you presume that he is/was buddy-buddy to the police, his primary responsibilty was to the people who elected him to office and to do his job as presecribed by law. He also had DOJ looking over his shoulder., so it was and would be impossible to give Wilson a free pass because he and police are "buddies". McCulloch was transparent and reasoned in laying out the evidence. If there is anything to criticize about his investiagtion, it is that he himself was guilty in playing to the mob, by giving blanket amnesty to those who bore false witness.

The Baltimore prosecutor is not off to a good start here....the first thing out of her mouth was (sic) 'I have heard your calls for justice and no peace'. I would hope that Lady Justice should be deaf, as well as blind as she weighs the evidence. The mob's call for a particular 'justice', and its threats of 'no peace' should not enter into the equation. Rather her job should entail gathering the facts, weighing the evidence and making charges where appropriate in accordance with the law.

HitsRus;1726265 wrote:He had no financial interest in not pandering to the crowd, and while you presume that he is/was buddy-buddy to the police, his primary responsibilty was to the people who elected him to office and to do his job as presecribed by law. He also had DOJ looking over his shoulder., so it was and would be impossible to give Wilson a free pass because he and police are "buddies". McCulloch was transparent and reasoned in laying out the evidence. If there is anything to criticize about his investiagtion, it is that he himself was guilty in playing to the mob, by giving blanket amnesty to those who bore false witness.

The Baltimore prosecutor is not off to a good start here....the first thing out of her mouth was (sic) 'I have heard your calls for justice and no peace'. I would hope that Lady Justice should be deaf, as well as blind as she weighs the evidence. The mob's call for a particular 'justice', and its threats of 'no peace' should not enter into the equation. Rather her job should entail gathering the facts, weighing the evidence and making charges where appropriate in accordance with the law.

You're contradicting yourself. They're both elected positions. They both have to their jobs to lose over it, meaning they both have a financial interest.

gut;1726122 wrote:She's trying to get them to roll. But what if there's no story to trade for a plea? Pretty deplorable. And her announcement wreaked of politics.

The mayor's was pretty bad too in her speech after the announcement.

I think only one of them gets any significant jail time and that's the driver.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1726267 wrote:You're contradicting yourself. They're both elected positions. They both have to their jobs to lose over it, meaning they both have a financial interest.

NO, not giving in to what the mob wants and the sequel of that would surely cost her job. McCulloch resisted that and did not cave in or pander to the threats of additional violence. Rather, he went about his business correctly, gathering evidence and testimony, the mob notwithstanding. Quite frankly, there were a lot of activists/agitators that were demanding a special prosecutor for Ferguson( a position that was served by the separate DOJ investigation)...why would you resist it in this case?

sleeper;1726272 wrote:The mayor's was pretty bad too in her speech after the announcement.

I think only one of them gets any significant jail time and that's the driver.

The mayor's political career is over...and in typical fashion, she's pointing fingers and blaming other people for her failure.

queencitybuckeye;1726259 wrote:Isn't that almost word for word what I said?

I guess I don't recall seeing the FOP supporting their officers after all legal avenues have been exhausted. So I don't see what point you were trying to make.

Just throwing this out there for thought. Compare it to the other side. Shouldn't the FOP be able to support their client just like any defense attorney supports their client? Even after no wrong doing was proven in cases like this(more like Ferguson), the defense will still sue cities for millions. Should they be forced to admit their clients acted in the wrong and therefor don't have a right to civil compensation?

HitsRus;1726265 wrote:He had no financial interest in not pandering to the crowd, and while you presume that he is/was buddy-buddy to the police, his primary responsibilty was to the people who elected him to office and to do his job as presecribed by law. He also had DOJ looking over his shoulder., so it was and would be impossible to give Wilson a free pass because he and police are "buddies". McCulloch was transparent and reasoned in laying out the evidence. If there is anything to criticize about his investiagtion, it is that he himself was guilty in playing to the mob, by giving blanket amnesty to those who bore false witness.

The Baltimore prosecutor is not off to a good start here....the first thing out of her mouth was (sic) 'I have heard your calls for justice and no peace'. I would hope that Lady Justice should be deaf, as well as blind as she weighs the evidence. The mob's call for a particular 'justice', and its threats of 'no peace' should not enter into the equation. Rather her job should entail gathering the facts, weighing the evidence and making charges where appropriate in accordance with the law.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1726267 wrote:You're contradicting yourself. They're both elected positions. They both have to their jobs to lose over it, meaning they both have a financial interest.

So how did the prosecutor in Ferguson, by going against the popular opinion of the public, gain votes?

Glory Days;1726300 wrote:I guess I don't recall seeing the FOP supporting their officers after all legal avenues have been exhausted. So I don't see what point you were trying to make.

Just throwing this out there for thought. Compare it to the other side. Shouldn't the FOP be able to support their client just like any defense attorney supports their client? Even after no wrong doing was proven in cases like this(more like Ferguson), the defense will still sue cities for millions. Should they be forced to admit their clients acted in the wrong and therefor don't have a right to civil compensation?

Because typically Unions only support their "brothers" when in a little trouble and keeping them as employees is to their benefit. In the instance of the Baltimore cops, their local will let them hang.

Glory Days;1726302 wrote:So how did the prosecutor in Ferguson, by going against the popular opinion of the public, gain votes?

He didn't. And that's the point. There's no reason Balitmores prosecutor should be dissmissed since he wasn't.

Not a matter of being dismissed, it's about ethics and recusing yourself if you can't be objective . It should be pretty obvious from her statements that her objectivity is compromised.

Uz2Bon36;1726305 wrote:Because typically Unions only support their "brothers" when in a little trouble and keeping them as employees is to their benefit. In the instance of the Baltimore cops, their local will let them hang.

Really? So there is proof the cops beat Gray or even gave him a "rough ride"? Because all I read from the charges was they didn't call an ambulance soon enough. The FOP will be supporting these cops when the case is that weak.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1726316 wrote:He didn't. And that's the point. There's no reason Balitmores prosecutor should be dissmissed since he wasn't.

No, you just don't get it. How does the Ferguson prosecutor benefit from deciding not to file charges and going through the grand jury process instead? The answer, he doesn't. How does the Baltimore prosecutor benefit by quickly filing charges less than a day after receiving the PD's investigation(I know, she claimed to have done her own too) and when in her speech, she basically says she did what the public wanted done? The answer, more votes next election and job security. Right now, the Ferguson prosecutor would have been a lot more popular had he filed charges, even though it was eventually shown that would have been wrong to do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/02/baltimore-police-trial-freddie-gray_n_7196984.html

Even some of those who support Mosby's stand worry further violence might erupt if she fails to win convictions.

Alan Dershowitz, a well-known criminal lawyer from New York and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, suggested that Mosby's actions were motivated more by political expediency and short-term public safety than strong evidence. He called the charges "outrageous and irresponsible," especially a second-degree murder count filed against the van's driver under a legal principle known as "depraved heart."

"The decision to file charges was made not based on considerations of justice, but on considerations of crowd control," Dershowitz said Saturday.

This isn't some off the wall theory Hits and I are putting out there.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/02/nypd-officer-shot-search-continues-for-suspects/26803467/

This is why you investigate people acting suspiciously. I mean, its not a crime to adjust your pants is it? Its the same reason you chase someone who runs away from you unprovoked.

Glory Days;1726386 wrote:No, you just don't get it. How does the Ferguson prosecutor benefit from deciding not to file charges and going through the grand jury process instead? The answer, he doesn't. How does the Baltimore prosecutor benefit by quickly filing charges less than a day after receiving the PD's investigation(I know, she claimed to have done her own too) and when in her speech, she basically says she did what the public wanted done? The answer, more votes next election and job security. Right now, the Ferguson prosecutor would have been a lot more popular had he filed charges, even though it was eventually shown that would have been wrong to do.

because her grand jury process was like it was supposed to. Like nearly every grand jury decision takes.

What you don't get is you're not seeing how hypocritical you're being just because you don't have a prosecutor in your pocket this time, so you don't like it.

HitsRus;1726342 wrote:Not a matter of being dismissed, it's about ethics and recusing yourself if you can't be objective . It should be pretty obvious from her statements that her objectivity is compromised.

You mean objective like having a dad who was a cop killed by a black man when you were 12? Yeah that screams objectivity to me too.

^^^more presumption on your part that is not borne out by the facts. Moreover, because Ferguson was this, doesn't mean that Baltimore is the same. Such typical Progressive drivel and attempts at obsfuscation.
Your logic is that because (in your opinion) Ferguson was unjust, therefore Baltimore should allowed to be unjust...and your premise is that justice is a result that follows a political agenda.
Do you really hate the American justice system that much? Can you really be that dense?

HitsRus;1726401 wrote:^^^more presumption on your part that is not borne out by the facts. Moreover, because Ferguson was this, doesn't mean that Baltimore is the same. Such typical Progressive drivel and attempts at obsfuscation.
Your logic is that because (in your opinion) Ferguson was unjust, therefore Baltimore should allowed to be unjust...and your premise is that justice is a result that follows a political agenda.
Do you really hate the American justice system that much? Can you really be that dense?

I don't know that Ferguson was unjust. I wasn't in the grand jury that was presented evidence and it never went to trial for me to hear evidence. So I don't know anything about the case just like you don't either. You only know what you've heard on the news. All I know is you have two prosecutors with family in law enforcement so that's sounds pretty equal to me. You're the one making assumptions like you actually know what's going on. You haven't heard any of the evidence presented in either case, so quit pretending you're privy to any information anyone else on here. Get the fuck over yourself. If the prosecutor is making bullshit charges up, either the judge will dismiss them, or a jury will decide if they're bullshit. But for you to claim bias one way other the other without knowing any of the evidence is laughable on your part. But I guess it does make sense coming from you.

Well he did back up his claims by providing statements from Alan Dershowitz who is basically saying the exact same thing he is. When you choose to ignore things like this and instead just keep stating your own opinions with no evidence to back it up your the one who sounds like their bullshitting. If your going to debate take some time and find something to back up your beliefs and then post them. Instead you just call people on the other side dumb or go with It makes sense coming from you. Take some time and back up your thoughts if you want people to rationalize with your side.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1726406 wrote:If the prosecutor is making bullshit charges up, either the judge will dismiss them, or a jury will decide if they're bullshit.

Like a grand jury, like in Ferguson. The case is extraordinarily weak if a grand jury won't indict.

gut;1726437 wrote:Like a grand jury, like in Ferguson. The case is extraordinarily weak if a grand jury won't indict.

And they very well could be. I don't know yet, nor do you... Nor does Hitsrus.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1726399 wrote:You mean objective like having a dad who was a cop killed by a black man when you were 12? Yeah that screams objectivity to me too.

So the grand jury felt bad for him? After all, it was their decision, not his.