South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death

shagster01

shagster01

New member
serpentdove said:
I don't believe the officer was in fear for his life. When an officer says stop--stop. This has nothing to do with skin color [Ac 17:26] (the decedent's own brother said he didn't know if racial animus was a factor).
Click to expand...

Who cares about skin color? Whether the guy was black, white, brown, yellow, or red, it was clearly murder. That's all that matters.
 
Caino

Caino

BANNED
Banned
aCultureWarrior said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While (as usual) the entire encounter was not shown (where was the car if it was a traffic stop?),




Have you not learned anything from the St. Trayvon Martin and St. Michael Brown cases and how the Obama owned lying prostitute media will do anything to lynch a cop? While I realize that you liberals don't care if there is more to the story than what was shown on the video, there is.



Refer to my first post regarding the SCOTUS ruling on a fleeing felon (attempting to wrestle away a police officer's service weapon is a felony).



It must really bother you when I mention your boy's name (B. Hussein Obama) and Gestapo in the same sentence ey Doper?
Click to expand...

The clue is, birds of a feather think alike; these kinds of red neck cops think like aCultureWorrier does. Guilty of something before proven innocent.
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
republicanchick said:
Ferguson?

oh, so u know better than all those people in the grand jury who saw ALL the evidence?

how arrogant

_____
Click to expand...
"Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury"
November 26, 2014

On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

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.

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
Click to expand...
According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of liberals, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch should never have allowed Darren Wilson to address the Grand Jury.

The only reason for allowing those hours of testimony was to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

First an unarmed Michael Brown, Wilson's chief accuser, was permanently silenced.

Then the testimony of several other eyewitnesses, whose accounts directly contradicted Wilson's self-defense claims, was never presented.

Therefore the grand jury was never presented with "ALL the evidence" - just the select testimony that Prosecutor Bob McCulloch wanted them to hear in order for them not to indict Darren Wilson.
 
Last edited:
CabinetMaker

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
fool said:
Did he tase him?
Does a taser have only one shot?
Anyone know?
Click to expand...
There are taser wires in the video between the officer and the man.
The tasers I'm familiar with have one shot per cartridge. If a second shot is needed the spent cartridge needs to removed and replaced before firing again.
 
fool

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
CabinetMaker said:
There are taser wires in the video between the officer and the man.
Click to expand...
Where's that?
shooting



The tasers I'm familiar with have one shot per cartridge. If a second shot is needed the spent cartridge needs to removed and replaced before firing again.
Click to expand...
Here's a widget that will add single frame advance or rewind buttons to your youtube .
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...tub/elkadbdicdciddfkdpmaolomehalghio?hl=en-GB

To me, frame by frame, the first good frame we have is them wrestling for something, the officer is already reaching for his weapon with his right hand and wrestling for the thing with his left hand, there is nothing on the ground.

Then they break contact and in one frame the subject starts running and two dark objects hit the ground, one behind the officer and one in front and to the left.

Is it possible that the officer didn't realize that the taser had hit the ground and thought that the subject still had it?

Let's examine that question only before we move on to others.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
fool said:
Did he tase him?
Does a taser have only one shot?
Anyone know?
Click to expand...
He did. It had no effect.

They have to reload the cartridge.

taser.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top