Jump to content

College president apologizes for saying all lives matter


cooltigger21

Recommended Posts

Homer is criticizing me. I am crushed. I think I will cry.

Actually, I am criticizing your work.

No sh*t Sherlock. All right it could have been better. The point is still the same though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here...

Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation?

You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for.

That's why cops are so rarely indicted.

Actually they got both sides in this case. Wilson, the potential defendant testified before the grand jury and they were allowed to ask him questions. If the PA had a weak case against Wilson, it should not have gone to the grand jury in the first place.

Both sides?

Usually it is only one side. The prosecutor's side. Any PA's case failed to develop due to false stories from several witnesses.

I haven't heard of a PA that felt this should have even gone to a grand jury. Some states have the option of overriding a grand jury and going to trail MO does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here...

Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation?

You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for.

That's why cops are so rarely indicted.

Actually they got both sides in this case. Wilson, the potential defendant testified before the grand jury and they were allowed to ask him questions. If the PA had a weak case against Wilson, it should not have gone to the grand jury in the first place.

Both sides?

Usually it is only one side. The prosecutor's side. Any PA's case failed to develop due to false stories from several witnesses.

I haven't heard of a PA that felt this should have even gone to a grand jury. Some states have the option of overriding a grand jury and going to trail MO does not.

You do see how a PA could be biased, don't you? How about a PA who is the child of an officer killed in the line of duty? Perhaps prosecutors who routinely work on the same side as police officers should not handle cases involving police officers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here...

Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation?

You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for.

That's why cops are so rarely indicted.

Actually they got both sides in this case. Wilson, the potential defendant testified before the grand jury and they were allowed to ask him questions. If the PA had a weak case against Wilson, it should not have gone to the grand jury in the first place.

Both sides?

Usually it is only one side. The prosecutor's side. Any PA's case failed to develop due to false stories from several witnesses.

I haven't heard of a PA that felt this should have even gone to a grand jury. Some states have the option of overriding a grand jury and going to trail MO does not.

You do see how a PA could be biased, don't you? How about a PA who is the child of an officer killed in the line of duty? Perhaps prosecutors who routinely work on the same side as police officers should not handle cases involving police officers?

well that would be ALL prosecutors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here...

Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation?

You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for.

That's why cops are so rarely indicted.

Actually they got both sides in this case. Wilson, the potential defendant testified before the grand jury and they were allowed to ask him questions. If the PA had a weak case against Wilson, it should not have gone to the grand jury in the first place.

Both sides?

Usually it is only one side. The prosecutor's side. Any PA's case failed to develop due to false stories from several witnesses.

I haven't heard of a PA that felt this should have even gone to a grand jury. Some states have the option of overriding a grand jury and going to trail MO does not.

You do see how a PA could be biased, don't you? How about a PA who is the child of an officer killed in the line of duty? Perhaps prosecutors who routinely work on the same side as police officers should not handle cases involving police officers?

well that would be ALL prosecutors.

LOL another intellectually superior point from itchy. What a tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are an elitist? This is a forum, not a class in writing.

But it's your life........

This is indeed a forum, but making an effort at paragraph structure is not really asking a lot. Especially when you consider the fact that this particular forum ultimately revolves around a university.

True, but this isn't sports and some generations may see it differently. I just don't see all the fuss about reading a monster "paragraph".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here...

Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation?

You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for.

That's why cops are so rarely indicted.

Actually they got both sides in this case. Wilson, the potential defendant testified before the grand jury and they were allowed to ask him questions. If the PA had a weak case against Wilson, it should not have gone to the grand jury in the first place.

Both sides?

Usually it is only one side. The prosecutor's side. Any PA's case failed to develop due to false stories from several witnesses.

I haven't heard of a PA that felt this should have even gone to a grand jury. Some states have the option of overriding a grand jury and going to trail MO does not.

You do see how a PA could be biased, don't you? How about a PA who is the child of an officer killed in the line of duty? Perhaps prosecutors who routinely work on the same side as police officers should not handle cases involving police officers?

well that would be ALL prosecutors.

We could and should bring in prosecutors from different jurisdictions in such cases. That is one of the major points that is not getting enough attention.

A prosecutor who handles the indictment of an officer in his own jurisdiction has an obvious conflict of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

And so, given the evidence put before them, they didn't see the possibility of a crime committed in Ferguson....correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

And so, given the evidence put before them, they didn't see the possibility of a crime committed in Ferguson....correct?

Given the presentation of the PA they decided not to indict. Had the only difference been that it was a civilian who did the shooting, there is no doubt in my mind they would have delivered an indictment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are an elitist? This is a forum, not a class in writing.

But it's your life........

This is indeed a forum, but making an effort at paragraph structure is not really asking a lot. Especially when you consider the fact that this particular forum ultimately revolves around a university.

True, but this isn't sports and some generations may see it differently. I just don't see all the fuss about reading a monster "paragraph".

Walls of text, like using all caps, has always been a taboo message board thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are an elitist? This is a forum, not a class in writing.

But it's your life........

This is indeed a forum, but making an effort at paragraph structure is not really asking a lot. Especially when you consider the fact that this particular forum ultimately revolves around a university.

True, but this isn't sports and some generations may see it differently. I just don't see all the fuss about reading a monster "paragraph".

Yeah, I guess "my generation" just values literacy. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

And so, given the evidence put before them, they didn't see the possibility of a crime committed in Ferguson....correct?

Given the presentation of the PA they decided not to indict. Had the only difference been that it was a civilian who did the shooting, there is no doubt in my mind they would have delivered an indictment.

You "might" be right because it is difficult to indict a LEO, but in this case the evidence led to Michael Brown as the aggressor on two occasions. Once with the store owner and again with Officer Wilson.

The case in NYC is a different matter. That officer should have been indicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are an elitist? This is a forum, not a class in writing.

But it's your life........

This is indeed a forum, but making an effort at paragraph structure is not really asking a lot. Especially when you consider the fact that this particular forum ultimately revolves around a university.

True, but this isn't sports and some generations may see it differently. I just don't see all the fuss about reading a monster "paragraph".

Yeah, I guess "my generation" just values literacy. :-\

That wasn't meant to be a shot at you, but I don't expect much else. LOL! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have rappers making songs encouraging the killing of cops and calling women bi**hes an ho's. We have pro athletes and congressional staff perpetuating myths instead of being role models for proper behavior. When you have this, you have big problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question for those of you who claim to be familiar with the evidence presented to the Grand Jury:

My understanding it that the officer was sitting in his squad car when Brown allegedly tried to wrest his gun away.

At one point was the first round fired? Was it while Brown was still in the window?

Brown's body was ultimately found outside of the car. Assuming he was no longer trying to reach into the car, how many rounds were fired after he was outside? Where was officer Wilson when these rounds were fired - still inside the car?

From the various accounts I have read, there is simply no way one could believe that Wilson kept firing in order to protect his life.

This PA clearly railroaded the grand jury into the conclusion he wanted. Which is what they normally do, but for the purpose of getting an indictment instead of avoiding one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are an elitist? This is a forum, not a class in writing.

But it's your life........

This is indeed a forum, but making an effort at paragraph structure is not really asking a lot. Especially when you consider the fact that this particular forum ultimately revolves around a university.

True, but this isn't sports and some generations may see it differently. I just don't see all the fuss about reading a monster "paragraph".

Yeah, I guess "my generation" just values literacy. :-\

That wasn't meant to be a shot at you, but I don't expect much else. LOL! :)

Oh, no offense taken. I admit to being an old fart.

Writing skills have been on a steady decline since I was in college. (I know because I graded papers as a graduate assistant.) The good news is that effective writing is an even better way to differentiate yourself in the job market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

That's exactly what I am calling BS.

Wilson almost emptied his pistol at this unarmed kid. Once he was out of Wilson's face, he could have simply rolled up the window and called for back-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

And this has nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. At least they got an indictment. Guess they couldn't afford not to considering Zimmerman wasn't even a cop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

That's exactly what I am calling BS.

Wilson almost emptied his pistol at this unarmed kid. Once he was out of Wilson's face, he could have simply rolled up the window and called for back-up.

lock the doors and hide? Are you for real. You want the people who are trained to serve and protect to hide and wait for backup as a fellon flees?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

And this has nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. At least they got an indictment. Guess they couldn't afford not to considering Zimmerman wasn't even a cop.

it wasn't even going to a GJ until they caved to the pressure and replaced the DA. Then he wasted taxpayer$ on a trial that was not winnable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

That's exactly what I am calling BS.

Wilson almost emptied his pistol at this unarmed kid. Once he was out of Wilson's face, he could have simply rolled up the window and called for back-up.

lock the doors and hide? Are you for real. You want the people who are trained to serve and protect to hide and wait for backup as a fellon flees?

I sure as hell don't want them emptying their pistols into an unarmed kid 15 or 20 feet (?) away.

And if I start shooting at someone at close range because I feel threatened, I'll take my chances with them fleeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually a PA has a duty not to prosecute if he does not feel there is a guilt. He could have filed or not filed charges himself. He took this to GJ for the facts to be exposed. Very different from a defense attorney who must defend even if he knows his client is guilty. It is rare for this type proceeding. Without the attention and turmoil the da would simply declare the shooting self defense and move on.

Guilt or innocence is not the standard for a Grand Jury. The standard is the possibility of a crime being committed.

again the PA could have charged him and gotten an indictment to hold up the charges, or he could have said there was no evidence to support any criminal charges with no GJ. There are always possibilities. But objectively looking at evidence and facts without emotion and rhetoric supports no need for a trial.

You could do as in Orlando. You could fire the DA and police chief because they didn't find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Bring in a new DA for the purpose of prosecuting only to acquit because of lack of evidence. You cannot outrun the facts.

And this has nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. At least they got an indictment. Guess they couldn't afford not to considering Zimmerman wasn't even a cop.

it wasn't even going to a GJ until they caved to the pressure and replaced the DA. Then he wasted taxpayer$ on a trial that was not winnable.

That's total BS. It reflects exactly the sort of attitude that blacks are concerned about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...