Jump to content

Is that what swift justice and transparency looks like


Recommended Posts

And like I said, I don't care about it either. I do care about honest arguments though.

Theres nothing dishonest about thinking there is a conflict of interest. I dont have to convince you why I think there is but we can simply agree to disagree w/o alluding to a lack of honesty. If she just had not said before reading her statement that she had heard the cries of the community for no justice no peace I wouldn't feel the way I do Sounds a little too politicized for my liking...thats all.

There is dishonesty when you look at only one side of things and declare a conflict and ignore the counter conflict that easily balances that out. When you harp on a relationship with an attorney of the Grays but ignore the longer association with police, that's dishonesty. When you harp on a campaign donation from the Gray's attorney but ignore the campaign donation from the police union, that's dishonesty.

If you don't like her statement, then just say that. But your argument about conflicts reveals either an inability or a lack of desire to argue a point honestly.

Dude decaf for you the rest of the night. I believe she is launching her political career on the backs of these police officers not all of which could possibly be culpable for Grays death.Theres not a dayum thing dishonest about my point of view but you seem to accrue some perverted sense of satisfaction insisting there is. Responding to the cries of the community is not the way justice system is supposed to work pal.

I am perfectly calm. Just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. And yes, it does show a lack of intellectual honesty on your part. Don't get bent because I don't let you get away with it.

you're a hoot bud. is that how you see your role in here? -not letting people "get away with" what you deem dishonest arguments? Unreal, and thats about all I got left

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And like I said, I don't care about it either. I do care about honest arguments though.

Theres nothing dishonest about thinking there is a conflict of interest. I dont have to convince you why I think there is but we can simply agree to disagree w/o alluding to a lack of honesty. If she just had not said before reading her statement that she had heard the cries of the community for no justice no peace I wouldn't feel the way I do Sounds a little too politicized for my liking...thats all.

There is dishonesty when you look at only one side of things and declare a conflict and ignore the counter conflict that easily balances that out. When you harp on a relationship with an attorney of the Grays but ignore the longer association with police, that's dishonesty. When you harp on a campaign donation from the Gray's attorney but ignore the campaign donation from the police union, that's dishonesty.

If you don't like her statement, then just say that. But your argument about conflicts reveals either an inability or a lack of desire to argue a point honestly.

Dude decaf for you the rest of the night. I believe she is launching her political career on the backs of these police officers not all of which could possibly be culpable for Grays death.Theres not a dayum thing dishonest about my point of view but you seem to accrue some perverted sense of satisfaction insisting there is. Responding to the cries of the community is not the way justice system is supposed to work pal.

I am perfectly calm. Just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. And yes, it does show a lack of intellectual honesty on your part. Don't get bent because I don't let you get away with it.

you're a hoot bud. is that how you see your role in here? -not letting people "get away with" what you deem dishonest arguments? Unreal, and thats about all I got left

It's not my "role." You just happen to be doing it in a thread I'm involved in, and specifically on a point I was discussing in it. So in the course of having that discussion, your glaring lack of perspective and honest argumentation got called out. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like I said, I don't care about it either. I do care about honest arguments though.

Theres nothing dishonest about thinking there is a conflict of interest. I dont have to convince you why I think there is but we can simply agree to disagree w/o alluding to a lack of honesty. If she just had not said before reading her statement that she had heard the cries of the community for no justice no peace I wouldn't feel the way I do Sounds a little too politicized for my liking...thats all.

There is dishonesty when you look at only one side of things and declare a conflict and ignore the counter conflict that easily balances that out. When you harp on a relationship with an attorney of the Grays but ignore the longer association with police, that's dishonesty. When you harp on a campaign donation from the Gray's attorney but ignore the campaign donation from the police union, that's dishonesty.

If you don't like her statement, then just say that. But your argument about conflicts reveals either an inability or a lack of desire to argue a point honestly.

Dude decaf for you the rest of the night. I believe she is launching her political career on the backs of these police officers not all of which could possibly be culpable for Grays death.Theres not a dayum thing dishonest about my point of view but you seem to accrue some perverted sense of satisfaction insisting there is. Responding to the cries of the community is not the way justice system is supposed to work pal.

I am perfectly calm. Just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. And yes, it does show a lack of intellectual honesty on your part. Don't get bent because I don't let you get away with it.

you're a hoot bud. is that how you see your role in here? -not letting people "get away with" what you deem dishonest arguments? Unreal, and thats about all I got left

It's not my "role." You just happen to be doing it in a thread I'm involved in, and specifically on a point I was discussing in it. So in the course of having that discussion, your glaring lack of perspective and honest argumentation got called out. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

Sorry, but you continue to overestimate your weight. Its well beyond your capacity to hurt my feelings pal of that you can be sure. I neither seek nor need intellectual respectability from you. At the same time, Im entitled to a point of view. Whether you like it or not, well, that's your problem not mine.You've convinced yourself on the merits of your argument that Im a liar which seems quite bizarre to me but it doesn't surprise me having seen many of your prior performances that were equally as bizarre IMO. I hope you have a good night bud. It'd be easy for one to believe it'll take you at least a couple hours to unwind behind this barrage of meaningless insults. See ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Titan takes another sip of his beer, bemused by Blue's rant*

Yeah, I'm real worked up. I don't know how I'll be able to chill at my kid's guitar recital or watch a minute of the NFL Draft tonight. Hooboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Titan takes another sip of his beer, bemused by Blue's rant*

Yeah, I'm real worked up. I don't know how I'll be able to chill at my kid's guitar recital or watch a minute of the NFL Draft tonight. Hooboy.

Get that blood pressure checked, Titan. A high stress environment like that wears on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, drink more beer. :beer2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but this is looking a lot like the Martin / Zimmerman case. Grandstanding prosecution going for charges that may be impossible to prove.

Conflict of interest looks pretty obvious here as well.

Just so I'm understanding this...

Associations with the Gray family's attorney = obvious conflict of interest.

Associations with five generations of police in her own family including both her parents = no conflict at all.

Are you people serious?

Yes, very serious. The lawyer for the Gray family was the biggest donor to her campaign.

If you can't figure out the problem there, then you likely think Lois Lernr did nothing wrong either.

But conflict of interest is only one of the problems w/ this little political speech she gave. She's acting as an advocate for one group, and she isn't. That's not job. Her JOB is to make sure justice is served, for all, not just one person, and regardless of how HER FOLK view the facts and the rule of law, she's suppose to hold to what ever comes. She all but said she was going to find these guys guilty, no matter what.

That's simply wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, very serious. The lawyer for the Gray family was the biggest donor to her campaign.

$4000. Or $5000. There's conflicting stories on what the maximum allowed amount is. On the other hand, the police union (FOP) also gave to her campaign. And both her parents were cops as well as 5 generations of her family.

If you can't see that those things balance out, you're blind.

But conflict of interest is only one of the problems w/ this little political speech she gave. She's acting as an advocate for one group, and she isn't. That's not job. Her JOB is to make sure justice is served, for all, not just one person, and regardless of how HER FOLK view the facts and the rule of law, she's suppose to hold to what ever comes. She all but said she was going to find these guys guilty, no matter what.

That's simply wrong.

You seem to be confused about the role of a prosecutor. If they are doing their job right, they will not bring charges unless they are convinced a crime occurred. It would be ludicrous for her to act like she believes anything other than that they are guilty.

She's not anti-cop. No DA can be if they ever want the police to help her with getting convictions again. They can sink a DA in a heartbeat.

That's the thing I don't get with you. You want to harp on only one set of potential conflicts and completely ignore all counterweights on the other end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titan - She's young, ambitious and very motivated. I think she's bitten off more than she can chew on this one, even if the cops are negligent in Freddie's death. As was the case in Sanford, the prosecution has set the bar high , and with very little, if any , actual proof to back up her charges.

You really think that her allegiance is spread equally among the FOP and a family friend of the deceased ?

Did you hear that speech she gave ? Sounds to me as if she's chosen sides. That's not her job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, very serious. The lawyer for the Gray family was the biggest donor to her campaign.

$4000. Or $5000. There's conflicting stories on what the maximum allowed amount is. On the other hand, the police union (FOP) also gave to her campaign. And both her parents were cops as well as 5 generations of her family.

If you can't see that those things balance out, you're blind.

But conflict of interest is only one of the problems w/ this little political speech she gave. She's acting as an advocate for one group, and she isn't. That's not job. Her JOB is to make sure justice is served, for all, not just one person, and regardless of how HER FOLK view the facts and the rule of law, she's suppose to hold to what ever comes. She all but said she was going to find these guys guilty, no matter what.

That's simply wrong.

You seem to be confused about the role of a prosecutor. If they are doing their job right, they will not bring charges unless they are convinced a crime occurred. It would be ludicrous for her to act like she believes anything other than that they are guilty.

She's not anti-cop. No DA can be if they ever want the police to help her with getting convictions again. They can sink a DA in a heartbeat.

That's the thing I don't get with you. You want to harp on only one set of potential conflicts and completely ignore all counterweights on the other end.

wouldnt take a ton of donations to win an unopposed race.

i agree a DA must be sure of guilt to prosecute. i emphasized this in the Ferguson threads. i am not sure she is sure of the amount of guilt these charges would indicate. i think these charges are strategically filed to quell the violence and unrest. the officers will be represented very well so i do trust justice will be met. it is starting to look like some of these white cops are sandwiched in between a lot of racial rocks and hard places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On what basis is the union asking the DA to recuse herself?

She is married to the Council man of that district.She also is close personal friends with the Gray family attorney who was on her transition team and he also contributed to her campaign. I dont see how all the officers are culpable for the guys death. I also can see a politically ambitious prosecutor making a name for herself for her future political career

no way they are all culpable. This in part is a dog and pony show to appease the people who were inclined to burn,steal and destroy the city.

The same thugs will riot tonite. Nothing has changed except they will call it " a celebration" thuggery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The celebration destruction tonight will only be outdone by the outrage destruction once the cops are acquitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Titan - She's young, ambitious and very motivated. I think she's bitten off more than she can chew on this one, even if the cops are negligent in Freddie's death. As was the case in Sanford, the prosecution has set the bar high , and with very little, if any , actual proof to back up her charges.

You really think that her allegiance is spread equally among the FOP and a family friend of the deceased ?

Did you hear that speech she gave ? Sounds to me as if she's chosen sides. That's not her job.

She's not the judge or grand jury. She is the prosecutor. Of course she has chosen sides.

And yes, I think that five generations of police in her family including both of her parents are an equal counterweight to any allegiance she might feel for a campaign donor.

I also think she has way more to go on that the Zimmerman case had. That said, I think the depraved indifference murder charge probably won't happen. I think the driver will most likely get manslaughter and maybe some others will get involuntary manslaughter at the most. I don't think they'll all be acquitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Baltimore mayor should take lessons from her.

She tore down so many walls at the same time.

A women,

A black women,

A very young black women can hold such a powerfull position?

She made a statement.

Seems that way. First thing i notice was how young she was but it appears like they have several young people in office in Baltimore from some of the interviews i've seen from different city officials. Even before all of this happened it seemed like they were already trying to make major efforts to make the city of better.

One of my first cousins lives in Baltimore...she's a social worker and 41. She's told me several stories about their issues...sad stories she's told me no matter what color a person is. Goes way beyond that with that city. I see that she graduated from Tuskegee University(undergrad). That's where she met her husband who is a councilman in Baltimore.

Heck, that makes her a homey in my book. ;D

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but this is looking a lot like the Martin / Zimmerman case. Grandstanding prosecution going for charges that may be impossible to prove.

Conflict of interest looks pretty obvious here as well.

Just so I'm understanding this...

Associations with the Gray family's attorney = obvious conflict of interest.

Associations with five generations of police in her own family including both her parents = no conflict at all.

Are you people serious?

I was thinking the same thing! What if the evidence/decision was reversed in favor of the police officers. Her ties and connections with her family history and associations to law enforcement is a lot stronger than the relationship with the Gray's attorney. I like the fact she can see things from both sides. Makes her more creditable IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like I said, I don't care about it either. I do care about honest arguments though.

Theres nothing dishonest about thinking there is a conflict of interest. I dont have to convince you why I think there is but we can simply agree to disagree w/o alluding to a lack of honesty. If she just had not said before reading her statement that she had heard the cries of the community for no justice no peace I wouldn't feel the way I do Sounds a little too politicized for my liking...thats all.

There is dishonesty when you look at only one side of things and declare a conflict and ignore the counter conflict that easily balances that out. When you harp on a relationship with an attorney of the Grays but ignore the longer association with police, that's dishonesty. When you harp on a campaign donation from the Gray's attorney but ignore the campaign donation from the police union, that's dishonesty.

If you don't like her statement, then just say that. But your argument about conflicts reveals either an inability or a lack of desire to argue a point honestly.

Dude decaf for you the rest of the night. I believe she is launching her political career on the backs of these police officers not all of which could possibly be culpable for Grays death.Theres not a dayum thing dishonest about my point of view but you seem to accrue some perverted sense of satisfaction insisting there is. Responding to the cries of the community is not the way justice system is supposed to work pal.

I am perfectly calm. Just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your argument. And yes, it does show a lack of intellectual honesty on your part. Don't get bent because I don't let you get away with it.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing! What if the evidence/decision was reversed in favor of the police officers. Her ties and connections with her family history and associations to law enforcement is a lot stronger than the relationship with the Gray's attorney. I like the fact she can see things from both sides. Makes her more creditable IMO.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this 'ties to the family ' stuff as having all that much weight as do her political ambitions and financial ties to the Gray family lawyer.

If you heard the speech she gave today, it was anything but fair and impartial. She sounded like an advocate for the rock throwers and looters, more than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing! What if the evidence/decision was reversed in favor of the police officers. Her ties and connections with her family history and associations to law enforcement is a lot stronger than the relationship with the Gray's attorney. I like the fact she can see things from both sides. Makes her more creditable IMO.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this 'ties to the family ' stuff as having all that much weight as do her political ambitions and financial ties to the Gray family lawyer.

If you heard the speech she gave today, it was anything but fair and impartial. She sounded like an advocate for the rock throwers and looters, more than anything.

I 100% agree with Titan's statements. Seems like you're totally ignoring the other side of her associations to fit your stance. The connections b/c of her family ties doesn't get much deeper than having 5 generations of family members being police officers and her late grandfather being one of the first black police officers in Mass.

You don't think growing up around that since birth has created stronger ties than some lawyer who just recently supported her campaign? C'mon man. Everyone knows police officers is a deep and strong fraternity and her entire family is or has been police officers...c'mon. You can't have it one way and not have it the other way.

You're entitled to what you believe 100% but c'mon you totally contradicted your statement. I'm sure she is trying to prove a point...a point that she is qualified and worth being appointed. I heard someone who will not stand for injustice...no matter who you are. She also praised law enforcement. It's just a weak argument regarding the Gray's attorney. Unless he financed the entire campaign...it's a very weak argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing! What if the evidence/decision was reversed in favor of the police officers. Her ties and connections with her family history and associations to law enforcement is a lot stronger than the relationship with the Gray's attorney. I like the fact she can see things from both sides. Makes her more creditable IMO.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this 'ties to the family ' stuff as having all that much weight as do her political ambitions and financial ties to the Gray family lawyer.

If you heard the speech she gave today, it was anything but fair and impartial. She sounded like an advocate for the rock throwers and looters, more than anything.

The lawyer donated $4000 or so to her campaign. Quit acting like she's got Soros or the Koch Brothers as sugar daddies. And the FOP donated to her campaign as well. And don't discount one of the biggest reasons ADs have a hard time being hard on bad cops: they depend on those cops to prosecute cases. If you get on their bad side they can wreck your career.

Her family ties, especially her parents being cops, are every bit as important as some $4000-5000 campaign contributor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause her folks were cops , decades ago, doesn't make her one.

Cops of today aren't too keen on some of what she's done. I get the impression there's no love lost tween them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause her folks were cops , decades ago, doesn't make her one.

Wow! I never thought of that. :-\

Seems as though you intentionally attempt to portray yourself as someone who is angry and, of limited intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is going to be state criminal, state civil case, and federal civil rights cases coming out of this.

2. After the city of Baltimore gets through paying for the costs of the riot damage and losing more tax revenue, they'll be paying $ millions to Gray's next of kin.

3. The Maryland prosecutor's ties to various groups may not matter much one way or another. Her political comments at the end of her statement today will probably lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor.

4. A change of venue is coming for all 3 of these trials. I'm not sure who would want these circuses.

5. The defendants will try for separate trails.

6. They appear to have overcharged all these policemen in an effort to get them to turn on each other and provide the evidence the state needs to convict, otherwise convictions may be difficult on some changes.

7. Baltimore will get a new mayor..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...