Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Mavorpen]

So he was attempting to have it both ways: Placate the crowd with a show of a grand jury proceeding, but not really attempt to do his job. That's entirely unethical and unprofessional.

I'm not saying I approve, just that I can understand.
Well, what would you have had him do: try his darndest to get a man he thought was innocent convicted, or drop the city into chaos again by refusing to prosecute? Heck, had he refused to indict I wouldn't be surprised if he'd just have gotten fired and replaced with someone else willing to put on a show.

Actually, the community requested a special prosecutor. He didn't have to be the one to do it. But, well, we know what happened to that request.

[Geilinor]

On the broader topic of race relations in the country, on CNN, they made a show out of crowds marching with Pan-African flags; is there some revival of that ideology in recent years, or is this just CNN trying to hype up the show as always? I tend to think more the latter, but I really have little information on the matter.

I don't know, I tend to avoid cable news.

[Dyakovo]

Intellectual dishonesty.

I assumed you meant 'tried the case for conviction' instead of indictment, because they did in fact indict Darren Wilson.... so...

No, they did not. The grand jury failed to indict.

[Patridam]

I'm not saying I approve, just that I can understand.
Well, what would you have had him do: try his darndest to get a man he thought was innocent convicted, or drop the city into chaos again by refusing to prosecute? Heck, had he refused to indict I wouldn't be surprised if he'd just have gotten fired and replaced with someone else willing to put on a show.

Actually, the community requested a special prosecutor. He didn't have to be the one to do it. But, well, we know what happened to that request.

So, what, go through all the available prosecutors until we get one willing to try an innocent man as sacrifice to the pagan gods rioters?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So he was attempting to have it both ways: Placate the crowd with a show of a grand jury proceeding, but not really attempt to do his job. That's entirely unethical and unprofessional.

I'm not saying I approve, just that I can understand.
Well, what would you have had him do: try his darndest to get a man he thought was innocent convicted, or drop the city into chaos again by refusing to prosecute? Heck, had he refused to file charges I wouldn't be surprised if he'd just have gotten fired and replaced with someone else willing to put on a show.

No, I would have him present evidence that a crime occurred in order to get an indictment. If he did not believe that there was evidence that a crime occurred, then I would have him not present anything to the grand jury at all. I would have him do his goddamned job regardless of the consequences. If you're going to do anything less, then you have no right to sit in that office and claim to represent the people.

[United Marxist Nations]

On the broader topic of race relations in the country, on CNN, they made a show out of crowds marching with Pan-African flags; is there some revival of that ideology in recent years, or is this just CNN trying to hype up the show as always? I tend to think more the latter, but I really have little information on the matter.

That's an interesting question but I doubt it's anymore more than the latter. Though I don't know much either.

Yeah; it would have been an interesting development. Such a development could have positive and negative aspects to it; on one hand, it could bring in more organization and centralized conduct for protesters, leading to greater effectiveness less in the way of looting; however, it could also cause some less-reputable members within the movement to gain more prominence. Perhaps in-time, we'll hear more about it.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, the community requested a special prosecutor. He didn't have to be the one to do it. But, well, we know what happened to that request.

So, what, go through all the available prosecutors until we get one willing to try an innocent man as sacrifice to the pagan gods rioters?

No, just one that doesn't have a conflict of interest.

I have no idea why you're so intent on tilting at windmills so much, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

[Patridam]

So, what, go through all the available prosecutors until we get one willing to try an innocent man as sacrifice to the pagan gods rioters?

No, just one that doesn't have a conflict of interest.

I have no idea why you're so intent on tilting at windmills so much, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

What was the conflict of interest in question?

[Mavorpen]

No, just one that doesn't have a conflict of interest.

I have no idea why you're so intent on tilting at windmills so much, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

What was the conflict of interest in question?

Well for one, like you said, he believed Wilson to be innocent. You don't get a prosecutor with such a glaring conflict of interest. Plus, a local prosecutor has inherently strong ties, especially politically, with local police forces; this one in particular had deep family ties to the local police force. A state prosecutor would have been much more better to garnish the trust of the community, and wouldn't have resulted in such a backlash had said prosecutor tried their hardest, even if they failed to indict.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, just one that doesn't have a conflict of interest.

I have no idea why you're so intent on tilting at windmills so much, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

What was the conflict of interest in question?

Every single damned member of his family was a police officer, including his father, who was killed by a suspect while on the job. That last bit would be quite a bit for anyone to overcome when prosecuting an officer accused of wrongfully killing a suspect.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, just one that doesn't have a conflict of interest.

I have no idea why you're so intent on tilting at windmills so much, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

What was the conflict of interest in question?

He had two conflicts of interest, of which I think both sides of the issue would agree are a good reason for him to recuse himself; 1) that he has close ties to the Department, and 2) that, as DA, he would have likely stood to gain politically from being overly harsh. In the end, it was more the first that got the better of him, but both were reasonable worries in the run-up to the presentation of evidence.

[Patridam]

What was the conflict of interest in question?

Well for one, like you said, he believed Wilson to be innocent. You don't get a prosecutor with such a glaring conflict of interest. Plus, a local prosecutor has inherently strong ties, especially politically, with local police forces; this one in particular had deep family ties to the local police force. A state prosecutor would have been much more better to garnish the trust of the community, and wouldn't have resulted in such a backlash had said prosecutor tried their hardest, even if they failed to indict.

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well for one, like you said, he believed Wilson to be innocent. You don't get a prosecutor with such a glaring conflict of interest. Plus, a local prosecutor has inherently strong ties, especially politically, with local police forces; this one in particular had deep family ties to the local police force. A state prosecutor would have been much more better to garnish the trust of the community, and wouldn't have resulted in such a backlash had said prosecutor tried their hardest, even if they failed to indict.

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

If you're going to prosecute him, then yes, that's ideal.

[Mavorpen]

Well for one, like you said, he believed Wilson to be innocent. You don't get a prosecutor with such a glaring conflict of interest. Plus, a local prosecutor has inherently strong ties, especially politically, with local police forces; this one in particular had deep family ties to the local police force. A state prosecutor would have been much more better to garnish the trust of the community, and wouldn't have resulted in such a backlash had said prosecutor tried their hardest, even if they failed to indict.

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

No, find one who could do their job of, you know, prosecuting. Whether there was truly a lack of evidence was the job of the grand jury and, if indicted, the jury who would decide whether to convict.

Seriously, your tilting at windmills is borderline childish at this point. It's not contributing anything meaningful to this thread.

[Patridam]

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

If you're going to prosecute him, then yes, that's ideal.

But why was it necessary to prosecute him in the first place, if he couldn't be convicted?

Oh yes, appeasement politics towards the rioters.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well for one, like you said, he believed Wilson to be innocent. You don't get a prosecutor with such a glaring conflict of interest. Plus, a local prosecutor has inherently strong ties, especially politically, with local police forces; this one in particular had deep family ties to the local police force. A state prosecutor would have been much more better to garnish the trust of the community, and wouldn't have resulted in such a backlash had said prosecutor tried their hardest, even if they failed to indict.

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

The prosecutor doesn't have to think he is guilty to do his job. His literal title is to prosecute. An indictment isn't based on whether they did it anyway; that is what a trial is for, an indictment is a decision as to whether there is enough for a trial to decide guilt. And anyone having been shot with a fair bit of contradictory evidence should have been grounds for the reasonable cause to do so.

[Patridam]

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

No, find one who could do their job of, you know, prosecuting. Whether there was truly a lack of evidence was the job of the grand jury and, if indicted, the jury who would decide whether to convict.

Seriously, your tilting at windmills is borderline childish at this point. It's not contributing anything meaningful to this thread.

It can't really be considered 'tilting a windmills' if yumyum agreed to it...

[Mavorpen]

If you're going to prosecute him, then yes, that's ideal.

But why was it necessary to prosecute him in the first place, if he couldn't be convicted?

Oh yes, appeasement politics towards the rioters.

Can you please prove that every person who was upset over Brown's death was a rioter?

[Mavorpen]

No, find one who could do their job of, you know, prosecuting. Whether there was truly a lack of evidence was the job of the grand jury and, if indicted, the jury who would decide whether to convict.

Seriously, your tilting at windmills is borderline childish at this point. It's not contributing anything meaningful to this thread.

It can't really be considered 'tilting a windmills' if yumyum agreed to it...

Sure it can. Because you replied to ME.

[Dyakovo]

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

If you're going to prosecute him, then yes, that's ideal.

Indeed. It is the prosecutor's job to try for convictions. It's the defense attorney's job to present the evidence of the accused's innocence.

[Patridam]

But why was it necessary to prosecute him in the first place, if he couldn't be convicted?

Oh yes, appeasement politics towards the rioters.

Can you please prove that every person who was upset over Brown's death was a rioter?

No, but I don't need to in the least. Rioters were not all of those upset or even a majority, but they were the ones threatening the city if they didn't get their way.

[Die Volkstaat]

I know it seems contradictory for a racial realist and nationalist conservative like myself to say this, but I'm actually glad the police were indicted. There was conclusive evidence that police went overboard in their use of force, and the practice of the "rough ride" and general apathy towards Gray's condition is a crime. Of course, I think it's disgusting that Baltimore erupted into riots, as there was no authority figure saying "we will not arrest these cops."

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you're going to prosecute him, then yes, that's ideal.

But why was it necessary to prosecute him in the first place, if he couldn't be convicted?

Oh yes, appeasement politics towards the rioters.

Then don't bring a case for indictment before the grand jury. How many times must we ride this merry go round?

[Jamzmania]

So, try to find a prosecute who thought Wilson was guilty despite the lack of evidence?

No, find one who could do their job of, you know, prosecuting. Whether there was truly a lack of evidence was the job of the grand jury and, if indicted, the jury who would decide whether to convict.

Seriously, your tilting at windmills is borderline childish at this point. It's not contributing anything meaningful to this thread.

The grand jury seemed to decide that there was a lack of evidence. Whelp, glad that's settled.

[Patridam]

It can't really be considered 'tilting a windmills' if yumyum agreed to it...

Sure it can. Because you replied to ME.

You consider the prosecutor not actually thinking Wilson was guilty as (among other possible ones) a conflict of interest, yes?
And you wanted a prosecutor without conflicts of interest, yes?