• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The Ferguson thread / additional race discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
238A67F100000578-2851264-image-52_1417058635296.jpg

cnn_isis_flag_ferguson.jpg


Communists and ISIS supporters.
 
The media needs to stop filming it.

Maybe. Just ignore it.

So many unrealistic people.

Whites were stupid for buying slaves from Africa. Anywhere. Especially not of their own.
 
Last edited:
Here's a thought about how the Grand Jury case was handled:

"To the contrary, requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory, as well as inculpatory, evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor's side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence."

- If you're curious about what libtard wrote this, it's some guy named Antonin Scalia. It's from the decision in United States v. Williams, 1992.
 
Economics, geography, sociology....
The article reviews a study that finds that lifetime earnings are $900,000 greater for those who are raised in the wealthiest 20% of neighborhoods than for those in the poorest 20% of neighborhoods. They suggest that schools are a main reason. I'm not sure how big an influence that really is because there are a lot more influences on how somebody grows up than just schools

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/28/how-much-do-neighborhoods-influence-future-earnings/?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks_5
How Much Do Neighborhoods Influence Future Earnings?

Lifetime earnings are $900,000 greater for those who are raised in the wealthiest 20% of neighborhoods than for those in the poorest 20% of neighborhoods, the study found. Andrew Hinderaker for The Wall Street Journal


The potential impact on lifetime earnings between growing up in a well-to-do neighborhood and a poor neighborhood is potentially larger than the difference between the earnings of the average college and high school graduate, according to a new study on social mobility.

The study by Douglas Massey of Princeton University and Jonathan Rothwell of the Brookings Institution, published in Economic Geography, calculated the average household income of the census tracts that children lived in for the first 16 years of their lives to see how well this predicted their average earnings between the ages of 30 and 44.

...

What could explain the neighborhood effect on incomes? Mr. Rothwell says school quality is a likely factor. Poor children tend to have better upward mobility when they attend better schools, and more affluent neighborhoods tend to have better schools.
Click to expand...
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Here's a thought about how the Grand Jury case was handled:

"To the contrary, requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory, as well as inculpatory, evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor's side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence."

- If you're curious about what libtard wrote this, it's some guy named Antonin Scalia. It's from the decision in United States v. Williams, 1992.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the Ferguson case? This quote is saying that the suspect has no right to present evidence evidence on his behalf and the grand jury is likely to indict people without them being able to present evidence showing their innocence (exculpatory evidence).

How does this pertain to this case? It says Grand Juries are historically against the "suspect" which would be Darren Wilson, but the independent body of citizens found not enough evidence to bring about charges.
 
LosBlancos said:
What does this have to do with the Ferguson case? This quote is saying that the suspect has no right to present evidence evidence on his behalf and the grand jury is likely to indict people without them being able to present evidence showing their innocence (exculpatory evidence).

How does this pertain to this case? It says Grand Juries are historically against the "suspect" which would be Darren Wilson, but the independent body of citizens found not enough evidence to bring about charges.
Click to expand...

The word you seem to be having difficulty with is "exculpatory" and the role of a grand jury. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that exculpates - that is, shows the innocence of someone.

The prosecutor has no legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence, and the grand jury has no duty to consider exculpatory evidence. It seems to be the norm for prosecutors not to present exculpatory evidence.

Now the role of a prosecutor in the typical grand jury case is to show only the evidence that proves the charges he is asking for. The defendant has no ability to defend himself. No contradictory evidence to the prosecutor's case needs to be shown to the grand jury. Think about that - you have a situation where the prosecutor can make a case without being challenged, using evidence only he selects to support his case. The ball is entirely in the prosecutor's court. That's why grand juries are typically against the suspect - the prosecutor has utter freedom in building his case!

Yet we have a grand jury where the prosecutor goes extremely out of his way to show all the evidence, both the evidence for his case and against it. The same prosecutor makes the unusual choice not to seek a specific charge. This is the same prosecutor whose own father, a police officer, was killed by an assailant who snatched the officer's weapon away from him. Other members of the prosecutor's family - his uncle, his brother, his cousin, even his mother, all worked as police or in law enforcement. This is the same prosecutor who previously failed to get a jury to indict in another police shooting where the DEA shot two unarmed men.

It's pretty damn clear that the prosecutor had never intention of seeking an indictment, and that the resulting grand jury trial was a show trial.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
The word you seem to be having difficulty with is "exculpatory" and the role of a grand jury. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that exculpates - that is, shows the innocence of someone.

The prosecutor has no legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence, and the grand jury has no duty to consider exculpatory evidence. It seems to be the norm for prosecutors not to present exculpatory evidence.
Click to expand...

There was evidence that showed "Darren Wilsons" innocence then? In that case, even if the Grand Jury came down with an indictment at the trial he would have been let off anyways. I thought he gunned down the Gentle Giant in cold blood, how is there any exculpatory evidence if he was indeed guilty as you have claimed since likely the day Mr. Brown was shot?

By this logic your going by they call up witnesses and if the witness says anything about seeing Michael Brown attack him they don't call them before the Grand Jury? By this logic, they wouldn't have presented the evidence that Michael Brown robbed a convenience store and the call was placed over police radios with his description?
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Which amendment gives the right to run over people if you are in a hurry?
Click to expand...

Which part gives you the right to drive half loaded into a crowd of people? I missed that part too :\

LosBlancos said:
Naked white student shot dead on campus by black police officer, this happened in 2012 but it's likely none of you ever heard the name Gil Collar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...deo-shows-naked-Alabama-student-high-LSD.html
Click to expand...

FFS stop using the Daily Fail as a resource.

If that was true people sure as shit should have been up in arms about it. But these round of riots over here as you can look at the TV and see are not only about black people being shot dead. If that was the case there wouldn't be so many white people out there protesting i don't think.
 
paranoid android said:
FFS stop using the Daily Fail as a resource.

If that was true people sure as shit should have been up in arms about it. But these round of riots over here as you can look at the TV and see are not only about black people being shot dead. If that was the case there wouldn't be so many white people out there protesting i don't think.
Click to expand...

As I said it's the most popular online newspaper, are you alleging any part of this story is inaccurate?

Yes, I'm sure people were "up in arms" but no widespread media attention. If anything it would have been a better case for people to get behind the kid was a college student, rather than a rapper with misogynistic and white-hating lyrics, he was naked and couldn't possibly have a weapon and he hadn't robbed a convenience store in moments prior to this.
 
LosBlancos said:
By this logic your going by they call up witnesses and if the witness says anything about seeing Michael Brown attack him they don't call them before the Grand Jury?
Click to expand...

Bingo! Now you understand what a grand jury is - it's the prosecutor's free reign to present his case, and only his case, without anyone attacking his evidence or witnesses.

There's a famous quote about how a prosecutor could get a jury to indict a ham sandwich, and that's not far from the truth.

Grand juries are mostly a holdover from early US history, when it was far more common for citizens to accuse others of crimes. That citizen, or an agent on his behalf, would go in front of a grand jury and tell them why they thought someone had committed a crime and should be brought to trial. The accused was never part of the proceedings.

Now, the form is still there, but instead of citizens, it's public prosecutors. And it's damn odd for the prosecutor to make a case for the accused. Yet in Ferguson, that's exactly what happened.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Bingo! Now you understand what a grand jury is - it's the prosecutor's free reign to present his case, and only his case, without anyone attacking his evidence or witnesses.

There's a famous quote about how a prosecutor could get a jury to indict a ham sandwich, and that's not far from the truth.

Grand juries are mostly a holdover from early US history, when it was far more common for citizens to accuse others of crimes. That citizen, or an agent on his behalf, would go in front of a grand jury and tell them why they thought someone had committed a crime and should be brought to trial. The accused was never part of the proceedings.

Now, the form is still there, but instead of citizens, it's public prosecutors. And it's damn odd for the prosecutor to make a case for the accused. Yet in Ferguson, that's exactly what happened.
Click to expand...

Wow, you love taking a condenscending tone like your some great intellectual and I have no familiarity with the American legal system.

There were many witnesses to the confrontation, at the Grand Jury hearing it was realized many actually didn't see it and were lying the whole "hands up" thing turned out to be fabrications entirely, the only witnesses that actually witnessed this confirmed that Michael Brown was the aggressor and didn't comply with Wilsons orders. So at the Grand Jury hearing they should have had no witnesses whatsoever?

I'm not sure how they would have brought on an indictment with no witnesses, when it was known many people saw it. What is the use anyways? If there is a slew of exculpatory evidence sure maybe they could leave it all out to get the indictment, but once it goes to trial that all comes out and he is not convicted anyways? Why delay the inevitable in this case or any other case? Are you advocating the prosecution withhold exculpatory evidence in the Grand Jury proceedings and make an innocent person deal with a lengthy trial, legal fees and stress only for the evidence to come out later and then set them free?

This whole time you had basically said Darren Wilson was guilty of murder, yet how does so much exculpatory evidence exist if he's guilty?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top