It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White Officer Just Indicted By SC Jury For Killing Unarmed Black Man

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

"Prosecutors are elected officials in all but three states. Shouldn't the voters be trusted to select them? "

In a word no. The whole idea of having prosecutors elected means they become politicians not lawyers. You need an independent from the police prosecution service. Secret grand juries are unsatisfactory.




posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ispyed




You need an independent from the police prosecution service.

An unelected appointee then. Appointed by whom? From what pool? Who fires him?

edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Police already have 'special rules'. That doesn't mean they are allowed to kill with impunity (if you're going to insist on being anal), of course.

Re-election often depends on conviction rate, doesn't it? What does a prosecutors conviction rate depend on? The police departments they work with, creating conflict of interest should questions arise about a cops actions being legal. Are you suggesting that an appointed special prosecutor would present false evidence in order to indict/convict a cop? Lie to a grand jury about what the law is concerning an officers use of force/deadly force? Make up lies about the cops character in order to sway a grand jury/jury? Because if not, how would Constitutionality come into play? The officer is still getting the same justice, just not via a friendly face.
edit on 12/6/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Re-election often depends on conviction rate, doesn't it?
That's not what I base my vote on when I vote for prosecutor. How about you?


Are you suggesting that an appointed special prosecutor would present false evidence in order to indict/convict a cop? Lie to a grand jury about what the law is concerning an officers use of force/deadly force?
Are you suggesting that McColluch presented false evidence in order to avoid an indictment by the grand jury?


Because if not, how would Constitutionality come into play?
Because by requiring a special prosecutor you are applying the legal system differently to a policeman than you are to someone who is not a policeman for no other reason than they are a policeman.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

A lot of people do vote based on conviction rate though, they want to feel safer... so a prosecutor getting bad guys put away is kind of important to them.

No, I'm not suggesting McCulloch presented false evidence... I do however believe that he and his team took on a defensive role with Wilson.

Why is a requiring a special prosecutor any different than disallowing lawyers to work on cases in which they have a conflict of interest? Is a special prosecutor going to go by a different set of laws than the local prosecutor?



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

A lot of people do vote based on conviction rate though, they want to feel safer... so a prosecutor getting bad guys put away is kind of important to them.
Welcome to a representative government. Want a different system? But how about you? How do you vote for prosecutor?


I do however believe that he and his team took on a defensive role with Wilson.
I don't. I think they provided the grand jury with all the available evidence, allowed them to review it and question the available witnesses (with very astute questions, I think) and come to a decision based on it. I know there are some who think that providing all the evidence was "unorthodox" but if you're concerned about justice I can't really see how it can be considered unfair.


Why is a requiring a special prosecutor any different than disallowing lawyers to work on cases in which they have a conflict of interest?
Because, in those cases specific reasons exist for a possible conflict of interest, not "because he's a cop."

edit on 12/6/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How about because they work directly or indirectly with each other?



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
All lawyers work indirectly or directly with law enforcement and judges.

Specific would be "His wife is the prosecutor's administrative assistant."



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But working directly with xyz precinct doesn't apply?



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

The jurisdiction of a prosecutor does not fall to a single precinct nor a single police officer any more that the public defender's office does.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes I know but prosecutors work with each precinct in their jurisdiction.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
As well as working with most of the lawyers and all of the judges in the county.

I don't buy the premise that prosecutors value conviction rates over other factors. I don't buy the premise that voters base their decision solely on that factor.

edit on 12/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: FeistyFemme

You know, unlike some other countries you can leave America anytime you like...


I had hoped much of the US police force would go to third would countries and carry on with their war lord antics. A bit too dangerous for them I suspect.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
This story puzzles me somewhat..
A man goes to complian about his daughters driving fine, and ends up in the morgue.

What happened between him entering the station, and being charged with obstruction...?

Why did he leave the building after being told to stop?

Why did he try to drive away?

If he wasn't guilty of anything, why was he running? Why did he struggle?

Did the cop feel his life was threatend so much, his last resort was to blow two holes in the man?

Until we have ALL the details on this case, I think we should reserve judgment..



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The chief doesn't like his attitude so the solution is to decide an arrest is in order for challenging his authority. So the man leaving gets killed for resisting.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
The chief doesn't like his attitude so the solution is to decide an arrest is in order for challenging his authority. So the man leaving gets killed for resisting.


Why go to the cop house with an attitude...



You know there's an ass whoopin' just waiting for you if you do..

But seriously, why are people so confrontational ...over a damn fine..??



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   


But seriously, why are people so confrontational ...over a damn fine..??


Could it be people get tired of being ripped off and mistreated by corrupt police. Do you like being shook down for money? I bet not.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy




When I look at at what happened in Ferguson, there is no way any officer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the matter of killing someone unarmed.

He should have just let him run away? He should have done nothing as Brown advanced toward him?
Maybe, but neither you nor I were there or in his position.

Exactly, he didn't let him run away, since he had already shot him from the car, only then was Michael Brown running. But, then the car was running too, why chase him on foot, he was safe in the car, and since he was scared of the 'demon' especially so. This is all from the officer himself, and all in camera.
Then the Ferguson chief said officer Wilson didn't know about any robbery, so why did officer Wilson see any significance about the cigarillos, that's in his statement. This is all stuff to be thrashed out in an open court, not behind closed doors.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
This is simple to fix

Any cop that kills or shoots anyone for what ever reason should have the cases sent to court just to ensure fair play was used and then everyone involded can have their say in front of the public.

Clean cut cases should be restriced to two days trial so that the judges and lawyers don't all get rich

Just because the system works now and again does not mean its not broken
edit on 7-12-2014 by VirusGuard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



But seriously, why are people so confrontational ...over a damn fine..??


Could it be people get tired of being ripped off and mistreated by corrupt police. Do you like being shook down for money? I bet not.


Could it be that people break the law, speed, broken tail lights, DUI's, park illegaly etc etc etc..is that what you mean by shaken down.
There are certain people in this world who think that laws don't apply to them, and therfore, they don't have to pay fines.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join