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.
That's not what I base my vote on when I vote for prosecutor. How about you?
Re-election often depends on conviction rate, doesn't it?
Are you suggesting that McColluch presented false evidence in order to avoid an indictment by the grand jury?
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?
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.
Because if not, how would Constitutionality come into play?
Welcome to a representative government. Want a different system? But how about you? How do you vote for prosecutor?
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.
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.
I do however believe that he and his team took on a defensive role with Wilson.
Because, in those cases specific reasons exist for a possible conflict of interest, not "because he's a cop."
Why is a requiring a special prosecutor any different than disallowing lawyers to work on cases in which they have a conflict of interest?
originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: FeistyFemme
You know, unlike some other countries you can leave America anytime you like...
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.
But seriously, why are people so confrontational ...over a damn fine..??
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.
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.