Politics On Politics.

[Piston Slapper]

So its as simple as voting in a prosecutor who believes that Wilson should stand trial and then formally charging Wilson?

Well, yes, but if there's no enough evidence to get an indictment, there's not a snowballs chance in hell of a conviction. It's a pipe dream that has no basis in reality.

Someone being shot while charging a police officer after assaulting the same police officer and trying to steal (and most likely kill) said police officer is NOT a victim. Just a criminal who committed suicide by cop.

[S8ET6]

Again, how can Mike Brown not be categorized as a victim? Especially when the definition of the word states: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

Mike Brown was killed.

He is a victim of murder.

Whether his murder was intentional or not, and

Whether his murder was justifiable or not, are both up for debate.

I don't buy your theory that it was suicide by cop, but even if it was:

- Mike Brown was still killed, and thus he is still a victim (albeit a victim of suicide)

- Suicide is illegal in the state of Missouri. According to you Mike Brown committed suicide (by cop). According to you, Wilson (said cop) assisted in said suicide. Assisted suicide is also illegal in Missouri. So, according to your theory, Wilson should be charged and tried for assisted suicide at the least, or even manslaughter

[survolvo]

[theForgottenone]

Having a degree or a piece of paper doesn't grant you an expert in a field. There are many specialized segment within any given career.

[Burn-E]

Adam needs to justify the sanctity of his profession and the debts they all accrue to earn their position. Especially in an era when law firms are consolidating and shrinking their associate levels while passing off extensive duties to paralegals and offshore services. It's not an easy life as a barrister these days so there's no need to beat up on him.

It's understandable even though anyone can study the same books. And if you happen to live in California, WY, WA, VT you don't have to have a degree you just have to read law with an attorney for a certain number of years before you take the Bar.

[Oreo931]

Adam needs to justify the sanctity of his profession and the debts they all accrue to earn their position. Especially in an era when law firms are consolidating and shrinking their associate levels while passing off extensive duties to paralegals and offshore services. It's not an easy life as a barrister these days so there's no need to beat up on him.

It's understandable even though anyone can study the same books. And if you happen to live in California, WY, WA, VT you don't have to have a degree you just have to read law with an attorney for a certain number of years before you take the Bar.

You still upset that I called you a know it all? It's true. Now grow up.

Any idiot can pick up a book. Congrats on your collection of law books, btw. There's a difference between being able to read and being trained in the law. Had you actually gone to law school you would understand what I'm saying. You're using the dictionary definitions of terms that have legal connotations.

You also need to do some reading about the grand jury process and how it works. It's not the same in every state. You also need to consider that information in the context of the present circumstances: what the physical evidence showed vs. politics and public [mob] pressure. Frankly, I don't think you would accept the grand jury decision even if the prosecutor had presented the evidence as you would have. I.e., nothing less than an indictment is good enough in your mind.

[Burn-E]

:lol:

Adam, that is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Thank you for making my day.

You read that as an attack. It was more a statement of fact in the law profession. I have a number of lawyer friends who bemoan the circumstances of their trade. It is hard to be an attorney these days, especially one who aspires to chase the elusive partnership.

Being a good attorney is one part knowledge, one part oration and one huge part being an effective poker player. Since I've had to hire and fire firms in my business development efforts it's something I pay attention to - especially when acquisitions go foul and lead to extensive arbitration and legal wrangling.

I don't care what you think but I do enjoy tweaking you and getting a reaction. Thanks for delivering.

Oh, and I am an insufferable know it all. It's a terrible trait but it makes me highly valuable to my employer - specifically because I sweat the details to their nth degree.

[theForgottenone]

Does anyone know the physical distance between Wilson and Brown during the final confrontation? I havent read anything that indicated how close/far they were apart when the kill shot(s) happened.

This would seem to be a critical piece of information because after being shot at least once, I could understand the "rage" Wilson said that Brown exhibited - but, if Brown was 50-100ft away from Wilson, then I fail to see how Wilson was in a life or death situation. If, on the other hand, Wilson was within arm's reach of Brown then I could fully understand Wilson emptying his weapon into Brown.

It is possible to get ballistic test on the bullets in Mike Brown body and get the answer for this question. However, I don't know if the prosecution side would have the ability or scene evident still exist.

[Oreo931]

Oh yeah, Alain, you really got me good! I'm SO fired up that I called you a know it all!

/sarcasm

[Burn-E]

Three things I can though:

1. Of course the grand jury process differs by State - we're dealing with State and not Federal laws here.

2. County and State Prosecutors and DA's are 100% political offices in most jurisdictions - so to consider that that one would present a case for political purposes is practically ad oculos.

3. You're jumping to some wildly unfounded assumptions with little insight when it comes to my modus operandi. If Brown actually attacked Wilson unprovoked rather than Wilson grabbing him through the window then he was asking for trouble. From that point forward, again if Brown was the aggressor, then he got more than anyone deserves but he certainly reaped an unfortunate consequence due to his own actions.

What can't be proven though is that Wilson's story is the truth. If there was clear evidence I'd have no issue with no indictment. I'm a researcher, I trust the facts only so far as they can be triangulated and verified. Last time I checked that's the way it should operate according to the law. But let's not forget that in spite of his beautiful speech, McCulloch's team wasn't there to represent Michael Brown. They presented a case that supported their view on the facts. That much is undeniable.

[S8ET6]

.... I.e., nothing less than an indictment is good enough in your mind.

This statement makes it seem like a Wilson indictment has negative connotations...

[Fudge_Brownie]

"You people ..." ?!?!?

In such a racially charged topic/environment it might behoove you to avoid using "buzz words" like these if you want to be viewed as non-biased

Would I be ignorant for saying that especially given the context, there was absolutely no way to perceive that statement as having racial connotations? You don't even seem to read it that way, calling it a buzzword and wanting him to walk on egg shells.

[S8ET6]

Ignorant? No… not necessarily.

I would agree that 99% of the VS members reading this thread may not have perceived that statement as having any racial connotations.

But Adam is a Lawyer…

Words (both spoken and written) are literally the tools of his trade…

Smart Lawyers think in terms of context for EVERYTHING that they are about to write or speak.

So, for him to have used that phrase, given the context of this conversation, can only be described as either dumb, lazy, or careless.

From the posts of his that I have read on VS over the years, he doesn’t seem either dumb or lazy.

So, I’m thinking that careless is the descriptor that I would use – because obviously he couldn’t Care Less about having this conversation without trying not to elicit an emotional response from the 1% who would understand the phrase “you people” can (and often does) have negative connotations associated with it.

And I thought that it was important to point this out to him. Carry on...

[Oreo931]

Lol this is a car forum on the Internet. If you people get offended by the phrase "you people," whatever the context, you people need to take a break from the Internet.

Thanks for pointing that out to me :rolleyes:

[Burn-E]

Speaking of words, unfortunately this statement remains relevant today but in a different manner since issues of justice that it decries have shifted to a more insular fashion.

Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

- Martin Luther King, Jr - 1966

And this is how idiots who fail to understand what King's message really was are misusing his statement:

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2014/11/in-ferguson-riots-social-media-corrupts-mlks-message/