On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:03:44 -0800, Jonathan D. Ball, the other JB
(JB2) tried to bluster his way through
with the following::

On 3/6/2015 2:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:17:04 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 3/5/2015 1:03 PM, a425couple wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in...
"a425couple" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message...
Very hard to believe, but even Shabazz Holder says Darren Wilson is
innocent of any crime in the killing of the Gentle Giant, Michael
Brown.

Hold it a second there Rudy.
Do not get carried away (like so many do).

Did Eric Holder actually say that? (The word "innocent")
I'd be very surprised.
If he did, it should be easy enough for you to find a quote and a cite.

Words do have meanings.
=========================
http://tinyurl.com/nag9qw2
snip
In a report released Wednesday, prosecutors said that
"Wilson's actions do not constitute prosecutable violations"
of federal civil rights law.

Read the report

I read the report.
It certainly seems to support what I was saying.
Rudy was wrong. Careless in his words.

Neither one. Not wrong, not careless.

Eric Holder did not say, "Darren Wilson is innocent."

In effect, of course, he did say it.

"In effect"? in fact, this is what the report DID say: ""There is no
evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated
subjective belief that he feared for his safety," the Justice
Department report said."

It said a lot more than that, you lying gutless do-nothing coward:

Ooh, JB2 is picking up the habits of JB1. You two have more in common
than I realized. A nym-shifting coward, and recently a name-forging
liar, has nothing left but to accuse others of lying and cowardice.

Speaking of do-nothing, what in the hell are doing you trolling in a
metalworking newsgroup? Did they chase you out of all of the kook NGs?

And why are you so upset about being outed, Ball? Are you ashamed of
yourself? Maybe it's because you're such an insulting, imperious prick
that you're afraid that you'll push someone over the edge, eh? Don't
worry about me, Ball. I don't take nym-shifting, name-forging
juveniles that seriuosly.


The evidence backs Wilson's claim that he shot Brown in
self-defense, the investigation concluded. Physical evidence,
including blood trails and DNA, supports Wilson's testimony that
Brown initially tried to grab his gun, was coming toward him when
the officer shot and did not have his hands up, as some witnesses
had asserted.

...the investigation found that the evidence backed up Wilson and
discredited witnesses who had challenged his story, according to a
report of its findings that the department released Wednesday.

Thank you, LA Times. But I see that a couple of others caught you
quoting a journalist rather than the Justice Dept. report.

And that's because prosecutors don't decide "innocence."
Or guilt. Prosecutors decide whether a case is prosecutable. Guilt, or
lack of it, is determined after an adversarial hearing with CROSS
EXAMINATION, and a judge or jury making the decision. There was no
cross examination. There was no adversarial hearing.



The DoJ concluded that Wilson almost certainly was telling the truth
about how the encounter happened - in other words, it concluded he is
innocent of any crime. It concluded there *was* no crime.

No, prosecutors don't make that decision. What the report DID say, was
that the evidence and the credible testimony were consistent with
Wilson't testimony, and things like this:

"Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it
cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18
U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown."

And so on. The DoJ decided, rightly, from reading the report, that the
case shouild not be prosecuted. Their language in analyzing the
tertimony concluded, in many cases, what they thought a jury would
likely find credible. They didn't conclude that Wilson was innocent,
"in effect" or in fact. That's not what prosecutors do.

Now, go get yourself all bent out of shape into another foul-mouthed
snit, you bottom-feeding, name-forging troll.

--
Ed Huntress