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

Ed Huntress wrote:
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:
he
"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.



The case they should have prosecuted was the cops that shot the woman
with the baby in the back seat in Wash.DC about a year ago.

John

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 23:45:17 -0400, John
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
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:
he
"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.



The case they should have prosecuted was the cops that shot the woman
with the baby in the back seat in Wash.DC about a year ago.

John

Indeed! Hear Hear!!


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On 3/8/2015 7:28 PM, Diana Huntress lied:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:03:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote

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

**** off, Diana.

A nym-shifting coward

**** off, Diana.

Shabazz Holder said Wilson is innocent.


--

Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:54:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 3/8/2015 7:28 PM, Diana Huntress lied:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:03:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote

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.


Shabazz Holder said Wilson is innocent.

He said nothing of the kind, you nym-shifting, name-forging coward.

'Done any metalworking lately, Ball? If you need some ideas to get
started, here are 21 things you can do with a paper clip:

http://thesecretyumiverse.wonderhowt...-clip-0139351/

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/8/2015 7:28 PM, Diana Huntress lied:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:03:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote

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

**** off, Diana.

A nym-shifting coward

**** off, Diana.

Shabazz Holder said Wilson is innocent.


--

Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:58:30 -0700, Jonathan D. Ball, the other JB
(JB2) tried to bluster his way through
with the following::

snip

"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

Shabazz Holder said Wilson is innocent.

'You need glasses, Ball? Are you having trouble reading these days?

Holder said no such thing. Now go back to your kook NGs, Ball, where
you belong, you low-life troll.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/8/2015 7:28 PM, Diana Huntress lied:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:03:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote

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

**** off, Diana.

A nym-shifting coward

**** off, Diana.

Shabazz Holder said Wilson is innocent.


--

Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i

Fortunately, they replaced the municipal judge today -- he
"resigned.". But he's also the municipal judge in another town, and
he's keeping that job.

I'm surprised nobody seems to be talking about putting him in prison
yet. It sounds like the feds have enough to put him away.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/9/2015 8:38 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i

Fortunately, they replaced the municipal judge today -- he
"resigned.". But he's also the municipal judge in another town, and
he's keeping that job.

I'm surprised nobody seems to be talking about putting him in prison
yet. It sounds like the feds have enough to put him away.

Bull****. You don't know your ass from your face.


--

Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973

On 2015-03-10, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i

Fortunately, they replaced the municipal judge today -- he
"resigned.". But he's also the municipal judge in another town, and
he's keeping that job.

I'm surprised nobody seems to be talking about putting him in prison
yet. It sounds like the feds have enough to put him away.


The neighboring municipalities, probably, are just as bad. Ferguson is
investigated because of a death that happened, by accident, in
Ferguson and not a neighboring municipality.

i

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:57:23 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

On 2015-03-10, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i

Fortunately, they replaced the municipal judge today -- he
"resigned.". But he's also the municipal judge in another town, and
he's keeping that job.

I'm surprised nobody seems to be talking about putting him in prison
yet. It sounds like the feds have enough to put him away.


The neighboring municipalities, probably, are just as bad. Ferguson is
investigated because of a death that happened, by accident, in
Ferguson and not a neighboring municipality.

i

Yeah, all of which is enough to give one the creeps. Given the
specificity of the offences that the DoJ listed in the report, there
must be enough to charge him with multiple counts of malfeasance. It
amounts to extortion, but they'd really have to go around the barn to
make that case.

Just guessing here, but I'll bet the feds are waiting for the state to
bring some kind of malfeasance-related charge against him, and he must
be at risk of disbarment, unless he retires completely and they decide
to let him off the hook.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i
What..that 68% of their population is poor blacks and more blacks get
arrested there than do other races?

Funny that.. only 13% of the US population is black..yet 58% of our
prison population is black. So either we have really aggressive cops
against blacks..or blacks commit crimes way..way..way the **** beyond
their percentage of the population.

Given the number of blacks in many police departments in areas with
similar situations...such as Detroit whose police department and city
government is black...Id have to say that blacks commit crimes way way
beyond their percentage of the population.

Or do you disagree and we all be honky racists?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:46:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i
What..that 68% of their population is poor blacks and more blacks get
arrested there than do other races?

Funny that.. only 13% of the US population is black..yet 58% of our
prison population is black. So either we have really aggressive cops
against blacks..or blacks commit crimes way..way..way the **** beyond
their percentage of the population.

Given the number of blacks in many police departments in areas with
similar situations...such as Detroit whose police department and city
government is black...Id have to say that blacks commit crimes way way
beyond their percentage of the population.

Or do you disagree and we all be honky racists?

Gunner

You just don't understand Gunner. It is not because they are
criminally inclined it is because they were subjected to prejudicial
treatment when they were young and impressionable and many of them
come from single parent families. As anyone can tell, it is not really
their fault. It society that is at fault.

:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2015-03-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i
What..that 68% of their population is poor blacks and more blacks get
arrested there than do other races?

Funny that.. only 13% of the US population is black..yet 58% of our
prison population is black. So either we have really aggressive cops
against blacks..or blacks commit crimes way..way..way the **** beyond
their percentage of the population.

Given the number of blacks in many police departments in areas with
similar situations...such as Detroit whose police department and city
government is black...Id have to say that blacks commit crimes way way
beyond their percentage of the population.

Or do you disagree and we all be honky racists?

I want you to read the report. It is about much more than
"discrimination". It is about how abusive Ferguson police is and how
the municipal court is nothing but a machine to rubber stamp police
abuse and collect extra revenues in forfeited bond payments, late fees
due to not notifying defendants of court dates, etc.

Very little of the report deals with race and much of it deals with
generic police and court abuse.

i

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:57:23 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

On 2015-03-10, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i

Fortunately, they replaced the municipal judge today -- he
"resigned.". But he's also the municipal judge in another town, and
he's keeping that job.

I'm surprised nobody seems to be talking about putting him in prison
yet. It sounds like the feds have enough to put him away.


The neighboring municipalities, probably, are just as bad. Ferguson is
investigated because of a death that happened, by accident, in
Ferguson and not a neighboring municipality.

Far too many municipalities in the US are just as bad. But just
reading the TOC of that DOJ report makes my skin crawl. It can't have
been unbiased. The actively bigoted black community in Ferguson could
be part of the reason it became the way it did, too. No doubt, it's a
mess there.

The black contractor cooling down after basketball seemed somewhat
innocent until the expired license/no license on him deal came up.
What else was he doing while cooling down and why did the cop report
pedophile suspicions? Did the cop watch him for awhile before this?
The whole thing seem hinky to me. I'm white and I don't go anywhere
without ID, since not having any with me could get me arrested and
detained. I grew up respecting police, and I still do, but I've seen
my share of inconsistencies within their ranks.

The deal with cop who arrested the two kids for fighting after telling
them to go home seems hinky, too. He was probably a father himself
and knew that to separate the kids was enough to stop the problem. I
don't blame him for arresting them the second time and support his
instruction to them, -rather- than an initial arrest. They need to be
taught (or better taught) some de-escalation tools, as well.


That said, I believe it is time for less tactical equipment and less
tactical training, plus much more range time and more legal training
for officers. PDs around the nation are failing to provide proper and
adequate training practices and procedures. The fact that the -vast-
majority of rounds fired by officers actually hit anything they were
aiming at is of utmost importance to immediately correct.

And it's time for people of color to lose the attitude toward police
officers when it's they themselves who are causing a lot of the police
attitude toward people of color.

Cop cams are a great idea. They will help keep both sides accountable
and will provide the entire story, not just the cop's report, and they
will bring loads of -usable- evidence into court.

--
Stoop and you'll be stepped on;
stand tall and you'll be shot at.
-- Carlos A. Urbizo

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:15:33 -0500, Ignoramus13209
wrote:

On 2015-03-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i
What..that 68% of their population is poor blacks and more blacks get
arrested there than do other races?

Funny that.. only 13% of the US population is black..yet 58% of our
prison population is black. So either we have really aggressive cops
against blacks..or blacks commit crimes way..way..way the **** beyond
their percentage of the population.

Given the number of blacks in many police departments in areas with
similar situations...such as Detroit whose police department and city
government is black...Id have to say that blacks commit crimes way way
beyond their percentage of the population.

Or do you disagree and we all be honky racists?

I want you to read the report. It is about much more than
"discrimination". It is about how abusive Ferguson police is and how
the municipal court is nothing but a machine to rubber stamp police
abuse and collect extra revenues in forfeited bond payments, late fees
due to not notifying defendants of court dates, etc.

Very little of the report deals with race and much of it deals with
generic police and court abuse.

i

Oh..then its like most eastern police departments who suck the money
out of everyone they can so they can stay high on their perks.

I thought you were making some case about them being racist.

Lots and lots of those eastern/southern/northeastern police
departments do that..along with many in the midwest. Speed traps and
similar games.

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 20:49:07 -0700, Jon Ball, "JB2", had nothing much
to say :

Get lost, Ball, You have nothing to do with this newsgroup, and
nothing worthwhile to say.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:50:36 -0700, Jon Ball, nym-shifting prick and
name-forging liar wrote:

[more slurs and bull****]

Get lost.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:15:33 -0500, Ignoramus13209
wrote:

On 2015-03-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:31:11 -0500, Ignoramus27247
wrote:

I highly recomment to everyone that you read, or at least, skim
through, the DOJ report on Ferguson. It details a highly disturbing
patterns of their PD and their court as well.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...oj-report.html

i
What..that 68% of their population is poor blacks and more blacks get
arrested there than do other races?

Funny that.. only 13% of the US population is black..yet 58% of our
prison population is black. So either we have really aggressive cops
against blacks..or blacks commit crimes way..way..way the **** beyond
their percentage of the population.

Given the number of blacks in many police departments in areas with
similar situations...such as Detroit whose police department and city
government is black...Id have to say that blacks commit crimes way way
beyond their percentage of the population.

Or do you disagree and we all be honky racists?

I want you to read the report. It is about much more than
"discrimination". It is about how abusive Ferguson police is and how
the municipal court is nothing but a machine to rubber stamp police
abuse and collect extra revenues in forfeited bond payments, late fees
due to not notifying defendants of court dates, etc.

Very little of the report deals with race and much of it deals with
generic police and court abuse.

i

U.S. police departments and courts have been actively engaged in
increasing the income of the "legal system", probably as long as they
have been in existence.

"Speed Traps" where the town posts a much lower speed limit and then
"catches" the speeding drivers a foot past the sign were extremely
common, particularly in the Southern part of the U.S. and mainly on
the main routes that "outsiders" would travel on. U.S. Route 1 was
very well known for speed traps in N & S Carolina and Georgia designed
to catch the tourists traveling from the North to Florida for a winter
vacation.

Or "Judge" Roy Bean and the "Law West of the Pecos" :-)

So the fact that this existed should not come as a surprise but the
fact that the citizens of the town allowed it to exist, may well
indicate that the citizens are more interested in keeping law
enforcement costs to a minimum and less interested in "justice".

Although, "justice" quite often means that "he got what he deserved"
and not "I got what I deserved" :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.