http://time.com/3535101/ferguson-amnesty...ael-brown/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014...n-protests

Oh bull$#!T.. go back to whatever third world country you're trying to save this time, AI... (FYI: not aimed at you UofM)

I guess protestors should be free to disrupt the lives of non-protesting citizens, should be allowed to throw crap at officers, allowed to assault non-protestors.

Oh noes, they used rubber bullets and sound weapons (although I'd love to have one of those for myself at times). Call the International Criminal Court! I Mean we've got war crimes here!

I'm so F***ING sick of people making this bull$#!T claim because people who are disturbing the peace are getting "manhandled when they're put under arrest".

The resulting report was released Friday. It doesn’t shine any light on the altercation between Brown and police officer Darren Wilson or what led Wilson to kill the unarmed teenager. But there’s value in reading about the events in Ferguson through the lens of human rights. Here are three key claims made in the Amnesty report:

Irrespective of whether there was some kind of physical confrontation between Michael Brown and the police officer, Michael Brown was unarmed and thus unlikely to have presented a serious threat.”

At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

Why do you believe there would be an inherent bias if it were local?

(10-24-2014 01:43 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

Why do you believe there would be an inherent bias if it were local?

Same reason high profile murders sometimes use outside, sequestered, juries...

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So you wouldn't be satisfied if the current prosecutor and grand jury don't find enough to criminally charge the officer?

(10-24-2014 01:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:43 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

Why do you believe there would be an inherent bias if it were local?

Same reason high profile murders sometimes use outside, sequestered, juries...

juries, sure. but that's never the case for the prosecution.

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

Everyone is biased in some manner. Gran Jury has been in session for a long time and evidence has been presented for some time.

(10-24-2014 01:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So you wouldn't be satisfied if the current prosecutor and grand jury don't find enough to criminally charge the officer?

All liberals have already convicted the guy in their own minds, it is a mental disorder.

(10-24-2014 02:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So you wouldn't be satisfied if the current prosecutor and grand jury don't find enough to criminally charge the officer?

All liberals have already convicted the guy in their own minds, it is a mental disorder.

So asking for a non biased prosecutor and grand jury is tantamount to convicted? Wow...

I'd expect a No Bill announced only after you get the necessary manpower resources and equipment in place to deter/respond to about 2000 hard core, P'O ed people out to loot, pillage, kill. etc.

(10-24-2014 02:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 02:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So you wouldn't be satisfied if the current prosecutor and grand jury don't find enough to criminally charge the officer?

All liberals have already convicted the guy in their own minds, it is a mental disorder.

So asking for a non biased prosecutor and grand jury is tantamount to convicted? Wow...

How is the prosecutor and grand jury biased? (as I said prior all people haves biases)

(10-24-2014 02:23 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 02:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 02:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So you wouldn't be satisfied if the current prosecutor and grand jury don't find enough to criminally charge the officer?

All liberals have already convicted the guy in their own minds, it is a mental disorder.

So asking for a non biased prosecutor and grand jury is tantamount to convicted? Wow...

How is the prosecutor and grand jury biased? (as I said prior all people haves biases)

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/w...sions.html