Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ferguson MO 2.0 - No indictment in Eric Garner case...

What a bitch. Amazing that you are so proud of being a cunny.

Are you really to dense to understand the point?

Had Mr Garner just stopped resisting and been taken into custody he very likely would be here. But his continued aggressive resistance placed him in the situation that caused his death. We're taught to not give up until the suspect is in custody and under control.

Apparently all you did was look at the still photo too. Did you read the report from the ME, the real on not Kevin's expert. That attributed Garner's death to compressions of his chest. If you watch the video he never starts saying he can't breathe until well after the officer's hands are away from his neck.

As I said, either you were too stupid to understand the law until "browbeaten" by the DA, or too cowardly to stand on your convictions and do what you believed right.

What should have happened is that you ought never have been on the GJ at all, as either way you are a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen.

You can attempt to change your story at this point all you want. It won't change what happened and what you know you did. I wonder how many lives you ruined by being either too stupid or too cowardly (or both) to do what was right. I bet you don't wonder, though... do you?

again - why does it take 2 paragraphs to answer a yes or no question?

was he crying wolf?

again - why does it take 2 paragraphs to answer a yes or no question?

was he crying wolf?

so in other words, you're going to go a long way around not answering the question.

talk about cowards

so two long winded responses and neither one of them are capable of answering the question.

the insults are impressive

whats more impressive is just being able to answer the question honestly.

I answered the question, you chickenschit moron.

You stated that the GJ voted. If the GJ voted, then they voted and it's over. That's the end of it.

Then, you all chickened out when the DA came back not ONCE but TWICE calling you all fools. He may have been right, but you had already voted. So, you revoted - TWICE, because you were chickenschit.

After that, by your own admission, you simply did what the DA told you, because you're a f'kin' coward.

That's exactly what you stated.

What you SHOULD have done, you limpdick sorry azz excuse for a human, was stand by your original vote. That's the GJ's job. You'd done it, and it was over. Instead, you chickened out.

If the GJ didn't get the law, then the DA had screwed up, or you were all truly that friggin' stupid. Either is likely, though right now, the stupid is more probable in your case. Regardless, you'd had the evidence and you voted. THAT's what you should have done.

Going back over it and caving in, then being a rubber stamp, is a cowardly, chickenschit cop out.

Get it yet?

I'll make it simple for you

try a yes or no - not some long winded bullshit full of insults.

as a member of the grand jury, should I have voted what the law said or what I thought the law should have been.

are you capable of answering that with a yes or no?

after yes or no, you can call me every name in the book

I can remember my time on the grand jury

A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)

So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.

And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.

Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.

We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).

So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.

So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.

After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.

That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.

ok, you aren't capable of it.

thanks

When you voted, the first time, your job on the GJ was over.

Get that part yet, coward?

so two long winded responses and neither one of them are capable of answering the question.

the insults are impressive

whats more impressive is just being able to answer the question honestly.

I got it

now answer the question