Posted on 08/19/2014 7:56:25 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
It should be handled by the appropriate local and state officials.
Would a polygraph test (or multiple ones in case of a result of “inconclusive”) for each of the eyewitnesses (and officer Darren Wilson, too, as there would undoubtedly be calls to keep this balanced) be administered to ‘get to the bottom of this’?
Is the prosecutor “appropriate” given the circumstances? If this were reversed would it be appropriate?
Constitutionally speaking, the feds have no place here.
all polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they can be manipulated and are easily faked or guided by the operator via interpretation or the leading questions.
This is an act of desperation by the lawyers of the Parks firm to salvage yet another loser case.
I’m not talking about the feds...
The Missouri Governor would be the one who (Constitutionally speaking) would have the right to appoint a special prosecutor - if were so inclined.
I agree, lets keep this constitutional - no feds should be involved.
There is the element of some outside group or individuals coming in to cause disruption, incite violence, destroy property and to provoke authorities for media attention working in concert with race pimps like the Rev. Al Sharpton. If a ‘protestor’ isn’t from Ferguson, he/she has no business there. imho.
So far the only reason I’ve seen to sidestep the current prosecutor is because he’s white.
Which eye-witness? The one who has admitted guilt in the robbery, or the dozen whose version of the events coincide with the officer’s version?
Polygraphs are routinely administered before a case goes to trail. Why wouldn’t the police or the prosecutor in Ferguson Missouri not want to do this?
What does the Parks firm have to do with this? I was unaware of them calling for this. I have yet to see any in the MSM reporting on this, nor have I seen any talking heads or pundits in the MSM talk about the possibility of this.
If you have any links to the Parks firm concerning this (thus proof to bolster your statement), I would sure like to see them.
All of them - including the four who don’t coincide?
Why not?
If the shooting of Michael Brown is tied back to the convenience store robbery, then by law, if Johnson was an accomplice in that robbery he can be charged with homicide in the death of Brown.
We had a robbery shooting here last year where four yutes from nearby Castro Valley tried to rob a local pawn shop. The owner shot and killed one of the robbers, and the other three ran away. They were all eventually caught and charged with robbery and homicide in the death of their friend.
Johnson could be in the same situation if the shooting of Brown was a result of the robbery that Johnson was also involved in. If it was all one long continuous event, then Johnson could be held liable for Brown's death.
It's not likely that Johnson will be charged, though. Can you imagine the riots that would result from that?
-PJ
Red Herring.
I don’t care for Al Sharpton at all, nor his politics, but bringing him into this is a red herring.
Where are the cigars?
Is there a hospital report?
You are moving the goal posts and straying from your earlier position that we need to keep this constitutional - and keeping this constitutional I agree with completely.
The Missouri governor is white, btw.
As for me, I can’t see into the hearts of people. Maybe some can, but I can’t, which is why I like to keeps things purely objective and even for all sides be they black or white
So this entire thread is an exercise in irrelevant hypothetical alternative reality role-playing.
I was surprised when the police said that he would not be charged, and I didn’t see any non-verbal cues from him telling Michael Brown that he should put the cigars back where he got them.
Johnson was an accomplice, but I think it unlikely he has liability for felony murder. The theft was not a felony, not sure about the assault. Whether the theft was over at the time of the encounter of the officer would be an issue as well. There are legions of cases on that issue that are too detailed to get into here.
No, it isn’t an exercise in irrelevancy or reality role-playing, as someone involved as an eyewitness, etcetera, saying no to a polygraph may speak volumes. Maybe, maybe not...
And if you believe that the tread is irrelevant then why post on a thread that you believe to be irrelevant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.