Eternally Under the Authority of Satan
Originally Posted by Sockfucker
What's the point of that bullshit ??
Does have some truth to it, I'm not even talking about anybody here, Facebook is a classic example of what Mr. Satan posted.
You...
Strawman arguments Von you need to keep your eye on the puck rather than all this racial shit.
The 'prosecutor' decided that this case would never go to trial - that is not his fucking job.
The system was not allowed to operate, it was corrupted and race should have nothing to do with the proper use of the law.
The whole point of having a proper legal system is to prevent shit like this on either side of an argument. Hundreds of years have gone into to trying to get a bit better at being just.
Having a prosecutor who doesn't want to prosecute for whatever reason(he works with the accused and his father was murdered by a black guy when he was 12 is not ideal - coincidence?), is not the way to do it. This should have gone to trial, then if the evidence shows the scumbag did try and take his gun then fine. Or that after being shot and running away the cop had to shoot him a lot more then ok fine, that's at least a legal process.
Prosecutors can often present 40 indictments in a single day (albeit perhaps on lesser charges than homicide). That’s because the prosecutor’s burden is merely to establish that probable cause exists such that jurors can decide whether to indict — not to try the case. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in a 1992 opinion describing grand juries, “It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor.”
First of all, I doubt a white person ever named their kid "Marley Lion".
Unless they smoke so much weed that they put Kristy to shame........
Yeah, it's fake. Like you.
The Grand Jury decided it wouldn't go to trial Sesh. Quit watching the news through the bottom of a vodka bottle. Multiple black folks corroborated the police officers testimony. The Grand Jury rightly decided it would be a waste of a lot of money to put this guy on trial, when he is obviously guilty of nothing. He rightly removed a THUG CRIMINAL from our society.
Some of you dumb motherfuckers are so blinded by the black mans propaganda, that you can't see truth when it is right in front of your face.
In the case of OJ, the bad guy won. In this case the good guy won.
Oh, and Sesh, why is it different for the media to blow up the Trayvon shit, and sweep the white kids death under the rug? If both had been reported equally, I, nor anyone else, would be comparing the racial aspects. But that doesn't happen.
I hope one of your daughters marries a great man exactly like this dead THUG CRIMINAL. Maybe then you'll take your pathetic blinders off.
You are blinded by the race thing, I don't give a shit about that because I have no references it's not my problem.
I do have a ridiculously expensive pointless legal education though and your system didn't work properly in this case.
You can't just allow cops to shoot people for being thugs, it doesn't work out well.
Our system worked perfectly. Stick to practicing your law at Scotland Yard, where you might (debatable) know what you're talking about.
A police officer absolutely has every right to use deadly force when his life is in danger. In fact Sesh, I have the very same right. It's too bad your police officers must live by some law where they have to die, instead of ridding the world of a piece of shit THUG CRIMINAL. I wouldn't give a flying fuck what color either of these people were. The black scum in Ferguson made this about race, not me. I'll say the same thing to you, I said to Ford. Bring your drunken ass over here to Detroit, go up to a black cop and assault him and try to take his gun. When he caps your ass, I will make sure that black cop is a fucking hero, because that's exactly what he would be.
Of course but you have to test that in a court of law.
They botched all the forensics, he was killed while running away and he was unarmed. Not having a trial is ludicrous. The victim was on the cunt scale to whatever degree but most of the reason for a trial is so that justice is seen to be done.
Sesh, go to bed.
I'm trying to work here but you may be right.
I have a Slash arena gig later today I should be building up my mental strength for the bar prices...
The problem is we don't know that's how it went down. If say I am a dickhead kid and I push this cop and run away does he have a license to hunt me down and kill me because I hurt his ego?
Witnesses said that's not what happened Sesh. Nor was he a kid. He was a 6'5" 300lb grown man, that was old enough to die for his Country, if he hadn't chosen to die for being a THUG CRIMINAL instead.
You're going to see Slash? Awesome! I expect a full review. Don't get wasted! Remember the show!I'm trying to work here but you may be right.
I have a Slash arena gig later today I should be building up my mental strength for the bar prices...
This dickhead seems to get bigger on a daily basis...
A grand jury with a friendly 'prosecutor' is not a proper trial. We've all seen courtroom dramas imagine one with only a defence lawyer.
Also witness accounts are really unreliable in general to a level that is just fucking frightening. It's a common and human instinct to believe what witnesses say and it's just not reliable. I once had 5 eye witnesses accuse of me of breaking into an apartment.
That's really scary and I'm really fucking white.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate
Jan 8, 2009 |By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld
IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?
Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime. At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.
Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident. In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.
Reconstructing Memories
The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.
Given the dangers of mistaken convictions based on faulty eyewitness estimony, how can we minimize such errors? The Innocence Project has proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals in the lineup who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect is. Although only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing interest in doing so.
Expert Testimony
In addition, allowing experts on eyewitness identification to testify in court could educate juries and perhaps lead to more measured evaluation of the testimony. Most U.S. jurisdictions disallow such experts in courtrooms on the grounds that laboratory-based eyewitness research does not apply to the courtroom and that, in any case, its conclusions are mostly common sense and therefore not very enlightening. Yet psychologist Gary Wells of Iowa State University and his colleague Lisa Hasel have amassed considerable evidence showing that the experimental findings do apply to courtroom testimony and that they are often counterintuitive.
Science can and should inform *judicial processes to improve the accuracy and assessment of eyewitness accounts. We are seeing some small steps in this direction, but our courts still have a long way to go to better ensure that innocent people are not punished because of flaws in this very influential type of evidence.
Error-Prone IDs
A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Here are some of them:
Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process.
Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses).
Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification procedures.
A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as tattoos or extreme height.
Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Do the "Eyes" Have It?"
Ah, that must be the system of white privilege. So odd how your bullshit post failed to mention how blacks are to receive serious prison time for misdemeanor/non-violent offenses.
Look at the Monthly Arrest and Citation Register for the state of California alone in 2013 for juvenile felony crime and YOU TELL ME who it serving time and who isn't for recidivism:
http://www.kidsdata.org/export/pdf?cat=30
Now YOU TELL ME what these two people have in common:
Here's a hint: Besides being white neither one did a day of incarceration in a county jail for the illegal attainment and possession of a Schedule II narcotic. Yet, blacks in New York City who are in possession of having singe joint (and are three times more likely to be busted and tried in criminal court for marijuana possession) can face felony offenses and when one has been convicted of a felony drug offense they can (and often do) lose their rights to governmental assistance for housing, (black) students are denied financial aid and tax benefits and remain unemployed for having a record on file that legally allows employers to deny them hiring them.
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/fil...lner_FINAL.pdf
Now YOU GO FUCK YOURSELF.
This case specifically is fucked up regardless of race.
Oh, fuck you, too. This case is firmly rooted in race from both a criminal justice and social ethnic/economic background.
I have no idea who the ugly chick is, and Rush Limbaugh should do everyone a favor and kill himself. So should you.
The reason the incarceration stats are so high (like you, drug addict) in your cute little 2010 graph, is because MORE BLACKS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES, you stupid ignorant cunt. DO THE CRIME, DO THE TIME!
Do you commit crimes Kristy? If not, why not? Could it possibly be because you care about the consequences? Are you afraid it might ruin your future as a social worker, or whatever it is you intend to do? Of course, I'm sure your drug addiction will fuck up your career. Then you can go hang out and live with and like the ones you so love to make excuses for.
Wrong. It's not a case. The good guy won. The bad guy paid for being a THUG CRIMINAL, with his life. Perfect ending. Case closed.
Kristy, it's almost midnight here in Michigan. I am tired of putting you in your place, so I'm going to go masturbate to the thought of grudge fucking you in your ass, with no lube. Go take a bong hit, and masturbate with me.
Wrong again, fuckface. Go look at the statistics for white collar crime(s) done by whites on a per capita bases to those of blacks and see who gets arrested and who doesn't. And that is actress Winona Ryder who was busted not for narcotic possession but vandalism at a upscale Saks Fifth Avenue department store back in 2001.
Do you jerk off to gay porn, Von? Your arguments are inane and weak (like the rest of your fucked-up personality). Weed is LEGAL in Colorado and smoking it hardly make ones an addict (as compared to your internet gay porn addiction - still having the David Lee Roth in spandex fantasies, eh, cocksucker?) And lastly WHERE IN THE FUCK DID I EVER SAY I WAS IN GRAD SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL WORK!?!?! Are you really this perpetually stupid or just like to believe that in that pea-sized brain of yours that you are even pushing anyone's buttons? Grow up and grow a pair, little boy. You're a public embarrassment to the ethnicity you proudly distort.
Exactly. More of your gay porn addiction becoming manifest. Maybe Trollvis' social worker can help you with that.
I don't want help with it. I, like you with your drug addiction, am in denial.
Nice try, idiot. Maybe next time when you save all your pennies up from collecting aluminum cans from allover your insulated white suburban Michigan neighborhood Trollvis can show you how to buy a overpriced water filter that will keep you from dumbing yourself down any further (if possible). Fuck knows it didn't work for him
A lying trigger happy skinhead with a fat wife in the KKK is NOT a good guy.
Bases, or basis?
Hey, I don't think the white collar criminals, or even white criminals in general, should be getting any preferential treatment. Do the crime, do the time should be the same, across the board. Of course I know it's not, but it should be.
Oh, I understand you now. Life with all its social injustices and indignations is beautiful when ones' eyes remain shut during living it such as you do.
Von as a child:
Yeah, you're right. He's not a good guy. He's a GREAT guy!
He's no more of a skinhead than you. I know nothing of his wife being in the KKK, and neither do you.
Maybe when you're done with your social worker classes, and you find your way to rehab, you can actually get out and make a difference. Instead of pretending to be so perfect, and sitting around preaching on a DAVID LEE ROTH forum.
Come on. Let's go whack it together now. Let's Skyperbate!
I just don't get why you guys want to portray this guy - excuse me, small child - as the victim here. Do you all really believe the grand jury AND the black people who testified that supported the officer's version of the story and backed up the forensics are ALL liars? Perhaps those black people who supported the officer were "racially motivated" as I heard on the TV last nite?
Bottom line: This little tiny child strong arm robbed a convenience store then eventually attacked a cop. And all you people wish the cop had just driven off and let him go, right? Guess what - anybody tries to rob or attack me and I'm emptying the clip. Black, white, red, yellow (well not yellow cause I damn sure love the Asians but you get the point) don't matter to me - I'll take my chances in court.
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Maybe when you're done pulling your tongue out of Trollvis' asshole you might actually open your eyes to the smell of your own shit.
Wow. You are one gullible motherfucker. At least you pretend to be, on the Internet.
Good one Kristy!
You have so much potential, if you can only get a grip on the drug addiction.
Hopefully your mark on society won't be a blood stain in the middle of the street, like that dead THUG CRIMINAL left as his legacy.
Either one is much better than being the shit stain you are.
You tell us, Von. Because both cases are potential police overreach and overreaction. If the white kid was murdered by police, then the cop should go to jail irregardless of color...
That doesn't change the fact that a NYPD Officer choked and tortured killed Garner on the pavement with an illegal choke hold he was supposedly barred from using, ruled a homicide, and he gets off. What's the precedent of that? Cops can now just shoot people in deaths ruled "homicides" and get off when grand juries decide not to indict them?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
