Gotta wonder......

ZHawke wrote: You're right. Perhaps I should have said Officer Wilson has done an interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, and it was disclosed by a source that a mid to high six figure payment was allegedly made to Officer Wilson. Multiple media outlets are also pursuing the possibility of landing further interviews with him.

There have also been stories about donations to Officer Wilson, whether direct or indirect remains shrouded, allegedly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As far as if the case does go to trial, that's premature. Zimmerman did go to trial. Wilson, unless a prosecutor (either the current one or another, independent one) chooses to take it in that direction, will not face a criminal trial. Civil? Perhaps. But criminal? No.

The claim that Wilson was paid for the ABC interview came from one small website and their source was someone unnamed from NBC who said ABC outbid NBC. Sour grapes maybe? In the past, the major networks have always denied paying for news interviews so far as I can recall.

But what's your beef? Is it that Wilson has done an interview and might someday do more? I don't think that should be the issue. The Brown family and their lawyer Ben Crump have done many interviews. So is it that there is a small unproven chance that he may of been paid by ABC and that would mean he is profiting from the case? I doubt Ben Crump gets paid for his interviews, but he's a lawyer and I'm sure the exposure helps his business. Do you have a problem with that?

I personally don't think you should be paid under the table for an interview (if he's paid, it should be announced up front), but it's not illegal. But I have no problem if Wilson accepts donations. He no longer has a job (and probably won't be able to find one anytime soon), he has legal bills to pay, and he probably needs to support his family. I'm sure he could use some help.

PrintSmith wrote: Of course it is. You see no problem with a prosecutor presenting to the grand jury only evidence which might indicate a person has committed a crime in an effort to "sway" the finding of the grand jury, but you do see a problem with the prosecutor choosing to include exculpatory evidence in an effort to "sway" the finding of the grand jury. Why is it OK for the prosecutor to "sway" the grand jury in the one instance and not in the other?

No, it isn't the "other". The prosecutor in this case brought it before a Grand Jury without filing any charges before doing so, right? That, in and of itself, is "unusual" in Grand Jury cases from what I've researched. I really don't care what that means to you, but to me it means there was a question about the prosecutor's motives in doing so.

pineinthegrass wrote:

ZHawke wrote: You're right. Perhaps I should have said Officer Wilson has done an interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, and it was disclosed by a source that a mid to high six figure payment was allegedly made to Officer Wilson. Multiple media outlets are also pursuing the possibility of landing further interviews with him.

There have also been stories about donations to Officer Wilson, whether direct or indirect remains shrouded, allegedly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As far as if the case does go to trial, that's premature. Zimmerman did go to trial. Wilson, unless a prosecutor (either the current one or another, independent one) chooses to take it in that direction, will not face a criminal trial. Civil? Perhaps. But criminal? No.

The claim that Wilson was paid for the ABC interview came from one small website and their source was someone unnamed from NBC who said ABC outbid NBC. Sour grapes maybe? In the past, the major networks have always denied paying for news interviews so far as I can recall.

But what's your beef? Is it that Wilson has done an interview and might someday do more? I don't think that should be the issue. The Brown family and their lawyer Ben Crump have done many interviews. So is it that there is a small unproven chance that he may of been paid by ABC and that would mean he is profiting from the case? I doubt Ben Crump gets paid for his interviews, but he's a lawyer and I'm sure the exposure helps his business. Do you have a problem with that?

I personally don't think you should be paid under the table for an interview (if he's paid, it should be announced up front), but it's not illegal. But I have no problem if Wilson accepts donations. He no longer has a job (and probably won't be able to find one anytime soon), he has legal bills to pay, and he probably needs to support his family. I'm sure he could use some help.

Did I say it was a "beef"? All one has to do, it seems, is point out some of the more obvious discrepancies, and, BAM, the regressives go ballistic! What I said was I didn't think it was appropriate for Officer Wilson to "profit" from this case.

ZHawke wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

ZHawke wrote: You're right. Perhaps I should have said Officer Wilson has done an interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, and it was disclosed by a source that a mid to high six figure payment was allegedly made to Officer Wilson. Multiple media outlets are also pursuing the possibility of landing further interviews with him.

There have also been stories about donations to Officer Wilson, whether direct or indirect remains shrouded, allegedly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As far as if the case does go to trial, that's premature. Zimmerman did go to trial. Wilson, unless a prosecutor (either the current one or another, independent one) chooses to take it in that direction, will not face a criminal trial. Civil? Perhaps. But criminal? No.

The claim that Wilson was paid for the ABC interview came from one small website and their source was someone unnamed from NBC who said ABC outbid NBC. Sour grapes maybe? In the past, the major networks have always denied paying for news interviews so far as I can recall.

But what's your beef? Is it that Wilson has done an interview and might someday do more? I don't think that should be the issue. The Brown family and their lawyer Ben Crump have done many interviews. So is it that there is a small unproven chance that he may of been paid by ABC and that would mean he is profiting from the case? I doubt Ben Crump gets paid for his interviews, but he's a lawyer and I'm sure the exposure helps his business. Do you have a problem with that?

I personally don't think you should be paid under the table for an interview (if he's paid, it should be announced up front), but it's not illegal. But I have no problem if Wilson accepts donations. He no longer has a job (and probably won't be able to find one anytime soon), he has legal bills to pay, and he probably needs to support his family. I'm sure he could use some help.

Did I say it was a "beef"? All one has to do, it seems, is point out some of the more obvious discrepancies, and, BAM, the regressives go ballistic! What I said was I didn't think it was appropriate for Officer Wilson to "profit" from this case.

First of all, who and what is a "regressive"? And as for Wilson "profiting", that's a laugh. If the guy is not guilty as stated by the grand jury, then he just had his life destroyed and is going to have a very hard time ever blending into society again. Is there any amount of money that you would take to trade places with him?

Rick wrote: First of all, who and what is a "regressive"? And as for Wilson "profiting", that's a laugh. If the guy is not guilty as stated by the grand jury, then he just had his life destroyed and is going to have a very hard time ever blending into society again. Is there any amount of money that you would take to trade places with him?

I think you know perfectly well who the "regressives" are in The Courthouse. As far as what a "regressive" might be, think of it as being opposite of a "progressive":

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=regressive

If he is not guilty the fact still remains that he took the life of another human being. To profit from same is inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.

Why would I want to trade places with him? Sometimes, your logic appears to defy rational thought.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: First of all, who and what is a "regressive"? And as for Wilson "profiting", that's a laugh. If the guy is not guilty as stated by the grand jury, then he just had his life destroyed and is going to have a very hard time ever blending into society again. Is there any amount of money that you would take to trade places with him?

I think you know perfectly well who the "regressives" are in The Courthouse. As far as what a "regressive" might be, think of it as being opposite of a "progressive":

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=regressive

If he is not guilty the fact still remains that he took the life of another human being. To profit from same is inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.

Why would I want to trade places with him? Sometimes, your logic appears to defy rational thought.

Sometimes getting the Leftist bigots to expose their true selves takes me a bit longer than other times, sorry for leaving any doubt up until now. Z you will now be referred to as Z(the Lefty Bigot).

ZHawke wrote: Did I say it was a "beef"? All one has to do, it seems, is point out some of the more obvious discrepancies, and, BAM, the regressives go ballistic! What I said was I didn't think it was appropriate for Officer Wilson to "profit" from this case.

I asked what was YOUR beef. Just asked and that's going ballistic? And it's the first time I've been called a "regressive". From your link:

regressive

Opposite of progressive. One who is opposed to women's rights, minority rights, universal civil rights, religious freedom, freedom of dissent, universal equality, and cares little to nothing for his fellow man.

In favor of widening the economic divide and eventual elimination of the middle class. In sum, one who believes society ought undo all progress made since 1920 and go back to the 19th century.

Currently in control of the federal government.

If you really think that's what I'm like, then you are seriously deranged because you won't find any of that in my posts. I'm actually more of a moderate.

So you have a problem with Wilson trying to make a living (even though there is no proof he was paid by ABC), but no problem with Ben Crump, Al Sharpton and others profiting from this case?

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: First of all, who and what is a "regressive"? And as for Wilson "profiting", that's a laugh. If the guy is not guilty as stated by the grand jury, then he just had his life destroyed and is going to have a very hard time ever blending into society again. Is there any amount of money that you would take to trade places with him?

I think you know perfectly well who the "regressives" are in The Courthouse. As far as what a "regressive" might be, think of it as being opposite of a "progressive":

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=regressive

If he is not guilty the fact still remains that he took the life of another human being. To profit from same is inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.

Why would I want to trade places with him? Sometimes, your logic appears to defy rational thought.

Sometimes getting the Leftist bigots to expose their true selves takes me a bit longer than other times, sorry for leaving any doubt up until now. Z you will now be referred to as Z(the Lefty Bigot).

How mature of you.

pineinthegrass wrote: I asked what was YOUR beef. Just asked and that's going ballistic? And it's the first time I've been called a "regressive". From your link:

regressive

Opposite of progressive. One who is opposed to women's rights, minority rights, universal civil rights, religious freedom, freedom of dissent, universal equality, and cares little to nothing for his fellow man.

In favor of widening the economic divide and eventual elimination of the middle class. In sum, one who believes society ought undo all progress made since 1920 and go back to the 19th century.

Currently in control of the federal government.

If you really think that's what I'm like, then you are seriously deranged because you won't find any of that in my posts. I'm actually more of a moderate.

So you have a problem with Wilson trying to make a living (even though there is no proof he was paid by ABC), but no problem with Ben Crump, Al Sharpton and others profiting from this case?

Why would you even ask me what my "beef" was. I tried very hard to explain myself, and all I got was more of the same from you and others here in The Courthouse. I never said I have a problem with Wilson trying to make a living. One more time - I question whether or not he should "profit" from his involvement in this incident. Can you show definitive proof of Crump, Sharpton, etal "profiting" from this case?

ZHawke wrote: How mature of you.

Perhaps you can explain how calling those you are discussing current events with "regressives" is mature.