Gotta wonder......

ZHawke wrote: 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?

I was simply trying to distinguish if you were mainly upset ("beef") that Wilson did an interview, or if it was because you thought he was paid for the interview. I wasn't sure at the time, but you've now made it clear. I didn't know you had a problem with the word "beef" (are you Vegan?).

You haven't provided definitive proof of Wilson profiting from this case, at least not from the interview. Nor could you support that he is entering the interview circuit (not that he might do another interview someday).

I actually kind of like Ben Crump so far, not that I always agree with him. He seems pretty reasonable and I know he does a lot of pro bono work. I never heard of him until he worked the Trayvon Martin case. He did tons of interviews back then. And now he's back for the Michael Brown case doing a lot of interviews as well. The more cases a lawyer gets, the more the business should profit. Even if you do many pro bono. But no, that's not definitive proof, but I think it's safe to assume that he's making a decent living and the exposure helps a lot, especially in getting future clients.

Mary Scott wrote:

ZHawke wrote: How mature of you.

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

Because it is the opposite of "progressive", a word used by many here in The Courthouse in a very derogatory manner, as well. I decided to start using that term only recently because of the derision directed toward those on the "progressive" side of many of the issues being discussed. When people start referring to each other without using derogatory inflections in their posts, I will do the same. Having come back to posting in The Courthouse, I'm once again reminded of just how nasty people can be when it comes to opinions and facts that do not agree with their own perception of how "things should be". I came back thinking how nice it would be to actually have some viable conversations about things. ScienceChic went so far as to comment on and compliment posters who did so. For awhile, a very short while I might add, things went well in that regard. Now, I'm seeing a retrogression into the old mode and am very close to leaving once again. Have you noticed how "few" posters there are in The Courthouse willing to challenge those of a more conservative bent? You say you're more of a moderate. I say I am, too. But those on the far right have a tendency to drive everyone who doesn't march in lock step with them away. Then The Courthouse basically becomes a forum for posters to do nothing more than pat each other on the back and agree on everything with no opposing views being expressed. I'm tired of it. I'm frustrated by it. And, I'm pretty much done with it. I'll visit, but as far as posting is concerned, they'll be few and far between from now on. Guess you win, P, H, and R (you know who you are).

ZHawke wrote:

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.

Not when it's done properly. Do you recall the 5th Amendment Z? Here's the beginning of it in case it has slipped your mind:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . .

It is actually when an indictment is issued that a person is formally charged by the prosecuting attorney, not prior to that indictment, when the grand jury is used as part of the process. Held on suspicion of, perhaps, but not formally charged with the commission of a crime prior to a decision by the grand jury.

The grand jury is a check and balance against improper prosecution, it operates independently of the government and its prosecutor. The prosecutor is essentially going to the grand jury for permission to pursue charges, to prove to an independent body that sufficient evidence exists to publicly charge a person with the commission of a crime. In federal courts if the grand jury doesn't indict there are no charges filed because charges can't be filed in the absence of that indictment from the grand jury.

Z (no terms) All I've asked was to state your beliefs and opinions, not just post links that someone else wrote. As nasty as I can be, oh yeah I could get a saint to punch me, no one has suffered from words. If you have, I'm sorry for that, its not my intention to harm you. Feel free to speak your mind, and if it helps, refer to me as AAA (Always An A$$hole). I can take it.

HEARTLESS wrote: Z (no terms) All I've asked was to state your beliefs and opinions, not just post links that someone else wrote. As nasty as I can be, oh yeah I could get a saint to punch me, no one has suffered from words. If you have, I'm sorry for that, its not my intention to harm you. Feel free to speak your mind, and if it helps, refer to me as AAA (Always An A$$hole). I can take it.

My beliefs and opinions are, by and large, reflective of the links and articles I share. I still can't understand why that is an issue for some.

I'm still pretty much done, though because I made a personal pledge to myself when I came back into this forum to refrain from the type of dialogue it's rapidly becoming. That's just not how I roll. So, thank you for the apology. I'm just not sure my further participation is worth the time, effort, and aggravation it causes me.

The Eric Garner grand jury decision from today surprises me much more than the Michael Brown decision did. The Garner case had video and looked like an overreaction by multiple police (for illegally selling cigarettes I think) and the choke hold after he was already down did not look appropriate, IMO. But I haven't heard many of the details yet, and probably will later. Just doesn't look right at all at this point.

And the guy that killed the kid in a car over his loud music finally got what he deserved, but I wasn't clear why it was 1st degree vs. 2nd degree murder (didn't study it enough, but agree it was murder).

I'm not blindly going with just one narrative. I'm looking at each case.

So far as Z goes, it seems my comment today set him off and I'm not sure why. I did get upset with him one time several weeks ago when he gave one of his links and I spent a lot of time disputing the facts in that link. Rather than defend the link he wrote the link off as something he didn't rely on and said he posted it because it supported his idea. No discussion in his words about what was in that link. I said if he won't at least admit the link was wrong or support it, then he was a troll. I thought that is how a troll operates, just throw stuff out to get reactions. If he wanted to get upset with me for anything, that would of been it. Not what I posted today. And I really haven't been posting in the Courthouse much lately, much less than one post a day.

But now Z wants to group everyone here he disagrees with together with one disgusting definition and leave. That's his call.

pineinthegrass wrote: But now Z wants to group everyone here he disagrees with together with one disgusting definition and leave. That's his call.

Nope - not even close. Have you ever felt like you were being ganged up on? That's what it feels like in The Courthouse much of the time because many of the posters here are more conservative. The posts come fast and furious, and sometimes are difficult to even keep up with, much less provide a reasoned response. I try to do my research and provide links to same. That seems to be a problem for some here. If you want to re-provide your post, I'll consider another response. If I remember correctly, your post was one of those more confrontational responses that I do tend to dismiss out of hand. If I was wrong in that regard, I'll admit it and apologize.

A couple of interesting contrasts.

Not a hate crime.

www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2014/11/...nt-led-to-her-death/

"District Police Chief Cathy Lanier said federal officers acted “heroically.” The House of Representatives offered a standing ovation.

It was easy to call this a tragedy and turn the page.

Except that some of what little we thought we knew hasn’t held up. The part about ramming White House barriers and trying to breach two security perimeters? Not exactly true.

And how did a supposedly mentally unstable person remain a longtime, reliable and valued employee at two dental practices until the day she was killed? She had a condo and a family and, according to colleagues and relatives, plans for the weekend."...

Not a hate crime.

www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=The+O...+and+the+rule+of+law

..."And that brings me to the hammer attack. A few days ago, a group of teenagers — including two African-Americans and one Hispanic — confronted Bosnian immigrant Zemir Begic in St. Louis.

Words were exchanged. They allegedly beat him to death in front of his wife.

Within hours, St. Louis police Chief Sam Dotson rushed to tell the large Bosnian community there it was no hate crime.

"There is no indication that the gentleman … was targeted because he was Bosnian," Dotson said.

Not targeted for being a Bosnian? Really? As if thugs who'd use hammers to kill a man could find Bosnia on a map.

Akif Cogo, the head of a St. Louis Bosnian group, told us Tuesday that many local Bosnians feel they've been targeted. Many believe it was a hate crime and Bosnians, Serbs and Croatians have all seen such hate up close.

"People are scared," he said. "They're not sure what the next step the community needs to take to protect itself."...

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.

Regressive sounds a little insulting... are you sure we want to go down this path? And Z, when I make a statement about trading places with him, it's not meant to be literal, it only requires you to "imagine" yourself in his shoes. You are forced to kill an attacker instead of being killed, which your family appreciates, then you lose the life you worked so hard to create and can't show your face in public. How much money is that worth really?

ZHawke wrote:
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.

Per your definition: 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.

So, since Obama is in control of the federal govt, is he a regressive, per the definition you referred us to?

I don't believe anyone here believes in any of this stuff. Not sure why you are attempting to debate while first insulting those who just see the world a little differently than you to. Sometimes you can agree to disagree, but just calling names is childish.

Also, I don't consider him "profiting". He will likely struggle to ever work again without the threat of death. His life as he knows it is over.