Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (265055)	11/25/2014 10:14:48 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540722

We've disagreed about this one from the get go. Listening to the litany of witness statements last night, it was clear there were more than enough witness statements to take the case to trial. The prosecutor, however, played the role of defense attorney, as Wharfie suggests, evaluating witness statements. Those statements most damaging to Wilson were deemed either contradictory or later retracted; witness statements that supported Wilson were said to be consistent with "the facts". Without serious discussion of the facts. Those kinds of issues are commonly settled at trials in which genuine witnesses can be cross examined. The governor should have appointed a believable independent prosecutor in this case. No question.

To: epicure who wrote (265055)	11/25/2014 10:43:48 AM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540722

I'm not even saying the officer couldn't have handled this differently- clearly he could have- but that's NOT the legal standard at play. That is really the crux of this.. What is the recourse of a subset of the population if, as you pointed out, it is LEGAL, to shoot to death, with impunity, unarmed members of your group ...and then to minimize the turbulence, you deal with the matter in secret and announce your foregone conclusion late at night