- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,033
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I watched the video. He does say near the end of it that police officers were shot at. At the same time the video is showing a line of police nearly shoulder to shoulder and a group twice the size of a car. If someone were aiming at police, the odds of such a huge target not being hit is pretty slim.
I'd have to look at it when I get home, I cannot right now. I was just going off of what others had reported for now.
That's not at all how it works. If you kill someone tomorrow and are not charged, are you an innocent person?
And the fact that there have been dozens of media killed by Syrian forces in the past decade, but none in Ferguson, has no relevance to you?
Who are the people in the pictures and who are the photographers? Many of the people seem to be rebels, which doesn't exactly support your point about terrorists. Others could have been taken by the terrorists themselves.
You don't need to establish proof behind a reasonable doubt to arrest someone. You are the one embarrassing yourself here.Lmao. Do you know how innocent until proven guilty works?
What kind of messed up point is this? Terrorists treat media better by killing them instead of arresting them? Even if that wacko logic made sense, the site doesn't list journalists who were arrested, which I'm going to go out on a limb and guess is MUCH higher than the number arrested in Ferguson.They die doing their work. They don't get arrested for it.
It doesn't really matter. I've already shown that Syrians are killing journalists, while Ferguson police are not, while Ferguson police are dealing with far more journalists with bigger and more intrusive equipment. Unless you can show me evidence of a comparable situation where journalists in Syria were treated more favorably, just admit you were being facetious and move on.Lmao, they're all AP photos. I'll give you a clue as to whom in the pictures are terrorists, 2 out of 3 depict anti-Assad rebels who have allied themselves with various factions including ISIS. Can you tell which? No? Well, doesn't really matter does it? They all depict people doing unsavory things (including the moments before an execution) and the media being right there to record it. Can the Ferguson police say they've allowed the same freedom? Nope.
Here's a clue for you bud, if you're arrested and you aren't charged with anything - you are an INNOCENT PERSON. You were an innocent person the entire time. You weren't charged with anything after your arrest? You are an innocent person. You were not violating any laws. That's why you weren't charged. You weren't doing anything illegal, there was no reason to arrest you.
<snip>
Police officer appears to threaten journalist in Ferguson - The Washington Post
The Washington Post later expanded on the incident:
Officer appears to threaten cameraman covering chaos in Ferguson - The Washington Post
They're proving everyone of their critics right. They are attacking the media, they do not want their oppression to be recorded. They do not want their aggression to be shown to the public later. This is the police state that people are so worried about.
The media can't get in the way of police work. .
Maybe it is. Don't judge based on one side of the story.That must be why the police had to shell an al-jazeera reporter and then dismantle his equipment, or why the cops had to go into a McDonald's to arrest reporters.
What on Earth....? That is absolutely untrue. You are arrested, and then the DA decides if there is enough evidence to bring your case to trial. Do you have any idea through the years how many people have been arrested and then let go due to lack of good evidence, only to be arrested again and then tried - and convicted - for the original crime? Double jeopardy is the reason for the DA to decide NOT to move ahead with a trial. Do you seriously not understand this?
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Just in case you need more evidence:They die doing their work. They don't get arrested for it.
Scores of journalists reporting on human rights abuses in Syria have been killed, arbitrarily arrested, detained, subjected to enforced disappearances and tortured over the last two years, Amnesty International said in a report released today, World Press Freedom Day.
------ Do those words mean anything to you? These people weren't charged with anything, they were wrongfully arrested and released without charges. They're innocent. Am I seriously explaining this to you?
Maybe the journalists should just back-the-**** off of an already tense situation?
Holy ****, this would be funny if it wasn't so damn pathetic.
You just posted words that confirm what I said. The DA has to decide if there is enough evidence to bring it to trial. WTF?
The DA may or may not even get involved, they don't have to do anything. Most of the time when a crime is committed, it's up to the law enforcement to make the call to take them into custody and arrest them. Prosecutors bring criminal charges against suspects in courts of law. It's not necessarily up to the DA whether it gets taken to trial or not. Only felonies, in most counties and if you were not charged with anything the DA will not get involved, especially some minor misdemeanor.
Could you imagine if President Obama suggested that???
What on Earth....? That is absolutely untrue. You are arrested, and then the DA decides if there is enough evidence to bring your case to trial. Do you have any idea through the years how many people have been arrested and then let go due to lack of good evidence, only to be arrested again and then tried - and convicted - for the original crime? Double jeopardy is the reason for the DA to decide NOT to move ahead with a trial. Do you seriously not understand this?
That's not what double jeopardy is. Double jeopardy is being tried for the same crime twice.
Only an officer of the court can decide if a case goes to trial. The police aren't officers of the court. They don't decide what goes to trial.
What on Earth....? That is absolutely untrue. You are arrested, and then the DA decides if there is enough evidence to bring your case to trial. Do you have any idea through the years how many people have been arrested and then let go due to lack of good evidence, only to be arrested again and then tried - and convicted - for the original crime? Double jeopardy is the reason for the DA to decide NOT to move ahead with a trial. Do you seriously not understand this?
I know what it is. Read my post again. That's why DAs don't file charges without enough evidence. Jeopardy is attached to every trial. They will wait until they have sufficient evidence to convict, which is why many times they will decline to prosecute, let the accused go, and then wait for more evidence and have the person re-arrested.
I know what it is. Read my post again. That's why DAs don't file charges without enough evidence. Jeopardy is attached to every trial. They will wait until they have sufficient evidence to convict, which is why many times they will decline to prosecute, let the accused go, and then wait for more evidence and have the person re-arrested.
But if the police arrest someone and take them into custody but then they are later released with no charges and without an arraignment they are in fact innocent and were wrongly arrested, just like what Hatuey was talking about. He wasn't talking about deciding who goes to trial, he was talking about the police making a false arrest on an innocent person with no evidence or charges. You said as below, you are arrested and then the da decices if there is enough evidence to bring your case to trial. If you are arrested and the charges are dropped by the police, the DA will most likely not get involved so your reply to his statement is not always what happens and what he said is true. If you are falsely arrested you are innocent.
Incorrect. If someone is arrested, and the court doesn't see sufficient evidence to keep the person for the time allowed by law to hold an accused person, that person will be let go. That in no way implies the person is innocent. That has nothing to do with "false arrest". That is the law of this land and how our justice system works. No, he was not correct.
If the police drop the charges because they feel they arrested you incorrectly and know it, they will drop the charges because you are innocent. That isn't the same premise as "anyone who is arrested but let go is innocent".
Now I see where you're coming from. I was reading something else from it, my bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?