- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DA McCulloch
Posted on 11/25/14 at 7:28 pm to Homesick Tiger
Posted on 11/25/14 at 7:28 pm to Homesick Tiger
The DA was speaking to his base that likes status quo.
When has a DA every been rational on crime? You can't win elections in this country being "rational" on crime, you have to be tough on crime! He was rational last night to ensure his constituents status quo.
When has a DA every been rational on crime? You can't win elections in this country being "rational" on crime, you have to be tough on crime! He was rational last night to ensure his constituents status quo.
1
Posted on 11/25/14 at 7:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
That's because we enable cops to kill with little consequence
Posted on 11/25/14 at 8:26 pm to StrongSafety
This post was edited on 11/25/14 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 11/25/14 at 8:40 pm to Edearl Watson
Nuff said.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 9:13 pm to Homesick Tiger
I'm sure that Darren Wilson was pleased with his presentation, because it sounded like the briefing of a defense attorney. There's a natural conflict of interest for DA's in cases like these. Out of necessity, DA's and cops have symbiotic relationships. Cops need DA's to back them up, and DA's need cops to catch criminals and collect evidence. Therefore, DA's are loathe to throw cops under the bus, and have every incentive to cover for them, right or wrong.
Having said all of this, I think McCulloch shouldn't have given his speech, because all it did was add fuel to the fire. He should have just announced the verdict, indicated that all the testimony and evidence would be immediately made available to the public and then open up the press conference for questions. Once he announced that Wilson wouldn't be charged, the cops already had everything they needed, so what's the point of the 25-minute speech other than confirming suspicions that he was in the tank for Wilson and stirring up folks who were looking for a reason to riot?
Having said all of this, I think McCulloch shouldn't have given his speech, because all it did was add fuel to the fire. He should have just announced the verdict, indicated that all the testimony and evidence would be immediately made available to the public and then open up the press conference for questions. Once he announced that Wilson wouldn't be charged, the cops already had everything they needed, so what's the point of the 25-minute speech other than confirming suspicions that he was in the tank for Wilson and stirring up folks who were looking for a reason to riot?
Posted on 11/25/14 at 9:46 pm to Elcid96
quote:
quote:
in 2010 there were 162000 cases prosecuted at the federal level
quote:
I didn't say this was a federal GJ...in fact I said it wasn't. But of course that didn't fit in with your flawed summation.
No you used Federal Level to compare against a state level. But hey who's summation didn't this fit into?
quote:
.I freely admit that I am no where near an expert.
No shite
quote:
how it is common in Missourri for Grand Juries to decline to indict
Never said it was common...may be you have a reading problem?????
But lets take what you said earlier about grand juries indicting cops
quote:
The numbers are about the same.....grand juries almost never indict policemen.
quote:
.especially when it is a cop who is under suspicion.
uh not under suspicion...it was clear who shot who killed who
quote:
it is common in Missourri for Grand Juries to decline to indict.
This wasn't the first time.
Nice try though, keep reaching and watching law and order and CNN for your legal briefs.
Chow
the word is Ciao
Posted on 11/25/14 at 9:52 pm to trackfan
To add to his bias, McCullough's father was a cop and killed in the line of duty.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:01 pm to trackfan
quote:
There's a natural conflict of interest for DA's in cases like these. Out of necessity, DA's and cops have symbiotic relationships.
I agree with this. While I agree with the "no bill", I think it's difficult to get an honest presentation of the evidence in most cases. However, it has to be reinforced that the grand jury ultimately makes the decision, not the DA.
Originally I thought the DA making the speech was fine- primarily because I agreed with everything he said, but you make a good point when you state
quote:.
so what's the point of the 25-minute speech other than confirming suspicions that he was in the tank for Wilson
The speech he gave was a great speech and explanation of the evidence, as well as a nail in the coffin to the intellectually honest crowd who think this officer just shot the guy for shits and giggles. But he was the wrong person to give it.
Although, you have to remember, I don't think the people rioting actually give a frick about the shite we're talking about here and just want to destroy property. He could have gotten up there and just said "No true bill" and walked away, and I suspect we would be right where we are now- maybe even worse because the media would not have gotten publicly raped like they did.
This post was edited on 11/25/14 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:04 pm to ChineseBandit58
Dude was a Boss.
Did a great job.
Did a great job.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:14 pm to StrongSafety
Rev Al is that you? 
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:20 pm to trackfan
quote:
Once he announced that Wilson wouldn't be charged, the cops already had everything they needed, so what's the point of the 25-minute speech other
He gave a summary of the testimony, and evidence the grand jury used to reach their decision, at no time did he give a personal opinion, how that would equal being in the tank for Wilson is I have no idea.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:45 pm to EA6B
it just could come off that way to people who suspect it or already mistrust him.
Like I said in my post, I didn't think that because I saw it as him reporting facts and evidence. I see how others might question it, though.
Like I said in my post, I didn't think that because I saw it as him reporting facts and evidence. I see how others might question it, though.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 10:57 pm to The Spleen
quote:
To add to his bias, McCullough's father was a cop and killed in the line of duty.
By a Black man. And I believe that his brother and uncle are cops and his mother worked for the police department. This shouldn't disqualify him from being the DA, but like all of us he is human, and he does bring this baggage to work with him every day, like I would too if my Dad was a cop who was killed in the line of duty.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 11:32 pm to Tiguar
quote:
I agree with this. While I agree with the "no bill", I think it's difficult to get an honest presentation of the evidence in most cases. However, it has to be reinforced that the grand jury ultimately makes the decision, not the DA.
Originally I thought the DA making the speech was fine- primarily because I agreed with everything he said, but you make a good point when you state
The speech he gave was a great speech and explanation of the evidence, as well as a nail in the coffin to the intellectually honest crowd who think this officer just shot the guy for shits and giggles. But he was the wrong person to give it.
But remember, the DA has total discretion as to what evidence is presented and which witnesses get to testify, and it's unusual for the DA to allow the defendant to speak to the grand jury without cross-examination. McCulloch is supposed to have a good conviction rate when he indicts, but I think it's obvious that he handles the case differently the defendant is a cop, which probably isn't unusual. FYI, when Eric Holder was the U.S. Attorney in D.C., he built a reputation for turning a blind eye to police misconduct.
Posted on 11/25/14 at 11:40 pm to EA6B
quote:
He gave a summary of the testimony, and evidence the grand jury used to reach their decision, at no time did he give a personal opinion, how that would equal being in the tank for Wilson is I have no idea.
Of course he gave opinions. For example, when he accused all of the anti-Wilson witnesses of lying, he was giving his opinion. I also have a hunch that if the verdict had been unanimous, he would have seen to it that the public knew about it, regardless of his claims of confidentiality.
Posted on 11/26/14 at 1:51 am to trackfan
quote:
Of course he gave opinions. For example, when he accused all of the anti-Wilson witnesses of lying, he was giving his opinion.
When a person says at time A, "I saw X happen," and then at time B says "I did not see X happen," it is not an opinion to say that the person has lied (or whatever phrasing you would like to use). It's the opposite of an opinion. It's a fact. You can argue which one of the statements is true. You cannot say they did not lie.
Likewise, when you falsely say McCulloch accused all the anti-Wilson witnesses of lying, you are lying.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News