- 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: Somebody argue with this Pat Buchanan article, please.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 9:57 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 8/27/14 at 9:57 pm to SpidermanTUba
0
Posted on 8/27/14 at 10:01 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:Can someone link me some backup for this statement?
Yet, in 23 years, McCulloch has convicted many cops of many crimes
Posted on 8/27/14 at 10:15 pm to Iosh
It's not there. The only time McCulloch has convicted cops is when they're off duty. I would be surprised if there's more than 2 cops that McCulloch has prosecuted for unlawful action or excessive force. He might prosecute some for beating their girlfriends or driving drunk. But not for "police work."
Posted on 8/27/14 at 10:41 pm to L.A.
quote:
I asked you this question earlier: When has Holder ever inserted himself into a case, or even publicly spoken out about a case, where the perp was black, and/or the victim was white?
What has Holder said about this case? It happened 11 days ago.
Black cop shoots and kills unarmed 20 year old white man in Utah
Your problem seems to be that Holder showed interest in the Zimmerman case, despite the fact that he ultimately did nothing. You and I both know that Presidents and Attorney Generals are politicians, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Do you think Bush 41 would have gotten involved with the Rodney King case if not for the riots and all the bad press that accompanied them. After George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, a month went by without any action being taken by the local police, and outside of Florida, no one had heard of this case. Then Al Sharpton went down there with his MSNBC megaphone, and suddenly it became a national news story, after which Holder showed an interest in the case before ultimately doing nothing. I've listened to many hours of the Presidential recordings during the civil rights era, and I can tell you that the only time that LBJ and JFK got involved in KKK lynching and bombing cases is when they brought a lot of bad national and international media attention with them. One thing that I can assure you is that most people have never heard of 90% of these cases but I know about them.
As for the Utah case, I would recommend that you organize protests that are as big as the Cliven Bundy and Terry Schiavo protests, and then I can assure that Holder will give it the same attention that he gave the Michael Brown protests, because as I said earlier, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
By the way, over the last 40 years, do you know many times Black cops have shot unarmed Whites and how many times White cops have shot unarmed Blacks?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:03 am to trackfan
quote:Bottom line: Bush 41 fought for color blind justice, in the finest tradition of MLK.
Your problem seems to be that Holder showed interest in the Zimmerman case, despite the fact that he ultimately did nothing. You and I both know that Presidents and Attorney Generals are politicians, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Do you think Bush 41 would have gotten involved with the Rodney King case if not for the riots and all the bad press that accompanied them. After George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, a month went by without any action being taken by the local police, and outside of Florida, no one had heard of this case. Then Al Sharpton went down there with his MSNBC megaphone, and suddenly it became a national news story, after which Holder showed an interest in the case before ultimately doing nothing. I've listened to many hours of the Presidential recordings during the civil rights era, and I can tell you that the only time that LBJ and JFK got involved in KKK lynching and bombing cases is when they brought a lot of bad national and international media attention with them. One thing that I can assure you is that most people have never heard of 90% of these cases but I know about them.
As for the Utah case, I would recommend that you organize protests that are as big as the Cliven Bundy and Terry Schiavo protests, and then I can assure that Holder will give it the same attention that he gave the Michael Brown protests, because as I said earlier, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
By the way, over the last 40 years, do you know many times Black cops have shot unarmed Whites and how many times White cops have shot unarmed Blacks?
Eric Holder is a racist.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:07 am to L.A.
quote:
Eric Holder is a racist.
Only in your imagination.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 1:51 am to trackfan
quote:Take Holder's actions and words during his tenure as AG and flip the races in each situation and Eric Holder doesn't have a job anymore. He'd have been driven out of office long ago.
Only in your imagination.
Congratulations. You're an apologist for a racist.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:00 am to trackfan
quote:
jokes. I also don't understand why you insist on accusing Holder of "inserting himself" into the Zimmerman case, when he did nothing.
When you say "did nothing", does that include using tax payer money to help facilitate the protestors and hold a pro-Trevon rally that included speaker Al Sharpton? And you keep trying to show the fact that Holder, didn't pursue the case further with the DOJ showed restraint. Not really, it showed that he wasn't an idiot and he knew there was no case against Zimmerman so why would he pursue something that would go absolutely nowhere?
LINK
Posted on 8/28/14 at 6:31 am to trackfan
You failed to mention that McCulloch brought the evidence in the jack and the box shooting to a grand jury who heard evidence and no billed.
If the public was so outraged back then why was he re-elected?
What you really meant was a small amount of people who made a lot of noise were upsets. Just because those people make a lot of noise doesn't change facts.
In other words the jack and the box shooting is not relevant.
If the public was so outraged back then why was he re-elected?
What you really meant was a small amount of people who made a lot of noise were upsets. Just because those people make a lot of noise doesn't change facts.
In other words the jack and the box shooting is not relevant.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:03 am to Elcid96
That's a fair point, but the devil is in the details.
If a prosecutor is in the tank for the defendant, he/she doesn't have to be vigorous in presenting the case to the grand jury.
quote:
In 2001, two undercover drug officers from Dellwood shot and killed two men on the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in north St. Louis County. The officers said the suspects, who had prior felony convictions for drug and assault offenses, tried to escape arrest and then drove toward the officers.
A subsequent federal investigation showed that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots and killed the suspects, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley.
If a prosecutor is in the tank for the defendant, he/she doesn't have to be vigorous in presenting the case to the grand jury.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:15 am to trackfan
The devil is in the details. The detail is the law and the justification for using deadly force, which is fear of life or great bodily harm. Has nothing to do with being armed or not. The car was a weapon sorry, unless you feel that a car is not a weapon.
I lived in St. Louis at the time the officers were not brought up on federal charges so even the Feds knew they followed the law. That is the devil in the details. Sorry
So I guess the fed prosecutor was in the tank as well? You really don't know the law and it's clear. The officers were justified in the shooting even if the was not coming forward. Sorry it's the law and the details in the law.
I lived in St. Louis at the time the officers were not brought up on federal charges so even the Feds knew they followed the law. That is the devil in the details. Sorry
So I guess the fed prosecutor was in the tank as well? You really don't know the law and it's clear. The officers were justified in the shooting even if the was not coming forward. Sorry it's the law and the details in the law.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 10:18 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:24 am to baybeefeetz
quote:Holder isn't involved in the case directly.... so straw man argument.
Somebody argue with this Pat Buchanan article, please.
I have no problem if the St. Louis County Prosecutor is subbed out to remove any appearance of bias.
His story describes only one of two possible scenarios when all of the facts aren't in yet. Just as bad as anyone jumping to conclusions on either side.
He describes some parts of the autopsy as fact even though we haven't seen everything from all 3 coroner's reports.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:53 am to Elcid96
quote:
The devil is in the details. The detail is the law and the justification for using deadly force, which is fear of life or great bodily harm. Has nothing to do with being armed or not. The car was a weapon sorry, unless you feel that a car is not a weapon.
How is a non-moving car a deadly weapon? If the cops would lie about that, why should we trust anything they say?
quote:
I lived in St. Louis at the time the officers were not brought up on federal charges so even the Feds knew they followed the law. That is the devil in the details. Sorry
As I pointed out earlier, historically, the only time the Feds get involved is when the case gets a lot of national media exposure.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:06 am to trackfan
Car backed I to other agents! Is a gun a weapon when not fired or only when fired.
The officers followe the law otherwise te Feds would of prosecuted period!
The cops were not found to of lied if they were the officers would not be allowed to testify anymore.
Sorry I heard the federal prosecutor get on TV and admit the officers followed the law, period. A car is a weapon and was used as such when crashing into the officers vehicle behind him. You don't have a clue about the details of that case.
The officers followe the law otherwise te Feds would of prosecuted period!
The cops were not found to of lied if they were the officers would not be allowed to testify anymore.
Sorry I heard the federal prosecutor get on TV and admit the officers followed the law, period. A car is a weapon and was used as such when crashing into the officers vehicle behind him. You don't have a clue about the details of that case.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:09 am to trackfan
The Feds were knee deep in the shooting at jack n d box
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:14 am to Elcid96
So you're telling me that failure to prosecute is proof of innocence? Are you really that naive and gullible?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:18 am to trackfan
Sorry just the facts that you clearly fail to acknowledge I the above case yes they were innocent and followed the law. It's clear sorry just facts!
So I am telling you in that case yes they were innocent and it's obviouse you don't understand the law.
So I am telling you in that case yes they were innocent and it's obviouse you don't understand the law.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 11:19 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:25 am to trackfan
quote:
He also failed to mention Holder's record as the U.S. Attorney for D.C. from 1993 to 1997
Wasn't that when Holder was too busy blowing up Oklahoma City?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News