- 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
Is there a good reason for DOJ announce no indictments for Alton Sterling?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:44 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:44 am
not a troll
just curious seems like there will surely be some type of demonstration and/or riot. Why not just fail to make announcement? Is their a legal requirement?
just curious seems like there will surely be some type of demonstration and/or riot. Why not just fail to make announcement? Is their a legal requirement?
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 11:57 am
16
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:45 am to thelawnwranglers
bc its public info? it would get out either way. announcement or not
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:45 am to thelawnwranglers
I asked the same thing in the long thread. No good comes from turn this into a shite show.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:46 am to tke857
quote:
bc its public info? it would get out either way. announcement or not
how?
not an argument - pure ignorance on my part
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:46 am to tke857
quote:
it would get out either way. announcement or not
So why not just let it get out without the big announcement? Seems like you're just asking for something dramatic to happen.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:47 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information except to the extent the records are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:47 am to thelawnwranglers
Because certain people will bitch and complain about the lack of transparency and claim that they are hiding information for racist reasons. It's a lose lose
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:48 am to thelawnwranglers
Tbh I've been wondering the same thing. The only time I see anything about it is on this site. It seems like most people have forgotten about it and resigned themselves to the facts, but the few who have a vested interest have continued to drum up stuff until we ultimately reached this point.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:49 am to thelawnwranglers
The announcement gives them a chance to explain the findings, though most who want to riot will ignore them.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:49 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
about the lack of transparency
You can have transparency without pomp and circumstance. Why does it have to be either or?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:49 am to thelawnwranglers
There they're their
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:50 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:
it would get out either way. announcement or not
how?
I'd imagine because they have to close the investigation and that can be requested as public record?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:50 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:
it would get out either way.
quote:
how?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:51 am to thelawnwranglers
All I know is people here with sources have said it's supposed to have been announced countless times in the last few days. The thread yesterday even have "hospitals on alert" or some ridiculous shite in the title
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:51 am to thelawnwranglers
I am not sure of the legal requirements but people on both sides deserve answers.
The BLM side wants the cops in jail.
The people on the other side want justice...whether it be bad cops in jail or good cops exonerated.
The BLM side wants the cops in jail.
The people on the other side want justice...whether it be bad cops in jail or good cops exonerated.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:52 am to tke857
quote:
Exemption (7)(A) provides for the withholding of a law enforcement record the disclosure of which would reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This exemption protects an active law enforcement investigation from interference through premature disclosure. Therefore, determining the applicability of this Exemption 7(A) requires a two-step analysis focusing on (1) whether a law enforcement proceeding is pending or prospective and (2) whether release of information about it could reasonably be expected to cause some articulable harm. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 224 (1978) (holding that government must show how records "would interfere with a pending enforcement proceeding").
I hoped this exception would apply, but I don't think the damage and impending demonstrations, riots, etc. qualify as the type of "harm" they're referring to.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:54 am to thelawnwranglers
In addition to the previously mentioned good points, its newsworthy. It is of intrest to many people.
Two men who were wrongly accused and tried by a politically driven media deserve to be exonerated with the same loud voice.
Any those two sumbitches need to get back to work. 7 months of paid administrative leave is a little too much.
Two men who were wrongly accused and tried by a politically driven media deserve to be exonerated with the same loud voice.
Any those two sumbitches need to get back to work. 7 months of paid administrative leave is a little too much.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:55 am to tke857
Thanks.. trying to find service to DL it
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:56 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Is their a good reason for DOJ announce no indictments for Alton Sterling?
Yes, to trigger the SJWs. That is always a good reason.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:57 am to Btrtigerfan
quote:
There they're their
fixed so you feel better
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News