BluesStringer
Les Brers
Blues I understand the next to present another perspective. But to have such a stance on this opposing view is like presenting a analysis of the synopsis of any of the dumb and dumber movies or beavis and butthead shows. It's a sheer waste of your capabilities.
Speaking of dumb and dumber, how about you and your LEO bf put your heads together and look up Missouri law 563.046 on legal uses of force by LEOs. After he reads it and tells you what it says, ask him if that law is constitutional. Or, you can save him the trouble of embarrassing himself in front of you and just refer him to Tennessee vs. Garner, a 1985 federal Supreme Court case that rendered TN's law, and all other states with similar laws on the books, unconstitutional. The pertinent part of that ruling as-regards the law the grand jurors were given the same day that Wilson testified goes like this:
Held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [SIZE=-1] [471 U.S. 1, 2][/SIZE]
MO's law has been unconstitutional since before Darren Wilson was born, and for the entirety of the Assistant DA's career as an attorney who cited it for the GJ.
One can legitimately argue whether Michael Brown was "nondangerous" as he was fleeing from Darren Wilson having just assaulted him, but one cannot argue that citing the unaltered-since-the-Garner-ruling MO law making any fleeing suspect legal to shoot, whether a legitimate threat or not, didn't enure to Wilson's benefit as the jurors deliberated.
'Course, I'm not sure any of the dumbs and dumbers around here understands the implications of a DA citing a law that has been ruled unconstitutional for nearly 30 years now, that GJ members took into their deliberations. Let me break it down for you. It's called "fixing" the process. It's called prosecutorial misconduct. It's called governmental corruption.
Someone lacking the smarts to look into corruption in the very jurisdiction where they live is not qualified to judge my capabilities at all.
Mistakes are not mistakes when they serve an intended purpose.
Blues