The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

Its hard for me to remain civil about this stuff, too. I think TonyRM and Hawkshite troll us to get outraged responses and then alert for abuse.

Oh please, there was nothing random about the jury selection. All the blacks were removed because they were black.



From the link bobsal left earlier.

LOL I bet you do not like the OJ example of a double murder getting off by playing the race and anti-police card to an all black jury.

The same kind of nonsense you are trying to play here concerning race and the police.

You got to go back 30 years to get your "example" and you do backflips and phantom high fives, TonyRM?

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.

Well if there was a way, it should have been fought. I hope there is a way and the jury selection in this horrible case can be fought and won. Maybe it will get the attention of civil rights groups. I hope so. Two wrongs do not make a right.

There are court rules concerning filtering any juror out due to his/her race and somehow I can not see the prosecutor or the judge allowing that to occur, but you are free to assume anything you care to.

I guess you would prefer to allow unqualified jurors on a jury if they happen to have black skins?

I surely hope and believe that things had change to the degree that an all black jury could not be played in that manner anymore just as I see no reason to think that an all white jury would be eager to allowed a multi-rapist to walk free due to his skin color or his victims skin color.

An why the hell would you assume that an all white jury would not reach a fair verdict just due to the color of their skins?

You seems to be the racist here judging people on the color of their skins.

Similar in a present Supreme Court case :

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/black-woman-kicked-off-foster-jury-supreme-court?google_editors_picks=true

Black Juror: Prosecutors Treated Me "Like I Was a Criminal"
Marilyn Garrett, key to a Supreme Court case on racism in the courts, speaks up after 30 years.
—By Stephanie Mencimer | Thu Nov. 5, 2015 6:00 AM EST

Until I contacted her in Rome, Georgia, on Tuesday, Marilyn Garrett had no idea she had become a minor celebrity in legal circles. Nearly 30 years ago, she briefly served in the jury pool during the capital trial of Timothy Foster, a 19-year-old black man charged with murdering an elderly white woman. The prosecutors dismissed her, along with every other African American called to serve, leaving an all-white jury that convicted Foster and sentenced him to death. On Monday, unbeknownst to her, the 63-year-old played a starring role in US Supreme Court arguments over racial discrimination in jury selection.

The rejection has stuck with Garrett all these years in large part because she felt like the prosecutors treated her "like I was a criminal." Their interrogation left her in tears, she told me, even though she was just there to do her civic duty. Now she's gotten a little payback, courtesy of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who channeled Garrett's outrage in the chamber of the nation's highest court.

Timothy Foster's lawyers have long argued that the trial prosecutors illegally removed blacks from his jury pool, but the Georgia courts rejected every one of those arguments. The Supreme Court is now hearing the case thanks to a treasure trove of documents his lawyers discovered in 2006. A public records request unearthed prosecutors' notes that make a mockery of a jury-selection process that was supposed to ensure racial fairness. (You can read about some of the sordid history here.)

In various hearings and appeals, Foster's prosecutors claimed that they'd dismissed potential black jurors not because they were black, but because they were defensive or impudent or had failed to make eye contact, or simply that they were women. The Georgia courts accepted those explanations, but the prosecutors notes suggest that they were false. Exhibit A for Foster and his famous lawyer, Stephen Bright, is Marilyn Garrett (now Marilyn Whitehead).

The jurors' ethnicity was highlighted on questionnaires, which even in 1987 referred to Foster as "a member of the Negro race."
Court records show that Garrett was a model citizen who would probably make a good juror. She was a lifelong resident of Georgia's Floyd County who'd attended the segregated local schools in the 1950s and '60s. She held down two jobs, went to church every Sunday, and sang in the choir. And she told prosecutors she would be comfortable imposing the death penalty—a basic requirement for anyone serving on a capital jury.

There were initially 10 black prospective jurors in a pool of 95. After dismissals for health reasons and other legitimate causes, only five of them remained. The prosecutors did an extensive workup of the remaining black jurors, ranking them by desirability should they be forced to seat one. The jurors' ethnicity was highlighted on questionnaires, which even in 1987 referred to Foster as "a member of the Negro race."

The prosecution's notes included a draft affidavit from one of their investigators, stating that if it "comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, Garrett, might be okay.” Even so, Garrett and the others were placed on a list slugged "Definite NOs." The prosecutors then used their peremptory strikes—challenges they are not required to explain during jury selection—to remove all of them.

After the jury was seated, Foster's lawyers challenged the removals, invoking the then-fresh Supreme Court ruling in Batson v Kentucky, an 1986 case in which the court ruled that it was unconstitutional to exclude jurors based on race. Defense lawyer Bright told the high court that the prosecutors had created bogus "race neutral" excuses, some after the fact, to justify their exclusion of Garrett. They claimed, for instance, that she was close in age to Foster. (He was 19, she was 34.) They also noted that she was divorced—even though divorced whites were allowed to serve—and noted that she showed "complete disrespect for the court."

"I looked at her, and she would not look at the court during the voir dire, kept looking at the ground," prosecutor Stephen Lanier said at one hearing. "Her answers were very short, if the court will recall…Said "yeah" to the court on four occasions. Shows a complete disrespect for the court and its authority. She appeared very shaky, very nervous. Her voice quivered. Not a very strong juror." Later, in an argument that could be fairly described as Orwellian, Lanier contended that he struck Garrett from the jury because she had never asked to be removed from it.

"They really got me in a defensive mode, and then they said I was indignant. They had me in tears."
Thirty years later, Garrett remembers the questioning very clearly. If she seemed defiant to the prosecutors, she told me, it might have been because "they really were nasty to me."

The Foster case was her first experience being questioned on a courtroom stand, Garrett recalls. She had arrived at the courthouse at 9 am after finishing her night shift at a textile factory two hours earlier. It was one of the two jobs she worked to support a pair of kids on her own. ("I was sleepy," she remembers.) She also worked as a teacher's aide in a Head Start program. In the subsequent appeals, prosecutors repeatedly referred to her as a "social worker"—a class of professionals they said they didn't want on the jury.

"They just kept asking me over and over why I had two jobs," Garrett recalls. "I was a single parent trying to take care of my children. It irritated me. They really got me in a defensive mode, and then they said I was indignant. They had me in tears when I went out of there. They attacked me with all that negative conversation. I'm a very sensitive person. It scared me. I didn't expect to be treated like that. It was really humiliating."

The experience didn't make her want to serve again—not that she's had much opportunity. Since the Foster trial, Garrett has only been called up for jury duty once, and she didn't serve in that case, either. Her treatment in that Georgia courtroom shows the subtle means by which prosecutors have managed to keep African Americans off criminal juries in spite of the Supreme Court's edict.

During Monday's arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was visibly upset over the way prosecutors had treated Garrett. She was especially piqued by their claims, long after the trial was over, that they'd bounced Garrett from the jury because her cousin had been arrested on a drug charge—an issue they never raised with Garrett during her questioning. "There's an assumption that she has a relationship with this cousin," Sotomayor demanded of Georgia's lawyer. "I have cousins who I know have been arrested, but I have no idea where they're in jail. I hardly—I don't know them...Doesn't that show pretext?"

Garrett told me that she did, in fact, have a relationship with her cousin. But "what did that have to do with Timothy Foster?" She was pleased when I told her that Sotomayor had come to her defense. "Thank her very much!" she said, laughing. "What she said was was true. They really did mistreat me, and I hadn't done anything."

Thirty years ago around the same time frame that an all black jury let OJ go, how interesting.

An what reason is there in this case to assume that black jurors would had found the gentleman innocent?

I would had off hand had no problem with giving him a new trial with an all black jury as I can not see the results being any difference can you?

Or are blacks all that eager to have such a murderer free in their community as there is no reason to assume his next victim would be another old white woman.

The Supreme Court heart arguments on racial discrimination in jury selection, not on the result of Foster v. Chatman. (Oral arguments)
Many of the justices appeared to side with the petitioner, pointing out that many of the prosecution's reasons for striking jurors appeared dubious.

There seem little question that the sob beaten, then raped, then murder an old woman in her own home.

This whole appeal look like the kind of games that lawyers play to delay an execution for decade after decade.

Once more given the known facts does anyone think for a second that the results would not had been the same with an all black jury?

Rev, this is in the same constitutional area as guns. You cannot restrict the defenses right to remove jurors who the defense thinks may be prejudiced. Right? No. Legal? Yes. Someone should find why only three blacks were in the jury pool. That seems to me to stink to high heaven, but it seems that when a policeman is involved political protection happens more often than not.

You're stupid beyond words. You talk out your ass because you only read RW blogs and watch Fox News, TonyRM.


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html
The O. J. Simpson Trial: The Jury

The Simpson jury (sketch by Bill Robles)

Final Jury Composition
Selection of the Jury
The Jury Questionaire

Final Jury Composition
The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

You are such a freaking racist.

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] on racial discrimination in the jury selection process. In Foster v. Chatman.
The court must decide whether the "Georgia courts err[ed] in failing to recognize race discrimination ... in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case."

Given the case it seem a harmless misdeed if it did happen as once more would anyone care to stated that there is any great likelihood of another outcome no matter what the jury racial make up happen to be?

Once more he broke into an elderly woman home, then beaten her, then rape her and then murder her.

Where is there room to consider the defendant or the victim race given those facts by any jury of any racial make up?

Suicide of a Dishonest Officer

NOV. 4, 2015


Charles M. Blow

There is no way to fully process the betrayal by Charles Joseph Gliniewicz, a police lieutenant in Illinois who an investigator said Wednesday had committed a “carefully staged suicide” after years of stealing money from a local youth group that he ran.

He betrayed his family, he betrayed his fellow officers, he betrayed the public he served, and he betrayed the children in the program.

Shortly after Gliniewicz’s death, his widow took the stage at a vigil in his honor, flanked by the couple’s sons, and read a statement that said:

“We all lost somebody yesterday. A husband, a father, a son, a brother, a mentor, a leader, a role model and a friend. And of course, a brother in blue. Joe was my best friend, my world, my hero, the love of my life for the last 26 and a half years.”

She continued: “My world got a little bit smaller with his passing, and he will truly be missed by all of us.”
Charles M. Blow
Politics, public opinion and social justice.

Gotcha, G.O.P.
NOV 2
A Movement Has Its Moment
OCT 28
Hillary Clinton Wins Again
OCT 26
Queen Hillary Came to Play
OCT 14
Million Man March, 20 Years On
OCT 11

See More »

Her sense of pain was palpable; her sense of loss raw. And yet, her dead husband had set her and everyone else up with a lie.

Senator Dick Durbin even tweeted on Sept. 2: “Officer Gliniewicz of #FoxLake exemplified what it means to be a law enforcement officer&was a true mentor to his fellow officers&community.”

But according to authorities, that mentor was also a thief. As The Chicago Tribune reported, authorities say the amount of the theft was “in the five figures.” And, the paper reported last month, the cost of the investigation into his death topped $300,000.

This is an exponential tragedy, and there is only one person at fault here: Officer Gliniewicz, the officer lovingly referred to as G.I. Joe. His family and his community bear no guilt here. They, too, are victims.

But there are others for whom that claim cannot be made. They are the people who from the beginning went further than any evidence would support in trying to link Gliniewicz’s death to so-called anti-police rhetoric and presidential politics.

On “The Kelly File,” the host, Megyn Kelly, said that it was too early to know the exact circumstance of the “murder” of Gliniewicz, “but it clearly comes just days after Deputy Darren Goforth of the Sheriff’s Department was shot execution-style in an attack that his boss linked to the, quote, ‘dangerous environment created by the Black Lives Matter movement.’ ”

Gov. Scott Walker, of neighboring Wisconsin, wrote on HotAir.com that Gliniewicz had been “assassinated” as “people responsible for keeping us safe are targeted because they are law enforcement officials.”

He continued: “In the last six years under President Obama, we’ve seen a rise in anti-police rhetoric. Instead of hope and change, we’ve seen racial tensions worsen and a tendency to use law enforcement as a scapegoat.”

Immediately following Gliniewicz’s death, a former United States Secret Service agent, Dan Bongino, went on Fox News and, as images of the search for Gliniewicz’s phantom killers played on the screen, said of President Obama:
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
BMEL47 56 minutes ago

The choices for those in denial that this was a suicide are two: 1 )Admit they were wrong, 2) Admit they were dead wrong. I predict few if...
Rosko 56 minutes ago

I have a sneaking suspicion that Scott Walker and this Dan Bongino character have never felt chastened in their lives. They probably will...
Chuck 56 minutes ago

It is always foolhardy and dangerous for the media to form a narrative before the facts are in. Fox News is consistently guilty of this...

See All Comments

“The man has been a complete disgrace when it comes to dealing with police officers, and it really gives me no joy in saying that. I know people can engage in hyperbolic statements here, but it’s just the truth. I mean, how many people are going to have to die, how many police officers, before President Obama has that Sister Souljah moment President Clinton had and he comes out and says ‘enough is enough’?”

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

In an October interview with Crime Watch Daily, even Gliniewicz’s widow lamented that she had not heard from the president and said, while sobbing, “When our officers can’t go home without being shot at, then there’s a problem.”

This case illustrates the ultimate danger of reactionary narrative-building and rabid hashtag orthodoxy.

In the same way that not every black life taken is taken with malice, or without an awareness that it matters, not every police life taken is the result of a hostile policing environment in which calls for justice translate into a call for retribution.

Sometimes bad people simply do bad things. Not everything in real life fits neatly into a narrative. And indeed, trying to force everything pushes out the legitimacy from otherwise honorable pursuits.

The people who sought to politicize Gliniewicz’s death should feel chastened and embarrassed. Rather than simply mourning his death, empathizing with his family and waiting for the results of the full investigation — the very same thing they ask of those unsettled by the deaths of people at the hands of police officers — they pushed an association that didn’t exist.

So eager — or at least too recklessly willing — were they to add another tick mark to the tally of officers fallen in the supposed war on the police, and to ding protesters and the president, that they built a sham argument on a sham murder. Shameful.

I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at [email protected].

I'm guessing they will apologize about the same time that Obama and the DOJ does for the events that unfolded after the death of Mike Brown.

Official Says Illinois Cop Who Killed Himself Sought to Have Village Administrator Killed
Source: Associated Press

@AP: BREAKING: Official says Illinois cop who killed himself sought to have village administrator killed.

The Latest: Official says disgraced cop tried to set up hit

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NOV. 5, 2015 1:58 PM EST

FOX LAKE, Ill. (AP) — The latest developments in the investigation into the September shooting death of an Illinois police officer (all times local):

12:30 p.m.

An official says an Illinois police officer who killed himself tried to arrange for a gang member "to put a hit" on a village administrator because he feared she would discover he had been embezzling money.

Lake County Sheriff's Office spokesman Christopher Covelli also said Thursday that investigators found packets of cocaine in Fox Lake Police Lt. Charles Joseph Gliniewicz's desk after his Sept. 1 death.

Covelli says investigators recovered deleted text messages in which Gliniewicz mentioned the possibility of planting something on the administrator, Anne Marrin, although he says they don't know if that's why he had the cocaine.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/c4cb45ecc01a4c02b623d384553060dd