The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

Proves how ignorant you really are!

You're the one talking stupid! It isn't about the 'left' vs 'right' issue.

Dahlia Lithwick is a Canadian writer and editor who lives in the United States.[citation needed] Lithwick is a contributing editor at Newsweek and senior editor at Slate. She writes "Supreme Court Dispatches" and "Jurisprudence" and has covered the Microsoft trial and other legal issues for Slate. Before joining Slate as a freelancer in 1999, she worked for a family law firm in Reno, Nevada.[citation needed] Her work has appeared in The New Republic, The American Prospect, ELLE, The Ottawa Citizen, and The Washington Post.

She was a regular guest on The Al Franken Show, and has been a guest columnist for the New York Times Op-Ed page. Lithwick, functioning in her role as Slate's legal correspondent, frequently[quantify] provides summaries of and commentary on current United States Supreme Court cases as a guest on National Public Radio's newsmagazine Day to Day, which was co-produced by Slate.com. She received the Online News Association's award for online commentary in 2001.[1]

In 2009, Lithwick wrote an article for Slate titled "I Need a Hero: Seeking a bomb-throwing, passionate, visionary, liberal Scalia for a seat on the Supreme Court." [2][3][4] In the article, she called for President Obama to nominate a person who was "some cross between Rachel Maddow and Emma Goldman," such as Sonia Sotomayor.

Sonja R. West joined the University of Georgia School of Law in the fall of 2006. She specializes in constitutional law, media law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prior to joining the Georgia Law faculty, West taught as the Hugo Black Faculty Fellow at the University of Alabama School of Law. She has also served as a judicial clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Her other professional experience includes several years as an associate attorney for the Los Angeles law firms Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Davis Wright Tremaine, where she represented media clients on a variety of First Amendment and intellectual property issues at the trial and appellate levels.

This shows just how desperate the left is, they are willing to look stupid by talking gibberish in the attempt to get what they want because they dont have anything else.

An innocent Black man was released from prison after serving 39 years behind bars because a kid witness targeted him as the criminal. University laws students researched his case and found the guy who lied about seeing him commit the crime. He was to serve life in prison.

More Blacks serve prison time for the same crimes whites commit. This problem has been on-going for too long in this country.

White bigots will never 'get it.'

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate
Jan 8, 2009 |By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld
IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime. At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.

Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident. In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.

Reconstructing Memories
The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
...

it's a white cops (or even US legal system) vs blacks issue.

I find it amazing that where is no demonstrations or concern concerning the leading cause of deaths for black male teenagers as in other black teenagers not cops of any color.

U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists
By Peter Bergen and David Sterman
updated 5:29 PM EDT, Tue April 15, 2014

Actually it is not, the prosecutors conducted the Grand Jury courtroom like a trial court room, which by the way, was their point. (Without any of procedures which would occur in a trial court room.)

Again, this issue has nothing to do with "cops were caught in a bloody lie."

That's the title of this thread.

Have you demonstrated because whites cause more terrorism in the US than Muslims?

Why ask me? I'm not the originator of this forum.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with "cops were caught in a bloody lie.

That's too simple of a concept for you to comprehend.

You are not seriously asking C.I. that question, right?

Joe(<shakes head>)Nation