The Goat Pen

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses ... d=16371852

Wow, how did the racist pigs rig all this evidence?..

Shhhhhhhhhh.....

Ladies & Gentlemen, my prosecutor from 04-06

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

Oh sardis, how sheepish & predictable are thee

Oh sardis, how sheepish & predictable are thee

As predictable as your response?

At least I reserved judgment until the evidence was made available yesterday. Many others here, including you, cast your die early on.

sardis wrote:As predictable as your response?

At least I reserved judgment until the evidence was made available yesterday. Many others here, including you, cast your die early on.

I saw on the news last night that they asked the Father 2 days after the incident to confirm whether it was Trayvon that was screaming for help in the background of the 911 call and he said no.

On a separate note, Eric Holder is a disgrace to the office he holds.

This picture of Trayvon certainly looks different from the years-old picture of the fresh-faced lad they were showing during most of the coverage. Not that it matters as far as the facts of the case, but I did think it was a little shady to be showing a "nice" picture of Trayvon (and also one that was obviously from years ago), while they showed nothing but a thug shot of the Mex. In fairness, though, the Mex still looks like a thug in this picture. Can't say that Trayvon really looks like a thug even in this picture, but he looks different from the one they constantly showed of him when the story broke. And again, the visual appearance of either party is irrelevant in terms of the facts of the case, but I thought the way much of the news media tried to shape public perception with it was less than objective, and even borderline coercive....

NBC selectively editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman seem eager to profile on race didn't help

And again, I'm just commenting on much of the media's presentation of the story, not on anything about the case itself, which is an entirely different subject. As far as the latter, I don't really give a shit, just like I don't give a shit about AIDS in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter), human rights abuses in the West Bank (or anywhere else for that matter) or starving children in India (or anywhere else for that matter)....

How tall are the both of them? In the video from the market where he bought his skittles he looked pretty tall. Zim looks short and lumpy like Stu.

sardis wrote:As predictable as your response?

At least I reserved judgment until the evidence was made available yesterday. Many others here, including you, cast your die early on.

Heh, really? My argument has been mostly on the police force and the prosecution botching the arrest and letting it get to the point where all the evidence that COULD have been collected now can not be (and letting it turn into some larger media story than necessary).

Go back and re-read my "judgement" again (and Owl's and eCat's, ftm). There's some good stuff there if you can retain it.

finally - something right

As police departments around the country are increasingly caught up in tussles with members of the public who record their activities, the U.S. Justice Department has come out with a strong statement supporting the First Amendment right of individuals to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties.

In a surprising letter (.pdf) sent on Monday to attorneys for the Baltimore Police Department, the Justice Department also strongly asserted that officers who seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or without due process are in strict violation of the individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The letter was sent to the police department as it prepares for meetings to discuss a settlement over a civil lawsuit brought by a citizen who sued the department after his camera was seized by police.

In the lawsuit, Christopher Sharp alleged that in May 2010, Baltimore City police officers seized, searched and deleted the contents of his mobile phone after he used it to record them as they were arresting a friend of his.

Last year, the Baltimore Police Department published a General Order to officers explaining that members of the public have a right to record their activity in public, but the Justice Department said in its 11-page letter this week that the order didn’t go far enough, and pointed out several areas where it should clarify and assert more strongly the rights that individuals possess.

The right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties was essential to help “engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety,” wrote Jonathan Smith, head of the Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section.

Smith cited the 1991 videotaped assault of Rodney King while he was being beaten by law enforcement officers as an incident that “exemplifies this principle” of public oversight.

Good to see.

[youtube]Z7-TTWgiYL4[/youtube]

Shoot-outs in Louisville...in the middle of the police investigating a shooting? Did I just see that roll across the screen of the TV in my office's cafeteria? WTF?

your office cafeteria has a TV? then how are people supposed to get work done while they eat?

Why is Bklyns cafeteria showing yesterdays news?

Gator by God's Grace wrote:your office cafeteria has a TV? then how are people supposed to get work done while they eat?

Yeah, we have two flat screens. One shows ESPN all day, the other shows CNBC or MSNBC. The food sucks there, so it's mostly used as a distraction.

Rat

That happened yesterday? So, (bearing in mind I did not hear the news, exactly, as I just grabbed a sandwich to eat in my office, and looked at the screen while I paid) was it that cops showed up to a shooting in Louisville and while they were doing investigative work in that neighborhood (with news crews on site) another shootout started? WTF?

FB

I don't see that stock doing anything in the long-term. Meant to say that the other day, after the IPO price went from $25 to near $40. If you are paying the market price, then you are investing in the expectation that their (quality) management team can find a way to sustain growth and make money. I just don't think it's worth the money.