15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If you had read both articles then you would know its not as simple as that. Who told you there was no evidence linking 31 individuals? Why did the DA also use his "professional discretion".

 

Are you sure you've read all the posts in this topic? its tedious having to write the same thing again and again when its here already.

It is as simple as that.

Just now, stevenl said:

It is as simple as that.

Everything can be simple if you chose it to be by ignoring the facts

11 hours ago, Sheryl said:

it is pretty standard in campus riots/demonstrations -- regardless of what they are about -- for people to be arrested then ultimately released without charges.

 

Too difficult to tie specific individuals to specific acts and in most cases potential charges would be  just be misdemeanors anyhow.

 

Standard playbook: The cops go in, break it up, grab everyone they can (who may or may not have been doing XYZ, some might just have been standing by watching), haul them all off thus effectively stopping things. Then hold everyone a day or so and let them all go.

 

Exception would be in cases where someone was seriously injured, or there was a clear attempt at hurting or killing someone (neither usually true at Campus ruckuses) in which case effort would be made to identify those specifically responsible.

 

I think from what I understand is that many were issued citations and not taken in. All of the participants should have been printed and booked and that would yield a lot of evidence. Confiscate the Palestinian costumes as evidence and then you have DNA. Now you will with 100% certainty be able to discern who was where. 

5 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I think from what I understand is that many were issued citations and not taken in. All of the participants should have been printed and booked and that would yield a lot of evidence. Confiscate the Palestinian costumes as evidence and then you have DNA. Now you will with 100% certainty be able to discern who was where. 

‘Costumes as evidence’

 

It’s straying from the McCarthyist to the Kafkaesque.

 

 

Two tiered justice system strikes again. 

 

At least this decision spares us the embarrassment of the kangaroo court.

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I think from what I understand is that many were issued citations and not taken in. All of the participants should have been printed and booked and that would yield a lot of evidence. Confiscate the Palestinian costumes as evidence and then you have DNA. Now you will with 100% certainty be able to discern who was where. 

They know who was there. But the issue is not being able to prove who committed crimes like vandalism.

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

They know who was there. But the issue is not being able to prove who committed crimes like vandalism.

Since when is trespassing not a crime? There were dozens arrested inside buildings that had been broken into. 

35 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Since when is trespassing not a crime? There were dozens arrested inside buildings that had been broken into. 

Since the protest is a leftist cause. Had it been a right-wing cause they'd scorch the Earth to incarcerate them. 

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Since the protest is a leftist cause. Had it been a right-wing cause they'd scorch the Earth to incarcerate them. 

You mean - like illegally entering the Capital building - to be charged and jailed for an (unnarmed) insurrection?

I gotta agree and so do all rational people - the clear bias in the USA justice system is evidenced - Trump will tear them all down when POTUS.

And that is what scares them most - last time he naively tried to appease and change them - next year he will just destroy them.

 

6 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You mean - like illegally entering the Capital building - to be charged and jailed for an (unnarmed) insurrection?

I gotta agree and so do all rational people - the clear bias in the USA justice system is evidenced - Trump will tear them all down when POTUS.

And that is what scares them most - last time he naively tried to appease and change them - next year he will just destroy them.

 

"the clear bias in the USA justice system is evidenced".

Agree, in an unbiased system Trump would have been locked up many times already.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

"the clear bias in the USA justice system is evidenced".

Agree, in an unbiased system Trump would have been locked up many times already.

For overstating the value on load applications or for calling an NDA a legal expense? 

 

 

10 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You mean - like illegally entering the Capital building - to be charged and jailed for an (unnarmed) insurrection?

I gotta agree and so do all rational people - the clear bias in the USA justice system is evidenced - Trump will tear them all down when POTUS.

And that is what scares them most - last time he naively tried to appease and change them - next year he will just destroy them.

 

Or people that are protesting at abortion clinics. 

 

It is interesting that the left cares so much about saving Palestinian babies, but they don't seem to give a whit about American babies.  

On 6/22/2024 at 3:35 AM, Social Media said:

This decision has sparked outrage among law enforcement officials, higher education authorities, and Jewish advocates.

What are Jewish advocates?

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

What are Jewish advocates?

People

40 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

What are Jewish advocates?

Human beings, what a vile post you made there.

17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Human beings, what a vile post you made there.

What do you expect from a Hamas advocate? 

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

What are Jewish advocates?

Advocates who are Jewish would be my guess.

If the trials had gone ahead, and the prosecutions had failed, because the prosecution had been unable to prove the identities of those arrested, at what or whom would the outrage be directed?

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You mean - like illegally entering the Capital building - to be charged and jailed for an (unnarmed) insurrection?

I gotta agree and so do all rational people - the clear bias in the USA justice system is evidenced - Trump will tear them all down when POTUS.

And that is what scares them most - last time he naively tried to appease and change them - next year he will just destroy them.

 

Do on to others as they have done to you!

Constitutionally of course!

bragg will be taken out by the voters ,in NY. His position  as a elected official and his bias is detrimental to the average Subway rider in NY.

 

 

Trump’s debate will reveal that he only wants what best for America!

He will take a peaceful response to retaliation.

 

 

It all will come down to his AG pick!

I’d like to see the current AG in Missouri Mr Bailey!

Smart move 

methinks

Edited June 23, 20242 yr by riclag

25 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

If the trials had gone ahead, and the prosecutions had failed, because the prosecution had been unable to prove the identities of those arrested, at what or whom would the outrage be directed?

As long as they get the right judge, that's not a concern. 

22 hours ago, 0james0 said:

The democrat party in America is a false label. They are not democrats, they are not democratic nor are they liberal. They are flat out communist- call it for what it is. The American Communists Party. A bit of a Frankenstein communism if you will.

So, they support the abolition of private property and worker control of the means of production? Or is calling Democrats communists just some Pavlovian reflex on your part?

22 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Another deflection:

 

 

I've already answered that question but I'll do it again for you. Being arrested by the police is not proof that someone committed a crime. At least not in the USA. If a prosecutor tried to enter into evidence as proof of guilt that someone was arrested by the police, that would be laughed out of court. 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I've already answered that question but I'll do it again for you. Being arrested by the police is not proof that someone committed a crime. At least not in the USA. If a prosecutor tried to enter into evidence as proof of guilt that someone was arrested by the police, that would be laughed out of court. 

The proof was in the videos of them trespassing...lol

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

The proof was in the videos of them trespassing...lol

What videos? As the DA  said, video evidence was lacking.

Edited June 23, 20242 yr by placeholder

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What videos? As the DA  said, video evidence was lacking.

pro-Palestinian protesters who broke into and occupied Hamilton Hall. Are you really saying that they were not trespassing?

 

 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

pro-Palestinian protesters who broke into and occupied Hamilton Hall. Are you really saying that they were not trespassing?

 

 

Just because this tape provides evidence that some people were trespassing, that doesn't mean that this tape provides evidence of exactly who they were. And, as far as I can tell, it doesn't. No matter how many times you show it. 

Just now, placeholder said:

Just because this tape provides evidence that some people were trespassing, that doesn't mean that this tape provides evidence of exactly who they were. And, as far as I can tell, it doesn't. No matter how many times you show it. 

You think they arrested, charged them and took them away on a police bus without knowing who they were?

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Costumes as evidence’

 

It’s straying from the McCarthyist to the Kafkaesque.

 

 

No he clothes you wear can help identify you if there are pics or videos or even descriptions of a crime. This is basic police work 101. They also contain DNA so it can be matched. 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You think they arrested, charged them and took them away on a police bus without knowing who they were?

 Their arrest by the police is not evidence of guilt. If the police had useful videos those would be evidence.

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

They know who was there. But the issue is not being able to prove who committed crimes like vandalism.

That is why they should have orinted and booked everybody and collect3d all of the evidence that would have provided at the time of arrest. The initial charge would be trespassing but they could have used physical evidence such as fingerprints to investigate more serious crimes such as breaking and entering, vandalism etc.