Mike Ditka comments on Ferguson, St. Louis Rams

[Cowboysrock55]

Well then that being the case there is no conflict until someone determines there is. The "appearance" is therefore an opinion or belief until someone or something determines otherwise. At least that's how I see it. It's an allegation or presumption.

I would say that he was directly in conflict with this rule:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/d06710dff1830d2686256ca600521205?OpenDocument

 

[L.T. Fan]

I would say that he was directly in conflict with this rule:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/d06710dff1830d2686256ca600521205?OpenDocument

I understand you and others believe this and it may well be the case but at some point these definitions have to to be evidenced or adjudicated by someone in some venue. Has anyone made this disposition?

 

[VA Cowboy]

Well when the medias portrayal is along the lines of Brown was innocently playing with his GI Joe's in a sandbox while petting puppies and feeding kittens when the officer, who just returned form a Klan rally and still wearing his hood, identified Brown as an easy target, crept up upon him and executed him in broad daylight while shouting "white power" and blasting Ted Nugent's Stranglehold from his PA they aren't going to be satisfied with anything less than a hanging.

If the protesters want to protest police killing an innocent kid with his hands up then they should find a case where that happened and not invent one out of this situation.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I understand you and others believe this and it may well be the case but at some point these definitions have to to be evidenced or adjudicated by someone in some venue. Has anyone made this disposition?

The judge can make a ruling on these issues, the problem with a grand jury is that a judge doesn't have that opportunity prior to an indictment. The system has some serious flaws and that leads to a lot of people being upset. Obviously I'm trying to avoid some of the specifics of the Michael Brown case because I'm talking about the system in general.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

If the protesters want to protest police killing an innocent kid with his hands up then they should find a case where that happened and not invent one out of this situation.

The protests aren't just about Michael Brown. They are about the issue on a larger level. Michael Brown was just the catalyst. From a personal standpoint I don't think it has anything to do with race. I think if Michael Brown was a white man that whole encounter would have ended the same way and carried the same level of injustice.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I understand you and others believe this and it may well be the case but at some point these definitions have to to be evidenced or adjudicated by someone in some venue. Has anyone made this disposition?

So something is not morally or ethically wrong until someone says it is? Ridiculous.

 

[L.T. Fan]

So something is not morally or ethically wrong until someone says it is? Ridiculous.

That's not what I said at all. The issue was processes throughout the legal structure and a verdict was issued. Until such time as the verdict or the process is officially determined to be faulty or erroneous it is the official determination. As to the moral implications, the process is being debated as being faulty because of opinions that the process was a conflict of interest. That is an arbitrarily determined position by some and is used as justification to become lawless and destructive. There is no basis for this conduct to be displayed based on a suspicion of conflict of interest. Until such time as it is determined to be in conflict from a legal standpoint it is a legally adjudicated process. You or anyone else have a right to believe otherwise but there is no legal standing for that belief at this time.

 

[townsend]

That's not what I said at all. The issue was processes throughout the legal structure and a verdict was issued. Until such time as the verdict or the process is officially determined to be faulty or erroneous it is the official determination. As to the moral implications, the process is being debated as being faulty because of opinions that the process was a conflict of interest. That is an arbitrarily determined position by some and is used as justification to become lawless and destructive. There is no basis for this conduct to be displayed based on a suspicion of conflict of interest. Until such time as it is determined to be in conflict from a legal standpoint it is a legally adjudicated process. You or anyone else have a right to believe otherwise but there is no legal standing for that belief at this time.

It sounds like what you're saying is that a government's crimes are not crimes unless the government says that they are crimes. This admittedly falls well in line with your "wait and see" outlook.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

That's not what I said at all. The issue was processes throughout the legal structure and a verdict was issued. Until such time as the verdict or the process is officially determined to be faulty or erroneous it is the official determination. As to the moral implications, the process is being debated as being faulty because of opinions that the process was a conflict of interest. That is an arbitrarily determined position by some and is used as justification to become lawless and destructive. There is no basis for this conduct to be displayed based on a suspicion of conflict of interest. Until such time as it is determined to be in conflict from a legal standpoint it is a legally adjudicated process. You or anyone else have a right to believe otherwise but there is no legal standing for that belief at this time.

I think you're confusing a number of things. You're confusing conflict of interest with the prosecuting attorney actually not prosecuting the case fairly. Conflict of interest isn't something that is arbitrarily determined. As I showed you the Missouri Court Rule which dictates what is a conflict of interest. There clearly was a conflict of interest for the prosecuting attorney in the Michael Brown case. Now just because there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean the prosecuting attorney didn't prosecute the case to the fullest of his abilities. He absolutely could have (Although from what I have seen this isn't true and if you want me to explain why I'd be more then happy to explain) prosecuted Darren Wilson to the fullest of his abilities while still having a conflict of interest.

The statement of legal standing doesn't make any sense from a legal perspective. You're using the term legal standing incorrectly. Further conflict of interest isn't a criminal matter where you are innocent until proven guilty. It's a procedural matter, and procedural matters are viewed under a far different light. Procedural rules are what lead to appeals from a lawyers perspective. The conflict of interest exists far before a judge makes a ruling on the matter. In this case no judge had the opportunity to rule on that matter and never will.

And there is no justification for the lawless actions of some in St. Louis. It saddens me that anyone who doesn't side with Darren Wilson gets grouped in with looters and people who burn down buildings.

 

[L.T. Fan]

It sounds like what you're saying is that a government's crimes are not crimes unless the government says that they are crimes. This admittedly falls well in line with your "wait and see" outlook.

Who else can make that determination in this country?

 

[L.T. Fan]

I think you're confusing a number of things. You're confusing conflict of interest with the prosecuting attorney actually not prosecuting the case fairly. Conflict of interest isn't something that is arbitrarily determined. As I showed you the Missouri Court Rule which dictates what is a conflict of interest. There clearly was a conflict of interest for the prosecuting attorney in the Michael Brown case. Now just because there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean the prosecuting attorney didn't prosecute the case to the fullest of his abilities. He absolutely could have (Although from what I have seen this isn't true and if you want me to explain why I'd be more then happy to explain) prosecuted Darren Wilson to the fullest of his abilities while still having a conflict of interest.

The statement of legal standing doesn't make any sense from a legal perspective. You're using the term legal standing incorrectly. Further conflict of interest isn't a criminal matter where you are innocent until proven guilty. It's a procedural matter, and procedural matters are viewed under a far different light. Procedural rules are what lead to appeals from a lawyers perspective. The conflict of interest exists far before a judge makes a ruling on the matter. In this case no judge had the opportunity to rule on that matter and never will.

And there is no justification for the lawless actions of some in St. Louis. It saddens me that anyone who doesn't side with Darren Wilson gets grouped in with looters and people who burn down buildings.

If it cannot be ruled on by a judge then where is a remedy done and if the conflict exists who will seek the remedy? This is what is confusing to me because as it is now some feel there was a conflict of interest and in so doing if that is as far as it goes then you are back to square one of a divided opinion with no way to fix it. All I am saying is to this point a verdict has been rendered regarding the officers responsibility and the Jury said there wasn't sufficient cause to prosecute him. This has been rejected by some arguing there was a conflict of interest therefore they do not accept the jury's verdict. That is their opinion but it doesn't nullify the verdict. And no I am not saying that the verdict renders his innocence but it does take a position as to whether he should be prosecuted. The view by some says this is a meaningless position because of the conflicts that exists. If they are going to legally further their stance for prosecution then someone will have to either have those findings overturned or begin a process toward an indictment for a trial it would seem. Until that happens the GJ verdict is the official position and an opposing position is just an opinion.

By the way thanks for the response.

 

[townsend]

Who else can make that determination in this country?

The public. As soon as we say that a government isn't accountable to the people, it no longer becomes of the people. This has been a considerable problem lately in the days of detaining US citizens under suspicion, civil asset forfeiture, and the incredible scourge of police brutality we've seen in this generation.

If, for instance. I drive through Buffmuck TX, on the way to Fumbuck LA and the local sheriff sees fit to steal my car and call it civil asset forfeiture. It's illegal whether or not the civil government calls it so. Just as much as a civilian stealing my car would be illegal whether or not he's ever caught.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The public. As soon as we say that a government isn't accountable to the people, it no longer becomes of the people. This has been a considerable problem lately in the days of detaining US citizens under suspicion, civil asset forfeiture, and the incredible scourge of police brutality we've seen in this generation.

If, for instance. I drive through Buffmuck TX, on the way to Fumbuck LA and the local sheriff sees fit to steal my car and call it civil asset forfeiture. It's illegal whether or not the civil government calls it so. Just as much as a civilian stealing my car would be illegal whether or not he's ever caught.

I appreciate your sentiment but there is no provision for society to exercise their personal desecration regarding the laws of the land. If you disagree with a law or break alaw it will be expedited in the governments system. Even if you are commandeered it will be at the government's discretion. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. Government at every level is responsible for administering justice. Your example is an illegal act by law enforcement and is defined as such by governmental laws.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

If it cannot be ruled on by a judge then where is a remedy done and if the conflict exists who will seek the remedy? This is what is confusing to me because as it is now some feel there was a conflict of interest and in so doing if that is as far as it goes then you are back to square one of a divided opinion with no way to fix it.

This is part of the reason why you see rioting. Prosecuting attorney's are given too much discretion and there really is no recourse in cases of a conflicts of interest. With the exception that they are elected and may not be reelected based on the decisions they make. When people have no recourse in the legal system they turn to things outside of the legal system.

Basically things need to be changed. Protocols need to be put in place so that cases can't be prosecuted or not prosecuted based on who the prosecuting attorney does or doesn't have a relationship with.

 

[townsend]

I appreciate your sentiment but there is no provision for society to exercise their personal desecration regarding the laws of the land. If you disagree with a law or break alaw it will be expedited in the governments system. Even if you are commandeered it will be at the government's discretion. It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. Government at every level is responsible for administering justice. Your example is an illegal act by law enforcement and is defined as such by governmental laws.

Springing back from our original discussion of conflict of interest. I think that it's important that we define ethical conduct separately from legality. (Although I still stand by the point that the government commits crimes and gets away with it is still committing crimes.) Ethics are governed by professions, industries, and a general trust in a person acting in good faith.

People can and have acted unethically without facing sanctions. I believe you had a long career, which makes me assume you've come across people who were doing things that weren't necessarily illegal, that you saw as wrong/unprofessional/dishonest. If someone was to define this moral failing, this ethical failing as okay, because no one had told them that it wasn't. Well it sounds a bit like the Nuremberg defense.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Springing back from our original discussion of conflict of interest. I think that it's important that we define ethical conduct separately from legality. (Although I still stand by the point that the government commits crimes and gets away with it is still committing crimes.) Ethics are governed by professions, industries, and a general trust in a person acting in good faith.

People can and have acted unethically without facing sanctions. I believe you had a long career, which makes me assume you've come across people who were doing things that weren't necessarily illegal, that you saw as wrong/unprofessional/dishonest. If someone was to define this moral failing, this ethical failing as okay, because no one had told them that it wasn't. Well it sounds a bit like the Nuremberg defense.

I haven't addresses the topic of ethical conduct in my posts. I have stayed with the legal aspects and purposely so. My primary thoughts were the conduct of some which was arbitrary imposed in the face of a legal disposition. It was a self determined decision to disregard the legal verdict and resort to self help justice which caused destruction and hardship on a community. If they disagreed with the determination then they should seek remedies through a system that is provided. I have taken no position on whether I agreed or disagreeded with the verdict. Frankly I have no idea whether the actions of the officer were appropriate nor did I have access to the evidence that was presented to them. I am ignorant to the actual truth of the matter and can only rely on the determinations that were made. I can arbitrarily disagree with it but that would put me in company with some who think it's okay to disregard the legal system of justice.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I haven't addresses the topic of ethical conduct in my posts. I have stayed with the legal aspects and purposely so. My primary thoughts were the conduct of some which was arbitrary imposed in the face of a legal disposition. It was a self determined decision to disregard the legal verdict and resort to self help justice which caused destruction and hardship on a community. If they disagreed with the determination then they should seek remedies through a system that is provided. I have taken no position on whether I agreed or disagreeded with the verdict. Frankly I have no idea whether the actions of the officer were appropriate nor did I have access to the evidence that was presented to them. I am ignorant to the actual truth of the matter and can only rely on the determinations that were made. I can arbitrarily disagree with it but that would put me in company with some who think it's okay to disregard the legal system of justice.

It's not disregarding the legal system to demand reforms in cases where people allow justice to be tainted by the appearance of corruption by refusing to adhere to their own ethical rules voluntarily. Wanting the justice system to be more transparent and unbiased is the opposite of disregarding it.

 

[L.T. Fan]

It's not disregarding the legal system to demand reforms in cases where people allow justice to be tainted by the appearance of corruption by refusing to adhere to their own ethical rules voluntarily. Wanting the justice system to be more transparent and unbiased is the opposite of disregarding it.

I agree with what you say. Where I have made a distinction is the manner in which some demanded reforms. I cannot abide with the vigilante justice of rioters and plunders in the mix. There is an orderly way to disagree short of declared war.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree with what you say. Where I have made a distinction is the manner in which some demanded reforms. I cannot abide with the vigilante justice of rioters and plunders in the mix. There is an orderly way to disagree short of declared war.

Yeah, well, I'm not rioting. I don't think anyone here is posting on their phone whilst looting a store. I don't think anyone here is pro-looting.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Yeah, well, I'm not rioting. I don't think anyone here is posting on their phone whilst looting a store. I don't think anyone here is pro-looting.

Where did that come from? Early on in my conversations I stated that this is what I was primarily talking about.