https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/for...S94ylTsHybw8f2Ld6uCay3udvc#Echobox=1630620028 Da who initially let off her former employee has been charged with obstruction. Who could guessed? O right, me. You're welcome. How do yall like them apples? All yall who said she was acting right, show yourselves!
But... this thing happened and I was right. Deal with it. I think this was about a DA that pushed a racial agenda and got caught. We are so short on racism that people have to make it up.
Correct. A pro white racial agenda Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit prosecutor Jackie Johnson is accused of showing favor to one defendant in the shooting, Greg McMichael, and blocking the arrest of Travis McMichael, Greg’s son.
This is actually pretty normal. Prosecutors usually show favor and are biased in favor of police officers who are being accused of something that resulted from an altercation. We can argue whether or not, or how much, this is a good thing or a bad thing. If the officer was being charged despite the objections of most of the district attorneys, and the law enforcement chief involved, then it would not be the least bit surprising she would show bias in favor of the officer who was now officially being charged. If you read the article, the only thing this District Attorney is being concretely accused of is recommending someone else to take over the case who she knew had already had a strong opinion on the matter. I'm not sure that seems so clear and obviously criminally wrong that she will be punished very much. She was also accused of innappropriately blocking the arrest of the son who was at the scene of the killing. Even though that son was not the person who actually shot Arbery. Sounds to me like there is no legitimate reason he should even be arrested.
Sorry, I still don't think it's so clear that how she was acting was wrong. It might not have been the most ethical, in a mostly theoretical sense. Charges don't necessarily prove anything, by themselves. The facts can be interpreted in many different ways.
Or different prosecutors showing favor for race rioters or illegal immigrants. But those D.A.'s don't incur criminal charges.
It's really for the people that participated in the thread. They know who they are. I'm pretty sure each of you was in that arbery case thread where we talked about it for like 80 some odd pages over the course of weeks last year. <COMMENTS EDITED>
It's not normal to act in a case you are biased on because the potential defendant is your former employee. He worked directly for her was given an award by her. She recused herself only after taking a bunch of actions that hindered the investigation. That's obstruction. Which I pointed out in the prior thread.
Real simple: did she recuse herself for bias? Yes? Was that bias in existence from the start? Yes? Did she take action on the case rather than immediately recusing herself? Yes? Obstruction.
In that case, it might have been simpler for you to add to that discussion. It doesn't sound like you want anybody else's input on it which makes this thread a bit misleading.
Kazenatsu seems to have taken the opportunity to comment. I don't know why you don't feel invited. Shall I call you by name red rover style? Would that make you feel engaged and to stop making meta posts? Maybe try discussing the current event?
Do you remember writing this post? You basically said the people you want to respond will know what this is about.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ng-online-protests-labeling-t.571873/page-248 There, is that going to be enough context for you?
