Video of a smirking bastard getting away with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ3X6TrQeEI&feature=related

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Video of a smirking bastard getting away with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ3X6TrQeEI&feature=related


What an utter fucking piece of shit asshole, and the same to the psycho he's representing

I've got to say, that unless someone has some evidence that the prosecutor's statement is a lie, or they have a confession, I'd more or less agree with dropping the charges. Why would the driver keep silent about the weapon in his possession? Sounds a lot like a setup...rich drunk guy makes a pretty good target.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I've got to say, that unless someone has some evidence that the prosecutor's statement is a lie, or they have a confession, I'd more or less agree with dropping the charges. Why would the driver keep silent about the weapon in his possession? Sounds a lot like a setup...rich drunk guy makes a pretty good target.


OK if this was a junkie skinhead attacker and the victim was a virgin princess would you say the same?
I'm assuming you are from some oligarch/monarchist society where one person is better than the other or you wouldn't dare speak such hateful hypocrisy in the open.. would you also let him fuck your wife on your wedding night? This is what trials are for brother, some of us are glad the middle ages are over..

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:

When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.

Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Stormsinger:
I've got to say, that unless someone has some evidence that the prosecutor's statement is a lie, or they have a confession, I'd more or less agree with dropping the charges. Why would the driver keep silent about the weapon in his possession? Sounds a lot like a setup...rich drunk guy makes a pretty good target.

OK if this was a junkie skinhead attacker and the victim was a virgin princess would you say the same?
I'm assuming you are from some oligarch/monarchist society where one person is better than the other or you wouldn't dare speak such hateful hypocrisy in the open.. would you also let him fuck your wife on your wedding night? This is what trials are for brother, some of us are glad the middle ages are over..

As a matter of fact, I would. I'm something of a believer in the idea that you need fucking evidence to convict someone. Not "he said", not "the victim said", not even eye witnesses (who are almost totally unreliable). But when evidence is hidden away by the victim for months, then suddenly becomes available at the last minute, there's something fishy going on. And when there is fishy goings on, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt...what was it, better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted?

And if you think I support someone just because he's rich and white...well, either you've read none of my posts here, or you're a moron. You pick which one fits.

>> ^ponceleon:

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.


I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.

You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.

Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.

Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.

I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

I get where you are coming from Boise, but we need to go back to the fact of the matter that you cannot judge a person on how they look, even if they are a smirking bastard. Being a smirking bastard does not make him guilty of a bigger crime than being a smirking bastard.

The problem is that if we let our justice system totally collapse and start putting people in jail because of what the Young Turks chooses to comment on partial information, it won't be the guys like this that will suffer, but rather so many others who are judged by their looks.

I was on a jury a few years ago where a tattooed asian guy with a shaved head was being accused of some pretty severe drug charges. There was literally no evidence against him other than he was present when the people with the drugs were arrested. He had no money, no drugs, no cellphone and the prosecution provided no context other than guilty by association. During the deliberations, one of the jurors said, "well, just look at him, he clearly looks guilty." It was one of the most frustrating moments of my life.

Anyway, that aside and back to this: again, you are all worked up because you only have heard what one side has to say. The problem is that because of the way the legal system works, it may not be possible to see the other side at this time. You said if your comment that this won't see trial. Where did you get that from? The criminal case was dropped, but the cabby can definitely do a civil case, which is why in the second video they refuse to give any information. They need to play their cards close to their chest because it is obvious that the cabby is going to bring it back in a civil suit.

Now don't get me wrong. I want to see the other side just as much as anyone and if it turns out to be bunk, then hell, this guy should get stiff sentencing and there should be an investigation into the circumstances as to why the prosecution dropped it. The thing is, it has to be done legally. You can't resort to the mob mentality or you will end up with innocent people being railroaded as has happened to so many people who may not be likable, but are not guilty.

The bottom line is: yes, he's not likable, but that doesn't mean that we know all that happened then.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ponceleon:
I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.
You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.
Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.
Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.
I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

@ponceleon I think we fundamentally agree--but we seem to be talking past one another. You seem to be ascribing motivations to me which I don't think are right.

I do Not think that Jennings should be prosecuted because he's a smug, smirking bastard. I do Not think he should be prosecuted because of what TYT says.

I think he should be prosecuted because he was accused of a heinous crime. Apparently--at one time--the prosecuting attorney agreed. Then he didn't--that smells very bad; taking in to account the history of the US justice system favoring rich people over all others (OJ should be in jail for life for 2 murders--he's not because he could afford a team of scummy lawyers). I am "all worked up" because the dropping of the charges at the last minute smells like privilege.

I know I'm somewhat of a one trick pony here; posting all these TYT vids. But that doesn't mean I think they are always right--or even that their reporting doesn't sometimes suck (like this story).

Ammar's hand was cut and required six stiches. Jennings said the cabbie had grabbed the knife by the blade and that's how his hand got cut. So why was Jennings holding a knife? The prosecutor says he had to drop the case because Ammar had possession of the knife in question 5 months after the incident. Why didn't the cops ask where the knife was for all that time? No one has claimed that the knife wasn't Jennings', so how did the cabbie get it? So, the prosecutor says that Ammar is guilty of obstruction of justice for not telling anyone he had the knife. Weiss (the prosecutor) said he then could be fair and prosecute both or be fair and prosecute neither, and he chose the second option. This all stinks and needs to be brought out in court. Civil court means nothing to the rich--he could pay any fines out of pocket money.

But the justice system has a way to take care of prosecutorial misconduct. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has asked that the Federal Investigators to get involved. That--along with pressure from the stirred up public--should get a true investigation of this incident rolling.

(It sounds like you did a good job on your jury.)