Hey Riot

[Danzig]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62070.html


With all but one of the state high court justices present for the altercation, and offering widely different stories of what happened, Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett, who was given the case by local prosecutors and law enforcement who recused themselves, decided not to pursue charges, she told the AP.

“The totality of the facts and the circumstances and all of the evidence that I reviewed did not support my filing criminal charges,” Barrett said.

Barrett did not disclose how she came to that decision, but said witnesses had different versions of what happened. She didn’t elaborate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Barrett did not disclose how she came to that decision, but said witnesses had different versions of what happened. She didn’t elaborate.

Prosecutor can't go forward with that. She ran into his hands as she was attacking him, versus he went to her and tried to choke her. I doubt it will get better at that workplace. This was due to what happened over a legal decision they made.

This is a state Supreme Court. Sigh ...

Can't wait to read the investigation records Friday, though!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Prosecutor can't go forward with that. She ran into his hands as she was attacking him, versus he went to her and tried to choke her. I doubt it will get better at that workplace. This was due to what happened over a legal decision they made.

This is a state Supreme Court. Sigh ...

Can't wait to read the investigation records Friday, though!

So maybe nothing happened......

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

So maybe nothing happened......

no, it happened. it's all a conspiracy to protect a judge...at the expense of..a judge. makes perfect sense.

no, seriously-when there are conflicting witness reports, there's no case. i do not buy the story from the supposed victim tho, that she called the chief, but didn't intend to turn it into a criminal complaint-so why call the chief??

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, seriously-when there are conflicting witness reports, there's no case. i do not buy the story from the supposed victim tho, that she called the chief, but didn't intend to turn it into a criminal complaint-so why call the chief??

She, the "supposed victim", just made it up? A justice with no history of anger or problems? Known for being nice? Against a justice with a defined history of anger and problems? And some of the other justices who witnessed that it did not factually occur took her side and lied for her? In front of other judges that also witnessed that it didn't happen? I don't buy that in the least.

Prosser isn't exonerated from anything. He's just not charged with battery. The Chief Justice is talking about making court deliberations public to force good behaviour. That's absurd (I think they must remain private). But that clearly shows there is a problem.

The investigation information is supposed to be released Friday. We'll all get to see what that says.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

She, the "supposed victim", just made it up? A justice with no history of anger or problems? Known for being nice? Against a justice with a defined history of anger and problems? And some of the other justices who witnessed that it did not factually occur took her side and lied for her? In front of other judges that also witnessed that it didn't happen? I don't buy that in the least.

Prosser isn't exonerated from anything. He's just not charged with battery. The Chief Justice is talking about making court deliberations public to force good behaviour. That's absurd (I think they must remain private). But that clearly shows there is a problem.

The investigation information is supposed to be released Friday. We'll all get to see what that says.

too murky a case at this point to know who is lying, who is telling the truth. typically there are three sides to a story, his, hers, the truth. did she rush him? did he choke her? or was it more of what he said, that she went after him first? did he try to ward her off? did he call her a bitch and she went after him?
who knows? we won't ever know now. there's no way to know what happened without having been there.

one interesting point is that she claims she never wanted charges filed. it can't have been as serious as it's been made out to be if she didn't want to press charges to begin with.
also, you're amazed that anyone assumes innocence, but i'm just as amazed you were so sure of the mans guilt.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

too murky a case at this point to know who is lying, who is telling the truth. typically there are three sides to a story, his, hers, the truth. did she rush him? did he choke her? or was it more of what he said, that she went after him first? did he try to ward her off? did he call her a bitch and she went after him?
who knows? we won't ever know now. there's no way to know what happened without having been there.

one interesting point is that she claims she never wanted charges filed. it can't have been as serious as it's been made out to be if she didn't want to press charges to begin with.
also, you're amazed that anyone assumes innocence, but i'm just as amazed you were so sure of the mans guilt.

Riot has assumed guilt from day 1 and now has no where to go except to state that they just didn't want to drag a justice thru a trial. She can't admit that nothing really happened and there was nothing to the story from day 1.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

too murky a case at this point to know who is lying, who is telling the truth. typically there are three sides to a story, his, hers, the truth. did she rush him? did he choke her? or was it more of what he said, that she went after him first? did he try to ward her off? did he call her a bitch and she went after him?
who knows? we won't ever know now. there's no way to know what happened without having been there.

one interesting point is that she claims she never wanted charges filed. it can't have been as serious as it's been made out to be if she didn't want to press charges to begin with.
also, you're amazed that anyone assumes innocence, but i'm just as amazed you were so sure of the mans guilt.

I'll go with this one.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one interesting point is that she claims she never wanted charges filed. it can't have been as serious as it's been made out to be if she didn't want to press charges to begin with.

It was back in the press originally, from day one, that criminal charges were being investigated but it was being investigated as a workplace incident.

also, you're amazed that anyone assumes innocence, but i'm just as amazed you were so sure of the mans guilt.

Prosser has not been found "innocent" or been "vindicated" of anything. He just hasn't been charged, and he's lucky as hell.

Wiphan pretending nothing happened and it was all completely made up left wing stuff and should not be investigated is ridiculous denial beyond belief.

Prosser has a documented history of unleashed anger in that workplace and threatening Chief Justice Abrahamson in a different instance in the past, (the "you bitch" "I'll destroy you" threat incident).

He's been very angry on the bench with lots of arguments with the other justices in the past.

Now, when the Chief Justice Abrahamson gives a legal ruling he doesn't like, he is alleged to go after a different judge, Justice Ann Bradley, and put his hands on her neck in a chokehold.

Third strike on this guy. You bet I think the Special Prosecutor should have investigated to see if charges should have been filed.

The guy has a documented history of anger and threats to this panel at work. There were multiple witnesses to the altercation as it occurred - and it wasn't until 2 days later that Republicans started floating the story in the press that Prosser was putting up his hands to defend himself against an attack on him by Bradley, and his hands just "found" their way to her throat.

Yeah: we have a guy with a history of uncontrolled anger and threats at work, versus a woman with a history of being nice and cooperative at work.

Gee - who should we believe?

Prosser demonstrates his physical temper and anger again in the Fox News interview where he grabs the microphone out of the hands of the reporter, then shoves it when when he realizes he's being live videotaped.

Give me a break. Prosser is lucky as shiat that a retiring Republican Special Prosecutor isn't willing to go forward with simple battery charges against him, and his co-justice on the panel is more interested in keeping the shredded reputation of this Supreme Court intact rather than having this jackass go through a public court appearance for simple battery and workplace violence.

Oh yeah: and we have the Chief Justice still saying that she's considering making all court deliberations now public, to keep down the incidence of workplace disharmony.

Yeah, nothing there. Poor Prosser, being attacked by the evil left who made up stuff about this good man. LOL.

And again, we'll all get to read the investigation stuff that is supposed to be released today.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

So maybe nothing happened......

That means there are alot of lying judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

That means there are alot of lying judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Well...I think there should be a FULL investigation, then!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Well...I think there should be a FULL investigation, then!

Apparently it revealed lying judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I think what happened is exactly what was initially reported by the justices (who, don't forget, are the ones that leaked this) - Prosser stepped up and put his hands around her neck, then immediately backed off. Similar to what he did when he lost his temper, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4zqhRn0Z6I

Yes, his behaviour is clearly non-confrontational and non-angry, compared to the "bitch" also interviewed.

If Prosser is so innocent, why isn't he filing libel charges against his fellow judges, and the multiple Democratic organizations that have put out campaign commercials describing him calling a different judge a "total bitch" and threatening to "destroy" her?

He's nothing more than a lucky workplace abuser.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Apparently it revealed lying judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I think what happened is exactly what was initially reported by the justices (who, don't forget, are the ones that leaked this) - Prosser stepped up and put his hands around her neck, then immediately backed off. Similar to what he did when he lost his temper, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4zqhRn0Z6I

Yes, his behaviour is clearly non-confrontational and non-angry, compared to the "bitch" also interviewed.

If Prosser is so innocent, why isn't he filing libel charges against his fellow judges, and the multiple Democratic organizations that have put out campaign commercials describing him calling a different judge a "total bitch" and threatening to "destroy" her?

He's nothing more than a lucky workplace abuser.

See, we're both right!