Hey Riot

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

She can't admit that nothing really happened and there was nothing to the story from day 1.

That's right. It's completely fabricated out of whole cloth.

You keep right on believing that

[Antitrust32]

all this anger over someone calling another person a bitch.

This PC crap in nonsense.

hyper-feminism feigned outrage attention whore routine. Send in the clowns (Allred)

[Danzig]

riot, this guy might be the biggest pos to come down the pike, but a prosecutor and special prosecutor both came to the same conclusion in this case for a reason. you have a victim who didnt want charges filed. there was no case from the get go, press sensationalism notwithstanding. they cant charge him here because he has a reputation, rthats not a chargeable offense. this case was overblown from the start. i know you are disappointed that the outcome wasn't what you expected, but you certainly seem to be reaching for an excuse, instead of just accepting that there just wasn't evidence of criminality. it is not a conspiracy, or people making up lies, etc etc. hell, most of the witnesses probably didnt witness much because they werent paying attention to the two judges.

[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.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.



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.

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

Didn't I predict this? So you and other lefties can place the blame on the special prosecutor. Surprising wasn't it that they selected someone who was both a republican and retiring?

Read the interviews from each of the justices. Use that thing between your ears and maybe just maybe you will realize what happened.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Didn't I predict this? So you and other lefties can place the blame on the special prosecutor. Surprising wasn't it that they selected someone who was both a republican and retiring?

Read the interviews from each of the justices. Use that thing between your ears and maybe just maybe you will realize what happened.

LOL - sorry, not a "lefty". You'll have to throw me into some other broad category of people you hate just because.

And no, I do not blame the lack of charges on the special prosecutor. You could read what you highlighted out of my post. I'm simply not surprised, but that's not the main reason I think there were no charges.

You go on thinking nothing happened, and poor Dave Prosser is an innocent victim.

[Riot]

Whoops ... gee, Justice Prosser ... you just didn't know what you were doing? Couldn't help yourself? It just wasn't your fault, was it? Need some definitive anger managment classes?

Supreme Court Justice David Prosser acknowledged to detectives touching Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's neck

In his interview, the report says, Prosser told a detective he remembered "feeling the warmth on the side of Justice Bradley's neck in his hands." He said that he then pulled his hands back and then he believed he "went limp."

"Oh my God, I'm touching her neck," Prosser said he thought, adding later, "What does any self-respecting man do when suddenly that man finds that his hands, or part of his hands are on a woman's neck? Get them off the neck as soon as possible."

When Prosser was asked by detectives if he felt he needed to apologize, he said he had talked with people about doing that but felt he had done nothing wrong.

And that is Prosser's problem.

The interviews show that the three justices in the minority have had with serious personal problems with Prosser - a member of the court's four-person majority of solid conservatives - that go back at least 10 years. According to the report, Bradley and another justice met with court staff about Prosser's displays of anger in February 2010 - more than a year before the latest incident.

Bradley said she confronted Prosser because he was agitated and loud and she wanted him to leave her suite of offices. Bradley said she was "in control" and denied that she had rushed toward him or raised her fist, saying instead she had walked to him and pointed to the door.

" 'Buddy, get out of my office,' " Bradley said she told Prosser during an interview with a detective on July 12. While saying that, she said in a June 28 interview she was "standing face to face to confront (Prosser)."

She said she specifically remembered using the word "buddy" for a reason.

"Buddy puts me in control and them in the diminutive," she told a detective.

Later, Bradley said, she could recall the contact of Prosser's hands on her neck but no pain or pressure. She did say that she had become emotional after the incident.

The records show Prosser retained Madison lawyer Stephen Meyer to represent him and that Meyer was present for the July 8 interview. No other justices had legal counsel with them during their interviews.

Abrahamson said in her interview with detectives on July 1 that Bradley had walked toward Prosser and that she had not seen Bradley raise her fist, though she may have pointed toward the door or motioned with her hand. When Prosser put his hands on Bradley's neck, the chief justice said she was concerned for Bradley's safety but didn't think Prosser actually squeezed.

"I was shocked at what I saw," Abrahamson said, adding that Bradley "never, never, never touched him and I'm certain of that."

Justice Michael Gableman told detectives in a July 5 interview that Bradley "rushed" to Prosser and punched the air around his face. He described Bradley as being a little bit taller than Prosser and compared Bradley's stance with Prosser to a famous photo of then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson leaning over a shorter, cowed senator.

According to the records, Prosser is 5-feet-9-inches tall and weighs 165 pounds. Bradley is 5-feet-3-inches and weighs 131 pounds.

Yeah.

Two days later, Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs and court human resources officer Margaret Brady met with the justices about the incident. Tubbs said that he was there to mediate for the justices and that he wouldn't take notes because they would be a public record. At the meeting, Tubbs asked for a commitment from the justices to avoid any more abuse and told them that in a workplace a man can never put his hands on a woman.

At the meeting, Bradley read a three-page statement about "workplace safety" and said that her husband, Mark Bradley, wanted her to go to court to get a restraining order against Prosser. But she asked if the incident could be dealt with internally instead.

She asked that Prosser seek out counseling, saying he was at times a "wonderful person" but at other times abusive.

"If I cannot get any assurances from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means," Bradley said.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks, the only justice not present at the June 13 altercation, told detectives he had observed blowups by Prosser going back more than a decade. In a June 29 interview, Crooks told detectives that during a meeting sometime around the fall of 1999, Prosser had called him a "viper" for not supporting Abrahamson's re-election campaign and then left the room, slamming the door hard enough to make the glass vibrate. Crooks said Prosser "explodes and storms out of a room" about three or four times a year.

Crooks also recounted to detectives a closed meeting of the justices on Feb. 10, 2010, in which Prosser called Abrahamson a "bitch" and said she would be "destroyed," an incident that Prosser later acknowledged. Crooks said that on Feb. 22, 2010, he and Bradley met with Brady, the courts human resources officer, and John Voelker, the director of state courts, "because they felt there was an escalation" in Prosser's aggression, the records said.

Crooks said after the February 2010 incident Abrahamson described Prosser's behavior to a friend who was a mental health professional to seek advice on whether Prosser was a physical threat. The professional decided he was not.

In her interview, Abrahamson said that Prosser had had "temper tantrums" and that she had tried to deal with them by having the court take 10-minute breaks. She said she had talked to friends and colleagues about how to deal with Prosser's behavior.

And here PDF's of the originals of everybody's statements.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...128463653.html

[Danzig]

but, are they still not prosecuting? i am figuring the decision wont change...but keep fighting the fight.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but, are they still not prosecuting? i am figuring the decision wont change...but keep fighting the fight.

No, Prosser won't be prosecuted for his workplace violence, and he's very lucky for that. But as an elected official, his years of anger causing problems on the court are now public knowledge.

It's now unquestionably apparent Prosser did exactly what he was accused of, and all the attacks on "the left" by his blindly aggressive defenders makes them look pretty foolish at this point.

Was this made up lies by the left? Nope.

Wiphan? Timmi? Antitrust? You guys are being pretty quiet. Can't admit you were wrong? Your man has admitted he is exactly the angry jackass he was alleged to be.

Wiphan, you especially should just admit you were wrong. You might gain more respect that way.