I am not ignoring his history on police shootings.
Yes you are.
I am merely not making the same baseless unreasoned assumption that you are that the cops he failed to indict deserved to be indicted.
Again, you ignore the point - it is the appearance that counts.
No, appearances count when they appear that way to reasonable people, and thereby suggest plausible bias. When they only appear that way to unreasonable people then appearance count much less. As you and many others haven proven, unreasonable people will invent any excuse to object, so bending to the current latest invented nonsense is a reckless waste of time. It might be incompatible with your view that the legal system should cobble together any arbitrary decisions needed to achieve your preferred political outcomes, but its better that legal decisions like replacing a prosecutor are based in principle. There is no principle that is plausibly applicable short of claiming that no government decision maker be allowed to make decisions when any of the people involved are of the same race, color, gender, or creed and as any person that ever wrong any member of their family. Any reasoned justification for dismissing McCullough because his dad was killed by a black man would apply to all such other situations. The logistical nightmare that enforcing such a policy would entail makes it untenable and unjustifiable given that it is not based on actual bias but the mere perceived possibility of it.
The other factor in enacting such a policy is its effectiveness in increasing the acceptance of otherwise just procedures. There is no evidence it would.
You and they others getting hysterical and excusing violence over this outcome have proven that your disregard for outcome has nothing to do with facts or procedural fairness. So, it is beyond any doubt that the exact same reaction would be occurring if the prosecutor had no history with a black person killing his dad. You would have just invented a different red herring dishonest excuse to dismiss the outcome. Anyone willing to accept the outcome based upon actual procedural fairness has done so, because objectively the determination to bring charges was rooted in a fair a consideration of the actual evidence related to guilt as one could hope. The fact that you and others wanted the prosecutor to mislead the jury by all means needed to get an indictment doesn't count as evidence against the fairness of the process. Your claim that prosecutors typically engage in such dishonest and biased tactics is not evidence against this process being fair.
Given that very few of the people that cops shoot are unarmed people without any evidence of current or past criminal behavior, the odds are very low that any of the past cases before him involved an unarmed person clearly innocent of criminal wrongdoing.
I fail to see the relevance of this whatsoever. It is almost as if you are condoning the execution of unarmed people because of any possible past criminal wrongdoing.
No. You are claiming that his failure to indite past cops is evidence of bias. That claim logically requires the assumption that he failed to indict cops for which there was clear evidence of criminal use of force. Only then, would a lack of indictments indicate potential bias. It is extremely rare for the kind of evidence needed to support criminal wrongdoing by a cop to be available. Thus, it is highly unlikely any cases before McCullough involved such evidence (just as this case did not). About the most one could expect is the person shot has no evidence of current or past criminal behavior (since past behavior is highly predictive of current behavior). That would raise the probability of the person being innocent to a high enough level that even without direct evidence of a wrongful shooting, it might warrant an indictment and a trial.
Thus, if he were unbiased, we would still not expect him to have indicted cops in the past.
That does not follow from your claims.
Yes it does. Your proven inability to understand basic logic is not a flaw in my argument. IF the kind of detailed evidence needed to show that a cop (who is paid to carry a gun, initiate conflicts with law-breakers, and use force when needed) went criminally outside the law is rare, then it follows that that a given prosecutor would be unlikely to encounter a case with such evidence. Thus, it follows that an unbiased prosecutor (who by definition only indicts when such evidence exists) would rarely indict cops involved in shootings in the line of duty. What doesn't at all follow is your claim that a lack of indictments implies bias.
In addition, as I explained many times now, the kind of specific evidence required to justify charges and a trial is far less common with a cop shooter because of the nature of what they are required to do.
Your explanation is unconvincing.
Few non-cop shooters are allowed to carry guns. The mere fact that that had one at the scene is evidence of their guilt. The fact that a cop has a gun at the scene is not evidence of their guilt. I don't believe that you cannot grasp that simple fact and it and other defining features of cops make many facts that would incriminate a non-cop completely irrelevant to the guilt of a cop. You are not convinced, because you are not interested in reasoned argument or fact. You are a faither that refuses to consider anything not supportive of your ideological worldview and whatever distortions of reality you need to defend it.
What is your specific counter-argument against it? You have and offer none, because your position is faith based and you've never bothered to form a reasoned argument.
Thus, even if some of those past cops before McCullough were guilty of an unwarranted shooting, the odds are low that McCullough would have had that kind of evidence he knew was needed to even make a trial more than a reckless waste of time.
That is utter nonsense and irrelevant to the issue of the appearance of impartiality.
I explained in detail why its the case and you offer no counter to any of my assumptions or reasoning. Just blind faith dismissal. It is also highly relevant to and directly falsifies your assertion that a lack of prior indictments implies bias. It implies no such thing. The fact that unreasonable people like you assert it implies bias is irrelevant because that is a blatant dishonest excuse you are inventing, and you'd just invent another if that one wasn't available. The reasonable appearance of impartiality is what matters, not your unreasonable invented and illogical assertions of impartiality.
Brown and his father's killer have nothing in common except being black. Thus, unless he is a racist bigot who views all blacks as though they are the same, he would not be particular impacted by that fact.
Nonsense. It simply means it brings back memories that make it difficult for him to objectively deal with the situation.
So, you are advocating a policy where anytime any person might encounter anything related to a case that might indirectly trigger memories of a painful past experience, they should be recused of any important decision making. Brilliant.
Furthermore, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every DA, Judge, or Detective with any family member severely wronged by any member of any other race, gender, religious group, etc..?
Totally irrelevant to the discussion about the appearance in impartiality in this case.
It couldn't be more relevant. You have zero evidence of actual impartiality or of anything that any reasonable person would use to infer impartiality. You have nothing but the claim that some people might irrationally infer impartiality from the highly indirect connection between a case and past experiences. Any application of this to recuse McCullogh would require a general principle not just your person arbitrary whim of when it applies. Thus the same standard would need to be applied in all generally similar circumstances.
