RE: Rioting is the answer

RE: Rioting is the answer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 5:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: You don't understand what is going on. Me, and all the rioters too, it seems. I don't matter, obviously - but they do. This is one reason why public trials exist. Justice needs to be done, to be seen to be done, and accepted to have been done, as I said. Do you understand that the only thing that would have prevented rioting would be if he was convicted regardless of the evidence. Once again you seem to be under the delusion that you have as much info as the grand jury. \ The legal system has done their job, and people who have assumed murder without the evidence were primed to riot unless Wilson was sacrificed to them.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 7:20:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever. Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store. No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony. quote: Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested. you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness. quote: As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you. I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact?

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 7:28:01 PM)
He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 8:15:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 8:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling. As always you ignore everything that you don't like. The jury, even the black members, must have been as biased as the DA. Everyone voted against indictment. If it was as you say someone would have voted for indictment.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 9:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling. As always you ignore everything that you don't like. The jury, even the black members, must have been as biased as the DA. Everyone voted against indictment. If it was as you say someone would have voted for indictment. You have no idea what the votes were. All you know is that no more than 8 of the 12 voted to indict on any count.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 9:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling. As always you ignore everything that you don't like. The jury, even the black members, must have been as biased as the DA. Everyone voted against indictment. If it was as you say someone would have voted for indictment. You have no idea what the votes were. All you know is that no more than 8 of the 12 voted to indict on any count. If it was as cut and dried as you want to believe there would have been 12 for indictment. They would have indicted him on at least one of the charges. You ignore the physical evidence which showed that he was not shot in the back and that he did not have his hands up.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 10:01:27 PM)
FR Anyone else bothered by the fact that many of the same people who tell us not to defend ourselves and let the police do it are the ones who yell the loudest anytime the police have to use force?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 10:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Anyone else bothered by the fact that many of the same people who tell us not to defend ourselves and let the police do it are the ones who yell the loudest anytime the police have to use force? Bothered by it? No. Unfortunately, I've become jaded enough to expect inconsistencies that spring from constantly moving goal posts. Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/25/2014 10:08:44 PM)
FR reprinted from post # 5 This is starting to sound like a case we had in Selma a few years back. All of the witness's, about 2 dozen, swore that a cop showed up for a domestic dispute call. A 15 or 16 year old panicked and started running and the cop shot him in the back while he was running away. The Cop claimed the kid attacked him grabbed his gun shoved him down and tried to shoot him. There wasn't a round in the chamber so while the kid was jacking one in the cop claimed he pulled his backup and shot him till he fell down. All the activists and the NAACP demanded that the cop be charged with murder and the chief fired. The coroners report showed that the kid was shot at close range, from in front and below, with the cops backup weapon. The activists claimed cover up. Then the cops released the tape from the cops dash cam (put there because of complaints of brutality) showed the kid attack the cop, grab his gun, and try to shoot him, finally being shot with the cops backup while trying to jack a round into the chamber. Two weeks later the NAACP still held the march demanding that the cop be charged with murder. I am not saying that is what happened here but there are things in the popularly accepted story that don't quite fit. Maybe we should wait for the rest of the information. The information came in and the courts have spoken.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 2:40:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling. As always you ignore everything that you don't like. The jury, even the black members, must have been as biased as the DA. Everyone voted against indictment. If it was as you say someone would have voted for indictment. You have no idea what the votes were. All you know is that no more than 8 of the 12 voted to indict on any count. If it was as cut and dried as you want to believe there would have been 12 for indictment. They would have indicted him on at least one of the charges. You ignore the physical evidence which showed that he was not shot in the back and that he did not have his hands up. Except the grand jury wasn't instructed properly, was actually instructed twice once with out of date and illegal instructions, was never actually even given any proposed charges to consider and that the evidence that you claim shows that his hands were not up does not show any such thing and there is no way you can show that from the physical evidence. All that is clear is that the prosecutor had no intention of ever getting an indictment from this grand jury in this case.

inkedone -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 3:53:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling. As always you ignore everything that you don't like. The jury, even the black members, must have been as biased as the DA. Everyone voted against indictment. If it was as you say someone would have voted for indictment. You have no idea what the votes were. All you know is that no more than 8 of the 12 voted to indict on any count. If it was as cut and dried as you want to believe there would have been 12 for indictment. They would have indicted him on at least one of the charges. You ignore the physical evidence which showed that he was not shot in the back and that he did not have his hands up. Except the grand jury wasn't instructed properly, was actually instructed twice once with out of date and illegal instructions, was never actually even given any proposed charges to consider and that the evidence that you claim shows that his hands were not up does not show any such thing and there is no way you can show that from the physical evidence. All that is clear is that the prosecutor had no intention of ever getting an indictment from this grand jury in this case. The no bill discussion comes down to proof of reasonable doubt. The eye witness testimony had many inconsistencies so what was left for the Grand Jury to basis the verdict on other than factual physical evidence. Even for sake of discussion, if the Grand Jury was not instructed properly on legalities or bias in nature then presenting the physical evidence that was factual and consistent would have rendered an indictment if the facts clearly and without reasonable doubt proved it. In my unpopular opinion, the step father should be charged with trying to insight a riot. The statements he made out only added fuel to the fire, rather than a lesson in civics and being a good citizen to protect the community and provide a safe environment for All the people of Ferguson. Here is a question to ponder, when the protestors were looting the local businesses and burning them down was the out cry for peaceful protest to make the injustice heard to fix the justice system or was it just an act of selfish crime? Either way, I believe there will be a witch hunt for the cop, and no matter what the verdict the riots would have happened either way whether an indictment was issued or not.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 3:58:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He is contradicted by every other witness. No he wasn't There was one witness, who gave contradictory statements, whose grand jury statement sort of agreed with Wilson. His initial statement to police said that Brown was on the sidewalk when the confrontation began and that he saw it from over 100 yards away. The testimony he gave to the grand jury was that Brown was in the street and he saw it from less than 50 yards. That's the sort of defense witness prosecutors love to see get on the stand in a trial. That he/she was considered credible by the DA in front of the grand jury is baffling. As always you ignore everything that you don't like. The jury, even the black members, must have been as biased as the DA. Everyone voted against indictment. If it was as you say someone would have voted for indictment. You have no idea what the votes were. All you know is that no more than 8 of the 12 voted to indict on any count. Funny how when Grand Juries vote the way you want, then justice has been served, when they don't it's some sort of bias and conspiracy. It was you who insisted that the Grand Jury clearly had access to more facts then were being presented on right wing news sites when we were discussing the unarmed white suspect who was shot by a black officer, right? You even insisted that he deserved to get his job back, because he'd clearly done nothing wrong.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 4:17:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever. Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store. No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony. quote: Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested. you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness. quote: As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you. I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact? Do you often expect charges to be filed when the suspect is dead? As far as I'm aware, using a threat of force to take an item is robbery, regardless of the value of the item. It's more about the force or threat of force then the item. Am I aware of that fact? Why, yes I am. Do I think you're only going to read what you like and ignore the rest. Why, yes I do.

Sanity -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 4:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Anyone else bothered by the fact that many of the same people who tell us not to defend ourselves and let the police do it are the ones who yell the loudest anytime the police have to use force? Bothered by it? No. Unfortunately, I've become jaded enough to expect inconsistencies that spring from constantly moving goal posts. Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) *still* RULE! Ya feel me? The same ones who chant "all powerful government good" scream the loudest about tinfoil-hat government conspiracies

Musicmystery -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 5:08:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR Anyone else bothered by the fact that many of the same people who tell us not to defend ourselves and let the police do it are the ones who yell the loudest anytime the police have to use force? Bothered by it? No. Unfortunately, I've become jaded enough to expect inconsistencies that spring from constantly moving goal posts. Huh? What's wrong with police doing their job?

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 11:39:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever. Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store. No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony. quote: Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested. you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness. quote: As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you. I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact? Do you often expect charges to be filed when the suspect is dead? As far as I'm aware, using a threat of force to take an item is robbery, regardless of the value of the item. It's more about the force or threat of force then the item. Am I aware of that fact? Why, yes I am. Do I think you're only going to read what you like and ignore the rest. Why, yes I do. Then you are a clueless fuck and you have no idea what you are talking about. Brown would never have been charged with a felony for simply taking some cheap cigars even if that taking was ever reported which the owners of the store did not do and did not want to do.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 11:44:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inkedone The no bill discussion comes down to proof of reasonable doubt. The eye witness testimony had many inconsistencies so what was left for the Grand Jury to basis the verdict on other than factual physical evidence. Even for sake of discussion, if the Grand Jury was not instructed properly on legalities or bias in nature then presenting the physical evidence that was factual and consistent would have rendered an indictment if the facts clearly and without reasonable doubt proved it. There is no such standard for bringing an indictment. To bring an indictment the standard is simply probable cause. There is more than enough evidence to support that standard. Factually the grand jury could have heard from the two construction workers and then gotten a proposed indictment from the prosecutors, i.e. the way cases are usually presented, and an indictment would have been voted out back in August. In reality this grand jury had never not voted a no true bill before and had always spent less than one session on each case.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 11:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Funny how when Grand Juries vote the way you want, then justice has been served, when they don't it's some sort of bias and conspiracy. It was you who insisted that the Grand Jury clearly had access to more facts then were being presented on right wing news sites when we were discussing the unarmed white suspect who was shot by a black officer, right? You even insisted that he deserved to get his job back, because he'd clearly done nothing wrong. You're making shit up. Don't do that.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 11:46:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever. Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store. No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony. quote: Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested. you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness. quote: As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you. I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact? Do you often expect charges to be filed when the suspect is dead? As far as I'm aware, using a threat of force to take an item is robbery, regardless of the value of the item. It's more about the force or threat of force then the item. Am I aware of that fact? Why, yes I am. Do I think you're only going to read what you like and ignore the rest. Why, yes I do. Then you are a clueless fuck and you have no idea what you are talking about. Brown would never have been charged with a felony for simply taking some cheap cigars even if that taking was ever reported which the owners of the store did not do and did not want to do. He assaulted Wilson over an unrelated situation. Assaulting an officer is a felony. The strong armed robbery is a red herring.

Page: << < prev 66 67 [68] 69 70 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625