RE: Rioting is the answer

RE: Rioting is the answer (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 9:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court. Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence. I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others? Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car. The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it. No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion. As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. There is a post 415 in this thread. You need to quit believing left wing blogs. hey moron, what has this quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub That is if your proposed version is right... what if it is not... what if the physical evidence backs up the offers story... or if the evidence could go either way... what do you say then? Do you really think any innocent declaration of this officer will be believed? Be truthful DomKen... I really would like an honest answer. What if there is not enough evidence to bring charges because it is ones word against another? In normal circumstances charges would not be leveled in that case. What happens then? I think we're going to have 2 autopsy reports. If they both say that all the shots hit him in back then it's a good shooting. If they all hit him in the back or while standing it is at least ambiguous. But if any hit him while he was kneeling the cop is toast. I'm completely ignoring the witnesses. Although I would dearly like to have seen what was on the witnesses cell phones before the local cops got hold of them. got to do with the above post? Or is this you just making shit up and hoping I wouldn't actually dig up the actual post? Now you claim belief in the witnesses. And they clearly lied, remember they claimed that Brown was shot in the back. Evey time they got caught in a lie they changed their story. Huh? He was shot in the back of the arm, once. Read the ME report. Then he was shot several more times when he turned back around to face Wilson again.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 9:59:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court. Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence. I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others? Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car. The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it. No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion. As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. I thought you claimed to know something about firearms, the shell casings would show where the gun was fired, not how far away the target was. onsidered yourself to be knowlagible Damn you are dumb. They measured the distance from the casings to the body.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/26/2014 10:05:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court. Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence. I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others? Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car. The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it. No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion. As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. There is a post 415 in this thread. You need to quit believing left wing blogs. hey moron, what has this quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub That is if your proposed version is right... what if it is not... what if the physical evidence backs up the offers story... or if the evidence could go either way... what do you say then? Do you really think any innocent declaration of this officer will be believed? Be truthful DomKen... I really would like an honest answer. What if there is not enough evidence to bring charges because it is ones word against another? In normal circumstances charges would not be leveled in that case. What happens then? I think we're going to have 2 autopsy reports. If they both say that all the shots hit him in back then it's a good shooting. If they all hit him in the back or while standing it is at least ambiguous. But if any hit him while he was kneeling the cop is toast. I'm completely ignoring the witnesses. Although I would dearly like to have seen what was on the witnesses cell phones before the local cops got hold of them. got to do with the above post? Or is this you just making shit up and hoping I wouldn't actually dig up the actual post? Now you claim belief in the witnesses. And they clearly lied, remember they claimed that Brown was shot in the back. Evey time they got caught in a lie they changed their story. Huh? He was shot in the back of the arm, once. Read the ME report. Then he was shot several more times when he turned back around to face Wilson again. The families ME said he was shot in the front of the arm. Besides you are basing that on people who first said he was shot in the back, then while trying to surrender, you believed, when that was their story that Wilson stood over him and executed him. Anything to make the white guy wrong. Besides as is always the case with us you are arguing a case that the courts have already decided and said you were wrong. I guess you believed Gary Cooper in Vera Cruz Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 1:40:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No it is not. That is why the other guy has not been charged with anything and will never be charged with anything. Either I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are out of your mind, and I am fairly certain I am not misunderstanding you. Do you mean to tell me that if a defendant in a murder investigation claims that the victim assaulted him, that the assault claim is not pertinent to a trial court? Are you ignoring a self-defense claim? Not in this case in particular, but any case in the entire United States... which is what you said. Before you go off half cocked, I want you to cite me the legal statutes, and the legal precedent that supports your claim that an assault on a defendant in a murder trial is not admissible as evidence, or cannot be part of the testimony. I can save you the time and tell you not to bother looking... but that would take the fun out of this. I prepare to be astounded.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 6:18:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No it is not. That is why the other guy has not been charged with anything and will never be charged with anything. Either I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are out of your mind, and I am fairly certain I am not misunderstanding you. Do you mean to tell me that if a defendant in a murder investigation claims that the victim assaulted him, that the assault claim is not pertinent to a trial court? Are you ignoring a self-defense claim? Not in this case in particular, but any case in the entire United States... which is what you said. Before you go off half cocked, I want you to cite me the legal statutes, and the legal precedent that supports your claim that an assault on a defendant in a murder trial is not admissible as evidence, or cannot be part of the testimony. I can save you the time and tell you not to bother looking... but that would take the fun out of this. I prepare to be astounded. It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 6:34:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Huh? He was shot in the back of the arm, once. Read the ME report. Then he was shot several more times when he turned back around to face Wilson again. The families ME said he was shot in the front of the arm. Besides you are basing that on people who first said he was shot in the back, then while trying to surrender, you believed, when that was their story that Wilson stood over him and executed him. Anything to make the white guy wrong. Besides as is always the case with us you are arguing a case that the courts have already decided and said you were wrong. I guess you believed Gary Cooper in Vera Cruz Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for. Once again. The entire grand jury testimony including all the forensics is available. I've read the ME's report and the relevant witness statements. You are simply making shit up. First. he was shot in the back of the arm. both the family and county ME reports confirm that. Then he was shot several more times in the front of the arm, both ME reports again confirm that. The family's ME said there was ambiguity about how far away the wounds had been made and the orientation of the arms when the shots hit him not where the shots hit because he did not have access to the crime scene or Brown's clothes. Those issues are resolved by the county ME. Second this case has never been resolved by a court. a grand jury is not a court. There is no judge. There is no adversarial process. There are no rules of evidence or procedure. There is no appeal. There is no due process rights. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the legal system knows there was more than a little wrong with what went on here. If this is such a great way to handle murder cases why doesn't every jurisdiction handle every murder case exactly like this one? Do you think there will be a movement to start empaneling grand juries to spend months investigating each and every murder? Or do you think prosecutors will continue doing things the usual way by probable cause hearings and short grand jury hearings that always return indictments?

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 3:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No it is not. That is why the other guy has not been charged with anything and will never be charged with anything. Either I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are out of your mind, and I am fairly certain I am not misunderstanding you. Do you mean to tell me that if a defendant in a murder investigation claims that the victim assaulted him, that the assault claim is not pertinent to a trial court? Are you ignoring a self-defense claim? Not in this case in particular, but any case in the entire United States... which is what you said. Before you go off half cocked, I want you to cite me the legal statutes, and the legal precedent that supports your claim that an assault on a defendant in a murder trial is not admissible as evidence, or cannot be part of the testimony. I can save you the time and tell you not to bother looking... but that would take the fun out of this. I prepare to be astounded. It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else. By you but not by the law.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 4:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No it is not. That is why the other guy has not been charged with anything and will never be charged with anything. Either I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are out of your mind, and I am fairly certain I am not misunderstanding you. Do you mean to tell me that if a defendant in a murder investigation claims that the victim assaulted him, that the assault claim is not pertinent to a trial court? Are you ignoring a self-defense claim? Not in this case in particular, but any case in the entire United States... which is what you said. Before you go off half cocked, I want you to cite me the legal statutes, and the legal precedent that supports your claim that an assault on a defendant in a murder trial is not admissible as evidence, or cannot be part of the testimony. I can save you the time and tell you not to bother looking... but that would take the fun out of this. I prepare to be astounded. It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else. By you but not by the law. Then why has the other guy not been charged? By Wilson's claims he is guilty of a whole raft of felonies. Because Wilson can't actually testify in court about any of it. He needs an independent witness before any of it would be admissible.

TheHeretic -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 6:53:53 PM)
FR My God, but what a load of shit we have here now. The problem is pretty easy to identify. On one hand we have people defending the cop on the basis of this specific case (which is clearly settled by the physical evidence - thug attacked cop and got his ass killed in a clean shooting), and on the other, we have those who insist on seeing the case as symbolic of an institutional disregard for black lives by the police. Both of those positions are correct. The symbolic case did not go to the grand jury. What I consider the most useless points of discussion, not only counterproductive but actually destructive to the legitimate symbolic case, are the waste of skin douchebags who want to keep insisting that Mike Brown was anything but a lousy poster-child, and that the completely discredited claims of his thug buddies are worth anything at all. Get better poster children, dumbasses!

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 7:43:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No it is not. That is why the other guy has not been charged with anything and will never be charged with anything. Either I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are out of your mind, and I am fairly certain I am not misunderstanding you. Do you mean to tell me that if a defendant in a murder investigation claims that the victim assaulted him, that the assault claim is not pertinent to a trial court? Are you ignoring a self-defense claim? Not in this case in particular, but any case in the entire United States... which is what you said. Before you go off half cocked, I want you to cite me the legal statutes, and the legal precedent that supports your claim that an assault on a defendant in a murder trial is not admissible as evidence, or cannot be part of the testimony. I can save you the time and tell you not to bother looking... but that would take the fun out of this. I prepare to be astounded. It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else. By you but not by the law. Then why has the other guy not been charged? By Wilson's claims he is guilty of a whole raft of felonies. Because Wilson can't actually testify in court about any of it. He needs an independent witness before any of it would be admissible. Because he is dead?

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/27/2014 8:57:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else. Have you lost your mind? I am being very serious, are you in some way, shape, or form physically ill? I mean no disrespect when saying that, you are not being rational and I am genuinely concerned. The assault would be admissible. It would be up to the jury to decide if it was relevant to the shooting. In the case of a trial, the cops statement is no more assumed tainted than you are a gazelle. You are failing to cite the law that I asked you to cite in order to prove your point. I won't even make you cite every State, just cite one State that can back up your ridiculous assertion. Anyone with a brain can see that what you are saying is baseless. Either cite me the law or admit you are wrong, that is your choice. Continuing to make false statements does not make them true.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else. Have you lost your mind? I am being very serious, are you in some way, shape, or form physically ill? I mean no disrespect when saying that, you are not being rational and I am genuinely concerned. The assault would be admissible. It would be up to the jury to decide if it was relevant to the shooting. In the case of a trial, the cops statement is no more assumed tainted than you are a gazelle. You are failing to cite the law that I asked you to cite in order to prove your point. I won't even make you cite every State, just cite one State that can back up your ridiculous assertion. Anyone with a brain can see that what you are saying is baseless. Either cite me the law or admit you are wrong, that is your choice. Continuing to make false statements does not make them true. Are you aware that one member of a criminal conspiracy cannot be the only witness against another member of that conspiracy? It is the same principal as that. Wilson was committing a crime at time , so his testimony is assumed to be tainted to protect himself.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 3:10:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No it is not. That is why the other guy has not been charged with anything and will never be charged with anything. Either I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are out of your mind, and I am fairly certain I am not misunderstanding you. Do you mean to tell me that if a defendant in a murder investigation claims that the victim assaulted him, that the assault claim is not pertinent to a trial court? Are you ignoring a self-defense claim? Not in this case in particular, but any case in the entire United States... which is what you said. Before you go off half cocked, I want you to cite me the legal statutes, and the legal precedent that supports your claim that an assault on a defendant in a murder trial is not admissible as evidence, or cannot be part of the testimony. I can save you the time and tell you not to bother looking... but that would take the fun out of this. I prepare to be astounded. It is not a self defense claim. In this case everything the cop says is assumed to be tainted and would never be admitted at trial against anyone else. By you but not by the law. Then why has the other guy not been charged? By Wilson's claims he is guilty of a whole raft of felonies. Because Wilson can't actually testify in court about any of it. He needs an independent witness before any of it would be admissible. Because he is dead? When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson?

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 7:57:59 AM)
When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. And what felonies was he accused of? Walking in the middle of the street is a safety issue. You have claimed that the robbery, in which Wilson could not testify, wasn't a felony. He did not participate in the attack on Wilson.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 7:59:37 AM)
Wilson was committing a crime at time , so his testimony is assumed to be tainted to protect himself. DK so much for innocent until proven guilty

Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 9:38:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you aware that one member of a criminal conspiracy cannot be the only witness against another member of that conspiracy? It is the same principal as that. Wilson was committing a crime at time , so his testimony is assumed to be tainted to protect himself. Cite the statutes. I want to see this in black and white. Put facts on the table.

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 10:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you aware that one member of a criminal conspiracy cannot be the only witness against another member of that conspiracy? It is the same principal as that. Wilson was committing a crime at time , so his testimony is assumed to be tainted to protect himself. Cite the statutes. I want to see this in black and white. Put facts on the table. It's not a statute but a series of court cases but here is the principle laid out. https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/300/334.html

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 10:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with.

BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 10:58:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again?

DomKen -> RE: Rioting is the answer (11/28/2014 11:01:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When did the Ferguson PD kill Dorian Johnson? Come on DK you know you didn't specify. yes I did. It is not my fault that you are stupid. quote: And what felonies was he accused of? felony murder to start with. Who was Jonson accused of murdering, or have you switched subjects again? Don't you know what felony murder is? Just how dumb are you?

Page: << < prev 68 69 [70] 71 72 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625