RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson

RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson

Officer Wilson WILL be charged with a crime

2% (1)

Officer Wilson will NOT be charged with a crime

38% (14)

I could not care less

11% (4)

Who is officer Wilson

16% (6)

Regardless of the decision Wilson is guilty

19% (7)

Regardless of the decision Wilson is innocent

11% (4)

Total Votes : 36

(last vote on : 12/8/2014 3:18:50 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 7:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: dirt worshipers This term was unfamiliar to me, so I Googled it. Found two interesting definitions at Urban Dictionary: a racial slur towards native americans because they worship nature life. Dale(native american) is a dirt worshipper and sun god worshipper. * * * Derogatory name for someone who practices any of a number of Pagan/Wiccan/Druidic faiths. Named because these religeons usually prescribe a close relationship with nature. Many followers also exhibit strong opinions regarding the environment due to their beliefs. Looks like the dirt worshipers finally got the sawmill closed. That entry would be far enough down the Google tree to make me wonder, has dom ken taken over your computer

Musicmystery -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 7:11:31 AM)
Ah...no.

dcnovice -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 7:32:39 AM)
quote: That entry would be far enough down the Google tree to make me wonder, has dom ken taken over your computer They were the first two results, actually.

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 7:35:24 AM)
I see it now, dont know how I missed it You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians?

dcnovice -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 7:43:42 AM)
quote: You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians? You mean Mother Jones? I have no idea. I'm just trying to learn what this unfamiliar pejorative means.

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 7:45:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians? You mean Mother Jones? I have no idea. I'm just trying to learn what this unfamiliar pejorative means. Tree huggers "Save the planet" types

BitYakin -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 8:17:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. actually, by that standard, every single time a cop fires his weapon and kills someone... is it more likely some cop did kill someone. Is that true? then there is probable cause to indict. all you have to do is change Wilson to ANY COP, and Brown to ANYONE... if that isn't the STUPIDEST argument of ALL TIME I don't know what is! combine that with cloudboy's "A prosecutor is not interested in being fair, he's interested in prosecuting." and we should have at LEAST a few dozen cops on trial each year...

Musicmystery -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 8:20:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians? You mean Mother Jones? I have no idea. I'm just trying to learn what this unfamiliar pejorative means. Tree huggers "Save the planet" types What's wrong with trees? Most Americans live in stick houses, after all...

BitYakin -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 8:26:27 AM)
actually NO, most Americans are concentrated in cities and most American cities are comprised of brick houses... so while I am sure there are LOTS of wooden houses, most Americans are that 3rd piggy

mnottertail -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 8:41:38 AM)
Boston and many other cities are going to be in for a surprise, hah? Thinking that brick was a salt box wood house. Lotta wood in the old brick ones too.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 8:42:54 AM)
This place gets dumber every day, both in the made up "facts" and the bullshit things people choose to argue about. Many, many structures in cities are built of wood, including houses. 90% of American homes are made from wood. http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=5&C=645

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 8:57:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians? You mean Mother Jones? I have no idea. I'm just trying to learn what this unfamiliar pejorative means. Tree huggers "Save the planet" types What's wrong with trees? Most Americans live in stick houses, after all... Go ahead an worship dirt, rocks if thats your intelligence level Who am I to judge

Musicmystery -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 9:07:58 AM)
No, not dirt houses, not stone houses -- wooden houses. It's like having a discussion with a tired 5 year old.

DomKen -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 9:22:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. Nope. The probable cause standard is a very low hurdle. The old saw about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich exists for a reason. In this case there was no doubt that Wilson was the killer so an indictment should have been a forgone conclusion. Wilson would have been free to assert his self defense claim as an affirmative defense at trial where it would be subject to aggressive cross examination and the full rules of evidence. It isn't did he likely kill Brown it is did he likely killed Brown illegally. I understand that you can't see the distinction, but it is a big one. Wrong! All killings are presumed to be wrongful. The killer is allowed to assert an affirmative defense at trial but that has nothing at all to do with whether there is probable cause that the crime has occurred. You are demanding that the prosecutor act as the defense counsel which is exactly the complaint of the demonstrators.

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 9:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. Nope. The probable cause standard is a very low hurdle. The old saw about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich exists for a reason. In this case there was no doubt that Wilson was the killer so an indictment should have been a forgone conclusion. Wilson would have been free to assert his self defense claim as an affirmative defense at trial where it would be subject to aggressive cross examination and the full rules of evidence. It isn't did he likely kill Brown it is did he likely killed Brown illegally. I understand that you can't see the distinction, but it is a big one. Wrong! All killings are presumed to be wrongful. The killer is allowed to assert an affirmative defense at trial but that has nothing at all to do with whether there is probable cause that the crime has occurred. You are demanding that the prosecutor act as the defense counsel which is exactly the complaint of the demonstrators. That is so stupid as to negate the need for refutation. So this means that you do think the sniper who shot the two cop killers in Nevada should have been charged with murder.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 9:57:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, not dirt houses, not stone houses -- wooden houses. It's like having a discussion with a tired 5 year old. I was surprised at just how many houses that looked like sturdy brick-built faire were in fact of wooden structure with a 5mm brick veneer stuck on the outside. And no, he's not 5 yet [:D]

DomKen -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 10:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. Nope. The probable cause standard is a very low hurdle. The old saw about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich exists for a reason. In this case there was no doubt that Wilson was the killer so an indictment should have been a forgone conclusion. Wilson would have been free to assert his self defense claim as an affirmative defense at trial where it would be subject to aggressive cross examination and the full rules of evidence. It isn't did he likely kill Brown it is did he likely killed Brown illegally. I understand that you can't see the distinction, but it is a big one. Wrong! All killings are presumed to be wrongful. The killer is allowed to assert an affirmative defense at trial but that has nothing at all to do with whether there is probable cause that the crime has occurred. You are demanding that the prosecutor act as the defense counsel which is exactly the complaint of the demonstrators. That is so stupid as to negate the need for refutation. So this means that you do think the sniper who shot the two cop killers in Nevada should have been charged with murder. No. you fucking idiot. He acted under direct orders from a superior officer which putthe onus on the superior who justified the killing himself in whatever manner his department and prosecutor requires.

BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 10:45:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The standard is simply whether it is more likely than not that Wilson did kill Brown. Is that true? Then there is probable cause to indict. Come on DK you know that they have to prove it is likely that he unjustifiably killed Brown. By your standard the cop who shot the couple in Vegas should be on trial because he did kill them. Nope. The probable cause standard is a very low hurdle. The old saw about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich exists for a reason. In this case there was no doubt that Wilson was the killer so an indictment should have been a forgone conclusion. Wilson would have been free to assert his self defense claim as an affirmative defense at trial where it would be subject to aggressive cross examination and the full rules of evidence. It isn't did he likely kill Brown it is did he likely killed Brown illegally. I understand that you can't see the distinction, but it is a big one. Wrong! All killings are presumed to be wrongful. The killer is allowed to assert an affirmative defense at trial but that has nothing at all to do with whether there is probable cause that the crime has occurred. You are demanding that the prosecutor act as the defense counsel which is exactly the complaint of the demonstrators. That is so stupid as to negate the need for refutation. So this means that you do think the sniper who shot the two cop killers in Nevada should have been charged with murder. No. you fucking idiot. He acted under direct orders from a superior officer which putthe onus on the superior who justified the killing himself in whatever manner his department and prosecutor requires. No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need. When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

thishereboi -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 11:48:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians? You mean Mother Jones? I have no idea. I'm just trying to learn what this unfamiliar pejorative means. Tree huggers "Save the planet" types What's wrong with trees? Most Americans live in stick houses, after all... I have heard the term tree huggers since I was young. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest it meant there was something wrong with trees. I suppose anything to start an argument right?

Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (12/6/2014 12:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I have heard the term tree huggers since I was young. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest it meant there was something wrong with trees. I suppose anything to start an argument right? Clearly, I live inside his head

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625