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


Lucylastic -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/27/2014 9:24:42 AM)

Well it would wouldnt it....you arent used to being right:)




DomKen -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/27/2014 5:03:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Contrast that to the videos I posted of the cops calmly dealing with the two white people carrying actual firearms in my post.


In a nation of 300 million people, you found a couple of contrasting videos?


Hey dumbass, I specifically said it was just two examples. I can provide dozens more. The question is why are the cops who are shooting so quickly doing so and why are we letting them get away with it.

In the Cleveland case the squad car wasn't even fully stopped and the rookie cop had been out of the car for no more than 2 seconds before he started firing. Can you honestly argue that the child had a chance to obey whatever command he was given before the fatal shots were fired?




BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/27/2014 7:39:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Youre right, that was the wrong link

Federal snipers killed this white man

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/01/saw-black-hat-us-marshals-describe-capturing-suspected-cop-killer-eric-frein/

FBI doesn't shoot white people? Ever hear of Ruby Ridge?




Lucylastic -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/27/2014 8:44:32 PM)

Oh this is comedy gold. Lmao




Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/27/2014 9:06:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Youre right, that was the wrong link

Federal snipers killed this white man

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/01/saw-black-hat-us-marshals-describe-capturing-suspected-cop-killer-eric-frein/

FBI doesn't shoot white people? Ever hear of Ruby Ridge?

They shot an unarmed white woman there, and also killed a kid and a dog

No idea what color that dog was though




starkem -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/27/2014 10:43:43 PM)

At least your funny Sanity. Like Hanity. God bless you! Although I have quite atheistic leanings these days. [8|]

I'm sure you get the points that were made herein, but some reason you like to spin, bend and twist them in a manner most favorable to your outcry and agenda. God bless you. Sincerely. And I hope that's working for you!




Sanity -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 8:07:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: starkem

At least your funny Sanity. Like Hanity. God bless you! Although I have quite atheistic leanings these days. [8|]

I'm sure you get the points that were made herein, but some reason you like to spin, bend and twist them in a manner most favorable to your outcry and agenda. God bless you. Sincerely. And I hope that's working for you!


Its trollish behavior to try to make posters the subject

That being said, the only real point in this is that the race baiters won while everyone else lost.




Marini -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 9:02:25 AM)

What a very, very, well written statement!

quote:

ORIGINAL: starkem

I will say this....justice denied is justice deferred. People seeking justice will not tolerate undue justification. In the absence of this man being tried for the death of Brown, dissatisfaction became a prevailing sentiment. It does not change the outcome of a grand jury, but it does send a clear message of the dissatisfaction.

Timothy McVeeigh (sp?) was arrested without incident, John Gotti had similar results. It is not a matter of self defense that is in question here; it is a criminal matter of excessive force to subdue a suspected criminal that is in question herein. The so called grand jury and the people of such ill repute don't think the method, in due course, of apprehension was excessive. However, people that perceieve a pattern of policemen abusing the great deference given to their authority will not garner empathy from anyone except close family and friends and the idiots that think it is okay. I can excuse the family and friends because they have a viable vested interest.

The people otherwise situated, however, will not receive the same sentiment of respect. No matter what your position for absolving the officer of this percieved innocence, their are people who will oppose that viewpoint. Moreover, such opposition will oppose the very notion that black men are somehow not apprenhendible or worthy of the same regard when it comes to law enforcement.

What is very unsettling about this notion is that the implication of justifiable force, in this matter and others, is unwarranted and not tenable. Specifically to this matter, criminal defendants have been indicted for lesser offenses and therefore the indignation of some that alleged action of the officer is not readily percieved. To say that this indignation is somehow idiocity is a failure of addressing the underlying problem that motivates the policy of who is denned dangerous and life threatening to legal apprehension.

There was a recent case of a white suspect who allegedly had killed and/or injured several law enforcement personnel; yet he was eventually apprehended, without lethal consequences albeit he was considered armed and dangerous. This is not an arbitrary act of apprehension of such dangerous persons; nor, the act of pursuit of black men being expendable in such matters. George Zimmerman endured a trial for his defense of his actions. People desired the same justice in this matter. I don't see any action thereafter their dissatisfaction rising to the level of savagery implied in these adverse postings. I see ignorance or lack of empathy -for sake of abetter description- to the plight of people who deem this pattern of injustice as intolerable. Can you dig that???


[sm=applause.gif]

You should submit this post as an editorial.
The Grand Jury was WRONG---there should have been a trial.

Justice Denied IS Justice Deferred




BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 9:25:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

What a very, very, well written statement!

quote:

ORIGINAL: starkem

I will say this....justice denied is justice deferred. People seeking justice will not tolerate undue justification. In the absence of this man being tried for the death of Brown, dissatisfaction became a prevailing sentiment. It does not change the outcome of a grand jury, but it does send a clear message of the dissatisfaction.

Timothy McVeeigh (sp?) was arrested without incident, John Gotti had similar results. It is not a matter of self defense that is in question here; it is a criminal matter of excessive force to subdue a suspected criminal that is in question herein. The so called grand jury and the people of such ill repute don't think the method, in due course, of apprehension was excessive. However, people that perceieve a pattern of policemen abusing the great deference given to their authority will not garner empathy from anyone except close family and friends and the idiots that think it is okay. I can excuse the family and friends because they have a viable vested interest.

The people otherwise situated, however, will not receive the same sentiment of respect. No matter what your position for absolving the officer of this percieved innocence, their are people who will oppose that viewpoint. Moreover, such opposition will oppose the very notion that black men are somehow not apprenhendible or worthy of the same regard when it comes to law enforcement.

What is very unsettling about this notion is that the implication of justifiable force, in this matter and others, is unwarranted and not tenable. Specifically to this matter, criminal defendants have been indicted for lesser offenses and therefore the indignation of some that alleged action of the officer is not readily percieved. To say that this indignation is somehow idiocity is a failure of addressing the underlying problem that motivates the policy of who is denned dangerous and life threatening to legal apprehension.

There was a recent case of a white suspect who allegedly had killed and/or injured several law enforcement personnel; yet he was eventually apprehended, without lethal consequences albeit he was considered armed and dangerous. This is not an arbitrary act of apprehension of such dangerous persons; nor, the act of pursuit of black men being expendable in such matters. George Zimmerman endured a trial for his defense of his actions. People desired the same justice in this matter. I don't see any action thereafter their dissatisfaction rising to the level of savagery implied in these adverse postings. I see ignorance or lack of empathy -for sake of abetter description- to the plight of people who deem this pattern of injustice as intolerable. Can you dig that???


[sm=applause.gif]

You should submit this post as an editorial.
The Grand Jury was WRONG---there should have been a trial.

Justice Denied IS Justice Deferred

No the saying is justice delayed is justice denied.
Do you figure that a mob will get "justice" at a later time?
If the evidence did not justify an indictment what purpose would a trial serve.
Do you honestly think anything other than a conviction would have prevented a riot?
And do you honestly thing that the facts would matter to the rioters?
Or have you already convicted Wilson like DK.




Marini -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 9:42:25 AM)

Bama I said nothing about the mob, I am not even addressing that issue.

I said, IMHO--- there should have been a trial.

I believe the trial should have also been out of state.




CreativeDominant -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 9:44:40 AM)

If you get an objective answer, Bama, I'll be surprised. One without vitriol or invective. Earlier, either on this thread or the rioting one, I asked peon much the same question and got silence as an answer.

First, it was that they were convinced there'd be no investigation. Then, when there was, it was that it was taking too long but there'd be no judicial proceedings. Then, when they convened a Grand Jury, it was too secret and evidence would be cast aside. Then, when eyewitness testimony did not correlate to these same witnesses statements and cleared Wilson rather than make him appear guilty...as their original statements had...suddenly, eyewitness testimony is "unreliable". Then, when the physical evidence appears to back up Wilson, it doesn't matter. The fact that Wilson was not just some man who walked up to Wilson and shot him but rather, an officer doing his job, does not matter.

What matters is that Wilson is a white cop who shot a black man and therefore needs to be convicted.





BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 9:47:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Bama I said nothing about the mob, I am not even addressing that issue.

I said, IMHO--- there should have been a trial.

I believe the trial should have also been out of state.


You still haven't addressed what good a trial would have done.
I am not assuming that like a couple of people on here you "knew" Wilson was guilty before any facts other than the race of the people involved was know.
But if there isn't enough to indict, there is no point in a trial.
How much of a leap is it from they should have a trial even if the evidence is not enough for an indictment to they should convict regardless of the evidence?




Marini -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 10:16:59 AM)

I am not going to argue 50 more pages, as in the other thread.

We have a right to have a difference of opinion.
I THINK there was enough evidence/and doubt, that there should have been a trial, in another state.

You do not feel that there should have been a trial.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.




BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 10:54:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I am not going to argue 50 more pages, as in the other thread.

We have a right to have a difference of opinion.
I THINK there was enough evidence/and doubt, that there should have been a trial, in another state.

You do not feel that there should have been a trial.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

A fair an open minded district like say Watts?




Marini -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 11:08:59 AM)

No, I was thinking South Central. you silly goose.




BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 11:12:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

No, I was thinking South Central. you silly goose.

They could just take Wilson out and shoot him in the town square, why bother with a trial?




Marini -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 11:33:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

No, I was thinking South Central. you silly goose.

They could just take Wilson out and shoot him in the town square, why bother with a trial?


You have to try to twist the fact that I believe that the case should have gone to a fair trial in another state.

tsk tsk tsk
[sm=shame.gif]




starkem -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 12:02:26 PM)

Thanks for the mention Marini. I agree with you, lets move on.




BamaD -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 12:29:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

No, I was thinking South Central. you silly goose.

They could just take Wilson out and shoot him in the town square, why bother with a trial?


You have to try to twist the fact that I believe that the case should have gone to a fair trial in another state.

tsk tsk tsk
[sm=shame.gif]

I don't believe that it going to another state would make it a fair trial.
More likely it would make it less fair.
You don't think that if they decided that the St Louis area was so biased that Wilson would be let off that they wouldn't shop for a place that would assure his conviction?
The only reason to move it would be to increase the chance of conviction.




TheHeretic -> RE: The Grand Jury has decided in Ferguson (11/28/2014 12:34:27 PM)

Mari, I think you are buying into the great mistake here. It's not just counterproductive, but actually destructive to the cause.

No trial on this is going to be about anything larger than Mike Brown attacking a cop, and getting his ass shot for it. It won't be about the culture. It won't be about the attitudes. It won't be about what is institutional. It will be about a bullet entry wound that proves Mike Brown had his hand on the cop's gun when he got shot.

If you want a trial about the issues that led to what happened, that needs to be a very different kind of case.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875