The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on November 29, 2014, 11:52:10 PM
-
Ken Burch (34,652 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025884468
So...how would YOU have reacted to the ruling, if YOU had been in that crowd in Ferguson that night?
O-)
The OP is full of hand wringing poo poo. Of course Ken isn't black, or poor, or living in reality, but still... the amount of :mental: in the OP is typical whiny leftist shit.
JEFF9K (1,534 posts)
1. Not smart to be in that crowd.
You are stacking lots of your own highly-questionable opinions and assumptions on top of each other.
First of all, no one in America is totally politically powerless.
You are assuming that “it seems like†in Missouri all non-minorities hate black people and want to hold them down.
You are saying that there are no consequences to killing a black child, when, in fact, it can put the shooter and his family through hell and will likely be career-ending.
You are assuming that the policeman “murdered†Michael Brown, despite the grand jury ruling and the coroner's findings that “eyewitness†accounts were physically impossible.
You are suggesting that minority parents aren't smart enough to realize that their own “child†won't be treated the same as a huge, combative 18-year-old stupidly defying police orders.
Smart people didn't participate in the Ferguson demonstrations, which are almost certain to HURT the goals of liberals and Democrats.
Alerts are flying.
Sabrina tries her hand at strawmanning.
sabrina 1 (47,564 posts)
25. Perhaps YOU can answer this question that millions of people all over the world now, yes the world
IS watching the disasters in the country:
What is the ROLE OF A PROSECUTOR before a GJ S/HE seats? What is the Prosecutor's usual goal in sending a case to the GJ?
And an even more important question regarding the role of the prosecutor in a case involving the death of another human being:
Is it acceptable for a Prosecutor to be the Chairperson of an Organization that is raising funds for the 'Suspect' s/he is asking the GJ to indict on murder charges?
You seem to be very satisfied with this GJ's 'findings' so I wondered if you understood the role of the prosecutor wrt to GJs.
Voice for Peace (11,768 posts)
30. We pick and choose the facts we like, ignore the rest, and forget to use common sense.
There was NO justification for the murder of Mike Brown.
None.
I am glad Wilson will never be a cop again.
Dispite the fact he did his job and was cleared of any wrong doing you are glad his life is destroyed. Nice. Voice for Peace is irony-central.
Voice for Peace (11,768 posts)
54. I watched and listened to the very first bunch of witnesses, their descriptions within several hours of the shooting. Although even at that time there were inconsistencies,
they were consistent enough that a very clear picture
was painted of what had taken place. The obfuscation quickly kicked in, chaos in the media,
distracting from the real issue by focus on the violence
in Ferguson, etc.
Those witnessess who lied and made shit up who were proven false by the evidence...
Voice for Peace (11,768 posts)
31. It is HEARSAY that he was punching the cop.
branford (1,463 posts)
39. Regardless of one's opinion on whether the shooting was justified,
the forensic evidence supported the allegation that Brown attacked Wilson, including blood spattering in the car and autopsy analysis of Brown's hand. It is certainly more than hearsay.
The primary issue actually appears to be whether the shooting occurred after the assault when Brown was allegedly no longer a threat.
I do not understand why some ignore inconvenient evidence when it's simply not necessary. One does not need to deify a victim.
It is easily possible to believe based on actual evidence that Michael Brown robbed the convenience store, assaulted the clerk, engaged in an altercation with Officer Wilson while Wilson was still in his cruiser, and yet nevertheless simultaneously believe the shooting was not justified based on other facts and circumstances
forget it bradford. No-one at DU cares for the facts.
Voice for Peace (11,768 posts)
41. I had read the forensic evidence did not support him punching Wilson.
It surely wasn't read in the court documents then.
chervilant (6,131 posts)
50. Well, let's see, phil...
We only have Wilson's testimony to go on about Mike "punching" him. And, please stop condescending with statements like "you don't think punching a cop is combative?" How ridiculous! You would be more accurate to ask, "you don't think Mike punched Wilson?" And my answer would be a resounding "NO!"
Mike's friend Dorian's testimony is quite different, and -- to me -- significantly more credible. Dorian described Wilson becoming angry and combative when he tried to open his car door INTO Mike and Dorian, then grabbed Mike's arm THROUGH the window. By the way, like Dorian, Wilson is an "eyewitness," and we've all been warned about Dorian that "eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable." Why, then, since Wilson is also an 'eyewitness,' is Wilson's testimony any MORE reliable than Dorian's?!
I have seen pictures of Wilson, taken right after the alleged 'assault' and I've had worse injuries bumping my head when I didn't bend down far enough to get in my car! His description of Mike Brown is full of racist innuendo, AND he lied about how far Mike was from his squad car. Gosh, I could go on, but...
I just have to wonder how you and many others can swallow Wilson's convoluted narrative. There are holes in his story so big, you could drive a Mack truck through them.
Anyway, thanks for your response, as it helps me to update my IL.
They would rather believe a criminal who's lies doesn't match the evidence but are the same as their 'feelings' than a cop backed by the findings of the court. It really tells you all you need to know about the DUmp Monkeys.
Kalidurga (6,173 posts)
22. Nah I don't think so
This case has been discussed for weeks and you are lacking facts. Completely and absolutely. You have an authoritarian streak. And seem to think cops can do no wrong. This isn't the first time I have seen you defend the undefendable.
ecstatic (19,658 posts)
3. Honestly? I'm not sure but I was with my parents when the grand jury decision was read, and my mom was so angry that she said they need to burn the whole town down. And she's technically in the 1% as far as income. I was pissed, but it never occurred to me to "burn it down," although my mom's words did incite me/escalate my anger.
In other words, I think I could've easily been persuaded to go along with the rioting had I been there. Tears were last year after Z went free. How many times in a row can people be expected to cry and just take it?
:bawl:
Ken Burch (34,652 posts)
11. a Democratic governor that has been on the side of the police and white supremacy all through this.
This is the same "Democratic" governor who was lecturing people about avoiding "violent protests" at a time when ALL the violence associated with this was committed by the cops.
Jay Nixon calling himself a Dem means nothing. Same with McCulloch. They both got elected as "law and order" candidates, pledged to keep "them" down.
White Missouri Dems are just future Repubs. They should all just cross over now and be done with it.
KingCharlemagne (1,741 posts)
16. Well, as a Democratic Socialist, I would have preferred to see a more
Last edited Sat Nov 29, 2014, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
focused response that concentrated on taking the rebellion to the wealthy suburbs. (I've heard from comrades there that residents were confined to Ferguson and could not easily get out. Not sure how true that is.) I would have preferred to see a regional uprising that brought in the masses from St. Louis Metropolitan and from East St. Louis.
Charlie wants a race war.
I'm going to be demanding that my Socialist and Communist comrades engage in some serious self-criticism around the questions of what went wrong there and why and how to improve things for the next time round. If they refuse to engage in that self-criticism -- some were even glorifying the fires and brigandage the day after -- I will probably return to being a Melvillean isolato and leave the dreams of a Socialist Utopia to the next generation.
That said, I do not know how I personally would have responded had I been there. I don't know how I would do were I black and living there under that constant stress. I'm guessing probably not very well. I tend to respond poorly when my 'fight or flight' adrenaline response is triggered. Who knows, though. I might find myself rising to the occasion.
My wife adds that when she is in fear -- as when the guns were going off -- her instinctive response is to "take cover and hide."
Damned good question(s) and I appreciate deeply your asking them.
Yeah--- communists want a violent revolution. Color me suprised.
-
Can't wait to see how far CharlieMange gets with his demands. :lmao:
-
If CharlieMange and his Socialist and Communist buddies try to take the rebellion to the "wealthy suburbs", they will find out quickly how much the Democrats in St Louis County value their property- much more than they value Socialist and Communist life.
And then what will DU do?
-
Ken Burch (34,652 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025884468
So...how would YOU have reacted to the ruling, if YOU had been in that crowd in Ferguson that night?
Hey, Ken Burch!
(I love this part)
NO TRUE BILL!
:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
-
Voice for Peace (11,768 posts)
30. We pick and choose the facts we like, ignore the rest, and forget to use common sense.
There was NO justification for the murder of Mike Brown.
None.
I am glad Wilson will never be a cop again.
Stunning lack of self awareness there.
Cindie
-
Stunning lack of self awareness there.
Cindie
You said it!
Here's a nugget of common sense, which will fly right over the head of the lurking DUmmies:
Don't rob stores, don't assault shopkeepers, and don't assault cops. You'll live longer.
-
So...how would YOU have reacted to the ruling, if YOU had been in that crowd in Ferguson that night?
I think I see his point.
Under those circumstances the only reasonable course of action would be to steal a widescreen TV and set fire to a beauty parlor.
-
ecstatic (19,658 posts)
3. Honestly? I'm not sure but I was with my parents when the grand jury decision was read, and my mom was so angry that she said they need to burn the whole town down.
:bouncy:
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/56545466.jpg)
-
Voice for Peace (11,768 posts)
31. It is HEARSAY that he was punching the cop.
Listen, Oliver Wendell Stupid, hearsay is a statement offered by someone other than the original declarant for the truth of the matter asserted, which you apparently don't understand. Also -
1. The formal rules of evidence do not apply at a grand jury, and within certain limits hearsay is admissible at one, in fact it's usually a lot of the case;
2. Wilson testified, as eyewitness and victim to the assault, so that assault was supported by direct evidence, not hearsay;
3. There are north of two dozen exceptions to the hearsay rule, to the point that the real 'rule' attorneys are taught about it is that if you really want to get it in at trial (Where the rules of evidence DO apply in full), there is generally a way to do it.
-
Answer this DUmmies - Why is Dorian Johnson alive and unharmed, yet Brown had been shot several times ?
I would think if this 'out of control cop' was out to shoot black dudes, he would have gunned for Brown's accomplice, and 'key witness' no ? Yet not a single bullet made its way in Dorian's direction as he hid behind another car. -- Why is that ?
Could it be that Dorian had enough sense to not engage an officer violently ?
-
Could it be that Dorian had enough sense to not engage an officer violently ?
Whoa, have you seen his interviews?
It's a huge stretch to ascribe any sense to that scrawny hoodrat.
-
Whoa, have you seen his interviews?
It's a huge stretch to ascribe any sense to that scrawny hoodrat.
A lot of hood rats have no common sense but are full of street sense.
-
Listen, Oliver Wendell Stupid, hearsay is a statement offered by someone other than the original declarant for the truth of the matter asserted, which you apparently don't understand. Also -
1. The formal rules of evidence do not apply at a grand jury, and within certain limits hearsay is admissible at one, in fact it's usually a lot of the case;
2. Wilson testified, as eyewitness and victim to the assault, so that assault was supported by direct evidence, not hearsay;
3. There are north of two dozen exceptions to the hearsay rule, to the point that the real 'rule' attorneys are taught about it is that if you really want to get it in at trial (Where the rules of evidence DO apply in full), there is generally a way to do it.
Excellent rebuttal.
I also like how Dummies think that the DA's sole purpose is to get an indictment for every case. From what I gather, they wanted the DA to only present evidence that supported the "Hands Up" narrative.