Black Dog Posted November 25, 2014 Author Report Posted November 25, 2014 The honest testimony from black witnesses were a major contributor to the "acquittal" of Officer Wilson, I think that's a positive step. "Agrees with my worldview"="honest" Quote
cybercoma Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 The grand jury heard ALL the evidence You too seem to be confused about how grand juries work. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 25, 2014 Author Report Posted November 25, 2014 He has no proof. He's just a broken record, repeating the same nonsensical thing over and over. Must be like looking in a mirror for you then, eh? Quote
cybercoma Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Ahhh, a conspiracy theory. That along with excuses and a total lack of proof really helps your position. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's still not a conspiracy theory. The grand jury process is not like a public trial at all. And when the prosecutor himself is involved with raising funds for the person he's supposed to be trying to convict, well, rub your braincells together and figure it out. Edited November 25, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
Smallc Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's still not a conspiracy theory. The grand jury process is not like a public trial at all. And when the prosecutor himself is involved with raising funds for the person he's supposed to be trying to convict, well, rub your braincells together and figure it out. You insinuated that the prosecutor intentionally withheld evidence because of his friendship with the police. That sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. Quote
Smallc Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 No it wasn't. The prosecutor is under no obligation to present all of the evidence to a grand jury. So tell me which evidence was left out. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 25, 2014 Author Report Posted November 25, 2014 Why do you keep pretending that you're privy to evidence that the grand jury was not? The grand jury heard ALL the evidence, and came to a decision consistent with the majority of the evidence regarding both party's actions. I'm sorry that you don't like the outcome, but you're going to have to come to grips with that. Even if one buys that they heard all the evidence (they didn't), that doesn't say anything about the quality of that evidence (such as Wilson's one-sided and conflicted testimony) or the GJ's ability to weigh it properly. In cases like this, it's frankly hilarious to see people who distrust the government in every single other aspect suddenly turn around and prostrate themselves before a system they deem infallible when it delivers the result they want. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 25, 2014 Author Report Posted November 25, 2014 So tell me which evidence was left out. How would any of us know this? Good lord, that's pathetic. Quote
Smallc Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 How would any of us know this? Good lord, that's pathetic. I agree it is pathetic to insinuate things that you have no proof of and then attack others for asking you for said proof...that you don't have. Quote
jacee Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) But he did try to steal the weapon. I would expect a reasonable person to not want to be in close quarters with a person willing to do that unless they were completely submissive. And dude was huge. They were not in close quarters anymore when Brown was shot. . Edited November 25, 2014 by jacee Quote
eyeball Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 You insinuated that the prosecutor intentionally withheld evidence because of his friendship with the police. That sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. This sort of blithe sycophantic dismissal of public mistrust for authority just pisses people off. Its probably the best reason for the mistrust in the first place. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 This sort of blithe sycophantic dismissal of public mistrust for authority just pisses people off. Its probably the best reason for the mistrust in the first place. So what...be pissed off all you wish. Doesn't change a damn thing. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 I agree it is pathetic to insinuate things that you have no proof of and then attack others for asking you for said proof...that you don't have. Neither of those things are pathetic. What's pathetic is that a cop can shoot an unarmed teen and never go to trial. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Cops shoot people all the time....what's so special about a "teen" perp ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) What we do know is the prosecutors were setting this up so that it was in the best light, in my view, it was, from what I’ve seen, in the best light for the police officer and his "reasonable belief" that his life was in danger, so that is why he shot.I don’t think we can take away anything from this decision not to indict other than that it is now officially open season on black folks when it comes to police violence. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/25/it_is_officially_open_season_on Edited November 25, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
eyeball Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 So what...be pissed off all you wish. Doesn't change a damn thing. Really? Public anger and change seem to go hand in hand in America. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
cybercoma Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Cops shoot people all the time....what's so special about a "teen" perp ? Get someone to explain the situation to you. You seem to be lost. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Really? Public anger and change seem to go hand in hand in America. It worked when we got rid of your authoritarian monarchy. Not so much in this case. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Cops shoot people all the time....what's so special about a "teen" perp ? Nothing. And that's the problem. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Nothing. And that's the problem. I agree...it is a problem for "teens" who threaten police and other citizens. Sucks to be them.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 What we do know is the prosecutors were setting this up so that it was in the best light, in my view, it was, from what Ive seen, in the best light for the police officer and his "reasonable belief" that his life was in danger, so that is why he shot. I dont think we can take away anything from this decision not to indict other than that it is now officially open season on black folks when it comes to police violence. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/25/it_is_officially_open_season_on You wouldn't happen to have a credible link, would you? Quote
Black Dog Posted November 25, 2014 Author Report Posted November 25, 2014 I agree it is pathetic to insinuate things that you have no proof of and then attack others for asking you for said proof...that you don't have. Actually I already gave examples of evidence the grand jury wasn't privy to because it was destroyed in the aftermath of the shooting by Wilson. What say you to that? Quote
Smallc Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Neither of those things are pathetic. What's pathetic is that a cop can shoot an unarmed teen and never go to trial. That's not pathetic at all given the apparent circumstances. Because those circumstances don't agree with your narrative, you've totally dismissed them. Quote
Smallc Posted November 25, 2014 Report Posted November 25, 2014 Actually I already gave examples of evidence the grand jury wasn't privy to because it was destroyed in the aftermath of the shooting by Wilson. What say you to that? What you have is here-say. Not much else. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 25, 2014 Author Report Posted November 25, 2014 What you have is here-say. Not much else. It's spelled hearsay and it's from Wilson's own testimony. But since you read it, you'd know that, right? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.