Are you listening to the news? Officer Wilson Not Indicted in Brown Shooting

Not all women are responding to the 'maternal' instinct. I've asked my husband repeatedly why the majority seem to be ignoring the video from the store where the 'gentle giant' stole and then shoved the store owner against the counter when he attempted to intervene and save his property.

As a white person and one who's been lucky to lead the kind of sheltered life that many can only dream of, I understand that I don't understand what it's like to be a black person or a person of any other colour in North America. I also realize that racism is an evil that not only hurts the individual but also society. Personally, I don't think making Michael Brown into the poster boy for this change is reasonable. How about instead all that energy was turned towards the horror of that twelve year old boy who was killed because he was black and a kid just playing a stupid and turns out, dangerous game on that playground? Or maybe that little hispanic baby who had a grenade blow up beside his face in his crib? Seems to me that either of those would make more sense.
 

QuickSilver said:
So you are not saying that there isn't an inequality problem.. you are saying that there are better ways to deal with it than rioting and looting. I fully agree.. There needs to be an immense mobilization of voter registration. The system needs to be changed for sure.
Click to expand...


An immense mobilization of voter registration? If the system is set up so that you have no different choices, what difference would that make? You wind up with more voters only being able to vote for 'dumb or dumber'. And yes QS that question could apply here in Canada too. Although we have four parties to chose from, we seem to only go back and forth between two of them.

How do you change a system when the guys who are using the system for their own benefit have set it up so that unless you have multiple millions of dollars to get into the race, you don't have a hope of changing it from the inside? They are supported by the corporate heads who want the system to continue just as it is because it benefits them personally to the tune of billions of dollars so the millions they donate to their favourite horse in the race is peanuts. Peanuts to them, impossible for the little guy with the great idea and the real heart.

Chris Christy is a great example of how it works. The pork industry was facing a change in how they are allowed to abuse the animals in their care, but now Chris Christy who wants to run for President voted against the bill that would have seen those sad animals get some relief in their miserable lives......because Idaho is full of pig farmers! That's how he is mustering his support, on the backs of suffering! Anything less and he'd lose a state apparently, but now he's shoring up the pig farmer vote.
 
Ralphy1 said:
That's OK, the truth requires no response...
Click to expand...

I think you have totally misunderstood the position against the Grand Jury decision to mean that it is felt Darren Wilson is guilty and that Michael Brown an innocent victim. Ralphy.. Do you EVEN read other posts? The problem with this Grand Jury was that it was totally manipulated by the Prosecutor Robert McCulloch. He used the Grand Jury in a completely unorthodox manner... which was even commented on by Supreme Court Justice Scalia. AND the National Bar Association. The Fix was in from the start. There should have been a trial so all the evidence was presented and a REAL Jury was able to deliberate the outcome. This way there was NO trial at all... no cross examinations.. nothing but what McCulloch wanted. It may very well have been determined in a trial that Wilson was innocent. NOW we will never know.

As for why women are more inclined to not accept the Grand Jury farce? For the reasons above. Women seem to want all evidence weighed for a real investigation and the truth be brought out. We perhaps are less inclined to bend to prejudice when the truth is at stake. Please read all the posts.. Ralphy... All this was talked about at length.
 

Debby said:
Not all women are responding to the 'maternal' instinct. I've asked my husband repeatedly why the majority seem to be ignoring the video from the store where the 'gentle giant' stole and then shoved the store owner against the counter when he attempted to intervene and save his property.

As a white person and one who's been lucky to lead the kind of sheltered life that many can only dream of, I understand that I don't understand what it's like to be a black person or a person of any other colour in North America. I also realize that racism is an evil that not only hurts the individual but also society. Personally, I don't think making Michael Brown into the poster boy for this change is reasonable. How about instead all that energy was turned towards the horror of that twelve year old boy who was killed because he was black and a kid just playing a stupid and turns out, dangerous game on that playground? Or maybe that little hispanic baby who had a grenade blow up beside his face in his crib? Seems to me that either of those would make more sense.
Click to expand...


If YOU had read all the other posts you would see that NO ONE was making Brown into a poster child of innocence... What has been asked is only was did Darren Wilson have to shoot him dead. Was it absolutely necessary. We will never know this because the Grand Jury was misused and manipulated. Hopefully the Federal Court will pick up this case and we can have some real courtroom testimony from BOTH sides of the witness pool, along with cross examination.... REAL cross examination of the inconsistencies from BOTH sides.
 
Please consider materials other than the posts here. The grand jury saw all of the evidence and could not indict as many legal experts have concurred with. And I remember the Trayvon Martin case which brought the same outrage with a disproportionate amount from women...
 
Ralphy1 said:
Please consider materials other than the posts here. The grand jury saw all of the evidence and could not indict as many legal experts have concurred with. And I remember the Trayvon Martin case which brought the same outrage with a disproportionate amount from women...
Click to expand...


What they were shown was a law that was deemed unconstitutional in 1985.. Do you not pay attention. The whole thing was a massive farce to put the fix in. Even FOX reported that.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/11/27...-grand-jury-on-law-that-was-unconstitutional/

For the entire proceeding, jurors weighed the evidence in light of a law that was deemed unconstitutional almost 30 years ago. Then they corrected the record at the very end, but by then it was too late.
To me, this invalidates the entire decision. While I believe jurors acted in good faith, the prosecutor did not, and intentionally confused jurors as to the applicable law. Correcting it at the end is not adequate or acceptable.
Click to expand...
 
And you know the grand jury was misused and manipulated because you were there, right. You trust a jury but not a grand jury. Hmmmm. A jury decided O J Simpson was innocent.

You just want to keep trying Officer Wilson until you get the verdict you want.
 
Yup, when you attack a police officer and try to grab his gun. Have you wonder what the punk might have done with gun had he got it? Probably a dead officer...
 
Ralphy1 said:
Yup, when you attack a police officer and try to grab his gun. Have you wonder what the punk might have done with gun had he got it? Probably a dead officer...
Click to expand...


Sure... lets ignore the fact that he was killed long after that alleged grab for the gun. Ralphy... he was shot 108 feet from the squad after running away.
 
Good comment Ralphy1. Far too much publicity is going to these out of order mobsters that are blocking streets and highways around the US.

We had a Grand Jury, as we should have had, and it worked just fine. Except for those that insist the hanging squad forgot to form and a honest group debated and came to a conclusion that some, mostly a minority number of folks, to disagree with. Many of the blacks of that community have taken it too them selves to try to repair the unnecessary damages put on them by the radical thinking folks. They do not need, or seem to want, the out of order type of responses being pushed now by outsiders, and that includes these outsiders that came and made hate speeches about our US court systems and how they work. Hateful men that just will not accept the way things work and insist on trying to change things with their mob action and calls for total disrespect for our laws. If they do not like what the Grand Jury has done there are ways they could have gone other than starting street riots all across the US, as they have. So instead of hearings and court reviews we now have street riots across the US. Nothing smart or sensible in that type of response to what was should have been a court style of hearing and court style of review. Maybe it was not the best response for many, but it was not a street riot either and there were likely solutions that could have been taken without these street riots coming around.

Pure out of order, no solution to the imagined wrongs. This confused idea should have been corrected in legal ways rather that though illegal street riots around the country.
 
rkunsaw said:
That's just what I was going t say, Ralphy. Mike Brown got what he deserved.
Click to expand...

Well, we will never know that now... considering the trial was held by a Grand Jury who are not supposed to try a dead man for his own murder. Which is what happened. You call that justice? I call it a travesty.
 
Seems that the evidence showed that he was charging the officer when he was shot, not running away...
 
Protesters blocked Interstate 95 here and the state police had to disperse them for the safety of themselves and the driving public. Six protesters would not move and were arrested. An outrage poured out because they were all black. The police said that they were the only ones that wouldn't move. It seems like some are just using any excuse to try and make race an issue...
 
QuickSilver said:
If YOU had read all the other posts you would see that NO ONE was making Brown into a poster child of innocence... What has been asked is only was did Darren Wilson have to shoot him dead. Was it absolutely necessary. We will never know this because the Grand Jury was misused and manipulated. Hopefully the Federal Court will pick up this case and we can have some real courtroom testimony from BOTH sides of the witness pool, along with cross examination.... REAL cross examination of the inconsistencies from BOTH sides.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I don't agree with YOU. On the one hand you're right, I didn't wade through all the comments here, but it seemed to me that anytime I saw anything on the television (talking heads or interviews with Sharpton and the family and friends) nobody addressed the store crime. It was all about the gentle giant, yada, yada, yada. Not a single mention of his crime, or the possibility that the policeman was trapped in his car and responded to that threat accordingly and suggestions of incompetence, or the fact that the guy wasn't shot in the back unlike the witnesses who said he was, etc.


Yesterday on Michael Smirconish's radio talk show (he's a lawyer), I listened to him talking to some law professor who had looked at what evidence the grand jury had to go on and both of them concurred with the verdict. Evidence is what counts, not emotionalism. And don't get me wrong, I'll join the crowd in saying that there are lots of very bad cops out there who need to be reined in, retrained, thrown out, jailed....whatever it takes, but I'm not hearing much except emotionalism when it comes to public mood.
 
Ralphy1 said:
Seems that the evidence showed that he was charging the officer when he was shot, not running away...
Click to expand...


Again... you completely MISS the point and function of a Grand Jury. There was NO evidence Ralphy.. only the testimony of Darren Wilson and one witness.. There was NO cross examination of the inconsistencies. Like the fact that the sole witness to the "charging" was a football field away.. and THEN changed his story to him being only a half a football field away. The numerous witnesses to the contrary were just dismissed.. There was no trial. Wilson was found innocent without a trial.. how is that OK? There are so many problems with the way this was conducted it isn't funny. This was nothing more than a Kangaroo Court.
 
The grand jury was the proper place to decide if the evidence supported an indictment. The grand jury heard the evidence and made their decision. That is the proper way. You want rioters and looters to make decisions evidence be damned.
 
Sorry, but reasonable people using a reasonable procedure, neither had to be perfect, have spoken...
 
QuickSilver said:
Again... you completely MISS the point and function of a Grand Jury. There was NO evidence Ralphy.. only the testimony of Darren Wilson and one witness.. There was NO cross examination of the inconsistencies. Like the fact that the sole witness to the "charging" was a football field away.. and THEN changed his story to him being only a half a football field away. The numerous witnesses to the contrary were just dismissed.. There was no trial. Wilson was found innocent without a trial.. how is that OK? There are so many problems with the way this was conducted it isn't funny. This was nothing more than a Kangaroo Court.
Click to expand...
That is totally untrue!
 
rkunsaw said:
That is totally untrue!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is NOT.

http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/2014/11/witness-ten-was-length-of-football.html

Witness 10's testimony at the Ferguson grand jury (the key testimony according to the prosecutor and the only one besides Darren Wilson he mentioned in his press conference) was the only one who matched Wilson's narrative from start to finish, especially Wilson's claim that Brown bull rushed him (while his body was full of multiple bullets). When Witness 10 was first interviewed by investigators he said he was 100 yards way from the scene. But by the time he testified before the grand jury, his story had now changed. He now claimed he was 50 to 75 yards away. This witness also said he saw Mike Brown make some sort of bodily movement but he was not sure what it was. He said he was not sure three times about that at the GJ. He added, thought, amazingly, that he knew Brown was not surrendering. McCulloch found his testimony more compelling than unchanged testimony from witnesses who were 20 ft and 20 yards away, who saw Brown stumbling forward, reeling from multiple gun shot wounds. We have been given no further information on this witness but that he did not wear glasses. We don't know if he is twelve years old or eighty years old, if he ever had his eyes examined, if he needed glasses, if he was on drugs or in trouble with the law. The prosecutor didn't ask and we don't know. We do know he changed his testimony. My question, would we trust an official standing in one end zone to call a holding penalty in the other end zone, seriously. Would we trust an official standing even on the fifty to seventy-five yards away to make that call?
Click to expand...

Yet ALL the other witnesses were deemed to by LYING? Give me a break. calling this a Kangaroo court is too good for this proceeding. It was a lynching of a dead kid.

 
Seems like the color of your post might be indicative of your blood pressure rising and I wouldn't want you to have a stroke so I am signing off now. Also, I need to make a donation to my F.O.P., as I should put my money where my mouth is... :eek:nthego:
 
Nothing anyone says is going to change your prejudiced views, QS, but at least the criminal thug is still dead. All the ranting and rioting won't change that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top