An inconvenient truth

What on earth does 'The Marquis' have to do with this? You're becoming hysterical, Bells. Calm down and stick to the topic at hand, thanks.

Your indignation about me quoting posts Tiassa and you have made in the past is a bit puzzling. When you post material in a public forum, it is usually accepted that your material is made, well, public. That means that it can be seen and cited by others. If you don't want your hateful views to be quoted back to you, then there is a simple answer: Don't post them in the first place.

Your attempts to mitigate your hateful claims are as transparent as they can get. Gremmie made it very clear to Tiassa that not once had he ever behaved unethically as a traffic officer, yet Tiassa essentially called him a liar because... well.. he's a cop, and all cops are bad, dontcha know? When Gremmie asked how you would feel if a poster on the forum considered you scum simply because of your profession, and would wish wholescale slaughter of your profession if they 'weren't a pacist' you... referenced external hate sites? Um, OK, there are sites on the internet dedicated to hating lawyers. There are also sites dedicated to hating blacks, women, men, whites, government works, doctors, you name it. You glossed over the fact that Gremmie was asking how you would feel if you were called scum by another poster on *this forum*.

Instead of providing an understanding and empathetic answer, such as "Yeah, I wouldn't like it. You shouldn't be judged as an individual just because some cops are bad.", you engaged in misdirection that is typical of you liberals. You're just as hateful as Tiassa when you attempt to mitigate his bad behaviour. Let's face it, you both hate cops in general, and you aren't willing to give them a fair and impartial hearing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Genesis Chapter 3.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that was completely obvious from his rigging of the grand jury hearing. That is also why thousands of people who knew his record and biases petitioned to have him removed or recuse himself.

Why yes.

And you are arguing that rigging a grand jury hearing to protect a favored accused from risk of jury trial is "fair" and "just".

You are mistaken, again, about the complaint - people who are objecting to the rigged grand jury hearings are complaining about Wilson being allowed to sway the grand jury with coached and unexamined testimony for even ten minutes.

You were wrong, again. He avoided cross examination, was challenged on none of the inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony, and could have chosen to say nothing at any time - it's called having the fix in.

You would be wrong, if you thought that. Not in a friendly grand jury hearing. You are thinking of the kind of stuff that happens at trials. His contradictions, inconsistencies, and carefully coached deceptions and falsehoods, did not incriminate him, and he knew they would not incriminate him, because he was not sitting in the witness stand at a trial.

He was avoiding the risk of self-incrimination, not taking it.

In comparison to the normal examination witnesses expect at trials.

Suspects are not normally questioned at grand jury hearings. If they are, they are supposed to be questioned by a prosecutor attempting to obtain an indictment against them - an unfriendly attorney who does not coach and lead the suspect to put themselves in the best light for the grand jury.

It's possible that almost all grand jury hearings run like this are rigged events featuring similarly gentle treatment of the suspect, so this rig job was typical of rigged grand jury hearings. I wouldn't know. So what if it was?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cross-examination? I don't think you know what a grand jury hearing actually is. Protip: It's not a criminal trial, which is adversarial in nature.

If he made contradictions and inconsistencies without any cross-examination, how was he at no risk of incriminating himself before an impartial grand jury?

He was avoiding the risk of self-incrimination by choosing to waive his 5th amendment right to not testify before a grand jury. The mental gymnastics liberals perform to justify their distorted worldview is nothing short of mind-boggling.

 

Oh, you 'didn't agree'. How very proper. Instead of condemning Tiassa for stating that 'if he wasn't a pacifistic', he would endorse the wholescale slaughter of the police force (?!), you went on to criticise the culture of policing in America. Gremmie acknowledged this, but rightfully pointed out that a poster on this forum shouldn't be subjected to that sort of vitriol and stereotyping. And then you made the topic all about *you*. Ok Bells, I get it, you're a professional victim. You've supposedly been treated horribly in real life, and your profession is the subject of ridicule and hatred on other forums. It's all very tragic. I'll say a prayer for you. That doesn't change the fact that you not only refused to condemn hatred occurring your own backyard, but attempted to mitigate it. That's the sort of bias we are dealing with in this thread. How can we trust anything Tiassa and you have to say on this subject, considering your underlying resentment of police officers?

 

Referring to a fantasy book. Hilarious. The lying started long before any part of that book was written. In that fantasy book tho, the 1st fabricating absolute bullshit was Genesis 1:1.

 

Bravo. You are a doing a stand up job of rubbing their noses in their own excrement...Well done. The time is fast approaching when a separation of the two mindsets/groups must take place...the thought of it is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. Even so, their pernicious and putrid mindset will worm its way in among a new generation.

 

The fantasy is your own, and waking up from it will be a horrifying experience for you. You would do well to come to grips with yourself now rather than later because presently terms are being offered--that is, while you draw breath...when your breathing stops, no quarter will be offered or given. Interestingly, in one sense, what is being revealed through your (plural) attitudes, viewpoints, mindsets etc presented here throughout this thread serves as a metaphorical illustration of your (plural) attitude towards the Ultimate Authority over all mankind. Its really quite telling...a sight to behold. What you would never admit otherwise you have freely presented as a testimony against yourselves. As it is written, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."

 

Stop lying to me about me. No experience will ever be horrifying for me. I fear nothing. Get that thru your thick skull. You would do well to snap out of your delirious deluded dreamworld before trying to advise others. No frigging terms are being offered to me. I cannot have any attitude toward any supposed ultimate authority until it gets the courage to show itself. Neither can you. Your fearful fanatic fantasy does not give you any right to lie time & time again.

 

I don't agree with your definition of racism as implied by your posts, so leveling that accusation at me holds no weight whatsoever. As far as white supremacy, that's laughable given my beliefs. Assuming the two co exist in the heart and mind of a believer in Christ is a feat that could only be imagined/accomplished by someone comfortable practicing all manner of mental contortions to compensate for their lack of logical and factual consistency. That I look like a fool to you is not surprising...recognizing the absurdity as hypocritical and an example of "offensive beliefs" testifies to the fact that, at your core, you possess the requisite qualifications and abilities to think otherwise than you do about many things except you deliberately choose not to do so; therefore--barring repentance on your part--you will be declared guilty of willingly believing a lie.

Indeed the justice so many pine for shall certainly be meted out. In the meantime, rather than being so zealous for justice, cry out for mercy.

For the record, both Brown and Garner received justice.

 

I stand by every word I wrote (and you quoted); neither of the quotes/comments has anything to do with white supremacism.

The reason for quoting "on behalf of white supremacism" and following it up with the link was to point out that white supremacism as a controlling influence is a myth. Do isolated pockets of such people exist? Of course, but by and large they do not represent the viewpoint of the majority of whites. Furthermore, and to the point, the influence of those isolated groups among their fellow whites pales in comparison to the disproportionate influence blacks wield with respect to social mores / behaviors among whites despite the fact they are--like white supremacists--a small minority of the population. That was the point.

No one is gleefully pondering what is going to happen to people when they die, such an accusation, again, could only arise from your own ignorance; it is completely inconsistent with my beliefs (based on the Bible) to feel that way about other people. The same goes for your comment accusing me of thinking "it's everyone else and not them. So of course you think everyone is wrong." That's absurd. Your closing admonition regarding reality is laughable given your continual misunderstanding / misrepresentation of my intentions and the missing of my points. Take a chill pill.

 

LOL From someone overheating from compulsive fantasy & obsessed with telling strangers they will be frightened by your imaginary boogieman & other crap you cannot possibly know.
You spew absurdities yet think you can tell what's absurd.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which article contradicted what prior argument? As for when this grand jury approach is used, I addressed that question in my last post.

I haven’t looked up specific cases, but apparently neither have you.

My disrespect for the Constitution? Ha! You’re the one advocating that prosecutors rig the grand jury process to favor an indictment in spite of the law and weight of opposing evidence.

Like all other living human beings there are people I do not respect, but I don’t recall mentioning anyone specifically in this thread. Who did you have in mind?

You mean the same prosecutors that manage the typically styled grand jury processes that also fail to indict police officers in deadly force cases? Could it be it has more to do with the atypical rights of police officers than the atypical nature of the grand jury process? Grand juries don’t generally indict cops for the same reason prosecutors are reluctant to file complaints against them. Because the law doesn’t equate their action to that of an average citizen, they get more leeway in the use of deadly force, which requires a much higher burden of proof to effectively indict and prosecute. So don’t whine about the prosecutors, whine about the law.

 

If you look at the choking death in New York, in a larger context, the encounter, itself, was due to a man selling single cigarettes and not paying taxes. That was the crime that needed a small army. These two connected things are democratic and liberal pet peeves. The tax and spend democrats love to extort taxes, and they hate cigarettes, to where even death is now justified when democratic mafia doesn't get its way.

Prohibitions always create black markets, with the excessive taxes on cigarettes in NY ($13/pack) creating a positive black market who can undersell the retailers in poor neighborhoods and still make money. This good business and social sense cuts into extortion tax and allows cigarettes to flow, so the Nazi democrats had to set an example. They brought in a small army to take him out.

What I also noticed is all the cities being accused of police racism against blacks, where marches appear, are Democratic controlled. This is logical since the democratic party is the historical party of slavery, segregation and KKK. Liberals can't see the big picture, but get easily bogged down into the smaller context of the march. At this level nothing will ever change, other than feeling good for a few days. If nothing changes at the top of the democratic leadership, changes at the bottom ,will not change anything, other than lead to the division that perpetuates the planation.

As an experiment, look at republican controlled cites and compare crime, employment, and need for force for republican blacks who have escaped the planation. The Republican have always been the party of anti-slavery and NAACP. Think in terms of data and larger context and not bottom level context and sentiment.