An inconvenient truth

For justice to be served, a trial is required.
Two sets of eye witnesses are saying two different things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who said anything about setting things on fire? That came out of your mouth, not mine. The fact is that you didn't pull Tiassa up on his poor behaviour, but instead took to lecturing Gremmie about the 'thin blue line', and bemoaning how lawyers are regarded by society. Listen, I get it. People hate lawyers. People hate cops. People hate all sorts of professions. The issue was that a poster (actually a *moderator*) on this forum implied that a poster was unethical scum because of their profession. When said poster clarified that they had never behaved in an unethical fashion, the moderator intimated that they were lying. If you didn't behave like such a primadonna, and actually paid attention to what was going on around you, you might have noticed this. In essence, it's clear that Tiassa and yourself have a deep seated bias against the police force.

You're not fooling anyone, ice. What you need is a guilty verdict, followed by a public tar and feathering of the officer. You are already convinced of Wilson's guilt, and just need to have it rubber stamped by the judicial process. When said judicial process didn't provide you with the answer you wanted, you cried foul. Boo hoo hoo, cry me a river.

We've already seen numerous incidents of liberal mental gymnastics on this thread. For example, Officer Wilson contradicted himself when he provided his version of events, but was supposedly at no risk of incriminating himself (*chortle*). We've heard that his testimony weren't cross-examined, even though they were by the grand jurors (that's the whole point of having a grand jury, folks). We've heard all sorts of statistics about police violence being disproportionately higher against blacks, in spite of that having nothing to do with this individual case. And apparently it was wrong for Officer Wilson to fire his gun while being pummeled, because he was shielding his face in order to protect himself. Apparently he should have just let himself be bludgeoned into unconsciousness.

The fact is that the evidence was heard by 12 impartial grand jurors, who cross-examined Wilson. And guess what: They couldn't find probable cause to charge him.

Now, for an ordinary citizen, that would mean this whole saga would now be over. By rights, Wilson's grand jury proceedings should have remained secret in order to protect his reputation, and he should be able to move on with life, his named cleared. So my question to the liberals on this thread is: Don't you think Wilson should be afforded the same legal protections that any other citizen is? I mean, why is that such a novel concept for you guys? Can't you just deal with the fact that you were wrong, and get over it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"I bet that if you go over the border, the first thing you will see, apart from drug runners shooting each other,
is shops selling big hats and blankets to tourists.
Could be wrong."

I don't know if you're wrong, but I know a racist when I read them.

"Here. A Mexican shop in Mexico.
With Mexican people wearing Sombreros because people like the costumes.
If it was offensive they wouldn't sell them."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A mexican shop in Mexico, huh...yea right. That's you, the old lady, and your adopted son taken yesterday in your living room...now I know why you like my look...it's all making sense now. I'm ready to launch a campaign on how you're a racist who hates whites and deserve to be lynched by a mob of irrational lunatics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since when does the term charge exclusively refer to sprint? Charge simply means to move forward quickly, and a 6’ 4” 300 lb angry man moving towards you at even a fast walk can reasonably be perceived as a charge.
​

In Wilson’s state of fear and anxiety a 3 mph jog could understandably be interpreted as running, and the range of witnesses also describe Brown as either running or walking towards Wilson.

The crime report data shows a blood stain from Brown 27 ft west of the where he fell, and a spent casing 20 ft west of the body, so given that an ejected casing can travel 10 ft, that puts Wilson within his 15 ft estimation for his initial shot. So we know Brown moved at least 27 ft in Wilson’s direction, and from the location of the spent casings we can estimate that Wilson moved backwards as much as 23 ft to a location 3-13 ft from where brown fell, putting him within the 8-10 ft range for his final shot. The location of the spent casings also demonstrate that Wilson was indeed moving backwards while firing, and contradicts the assertion of the audio experts that he was not moving. And whatever form of locomotion Brown exhibited for the claimed 6.5 seconds, to move at least 27 ft would require an average speed of around 3 mph.

Check the numbers for yourself.

Crime Scene Map

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...rguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png

Police Report Graphic

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...guson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/picture2.png

 

Gah... got a half-completed reply stuck in my editor

 

These two comments reveal the quintessential leftist mindset at its basic level.

"ensure fairness" ---> Expectation of perfectionism

closely realted to:

"deserve" ---> Entitlement mentality

These two childish qualities are the fuel of the marxist worldview. When you understand this, most everything about how they behave (including how they argue, why they do what they do in the ways they do to attain their goals) will make sense. As pointed out earlier, at the core is a profound selfishness. Understand a child, and you will understand a Marxist. Parents who let children run the household will soon find themselves engulfed in chaos.

 

If looking at the world through the eyes of a child is Marxist, then damn, think I've found my label...

Children have an innocent, basic understanding of right and wrong... to be frank, I think they have it right. They know simple things - teasing someone is wrong because it upsets them. Stealing from someone is wrong. Someone going without enough food is wrong...

*shakes head* I would say, more than anything, they live by a simple mindset of "if I were them, how would I want to be treated"... and honestly, is that such a bad thing?

 

Maybe I'm a racist, and maybe I hate whites, but I'm also a Marxist, and I demand the right to a fair trial where I'm found innocent.

 

I don't know why he would have turned around - at the same time, I dont' know why he didn't just comply with officer Wilson's instructions, nor do I know why he robbed a convenience store not long before this whole thing went down.

 

From the article by Paul Cassell you posted:

Of course, if McCulloch’s recommendation was against filing charges, then he would never have gone to the grand jury in a normal case.​

As I noted in my response:

We might recall that Cassell linked out to an article↱ that included Dan Abrams talking about prosecutors using grand juries for political cover. And political cover is exactly what people presumed from the outset.​

From the Schwarz article you posted in lieu of responding to the several posts analyzing the Cassell article:

As became clear in his remarks last night, he genuinely did not believe that Wilson had committed a crime.​

You also cited an article that includes Susan McGraugh:

Susan W. McGraugh, a criminal-defense lawyer and a professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, said that the approach is allowed under the law and that prosecutors sometimes use it in high-profile cases.

“The prosecutor may want cover, which they can get by sharing the responsibility with the grand jury,” McGraugh said.​

And you cited it twice. And remember that the first article you posted, by Cassell, thinks Susan McGraugh is wrong.

And when we go back to the point at which I asked you why you make blithe arguments in contradiction of the record, well, think about that post. Your original position—

"Of course they’re supposed to be hearing Wilson’s story. Not only does Wilson have a right tell his story in a grand jury proceeding, he is also an eye witness to the incident, which makes his story part of the body of evidence the grand jury is tasked to examine."​

—is inaccurate. As a matter of due process, the officer got extraordinary protection under the law, you would have to show that allowing the subjects of grand jury investigations to testify for four hours is statistically normal in order to make the case otherwise; we already know it is not because while grand jury proceedings are usually kept secret, we do have a record of the indictments and can determine how many of those subjects were invited to testify on their own behalf. One can certainly establish a version of the right to testify in the abstract, but in questions of due process and equal protection this shooter has just been given extraordinary treatment.

And it has been apparent that you're arguing for the sake of picking bones.

And what was it you said? "How about you list your objections to how this particular grand jury proceeding was conducted so I can address them specifically, and then we can determine the veracity of the claims from both sides."

You've done anything but address those objections; you posted a shaky political argument, ignored the explanation of why that article was wrong, and now you're throwing more sources at the issue that contradict that contradict your first source.

Meanwhile, you're ignoring the analysis in the several posts examining the Cassell argument, choosing instead to dismiss that discusison as an "ensemble of pundits", yet what you ended up doing was arguing around the central question you need to answer: Who else gets this treatment before a grand jury?

Cassell, Schartz, McGraugh; the one common point between their analyses is that this was not an ordinary grand jury process.

And this is the problem with asserting that the justice system has done its duty in the question of a homicide ending the life of Michael Brown. Apparently, it required extraordinary deviation from the normal course in order to secure this "justice".

Due process and equal protection are anchors for our society; they are markers defining the fundamental shape of justice. Lawyers fight every day in courtrooms over incredibly minute details of due process, and yet in this question, for whatever reason, there are people pretending that a deviation from standard due process of this magnitude has no bearing on anything.

 

No, I don't think that...you--erroneously-- think I think that. Claiming someone deserves something they don't is one example of an entitlement mentality. You don't deserve a fair trial when it's been determined that a trial is not necessary.

The police did not "deem people guilty and kill them." Brown and Garner died as a result of breaking the law. They received the harshest penalty because they elected to waive their right to a trial where a lighter sentence would likely have been pronounced.

I both affirm the Constitution and do not believe "the right to a fair trial is "entitlement mentality" " guess that leaves me here for now.

I also disagree that North Korea would love to have me as I am a patriotic American and a Christian. Trust me when I say those very qualities are becoming a liability right here in the US.

 

Let me say right off, from what I've read of your posts, in my opinion, you're a relatively good person...so, with all due respect, the image you have portrayed does not comport with reality...it's not even one half of the child coin realistically. Children do have wonderful qualities that we--sadly--should never out grow as adults...it seems that those wonderful qualities fade as we age while the more negative traits become more pronounced...Children are extremely self centered, and can be very devious (dividing dad and mom) and downright mean when insisting on indulging that same selfishness. As the father of seven children, I'm well aware of their nature...they can be very sweet in their appeal to you, but deny them what they think they should have or want and suddenly...look out...what we have in my estimation concerning these mobs are adults manifesting the worst traits of children...and I think--as mentioned before--marxism is childish behavior and outlook--immaturity on steroids.

Maturity should be our goal: "When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things."

 

I would say it depends on what age child you are looking at - 4, 5, and 6 year olds do not (at least, in my experience with my younger siblings, and the nieces and nephews from my wifes side of the family) tend to express the greed, disdain, and prejudices that adults so often fall victim to. Yes, they can tend to not share (they are using it at the time, sharing it means they have to stop using it and they weren't done) or sometimes throw a fit if they don't get their way (though this again seems to vary greatly depending on how they are raised)... maturity? Yes, maturity is essential... but in general, hatred, greed, prejudice, racism... these are learned behaviors, learned from watching the adults around them.

At least, that's been my observation

 

I disagree concerning hatred and greed but I believe a good argument can be made that prejudice and racism are learned behaviors....the notion of how they are learned and from whom is unclear in my opinion, but whatever.

 

I dunno... I mean, at least from what I've observed, kids tend to start off "neutral" in terms of generosity/greed as well as hatred or learning to let go - they pick up VERY quickly based on how their parents are, as well as those around them.

 

True that: "...And he said unto them, How is it that you sought me? knew you not that I must be about my Father's business?...And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man... "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God...The Son is the image of the invisible God"

And there is hope for us who believe because:" those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Who is the Image of The Father), that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

Truly good news.