An inconvenient truth

now you being as intelectually dishonest as micheal is. it wasn't just some the entire police department was thick with racism.

and yet he got away with murder.

you mean the same grand jury that has a member suing the prosecuter for intentionally misleading the jury on the law and misrepresenting what happened?

quit your petulent childish whinying. he was a racist prick who should have never been a cop who gunned someone down because he could and got off because of an improperly conducted grand jury which you've claimed was the way they are done there for implicently stating almost all grand juries are improperly conducted thats on you and your racism[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I do have a history of using fact and reason. Yeah, DOH finding hold there isn’t enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson and it gives reasons for that conclusion like witness testimony and the physical evidence. That exonerates Officer Wilson. You do know what the word “indictment” means?

Oh, and how many times constitutes “keeps reminding”, one? You keep bringing up the issue. Per my last post, if the race card you have been playing has any merit, you would have to conclude Attorney General Holder and President Obama are racist against blacks which obviously they are not. The unpleasant fact for you is that the DOJ findings validate the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ report found no fault with the prosecutor or the grand jury.

Oh, like what? As I said before truth, fact and logical argument are not racist. If you could make a fact based cogent argument rather than the plethora of illogical arguments you have been giving, you would have a case. But you haven’t and you cannot so you will not. Calling me names will not make your argument any more tenable.

Ok, more ad hominem. If it doesn’t bother you then why did you bring it up? Based on your repeated personal attacks, I don’t think you are worried about my image.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And where is the evidence for that assertion? Let me guess it is with your other assertions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No I didn’t. You were quite clear.

Yes I did, the question is did you. You are once again doing what you have consistently done throughout this discussion. You are cherry picking. Apparently the portion of the material I referenced which validated the grand jury findings didn’t register with you. You know the portion which explains the physical evidence and credible eye witness testimony validates the actions of Officer Wilson and the grand jury findings?
Further, you have been arguing for months now that there was plenty of evidence to prosecute Officer Wilson if only that nasty prosecutor hadn’t allowed one witness to testify before the grand jury. So when you now say the DOJ validates what you have been saying, that just isn’t true Bells. You have been complaining about the nasty prosecutor and how the grand jury incorrectly concluded there was no evidence upon which to charge Officer Wilson from the onset of this affair.

And what is your basis for that claim? I know you have been repeatedly told what a grand jury does, but apparently you still don’t understand the role of a grand jury. The grand jury had everything to do with not charging Officer Wilson that was the whole point of the grand jury, to determine if a crime had been committed and who to indict if anyone. What went on the grand jury had everything to do with not charging Officer Wilson.

Noting the race of Attorney General Holder and President Obama isn’t racist. Pointing out the absurdity of your argument isn’t racist either. You are the one who has consistently played the race card in this discussion. And if you have read any of my previous posts related to Attorney General Holder or President Obama, you would know I am a supporter of each. And that isn’t racist either.

Did I say black people always defend black people? No I didn’t. You did. One of the reasons I like President Obama and Attorney General Holder is because they are not racists. You have consistently played the race card with the grand jury and the prosecutor and now you have Attorney General Holder and President Obama validating the findings of the Ferguson grand jury. So was Attorney General Holder and President Obama fooled too by that nasty prosecutor? Are Attorney General Holder and President Obama also racists? Are you willing to call them racists as you have with the Ferguson prosecutor? Are you willing to cross that line?

Seriously Bells…? This may come as a surprise to you but in the English language we have many words which mean the same thing they are called synonyms. Just because the word “exonerate” isn’t used in the text, it doesn’t mean that the text as a whole doesn’t exonerate Officer Wilson. I thought you were smarter than that.

Well yes it does say there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute, but it also says more than that. It says there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute because the credible eye witness testimony and the physical evidence indicate Officer Wilson was justified in his use of deadly force. You are cherry picking again.

LOL..that is nonsensical hyperbole. Where is your evidence to back that up? You have none as has been repeatedly pointed out. The DOJ report finds, contrary to your claims, Officer Wilson was justified because the physical evidence and the credible witnesses indicated Officer Wilson was justified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course you don’t. Ideologues aren’t able to see evidence and reasons which runs contrary to their beliefs.

LOL, is that the best you can do Bells…making an issue of a typo?

The real question is do you know what exonerate means.

Actually, I have. It’s the part you keep ignoring…you know…the part which validates the finding of the Ferguson grand jury and debunks the allegations you have made about Officer Wilson.

I linked to the actual Department of Justice report. I used their words. Now, the report didn’t use the word exonerate. But it did

As previously pointed out, it isn’t unusual that there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute innocent people. Additionally, this isn’t Russia. There is never a guarantee of conviction in our system of justice.

LOL, seriously Bells….?

Oh hogwash! That is just more ad hominem from you. You cannot win on fact and reason, so you bring out all the illogical arguments.

You have been calling anyone who disagrees with you racist. Now, Attorney General Holder and President Obama are in that column. The recently released report from Attorney General Holder’s office agrees with what I have been saying since this discussion began and debunks what you have been claiming. So being consistent, you should be claiming President Obama and Attorney General Holder are also racists. But you are not consistent. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t make them racist Bells. You are abusing the word.

On one hand we have people like you who see racists behind every argument. And on the other we have people like Republican Secretary of State of Kansas peddling the notions that President Obama has made it impossible to prosecute blacks for civil rights violations and will soon make it illegal to prosecute blacks for any crime. Both are absurd positions.

You keep bringing up the issue of Attorney General Holder and President Obama’s race. So if you object, then stop bringing it up. Yes, I have used the word lynching to describe what you and others of your ilk have tried to do with Officer Wilson and it is an apt descriptor. You were not and are not interested in fact and reason with respect to Officer Wilson. You and others like you had convicted Officer Wilson even before the investigation had been completed.

Yes, I am well aware of the practice of lynching, apparently more so that you. The practice of lynching wasn’t confined to only one race. There were plenty of white people lynched too. Perhaps you are the one who skipped history classes.

Calling someone a racist isn’t name calling in your book? I think most people will disagree with you on that one.

LOL, oh, and just what words have I used that would lead a reasoned person to conclude I have “fawningly” described Officer Wilson? I haven’t described Officer Wilson at all. And you know my psyche too? Are you psychic? You are making stuff up again Bells.

I don’t know Officer Wilson. How can I describe him? What I don’t like is when people are railroaded regardless of their profession or race. You were and continue to railroad Officer Wilson. You had convicted him even before the investigation had been completed. You had no evidence to even establish probable cause and you still have no such evidence. But you never let a little thing like no evidence get in your way.

Where did I ever say police officers were above the law? Probably from the same place where make the claim you know my psyche and that fawning allegation. I never said that Bells. You are making stuff up again. It’s another one of those illogical arguments you are so fond of. If police officers violate the law they should be fully prosecuted. But they or anyone else for that matter shouldn’t be frivolously prosecuted. They shouldn’t become scapegoats. If Officer Wilson violated the law, he should be prosecuted. But to do that you need evidence. And as reinforced with the recently released DOJ report, you have none.

Ok, Officer Wilson lost his job. He was forced by circumstance to resign…nothing new there.

Did I? I don’t think so. You need evidence. The only thing you have going for you is the testimony of discredited witnesses.

I think you need to take your own advice and look up the definition of the word “exonerated”. I mean the part were the DOJ report specifically debunks your argument claims.

I am sorry you were raped. But that doesn’t make every man rapists. The Ferguson Police Department had and probably still has racists in it, but that doesn’t make Officer Wilson guilty of any crime in the shooting of Brown.

You are quibbling over words because that is all you have left. The DOJ report clearly debunks your claims about Officer Wilson in the Brown shooting case.

 

You are being silly now.

Oh, and what would lead you to that conclusion?

First, you have no evidence to indicated the prosecutor “deliberately” invited “people to lie” before the grand jury. Second, this demonstrates your continuing unwillingness or inability to understand what a grand jury is and its role in our criminal justice system. As has been endlessly brought to your attention, the grand jury is an investigative body. It investigates potential criminal cases in order to find probable cause. Should investigators not talk to people because they might lie to them? That is basically the argument you are making.

This yet again demonstrates you inability to understand the role of the grand jury.

 

pull your fucking head out of your ass joe. the PROSECUTER IS BEING SUED BY A MEMBER OF THE GRAND JURY FOR LYING TO THEM. yes we know the grand jury is an investigative body but they didn't get to invesitgate. it was a show trial designed to get wilson off. you may think grand juries are used to get people off but their not. the only people grand juries give this pass to our cops which you have convientently ignored yet again


http://www.scribd.com/doc/257917414/Ferguson-Grand-Juror-Doe-Opposition-to-Dismiss#scribd
YOU ARE WRONG deal with it.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From today's ChinaDaily. Much of the world (people of color at least) hold this view of US.

It is not accurate - Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson's revolver would not hold 9 shots.

 

You need to take your own advice. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the juror isn't suing the prosecutor because he allegedly lied to them, but because the juror wants the customary gag order on grand juries removed. And it will likely be thrown out as a frivolous law suit.


http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-pros...-to-discuss-darren-wilson-case-202149357.html

It's a fact, instead of this continual misrepresentation of facts, how about dealing honestly with the truth? Take your own advice and deal with it.

 

Did I say I had black friends? No I didn’t. You are making stuff up again. The only one playing word games here is you my friend. You have been accusing anyone with the temerity to be honest and objective racist. If you want to be consistent, you will now have to call Attorney General Holder and President Obama racists too. Because they don't agree with you either.

As previously pointed out, a simple Google search can easily disprove your assertion. People do get away with crimes (e.g. OJ Simpson). But that doesn’t mean Officer Wilson did anything wrong in the Brown case. You are scapegoating Officer Wilson for all the ills you perceive in our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system isn’t perfect. I don’t know of one that is. But it is certainly better than anything else I have seen. Under our system of justice, people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. People are not convicted without evidence or for political reasons and thank God for that.

Making stuff up again I see, nothing new there.

I have already posted those words. Your steadfast refusal to recognize them won’t change anything. It won’t make them go away. I’ll post a few of those words again for your edification.

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.”

Quoting partisan opinion pieces which can easily be disproved with a Google search isn’t convincing. And yes the DOJ did say Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. I'll repeat myself for the third time.

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.”

Now you can quibble that the report didn’t use the “justified”. But any reasonable interpretation of that sentence would lead an objective reader to conclude the writer thought Officer Wilson’s actions were justified.

You should stop worrying about word size and focus more on the meaning of the actual words used in the report. Your quibbling over words is just a distraction from the fatuous nature of your arguments.

By the way, only you have used to word pardon and you have used it appropriately here. Pardon means to forgive. There is nothing to forgive in the Brown case as there is no guilt. Exoneration is to find someone guiltless, “to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime or responsible for a problem, bad situation, etc.” Exoneration isn’t a special power that is confined to a court as you seem to think it is although courts (triers of fact) do exonerate defendants.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ld-dies-after-being-shot-by-officer/24552525/

 

Oh boy, more ad hominem. You have created a tribute to sophistic argument.

Another sophistic argument, why am I not surprised? So is it your position now that Officer Wilson acted reasonably? Because that is what the DOJ report said. You have argued for months, since before the incident had been investigated that Officer was guilty of murder and should have been arrested, tried and convicted. You argued, the grand jury should have indicted Officer Wilson and if only the prosecutor had prohibited one witness from testifying before the grand jury, Officer Wilson would have been charged with some wrong doing. The DOJ report dispels that belief.

So unless you are going to now say you have been kidding all these months, yeah, the DOJ report isn’t consistent with what you have been saying since day one.

What you didn’t read that list of police officer convictions? Do you need me to repost the list? Contrary to your assertion police officers do get indicted, tried and convicted when there is evidence of criminal wrong doing.

You are implying police officers are rampantly murdering unarmed black men in the US, and you have absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. The percentage of people killed by police officers in the US every year is infinitesimal. That includes all races.

If you have evidence of something untoward, now is the time to show it. But you don’t have evidence. You are just pulling stuff out of the derriere.

Except, I didn’t leave anything out, you did. And you have done it consistently throughout this thread.

Yes, I did look at them. Eric Garner’s killer wasn’t indicted. I am on record as saying NYPD mismanaged that incident and I disagreed with the grand jury. I don’t think murder chargers were warranted because it lacked criminal intent. But one incident does not a pattern make.

I did, didn’t you read it?

Three people, so that makes you right? I don’t think so. I can probably guess who they are.

I’ll once again repeat the DOJ summary:

“For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.” - DOJ

You have contended all along Officer Wilson didn’t act reasonably, and you maintained there was enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson. That isn’t what the DOJ report says. It specifically debunks all of your assertions one by one. And anyone who is interested can read it. I previously posted a link to the DOJ document in its entirety.

 

LOL.. drop the pretenses Bells, you believe what you want to believe evidence, truth, and reason be damned. It's just that simple.

You can't handle truth and reason, hence the heavy reliance on fallacious argument.

 

Here is an example of a white officer who shot and killed an unarmed black person - and was convicted of first degree manslaughter. Thus they do not always get away with it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/loca...for-fatally-shooting-unarmed-teen-in-back.ece

 

Disprove what? You area the person making the extraordinary claims, it's not my job to prove your beliefs. Those links don't prove your assertion that cops are not prosecuted when they violate the law. Hell most of your links don't even make that claim. So for starters, those links don’t say what you seem to think they say. Only one goes so far as to make the absolutes you have made. And it floats a massive conspiracy theory, for which it has absolutely no evidence. The bottom line is you have no evidence to support your claim that police are not indicted for crimes because they manipulate the grand jury process –even with your golden links. Your issue appears to be with the jury process. Now in the past you have denied you have a problem with the jury process, but then you keep contradicting that claim with periodic attacks on the jury process…such as the one you just referenced.

Additionally and as previously stated, the authors of the articles you referenced were pushing a political agenda. They weren’t objective observers, so it shouldn’t be shocking they offered virtually no evidence to support their claims. It was mostly demagogic rhetoric. It’s the Fox News equivalent. There is a difference between demagogic rhetoric and reasoned discussion. That fact seems to elude you.

And finally, you ignore inconvenient evidence. Your claims and the material in your “golden” links have been repeatedly disproven. First by the links I referenced which listed police officers who had been not only indicted but convicted of crimes like manslaughter and murder, and then by Bilvon. And you did what you always do, ignore fact and evidence which is inconsistent with your ideological beliefs.

In your last post it appears you are finally backing off your absolutes that cops never get indicted in the US. Your latest claim is that it is exceedingly rare. Well, as previously pointed out to you, police involved shootings are exceedingly rare. So it should be expected that convictions of police officers for murder or manslaughter should also be exceedingly rare as well. That should be viewed as a good thing, not a bad thing. Just how many cops do you think we need to indict and convict every year? Are you arguing for a quota system, where we indict and convict police officers based not on evidence but on some quota system you and your fellows scheme up in order to be "fair"? Justice isn't a statistic. Justice should be rooted in evidence and rational thought. Wrong doers regardless of social class should be held accountable for the crimes the commit. And in a similar vein we shouldn't hold innocents accountable for crimes they have not committed.