An inconvenient truth

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

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

    to hide all adverts.
  3. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    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?
    Nutter and joepistole like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    "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 I know why you like my'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.
    Nutter likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    You weren't even here then, so you don't really know what happened back then, just as you do not know of any of my correspondence with the parties involved in that particular discussion or other discussions going on at the same time. So before you start accusing me of things I never said or did, I'd suggest you calm down, get a clue and stop still trying to stereotype people incorrectly and offensively.

    I asked you previously to provide links and back up your claims of my supposed feelings for the police, and you are yet to do it. You are linking to a thread from months before you ever came to this site, trying to steer this thread off topic with it and making ridiculous and wild accusations and taking things completely out of context, not to mention misrepresenting them. The most idiotic part of your behaviour is that you are trying to start something or wade into something of which you know nothing about, because you were not here when those discussions happened, were you tali89? So why are you trying to insert yourself into something that did not concern you back then, nor does it concern you now and nor do you even understand the context of what was said back then or even what happened back then because you were not here.

    You appear to have made it your business to try to get into my business. I'll give you some advice. And I suggest you heed it and heed it well. If you are going to accuse me of something, then you had best be able to back it up. You have yet to provide any proof of any of your offensive commentary or your offensive stereotyping (from your stereotyping about liberals and feminists, to how we look, our weight, our work ethic, our wealth, etc.. you've stereotyped about it all, all without proof, just made up by you). In short, you are nothing more than the yapping little chihuahua's that one sometimes gets in threads. Like Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter. You aren't able to actually back up your argument so instead, you just make stuff up and hope no one notices. You make stuff up about other people (even my parents, I mean really, you couldn't find anything better to insult, that you went for my parents? It was akin to a 5 year old saying 'yo mama so fat'..), you stereotype and do so in the most offensive manner imaginable and not once have you actually backed up your wild and ridiculous arguments. Perhaps you do this for attention?

    As I noted before, if you need to make things up about people and stereotype as you do because it makes you feel better about yourself, that's fine, then you need to let us know and we can work around it. If not, then as I said, you just end up being that little yapping chihuahua doing all it can to get someone to notice it. I'll put it this way, we can excuse, to an extent, if you do have self esteem issues and you need to lie about people and their spouse, parents, their weight, how they look, etc based on their political affiliation (as you did in the other thread) to make yourself feel better. If that's the case, then okay, we can work around it and treat it like it is some sort of disability that is completely outside of your control. However if your offensive stereotypes and the lies you fabricate about people (like Coulter and Limbaugh are known to do) is based solely off your hatred of someone's political affiliations, then that we cannot excuse. But you need to let us know, because this cannot continue. Just like your accusation in this thread that I apparently hate the police or have a bias towards the police and god knows what else, because the stereotype keeps changing each time you try to fabricate your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself. If you can't back it up with proof of my expressing such feelings towards the police, then it's a fairly safe bet to say that I didn't say it and don't feel that way about them. What I said was that the system itself needs to change, they need better training and corruption needs to be weeded out. How you took that and got to my hating the police, then really.. as I said, you either have some sort of issue to make up that lie, or you are just malicious enough to make up that lie. If you don't tell us that you have a problem, then I am going to assume that you are just that malicious to continually lie, fabricate and stereotype without any proof whatsoever. Okay? Do we understand each other now Tali89?

    Is that what iceaura said? No. He said, like many others, that a trial to go through the evidence, where all the evidence can be provided to determine innocence or guilt is needed.

    Why are you so against a trial that would provide a fairer resolution all round?
    I have always noticed that it is the people who feel like they have something to lose who do not want any process whereby guilt or innocence can be determined based off the evidence provided. A grand jury is not there to determine guilt or innocence.

    Oh hey look, more stereotyping.

    What a surprise.

    No tali89. What poeple object to is the fact that a grand jury hearing was one sided, and treated like a trial by a prosecutor with his own agenda, who failed to disclose all the evidence and failed in his primary duty to seek to indict and instead, told the jury to ignore the law completely and ignore any evidence that may contradict Wilson. He treated it like it was a one sided trial and he was Wilson's defense lawyer. That was not his job there. And it was a farce and a blight on your legal system. He has completely ignored the rules and common law rules to pursue his own agenda. Why did he even bother with it? It was never meant to be a trial. His treating it like one and where he acted like a defense lawyer is why people are disgusted and think there should be an actual trial. That would ensure fairness to the process at least. And frankly, both Wilson and Brown deserve a fair system. Not a hocked up one like this one was.

    Well of course they didn't. When they tried to question the contradictions, they were told not to and to ignore the law. And why would they indict when the prosecutor, the person who should be seeking to indict, did not tell them to indict and did not instruct them to indict as he was meant to do?

    If it was an ordinary citizen, there would have been a trial.

    Of course Wilson deserves the legal protections that any citizen has. If it was an ordinary citizen, there would have been a trial. Without fail. And I think that's the difference here. Wilson was not treated like an ordinary citizen for the grand jury. He was not treated the same as an ordinary citizen would have been treated by the prosecutor. He was given special treatment and protected by the prosecutor to make sure they did not indict.

    The question for you is do you think he should have been treated differently to an ordinary citizen? Do you think he should have been given the special treatment he was given?
  8. Capracus Valued Senior Member


    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

    Police Report Graphic
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Gah... got a half-completed reply stuck in my editor
  10. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    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.
    Nutter likes this.
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    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?
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014
  13. Bells Staff Member


    Since Wilson testified that Brown ran at him and charged him at a run.

    I posted Wilson's testimony. Did you miss the part where he testified that Brown ran at him?

    I am sure that if Brown had jogged at him or walked very fast at him or even power walked at him, that Wilson is able to tell the difference.

    Are you going to suggest that Wilson cannot tell the difference between a run and a jog or even a fast walk? If Wilson is unable to tell if someone is running or walking, then he should never have been a police officer in the first place.

    He clearly testified that Brown ran at him, and even explained and described Brown's posture and what his hands were doing as he was running at him. So you are going to try and change the narrative of Wilson's testimony and try and claim that Wilson was too afraid to know the difference between someone running and someone walking?

    And it still does not match up to Wilson's testimony that Brown was running at him. You are saying he must have walked at him. But that does not match Wilson's testimony (unless you want us to assume that a police officer cannot tell the difference between someone walking and running and his testimony was clear.. he initially took a stumbling step and then he ran at him... Nor does it match the recording of the shooting itself, which shows that there is no indication that the shooter was actually even moving. The image you provided could easily have applied if Wilson stood still and shot Brown.

    One other thing. Brown took off running, away from Wilson when Wilson shot at him a second time in the car. Why would he turn around and run back towards Wilson? It makes no sense that he would turn around and come back at an armed guy who had shot at him already and who was chasing him with his gun out. If he had already run away from him once, because he'd been shot at already, why would he turn around and charge at a guy who had shot at him already and whom he was trying to escape from by running away from him so fast that it appears as though his nike sandals fell off his feet and he kept running away from him.

    Now you want us to believe that he could have turned around and walked back towards Wilson.

    Which changes the whole game. Because if he stopped running away from Wilson, was that far from him, and then stopped, turned around and walked back towards Wilson, why didn't Wilson use his mace? We knew he had it, since he already testified he chose not to use it in his car? The basis of Wilson's testimony for why he shot at Brown was because Brown charged at him at a run, and was coming at him so fast and hard that he thought he was going to tackle him, so he opened fire. But if Brown was walking towards him, it greatly reduces the threat that Wilson said he was under and felt when Brown "ran" at him and one really needs to ask why he shot an unarmed man who was walking towards him from 15 feet away and was moving so slowly (you put it at 3mph) that it would have allowed Wilson ample time to incapacitate him in a different way without killing him (such as using the mace he had on him).. Wilson alleged that he felt so threatened by Brown running at him from further away as he did that he opened fire and kept shooting. Your saying that Brown must have been walking means that Wilson must have lied and that he shot at an unarmed man who was walking towards him slowly and wasn't being charged at all, which really greatly reduces the threat and increased his ability to handle the situation better than he did.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    I'm sorry, so you think that your Constitution and your Bill of Rights which demands the rights to a fair trial (notice the word trial there) is an entitlement mentality?

    Once again, the police are not judge, jury and executioner. And it is not their job to deem people guilty and kill them.

    If you disagree with your Constitution or believe the right to a fair trial is "entitlement mentality", then you should move to North Korea. And I am sure they would love to have you.
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    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.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    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.
  17. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    No, I don't think 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.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014
  18. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Let me say right off, from what I've read of your posts, in my opinion, you're a relatively good, with all due respect, the image you have portrayed does not comport with's not even one half of the child coin realistically. Children do have wonderful qualities that we--sadly--should never out grow as 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."
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    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
  20. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    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.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    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.
  22. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014
  23. Bells Staff Member

    We'll never know will we... Because he's dead.

    I think it's kind of pathetic that people are trying to change Wilson's narrative, his very own argument and testimony, to try to make it fit the actual evidence. Because at the moment it does not. At all.

    You are contradicting yourself. You claim the police do not "deem people guilty and kill them". Then a few words later, you say they received the harshest penalty because they elected to waive their right to a trial where a lighter sentence would likely have been pronounced. It is not for the police to issue the harshest penalty. At all. Especially when using banned procedures which were banned many years ago because they killed too many people and especially after lying about having used it and lying that he was in distress when the reality was that he did break the rules, he did strangle the guy to death and it was clear that the man was in distress, especially after the man lost consciousness and they did nothing at all to help him for minutes, whereupon the man died. That is not the harshest penalty. That, as the medical examiner held, is homicide. In the case of Wilson, people are trying to change his testimony to the grand jury because his testimony does not actually fit the evidence.

    When police have to lie and when people have to lie for the police to try to cover up their having killed people, then that becomes a problem.

    Which is why a trial would help answer so many of those questions.

    And yes Photizo, if you broke the law, if there is a question mark hanging over your head about your actions which resulted in someone dying, then yes, you deserve a fair trial.

    And no, Photizo, you are not a Christian. Because true Christians don't express joy at people having been killed, they do not support white supremacy or defend it, they do not make racist and bigoted comments like you have made in this thread and defended. True Christians are not full of hatred of others like you are.

Share This Page