Bells
Staff member
Which is why police officers like Wilson, for example, should face a trial. Police officers need to understand that there are consequences for their aggressive, and at times, criminal choices.
An inconvenient truth
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
So sure, she is.
What I said was:
"The aftermath was a thousand or so mourners who had nothing good to say about the police at a funeral, and whom almost started a riot. The overriding belief being, of course, that this kid was an innocent victim of manipulation who'd been unfairly been shot by police. With all the requisite religious overtones and hints at intolerance and repression."
An article later posted by Bells supposedly in support of her point, bore at least some part of that out without me really needing to post any contradictory articles at all.
I liked the part where some of the mourners supposedly began to unfurl their prayer mats on the pavement. With all the neighbours watching. In a neighbourhood where, apparently, tensions were fairly high.
Yet Bells dismisses any notion of such an act being inflammatory as... well, the ravings of a drunken loon.
Because that exempts her from the responsibility of actually needing to question her own values, and how those values might apply across the board rather than just where she would prefer to apply them.
I feel it pertinent to note at this point that I am becoming quite tired sifting through this rather long response in search of anything at all which directly addresses what I said.
No, Bells. I merely commented that "the hardliner dude" was in his position by dint of the fact that he was accepted as an authority figure. There are quite a few of those around. If the Muslim community wishes to convey that they are in fact Australians, rather than Muslims, in that order, then those hardliners need to go.
But they aren't going anywhere, are they.
No, I did not miss it. I merely questioned why those "measures" were by inference the responsibility of the Australian community, government, police, what have you... and I asked what "systems" were being put in place by the Muslims themselves to prevent their own children from being influenced by those very same authority figures put in place by... well, themselves.
Do you actually have an answer to anything at all? I suppose I'll keep reading.
I'd be at least partially satisfied if they even recognised they might be a part of the problem, but I'd once more comment on the use of your terminology.
"Investigated themselves". As if I'd said there was a conspiracy, as opposed to commenting on the standard human avoidance of self-examination.
So, your answer is "no, I have not".
Yes, actually. It is.
I can only imagine what Tiassa or yourself might have said had it been the police entering the Mosque and "peacefully" standing inside the doors, or some such.
Inflammatory actions are not peaceful.
Supposedly, at any rate. I suppose there are police officers stupid enough to dip their fingers in oil in front of a media crew and ask the crowd if this was "one of theirs", but.... you have to wonder at a piece of "journalism" attempting to pass itself as a factual account of events when it is clear to anyone reading it with a clear eye where the reporters sympathies lie.
And who it is aimed at. Because you'd accept a statement like that without even raising an eyebrow.
I suppose "journalism" has never really had much relation to the more romantic notions of what it was supposed to be, other than in increasingly rare cases.
This is actually where I have a problem, and where most of the point lies.
There is a fair chance that every single action in that article was an account of events as they occurred.
But there isn't a single person with modicum of intelligence who could read that and see it for anything other than an article entirely sympathetic to the Muslim community, with due sideswipes to the police par for the course.
Facts are facts, Bells.
How they are presented, what is included, what left out and which of them included purely for emotional effect, are the problem.
This is why Tiassa and those of his ilk are so reprehensible. Because they understand that, completely and inherently, and yet stand under the banner of tolerance and empathy.
What's disgusting about you, is that you don't know that.
You're right. I'm an incredibly intolerant person.
Hoping? I was rather asking that you be quite the opposite.
I'm aware by now I'm asking far too much.
I'm afraid, Bells, that as is so often the case nowadays, the dictionary has been again appropriated for personal use.
And no... I'm not referring to myself.
I have taken note of the definition of "empathy" as it applies on this site.
Empathy, Bells, is universal.
Not something to be co-opted and used in defence of one's own ideals.
More sifting...
This was the comment for your response:
"Right out in public, on the asphalt. With all those neighbours apparently watching.
That isn't aggressive at all, is it."
Now if you don't want to address that, that's fine. I fail to see how you think what you've just said there is going to make me do anything other than heave a rather tired sigh, though.
Now if you have anything, then address it. I mean I could tell you that I'm not feeling embarrassed at all, no matter how much you direct your comments at the wider audience in order to reinforce your own conception of self-worth.
Ignoring for the moment that there have been several instances of near- or full riots surrounding Muslim indignation at being subject to what they prefer to believe is discrimination, I'll remind you once more of something I've often said:
That I make mention of the fact that I'm drunk (and, I might add, quite honestly... I'm quite the reprobate these days) because I like to see how people will use it.
It's an excuse, you see. I'm effectively giving them permission to dismiss me entirely, solely on that basis, as you have just demonstrated your willingness to do.
Personally, I'll often read the loons just to see what they have to say. Some of their points are rather interesting. No doubt you'll construe that as support for them, which it is in no way meant to be, but then that is simply another symptom of your own particular illness. I mean to say, no matter how many times one might say "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" it has become readily apparent, on this site by way of example if not in particular, that such a notion is beyond consideration. Now, I'm not adverse to a little judicious use of ridicule, but the depths you've sunk to these days are... well, horrifying. Not in that you disagree, or even that you ridicule notions against your own particular mindset; but rather that you have even eschewed creativity or joy in it.
And, lord above, the relentless bullying.
You're not entertaining, Bells. You're just ugly.
Leave it to Tiassa to appeal to the mob.
Not that I am defending Photizo, mind you. I just enjoy taking potshots at the morally righteous.
Because they are, after all, the source of nearly all unrest in the history of the planet.
And upon further reading, and in direct conflict with some of my above comments:
This being a case in point, regarding my comments earlier on the "woos".
Racism has become a catchall phrase for any cultural conflict.
If a black man is caught breaking the law, it has become a standard defence to claim he was singled out because he was black.
Law, and the enforcement of it, has become secondary to an individuals' perception of why he was brought to justice.
That police officer didn't shoot him because he was charging him down with a knife. It was because he was a black man charging him down with knife.
But you'll run this guy out of town anyway. Doesn't fit with the community, right?
Unless, of course, he changes his behaviour so as to better sit with the laws of that community.
.... oh.
Oh, yes, there are.
'Tis such a shame we can't get rid of all of them.
My quiet chuckle, in this case, is the result of knowing you have absolutely no idea what I just said. Or even what you did.
Bells
Staff member
I see that instead of reading what I write, you are reading behind the words and putting your own meaning to it once again.
You made something up, completely made it up, what you claimed, from the media apparently blaming the police, to a near riot at the kid's funeral, never actually happened. At all. You made it up. Why did you make it up? Because you apparently and by your own admittance, read "behind the words" and saw what you wanted to see and you have decided to use this to go on some bizarre anti Muslim rant... While you may see me as ugly, Marquis, at the very least, I can look at myself in the mirror while stone cold sober and I can look myself in the eye with honesty. I do not think you can.
You know who you remind me of? John Howard. Our former Prime Minister who came out in public, showed horrific snippets of videos of refugees on boats, throwing their children overboard and the Australian Navy Personnel diving in desperately trying to save those children. The message was that we do not want these kinds of people, people who would throw their own children overboard coming to our country. People were outraged. Anti-Muslim sentiments went through the roof. The election came by, John Howard won comfortably flying on his successes against the horror of the types of Muslims who were trying to illegally enter the country and who were trying to murder their children at sea and our brave Navy personnel risking their lives to save those children. Those Muslim refugees were placed in detention centers on and off-shore, kept in inhumane conditions, where abuse and suicide and risk of suicide is rife. The reality was that the refugee boats were sinking and the families were trying to save their children by placing them overboard into the waiting arms and boats of the Australian Navy personnel who had rushed to their rescue. When the real story broke out, John Howard did all he could to explain the horrendous and offensive lie he had tried to sell to the Australian public. You remind me of him. Because here you are, virtually doing the same thing for purposes unknown. Your so called reading behind the words, you lied.
I do not care for your reasons or how you try to justify your actions. Your use of alcohol is an excuse to excuse your behaviour. I'm not buying it. Grow up. Act your age. I am not here to entertain you and I am certainly not here to pander to you and laugh at your excuses of how it is how drunk you are and all the rest of the excuses you often use to try to get people to fawn over you and your supposed greatness of insight. You lied and you did so in the worst way imaginable. You lied to disparage a whole group of people, to make them out to be something they were not. And I don't think you understand just how abhorrent that actually is.
Now, I have asked you to not speak to me again. I see that you obviously read behind the words again and you assume I want you to keep speaking to me. Perhaps it is time for you to start reading the words literally.
Bias does exist, but it is often perpetuated by parents who teach their children to be scared of policemen, and to fight them. It's in the music, the writing, the media. It's self-perpetuating behaviour.
We label cops, all cops as being racist bigots, when the problem is individuals who fight back and don't respect the law or authority. That's not to say that there aren't cops you are racist or bigots. But it's a fairly small minority.
However, if any cop has a reasonable and credible evidence that violence will be committed against him for doing his job, then he should NOT be put on trial. Cops, like any one else, should have the right to protect themselves. Mike Brown attacked him, hit him in the face twice and tried to get his gun (the autopsy report shows a close range wound to the arm that would definitely indicate that he was going for the officers weapon) as Office Wilson tried to subdue the individual. There were others standing around, if he was really just a hot head officer, he would have shot them too. Darren Wilson was afraid that if he got hit again, he would lose consciousness and that is why he fired. Clearly he was a more credible witness given the scattered and completely inaccurate witness accounts outside of the incidents. Darren Wilson's story coincided with both autopsies performed by both the prosecutor and defense. The grand jury found that there was no evidence that it was done out of racism or spite. Darren Wilson was doing his job. That should be enough for us because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty... not the other way around. Imagine a world where you were guilty until proven innocent, eh? It wouldn't be pretty.
We live in a society that has laws. They aren't racist laws, they are laws written and enforced after the civil rights movement. White people are still a majority and so by default, write the most laws and it's not a matter of intent to write laws, it's their job to do so and then the government takes the blame for writing laws that don't take Black Americans into account.
Some African-Americans claim they don't have to follow the whites laws. They feel like they are being repressed, but the movement of transcendence in any culture must come from within that culture and lift that culture from within to rise above. Historically, people who want to be seen as equal or better than, have to elevate themselves and come to an agreement within that culture on what morals and values to uphold and strive for. That's how every great nation was formed, with a common interest to have a better life. But in history, you have to grab the reigns of that chariot and push and push to get ahead.
Burning down their own neighborhood. Looting their own stores... not really a good way to earn respect and transcend.
We label cops, all cops as being racist bigots, when the problem is individuals who fight back and don't respect the law or authority. That's not to say that there aren't cops you are racist or bigots. But it's a fairly small minority.
However, if any cop has a reasonable and credible evidence that violence will be committed against him for doing his job, then he should NOT be put on trial. Cops, like any one else, should have the right to protect themselves. Mike Brown attacked him, hit him in the face twice and tried to get his gun (the autopsy report shows a close range wound to the arm that would definitely indicate that he was going for the officers weapon) as Office Wilson tried to subdue the individual. There were others standing around, if he was really just a hot head officer, he would have shot them too. Darren Wilson was afraid that if he got hit again, he would lose consciousness and that is why he fired. Clearly he was a more credible witness given the scattered and completely inaccurate witness accounts outside of the incidents. Darren Wilson's story coincided with both autopsies performed by both the prosecutor and defense. The grand jury found that there was no evidence that it was done out of racism or spite. Darren Wilson was doing his job. That should be enough for us because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty... not the other way around. Imagine a world where you were guilty until proven innocent, eh? It wouldn't be pretty.
We live in a society that has laws. They aren't racist laws, they are laws written and enforced after the civil rights movement. White people are still a majority and so by default, write the most laws and it's not a matter of intent to write laws, it's their job to do so and then the government takes the blame for writing laws that don't take Black Americans into account.
Some African-Americans claim they don't have to follow the whites laws. They feel like they are being repressed, but the movement of transcendence in any culture must come from within that culture and lift that culture from within to rise above. Historically, people who want to be seen as equal or better than, have to elevate themselves and come to an agreement within that culture on what morals and values to uphold and strive for. That's how every great nation was formed, with a common interest to have a better life. But in history, you have to grab the reigns of that chariot and push and push to get ahead.
Burning down their own neighborhood. Looting their own stores... not really a good way to earn respect and transcend.
Bells
Staff member
What happens when the physical evidence does not match what a police officer says happens?
Certainly, his testimony about how many times he shot Brown match the autopsy. But the physical evidence, such as his claims that Brown was running at him and the distance he testified to, do not match. Nor does what he claimed happened, match sound recordings of the shooting. Then of course we have the destruction of other evidence by Wilson immediately after the shooting occurred.
The grand jury were inundated with evidence, and as posted above, were given the incorrect information and misled by the prosecutor, and right towards the end, provided with the correct law and then deliberately given contradictory information.
A trial, would have sought answers for the many many discrepancies in Wilson's testimony and the physical evidence at the scene. And there are many of them. To the point where it would be impossible for Brown to have been where he was physically if Wilson's testimony is taken as truth and word for word. And that is a pretty big discrepancy by any stretch. Because as Wilson testified, Brown was coming for him, at speed and running and charging him and he felt so in fear for his life, he shot him multiple times. The physical evidence clearly shows that Brown could not have been running or charging at him as Wilson testified. If he had, then his body would not be where he was finally gunned down by Wilson. Unless of course Brown was running with the speed of a 100 year old person using a walker, if he was "running", then it is not possible for his body to have ended up where it did. And the fact that the sound recordings clearly indicated that Wilson did not move when he shot at Brown..
As I said, when the physical evidence does not match the testimony, then something is amiss. Removing all the racism accusations. Just based on that fact alone, even if Wilson had been a black police officer, there are too many discrepancies for this to not have gone to trial and it did not get to trial because the prosecutors misled the jury for weeks and then confused them and misled them again. That grand jury hearing was a farce. There is no other way to describe it. Those prosecutors were about as professional and did as competent of a job as the lawyer who told a jury that his client was guilty and deserved the death penalty and did not show the jury the evidence that he had which would have exonerated his client and when his despicable actions came to light and he faced a disciplinary hearing, turned up dressed as Thomas Jefferson. That is the level of incompetence those Prosecutors showed in that Grand Jury hearing.
Fairy pictures... google "muslim kid holding up sign" and see what you come up with. The very first result in Bing.Bells said:
That was in Australia, not long ago - and in direct reference to my comment on children being used for idealistic purposes earlier.
Want to play games, Bells?
I can. But.... I say again., these are your rules, not mine.
And I tire of the bullshit. Your quote, my quote, your fucking picture, my fucking picture.
oh, and:
So, finally you admit it? That running around with those things (check out the pictures in the link I posted, observers) sort of throws a little doubt on Bell's description of this thing as a toy?
Bells has just devoted considerable amounts of time to write off what this kid was carrying as a toy.
But faced with the thought of giving them to her own kids and sending them out in public, she admits they're likely to get killed.
Speaks for itself, really.
... this is what I started replying with, but upon having read your last response, I see it is unnecessary. I was even going to respond to the bit where I'm accused of threatening Bells, rather than demanding she put herself in someone else's shoes, but....
Because:
In spite of having mentioned very recently that Bells responses were mostly insulting, rather than actually addressing what I said, she is now attempting to claim I am guilty of the same thing.
I hope it's more understandable now, why this game of hers is unwinnable.
It's such a shame, Bells, that you never really understood anything I've ever said here. Or that which others more capable than both of us have said.
I don't actually like what I see in the mirror.
It is rather common among those who do actually understand what they are. And who also understand that others don't understand what they are.
My own particular sadness, Bells, is not something you would ever understand. Nor is my antipathy for you and yours.
Twice now, you've said something similar. A particularly female tactic I feel obligated to respond to, in spite of feeling rather bucolic at the thought that you've sunk so low.
First point -
I'd imagine it's fairly obvious even to those who don't like me particularly much, that I don't generally engage in private discussion. I will respond to a pm, usually, and that's about all - and I will often rebuff even those I like, because I really don't care for online communication.
I understand what you're trying to pull here. Like I said - ugly.
Second point.
What is this, you come on here and say something like that, and then demand I don't respond? Do you now demand that I do not respond to any posts you make, here?
And they still don't see why Sciforums is failing.
A public forum is a public forum. You talk, you take your chances.
You're a moderator. How about you grow up.
After all... those charged with the upholding of law are in some way expected, demanded, according to you and those like you, to be more than human.
So you do that. Be the paragon of virtue you demand those charged with enforcement are expected to be.
Or give the job to someone more capable. How about it Bells, do you think some more training would help?
See. Still on topic. Not that you'd ever realise it.
Why don't you just ban me, Bells. You want to. And it would show you up, finally, for exactly what you are.
I suppose the truly sad part is that you'd think that you'd won.
So there it is. The bottom line in all of this. That's what you see (homicidal police and American white supremacism) despite all evidence to the contrary whether in particular (Wilson) or in general (America). On top of that, you choose to disregard/disrespect the decision of the judicial system. It is no surprise then you sympathize with the criminal...factor in the the other points of view you have expressed in your various long winded apologies (defenses) of all that (IMO) is wrong with the world...it all makes sense, albeit in a twisted way. The only way for people who have such differing outlooks to co-exist is to place distance between them which fosters a relatively peaceful environment not by the victory of one viewpoint over another but merely by lessening the likelihood of conflict. That is where all of it is leading as I see it. There is simply no way to reconcile such divergent views/perceptions. There is no reason to insist upon imposing one view upon another...those who think and understand as you do, go your way, live in peace among yourselves to the extent that would be possible. If one seeks to impose their understandings/perceptions upon the other within close quarters, the eventual result will be war.
Vigilante justice has often been condemned as being the antithesis of law.
Yet, in the opposition of Tiassa and his supporters to the outcome of this case, it would appear that the expectation was that the courts would find in favour of the mob.
I suppose, at the end of the day, one must have a certain sense of grim satisfaction at seeing Tiassa sulking.
And, surprisingly (or not) advocating civil unrest when things didn't quite go the way he'd expected.
I wonder, also, if he also thinks he might rule it. The Mob. Once unleashed.
I suppose that might rank as quite an achievement. Especially given that the mob he rules here, is rather a small one, and that anything larger might present difficulties of which he is obviously unaware.
After all, at the end of the day, all that Michael Brown needed do was... well, put his hands up.
No offense Bells, but I don't think you understand that the grand jury spent months going over the evidence. Months. You can't know what went on and are applying perceptions that might not be accurate at all. You can't know what transcribed on a level that would even be close to the actual facts. The bottom line is that the law sided with Darren Wilson because his story was much more closely related to the evidence than ANY of the other witnesses. That's the way our law works. The defense had a much stronger case, and argued it successfully. That's how the law works. Innocent until proven guilty. All you have are the transcripts, which say nothing about the mood and credibility of the testimony and evidence AS IT WAS PRESENTED in the courtroom. Speculation and willful ignorance does not trump the law. The law found Darren Wilson not guilty.
What you are accusing the prosecutors of is breaking the law. Of major ethics violations that would get them disbarred. If it's true what you say, you are making very libelous accusations against people who practice the law as it is in this country. That's a pretty serious accusation and you have presented no evidence to back up your damning statements.
Please enlighten us with actual factual evidence that the prosecutors acted with misconduct and unethical behaviour. Not media reports, but facts.
Bells
Staff member
Once again, you made something up, tried to pass it off as fact. And now you try to change the subject. Really Marquis? You tire of the bullshit? How about you stop spreading it.
Actually, what speaks for itself is your defense of police officers who shot a 12 year old kid without even having seen the toy gun. It wasn't in his hands. He wasn't pointing it at them. And yet, you keep referencing him pointing it at them, by alluding to how when you will point one at my face and suggesting I get my children to point a toy gun at police officers. Once more.. This time, try, please try to read the words and not "behind the words".. There was no toy gun in his hand. They drove up, opened the door and by the time the police officer had stood up, he had shot the kid without having even seen anything in his hands..
*Sigh*
Because you have once again attempted to alter reality. The 12 year old boy was not pointing the toy gun at police. They never even saw it. So your comments about how when you are going to point one of these things in my face and how I am apparently scared is what exactly? You being a dick? Trying to be all macho with the whole "I'll show you and you tell me if you're not scared or not" when that police officer shot that kid without seeing the gun in his hands and without anything being pointed at them in their car as they drove up. Now, how exactly you could take that reality and resort to commenting about how scared I am for when you point one of those things at my face?
Which non-existent dots did you connect to arrive at the conclusion that I somehow or other needed to have a realistic looking gun pointed in my face by you to show me how scared I am, when the issue we were discussing did not even involve a gun pointed to the police?
Probably because you stopped making sense a long time ago, The Marquis. To the point where you are fabricating things and trying to pass it off as fact.
Perhaps it is time to stop looking beyond or behind the image and start looking at your reflection as it stands.
Then seek help from someone who does understand.
I have sunk so low?
As I noted above, you took a story about a kid being shot and ran with it like a hot little potato, claiming he aimed a realistic looking gun at police and then told me I am scared for when you point one of those things at my face. The kid never pointed a gun at the police. Once again, stretching reality and delving into the realms of your imagination..
And here is what you do not understand.. I do not want to have anything further to do with you. No future PM discussions, no future discussions on the forum. Because I don't want to have to put up with this level of dishonesty from you any further. Your reading behind the words and coming out with complete fabrications... That's wrong. And doing it to malign and go on a rant about Muslims? Really dude? Really? Did you want me to nod sagely and just agree with that level of bullshit? Come on..
You can respond as much as you want. But the point is that I don't particularly care anymore. Understand? You aren't real or honest. And that is sad. You are an intelligent man, Marquis. And watching you descend down to the point where you feel you need to completely fabricate something so that you could complain about Muslims, it's sad.
What? You?
It is always interesting when someone caught out lying, they always defend those who were also lying.
Stop playing the martyr The Marquis. Stop hoping to be the victim of 'big bad Bells' so that what you believe is true or how you read behind the words is true, becomes true.
Because it's kind of sad and pathetic.
I won't be responding to you any further. I am not going to enable you any further. So rant away, go nuts. Lie as much as you want. My discussion with you is officially over, in every single capacity imaginable.
Liebling said:
I would suggest there is a great difference between what you are saying in the abstract and what it means in real application.
Okay, I would ask a favor, beg a boon. It is fairly simple. I am going to ask you to recite aloud five simple words that form a sentence. I need you to recite them aloud because I really do think it helps to hear those words coming out of one's own mouth. To the other, I also understand if you want to make sure there is nobody within earshot, because then they will ask you what you just said, and then they will ask you why you said it, and, you know, that is not always the most comfortable explanation.
Five words.
Ready?
Please recite aloud: "He lied in good faith."
That phrase is particularly significant because a police brutality issue from Seattle made its way into the Ferguson discussion. The former U.S. Attorney from our area recently wrote a column for The Washington Post trying to explain her sympathies with citizens about the difficulties of prosecuting police officers suspected of crimes. As I wrote elsewhere↱, last month:
The truth of the matter is that there are bad cops, and these can inflict terrible, horrifying outcomes on other people. But a culture of privilege exists around law enforcement; consider Ms. Durkan’s recounting of a hideous chapter from Seattle ....
.... In a broader context, her account is not without its merits as concerns the Ferguson discussion. To the other, though, it highlights a glaring segregation in how the law views and thus is applied to different people.
Durkan’s explanation is essentially a slightly more verbose reiteration of what the people were told at the time, that the state would be unable to overcome the presupposition of good faith. But here is the thing: Not only does nobody else get an internal review, speak nothing of an internal review that is traditionally so shoddy that it is subject to a second layer of review, and the city attorney can bury those reports if he chooses, but it was also found that Officer Birk perjured his incident report and manipulated physical evidence. What, exactly, are people supposed to think when the burden of good faith is too great to overcome for perjury and subversion of justice? Seriously? He lied in good faith?
The Ferguson debacle is a spectacular episode in a perpetual tragedy. It will happen again. And when amid every other question that remains there stands out the peculiarities of how this grand jury was conducted, it is hard to see how the course of justice had anything to do with itself. These layers of protection can be said to be important in keeping the police from wasting all their time answering complaints from everyone they ever arrest, but this is the price. This is what we have to do in order to accomplish that. Wearing a law enforcement badge seems to require unbound extraordinary protection under the law.
.... In a broader context, her account is not without its merits as concerns the Ferguson discussion. To the other, though, it highlights a glaring segregation in how the law views and thus is applied to different people.
Durkan’s explanation is essentially a slightly more verbose reiteration of what the people were told at the time, that the state would be unable to overcome the presupposition of good faith. But here is the thing: Not only does nobody else get an internal review, speak nothing of an internal review that is traditionally so shoddy that it is subject to a second layer of review, and the city attorney can bury those reports if he chooses, but it was also found that Officer Birk perjured his incident report and manipulated physical evidence. What, exactly, are people supposed to think when the burden of good faith is too great to overcome for perjury and subversion of justice? Seriously? He lied in good faith?
The Ferguson debacle is a spectacular episode in a perpetual tragedy. It will happen again. And when amid every other question that remains there stands out the peculiarities of how this grand jury was conducted, it is hard to see how the course of justice had anything to do with itself. These layers of protection can be said to be important in keeping the police from wasting all their time answering complaints from everyone they ever arrest, but this is the price. This is what we have to do in order to accomplish that. Wearing a law enforcement badge seems to require unbound extraordinary protection under the law.
Right now, in the state of Washington, a police officer who commits a crime in the course of duty is pretty much going to skate unless that crime is committed in a way that really gives the department headaches. Consider that the Office of Professional Accountability, a board made up of former law enforcement agents, routinely finds that the police are doing just fine. This even applies to, say, assaulting a man in a wheelchair and planting evidence on him, and getting caught on tape. (Yes, really.)
So we have the OPA Review Board, which is made up of civilians. In the wheelchair beating, OPARB reviewed OPA, complained mid-process that the mayor needed to get off their backs and stop trying to tamper with their investigation, and eventually released their report, which was apparently really bad, because the city attorney buried it. I do not believe the public has yet seen the contents of that one.
Which is an important point to consider because in the Williams shooting in Seattle, the review found that Officer Birk had perjured his Incident Report and tampered with the physical evidence. To the one, there is a tall presupposition of good faith in the shoot, but neither was Birk ever charged for perjury or subversion of justice. Because, you know, good faith.
Thus, he lied in good faith.
And every police officer in the Evergreen State gets that privilege.
If it's your life and freedom on the line, just how much can you afford to gamble on that good faith?
Because that is what it comes down to in practical terms. Tell us what you want about how the bad cops are a fairly small minority. And then explain to us about how and why that hypothetical vast majority of good cops participates in the blue wall. And then please try to explain just how it is that the police cannot do their jobs unless they are allowed to break the law, because the Seattle Police Officers' Guild just tried to sue the federal government on exactly those grounds; the complaint was quashed in court.
There is idyll, as you have offered us. And then there is practical reality. These two things are not the same, and presently there is quite a gulf between them.
Five words. Recite them aloud and tell us how you feel.
If you intend to casually recite such arguments, it would be very much appreciated if you could answer the underlying question about that process: Who the hell else gets that treatment before a grand jury?
This was extraordinary process that actually undermined any proposition of justice.
Please go back and read through this thread with an eye to those of us who have been making the point about how unusual this grand jury process was.
Whether you intended to or not, your simplistic pronouncement dismisses all of that and invites the discussion back to square zero.
You just ignored all of that.
In these United States, due process and equal protection are cornerstones of justice.
Who else gets this process?
The grand jury investigation itself is extraordinary process, which in turn was no accident.
Furthermore, the transcript itself shows that right before the prosecutors took the extraordinary step of putting the officer on the stand, they wrongly informed the jury of the law. Three weeks later, they gave the jury the accurate statute, and when jurors asked about the difference, prosecutors responded that they didn't need to worry about that, and they didn't want to get into a law school class.
As I noted in #145↑ above:
Normally, defendants don't have such representation in a grand jury. In a trial, there at least would have been a lawyer present who would, in front of a jury, have challenged the officer's testimony and, I promise you, who would have thrown a holy fit when prosecutors tried to inform the jury according to an inapplicable, unconstitutional statute. There is no way the witness taking the stand that day would have done so without an opposing attorney literally raising hell about the state's attempt to misinform the jury. What the officer got appears to be the state of Missouri acting as a defense attorney. And this is the important part of the difference between a grand jury investigation and a trial. If this was a trial, at least one lawyer would be present arguing on behalf of the dead man.
No. You post bare links, routinely, to avoid accountability for the views they contain. That is dishonest in the first place, and it doesn't work around here: when the content of those bare and unqualified links is dishonest (which it is more often than not) that posting is you being dishonest.photizo said:
Having your links do your lying and deceiving for you does not absolve you, when the links are bare like that.
And to the limited extent you are honest, your views are not reasonable - not even close. That's why you don't reason, either with or for them - you can't. There is no way to make a reasonable case for your swill, and you know it, so you don't try.
As a result of posting views such as you hold, you find them and yourself described accurately and responded to directly. Your attempted interpretation of that as abuse, innuendo, and accusation is a dishonest rhetorical technique for relabeling the views themselves as reasonable. You want to avoid accountability for holding them, without being trapped in some doomed attempt to reason for them or with them.
Unless you want to give it a shot. Here's a starting point for you, hanging above:
So: when was that?
No. You do not know what frigging ideas I have. Or what I don't give a damn about.
Due process was followed in this case. Anything that wasn't can be brought up with a higher court.
There is a difference in ignoring things and not accepting your interpretation of the information you provided. Two people are perfectly capable of reading the same article and interpreting it different ways.
If there is a ethical issue, it will be addressed. So far, there is nothing. No challenge to the Supreme Court of Missouri, no challenge to the US Supreme Court. No claims of unethical behaviour reported to the bar, or to the court.
Again, the law of the land will be dictated by the laws written by that state. If there is no challenge, then there was no evidence of wrong-doing either.
Whether or not you accept them, doesn't change the legality of the ruling. I was brought up to respect the law, respect authorities. Take responsibility for myself and my actions. If I was wronged by the law, I'd seek to change the law but I wouldn't do it by breaking the law and causing civil discourse. I'd do it through that same court of law until it was set right.
What I wouldn't do, was incite a riot. Or burn down my own neighborhood. Or portray my child to be someone that he was not. Or purposely mislead the public with 5 year old pictures that didn't show or give a good exemplar of who he was.
Where is the outrage for 20 year old Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City? Dillon C. McGee an 18 year old in Jackson Mississippi? What about the other 14 teenagers that have been shot and killed by the police since Michael Brown? Only 6 of whom were black?
Dillion Taylor was just walking out of a store and was unarmed and not breaking the law. The two passengers in Dillion McGee's car, who cops say was trying to run the cops over, wasn't even facing the same way as the police officers and the shots fired display that. Cameron Tillman, 14.. who was just opening his front door. Carey Smith-Viramontes, 18. Diana Showman, 18... who was brandishing a drill but hadn't broken any laws.
Do you think you'll have outrage for the rest of them? No. Only this case because the Media fed you so much garbage that you were outraged and your perception altered long before they even sat a grand jury.
Dillion Taylor was just walking out of a store and was unarmed and not breaking the law. The two passengers in Dillion McGee's car, who cops say was trying to run the cops over, wasn't even facing the same way as the police officers and the shots fired display that. Cameron Tillman, 14.. who was just opening his front door. Carey Smith-Viramontes, 18. Diana Showman, 18... who was brandishing a drill but hadn't broken any laws.
Do you think you'll have outrage for the rest of them? No. Only this case because the Media fed you so much garbage that you were outraged and your perception altered long before they even sat a grand jury.
Last edited:
The laws say so should be sufficient.
If not, it will be changed by a higher court. I already said this. It's not MY say so, it's the courts.