Rioting in St. Louis

[deleted213967]

A Dose of Reality for Ferguson, Missouri | chrishernandezauthor

It is true that most in the commentariat, including this poster, know nothing about police work.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Klingsor]

It is true that most in the commentariat, including this poster, know nothing about police work.

Interesting perspective.

Yes it is--from a man who acknowledges he doesn't know what happened that day.

 

[deleted213967]

Yes it is--from a man who acknowledges he doesn't know what happened that day.

Isn't that part of his point?

He is a professional and he admits he doesn't know exactly what happened, although the evidence made available to the public so far has already annihilated the narrative pushed by the Grievance Industry Leadership, so we at least know what did NOT happen.

He also successfully dismantles a variety of myths bandied about by certain media agents with an agenda.

So, if he admits he doesn't know exactly what happened, why should rioters or the media short-circuit the justice system then?

 

[Fuzzy_]

It is true that most in the commentariat, including this poster, know nothing about police work.

Proof, please.

 

[Klingsor]

So, if he admits he doesn't know exactly what happened, why should rioters or the media short-circuit the justice system then?

I hope no one short-circuits the justice system, and that it lives up to its name.

 

[deleted213967]

I hope no one short-circuits the justice system, and that it lives up to its name.

...yet imagine being on the Grand Jury now. You are facing enormous pressure from the mob to draw, hang and quarter the man and to convict him (perhaps in that order)...yet the evidence you may have (judging from the evidence that the public has, so far) is not that conclusive...

In addition, the more egregious the charges filed against the officer (say, "Aggravated Hate Crime Against Humanity"), in an attempt to placate the mob, the higher the bar for conviction (And That's A Good Thing©), so it seems that in this insanely over-hyped case everybody loses.

What would you do if you were on the Grand Jury?

 

[Klingsor]

...yet imagine being on the Grand Jury now. You are facing enormous pressure from the mob to draw, hang and quarter the man and to convict him (perhaps in that order)...yet the evidence you may have (judging from the evidence that the public has, so far) is not that conclusive...

In addition, the more egregious the charges filed against the officer (say, "Aggravated Hate Crime Against Humanity"), in an attempt to placate the mob, the higher the bar for conviction (And That's A Good Thing©), so it seems that in this insanely over-hyped case everybody loses.

What would you do if you were on the Grand Jury?

Hopefully, my duty--regardless of pressure from any side of the issue.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Laughing...your observation was funny to me. Because that's all these folks need. Their ideologies aren't built on facts or the truth, they're built on "how many people can I convince to uphold this bullshit with me"...and if they can't find anyone to support them, and pat their backs when someone hurts their feelings.... they kinda fizzle and disappear. Dom, that poor kid, got so upset that he's blocked me... Without support from fellow *insert whatever they want to call themselves these days*, they have no platform to stand on. They can't preach the gospel of White Supremacy to you or I.....so they have to rile each other up for it to be worth a damn.

Most people like them can't have a one on one conversation with anyone because they have no support. The words they speak fall apart when placed under ANY factual stress. And once bullshit doesn't work, "justifiable", "provoked", "condoned" and often times "EXCUSED" violence is their go-to response...

Oh so you get how by not telling a certain poster how he makes their "side" look foolish that poster continues. Oh well as long as he posts what they lack the cajones to post I guess they will remain silent and secretly agree

 

[h0neymustard]

Proof, please.

Dave Chapelle - Ghetto , Paralegal - YouTube

 

[h0neymustard]

Yes it is--from a man who acknowledges he doesn't know what happened that day.

Lots of people here are harping on about what happened that day. Yet they weren't there either.

Tell me, don't think about this event in Ferguson, but just in general:
Can an unarmed man be dangerous with just fists and feet?
When you confront someone and take something of theirs, what is it called?
Is it possible that shooting an attacker multiple times won't stop them?
Can less-than-lethal methods fail at stopping or even slowing down an attacker?
Can witnesses lie?

These are the points that the blog addresses.

 

[Klingsor]

Lots of people here are harping on about what happened that day. Yet they weren't there either.

Tell me, don't think about this event in Ferguson, but just in general:
Can an unarmed man be dangerous with just fists and feet?
When you confront someone and take something of theirs, what is it called?
Is it possible that shooting an attacker multiple times won't stop them?
Can less-than-lethal methods fail at stopping or even slowing down an attacker?
Can witnesses lie?

These are the points that the blog addresses.

In general, yes, these are valid points. But it remains an open question: which, if any, of these points are pertinent to Ferguson?

 

[Eric_8]

With the leak from Anonymous coming out that Wilson will likely not be indicted, the question comes to mind for all those who believe he's (legally, not morally) guilty:

Would an indictment with no eventual conviction be acceptable? That there's even a debate as to whether he should be indicted speaks volumes for the uphill climb a prosecuting team would face in achieving a conviction.

From everything that has come out (assuming it to be truthful, which may well be naive on my part), there seems to be so much doubt in this case that it would be nearly impossible in my mind to get a conviction anywhere in the vicinity of murder.

 

[Popyuu]

With the leak from Anonymous coming out that Wilson will likely not be indicted, the question comes to mind for all those who believe he's (legally, not morally) guilty:

Would an indictment with no eventual conviction be acceptable? That there's even a debate as to whether he should be indicted speaks volumes for the uphill climb a prosecuting team would face in achieving a conviction.

From everything that has come out (assuming it to be truthful, which may well be naive on my part), there seems to be so much doubt in this case that it would be nearly impossible in my mind to get a conviction anywhere in the vicinity of murder.

Yup. Cause dividing the moral standpoint is a really good idea. Cause who needs morals anyway.

 

[Eric_8]

Yup. Cause dividing the moral standpoint is a really good idea. Cause who needs morals anyway.

Thanks for really contributing nothing lol.

Assuming this responds to the "in a legal sense only" bit of the post, you've answered the question more honestly than you realize.

 

[h0neymustard]

Yup. Cause dividing the moral standpoint is a really good idea. Cause who needs morals anyway.

Without double standards, Democrats would have no standards.

 

[NC_BBC]

With the leak from Anonymous coming out that Wilson will likely not be indicted, the question comes to mind for all those who believe he's (legally, not morally) guilty:

Would an indictment with no eventual conviction be acceptable? That there's even a debate as to whether he should be indicted speaks volumes for the uphill climb a prosecuting team would face in achieving a conviction.

From everything that has come out (assuming it to be truthful, which may well be naive on my part), there seems to be so much doubt in this case that it would be nearly impossible in my mind to get a conviction anywhere in the vicinity of murder.

So, given the amount of mystery surrounding the case do to the lack of transparency from Ferguson Police....you think he should be set free under the "beyond a shadow of doubt" ideology. Ok... let's say I agree with that. Since we can't PROVE the malicious intent of his actions, we HAVE to let him go.

But, give the altercation, that supposedly reduces Michael Brown's worth as a human being to 0 in many of you all's eyes, do you know 100% that he was guilty of all the things that he was killed for? Where's his "beyond a shadow of doubt"? He doesn't get one, because dead men tell no tales.

So, the situation, simplified, is as followed:

Kid is accused of something we're not 100% sure he actually did. He's shot dead. With all of you claiming it was a just kill. But because the Cop did so in a very unclear way, we're not 100% sure about his intentions or actions....but you all feel the cop should be set free BECAUSE we don't 100% know what happened.

Am I seeing a double standard that isn't there?

 

[Eric_8]

So, given the amount of mystery surrounding the case do to the lack of transparency from Ferguson Police....you think he should be set free under the "beyond a shadow of doubt" ideology. Ok... let's say I agree with that. Since we can't PROVE the malicious intent of his actions, we HAVE to let him go.

But, give the altercation, that supposedly reduces Michael Brown's worth as a human being to 0 in many of you all's eyes, do you know 100% that he was guilty of all the things that he was killed for? Where's his "beyond a shadow of doubt"? He doesn't get one, because dead men tell no tales.

So, the situation, simplified, is as followed:

Kid is accused of something we're not 100% sure he actually did. He's shot dead. With all of you claiming it was a just kill. But because the Cop did so in a very unclear way, we're not 100% sure about his intentions or actions....but you all feel the cop should be set free BECAUSE we don't 100% know what happened.

Am I seeing a double standard that isn't there?

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I am saying it would be highly unlikely to prove "beyond a shadow (or reasonable one might say) of a doubt" that Brown did nothing wrong...just as it would be extremely difficult to prove Wilson is guilty of whatever the desired punishment would be.

Which brings me back to the initial question: is an indictment warranted in the name of preserving the peace, or is a conviction (let's say Murder 2, which is a laugh based on known evidence) the only acceptable outcome?

Can't wait to see how the above line is spun as me laughing at the death of a young black kid.

Note: h0ney, please don't feel obliged to cut in and say he's a man...I already know your thoughts, and they provide nothing of use.

 

[Fuzzy_]

The bigger picture is being ignored. The shocking rate of young, unarmed black men being killed by police officers is being overshadowed by details and technicalities. People started protesting for a reason.

 

[NC_BBC]

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I am saying it would be highly unlikely to prove "beyond a shadow (or reasonable one might say) of a doubt" that Brown did nothing wrong...just as it would be extremely difficult to prove Wilson is guilty of whatever the desired punishment would be.

I think you're failing to see the precedent that's being set here. Either you don't see it, you see and don't care, or you see it and like it.

Essentially, what this will show is that any officer can kill a young black man and get away with it if he or his department can smudge the evidence and investigation enough to give himself some "doubt"... I wonder if that could possible snowball into a nationwide problem....hmmmm

The bigger picture is being ignored. The shocking rate of young, unarmed black men being killed by police officers is being overshadowed by details and technicalities. People started protesting for a reason.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I think you're failing to see the precedent that's being set here. Either you don't see it, you see and don't care, or you see it and like it.

Essentially, what this will show is that any officer can kill a young black man and get away with it if he or his department can smudge the evidence and investigation enough to give himself some "doubt"... I wonder if that could possible snowball into a nationwide problem....hmmmm

I see it quite clearly.What you're saying is that if the benefit of the doubt is only given to the living then what's to stop them in the future? If cops are allowed to shoot and then excused because their intent was in question why is the intent of the deceased considered certain? Isn't there room for doubt?