Monroe wrote:
...
I'm advocating a fair process, not one that drives an outcome with the need for a sacrificial lamb to satisfy the race baiters like Al 'Tawana Brawley' Sharpton and others.

You could call it the Monroe Doctrine, but the name has been used before.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
seagull, you've just confirmed yourself as an asshole with that last post - I pity someone who uses any child have fun and doing their best in a derogatory or ridicule fashion.

webmaster should remove your post and image then you should be 'red carded' for 1 month before being allowed to post on JClist again

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
Accountable? What will be your response if the locals, the state, and the Feds find he acted appropriately? Because you do know that police can respond with deadly force when their life is threatened, don't you?

Personally. I believe Officer Wilson is innocent until proven guilty. And I'm pretty open-minded on his guilt or innocence.

But I also believe that "justice must be seen to be done" - it's pointless to have a justice system that isn't transparently open and fair.

Given the fed, grand jury, and national media spotlight, I've a higher confidence that justice will be served in this specific case. But I also think it will be the exception and not the rule.

I don't think the right checks and balances are in place across the US to ensure blacks and minorities are treated fairly and consistently by police and courts across the US. Until those checks and balances are established and enforced consistently nationwide, we'll have this patchwork quilt of laws, policies and practices - that will lead to this issue not going away anytime soon.

'Justice must be seen to be done' only plays to the mindset of the mob in this case, sadly. Because the race baiters and rioters just want to string up Officer Wilson regardless if the facts exonerate him.

Democracy is founded on the mindset of the mob. What are you advocating? Tyranny? "Monroe knows best"? What?

Seagull wrote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
Accountable? What will be your response if the locals, the state, and the Feds find he acted appropriately? Because you do know that police can respond with deadly force when their life is threatened, don't you?

Personally. I believe Officer Wilson is innocent until proven guilty. And I'm pretty open-minded on his guilt or innocence.

But I also believe that "justice must be seen to be done" - it's pointless to have a justice system that isn't transparently open and fair.

Given the fed, grand jury, and national media spotlight, I've a higher confidence that justice will be served in this specific case. But I also think it will be the exception and not the rule.

I don't think the right checks and balances are in place across the US to ensure blacks and minorities are treated fairly and consistently by police and courts across the US. Until those checks and balances are established and enforced consistently nationwide, we'll have this patchwork quilt of laws, policies and practices - that will lead to this issue not going away anytime soon.

'Justice must be seen to be done' only plays to the mindset of the mob in this case, sadly. Because the race baiters and rioters just want to string up Officer Wilson regardless if the facts exonerate him.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...
Accountable? What will be your response if the locals, the state, and the Feds find he acted appropriately? Because you do know that police can respond with deadly force when their life is threatened, don't you?

Personally. I believe Officer Wilson is innocent until proven guilty. And I'm pretty open-minded on his guilt or innocence.

But I also believe that "justice must be seen to be done" - it's pointless to have a justice system that isn't transparently open and fair.

Given the fed, grand jury, and national media spotlight, I've a higher confidence that justice will be served in this specific case. But I also think it will be the exception and not the rule.

I don't think the right checks and balances are in place across the US to ensure blacks and minorities are treated fairly and consistently by police and courts across the US. Until those checks and balances are established and enforced consistently nationwide, we'll have this patchwork quilt of laws, policies and practices - that will lead to this issue not going away anytime soon.

Monroe wrote:
...
Accountable? What will be your response if the locals, the state, and the Feds find he acted appropriately? Because you do know that police can respond with deadly force when their life is threatened, don't you?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
@ JCman8.

You don't even have a clue what "=" (equals) means. Sad.

FAB expressed it well. But let me express it mathematically. Our axioms are different. And your axioms are fu%ked up.

Here are yours. Give a pass on bad behavior solely on the basis of skin color. Completely ignore all the facts. Pretend you know what justice is when you haven't the slightest clue.

When did I ever say give a pass on bad behavior? When did I ever say ignore the facts? You're making this stuff up. Good narrative, crap justice.

Hold Officer Wilson accountable. Why is that so hard for you?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
@ JCman8.

You don't even have a clue what "=" (equals) means. Sad.

FAB expressed it well. But let me express it mathematically. Our axioms are different. And your axioms are fu%ked up.

Here are yours. Give a pass on bad behavior solely on the basis of skin color. Completely ignore all the facts. Pretend you know what justice is when you haven't the slightest clue.

dtjcview wrote:
@ JCman8.

You don't even have a clue what "=" (equals) means. Sad.

FAB expressed it well. But let me express it mathematically. Our axioms are different. And your axioms are fu%ked up.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
....
According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised."


"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up.
...

Are you being serious here? You asked "who ever said he was shot in the back." Because only one of us has been paying attention, I told you who said it.
...

So even your own post proves my point.

"Brown's body jerked as if he was hit from behind."
and
"...fired another shot which struck Brown in the back"

Isn't quite the same as "shot him in the back". But I guess that subtlety is lost on folks that can't think beyond "black and white"...

And the comments were made to TV reporters. Who didn't even ask "are you sure?" never mind "would you swear on oath to it?". Their statements could be lies, partly true, or simply what they thought they had witnessed. That's why we have due process - to get to the facts. Pretty sure the judge and grand jury will be pretty well briefed on what they can and can't use wrt priors.

So take your 19th-century lynch mob mentality to somewhere that might find it useful. I hear Iraq and Syria may have need of your warped judgments.

You want to revise any of your supposed "facts"? Like who ever said he was shot in the back?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
This is an argument / discussion like gun control - you have 2 parties that are polar opposites, so nothing happens and the status quo remains and time does its thing until we have another issue.

JCMan8 wrote:
....
According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised."


"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up.
...

Are you being serious here? You asked "who ever said he was shot in the back." Because only one of us has been paying attention, I told you who said it.
...

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:


You want to revise any of your supposed "facts"? Like who ever said he was shot in the back? Have you read the witness depositions? Have you read the autopsy reports?

You've gone off the rails again. In your rush to demonize others by incorrectly throwing around loaded words like "hatemonger" you demonstrate you haven't been paying attention.

The star witness, Dorian Johnson, originally went on tv and lied about what he "saw." He clearly stated that Brown was shot in the back. This inflammatory lie was incessantly thrown around in the media in the initial days, and likely aggravated the looting and riots.

"I'm scared. I don't know what's going on. I don't understand why this officer is shooting his weapon at us."

According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/na ... hooting-witness/13992387/

Of course, it's also a fact that this "star witness" pleaded guilty to filing a false police report. So the fact that the autopsies proved Johnson blatantly lied isn't very surprising.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/17004 ... ling-false-police-report/

Other "witnesses" repeated the same lie about Officer Wilson shooting Brown in the back, though not as blatantly as the "star witness."

"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/miss ... chael-brown-what-we-know/

So instead of getting worked up in an ignorant impotent rage, perhaps you should revise your own "facts." As well as directing some anger towards Johnson, who is the true hatemonger by spreading vicious inflammatory lies such as Brown was shot in the back and who knows what else.

Branding Mitchell and Johnson as liars on the basis of your interpretation of their tv interviews - without reviewing their sworn depositions - without cross-examining them - without reviewing their testimony alongside all the evidence - is blind ignorance at best.

It's just as plausible that's what they believe they witnessed at the time. Officer Wilson could well have fired and missed, or fired a warning shot when Michael Brown was running away. Michael could have heard the shot and winced - the witnesses could have misinterpreted that. Or perhaps the witnesses were in a state of shock, confused and grasping at suggestions.

The simple fact is, neither you nor I have all the facts.

But only hatemongers like you seem quite happy to label this as rough justice dished out to a thug, and any witness that says different is lying.

I'm impotently raging because there's no federal investigation nor grand jury looking into the case. Oh wait a sec, there is.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:


You want to revise any of your supposed "facts"? Like who ever said he was shot in the back? Have you read the witness depositions? Have you read the autopsy reports?

You've gone off the rails again. In your rush to demonize others by incorrectly throwing around loaded words like "hatemonger" you demonstrate you haven't been paying attention.

The star witness, Dorian Johnson, originally went on tv and lied about what he "saw." He clearly stated that Brown was shot in the back. This inflammatory lie was incessantly thrown around in the media in the initial days, and likely aggravated the looting and riots.

"I'm scared. I don't know what's going on. I don't understand why this officer is shooting his weapon at us."

According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/na ... hooting-witness/13992387/

Of course, it's also a fact that this "star witness" pleaded guilty to filing a false police report. So the fact that the autopsies proved Johnson blatantly lied isn't very surprising.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/17004 ... ling-false-police-report/

Other "witnesses" repeated the same lie about Officer Wilson shooting Brown in the back, though not as blatantly as the "star witness."

"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/miss ... chael-brown-what-we-know/

So instead of getting worked up in an ignorant impotent rage, perhaps you should revise your own "facts." As well as directing some anger towards Johnson, who is the true hatemonger by spreading vicious inflammatory lies such as Brown was shot in the back and who knows what else.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Quote:

As for 'fact' 3, it didn't mention me???

Yes, Morone.
Here in America we tend to list 4 points made as 1 through 4, we don't ignore one fact and number them 1 through three.

As for 'fact' 3, it didn't mention me???

dtjcview wrote:


You want to revise any of your supposed "facts"? Like who ever said he was shot in the back? Have you read the witness depositions? Have you read the autopsy reports?

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
I knew you had trouble reading, I guess it extends to numeracy too.

Fact 1 proves he was raised by a criminal element.

Fact 2 proves made no mention of brown's weight.

Fact 3 makes no mention of you.

Monroe conveniently ignores the Jennings PD story, proving my theory the he ignores facts that do not fit his right wing agenda.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Fact - Darren Wilson was raised by a mother who was a convicted felon. She stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from friends and neighbors.

Fact - Darren Wilson, described as a veteran officer, started his career with Jennings MO PD. He joined the Ferguson PD when the Jennings PD was dissolved by the council due to racial tensions between the PD (less than 2% white) and the local population (89% black). Jennings officers were allowed to apply for jobs with the county who took over police duties. Wilson was not hired.

Fact - Darren Wilson is at least the same size as the unarmed teenager he shot to death with six bullets (out of 11 fired).

Fact - Monroe ignores facts that don't fit into his right wing racist narrative.