AlexC wrote:
you still don't get it right? have You ever been harassed by the Police for no particular reason? have you been stopped and frisked for going about your daily business such as going to and from work? no? then Shut The Fuck Up because you have no Fucking say in this space.

This event is the culmination of opinions from Idiots like you that take these events in a vacuum like they exist without context.

Rorschach wrote:
Former NBA star Charles Barkley called Ferguson looters 'scumbags' and said that 'key forensic evidence, and several black witnesses that supported Officer Darren Wilson?s story.'

http://news.yahoo.com/why-charles-bar ... y-decision-163736319.html

AlexC wrote:
you are wrong, man, on many levels. you're White, right? just like Monroe, or that nygravy guy - you think we're really assimilated on some level, even in downtown JC (heck i think that Monroe guy doesn't even live in JC he's just a poser) but when shit like this happens? people that gets harassed all their lives for no reason gets fucking pissed. and if you don't get it, you are part of the problem

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

AlexC wrote:
you don't get it dude, it's a Tribal thing - we can kill each other but you cannot kill one of us. which part of that do you not understand? what is your race and where do you come from?

Sorry, we aren't in Africa, we don't do "Tribal things." (Unless you are drawing an analogy between the perpetually warring tribes in Africa and the constant street gang violence here.)

It's a hypocrite thing, and a stupid thing.

JCMan8 wrote:
[quote]


Sorry, we aren't in Africa, we don't do "Tribal things."

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
The reason those procedures exist is for establishing certain elements of the crime.

That is patently false which, in turn, negates everything you've written past it.

Those procedures exist because in the immediate aftermath of what occurred, nobody knows what happened. Nobody showing up at the scene should automatically take the word of the policeman and just cease all procedures.

I'm rather befuddled why you would just throw out standard procedure (as pointed out by the FBI and DOJ) simply because the officer says "It's a good shooting."

Does a cop go home after a car accident if he just says "it wasn't my fault?" Think back to the accident where the officer killed someone in JC. Now go back and rethink your entire argument.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
And no, he shouldn't have been indicted, because even the low probable cause standard wasn't met. It was a stupid case and no one involved seriously thought that DW was guilty of a crime, including the prosecutor. And let me tell you, when you're a lawyer and you're watching this crap you get a headache because you know that this is politics and not the criminal justice system.

Why shouldn't he have been indicted? The prosecutor had enough evidence to do so. He could have selected the evidence that made the case (as Scalia has argued) and gone ahead with it. Instead, he chose not to. Instead, the guy has a history of being cop friendly (his dad is one) and will never prosecute them.

That is another factor that goes towards the poor decisions in this case. Why use a guy with a clear bias?

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The false meme of 'hands up, don't shoot' has now turned to 'pants up, don't loot'. Everyone but those idiots on the St. Louis Rams seems to get it now.

May or may not have charged Wilson. May or may not have had his hands up.

The numbers there don't seem to comport with the chart you posted below: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3Z0jWgCcAAxnjK.jpg#twimg (though, they appear to modify the questions slightly. The original PBS chart is more meaningful.)

But yes, testimony was massively differing. Sufficiently differing that it is reasonable for a jury to conclude that no probable cause existed for charging a cop with killing MB under the circumstances presented.

I don?t disagree. However, I must ask, why would they use so many witnesses instead of just selecting the ones that fit the narrative?

AlexC wrote:
you don't get it dude, it's a Tribal thing - we can kill each other but you cannot kill one of us. which part of that do you not understand? what is your race and where do you come from?

AlexC wrote:
ignorant motherfucking white scums in the south live a good life. Okay?

Rorschach wrote: Quote:

Monroe wrote: The Grand Jurors, who had every bit of evidence (including the testimony of Wilson, who could have refused to testify) decided the evidence wasn't enough to indict. Period.

As someone who doesn't agree with Monroe on much I agree that this PC outrage over Michael Brown is out of control. The guy had a criminal record and robbed a store ! We will never know the real story on the interaction between Brown and Wilson. But all this wringing of hands for a thief who refused to follow the orders of a police officer is ridiculous. Trayvon Martin's death was a tragedy. This incident doesn't reach that level.

Monroe wrote:
The Grand Jurors, who had every bit of evidence (including the testimony of Wilson, who could have refused to testify) decided the evidence wasn't enough to indict. Period.

Monroe wrote:
Forensics don't lie. No one has said the crime scene was tampered with. If Brown tried to get Wilson's gun, there doesn't have to be prints on the gun to prove it-he may not have gotten close enough to get it.

Face it, it comes down to the thug Brown attempting to get to the cop-after he just robbed and assaulted a Yemeni store owner-while he was high on drugs. It ended badly, because he was stupid.