Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting
Options
Comments
-
You missed the point. One was the greatest civil rights leader ever, the other was just a gangsta rapper, I understand the difference. But they were killed for mostly the same reasons, INFLUENCE. Malcolm & Pac were the ones that could form a organized militia of young black men and have them screaming F-the government. Pac's mother was a panther, and he was talking that pro-black talk before he died. They were both also outspoken and couldn't be controlled.Putting Pac in the same sentence as Malcolm is egregious. Pac wasn't a real leader. He spoke his mind a lot but he didn't provide any plans to get to the next position. There are lots of Malcolmesk leaders but their goals may not be as radical as his and they don't get the coverage
Leaders now are ALL controlled and will only go so far until they cross that line. Rappers now get BLACKBALLED for talking that pro-black ? . -
Wait, huh? ? have you EVER listened to a Pac interview?Putting Pac in the same sentence as Malcolm is egregious. Pac wasn't a real leader. He spoke his mind a lot but he didn't provide any plans to get to the next position. There are lots of Malcolmesk leaders but their goals may not be as radical as his and they don't get the coverage
-
blackamerica wrote: »
You missed the point. One was the greatest civil rights leader ever, the other was just a gangsta rapper, I understand the difference. But they were killed for mostly the same reasons, INFLUENCE. Malcolm & Pac were the ones that could form a organized militia of young black men and have them screaming F-the government. Pac's mother was a panther, and he was talking that pro-black talk before he died. They were both also outspoken and couldn't be controlled.Putting Pac in the same sentence as Malcolm is egregious. Pac wasn't a real leader. He spoke his mind a lot but he didn't provide any plans to get to the next position. There are lots of Malcolmesk leaders but their goals may not be as radical as his and they don't get the coverage
Leaders now are ALL controlled and will only go so far until they cross that line. Rappers now get BLACKBALLED for talking that pro-black ? .
Malcolm was murdered because he continued to speak after being banished from the NOI and bringing an alternative voice. He was also controlled by the NOI so that debunks the cannot be controlled theory. Pac was killed because he was a ? doing ? ? . He couldn't organize people in a positive manner at least not at the time of his death. Maybe if he lived longer. He had plans but they were not exactly organized. Nothing on paper. Look at GW Carver and Fredrick Douglas' plans compared to his. -
blackamerica wrote: »
Huh? What's the conviction rate of officers killing unarmed black men? Tha ? outta here with this random foolishnessMaximus Rex wrote: »Just because there won't be an indictment, doesn't absolve the officer of guilt. Considering that the government has a 90% conviction rate, they must have not really had the evidence to win at trial.
With all due respect potna, your post shows your ignorance of American jurisprudence. First of all let's talk about the Assistant U.S. Attorneys. About a week and half ago, while I was in my Trial Practice class, I asked my professor were the Assistant U.S. Attorneys at the Southern District better trial attorneys than the Assistant District Attorneys that work for the New York County D.A. My professor replied, "Yes." Attorneys that work at Southern District come from the elite law schools in America and you don't hired by the Southern District out of law school. These lawyers will eventually become U.S. Attorneys, for the Solicitor General, be appointed to the federal district, appellate or the SCOTUS, work in the DOJ, or maybe even be President. I say all of that to say this, these lawyers aren't trying to lose cases, especially high profile ones that can adversely effect their careers.
Also, you don't seem the understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and who the burden of proof rests with. It doesn't matter that feel that Darren Wilson killed Mike Brown, what matters is there enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable that Wilson was neglect in Brown's death. I didn't follow the Brown case very closely, but just from reading the posts in this thread there's conflicting testimony from the witnesses. If there's conflicting testimony among the witnesses, that's enough for to cast a reasonable doubt, and the jury will return with a not guilty verdict.
-
? lose again welp let's get Jesse Jackson and have a march and peaceful protest and sing we are family. Foh
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »blackamerica wrote: »
Huh? What's the conviction rate of officers killing unarmed black men? Tha ? outta here with this random foolishnessMaximus Rex wrote: »Just because there won't be an indictment, doesn't absolve the officer of guilt. Considering that the government has a 90% conviction rate, they must have not really had the evidence to win at trial.
With all due respect potna, your post shows your ignorance of American jurisprudence. First of all let's talk about the Assistant U.S. Attorneys. About a week and half ago, while I was in my Trial Practice class, I asked my professor were the Assistant U.S. Attorneys at the Southern District better trial attorneys than the Assistant District Attorneys that work for the New York County D.A. My professor replied, "Yes." Attorneys that work at Southern District come from the elite law schools in America and you don't hired by the Southern District out of law school. These lawyers will eventually become U.S. Attorneys, for the Solicitor General, be appointed to the federal district, appellate or the SCOTUS, work in the DOJ, or maybe even be President. I say all of that to say this, these lawyers aren't trying to lose cases, especially high profile ones that can adversely effect their careers.
Also, you don't seem the understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and who the burden of proof rests with. It doesn't matter that feel that Darren Wilson killed Mike Brown, what matters is there enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable that Wilson was neglect in Brown's death. I didn't follow the Brown case very closely, but just from reading the posts in this thread there's conflicting testimony from the witnesses. If there's conflicting testimony among the witnesses, that's enough for to cast a reasonable doubt, and the jury will return with a not guilty verdict.
I could live with a not guilty verdict depending on the charges but if killing an unarmed person 11 feet away becomes acceptable behavior, then all we're crossing a path that there's no looking back to. If this becomes acceptable, then all kinds of officers are gona use the "oh he turned around" excuse. American cops, knowing their history, will use that as an excuse to get away with more fuckery then they ever have before.
And if cops can do this ? WITHOUT WRITING A POLICE REPORT?????? Wow, America's kids and really everybody is in trouble. It's bad enough cops can seize property and assets without charges, but killing someone who is unarmed from far away without even writing a full police report is scary ? . -
blackamerica wrote: »
You missed the point. One was the greatest civil rights leader ever, the other was just a gangsta rapper, I understand the difference. But they were killed for mostly the same reasons, INFLUENCE. Malcolm & Pac were the ones that could form a organized militia of young black men and have them screaming F-the government. Pac's mother was a panther, and he was talking that pro-black talk before he died. They were both also outspoken and couldn't be controlled.Putting Pac in the same sentence as Malcolm is egregious. Pac wasn't a real leader. He spoke his mind a lot but he didn't provide any plans to get to the next position. There are lots of Malcolmesk leaders but their goals may not be as radical as his and they don't get the coverage
Leaders now are ALL controlled and will only go so far until they cross that line. Rappers now get BLACKBALLED for talking that pro-black ? .
Malcolm was murdered because he continued to speak after being banished from the NOI and bringing an alternative voice. He was also controlled by the NOI so that debunks the cannot be controlled theory. Pac was killed because he was a ? doing ? ? . He couldn't organize people in a positive manner at least not at the time of his death. Maybe if he lived longer. He had plans but they were not exactly organized. Nothing on paper. Look at GW Carver and Fredrick Douglas' plans compared to his.
I hear you but how many rappers or musicians in general these days make songs like Brenda's Got A Baby, Keep Ya Head Up, Changes, Dear Mama, Trapped, and Me Against The World? These are highly political and positive songs that showed 2pac did want people to live a more positive lifestyle and many were influenced by these songs, me being one of them. 2pac wasn't perfect but to this day, I don't hear rappers making songs like this and if they do, they're not nearly as popular or powerful a statement as many of the songs I named above. It's the main reason 2pac is often compared to Malcolm, his ability to turn positive and negative energy into songs that can make people aspire to do better. -
Michael Brown was shot 7 times, not 6, according to grand jury testimony
http://newsone.com/3071168/michael-brown-was-shot-7-times-family-forensic-expert-tells-grand-jury/
Michael Brown was shot a staggering seven times, not six, as originally reported, a forensic expert hired by the teen’s family told a grand jury Thursday, KSHB 41 reports about the Ferguson, Mo., case that has set the nation on edge.
Dr. Michael Baden, the forensic expert asked by the family to conduct a second autopsy, was called to testify before a grand jury in Brown’s shooting death. The unarmed 18-year-old was shot this summer by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who is White, sparking ongoing protests over the use of excessive force by law enforcement in the Black community.
After Baden delivered his testimony, Shawn Parcells, a St. Louis-area assistant forensic pathologist who helped him with the autopsy, updated initial findings about how many times Brown was shot.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »blackamerica wrote: »
You missed the point. One was the greatest civil rights leader ever, the other was just a gangsta rapper, I understand the difference. But they were killed for mostly the same reasons, INFLUENCE. Malcolm & Pac were the ones that could form a organized militia of young black men and have them screaming F-the government. Pac's mother was a panther, and he was talking that pro-black talk before he died. They were both also outspoken and couldn't be controlled.Putting Pac in the same sentence as Malcolm is egregious. Pac wasn't a real leader. He spoke his mind a lot but he didn't provide any plans to get to the next position. There are lots of Malcolmesk leaders but their goals may not be as radical as his and they don't get the coverage
Leaders now are ALL controlled and will only go so far until they cross that line. Rappers now get BLACKBALLED for talking that pro-black ? .
Malcolm was murdered because he continued to speak after being banished from the NOI and bringing an alternative voice. He was also controlled by the NOI so that debunks the cannot be controlled theory. Pac was killed because he was a ? doing ? ? . He couldn't organize people in a positive manner at least not at the time of his death. Maybe if he lived longer. He had plans but they were not exactly organized. Nothing on paper. Look at GW Carver and Fredrick Douglas' plans compared to his.
I hear you but how many rappers or musicians in general these days make songs like Brenda's Got A Baby, Keep Ya Head Up, Changes, Dear Mama, Trapped, and Me Against The World? These are highly political and positive songs that showed 2pac did want people to live a more positive lifestyle and many were influenced by these songs, me being one of them. 2pac wasn't perfect but to this day, I don't hear rappers making songs like this and if they do, they're not nearly as popular or powerful a statement as many of the songs I named above. It's the main reason 2pac is often compared to Malcolm, his ability to turn positive and negative energy into songs that can make people aspire to do better.
I think they are compared because they both were murdered at the height of their popularity. It seemed to be taking the next step but who knows. Part of what made those songs so popular was his death. Music is different now and I don't expect it to be the same. There are positive artist but customers make the song popular. -
I never expected an indictment let alone incarceration. I want a change to the system not necessarily a punishment for officer Wilson.
If you focus on changing policies then these things will em easier to examine and make determinations. -
First off, how the ? can you correct me on my comments, but admit you haven't even followed the case closely? Second, let's again look at the facts. 1) The cop initiated the confrontation by backing his vehicle up and hittin Brown with the door. 2) A struggle ensued and shots were fired in the car. They say Brown reached for the weapon, which is possible (but that doesn't mean nothing. if you point a gun at me, my instinct is to reach for the gun to protect myself). 3) Brown eventually RAN AWAY, was shot at and eventually murdered. Don't give me that dumb ? about not enough evidence. We not even talking conviction, we're just talking about a ? indictment. Y'all ? is delusional if you think that jury shouldn't indict that hoe azz cop. ESPECIALLY after seeing that video of Wilson with NO INJURIESMaximus Rex wrote: »Also, you don't seem the understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and who the burden of proof rests with. It doesn't matter that feel that Darren Wilson killed Mike Brown, what matters is there enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable that Wilson was neglect in Brown's death. I didn't follow the Brown case very closely, but just from reading the posts in this thread there's conflicting testimony from the witnesses. If there's conflicting testimony among the witnesses, that's enough for to cast a reasonable doubt, and the jury will return with a not guilty verdict.[/b] -
dude... it's not a community with 8 witnesses saying something: it's a community with 8 witnesses saying one thing and 6 witnesses saying another. you can't understand how 8 witnesses can "just be thrown away like this" ... but you're completely throwing away those 6 because you don't like what they have to say.kingblaze84 wrote: »A community with 8 witnesses is saying something is wrong, and for them to be completely ignored is sickening and disgusting beyond belief. I can't understand how 8 witnesses can just be thrown away like this, for any reason.
Not the same thing. You're not throwing away 6 witnesses in favor of 8 by charging him. Those 6 witnesses would likely be called upon in court just like any of the 8 witnesses. A trial is not a conviction. By not even allowing a trial, you truly are throwing away 8 witnesses along with an autopsy that shows that Brown was shot from behind. -
^^ Wish I could have seen that post. I'm sure you went off on me.
-
housemouse wrote: »^^ Wish I could have seen that post. I'm sure you went off on me.
Not really man, I actually agree with you lol but what do you mean an autopsy shows Brown was shot from behind? I haven't seen real proof of that yet, minus some witnesses saying he was shot while running away -
Oh I thought you read the post that I quoted and thought I was saying something else.
-
housemouse wrote: »Oh I thought you read the post that I quoted and thought I was saying something else.
Nah you're right on what you said but do you have any links that shows an autopsy proving Brown was shot from behind? Because the autopsy I heard about a few months ago showed all the bullets entering the front or side of his body. If an autopsy shows Brown being shot from behind then a trial is way overdue. -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pathologist-says-brown-autopsy-quotes-in-post-dispatch-were-taken-out-of-context/2014/10/28/30829296-5dea-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html
The link that janklow posted to prove that Darren Wilson's story might be true had another link that lead to this. He was shot in the forearm and the bullet went from the back of the forearm to the front. It was initially thought that it could have been from getting shot in the forearm while running away or with his hands up but because it's on the back of his forearm he would have had to have his palms inward with his hands up so it was more consistent with him being shot in the arm while running which is also what his friend said happened. -
well, let's be fair: i'm not the one running with the "throwing away witnesses" thing, because to be honest, i don't think their number alone says anything about the quality of their testimony.housemouse wrote: »Not the same thing. You're not throwing away 6 witnesses in favor of 8 by charging him. Those 6 witnesses would likely be called upon in court just like any of the 8 witnesses. A trial is not a conviction. By not even allowing a trial, you truly are throwing away 8 witnesses along with an autopsy that shows that Brown was shot from behind.
also... i'm not sitting here going "? Darren Wilson's story might be true." the link in question was to cite the whole "we have eyewitnesses on both sides" thing.housemouse wrote: »The link that janklow posted to prove that Darren Wilson's story might be true had another link that lead to this.
-
Damn you came runnin quick after I mentioned your name. I'm just sayin that a trial would be the fair thing to do. If there's a dispute between witness accounts then let them tell it in court. Not indicting him is just a way to sweep it all under the rug.
-
...yeah, it's truly weird how i see threads in the SL when i am moderating it. whatever might explain my need to respond to posts in those threads as i come across them?housemouse wrote: »Damn you came runnin quick after I mentioned your name.
SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE SENSE OF THIS INSANITY
which is fine, but there's a difference between "not indicting him because we're covering it up" and "not indicting him because we don't think we can get a conviction"housemouse wrote: »I'm just sayin that a trial would be the fair thing to do. If there's a dispute between witness accounts then let them tell it in court. Not indicting him is just a way to sweep it all under the rug.
