Obama and Ferguson

[Esquilax]

This is such a silly argument to make, since evidently our position is that the jury got it wrong on this one. Are juries always right? No? So why the hell even say this?

So you're saying that you are aware of all the evidence that has been presented. How so?

In addition to what Rhythm said, what you asked cuts both ways; you're not aware of all the evidence either, so therefore what confidence can you have in the jury's decision? And what confidence can I have in your assessment of the matter? Let's not pretend that either one of us is playing with a full deck here.

What I'm saying is that it wasn't some skinny teen, and if he had tried to wrestle my gun from me and was charging back at me again, I think I might shoot him.

And do you think that, if you had shot him, you would have gotten away with it sans trial? Do you think you should have?

And that's also what the grand jury decided after hearing testimony from black and white witnesses and examining all the forensic evidence. What more do you want?

Transparency, and a trial. If Wilson really is as innocent as you maintain then there's no reason for you to object this strongly; what do you fear will happen? Additionally, if your conclusions on this are correct, then not only would a trial be a fair and proper execution of the judicial process, but it would exonerate Wilson in an open court, where everyone can see. You complain that the man's reputation has been dragged through the mud by this, but you're also arguing against the one proper channel by which such a reputation could easily be cleared, in view of everyone, if the evidence truly stacks up as cleanly as you're representing it.

The only way a trial could be a negative for your position is if you're wrong, so why are you still arguing against it?

They have no right to bring a person to trial without sufficient supporting evidence.

That's why we never see acquittals in a court of law, right? Because there's always sufficient supporting evidence to convict?

Are you attacking the integrity of the grand jury members? You know nothing but what you've seen and heard through the media. You're basing your assumptions on hearsay.

As are you, you might do well to remember that. You have no more basis for what you're saying than I do, you don't get to put your position on a pedestal just because it aligns with the secretive dealings of the grand jury.

It's really terribly interesting, seeing what our two positions are here. I'm sitting here arguing for more transparency, so that the evidence can be seen and evaluated. In response, you tell me I have no right to make such arguments, as I haven't seen all the evidence.

... Yeah, that's kinda my point. Doesn't that strike you as a little fucked up?