RE: Obama and Ferguson
November 27, 2014 at 9:47 pm
(This post was last modified: November 27, 2014 at 10:01 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(November 26, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Lek Wrote: I was disappointed in President Obama the other night when he gave his ten or so minute speech after the grand jury decision was announced in Ferguson. He rightfully stated his sadness over the death of Michael Brown and for his family, but he didn't even mention feeling any relief or concern for Officer Wilson and his family. In fact he made no mention at all of their situation. I wonder if he really cared.
Probably has something to do in the difference between the pulse rates of the two key figures in the case.
(November 27, 2014 at 3:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A dead body -is- sufficient supporting evidence. Do you think that you would have escaped trial on the same count? I doubt it...just imagine that it was a cops dead body -bzzzzzzzzzzzt- RIP
This is the crux of the matter.
(November 27, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Lek Wrote:(November 27, 2014 at 4:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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?
I agree with your desire for transparency. Let's see what comes out in the days to come. What I don't want to see is an innocent man going through an unjustified trial in order to appease a bunch of people, who don't know what happened, screaming for an indictment regardless of the evidence to support it. Do you believe that there was a conspiracy among them to acquit Wilson? You and I don't know any of the jurors or of any specific reason to believe they would be dishonest. Basically, you want to subject Wilson to a long, stressful trial against his rights as a citizen because you believe, without evidence, that the trial is called for. Give me a break. Where does the problem lie here?
The problem I have is the fact that police testimony is generally given greater weight in a court, even when outnumbered by eyewitnesses.
The implicit assumption seems to be that police wouldn't lie under oath, but the fact is that a code of silence does indeed exist amongst police who see fellow officers commit crimes.
In other words, the jurors may be as honest as the day is long, but will decide to not present charges based upon lies fed by the officer. Now, I grant that I don't know what was and wasn't a lie ... nor do you.
Myself, I'm of the opinion that any time there is an intentional killing done, whether by a civilian or under the color of authority, there should be a full-blooded adversarial trial, to ensure that all facts are aired publicly.
