Obama and Ferguson

[Lek]

What was he supposed to say? 'Congratulations to officer Wilson, for being a lousy cop and not getting punished for it'? or 'Let us all keep officer Wilson and his family in our thoughts, since no one is going to stand trial for the shooting of an unarmed teen'?

Come on.

Boru

Evidently when presented with the evidence, the grand jury decided differently. What would you do if this 6'4", 270 lb teen (who had just committed a strong arm robbery) and has wrestled with you for your gun is coming back at you. He was obviously such a "nice, innocent" kid. Why don't we look at the evidence, as the grand jury did, before we make a decision. Officer Wilson now will have to quit his job and move his family to another city. Of course, he deserves it because he's a "white, adult male". So he only got what he already deserved.

---

How about "let's have a public trial, bring both sides of the case and conduct this procedure as we're supposed to."?

If there's not enough evidence to justify a trial, you don't drag someone into court. That's one of the jobs of the grand jury to make that decision. You don't just drag someone into court without justification. That's a right that we're all supposed although you may think differently.

[Gawdzilla]

So, guilty until proven more innocent?

Can't be proven either way without a trial, now can it? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel much sympathy for the guy who got away without even the risk of being proven guilty. The man who benefits from a failure of the judiciary system is not the victim here.

Besides, I've seen as much of the evidence as anyone else. Am I not allowed to come to a conclusion on this just because it doesn't align with yours?

You haven't seen as much of the evidence as the Grand Jury.

And you're allowed to say any stupid thing you want to say, there's probably no stopping you in any case.

[Esquilax]

Evidently when presented with the evidence, the grand jury decided differently.

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?

What would you do if this 6'4", 270 lb teen (who had just committed a strong arm robbery) and has wrestled with you for your gun is coming back at you.

What does his height and weight have to do with it? I'm roughly that height and weight, a little under on both counts, does that mean I should be killed? And if the answer is no, then obviously they aren't mitigating factors, so why bring them up? Oh right, because you want to paint a picture of a big, scawy black man to emotionally drive the conversation.

And is the penalty for robbery death, in your country? If not, then it's kind of an irrelevant character assassination attempt, isn't it? Again, you're trying to make this an emotive discussion about how scary the victim was, which is strange for a guy who apparently has the facts on his side.

He was obviously such a "nice, innocent" kid. Why don't we look at the evidence, as the grand jury did, before we make a decision.

The assumption that we haven't must be very convenient for your position.

Officer Wilson now will have to quit his job and move his family to another city. Of course, he deserves it because he's a "white, adult male". So he only got what he already deserved.

Whoa now, take that strawman somewhere else, buddy!

[Esquilax]

You haven't seen as much of the evidence as the Grand Jury.

The appeal to vague additional evidence now, is it? Why should I just assume mitigating circumstances when the evidence at my disposal indicates there are none? If you're going to convince me of something I'll need actual evidence, not just the lazy assertion that there is some.

And you're allowed to say any stupid thing you want to say, there's probably no stopping you in any case.

And we end on an ad hom. Classy.

[Lek]

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?

What does his height and weight have to do with it? I'm roughly that height and weight, a little under on both counts, does that mean I should be killed? And if the answer is no, then obviously they aren't mitigating factors, so why bring them up? Oh right, because you want to paint a picture of a big, scawy black man to emotionally drive the conversation.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

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

-because this didn't go to a trial, it's unlikely that either you or I - or Esq (or the greater public) will be aware of that evidence. What has been released -does- look to be just a tad biased, just a tad stacked in the officers favor (as was expected by many, regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified).

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 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?

I believe Esq was hoping for the same thing that many were hoping for - transparency. Oh well, hope in one hand, shit in the other. Being something other than a skinny teen, is, again, not grounds for summary execution in the street.

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

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. The man could very well be as justified as the grand jury decided that he was (and ultimately that's all that matters)...but many have no condfidence in a system that will deliver a predictable outcome either way..and particularly so when that system feels that the best way to accomplish this is behind closed doors. The very best thing that can be said about it all - the most positive spin I can put on it....is that it was yet another missed opportunity in an endless litany of missed opportunities.

[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?

[KUSA]

Yeah! What about the poor white man in a position of authority, who literally got away with murder! Who will tell his story?

When will the United States government start caring about adult white males?! :shock:

It wasn't murder.
mur·der
ˈmərdər
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

You know, if you did nothing technically wrong in killing someone who committed no capital offense, your anguish does not deserve to be spoken of in the same sentence as that of the family of the deceased.

You are still alive. Now shut up and go away.

[Esquilax]

Yeah! What about the poor white man in a position of authority, who literally got away with murder! Who will tell his story?

When will the United States government start caring about adult white males?! hock:

It wasn't murder.
mur·der
ˈmərdər
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Yeah, let's quibble over definitions rather than deal with what I actually meant, which is that, if it isn't classified as murder definitionally, the actual act was.