Al Sharpton to meet with Obama over Ferguson

[Fly Rod]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dam...000/ar-BBghnYt

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dam...000/ar-BBghnYt

Who the hell would rebuild there ?
You got to feel bad for the black woman that had the store baking cakes & cookies.
Started with nothing, worked hard and built a successful business.
the complete oposite of the "it's not my fault" " I need a handout" scum that lit the fires.
She should take whatever donations given to her ( last report I saw it was up over 100k) and move the hell away from there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're all missing my point.

It's not that your point was missed, it's that it was not getting anywhere. The responses were attempts to get somewhere.

That is a perspective from which many are looking at this situation and in many ways it's a valid perspective.

Perspective is self-validating. It is good to observe, even understand, different perspectives, but without agreement on observable "facts," perspective cannot meaningfully function beyond those who hold it. In and of itself, it has no useful function in the larger society. It doesn't get anywhere.

That doesn't mean there are other perspectives or that it's a complete perspective.

Exactly. There are other perspectives. And competing perspectives, arguing strictly on the a priori validation which each perspective gives itself, debate without direction and get nowhere. A complete perspective, as you put it, would be an agreement of perspectives based upon objective observation. It is that agreement which would become law. And law cannot function if it argues against itself. A victorious imposition of a given perspective upon the law destroys the law and, therefor, society.

To seek justice doesn't mean you necessarily seek a conviction, it means you want the system to work for you. Given how sloppy and careless the process appears to have been I can see why many don't believe justice was done.

To "seek justice" can be a very sloppy phrase if the seeking is based on personal or group perspective rather than law. If the "you" for whom the system must work is a group and its particular perspective rather than all of society, then the "complete perspective," the law, is broken, and where we get to, where it goes, is the destruction (transformation) of society.

And when this "justice" sought for a group is based not on legal justice but on perceived historical grievance, then the particular case, Ferguson in this instance, is not about the observable facts and the concluding justice by law, rather the case is merely another springboard for furthering a group perspective. And when such a sought after justice is fueled by ideologues who's intention is to alter society for the benefit of a particular perspective and the group that holds it, then even the "community" is swept up beyond its local perspective and subsumed into a supposed monolithic structure of lockstep black communities. Such a monolith is, on its face, a fictional false one. There is great diversity in the supposed monolith, and the observable facts are that those within it who walk in more independent shoes following values of self-reliance, work ethic, so-called traditional American values, succeed on a far greater scale than those who subscribe to the ideological perspective of the Sharptons and their destructive get nowhere agenda.

[FishermanTim]

Maybe Big "O" will have a beer-gate meeting with him?

Remember Henry Gates?
Remember the WHITE police officer that was the center of questioning his handling the BLACK man's attempt to break into his house?

Or more soundly, the "witness" that called the police (a close friend of mine) who was thrown under the bus by the whoring media and left to answer death threats and violent phone calls all by herself?

This is just a travesty, an utter disgrace that someone who's only contribution to the world is that he was able to set his own race's advancements back 50 years, that he is having a special meeting with the prez.

This also goes to more directly define the character (or lack of) of Obama.

Boy, I'm glad I haven't voted D in decades!!!!!

[buckman]

What evidence do you have that the process was sloppy and careless?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

What evidence do you have that the process was sloppy and careless?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's all in the grand jury documents released. Multiple instances of failure to follow processes, potential influencing of witnesses, destruction of evidence, lack of evidence collection etc...

[Sea Dangles]

Spence is part black I think. I mean,look at the chair he is getting rid of.... The fact he lives with his family is just a disguise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by buckman

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amen

[Fly Rod]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...dia/ar-BBgio9c

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The job of the prosecutor is to present the information they choose to the grand jury so they can determine probable cause.

In the Ferguson case they assigned a prosecutor with a long history of bias towards the police. The long rambling defense of Wilson was bizarre and only reinforced that belief.

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ moves to keep local prosecutors from handling cases like this to ensure the integrity of the process is maintained.

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Less expected than the Ferguson verdict.

Again, the deceased swattd ta th ecops as they tried to handcuff him. NO ONE deserves to die for that, but does anyone believe this guy would be dead if he let the cops do what they tried to do? I didn't see cops on a death hunt in this video, I saw cops approaching this guy with lots of caution and reserve. It escalated AFTER the deceased refused to let the cops handcuff him, and once again, you don't get to do that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The job of the prosecutor is to present the information they choose to the grand jury so they can determine probable cause.

THe grand jury is not a mere sponge that only soaks up the information presented by the prosecutor. Grand jury members can ask questions and demand evidence.

In the Ferguson case they assigned a prosecutor with a long history of bias towards the police.

Who be "They"? Since prosecutors, for the most part, prosecute the case brought by police, you'ld think that, yeah, their "bias" was be toward the police. And in most cases, when charges are brought against police, the police, in trial by jury, are usually found justified. This, in sum. would create "a long history of bias towards the police." Perhaps, you could mention some of the vast number of prosecutors that "they" could have assigned who don't have a built in "bias" toward the police

The long rambling defense of Wilson was bizarre and only reinforced that belief.

In contrast to the usual, the grand jury trial transcript was made public, so the WHOLE proceeding, including all the evidence is there, not just your characterization of a "long rambling defense."

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ moves to keep local prosecutors from handling cases like this to ensure the integrity of the process is maintained.

It wouldn't surprise me either. It wouldn't surprise me if this DOJ would like to nationalize all criminal cases, especially those involving race, to "ensure the integrity of the process." Never mind that the DOJ is not a shining example of integrity. Never mind that centralization of power is what would most likely ensure corruption of the process since it would be unchallenged.

It would not surprise me if this, as well as all preceding progressive administrations did, would continue to make moves which transfer the power of the States to the Federal Government. It wouldn't surprise me if the trajectory of the States becoming agents of the Federal Government continues, and, eventually the States will be dissolved as sovereign entities becoming merely geographic locations on the map of one, unified, State.

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Why stunning? I am not influenced in this matter by media bias. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. If there was some intentional corruption in the process, it would be one of the duties of the free press to expose that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why stunning? I am not influenced in this matter by media bias. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. If there was some intentional corruption in the process, it would be one of the duties of the free press to expose that.

It would appear that while the grand jury has a lot of power the prosecutor is very influential in shaping the environment in which they work. This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.

I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly. That's not to say it would change the outcome but the people would likely have more faith the process. Seems like there's a high potential for a conflict of interest.

Stunning in that you have a video which clearly show an officer using an improper use of force against someone who while agitated didn't appear to be an imminent threat to the police or those around him. I believe the officer didn't intend to kill him and the guys health likely played a big factor. But even if you give the police the benefit of doubt it's not a free for all.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It would appear that while the grand jury has a lot of power the prosecutor is very influential in shaping the environment in which they work.

Excuse me, but wouldn't this be true of all prosecutors. Even federal ones.

This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.

Shall we disqualify applicants for prosecutor if they have police in their families? How about federal prosecutors . . . or federal attorneys general who have a background in so-called civil rights movements and affiliations with radical groups. How about Presidents who also have such backgrounds or families who are affiliated with anti-American values and who wish to fundamentally transform the nation as well as disregarding the Constitution rather than upholding their oath to defend it?

Shall we selectively decide? Is that "fair"? I believe the word "fair" is big with you.

I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly.

Thank you. Although I would be more confident if you actually said that the state is the proper, yes--Constitutionally proper--jurisdiction for managing the process. Not the federal government.

That's not to say it would change the outcome but the people would likely have more faith the process. Seems like there's a high potential for a conflict of interest.

Omigosh. We have come to a place and time when every action can be considered a conflict of interest. Aren't all interests in conflict with someone else's interest in a wholly fractured society in which every third person has a different interest? How have we come to be so divided? How have we drifted from a society which largely had fundamentally uniform values to one in which conflicting "perspectives" are more the norm? A place where "seems like," "perspective," "perhaps, maybe, not sure, appear . . ." and the like hold sway over definite statements?

Spence, "it seems like" there would be "a high potential of conflict of interest" no matter who "they" appointed as prosecutor. It would certainly "seem" so if Eric Holder appointed one.

Stunning in that you have a video which clearly show an officer using an improper use of force against someone who while agitated didn't appear to be an imminent threat to the police or those around him. I believe the officer didn't intend to kill him and the guys health likely played a big factor. But even if you give the police the benefit of doubt it's not a free for all.

It "seems" that the victim did consider it a free for all. He didn't "seem" to think that he needed to obey the police, and that he could tell them to leave him alone. Even though he was doing something illegal.

[buckman]

Now in New York ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

The testimony and case is 100% available on the NYT website. 63 witnesses and the grand Jury could not indict the cop.

Is it possible Brown was just an a hole? I don't know just sick of the effing BS. No one makes excuses for me. No al sharptons coming to my defense if I attack a cop and get killed because of it. Sorry these people including the president need to stop sugar coating and making excuses for people. I don't hate. I don't do anything racially motivated I am friends with all people. What happened in ferguson seems pretty cut and dry to me and I have read a lot of the testimony. Much of the investigation was conducted by the FBI not local authorities.
Certainly there were witnesses that stated they saw Wilson shoot brown while he was kneeling. One was "mike Browns best friend" there were also witnesses that stated they had received pressure from the community to not testify to the facts. One individual came forward to say he had been told not to testify by individuals in the community. But he couldn't let an Innocent man be found guilty(Wilson).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Is it possible Brown was just an a hole?

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

The good news is, in this country, we don't send defendents to jail just because you don't buy their version of the story. The burden is much higher, as it should be.

You don't get to struggle with police, you just don't. You put your hands up and submit, and THEN you get to take advantage of all the protections that our system provides.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

I purposely avoided his testimony. My preference was to read testimony of individuals with no perceived "dog in the fight" if you will.

To be honest I feel the case is jaded in hysteria. Many of the witnesses stated as soon as it all happened people who did not witness the event were stating "he shot him for no reason" "he was on his knees"

I agree the NY case is shocking that one I feel should have brought a charge, particularly given video evidence of the event. With the number of officers on the scene, one individual seemingly chose to take action. I am glad the federal government is looking into that one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?

A lot of good kids steal stuff, doesn't make it right but his behavior towards the clerk shows his attitude.

There's a big gap between intimidating a store clerk and attacking a uniformed officer and taunting said officer to shoot him as Wilson claimed.

[PaulS]

Wait until Jim sees Ben Carson comparing the US to Nazi Germany. He is going to be bringing that up for the next 10 years.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Wait until Jim sees Ben Carson comparing the US to Nazi Germany. He is going to be bring that up for the 10 years.

Jim . . . PLEASE, PLEASE, don't respond to this.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim . . . PLEASE, PLEASE, don't respond to this.

Jim in CT - "This is why it is different. Yada, Yada, Liberalism, Yada"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim in CT - "This is why it is different. Yada, Yada, Liberalism, Yada"

Carson' statement (unless he was borrowing my tactic of using hyperbole, and it appears that is not the case) is absurd.

Carson did state that in the Obama era, people are afraid to say what they feel, and I think a greayt case can be made for that. Anyone who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Is that the same thing as sending me to a chlorine shower? No. Does it carry the odor of light facism? Yes.

Good enough?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Carson' statement (unless he was borrowing my tactic of using hyperbole, and it appears that is not the case) is absurd.

Carson did state that in the Obama era, people are afraid to say what they feel, and I think a greayt case can be made for that. Anyone who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Is that the same thing as sending me to a chlorine shower? No. Does it carry the odor of light facism? Yes.

Good enough?

As I said your responsive would include a "here is why it is different" explanation. It is laughable to compare being called sexist to comparing your country to a group of people who murdered millions. What a freakin joke.

So pls. show where anyone here "who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger" as you repeatedly say that over and over? I've only read a very, very small amount of times where that happens (and not here).

Are you gonna call out Carson every time he is mentioned like you seem to bring up the Duke case (for what 10 years later) and try in your convoluted way to link in to liberals?

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?

[Spence]A lot of good kids steal stuff, doesn't make it right but his behavior towards the clerk shows his attitude.

Good to know . . . but doesn't seem to be a response to my post. The vast majority of good kids don't steal stuff off shelves of stores then manhandle the clerk when he tries to stop them. Calling such behavior being a jerk is a rather mild way to discount criminality. A "jerk" would be a slang expression for someone who might be stupid, offensive, rude, or insensitive. Criminal behavior would not normally be considered an attribute of a mere jerk, although most criminals might be jerks.

[Spence]There's a big gap between intimidating a store clerk and attacking a uniformed officer and taunting said officer to shoot him as Wilson claimed.

Is there really a BIG gap? Especially if under the influence of THC which might effect someone prone to violent behavior? Anyway, the way you use the word "jerk," it certainly would apply in this case as well as his behavior with the clerk. And his behavior was criminal in both the confrontation with the clerk and with the policeman.

And there was no need to embellish Wilson's testimony by saying that he said it looked like Brown had a death wish when he said no such thing. And Wilson's testimony was consistent with the evidence, and, here's a word you like, plausible.

And, after all, Wilson's testimony was his "perspective." Being big on perspective, I'ld think you would respect that.

[Piscator]

Not saying Garner deserved to die but lets be serious here (black or white) this is another situation of a guy who didn't help impact the outcome. This guy had a long history of more than 31 arrests including assault and grand larceny. He obviously doesn't know how to follow the rules, again didn't deserve to die but I doubt that the intention of this cop was for this guy to die either. He was resisting arrest and that was pretty clear, had he not resisted I'm not sure this criminal would be dead right now. I also read that at the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation (again, he must think rules don't apply to him). The chokehold the cop put on him contributed to his death but Garner, who weighed 350 pounds, supposedly suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea (wonder what kind of health insurance he had). Im not a doctor but I'd bet his poor health was the main cause of his death. Also, he supposedly didn't die at the scene of the confrontation but suffered a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Not saying Garner deserved to die but lets be serious here (black or white) this is another situation of a guy who didn't help impact the outcome. This guy had a long history of more than 31 arrests including assault and grand larceny. He obviously doesn't know how to follow the rules, again didn't deserve to die but I doubt that the intention of this cop was for this guy to die either. He was resisting arrest and that was pretty clear, had he not resisted I'm not sure this criminal would be dead right now. I also read that at the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation (again, he must think rules don't apply to him). The chokehold the cop put on him contributed to his death but Garner, who weighed 350 pounds, supposedly suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea (wonder what kind of health insurance he had). Im not a doctor but I'd bet his poor health was the main cause of his death. Also, he supposedly didn't die at the scene of the confrontation but suffered a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This article supports what you say and goes even further:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/.../?subscriber=1