Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1323
December 26th, 2015 at 5:54:44 PM permalink
BLM may not have nefarious intentions at the upper levels, but at the lowest levels, especially at mass protests and demonstrations there are many violent people who participate.

However, what is true without any dispute: BLM openly supports violent people whether intentionally or through misguided principles. For example defending certain people with massive records of violence and gang membership (I don't need to name who they are, we all know).

Also, BLM supports demonstrations which disrupt the lives of countless thousands of people just trying to work and live their lives (blocking highways, businesses, etc...)

What is also true, BLM supports movements condemning individual officers even after they are found not guilty by courts of law and investigations.


Is BLM wrong on every issue? No. Are they right on every issue? No. However, they are almost always wrong on the way that they go about spreading their message. Disrupting events and people just trying to live their lives is not productive or professional.


All Lives Matter. Racism is wrong, so are false allegations of racism. BLM loves finding conspiratorial racism where there is none to be found.
HeySlick
HeySlick
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 277
December 26th, 2015 at 6:14:01 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

BLM may not have nefarious intentions at the upper levels, but at the lowest levels, especially at mass protests and demonstrations there are many violent people who participate.

However, what is true without any dispute: BLM openly supports violent people whether intentionally or through misguided principles. For example defending certain people with massive records of violence and gang membership (I don't need to name who they are, we all know).

Also, BLM supports demonstrations which disrupt the lives of countless thousands of people just trying to work and live their lives (blocking highways, businesses, etc...)

What is also true, BLM supports movements condemning individual officers even after they are found not guilty by courts of law and investigations.


Is BLM wrong on every issue? No. Are they right on every issue? No. However, they are almost always wrong on the way that they go about spreading their message. Disrupting events and people just trying to live their lives is not productive or professional.


All Lives Matter. Racism is wrong, so are false allegations of racism. BLM loves finding conspiratorial racism where there is none to be found.




It's perpetual motion in the worst possible way --- victimhood mentality for another generation. Solutions abound and help is out there --- 'personal responsibility' are just words in SO many ways -- action always speaks louder than words.


Edit/afterthought

There's this old line/song etc

You've got to eliminate the Negative and accentuate the positive


I'll never understand why so many people can live their lives in the very opposite direction of the line above??
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1323
December 27th, 2015 at 11:12:22 AM permalink
Quote: HeySlick

Quote: Gandler

BLM may not have nefarious intentions at the upper levels, but at the lowest levels, especially at mass protests and demonstrations there are many violent people who participate.

However, what is true without any dispute: BLM openly supports violent people whether intentionally or through misguided principles. For example defending certain people with massive records of violence and gang membership (I don't need to name who they are, we all know).

Also, BLM supports demonstrations which disrupt the lives of countless thousands of people just trying to work and live their lives (blocking highways, businesses, etc...)

What is also true, BLM supports movements condemning individual officers even after they are found not guilty by courts of law and investigations.


Is BLM wrong on every issue? No. Are they right on every issue? No. However, they are almost always wrong on the way that they go about spreading their message. Disrupting events and people just trying to live their lives is not productive or professional.


All Lives Matter. Racism is wrong, so are false allegations of racism. BLM loves finding conspiratorial racism where there is none to be found.




It's perpetual motion in the worst possible way --- victimhood mentality for another generation. Solutions abound and help is out there --- 'personal responsibility' are just words in SO many ways -- action always speaks louder than words.


Edit/afterthought

There's this old line/song etc

You've got to eliminate the Negative and accentuate the positive


I'll never understand why so many people can live their lives in the very opposite direction of the line above??





Its because these groups thrive in the negative. They make their living selling racism for a living. Some members of their groups make quite a lot of money from it.

This is why they will find every little case of alleged racism that they can. And, they will invent racism in other cases.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
December 27th, 2015 at 11:36:24 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Its because these groups thrive in the negative. They make their living selling racism for a living. Some members of their groups make quite a lot of money from it.

This is why they will find every little case of alleged racism that they can. And, they will invent racism in other cases.



There a whole lot of "Reverends" and some people who may have even walked with MLK that make much more of living off racial equality rather than actually doing much to change it.

BLM is just another group living on pointing out the negative...we'll see if they come up with any good ways to actually fix it.
HeySlick
HeySlick
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 277
December 27th, 2015 at 11:56:51 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

There a whole lot of "Reverends" and some people who may have even walked with MLK that make much more of living off racial equality rather than actually doing much to change it.

BLM is just another group living on pointing out the negative...we'll see if they come up with any good ways to actually fix it.




I seriously doubt they will ever fix it - at least not in my remaining life time. Just look at the notorious Sharpton and his friendship with Obama.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 98
  • Posts: 14040
December 27th, 2015 at 4:18:18 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Nope. That's the party line, a stand that would have police officers not defend themselves when attacked. Aside from those two facts cherry picked from an intensive and thorough grand jury finding, much exculpatory evidence was presented, among which was that Wilson sensed that Brown was going for his weapon while Brown was attacking the officer, as CNN summarized:,
"Wilson said he feared Brown could beat him to death. Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him. Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist. "I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.

Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets. Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents.

Wilson said Brown kept running through shots. Wilson testified he shot at Brown on the street when Brown turned on him. "As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it," he said. "I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk," he said. "At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots," he said. "Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. "And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way."

He told the jurors he thought Brown was going to tackle him. "Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot. "I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped. "When he fell, he fell on his face."

Wilson said Brown reached under his shirt."



Gettin' dizzy from the spin here.

The grand jury heard only one side of things, as usual, but unusually, the DA was trying to show why charges should NOT be pressed. And, HIGHLY unusual, this officer (who should have been charged and gone through a REAL trial) was allowed to testify without cross-examination. So he could say anything he (or the DA) wanted, and nobody was called to refute what he said, though there were witnesses. What he DOESN'T explain is how the fatal shot was through the TOP of Brown's head, let alone inconsistencies between what he claimed and what others saw. Not exactly a congruent fact with his testimony.

And we all know how the police NEVER lie or exaggerate about how something went down. Especially with no video, and no conflicting testimony. Good grief. The protestors were asking for a real trial, not a lynching, and there should have been one, even if the result was the same.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1323
December 27th, 2015 at 8:36:36 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: SanchoPanza

Nope. That's the party line, a stand that would have police officers not defend themselves when attacked. Aside from those two facts cherry picked from an intensive and thorough grand jury finding, much exculpatory evidence was presented, among which was that Wilson sensed that Brown was going for his weapon while Brown was attacking the officer, as CNN summarized:,
"Wilson said he feared Brown could beat him to death. Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him. Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist. "I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.

Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets. Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents.

Wilson said Brown kept running through shots. Wilson testified he shot at Brown on the street when Brown turned on him. "As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it," he said. "I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk," he said. "At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots," he said. "Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. "And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way."

He told the jurors he thought Brown was going to tackle him. "Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot. "I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped. "When he fell, he fell on his face."

Wilson said Brown reached under his shirt."



Gettin' dizzy from the spin here.

The grand jury heard only one side of things, as usual, but unusually, the DA was trying to show why charges should NOT be pressed. And, HIGHLY unusual, this officer (who should have been charged and gone through a REAL trial) was allowed to testify without cross-examination. So he could say anything he (or the DA) wanted, and nobody was called to refute what he said, though there were witnesses. What he DOESN'T explain is how the fatal shot was through the TOP of Brown's head, let alone inconsistencies between what he claimed and what others saw. Not exactly a congruent fact with his testimony.

And we all know how the police NEVER lie or exaggerate about how something went down. Especially with no video, and no conflicting testimony. Good grief. The protestors were asking for a real trial, not a lynching, and there should have been one, even if the result was the same.





There is not really any dispute that Brown was guilty. He has a colorful history of violence and gang affiliation.

He was clearly not a good person, and the police did the right thing. Anyone has a right to defend themself. If you are going to rob a store, and then resist arrest and fight with cops is probably not a wise move.

In any case the community is probably better off with one less gang member.

Do police lie sometimes? Sure. Did they in this case? No, almost certainly not. And, even if the officer did exaggerate his story of self defense (which there is no evidence of and no reason to beleive that), he still acted morally by protecting the community.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3415
December 27th, 2015 at 9:14:41 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

The grand jury heard only one side of things, as usual,


That is not accurate, as the transcript shows.
Quote:

but unusually, the DA was trying to show why charges should NOT be pressed.


Asserted without any documentation.
Quote:

And, HIGHLY unusual, this officer (who should have been charged and gone through a REAL trial) was allowed to testify without cross-examination.


Cross-exxamination is never permitted in grand jury hearings. As a matter of fact, the target and witnesses have no legal representation.
Quote:

What he DOESN'T explain is how the fatal shot was through the TOP of Brown's head, let alone inconsistencies between what he claimed and what others saw.

The coroner working for the Brown family, Michael Baden, said it could have occurred when Brown was charging Wilson's car.

A CNN team, a source not known for being pro-police in such situations, pored through thousands of pages of transcripts and delivered a detailed report about major problems that they found.

(CNN) -- The grand jury in the case of Michael Brown's shooting didn't just face an onslaught of witnesses with conflicting memories of what happened the day white police officer Darren Wilson killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager. It also heard from witnesses who couldn't be believed at all.
Some admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning. Prosecutors were so skeptical of one woman's account that they asked whether she might have dreamed about seeing the confrontation in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9.

Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides.

"It's no surprise that some people did not tell the truth in this or any other grand jury," says CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Specific witnesses from both sides -- and their off-kilter testimony were described. In the end, the entire proceeding was reviewed by none other than Eric Holder's activist Justice Department, which gave a clean bill of health to the process.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
December 27th, 2015 at 9:29:33 PM permalink
BBB, where's a good place online (Wikipedia/YouTube/news article) about the trial/testimony of Wilson?
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 103
  • Posts: 6142
December 28th, 2015 at 8:13:23 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: SanchoPanza


. Good grief. The protestors were asking for a real trial, not a lynching, and there should have been one, even if the result was the same.



You cannot honestly believe this. There is NO WAY that the protesters would be happy with a fair trial if it resulted in a not guilty verdict. You KNOW that!

Edit... The above sentence is mine, not BBB's....

  • Jump to: