Mike Brown/Ferguson riots (16 Viewers)

Valerio.

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2014
5,762
watching all those riots from outside the usa... well honestly it look just like another reason to vandalize shops.

Rest is meh honestly.

Everybody knows that in the land of freedom and equity anyone can get a gun. So Police is "forced" to be straight. If you gonna think he's gonna shoot or something it's the officer that get killed.

And to all this i wanna add once a black man get killed (for the various reasons) it get national and so on. But i don't see the same crap happening when a cop die or a white man go down.

Like in Italy nowdays they like to shout "femminicidio" (which means mens kill women , wow no shit for real?). I mean it happens! even women kill men but this doesn't get classified as something different to "omicidio"

News-Media must make the crap flow to keep working imo.
In America if a black man dies -> racism (not cause he is at fault or for a fatality)
In Italia if a woman dies -> sexism or something i can't even define
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,661
but in this case, it is the civilians doing harm to other innocent civilians to try make a point against the authority
It's not even that, they're just "opportunist" scum bags using the protests as an excuse to commit crime. They most likely don't care about the issues at hand.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,661
icemaη;4746638 said:
Noob question. The Grand Jury decides if there's a case to prosecute, in this case, the police officer? If they had found him 'guilty', then there would be a trial?
Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial. However, what's interesting is that neither side is required to bring forth all the evidence in their possession. Usually just enough to prove they should go to trial.
 

icemaη

Rab's Husband - The Regista
Moderator
Aug 27, 2008
36,350
Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to warrant going to trial. However, what's interesting is that neither side is required to bring forth all the evidence in their possession. Usually just enough to prove they should go to trial.
There can't be any appeal of sorts either?
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,754
icemaη;4746693 said:
Here's something :D



(Not sure if image is legit)
Man, that is so embarrassingly clueless on so many levels.

It's not even that, they're just "opportunist" scum bags using the protests as an excuse to commit crime. They most likely don't care about the issues at hand.
Yup. Bored kids who come in from out of town looking for a little wilding fun, mostly.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,661
icemaη;4746714 said:
There can't be any appeal of sorts either?
Not that I know of. The Feds could pursue it, but there's not enough clarity with the case to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

The only black adults people I feel sorry for are the grandparents who actually went through tough times to build a better life but the following generations have cocked it up and by no fault but their own.

I feel sorry for the young children who will know no better.
You can't be serious about this. I know plenty of black adults that just live their lives like regular citizens. Some of them living rather affluent lives at that. They never play the victim card and shit like that embarrasses them. In fact, there are probably more black people that live and act like this that don't.

You can't lump all black people into the "ghetto" category and expect to be taken seriously.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,661
@Enron i take it you read the grand jury proceedings, what do you make of it?
I read a bit, but I don't think the Grand Jury did anything wrong. They just investigated what they were given. Though there were some issues with investigation. First off Wilson's account is pretty strange (could be due to him being rattled and slightly coached) and the fact that the ME didn't take any crime scene photos or take any measurements. So there wasn't a lot of forensic evidence to confirm or deny Wilson's statement. Then the witness statements were mostly unreliable. So basically you had Wilson's statement vs Brown's statement. Prosecutors have indicted people on less, but he wasn't going to push a 50-50 case before a jury, especially when it's a cop from a department he has to continue to work with.

Nationally, officer related shootings that don't have some sort of obvious criminality element don't go to trial. And in this case I think a trial only would have at best provided clarity as to what really happened. And I don't think it would have been the result that the Brown family wants. From their point of view, at the best it would have shown a young cop getting scared and making a mistake. At the worst it would have shown their kid to be a terrible human being who "asked for it". When in reality the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,799
I read a bit, but I don't think the Grand Jury did anything wrong. They just investigated what they were given. Though there were some issues with investigation. First off Wilson's account is pretty strange (could be due to him being rattled and slightly coached) and the fact that the ME didn't take any crime scene photos or take any measurements. So there wasn't a lot of forensic evidence to confirm or deny Wilson's statement. Then the witness statements were mostly unreliable. So basically you had Wilson's statement vs Brown's statement. Prosecutors have indicted people on less, but he wasn't going to push a 50-50 case before a jury, especially when it's a cop from a department he has to continue to work with.

Nationally, officer related shootings that don't have some sort of obvious criminality element don't go to trial. And in this case I think a trial only would have at best provided clarity as to what really happened. And I don't think it would have been the result that the Brown family wants. From their point of view, at the best it would have shown a young cop getting scared and making a mistake. At the worst it would have shown their kid to be a terrible human being who "asked for it". When in reality the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
:tup:
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,017
Definitely, you ruin your entire cause with $#@! like that (looting, destruction of property, etc). And make the people actually peacefully protesting get lumped in with you.:agree:
Personally, I think there are a plethora of more important issues to march over, such as the Federal Reserve essentially stealing the wealth of the nation to give to large banks, or the various criminal acts that have resulted in the deaths of thousands orchestrated by the Bush and Obama regimes, from wars to open borders. Did we see protests such as these when thousands of our troops died in Iraq for no reason? Nope.

Hence why I think all of those protestors are idiots. I'm certainly no fan of the police state, but these folks are making a stink about a kid who bit off more thug life than he could chew.

The government loves to harp on race issues since it is an easy way to deflect criticism or criminal activity, which is why they have been so involved with Ferguson, Trayvon, et cetera. They couldn't care less about those kids, especially when they allow illegals to take their jobs.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 14)