Congressional Black Caucus: Ferguson Decision a Slap in the Face to Blacks

[ClosedCaption]

In what method of arson is being used to say that thugs had to do it together?

Was one holding a stick and the other blowing on the fire?

I didn't say they did it together. My point was that if their protest is against the police, why isn't the target the police station? I'm not advocating they do that but since they've shown they will set buildings on fire, what does setting a local mom and pop store on fire have to do with their protesting?

Who's protesting? Because thugs werent protesting they were destroying stuff.

You seem to merge the two a lot. One person set the building on fire yet you blame it on "thugs" plural. Then say that the thugs are the protesters.

They are protesting. The form of protest they use is unjustified burning of buildings. Protests don't have to be peaceful to be a protests.

Who is protesting? The protesters or the thugs?

 

[Conservative65]

In what method of arson is being used to say that thugs had to do it together?

Was one holding a stick and the other blowing on the fire?

I didn't say they did it together. My point was that if their protest is against the police, why isn't the target the police station? I'm not advocating they do that but since they've shown they will set buildings on fire, what does setting a local mom and pop store on fire have to do with their protesting?

Who's protesting? Because thugs werent protesting they were destroying stuff.

You seem to merge the two a lot. One person set the building on fire yet you blame it on "thugs" plural. Then say that the thugs are the protesters.

They are protesting. The form of protest they use is unjustified burning of buildings. Protests don't have to be peaceful to be a protests.

Who is protesting? The protesters or the thugs?

There are people peacefully protesting and there are thugs violently protesting. The manner in which they do it doesn't change the defintion of a protest.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

What's racist about killing a thug who just robbed a store and was resisting arrest?

So you think every robbery suspect should be killed on sight?

Suspect??? He was hardly a suspect. The robbery was recorded. It was a strong-arm robbery. He could have given himself up without fighting with the police officer. He was a thug and was killed. Get over it. Brown was no choir boy.

I'm not saying he was a choirboy. I don't doubt he was a thug. I don' have a problem with thieves being caught and punished for their crime after proper prosecution procedures are followed. Are you saying that everyone who fits the description of a criminal should be killed in the street? All the cop had was a description, turns out it was the same person, but the cop didn't know that for sure. Robbery is not generally punishable by death anyway.

Attacking an armed police officer while he's sitting in his car can easily lead to one's death. Brown had a death wish that night. He was looking for trouble.[/QUOTE

With the release of the grand jury transcripts and evidence, it's looking less and less like that is what happened. The prosecutor just didn't do his job.

 

[BULLDOG]

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Since the protestors are burning buildings and your failure to answer a simple yes/no question shows you do support what they do, that means you support what they are doing.

OK.....Since you are having trouble understanding Yes, I support the protests, and NO, I don't support the violence. I understand that might be a little too complex for a right winger to understand, but you will just have to do your best. All I can do is give you the information. I can't understand it for you..

Being a right-winger has nothing to do with anything except in your mind. It has to do with being civilized, having common sense, and applying the rule of law. It also has to do with the mind of a thug out for trouble.

If you somehow convinced yourself that I support burning buildings, there is certainly something wrong in your mind.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In what method of arson is being used to say that thugs had to do it together?

Was one holding a stick and the other blowing on the fire?

I didn't say they did it together. My point was that if their protest is against the police, why isn't the target the police station? I'm not advocating they do that but since they've shown they will set buildings on fire, what does setting a local mom and pop store on fire have to do with their protesting?

Who's protesting? Because thugs werent protesting they were destroying stuff.

You seem to merge the two a lot. One person set the building on fire yet you blame it on "thugs" plural. Then say that the thugs are the protesters.

They are protesting. The form of protest they use is unjustified burning of buildings. Protests don't have to be peaceful to be a protests.

Who is protesting? The protesters or the thugs?

There are people peacefully protesting and there are thugs violently protesting. The manner in which they do it doesn't change the defintion of a protest.

but to conflate the two is an attempt to make everyone there a "thug"

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks again for demonstrating just how racist the right wing is. The DNC should put you on the payroll.

Says the one who supports the protestors burning buildings.

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Noooo. It's the Pros.'s job to make sure justice is served for all.
He knew there wasn't a chance Wilson was guilty of even picking his nose in public.
The Pros. saved the State millions of dollars and the result would have been the same and the 'Special Needs Tree Dweller' negroes would have shit in their own nest anyway.
You, in your ludicrous LIB dreamworld actually believe the Pros. ought to have gone against his moral and legal responsibilities. You're fucked in the head.
Would you want him to charge YOU with a crime he KNEW you didn't commit just because the word 'Prosecutor' is in his job title?
Wise up pal.

I expect him to do his job. I wouldn't want to deal with a jailer either, but that' s no reason for him to not do his job.

 

[BULLDOG]

That is certainly what the prosecutor is claiming, but the jury had no say as to what or how information was presented to them. It was all under the prosecutors control, and he determined how and what evidence was heard. I'm not yet ready to claim that the prosecutor intentionally led the grand jury to that particular decision, but I am saying that all the irregularities were things that an unethical prosecutor would do, and I can't see another reason why he might have conducted the inquiry as he did. Especially since he knew he wasn't trusted by the community to start with, and there was a call for a special prosecutor.

At some point, you have to let people do their jobs. I mean, we can second guess ANY prosecutor, ANY jury, ANY court decision if we don't like the outcome. In fact, had there been a trial and the officer found not guilty, the same people would still be yammering on about how wrong it all is. To far too many people, any outcome other than the one they want is simply unacceptable, and no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to change their minds. The bottom line here is that the officer's life is basically over. He's going to have to move very far away in the middle of the night to have a hope of a somewhat normal life.

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

 

[BULLDOG]

Says the one who supports the protestors burning buildings.

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Noooo. It's the Pros.'s job to make sure justice is served for all.
He knew there wasn't a chance Wilson was guilty of even picking his nose in public.
The Pros. saved the State millions of dollars and the result would have been the same and the 'Special Needs Tree Dweller' negroes would have shit in their own nest anyway.
You, in your ludicrous LIB dreamworld actually believe the Pros. ought to have gone against his moral and legal responsibilities. You're fucked in the head.
Would you want him to charge YOU with a crime he KNEW you didn't commit just because the word 'Prosecutor' is in his job title?
Wise up pal.

To people like Bulldog, all that matters is WHITE officer and BLACK thug.

It's easier for you to think that isn't it? If you just assume the absolute worst about someone who disagrees with you, you don't have to worry about actually considering anything they say.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

Simple simpleton...this guy has an 0-5 record when it comes to getting an indictment against a cop who shot an unarmed person.

Either hes really bad or hes really good at being really bad

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

 

[Conservative65]

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Noooo. It's the Pros.'s job to make sure justice is served for all.
He knew there wasn't a chance Wilson was guilty of even picking his nose in public.
The Pros. saved the State millions of dollars and the result would have been the same and the 'Special Needs Tree Dweller' negroes would have shit in their own nest anyway.
You, in your ludicrous LIB dreamworld actually believe the Pros. ought to have gone against his moral and legal responsibilities. You're fucked in the head.
Would you want him to charge YOU with a crime he KNEW you didn't commit just because the word 'Prosecutor' is in his job title?
Wise up pal.

To people like Bulldog, all that matters is WHITE officer and BLACK thug.

It's easier for you to think that isn't it? If you just assume the absolute worst about someone who disagrees with you, you don't have to worry about actually considering anything they say.

It's easy because what you've said indicates it. You've discounted sources that show the opposite of what you want to believe. When YOUR words indicate things, you shouldn't get upset when people call you on it.

 

[hadit]

At some point, you have to let people do their jobs. I mean, we can second guess ANY prosecutor, ANY jury, ANY court decision if we don't like the outcome. In fact, had there been a trial and the officer found not guilty, the same people would still be yammering on about how wrong it all is. To far too many people, any outcome other than the one they want is simply unacceptable, and no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to change their minds. The bottom line here is that the officer's life is basically over. He's going to have to move very far away in the middle of the night to have a hope of a somewhat normal life.

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

 

[Conservative65]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

In other words, as long as they come to the conclusion you want, it will be the one that is fine and anything else is a farce. Typical of your kind.

 

[hadit]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

And if they also refused to indict, would you then agree that there was no murder, that the officer was acting within the guidelines to which he was trained, and there is no need for rent-a-mobs to stage scripted protests?

 

[Conservative65]

You could almost say that about any situation. People will hold on to their preconceived beliefs. It's not about changing anyone's mind. It's about following the rules for fairness that we set for ourselves. There is reason for some to believe that didn't happen this time.

There are many who thought OJ should have been found guilty of murder, but he wasn't, and we all had to accept the jury's decision. In the end, what matters is how we go about ensuring justice is served. What they're doing right now in Ferguson is helping no one. The suspect won't be returned alive, the neighborhoods these bused in rent-a-mobs are destroying are certainly not going to elevated in any way. Why not let judicial review happen? Let other courts examine the record to see if anything was done incorrectly.

Woahhhh. Don't think I am in any way advocating violence in Ferguson, or anywhere else, or supporting it . It's wrong for countless reasons, and does more to hurt their case than anything. I'm just saying that we all know the potential for violence was there, and the actions of the Ferguson police, and the prosecutor have done nothing to try to reduce the tension. If anything, they have increased the chance of violence and convinced some who would not normally join such destruction to participate.

This case was not going to be resolved by any decision coming out of Ferguson. We all know that. If Wilson stood trial and was found not guilty, the exact same people would be saying the exact same things about the verdict, because too many minds were set in stone by incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong information that confirmed already existing biases. Basically, I'm saying a whole lot of people made up their minds that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murder simply because he was a white cop who shot a black man, and will never change their minds no matter WHAT evidence is presented. You could show them a video of the suspect reaching into the cop's vehicle, hear the gunshot, see him run away then turn and charge the officer, and they would still maintain that the officer killed him for jaywalking, or some such. Your contention that he was just "pushing away" from Wilson is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Obviously, the grand jury was presented with evidence that contradicts that assertion. And, like I said, there will be review of this decision. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Wilson can still be charged with no fear of double jeopardy. Any way you look at it, though, Wilson's life is basically over. He can't go anywhere or do anything without some wanting his head on a platter.

Our justice system has little to do with popular opinion, but is based on justice. This particular grand jury was presented evidence that would be the duty of the defense to present, and evidence that would never make it past a cross examination, but the prosecutor continued on knowing and intending the entire process was nothing like a grand jury is supposed to be.

That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.

Bull(shit)dog considers whatever happens a farce unless the decision is to his liking.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ok, First off, this prosecutor has never gotten a grand jury to return an indictment against a single police officer. His loyalties were reasonably questioned from the start. His refusal to allow another prosecutor to take the case only added to the perception of unfairness.

So your idea of fairness is to run this case in front of enough grand juries and enough prosecutors until one charges the man with a crime?

One grand jury conducted as it should be instead of like the farce of the last one would be fine.

In other words, as long as they come to the conclusion you want, it will be the one that is fine and anything else is a farce. Typical of your kind.

No he means just a normal grand jury not one where the prosecutor is defending one party...I know that seems unreasonable to you but if you look into it...

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Noooo. It's the Pros.'s job to make sure justice is served for all.
He knew there wasn't a chance Wilson was guilty of even picking his nose in public.
The Pros. saved the State millions of dollars and the result would have been the same and the 'Special Needs Tree Dweller' negroes would have shit in their own nest anyway.
You, in your ludicrous LIB dreamworld actually believe the Pros. ought to have gone against his moral and legal responsibilities. You're fucked in the head.
Would you want him to charge YOU with a crime he KNEW you didn't commit just because the word 'Prosecutor' is in his job title?
Wise up pal.

To people like Bulldog, all that matters is WHITE officer and BLACK thug.

It's easier for you to think that isn't it? If you just assume the absolute worst about someone who disagrees with you, you don't have to worry about actually considering anything they say.

It's easy because what you've said indicates it. You've discounted sources that show the opposite of what you want to believe. When YOUR words indicate things, you shouldn't get upset when people call you on it.

Well, I'll ask again....what exactly have I said that would lead anyone to believe I support burning buildings.

 

[Conservative65]

Says the one who supports the protestors burning buildings.

Exactly what makes you think I support burning of buildings?

Do you support the protestors?

I understand their frustration in feeling that the prosecutor intentionally took the unprecedented step to present defense evidence to the grand jury. That leads me to believe his agenda was not to do the prosecutor's job as it has been done in virtually every other grand jury inquiry. It's his job to prosecute, not as a prosecutor/defense attorney combination. Your accusation that I support burning buildings is a perfect example of the unreasonable thinking we have all grown to expect from right wingers.

Noooo. It's the Pros.'s job to make sure justice is served for all.
He knew there wasn't a chance Wilson was guilty of even picking his nose in public.
The Pros. saved the State millions of dollars and the result would have been the same and the 'Special Needs Tree Dweller' negroes would have shit in their own nest anyway.
You, in your ludicrous LIB dreamworld actually believe the Pros. ought to have gone against his moral and legal responsibilities. You're fucked in the head.
Would you want him to charge YOU with a crime he KNEW you didn't commit just because the word 'Prosecutor' is in his job title?
Wise up pal.

I expect him to do his job. I wouldn't want to deal with a jailer either, but that' s no reason for him to not do his job.

You expect him to provide you with the answer you want to hear, otherwise, you say he didn't do his job.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No he means just a normal grand jury not one where the prosecutor is defending one party...I know that seems unreasonable to you but if you look into it...

Ok, so you can't present any evidence that it was a farce.