• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grand Jury Could Hear Michael Brown Case Evidence Wednesday

TheNextEra said:
Nope it is opinion and nothing more. You need to learn the difference. You are not saying fact just because you claim it.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
You were given to opportunity to do so instead of engaging in deflection. Yet you still haven't.
That is fact. Not opinion.
Do try to learn the difference as you obviously have shown you do not know.
 
Excon said:
Wrong again.
You were given to opportunity to do so instead of engaging in deflection. Yet you still haven't.
That is fact. Not opinion.
Do try to learn the difference as you obviously have shown you do not know.
Click to expand...

Read my posts, if not, it's not my problem. More opinions from you as usual. You argue just for the sake of arguing. If you're too lazy to go back to the beginning of the thread and read my posts, that is not my problem.
 
TheNextEra said:
Read my posts, if not, it's not my problem. More opinions from you as usual. You argue just for the sake of arguing. If you're too lazy to go back to the beginning of the thread and read my posts, that is not my problem.
Click to expand...
That is apparently you.
Going back and reading what you said at the beginning has no bearing on the hear and now. It is actually funny that you think it does.
You were given the opportunity to actually discus the evidence instead of deflect with your absurd nonsense but you haven't. That is fact. Not opinion
 
Excon said:
That is apparently you.
Going back and reading what you said at the beginning has no bearing on the hear and now. It is actually funny that you think it does.
You were given the opportunity to actually discus the evidence instead of deflect with your absurd nonsense but you haven't. That is fact. Not opinion
Click to expand...

I listed it, you ignored it, not my problem. The fact you want to be lazy instead of reading is not my problem. Your opinions are noted as such. So far you haven't provided facts only opinions so at this point i will ALLOW you the last word. So post your last word.
 
I may be alone in welcoming the beginning of the grand jury process as it appears that I'm alone in suggesting that I don't know enough about what happened to make judgment as to whether the police officer's actions were appropriate or were inappropriate. That stories have been changing, accounts are conflicting, not to mention numerous rumors have arisen, etc., leaves me highly uncertain. I believe the facts need to be determined and examined. Witness accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed and concrete evidence needs to be evaluated. A competent grand jury offers a good start to such a process, hence I welcome it. Even as many on both sides of the matter hold seemingly very strong positions, I continue to reserve judgment.
 
TheNextEra said:
I listed it, you ignored it, not my problem. The fact you want to be lazy instead of reading is not my problem. Your opinions are noted as such. So far you haven't provided facts only opinions so at this point i will ALLOW you the last word. So post your last word.
Click to expand...
You are speaking nonsense again. You listed nothing of import.
You were given the opportunity to discuss the evidence, but wont, and instead just continue to deflect.
It is quite sad, and as I said, speaks volumes.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well we will find out. Personally, I'll take the view of experts of law rather than some random internet poster that thinks he is a lawyer.

It's going to go to a grand jury and they will decide if there is sufficient evidence, not you and not me.
Click to expand...


you apparently have your mind made up

i bet you'd love to be on the grand jury....wouldnt you

myself....i dont know, which is what i wrote and have said for days

it could be a good shooting....it could be a bad one

it isnt an easy case for the DA to prove though....period

so many want this to be about a cop making bad decisions based on race hatred

dont be upset if the grand jury doesnt indict......that is extremely possible at this point
 
gdgyva said:
you apparently have your mind made up

i bet you'd love to be on the grand jury....wouldnt you

myself....i dont know, which is what i wrote and have said for days

it could be a good shooting....it could be a bad one

it isnt an easy case for the DA to prove though....period

so many want this to be about a cop making bad decisions based on race hatred

dont be upset if the grand jury doesnt indict......that is extremely possible at this point
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't care one way or the other. That is why I said they will decide to indict or not. You are the one that seems upset over this.
 
i have no issue either way....as they say in some places i dont have a dog in the race per se

i dont know all the facts

all i know is the speculation, theories, and guesses made by others

you dont care? your posting's make that seem unlikely....but okay
 
Erod said:
Another drawn-out Trayvon Martin case should be avoided if possible, I agree.
Click to expand...

The best way to avoid another Zimmerman case is for the race baiters to stay away.

Like Zimmerman, there is no evidence of anything other than a local matter at this point.

Holder should stay in DC and do federal stuff, like dealing with the border problem.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I may be alone in welcoming the beginning of the grand jury process as it appears that I'm alone in suggesting that I don't know enough about what happened to make judgment as to whether the police officer's actions were appropriate or were inappropriate. That stories have been changing, accounts are conflicting, not to mention numerous rumors have arisen, etc., leaves me highly uncertain. I believe the facts need to be determined and examined. Witness accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed and concrete evidence needs to be evaluated. A competent grand jury offers a good start to such a process, hence I welcome it. Even as many on both sides of the matter hold seemingly very strong positions, I continue to reserve judgment.
Click to expand...

You're not alone. I agree with you. Let's get this thing going.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This has nothing to do with civil rights. Neither did the Z/T case. It has to do with whether one cop was in the wrong for shooting someone that either did or did not attack him. Or are you really trying to say that any and all murders/self defense cases are under the jurisdiction of the DOJ and Obama?
Click to expand...


Saying that it has NOTHING to do with civil rights is either naïve or disingenuous. Of course there is a question as to whether there was a civil rights violation here. It may not be the case, but for you to say it flat out is not the case is silliness.
 
upsideguy said:
Saying that it has NOTHING to do with civil rights is either naïve or disingenuous. Of course there is a question as to whether there was a civil rights violation here. It may not be the case, but for you to say it flat out is not the case is silliness.
Click to expand...

Actually no, its not silliness. Its the facts. The only ones calling it a civil rights violation are those claiming that a white policeman shot Brown due to his race. No facts or evidence supports that. And the only ones that I have seen calling it such are those that think that Brown was innocent of ANY wrong doing, and thought so from the getgo before ANY facts were out...much less what we do know now.

So, can you answer my original question? In the last 40 years when has any President or DOJ personally gotten involved in a murder case before all the facts were known? Not only personally involved, but publicly involved. Mind you, this is regarding cases with similarities to the Z/T case and this Brown case.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually no, its not silliness. Its the facts. The only ones calling it a civil rights violation are those claiming that a white policeman shot Brown due to his race. No facts or evidence supports that. And the only ones that I have seen calling it such are those that think that Brown was innocent of ANY wrong doing, and thought so from the getgo before ANY facts were out...much less what we do know now.

So, can you answer my original question? In the last 40 years when has any President or DOJ personally gotten involved in a murder case before all the facts were known? Not only personally involved, but publicly involved. Mind you, this is regarding cases with similarities to the Z/T case and this Brown case.
Click to expand...

Good grief. People are not marching in the street to protest a youth being shot by a cop. There is substantive basis of a question here.

Facts? You're joking, right? You don't know the facts. Now your adding arrogance to your naivette.... which gets back to being disingenuous.
 
upsideguy said:
Good grief. People are not marching in the street to protest a youth being shot by a cop. There is substantive basis of a question here.
Click to expand...

Hmm...last I knew we were talking about the Michael Brown case. *checks thread title and OP*...Yep, we are. Also last I knew Holder was going to Ferguson to look into the investigation of the Michael Brown case. *checks* Yep, he is.

And FYI, might want to check the OP again....

Brown’s death has sparked violent clashes between police and protesters who want the officer to be charged.
Click to expand...

So yeah, people are marching in the streets to protest (and riot/loot) a "youth" (BS...he was 18) shot by a cop.

So...you going to answer my question?

upsideguy said:
Facts? You're joking, right? You don't know the facts. Now your adding arrogance to your naivette.... which gets back to being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Looks I at least know what the heck is being talked about in this thread. :shrug:

Edit: Forgot to provide proof of why Holder is visiting Ferguson...

FERGUSON, Mo. (KMOX) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder comes to Ferguson today to check in on the investigation into the shooting death of Michael Brown.
Click to expand...

Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom