• 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!

Ferguson LIVE announcement video feed links here [W:60, 267]

There's no need to continue on with the dodging. Everyone saw what you did and how wrong you were. Now you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. I'm fine allowing you to do that. But you've distracted from the thread topic enough, got anything more to say to me, make sure it's on topic. Everyone here has your number.

Show us the post. What does it say? I'll wait. :)
 
#675

Read it, learn it, take it to heart. Get back on topic.

No, no. I asked you to show us what the post says. Did I state "coming from the ideology"? Are you not right wing? I'll wait. The best part is that SMTA who is also right wing and then another right wing poster espoused those very opinions minutes later I stated it. That you're not trying to avoid like the plague what was actually said in the post is funny. ;)
 
No, no. I asked you to show us what the post says. Did I state "coming from the ideology"? Are you not right wing? I'll wait. The best part is that SMTA who is also right wing and then another right wing poster espoused those very opinions minutes later I stated it. That you're not trying to avoid like the plague what was actually said in the post is funny. ;)

#675

Read it, learn it, take it to heart. Get back on topic.
 
Lmao - I literally posted my response when you were still online. I can even prove it. You're not right wing now? That's not an argument made by the right wing ideology? ;) You need to stop this before you look even worse.

You just love that victim card, and play it poorly.
 
No-the photos are out there, taken at the same time as this-im not going to spoon feed you while you tap dance. But thats not the real issue here.
if the photos are out there - photos which will show us a face that was so damaged there was reasonable fear that the next punch to it could have been fatal, as the cop attested, then show it to us on this debate site and convince us that it is you who is correct instead of me
you insist there are other available photos to offer. so, offer them

WHY would you post the view that shows no injury when there are others out there that do? Are you trying to misrepresent here?
i posted the photo of the cop on the evening of the event, soon after he insisted that the next blow to his face could have been fatal. to ask the viewer to question how legitimate that cop's testimony was based on the photo
so, again, share with us your photo which will support your position

I think we know the answer to this.
then let's ask a different question
the grand jury is intended to make a determination of probable cause. to assess whether there was enough reason to proceed with a case at trial, for a jury to make a decision
based on what i have seen, there was an abundance of evidence to cause a reasonable person to conclude that there was probable cause for a trial. not to make a determination of guilt or acquittal, but enough to warrant a trial

Brown was a thug who attacked a cop and then tried to shoot him with the cops own gun.
which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assault

Brown had just assaulted a store clerk (who's store was looted tonight) and then robbed him.
from the video i watched, my recollection was that brown was headed out the door when he was approached by the store operator, and then shook him off. at a trial we would be better able to assess what that was about. did brown steal those cigars or was he leaving abruptly after being approached to determine if he was old enough to make that purchase. right now, i don't know

Brown charged the cop according to black witnesses in the grand jury.
were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trial

Why can't you accept the truth?
i can accept the truth. but it will require a trial for the truth to emerge. only a simpleton would believe a grand jury determines truth. it only evaluates probable cause for or against a trial going forward

Why are you willing to deceive yourself and others over a false narrative?
again, how do you know which narrative is false? there has been no trial for all sides of the issue to emerge
 
You just love that victim card, and play it poorly.

Huh? It's like you're a bot programmed to type something that sounds somewhat coherent.
 
#675

Read it, learn it, take it to heart. Get back on topic.

It's a good thing you dropped it. I wouldn't want you to actually post what I said and admit I didn't claim anything about your statements but an argument made by the rightwing ideology.
 
What?

Nothing to do with Disney.

Sorry, I'm confused. Blonde today...very blonde.

I'm challenging Disney on his assertion that Wilson clearly committed a crime. I disagree with Disney, both based on what I heard last night as well as some scanning of the evidence that's out there now.
 
Re: Ferguson LIVE announcement video feed links here

What do the protesters want? Justice? I do to. The truth? I do to. We have a process to find the answers and they don't like it
 
Re: Ferguson LIVE announcement video feed links here

What do the protesters want? Justice? I do to. The truth? I do to. We have a process to find the answers and they don't like it

Protesters want that and will use legal channels for such. Hooligans and gang members want chaos. This is true in every setting. Why are you conflating the two?
 
Proportional response is not the standard. Police carry weapons and it's their duty to protect themselves harm and keep their weapon in control at all times. The standard is not, you busted my lip so I give you a black eye. The standard is obey the law and don't assault a cop.
but that was not the issue i was presenting
my point was to look at the face of the cop, photographed at the emergency room immediately after the incident
and by looking at that photo to conclude how truthful the cop's testimony was when asserting that he believed the next blow to that face could have been fatal
ferguson cop the day after the shooting getting his face punched twice.jpg
and i asked the forum community to ask themselves, is this the face of a shooter who reasonably believed the next punch to it could have proven fatal? was the cop being honest in his grand jury testimony?
 
but that was not the issue i was presenting
my point was to look at the face of the cop, photographed at the emergency room immediately after the incident
and by looking at that photo to conclude how truthful the cop's testimony was when asserting that he believed the next blow to that face could have been fatal
View attachment 67176385
and i asked the forum community to ask themselves, is this the face of a shooter who reasonably believed the next punch to it could have proven fatal? was the cop being honest in his grand jury testimony?

Plenty of witnesses were NOT being truthful.

In fact there were blatant examples of perjury .

They're going to be ignored apparently by the prosecutor.

Defining deviancy down I suppose.

Yes, ofcourse the Cop was being honest.

One of the few honest accounts given.
 
Nope. I have no problem with a cop using deadly force where it is warranted. Here it clearly was not. Like I said....hopefully one day the good cops out there (and I will say that they vastly outnumber the bad) will get wise to the fact that the code of silence makes it much more difficult to do their job. They should actively help weed out the bad apples, but all too often their sense of brotherhood does not allow them to do this. Hopefully that will change one day.

How would you know if it clearly was not warranted. Tell you what, lets piss off a 280lb guy and have him charge at you while you hold the weapon. Im sure you would holster up and talk him down
 
Ever been in what is essentially a life or death situation where you are not the aggressor? Can I imagine/believe that Wilson was fearful that the next blow could have disabled him (knocked out, stunned, etc) and Brown uses Wilson handgun to shoot him? I can absolutely believe that could have been going through Wilson's mind.


you show it to us
PLEASE!
i want to see a face that tells us he had reasonable reason to believe the next blow to it could have been fatal
so, please do show us that photo
View attachment 67176372
this is all that i have. show us the photo you insist will exculpate the shooter
 
but that was not the issue i was presenting
my point was to look at the face of the cop, photographed at the emergency room immediately after the incident
and by looking at that photo to conclude how truthful the cop's testimony was when asserting that he believed the next blow to that face could have been fatal
View attachment 67176385
and i asked the forum community to ask themselves, is this the face of a shooter who reasonably believed the next punch to it could have proven fatal? was the cop being honest in his grand jury testimony?

Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson assault Darren Wilson? Yes, or no?
 
Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson assault Darren Wilson? Yes, or no?

i don't know
which is why a trial is needed to make that determination
 
which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assault

Wilson, from his own testimony, backed up because of Brown's comments and the cigarillos in Brown's hand. He had heard about the theft on his radio prior to his contact with Brown. Imagine if Brown and his buddy were walking on the sidewalk, or at least complied with Wilson when he suggested to them that the sidewalk was a better place to walk.

were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trial

I believe all of the witnesses who saw Brown in a position of surrender were found out to be wrong.
 
Ever been in what is essentially a life or death situation where you are not the aggressor? Can I imagine/believe that Wilson was fearful that the next blow could have disabled him (knocked out, stunned, etc) and Brown uses Wilson handgun to shoot him? I can absolutely believe that could have been going through Wilson's mind.

which is why i would want to see how wilson would respond on the witness stand, replying in cross examination, allowing us to evaluate the reasonableness of his presentations
a trial is needed for that to occur
which is why probable cause should have been found by the grand jury
 
Wilson, from his own testimony, backed up because of Brown's comments and the cigarillos in Brown's hand. He had heard about the theft on his radio prior to his contact with Brown. Imagine if Brown and his buddy were walking on the sidewalk, or at least complied with Wilson when he suggested to them that the sidewalk was a better place to walk.



I believe all of the witnesses who saw Brown in a position of surrender were found out to be wrong.
how do you know that they were wrong? there was no trial
 
if the photos are out there - photos which will show us a face that was so damaged there was reasonable fear that the next punch to it could have been fatal, as the cop attested, then show it to us on this debate site and convince us that it is you who is correct instead of me
you insist there are other available photos to offer. so, offer them


i posted the photo of the cop on the evening of the event, soon after he insisted that the next blow to his face could have been fatal. to ask the viewer to question how legitimate that cop's testimony was based on the photo
so, again, share with us your photo which will support your position


then let's ask a different question
the grand jury is intended to make a determination of probable cause. to assess whether there was enough reason to proceed with a case at trial, for a jury to make a decision
based on what i have seen, there was an abundance of evidence to cause a reasonable person to conclude that there was probable cause for a trial. not to make a determination of guilt or acquittal, but enough to warrant a trial


which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assault


from the video i watched, my recollection was that brown was headed out the door when he was approached by the store operator, and then shook him off. at a trial we would be better able to assess what that was about. did brown steal those cigars or was he leaving abruptly after being approached to determine if he was old enough to make that purchase. right now, i don't know


were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trial


i can accept the truth. but it will require a trial for the truth to emerge. only a simpleton would believe a grand jury determines truth. it only evaluates probable cause for or against a trial going forward


again, how do you know which narrative is false? there has been no trial for all sides of the issue to emerge

What's a trial going to do?
 
Back
Top Bottom