Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?
Wow.
Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.
What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?
Wow.
Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.
If the races had been reversed, please tell me that Al Sharpton would have been there.
Actually, he probably would have been there, he just would be standing up there with his megaphone explaining to all us idiots how this poor black cop was being railroaded by the white justice system.
Unarmed white male Dillon Taylor shot by 'non-white' cop in Utah. No indictment
Unarmed white veteran James Whitehead shot by black cop Robert Arnold, who was suspended but not indicted.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Plus, you've never heard of any of these men who were killed. I can't think of why that might be
Were the details the same? Were those victims shot while holding up their hands? Were they shot a dozen times? Were their bodies left lying in the street for 4 hours? Did the prosecutor (you know, the guy who is supposed to go after indictments) in their cases make every effort to discredit witness testimonies, thereby stymying an indictment (AND making a federal or civil case more difficult)?
Just askin'
Was Michael Brown shot while holding up his hands? NO NO NO!!!
That's a lie told ONLY by Michael Brown's friend, AND PARTNER IN CRIME, Dorian Johnson.
I'm sure you'd like that to be the case, but it's not. Sure, the witness statements are at variance with one another, as eye witness testimony often is. But a significant number still hold that Browns hands were held up when he was shot.
Wait a sec. At first you said that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up in the air.
Now you're saying that 'witness statements are at variance with one another'.
So, unless you were there (and are willing to testify under penalty of perjury), you DO NOT KNOW if his hands were up.
Now, if you were there, and saw it, and testified under penalty of perjury, then I apologize. It's not my call on whether you're telling the truth.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether his hands were up. You are CHOOSING to believe YOUR version of the story.
Now, of course, I wasn't there, so I'm choosing to believe my version of the story as well.
However, I believe my story not because I'm politically inclined to do so, as you obviously are; rather I believe it because of the EVIDENCE.
There are many good and logical reasons to believe the Wilson account of what happened, but the most important thing is the physical evidence and autopsies.
The autopsies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Dorian Johnson version of the story can't be true.
Witness lie, autopsies and physical evidence don't. Facts are stubborn things.
So, essentially you're now saying that you really have no idea of what happened there. I accept that, neither do I.
But, I originally responded to this:
Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.
We now know that you don't know the details of the case, yet you make an assumption that the prosecutor in the case made his judgment on racial grounds.
Your condition was 'all the other details were the same', and yet you don't know those details. And even though you don't, you ascribe racial motives to a man you don't know anything about.
Can you see how logical people might find fault in your logic?
No. Logic would have it that there's a clear pattern of black/Hispanic folk receiving a poorer deal from the justice system than white folk, on average.
Logic would have it that prosecutors usually go after opportunities to seek indictments. This guy not only shied away from that, he went further. He went to the media with a lengthy diatribe about how witnesses (all of 'em?) in this case shouldn't be trusted. By doing that, as I said before, he has effectively stymied the chances of there being a federal or civil case being mounted. You think that kind of behavior falls within his normal responsibilities as a prosecutor? I mean, shouldn't he be collecting some of the defence attorney' fees for that performance?
Poisoning the well just a tad?
Tywin Lannister said:I'd say it's justified in certain situations, yes.
But this shouldn't be surprising either. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and yet most people considered him a hero.
The third party thing has always bugged me though, yes. It was the same here when an unarmed kid was shot(Which is really rare in itself that anyone gets shot), a lot of kids took it upon themselves to use that as a reason to be disorderly and basically just go out trashing things and robbing businesses.
andypro7 said:Wait a sec. At first you said that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up in the air.
Now you're saying that 'witness statements are at variance with one another'.
So, unless you were there (and are willing to testify under penalty of perjury), you DO NOT KNOW if his hands were up.
Is that the case? Yes or No.
Now, if you were there, and saw it, and testified under penalty of perjury, then I apologize. It's not my call on whether you're telling the truth.
However, if you weren't, then you just admitted that, now please get this because it's crucial:
YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether his hands were up. You are CHOOSING to believe YOUR version of the story.
Now, of course, I wasn't there, so I'm choosing to believe my version of the story as well.
However, I believe my story not because I'm politically inclined to do so, as you obviously are; rather I believe it because of the EVIDENCE.
There are many good and logical reasons to believe the Wilson account of what happened, but the most important thing is the physical evidence and autopsies.
The autopsies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Dorian Johnson version of the story can't be true.
Witness lie, autopsies and physical evidence don't. Facts are stubborn things.
My reply does not answer your post directly.
I just want to point out that police fabricate evidence as we all know from the infamous Wilding Case
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?