Michael Brown: Killed by racism
- Thread starter Wilksey
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I got to see my adult sons, my elderly mom and hold a new grandson, doesn't get much better than that. Oh yeah, we drank some wine too.
Were you able to buy all that food with your government stolen money check? Damn!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
While I agree he may have been scum, do you have any concerns about police brutality in general?
I think the protesters have some valid concerns, but may have picked the wrong poster child.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Indictment is the actual bringing of charges
the grand jury determines whether there is cause for charges to be brought (was there a crime?) and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to bring those charges against the target of the investigation.
Officer Wilson was not indicted, as the grand Jury found no cause for action (no crime was committed)
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Officer Wilson's ttestimony was likely given little weight. It was probably only checked against physical evidence and his known past statements.
You mention cross examination. That is important. It favors the cause of charging Wilson with a crime.
Every piece of evidence, every word of testament was given to the grand jury just like it would in a trial, and a defense lawyer was not there to fiddle with it to make Wilson look not guilty.
they saw the evidence and were not impressed.
The good thing about the grand jury for your position is that officer Wilson can be brought up on charges for this offense later if new evidence comes up that makes him appear guilty.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
or they get a prosecutor who is willing to prosecute
You mean like the Zimmerman "prosecution" where they waste time, tax payer dollars, and destroy the life of an innocent man, despite the fact they KNEW they couldn't make a conviction, all to please unreasonable racists like yourself? That kind of "prosecution"?
It must suck having so much hate for whites in your soul that you, and countless like you, are willing to forgo the "justice" you CLAIM to care so much about as soon as it concerns a non-black on trial.
That's O.K. though, you've probably been spoon fed your hatred from birth just like any other racist, and it's my contention that black racism, not any claim of "injustice", that is truly responsible for fueling black civil unrest in this nation.
Blacks can, and DO, kill THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of blacks EVERY YEAR and do NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. ONE non-black kills a black though, and all the sudden it becomes about "injustice", "racism" and "oppression".
BULLSHIT.
Until the nation, and especially the "black community", starts holding blacks accountable for THEIR racism, then this ridiculous violence will NEVER end.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are at least 1/2 right. A cop is a thug by a job description definition. He/she does not apply morality to their choices or abide by a consistent application of actual justice, they use legal cover to initiate aggression on their own behalf or as a mercenary. Perhaps you've heard cops arrest people everyday for the "crime" of peaceful self ownership.
The part many are ignoring, is the person shot was a thug too. Although I'm not sure what his thuggish behavior towards the cop was and if it rose to the level where any person would be justified in killing him. None of us on RUI can be sure, since we weren't there.
Thugs come in all colors, some wear badges and some are just big ass douche bags that strong arm smaller people for a bag of chips.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Therefore we should get rid of the civil rights act and go back to segregation...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i would also draw upon 19th century caricatures of black people as demonic, barbaric, overwhelming supermen.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's hilarious coming from a white supremacist like you.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Doubtful.
A free market would not have only a single entity that monopolizes the use of force and multiple solutions could be used in a morally justifiable and defensive way without fear of reprisal by the monopoly holder on force. (The state apparatus and their piggy mercenaries)
Therefore it's just as likely the thug kid that got shot would have been dealt with hastily when he stole from the store owner or in some previous display of his thuggery if that was his pattern.
Also, in a free market, cops would have to provide a genuine real service and would be replaced by peace officers as the market would speak.
Market feedback in a free market is what differentiates and improves services when you compare it to a captive command type market.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
In a truly free market, the invisible hand would just magically make everything awesome and nobody would ever commit crime.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
in all fairness, sometimes it is justified.
The best thing that can happen to a bully is when the targeted victim, turns the tables.
If the store owner had fucked up the punk chip thief, it would have been justified. If the thug has superior size and strength, the store owner would have been justified in tazing his ass.
Don't take shit that ain't yours.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Straw man and wrong to boot. You feel okay?
No, there will never be a time when some people don't initiate aggression, under a free market or under an unfree market, there will always be assholes. If we recognize that initiating aggression is wrong and most of us do, despite our fucking with each other, there is no logical reason to create a system that has initiated aggression embedded at the beginning. Logic, dear boy, logic.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That's not real capitalism, that's crony-capitalism.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It seems like you are trying hard to create a belief for me, so that you can then dismantle it. That's not necessary to a discussion and sort of fouls the exchange of ideas.
I'm in favor of a market that allows individuals to chose their service providers, which also means they are not or should not be bound to pay for a so called service they don't chose or don't want. Competition begets innovation and creates choice.
A blind monopoly on force does not care about customer feedback, since their "customers" are in actuality captives.
So, tell me, why do you think consensual exchanges are a manifestation of cronyism?