Ferguson Riots

Not a Hannity fan at all, but from all the remarks made since last nite by their attorneys that doesnt really seem that difficult.

I'm not either but it was fun to watch.

The attorney said they were moving forward in Civil Rights allegations because Wilson described him as looking "demonic".

When challenged on that he said the racism in that comment wasn't actually said but it was probably implied.
 
Has this country become the country of sheep? Seriously.

This may not be the right term, I just see a LOT of blind faith.
 
Flipping through the channels and caught about 10 minutes of Hannity absolutely owning Brown's attorney. Wow, that wasn't even fair lol

I'm pretty sure the average house cat could manage that feat.

Of course the attorney and the rest of the race crises opportunists don't need to make good arguments...just say whatever is popular with the intended audience and they're way to far down the rabbit hole to care about credibly addressing the facts. Basically irrelevant really.
 
Aint that the fing truth. It doesnt fit the white versus black narrative the media and leftist modern liberals want to believe exists like a plague in this country.

Exactly! Didn't fit the agenda of whites being the only people capable of being racist..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Interesting read

1) “Jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise.”

2) “The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

3) “Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. n high-profile cases such as police shootings, [prosecutors] may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.”

Juror bias, prosecutorial bias, weak case.

The word out of Ferguson appears to fit the lattermost of these, but who knows. There are still questions left to be answered and “why don’t police get indicted in killings?” is one of them. So why not go to a trial?


Here’s why Darren Wilson should have been indicted | Rare
 
Just because he wasn't indicted doesn't mean he was innocent.

If you were black, had terrible public education, were raised to distrust whites, and were taught that the deck is stacked against you, you would feel very differently about the grand jury's decision.

Yeah there are rioters who just want to loot, but some people actually do care about justice.

And your post proves that you, and they, don't understand the concept of justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Here's my problem with it:

At bare minimum, an indictment would have inspired confidence in the Ferguson community that the game wasn’t rigged, that due diligence did happen, that police are held to the same standards they are and that they believe “black lives matter.”

In this case he was held to the same standard. And as I stated earlier in this thread, I can flat guarantee the jury knew or at least had to go under the assumption things would unfold as they did last night. And likely would have pushed at least one of the five charges to trial if there was even a single shred of evidence that might have proven the case.

But they couldn't satisfy the public's outcry for blood and had to send back the not true verdict. And very likely based on the utter and complete lack of evidence. There was no point in dragging it out even further if there was going to be no chance of a guilty verdict. Because it still would have ended up with the same situation once the trial ended and Wilson was found not guilty.
 

VN Store



Back
Top