Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:53 PM
I didn't know DAs had adversarial relationships w police! I assume that they are on the same team 99% of the time, busting criminals and putting them away! As for the defense... I was making a wish for a jury trial that should have happened, not commenting on the grand jury itself. What should have happened - and in my opinion this should be automatic when it's a case of lethal force by an officer of the law - is that the case should have gone to trial. The failure to even charge an officer of wrongdoing when he kills an unarmed civilian just doesn't sit well with me. We shouldn't allow the police state to have that kind of power without answering for its actions. Where we truly disagree, imho, is on the issue of racism. When I speak of institutional racism, I am very aware of progress of the past 50 years thanks to the civil rights movement. I think it's great! But unlike you (apparently, fill me in if I'm wrong), I don't imagine that racism now no longer exists and its effects have been wiped away forever. Instead, I look at the history of our country and recognize that INSTITUTIONAL racism exists. STRUCTURAL racism exists. Because of this, systems that are meant to work for everyone wind up working for different populations in different ways. We find uneven policing, prosecution, and incarceration. This is happening not because, as Sowell suggests, of "degeneracy." This is happening because we have not fully recovered as a society from the damage done to the black population by slavery and subsequent racism. It's a moral failure, imho, to turn our backs on the racial situation today, as though it were not our own actions as a young country which caused it.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:43 PM
Aww, you shouldn't sell me short! You don't even know me :) Next time, pretend I'm someone you respect and happen to disagree with. That's what I try to do with you!
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:42 PM
Right, do you imagine that all people who disagree with you are stupid? Is there anyone with whom you disagree while retaining some shred of respect for their capacities as a human being?
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:40 PM
Notice here, Right, that I'm willing to admit I do not know what happened btw Wilson and Brown. It could be that this absurd story of Brown essentially committing suicide by grabbing a cop's gun without provocation is true. Absurd things happen from time to time. But I think if you were honest you would admit that this is at least reasonable doubt, the lowest standard of proof, that this story doesn't match reality. Given the far-fetched nature of the claim, the conflicting testimony of the witnesses, and the dead unarmed kid... I really think a trial is order if you're interested in justice.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:34 PM
Have a great one, Right! It's a shame you don't have time to explain your points. Next time!
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:33 PM
The defense attorneys of the officers in the wrongful death trials that I wish had happened.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:31 PM
Right, the court does, in fact, presume the innocence of suspects. That's kind of a big part of how our justice system works. I understand that you're talking about Wilson's perspective. And that's an argument Wilson's attorneys should have made to a jury at a trial.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:15 PM
A fascinating detail that the defense should certainly have highlighted in their argument before a jury.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:07 PM
It's amazing how differently we perceive the same facts. I'm not twisting anything. The purpose a grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a case to trial. It is so rare for a case to go to a grand jury and not go to trial! Reasonable doubt is all you have to raise. The very fact that an unarmed, presumed innocent person is dead at the hands of an officer of the state should be enough to raise reasonable doubt. It is very well possible that your narrative of how these struggles unfolded is true. But that narrative should have been argued in front of a jury. This is why the system has to change. The DA has no drive to prosecute a police officer. She has to work with that officer (and their partners) again! You suggest that it's my personal scenario that cops are brutal by nature. But I propose instead that the police are entrusted with the capability to have and use state-sanctioned lethal force. I also propose that this use is historically racist, being a product of a society founded on institutional racism. I propose that this racism is receding in the face of over a century of reform. But it has not disappeared, and what we are seeing now is the latest manifestation.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 7:50 PM
Why is your gun out when the potential crime in question is the theft of cigarillos? Or (more likely) walking in the middle of a residential street? There is no reason to create a confrontation with a teenager over minor infractions such as these. In the cozy white suburban upbringing of my youth, such a police reaction is literally unthinkable. It is, in fact, the time to talk nice to the guy. The gun shouldn't be out at all.
In response to:

Who's Responsible?

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 7:46 PM
I guess it's more reassuring to hurl insults than to consider that I might be a thoughtful person with a legitimate difference in point of view. Hopefully you realize one day that respecting others and learning from them is a better strategy! Meanwhile, if you recall that post I did go on to parse the definitions and pose a thoughtful question.
Previous 11 - 20 Next