Wilson didn't commit a crime according to a grand jury who was given wrong direction. You may never see what's so difficult to understand what the real issue is about or care why the people are marching in the street .
What instruction would have influenced them to believe that he committed a crime? Is there a law against self defense that I don't know about? The people who are marching in the street are doing so for several different possible reasons 1. They don't have anything better to do. 2. They are directly related to the dead assailant and want revenge. 3. They are blinded by some kind of cognitive bias and want to believe that a black man was mistreated by a white cop so they ignore the evidence of the case and march anyway as if this case had anything to do with that issue. 4. This just happens to be the protest of the day.
SMH to your blindness of what the people are feeling. The people are tired of feel like there lives don't matter it's not just about a White cop and one killing step back a take a good look at what's really going on .
That sounds exactly like what I explained in #3, this case has nothing to do with cops mistreating anyone, so if they are out in the streets complaining about that then it has nothing at all to do with Micheal Brown or the cop he attacked.
How many times do I have to say it edwardc _ the majority in this country do not care what happens to black people. That's why these people (who you're debating with and many others) think it's 'just about Brown' when in fact it's about many other victims like John Crawford who was shot dead in a Wal-Mart recently. Most of these people haven't heard of John Crawford and or don't give a 5h1t. You're arguing with people who refer to black people as "animals"... You're in a losing battle if you are trying to convince those kind of people to have some sort of compassion.
Perhaps you just fail to explain why protests about a thief that attacked a cop and got shot are really about something completely different. I get that sometimes people just look for an excuse to protest, and this seems like one of those times, but they only hurt their cause by picking an incident where the police did nothing wrong to champion their cause.
If the problem were the police, then why don't the police have problems in non-black communities? In my community, the police are revered and highly respected. The problem here is clearly a culture of crime in the black communities, which endangers the police and leads them to be more suspicious of other blacks. All of these violent protests are only compounding the problem. Who in their right mind is going to open up a business in Ferguson, MO, after seeing all of the rioting and property damage? These people are hurting their own neighborhood and are damaging their cultural brand. Sadly, it will only lead to more discrimination against them.
Let's get one thing straight. When poor minority people riot _ they do not take that mess to Beverley Hills... They usually stay in their own area. And I'm sure the Rams have sunk a lot of money into that city (and the police force) so it's not like they had to beg them. St Louis needs the Rams more than the Rams need St Louis. The police force even wasting their time in responding to the actions of 5 people is more of an admission of guilt if anything. What those guys did was no different than what the black athletes did during the Olympics in support of the civil rights movement.
Why don't you show us a list of recent violent protests by Mexicans, Asians and whatever other minorities you are aware of?
What you are saying is that guilt or innocence is predetermined before going to trial that isn't the case at all. Obviously OJ wasn't found guilty so legally he didn't commit a crime. Anyway even accepting that there is exculpatory evidence for Wilson this thread and all the other controversy shows that the Prosecutor should've done this per precedent to remove as much controversy as possible. Instead by not following precedent the prosecutor has just added to the controversy.
Eh, the Rams organization doesn't speak for the players, or vice versa. If the Rams asked the police for protection, they didn't consult with the players and get their buy-in first, no more than the players asked the Rams organization if they approved of their message before they stepped out on the field. I always take it as a cue when people say something is very simple that they're about to grossly oversimplify something.
The other question is that since we expect the police to protect us does that mean we shouldn't criticize them? Very true.
The prosecutor determines whether or not there is enough evidence to suggest that a crime took place, this happens before it goes to trial. In fact, it's what determines IF a case goes to trial. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that OJ committed a crime, thus it went to trial. There was no evidence that Wilson committed a crime so it didn't go to trial. The prosecutor has an ethical responsibility to not try to convict an innocent man so what you're suggesting is for him to do the wrong thing in a futile effort to appease a lynch mob. I've said many times, if the evidence of Wilson's innocence wasn't enough to appease them, nothing would have been. It wouldn't have eliminated any controversy whatsoever if the prosecutor had unethically stacked the deck against a man that he knew the evidence proved innocent.
Not according to the verdict. I think what you meant to say is that there was enough evidence to justify a trial for OJ.
Yes, that's what I meant to say. There was sufficient evidence that he committed a crime to proceed to trial....also, we all know he actually did it no matter what the jury said.
I also agree with this, if it was a little guy attacking him, odds are he'd have just subdued him. When you are big, you can't get away with as much. Think of it as a Chihuahua attacking you vs an Irish Wolfhound or a Doberman. You probably kick the Chihuahua, but you shoot the Wolfhound or Doberman.
