Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

The protesters don't like the outcome. Fine. Why destroy infrastructure? Those people are not right in the head.

a reply to: majesticgent

Very well put. Take all of my stars sir.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

You seem so.

Well.................thank you.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Yes.

Yeah, sure it did.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Doesn't make a difference, I was found innocent before it even went to trial.

Yeah it does. But, thanks for not answering the question. That tells just about everything needed to know.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't know what you're inplying about me but its called slanderous.

Slanderous???
Hmmm, seems like a nerve was struck.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You're sad... That's evident!

originally posted by: Spruce
The protesters don't like the outcome. Fine. Why destroy infrastructure? Those people are not right in the head.

Some of them aren't 'protestors.' They're agitators and criminals, using it as an excuse to riot and loot.

Wonderful point made by a columnist just now on CNN.

Both sides rushed to judgement without knowing all the facts.

Black people rushed to believe that Brown was innocent. LEO in Ferguson began wearing rubber bracelets saying "I am Derek Wilson".


Both sides rushed to judgement without knowing all the facts. This is a highly complex situation, and worthy of HIGH scrutiny of the actions and behaviors of all parties involved.

a reply to: Spruce

What bothers me the most about the looting is that the store that Brown had robbed before his encounter with Wilson has been looted TWICE now. If anything, that sends a message like "You called the cops, so you're responsible for his death somehow". They should have left this store alone, I can't imagine what the store owner must be feeling right now. He was an innocent in all this mess, but because he was involved by getting robbed and calling the police, he's become a target.

a reply to: macman

So now I'm a liar as well as a criminal?

To answer your question it was threats to kill...
Of which I was found innocent...

Hope that helps.


You are now going out of your way to reply with photos, seems I struck the nerve.

originally posted by: vor78


Some of them aren't 'protestors.' They're agitators and criminals, using it as an excuse to riot and loot.

and some of them are not agitators...
what about them?

a reply to: nullafides

A criminal is not just someone that has been charged and convicted. Criminals and their crimes go undetected as well.


Are you a Criminal?? That is for you to answer.

You committed crimes.

a reply to: Firefly_

But a cop should NEVER be judge, jury or executioner.

No, but the LAW says the cop has as much right to self defense as all the citizens. The prosecutor said the cop acted out of self defense. And so did Michael Brown, but the evidence looked at by forensic scientists showed that he was not shot in the back fleeing. The jury saw evidence the rest of us did not see, and even the media didn't have access to. The statement of the cop was explicit in terms of Brown was coming at him and continued after he started shooting.
So if people want to ignore evidence because the biased media and other activists want it to be something else, then it is a pity.

originally posted by: Wiz4769
There will be no charges , its done so move on.

There can be no civil charges if there is not an arrest and formal criminal charges.

The family can sue him if they decide that they want to do it. There isn't any need to have an arrest.
Doctors get sued over dead patients all the time.... nothing criminal involved most of the time, and they often settle or lose the cases.

I can sue you for the death of my father, even though you had nothing to do with it and there were no criminal actions even involved. It would probably get thrown out of court, but I could sue you.

a reply to: Grovit

Many of the protestors aren't behaving badly. I was only speaking of the ones causing problems.

originally posted by: Spruce
The protesters don't like the outcome. Fine. Why destroy infrastructure? Those people are not right in the head.

I agree completely. The media did this though and a lack of leadership. Why not protest the fact police are nearly always immune to prosecusion, are being militerized, and dont have prooer training to deal with stress in the field. In a civil way to make them change laws like qualified immunity.

I haven't paid much mind too this case, nor do l know much about it or viewed any of the testimony and evidence supporting the verdict, therefore l won't speak to that.

However, IMO this does bring to the forefront something that is lurking under the surface, not in Ferguson alone, but across the entire country.

This goes way back, back to the 80's, when America's coc aine and crack epidemic exploded, and the war on drugs created a culture of violence and accepted stereotypes in low income and minority communities.

The symptoms of the war on drugs can be seen in the media, in music and lyrics, in prisons. By accepting and glamorizing violent speech, behavior and degradation, the ruling elite and their media empires have helped to create a consistent flow of inmates into the very for profit prisons they hold vast shares in.

Record labels, media, and the prison industrial complex have one thing in common, shareholders.

The pipeline that creates stereotyping and in turn promotes drugs and violence are the same ones who profit when you get locked up.

So, it's seems a pretty lucrative deal to cast violence into the minds of the youth, why not, either way you profit.

This what we should be discussing, all of us, no matter what your gender or heritage.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: nullafides

A criminal is not just someone that has been charged and convicted. Criminals and their crimes go undetected as well.


Are you a Criminal?? That is for you to answer.

You committed crimes.

I find it curious that you give me the choice to determine whether or not I am still to be considered a criminal.
Yet, you were quick to deem the other poster here as a criminal, regardless of their own beliefs and opinion.

And no, it is not for me to answer.

And given what I posited to you, do you or do you not believe that I am still to be called a criminal?

a reply to: macman

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Mommy, Daddy, stop fighting you're ruining my birthday party!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

So now I'm a liar as well as a criminal?

Funny, as you brought up this and your criminal actions.
Are you a Liar??/ Don't know.
Are you a criminal?? You attacked a LEO. Seems so.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
To answer your question it was threats to kill...
Of which I was found innocent...

So, not know the criminal justice system in England, much like you don't really know the US system, please explain where you were found innocent if there was no trial.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

You are now going out of your way to reply with photos, seems I struck the nerve.

Nah, they are just easy to post with, and make me smile.

a reply to: nullafides

Fair enough....

Are you still a criminal?? Yeah, guess so. You were convicted of crimes.

Maybe convict would be a better term??

a reply to: luthier

You keep throwing this "qualified immunity" thing around and by the context I believe you take it to mean a cop can't be convicted if he is a first time offender.

This is completely false and in fact qualified immunity has nothing to do with anything the grand jury did or did not do. Qualified immunity shields federal or state officials from CIVIL liability in the event they are sued for a constitutional rights violation. This means if they are sued they cannot be forced to pay court costs out of pocket for something that occurred in their official work capacity if the judge deems the defendant in a suit qualifies for this legal protection. It is used to prevent law enforcement and other government officials from being burdened financially by lawsuits until the outcome of said lawsuit. You now understand this has nothing to do with a criminal proceeding right?

Stating that police cannot be convicted if they are a first time offender is false and ridiculous.

Just as it is acknowledged that the victors write the history books, is it not the majority that determines what is right and wrong?

Is it not possible at all that those in the majority simply have not experienced what the minority has lived with? Is it not possible that the laws the majority put into place slanted? The enforcement of those laws slanted / biased?