It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pharrell Williams under fire over Michael Brown comments

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.




posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher

It's a shame this didn't go to a trial because we'll never know the truth.
Why not? What evidence against Wilson would have been presented which was not presented to the grand jury? Where would it have come from? Who would have presented it?

Here you go. The documents can be found here.
www.npr.org...


You send a link to a media source? Where are those Grand Jury documents for all to study and see why they decided what they did. No, I don't think the Grand Jury was the appropriate response to open this whole event to scrutiny. Now it will be left to fester like an open wound for both sides of the argument.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher



Where are those Grand Jury documents for all to study and see why they decided what they did.

On the page I linked (surprise).
Or here if you like:
graphics8.nytimes.com...

edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
You send a link to a media source? Where are those Grand Jury documents for all to study and see why they decided what they did. No, I don't think the Grand Jury was the appropriate response to open this whole event to scrutiny. Now it will be left to fester like an open wound for both sides of the argument.

You don't think a Grand Jury was appropriate? Do you think he should just go to jail and not collect $200?



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.


You seem to know so much about a secret Grand Jury investigation? Of course you don't, it's secret and the evidence is not open to the public like a trial.




Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor


Link to quote



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher


Of course you don't, it's secret and the evidence is not open to the public like a trial.
Except in this case it was released.

Except that this is not the first time it has happened.
www.mercurynews.com...

edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher



Where are those Grand Jury documents for all to study and see why they decided what they did.

On the page I linked (surprise).
Or here if you like:
graphics8.nytimes.com...


First a link to NPR's media coverage and now a link to the testimony, but without forensic evidence. Okay, if that satisfies you, but it doesn't provide all the evidence like a trial.
edit on 29-11-2014 by thepixelpusher because: edited for content



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher
The NPR link also had the Jury transcripts. You're claiming the transcripts are invalid? Upon what do you base that claim?




but without forensic evidence.

Wrong again.
edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher
The NPR link also had the Jury transcripts. You're claiming the transcripts are invalid? Upon what do you base that claim?




but without forensic evidence.

Wrong again.


Nope. no photos in this report. Guess I'm not wrong. Face it Phage, a trial is more complete and transparent.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher


The problem I see is that Pharrell was not privy to the evidence, but is merely stating an uninformed opinion based upon the circus played out in the media. I'm not a big fan of pronouncing judgement upon people based upon media reports.



You don't agree with him, so he must be uninformed? What information do you have that you don't think the rest of us are privy to? It is an undisputed, absolute fact, that Michael Brown robbed a store and roughed up the store clerk in the process. Like another poster said, Pharrell was being generous with his description of that being "bullying" when it actuality it's outright assault.

Why do you attack pharrell's opinion? Do you not think robbing a store and roughing up the clerk constitutes bullyish behavior? Even if Wilson did shoot brown without cause, do you think that somehow erases the fact that brown was a thug (wannabe or actual)? If so, why?

Once again I'll say I feel the anger of people in that community, hell the people of the entire world, is totally justified. All of us "little people" are being beaten down over and over, the anger is fully justified. What is not justified is lashing out at other "little people" because of that anger.

People have different opinions often times because they have different perspective, not just because they have different information to go on. When you refuse to actually LISTEN (different than just hearing or reading) to other peoples perspectives, and honestly consider those perspectives, then you aren't doing truth any justice.

You don't have to pick sides, but it seems like you think we all must fall neatly into line of either a brown supporter or a wilson supporter. Those sides don't exist. They are pounded into your head daily to stop you from actually thinking for yourself. Expressing an opinion that is different from one side doesn't mean that person supports the other.

The pro-brown crowd wants to lie and say Michael Brown was a wholesome little kid without a bad bone in his body, and that white people are all bad racists and that police only hate black people. The pro-wilson side wants to lie and justify police action regardless of what it is, they want you to think that blacks are animals and police are our friends. Both sides are full of chit, both sides are not interested in you, they are not interested in making a better country or ending abuses. Both sides are only using this situation as a springboard for their games. As one little person to another, I humbly plead with you to stop buying into this intelligence atrophying bull-crap and start thinking for yourself.

And phage, do you think the cliff-notes style posts are really doing any justice to this conversation?
edit on 29-11-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher
I haven't seen photos from many murder trials. Not that I want to. I'll leave it to the experts to examine bullet wounds and blood spatter. I listen to what they have to say about it because I don't know anything about it.

Do you think the outcome would have been different if the case had gone to trial? Why? What other evidence sufficient to convict would have been brought out? From where? By whom? The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence of a crime to take the case to trial (and there was quite a lot of evidence). That it would have been a waste of time and resources.

You're welcome to second guess them. Even call them dupes if you want. But that was what was decided based on the evidence provided. Evidence they saw presented.
edit on 11/29/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher


The problem I see is that Pharrell was not privy to the evidence, but is merely stating an uninformed opinion based upon the circus played out in the media. I'm not a big fan of pronouncing judgement upon people based upon media reports.



You don't agree with him, so he must be uninformed? What information do you have that you don't think the rest of us are privy to? It is an undisputed, absolute fact, that Michael Brown robbed a store and roughed up the store clerk in the process. Like another poster said, Pharrell was being generous with his description of that being "bullying" when it actuality it's outright assault.

Why do you attack pharrell's opinion? Do you not think robbing a store and roughing up the clerk constitutes bullyish behavior? Even if Wilson did shoot brown without cause, do you think that somehow erases the fact that brown was a thug (wannabe or actual)? If so, why?

Once again I'll say I feel the anger of people in that community, hell the people of the entire world, is totally justified. All of us "little people" are being beaten down over and over, the anger is fully justified. What is not justified is lashing out at other "little people" because of that anger.

People have different opinions often times because they have different perspective, not just because they have different information to go on. When you refuse to actually LISTEN (different than just hearing or reading) to other peoples perspectives, and honestly consider those perspectives, then you aren't doing truth any justice.

You don't have to pick sides, but it seems like you think we all must fall neatly into line of either a brown supporter or a wilson supporter. Those sides don't exist. They are pounded into your head daily to stop you from actually thinking for yourself. Expressing an opinion that is different from one side doesn't mean that person supports the other.

The pro-brown crowd wants to lie and say Michael Brown was a wholesome little kid without a bad bone in his body, and that white people are all bad racists and that police only hate black people. The pro-wilson side wants to lie and justify police action regardless of what it is, they want you to think that blacks are animals and police are our friends. Both sides are full of chit, both sides are not interested in you, they are not interested in making a better country or ending abuses. Both sides are only using this situation as a springboard for their games. As one little person to another, I humbly plead with you to stop buying into this intelligence atrophying bull-crap and start thinking for yourself.



Ah, you assume you know what I think of this case. You assume that I support Brown. You are too quick to judge without any facts to your uninformed opinion. Yes, Pharrell is uninformed unless he sat on the Grand Jury. Prove to me otherwise.

I have no informed opinion on this case because I was not on the Grand Jury either, and neither were you. My only opinion is that the secret Grand Jury did not allow for full and complete judgment of this case.

Anyone here that says they know the truth better have been on the Grand Jury, or their truth is just an opinion of the truth.
edit on 29-11-2014 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

PHARRELL Williams is under fire over comments he made in an interview about the shooting death of 18-year-old African American Michael Brown by a white police officer,, describing the teenager’s behaviour leading up to his killing as “bully-ish”.

Before he was shot dead on August 9, Brown was caught on surveillance camera stealing a few cigarillos from a convenience store in Ferguson, Missouri, and intimidating the shop owner.

“It looked very bully-ish; that in itself I had a problem with,” Williams told Ebonymagazine. “Not with the kid, but with whatever happened in his life for him to arrive at a place where that behaviour is OK. Why aren’t we talking about that?”

“The boy was walking in the middle of the street when the police supposedly told him to ‘get the f*** on the sidewalk’. If you don’t listen to that, after just having pushed a store owner, you’re asking for trouble,” he added.

Link

What exactly did Williams say that was inaccurate or wrong? Why are his comments about the shooting, and the Bill Cosby issue and black culture taken so out of context by the media?


In an interview with Oprah Winfrey last year, Williams angered some when he said “the new black doesn’t blame others races for our issues”.


He speaks truth and the media does not like it!

Don't want to be one of "them" but he's probably under fire because he's looking at both sides of the story

Ps. I've seen the video and in my honest opinion the copper is in the wrong
edit on 29/11/2014 by RedDeadUK because: added text



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.


Guess that means OJ simpson DIDN'T really do it....*cough*...........................



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3u40r15m

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.


Guess that means OJ simpson DIDN'T really do it....*cough*...........................


And you assume what about my opinion on that trial? You suggest you know.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher


Ah, you assume you know what I think of this case. You assume that I support Brown. You are too quick to judge without any facts to your uninformed opinion. Yes, Pharrell is uninformed unless he sat on the Grand Jury. Prove to me otherwise.

I have no informed opinion on this case because I was not on the Grand Jury either, and neither were you. My only opinion is that the secret Grand Jury did not allow for full and complete judgment of this case.

Anyone here that says they know the truth better have been on the Grand Jury, or their truth is just an opinion of the truth.


I don't assume what you think of this case, you flat out told us. You said you think this should have gone to trial, that's an opinion of yours. The state is only supposed to bring someone to trial if they is enough evidence to think the person committed a crime. Trials are not for figuring out what happened, they are for the state to present their story of what happened, then have that story be judged by the jurors based on evidence.

If you say this should have gone to trial, that means you think there is ample evidence that Wilson committed a crime. The people that DID see all the evidence didn't think there was enough, but without that information you think a trail should have happened.

You are just as uniformed as the rest of us, yet you judge that wilson committed a crime. That is the only reason you send a person to trial, because you think they committed a crime, and you are trying to prove that to the jury.

Grand juries do not decide if a person is guilty or not guilty, they decide if there is reason to believe a person committed a crime. If they do believe the person committed the crime, then a trial happens to prove it.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: 3u40r15m

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.


Guess that means OJ simpson DIDN'T really do it....*cough*...........................


And you assume what about my opinion on that trial? You suggest you know.


I'm not sure about that. I think he did it. ill take a wild guess and say you also think he did



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher
I haven't seen photos from many murder trials. Not that I want to. I'll leave it to the experts to examine bullet wounds and blood spatter. I listen to what they have to say about it because I don't know anything about it.

Do you think the outcome would have been different if the case had gone to trial? Why? What other evidence sufficient to convict would have been brought out? From where? By whom? The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence of a crime to take the case to trial (and there was quite a lot of evidence). That it would have been a waste of time and resources.

You're welcome to second guess them. Even call them dupes if you want. But that was what was decided based on the evidence provided. Evidence they saw presented.


This event was splayed wide open and covered wall-to-wall in a media circus. But when it came to the trial it was a secret Grand Jury. The transcripts were not the full evidence. In fact no where near it. I wouldn't call anyone involved with this dupes. I'm not siding with either side, and for good reason. I don't have the complete evidence, and neither do you or anyone here that was not on the Grand Jury.

My point is that I find it ironic that this event so oversaturated in the media, that when it actually came time to present the evidence we're left with a secret Grand Jury.

In the end, yes, my own uniformed opinion is that this needed to be more transparent.
edit on 29-11-2014 by thepixelpusher because: sentence structure



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3u40r15m

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.


Guess that means OJ simpson DIDN'T really do it....*cough*...........................



So your comment didn't suggest I sided with OJ's innocence? I just want to be sure I'm responding correctly to what you are saying.
edit on 29-11-2014 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: 3u40r15m

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: 3u40r15m

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Are you daft? What more evidence do you need than a grand jury? I swear, no wonder America is going down the sh***er.


Guess that means OJ simpson DIDN'T really do it....*cough*...........................


And you assume what about my opinion on that trial? You suggest you know.


So you comment didn't suggest I sided with OJ's innocence?


Just a wild guess. I'm not profiling you or basing this off anything. It's like guessing how many fingers you're holding up. Am i wrong?




top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join