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.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu
Not only do you misrepresent what I say but you misinterpret what the article said…
Decided on what charges to bring, not on whether to go to trial. Read it again. What is unprecedented is the switch from whether to indict to whether to bring charges… big difference.
In an unusual step, Mr. McCulloch had said he would present all known witnesses and evidence and instead of recommending an indictment, as is usually the case, let the jurors decide for themselves what if any charges to bring.
Read it twice if you have to. Then avoid the issue as usual.
originally posted by: nenothtu
originally posted by: Spider879
Black should not be synonymous with poverty and crime but this is not how many in the majority community view us and they act accordingly
Exactly! When you want a new reality, you have to MAKE a new reality.It's what All of us have to do when we are faced with the old reality that we don't like - and that's exactly what I'm saying. Thugging out and rioting isn't going to get us there. How is thugging out and rioting supposed to change the majority community's view that young Blacks are thugs and gangstas? I would think that would tend to confirm that view rather than dispel it. It then becomes an endless feedback loop. More death, more destruction.
Folks got to break that loop, or it just won't ever be broken.
Folks got to stop acting thug if they don't like being treated thug.
The way to change institutional anything is the jump right in and change it - making it stronger via reaction-reaction-reaction will NEVER work to end it.
It won't happen over night, but it WILL happen - but folks got to MAKE it happen. Someone has to take the lead and start it, or it won't get started. endless back and forth reaction isn't cutting it.
Take the lead.
Be a leader.
Someone HAS to.
Dr King marched. Dr King spoke, Dr King DIDN'T burn stuff down and destroy. What do you suppose he thinks of all this as it's unfolding? Dr King would have been called a "Tom" by those crowds of destroyers I saw in feeds from Ferguson. The one guy I saw trying to get them not to destroy WAS called a "Tom" for his efforts. S'ok - they don't have to feel any shame - I'm ashamed enough of them for the both of us.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nenothtu
How is it a bad idea to let one person tell one side of the story and not have any one question it objectively?
The ball was in the DA's hands, what ever outcome he wanted since he was the one presenting the evidence and then framing it, he would of got.
Just like a lot of legal experts are saying as of late.
originally posted by: intrptr
You guys are focusing on one issue again and leaving out the rest. How a grand jury works…
is irrelevant to that it was manipulated… heres a post from someone to me in a different thread…
www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Spider879
There is no doubt in my mind that our positions are not that far apart. The "magical Black leader that don't really exist" you mention will never be found, until the people find it within themselves.
People cannot expect the leaders of what they percieve to be another community to represent them unless they are willing to integrate into that community, rather than segregate themselves by employing mob violence, which only further alienates all involved.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrptr
You don't know what an indictment is do you? It's the bringing up of charges against a person...
So when the jury didn't choose to charge, it means they didn't indict. To go to trial it has to be an indictment.
I think it's best for any reputation you may have left to exit this discussion.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Rocker2013
That same evidence was looked at by 12 jurors, they were in unanimous agreement, even the black ones...so yeah.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
givin the history of what black americans have went through i do not feel that the stance of assimilate or die is fair or reachable in any time manner that serves to put out the fires. Letting segerated communities govern themselves with the same laws we do will work.
Many of the post here have come down to basicaly just accept the no bill because it is law and that our system is based on law and is infallable. We all know one can not point me to a part of our gov. or laws that is not corrupted in some form at this point.
Even you yourself had a thread that basically told us that without training and expierence in combat and such then the odds are that we would be here debating your unfair demise because of a trigger happy cop or several. Would that have been justice? Can you see the similarities.
I get that you have not really taken sides outright here but i just thought of your thread and seen how it may have been much the same if things did not go well for you then.
Considering the DA allowed evidence to be presented that was obviously wrong shows if anything the manipulation was to see an indictment.
How something works is in NO way irrelevant to it being manipulated. As a matter of fact, knowing how it works is crucial to that.