Pharrell Williams under fire over Michael Brown comments

a reply to: 3u40r15m

I'm just not sure what you were suggesting. I'd like to respond to fact and not uniformed facts.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

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

You assume a judge would have found differently than the grand jury? That a judge would have indicted Wilson?

a reply to: Phage

Not sure. Could have gone the same way. My posts that led up to this one clearly stated I don't assume anything. It's the facts, the complete facts that no one here has. So when people say they know the truth here, they are saying their "opinion" of the truth. Unless they were on that Grand Jury.

And opinion is okay, as long as no one claims the mantle of truth teller on this.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

So when people say they know the truth here, they are saying their "opinion" of the truth. Unless they were on that Grand Jury.

Yes. And they also have the opportunity to read the transcripts of the jury proceedings.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: 3u40r15m

I'm just not sure what you were suggesting. I'd like to respond to fact and not uniformed facts.

Alot of people believe if one is proven innocent by a jury, then its clear as day they are innocent. But I don't think so. jury are regular people that can be manipulated

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher

So when people say they know the truth here, they are saying their "opinion" of the truth. Unless they were on that Grand Jury.

Yes. And they also have the opportunity to read the transcripts of the jury proceedings.

And do you feel the transcripts alone give you the complete "truth" in this matter? You don't need to see any photos or complete forensics reports and other items that would lend itself to this case. I understand if you have an informed opinion, but my first post was relating how the poster agreed with Pharrell because he spoke the "truth". An overstatement, I felt.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Phage
I don't assume anything.

Sure you do. You assume wilson is guilty, otherwise you should not be suggesting a trial takes place. As I said in my other post which you ignored, trials are for trying to prove someone is guilty. Unless you think he is guilty, you have no reason to want him to go to trial.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher

So when people say they know the truth here, they are saying their "opinion" of the truth. Unless they were on that Grand Jury.

Yes. And they also have the opportunity to read the transcripts of the jury proceedings.

And do you feel the transcripts alone give you the complete "truth" in this matter? You don't need to see any photos or complete forensics reports and other items that would lend itself to this case. I understand if you have an informed opinion, but my first post was relating how the poster agreed with Pharrell because he spoke the "truth". An overstatement, I felt.

If you are referring to me, the truth pharrell spoke was that Michael Brown wasn't an angel. We have video evidence of this fact. Do you disagree Michael Brown robbed a store and assaulted the clerk?

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Phage
I don't assume anything.

Sure you do. You assume wilson is guilty, otherwise you should not be suggesting a trial takes place. As I said in my other post which you ignored, trials are for trying to prove someone is guilty. Unless you think he is guilty, you have no reason to want him to go to trial.

Wrong. How could I assume Wilson is guilty or Brown is innocent!? I wasn't on the Grand Jury and neither were you. My point was OP is throwing around opinions as truth. I'm merely pointing out they are stating opinions based on their own limited information.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Phage
I don't assume anything.

Sure you do. You assume wilson is guilty, otherwise you should not be suggesting a trial takes place. As I said in my other post which you ignored, trials are for trying to prove someone is guilty. Unless you think he is guilty, you have no reason to want him to go to trial.

Wrong. How could I assume Wilson is guilty or Brown is innocent!? I wasn't on the Grand Jury and neither were you. My point was people here are throwing around opinions as truth. I'm merely pointing out they are stating opinions based on their own limited information.

You didn't say you think this should go to trial?

a reply to: thepixelpusher

And do you feel the transcripts alone give you the complete "truth" in this matter?

In this case, as much as the transcripts of a trial would because all of the available evidence was presented.

Tell me, if there had been a trial which you did not attend but for which you read the transcripts, would it be any different?

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Phage
I don't assume anything.

Sure you do. You assume wilson is guilty, otherwise you should not be suggesting a trial takes place. As I said in my other post which you ignored, trials are for trying to prove someone is guilty. Unless you think he is guilty, you have no reason to want him to go to trial.

Wrong. How could I assume Wilson is guilty or Brown is innocent!? I wasn't on the Grand Jury and neither were you. My point was people here are throwing around opinions as truth. I'm merely pointing out they are stating opinions based on their own limited information.

You didn't say you think this should go to trial?

My posts here first centered on people throwing around their opinion as truth which was stated by OP in his first post. They are opinions, unless they were on the Grand Jury.

I also went on to state that the trail process could have given us a a more transparent insight into this case since the media decided to make this so public. Could be the Grand Jury did the right thing, but the full evidence will never be released, so hard to make any call on that one.

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*...........................

You seem to assume so much. Just ask and I'll tell you. BTW, my own opinion is that OJ was guilty. I have no idea if Wilson was guilty or innocent. But, my own opinion on OJ and Wilson is not truth (or fact), and that is what the OP was suggesting that Pharrell was stating. Go back and read my posts.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Phage
I don't assume anything.

Sure you do. You assume wilson is guilty, otherwise you should not be suggesting a trial takes place. As I said in my other post which you ignored, trials are for trying to prove someone is guilty. Unless you think he is guilty, you have no reason to want him to go to trial.

Wrong. How could I assume Wilson is guilty or Brown is innocent!? I wasn't on the Grand Jury and neither were you. My point was people here are throwing around opinions as truth. I'm merely pointing out they are stating opinions based on their own limited information.

You didn't say you think this should go to trial?

My posts here first centered on people throwing around their opinion as truth which was stated by OP in his first post. They are opinions, unless they were on the Grand Jury.

I also went on to state that the trail process could have given us a a more transparent insight into this case since the media decided to make this so public.

You seem to assume so much. Just ask and I'll tell you. BTW, my own opinion is that OJ was guilty. I have no idea if Wilson was guilty or innocent. But, my own opinion on OJ and Wilson is not truth, and that is what the OP was suggesting that Pharrell was stating. Go back and read my posts.

Why are you talking to me about OJ? Not once have I said anything about OJ. I think you might be confusing me with another poster.

Pharrell's comments weren't about specifics on the case, he didn't say anyone is innocent or guilty. He actually said he was upset that there was no indictment, but he was ALSO upset that the environment exists which creates people like Michael Brown. That is the truth that was being supported, not any specific truth that someone was guilty or innocent of anything relating to the grand jury.

I have re-read your posts several times, and you said it's a shame there was no trial. People are only taken to trial if they are suspected of being guilty, not if you just don't know, so if you want a trial that means you suspect he is guilty. Or you want to put a man on trial when you don't suspect him of being guilty, which would seem a bit odd.

I'm not trying to catch you in a lie or anything, I'm trying to show that by wanting a trial you are in fact making an assumption about his guilt, because you don't put people on trial unless you think they are guilty. All I was trying to say.

You quoted my post before I finished editing it. The OJ comment wasn't for you.

My main point is still that the OP states Pharrell was telling the "truth". Pharrell is just stating opinion along with the rest of us. Only the Grand Jury sits closest to what really happened.

And if you read my posts you'd understand my opinion was that this event was made very public and I felt a trial would serve to clear the air better, for Wilson and Brown. Realize that is an opinion. I don't pretend like the OP that I know the "truth". And neither does anyone on this thread. We are all here stating opinion. Nothing wrong with opinion, as long as we don't delude ourselves thinking it's the truth.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
You quoted my post before I finished editing it. The OJ comment wasn't for you.

My main point is still that the OP states Pharrell was telling the "truth". Pharrell is just stating opinion along with the rest of us. Only the Grand Jury sits closest to what really happened.

The grand jury deices whether to put a person on trial, their job isn't to make social commentary. The truth being supported was a social commentary, not specifics about the case. It's not something the grand jury was even discussing.

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
You quoted my post before I finished editing it. The OJ comment wasn't for you.

My main point is still that the OP states Pharrell was telling the "truth". Pharrell is just stating opinion along with the rest of us. Only the Grand Jury sits closest to what really happened.

The grand jury deices whether to put a person on trial, their job isn't to make social commentary. The truth being supported was a social commentary, not specifics about the case. It's not something the grand jury was even discussing.

Again, I'm saying Pharrell is stating an opinion. The OP is saying Pharrell has a line on the truth of the Brown case or the plight of Blacks and the responsibility of it. Either way Pharrell is stating an opinion.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

That first comment referring to OJ wasn't directed at you.

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic



Maybe he behaved that way because of Decades of Institutionalized Racism in Ferguson.

Or perhaps we should look at 9 Photos of White People Rioting the Puts Ferguson in Perspective

maybe he behaved that way because he was raised by a mother and step father that were bulies themselves?

www.nydailynews.com...


could that possible be a reason or is it only about the 'decades' of racism?

Just curious, have you ever lost a child?

a reply to: Taggart

nope.
so what?
i dont think big daddy head should get a pass for his comments...
wasnt his kid either as so many have pointed out to me...

a reply to: Dark Ghost
The media needs to twist the narrative so it can get good ratings. Bad news will get you better ratings while good news will get you hardly any. Good ratings means sponsors and sponsors mean money. That's what it comes down to the almighty dollar. With the dollar comes control and with control comes power. Nasty little cycle they have going there eh!!