Yes, I believe an injustice occurred in Ferguson. Even if not unjust, certainly a young man dying is a tragedy.
However, when was the last time anyone rioted when a black police officer killed an unarmed white teenager? It happens. Where are the riots when a black person kills another black person--which happens OFTEN since 93% of blacks who are murdered are killed by other blacks? Since when is burning down businesses--MANY of which are owned by black business owners--some sort of solution to anything?
Yet many black community leaders are largely silent on the riots. They are good at pointing out the perceived injustice of the original act--but largely fail to condemn the rioting, violence, and looting in the aftermath.
Beyond that, the black community is failing in other ways. They point to various perceived injustices of our police and judicial system--while ignoring the fact that blacks commit crimes at much higher rates than other groups. They point to the number of blacks in poverty--but fail to look at the fact that blacks receive all types of welfare at rates higher than other groups. They fail to speak out against the drug/gang/rap culture that glorifies crime, violence, lawlessness, and the "no rats" inner city culture.
I don't have all the answers, either--but largely, rather than working towards DISPELLING stereotypes, they actually take actions, or at least remain silent, as such stereotypes are reinforced.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
Not really the point of the thread--but at the point he was shot, he was FAR away from the gun and the immediate threat was over.
He wasn't shot in the struggle for the gun, or even immediately after. He was at LEAST 30 feet away, but more likely over 100 since his body was 150 feet from the car.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 27th of November 2014 12:19:47 PM
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
Not really the point of the thread--but at the point he was shot, he was FAR away from the gun and the immediate threat was over.
He wasn't shot in the struggle for the gun, or even immediately after. He was at LEAST 30 feet away, but more likely over 100 since his body was 150 feet from the car.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 27th of November 2014 12:19:47 PM
The shot to the head occurred during the struggle with the gun.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
I think the actions of Cop could have been different AFTER Brown ran from the car. He could have returned to his car and waited for help or drove around the block and wait for reinforcements or waited in his car and if he approached then, then shot him. Maybe it would have come to that. I would have less problem had that been the case then him shooting him from a distance.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
Not really the point of the thread--but at the point he was shot, he was FAR away from the gun and the immediate threat was over.
He wasn't shot in the struggle for the gun, or even immediately after. He was at LEAST 30 feet away, but more likely over 100 since his body was 150 feet from the car.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 27th of November 2014 12:19:47 PM
The shot to the head occurred during the struggle with the gun.
???? No, it didn't. The officer doesn't even make that claim. Officer Wilson himself said the suspect was 20-30 feet away from him when he fired his gun.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
Not really the point of the thread--but at the point he was shot, he was FAR away from the gun and the immediate threat was over.
He wasn't shot in the struggle for the gun, or even immediately after. He was at LEAST 30 feet away, but more likely over 100 since his body was 150 feet from the car.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 27th of November 2014 12:19:47 PM
The shot to the head occurred during the struggle with the gun.
Not so. He ran after they struggled. Then he turned around either to give up or charge the officer.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
Not really the point of the thread--but at the point he was shot, he was FAR away from the gun and the immediate threat was over.
He wasn't shot in the struggle for the gun, or even immediately after. He was at LEAST 30 feet away, but more likely over 100 since his body was 150 feet from the car.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 27th of November 2014 12:19:47 PM
The shot to the head occurred during the struggle with the gun.
Not so. He ran after they struggled. Then he turned around either to give up or charge the officer.
That's according to the officer, himself. According to other witnesses, he was a LOT further away and did NOT turn around. His body also ended up a lot further away than the officer's testimony would have indicated, as well.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I love how some want to say what should have happened even though they were not there and not involved.
The cop shot someone who was trying to take his gun.
The GJ made the right decision.
The ONLY way this kind of thing is NOT going to continue to happen is when those rioting STOP and START teaching their kids that there are real consequences to their actions.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
I think a violent thug earned those bullets by attacking an officer and trying to take his gun.
What's unjust is that people RAISE THUGS and then are surprised and mortified when their thug children are killed while committing violent crimes.
Jerks.
Meh. He was unarmed--and 150 feet away from the car wen he was shot, so even if the account of the physical confrontation is true, the immediate threat was over when he was killed.
He went for the cops gun, that makes him armed.
Not really the point of the thread--but at the point he was shot, he was FAR away from the gun and the immediate threat was over.
He wasn't shot in the struggle for the gun, or even immediately after. He was at LEAST 30 feet away, but more likely over 100 since his body was 150 feet from the car.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 27th of November 2014 12:19:47 PM
The shot to the head occurred during the struggle with the gun.
Not so. He ran after they struggled. Then he turned around either to give up or charge the officer.
That's according to the officer, himself. According to other witnesses, he was a LOT further away and did NOT turn around. His body also ended up a lot further away than the officer's testimony would have indicated, as well.
If he didn't turn around, that would have been shown in forensics. Obviously, there was not even enough evidence to INDICT, let alone find guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Could we get back to Husker's original post and make some comments on the points he brought out?
I do not have any answers, let alone all the answers, but am open to hearing the opinions, etc. of the other geeks..
Could we get back to Husker's original post and make some comments on the points he brought out? I do not have any answers, let alone all the answers, but am open to hearing the opinions, etc. of the other geeks..
w/r to the OP, black on white killing does not make the headlines because most people don't think racial motivation and look at the circumstances first. I don't get the racism From what I see and read, it is the lower socio-economic level of inner city folks that try to keep racism alive. The rest of us don't even consider it.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
The shot to the head occurred during the struggle with the gun.
Not so. He ran after they struggled. Then he turned around either to give up or charge the officer.
That's according to the officer, himself. According to other witnesses, he was a LOT further away and did NOT turn around. His body also ended up a lot further away than the officer's testimony would have indicated, as well.
Timeline:
1. Two men rob a store, and steal about $50 of cigars / cigarillos.
2. Officer sees two men walking down the middle of the road, tells / orders them to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk.
3. They refuse, calling the officer insulting names.
4. Officer sees cigars in one man's hand, recognizes that these two men match the description of two men who had just robbed a store and stolen cigars.
5. Officer calls for backup and starts to get out of the car.
6. Officer starts to get out of the car, Man pushes the door shut from the outside of the car, reaches in and punches the officer breaking bones in the officer's face.
7. Officer is now injured and believes he's fighting for his life with a much bigger, much stronger foe
8. Man is reaching through the window and beating the officer. Officer draws his gun.
9. Man grabs for gun, preventing officer from raising and firing his gun.
10. Officer finally gets the gun up high enough and fires, the bullet goes through the man's arm.
11. Man is injured and steps away, starts to walk away.
12. Officer gets out of his car to pursue felon. Repeatedly orders him to stop.
13. Man stops walking away and turns toward officer.
14. Some bystanders say at this point the man raised his hands. All agree that he was moving toward the officer.
15. Officer repeatedly tells him to get down on the ground. Man keeps approaching.
16. Officer fires several shots, man keeps approaching.
17. Officer gets a clear shot at the man's head and fires the fatal bullet.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
I love this. Posted by Ben Watson, ex Cleveland Brown... now tight end for the NO Saints.
At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:
I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.
I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.
I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.
I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.
I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.
I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.
I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.
I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.
I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.
I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.
I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.
I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.
-- Edited by msrock on Thursday 27th of November 2014 08:35:04 PM
The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
uhmmm, no.....
__________________
" the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "--edmund burke
God can and will change a heart. Look how he changed Saul/Paul.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. __________________________________________________________________________________________________
uhmmm, no.....
You know what? I'm sad that that's all you got out of that post. It's weird to me that a football player has more insight than our leader. MLK would be proud.
I love this. Posted by Ben Watson, ex Cleveland Brown... now tight end for the NO Saints.
At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:
I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.
I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.
I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.
I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.
I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.
I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.
I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.
I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.
I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.
I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.
I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.
I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.
-- Edited by msrock on Thursday 27th of November 2014 08:35:04 PM
I read that. It's a shame more leaders of the black community don't seem to share his perspective.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I read that. It's a shame more leaders of the black community don't seem to share his perspective.
It is. It's a shame that Barack Obama didn't step up and defuse the situation before it happened. Don't doubt for a minute that many minority's feel this way. Sometimes it's hard to put your feelings into words. I suppose that some like to keep the division alive. And then there are those that unite. Obama is a divider. I hate that. I so appreciate Ben Watson's perspective.
Obama is a divider. I hate that.
________________________
exactly--what happened in ferguson was not a black / white issue at all--it was an issue of self-defense only, as the grand jury ( who DID here all the witnesses, who WAS presented with all the evidence ) concluded after lengthy deliberation
what DID happen in ferguson was probably the most blatant attempt in recent memory of the MEDIA deciding what reality / the truth was, regardless of the FACTS, regardless of the EVIDENCE--and they are STILL clinging to their story, refusing to admit that they were WRONG, that they PURPOSEFULLY tried to make us believe that this was the racist murder of a black criminal by a white police officer when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth
the MEDIA and their biased, liberal/progressive agenda-based reporting exacerbated the events in ferguson, incited/motivated the majority of the " protests " ( translate: rioting / looting / arson, etc. ) and kept the " division " mindset alive, feeding it, spreading it, expanding it
disgusting and irresponsible
__________________
" the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "--edmund burke
Following the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson for the death of Michael Brown, the Internet lit up with people expressing their opinions. Pharrell Williams, the 41-year-old singer/songwriter, producer, and judge on NBC’s hit singing competition The Voice, spoke to Ebony Magazine about the situation, boldly stating that he doesn’t think Brown was completely innocent.
“It looked very bullyish; that in itself I had a problem with,” Pharrell said in regards to Michael Brown’s actions leading up to his death. “Not with the kid, but with whatever happened in his life for him to arrive at a place where that behavior is OK. Why aren’t we talking about that?”
Following the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson for the death of Michael Brown, the Internet lit up with people expressing their opinions. Pharrell Williams, the 41-year-old singer/songwriter, producer, and judge on NBC’s hit singing competition The Voice, spoke to Ebony Magazine about the situation, boldly stating that he doesn’t think Brown was completely innocent.
“It looked very bullyish; that in itself I had a problem with,” Pharrell said in regards to Michael Brown’s actions leading up to his death. “Not with the kid, but with whatever happened in his life for him to arrive at a place where that behavior is OK. Why aren’t we talking about that?”
Nobody wants to talk about it.
We've seen it on here. Many don't give a crap if a young black person gets killed.
The black community would rather blame the "system" than take any responsibility for churning out a generation of welfare dependent hoodlums.
Politicians on both sides would rather pander to whichever "side" their constituency is rather than try to offer any solutions.
To the extent anyone does offer a solution, it is either shot down by the black community as "blaming" blacks, or decried as simply another non-workable government program by the other "side".
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Yes, I believe an injustice occurred in Ferguson. ____________________________________
you're dead wrong as usual and, at any rate, what YOU think is irrelevant--the grand jury ruled--end of story
Just because the grand jury chose not to indict does not mean an injustice did not occur--unless you believe OJ is innocent.
That is not a logical correlation. A grand jury is only looking to determine if there is probable cause to indict - it's ALL in the prosecution's favor. If there is ANY real reason to indict, they will.
A jury in a criminal trial is looking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - a MUCH higher standard. The prosecution in OJ's case left too much doubt.
The reason he lost the civil case when he was sued is because the burden of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence - just enough to tip the scales.
Comparing a jury saying there is NO probable cause vs. one that has to find beyond a reasonable doubt is comparing 2 completely different standards.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Yes, I believe an injustice occurred in Ferguson. ____________________________________
you're dead wrong as usual and, at any rate, what YOU think is irrelevant--the grand jury ruled--end of story
Just because the grand jury chose not to indict does not mean an injustice did not occur--unless you believe OJ is innocent.
That is not a logical correlation. A grand jury is only looking to determine if there is probable cause to indict - it's ALL in the prosecution's favor. If there is ANY real reason to indict, they will.
A jury in a criminal trial is looking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - a MUCH higher standard. The prosecution in OJ's case left too much doubt.
The reason he lost the civil case when he was sued is because the burden of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence - just enough to tip the scales.
Comparing a jury saying there is NO probable cause vs. one that has to find beyond a reasonable doubt is comparing 2 completely different standards.
Not really. We all know OJ was guilty. Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean they were either right, or that justice was served.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
They did indict OJ. Then it went to trial. The Jury found OJ not guilty.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean they were either right, or that justice was served.
_______________________________________________________________________
sometimes your ignorance is breathtaking--simply incredible
__________________
" the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "--edmund burke
Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean they were either right, or that justice was served. _______________________________________________________________________
sometimes your ignorance is breathtaking--simply incredible
Again, you must believe OJ is innocent. Now THAT is ignorant.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Yes, I believe an injustice occurred in Ferguson. ____________________________________
you're dead wrong as usual and, at any rate, what YOU think is irrelevant--the grand jury ruled--end of story
Just because the grand jury chose not to indict does not mean an injustice did not occur--unless you believe OJ is innocent.
That is not a logical correlation. A grand jury is only looking to determine if there is probable cause to indict - it's ALL in the prosecution's favor. If there is ANY real reason to indict, they will.
A jury in a criminal trial is looking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - a MUCH higher standard. The prosecution in OJ's case left too much doubt.
The reason he lost the civil case when he was sued is because the burden of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence - just enough to tip the scales.
Comparing a jury saying there is NO probable cause vs. one that has to find beyond a reasonable doubt is comparing 2 completely different standards.
Not really. We all know OJ was guilty. Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean they were either right, or that justice was served.
OJ was indicted. And tried. I'm not sure you understand the function of the grand jury.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Yes, I believe an injustice occurred in Ferguson. ____________________________________
you're dead wrong as usual and, at any rate, what YOU think is irrelevant--the grand jury ruled--end of story
Just because the grand jury chose not to indict does not mean an injustice did not occur--unless you believe OJ is innocent.
That is not a logical correlation. A grand jury is only looking to determine if there is probable cause to indict - it's ALL in the prosecution's favor. If there is ANY real reason to indict, they will.
A jury in a criminal trial is looking for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - a MUCH higher standard. The prosecution in OJ's case left too much doubt.
The reason he lost the civil case when he was sued is because the burden of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence - just enough to tip the scales.
Comparing a jury saying there is NO probable cause vs. one that has to find beyond a reasonable doubt is comparing 2 completely different standards.
Not really. We all know OJ was guilty. Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean they were either right, or that justice was served.
OJ was indicted. And tried. I'm not sure you understand the function of the grand jury.
Yes, I do. But juries of ALL types can make mistakes--that is the point.
You were just telling me the other day that just because the jury doesn't convict someone doesn't mean they are innocent. The same can be said about whether or not they are indicted. Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean he's innocent. People get away with crimes all the time.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 29th of November 2014 01:04:48 PM
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Yes, I do. But juries of ALL types can make mistakes--that is the point.
You were just telling me the other day that just because the jury doesn't convict someone doesn't mean they are innocent. The same can be said about whether or not they are indicted. Just because they didn't indict doesn't mean he's innocent. People get away with crimes all the time.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 29th of November 2014 01:04:48 PM
The Grand Jury, which reviewed ALL the evidence and heard ALL THE witnesses,
decided that there was going to be "reasonable doubt" so if it went to trial,
so an acquittal would be certain.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
