by Simon 95 Replies latest forum announcements
I think it shows more how, because he has spoken out on the issue, there is not an effort to smear his name.
Shoplifting has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. He wasn't a shoplifter and he wasn't shot for that crime or for the robbery which he did commit.
He was shot in self defense for attacking a cop. Claiming anything else is racist nonsense.
Shoplifting shouldn't end in death.
I don't think the shoplifting resulted in death..........................I'm pretty sure it was assaulting and attacking the Police Officer is what resulted in the death.
I don't know I may be wrong, I wasn't there.
Shoplifting has a lot to do with this story.
It is like the little man against the world whose criminality stands independent from the crime.
It makes a great story.
Everything Michael Brown did that morning "ended in death". The claim that he was shot for shoplifting is weaker than claiming he was shot for eating breakfast or for being overweight ...
But this topic is not meant to be another rehash of the verdict - it's to say why some of the nonsense claims being made (as shown on this very topic) are not going to be allowed anymore.
designs: I showed simple proof of Giuliani's arrest being the better way to deal with shoplifters.
Where's your Frisbee ?
Forest for the trees, designs, forest for the trees....
But it will make a great movie Simon.
Have you seen " Dog Day Afternoon" with Pachino.
The media is making this story.
Designs :- i have but one fleeting life...thus i am off this thread.
If the justice system decides someone is innocent then you cannot come on here and claim that they are guilty.
If the justice system decides someone is guilty then you cannot come on here and claim that they are innocent.
Hi Simon. Looks like I'm late to this discussion. But for whatever it's worth here's my two cents:
I read your remarks to mean participants have to respect decisions of the court. My observation, and the reason for quoting what I do above, is that often courts do not find a person innocent but, rather, not guilty as charged. And, in each case a court's finding is strictly toward how a defendant was charged.
A finding of not guilty as charged does not mean a person is innocent but, rather, that the court did not find enough evidence to find them guilty as charged. There is presumption of innocence in the US court system that also has to be respected. Hence a finding of not guilty as charged means the court presumes a defendant is innocent of the legal charge against them. But this presumption by the court only extends to what a person is charged with by the judicial system and the judicial system does not get into issues that are strictly ethical or moral. Hence a defendant could be found not guilty as charged (read: presumed innocent as charged) yet not be found innocent of some profound ethical or moral breach that has negative impact on a community.
So my question is this:
Does your revamped policy allow us to discuss issues related to the Wilson-Brown incident that the court is silent on, so long as we respect what the court did decide?
Regrettably, I think the MB decision will be disputed forever, just like the OJ decision.
When the OJ decision was released, I was shocked that every one of my African-American friends thought it was a just decision. The right decision. They actually thought he was innocent. I know of no white persons who sided with the OJ decision. The opinions about the OJ decision were split down racial lines much more than the MB decision is.
Doc
Yes, use of "innocent" was simplistic for the sentences to match. There is never proof of innocence, there is preseumed innocent if not found guilty.
Does your revamped policy allow us to discuss issues related to the Wilson-Brown incident that the court is silent on , so long as we respect what the court did decide ?
Yes, but the court decision can't be used as a claim of something that it doesn't demonstrate. I don't think it really helps with many subjects to be honest but it will be brought up as "conclusive proof" of some claims no doubt.
