PDA

View Full Version : Ferguson-Should the witnesses who lied be prosecuted?



genglandoh
03-09-2015, 06:04 AM
These witnesses committed perjury in a very important investigation.
The results of their lies caused riots.
So yes I think they should be prosecuted.

Witnesses Lied Under Oath In Ferguson Grand Jury, Prosecutor Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/witnesses-lied-ferguson-grand-jury-bob-mcculloch_n_6356804.html

Phillip Allen
03-09-2015, 06:06 AM
if it's doable

skuthorp
03-09-2015, 06:21 AM
So having gotten the desired result in the 'trial' and having suborned the justice system they want to sweep it under the carpet? Seems to me that the County Prosecutor needs to be sacked for dereliction of his legal duties, at least.

Garret
03-09-2015, 06:49 AM
Perjury is perjury & should be punished. That being said, it may be difficult to prove. While I think there's a good chance they just want it to go away, I'd like to hear more about why the prosecutor isn't going to press charges.

He did know that they were lying & decided he'd rather have everyone testify.

From the Wash. Post:


Nonetheless, McCulloch told KTRS host McGraw Milhaven that he will not pursue perjury charges. He said he thought it was more important for the grand jury to “hear everything” and assess each witnesses’ credibility on their own.

“But in the situation — again, because of the manner in which we did it — we’re not going to file perjury charges against anyone. There were people who came in and yes, absolutely lied under oath. Some lied to the FBI — even though they’re not under oath, that’s another potential offense, a federal offense.”



Maybe the FBI will press charges?

Keith Wilson
03-09-2015, 07:42 AM
It certainly appears some of the witnesses lied. Tell you what . . . We can prosecute them for perjury after Ferguson's mayor, city council and police department officials have been prosecuted for running their department as an armed collection agency, with the express purpose of extracting revenue from the citizens. Deal?

xflow7
03-09-2015, 07:50 AM
I'm good with charging witnesses who lied with perjury provided the DA is charged for knowingly introducing false information into the grand jury proceedings. No double standards.

pila
03-09-2015, 08:02 AM
If someone were to check the situation 5 years from now, they would likely find that nothing really changed in that city, after all this has all blown over......

Norman Bernstein
03-09-2015, 08:04 AM
The conclusion of a trial is a verdict... but no one should confuse a verdict with absolute truth. Witnesses will vary in their recollection of events. Perjury is a provable lie, and that's completely different from a statement from a witness.

If someone gave eyewitness testimony which ran contrary to the final verdict, then it is what it is: a difference in recollection. If someone gave eyewitness testimony who could be proven to not even being at the scene, that's a different story.

Want a good example? How about Bill O'Reilly, claiming to be outside the door when a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald committed suicide with a shotgun, and hearing the blast... while he actually was a thousand miles away at the time. Had O'Reilly been called to testify, and told that story, he would have been guilty of perjury.

On the other hand, a witness whose recollection disagrees with other witness accounts, and/or disagrees with the verdict, is NOT a perjurer, unless it can be proven that the witness was intentionally lying.


The bedrock of the American judicial process is the honesty of witnesses in trial. Eyewitness testimony can make a deep impression on a jury, which is often exclusively assigned the role of sorting out credibility issues and making judgments about the truth of witness statements.1 (http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/f&tfootnotes.htm#1) Perjury is a crime, because lying under oath can subvert the integrity of a trial and the legitimacy of the judicial system. However, perjury is defined as knowingly making a false statement—merely misremembering is not a crime.

CWSmith
03-09-2015, 08:41 AM
Yes, they should be tried. However, maximum transparency is needed so it isn't spun into the government vs the black community.

Shang
03-09-2015, 09:23 AM
These witnesses committed perjury in a very important investigation.
The results of their lies caused riots.
So yes I think they should be prosecuted.

Witnesses Lied Under Oath In Ferguson Grand Jury, Prosecutor Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/witnesses-lied-ferguson-grand-jury-bob-mcculloch_n_6356804.html

Naugh, geng, say what you really think--they should be taken out and shot!

bobbys
03-09-2015, 10:55 AM
It certainly appears some of the witnesses lied. Tell you what . . . We can prosecute them for perjury after Ferguson's mayor, city council and police department officials have been prosecuted for running their department as an armed collection agency, with the express purpose of extracting revenue from the citizens. Deal?
.

You missed a calling to be a Attorney..

Why you could win every case by pointing to something else.

bobbys
03-09-2015, 10:57 AM
Naugh, geng, say what you really think--they should be taken out and shot!.

I thought only Spock could mind melt?

genglandoh
03-09-2015, 05:48 PM
It certainly appears some of the witnesses lied. Tell you what . . . We can prosecute them for perjury after Ferguson's mayor, city council and police department officials have been prosecuted for running their department as an armed collection agency, with the express purpose of extracting revenue from the citizens. Deal?

I agree.
Towns should not be allowed to use their Police Departments as armed collection agencies.
I would support an investigation into what is happening and if they broke a law then they should be prosecuted.

genglandoh
03-09-2015, 05:50 PM
I'm good with charging witnesses who lied with perjury provided the DA is charged for knowingly introducing false information into the grand jury proceedings. No double standards.

I have not been following the details of the charges you are talking about.
But if the DA broke the law then yes he/she should be prosecuted.

genglandoh
03-09-2015, 05:53 PM
Naugh, geng, say what you really think--they should be taken out and shot!

It would be nice if you would post your thoughts on the subject.
After all I can not read you mind.:)

genglandoh
03-09-2015, 07:24 PM
The conclusion of a trial is a verdict... but no one should confuse a verdict with absolute truth. Witnesses will vary in their recollection of events. Perjury is a provable lie, and that's completely different from a statement from a witness.

If someone gave eyewitness testimony which ran contrary to the final verdict, then it is what it is: a difference in recollection. If someone gave eyewitness testimony who could be proven to not even being at the scene, that's a different story.

Want a good example? How about Bill O'Reilly, claiming to be outside the door when a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald committed suicide with a shotgun, and hearing the blast... while he actually was a thousand miles away at the time. Had O'Reilly been called to testify, and told that story, he would have been guilty of perjury.

On the other hand, a witness whose recollection disagrees with other witness accounts, and/or disagrees with the verdict, is NOT a perjurer, unless it can be proven that the witness was intentionally lying.

Thank you for the lecture.
But I noticed you did not answer the question.
Do you think that in this case there should be a trial to determine if these witnesses are guilty of perjury?

genglandoh
03-09-2015, 08:27 PM
Here is a CNN news story about a few witnesses who admitted that they lied.
These people should be put on trial for perjury.

One challenge for Ferguson grand jury: Some witnesses' credibility
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/

L.W. Baxter
03-09-2015, 10:05 PM
Here is a CNN news story about a few witnesses who admitted that they lied.
These people should be put on trial for perjury.

One challenge for Ferguson grand jury: Some witnesses' credibility
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/

Yep.

The main thrust of that article, Geng, is that the prosecutor, rather than sifting through possible witnesses to present the most reliable accounts, inundated the grand jury with unreliable testimony. That is not normal. Can you think of any reason why that might have been done?

genglandoh
03-09-2015, 10:24 PM
Yep.

The main thrust of that article, Geng, is that the prosecutor, rather than sifting through possible witnesses to present the most reliable accounts, inundated the grand jury with unreliable testimony. That is not normal. Can you think of any reason why that might have been done?

I see nothing wrong with presenting all of the evidence and not filter out someones testimony just because the prosecutor thinks it was not reliable.
Then after all of the testimony is in the grand jury can make an informed decision.

Just think how the news media would have attacked the grand jury decision if some of the witnesses were not allowed to testify.

CWSmith
03-09-2015, 10:28 PM
If a prosecutor, or any lawyer, presents testimony they believe to be untrue, they are suborning perjury. They lose their license doing that and rightfully so.

L.W. Baxter
03-09-2015, 10:34 PM
I see nothing wrong with presenting all of the evidence and not filter out someones testimony just because the prosecutor thinks it was not reliable.
Then after all of the testimony is in the grand jury can make an informed decision.

Just think how the news media would have attacked the grand jury decision if some of the witnesses were not allowed to testify.

Actually, the prosecutor's job in front of the grand jury is to get an indictment. Filtering out unreliable testimony is in the job description.

Of course, no indictment was made. The prosecutor poisoned the well of his own grand jury; a cynical person might think he did so purposefully.

genglandoh
03-10-2015, 10:44 AM
Actually, the prosecutor's job in front of the grand jury is to get an indictment. Filtering out unreliable testimony is in the job description.

Of course, no indictment was made. The prosecutor poisoned the well of his own grand jury; a cynical person might think he did so purposefully.

You make it sound like the decision is predetermined.
The purpose of a grand jury is to decide if they should bring criminal charges or indictment.
The prosecutor is obligated to provide all the evidence both pro and con.
Most (but not all) of the witnesses that lied were saying the the police officer shot Michael Brown in cold blood.
If these witnesses did not testify the news media would have gone nuts and the riots would have been worst.

Back to the subject.
Do you think these witnesses who lied should be prosecuted?

Canoeyawl
03-10-2015, 11:16 AM
Proving the lies would become an interesting issue, as it would come off as just more racial discrimination. Which it would be.

If they have any brains at all, they won't touch it. It would cost a lot of money, and they will be spending plenty defending themselves in the years to come. How they do it will be interesting because it would seem they have lost their revenue stream.
Perhaps by declaring bankruptcy, another way to put it on the backs of the citizens.

genglandoh
03-10-2015, 12:20 PM
Proving the lies would become an interesting issue, as it would come off as just more racial discrimination. Which it would be.

If they have any brains at all, they won't touch it. It would cost a lot of money, and they will be spending plenty defending themselves in the years to come. How they do it will be interesting because it would seem they have lost their revenue stream.
Perhaps by declaring bankruptcy, another way to put it on the backs of the citizens.

If justice is to be served then maybe the US DOJ should prosecute the witnesses who lied.
After all the DOJ report supported the grand jury decision and showed some of the witnesses lied.

LeeG
03-10-2015, 12:28 PM
Well Geng this looks like a worthy cause for you to pursue.

Chip-skiff
03-10-2015, 12:43 PM
If eyewitnesses are to be prosecuted for mistaken or misleading testimony, shouldn't we go after all the eyewitnesses whose testimony resulted in the conviction (and in many cases imprisonment and execution) of defendants later exonerated by DNA evidence?

In that event, there'd be a lot of white folks goin' down.

Keith Wilson
03-10-2015, 01:22 PM
Proving a lie when witnesses' testimony differs is very difficult. Eyewitnesses often disagree, sometimes quite dramatically. Mistaken testimony isn't a crime, and "That's what I honestly thought I saw" is hard to disprove.

Bobcat
03-10-2015, 01:29 PM
To prove perjury you have to prove that the witness made a false statement under oath about something material and that the witness knew it was false. It's not enough that the witness made a false statement.

Here's the way Washington State describes first degree perjury:

A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.

L.W. Baxter
03-10-2015, 02:32 PM
You make it sound like the decision is predetermined.
The purpose of a grand jury is to decide if they should bring criminal charges or indictment.
The prosecutor is obligated to provide all the evidence both pro and con.
Most (but not all) of the witnesses that lied were saying the the police officer shot Michael Brown in cold blood.
If these witnesses did not testify the news media would have gone nuts and the riots would have been worst.

Back to the subject.
Do you think these witnesses who lied should be prosecuted?

Many is the time I have observed bemused as others have engaged you in useless conversation, geng. The only question left of any interest to me is "why did I bother?"

it appears you don't understand the function of a prosecutor or a grand jury, and have no interest in learning. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself. Adios.

David G
03-10-2015, 02:36 PM
Lee - Stop. Just stop. Listen to the song, "Stop Making Sense".

genglandoh
03-11-2015, 07:26 AM
Many is the time I have observed bemused as others have engaged you in useless conversation, geng. The only question left of any interest to me is "why did I bother?"

it appears you don't understand the function of a prosecutor or a grand jury, and have no interest in learning. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself. Adios.

Some information you may want to consider.

A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Grand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Kevin T
03-11-2015, 09:30 AM
Some information you may want to consider. A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html Grand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

And has been said many times a Grand Jury could be compelled to indict a ham sandwich, so your point would be what? But more importantly what do you think should be done?

genglandoh
03-11-2015, 12:31 PM
And has been said many times a Grand Jury could be compelled to indict a ham sandwich, so your point would be what? But more importantly what do you think should be done?


I already answered many questions in this thread but I will review them again for you

1. I think the witnesses who lied should be prosecuted.
Post#1
2. I support an investigation into the Police Departments being used as an armed collection agency.
Post#13
3. If the DA broke the law then yes he/she should be prosecuted.
Post#14
4. My point for posting the information about Grand Jury was to explain to others who had it wrong.
Posts #22 and #31.

What do you think about the original question.
Do you think the witnesses who lied should be prosecuted?

Kevin T
03-11-2015, 12:42 PM
Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, can you prove they lied?

genglandoh
03-11-2015, 01:14 PM
Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, can you prove they lied?

Post#17


Here is a CNN news story about a few witnesses who admitted that they lied.
These people should be put on trial for perjury.

One challenge for Ferguson grand jury: Some witnesses' credibility
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/

genglandoh
03-11-2015, 03:15 PM
I wonder why so many people post but do not answer the question.

Let’s review.

People who posted but did not answer the question
1. Skuthorp
2. Norman Bernstein
3. Shang
4. Bobbys
5. L.W. Baxter
6. CWSmith
7. Canoeyawl
8. LeeG
9. Chip-skiff
10. Bobcat
11. David G
12. Kevin T

People who agreed but with a condition
1. Keith Wilson
2. xflow7

People who disagreed - Zero

McMike
03-11-2015, 04:57 PM
Absolutly. Do you think politicians should be prosecuted for lying and manipulating the people? Do you think we should have slander laws so that "news" channels like Fox are legally bound to tell the truth?

Chip-skiff
03-11-2015, 10:05 PM
You should be prosecuted as a public nuisance.

CWSmith
03-11-2015, 10:28 PM
People who posted but did not answer the question

6. CWSmith


Please read #9 and try to understand. The words are small.

Kevin T
03-11-2015, 10:42 PM
I wonder why so many people post but do not answer the question. Let’s review. People who posted but did not answer the question 1. Skuthorp 2. Norman Bernstein 3. Shang 4. Bobbys 5. L.W. Baxter 6. CWSmith 7. Canoeyawl 8. LeeG 9. Chip-skiff 10. Bobcat 11. David G 12. Kevin T People who agreed but with a condition 1. Keith Wilson 2. xflow7 People who disagreed - Zero

Okay, drag them from the court house, tear em limb from limb, hang em, draw and quarter them, revive and bring them back to life and then give them a lethal injection. Will that work? None of which will change the events of that day. What's the fascination with punishment.

What should we do with the banksters that crashed the world economy? How about the guys that sent 4000 plus young boys to die in Iraq, for nothing. What should we do we those clowns?

McMike
03-11-2015, 10:49 PM
Good ol Geng is quiet now. Wonder what information he thinks he got to fit his own private insane narrative.

Chip-skiff
03-11-2015, 11:22 PM
When someone asks a profoundly dumb question and then faults those who answer intelligently, what shall we call that?

I don't think it ranks as high as hubris. But I know there's a word for it.

genglandoh
03-12-2015, 05:36 AM
When someone asks a profoundly dumb question and then faults those who answer intelligently, what shall we call that?

I don't think it ranks as high as hubris. But I know there's a word for it.

I do not think the question is profoundly dumb.

People lied to a grand jury about hands up don't shoot.
They even admitted they lied.
Because of their lies there where riots.
These people should be prosecuted.

genglandoh
03-12-2015, 05:40 AM
Please read #9 and try to understand. The words are small.

You are right I am sorry I missed it.

At lease I am not a bad as Kevin T who has missed most of my posts.

skuthorp
03-12-2015, 05:45 AM
I wonder why so many people post but do not answer the question.

Let’s review.

People who posted but did not answer the question
1. Skuthorp
2. Norman Bernstein
3. Shang
4. Bobbys
5. L.W. Baxter
6. CWSmith
7. Canoeyawl
8. LeeG
9. Chip-skiff
10. Bobcat
11. David G
12. Kevin T

People who agreed but with a condition
1. Keith Wilson
2. xflow7

People who disagreed - Zero
I'm not sure which question, this one?
"What do you think about the original question.
Do you think the witnesses who lied should be prosecuted?"

Answer being yes of course. But as we have often said it can depend on your status, wealth, connections and politics as to whether prosecutions for crimes are initiated.

genglandoh
03-12-2015, 05:54 AM
I'm not sure which question, this one?
"What do you think about the original question.
Do you think the witnesses who lied should be prosecuted?"

Answer being yes of course. But as we have often said it can depend on your status, wealth, connections and politics as to whether prosecutions for crimes are initiated.

Thank you for answering the question.
Since you brought it up do you think the reason they are not being prosecuted is because of politics?

PeterSibley
03-12-2015, 05:58 AM
They probably aren't being charged to save the town another riot. It might be just a matter of practicality , if that's politics so be it.

skuthorp
03-12-2015, 06:23 AM
They probably aren't being charged to save the town another riot. It might be just a matter of practicality , if that's politics so be it.
I agree with Peter, and the troubles aren't over yet as the next post shows. Hopefully when things cool down such matters can be attended to. The biggest danger is what you might call 'bracket creep'. The insertion into present tensions of other agendas by other parties taking advantage of the situation.

genglandoh
03-12-2015, 06:26 AM
Maybe the Police around the country should have a NO JUSTICE NO PEACE rally in Ferguson until the people who lied about Hands up don't shoot are prosecuted.

skuthorp
03-12-2015, 06:29 AM
You, and we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. The two are often a long ways apart for the reasons that I stated i #46. Wealth, status and influence, and the right gun for hire of course.

genglandoh
03-12-2015, 06:30 AM
I agree with Peter, and the troubles aren't over yet as the next post shows. Hopefully when things cool down such matters can be attended to. The biggest danger is what you might call 'bracket creep'. The insertion into present tensions of other agendas by other parties taking advantage of the situation.

I think this is exactly what happened.
1. White Police officer shoots a black man.
2. The Black mans friend lies about what happened.
3. The Democrats with the aid of the news media jump on the story and start riots.

skuthorp
03-12-2015, 06:35 AM
First two points may have some validity, the third re the Dems I think is a bit of a partisan leap. But the media is a business, and anything that sells, truth or fiction is, I think, free speech. No? And a riot sells big time.

Kevin T
03-12-2015, 07:47 AM
I think this is exactly what happened. 1. White Police officer shoots a black man. 2. The Black mans friend lies about what happened. 3. The Democrats with the aid of the news media jump on the story and start riots.

I may not have read all your posts in this thread, but then again is it really required, your point #3 above has likely been your agenda on this particular fishing exhibition all along. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you stated that at the outset.

Isn't it just awesome to be a white male in middle America, always "right" and just plain privileged simply based on one's, shall we say "appearance" ? Then again there are things such as nuance and empathy and more importantly, practicality.

Garret
03-12-2015, 07:53 AM
I think this is exactly what happened.
1. White Police officer shoots a black man.
2. The Black mans friend lies about what happened.
3. The Democrats with the aid of the news media jump on the story and start riots.

This is such a gross mis-statement & misunderstanding of what happened it boggles the mind.

Kevin T seems to have summed it up pretty well: you have an agenda & will twist the facts to fit it.

genglandoh
03-12-2015, 08:37 AM
First two points may have some validity, the third re the Dems I think is a bit of a partisan leap. But the media is a business, and anything that sells, truth or fiction is, I think, free speech. No? And a riot sells big time.

Some supporting information you may want to consider.


Lawmakers make 'hands up' gesture on House floor
“Hands up, don’t shoot. It’s a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said as he took the floor. “In community, after community, after community, fed up with police violence in Ferguson, in Brooklyn, in Cleveland, in Oakland, in cities and counties and rural communities all across America.”
Joining Jeffries were Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Al Green (D-Texas), who praised the handful of St. Louis Rams’ players for also making the “hands up” gesture as they entered the field for their game on Sunday.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html

Georgia Democrats send out mailer asking residents to vote to ‘prevent another Ferguson’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/22/georgia-democrats-send-out-mailer-asking-residents-to-vote-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

Democratic turnout flyer: ‘If you want to prevent another Ferguson…’
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/10/21/democratic-turnout-flyer-if-you-want-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

https://cmgajcpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/demflyer1.jpg

Paul Pless
03-12-2015, 08:38 AM
I think this is exactly what happened.
1. White Police officer shoots a black man.
2. The Black mans friend lies about what happened.
3. The Democrats with the aid of the news media jump on the story and start riots.dude, you drink too much right wing koolaide

woodpile
03-12-2015, 09:28 AM
Two cops shot in Ferguson last night. More politics.

So where's the comments from Obama, Holder, Jackson and Sharpton, don't hold your breath, it was only two cops,.............sad.

CWSmith
03-12-2015, 10:04 AM
You are right I am sorry I missed it.


Thank you.

Canoeyawl
03-12-2015, 10:28 AM
I think this is exactly what happened.
1. White Police officer shoots a black man.
2. The Black mans friend lies about what happened.
3. The Democrats with the aid of the news media jump on the story and start riots.

Blaming the riots on any political party is quite a stretch, but I'm not surprised. Interesting to seek the origin of this particlar rhetoric. Desperate measures indeed.
The people that are protesting are seeking justice, compassion, and changes to the present system and they should be probably be listened to and some changes made asap. This entire situation is racism, plain and clear and any defense of it is telling.

Canoeyawl
03-12-2015, 10:34 AM
Limbaugh seems to be an originator of the rhetoric blaming the democrats for the problems in Ferguson, there is a lot of it out there now.

Crazy...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/26/civil_disobedience_in_ferguson_was_planned_and_cho reographed_beforehand_not_a_spontaneous_riot

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/16/did-this-progressive-democrat-billionaire-fund-the-ferguson-riots/

Chip-skiff
03-12-2015, 08:24 PM
The entire situation makes me SICK!

If you get really, really sick, maybe you'll spare us your ugly rants.

Garret
03-12-2015, 09:25 PM
???

Brad's from that area - so he seeming has "volunteered in that community". I'm sure that does give him perspective we don't have.

Got him wound up anyway... ;)

Kevin T
03-12-2015, 09:39 PM
It strikes me that one doesn't have to be from an area with rampant problems of an immediate and current nature to understand disenfranchisement, hopelessness and frustration. One only need be aware of the larger world around them to have all the perspective they need.

Just sayin

Breakaway
03-12-2015, 09:52 PM
It strikes me that one doesn't have to be from an area with rampant problems of an immediate and current nature to understand disenfranchisement, hopelessness and frustration. One only need be aware of the larger world around them to have all the perspective they need




And in the same way, we can understand sailing from books or from actually sailing. The understanding gleaned from each venue may be equally accurate, but they will not be the same.

Kevin

Kevin T
03-12-2015, 10:01 PM
I'm not saying it's the same understanding. But one would have to be unconscious or out to lunch to not recognize the universality of disenfranchisement

Breakaway
03-12-2015, 10:07 PM
^ Agreed.

Kevin

Chip-skiff
03-13-2015, 12:09 AM
Bradster: I didn't judge anything except your incoherent rudeness.

Pretty much the opposite of bravery, I reckon.

genglandoh
03-13-2015, 07:30 AM
Blaming the riots on any political party is quite a stretch, but I'm not surprised. Interesting to seek the origin of this particlar rhetoric. Desperate measures indeed.
The people that are protesting are seeking justice, compassion, and changes to the present system and they should be probably be listened to and some changes made asap. This entire situation is racism, plain and clear and any defense of it is telling.

So you disagree with the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ that hands up don't shoot did not happen?

Do you think the lying about hands up don't shoot was a racists act?
Do you think the repeating of hands up don't shoot in congress was a racists act?
Do you think using of hands up don't shoot in democratic campaign material was a racists act?

I do.

Canoeyawl
03-13-2015, 10:42 AM
So you disagree with the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ that hands up don't shoot did not happen?

Do you think the lying about hands up don't shoot was a racists act?
Do you think the repeating of hands up don't shoot in congress was a racists act?
Do you think using of hands up don't shoot in democratic campaign material was a racists act?

I do.


I don't know they were "lies". Prove that and get back to me...

ccmanuals
03-13-2015, 10:46 AM
So you disagree with the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ that hands up don't shoot did not happen?

Do you think the lying about hands up don't shoot was a racists act?
Do you think the repeating of hands up don't shoot in congress was a racists act?
Do you think using of hands up don't shoot in democratic campaign material was a racists act?

I do.

Let's assume that he didn't have his hands up and that he didn't say don't shoot. (we really don't know for sure from what I understand)

Does that mean it's ok to shoot someone who is unarmed?

Canoeyawl
03-13-2015, 11:11 AM
So you disagree with the findings of the grand jury and the DOJ that hands up don't shoot did not happen?

Do you think the lying about hands up don't shoot was a racists act?
Do you think the repeating of hands up don't shoot in congress was a racists act?
Do you think using of hands up don't shoot in democratic campaign material was a racists act?

I do.

I do think that you would like to persecute these people to defend your political position...

Myself, I cannot even consider those questions in the reference frame you are using. And I am puzzled by how you got from a police car in Ferguson to the US congress in one sentence.

* Note that "racists" is a plural noun (example, "a group of racists, i.e. republicans") and your specific questions may be difficult to interpret.

Bobcat
03-13-2015, 11:32 AM
Not all untrue statements are lies. Not all lies are perjury. No all perjury is something for which a prosecutor will want to file charges.

Osborne Russell
03-13-2015, 11:45 AM
Want to be treated equally?

ACT LIKE AN EQUAL.

NOT a punk, looting, criminal, thug!!!!!!



Yeah, who do you think you are, the police?

genglandoh
03-16-2015, 05:42 PM
I do think that you would like to persecute these people to defend your political position...

Myself, I cannot even consider those questions in the reference frame you are using. And I am puzzled by how you got from a police car in Ferguson to the US congress in one sentence.

* Note that "racists" is a plural noun (example, "a group of racists, i.e. republicans") and your specific questions may be difficult to interpret.

You must not have read post #57 where I documented
1. Three democrats took to the House floor Monday evening to make the “Hands up, don’t shoot,” gesture to protest the police shooting of the unarmed Ferguson teen, Michael Brown.
2. The Georgia Democrat Party used the false Hands up don't shoot slogan to try and win an election.

So it was the Democrats who made this political not me.



Some supporting information you may want to consider.


Lawmakers make 'hands up' gesture on House floor
“Hands up, don’t shoot. It’s a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said as he took the floor. “In community, after community, after community, fed up with police violence in Ferguson, in Brooklyn, in Cleveland, in Oakland, in cities and counties and rural communities all across America.”
Joining Jeffries were Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Al Green (D-Texas), who praised the handful of St. Louis Rams’ players for also making the “hands up” gesture as they entered the field for their game on Sunday.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html

Georgia Democrats send out mailer asking residents to vote to ‘prevent another Ferguson’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/22/georgia-democrats-send-out-mailer-asking-residents-to-vote-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

Democratic turnout flyer: ‘If you want to prevent another Ferguson…’
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/10/21/democratic-turnout-flyer-if-you-want-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

https://cmgajcpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/demflyer1.jpg

ljb5
03-16-2015, 05:52 PM
You must not have read post #57 where I documented
1. Three democrats took to the House floor Monday evening to make the “Hands up, don’t shoot,” gesture to protest the police shooting of the unarmed Ferguson teen, Michael Brown.
2. The Georgia Democrat Party used the false Hands up don't shoot slogan to try and win an election.

So it was the Democrats who made this political not me.

Republicans have an amazing ability to focus attention on the petty and insignificant -- especially when it gives them the opportunity to whine about being victimized.

Just a few days ago, we had the 50th Anniversary of the march on Selma -- an historical and important event in the struggle for civil rights.... and Republicans spent several days complaining that former president Bush hadn't been photographed in a way that showed him close to the center of attention.

Because it's all about Bush and how he was mistreated at Selma. :rolleyes:

In the same vein, we've had racially charged police encounters all over the country for decades.... and genglandoh wants to argue about whether a hand gesture is "false."

Good lord, man. There are more important things in the world than a hand gesture.... and you haven't been victimized by it, so stop whining.

genglandoh
03-16-2015, 05:54 PM
Let's assume that he didn't have his hands up and that he didn't say don't shoot. (we really don't know for sure from what I understand)

Does that mean it's ok to shoot someone who is unarmed?

A big man (6 ft 4 in almost 300 lbs) attacks a police officer, tries to take the police officers gun.
Then runs away, turns and starts to charge full speed at the police officer.

It does not matter if the big man is black or white the police officer is being attacked and in fear of his life so the outcome is tragic and the man is shot.

Not exactly the actions of a gentle giant.

Would you have preferred the police officer to have been killed by this unarmed big man?

Glen Longino
03-16-2015, 07:06 PM
You prosecute Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz, then we'll talk about Ferguson!

bobbys
03-16-2015, 07:22 PM
You prosecute Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz, then we'll talk about Ferguson!.

Well you did admit you were not cut out for law enforcemeant..

I can see why....

John Smith
03-19-2015, 03:17 PM
These witnesses committed perjury in a very important investigation.
The results of their lies caused riots.
So yes I think they should be prosecuted.

Witnesses Lied Under Oath In Ferguson Grand Jury, Prosecutor Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/witnesses-lied-ferguson-grand-jury-bob-mcculloch_n_6356804.html

I seem to have little company in my concern for the many times we convict innocent people. Witnesses in those instances need to be prosecuted. I don't know how we convict innocent people sans witnesses lying, or the prosecution lying.

hokiefan
03-30-2015, 09:21 PM
Brad, I would be ashamed to have posted those last two posts. Rantings of a hateful person, they have no place here.

John Smith
03-30-2015, 09:23 PM
It certainly appears some of the witnesses lied. Tell you what . . . We can prosecute them for perjury after Ferguson's mayor, city council and police department officials have been prosecuted for running their department as an armed collection agency, with the express purpose of extracting revenue from the citizens. Deal?

Until we prosecute the Bush administration, why prosecute anyone?

Phillip Allen
03-30-2015, 09:23 PM
Brad seems to be suffering from dyspepsia tonight.

Keith Wilson
03-30-2015, 09:26 PM
Brad, that's really offensive.

StevenBauer
03-30-2015, 10:11 PM
Wagon falling?

Keith Wilson
03-30-2015, 10:21 PM
Monsters From the Id, methinks.

pila
03-30-2015, 10:42 PM
It may not be decent to say all that, but we can sure think it, and know it's mostly true...

Phillip Allen
03-31-2015, 05:58 AM
Wow, wonder if we'll see you again. If it were up to me you'd be permanently banned.

That's about as nice and un-rude a reaction as I could muster.

a permanent banning is too intolerant of someone having a bad day... we all have those

Dumah
03-31-2015, 07:18 AM
You are right I am sorry I missed it.

At lease I am not a bad as Kevin T who has missed most of my posts.

Missed? |;), I'd suggest deliberately ignored, :d wake up and smell the coffee, Geng

Dumah

LeeG
03-31-2015, 07:25 AM
Golly, if only the media didn't report this stuff it wouldn't happen!

Keith Wilson
03-31-2015, 07:49 AM
Seems Brad got the axe. Gollly gee, racist fulminations are over the line? Who would have thought? Play nice, boys.

Bobcat
03-31-2015, 09:39 AM
a permanent banning is too intolerant of someone having a bad day... we all have those

But some seem to have only bad days.

Sometimes --- and I make no comment about this case as did not see the posts---someone needs to leave the forum for good.

I have no illusions that the person banned will learn anything from the experience, but the rest of us benefit from not reading what that person spews.

genglandoh
03-31-2015, 11:48 AM
Missed? |;), I'd suggest deliberately ignored, :d wake up and smell the coffee, Geng

Dumah

Do you have an opinion on the subject?

Dumah
03-31-2015, 01:21 PM
Several, but nothing you would pay attention to :d

Dumah

CWSmith
03-31-2015, 01:31 PM
I seem to have little company in my concern for the many times we convict innocent people. Witnesses in those instances need to be prosecuted. I don't know how we convict innocent people sans witnesses lying, or the prosecution lying.

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable and most of it comes down to their own lack of perception. By that I mean they don't intend to lie - they just misunderstand what they see. Speaks volumes for humanity, really, and the value of education.

However, it seems to me that these witnesses told a flat-out lie. It's hard to get from what now appears to be the truth to what was said, especially when you realize that many of the witnesses were lying about even being there. There weren't there when it happened!

So let me rephrase the question: Should a witness that flat-out lies not be prosecuted for the harm they have done and why not?

McMike
03-31-2015, 05:15 PM
a permanent banning is too intolerant of someone having a bad day... we all have those

I have pledged to be snark-free for a while, so I can't talk to you right now Phillip

Kevin T
03-31-2015, 05:17 PM
^Y>|:)

pila
03-31-2015, 08:22 PM
They will never be prosecuted, even though they should be. Lying is natural for many of those people, sadly enough...

Garret
03-31-2015, 10:15 PM
And the DA is pure as driven snow? Sorry - but your bigotry is showing.