Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As many as 4.4 million American citizens live, work, and raise families in our communities, but because of a conviction in their past are still denied the right to vote. Nationwide, state felony disenfranchisement laws are firmly rooted in the Jim Crow era. Many criminal disenfranchisement laws were enacted alongside poll taxes and literacy tests to keep African Americans from voting. The intended effects of these laws continue to this day: an estimated 3 in 10 African American males will lose voting rights in their lifetime.
"We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders... If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place."
Why does the right wing continue to decry setting up voter registration booths to allow the people of Ferguson to vote and perhaps to get rid of the corrupt officials?
Here's a question for you...
The contractors both say that Wilson was one of three officers there when the shooting took place.
Why did none of the other witnesses mention the three officers, even though this does appear to be consistent with all of the video we have seen, which have all shown multiple officers.
If there were three officers on the scene when the shooting happened, why?
Aren't those videos right after the shooting? Several officers appeared very shortly after the
shooting. Could it just be a mis-wording by reporter of what the construction workers actual said.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6
Here's a question for you...
The contractors both say that Wilson was one of three officers there when the shooting took place.
Why did none of the other witnesses mention the three officers, even though this does appear to be consistent with all of the video we have seen, which have all shown multiple officers.
If there were three officers on the scene when the shooting happened, why?
They said the 2 other officers showed up after the shooting .
To my knowledge there still has not been a witness come forward publicly to say that Brown was attacking the officer. I believe the count is 6-7 public eye witnesses.
I recommend watching Rashomon; in addition to just being a great movie it details very well how different people witness the exact same thing (in the case of the movie a murder) and have completely different accounts.
It's notable enough to have coined the term "Rashomon Effect" to describe this.
Aren't those videos right after the shooting? Several officers appeared very shortly after the
shooting. Could it just be a mis-wording by reporter of what the construction workers actual said.
I think it is miswording, and that the videos are considerable after the shooting. But that is the point I am making about how what we see in the media is very different from the testimony these witnesses will be providing in court.
To my knowledge there still has not been a witness come forward publicly to say that Brown was attacking the officer. I believe the count is 6-7 public eye witnesses.
You've convinced me. We should indict people for murder based on the number of self-declared witnesses who speak to the media. Probable cause hearings and grand juries are a waste of resources when people saw what happened. If it turns out there are other witnesses or other evidence, there's always the trial.
They said the 2 other officers showed up after the shooting .
No, he said the other two officers were there before the shooting.
"I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting."
I also noticed this bizarre part of what the other worker said, "At first his gun was down and then he got about 8 to 10 feet away from him. I heard six, seven shots, it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face."
Now, do the math here. He is 8 to 10 feet from Brown. Fires his shots. Then puts his gun down. Then Brown stumbles forward 25 feet. This really makes no sense whatsoever, especially while Dorian Johnson is still there just feet away. (Particularly if the shot count from the audio is correct, because that would leave one more bullet in the gun too.)
I think all of this is just a combination of poor phrasing, poor visual angles, and not really knowing exactly what they saw. But also what they tell the media is heavily edited and shaded by their personal connections to Mike Brown (even the construction workers had a connection to him), their opinions of police officers, the offer of money, the risk to their own safety from coming forward (from police, rioters, anarchists, etc).
You've convinced me. We should indict people for murder based on the number of self-declared witnesses who speak to the media. Probable cause hearings and grand juries are a waste of resources when people saw what happened. If it turns out there are other witnesses or other evidence, there's always the trial.
Well, Ferguson is taking a rather unusual approach to the grand jury hearing.
Instead of telling grand jury members what charges they believe police officer Darren Wilson should face, they are leaving it open-ended for now and involving the grand jury as co-investigators.
The prosecutor, Bob McCullough, in this case is pretty biased from what we can see. He is probably using the grand jury as a delaying tactic.
Grand Juries were abolished in England in 1933 and there are proposals for reform in the US, but people don't understand what has happened to grand juries why they need to be reformed or eliminated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
