HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » RWNJs _K N O W_ they were...

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 12:07 PM

RWNJs _K N O W_ they were wrong on Fergusen so they're using Staten Island for cover.

I honestly think a lot of them were shocked at the blowback they got when they naturally sided with Darren Wilson. Usually they can do that with impunity and it surprised them. So they doubled down, got louder, and generally looked like even bigger, less rational assholes than normal (see Joe Scarborough's rant as exhibit A: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-rants-against-rams-dems-for-hands-up-gesture-you-know-its-a-lie/), going so far as to rail against the Rams players' rights to express an opposing view.

But Garner in Staten Island? Virtually to the last bloviating RW commentator they're saying it's a miscarriage of justice. They're bending over backward to look reasonable. This is not evidence of evolving sensitivity, this is making a deposit on cover for the next time they express their true opinion on the inevitable next cop-executes-black person event.

19 replies, 2936 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply RWNJs _K N O W_ they were wrong on Fergusen so they're using Staten Island for cover. (Original post)
Gidney N Cloyd Dec 2014 OP
blm Dec 2014 #1
mythology Dec 2014 #2
hollysmom Dec 2014 #3
Gidney N Cloyd Dec 2014 #4
blm Dec 2014 #11
doc03 Dec 2014 #5
blm Dec 2014 #7
Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #6
blm Dec 2014 #8
Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #9
blm Dec 2014 #10
Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #12
blm Dec 2014 #13
frylock Dec 2014 #14
Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #15
frylock Dec 2014 #16
Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #17
blm Dec 2014 #18
Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #19

Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Original post)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 12:23 PM

1. They are only fooling OTHER corpmedia with their ACT.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Original post)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 12:34 PM

2. Alternatively, it is actually possible that people can look at the two events

 

and see them different based on the circumstances. In the New York case, the officer used a prohibited restraint technique and there wasn't a physical confrontation between the officer and the suspect and there was only Wilson in Ferguson but in the Garner case there were multiple officers.

Additionally there is the difference between the underlying crime of stealing while shoving around a much smaller store clerk and selling tax-free cigarettes which only indirectly impacts individuals and can be seen less bad because nobody enjoys paying taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 12:44 PM

3. I don't understand how taxes are impacted here, Garner paid for those cigarettes taxes and all

he was just selling single cigarettes to people who could not or would not afford an entire pack. Cigarette are not cheap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 12:57 PM

4. Yes, and it's those superficially different circumstances that allow them to rationalize not taking

their usual pro-cop/anti-black positions on this one and banking the impression of reasonableness for next time. Next time they'll be able to say 'look, I thought the Garner decision was a horrible miscarriage of justice and I took a lot of grief from some of my fellow conservatives for taking that position but this thug in Town X had those 50 bullet holes coming!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:46 PM

11. BINGO!

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:13 PM

5. Someone that doesn't have a one track mind! I am one that has that

opinion. I think Zimmerman should be in prison, the cops in Cleveland that shot the 12 year old should be prosicuted, the ones that shot the
guy at Walmart in Cincinnatti should too. But I disagree on the Brown/Wilson case, they are all different cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:25 PM

7. In Ferguson case the Prosecutor's office presented a long-overturned law

(ruled to be unconstitutional in 1985) as a basis for the grand jury to not indict.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/29/darren-wilsons-grand-jurors-were-told-to-base-decision-on-law-ruled-unconstitutional-in-1985-video/

Seems like the rule of law gets ignored depending on the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Original post)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:15 PM

6. For Garner there is video footage of the whole incident.

For Darren Wilson there was no video and the witness accounts were varying with changing stories and some completely fabricated accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:26 PM

8. What did the majority of witnesses say?

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:44 PM

10. So, you don't believe the majority or you DO believe the majority?

The majority that said Brown's hands were raised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:49 PM

12. How can anyone know what to believe?

According to a PBS Newshour analysis of witness testimony, more than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Brown held his hands up when Wilson shot him, some 16 of 29 statements. Still, a solid 13 could not confirm that Brown made such a gesture.

And while many witnesses said they saw Brown's hands raised in some fashion, there was wide disagreement over what the gesture meant, as the Washington Post reported.

"One witness who thought Brown was charging said she saw his hands balled up into fists. Others thought the raised hands were a gesture of surrender, though some of these witnesses said they were not lifted in the traditional way, with the hands high and palms facing forward. Others thought Brown had touched a wound on his body and raised his hands in shock."

......

One, an autopsy performed by the county, showed that the sixth gunshot that struck Brown took a trajectory that did not suggest Brown had his hands in the air in a surrender position. The shot entered the forearm from the back and traveled into the inner arm from there, "inconsistent with Brown having his arms in the air, palms facing outward, in an attempt to surrender," reported the National Review.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-michael-brown-really-hands-shot-172812909.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 02:40 PM

13. That wound would be consistent with reports of Wilson shooting at Brown when

he was running away. One does pump their arms when running, doesn't one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 02:45 PM

14. the conflicting testimony merited a trial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 02:49 PM

15. Do you think there would be any chance of a jury finding Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,

with a unanimous vote, given the existing witnesses and evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 03:17 PM

16. no i can't, but are we to just throw up our hands and say fuck it?

what other acts that have a low probability of no conviction should we not send to trial, and who gets to make that decision? i honestly cannot believe that i'm seeing excuses like this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 03:20 PM

17. If he is tried and acquitted now (which he would be) it's done, over with,

because of double jeopardy. He can never be prosecuted again.

On the other hand, if he is not tried now, there is the possibility that some damning new evidence will turn up in the future, in which case it will be possible to bring charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 04:01 PM

18. So, based on that view, there should be far, far fewer court trials.

Not like all murder victims deserve justice, anyway, eh? So old-fashioned, dontcha think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 04:23 PM

19. Nope (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread