"It will be an image that may endure beyond Barack Obama's tenure," writes James Oliphant about the above image. Meanwhile, Juan Williams asks, "Where is the black leadership now that a grand jury has decided not to indict the police officer that killed Michael Brown?"

President Obama's leadership didn't do much (if any) good. Here is more from James Oliphant's commentary about Obama's response to Ferguson:



As for those other alleged "black leaders" ...



Those are the thoughts of liberal Democrat journalist Juan Williams.

Here is more from Williams (with all emphasis being mine):



Folks, what we have here is the theme for a new movie.

look 'folks',,,it took time for them to get there after it happened, it wont be instantly appearing now that a decision is made

they will be there,, it doesn't have to be on anyones schedule but their own,,,,,

yes, sharpton showed up and flapped his lips as usual, no biggie.
obama, seems to me he has alot more important issues on his plate than dealing with the ferguson mess. like, putin, china, ebola and the screwed up state of our nation and the wars around the world, just to mention a few,,,

being black and showing up sometimes doesn't mean its required to show up EVERYTIME,,,,

everyone has a life outside of the snippets the media may decide to flash on the screen

President Obama is in an extremely POOR position in all of this; it's his panel conducting the Federal inquiry, after all. He is also aware that the Grand Jury of Missouri followed the laws in effect in their state, while facing a melting pot of opinions based on EVERYone's opinion based on their (lack of knowledge of their) own local laws.

The problem in Ferguson is with their current laws, which DO disproportionately *target* non-whites within their jurisdiction. THAT'S what needs to be fixed. All the burning down of buildings and destroying public property isn't going to change one single law which allows private citizens to shoot-to-kill anyone they believe is going to commit a felony. It's also not going to change the law which allows police, while on-duty, to shoot-to-kill a fleeing suspect.




I am still waiting for SOMEone, ANYone to comment on the difference in the "lack of justice" as it occurred in October 1995 vs. how it was delivered in November 2014.


In 1995, we were told "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"; people didn't destroy Beverly Hills to express their displeasure over the decision. After rumbling and bitching and complaining, they accepted that the judicial process which was in place had *worked* and so they got to changing the laws regarding domestic violence to ensure there'd be no repeat performance in the court rooms.



Yet, almost 20 years later, we're being expected to accept that it's different this time, now that the glove is on the other foot.


Guess it just depends on which fat lady is singing which tune, when it's all over.


~sigh~

here is where 1995 and 2014 varied

1995, although it was the trial of one OJ Simpson, it DID GO TO TRIAL

and to those in LA it was a trial of the corruption of the LAPD

and for once, the POLICE were held accountable


in 2014, once again, it didn't even go to trial

the police were excused,,,,

I in no way support the violence and looting, it is stupid and idiotic and the total OPPOSITE of furthering the cause for police accountability


but I do totally understand the frustration of seeing police NOT be held accountable

and for the death of our children being left as something insignificant and unworthy of questioning or accountability

The Grand Jury process is part of the legal system; the same legal system that *failed* 68% of California's population, racially-speaking and 50%, genderly-speaking almost 20 years ago.


The Grand Jury is not allowed to ignore the law and vote to prosecute someone when THEIR law clearly states that citizens may shoot-to-kill someone IF they think that other person is going to commit a felony.

The Grand Jury could also not ignore the law and vote to prosecute someone when THEIR law clearly states an officer may shoot-to-kill a fleeing suspect.


Period. "Whether [*you*] like it or not." A Grand Jury decision that ignores the law to give *you* what *you* want is an illegal decision and will not stand.

They couldn't return the acquittal *you* so desperately wanted; the legal system is not allowed to do illegal things to mete out illegal justice.


CHANGE THE LAWS THAT MAKE UP THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Do NOT expect the judicial system to operate illegally to appease the misinformed and [deliberately] ignorant masses, screaming for an illegal justice.

I made no statement on the grand jury, or whether they were properly instructed or properly understood,,, what they 'ignored' or didn't no one but them can know


a grand jury TRIES no one , they only decide if a case will go to trial,


although from the prosecutors display , you would never know it...lol


anyhow,
I made statement in reference to the comparison between 1995 and today

OMG, is there any limit to depravity. Of course they will be there, just as things start to show signs of slowing down.

what about my 'position' is color blind?

I stated this is about police accountability as was the 1995 decision,,,,

I didn't pick the decision of 1995, I just responded to the choice in comparisons,,,

as opposed to what?

when EXACTLY is the 'best' time for them to arrive and what EXACTLY should they say and do when they are there

perhaps minglers should write them with their proposals,,,

A failure within the legal system is a failure within the legal system, no matter WHERE within that process it occurs.






STOP being color-blind; it invalidates your position and makes your future *arguments* suspect.

You are being deliberately obtuse. "Police accountability" would have come into play if the officer hadn't used whatever force was necessary - including shooting-to-kill - to stop a fleeing suspect; that's THEIR law.

THAT'S THEIR LAW, which *you* want to be ignored. How can *you* ask the Grand Jury to ignore the law when holding an officer "accountable" FOR following their law?!?


WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW THAT SAYS IT IS OK - NAY, EXPECTED AND DEMANDED - THAT AN OFFICER SHOOT-TO-KILL.




THIS is why there will be no "Change"; people can't figure out, en-masse, where TO make the change. Instead, they'd rather throw blind punches, while kicking and screaming, hoping they'll take out SOMEthing...ANYthing...


and never, actually, accomplishing one damned thing.

Well, I guess this answers the first question, the bottom is no where in sight.

Ah sir, on that I believe you are mistaken. The Feds with Odumbo as lead have yet to truly inject their poison.

now who believes themselves an expert

I don't know what Missouri laws are,, but I know nullification is there because laws sometimes need to be changed

if it was LEGAL to shoot someone that was hundreds of feet away,, that law needs to change

and whether it was 'legal' still wouldn't matter without it being PROVEN what happened, which is something the grand jury decided wouldn't be given a chance,,,

the grand jury doesn't try, it decides if there is 'enough evidence' to ask the questions,,,



I want nothing more than for laws to change which permit this shoot first whenever 'scared',,,,,,policy


hopefully, this is a start to seeing policies implemented to put a better check on that very thing (like bodycams)

What lack of justice, now or then? Are you aware of what justice is?

Obviously not or you would understand justice was served in both instances. Of course it would be impossible for one believing that perception is somehow truth. Let me help with that understanding, with some exceptions of course, there would be no help there.

Truth vs Perception

Truth is objective, meaning that it is not based on perceptions of human beings (which is capable of wavering). Truth is simply that which is. It is that which has occurred in the past and that which is occurring in the present. That which is. No such thing as truth in the future.

Perception is not reality, but our work is to align the two, truth and perception.

"I've come to realize that the biggest problem anywhere in the world is that people's perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of what they want, and do not want, to be true." - Travis Walton

All perception, where is the truth? Actually, how do the two even coincide?

The first went to trial but due to the ineptitude of the LAPD could not be found criminally guilty, justice was served. Then came the civil case and again justice was served. No perception, no what one wants to be true, only what was proven or not proven.

The second was but a travesty of public opinion based on race. Here you have a thug (documented by grand jury) that is held up as a hero by the unwashed masses that now want to ruin a man's life for actually doing his duty. If Wilson is guilty of anything, it would be dereliction of duty for having to use 10 or 11 shots. It should have only been three, two to the heart and one to the head to wrap it up. He wasted seven bullets.

Now looking at some of the other videos about Wilson, he like all police officers have some mistaken idea they have some authority. But in this case, with this individual, he was correctly behaving as a peace officer and restored the peace in the only manner allowed by a young thug.

Now everyone is shouting civil suite except the man that should be shouting it, Wilson, he is the injured party and has every right to claim justice.

Published on Mar 9, 2014

TRUTH is OBJECTIVE, meaning that it is NOT based on the perceptions of human beings (which is capable of wavering). Truth is simply that which is. It is that which has occurred in the past and that which is occurring in the present. That Which Is.

Perception Is NOT Reality. But our Work is to align the two.

An excerpt from Mark Passio's phenomenal lecture entitled: "Natural Law - The REAL Law Of Attraction And How To Apply It In Your Life."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I58Tu-yym0w