Topic: Leadership? What Leadership? | |
---|---|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Tue 11/25/14 08:33 PM
|
|
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,,, ~sigh~ ...On its face, Missouri law still follows the old common law rule that it's lawful to shoot and kill a fleeing suspected felon, even if the suspect doesn't pose an immediate danger to the police or the public. That rule was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court nearly 30 years ago, but Missouri hasn't yet revised its statutes to reflect this. "Because of that Supreme Court ruling, the grand jury in this case was instructed that - under current Missouri law - Wilson could have legally shot and killed Brown only 'if Wilson reasonably believed that [Brown] was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay, and [Wilson] reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of the offender,'to quote the standard jury instruction used in the state. "It appears the grand jury accepted Wilson's account of the encounter. Even though Brown was unarmed, the jury concluded that Wilson had a reasonable belief that Brown would kill or seriously hurt him or someone else if Wilson didn't arrest him immediately. Furthermore, the jury found it was reasonable on Wilson's part to believe that shooting Brown was necessary to stop him from evading arrest..." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/24/ferguson-s-grand-jury-bought-darren-wilson-s-story.html No reason to click the hotlink; I've already checked it. I never once questioned the validity of the information, as it was presented during CNN's coverage of the decision last night, by a black college professor of law, who'd been called in to serve as a legal expert as the news stories were unfolding. Hopefully, THAT little factoid will allow YOU to accept it as The Truth, now...since me stating it as so - coupled with your inability to check it on your own - wasn't good enough. After all, I DO have a habit of making schtuff up, ESpecially here on discussion boards...in addition to never knowing whatthehell I'm talking about, huh? ~pfffftttt~ WORK TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAW. Anyone who doesn't, DOES want more "of our children killed." <---YOUR words, NOT mine |
|
|
|
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 And we drop another level of depravity. This nation lets the guilty go free but persecute the innocent, an indication of the level of depravity this country has stooped. A nation where an innocent homeless person is gunned down right on video and all the nation has to say is ahhh. To a level where a pure thug is promoted as mom and apple pie and everyone is up in arms. To a level where all the fellow thugs see as an opportunity to take and damage the property of another because... And if your child is a thug, they deserve to be gunned down post haste before they can damage the innocent, that's accountability. |
|
|
|
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 Any excuse, all based on perception while totally ignoring any semblance of truth. Grand Juries aren't instructed, especially these color of law grand juries. The DA presents the Grand Jury with a "bill of indictment". From that they question any and all witnesses and make a determination of either "True Bill", the evidence proved the bill or "No Bill", the evidence did not prove the bill. And of course, let's just ignore the fact that all the evidence was released which in and of itself is highly unusual. But what they did agree upon is that Brown should have been indited if he were alive. But of course that little truth is inconvenient to your perception of truth. |
|
|
|
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,,, What opposed to what? Not to worry, they know when there time is, and exactly what to say and do, it will already be rehearsed and choreographed long before then. Sure, go right ahead. |
|
|
|
Getting back to the topic of the OP ...
Who are the leaders in Ferguson who will help improve the situation there? |
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Tue 11/25/14 09:00 PM
|
|
wonder what makes people so naive as to think the goal of leadership is supposed to be good?
what the fucck is good? sharing? kindness? fair? equal? no bullying? no lying? no pain? unity? not fake? none manipulation? no anger over a no? how do people create any of these until they have a deep enough appreciation for such in society that they do these them self instead of demanding others be such for them. hell, most must experience the opposite of all of these, before they come to naturally become adults and value such things... so leaders are not supposed to create "good" across the board, but rather to create circumstances that bring out the best where there was the worst... then whom need no more bad happening to self to care about what CREATES good, be elevated unto prosperity, and that which still insists on primitive good for 1, goes for round two of bad circumstances, then 3, and 4, and on and on, until the fulfillment of Darwin has become so, the strong without self pity evolve, and the weak become extinct as has been completed many times previous. smiles |
|
|
|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Tue 11/25/14 09:07 PM
|
|
Getting back to the topic of the OP ... Who are the leaders in Ferguson who will help improve the situation there? The news coverages I've been watching have been showing numerous black community leaders who've re-dedicated themselves to changing the existing laws, as they realize that's where the problem is. President Obama, as THE representative of the FEDERAL government is powerless to change individual State's laws, as are all the [black] Representatives and Senators in Congress. It is (AGAIN) unfair to lay this at his feet, as everyone is wont to do. Oh, and by the way, my original post WAS on-topic; just because I don't agree with your OP's conclusion, doesn't mean it's OFF-topic. It would be rude of me to ignore others who take particular interest in MY posts and simply MUST say something at me, as many are wont to do, as YOU well know. |
|
|
|
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. 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 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 Wow, I'm impressed by the use of goggle to pull up an excerpt but still no understanding of the actual concept. Yes, it is part of the teaching of Mark Passio but from an almost 9 hour lecture in New Haven, Ct. on October 19, 2013 in conjunction with Richard Grove of Tragedyy and Hope magazine / [url}http://www.tragedyandhope.com. Of course there is no need to even ask if you have taken benefit from the lecture, of course not. I am a very devout pupil of both Richard Grove and Mark Passio and like to live up to my commitment of learning and promoting the natural law, but then we have been here before and nothing has changed. With nothing to add, there is no option but to ignore knowledge. |
|
|
|
...I made statement in reference to the comparison between 1995 and today 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. 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,,, 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. 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) who was Hundreds of Feet away? The Officer must have been using a .50cal Sniper-Rifle? |
|
|
|
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,,, Yep,flapping his Lips,and inciting Riots all over the Nation! |
|
|