Originally Posted by spence
I don't think the issue is "throw Wilson in jail" as much as it is "can't we get a fair process."
But if the "process" was "fair", which it was, and if there are only the two choices you pose, then "the" issue IS "throw Wilson in jail."
Walk in their shoes...
But there are so many different shoes to walk in. Some of the members of the "community" which witnessed the events corroborated Wilson's version of what happened. Some, who supposedly did see it, gave accounts contrary to Wilson's, but did not fit the evidence, some ludicrously impossible. Most of the members of the "community" did not witness what happened, so walked in shoes given to them to fit a narrative which, intentionally or not, would incite them. A narrative which, again, did not fit the evidence, so could rationally be perceived to be intentionally misleading. There are Wilson's shoes to walk in. But, of course, those shoes would just be another walk in the daily work of police officers, some of which end up in the , mostly, justified death of a criminal (or the unjustified death of a policeman). But that would just be a boring, though unfortunate occurrence not worthy of weeks of headline news, nor would it be a crisis which should not be allowed to go to waste. And so many other "shoes" including political ones. But that would be another long story. But, most likely, the real story.
You're living in a poor black community and don't have reason to believe the white police are on your side.
That pretty much sounds like spoon fed preconceived prejudice of blacks against whites. Spoon fed by racists who want to keep that "reason" alive. And it somehow gets inflamed when a white cop (but not a black one) opposes a black criminal in the "community"--even though that should be an apparent "reason" to believe the white police "are on your side."
Your son is set to go to college on Monday and he's killed by the police for what looks to be jaywalking.
Isn't that the reason why conclusions shouldn't be jumped to? Never mind that a white cop in this day and age, in a community where he is surrounded by black witnesses, decides he will kill a black guy for jaywalking is almost as ludicrous as the contradictory "witness" testimony which didn't fit, to put it mildly, the evidence. Killed for "what looks to be jaywalking" is an after the event concoction made to fit a narrative. A rational, objective, reaction to what so quickly went down would be to wonder what was going on. Personal, preconceived prejudices, on the other hand, would immediately come to conclusions which fueled their hate. That is more part of the "real issue" or bigger picture in Ferguson.
The investigation is so sloppy it's almost comical and the local PD doesn't even bother to file a police report. Hell, one of the biggest issues, how far he walked before the kill shot wasn't even documented well because the batteries ran out on the camera.
Ah . . . the sloppy investigation syndrome. whenever you got little to nothing, go to the sloppy investigation. Was there ever a perfect one? Have they yet convinced everybody that that Oswald alone actually did kill Kennedy? Or that the Twin Towers were actually brought down by the airplanes?
Didn't Brown's blood trail from the wound he suffered during the scuffle in the car determine how far he walked away and back?
They further try to defame your kids character by leaking video that appears to show him committing theft in an attempt at spin control.
Wow, trying to defame his character by showing him actually robbing and assaulting! Tsk, tsk, not nice. Robbing and assaulting are not to be judged as negative characteristics in certain "communities." And "leaking" truthful evidence is far more detrimental to a jury decision than brazenly concocting a false white on black narrative. No, no, fictional white on black stuff--good. Truthful evidence--bad.
The photos of Wilson's wounds show almost nothing.
But the medical examination showed quite a bit.
They form a mostly white grand jury and assign a local prosecutor with ties to the department
Who are "They"? Aren't local prosecutors supposed to handle local crimes? And don't they all have ties to the department? And the racial makeup of the grand jury was very close to that of its district. Oh, wait . . . Messers Sharpton, Obama, Holder, et al, made it a national issue, so . . . of course . . . there should be some more national, most likey federal, prosecutor assigned by "They." After all, it was white on black. That automatically elevates it to a federal crime. No doubt that would have been a "fairer" investigation by a justice department looking for an "issue" which could simultaneously serve as a wag-the-dog distraction and a proof to the black base that it really cared about them so that their votes would remain secure.
who fails to indict and then goes on TV and takes 20+ minutes to "defend" the officer's actions and characterize your kid as a demon.
I like that wording--"fails to indict". Like it was a failure to do what he was supposed to do. Like the automatic assumption that the prosecutor was supposed to skip the grand jury "process" and indict because the "community" (at least the protesting part which included a lot of outsiders) wanted it.
Wilson certainly may have been justified in his actions but there's a lot of grey area with this case. I don't blame some for having deep suspicion as to the local PD covering up an abuse of authority.
Perhaps you should, if it mattered to the world or the "community, blame something other than the, as you might put it, tired old train of white prejudice creating poor black neighborhoods and motivating white cops to kill black kids. As long as the "issue" remains at that worn out, skin deep, level it will continue to go on and explode into intermittent riots and mayhem. And, by the way, it will continue to foster the hushed up reverse of black on white crime/violence, which occurs in far, far greater proportion than white on black. And none of the above is good. So we should begin walking in some other shoes.
That doesn't justify criminal protest certainly, but it does highlight how this case has tapped into a much bigger issue.
|