Question About The Riots.......

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And none of that changes the finding of "hand up" were found to be false in a court of law and supported by the Obama DOJ. If only the DOJ had FredToast on the team; Michael Brown could have gotten his justice. But in reality folks chanting "hands up, don't shoot" in support of George Floyd are chanting an assertion found in a court of law to be a lie. 

You and other can compare Floyd to a thug that was one camera robbing a store and assaulting a clerk. Personally, I think he deserves a little more respect. 

Absence of evidence in favor of something happening does not make it false or a lie.

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2020, 07:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absence of evidence in favor of something happening does not make it false or a lie.

Please remember you were the one that said that....please. 

It was decided in a court of law and upheld by the Obama DOJ that those that stated Brown had his hands up and saying don't shoot were incorrect. But I'll remember your qualifier for what is not a lie.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 08:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please remember you were the one that said that....please. 

It was decided in a court of law and upheld by the Obama DOJ that those that stated Brown had his hands up and saying don't shoot were incorrect. But I'll remember your qualifier for what is not a lie.

It's something I always hold as a qualifier. Absence of evidence means that there is an absence of evidence, but it is not evidence of something not occurring or evidence of the contrary happening. There is a difference in those things. It's called logic.

[fredtoast]

(06-03-2020, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And none of that changes the finding of "hand up" were found to be false in a court of law

No it was not.  

There was never a trail.

The grand jury proceedings were a joke.  The way that grand jury was ran and the fact that people like you see no problem with it one of the main reasons that we are having these protests right now.  The system fails like it did in Feregusin and people like you praise that system then people have no choice but to fight against the system.

You can not ask people to respect the law when the law does not respect them.

[GMDino]

(06-04-2020, 07:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's something I always hold as a qualifier. Absence of evidence means that there is an absence of evidence, but it is not evidence of something not occurring or evidence of the contrary happening. There is a difference in those things. It's called logic.

My boss is a dyed in the wool republican.   We have a semi-retired salesman who is a racist and he said he won't talk to him for a couple weeks why the protests are going on. 

I mentioned this topic to him to get his response.  I prefaced it by saying that it wasn't found to be true that that is what was said (Hands up don't shoot) and he said he assumed people were saying it to show the current officers that they are there peacefully and to try and keep things from escalating whether it had really happened in the first place or not.

Just remember as a side note the police are there ostensibly to keep people from getting hurt or doing damage but instead or using force to enforce rules before either of those things happen in a lot of cases.  That makes the police look like the aggressors and that doesn't help anyone.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2020, 09:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No it was not.  

There was never a trail.

The grand jury proceedings were a joke.  The way that grand jury was ran and the fact that people like you see no problem with it one of the main reasons that we are having these protests right now.  The system fails like it did in Feregusin and people like you praise that system then people have no choice but to fight against the system.

You can not ask people to respect the law when the law does not respect them.

Here' Fred's logic:

When legal findings go against his views; legal system is wrong.

GTFO. 

Hands up down shoot was decided by our judicial system and upheld by Obama's DOJ to be a lie. Regardless the hoops you, Matt and the rest of the gang try to jump through. IMO associating George Floyd with Michael Brown is disrespectful knowing what we know about the Michael Brown case. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2020, 07:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's something I always hold as a qualifier. Absence of evidence means that there is an absence of evidence, but it is not evidence of something not occurring or evidence of the contrary happening. There is a difference in those things. It's called logic.

There was plenty evidence is was a false narrative to include eye witness testimonies and forensic evidence.  you may not like the findings and/or even question the evidence; however, that's not "absence of evidence". You may not be as logical as you assert.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2020, 10:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There was plenty evidence is was a false narrative to include eye witness testimonies and forensic evidence.  you may not like the findings and/or even question the evidence; however, that's not "absence of evidence". You may not be as logical as you assert.  

I was basing the absence of evidence on the back and forth between you and Fred, as that was what I was inferring. There was no mention of evidence to the contrary, only the court's findings. I honestly don't know about this details and was only commenting on the logic flow out of boredom to be argumentative.

[GMDino]

(06-04-2020, 10:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Here' Fred's logic:

When legal findings go against his views; legal system is wrong.

GTFO. 

Hands up down shoot was decided by our judicial system and upheld by Obama's DOJ to be a lie. Regardless the hoops you, Matt and the rest of the gang try to jump through. IMO associating George Floyd with Michael Brown is disrespectful knowing what we know about the Michael Brown case. 

(06-04-2020, 10:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There was plenty evidence is was a false narrative to include eye witness testimonies and forensic evidence.  you may not like the findings and/or even question the evidence; however, that's not "absence of evidence". You may not be as logical as you assert.  

While I would never question what I am sure is your impeccable legal background (added to everything else you are an expert at) it was not found or upheld to be a "lie" or a "false narrative".

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hands-up-dont-shoot-false-216736

Quote:As the Post first noted in its March 19 fact check, a St. Louis County jury could not confirm testimonies to the effect that Brown had been holding his hands above his head and telling Wilson not to shoot him. A Department of Justice investigation released earlier in March could not corroborate those details, either, after interviewing roughly 40 witnesses.

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/why-did-justice-department-conclude-hands-dont-shoot-was-myth#stream/0

On that link you can see where DOJ excluded witnesses who either admitted lying or who didn't match up with the forensics and how even the witnesses they trusted had slightly differing views of whether and for how like Brown had his arms up.

So did it happen?  Probably not like the protesters have been using.

Is it based on a "lie"?  Probably not like you think it is.

Does it matter?  Not one iota.   The rest of the DOJ report outlined the systematic racism in the Ferguson police department. It is now a rallying point to the police that even when minorities are listening and "following orders" they can be shot and killed and the officer will, in most cases, not only get away with it but never be charged.

Focusing on it just a red herring to distract from the meaning behind it to the protesters and the protests.

"GTFO" indeed.

[GMDino]

I guess since this has morphed into the riot thread I'll post this here and see how are military members feel or think.

This memo is fascinating. The text -- a direct reminder that soldiers' highest loyalty is to the Constitution -- is less interesting than the subtext, that the reminder is deemed vitally necessary at this moment: pic.twitter.com/9l9awUNaZD

— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 3, 2020

 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2020, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: While I would never question what I am sure is your impeccable legal background (added to everything else you are an expert at) it was not found or upheld to be a "lie" or a "false narrative".

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hands-up-dont-shoot-false-216736



https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/why-did-justice-department-conclude-hands-dont-shoot-was-myth#stream/0

On that link you can see where DOJ excluded witnesses who either admitted lying or who didn't match up with the forensics and how even the witnesses they trusted had slightly differing views of whether and for how like Brown had his arms up.

So did it happen?  Probably not like the protesters have been using.

Is it based on a "lie"?  Probably not like you think it is.

Does it matter?  Not one iota.   The rest of the DOJ report outlined the systematic racism in the Ferguson police department. It is now a rallying point to the police that even when minorities are listening and "following orders" they can be shot and killed and the officer will, in most cases, not only get away with it but never be charged.

Focusing on it just a red herring to distract from the meaning behind it to the protesters and the protests.

"GTFO" indeed.

Yeah, there was no proof found to support the found the be false assertion of hands up don't shoot. Earlier in this discussion your answer was "folks don't read enough to know it was false" as a reason they chant it; now you're modifying your stance to "it's not a false narrative".  I think we've reached a new milestone in this forum: You are now arguing with yourself. 

It's not a red herring to suggest it is disrespectful to associate Michael Brown with George Floyd. 

[GMDino]

(06-04-2020, 10:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, there was no proof found to support the found the be false assertion of hands up don't shoot. Earlier in this discussion your answer was "folks don't read enough to know it was false" as a reason they chant it; now you're modifying your stance to "it's not a false narrative".  I think we've reached a new milestone in this forum: You are now arguing with yourself. 

It's not a red herring to suggest it is disrespectful to associate Michael Brown with George Floyd. 

I didn't say it wasn't a false narrative...I said even the people the DOJ relied on had differing opinions but not enough to support that one thing you are focused on.  And I will maintain that many saying it don't know as much as you now do thanks to my sharing it with you...but that it doesn't matter because it serves a purpose beyond the original meaning.  If Brown and Ferguson had never happened it would be a powerful statement anyway.

Your "concern" about it will be noted.

I'll make sure to note your "respect" for George Floyd and his memory...I'm sure that's you "main" point here.

"GTFO" indeed.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2020, 10:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't say it wasn't a false narrative...I said even the people the DOJ relied on had differing opinions but not enough to support that one thing you are focused on.  And I will maintain that many saying it don't know as much as you now do thanks to my sharing it with you...but that it doesn't matter because it serves a purpose beyond the original meaning.  If Brown and Ferguson had never happened it would be a powerful statement anyway.

Your "concern" about it will be noted.

I'll make sure to note your "respect" for George Floyd and his memory...I'm sure that's you "main" point here.

"GTFO" indeed.

It has never waivered; I also have the utmost respect for his family. I do not have that same respect for Michael Brown. Glad you are able to grasp my point for once. 

[GMDino]

(06-04-2020, 11:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It has never waivered; I also have the utmost respect for his family. I do not have that same respect for Michael Brown. Glad you are able to grasp my point for once. 

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2020, 10:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not a red herring to suggest it is disrespectful to associate Michael Brown with George Floyd. 

No one is comparing Brown to Floyd.

They are comparing Wilson to Chauvin.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2020, 10:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Here' Fred's logic:

When legal findings go against his views; legal system is wrong.

Not my logic at all.  You don't even have a clue what I am talking about.

Let me ask you this.  What if a District Attorney subpoenaed a witness to testify in front of a grand jury even though he knew that witness was lying and did not tell the grand jurors that he knew the witness was lying?  Would you have problem with that?  Or is it okay as long as it works out to acquit a white police officer?

[BmorePat87]

An elderly man in Buffalo walked over to the cops to hand them a helmet that a cop lost. Some tough guy shoves the old man down, cracking his head and causing him to bleed from his ear.

The tough guy walked away, leaving him to bleed out. Fortunately he is fine and the officer is suspended.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/aaron-torgalski/

Why are cops assaulting innocent people across the US, OP? Why no questions about this?

[Dill]

(06-03-2020, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm surprised you disagree with the findings of AG Holder. 

It has been declared to be a false claim given eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence regardless of Fred's opinion on the matter. There was also a video of Michael Brown robbing a store and assaulting its clerk prior to his shooting.
George Floyd seemed like a good guy and his family has proven to be tremendous people. Why do folks want to associate this tragedy with the Michael Brown case? IMO it cheapens the issues and circumstances of the Floyd case. 

One reason people want to and can make the association is because the Obama DOJ found that the Ferguson police, as a policy of the entire department, used ticketing of black residents to increase their own funding. I.e., the department was corrupt, with paper trails of racist statements and images.

That is why the city of Ferguson was forced into a Consent Degree arrangement, which after two years of progress, was stalled during Sessions last month as DOJ.  And that's one example of how such cases are not handled the same under every president.

So the point of comparison is to indicate a systemic racism in police culture of more than one department (also indicated by attempts to quickly get negative characterizations of the victim before the press). And that pattern of systemic racism is the primary issue, not random, unrelated cases, some robbers and some "nice guys."

I remember when we discussed Ferguson on the old list. And you did not want to actually read the Grand Jury testimony yourself, if I remember correctly.  There were a lot of crazy witness accounts--including one exonerating Wilson from a woman who had not even been at the scene. What the jury finally found was that some "hands up" witnesses had offered testimony inconsistent with the facts (such as claims that Brown had been shot in the back), so their testimony was discredited.  There was credible testimony that he had briefly raised his hands, not that he said "don't shoot." See page 8 on this report (which I have to dig out again).  There is no declaration of a "false claim"--only weeding out of more inconsistent from less inconsistent testimony. Nothing on which to convict Wilson.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

[Dill]

(06-04-2020, 01:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not my logic at all.  You don't even have a clue what I am talking about.

Let me ask you this.  What if a District Attorney subpoenaed a witness to testify in front of a grand jury even though he knew that witness was lying and did not tell the grand jurors that he knew the witness was lying?  Would you have problem with that?  Or is it okay as long as it works out to acquit a white police officer?

I don't think he knows what you are referring to.

We went over a lot of the irregularities of the Wilson Grand Jury on the old list, but I don't think he remembers.

Slick prosecutor, that one.