Who said anything about setting things on fire? That came out of your mouth, not mine. The fact is that you didn't pull Tiassa up on his poor behaviour, but instead took to lecturing Gremmie about the 'thin blue line', and bemoaning how lawyers are regarded by society. Listen, I get it. People hate lawyers. People hate cops. People hate all sorts of professions. The issue was that a poster (actually a *moderator*) on this forum implied that a poster was unethical scum because of their profession. When said poster clarified that they had never behaved in an unethical fashion, the moderator intimated that they were lying. If you didn't behave like such a primadonna, and actually paid attention to what was going on around you, you might have noticed this. In essence, it's clear that Tiassa and yourself have a deep seated bias against the police force.
You weren't even here then, so you don't really know what happened back then, just as you do not know of any of my correspondence with the parties involved in that particular discussion or other discussions going on at the same time. So before you start accusing me of things I never said or did, I'd suggest you calm down, get a clue and stop still trying to stereotype people incorrectly and offensively.
I asked you previously to provide links and back up your claims of my supposed feelings for the police, and you are yet to do it. You are linking to a thread from months before you ever came to this site, trying to steer this thread off topic with it and making ridiculous and wild accusations and taking things completely out of context, not to mention misrepresenting them. The most idiotic part of your behaviour is that you are trying to start something or wade into something of which you know nothing about, because you were not here when those discussions happened, were you tali89? So why are you trying to insert yourself into something that did not concern you back then, nor does it concern you now and nor do you even understand the context of what was said back then or even what happened back then because you were not here.
You appear to have made it your business to try to get into my business. I'll give you some advice. And I suggest you heed it and heed it well. If you are going to accuse me of something, then you had best be able to back it up. You have yet to provide any proof of any of your offensive commentary or your offensive stereotyping (from your stereotyping about liberals and feminists, to how we look, our weight, our work ethic, our wealth, etc.. you've stereotyped about it all, all without proof, just made up by you). In short, you are nothing more than the yapping little chihuahua's that one sometimes gets in threads. Like Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter. You aren't able to actually back up your argument so instead, you just make stuff up and hope no one notices. You make stuff up about other people (even my parents, I mean really, you couldn't find anything better to insult, that you went for my parents? It was akin to a 5 year old saying 'yo mama so fat'..), you stereotype and do so in the most offensive manner imaginable and not once have you actually backed up your wild and ridiculous arguments. Perhaps you do this for attention?
As I noted before, if you need to make things up about people and stereotype as you do because it makes you feel better about yourself, that's fine, then you need to let us know and we can work around it. If not, then as I said, you just end up being that little yapping chihuahua doing all it can to get someone to notice it. I'll put it this way, we can excuse, to an extent, if you do have self esteem issues and you need to lie about people and their spouse, parents, their weight, how they look, etc based on their political affiliation (as you did in the other thread) to make yourself feel better. If that's the case, then okay, we can work around it and treat it like it is some sort of disability that is completely outside of your control. However if your offensive stereotypes and the lies you fabricate about people (like Coulter and Limbaugh are known to do) is based solely off your hatred of someone's political affiliations, then that we cannot excuse. But you need to let us know, because this cannot continue. Just like your accusation in this thread that I apparently hate the police or have a bias towards the police and god knows what else, because the stereotype keeps changing each time you try to fabricate your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself. If you can't back it up with proof of my expressing such feelings towards the police, then it's a fairly safe bet to say that I didn't say it and don't feel that way about them. What I said was that the system itself needs to change, they need better training and corruption needs to be weeded out. How you took
that and got to my hating the police, then really.. as I said, you either have some sort of issue to make up that lie, or you are just malicious enough to make up that lie. If you don't tell us that you have a problem, then I am going to assume that you are just that malicious to continually lie, fabricate and stereotype without any proof whatsoever. Okay? Do we understand each other now Tali89?
You're not fooling anyone, ice. What you need is a guilty verdict, followed by a public tar and feathering of the officer.
Is that what iceaura said? No. He said, like many others, that a trial to go through the evidence, where all the evidence can be provided to determine innocence or guilt is needed.
Why are you so against a trial that would provide a fairer resolution all round?
You are already convinced of Wilson's guilt, and just need to have it rubber stamped by the judicial process. When said judicial process didn't provide you with the answer you wanted, you cried foul. Boo hoo hoo, cry me a river.
I have always noticed that it is the people who feel like they have something to lose who do not want any process whereby guilt or innocence can be determined based off the evidence provided. A grand jury is not there to determine guilt or innocence.
We've already seen numerous incidents of liberal mental gymnastics on this thread. For example, Officer Wilson contradicted himself when he provided his version of events, but was supposedly at no risk of incriminating himself (*chortle*). We've heard that his testimony weren't cross-examined, even though they were by the grand jurors (that's the whole point of having a grand jury, folks). We've heard all sorts of statistics about police violence being disproportionately higher against blacks, in spite of that having nothing to do with this individual case. And apparently it was wrong for Officer Wilson to fire his gun while being pummeled, because he was shielding his face in order to protect himself. Apparently he should have just let himself be bludgeoned into unconsciousness.
Oh hey look, more stereotyping.
What a surprise.
No tali89. What poeple object to is the fact that a grand jury hearing was one sided, and treated like a trial by a prosecutor with his own agenda, who failed to disclose all the evidence and failed in his primary duty to seek to indict and instead, told the jury to ignore the law completely and ignore any evidence that may contradict Wilson. He treated it like it was a one sided trial and he was Wilson's defense lawyer. That was not his job there. And it was a farce and a blight on your legal system. He has completely ignored the rules and common law rules to pursue his own agenda. Why did he even bother with it? It was never meant to be a trial. His treating it like one and where he acted like a defense lawyer is why people are disgusted and think there should be an actual trial. That would ensure fairness to the process at least. And frankly, both Wilson and Brown deserve a fair system. Not a hocked up one like this one was.
The fact is that the evidence was heard by 12 impartial grand jurors, who cross-examined Wilson. And guess what: They couldn't find probable cause to charge him.
Well of course they didn't. When they tried to question the contradictions, they were told not to and to ignore the law. And why would they indict when the prosecutor, the person who should be seeking to indict, did not tell them to indict and did not instruct them to indict as he was meant to do?
Now, for an ordinary citizen, that would mean this whole saga would now be over. By rights, Wilson's grand jury proceedings should have remained secret in order to protect his reputation, and he should be able to move on with life, his named cleared. So my question to the liberals on this thread is: Don't you think Wilson should be afforded the same legal protections that any other citizen is? I mean, why is that such a novel concept for you guys? Can't you just deal with the fact that you were wrong, and get over it?
If it was an ordinary citizen, there would have been a trial.
Of course Wilson deserves the legal protections that any citizen has. If it was an ordinary citizen, there would have been a trial. Without fail. And I think that's the difference here. Wilson was not treated like an ordinary citizen for the grand jury. He was not treated the same as an ordinary citizen would have been treated by the prosecutor. He was given special treatment and protected by the prosecutor to make sure they did not indict.
The question for you is do you think he should have been treated differently to an ordinary citizen? Do you think he should have been given the special treatment he was given?