1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running gun violence thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 93Devil, Jan 31, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Grabbing somebody by the collar and shoving them is not "roughed up." Absolutely wrong, but not "roughed up."
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    His story has not been cross examined.

    He's a co-conspirator. His account should be considered in this context.

    I think that's utterly reasonable, and not character assassination. And, the autopsy already proves his account to be false.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Oh bullshit.

    And, it's enough to get your adrenaline pumping, which is the point.
     
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Q: Who do we want?

    A: Darren Wilson

    Q: How do we want him?

    A: Dead!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJrG2AMghw
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Eyewitness accounts of co-conspirators should never be considered reliable unless they are testifying for the state. In exchange for sentencing benefits.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    As you know, when this is the case, it is always pointed out to a jury, and they are instructed to consider this testimony in that light.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It really works, too. If nothing else, juries in America are highly skeptical of State's witnesses and very wary of eyewitness testimony.
     
  8. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I think the appropriate legal phrase is "assault and battery" ...
     
  9. Pancamo

    Pancamo Active Member

    Do you know if minorities applied for the jobs? When "snitches gets stiches" is a common theme in the inner-city, being a cop may not be a priority.
     
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    You know, it occurs to me that the logical conclusion of these events is for the police to just not enforce the law in places like Ferguson. It's just not worth it.

    You want to steal a box of Rellos? Go for it. You want to shove a store clerk, while robbing him? Fine.

    You want to walk down the middle of the street, smoke a blunt? No problem.

    The community doesn't respect the police, and the police are not given the benefit of the doubt in any confrontation.

    Why would you put your life and/or job on the line in these circumstances?

    And, the people that will suffer will be the law abiding citizens. They will live in a crime ridden community where businesses will not want to operate.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    When you correct for those with high school degrees, and who can pass a background check, how do the percentages work out?

    Big Mike would have failed the drug screen. How many other African-Americans in his community would be eligible, even if they were interested?
     
  12. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    What I am finding out (from this message board, places of white guilt like the Gawker media properties, and listening to the quotes from Ferguson townspeople) is that stuff like stealing from a store, and strong-arming a clerk, is not a big deal at all. People have not one fucking ounce of problem with it. Nobody's perfect, you know, tons of people do it... And its not like Big Mike shot someone, so what's the problem??
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page