The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Mike Sheehy]

As I said before - there is a thread on racism in Ireland. It is discussed frequently, and, in my opinion, condemned much more often than not. Look at the condemnation of the abuse Anna Lo suffered for example.

This particular discussion focuses on the US and events in Ferguson. Why would anyone casting an opinion on it be forced to look through at it through an Irish lens? You're simply trying to work in an angle where there isn't one.

On the flip side of things, it rather appears you're trying to brush off or ignore racism that exists in the States with an attitude of "sort out your own house first lads". They're not mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, an unarmed black teenager was shot by a white cop. This is a tragedy, regardless of what people might think about the findings of the grand jury. THe day before the grand jury verdict was announced, an unarmed 12 year black boy was shot dead by a white cop. This is the perfect time to discuss race relations, policing mindset, gun control etc. Your attempts to distract from that don't make it any less true.

I have lived in the states for 20 years. I know what life is like day to day, everyday so I am far more qualified than you to assess how racist , or not , American society so please don't talk to me about "ignoring" racism in the US.

America most definitely has a problem with racism but they do confront the issue and it is debated all the time. No country in the world discusses race more than the US .That robust, honest debate also plays out in full view of the world. This is a good thing. This is a sign of a healthy, even if flawed, society. However, this can also be used by those with an anti-US agenda to paint a relentlessy negative picture of the place. It means that  the  "perfect time to discuss race relations" ,as you put it,  always coincides with incidents happen in the US. Meanwhile the term "gypo" gets used repeatedly in a thread  and passes without comment by the same individuals that constantly latch onto race incidents in the US. There is obviously something going on there. It is blatant.

So, by all means go ahead an discuss the flaws of US society to your hearts content but stop pretending that the discussion that goes on here is purely about justice or injustice or the incidents themselves. There are some deep seated prejudices at play here and they have nothing to do with Michael Brown.

Also, and I'm not having a go here as I'm sure there is no malice intended and you have made a decent effort at debating the issue , but you should probably remove the signature under your posts if you want to discuss race relations in the US. 

[gallsman]

a) The signature is a quote from my favourite character in a TV show that has received universal acclaim from all elements of society in the US. If it's good enough for them, I'll not worry too much about your thoughts on it and leave it as it is. If I'd quoted Shane McGowan singing, ironically, about "blacks and packs and jocks" you'd have said nowt.

b) There were numerous retorts to not just the repeated use of the word "gypo", but also the underlying sentiments. As there are any time somebody on the board talks about Pakistanis, Chinese, Jews, gays, prods etc etc. Selectively quoting things helps your argument in no way whatsoever, especially when contrasted with your sneering, patronising comment about me making a "decent effort at debating the issue". You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

[Mike Sheehy]

a) The signature is a quote from my favourite character in a TV show that has received universal acclaim from all elements of society in the US. If it's good enough for them, I'll not worry too much about your thoughts on it and leave it as it is. If I'd quoted Shane McGowan singing, ironically, about "blacks and packs and jocks" you'd have said nowt.

b) There were numerous retorts to not just the repeated use of the word "gypo", but also the underlying sentiments. As there are any time somebody on the board talks about Pakistanis, Chinese, Jews, gays, prods etc etc. Selectively quoting things helps your argument in no way whatsoever, especially when contrasted with your sneering, patronising comment about me making a "decent effort at debating the issue". You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

There was no condemnation by the usual suspects including you.Nothing.nada.zip 

theTicklemister,silver hill and Mcdanger2 were the only ones to call him out on it. Now, that, in and of itself I could let slide. I accept that some people will have some  "strong opinions" expressed based on bad experiences they have had. However, what I cant let slide is the complete silence by people like you whilst you come on here and constantly hold US society to account for their sins...and the fact that you insist on keeping that signature while pontificating about US attitudes to race just sums up perfectly how the deep the hypocrisy runs.

[muppet]

If you believe the findings of the grand jury and evidence of credible eye witnesses who testified under oath who said that Brown turned back and was charging the officer, then yes, Wilsons actions were justified.

If you don't believe the findings of he grand jury and (believe the testimony of the less reliable Witt eases who changed their stories numerous times)....then obviously you will have a different opinion

That's what they are opinions

But previously you said your opinion was based on Brown's DNA being on the gun. Apparently the DNA was Brown's blood.

After the alleged altercation at the car, Brown ran away wounded and was pursued. Wilson told him to stop and turn around, which he did. None of this is disputed.

What is disputed is whether Brown 'charged' Wilson. Even if he did charge (and most witnessed seem to say he fell holding his stomach -  presumably they mistook this for holding the arm that had been shot), an unarmed man already shot is hardly in a position to do much damage to a cop with a gun that has already been fired 6 times. The last and fatal shot entered the top of the skull. Again even if he was charging (with 5 bullets already in him including one through the head) it wouldn't have been too hard to dodge him.

As for the Grand Jury, we saw this before with Rodney King. The Jury had 9 whites and the Prosecutors instructions to them has been completely discredited by rather unusual sources.

[Mike Sheehy]

If you believe the findings of the grand jury and evidence of credible eye witnesses who testified under oath who said that Brown turned back and was charging the officer, then yes, Wilsons actions were justified.

If you don't believe the findings of he grand jury and (believe the testimony of the less reliable Witt eases who changed their stories numerous times)....then obviously you will have a different opinion

That's what they are opinions

I think it all really depends on how genuinely he felt his life was in danger. I have my doubts to be honest. I definitely believe him when he says he felt in some level of danger. If the gun was taken off him then he, very likely, would be a dead man. That is the reality. People need to understand and acknowledge that. There would be no second chance  ......but I find it hard to believe he could not have done more to get away from the situation if it was that threatening.

Still, I would agree that the grand jury deliberated in good faith and I would trust their judgement. 

[whitey]

If you believe the findings of the grand jury and evidence of credible eye witnesses who testified under oath who said that Brown turned back and was charging the officer, then yes, Wilsons actions were justified.

If you don't believe the findings of he grand jury and (believe the testimony of the less reliable Witt eases who changed their stories numerous times)....then obviously you will have a different opinion

That's what they are opinions

But previously you said your opinion was based on Brown's DNA being on the gun. Apparently the DNA was Brown's blood.

After the alleged altercation at the car, Brown ran away wounded and was pursued. Wilson told him to stop and turn around, which he did. None of this is disputed.

What is disputed is whether Brown 'charged' Wilson. Even if he did charge (and most witnessed seem to say he fell holding his stomach -  presumably they mistook this for holding the arm that had been shot), an unarmed man already shot is hardly in a position to do much damage to a cop with a gun that has already been fired 6 times. The last and fatal shot entered the top of the skull. Again even if he was charging (with 5 bullets already in him including one through the head) it wouldn't have been too hard to dodge him.

As for the Grand Jury, we saw this before with Rodney King. The Jury had 9 whites and the Prosecutors instructions to them has been completely discredited by rather unusual sources.

So you believe that the Grand Jury did not reach the correct verdict or that the verdict they reached is Flawed in some way! If you have that opinion, you'll find plenty of people who'll agree with you

You'll also find an equal, or greater, number of people, who believe, like me, that the process was just and the outcome based on fact

[muppet]

If you believe the findings of the grand jury and evidence of credible eye witnesses who testified under oath who said that Brown turned back and was charging the officer, then yes, Wilsons actions were justified.

If you don't believe the findings of he grand jury and (believe the testimony of the less reliable Witt eases who changed their stories numerous times)....then obviously you will have a different opinion

That's what they are opinions

But previously you said your opinion was based on Brown's DNA being on the gun. Apparently the DNA was Brown's blood.

After the alleged altercation at the car, Brown ran away wounded and was pursued. Wilson told him to stop and turn around, which he did. None of this is disputed.

What is disputed is whether Brown 'charged' Wilson. Even if he did charge (and most witnessed seem to say he fell holding his stomach -  presumably they mistook this for holding the arm that had been shot), an unarmed man already shot is hardly in a position to do much damage to a cop with a gun that has already been fired 6 times. The last and fatal shot entered the top of the skull. Again even if he was charging (with 5 bullets already in him including one through the head) it wouldn't have been too hard to dodge him.

As for the Grand Jury, we saw this before with Rodney King. The Jury had 9 whites and the Prosecutors instructions to them has been completely discredited by rather unusual sources.

So you believe that the Grand Jury did not reach the correct verdict or that the verdict they reached is Flawed in some way! If you have that opinion, you'll find plenty of people who'll agree with you

You'll also find an equal, or greater, number of people, who believe, like me, that the process was just and the outcome based on fact

McCullough is 5 for 5 in not getting indictments for police shootings.

This is what the director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute had to say:

"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result."

Sullivan called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-da-analysis-20141126-story.html

So yes I believe it was flawed.

[maigheo]

All that article shows is two differing view points as to how the grand jury was convened.No matter what Mculloch done he was going to be criticized by one side or the other.

[muppet]

All that article shows is two differing view points as to how the grand jury was convened.No matter what Mculloch done he was going to be criticized by one side or the other.

What are these two sides?

[macdanger2]

If you believe the findings of the grand jury and evidence of credible eye witnesses who testified under oath who said that Brown turned back and was charging the officer, then yes, Wilsons actions were justified.

If you don't believe the findings of he grand jury and (believe the testimony of the less reliable Witt eases who changed their stories numerous times)....then obviously you will have a different opinion

That's what they are opinions

You can also believe the evidence of the witnesses who said brown turned back and yet still not believe that Wilson was justified. Personally I believe his response was disproportionate

Genuine question - what's the basis for saying that some witnesses are credible and others less so? Based on the verdict of the grand jury? Or something else?

[gallsman]

a) The signature is a quote from my favourite character in a TV show that has received universal acclaim from all elements of society in the US. If it's good enough for them, I'll not worry too much about your thoughts on it and leave it as it is. If I'd quoted Shane McGowan singing, ironically, about "blacks and packs and jocks" you'd have said nowt.

b) There were numerous retorts to not just the repeated use of the word "gypo", but also the underlying sentiments. As there are any time somebody on the board talks about Pakistanis, Chinese, Jews, gays, prods etc etc. Selectively quoting things helps your argument in no way whatsoever, especially when contrasted with your sneering, patronising comment about me making a "decent effort at debating the issue". You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

There was no condemnation by the usual suspects including you.Nothing.nada.zip 

theTicklemister,silver hill and Mcdanger2 were the only ones to call him out on it. Now, that, in and of itself I could let slide. I accept that some people will have some  "strong opinions" expressed based on bad experiences they have had. However, what I cant let slide is the complete silence by people like you whilst you come on here and constantly hold US society to account for their sins...and the fact that you insist on keeping that signature while pontificating about US attitudes to race just sums up perfectly how the deep the hypocrisy runs.

I constantly hold US society to account for their sins? News to me. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
I'm a usual suspect!? Of what precisely? Your two favourite things to accuse people of are anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism. Give me some examples where I've done either.

So f**k if I didn't explicitly call someone out on a specific opinion. Someone had already articulated it perfectly. I'm not going to post my opinion on every thread on the board simply so that I can be safe in the knowledge that I'm free of the fear of you playing Solomon and judging me from your perch?

(Does that make me an anti-Semite? Most likely in your opinion)

For your information, I lived with three Mayo lads in College. All hard working, honest lads from salt of the earth rural families. We had many an argument over the Nally case and the relationship they had with travellers. I don't need to broadcast it here for the approval of the likes of you.

[gallsman]

Mike, I note you haven't contributed to the "social media humiliation" thread. By your logic your silence incriminates you - you condone that type ofbehaviour. Pathetic. You've lived in America for 20 years? Stay another f**king fifty and don't come home.

[maigheo]

All that article shows is two differing view points as to how the grand jury was convened.No matter what Mculloch done he was going to be criticized by one side or the other.

What are these two sides?

Rightly or wrongly most people have taken either Wilsons side or Browns  side and this is without even reading all the evidence.Most people take the bits of evidence to suit there own agenda and will never look at the whole picture.Watched both MSNBC "S and FOX coverage of the aftermath of the grand jury decision and it was like looking at 2 different cases.

[gallsman]

Mike, I note you haven't contributed to the "social media humiliation" thread. By your logic your silence incriminates you - you condone that type ofbehaviour. Pathetic. You've lived in America for 20 years? Stay another f**king fifty and don't come home.

Come to think of it, you didn't contribute to that thread yourself, did you? You merely trawled through it after the fact looking to use anyone else's non-contribution to suit the slant you're attempting (and failing, miserably - see, I can be a patronising f**k too!) to put on a completely unrelated discussion.

[whitey]

If you believe the findings of the grand jury and evidence of credible eye witnesses who testified under oath who said that Brown turned back and was charging the officer, then yes, Wilsons actions were justified.

If you don't believe the findings of he grand jury and (believe the testimony of the less reliable Witt eases who changed their stories numerous times)....then obviously you will have a different opinion

That's what they are opinions

You can also believe the evidence of the witnesses who said brown turned back and yet still not believe that Wilson was justified. Personally I believe his response was disproportionate

Genuine question - what's the basis for saying that some witnesses are credible and others less so? Based on the verdict of the grand jury? Or something else?

From what I have read and heard some of the "less credible" witnesses are the ones who changed their version of events numerous times.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-grand-jury-documents-show-inconsistencies-in-witness-testimony/