Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

JoeRedskin · 11-25-2014, 01:18 PM

On No. 1 - Okay. We've reasonably disagreed before, that's fine. However, are you really saying that, even if the GJ thought Wilson innocent of any criminal behavior, it should have indicted him b/c, in the past, he or people with whom he associates may have done bad things?

Are you really espousing the doctrine that, to determine criminal conduct in a particular instance, we should be bringing in reputations and past associations? You don't see how that could be incredibly damaging to defendant rights? All of sudden, it's not "Did you commit a crime?" it's "Are you popular within the community?"

Or are you only applying that to cases you think it appropriate?

On No. 3 (and leaving the Redskins aside because I, for one, am tired of the burn it down mentality that comes every three years):

When burn it down resonates with a minority group to the degree that violence to person and property are condoned, it is going to face significant opposition from vast majority of those who see violence as a threat to their security.

Regardless of the injustice, whether imagined or real (and I would suggest there is plenty of both), I suggest to you society as a whole will simply not succumb to demands made by violence. Whether you believe it fair or unfair, the judicial system "works" for too many people by providing protection, relief and a peaceful forum for conflict resolution whether they be civil or criminal. In every locality across the US, the courts grind through the best they making literally 1000's of judgments great and small every day.

It's not perfect but, if you burn it down, you will find yourself with something worse - I guarantee it.

11-25-2014, 01:18 PM	#11
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Re: No indictment in the mike brown case *On No. 1* - Okay. We've reasonably disagreed before, that's fine. However, are you really saying that, even if the GJ thought Wilson innocent of any criminal behavior, it should have indicted him b/c, in the past, he or people with whom he associates may have done bad things? Are you really espousing the doctrine that, to determine criminal conduct in a particular instance, we should be bringing in reputations and past associations? You don't see how that could be incredibly damaging to defendant rights? All of sudden, it's not "Did you commit a crime?" it's "Are you popular within the community?" Or are you only applying that to cases you think it appropriate? *On No. 3* (and leaving the Redskins aside because I, for one, am tired of the burn it down mentality that comes every three years): When burn it down resonates with a minority group to the degree that violence to person and property are condoned, it is going to face significant opposition from vast majority of those who see violence as a threat to their security. Regardless of the injustice, whether imagined or real (and I would suggest there is plenty of both), I suggest to you society as a whole will simply not succumb to demands made by violence. Whether you believe it fair or unfair, the judicial system "works" for too many people by providing protection, relief and a peaceful forum for conflict resolution whether they be civil or criminal. In every locality across the US, the courts grind through the best they making literally 1000's of judgments great and small every day. It's not perfect but, if you burn it down, you will find yourself with something worse - I guarantee it. __________________ Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.