Jump to content


mav1234

Member Since 18 Oct 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 02:08 PM
-----

#3106701 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on Today, 12:11 PM

I am still not seeing how leaving out supposed eyewitnesses gets the DA props.

I can see how those left out of the process would be standing in front of the cameras saying, "yeah, I saw it and they wouldn't even let me testify" "This thing has been rigged from the beginning"

Then on the Huddle, the battle cry would have been the same. "hey, DA wouldn't even let the people that saw it testify"

And does bringing people with all kinds of different stories overload the minds of the GJ? What would have happened in a real trial?


The job of the DA in this particular instance is to put forward structure for the GJ, along with witnesses that corroborate it, to bring charges against Wilson - at least if the DA wants charges brought.

The DA didn't provide structure nor potential charges, and the reason for that is obvious.

I don't know if Wilson should have been found guilty of anything but the DA basically guaranteed none of us will ever know with how he handled the GJ.


#3106650 Thank you, random white man.

Posted by mav1234 on Today, 10:25 AM

I have not been wronged by anyone. I have not wronged anyone. Why should I be mad at something that doesn't affect me personally? A black man was shot by a white man. Boo hoo. It happens every day be it white on white, white on black, black on black, or black on white. I don't care about it because I don't know those people. I would care if my close friend, white or black, WR murdered in cold blood. I wouldn't be mad at an entire race of people, instead, I would be mad at the singular person that killed my friend and I would blame the raising that the person had.

However, this is an officer doing his job. Very few people should be angry over this and it does not warrant cultural riots.

 

Maybe you should be worried about the silencing of the press of the militirzation of the police force, then?  Why not about the growing disconnect between American subgroups and the police force?  The very clear difference in how police forces treat different racial groups (or at least different socioeconomic levels)? This isn't "just about" a black man being shot by a white man.  It occurs in context of something much larger.

 

I don't know how many people are mad at "an entire race of people."  The protestors are mad not just at a single man but at the system he represents, and the actions of the police in the immediate aftermath of it all.  They are all different people so I can't speak for each one, but many of the national protests are not specifically about Wilson but about the larger issues at play here.

 

Not all police are against the protests, either.  Quite a few of them have joined in.  Many, many people find the situation in Fergusson appaling on many levels.




#3106566 Democratic President issues Executive Order that alters our lives, gets compa...

Posted by mav1234 on Today, 09:16 AM

Moving a holiday date and changing immigration laws are two VERY different things. The author of that article is trying to compare one of the greatest administrations with one of the worst.

 

They certainly are different things.  And neither one of them warrants being compared to Hitler.  Therein lies the point of comparison between these two events.... Republicans overreacting with name calling.




#3106559 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on Today, 09:06 AM

Yep, Truth, Justice and Freedom.  I am what America is all about and has been about.

 

Justice prevailed in Martin's case and Browns case.

 

Scoreboard:

me: 2

idiot you: 0

 

If the Tinderbox had awards, you'd have quickly ascended to the top of Best New Troll, 2014.




#3105804 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 01:34 PM

a few in this thread who quoted fake witnesses.  

 

sounds suspiciously like a strawman... but nobody I've seen in the last few pages is presenting anything resembling an argument that Wilson threw Brown into the back of his car to shoot him. I have no idea where that came from and it is not supported by any witness accounts I've read.




#3105610 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 11:24 AM

Racial-Diconnect-NEW-FINAL-640x1430.jpg

 

edit: You know, my biggest concern, in all of this, from the very beginning, has been two things:

1) the growing militirization of the police in this country

2) the gigantic divide that continues to worsen between certain communities and their law enforcement officers.  This is reflected with the infographics I just pasted... It is incredible how differently people view this incident.




#3105607 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 11:21 AM

The DA provided testimony from just about everyone... which was an obvious attempt to avoid a real trial, because it's idiotic to just throw every eyewitness in front of a grand jury.  but whatever.  Big surprise from that DA.

 

From what I read of witness statements (they areo ut there, but I didn't read all of them), they completely disagree in every way, and it doesn't sound like any were close enough to be sure how the fight started.

 

I don't believe Johnson's accounts entirely, nor Wilson's accounts.  I don't have any idea what the truth is, but in both cases the stories seem incredibly implausable, even if possible.




#3105599 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 11:08 AM

Wilson's story is extremely strange.  In the middle of a brawl in a police car, Brown hands off a box of cigarallos.  In the middle of a fight! Brown, who has no priors and afaik no history of violence, calls a *police officer* a pussy and claims he won't shoot him.  Death wish?

 

I mean, the entire situation is so strange to me, and that's not even counting the "prosecutor" playing defense attorney so that he wouldn't get an indictment.




#3104667 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on 25 November 2014 - 12:10 PM

And in Florida and Ferguson the police did their job, too.

 

Justice was served, the correct legal actions were taken.  The verdict and trial showed the police did there job, there was no way there was enough evidence to have brought charges.  The police were right not to do so.

 

The charges brought in the Florida case were excessive and resulted the acquittal, despite the fact lesser charges almost definitely would have stuck.  But it took a whole lot of federal involvement before the police really bothered looking into it.

 

How the fug you can compare Florida and Ferguson are beyond me... The Florida case was so much worse, so crazy on so many levels.  And of course, the shooter in that case continues to make occasional headlines for ridiculous behavior, so wonderful he's still on the street.




#3104656 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on 25 November 2014 - 12:00 PM

the national media didn't need to be involved in the marley lion case because the police did their job.




#3104654 Ferguson Decision

Posted by mav1234 on 25 November 2014 - 11:59 AM

What the hell?  What murdered kid are you speaking about?

 

The violent attacker who was shot in self defense, as proven?

 

Yeah, he wasn't murdered, but awesome job falling prey to the media prop machine!

 

UtcRpUQ.jpg

 

hahah oh I don't know maybe this




#3099948 Republicans pass a bill restricting scientists from advising the EPA

Posted by mav1234 on 21 November 2014 - 02:41 PM

Are "independent" scientists vetted out of the process if they're shown to have a vested interest in specific topics...such as their university receiving grants on studies of such issues that they have regulatory powers over?  A conflict of interest can arise in many different ways...not just through private corporations. 

 

The SAB does not have regulatory power.  The SAB basically weighs scientific merit of different memos or provides targeted feedback, review, and research as requested.  It is a panel of experts, people that serve in a variety of fields, and is made up of a bunch of sub-committees that tackle more targeted issues. 

 

There is no conflict of interest from a scientist just because someone at their university has a grant for something.  That's not how grants work, really.   For instance, another lab in this building has a grant from USDA.  To accuse me of bias in regards to, say, crop science research because some people in this building receive funding from the USDA is really silly.  Plus, one big thing in science to keep in mind is the process, while not perfect, actively awards people that buck the status quo or find alternative hypotheses to traditional ideas. 

 

Now, if I was receiving a grant to study, say, harmful effects of high fructose corn syurp, if I was to research that subject, publish on it, and gain respect in the field, I would be considered an expert on it.  Now, you might not wanting me running the EPA, but certainly, wouldn't you want someone that actually knows the research in the field to comment if the EPA prepares a draft on how to handle, say, something related to high fructose corn syrup?  You don't want me handling it alone, no - but if you were to gather five or ten of my colleagues that are working in the field that have made significant impact (easy to measure with publication scores), then you might consider yourself to have an expert body to review scientific evidence.

 

Maybe  some of those people have a connection to industry(and they would, in this example).  Maybe they don't.  ALL of them would have had some connection to the field and received funding in it from one source or another at one point or another.  But to declare them all unable to weigh the potential merits of something because they received funding to study the topic at hand would suggest that the entire scientific process is untenable, unless you want to just give every single scientist a flat sum of money and completely remove the aspect of sciene that relates to how performance influences funding.

 

Note, I am not saying individual scientists are not without bias.  This is why peer review is so important... at every level.  Which is a big part of the SAB's functionality.




#3098610 First Case Of Ebola Diagnosed In The U.S.

Posted by mav1234 on 20 November 2014 - 01:12 PM

haha look at people rush to explain themselves now.

"no I wasn't freaking out, I uh, stock up on milk and bread all the time."

"I was just mocking people, even though in context my post follows quite logically from all my other posts!  I'm edgy, not reactionary!"

 

I don't really care about who did or did not panic here, but it is pretty clear there was an, ahem, elevated level of concern for the situation that it didn't actually warrant here.  And if you think that a large subset of the country wasn't panicing...  Were you living under a fuging rock?  I don't even watch 24 hr news and it was impossible to miss it on social media etc.




#3098549 First Case Of Ebola Diagnosed In The U.S.

Posted by mav1234 on 20 November 2014 - 12:21 PM

hey guys seriously nobody was freaking out.  not the guy stocking up on bread and milk. not the guy calling for a travel ban.  not all the dudes demanding mandatory quarantines.  certainly not the crazyman settting up some 700-post long-play where he fools everyone into thinking he actually thought the government was handling this poorly (??).  nope nobody was freaking out. not at all.

 

didn't you see all those posts saying DON'T PANIC?

 

hey guys DON'T PANIC but the MOVIE THEATER IS ON FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




#3098533 First Case Of Ebola Diagnosed In The U.S.

Posted by mav1234 on 20 November 2014 - 12:11 PM

classic pstall.  makes stupid comment, gets called on it, says he's joking. despite how logically it follows with his previous posts.

 

examples of stupidity/overreacting/commentary-that-is-poorly-informed:

 

 

I'm sorry, call me a dick or an insensitive asshole but fug that guy. His carelessness and god knows what desire to go to Liberia could result in the deaths of many U.S. citizens. It's now officially time that anyone coming off a plane from any part of Africa should be required to pass a test first confirming they are Ebola free.

 
 

Time to stock up on bread and milk.  If this thing gets going its going to get ugly fast.

 

The White House is saying that no new travel restrictions will be initiated and that the tests we have are enough... That's just asinine.

No test is going to catch someone that's infected but not showing symptoms.

Not sure if they're just trying to keep public panic down or just being stupid/political.

 
 

We are gonna screw around and ler this get out hand

 

I think its rather peculiar those that semi downplay this.
Why I have no idea. I dont think millions die but the time/money/resources wilm be huge when it's said and done.

 
 

I hear ya fang. Im just saying those at the hot points areas of these are la di da. They need some serious focused urgency. Im not saying panic but don't downplay this and hope it goes away. I asked my wife who teaches hey what are they saying is your gameplan for this stuff? Uhhh
So im going to talk to my kids school and say I need to know if you have a plan. You can't wing it on something like this.

 
BUT DONT WORRY GUYS PSTALL IS JUST fuging WITH YOU   :)  He didn't actually mean the government needs any "Focused urgency", and he did think they should downplay it until it goes away. exactly. That's totally consistent with EVERYTHING ELSE Pstall said up to that point in the thread.
 
But nobody here was freaking out about this at all (well other than the dude stocking up on bread and milk and the cohort of people demanding travel restrictions, but w/e)!!!  Repeatedly saying "I'm not panicing, but SOMEONE NEEDS TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!!!" doesn't mean you don't look like you are freaking out.





Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com