Grand Jury decision for Michael Brown case
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
- Status
IMJerusha
New member
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/2...k-city-police-officer-save-choking-victim-on/
Are you getting the idea, Nick?
Are you getting the idea, Nick?
IMJerusha
New member
Yes, it does. It lies with Yeshua who would also have a problem with unnecessary gloating over the death of a human being.
oatmeal
Well-known member
It would seem that the people who are rioting and looting are demonstrating why they cannot be trusted to obey the law.
Why they are treated like violent, dangerous people, because they are violent and dangerous and have little regard for the law and human decency.
Why would anyone trust people like that?
Why they are treated like violent, dangerous people, because they are violent and dangerous and have little regard for the law and human decency.
Why would anyone trust people like that?
IMJerusha
New member
This is the part a great majority of people ignore. If we raise our children to disrespect and rail against law and order, why should we complain when they get killed or wounded in the process?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Indeed
musterion
Well-known member
Not gloating. Appreciating justice dispensed to a criminal. If you can't t see the difference it's not my problem.
By the way. God laughs at the calamity of the wicked. If you really believed the Scripture I'd not need to point it out.
Exactly.
Most likely, but chaos like that cannot be tolerated.
So you'd have no problem with just shooting up the joint so long as we got some order in its place.
journey
New member
For one, the National Guard should have been called in early instead of not at all. Some might have been killed regardless, but the appropriate response was not taken. It's supposed to be dangerous to commit felonies.
Can you show where i said that please? I'm thinking just shooting one of the arsonists would have a crowd dispersing effect and deter further acts like that.
Please explain to us how that would be much worse than a city burning to the ground.
Trying to figure out how far you'd be willing to see the police go. Where's the line, in other words.
As long as the powers and principalities form grand jury inquiries, where the prosecuting attorney helps organize and direct, you will always have a reservoir of hard feelings, anger and revenge.
The traditional ways of expressing justice by a trial by a jury of one's peers is slowly being shut out of the equation by political groups all in the innocent and strategic term "tort reform."
Even now, practically every corporation has binding rules that dictate any effort by a consumer to challenge the behavior of a corporation must submit to arbitrary processes, and the arbiter is always chosen by the corporation.
This is a far cry from a jury of one's peers, which operates on the idea of justice, not tyranny. Mediation (which involves a third party that helps each side communicate nonviolently with each other) is a good second-best choice.
P.S. Referring to other people as "thugs" is unhelpful and a detriment to collaborative problem-solving.
People threatened to burn the place down for weeks if the verdict didn't come in as they wanted.
The city should have been prepared and had a no tolerance for looting and violence stance stated such well beforehand and national guard should have been there already knowing that.
Whats happening there, is inexcusable.
I'm not aware of any direct threats but it wouldn't surprise me if such things were said.
By "no tolerance" do you mean gunfire into the crowd?
From what I could see the crowd was quite peaceful until they were told to disperse, then shot up with tear gas. One could easily argue the cops picked a fight here.
From Wikipedia:
"The Kent State shootings (also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre) occurred at Kent State University in the US city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four [innocent] students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.
Some of the students who were shot had been protesting the Cambodian Campaign, which President Richard Nixon announced during a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance."
- Status