AUtiger98 24 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 "Lamentably, many of Darren Wilson's fans claim to be constitutional conservatives and moralists. This is preposterous. A true constitutional conservative looks at the Ferguson situation and sees a young black male who was denied his Sixth Amendment rights and executed in the street. A constitutional conservative does not necessarily have to be emotionally connected to Michael Brown, or even think he was a good person. A constitutional conservative could even conceivably believe that Michael Brown deserved to be in prison for a long time for the robbery he allegedly committed. But there is absolutely no grounds for someone who claims to believe in constitutional principles to think it is acceptable for Darren Wilson to bypass every other procedural step that he could have taken short of deadly force and ultimately choose to shoot and kill Michael Brown, including shooting him in his head as though he were a wild beast being put down. It has become abundantly clear that alleged “constitutional conservatives” do not really care about constitutional principles. They care about one constitutional principle: the right to bear arms. By "the right to bear arms," they mean the right to manufacture demonstrably fictitious narratives describing blacks as wild demons about to kill them, before they shoot to kill in “desperate fear of their lives.” This is not just Officer Darren Wilson’s narrative, but it was the narrative of George Zimmerman before him. It will be the narrative of the next person who comes along and claims that he was nearly beaten to death by a black monster before he shot "it" in fear of his life. Sadly, alleged “constitutional conservatives” will continue to swallow that repetitive cock and bull story hook, line, and sinker. It’s not because they are credulous and guileless, but because they are morally bankrupt and will sanguinely treat the Constitution they claim to respect like used toilet paper when it’s time to talk about respecting the constitutional rights of black males. The next time Darren Wilson's supporters, the “brave” constitutional conservatives, talk about “government tyranny,” just know that they define it as "anything that does not accomplish their political goals.” It is a definition that is endlessly malleable and has nothing to do with the written text of the Constitution. What these “constitutional conservatives” do not understand is that they are eroding constitutional rights for everybody. While they are enjoying playing games with black lives, which they manifestly do not respect, there will come a time when all Americans, regardless of racial or ethnic background, will experience the full weight of a tyrannical state. The problem is that when they turn around to start their loud protestations about respect for the Constitution and the inviolability of life, it will simply be too late. Artificial morality never pays. The tables will soon turn, and “constitutional conservatives” will have to live in the country they actively helped to create—a profoundly immoral police state that has no respect for life of any kind (including theirs)." http://www.ctghq.org...sons-supporters Charles Barkley does not approve of this message. Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here... Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? I couldn't tell you. I wasn't there and that's not an attempt at evading the question. Should he defend himself and those around him, absolutely. Should he have emptied his entire service pistol magazine into Michael Brown rather than first resort to a non-lethal use of force first? I tend to say no but again I wasn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 That article has nothing to do with your question. Someone breaks into my house, they will feel the effect of a Smith and Wesson .45 round. 12 ga. loaded with #1 buck here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here... Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for. That's why cops are so rarely indicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUtiger98 24 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? I couldn't tell you. I wasn't there and that's not an attempt at evading the question. Should he defend himself and those around him, absolutely. Should he have emptied his entire service pistol magazine into Michael Brown rather than first resort to a non-lethal use of force first? I tend to say no but again I wasn't there. Thanks for the honest response. When I read this response and re-read the article you posted I have a hard time believing you agree with the author 100%. The author says Wilson bypassed every procedural step that he could have taken, but does not say what those step are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUtiger98 24 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 That article has nothing to do with your question. Someone breaks into my house, they will feel the effect of a Smith and Wesson .45 round. 12 ga. loaded with #1 buck here. Glock 26, (CCW) all day, everyday. A few more in the gun case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUtiger98 24 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here... Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for. That's why cops are so rarely indicted. I'm sure that can happen. But it was my understanding that the grand jury was able to request witnesses and specific evidence too. I think I remember hearing the DA say the GJ asked direct question to the witnesses. After reviewing the evidence what do you think the DA left out to help Wilson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? I couldn't tell you. I wasn't there and that's not an attempt at evading the question. Should he defend himself and those around him, absolutely. Should he have emptied his entire service pistol magazine into Michael Brown rather than first resort to a non-lethal use of force first? I tend to say no but again I wasn't there. Thanks for the honest response. When I read this response and re-read the article you posted I have a hard time believing you agree with the author 100%. The author says Wilson bypassed every procedural step that he could have taken, but does not say what those step are. The author does engage in a little hyperbole but he does hit on some pretty good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 That article has nothing to do with your question. Someone breaks into my house, they will feel the effect of a Smith and Wesson .45 round. 12 ga. loaded with #1 buck here. Glock 26, (CCW) all day, everyday. A few more in the gun case. I prefer something I don't have to empty to take down an unarmed, overweight kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here... Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for. That's why cops are so rarely indicted. I'm sure that can happen. But it was my understanding that the grand jury was able to request witnesses and specific evidence too. I think I remember hearing the DA say the GJ asked direct question to the witnesses. After reviewing the evidence what do you think the DA left out to help Wilson? Don't know. But I do know how rare it is for a Grand Jury not to return an indictment. The PA clearly didn't want one returned. You can make that happen with delivery, regardless of facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Amateurs, the lot of ya. My bedside weapon is a Yugo M70AB2. In the car, a Glock 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Amateurs, the lot of ya. My bedside weapon is a Yugo M70AB2. In the car, a Glock 30. A Yugo! Hell, I would at least upgrade to a Civic or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUtiger98 24 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I think the liberals on here have way more fire power than me, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Amateurs, the lot of ya. My bedside weapon is a Yugo M70AB2. In the car, a Glock 30. A Yugo! Hell, I would at least upgrade to a Civic or something. While they might make terrible cars, they make fantastic Kalashnikovs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUtiger98 24 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? I couldn't tell you. I wasn't there and that's not an attempt at evading the question. Should he defend himself and those around him, absolutely. Should he have emptied his entire service pistol magazine into Michael Brown rather than first resort to a non-lethal use of force first? I tend to say no but again I wasn't there. Thanks for the honest response. When I read this response and re-read the article you posted I have a hard time believing you agree with the author 100%. The author says Wilson bypassed every procedural step that he could have taken, but does not say what those step are. The author does engage in a little hyperbole but he does hit on some pretty good points. Which points do you agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Amateurs, the lot of ya. My bedside weapon is a Yugo M70AB2. In the car, a Glock 30. A Yugo! Hell, I would at least upgrade to a Civic or something. While they might make terrible cars, they make fantastic Kalashnikovs. Ain't that a commie gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Amateurs, the lot of ya. My bedside weapon is a Yugo M70AB2. In the car, a Glock 30. A Yugo! Hell, I would at least upgrade to a Civic or something. While they might make terrible cars, they make fantastic Kalashnikovs. Ain't that a commie gun? Since I frequently get lumped in with what has become the modern definition of "liberal", I thought it was fitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here... Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for. That's why cops are so rarely indicted. I'm sure that can happen. But it was my understanding that the grand jury was able to request witnesses and specific evidence too. I think I remember hearing the DA say the GJ asked direct question to the witnesses. After reviewing the evidence what do you think the DA left out to help Wilson? Don't know. But I do know how rare it is for a Grand Jury not to return an indictment. The PA clearly didn't want one returned. You can make that happen with delivery, regardless of facts. Of course the PA did not want a indictment. Because as my aunt said, who worked as a PA, that would be career suicide. How much corporation from the police do you think they would get for essentially taking down what would be one of their own. No corporation means no prosecutions which in turn means no election and no job. What is the old saying, a prosecutor can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Amateurs, the lot of ya. My bedside weapon is a Yugo M70AB2. In the car, a Glock 30. A Yugo! Hell, I would at least upgrade to a Civic or something. While they might make terrible cars, they make fantastic Kalashnikovs. Ain't that a commie gun? Since I frequently get lumped in with what has become the modern definition of "liberal", I thought it was fitting. Liberals make better guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Looks like I'm the only true Constitutional Conservative here... Sorry, I wasn't around the board when the Grand Jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson, so if you've answered this question before forgive me. After reviewing the evidence presented to the grand jury, what do you think Officer Wilson should have done in this situation? You do realize that Grand Juries don't get both sides of the story don't you? The fact the PA presented a case that defended Wilson's actions is a controversy in itself. The PA's job in a Grand Jury trial is to obtain an indictment of the accused, not get him off. That's what the trial is for. That's why cops are so rarely indicted. Actually they got both sides in this case. Wilson, the potential defendant testified before the grand jury and they were allowed to ask him questions. If the PA had a weak case against Wilson, it should not have gone to the grand jury in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Brown lost his rights when he attacked a cop & tried to take his gun. " black mothers shouldn't have to worry for their son's lives who rob stores & assault cops " - valid view as the Left sees it. Really? He lost all of his constitutional rights? Every. Single. One? Yes. And I see how you ignore that which you don't want to confront, and instead focus the true nature of what actually happened. WHEN HE ATTACKED THE COP ... think about that for a second, if you can. Brown is engaging in an assault of a armed officer. The cop has no option but to defend himself Brown's own actions removed the rights he had, at that time. HIS actions forced the cop to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 All pictured are promoting a lie, and defending a thug. Sorry, but D.C. is probably the last place these a-holes need to be earning a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Brown lost his rights when he attacked a cop & tried to take his gun. " black mothers shouldn't have to worry for their son's lives who rob stores & assault cops " - valid view as the Left sees it. Really? He lost all of his constitutional rights? Every. Single. One? Apparently, one's rights are naturally arbitrated by armed LEO's. When one assaults those armed LEO's, unprovoked... damn straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Brown lost his rights when he attacked a cop & tried to take his gun. " black mothers shouldn't have to worry for their son's lives who rob stores & assault cops " - valid view as the Left sees it. Really? He lost all of his constitutional rights? Every. Single. One? Apparently, one's rights are naturally arbitrated by armed LEO's. When one assaults those armed LEO's, unprovoked... damn straight. And who exactly determines who assaulted whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.