I can't think of anyone who doesn't, we even give it to terrorists. I'd just like to expand on what Printsmith said in another thread about how Gov. Nixon showed his bias against the cop in a public televised speech. some of his comments:
•“Ten days ago, a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, in broad daylight.”
•“We have a responsibility to come together and do everything we can to achieve justice for this family.”
•“A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued. The democratically elected St. Louis prosecutor and the Attorney General of the United States each have a job to do. Their obligation to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly and correctly.”
Sounds like someone has already made up his mind on guilt... am I wrong? Imagine if it was your butt on the line and you haven't even had a chance to tell your side of the story yet? And TODAY they are forming a grand jury? Don't you think that jury will be tainted just a bit when you have the governor and state senator calling for the cops prosecution? I just don't understand how our justice system could devolve into something more like an eye for an eye lynch mob.
This cop may very well be guilty, and if so should be prosecuted, but we have something called due process which is a RIGHT that we all should count on. I understand the race hustlers like Sharpton needing to give himself relevance and lead the mob to the hanging tree, but a governor? This governor is a coward and is obviously more concerned about pandering than he is about justice.
Now we have Holder coming in, and we know how fair he is. Any guesses on what he will say and who's side he will take (before even knowing all the facts)? Any way you look at this, it's a scary time in our history when we revert back to the old days of making judgments based primarily on skin color and mob rule.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
How can you explain the number of people, including the governor if I recall correctly, who have complained about the lack of transparency by local officials, and at the same time say that the video of the robbery should have been suppressed? Why should ANY relevant facts be suppressed?
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
jf1acai wrote: How can you explain the number of people, including the governor if I recall correctly, who have complained about the lack of transparency by local officials, and at the same time say that the video of the robbery should have been suppressed? Why should ANY relevant facts be suppressed?
Great point.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
That is a good point. The witnesses are being paraded in front of the camera like their word is fact and as if they hold no bias. The autopsy comes out and everybody except the examiner says it somehow proves guilt. The video is the only evidence that shows what Brown's state of mind was and the likelihood that he was in a confrontational mood.
This whole situation is being inflamed by bias... and when a state senator says that the riots will be much worse if the cop isn't convicted, it just puts more pressure on a jury to indict.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
