Indict a Ham sandwich but not a cop

[GenuineRisk]

I think both decisions were wrong and neither was surprising.

http://www.alternet.org/most-white-p...ous?page=0%2C0

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think both decisions were wrong and neither was surprising.

http://www.alternet.org/most-white-p...ous?page=0%2C0

Why do you even read such nonsense? Some of the stuff in that article was so ridiculous that it is laughable. The funniest thing was when the author said it is bad for Obama to tell black men to be better fathers because that is being negative and it might hurt their self-esteem.

This author is the epitome of a "bleeding-heart liberal". She thinks that to hold someone accountable is a bad thing. How could that be a bad thing? It is just the opposite. If you keep making excuses for someone, you're not helping them. For example, if I have a son with a drug and alcohol problem, am I better off pretending that the problem doesn't exist, and always blaming everyone else, when he gets arrested? Of course not. The only way I am going to help my son is to admit that there is a problem. Then I would need him to admit that he has a problem and to take responsibility for it. Then at least there is a chance to make some progress. If we deny there is a problem, things will never get better.

Eric Holder is the epitome of what I'm talking about. Instead of admitting that there is a problem with crime in the inner city, he wants to blame everyone except for the people committing the crime. He wants to act like the big problem is the police. It's absurd. I'm not claiming the police are perfect. They are going to sometimes make mistakes. In addition there are some bad cops out there. We should hold police to a high standard and when there is misconduct it should not be tolerated. That being said, our main problem is not the police. Our main problem is the criminals.

I'm glad this black sheriff called out Eric Holder:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...Anything-To-Me

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think both decisions were wrong and neither was surprising.

I think the first decision was right, and therefore not surprising, based upon witness 10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eded-to-shoot/

and witness 34.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ike-it-was.php

It would be tough for the grand jury to indict with testimony such as these, especially since they were supported by (and in turn supported) the physical evidence.

I haven't seen testimony or evidence in the Garner case, but the video certainly is troubling. Garner's resistance seems pretty mild, and the officer seems to maintain the hold longer than necessary considering all the support surrounding him.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I think the first decision was right, and therefore not surprising, based upon witness 10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eded-to-shoot/

and witness 34.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ike-it-was.php

It would be tough for the grand jury to indict with testimony such as these, especially since they were supported by (and in turn supported) the physical evidence.

I haven't seen testimony or evidence in the Garner case, but the video certainly is troubling. Garner's resistance seems pretty mild, and the officer seems to maintain the hold longer than necessary considering all the support surrounding him.

the hold should never have been done at all, since it's against dept. policy.