There are answers, but they are not politically correct so they must not be mentioned.

Sounds great, so long as I don’t have to pay to rebuild what these fools tore down. Let them rebuild it themselves.

Kinda like drugs … get them hooked, lead them along, dealer makes the money, everyone else pays a high price. Very sad. Oh and yes, sad that Marion Berry dies early, and sad “they” re-elected a crackhead in DC even, for God’s sake. Or maybe that is truly “representative” of the “crackheads” on the hill.

His mother and step-dad just went ape-spit last night.

So what was all that I kept hearing about the family calling for calm and peaceful protest?

My father was a 20 yr vet patrol officer in Detroit at the time of the 1967 riots and I was just 12. As a city employee he had to live within the city limits. We got evacuated when the flames got within 5 blocks and spent the rest of the summer in Wheatley, Ontario 50 miles east of Detroit. Non-street officers and police supporters had a sort of underground railroad going, escorting officer families out of the city to safer grounds. I remember vividly when we returned in late August. We reentered the US by the Ambassador Bridge from Windsor Ont to Detroit and from the heighth of the bridge it was just block after block of burned out businesses and homes as far as I could see. Our house was 2 blocks on the good side of the outer burn line. A lot of the police and firemen refused to wear uniforms as they worked because of all the riot snipers shooting at anybody in a uniform or inside a marked city vehicle. ’43 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed’ per wiki. My father laughed at the official death count of 43, said he personally saw bodies floating in the Detroit River that weren’t counted, plus the local gangs used the cover of rioting to eliminate competitors while the DPD was otherwise ‘busy’, also not counted.

A nasty riot, yes, but it served a purpose – Detroit is now a thriving, bustling wonderland, a blissful mix of top level culture and commerce, a true shining city on the hill and a powerful example for any American city to follow.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha.

I found an nice old footstool I remembered from my youth, in the basement here (on the old farm). Through a mouse eaten part I discovered it was just some old tin cans tied together, then covered with a newspaper pad and some fabric. That was likely from the 20-30’s, along with the grapevines for wine during prohibition.

They made do, and worked a LOT. It’s almost sad how hard they worked at some periods, to survive. Now … Obamaphones and flat screens for free, or we riot. sheesh …

The verdict was announced by the mob weeks ago … GUILTY.
So the kangaroo court now gets to see evidence that exonerates, but Wilson will still “serve time” since the SJW’s will try to hunt him down. heh

It’s like the old TV show “Branded” … but you’re way too young for that. lol

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…hael-Brown.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/rioting-mainly-for-fun-and-profit.php

But let’s define terms a little more closely. Persistent, generational poverty comes of poor decision-making. But the NEXT question is WHY is poor decision-making so apparent in some demographics? It seems apparent that we have been training people to make bad, awful, terrible decisions. How do we stop that?

A brief, transient episode of poverty can strike in the life of anyone, given a catastrophic misfortune. And there is absolutely no correlation between people who are impoverished and people who commit crime. The Great Depression proved that.

Why were the people of the Depression not ravening criminals? Because they had been taught values, and those values informed their conduct, as did their ability to think, which is ALSO a matter of training.

I /am/ getting a little bit confused about the number of people calling this a “verdict”, though. Even the author of this blog post. I had thought that /verdicts/ were for trials — Grand Juries announce /decisions/ or /indictments/.

This wasn’t a trial, it wasn’t meant to meant to hand down a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict, but a decision as to whether Wilson should or should not be indicted, and whether he should or should not face trial.

Anyway, it’s not a big deal, but as I said I’m getting confused about all this imprecise terminology (and that’s just on blogs, news sites and Twitter, I don’t even have a TV!).

In my opinion, the Grand Jury made the right decision, and I think that even if they had decided to indict and it then went to trial, that Wilson probably would have been found not guilty. And the looters and rioters would have been looting and rioting /then/, instead of /now/. C’est la vie.

But having the evidence laid out we can see “there was vindication”. The prosecutor wanted us (felt it best served the citizenry) to see vindication, as OPPOSED to just a bare “no true bill”.

That is his job, (we didn’t actually hear directly from the grand jury anyway) and he did it.

Then the next step is for Brian to communicate what the prosecutor communicated, which was that whole message, not just “not enough”.

But thanks for making me make it clearer, to myself as well. I probably need an editor usually.

Maybe I’m being a little picky, but it seems that only saying “not enough” leaves too much room for “almost but not quite”. But the facts were laid out for us, so we can look at what they saw, not just go by the up or down decision.

And people are burning and looting over whether a trial should have determined that. So listeners would be well served to get a more complete picture, which I believe is exactly why the prosecutor laid it all out so clearly. So people would not walk away thinking it was a close call.