Black Lives Threaten

[rogue06]

Right; the testimony was that Harper shot Shakur as she was shooting Foerster. That's what the forensic experts refuted, with one saying that the prosecution's scenario was impossible. Shakur likewise did not have any gunpowder residue on her hands to indicate that she was a shooter. So you have a trial where the expert witnesses agree with Shakur's claim about having her hands up when she was shot, the physical evidence agreeing with Shakur's claim, and a false testimony from Harper regarding Shakur's participation in the event.

Saying that Shakur was "far from an innocent bystander" because she had ammunition in her shoulder bag is not appropriate. That's weak circumstantial evidence at best and does not imply that one is an accomplice to murder.

The prosecution never bothered to put up experts to refute the doctors hired by the defense because they didn't have to (she was convicted of being an accomplice to murder not being the actual triggerman), so Shakur's supporters have acted like their claims were somehow irrefutable. That is not the case. IIRC, at least one of the "experts" that the defense used would later be exposed to be a "hired gun" who would pretty much say whatever he was hired to say (this has actually been a problem among forensic experts used by both prosecutors and the defense for many years and it appears that only recently is there any effort being taken to remedy this).

And I don't know of many people who walk around with magazines and ammo who aren't also carrying a firearm to put them in. Sure it some times happens when someone picks up an old suitcase or something but given Shakur's history I don't think that even you believe that this was the case.

And as an aside I should note that there are several easy ways to fool tests that check for gunpowder residue (no, I'm not going to describe them) which is why investigators today often check more than the hands if they suspect that someone used one of them since the shooter generally only thinks about eliminating traces on the hands. And not so coincidentally the BLA was known to teach its members about the most widely known one.

[Sam]

The prosecution never bothered to put up experts to refute the doctors hired by the defense because they didn't have to (she was convicted of being an accomplice to murder not being the actual triggerman), so Shakur's supporters have acted like their claims were somehow irrefutable. That is not the case. IIRC, at least one of the "experts" that the defense used would later be exposed to be a "hired gun" who would pretty much say whatever he was hired to say (this has actually been a problem among forensic experts used by both prosecutors and the defense for many years and it appears that only recently is there any effort being taken to remedy this).

And I don't know of many people who walk around with magazines and ammo who aren't also carrying a firearm to put them in. Sure it some times happens when someone picks up an old suitcase or something but given Shakur's history I don't think that even you believe that this was the case.

And as an aside I should note that there are several easy ways to fool tests that check for gunpowder residue (no, I'm not going to describe them) which is why investigators today often check more than the hands if they suspect that someone used one of them since the shooter generally only thinks about eliminating traces on the hands. And not so coincidentally the BLA was known to teach its members about the most widely known one.

I view this as part of the essential problem: we have a situation where a woman, despite contradicting expert testimony and the physical evidence presented during trial, was convicted of a crime carrying a life sentence. The jury would have to have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Shakur was guilty. But to the evidence, you've argued that because the expert testimony may not be irrefutable, we can dismiss it and because one expert was purportedly a "hired gun," his testimony can be dismissed without actual refutation. You continue to argue that, because Shakur was carrying ammunition, she cannot be seen as a bystander in this particular event

[rogue06]

I view this as part of the essential problem: we have a situation where a woman, despite contradicting expert testimony and the physical evidence presented during trial, was convicted of a crime carrying a life sentence. The jury would have to have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Shakur was guilty. But to the evidence, you've argued that because the expert testimony may not be irrefutable, we can dismiss it and because one expert was purportedly a "hired gun," his testimony can be dismissed without actual refutation. You continue to argue that, because Shakur was carrying ammunition, she cannot be seen as a bystander in this particular event

She was convicted of being an accessory to murder of which there really was no contradictory evidence. The contradictions involved were over whether or not she was one of the actual triggermen -- but that was not what she was convicted for.

Think of it this way ... if someone is the getaway driver in an armed robbery in which someone is shot and killed it does not matter whether or not they were carrying a firearm much less shot someone. It does not matter if they even knew whether or not anyone who committed the actual robbery was even armed. It does not matter if they weren't even inside the building where the robbery took place. It does not matter if all the participants swore that "nobody will get hurt." If they're involved they are also responsible for what takes place.

While one may argue over whether this is fair is another discussion, but it seems pretty obvious that Shakur knew what was going down and was involved up to her neck in it. She admitted knowing that others in the car were armed. She was carrying magazines and bullets strongly indicating that she was armed as well. Nobody seriously contests the fact that it was the BLA members who opened fire. She is guilty. There was no inversion of the how the burden of proof works.

[Sam]

She was convicted of being an accessory to murder of which there really was no contradictory evidence. The contradictions involved were over whether or not she was one of the actual triggermen -- but that was not what she was convicted for.

Think of it this way ... if someone is the getaway driver in an armed robbery in which someone is shot and killed it does not matter whether or not they were carrying a firearm much less shot someone. It does not matter if they even knew whether or not anyone who committed the actual robbery was even armed. It does not matter if they weren't even inside the building where the robbery took place. It does not matter if all the participants swore that "nobody will get hurt." If they're involved they are also responsible for what takes place.

While one may argue over whether this is fair is another discussion, but it seems pretty obvious that Shakur knew what was going down and was involved up to her neck in it. She admitted knowing that others in the car were armed. She was carrying magazines and bullets strongly indicating that she was armed as well. Nobody seriously contests the fact that it was the BLA members who opened fire. She is guilty. There was no inversion of the how the burden of proof works.

What? Being an accessory to murder necessarily requires more than that the person was present and knew others were armed. You know this. And the presented evidence, short of the testimony of an officer who would admit to providing false testimony, refutes the claim that Shakur participated at all. It conforms to her claim that she raised her hands when ordered and was shot with her hands raised.

To claim that she's guilty of being an accessory to murder in the face of the presented evidence on the pretense that her being present and having ammunition in her purse is risable from a legal standpoint and deeply irresponsible even from a casual observer's standpoint. It's the presumption of guilt, not the presumption of innocence.

[Cow Poke]

I can't link to the video, because the lady is quite upset and uses the F bomb a number of times, but check out what a real black person (as opposed to a poser like Alec) thinks about BLM... Google something like Peggy Hubbard's Attack on Black Lives Matter.

hubbard.jpg

[Darth Executor]

This article is a good primer on the beginnings of the movement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...litical-force/

On July 13, 2013, in the hours after a nearly all-white jury acquitted George Zimmerman of all charges in connection with the shooting death of an unarmed black teen named Trayvon Martin, a trio of friends tried to convey their disappointment, disgust and fear in conversations with the people around them -- and online.

One of those women, Alicia Garza, posted a note on Facebook that ended with an idea: It was time to organize and ensure "that black lives matter." The hashtag her friend, Patrisse Cullors, attached (#BlackLivesMatter) and the effort launched by both women and a third friend, Opal Tometi, caught fire. The women, professional organizers working for various groups by day, began by night to construct the scaffolding of what the New York Times magazine would in May call the 21st Century's first civil rights movement.

That same story describes the movement's origins a little differently with a different moment, a different place and two different activists committed to the same cause.

[rogue06]

Moderated By: rogue06

AW's derail concerning lazy Christians has been split off and moved to the following thread: Alec Welch's derail.

Normally, being involved in the thread and it not being my area I would not have been the one to do so but I was specifically asked for help by the Department Head.

Also, depending on what is decided more posts may be moved there.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Christianbookworm]

Well, someday, people won't be treating other people groups like dirt or idiots from one group murdering people for being part of another group. Right?

[rogue06]

Moderated By: rogue06

AW's derail concerning lazy Christians has been split off and moved to the following thread: Alec Welch's derail.

Normally, being involved in the thread and it not being my area I would not have been the one to do so but I was specifically asked for help by the Department Head.

Also, depending on what is decided more posts may be moved there.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Moderated By: rogue06

At the thread starters request all of AW's posts and replies to them have been moved to the above mentioned thread in the padded room

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[rogue06]

Oh, btw. It wasn't just in Minnesota that BLM protesters chanted "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" but last December shortly before Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley murdered two NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos while they were eating lunch in their patrol car he posted on his Instagram page, "Going to put pigs in a blanket."

Immediately after, in Ferguson when news of the NYPD slayings hit, BLM protesters celebrated by chanting "Pigs in a blanket!"

I should add that shortly before the murder of Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos there was a protest down Fifth Avenue in New York City where the crowd was chanting "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."

Apparently some of them were carrying signs reading "Black Lives Matter."

Now to be fair this group seems to have had split off from the larger protest, but then let's be brutally honest here. If a group at a Tea Party had started chanting "Kill black people" or anything even remotely similar both the left and the media (a distinction increasingly hard to make) would have gone nuts. They would hold the entire Tea Party movement responsible for their words and actions (as they repeatedly tried to do in the few instances they succeeded in tracking down a nut case at a Tea Party rally).

[Christianbookworm]

Wanting people murdered is always bad!

[Teallaura]

Wanting people murdered is always bad!

Yep.

[Sam]

I should add that shortly before the murder of Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos there was a protest down Fifth Avenue in New York City where the crowd was chanting "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."

Apparently some of them were carrying signs reading "Black Lives Matter."

Now to be fair this group seems to have had split off from the larger protest, but then let's be brutally honest here. If a group at a Tea Party had started chanting "Kill black people" or anything even remotely similar both the left and the media (a distinction increasingly hard to make) would have gone nuts. They would hold the entire Tea Party movement responsible for their words and actions (as they repeatedly tried to do in the few instances they succeeded in tracking down a nut case at a Tea Party rally).

The converse, of course, is to say that were a group a Tea Party rally were

[Teallaura]

Because there is evidence, and apparently growing, that the problem is endemic to the BLM movement where there was none in the Tea Party. Worse, there is some evidence that it is representative of the BLM movement. The cases differ considerably.

[Cow Poke]

The converse, of course, is to say that were a group a Tea Party rally were to do so, you would apply the same criticism to the Tea Party movement that you're applying here. If it's illegitimate when it comes to the Tea Party, it's illegitimate here.

If the Tea Party - or apparent elements of it - were calling for the deaths of liberals (or anybody) - I would absolutely denounce them in a heartbeat. No question about it.

Ummmmm...... no comparison, Sam. Those of us in the 2nd amendment rights movement quickly and loudly denounce the nutters.

Can you give me a compilation, please, of 2nd amendment supporters (or incidents) who are calling for the deaths of... anybody?