Ferguson P3

Ferguson Part 3

Here I am going to simply continue supporting my opinions and beliefs regarding the Michael Brown case in Ferguson. If you haven’t read Part 1 and 2, please do so before reading this one.

For any of those under the impression that Brown was not fleeing from Wilson when he was shot, Wilson confirms, on page 281 of the testimony, that Brown WAS fleeing when receiving the fatal bullet.  

For any of those who are under the impression that Brown was attempting to take the gun when shot at least one time, the autopsy report states that no gunpowder was present on Brown’s body. Therefore, he was not shot at close range.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=1

The amount of protocols broken is absolutely astounding.

Ferguson Police ignored protocol and refused to interview or take a statement from the eyewitness present from Wilson’s initial contact with Brown, until his death.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/12/michael_brown_witness_police_allegedly_turn_down_offer_of_interview.html

Forensic examiner broke protocol by failing to take crime scene photos. On page 95 of the grand jury transcript, she claims that her camera had died. BUT she goes on to describe how she immediately followed Wilson to the hospital in order to photograph his “injuries.” Please, if you haven’t seen the “injury” photos, go google them. What passes for an injury these days according to the law is pathetic. They speak for themselves.

Then the investigators broke protocol by failing to test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints since Wilson claims that Brown grabbed his gun and caused it to misfire. Page 39.

THEN Wilson was allowed to break protocol by washing blood off of himself BEFORE it could be photographed. There goes any attempt to analyze blood spatter patterns to determine position, but I guess that isn’t important to the situation, right?

For now, that’s all I’m going to say. I’ll most likely be back next week with more defensive evidence for Mike Brown.

Ferguson P2

Ferguson Part 2

Here I am going to simply continue supporting my opinions and beliefs regarding the Michael Brown case in Ferguson. If you haven’t read Part 1, please do so before reading this one.

Did Wilson have the right to shoot Mike Brown. I know that I said I didn’t think so, but in reality I am 100% certain there was no reason for a gun to be involved at all.

Firstly, Mike Brown and Darren Wilson are the same size. In the grand jury transcript, page 198, Wilson states that he is 6 ft. 4 and weighs 210lbs, roughly the same size as Brown. That immediately defeats the possible argument of “Well maybe the officer needed it in order to ‘level’ the odds.” I have had that said to me in a conversation regarding this event, and I cannot even fathom that it was said at all. A gun in our reality doesn’t “level” anything unless there is a gun pointed at someone. A gun should be the absolute last resort, not as a means of evening out a situation.

For whatever reason, Brown started fleeing. Unsure of why, if was a valid reason, I cannot say. For the purpose of me being able to defeat any point a supporter of Darren Wilson could have to this, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that Brown just started running, giving him a reason to stop him (fleeing from a police officer).

Wilson broke police self-defense protocol. It teaches to disarm and incapacitate the target rather than kill them, as well as teaching officers to go for body shots. Wilson shot Mike Brown twice in the head, after shooting him four times in his arm and torso.

Seriously? Do I even need to explain how I feel about this? Wilson you shot a man, who was unarmed, as he was running away from you. That is already pretty bad, but not only that, you break the self-defense protocol which should have been you’re only mean of defense in court.

Grand Jury Transcript : http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370494-grand-jury-volume-5.html 

Ferguson P1

Ferguson Part 1

If you haven’t heard of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri regarding Michael Brown – you must live under a rock. I have nothing more to say about that.

So I’m going to express my views briefly here. It is in my opinion that this entire situation shouldn’t have happened, and the confrontation was purely because of race. There is no doubt in my mind at all that this is entirely because Wilson is racist. Extremely so.  Did he have the right to shoot Mike – I don’t think so, and I’ll explain my thoughts later in the post.  Was the Grand Jury’s decision right? With the evidence given to them, partially. I believe that Darren Wilson should not have gotten off basically scot-free. In no world is that the answer to a situation like this. I also don’t think that any of the attention that the media has given the whole ordeal is in the right.

“The confrontation was purely because of race.” I will stand by this statement with my life.
The previous police department that Officer Wilson worked for was disbanded from multiple instances of racial profiling.

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203

There’s the evidence that at the very least Wilson was surrounded by racists, if he himself wasn’t also racist, which he probably was, although I cannot prove that his previous precinct caused that.

Mike wasn’t stopped because of suspect for a crime, that’s not true at all. He was stopped for jaywalking with his friend. This can be seen in the Grand Jury testimony of Darren Wilson, page 208 (link at the bottom). Let’s be real here, what cop honestly will stop someone for jaywalking. I’m 100% certain everyone in the United States has, or will, jaywalk. That is virtually undeniable; people do it all the time.  So why would Darren Wilson choose to stop Mike and his friend for jaywalking? My belief is because Wilson just wanted a reason to give Mike a hard time, or in other words: Wilson was looking to express his racism.

Grand Jury Report of the Michael Brown case:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370494-grand-jury-volume-5.html

New Fantastic Recycling

So it has now been stated that old worn out laptop batteries are more cost efficient in 3rd world countries.
GREAT! I love it. We can now cut down on a good portion of e-waste and save money, allowing us to spend it in on more pressing matters, such as helping said 3rd world countries out of their current predicaments. This could do more than just putting money in a better place, this could help create money sources as well. If these parts of countries are now able to join the power grid, that means that we can set up minor industrialized work places, those that can be run on minor electricity. Or now you can increase the efficiency and potential of existing businesses in these areas by using the power and money to improve their products and work rates.
It's astounding what we can recycle and find new ways to reuse, and I think that if we gave the common" person a little more opportunity to help solve things like wasted and how to improve recycling, we would get a lot more done. There are a ton of creative people out in the world, and they're already doing small things in their lives. As a society we could learn a lot from each other and use this new found creative knowledge to help benefit the world considering we're in a pretty bad global state of decay right now. Maybe more of these new creative recycling ideas will pop up and help jump start more people into helping share their ideas/practices that help with situations such as this one.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30345221

Solar Energy Improves

Solar energy gets more efficient! Hooray! It has recently been improved to 40%, and while I don't know what the original conversion was, I'm extremely excited for this. Even if it's a small step, this means that we are nearing a less polluted existence. Theoretically after maximizing the efficiency of renewable energy conversions we should be able to completely drop off from the market.
Even though that sounds all great and what not, yay no more world pollution, I don't think fossil fuels should completely drop off the face of the earth. I still believe we should have them around but find another use for them, so that we can utilize as much of what's given to us as a species.
I also think we can't just ignore fossil fuels because the world would lose so many jobs and job opportunities from the change that it would do more harm than good. Things like vehicles would have to take time to adapt to the energy changes as well, but overall I think this is a really great improvement and a small step forward in energy.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/solar-energy-world-first-in-australia-20141207-121w8n.html

Suicidal Man Jumps at Crowd's Urging

Recently a man has jumped off of a building due to a crowd's chants of "Jump, jump, jump." Absolutely disgusted in every possible way. One should never tell someone to kill themselves, ever. This man was reciting bible verses. If someone is up multiple stories of a building reciting religious things, chances are there is something really bad going on. Normally that doesn't happen, why would you ever tell this person to jump.
Suicide is already a big problem in the world right now, we shouldn't promote it in any sense, joking or not. I know that a lot of people regardless of background or age joke about suicide. It's no laughing matter. In my opinion it should be treated equally as talking about the horrors of human history. WWI and WWII aren't joking matters and are taken very seriously, at least in the United States (although I can't imagine it getting any better in another country). People don't just go around talking about the world wars, and you certainly shouldn't go around just talking about suicide like it's no big deal because it is, regardless of what anyone says. Now do I think that suicide should be banned as a subject of conversation as a whole? absolutely not. Raising awareness about suicide and helping those who are suicidal is just as important as removing it from our everyday language,
This is a massive part of desensitization that happens in our society. We don't put enough emphasis on the prevention of socially unacceptable things - such as the joking of suicide or rape. It's not okay any way that you look at it, but because it was used as a joking matter for so long without any backlash, people have started using it as a common thing, and it's lost its meaning. I believe that as a society we need to put more emphasis on the prevention of things like this in the future. Primarily on the verbal aspect of it. I don't believe that there is a such thing as a violence desensitization unless there is some extreme mental interference.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Suicide-victim-dies-after-crowd-urges-him-to-jump-20141205

Drinking Pregnant Women May Face Charges

Women getting convicted for drinking while pregnant and causing birth defects. It seems like this argument has been sitting in a waiting line for our society's debate table, and it's not being brought to the front.
In order for this to be a valid thing, I believe that the mother's situation needs to be analyzed before any conclusion about charges can be reached. If the woman is a severe alcoholic and has no regard for a human life, not planning on actually taking care of the child or investing anything in their future, yes I believe they should be punished. Now you have to look at another possible side of the whole thing. What if the mother just was drinking a glass of wine once a week every week while she was pregnant and they were able to conclude that child's birth defect is from the alcohol? I think that if the mother is willing to take full responsibility for thew child, there's no reason to charge her on a federal level for whatever damage she will have to endure. She'll have to live with the fact that it's her fault the child is defected, and if they're going to raise the child, special expenses and medications will have to be paid for that. I believe that is enough punishment in regards to what is happening in that scenario.
Next you have the side that straight up says that running that risk is against the child's rights as a human as to how they want their life to be handled. This can have wrench thrown in the argument by saying a parent or guardian is in charge of a child's life until an adequate age is reached. So therefore, it is up to the parent by that standard. Then you open the door towards other arguments, and whether or not abortion is valid by the setting that a parent is in control of the child's life, but since it's regarding their life as a whole, it isn't fair. It's a very sticky situation, and will have to be truly decided by the ethics that we as a society deem correct.
But as a whole, the decision as to whether or not expecting mothers should be charged for drinking while impregnated depends on the future of the family and the scenario of the time period in which the drinking took place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11208353/Mothers-who-drink-while-pregnant-could-face-legal-proceedings-following-test-case.html