US Government Found GUILTY Of Murdering Martin Luther King Jr.

[Plutarch]

False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that.

excuse me? let me quote you directly:

"And just because Ray pleaded guilty doesn't mean that he did it. He was set up to be the scapegoat."

so again, you start by saying the guilty plea doesn't mean he did it, and then declare him to be the scapegoat. and here, you go on about it being "rash and naive" to consider Ray's trial open and shut (and here's a good question: for all your outrage, when did i call it open and shut), and give a laundry list of reasons why you don't think Ray did it. so please, don't act outraged when someone says you said something you said.

Ok, let’s back up here.

1. I don’t think that this is a big deal, but let me again first restate my original claim, your initial “accusation,” and then my response:

And just because Ray pleaded guilty doesn't mean that he did it. He was set up to be the scapegoat.

or he actually did it. you're saying that the plea doesn't mean he did it and then immediately taking it as a given that he was set up as a scapegoat.

My claim that Ray was set up to be the scapegoat is one that isn't so much based on the claim that Ray might've not done it. Just because those two claims happened to have been right next to each other doesn't mean that one was based on the other. They're both just independent and hypothetical premises that lead to the same hypothetical conclusion that Ray most likely did not do it.

Hopefully, this makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Basically, I’m saying that the fact/idea that Ray was scapegoated comes doesn’t come from my claim that Ray’s plea bargain doesn’t necessarily prove his guilt. The fact/ idea that Ray was scapegoated also doesn’t come from thin air or from some “given” fact that is arbitrarily established.

2. Chill out, I was never, am not, and will not be outraged. Don’t take it so personal.

3. Of course you didn’t call it an “open and shut” case. But the quote below and some of your other claims made it seem to me like you implied as much. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bad.

whatever you think happened, we know Ray pled guilty. so there's no need to make it sound like nothing else ever happened regarding the case.

Hm. So what you're saying is that the original reason for the plea bargain was to avoid the death penalty, so the original reason for the plea bargain very well might've had nothing to do with actually admitting to the crime but instead everything to do with plain old fear? Doesn't that kind of support my argument?

let me restate, since you have your set belief in mind: people who have ACTUALLY COMMITTED the crimes in question will plead to them to avoid death penalties. this is not something that i am saying Ray alone could have done.

One clarification: I have a belief but it’s not “set.” Anyways, so you are saying that people who commit crimes plead guilty. Ok. Doesn’t the fact that people who also don’t commit crimes plead guilty make the previous fact a little less relevant?

I’m not sure I quite understand your last sentence, whether you’re saying that it’s possible that Ray might’ve not committed the crime or whether you’re saying that Ray might’ve committed the crime but possibly not as a lone actor.

Huh? I'm sure you know about the Black Panthers at least. Fred Hampton and co.?

and it's established that J.Edgar planned these assassinations?

No, not officially, but, as others have pointed out, there is some very incriminating evidence out there. Fred Hampton is probably the most exemplary case. And his murder was just the year after MLK’s own.

 

[janklow]

Okay, then I presume that we can first at least agree that the local and/or state government was most likely involved.

no, we can agree that members of the local/state government might have been involved. i think there's a distinction between individuals acting on their own behalf but abusing their powers and individuals acting in an official capacity. it might be a fine line, but it's also there. and i say might because as far as verifying anything goes, a civil trial doesn't mean shit to me. okay, that's a little harsh, but still.

Are you willing to go further and say that there is a possibility that the federal government was involved?

many things are possible IN THEORY. communism works IN THEORY. but look how hard you're having to work to run with the possibility. why don't we focus on definitive known stuff, or trying to prove the conjecture, rather than just running with the latter?

That counterclaim is, first, that the trial was fair and just and, second, that part of the reason why the trial was a civil case in the first place was because the federal government would never indict itself for the death of MLK. Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy brings closure to people, the fact that there is suggestive evidence is sufficient enough to at least strongly consider the possibility that a conspiracy is true.

the issue is not that the trial is "fair," it's that it's a lower standard. and it's not irrelevant if a conspiracy brings closure to people if the reason the trial/verdict happens is because that's what they want to believe.

 

[janklow]

Hopefully, this makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Basically, I’m saying that the fact/idea that Ray was scapegoated comes doesn’t come from my claim that Ray’s plea bargain doesn’t necessarily prove his guilt. The fact/ idea that Ray was scapegoated also doesn’t come from thin air or from some “given” fact that is arbitrarily established.

first, it's not a fact that Ray was scapegoated. whatever. second, what i'm saying is that you've come off as very dismissive of the fact that he could have plead guilty because he IS guilty. now, i get that you may really not believe he did it, and that's fine. but we should be considering the possibility that Ray shot MLK and/or that there wasn't a conspiracy.

2. Chill out, I was never, am not, and will not be outraged. Don’t take it so personal.

it may be possible that internet forum posts lose some nuance in translation, but this -"False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that. You're the one who seems to be making the rash and naive judgement that the Ray trial was an open and shut case for sure and that he did it for sure."- seems a little outraged to me. but maybe that's just how i take it.

3. Of course you didn’t call it an “open and shut” case. But the quote below and some of your other claims made it seem to me like you implied as much. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bad.

well, damn, man, make up your mind!

One clarification: I have a belief but it’s not “set.” Anyways, so you are saying that people who commit crimes plead guilty. Ok. Doesn’t the fact that people who also don’t commit crimes plead guilty make the previous fact a little less relevant?

true, Ray pleading guilty does not mean that he did it. however, note that the article/thread has started from the position of "Ray's plea is bullshit." so i presume that argument's already out there, and your posting has seemed to go along with that. but yes, by itself his plea is not proof of guilt. it is not, however, proof of anything else.

I’m not sure I quite understand your last sentence, whether you’re saying that it’s possible that Ray might’ve not committed the crime or whether you’re saying that Ray might’ve committed the crime but possibly not as a lone actor.

let me restate: i am saying the idea of pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment is not something only Ray has done.

No, not officially, but, as others have pointed out, there is some very incriminating evidence out there. Fred Hampton is probably the most exemplary case. And his murder was just the year after MLK’s own.

stop telling me that Fred Hampton was killed and start telling me what about it means that J. Edgar planned his assassination. that's all i ask!

 

[And Step]

if you want be to believe it's established that J.Edgar PLANNED these assassinations, i need more than COINTELPRO indicates he wanted to foment division. i'm not disputing he did some underhanded shit, but i don't think this assassination stuff is as supported as we're claiming here.

[/quote]

I don't have to believe it. They admitted such.They wanted to do more than forment division. They called for neutralization and had many of their agents incite physical violence. They sent letters to Dr. King suggesting he kill himself before he was exposed. That's waaaaaaaay more than formenting division. They wanted him dead because he was speaking out against the war machine that Eisenhower had warned about that was taking over governmental affairs from a distance.

 

[janklow]

I don't have to believe it. They admitted such.They wanted to do more than forment division. They called for neutralization and had many of their agents incite physical violence. They sent letters to Dr. King suggesting he kill himself before he was exposed. That's waaaaaaaay more than formenting division. They wanted him dead because he was speaking out against the war machine that Eisenhower had warned about that was taking over governmental affairs from a distance.

wait, they admitted J.Edgar PLANNED ASSASSINATIONS? or they admitted some other shady shit that came out? because i think we're talking about the former here.

sending letters to MLK implying he should kill himself before being exposed? underhanded as fuck, but not an assassination plot.

 

[water ur seeds]

i only just found out now... the fact people suspected the government did it wasnt shocking, but the fact the courts have actually ruled they did it is crazy... shows how corrupt they are, if they did this, they are capable of anything...

i wouldnt wanna live in america after something this big, its disgraceful, took him away from his family for preaching peace...

although its not being proven in court (like his case) it means they almost certainly killed malcolm x...

 

[water ur seeds]

And it matters now why?

to show people (mostly older and middle aged people) who dismiss conspiracy theories against the government and believe what they and media say, that actually, the government are corrupt and capable of murdering someone they find a threat to their regime... and to also help find some closer for martin's family, so they can say to people without sounding crazy, that he was killed by government...

 

[jono]

Conspiracy theories....boy I tell ya.@Janklow pretty much said what I would say on this subject.

You certainly are going to have to prove that somebody in an official capacity either sent the shooter or shot him personally in order to come to this kind of decision.

The whole "MLK had enemies in the Federal government" argument is moot, MLK had enemies EVERYWHERE. Its not like he had to go far to find and enemy, nor is it likely that somebody HAD TO BE attached to the government and wanted to kill him. More than enough average rifle carrying joes were mad at King. Medgar Evers was shot in the back by one, not hard to see that average racists looking to take down an agitator happened. Sometime those average racists wore badges and its not difficult to say that some even were federal officers but to say that their official job was to eliminate MLK is a tough road to hoe.

Its a civil trial also, so its little more than a symbolic victory for conspiracy theorists anyway. The fed was guilty in the eyes of public opinion back when it happened, nothing has changed since then. I still haven't seen proof that anyone working in any official capacity had a hand in King's assassination.

 

[Plutarch]

Hopefully, this makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Basically, I’m saying that the fact/idea that Ray was scapegoated comes doesn’t come from my claim that Ray’s plea bargain doesn’t necessarily prove his guilt. The fact/ idea that Ray was scapegoated also doesn’t come from thin air or from some “given” fact that is arbitrarily established.

first, it's not a fact that Ray was scapegoated. whatever. second, what i'm saying is that you've come off as very dismissive of the fact that he could have plead guilty because he IS guilty. now, i get that you may really not believe he did it, and that's fine. but we should be considering the possibility that Ray shot MLK and/or that there wasn't a conspiracy.

Yes, you are right. I am inclined to think that there is a “conspiracy,” but it’s certainly possible that Ray acted alone and shot MLK, and I do consider that possibility; however, I just find that possibility improbable and flawed because of several legitimate reasons and because of new evidence that has recently surfaced. I think that we really should be considering the possibility of the “conspiracy” rather than the opposite because the opposite is already considered the official story. I’m the one with the burden of proof, and I think that I have been brought up some evidence that should be considered.

I think that I also need to clarify that I am not saying that the federal government killed MLK. I cannot know that for sure. What I am arguing for is the relatively likelihood that the federal government did have a hand in the assassination of MLK. And I think there is legitimate evidence to support that argument.

I don’t think that you ever answered my question(s) though: Do you think that it’s possible that the federal government had a hand in MLK’s death? To what extent do you think this possibility may be true, especially in light of old and new suggestive evidence?

2. Chill out, I was never, am not, and will not be outraged. Don’t take it so personal.

it may be possible that internet forum posts lose some nuance in translation, but this -"False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that. You're the one who seems to be making the rash and naive judgement that the Ray trial was an open and shut case for sure and that he did it for sure."- seems a little outraged to me. but maybe that's just how i take it.

Yeah, I think that I can see that. Just know that I’m not an emotional person. I don’t get mad or outraged, especially over the internet. I’m honestly a “cold” person, and I’m an asshole but a respectful asshole.

3. Of course you didn’t call it an “open and shut” case. But the quote below and some of your other claims made it seem to me like you implied as much. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bad.

well, damn, man, make up your mind!

No, I stand by what I said. It did seem like you were implying that. You just didn’t say it literally. But if you weren’t implying that, then I just misunderstood you. And if that’s the case, then I was wrong and that’s my bad.

One clarification: I have a belief but it’s not “set.” Anyways, so you are saying that people who commit crimes plead guilty. Ok. Doesn’t the fact that people who also don’t commit crimes plead guilty make the previous fact a little less relevant?

true, Ray pleading guilty does not mean that he did it. however, note that the article/thread has started from the position of "Ray's plea is bullshit." so i presume that argument's already out there, and your posting has seemed to go along with that. but yes, by itself his plea is not proof of guilt. it is not, however, proof of anything else.

True. Again, I think it’s possible that Ray did it all by his lonesome and that he is guilty, but I just find that less credible than the opposite claim.

I’m not sure I quite understand your last sentence, whether you’re saying that it’s possible that Ray might’ve not committed the crime or whether you’re saying that Ray might’ve committed the crime but possibly not as a lone actor.

let me restate: i am saying the idea of pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment is not something only Ray has done.

I’m assuming that you’re talking about pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment because you are, in fact, guilty? Ok, but I don’t see how that can be a strong argument for the case that Ray was guilty for sure, especially in light of other relevant facts.

No, not officially, but, as others have pointed out, there is some very incriminating evidence out there. Fred Hampton is probably the most exemplary case. And his murder was just the year after MLK’s own.

stop telling me that Fred Hampton was killed and start telling me what about it means that J. Edgar planned his assassination. that's all i ask!

I can’t give you the hard evidence that you’re probably asking for that will tell you for sure that Hoover planned MLK’s assassination. My intent was to show you that Hoover was not above being involved in terminating his enemies. Factual documents have proven this. Hampton is a prime example of this. And we all know how powerful Hoover was, and we all know how much he hated MLK, and we all should know that the very moment that MLK marched against the war was the very moment that he lost the greatest government ally and protection that he ever had in President Johnson. I’m not saying that Hoover directly ordered the assassination. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t be too dismissive of that idea.

 

[Plutarch]

I know that this wasn't directed at me, but I think that it applies to me, so I'm going to just add my two cents.

Conspiracy theories....boy I tell ya.@Janklow pretty much said what I would say on this subject.

Lol. I’m certainly no conspiracy theorist nutjob, but there can be a thin line between conspiracy theories and truths that just happen to be unimaginable and/or secretive. Some truths only become “official” truths decades later for whatever reason. I’m sure the Iran-Contra affair might’ve been a conspiracy theory at some point. I mean, is it really that far-fetched to think that the federal government (an entity that has historically been responsible for many assassinations even around the world) had a direct hand in the assassination of MLK? Really?

You certainly are going to have to prove that somebody in an official capacity either sent the shooter or shot him personally in order to come to this kind of decision.

Perhaps that proof will never come to light either because there is no such proof or because the truth is obscured and not cared for.

The whole "MLK had enemies in the Federal government" argument is moot, MLK had enemies EVERYWHERE. Its not like he had to go far to find and enemy, nor is it likely that somebody HAD TO BE attached to the government and wanted to kill him. More than enough average rifle carrying joes were mad at King. Medgar Evers was shot in the back by one, not hard to see that average racists looking to take down an agitator happened. Sometime those average racists wore badges and its not difficult to say that some even were federal officers but to say that their official job was to eliminate MLK is a tough road to hoe.

This is somewhat confusing. So you are saying that it is not difficult to say that federal agents might’ve been looking to deal with their enemies (like MLK) in the same way that Medgar Evers was? Isn’t that what I’m saying? I’m not exactly sure what “official job” is supposed to mean, but I’m NOT suggesting that federal agents had a mandate to directly kill MLK as if he was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. Though COINTELPRO makes you take a double take.

Its a civil trial also, so its little more than a symbolic victory for conspiracy theorists anyway. The fed was guilty in the eyes of public opinion back when it happened, nothing has changed since then. I still haven't seen proof that anyone working in any official capacity had a hand in King's assassination.

We’ll just have to patiently wait for more researchers, investigators, documentarians, retired agents, unclassified documents, etc.

 

[janklow]

goddamnit Plutarch, i posted that shit a month and a half ago, what the hell, man

I’m the one with the burden of proof, and I think that I have been brought up some evidence that should be considered.

short answer: i don't think it rises to the level that comes close to making me think it's a more reasonable explanation that the "official story." honestly, crazy dudes have assassinated guys throughout history for whatever reasons... only now, in modern times, we find that concept mysteriously hard to accept.

I don’t think that you ever answered my question(s) though: Do you think that it’s possible that the federal government had a hand in MLK’s death? To what extent do you think this possibility may be true, especially in light of old and new suggestive evidence?

i thought i did, but fuck it, here it goes again if i did:

a. anything's POSSIBLE

b. i don't think any "new suggestive evidence" means much. sorry, i am just unimpressed. and i really don't think the old evidence is going to suddenly sway me. what can i say, i have a sincere disbelief in internet conspiracy theories. it's not personal.

Yeah, I think that I can see that. Just know that I’m not an emotional person. I don’t get mad or outraged, especially over the internet. I’m honestly a “cold” person, and I’m an asshole but a respectful asshole.

i will be honest: since the nuances of speech don't translate easily, i just assume the worst of everyone's posts, but that said, i also don't give a shit (for the most part) once i'm out of the thread and reading something else. so it's whatever.

No, I stand by what I said. It did seem like you were implying that. You just didn’t say it literally. But if you weren’t implying that, then I just misunderstood you. And if that’s the case, then I was wrong and that’s my bad.

well... i can't even argue this point anymore because of the downtime

True. Again, I think it’s possible that Ray did it all by his lonesome and that he is guilty, but I just find that less credible than the opposite claim.

i think the thing to do is go back and look at when people are assassinated -politicians, civil rights figures, whatever- and look at cases where there's no real debate about conspiracies and you'll find it's totally credible that some guy could just shoot MLK with a rifle. obviously i cannot PROVE this using my home computer or anything.

I’m assuming that you’re talking about pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment because you are, in fact, guilty? Ok, but I don’t see how that can be a strong argument for the case that Ray was guilty for sure, especially in light of other relevant facts.

really, i'm just responding to the notion that the plea was somehow forced upon a man who would have NO REASON to plead.

I can’t give you the hard evidence that you’re probably asking for that will tell you for sure that Hoover planned MLK’s assassination.

actually, what i'm saying is two things:

01. lots of guys are basically saying the fact that Hoover was known to be underhanded means he was about assassinating dudes... yet there is no REAL EVIDENCE that Hoover was acting to have ANYONE assassinated. so really, what i am saying is, don't tell me the fact that Hoover was into dirty tricks proves he assassinated someone.

02. the hard evidence i actually am asking for is proof Hoover assassinated Fred Hampton since it keeps coming up.

...and see you in June with a response

 

[Plutarch]

goddamnit Plutarch, i posted that shit a month and a half ago, what the hell, man

Heh, that made me laugh so hard.

I’m the one with the burden of proof, and I think that I have been brought up some evidence that should be considered.

short answer: i don't think it rises to the level that comes close to making me think it's a more reasonable explanation that the "official story." honestly, crazy dudes have assassinated guys throughout history for whatever reasons... only now, in modern times, we find that concept mysteriously hard to accept.

Hm, ok. We just might have to agree to disagree then. But sooner or later I’ll look more into this and see if there is any stronger evidence that suggests anything other than the official story. Until then, meh.

I don’t think that you ever answered my question(s) though: Do you think that it’s possible that the federal government had a hand in MLK’s death? To what extent do you think this possibility may be true, especially in light of old and new suggestive evidence?

i thought i did, but fuck it, here it goes again if i did:

You might’ve. I just didn’t see it.

a. anything's POSSIBLE

Heh, sure…

b. i don't think any "new suggestive evidence" means much. sorry, i am just unimpressed. and i really don't think the old evidence is going to suddenly sway me. what can i say, i have a sincere disbelief in internet conspiracy theories. it's not personal.

Eh fair enough. But I don’t think that it’s just the internet. I’m willing to bet that there are more “scholarly” references that support this “conspiracy.” I think they would lend more credibility, but I don’t expect them to sway you, but I honestly don’t blame anyone who isn’t “swayed.”

Yeah, I think that I can see that. Just know that I’m not an emotional person. I don’t get mad or outraged, especially over the internet. I’m honestly a “cold” person, and I’m an asshole but a respectful asshole.

i will be honest: since the nuances of speech don't translate easily, i just assume the worst of everyone's posts, but that said, i also don't give a shit (for the most part) once i'm out of the thread and reading something else. so it's whatever.

Meh, I’m kind of the opposite. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when I see their posts, especially stupid people or people who seem to be stupid.

No, I stand by what I said. It did seem like you were implying that. You just didn’t say it literally. But if you weren’t implying that, then I just misunderstood you. And if that’s the case, then I was wrong and that’s my bad.

well... i can't even argue this point anymore because of the downtime

Ok, won’t get a complaint from me.

True. Again, I think it’s possible that Ray did it all by his lonesome and that he is guilty, but I just find that less credible than the opposite claim.

i think the thing to do is go back and look at when people are assassinated -politicians, civil rights figures, whatever- and look at cases where there's no real debate about conspiracies and you'll find it's totally credible that some guy could just shoot MLK with a rifle. obviously i cannot PROVE this using my home computer or anything.

At this time, I honestly can’t think of any occurrences when political figures have been assassinated and there has not been a debate about conspiracies. I’m not saying that all of those conspiracies are credible though, but I do think that some of them at least raise some relevant issues. It’s generally credible that Ray might’ve acted alone, and according to Occam’s razor, this conclusion is probably the most logical. I just believe that circumstantial evidence complicates this conclusion and offers support for a different conclusion. But definitive proof escapes me, so I know that I can’t say too much.

I’m assuming that you’re talking about pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment because you are, in fact, guilty? Ok, but I don’t see how that can be a strong argument for the case that Ray was guilty for sure, especially in light of other relevant facts.

really, i'm just responding to the notion that the plea was somehow forced upon a man who would have NO REASON to plead.

Ok, I think that I understand now. But I’m not sure that he had no reason. One reason might’ve been to avoid the death penalty. If he had not taken the plea bargain and instead had tried his luck against circumstantial evidence that he had said was based on his stupidity (Ray was not a smart man at all) and collusion, then he would’ve faced being electrocuted, and he would’ve died without having the chance to explain his side. For a variety of reasons, innocent men have claimed guilt in court.

I can’t give you the hard evidence that you’re probably asking for that will tell you for sure that Hoover planned MLK’s assassination.

actually, what i'm saying is two things:

01. lots of guys are basically saying the fact that Hoover was known to be underhanded means he was about assassinating dudes... yet there is no REAL EVIDENCE that Hoover was acting to have ANYONE assassinated. so really, what i am saying is, don't tell me the fact that Hoover was into dirty tricks proves he assassinated someone.

02. the hard evidence i actually am asking for is proof Hoover assassinated Fred Hampton since it keeps coming up.

Ok, I am going to have to backtrack on what I said about Hoover. I think that I can give you evidence that Hoover was dirty, but I can’t give you evidence that Hoover directly assassinated Hampton; however, I think that I can give you, at the least, circumstantial evidence that the FBI (who obviously was headed by Hoover) had a role in Hampton’s death. For instance, Kenneth O’Reilly’s "Racial Matters": The FBI's Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall’s The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent, Jeffrey Haas’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther, and Dan Berger’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther all speak on this issue. The FBI and an angry Chicago police force (who had previously lost a few men to gunfight with the Black Panthers) illegally raided Hampton’s home. An FBI informant (who later killed himself after realizing that he unknowingly participated in an FBI hit) drugged Hampton, and after the ensuing “gunfight” (basically all of the gunfire was committed by the police), he was purposely shot to death in his sleep. Activists, reporters, citizens, and even a police chemist all contested the “official” investigation of the raid after those who conducted the raid were cleared of any wrongdoing.

As with the family of MLK, the family of Hampton eventually received a settlement in a civil court case (because, again, the federal government will not indict itself in a federal court case) because of the obvious injustice that was done.

...and see you in June with a response

Lol, no I’m good. The school semester is winding down, so I have a bit more time on my hands.

 

[janklow]

Heh, that made me laugh so hard.

SUCCESS

Hm, ok. We just might have to agree to disagree then. But sooner or later I’ll look more into this and see if there is any stronger evidence that suggests anything other than the official story. Until then, meh.

well, look, fundamentally it's too contentious of an issue at this point for us to just, boom, completely agree. and we're only getting further away from the event and/or less dependent on actual hard evidence. so... this is where we are.

Eh fair enough. But I don’t think that it’s just the internet. I’m willing to bet that there are more “scholarly” references that support this “conspiracy.” I think they would lend more credibility, but I don’t expect them to sway you, but I honestly don’t blame anyone who isn’t “swayed.”

i think what you're going to find as you get more scholarly is stuff like "the government's attitude contributed to an atmosphere that allowed it to happen blah blah blah" or "...well, anything's POSSIBLE." honestly, that's why i kind of have an issue with this stuff, because rather than just simply debating the topic, they're trying to Make A Point by convicting someone of SOMETHING.

Meh, I’m kind of the opposite. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when I see their posts, especially stupid people or people who seem to be stupid.

as someone who has been moderating this forum LITERALLY FOREVER, i am just the saltiest dude and i assume the worst of every damn poster on this godforsaken forum

At this time, I honestly can’t think of any occurrences when political figures have been assassinated and there has not been a debate about conspiracies.

i'm thinking guys like Garfield and McKinley, for example. i may be simplifying it a little because in a lot of cases there's probably some random dude throwing out a conspiracy, but i think before the 1960s it wasn't such a big deal. although i guess there's a little Harding drama, so i don't know.

Ok, I think that I understand now. But I’m not sure that he had no reason. One reason might’ve been to avoid the death penalty. If he had not taken the plea bargain and instead had tried his luck against circumstantial evidence that he had said was based on his stupidity (Ray was not a smart man at all) and collusion, then he would’ve faced being electrocuted, and he would’ve died without having the chance to explain his side. For a variety of reasons, innocent men have claimed guilt in court.

honestly? i think this is a lot of work to explain away that plea... but then i also think he did it, so, you know, bias ahoy.

Ok, I am going to have to backtrack on what I said about Hoover. I think that I can give you evidence that Hoover was dirty, but I can’t give you evidence that Hoover directly assassinated Hampton; however, I think that I can give you, at the least, circumstantial evidence that the FBI (who obviously was headed by Hoover) had a role in Hampton’s death. For instance, Kenneth O’Reilly’s "Racial Matters": The FBI's Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall’s The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent, Jeffrey Haas’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther, and Dan Berger’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther all speak on this issue. The FBI and an angry Chicago police force (who had previously lost a few men to gunfight with the Black Panthers) illegally raided Hampton’s home. An FBI informant (who later killed himself after realizing that he unknowingly participated in an FBI hit) drugged Hampton, and after the ensuing “gunfight” (basically all of the gunfire was committed by the police), he was purposely shot to death in his sleep. Activists, reporters, citizens, and even a police chemist all contested the “official” investigation of the raid after those who conducted the raid were cleared of any wrongdoing.

okay, let me just elaborate on what i believe (because there's some overlap):

the raid? probably more "bullshit" than "illegal," but okay, i agree it was done at the very least with the intent to fuck over Hampton/Chicago Panthers/whoever.

FBI had some connection to the situation through an informant? sure, true. and i think you can, again, take the position that they didn't work to resolve things peacefully. but honestly, i DO distinguish between "being assholes that don't make things better" and "assassination plot."

intentionally shot to death? i believe it. but i think it was a Chicago cop (i think this is the agreed-upon shooter) doing it because they thought it should be done. you've mentioned that they had past run-ins with the Panthers and i think we all KNOW they have some serious shit in their history over the years. so i don't see a larger conspiracy in some officer shooting Hampton.

also, i THOUGHT the reason they got money from the civil suit was because they didn't just sue the federal government, but also the city and state.

Lol, no I’m good. The school semester is winding down, so I have a bit more time on my hands.

whaaat