CNN and MSNBC stirring racial unrest in Ferguson, MO.
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
All across this country, black Americans get fair trials everyday. Probably at the same rate white Americans or Hispanics or any other ethnic group gets a fair trial. Somehow, the misperception continues that minorities "never" get a fair trial. What baloney. This is the kind of ignorance that perpetuates mythmaking.
The other side of the shooting incident will emerge:
Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News
Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News
They want to convict the white cop either way because it is politically correct. Not sure they will be successful. You will know when they are serious when they start actually addressing blacks killing blacks. Not expecting it any time soon because again, not a politically correct thing to do.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
There's a very good reason (several actually) that Jim Hoft of gatewaypundit.com is known as "The Stupidest Man On The Internet" ...
And it sure isn't that he thoroughly vets his "sources", is always accurate, and has never published stuff that was completely wrong and inaccurate ...
But keep on drinkin' the sauce if it makes ya feel good ... lol ...
Cop confronts and bullies a guy, cop get way more than he bargained for. Cop is forced to shoot guy, six times. That's newsworthy.
Mike Brown was fond of grabbing people near the neck. Here, he throws a store clerk around like a rag doll. Minutes later, Brown was dead.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-michael-brown-robbing-store-before-shooting/
Was Michael Brown a bully?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-michael-brown-robbing-store-before-shooting/
Was Michael Brown a bully?
Last edited:
No, not at all. Poor unfortunate victims of society can NEVER be bullies. Those rabid animal thugs who be the crap of that white guy in Detroit were good people too. Beatings like that are not worthy of any real outrage, unless it was a mob of white guys beating up an older black man. THEN, and ONLY then, would the stuff hit the fan. I am surprised Holder/Obama did not place blame the the guy driving the pick up truck. After all, the kid he hit DELIBERATELY ran out in front of his truck in a "chicken" type game.
There is no proof that the cop "bullied" anyone, unless telling two guys to get out of the middle of the street is now defined as bullying. It's reasonable to think most any cop in the country would have done the same thing; most towns don't allow people to walk down the middle of streets that have regular auto traffic. Also, there is no evidence that the cop used profanity when he told these two guys to get out of the street. There is no proof that the cop hit Brown with his car door. All of the above is speculation and rumor. However, there is visual proof that Brown had committed a robbery of a convenience store along with assault and battery of the store's clerk. Keep in mind, this is not simple shoplifting; that's why they call it "strong-armed" robbery. There's something abnormal about the mindset of someone - regardless of age - that thinks he's entitled to come into a store and take whatever he wants without paying for it, then physically assault the diminutive clerk that objects. Considering all of the above, Brown deserved to have been arrested, taken to jail and tried in court.
The idea that the cop "got way more than he bargained for" is simply absurd. What he's supposed to get is cooperation, and anyone who thinks otherwise must be mentally impaired or just looking for trouble. Fact: during a police stop, the cop holds all the cards - period. At that point in time it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. When Brown decided to get physical with the cop he was immediately guilty of a felony according to MO law.
This is not to say all cops are always right all the time - there are plenty of bad ones. But when it comes to something like a simple traffic stop, play the game and then settle your grievances in court.
I?m a cop. If you don?t want to get hurt, don?t challenge me. - The Washington Post
One last thought: the idea of cops having to wear body cams with audio/video and be required to have them on any time they deal with a civilian has a lot of merit.
Yep, body cams and dash cams in all police depts. It will be an additional and effective tool in a criminal investigation. There will be less incidents of erroneous claims of police misconduct, and it will also document wrong doing by a possible bad apple in a dept. Additionally, it might sometimes deter said bad apples from committing wrong doing because they are monitored more closely.
Here's another thought regarding the shooting and Brown's wounds that were identified in the recent autopsy release by Dr. Baden. Assuming that Brown was surrendering with his hands up in the air, how did Wilson - who was supposedly hell-bent on killing him - manage to shoot him four times in the right arm (being held up in the air) but not a single hit on the torso? Any type of fundamental self-defense training using a deadly weapon stresses targeting the center mass, or torso/chest area. This didn't happen with the Brown shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
Likely, Officer Wilson just had one side of his face crushed in with an orbital blowout of an eye socket. There are reports Officer Wilson was nearly beaten unconcious. All of this happening just seconds before the fatal shooting. Dazed and working with only one good eye, Officer Wilson still managed to survive the attack.
All I'm doing is speculating, mainly speculating the other side of the assumptions, just for the hell of it, and to see who gets the most bent out of shape. No, there's no proof the cop bullied anyone, but there's also no proof that he didn't. A lot of people have been interviewed who have said the cops routinely bully residents in Ferguson, tho, not so much physically, but verbally. No, there's no proof that the cop hit Brown with his car door, but there's also no proof that he didn't. While there is no proof that the cop used profanity, there is actually evidence that he did. Proof and evidence aren't necessarily interchangeable. As far as the street, it's a residential street that doesn't get a lot of traffic.
It's fun to speculate. Gets people all worked up. And that's hilarious.
99% of every post in this thread is speculation and rumor.
The problem is, the robbery had nothing to do with the shooting and whatever took place at that time. To draw any kind of correlation would be prejudicial .Brown certainly deserved to be arrested and tried for the robbery, but I guarantee you it wouldn't be allowed to be presented at trial, because one doesn't have anything to do with the other, and those who think it does can't be an objective juror. Also, for all I know, the store clerk and Brown have a history and the store clerk owes Brown money because the store clerk refused to pay Brown for mowing his yard three weeks ago. The store clerk may have stolen Brown's girlfriend. The store clerk may have called him something more often associated with a cat, or a willow.
It's fun to speculate. Gets people all worked up. And that's hilarious.
The robbery should be allowed at trial, if there is one. The officer reportedly heard the dispatch call of a robbery with a description, and surmised shortly after that the two were the suspects. It was the basis for the officer backing his car up to them after the initial jaywalking encounter. It's ludicrous to think the robbery,or whatever some want to call it, isn't relevant and shouldn't be admissible in a potential trial.
Ludicrous or not, it would have to be shown that it was relevant before it could be introduced. The officer would have to testify that he heard the report over the radio and made a connection. Otherwise, legally, it's prejudicial and wouldn't be allowed at a trial, and if it were allowed, the verdict, whichever way it went, would be overturned on appeal.
If Officer Wilson was injured by Brown prior to shooting him, why didn't the authorities see fit to mention that in their numerous press conferences? It would be a legitimate provocation for self defense, why keep it quiet when people are clearly boiling with anger?
And even if it is proven that Wilson had good reason to shoot, there can be no defense at all for leaving the victim's body lying in the middle of the street, uncovered, for hours, as his family members were kept outside the yellow tape. That is just unacceptable.
The body stays exactly where it fell until the initial on-site investigation is complete and the police and coroner are satisfied. Having a screaming and menacing throng of people distracting the investigators undoubtedly prolonged the investigative process. It takes as long as it takes to be thorough. Emotionalism hinders every step of the protocols which must be followed. There was no way to make this pretty.
The chief of police did mention it publicly on AUGUST 13th.
Chief: Officer in fatal shooting sustained facial injuries | KMOV.com St. Louis
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GA0Q420140813?irpc=932
Last edited: