Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

it distorts your interpretation of the truth.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

it distorts your interpretation of the truth.

 

[timschochet]

So if people are discontent with Obama, it should be a reasonable expression to draw him as Hitler?

that would be shameful. This is not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

Only if you wrongly assume that it's being done in reference to Michael Brown and Michael Brown only, which is obviously not the case. There is a difference between a gesture's origin and its meaning.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

it distorts your interpretation of the truth.

You are impossible. You know damn well that did not happen, and yet you defend it. Pathetic.

 

[squistion]

The Hands Up gesture is far worse than the Death Panels rhetoric.

What a profound analogy. And surprising that no has made the connection between the Michael Brown's shooting and Obamacare before this. If we are lucky maybe Sarah Palin will also way in on the subject.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

Only if you wrongly assume that it's being done in reference to Michael Brown and Michael Brown only, which is obviously not the case. There is a difference between a gesture's origin and its meaning.

I don't see how any reasonable person can separate the two. Again, you know damn well the origination of why the are using it and what it implies to everyone.

 

[jon_mx]

The Hands Up gesture is far worse than the Death Panels rhetoric.

What a profound analogy. And surprising that no has made the connection between the Michael Brown's shooting and Obamacare before this. If we are lucky maybe Sarah Palin will also way in on the subject.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

it distorts your interpretation of the truth.

You are impossible. You know damn well that did not happen, and yet you defend it. Pathetic.

I don't believe it happened in this case. I don't know for sure. Just as I don't know for sure that Brown didn't charge. I wasn't there. But as Tobias correctly points out, the symbol takes on a larger meaning.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

it distorts your interpretation of the truth.

You are impossible. You know damn well that did not happen, and yet you defend it. Pathetic.

I don't believe it happened in this case. I don't know for sure. Just as I don't know for sure that Brown didn't charge. I wasn't there.But as Tobias correctly points out, the symbol takes on a larger meaning.

It is hateful divisive rhetoric based on a falsehood which only serves to divide people more.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

Only if you wrongly assume that it's being done in reference to Michael Brown and Michael Brown only, which is obviously not the case. There is a difference between a gesture's origin and its meaning.

I don't see how any reasonable person can separate the two. Again, you know damn well the origination of why the are using it and what it implies to everyone.

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

Only if you wrongly assume that it's being done in reference to Michael Brown and Michael Brown only, which is obviously not the case. There is a difference between a gesture's origin and its meaning.

I don't see how any reasonable person can separate the two. Again, you know damn well the origination of why the are using it and what it implies to everyone.

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

The reason stated was that they were showing solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson. The way the cops see the message is they are being flipped off no matter what kind of nice spin you put on it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

Only if you wrongly assume that it's being done in reference to Michael Brown and Michael Brown only, which is obviously not the case. There is a difference between a gesture's origin and its meaning.

I don't see how any reasonable person can separate the two. Again, you know damn well the origination of why the are using it and what it implies to everyone.

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

What about all the protestors holding up Hands up don't shoot, #justiceformikebrown posters? Are they just doing big picture protests?

 

[TobiasFunke]

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

The reason stated was that they were showing solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson. The way the cops see the message is they are being flipped off no matter what kind of nice spin you put on it.

From the Vice article:

What Roorda doesn't get—or perhaps chooses to ignore—is that this is about far more than Mike Brown. It should be obvious to anyone who has shown even a passive interest: The 114 days of consecutive protests going on across America are far broader in scope than any one case. The protests are also about Eric Garner, who was choked to death after committing the crime of informing police that they were trying to arrest the wrong man. The protests are about John Crawford, who was killed for committing the crime of shopping while black in a white neighborhood. The protests are about Ezell Ford and Tanisha Anderson, whose crimes were being mentally ill in America. The protests are about Levar Jones, whose crime was too promptly doing exactly what an officer asked him to do. The protests are about whether or not 12-year old Tamir Rice can play with a toy in the park without being summarily executed by the police who lie about the circumstances of his killing, and then have the media aid them in smearing his memory. The protests are about Darrien Hunt and Akai Gurley. The protests are about far too many people to list here.

From the feminist blog:

With their hands up, the protesters reclaim a space for mobility for Michael Brown, for Trayvon Martin, for Eric Garner, for John Crawford, for Renisha McBride, for Yvette Smith, for Tarika Wilson and for all those named and unnamed black men and women who, in one way or another, raised their hands up and said ———.

And the tweet I linked:

Whether Michael Brown had his hands up or not, it can remain a symbolic gesture. The message being, "stop shooting unarmed black men jerks."

All three explicitly refute the idea that the gesture is one of protest of Brown's shooting only.

The gesture is literally the most passive thing someone can do while on their feet. If cops interpret that as being "flipped off" that's their problem, and a pretty big problem at that.

 

[kentric]

That long article correctly asks the question why we should trust witness. 10 and not the other witnesses who conflict with his testimony, some of whom were quite consistent, despite the claims of many people here. Unfortunately , the article never answers the question. Neither did the prosecutor. What makes this guy more credible than the others? No answer. What makes the other consistent witnesses less credible? No answer.

Until some compelling reason is provided, I will continue to conclude that the main reason people believe Wilson and this witnesses over the others is that they want to.

Seems like the GJ is in by far the best position to judge the witnesses. Do you think they are all in on the conspiracy or just incompetent? Why would someone that trusts the judgement of the GJ be more biased than someone who read a few articles summarizing what they saw and heard?

Umm, you may have the wrong guy here. I agreed with the Grand Jury's decision. I've never written anything else. The correct decision was not to indict, based on the evidence given. This case should never have gone to trial. It was the just outcome.

I don't believe in conspiracies as a general rule.

Yup. Tim's whole schtick is that it made no sense for Brown to charge and therefore Wilson is likely lying.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

The reason stated was that they were showing solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson. The way the cops see the message is they are being flipped off no matter what kind of nice spin you put on it.

From the Vice article:

What Roorda doesn't get—or perhaps chooses to ignore—is that this is about far more than Mike Brown. It should be obvious to anyone who has shown even a passive interest: The 114 days of consecutive protests going on across America are far broader in scope than any one case. The protests are also about Eric Garner, who was choked to death after committing the crime of informing police that they were trying to arrest the wrong man. The protests are about John Crawford, who was killed for committing the crime of shopping while black in a white neighborhood. The protests are about Ezell Ford and Tanisha Anderson, whose crimes were being mentally ill in America. The protests are about Levar Jones, whose crime was too promptly doing exactly what an officer asked him to do. The protests are about whether or not 12-year old Tamir Rice can play with a toy in the park without being summarily executed by the police who lie about the circumstances of his killing, and then have the media aid them in smearing his memory. The protests are about Darrien Hunt and Akai Gurley. The protests are about far too many people to list here.

From the feminist blog:

With their hands up, the protesters reclaim a space for mobility for Michael Brown, for Trayvon Martin, for Eric Garner, for John Crawford, for Renisha McBride, for Yvette Smith, for Tarika Wilson and for all those named and unnamed black men and women who, in one way or another, raised their hands up and said ———.

And the tweet I linked:

Whether Michael Brown had his hands up or not, it can remain a symbolic gesture. The message being, "stop shooting unarmed black men jerks."

All three explicitly refute the idea that the gesture is one of protest of Brown's shooting only.

The gesture is literally the most passive thing someone can do while on their feet. If cops interpret that as being "flipped off" that's their problem, and a pretty big problem at that.

It's a gesture born out of a lie. I know facts can be pretty inconvenient though. Of course say something enough times and people will believe it.

What's the ongoing symbolism of shutting down businesses and blocking roadways?

 

[TobiasFunke]

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

The reason stated was that they were showing solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson. The way the cops see the message is they are being flipped off no matter what kind of nice spin you put on it.

From the Vice article:

What Roorda doesn't get—or perhaps chooses to ignore—is that this is about far more than Mike Brown. It should be obvious to anyone who has shown even a passive interest: The 114 days of consecutive protests going on across America are far broader in scope than any one case. The protests are also about Eric Garner, who was choked to death after committing the crime of informing police that they were trying to arrest the wrong man. The protests are about John Crawford, who was killed for committing the crime of shopping while black in a white neighborhood. The protests are about Ezell Ford and Tanisha Anderson, whose crimes were being mentally ill in America. The protests are about Levar Jones, whose crime was too promptly doing exactly what an officer asked him to do. The protests are about whether or not 12-year old Tamir Rice can play with a toy in the park without being summarily executed by the police who lie about the circumstances of his killing, and then have the media aid them in smearing his memory. The protests are about Darrien Hunt and Akai Gurley. The protests are about far too many people to list here.

From the feminist blog:

With their hands up, the protesters reclaim a space for mobility for Michael Brown, for Trayvon Martin, for Eric Garner, for John Crawford, for Renisha McBride, for Yvette Smith, for Tarika Wilson and for all those named and unnamed black men and women who, in one way or another, raised their hands up and said ———.

And the tweet I linked:

Whether Michael Brown had his hands up or not, it can remain a symbolic gesture. The message being, "stop shooting unarmed black men jerks."

All three explicitly refute the idea that the gesture is one of protest of Brown's shooting only.

The gesture is literally the most passive thing someone can do while on their feet. If cops interpret that as being "flipped off" that's their problem, and a pretty big problem at that.

It's a gesture born out of a lie. I know facts can be pretty inconvenient though. Of course say something enough times and people will believe it.

What's the ongoing symbolism of shutting down businesses and blocking roadways?

Who cares what a gesture is "born out of"? Why does it matter? All that matters is what meaning it takes on as events unfold and its use becomes widespread. When people knock on wood do people get outraged at the nod towards paganism from which the gesture originated? When someone flashes a peace sign, does anyone point out that the gesture originally came from the semaphore symbols for N and D for Nuclear Disarmament and that therefore flashing it means you support banning all nuclear weapons? Do people throw fits when kids at heavy metal shows throw up devil horns because they think it means the kids are supporting satanism and the occult? Actually, I guess maybe some people do get upset about that one. Those people are oversensitive, overly literal idiots.

 

[jon_mx]

The spin is getting way too deep.

 

[rick6668]

Updated Chart

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1499/4375/original.jpg

 

[St. Louis Bob]

These are two different things. That's the whole point. I bet if you ask the Rams or the protestors or others who do this what they mean by the gesture, the overwhelming majority would say that they're protesting the treatment of black people who present no threat by law enforcement, not that they're protesting the treatment of Mike Brown specifically.

I've seen many comments and columns from people who support the protestors that say this. Here's some examples. I've never seen one that says it's only about Michael Brown. The only people who construe it that way are the people who are looking to condemn it.

The reason stated was that they were showing solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson. The way the cops see the message is they are being flipped off no matter what kind of nice spin you put on it.

From the Vice article:

What Roorda doesn't get—or perhaps chooses to ignore—is that this is about far more than Mike Brown. It should be obvious to anyone who has shown even a passive interest: The 114 days of consecutive protests going on across America are far broader in scope than any one case. The protests are also about Eric Garner, who was choked to death after committing the crime of informing police that they were trying to arrest the wrong man. The protests are about John Crawford, who was killed for committing the crime of shopping while black in a white neighborhood. The protests are about Ezell Ford and Tanisha Anderson, whose crimes were being mentally ill in America. The protests are about Levar Jones, whose crime was too promptly doing exactly what an officer asked him to do. The protests are about whether or not 12-year old Tamir Rice can play with a toy in the park without being summarily executed by the police who lie about the circumstances of his killing, and then have the media aid them in smearing his memory. The protests are about Darrien Hunt and Akai Gurley. The protests are about far too many people to list here.

From the feminist blog:

With their hands up, the protesters reclaim a space for mobility for Michael Brown, for Trayvon Martin, for Eric Garner, for John Crawford, for Renisha McBride, for Yvette Smith, for Tarika Wilson and for all those named and unnamed black men and women who, in one way or another, raised their hands up and said ———.

And the tweet I linked:

Whether Michael Brown had his hands up or not, it can remain a symbolic gesture. The message being, "stop shooting unarmed black men jerks."

All three explicitly refute the idea that the gesture is one of protest of Brown's shooting only.

The gesture is literally the most passive thing someone can do while on their feet. If cops interpret that as being "flipped off" that's their problem, and a pretty big problem at that.

It's a gesture born out of a lie. I know facts can be pretty inconvenient though. Of course say something enough times and people will believe it.

What's the ongoing symbolism of shutting down businesses and blocking roadways?

Who cares what a gesture is "born out of"? Why does it matter? All that matters is what meaning it takes on as events unfold and its use becomes widespread. When people knock on wood do people get outraged at the nod towards paganism from which the gesture originated? When someone flashes a peace sign, does anyone point out that the gesture originally came from the semaphore symbols for N and D for Nuclear Disarmament and that therefore flashing it means you support banning all nuclear weapons? Do people throw fits when kids at heavy metal shows throw up devil horns because they think it means the kids are supporting satanism and the occult? Actually, I guess maybe some people do get upset about that one. Those people are oversensitive, overly literal idiots.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[timschochet]

I think that anyone with a Christmas tree in their house is offending Christianity. It's shameful, a lie that had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

 

[Jackstraw]

Criming while white trending.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/12/03/criming-while-white-twitter-/19866725/

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who cares what a gesture is "born out of"? Why does it matter? All that matters is what meaning it takes on as events unfold and its use becomes widespread. When people knock on wood do people get outraged at the nod towards paganism from which the gesture originated? When someone flashes a peace sign, does anyone point out that the gesture originally came from the semaphore symbols for N and D for Nuclear Disarmament and that therefore flashing it means you support banning all nuclear weapons? Do people throw fits when kids at heavy metal shows throw up devil horns because they think it means the kids are supporting satanism and the occult? Actually, I guess maybe some people do get upset about that one. Those people are oversensitive, overly literal idiots.

Wow. Just wow.

Strong counterpoint.

Well, let's all hope that law enforcement is somehow able to recover from the enormous burden of having to see lots of people with their hands raised in peaceful protest. I can't even fathom the courage they must have to summon every day to get out of bed and go to work knowing they will face such an unspeakable horror.

 

[Jim11]

Criming while white trending.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/12/03/criming-while-white-twitter-/19866725/

Let all the whites on a guilt trip have their say.

 

[Parrothead]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

 

[Henry Ford]

Updated Chart

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1499/4375/original.jpg

So... 14 of the 18 witnesses who commented on it state that Brown put his hands at least "halfway" up while being shot? And the four who didn't say that were:

1. Wilson

2. Witness #10, who claims that only 7-8 shots were fired (3/4 of the number definitely fired based solely on shell casings)

3. Witness #40 (a written, unauthenticated document with no supporting testimony)

4. Witness #30, who claimed that Brown was shot in the leg while running away (he wasn't) and that Brown had a gun.

And - just to check - wound #2 went through "back to front"?

 

[squistion]

I think that anyone with a Christmas tree in their house is offending Christianity. It's shameful, a lie that had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Indeed.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

 

[johnnycakes]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOU3l9qZ6rg

 

[Todem]

The entire origin of the gesture "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was born out of lying witness's and an over zealous viral media blitzkrieg. Proven by scientific fact not to be true.

Yet people are looking to this as a symbol of solidarity? Yet I still hear people spewing he was shot from a ridiculous 150 feet away with a pistol!!!!! LOL!!!!

Choose a new symbol. Because the birth of this one was born from an outright proven lie. Find a different case...because this was not the one to protest.

That is the point of those offended by it. It is a pure farce of how it came to be. A total lie and disrespect to a police officer who acted in the line of duty and was put into a position of little choice but to fire his weapon. Proven through his story being consistent with a few key eye witness's and by the overwhelming forensic evidence which lined up his story even better.

Hands up Don't Shoot is a mantra based on a lie spawned by over zealous, inconsistent , proven lying witness's and the hot bed lava spill of a viral media fire storm immediately following this shooting.

This thread for me....is done. There was some decent discussion but mostly some insane trolling and outright hatred in here and some of the most ignorant thinking (and complete lack of common sense and blindness) I think I ever read on this forum.

 

[Henry Ford]

The entire origin of the gesture "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was born out of lying witness's and an over zealous viral media blitzkrieg. Proven by scientific fact not to be true.

Yet people are looking to this as a symbol of solidarity? Yet I still hear people spewing he was shot from a ridiculous 150 feet away with a pistol!!!!! LOL!!!!

Choose a new symbol. Because the birth of this one was born from an outright proven lie. Find a different case...because this was not the one to protest.

That is the point of those offended by it. It is a pure farce of how it came to be. A total lie and disrespect to a police officer who acted in the line of duty and was put into a position of little choice but to fire his weapon. Proven through his story being consistent with a few key eye witness's and by the overwhelming forensic evidence which lined up his story even better.

Hands up Don't Shoot is a mantra based on a lie spawned by over zealous, inconsistent , proven lying witness's and the hot bed lava spill of a viral media fire storm immediately following this shooting.

This thread for me....is done. There was some decent discussion but mostly some insane trolling and outright hatred in here and some of the most ignorant thinking (and complete lack of common sense and blindness) I think I ever read on this forum.

I'm glad you came back to let us know. We would have gotten worried.

 

[TobiasFunke]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

It started with the Brown narrative and quickly grew to be a general symbol of peaceful resistance/excessive use of force by the police where it's not called for, thanks to images like this.

For the life of me I can't figure out why people have a problem with it. Even if the notion that Brown had his hands up was later proven to be untrue (which would be a liberal use of the word "proven"), what would you expect people to do? Collectively decide months later that the chosen gesture of protest is no longer appropriate and choose another one instead? That's silly. Who gives a #### where it originally came from? As I showed several posts ago through multiple links and text lifted from those links, it obviously came to signify much more than just anger about the Brown shooting.

 

[whiskey7]

Updated Chart

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1499/4375/original.jpg

So... 14 of the 18 witnesses who commented on it state that Brown put his hands at least "halfway" up while being shot? And the four who didn't say that were:

1. Wilson

2. Witness #10, who claims that only 7-8 shots were fired (3/4 of the number definitely fired based solely on shell casings)

3. Witness #40 (a written, unauthenticated document with no supporting testimony)

4. Witness #30, who claimed that Brown was shot in the leg while running away (he wasn't) and that Brown had a gun.

And - just to check - wound #2 went through "back to front"?

So, if the witnesses who testified favorably to Brown were not credible and the witnesses who testified more favorably to Wilson are not credible, then we really have no credible witnesses, right? In that case, do you go with those deemed most credible (as was the case) or just toss the whole thing since no one can be believed? In either case, what changes?

 

[Henry Ford]

Updated Chart

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1499/4375/original.jpg

So... 14 of the 18 witnesses who commented on it state that Brown put his hands at least "halfway" up while being shot? And the four who didn't say that were:

1. Wilson

2. Witness #10, who claims that only 7-8 shots were fired (3/4 of the number definitely fired based solely on shell casings)

3. Witness #40 (a written, unauthenticated document with no supporting testimony)

4. Witness #30, who claimed that Brown was shot in the leg while running away (he wasn't) and that Brown had a gun.

And - just to check - wound #2 went through "back to front"?

So, if the witnesses who testified favorably to Brown were not credible and the witnesses who testified more favorably to Wilso are not credible, then we really have no credible witnesses, right? In that case, do you go with those deemed most credible (as was the case) or just toss the whole thing since no one can be believed?

Do you always limit your choices to two?

 

[jon_mx]

I think that anyone with a Christmas tree in their house is offending Christianity. It's shameful, a lie that had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Indeed.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

The analogy made zero sense when Tim posted it and still makes no sense. Does the Christmas tree somehow imply that Christ went around shooting innocent people?

 

[Todem]

The entire origin of the gesture "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was born out of lying witness's and an over zealous viral media blitzkrieg. Proven by scientific fact not to be true.

Yet people are looking to this as a symbol of solidarity? Yet I still hear people spewing he was shot from a ridiculous 150 feet away with a pistol!!!!! LOL!!!!

Choose a new symbol. Because the birth of this one was born from an outright proven lie. Find a different case...because this was not the one to protest.

That is the point of those offended by it. It is a pure farce of how it came to be. A total lie and disrespect to a police officer who acted in the line of duty and was put into a position of little choice but to fire his weapon. Proven through his story being consistent with a few key eye witness's and by the overwhelming forensic evidence which lined up his story even better.

Hands up Don't Shoot is a mantra based on a lie spawned by over zealous, inconsistent , proven lying witness's and the hot bed lava spill of a viral media fire storm immediately following this shooting.

This thread for me....is done. There was some decent discussion but mostly some insane trolling and outright hatred in here and some of the most ignorant thinking (and complete lack of common sense and blindness) I think I ever read on this forum.

I'm glad you came back to let us know. We would have gotten worried.

You wear the term ##### bag quite well Henry.

Typical extreme left wing #####. Hug that tree for me too Henry. All respect out the window not that you had an ounce for me to begin with.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

It started with the Brown narrative and quickly grew to be a general symbol of peaceful resistance/excessive use of force by the police where it's not called for, thanks to images like this.

For the life of me I can't figure out why people have a problem with it. Even if the notion that Brown had his hands up was later proven to be untrue (which would be a liberal use of the word "proven"), what would you expect people to do? Collectively decide months later that the chosen gesture of protest is no longer appropriate and choose another one instead? That's silly. Who gives a #### where it originally came from? As I showed several posts ago through multiple links and text lifted from those links, it obviously came to signify much more than just anger about the Brown shooting.

Skip to 1:15 mark for the true origin of 'Hands Up'.

 

[Parrothead]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

It started with the Brown narrative and quickly grew to be a general symbol of peaceful resistance/excessive use of force by the police where it's not called for, thanks to images like this.

For the life of me I can't figure out why people have a problem with it. Even if the notion that Brown had his hands up was later proven to be untrue (which would be a liberal use of the word "proven"), what would you expect people to do? Collectively decide months later that the chosen gesture of protest is no longer appropriate and choose another one instead? That's silly. Who gives a #### where it originally came from? As I showed several posts ago through multiple links and text lifted from those links, it obviously came to signify much more than just anger about the Brown shooting.

Skip to 1:15 mark for the true origin of 'Hands Up'.

Hands Up Don't Rape

 

[Todem]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

It started with the Brown narrative and quickly grew to be a general symbol of peaceful resistance/excessive use of force by the police where it's not called for, thanks to images like this.

For the life of me I can't figure out why people have a problem with it. Even if the notion that Brown had his hands up was later proven to be untrue (which would be a liberal use of the word "proven"), what would you expect people to do? Collectively decide months later that the chosen gesture of protest is no longer appropriate and choose another one instead? That's silly. Who gives a #### where it originally came from? As I showed several posts ago through multiple links and text lifted from those links, it obviously came to signify much more than just anger about the Brown shooting.

Skip to 1:15 mark for the true origin of 'Hands Up'.

LMFAO......gotta love some comic relief. Much needed.

 

[whiskey7]

Updated Chart

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1499/4375/original.jpg

So... 14 of the 18 witnesses who commented on it state that Brown put his hands at least "halfway" up while being shot? And the four who didn't say that were:

1. Wilson

2. Witness #10, who claims that only 7-8 shots were fired (3/4 of the number definitely fired based solely on shell casings)

3. Witness #40 (a written, unauthenticated document with no supporting testimony)

4. Witness #30, who claimed that Brown was shot in the leg while running away (he wasn't) and that Brown had a gun.

And - just to check - wound #2 went through "back to front"?

So, if the witnesses who testified favorably to Brown were not credible and the witnesses who testified more favorably to Wilso are not credible, then we really have no credible witnesses, right? In that case, do you go with those deemed most credible (as was the case) or just toss the whole thing since no one can be believed?

Do you always limit your choices to two?

No, not always. In this case I did (in part) because I am admittedly unaware of all the legal options but also in part because (if there are no credible witnesses) how many of the normal options are valid and does anything change?

 

[jon_mx]

A more appropriate analogy for the Hands Uo would be the display of the confederate flag. You can give all sorts of rationalization for it, but in reality to a lot of people it means pro-slavery.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOU3l9qZ6rg

Damn, that's bad.

 

[SIDA!]

Updated Chart

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1499/4375/original.jpg

And - just to check - wound #2 went through "back to front"?

Yes. It went through the back/top side of the forearm and exited on the inside. Something that would never happen if a suspect had his hands up and surrendering. However, it is consistent with a motion that arm makes while running/jogging.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The entire origin of the gesture "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was born out of lying witness's and an over zealous viral media blitzkrieg. Proven by scientific fact not to be true.

Yet people are looking to this as a symbol of solidarity? Yet I still hear people spewing he was shot from a ridiculous 150 feet away with a pistol!!!!! LOL!!!!

Choose a new symbol. Because the birth of this one was born from an outright proven lie. Find a different case...because this was not the one to protest.

That is the point of those offended by it. It is a pure farce of how it came to be. A total lie and disrespect to a police officer who acted in the line of duty and was put into a position of little choice but to fire his weapon. Proven through his story being consistent with a few key eye witness's and by the overwhelming forensic evidence which lined up his story even better.

Hands up Don't Shoot is a mantra based on a lie spawned by over zealous, inconsistent , proven lying witness's and the hot bed lava spill of a viral media fire storm immediately following this shooting.

This thread for me....is done. There was some decent discussion but mostly some insane trolling and outright hatred in here and some of the most ignorant thinking (and complete lack of common sense and blindness) I think I ever read on this forum.

I'm glad you came back to let us know. We would have gotten worried.

You wear the term ##### bag quite well Henry.

Typical extreme left wing #####. Hug that tree for me too Henry. All respect out the window not that you had an ounce for me to begin with.

See, now to me he is one of my favorite posters, informed, witty, patient, but capable of some bite from time to time.

 

[squistion]

I think that anyone with a Christmas tree in their house is offending Christianity. It's shameful, a lie that had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Indeed.

The analogy made zero sense when Tim posted it and still makes no sense.

Does the Christmas tree somehow imply that Christ went around shooting innocent people?

 

[TobiasFunke]

A more appropriate analogy for the Hands Uo would be the display of the confederate flag. You can give all sorts of rationalization for it, but in reality to a lot of people it means pro-slavery.

Actually not bad. Congratulations on the first reasonable, thought-provoking post in opposition to the hands up, don't shoot gesture.

I'd say there are three differences:

1. The only people who see hands up don't shoot as an indictment of Wilson rather than a more general protest are some police officers and right-wingers sympathetic to their cause. Most people understand that it quickly took on a greater meaning and don't think "those people are upset about Michael Brown and nothing else" when they see the gesture. In contrast, most people see the flag and think of the Confederacy and what it stood for. So that's a difference of the normal public interpretation of the symbol.

2. The hands up gesture shifted quickly to a broader statement, whereas the confederate flag symbolized slavery and racism for a long, long time. So that's a difference how long the symbolism was established before anyone claimed that it was shifted to something less objectionable.

3. Having your gesture wrongfully interpreted as supporting accountability for the death of Mike Brown and nothing more is not nearly as objectionable as having your gesture wrongfully interpreted as supporting slavery. So there's less reason to press to restrict or abolish its use.

 

[Parrothead]

Putting your hands in the air like you don't care is trademarked by Cameo..

all of these protestors are stealing

 

[timschochet]

The point of my analogy Jon is that you're being awfully selective in your outrage about a symbolic gesture which you claim is based on a lie. Only a week ago this entire nation celebrated a national holiday which is based on a total fabrication of events which happens to be deeply offensive to many native Americans. Where was your outrage then? Did you express disgust at the many depictions of pilgrims and Indians happily sharing food together? I must have missed that.

Sometimes legends are more important than reality . Probably the most famous single moment in American sports history is when an old Babe Ruth pointed at the stands and predicted he'd hit a home run, after which he did. Except it probably never happened. Yet we revere it anyhow, as we do the kid who said to Shoeless Joe Jackson, "Say it ain't so Joe"; except that never happened either. One of the most famous movie lines ever is when Humphrey Bogart says "Play It Again Sam" in Casablanca- except that line isn't in the film. And so on.

The reason, I suspect, that you're so outraged by the "Hands up don't shoot" symbolism has less to do with it's in accuracy and more to do with your philosophical disagreement with the larger claim that blacks are systematically treated worse by police.

 

[lod01]

why do the "hands up" gesture when the Ferguson dude didn't have his hands up, nor did the Cleveland kid, and the NYC dude was choked to death.. do cops really go around shooting people with their hands up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOU3l9qZ6rg

Damn, that's bad.

What's with the dance he's does before they finish him off?

Lucky that was just some dumb fat white guy. Dodged one there fellas!. I think I heard the cops say 'dance, #####' and him mumble 'hands up, don't shoot.'

 

[TobiasFunke]

Putting your hands in the air like you don't care is trademarked by Cameo..

all of these protestors are stealing

On behalf of Big Bad Hank and the rest of the Sugar Hill Gang:

 

[Parrothead]

Putting your hands in the air like you don't care is trademarked by Cameo..

all of these protestors are stealing

On behalf of Big Bad Hank and the rest of the Sugar Hill Gang:

who cares where it started..