Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I for one am very glad these professional protestors or "agitators" as some of you call them are around. They don't create the rage; they channel it in productive ways which are non-violent. If they were not present, the resulting violence would be far far worse IMO.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Where did I say I wanted to kill anyone, Einstein?


I would much rather live and peace and not have to worry about dirtbags trying to riot in the streets. But, I am glad you have your priorities straight. Beer and a little snatch.

And for you to suggest that looters in a riot are unarmed is comical and so pathetically naive. Apparently, windows break themselves, buildings spontaneously combust and guns get fired by Alabama leprechauns that migrated up into Ferguson to get in on the action.

I guess you missed the hours of coverage last night...where rocks and baseball bats were used to break windows and others poured lighter fluid on buildings and cars. And I guess you didn't hear about how the members of the media embedded with the crowd warned the officers that there were many individuals armed with guns.

Just boy scouts and choir boys looking to roast marshmallows while they wait for a Sunday Service....

I guess it's easy to take things out of perspective to fit your agenda. Maybe you should go back a few pages and reread your comments. As far as looters go, in no way do I consider them choir boys. Most of your posts reek of exaggeration. I can't stop you from seeing the situation through colored lenses.

 

[lod01]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

 

[Mark Davis]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

Was that the guy in the lower left? I could have sworn he was screaming earlier about all the injustices done to Brown and that Wilson should be charged.

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

Was that the guy in the lower left? I could have sworn he was screaming earlier about all the injustices done to Brown and that Wilson should be charged.

Can't recall his slot on the screen. He's the legal analyst with glasses, not the old guy.

 

[SIDA!]

Easy on him. He's cooking my fries right now.

 

[timschochet]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

The loss in faith in the process is worse than (what some say) any alleged failure in the process itself.

Re: what you say, this is a 158 page thread: any conservatives or Republicans think Brown was wrongly shot? Any liberals, progressives or Democrats think the cop was right in what he did?

To me this thing has always been a mystery, that's what interests me most, what happened. It's been really hard to pry confirmation bias from almost every reporting of facts that I have seen.

 

[General Tso]

Why is there protesting all over the country again?



I'm assuming 90% of these protestors don't know either

of course they know. They are protesting because they believe that Michael Brown was wrongly killed by a police officer, the justice system allowed the police officer to get away with it, and that this is representative of the unfair treatment young black men receive at the hands of the police all around the country. Disagree with this perspective all you want but don't try to pretend that the protestors don't know why they are there.

For about 5% of them maybe. The rest are there because rioting and looting is fun.

 

[Mark Davis]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

 

[rockaction]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

Not here. I've complained about the inkblot and calling it an inkblot. No heels dug in.

I'll never, ever have any clue what happened, which makes the protesting all the worse, IMO.

We KNOW what happened to Eric Garner, R.I.P.

We KNOW what happened to Kelly Thomas, R.I.P.

We KNOW what happened to Luis Rodriguez, R.I.P.

All of those cops should be in jail.

We do NOT KNOW what happened with a kid who got caught on video just strong-arming a grocer and then got shot -- possibly unjustly -- by a cop.

But I guess this is the case, instead of causing or inviting meaningful discussion about the administrative state, hyper-militarization on the part of the police, or other tangential issues, becomes the rorschach to prove your bona fides for one side or the other about uncertain facts that will likely never be known.

It's cynical as hell.

 

[lod01]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

Care to find a post that any of us Wilson backers said anything close to that?

I'll tell you this. I said weeks ago that police training would not instruct a police officer to reach out of a car and grab someone. A couple people here said that it could happen. Wilson in the interview stated exactly what I said. I didn't say it because I have police officer training. I said it because I have common sense.

 

[timschochet]

Why is there protesting all over the country again?



I'm assuming 90% of these protestors don't know either

of course they know. They are protesting because they believe that Michael Brown was wrongly killed by a police officer, the justice system allowed the police officer to get away with it, and that this is representative of the unfair treatment young black men receive at the hands of the police all around the country. Disagree with this perspective all you want but don't try to pretend that the protestors don't know why they are there.

For about 5% of them maybe. The rest are there because rioting and looting is fun.

you think 95% of the protestors are rioters and looters?

 

[lod01]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

Was that the guy in the lower left? I could have sworn he was screaming earlier about all the injustices done to Brown and that Wilson should be charged.

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

Was that the guy in the lower left? I could have sworn he was screaming earlier about all the injustices done to Brown and that Wilson should be charged.

Can't recall his slot on the screen. He's the legal analyst with glasses, not the old guy.

That's him. He has done a complete 180.

 

[SIDA!]

Where did I say I wanted to kill anyone, Einstein?


I would much rather live and peace and not have to worry about dirtbags trying to riot in the streets. But, I am glad you have your priorities straight. Beer and a little snatch.

And for you to suggest that looters in a riot are unarmed is comical and so pathetically naive. Apparently, windows break themselves, buildings spontaneously combust and guns get fired by Alabama leprechauns that migrated up into Ferguson to get in on the action.

I guess you missed the hours of coverage last night...where rocks and baseball bats were used to break windows and others poured lighter fluid on buildings and cars. And I guess you didn't hear about how the members of the media embedded with the crowd warned the officers that there were many individuals armed with guns.

Just boy scouts and choir boys looking to roast marshmallows while they wait for a Sunday Service....

I guess it's easy to take things out of perspective to fit your agenda. Maybe you should go back a few pages and reread your comments. As far as looters go, in no way do I consider them choir boys. Most of your posts reek of exaggeration. I can't stop you from seeing the situation through colored lenses.

You made the claim that I stated that I wanted to kill people. Why don't you go back and re-read my comments and substantiate your baseless assertion.

And are you standing by your statement that the looters were unarmed last night?

 

[lod01]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

It's no longer called looting. The new politically correct term is 'opportunity'.

 

[General Tso]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

Bingo. Right church, wrong pew. Mike Brown wasn't a hero or a martyr. He was a thug.

 

[Mark Davis]

Mark O'Mara is really making Sunny Hostin look bad too. A perfect example of wanting this case to fit your beliefs. Sunny I believe is right that we have a problem, but this case just isn't one of them. Digging your heels in and trying to make a villain out of Darren Wilson and a sympathetic victim out of Michael Brown given the evidence really hurts the case you're trying to make.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

The loss in faith in the process is worse than (what some say) any alleged failure in the process itself.

Re: what you say, this is a 158 page thread: any conservatives or Republicans think Brown was wrongly shot? Any liberals, progressives or Democrats think the cop was right in what he did?

To me this thing has always been a mystery, that's what interests me most, what happened. It's been really hard to pry confirmation bias from almost every reporting of facts that I have seen.

Totally agreed. I was prepared either way the grand jury results came out. I really just wanted to know the facts. Nothing would change the fact that Michael Brown is dead and Darren Wilson's career is over. I just wanted to hear/see the evidence to understand why both sides were so polar opposite in how the shooting was portrayed. I am beginning to wonder if indictment was handed down would the results have been much different? There would still be riots, but they would be because of the validation of the crime as opposed to dismissal of the charges.

 

[rockaction]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

The loss in faith in the process is worse than (what some say) any alleged failure in the process itself.

Re: what you say, this is a 158 page thread: any conservatives or Republicans think Brown was wrongly shot? Any liberals, progressives or Democrats think the cop was right in what he did?

To me this thing has always been a mystery, that's what interests me most, what happened. It's been really hard to pry confirmation bias from almost every reporting of facts that I have seen.

Conservative/libertarian fusionist who would say there's a really decent chance this kid was wrongly and possibly illegally shot. Yeah. But him knocking over that store was PR gold for the police and their supporters. That looked awful, and reflected a mental state that was unlawful, reckless, and out of control. We'll never know.

 

[timschochet]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Who the heck uses the term "coloreds?" It's the most wishy-washy racist term I could think of, next to Orientals.

True, same with those who say "people of color". Ridiculous.

I actually heard a local news anchor (black btw) say "colored people" one night on the news, I looked around in disbelief, like did that happen? I thought he would get thrown off the air. But no one noticed or cared apparently.

I have been in Nebraska for the last 25 years, but am from a place 25 minutes from Ferguson. In the 80s the term "coloreds" was still in prevalent use in that area. Hell, I imagine there is still a large segment of racists in that area still using that term. The point being, I am not from there, I was not witness to the shooting - I don't have a vested interest in the outcome. What sickens me is the proliferation of lies on both sides trying to mold the story. I was naïve in hoping that the grand jury would weigh the evidence and reach a just decision. Instead the decision has just led both sides to dig their heels in and now it is apparent that facts as reported don't matter. They only matter if they support your desired outcome. One side wants you to think Michael Brown was executed in cold blood, the other wants you to think Wilson was beat within an inch of his life and had no other recourse. Welcome to the Wild West.

Care to find a post that any of us Wilson backers said anything close to that?

I'll tell you this. I said weeks ago that police training would not instruct a police officer to reach out of a car and grab someone. A couple people here said that it could happen. Wilson in the interview stated exactly what I said. I didn't say it because I have police officer training. I said it because I have common sense.

I get the firing inside the vehicle..that wasn't the fatal shot. What I am interested in is the subsequent time frame in which the fatal shot was fired. On Fox News it was reported that Brown was charging the officer with a demonic look on his face when the shot was fired.

 

[General Tso]

Why is there protesting all over the country again?



I'm assuming 90% of these protestors don't know either

of course they know. They are protesting because they believe that Michael Brown was wrongly killed by a police officer, the justice system allowed the police officer to get away with it, and that this is representative of the unfair treatment young black men receive at the hands of the police all around the country. Disagree with this perspective all you want but don't try to pretend that the protestors don't know why they are there.

For about 5% of them maybe. The rest are there because rioting and looting is fun.

you think 95% of the protestors are rioters and looters?

That's not what I said.As someone who has protested some pretty important #### over the years, I'm pretty damn insulted at this whole fiasco. Ferguson has made a mockery of the entire liberal movement, and is going to do nothing but move people from the middle to the right. Pretty sad really, because there are some legitimate issues with policing that need to be addressed. But this is not the case for the left to hang their hat on.

 

[lod01]

Bravo, reverend guy on HLN kicking Nancy's ###.

He is backing Wilson. Beautiful!!!!

Just called him a 300lb gorilla. Nancy running with it and firing back.

 

[jonessed]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

 

[lod01]

I get the firing inside the vehicle..that wasn't the fatal shot. What I am interested in is the subsequent time frame in which the fatal shot was fired. On Fox News it was reported that Brown was charging the officer with a demonic look on his face when the shot was fired.

That's Wilson's account of the mental state and look on Brown's face. They are taking that right out of the GJ report.

 

[Mark Davis]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

Then that doesn't say a whole lot for them. Each person is making a choice to take to the streets. I think doing it for this case hurts the cause. If you are just following the crowd, then you aren't thinking for yourself and if anything it makes people believe your opinion is invalid.

 

[rockaction]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

No, the professional hustlers and againsters choose cases. Remember Tawana Brawley and The Reverend Al Sharpton, who should never be near a microphone without scorn for as long as the days have sun?

You're incorrect, Tim.

 

[lod01]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

No protests anywhere for the exoneration of the cops who shot the unarmed white guy in Utah.

http://wreg.com/2014/11/25/salt-lake-cop-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/

They choose cases.

 

[SIDA!]

SaintsinDome2006

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a conservative, but I am definitely on the right side of the political spectrum.

I think there are a ton of police brutality issues where officers are not punished for their wrongful actions. I think there are many cops who lie and massage reports to fit the narrative they need to get off. I think the officers in the Kelly Thomas murder, not killing, should be in prison.

Here is my beef with Officer Wilson and where I think much more attention should be focused. His initial contact with Brown is troubling. I could easily envision a scenario where he approached Brown in the middle of the street and said something is a rather abrasive or authoritarian manner. I have had numerous instances where officers approached me and their initial contact/tone was authoritative/quasi threatening. The problem with many police officers is that they treat every person they deal with like they are a a dirtbag. It is highly infuriating.

Putting my little feud with Sprouts aside...I agree with some of the sentiments he expressed with the tone/manner in which they have behaved towards him.

Now, after that initial contact, there really isn't anything I can really blame/fault the officer for doing. But, had Wilson just drove on by and dealt with more pressing matters than trying to scold Brown for walking in the street or playing the authoritarian card...then I think the situation probably would have been different.

 

[GoBirds]

Why is there protesting all over the country again?



I'm assuming 90% of these protestors don't know either

of course they know. They are protesting because they believe that Michael Brown was wrongly killed by a police officer, the justice system allowed the police officer to get away with it, and that this is representative of the unfair treatment young black men receive at the hands of the police all around the country. Disagree with this perspective all you want but don't try to pretend that the protestors don't know why they are there.

For about 5% of them maybe. The rest are there because rioting and looting is fun.

you think 95% of the protestors are rioters and looters?

After about 9 last night it was.

 

[lod01]

Dig that knee into the back of that protestor as you cuff him.

 

[timschochet]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

No, the professional hustlers and againsters choose cases. Remember Tawana Brawley and The Reverend Al Sharpton, who should never be near a microphone without scorn for as long as the days have sun?

You're incorrect, Tim.

Prior to that case, Sharpton had for years tried to manufacture incidents that would gain him national attention. None did until Brawley. Why did Tawana Brawley become famous when similar incidents did not? For the exact same reason that Michael Brown became famous, which is no reason whatsoever, which is my point. I am neither defending the protestors nor criticizing them here. I am simply pointing out that there is an incredible randomness to human events which makes none of this planned and none of it predictable. There are no patterns here. It's all chaos.

 

[Fennis]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

No protests anywhere for the exoneration of the cops who shot the unarmed white guy in Utah.

http://wreg.com/2014/11/25/salt-lake-cop-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/

They choose cases.

the police kill around 600 - 700 people a year

 

[SproutDaddy]

Where did I say I wanted to kill anyone, Einstein?


I would much rather live and peace and not have to worry about dirtbags trying to riot in the streets. But, I am glad you have your priorities straight. Beer and a little snatch.

And for you to suggest that looters in a riot are unarmed is comical and so pathetically naive. Apparently, windows break themselves, buildings spontaneously combust and guns get fired by Alabama leprechauns that migrated up into Ferguson to get in on the action.

I guess you missed the hours of coverage last night...where rocks and baseball bats were used to break windows and others poured lighter fluid on buildings and cars. And I guess you didn't hear about how the members of the media embedded with the crowd warned the officers that there were many individuals armed with guns.

Just boy scouts and choir boys looking to roast marshmallows while they wait for a Sunday Service....

I guess it's easy to take things out of perspective to fit your agenda. Maybe you should go back a few pages and reread your comments. As far as looters go, in no way do I consider them choir boys. Most of your posts reek of exaggeration. I can't stop you from seeing the situation through colored lenses.

You made the claim that I stated that I wanted to kill people. Why don't you go back and re-read my comments and substantiate your baseless assertion.

And are you standing by your statement that the looters were unarmed last night?

Where did I say ALL the looters were unarmed? I'm sure there were plenty there, but honestly I wasn't in Ferguson. Do you honestly think every looter is armed and ready to inflict harm on other human being?

And I went back and checked. I never state that YOU wanted to kill people. Here's what you said on page 140:

Your implication was that I would be scared ####less. Trust me, it is the other guy who is going to be scared. If I was a business owner in Ferguson it would be very simple. Myself and a couple of buddies would post up with some high powered semi automatic rifles and five hundred rounds of ammunition each. The moment my front window drops and I am dropping some mother####ers on the sidewalk.

Period.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Dig that knee into the back of that protestor as you cuff him.

Protesting is against the law?

 

[rockaction]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

No, the professional hustlers and againsters choose cases. Remember Tawana Brawley and The Reverend Al Sharpton, who should never be near a microphone without scorn for as long as the days have sun?

You're incorrect, Tim.

Prior to that case, Sharpton had for years tried to manufacture incidents that would gain him national attention. None did until Brawley. Why did Tawana Brawley become famous when similar incidents did not? For the exact same reason that Michael Brown became famous, which is no reason whatsoever, which is my point.I am neither defending the protestors nor criticizing them here. I am simply pointing out that there is an incredible randomness to human events which makes none of this planned and none of it predictable. There are no patterns here. It's all chaos.

No, this response is not all chaos. There are coordinated efforts around various cities to protest this case. It's documented. I just linked to an entire article talking about communist and anarchist group involvement in this case from The Daily Beast, which tends to be left-of-center.

The element of randomness in this case -- and others -- is less than you'd think. There's some, but that doesn't explain all of it.

 

[lod01]

So now all of a sudden Jeff Toobin on CNN is admitting the context of Mike Brown having just committed a strong arm robbery is valid in determining his aggressiveness. He hasn't said that in all the analysis before that I can recall. I think the protesters have backed the wrong case here. It seems pretty obvious now what happened based on witness testimony. Throw into that the fact that he had just committed that robbery. If you want to protest a police killing of a young black man I'd suspect you could find a much better case than this where the victim may have actually not assaulted the officer first nor just committed another crime ten minutes prior. If those protesting wanted to convince people, using Michael Brown as the example isn't the way to go.

and again they didn't back this case. They didn't choose to protest Michael Brown. They followed the crowd.

Say what? Someone is forcing those protesting in the streets tonight to choose this case? You can't have it both ways. Either you're legitimately upset about violence by police toward black men, and in that context I'd say you should have chosen another case, or you aren't out there protesting for that reason. You're then there for looting, violence, or whatever.

No I think you're missing my point. You say they should haven chosen another case, but they don't choose cases. Cases choose them. Michael Brown was shot and out of all the similar stories around the country this is the one that got people ticked off. Why? Nobody can explain that. The protestors can't explain it themselves. They certainly didn't go around looking at several incidents and deciding which one better served their interests. They protested this incident because it was the one that caught fire. The fact that it's not perfect, that others would serve their purposes much better makes no difference whatsoever. There was no selection process. That's my point.

No protests anywhere for the exoneration of the cops who shot the unarmed white guy in Utah.

http://wreg.com/2014/11/25/salt-lake-cop-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/

They choose cases.

the police kill around 600 - 700 people a year

Doesn't seem like enough does it?

 

[lod01]

Dig that knee into the back of that protestor as you cuff him.

Protesting is against the law?

You back for more? Time to go to school. This guy and a woman did not comply like everyone else when told to leave the street and get on the sidewalk. Thus they got what was coming to them.

 

[MAC_32]

Darwinism is slacking right now.

 

[Raider Nation]

That was a nice little chant on CNN.

 

[TheAristocrat]

This is on the front page of Reddit right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUcA7yrErg&feature=youtu.be

I haven't seen anything else from Fredrick Wilson II but I might have to subscribe.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Dig that knee into the back of that protestor as you cuff him.

Protesting is against the law?

You back for more? Time to go to school. This guy and a woman did not comply like everyone else when told to leave the street and get on the sidewalk. Thus they got what was coming to them.

Honestly I'm not watching coverage so what exactly am I getting schooled on? I know that peaceful protest isn't against the law.

 

[timschochet]

Rockaction, there are coordinated efforts by activist groups for hundreds of incidents every year. 99% of them get no media attention whatsoever. The ones that do are inexplicable, and the activists typically had nothing to do with it.

Ever read John Steinbeck's In Dubious Battle? It's about a group of union activists who desperately want to start a strike. But they can't get any workers interested. Finally a wildcat strike breaks out which they didn't plan and don't even want. Events overtake the activists and they are out of control. They come to realize they never had any control of events on the first place.

 

[SIDA!]

Sprout:

In the following post you stated:

"So it's cool to want to shoot unarmed looters, but I need counseling for wanting to punch a cop for being an ahole?"

To my knowledge, nobody has been advocating the shooting of unarmed looters. The insinuation, since I have been the one talking about defending my property were I a business owner in Ferguson is that I want to kill people.

In a subsequent post where I compared your urge to punch an officer versus your criticisms of my maintaining the position that I would shoot anyone who sought to destroy my business you said:

"Yes. I never said I wanted to kill someone. Anything else you're not picking up on, Einstein?"

Again, the implication that I wanted to kill someone.

Anyway, I am done arguing the point. I'll leave you with the opportunity to have the final word on the matter.

 

[lod01]

Dig that knee into the back of that protestor as you cuff him.

Protesting is against the law?

You back for more? Time to go to school. This guy and a woman did not comply like everyone else when told to leave the street and get on the sidewalk. Thus they got what was coming to them.

Honestly I'm not watching coverage so what exactly am I getting schooled on? I know that peaceful protest isn't against the law.

I figured you didn't see it. Just getting on your ####.

 

[rockaction]

Rockaction, there are coordinated efforts by activist groups for hundreds of incidents every year. 99% of them get no media attention whatsoever. The ones that do are inexplicable, and the activists typically had nothing to do with it.

Ever read John Steinbeck's In Dubious Battle? It's about a group of union activists who desperately want to start a strike. But they can't get any workers interested. Finally a wildcat strike breaks out which they didn't plan and don't even want. Events overtake the activists and they are out of control. They come to realize they never had any control of events on the first place.

If there's nothing coordinated about it, why did the CNN anchor just announce the protestors' "plan" to take over the streets in both Ferguson and New York.

Anderson Cooper is talking about the coordinated effort right now.

eta* the reporter just announced that there was a clear plan to take back the streets, and that it is very coordinated and planned.

eta2* As for Steinbeck, that was the '30s or '40s, likely. And it's a novel, probably. Yes, a quick search tells me it is. Things are different now, and in real-life. You're talking about randomness, and I'll grant there is some of it, but not all of it.

 

[Raider Nation]

That was a nice little chant on CNN.

http://cnncommentary.com/2014/11/25/####-cnn-part-two/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

 

[chauncey]

Gleaming the Cube was one of my favorite movies growing up. Thanks for the reminder Henry Ford, going to see if it is on Netflix.

 

[lod01]

That was a nice little chant on CNN.

http://cnncommentary.com/2014/11/25/####-cnn-part-two/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed