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

[jonessed]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

 

[Sand]

So here's a comparison of tweets between Fox and CNN. Just looking at these I wonder who has an agenda to push...

 

[Stinger Ray]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

 

[Da Guru]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Do you think of not guilty verdict would have prevented rioting and looting? Pretty sure the end result would have been the same. A long trial and a not guilty verdict may have been worse.

 

[timschochet]

So here's a comparison of tweets between Fox and CNN. Just looking at these I wonder who has an agenda to push...

In that example, clearly CNN. But if you're trying to argue that as a general rule CNN is more biased than Fox, or the equivalent of Fox's bias in any way, then you're terribly wrong. Fox, like MSNBC, is devoted to pushing a partisan political agenda. CNN is not.

 

[timschochet]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

I don't report anyone, but your constant rudeness and inability to offer anything at all to these discussions really does call for you to suspended or simply removed from this forum.

 

[Guest]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

I don't report anyone, but your constant rudeness and inability to offer anything at all to these discussions really does call for you to suspended or simply removed from this forum.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

 

[timschochet]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Do you think of not guilty verdict would have prevented rioting and looting? Pretty sure the end result would have been the same. A long trial and a not guilty verdict may have been worse.

If that is the case, then how do you explain that the George Zimmerman verdict did not result in mass rioting and looting? It seems to me that most people in that case were satisfied because it went to trial. So we'll never know, but I disagree with you based on the Zimmerman trial.

 

[timschochet]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

I don't report anyone, but your constant rudeness and inability to offer anything at all to these discussions really does call for you to suspended or simply removed from this forum.

Shut up and go be with your family.

They're taking showers right now, getting ready. I'm just hanging out.

Hey Ham, my heart goes out to you, especially on days like today. I can't imagine what you're feeling, but here's hoping that some kind of healing is starting to take place for you and yours, however slow it might be.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

Ted Nugent: http://www.inquisitr.com/1637118/ted-nugent-sounds-off-on-ferguson-disses-the-entire-black-comlmunity/

I, for one, always wait to hear from Ted Nugent before I finalize my opinion on any subject. Finally he weighs in.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. A little balance for all the liberal slant we get in the media. I can't really say I disagree with Nugent; his take is pretty accurate.

 

[squistion]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Of course they made that assumption, with witnesses presented and the accused giving testimony this went far beyond any grand jury proceeding I have heard of. A grand jury is not supposed to be a substitution for a jury trial, which it was here. A grand jury is not supposed to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, only to make the same determination as a preliminary hearing whether there is sufficient evidence to go bind the defendant/accused over for trial. And the only time I recall seeing evidence like this presented even in a preliminary hearing was on the old Perry Mason TV show. The prosecutor here made a mockery of the legal system.

 

[Guest]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

I don't report anyone, but your constant rudeness and inability to offer anything at all to these discussions really does call for you to suspended or simply removed from this forum.

Shut up and go be with your family.

They're taking showers right now, getting ready. I'm just hanging out.Hey Ham, my heart goes out to you, especially on days like today. I can't imagine what you're feeling, but here's hoping that some kind of healing is starting to take place for you and yours, however slow it might be.

Glad you know I was totally kidding above. Thank you. Connor is very much in our hearts today, as is my mom. We're getting though and was talking to the wife today about setting some resolutions for next year to aim high. Coming off of what is hands down the worst year of our lives, there's no not reason to aspire to 2015 being the best. We're learning to be thankful for the time we had, and to cherish it in memories. Today is a good day to remember that.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Just shut up and go be with your family.

I don't report anyone, but your constant rudeness and inability to offer anything at all to these discussions really does call for you to suspended or simply removed from this forum.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

Of course they made that assumption, with witnesses presented and the accused giving testimony this went far beyond any grand jury proceeding I have heard of. A grand jury is not supposed to be a substitution for a jury trial, which it was here. A grand jury is not supposed to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, only to make the same determination as a preliminary hearing whether there is sufficient evidence to go bind the defendant/accused over for trial. And the only time I recall seeing evidence like this presented even in a preliminary hearing was on the old Perry Mason TV show. The prosecutor here made a mockery of the legal system.

Agreed. The prosecutor obviously thought that no charges were warranted, so this never should have made it to a grand jury in the first place. But like you said earlier, he's apparently an elected officials and no doubt political considerations crept in here. At least the end result was right, even if the procedure wasn't.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I'm sure that the protesters know as much about the grand jury investigation as an elephant does physics.

 

[SIDA!]

You guys realize you are revealing a lot about your positions and your desired outcome when you start saying in the essence "ok fine but what about that other black kid the cops shot???"

Uhm, yes? You realize the protests that are happening aren't just about (and I would personally argue aren't even mostly about) Michael Brown, right?

I'm guessing >50% of the protestors think Michael Brown was shot in the back while running away.

It would be interesting to do a poll of the protestors to see exactly how knowledgeable they are of the facts. I have a feeling that most of them know more than you think they do.

But then, I'm talking about the protestors, not the looters. Those are two distinct groups, despite the attempt of people like Max Threshold and others to portray them all as the same.

So, you think the ####tards protesting in Los Angeles, New York, etc. are familiar with the facts of the case? Have you ever interacted with any of these protestors?

I can. I have had extensive encounters with this crowd. Most of them are irrational zealots incapable of putting together a logical thought. It is all emotional screeds and rants.

"Si, se puede!"

"Racistas!"

"No justice. No peace"

"Whose streets? Our streets!"

Over and over like little robots. These goon squads are infiltrated by Communist Party supporters and members, anti-Israel contingents who believe Israelis should be killed and the nation dissolved, pro 9/11 terrorist sympathizers and in the bigger cities they have the ANSWER crowd that is supposedly anti-war and for peace.

However, they have this warped belief that anyone they disagree with is a racist. Since they are a racist they are essentially non-human. And since they are non-human it is okay to punch, elbow, spit on them along with many other vile things.

Now, you can choose to believe I am exaggerating or making it up. I have had dozens of encounters with this crowd and can state without any hesitation that I know more about this subject than you do. So, they make up probably 10-25% of the crowd. It will depend on the location and subject matter.

The rest is comprised of average dumbassess you see in the average "man on the street" interviews done by the talk show hosts of Fox News depicting how stupid people are...they really are that dumb.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You guys realize you are revealing a lot about your positions and your desired outcome when you start saying in the essence "ok fine but what about that other black kid the cops shot???"

Uhm, yes? You realize the protests that are happening aren't just about (and I would personally argue aren't even mostly about) Michael Brown, right?

I'm guessing >50% of the protestors think Michael Brown was shot in the back while running away.

It would be interesting to do a poll of the protestors to see exactly how knowledgeable they are of the facts. I have a feeling that most of them know more than you think they do.

But then, I'm talking about the protestors, not the looters. Those are two distinct groups, despite the attempt of people like Max Threshold and others to portray them all as the same.

So, you think the ####tards protesting in Los Angeles, New York, etc. are familiar with the facts of the case? Have you ever interacted with any of these protestors?

I can. I have had extensive encounters with this crowd. Most of them are irrational zealots incapable of putting together a logical thought. It is all emotional screeds and rants.

"Si, se puede!"

"Racistas!"

"No justice. No peace"

"Whose streets? Our streets!"

Over and over like little robots. These goon squads are infiltrated by Communist Party supporters and members, anti-Israel contingents who believe Israelis should be killed and the nation dissolved, pro 9/11 terrorist sympathizers and in the bigger cities they have the ANSWER crowd that is supposedly anti-war and for peace.

However, they have this warped belief that anyone they disagree with is a racist. Since they are a racist they are essentially non-human. And since they are non-human it is okay to punch, elbow, spit on them along with many other vile things.

Now, you can choose to believe I am exaggerating or making it up. I have had dozens of encounters with this crowd and can state without any hesitation that I know more about this subject than you do. So, they make up probably 10-25% of the crowd. It will depend on the location and subject matter.

The rest is comprised of average dumbassess you see in the average "man on the street" interviews done by the talk show hosts of Fox News depicting how stupid people are...they really are that dumb.

This pretty much applies to the progressive posters here in these forums as well.

 

[Bucky86]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

BOOM

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-jury-wrangled-confusing-instructions

The following excerpt from the grand jury transcript is from last Friday.

“Real quick, can I interrupt about something?” interjected Alizadeh. “Previously, in the very beginning of this process, I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.

“So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

“....And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme Court, I'm sorry United States Supreme Court cases....

“So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law.

“…I don't want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.”

A grand juror asks, “So we’re to disregard this?”

Alizadehanswers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”

When a grand juror asks more questions,

Whirley chimes in, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”

Ignore it totally is not very ambiguous...but then he had to make it ambiguous with the other claptrap.

Sounds like good lawyering...

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

 

[GrandpaRox]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

No one gives a crap anymore. The thug is dead, the cop is free, the looters got their loot, the stereotypes have been confirmed, racial profiling has again shown why it is correct, all is normal again, go have a turkey leg.

 

[Bucky86]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Both sides tend to be ignorant of the facts here, which is not surprising. But in listening to public opinion yesterday on the news, on talk radio, and talking to people in person, it was my own impression that the people who thought Wilson was justified were far more ignorant than those who were upset by the shooting. People seemed to have no idea that there was any distance between the two men. Most people simply assumed that Brown attacked Wilson (who was minding his own business), went for his gun, and Wilson responded by shooting Brown to death.

On both sides, a majority assumed that there was a trial and Wilson was found not guilty.

You are so full of ####. Your thought process is so skewed.

On the other hand you have to be just messing us around you cannot be as thick as you portray. Interesting how you are the only one that can do this to the level you do. Big props Tim you are far the best at what you do.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

 

[msommer]

It's always tragic when the world loses violent thugs. :tips40:

Like that kid in Atlanta playing with a toy gun? He probably was going to turn into a thug anyways, right?

No idea who that is. Do you have video of him robbing stores and assaulting little old shop owners?

There's a video of him being shot by police officers. hth

 

[Bucky86]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

lol @ the crazy on this page.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

You honestly believe that every time an officer shoots somebody they should be charged and forced to go on trial?

 

[Bucky86]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

You honestly believe that every time an officer shoots somebody they should be charged and forced to go on trial?

When did I say that?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

You honestly believe that every time an officer shoots somebody they should be charged and forced to go on trial?

When did I say that?

How else should that be interpreted?

 

[lod01]

Surprised that Wolf Blitzer was giving it to the Brown family lawyer pretty good last night. Saying the reason the police were called in the first place was because Brown stole cigars, intimidated and shoved a store clerk. Browns lawyers kept trying to deflect that fact but Wolf stayed on him. Wolf basically said that Brown seemed to be on a rampage that day.

About time someone on CNN quit catering to the Brown's. It's virtually unwatchable right now.

 

[Bucky86]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

You honestly believe that every time an officer shoots somebody they should be charged and forced to go on trial?

When did I say that?

How else should that be interpreted?

That's not what I believe at all. If you shoot an intruder in your own home then I believe you shouldn't be indicted, just like if a cop shoots a man or woman pointing a gun at them or someone else they shouldn't be indicted.

Now if you fire through your door at someone knocking, then yes you should be indicted. Just like if a cop shoots someone reaching for their license when the cop previously asked them to do just that.

 

[msommer]

Surprised that Wolf Blitzer was giving it to the Brown family lawyer pretty good last night. Saying the reason the police were called in the first place was because Brown stole cigars, intimidated and shoved a store clerk. Browns lawyers kept trying to deflect that fact but Wolf stayed on him. Wolf basically said that Brown seemed to be on a rampage that day.

About time someone on CNN quit catering to the Brown's. It's virtually unwatchable right now.

I'm sure you can reach your remote, otherwise move until you can.

 

[Underachievers]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

You mean the type of power that Obama loves to wield?

 

[SIDA!]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

I feel pretty comfortable saying that without video, there may have been a situation where the officer embellished the details of the incident or even lied about the incident to cover his ###. Afterall, who would have been able to prove him wrong? The person who got shot? Whether you are a criminal or not...every citizen starts in a hole on the credibility scale when it come to our word against that of a police officer.

Anyone who doesn't think police officers receive training from their colleagues, department or police officers association about what to say and how to phrase things about potential incidents they encounter is naive.

I think we are pretty far apart on this topic of the Brown case...but the bolded part is precisely the point that should be discussed in the larger context of American society and one I agree with you on. It is a very fair point. ####...even when cops are caught on camera violating American citizens rights they get off (e.g. Kelly Thomas). Brown is not the case for engaging in an earnest and meaningful or constructive discussion in my opinion.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

You honestly believe that every time an officer shoots somebody they should be charged and forced to go on trial?

When did I say that?

How else should that be interpreted?

That's not what I believe at all. If you shoot an intruder in your own home then I believe you shouldn't be indicted, just like if a cop shoots a man or woman pointing a gun at them or someone else they shouldn't be indicted.

Now if you fire through your door at someone knocking, then yes you should be indicted. Just like if a cop shoots someone reaching for their license when the cop previously asked them to do just that.

I agree with that. It also has nothing to do with what para and I were saying, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Michael Brown.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

The bolded part here is also pretty strange. Cops do, in fact, enjoy powers that ordinary citizens don't have. Nobody other than you seems to find that controversial. On the contrary, it's an inherent part of what makes a cop a cop.

Reasonable people can disagree about how far those powers should go. For instance, I can see reasonable arguments about whether cops should be able to pull people over at sobriety checkpoints on New Years Eve. But I've never heard anybody argue that cops should not be allowed to pull over someone for speeding in a school zone. That's a power denied to ordinary citizens but granted to police officers.

 

[lod01]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

Which was completely refuted by the witnesses AND autopsy. You're clinging here trying to get your Civil Rights MomentTM.

You'll have to look elsewhere to find your innocent person for the lynch mob to crucify.

Actually, it wasn't. At all. That's what the majority of witnesses testify to, and the autopsy is no way refutes it. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually read the things you spout on about.

Sure it was.

A review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made that were inconsistent or provably wrong
Autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back, despite witness Dorian Johnson claiming he saw it happen

One witness admitted that she suffered from a mental disorder, has racist views and trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online

Another said he saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air' before later admitting he hadn't seen the shooting

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

McIntyre1 - Internet Detective has uncovered evidence that no one has seen yet. Give him a break. Guys like him are looking for their Civil Rights MomentTM .

 

[Bucky86]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

The bolded part here is also pretty strange. Cops do, in fact, enjoy powers that ordinary citizens don't have. Nobody other than you seems to find that controversial. On the contrary, it's an inherent part of what makes a cop a cop.

Reasonable people can disagree about how far those powers should go. For instance, I can see reasonable arguments about whether cops should be able to pull people over at sobriety checkpoints on New Years Eve. But I've never heard anybody argue that cops should not be allowed to pull over someone for speeding in a school zone. That's a power denied to ordinary citizens but granted to police officers.

It includes committing crimes?

The whole argument arises from someone saying it should be harder to indict cops. I disagreed and the burden of proof should be the same for everyone.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

Which was completely refuted by the witnesses AND autopsy. You're clinging here trying to get your Civil Rights MomentTM.

You'll have to look elsewhere to find your innocent person for the lynch mob to crucify.

Actually, it wasn't. At all. That's what the majority of witnesses testify to, and the autopsy is no way refutes it. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually read the things you spout on about.

Sure it was.

A review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made that were inconsistent or provably wrong
Autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back, despite witness Dorian Johnson claiming he saw it happen

One witness admitted that she suffered from a mental disorder, has racist views and trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online

Another said he saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air' before later admitting he hadn't seen the shooting

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

However, do not fret. I'm sure your beloved Holder and Obama will find some trumped up federal charges to indict Wilson on.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

McIntyre1 - Internet Detective has uncovered evidence that no one has seen yet. Give him a break. Guys like him are looking for their Civil Rights MomentTM .

So you`re making light of the guy who is actually reading the transcripts as opposed to the rest of us,you included , who are depending on opinions and skewed facts provided by the media as our source of info....great

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

Which was completely refuted by the witnesses AND autopsy. You're clinging here trying to get your Civil Rights MomentTM.

You'll have to look elsewhere to find your innocent person for the lynch mob to crucify.

Actually, it wasn't. At all. That's what the majority of witnesses testify to, and the autopsy is no way refutes it. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually read the things you spout on about.

Sure it was.

A review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made that were inconsistent or provably wrong
Autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back, despite witness Dorian Johnson claiming he saw it happen

One witness admitted that she suffered from a mental disorder, has racist views and trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online

Another said he saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air' before later admitting he hadn't seen the shooting

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

However, do not fret. I'm sure your beloved Holder and Obama will find some trumped up federal charges to indict Wilson on.

you`re on a roll missy

 

[MaxThreshold]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

McIntyre1 - Internet Detective has uncovered evidence that no one has seen yet. Give him a break. Guys like him are looking for their Civil Rights MomentTM .

So you`re making light of the guy who is actually reading the transcripts as opposed to the rest of us,you included , who are depending on opinions and skewed facts provided by the media as our source of info....great

I don't think McIntyre1 is interpreting any of that correctly. He's simply looking for cherry-picked info to fit his pre-conceived notion of guilt on Wilson.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Instead of the hands up thing, maybe the demonstrators could use an assaulting motion.

Or struggle with a gun, run, turn around, and walk toward you with hands almost in the air but so you can't tell if they're charging or not.

Which was completely refuted by the witnesses AND autopsy. You're clinging here trying to get your Civil Rights MomentTM.

You'll have to look elsewhere to find your innocent person for the lynch mob to crucify.

Actually, it wasn't. At all. That's what the majority of witnesses testify to, and the autopsy is no way refutes it. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually read the things you spout on about.

Sure it was.

A review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made that were inconsistent or provably wrong
Autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back, despite witness Dorian Johnson claiming he saw it happen

One witness admitted that she suffered from a mental disorder, has racist views and trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online

Another said he saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air' before later admitting he hadn't seen the shooting

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

However, do not fret. I'm sure your beloved Holder and Obama will find some trumped up federal charges to indict Wilson on.

you`re on a roll missy

I'm in a zone.

 

[squistion]

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[Zegras11]

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Or the old man in the store.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

the only ones behind the curtain are the ferguson police dept

 

[lod01]

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

the only ones behind the curtain are the ferguson police dept

The thief is dead. Justice prevailed.

 

[GrandpaRox]

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

the only ones behind the curtain are the ferguson police dept

What a why to go through life, sorry DooD