Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (7 Viewers)

[Stealthycat]

ask yourself why the verdict was read at 9:15 pm ... that's just begging for riots, and of course, the verdict was known days before it was announced because the gov sent in the national guard and protests aka riots were planned several days in advance, knowing the decision would be that the police officer was just doing his job

ask yourself why the media keeps showing pics of M.Brown as a young teen ... not the big, hulking thug gangsta that he was at the time of his death

ask yourself why Obama and the Fed Govt paid so much attention to this one death, when all the other black on black and black on white deaths are ignored on a daily basis

ask yourself why anyone would loot and riot their own streets and neighborhoods - that's just plain animal ignorant right there

Police are not there to protect and serve - they are not proactive, they are reactive, and if you think cops are there to save you? More than likely you'll die waiting, and that's just the way it is. Its not a knock on officers - they can only do so much, and when cops ARE proactive like trying to arrest a suspect in a robbery and the suspect turns on him and forces the officer to shoot him down? Then you got the Ferguson situation .... lose lose

 

[Jerry Curl]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

Maybe this helped the Grand Jury you think?

For sure it did. But remember this wasnt a show trial or anything. Especially when the prosecutor doesnt even know the law. They can indict a ham sandwich, but cant indict a cop who killed an unarmed man. Birds of a feather.

This is a race issue so some are going to take the side they want regardless of facts. Like the fact that people are justifying killing an unarmed man because he stole cigars and walked toward a cop as if the cop has a right to kill someone then get upset at football players in the local community for supporting the cause they are in support of. Amazing the trust people have in the cops honestly.

Kind of like justifying millions of dollars in property damage because a cop shot a suspect.

I am not and have not seen anyone else justifying rioting or even condoning it.

 

[Stealthycat]

http://kdvr.com/2014/11/29/watch-utah-police-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/

pretty close to same thing - only a "non-white" cop and white suspect - why aren't white people burning down Salt Lake City? Why didn't Obama send WH people to the funeral ?

 

[IgglesFan]

Looks pretty good to me. Nice gesture from the players.

Yeah, except they are basically saying they are supporting a criminal who, as the autopsy clearly shows, did not die with his hands up. TO me, what they are saying is "We are on the side of the thug,"

Which, coming from a guy like Britt, doesn't suprise me one bit.

 

[Jerry Curl]

http://kdvr.com/2014/11/29/watch-utah-police-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/

pretty close to same thing - only a "non-white" cop and white suspect - why aren't white people burning down Salt Lake City? Why didn't Obama send WH people to the funeral ?

But there are also some key differences: Suspect Dillon Taylor, 20, was white. And in the Salt Lake City shooting, the officer wore a body camera that captured the entire incident. Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill said in a statement this week that the officer was clearly justified in the shooting, despite the fact that the suspect was unarmed, KTSU reported.

There was video evidence of his justified killing, they did not have that in Ferguson. Maybe because it was a clear cut case it did not make national news.

 

[Jerry Curl]

Looks pretty good to me. Nice gesture from the players.

Yeah, except they are basically saying they are supporting a criminal who, as the autopsy clearly shows, did not die with his hands up. TO me, what they are saying is "We are on the side of the thug,"

Which, coming from a guy like Britt, doesn't suprise me one bit.

Thats how one person with hate can see it. Many others like Mike and Mike and Adam Schefter supported the gesture too.

 

[Stealthycat]

from Fox News - So Cook, what needs to change? The officer, by verdict of a Grand Jury investigation, says he did nothing but his job. So what needs to change? Do you even KNOW Cook ?

The St. Louis Police Officers' Association said it was "profoundly disappointed" with what it called a "display that police officers around the nation found tasteless, offensive and inflammatory." It called for the players involved to be disciplined and for both the league and team to issue a "very public apology."

"I just think there has to be a change," Cook said after the Rams' 52-0 win. "There has to be a change that starts with the people that are most influential around the world.

"No matter what happened on that day, no matter how the whole situation went down, there has to be a change."

 

[Stealthycat]

Jerry Curl - the Ferguson officer was justified as well.

What was the result of the Ram's players hands up ? They damn near set off a confrontation outside the stadium - luckily police stopped it from escalating to that ...... but this is what happens, and if you don't have enough sense to realize it?

Across the street from the stadium, about 75 protesters gathered in the second half as about 30 police wearing riot gear watched from a distance. Protesters chanted "Hands up, don't shoot!" ''No justice, no football!" ''This is what democracy looks like," and "We're here for Mike Brown."

James Weaver of St. Louis was among the protesters outside the stadium and argued with two fans leaving. They were separated by police.

 

[Stealthycat]

and the fires of racism burn even hotter because of political correctness ..... I'm 45, and in the past 6 years under Obama I've seen racism fire burn hotter than any other time in my life. Obama is the Great Divider

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/us/cleveland-police-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"The City of Cleveland, through the other named defendants, and the other named defendants in their individual capacities, have a history of treating non-African American officers involved in the shootings of African Americans substantially harsher than African American officers," reads the lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

It continues: "A serious dichotomy exists as a result of the defendants' longstanding practices and procedures which place onerous burdens on non-African American officers, including the plaintiffs, because of their race and the race of persons who are the subjects of the legitimate use of deadly force."

 

[Sabertooth]

ask yourself why the verdict was read at 9:15 pm ... that's just begging for riots, and of course, the verdict was known days before it was announced because the gov sent in the national guard and protests aka riots were planned several days in advance, knowing the decision would be that the police officer was just doing his job

ask yourself why the media keeps showing pics of M.Brown as a young teen ... not the big, hulking thug gangsta that he was at the time of his death

ask yourself why Obama and the Fed Govt paid so much attention to this one death, when all the other black on black and black on white deaths are ignored on a daily basis

ask yourself why anyone would loot and riot their own streets and neighborhoods - that's just plain animal ignorant right there

Police are not there to protect and serve - they are not proactive, they are reactive, and if you think cops are there to save you? More than likely you'll die waiting, and that's just the way it is. Its not a knock on officers - they can only do so much, and when cops ARE proactive like trying to arrest a suspect in a robbery and the suspect turns on him and forces the officer to shoot him down? Then you got the Ferguson situation .... lose lose

I agree. Google Joe Lozito, Cops are not there to protect or serve...and are not legally bound to do so. At least not in NYC.

 

[FUBAR]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

Maybe this helped the Grand Jury you think?

For sure it did. But remember this wasnt a show trial or anything. Especially when the prosecutor doesnt even know the law. They can indict a ham sandwich, but cant indict a cop who killed an unarmed man. Birds of a feather.

This is a race issue so some are going to take the side they want regardless of facts. Like the fact that people are justifying killing an unarmed man because he stole cigars and walked toward a cop as if the cop has a right to kill someone then get upset at football players in the local community for supporting the cause they are in support of. Amazing the trust people have in the cops honestly.

yeah, that's really bad. The Asst DA needs to be fired and probably disbarred.

McCulloch was just re-elected by the people of St. Louis County. Doubt anything happens to him until 2018 and then we'll see how well people remember or care about this incident.

 

[Fireballer]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

Maybe this helped the Grand Jury you think?

For sure it did. But remember this wasnt a show trial or anything. Especially when the prosecutor doesnt even know the law. They can indict a ham sandwich, but cant indict a cop who killed an unarmed man. Birds of a feather.

This is a race issue so some are going to take the side they want regardless of facts. Like the fact that people are justifying killing an unarmed man because he stole cigars and walked toward a cop as if the cop has a right to kill someone then get upset at football players in the local community for supporting the cause they are in support of. Amazing the trust people have in the cops honestly.

Jerry Curl, where can I go to get the real facts about what happened? Im hundreds of miles away and have only based my opinion on the evidence released. Im especially curious about your statement that he was killed because he stole cigars.

 

[Sabertooth]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

Maybe this helped the Grand Jury you think?

For sure it did. But remember this wasnt a show trial or anything. Especially when the prosecutor doesnt even know the law. They can indict a ham sandwich, but cant indict a cop who killed an unarmed man. Birds of a feather.

This is a race issue so some are going to take the side they want regardless of facts. Like the fact that people are justifying killing an unarmed man because he stole cigars and walked toward a cop as if the cop has a right to kill someone then get upset at football players in the local community for supporting the cause they are in support of. Amazing the trust people have in the cops honestly.

Kind of like justifying millions of dollars in property damage because a cop shot a suspect.

I am not and have not seen anyone else justifying rioting or even condoning it.

Oh ok, we are cool then.

 

[Warpig]

How about supporting cops instead of punk bully thugs, looters and rioters?

I thought the mission of cops was to "serve and protect"?

So why didn't the cops protect business owners and their property?

Because the Mayor, via your president, gave the order to stand down. Gotta let the animals get their anger out so they can feel justified and settle down. Until they move on to the next city and loot all their liquor stores and shoe stores all in the "honor" of Mike Brown. LOL!

 

[RBM]

Hopefully somebody informs these players that he never had his hands up. You would think they know this already from living there and following the story.

Their extent of following the story is "white cop shoots unarmed black kid when he was surrendering and he wasn't indicted." The players, just like most of the protesters, don't have a ####### clue.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Strike, regarding your pm to me: the basement comment was meant to be humorous and not insulting. Many of us engage in back and forth humor here, and that's much different from people saying straight out "you're stupid" or "you're an #######" etc. At least I think it is. I'm sorry that you took particular offense at that comment. I will not repeat it.

Right, like "teabagger" eh? Just "humorous" to you? Just remember that when you take offense to something I might call you ok?

OK. You just called me a ######## in another thread- are we even now?

Nope. I don't normally call you names. Since you don't feel it necessary to apologize for the insult, just that I took exception to it I'll feel free to insult you as much as I want. If you take offense I'll make sure to apologize for you being offended but not for the actual insult. When you learn to not be insulting I'll consider changing my stance. But why should I when you don't even feel you should apologize for insulting someone, just that they took offense?

I think there's a big difference between what I did and making personal insults.Fine whatever. Go ahead and insult me anytime you feel like it. I won't ever mention it again. If you want to look foolish and rude, have at it.

Cool. Just don't "report me" as you've been known to do. You can be a real p***y sometimes.

i have never reported you. During my 7 years here I think I have only reported two people, Clinton and LHUCKS, and I regretted doing so afterward. I'll never do it again. It's not my place to police this forum.

BS. The one and only time I was suspended on this forum a MOD told me it was due to a report by you. And I've seen you post that you've reported others, most recently last week. I know you lie regularly on here, but please....On things I know for a fact don't lie.

What? I don't know what that MOD told you but I don't recall ever reporting you. It's possible that it slipped my memory but I doubt it because it's so rare that I ever report anyone. And I certainly did not report anybody 2 weeks ago . You must be thinking of someone else.

Just a few days ago you were whining about me and you wrote that you would consider reporting me because I shouldn't be allowed on this board.

 

[Junta]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Not too hard to believe that a police group that's demanding players be punished for social commentary might have some authoritarian abuse-of-power issues.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Where do you think the NFL's line should be for players making social commentary during an NFL broadcast without the team or league's approval?

Honestly, I don't really care if the NFL doesn't respond at all. I get why the NFL may want to crackdown on political/social statements - it is the No Fun League, after all - but in my personal opinion, I just don't care. It's not like they went out and murdered someone or committed a vicious crime. They ran out onto the field with their hands up, a symbol of those supporting Michael Brown. Full stop. End.

If the Rams, as their employer, want to discipline the players for the gesture, that's their call. But I don't think the NFL should be involved. Of course, knowing Goodell, they probably will get involved.

 

[kentric]

Turning Michael Brown into a really bad guy is just as wrong, IMO, as turning him into some kind of hero. I think Michael Brown was a stupid thug. But he was only a teenager and his death is a tragedy, because he might have grown up into something better. Who knows?

Everybody seems to want their stories tied into nice neat bows, good and evil. If you believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed, then you need Brown to become pristine, a great guy who never did anyone any harm. If you believe that Wilson was justified, then you need to turn Brown into something evil under a rock. Real life is never that smooth; it's murky.

I have teenagers. They don't go around stealing and assaulting people. Not to mention the potential murder and altercation with Wilson.

 

[timschochet]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

This is the last I will post about it because this sort of discussion bored me to no end, but just about everything written here is the exact opposite of the truth IMO, especially in this thread. It's extremely ironic to me that I should be considered arrogant in this discussion when (1) I have stated every opinion with the caveat that I didn't know what happened and (2) many of those who have disagreed with me the most have posted one assumption after another, based on NO evidence, as fact. Hang 10 was only the latest example of this yesterday when he posted a Giuliani statement as fact without attribution and failed to back it up.

 

[whiskey7]

Lol, that's what I thought. Why don't you answer the question about the voting? Do you vote? Who did you vote for this past November?

And what part of my post was racist. Obviously most of the picture I saw of the looting were black guys. Not black women. Not Chinese men or women. Not Cubans or Norwegians or Saudis. Nope, they were all black men (I use the term loosely).

I am an opinionated person, you think I dont vote? I vote for things that dont even matter, but what does me voting have to do with anything?

If you have to be told what part is racist thats too bad.

BTW, you will only see the pictures the media will want you to.

Oh, Christ! Stop it. Just stop. How badly are you willing to embarrass yourself to keep arguing nonsense in this thread? You're not seriously suggesting the media (on live tv) filtered out all the white people who were rioting and looting Ferguson those nights and only showed the black people as part of the ever-present conspiracy against black people, are you? Gimme a friggin break.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

I find it repugnant to give the benefit of the doubt to a criminal, and with-hold it from a police officer without significant evidence that it is deserved.The kid was a criminal. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

This should never have reached this level of protest or discussion.

i understand your point but profoundly disagree with you. I don't think we should judge incidents based on who people are but on the facts of the incident. In this case we have a policeman shooting to death an unarmed man from a distance. Those beginning facts give the benefit of the doubt to the dead man; that's not something I chose. It is now up to the police officer to prove that the shooting was justified. You may believe he did so. I have doubts. And it reached this level of discussion because of a pattern of behavior by police towards blacks which many believe deserves more attention.

 

[timschochet]

Turning Michael Brown into a really bad guy is just as wrong, IMO, as turning him into some kind of hero. I think Michael Brown was a stupid thug. But he was only a teenager and his death is a tragedy, because he might have grown up into something better. Who knows?

Everybody seems to want their stories tied into nice neat bows, good and evil. If you believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed, then you need Brown to become pristine, a great guy who never did anyone any harm. If you believe that Wilson was justified, then you need to turn Brown into something evil under a rock. Real life is never that smooth; it's murky.

I have teenagers. They don't go around stealing and assaulting people. Not to mention the potential murder and altercation with Wilson.

then your teenagers, like mine , are much better people than Michael Brown. That has nothing to do with whether or not Brown deserved to die.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

This is the last I will post about it because this sort of discussion bored me to no end, but just about everything written here is the exact opposite of the truth IMO, especially in this thread. It's extremely ironic to me that I should be considered arrogant in this discussion when (1) I have stated every opinion with the caveat that I didn't know what happened and (2) many of those who have disagreed with me the most have posted one assumption after another, based on NO evidence, as fact. Hang 10 was only the latest example of this yesterday when he posted a Giuliani statement as fact without attribution and failed to back it up.

Seriously? I make a comment based on something I heard and never tried to hide that fact. I gave source as soon as you asked even though I knew you'd ridicule it. It was you and squisition that said it contradicted every summary you've read and then refused to link me to any summary.

 

[whiskey7]

Not too hard to believe that a police group that's demanding players be punished for social commentary might have some authoritarian abuse-of-power issues.

Interesting way of looking at it.

And put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Every time someone dumps more gas on this dumpster fire 1) people react even more with emotion rather than intelligence and 2) cops jobs get more difficult and the odds of people (cops included) being injured or killed goes up.

 

[Jerry Curl]

Lol, that's what I thought. Why don't you answer the question about the voting? Do you vote? Who did you vote for this past November?

And what part of my post was racist. Obviously most of the picture I saw of the looting were black guys. Not black women. Not Chinese men or women. Not Cubans or Norwegians or Saudis. Nope, they were all black men (I use the term loosely).

I am an opinionated person, you think I dont vote? I vote for things that dont even matter, but what does me voting have to do with anything?

If you have to be told what part is racist thats too bad.

BTW, you will only see the pictures the media will want you to.

Oh, Christ! Stop it. Just stop. How badly are you willing to embarrass yourself to keep arguing nonsense in this thread? You're not seriously suggesting the media (on live tv) filtered out all the white people who were rioting and looting Ferguson those nights and only showed the black people as part of the ever-present conspiracy against black people, are you? Gimme a friggin break.

I agree with you, the media never spins things the way they want.

 

[Jerry Curl]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Not too hard to believe that a police group that's demanding players be punished for social commentary might have some authoritarian abuse-of-power issues.

Interesting way of looking at it.

And put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Every time someone dumps more gas on this dumpster fire 1) people react even more with emotion rather than intelligence and 2) cops jobs get more difficult and the odds of people (cops included) being injured or killed goes up.

Surely some guy who was peacefully sitting in his apartment in Ferguson has now decided he's going to go kill a cop or loot a store because Tavon Austin and Jared Cook did a hands-up gesture in a pregame introduction.

 

[FUBAR]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

ah, THAT's what they were doing. predicting touchdowns.

 

[Jerry Curl]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

ah, THAT's what they were doing. predicting touchdowns.

Did you see the game? They nailed the prediction on the head. There were a bunch of TDs.

 

[whiskey7]

Lol, that's what I thought. Why don't you answer the question about the voting? Do you vote? Who did you vote for this past November?

And what part of my post was racist. Obviously most of the picture I saw of the looting were black guys. Not black women. Not Chinese men or women. Not Cubans or Norwegians or Saudis. Nope, they were all black men (I use the term loosely).

I am an opinionated person, you think I dont vote? I vote for things that dont even matter, but what does me voting have to do with anything?

If you have to be told what part is racist thats too bad.

BTW, you will only see the pictures the media will want you to.

Oh, Christ! Stop it. Just stop. How badly are you willing to embarrass yourself to keep arguing nonsense in this thread? You're not seriously suggesting the media (on live tv) filtered out all the white people who were rioting and looting Ferguson those nights and only showed the black people as part of the ever-present conspiracy against black people, are you? Gimme a friggin break.

I agree with you, the media never spins things the way they want.

Like spinning an adult who just robbed (by force) a store and attacked a police officer into an unarmed teen killed by police? Its cute how they like to show pics of Brown with a big smile, in his cap and gown, and/or when he was younger, isn't it? But you wont call that out because it helps paint the picture the way you want it to look. You'll instead point to live video footage and say that was biased?

Yes, I realize the media obviously presents a lot of stuff with a slant for ratings/agenda/etc. But in the case of the riot footage from those nights in Ferguson, it would be a tall task to convince me the pictures and video were not painting a very honest picture of what was going on down there.

Not too hard to believe that a police group that's demanding players be punished for social commentary might have some authoritarian abuse-of-power issues.

Interesting way of looking at it.

And put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Every time someone dumps more gas on this dumpster fire 1) people react even more with emotion rather than intelligence and 2) cops jobs get more difficult and the odds of people (cops included) being injured or killed goes up.

Surely some guy who was peacefully sitting in his apartment in Ferguson has now decided he's going to go kill a cop or loot a store because Tavon Austin and Jared Cook did a hands-up gesture in a pregame introduction.

Yeah, cause that's what I said :rollseyes:

Was there or was there not additional disturbances outside the stadium?

 

[timschochet]

Turning Michael Brown into a really bad guy is just as wrong, IMO, as turning him into some kind of hero. I think Michael Brown was a stupid thug. But he was only a teenager and his death is a tragedy, because he might have grown up into something better. Who knows?

Everybody seems to want their stories tied into nice neat bows, good and evil. If you believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed, then you need Brown to become pristine, a great guy who never did anyone any harm. If you believe that Wilson was justified, then you need to turn Brown into something evil under a rock. Real life is never that smooth; it's murky.

I have teenagers. They don't go around stealing and assaulting people. Not to mention the potential murder and altercation with Wilson.

then your teenagers, like mine , are much better people than Michael Brown. That has nothing to do with whether or not Brown deserved to die.

You're correct, Michael Brown's age has nothing to do with whether or not Brown deserved to die. It's not the people who believe the grand jury was correct not to indict who constantly reference Michael Brown being a teenager as some sort of justification for why he served to be shot, though. It's the Brown supporters who constantly raise Brown's age as part of the rationale for why Brown shouldn't have have been killed regardless of what he may have done; as though Wilson knew Brown was a teenager and as though being a teenager excuses life threatening actions.

i agree with you. Personally I didn't bring up his age for that reason, but only to state that the death of a teenager, any teenager, is a tragedy because Brown was still young enough to change and become a better person.

 

[SIDA!]

Turning Michael Brown into a really bad guy is just as wrong, IMO, as turning him into some kind of hero. I think Michael Brown was a stupid thug. But he was only a teenager and his death is a tragedy, because he might have grown up into something better. Who knows?

Everybody seems to want their stories tied into nice neat bows, good and evil. If you believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed, then you need Brown to become pristine, a great guy who never did anyone any harm. If you believe that Wilson was justified, then you need to turn Brown into something evil under a rock. Real life is never that smooth; it's murky.

I have teenagers. They don't go around stealing and assaulting people. Not to mention the potential murder and altercation with Wilson.

then your teenagers, like mine , are much better people than Michael Brown. That has nothing to do with whether or not Brown deserved to die.

You're correct, Michael Brown's age has nothing to do with whether or not Brown deserved to die. It's not the people who believe the grand jury was correct not to indict who constantly reference Michael Brown being a teenager as some sort of justification for why he served to be shot, though. It's the Brown supporters who constantly raise Brown's age as part of the rationale for why Brown shouldn't have have been killed regardless of what he may have done; as though Wilson knew Brown was a teenager and as though being a teenager excuses life threatening actions.

...and knew by way of his x-ray vision that the "teen" was unarmed...

 

[squistion]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

This is the last I will post about it because this sort of discussion bored me to no end, but just about everything written here is the exact opposite of the truth IMO, especially in this thread. It's extremely ironic to me that I should be considered arrogant in this discussion when (1) I have stated every opinion with the caveat that I didn't know what happened and (2) many of those who have disagreed with me the most have posted one assumption after another, based on NO evidence, as fact. Hang 10 was only the latest example of this yesterday when he posted a Giuliani statement as fact without attribution and failed to back it up.

Seriously? I make a comment based on something I heard and never tried to hide that fact. I gave source as soon as you asked even though I knew you'd ridicule it. It was you and squisition that said it contradicted every summary you've read and then refused to link me to any summary.

Your source was that you heard Giuliani make a claim on Fox and when asked for documentation said the burden was on those who disagree with what you heard to provide a link to disprove it

It doesn't work that way. If I said I heard Al Sharpton say something about the grand jury findings on MSNBC, and if you disagreed, it would not be up to you to provide a link to prove me wrong. When you make a dubious factual claim, the burden is on you to prove it first, not on others to disprove it.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

This is the last I will post about it because this sort of discussion bored me to no end, but just about everything written here is the exact opposite of the truth IMO, especially in this thread. It's extremely ironic to me that I should be considered arrogant in this discussion when (1) I have stated every opinion with the caveat that I didn't know what happened and (2) many of those who have disagreed with me the most have posted one assumption after another, based on NO evidence, as fact. Hang 10 was only the latest example of this yesterday when he posted a Giuliani statement as fact without attribution and failed to back it up.

Seriously? I make a comment based on something I heard and never tried to hide that fact. I gave source as soon as you asked even though I knew you'd ridicule it. It was you and squisition that said it contradicted every summary you've read and then refused to link me to any summary.

Your source was that you heard Giuliani make a claim on Fox and when asked for documentation said the burden was on those who disagree with what you heard to provide a link to disprove it

It doesn't work that way. If I said I heard Al Sharpton say something about the grand jury findings on MSNBC, and if you disagreed, it would not be up to you to provide a link to prove me wrong. When you make a dubious factual claim, the burden is on you to prove it first, not on others to disprove it.

I said no such thing about burden of proof. I simply asked for a source and you refused and now it seems still refuse. I'm guessing because your sources are probably dailykos type websites?

 

[squistion]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

This is the last I will post about it because this sort of discussion bored me to no end, but just about everything written here is the exact opposite of the truth IMO, especially in this thread. It's extremely ironic to me that I should be considered arrogant in this discussion when (1) I have stated every opinion with the caveat that I didn't know what happened and (2) many of those who have disagreed with me the most have posted one assumption after another, based on NO evidence, as fact. Hang 10 was only the latest example of this yesterday when he posted a Giuliani statement as fact without attribution and failed to back it up.

Seriously? I make a comment based on something I heard and never tried to hide that fact. I gave source as soon as you asked even though I knew you'd ridicule it. It was you and squisition that said it contradicted every summary you've read and then refused to link me to any summary.

Your source was that you heard Giuliani make a claim on Fox and when asked for documentation said the burden was on those who disagree with what you heard to provide a link to disprove it

It doesn't work that way. If I said I heard Al Sharpton say something about the grand jury findings on MSNBC, and if you disagreed, it would not be up to you to provide a link to prove me wrong. When you make a dubious factual claim, the burden is on you to prove it first, not on others to disprove it.

I said no such thing about burden of proof. I simply asked for a source and you refused and now it seems still refuse. I'm guessing because your sources are probably dailykos type websites?

No you didn't say that about a burden proof because you didn't have any proof, but you demanded it in return. You couldn't provide a source (and still can't) but expect others to take the time to provide one for you.

 

[timschochet]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

 

[Henry Ford]

So... anyone talking about Anonymous in here? And the whole TAK KKK thing?

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

This is the last I will post about it because this sort of discussion bored me to no end, but just about everything written here is the exact opposite of the truth IMO, especially in this thread. It's extremely ironic to me that I should be considered arrogant in this discussion when (1) I have stated every opinion with the caveat that I didn't know what happened and (2) many of those who have disagreed with me the most have posted one assumption after another, based on NO evidence, as fact. Hang 10 was only the latest example of this yesterday when he posted a Giuliani statement as fact without attribution and failed to back it up.

Seriously? I make a comment based on something I heard and never tried to hide that fact. I gave source as soon as you asked even though I knew you'd ridicule it. It was you and squisition that said it contradicted every summary you've read and then refused to link me to any summary.

Your source was that you heard Giuliani make a claim on Fox and when asked for documentation said the burden was on those who disagree with what you heard to provide a link to disprove it

It doesn't work that way. If I said I heard Al Sharpton say something about the grand jury findings on MSNBC, and if you disagreed, it would not be up to you to provide a link to prove me wrong. When you make a dubious factual claim, the burden is on you to prove it first, not on others to disprove it.

I said no such thing about burden of proof. I simply asked for a source and you refused and now it seems still refuse. I'm guessing because your sources are probably dailykos type websites?

Of course you didn't say that about a burden proof because you didn't have any proof, but you demanded it in return.

I didn't demand anything. But you did bring it up that you read things to contrary. I was willing to be proven wrong but your refusal probably tells me what I need to know anyway.

 

[Doug B]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

Has to be done. I'd like to believe that having video of the Michael Brown's shooting would have made a difference for a lot of people.

But the greater need for cameras is for more prosaic, everyday interactions with the public.

 

[whiskey7]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

How bout now?

And now?

OK. Just busting your balls a little. Seriously, I think the cams are a good call. Though I can already see/hear the arguments that will come up even in the face of clear video as well as the immediate appearance of impropriety that will be claimed by some when there is no video for whatever reason.

 

[squistion]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Somebody keeps bringing up the unarmed white teenager in Utah shot by a policeman and asking why there is no outrage about that - answer is simple, the officer had a body camera and verified to most observers he was acting properly under the circumstances.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

Of course it's a good idea. Shouldn't even need to be discussed.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

Great idea.

Maybe they can even use civil forfeiture to get some GoPros on the cheap.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

 

[timschochet]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

Body cameras on policemen are a good idea. The public deserves to know that the police are acting properly, and the body camera footage will probably vindicate more officers than hurt them.Why, however, would you be unsure about this until after you heard the idea supported by a man you believe unnecessarily killed someone?

Wilson's statement wasn't my reason for changing my mind. I was concerned, prior to this incident, that cameras could result in even more misunderstandings. People look at things on screen in very different ways. The Rodney King trial and riots proved that; so does instant replay on a weekly basis. But now I think it's worth the risk .

 

[whiskey7]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

Body cameras on policemen are a good idea. The public deserves to know that the police are acting properly, and the body camera footage will probably vindicate more officers than hurt them.Why, however, would you be unsure about this until after you heard the idea supported by a man you believe unnecessarily killed someone?

Wilson's statement wasn't my reason for changing my mind. I was concerned, prior to this incident, that cameras could result in even more misunderstandings. People look at things on screen in very different ways. The Rodney King trial and riots proved that; so does instant replay on a weekly basis. But now I think it's worth the risk .

 

[Hang 10]

Tim changed his mind, eh?