What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

And Tobias is also correct. The key to the anger over this incident is how the police handled it, especially immediately afterward.
If everything about this case was the exact same except Darren Wilson was black instead of white would the anger over the incident be the same? If not, then how the police handled the incident was not the key to the anger.
You know I respect Tobias and Henry Ford. They are solid posters and solid rational people. But everyone on internet boards has an opinion. Some are outrageous, some make a lot of sense. And some are utter trolling and BS (Tim..cough Tim..cough)

I agree with Tobias that there is a lot of the anger about the process. I believe you are hearing that from most intelligent, normal people. I respect Henry's real life experience as a lawyer and dealing with police corruption etc. It's great to have people who have real life experience and share that. I also tend to try and contribute as well in other area's on this board (Stocks, investing, video games, music and of course FF) but I can get hot, emotional and sometimes crass and be an ####### just like any human being can. And for that I apologize to some members here in the community. I am a passionate person, with strong morals and beliefs and sometimes these type of threads can get heated, emotional and lead to some things we don't want to really say...but they come out.

But don't tell me the majority of the protests (especially in Ferguson) are not about the perception that an 18 year old black teenager held his hands up to clearly surrender and was gunned down in cold blood and the police lied about everything, covered it up, or whatever you want to believe. Now the Police department did nothing to instill confidence in the community. Agreed. Their actions were not great the moment he hit the ground, agreed. I never disagreed with any of that. My bone was always about the incredible lack of common sense people in this country are displaying, and teaching their kids. It's crazy. Hate breeds hate. Ignorance breeds ignorance. And criminals breed criminals (hence the 9-10 year old kids I witnessed on TV the night of the rioting after the no indictment news came down, watching their parents loot stores SMH.)

Also the lack of common sense being used with the real physical evidence we have coupled with credible testimony. We can sit here and debate who is credible who is not....till we are blue in the face. But if you're really using your common sense (not talking about Tim as he obviously has little to zero unless that is his internet schtick and his attempt to keep his street cred as an internal troll because Tim is exactly that and this thread proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt) I truly believe most reasonable human beings are coming to the conclusion that The officer had little choice but to fire his weapon and unfortunately kill a young man. It was a tragedy. One that could have easily been prevented by Michael Brown just doing what he was told to do by an officer of the law. And the race card being played on this case it appalling. If this were a black police officer...this would have been a non-story. Guaranteed. If it were a black police officer and white kid.....non story guaranteed.

Anyway. I wanted to get that off my chest as I like the FFA and think there are a lot great posters and topics and all kinds of silly nonsense we can have fun with. But this was a serious matter and one I do find as a temperature check that in our country there is still an overwhelming feeling black inner city male youths are still oppressed, targeted and killed and unfortunately I don't think it will ever change. As long as that message is being instilled by each and every generation of inner city African Americans it will never change. Statistics rarely if ever lie.

It's a shame. Under a black president we did not budge towards better race relations in the big picture. It's still black vs white in our country in the inner cities and urban neighborhoods. Call it like I see it. And if a black person assimilate's out of the ghetto, inner city, projects or whatever you want to deem as underprivileged black communities and makes something out of themselves as every person in this country has an opportunity to do...then they are labeled as uncle toms...or not black enough.

It's such a shame. But in my lifetime I don't think this line of thinking is ever going to change. There is far too many skeletons in the closet dating back to the slavery days to overcome, despite the incredible equality black people do truly have in our great country. It's there...go stake your claim (I have a few close friends who did and can't believe the ignorance, laziness and sense of entitlement they are seeing by some of the inner city people black, white, latin does not matter). If you really want it, you can earn it, work for it, strive for it. It's a matter of what you believe and how your raised to think.

OK enough. Moving on.
I disagree with many of your conclusions here, but I do think you make some very good points nonetheless. Despite your characterization of me which I find misguided, I regard you as a worthy and insightful person on discussion of this topic.
Tim,,

You're just coming off that way in this thread. You just keep wanting to argue, or discuss, whatever you want to call it. Your mind is made up....we don't have to agree. I don't mind if people disagree. It;s the actions you take in how you disagree that separates people like us from the animals that rioted and looted those innocent hard working business owners property that served their very own community I take the biggest offense with. And of course the riot sympathizers and the people who refuse, just flat out refuse and refute scientific evidence that blows the hands up don't shoot story out of the water. It makes those NFL players look like complete morons putting on that display on Sunday.

Appalling. Just like Mike Pouncey wearing a free Aaron Hernandez hat. Flat out appalling.

You may have the right to do that....that's fine and well. It does not make it the right thing to do nor the smartest.

Idiots.
I won't get into specifics with you; obviously we disagree on several points. But I will correct you on one thing: my mind is rarely made up on anything, and certainly not on this matter. My whole position has been predicated on the basis that I don't know what happened here.
I can't stand people like this.

Wishy-washy people.....sigh. You kill me. You must also be an awful driver.

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
pretty sure we have always been there. could you even imagine a society where an employer had zero recourse for an employee telling customers to shop elsewhere.

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
pretty sure we have always been there. could you even imagine a society where an employer had zero recourse for an employee telling customers to shop elsewhere.
In Miracle on 34th Street, this turned out well for everyone.

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
pretty sure we have always been there. could you even imagine a society where an employer had zero recourse for an employee telling customers to shop elsewhere.
I meant just for expressing an unpopular view that has no impact on the business being transacted

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
SIDA! said:
Tim, just to clear, as I may have missed it in this lengthy discussion, but you are in fact pretty much hung up on one aspect of this case at this point:

Did Michael Brown charge the officer?

And to go one step further, you do not believe that any evidence has been presented that proves Brown charged Wilson, correct?

You believe that some witnesses say he did charge and others say he didn't and outside of witness testimony...that is all we have to go on, correct?
That's a pretty good summary of my views, yes.But I don't want to debate it any further. If you plan on demonstrating how I am wrong, go ahead, but don't expect a response. I don't want to repeat myself anymore.
Tim, I have a question, and I will ask it of you as I am curious as to anyone sharing the same view:

If you think he acted criminally, what would have been Wilson's motive for shooting Brown? Racial animus or not? If not, what then?
I already answered this a few times, but I don't blame you for missing it.I don't believe that Wilson acted criminally. I think that Brown was wrongfully killed, but that's not the same thing. My hunch (and that's all it is) is that Wilson reasonably feared for his life during the confrontation at the car, and then when Brown started running away after being shot in the hand, Wilson got out of the car, made a split second decision and shot Brown to death. It was a decision made out of fear and rage. I believe Wilson made up the stuff about charging and putting his hand in his waistband later, in order to bolster his story.

It was the wrong decision, IMO, by Wilson, because Brown was no longer a threat, and therefore didn't deserve to die. But this decision was not made out of racism, or bias or anything like that. It was simply the wrong decision. I don't think Wilson should go to jail for that. Resigning from the force is a just outcome, IMO.

Again, these are my beliefs; I won't argue them any further.
Well, I guess I admire your honesty. But seriously, dude - and don't take this the wrong way at all, because I believe you are probably a good guy whose heart is in the right place - keep looking at the evidence in this case, the witnesses, their credibility, potential motives, subsequent actions, etc. - and also acknowledge your own biases going in - because you clearly have some. I'm not saying it is impossible that Wilson killed a man who wasn't moving towards him, or to a lesser extent that Wilson killed a man negligently who was moving towards him slowly, but it's just not supported by the evidence. The best piece of evidence that nobody is talking about is Officer Wilson's shell casings, which show that he was backtracking away from Mike Brown as he was firing.Like I said earlier, there are a lot of injustices and inequalities in America that desperately need to be addressed. Racial profiling of young black men is way up there on the list. But if people are really sincere about tackling this issue, using this case as a rallying point is NOT the way to do it. Mark my words, the Mike Brown case has not advanced civil rights in any way, nor will it. It has only moved the people in the middle towards the Right, and in some cases it's even moving people on the Left towards the Right (like me).

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
There are plenty of gestures that you can make on an NFL field that will get you disciplined.

 
Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann ·

VIDEO WORSTS: Police intimidate Rams into virtual apology and hanging their #Ferguson protesting players out to dry: http://j.mp/1rSGp6i
Something that has occurred to me while hearing this is that the Rams (supposedly) are trying to get a new stadium deal. I'm guessing this isn't the sort of thing that they (the front office) think will help them. Maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe it's irrelevant.

Another thing that people are forgetting to mention is that there was actually talk of the Rams maybe, possibly having made contingency plans in case the Raiders game got protested or in case there was some incident there in the stands by protestors. Given all that context I don't think what these players did was so bad. I agree you can't have Brian Bosworths going around planting messages everywhere but let's remember this is all going on around the Rams players themselves they are part of that community and what's going on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
There are plenty of gestures that you can make on an NFL field that will get you disciplined.
Yeah, free speech may be the most misunderstood concept in the country.
 
timschochet said:
parasaurolophus said:
timschochet said:
parasaurolophus said:
timschochet said:
That long article correctly asks the question why we should trust witness. 10 and not the other witnesses who conflict with his testimony, some of whom were quite consistent, despite the claims of many people here. Unfortunately , the article never answers the question. Neither did the prosecutor. What makes this guy more credible than the others? No answer. What makes the other consistent witnesses less credible? No answer.

Until some compelling reason is provided, I will continue to conclude that the main reason people believe Wilson and this witnesses over the others is that they want to.
or............... the fact that it is more logical to think he shot him out of fear instead of executing a man face to face that was trying to kneel down and surrender. Or....... that a witness coming forward putting his family at risk and not getting anything in return(his name is redacted) is more believable than a person that has nothing to lose at all by saying the contrary. Or....after knowing for a fact that Brown's blood was found in the car and knowing for a fact that Brown was a bully that it seems logical he would be aggressive.
Points well taken. But it's also not logical to believe that Brown was charging.
It is also not logical to walk in the middle of the road.You seem very hung up on the fact that it makes no sense to charge a police officer that is shooting at you. I agree. I also think it makes no sense to risk going to jail for a cigar.

As with any story in life there will be varying degrees of what actually happened. I don't get caught up in determining was it a full on charge. There is no doubt he was moving toward Wilson. Even if he was just slowly walking and kept doing it after being told to stop I don't have an issue with Wilson shooting him.

Walking, charging, skipping, whatever. It doesn't matter. You are trying to get closer. At some point that distance is not safe.
I do. Guess that's the difference between us.
And again...I ask you...is it reasonable for a guy to just simply stroll through bullets?

Just step back a damn moment and be honest here for a change...do you really think Brown covered this distance by simply walking...with "hands up", no less?

Be honest...don't come up with outlandish thoughts and scenarios and don't sidestep with a different argument. Do you truly believe this?

 
I agree you can't have Brian Bosworths going around planting messages everywhere but let's remember this is all going on around the Rams players themselves they are part of that community and what's going on.
Which community?

Do you think the Rams players who held their hands up, most of whom are relatively new to the St. Louis area, showed solidarity with the St. Louis community or the black community?

Remember, several Washington Redskins entered with the "Hands Up" gesture earlier this season. Do you think they were showing solidarity with the St. Louis community or the black community?

Pharell Williams recently suggested that we should examine Mike Brown's bullyish behavior. Williams got so much blowback, most from a certain community, that he has since back-peddled a bit?

I agree with you that the Rams players were showing solidarity with the community. I don't have a problem with what they did.
In my mind, I meant St. Louis, that's all. I don't know what they think internally about Wilson/Brown or white/black relations. I can just understand a city in turmoil and how that can be difficult for these guys who are so prominent in it. I thought the protest was minimal and could mean a variety of things, for instance it wasn't the black power fist, a KKK cross or something militant like that.

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
There are plenty of gestures that you can make on an NFL field that will get you disciplined.
The NBA forced an owner to sell his franchise because he told his side piece not to take pictures with black guys or bring them to games.

And those comments weren't done publicly but on a private phone call.

 
And the hands up lie has made it to the floor of Congress...

Several lawmakers took to the House floor Monday evening to make the Hands up, dont shoot, gesture to protest the police shooting of the unarmed Ferguson teen, Michael Brown. Hands up, dont shoot. Its a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said as he took the floor.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html

 
And the hands up lie has made it to the floor of Congress...

Several lawmakers took to the House floor Monday evening to make the Hands up, dont shoot, gesture to protest the police shooting of

the unarmed Ferguson teen, Michael Brown. Hands up, dont shoot. Its a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said as

he took the floor.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html
So fricken lame.

 
And the hands up lie has made it to the floor of Congress...

Several lawmakers took to the House floor Monday evening to make the Hands up, dont shoot, gesture to protest the police shooting of the unarmed Ferguson teen, Michael Brown. Hands up, dont shoot. Its a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said as he took the floor.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html
"Fed up with police violence" is the key point here. Even if "hands up don't shoot" really didn't happen, it's starting to take on a larger meaning to symbolize all police mistreatment of young black men. This is not unusual. Lots of sayings that we use as symbols are apocryphal in terms of their source.
 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.

 
jonessed said:
The Rams and the NFL are business entities. Their response to a player with regard to how they conduct themselves while at work (and even off the job) has nothing to do with free speech.
larger question for another thread is how did we get this point where an employer can infringe on free speech?
There are plenty of gestures that you can make on an NFL field that will get you disciplined.
Yeah, free speech may be the most misunderstood concept in the country.
The Rams are completely within their rights to cut or bench anybody who does the "hands up don't shoot" thing. But it is also a fact of life that people will naturally tend to have opinions about hot-button issues in their community, and perhaps it's a good idea to allow those folks to blow off a little steam by expressing them openly. I don't agree with the message, but it's not like it's some weird, off-the-wall offensive viewpoint that I can't put up with for a couple of seconds while waiting for the kickoff.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because people tend to die by accident when you do that. Sometimes you die because you didn't approach the situation with the proper level of seriousness, and sometimes the other guy dies when he would have lived if you hadn't been so trigger-happy.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Just stop. I don't own a gun but this answer is pretty obvious. You have watched wayyyy too much tv if you think people can just wing an leg or arm at will.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because that's what a gun is for. It's the only thing it's good at.
 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because that's what a gun is for. It's the only thing it's good at.
then why use it on someone who`s not armed...isnt that what tasers are for ? or rubber bullets ? Just seems using a gun in every situation ,even ones that it wasnt really needed .seems like over kill (no pun intended)

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
you don't bring a taser to a gun fight.

 
There are a lot of cops that think a badge and a gun makes them a bad ###. Haven't you been watching "The Walking Dead"? A lot of cowards hide behind guns.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because that's what a gun is for. It's the only thing it's good at.
then why use it on someone who`s not armed...isnt that what tasers are for ? or rubber bullets ? Just seems using a gun in every situation ,even ones that it wasnt really needed .seems like over kill (no pun intended)
Because tasers are great for close in say less than 6 feet type encounters. If someone is 20+ feet and running at you--a taser is pretty worthless.

So what are you proposing a cop have on his person at all times; a shotgun loaded with beanbags, a taser, a real gun, a baton, a nerf gun, some soothing Musak. Heck they can look like pack mules when they walk around.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because that's what a gun is for. It's the only thing it's good at.
then why use it on someone who`s not armed...isnt that what tasers are for ? or rubber bullets ? Just seems using a gun in every situation ,even ones that it wasnt really needed .seems like over kill (no pun intended)
Because tasers are great for close in say less than 6 feet type encounters. If someone is 20+ feet and running at you--a taser is pretty worthless.So what are you proposing a cop have on his person at all times; a shotgun loaded with beanbags, a taser, a real gun, a baton, a nerf gun, some soothing Musak. Heck they can look like pack mules when they walk around.
Swiss army gun.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because that's what a gun is for. It's the only thing it's good at.
then why use it on someone who`s not armed...isnt that what tasers are for ? or rubber bullets ? Just seems using a gun in every situation ,even ones that it wasnt really needed .seems like over kill (no pun intended)
Because tasers are great for close in say less than 6 feet type encounters. If someone is 20+ feet and running at you--a taser is pretty worthless.So what are you proposing a cop have on his person at all times; a shotgun loaded with beanbags, a taser, a real gun, a baton, a nerf gun, some soothing Musak. Heck they can look like pack mules when they walk around.
Swiss army gun.
You could win Shark Tank with this.
 
So most of you believe that Brown charged into a hail of gunfire? This is based on Wilson's testimony, and a few cherry picked witnesses. You guys are hilarious.

 
whatever happened to tasing people...it just seems people with guns are so quick to use them...and if you have to shoot an unarmed person how about unleashing a clip into the guys legs if he`s charging...thats bound to slow him down without killing him. I already know the responses ill get but what the hey...its just a thought.
It's a terrible thought. You should never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Officers are not an exception.It's not easy to shoot someone in the legs.
why?
Because that's what a gun is for. It's the only thing it's good at.
then why use it on someone who`s not armed...isnt that what tasers are for ? or rubber bullets ? Just seems using a gun in every situation ,even ones that it wasnt really needed .seems like over kill (no pun intended)
Because tasers are great for close in say less than 6 feet type encounters. If someone is 20+ feet and running at you--a taser is pretty worthless.So what are you proposing a cop have on his person at all times; a shotgun loaded with beanbags, a taser, a real gun, a baton, a nerf gun, some soothing Musak. Heck they can look like pack mules when they walk around.
Swiss army gun.
You could win Shark Tank with this.
i actually like this idea...a weapon that gives you choices

 
As much as I agree that black youths are treated differently by the police and this is a real problem- your analogy is absurd and repulsive. Comparing American police officers to Nazis? Really?

I'm embarrassed for you that you would choose to quote such a terrible and offensive argument.

 
As much as I agree that black youths are treated differently by the police and this is a real problem- your analogy is absurd and repulsive. Comparing American police officers to Nazis? Really?

I'm embarrassed for you that you would choose to quote such a terrible and offensive argument.
And just remember - Todd is on Team Left. Far left, but still Team Left. Enjoy him.

 
So most of you believe that Brown charged into a hail of gunfire? This is based on Wilson's testimony, and a few cherry picked witnesses. You guys are hilarious.
And it appears you're going to apparently disregard all facts, witness testimony and common sense from the case and just presume Saint Brown was minding his own business and was killed in cold blood so it fits your narrative. YOU are the hilarious one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So most of you believe that Brown charged into a hail of gunfire? This is based on Wilson's testimony, and a few cherry picked witnesses. You guys are hilarious.
I know. Kind of crazy to think somebody who is behaving irrationally throughout the entire sequence of events that day would continue to behave irrationally and charge a police officer. I think Officer Wilson misunderstood Brown. Clearly, he was strolling back to apologize to Wilson for striking him in the face and that cold blooded ******* shot him down.

 
So most of you believe that Brown charged into a hail of gunfire? This is based on Wilson's testimony, and a few cherry picked witnesses. You guys are hilarious.
:rolleyes: People earn medals running through machine gun fire.
so M.Brown was a hero?
Not a "hero", but a really good kid. A "Gentle Giant", if you will.
Hulk Hogan.
He had the weight thing down.

 
I don't know a lot of "young" adults, but I sure as #### know a lot of 40+ year old Jewish men and women who have issues with the Germans. And the Civil Rights movement made its big gains a lot more recently than WWII.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top