Michael Brown

[Banjarmon]

Thanks for your insight. The real problem explained very well.

 

[AndeyHall]

Yeah...

...everybody...

...thought...

...he was...

...as WHITE...

...as an Easter Bunny!

Idiots.

Your fun little pictures prove nothing about how he was portrayed by the media. Go out and ask random people "What was Trayvon Martin's race? What was George Zimmerman's race?" I can guarantee you'll get an overwhelming majority of "black/white" answers. That is a direct result of his media portrayal. I can easily see his Hispanic ethnicity in those pictures, but when the media spins it into a battle of race, people see what they want to see, and in those picture all they see is a "cracker".

Kinda funny though looking at those pictures though cause you can tell they went to great lengths to make him look Hispanic in some of them. Especially that 2nd one...looks like we should have been calling him Jorge.

 

[BC1]

How would you react if you were a small mom and pop store who really relies on days like Black Friday- and demonstrators protested in a way that caused the entire mall/shopping plaza that you're in- to be shut down on Black Friday.

Protestors shutdown several malls in St. Louis area on Black Friday | FOX2now.com

To my knowledge. All the stores in the stl galleria - belong to large chains-

However this is the intent of the protestors. To hurt retailers and get the attention of consumers- by boycotting Black Friday. I wonder if their target at larger retail corporations was intentional- to get their message across without hurting the small private business owners? Do I think these people are a different category than the arsonists and looters? Yes.

Reminds me of the million man march. Only 5 people called-in sick for work. I'm not sure that those who protest are spending much money in these stores. But what they fail to understand is that if you involve my store in your controversy I'm taking my store elsewhere. And pretty soon you look like downtown Detroit... nowhere to shop, nowhere to work (if someone actually wanted a job).

 

[ET]

" Black Friday " an oxymoron... they are trying to cash in on both terms.. " Black Friday " and " Oxymoron "

Like a cancer, they are engulfing our society... seems a couple of cells start to destroy the host, then the cells start to multiply until the host is dead... Detroit, Ferguson, Atlantic city, and every neighborhood where the cells destroy the heart and soul of the community... all I see are thousands and thousands of these cells protesting a kid who was nothing more than thug, who took it upon himself to rob a community merchant, and then assault a police officer, and the same cancer used that to riot and destroy their own community, and its happening all over the country.. these people are supporting lawlessness, and taking advantage of mob rule and political correctness.. the Law should stop the political correctness and build more prisons because the prison we have now are full of them.. and there is a reason for that.. they have the same mentality as all these lawless protestors.. wanting revenge for killing one of their own,, another lawless thug like they are..

 

[whodat2710]

Yeah...

...everybody...

...thought...

...he was...

...as WHITE...

...as an Easter Bunny!

Idiots.

Who are you pointing that comment towards? I know he was Hispanic. Before any pictures were released, as Deanimator pointed out, the media impression was that he was a super-white Jewish guy. The outrage was about white on black crime. As the story progressed, they stressed his white heritage a few times then conveniently tried to omit race at all, hoping the racist flames had already been fanned to the point of no return. They were.

 

[ET]

I don't understand what the media has to do with all this we all know they are shock value oriented... anything to sell a story... we could do with a lot less than that but they have thr right of fre speech. which in many cases is not in the national security...
this Michael Brown thing is a Black and white issue now... media hype removed ... 12 people (* black and white ) concluded that ( even in the face of perceived riots ,) they found the officer innocent of any wrong doing.. that's how it played out even in the face of all the lies... physical evidence is not here-say , its based in science...not ********... thousand of protesters crying foul... because a Lowlife black kid got caught robbing a merchant, seen on tape, then using science found to have felony assaulted a police officer and these low life protesters are bitching because another one of their own was shot to death, for being a thug.. these protestors are protesting their right to be thugs and lawless pariahs on society.. George Zimmerman was a volunteer citizen watch captain , his mission was to over see the security of the community and came across a perceived potential problem.... on further surveillance was assaulted by another thug.. Trayvon Martin who's life was not at risk.. who could have gone about his business, but under the eye of the community watch captain... Zimmerman did not accost or touch Martin, it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose then proceeded to smash his head into the concrete sidewalk...
AS we are all conceal carry citizens, would the actions of George Zimmerman... a guy just keeping an eye on you.. would that in itself be cause for the threat of life?? could you take a mans life because he was watching you? of course not.... had Martin gone about his business he would still be alive... his attack and attempt to smash Zimmerman's head into the ground would be cause enough for me to shoot him dead... if someone came at me and broke my nose, that would cause enough for me to take his life as a perceived assault on my life. Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were thugs.. both showed who they were by their social media pages... they were both a useless waste of humanity.. and those protestors are only protesting the fact that they got what they deserved and those who are of the same lawless lowlife mentality are worried that they too could become victim of their own lawlessness that is common to their everyday life... common ??? yes
Mrs. Brown's own words... "brushes with the law and drug use is what all boys 18 years old do" ( how pathetic is that mind set )???.... that's the mentality of the Brown family and obviously thousands of others of the same ethnicity... Michael brown was not a " good Boy " as his father claimed he was... its fairly obvious his parent had no influence on his future or maybe they were the reason he was a thug.... maybe they should blame themself for his death because they had no influence in steering him in the right direction. he was a low life, a user, a bully , an intimidator, a felon... and a punk... just like Trayvon Martin.. and yet the whole political machine said it was a shame they died...... what a joke... no one is that stupid... both the grand jury and the jury in the Zimmerman case, when under pressure still bent to the truth because of the facts... and yet in both these cases. the black community have protested the findings as an injustice... they will never win because when the facts are identified, the truth comes out...

 

[ET]

When men are men.. it doesn't matter to me what color they are... as long as they treat all people in a manner that is ethical and moral.. when a man puts blackness above manhood, then that's my red flag to remove them from my world.. I don't go around trying to point out that I am white...nor do Asians or Indians, Eastern or western..
Blacks lose respect because they want to be BLACK men above being men, try to ram it down everyone throat and use it to get over .. and all that that conjures up in the minds of the rest of us... is what they do all over the country.. protest burn , rob, rape, beat up their children and women... Good blacks get the fallout because so many bad blacks influence how the race is perceived. Its a shame... everyone has the right to live a peaceful and rewarding life... too many blacks want to live a lawless, and immoral life. We have seen thousands and thousands of blacks protesting because lawlessness was shot to death and put in the ground.. age means nothing, its proven everyday by all the innocent black children that are killed ( shot to death )in the black community where black on black crime is an everyday occurrence. No one wants that in their community,,

 

[whodat2710]

I have friends, I have people I don't care to associate with. I have never based that on race, religion (except islam), wealth, type of job (like anti-cop blues and others), or any other tangible factor. I think that if the race-baiters and other black people in positions of authority would stress the words of Dr. King, we would be a lot better off. The people I SEE in Ferguson and other cities happen to be the ones that don't deserve to be seen. The good people are hiding from them (understandably), but they should be the ones out there speaking the truth.
-
So the content of character that is published, with a few exceptions, is reprehensible. I have seen glimmers of hope, like the black guys guarding the property of a white business owner because they saw him as a human being, an American, who looked past the color of their skin and gave them jobs in the past. There was the kid among the protesters that had a sign saying "free hugs". A policeman saw this.
Link Removed
Unfortunately, those in power can't bring themselves to bring the country together, because it does not suit their agenda. They need victims to get votes. They need the blacks to hate the whites, the unemployed to blame the rich, the public to hate the cops, the cops to hate the public, etc. They need to perpetuate this, so that they can say that they are the solution.

 

[Deanimator]

I have friends, I have people I don't care to associate with. I have never based that on race, religion (except islam), wealth, type of job (like anti-cop blues and others), or any other tangible factor.

A lot of people don't trust the police because in many places and in many ways, they've proven themselves unworthy of trust.

That having been said, I'm not going to lynch Darrell Wilson because I don't like cops. That would make me no better than the cop fanbois who to this day try to blame Kathryn Johnston for her own murder by the Atlanta PD.

I don't look at bad people as those worthy of emulation, whether it be Jerry Finnegan or Michael Brown's step-father.

 

[BluesStringer]

Your fun little pictures prove nothing about how he was portrayed by the media. Go out and ask random people "What was Trayvon Martin's race? What was George Zimmerman's race?" I can guarantee you'll get an overwhelming majority of "black/white" answers.

Your "guarantee" is meaningless because you obviously have no idea what prompted me to challenge whodat in the first place. It wasn't about what the media portrayed, it was in reply to this incorrect declarative statement:

If it was a WHITE civilian, maybe. If MB had been any race other than black, and/or DW any race other than white no one would have even heard of this in Ferguson unless they happened to watch the 5-o'clock local news that day.

Clearly, George Zimmerman was/is "any race other than white" and everybody in America has heard of him, and most people on Planet Earth have heard of him too.

Good grief, just live with it, whodat made a mistake. The media is always suspect, but whatever they say can't relieve whodat from the responsibility of having made his own mistake fer cryin' out loud.

You guys are so focused on race. I honestly don't get it. I keep waiting for someone to actually answer the questions I asked of whodat a couple or three days ago:

How much of the transcripts have you read? Do you know that the "prosecutor" didn't even cross-examine Wilson? He just turned him loose to give his own self-serving narrative and didn't question a single sentence of it. Like I said in my last post, he never had any intentions of getting an indictment. He wasted the tax-payers money on a kangaroo court process that he never intended to get at any truth out of, because he had his truth before ever entering the room.

He sho' 'nuff picked apart the witnesses against Wilson though, which lead to the outcome you wanted, so don't get all high and mighty about the fact that I thought a different outcome was appropriate than the one you did just because you got the one you wanted....

....You really have no problem with a so-called "prosecutor" convening a GJ to attempt to establish probable cause to bring a charge, and then presenting the defense's side for the accused???? Can you cite another case where McCulloch presented all the evidence in a GJ proceeding? Can you cite another case where he failed to cross-examine the accused (which in and of itself is a nearly unheard-of circumstance for the accused to testify in a GJ), but went out of his way to discredit his own prosecution witnesses? When, in modern grand jury history, are you aware of a "prosecutor" failing to even recommend an indictment? And if he wasn't willing to recommend an indictment, why the Hell did he even take it to the GJ? He could've refused to bring a charge on his own and left the GJ completely out of it, except for the fact that he wanted the political cover to blame whatever happened on a bunch of innocent, but nonetheless anonymous, grand jurors.

You guys keep harping on the race issues because to actually address the kangaroo court-style proceedings of the grand jury would mean you'd have to admit that something's rotten in the state of....Missouri!

And don't anybody try to counter those questions with more opining. Dig out one single case that McCulloch took to a grand jury without recommending an indictment, and/or one single case where McCulloch himself not only presented the defendant's case for him, but allowed him to speak at all in front of the grand jury members, or just STFU already. And if you can't do that, and you come back with more deflections, side-issues and total non-issues, I will take that as you not being man enough to simply admit that this whole grand jury thing was a sham from beginning to end.

And just one more little tidbit for y'all to chew on before you come back at me for calling the grand jury hearings a sham. I know you'll dismiss this because of its source, but hey, somehow it has become in vogue for "conservatives" to not question abuses of government, even when government-provided transcripts prove the abuse happened. If FOX or any other so-called "conservative" outlet were reporting on this egregious violation of the Constitution and the law, I'd use it, but Lawrence O'Donnell is the best I could find.

Many of you people like to talk about standing up for (gun) rights or the law or the Constitution, or you like to say you're a "patriot," but when a leftist Democrat hack quite literally argues a potential defendant's side of the case in front of a grand jury, and when they instruct the GJ members counter to the Constitution and counter to settled law, you don't give a rat's ass about upholding the law, or protecting rights, or the Constitution because that leftist Democrat hack got for you the result you predetermined.

If Wilson had been indicted, I would've said out loud that I'm glad because that's what I wanted, but in this instance if that had happened, he would've been indicted in spite of the "prosecution" arguing on his behalf and instructing the members on the law in a way that absolutely and unquestionably was intended to benefit him. In other words, the jurors would've seen through the shenanigans and come to a legitimate decision. In your cases though, there is nothing legitimate about the decision. You got what you wanted because as far as you're concerned, the ends justify the means, unless of course, you're willing to admit that the whole thing was a sham and the decision that came out of that sham is illegitimate, notwithstanding that it will stick in regardless of your admission, or lack thereof as the case may be.

Yeah, I'll be holding my breath for that much integrity from most participants in this thread. Pffft.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

...I'm not going to lynch Darrell Wilson because I don't like cops.

This is more for whodat's and a few others' benefit than it is for yours, but the general tenor around here is that if I (or anyone else) thinks the grand jury was a sham process, or thinks likewise that six eye-witnesses all saying basically the same thing should've been more than enough to establish probable cause to bring an indictment, that I (or we) are calling for the "lynching" of Darren Wilson. Calling for a public trial can never be tantamount to calling for a lynching, nor can doing a postmortem analysis on the legitimacy of the grand jury proceedings.

I perceive that the lynching mentality to which you refer is probably not present here on this board as far as you're concerned, but rather, that you're referring to the people out in the streets causing harm to their neighbors and communities. I don't perceive that whodat or Andey particularly have the depth of perception to discern between the two "calling for's" though, so I thought it prudent to spell it out for 'em.

 

[AndeyHall]

Your "guarantee" is meaningless because you obviously have no idea what prompted me to challenge whodat in the first place. It wasn't about what the media portrayed, it was in reply to this incorrect declarative statement:



Clearly, George Zimmerman was/is "any race other than white" and everybody in America has heard of him, and most people on Planet Earth have heard of him too.

Good grief, just live with it, whodat made a mistake. The media is always suspect, but whatever they say can't relieve whodat from the responsibility of having made his own mistake fer cryin' out loud.

You guys are so focused on race. I honestly don't get it. I keep waiting for someone to actually answer the questions I asked of whodat a couple or three days ago:



You guys keep harping on the race issues because to actually address the kangaroo court-style proceedings of the grand jury would mean you'd have to admit that something's rotten in the state of....Missouri!

And don't anybody try to counter those questions with more opining. Dig out one single case that McCulloch took to a grand jury without recommending an indictment, and/or one single case where McCulloch himself not only presented the defendant's case for him, but allowed him to speak at all in front of the grand jury members, or just STFU already. And if you can't do that, and you come back with more deflections, side-issues and total non-issues, I will take that as you not being man enough to simply admit that this whole grand jury thing was a sham from beginning to end.

And just one more little tidbit for y'all to chew on before you come back at me for calling the grand jury hearings a sham. I know you'll dismiss this because of its source, but hey, somehow it has become in vogue for "conservatives" to not question abuses of government, even when government-provided transcripts prove the abuse happened. If FOX or any other so-called "conservative" outlet were reporting on this egregious violation of the Constitution and the law, I'd use it, but Lawrence O'Donnell is the best I could find.

Many of you people like to talk about standing up for (gun) rights or the law or the Constitution, or you like to say you're a "patriot," but when a leftist Democrat hack quite literally argues a potential defendant's side of the case in front of a grand jury, and when they instruct the GJ members counter to the Constitution and counter to settled law, you don't give a rat's ass about upholding the law, or protecting rights, or the Constitution because that leftist Democrat hack got for you the result you predetermined.

If Wilson had been indicted, I would've said out loud that I'm glad because that's what I wanted, but in this instance if that had happened, he would've been indicted in spite of the "prosecution" arguing on his behalf and instructing the members on the law in a way that absolutely and unquestionably was intended to benefit him. In other words, the jurors would've seen through the shenanigans and come to a legitimate decision. In your cases though, there is nothing legitimate about the decision. You got what you wanted because as far as you're concerned, the ends justify the means, unless of course, you're willing to admit that the whole thing was a sham and the decision that came out of that sham is illegitimate, notwithstanding that it will stick in regardless of your admission, or lack thereof as the case may be.

Yeah, I'll be holding my breath for that much integrity from most participants in this thread. Pffft.

Blues

Like I said before, whatever allows you to desperately hang on to the idea that Darren Wilson is a murderous cop. Michael Brown should have been shot before he ever walked out of that convenient store, so I don't understand why there is such a big fuss about him being killed by a cop who he obviously was going to beat to death had he not been stopped. If I was that police chief, after he wasn't indicted I would have told Darren Wilson to throw on that uniform, get back out there and keep up God's work.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Once a cop makes up his mind...truth be damned

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

Like I said before, whatever allows you to desperately hang on to the idea that Darren Wilson is a murderous cop. Michael Brown should have been shot before he ever walked out of that convenient store, so I don't understand why there is such a big fuss about him being killed by a cop who he obviously was going to beat to death had he not been stopped. If I was that police chief, after he wasn't indicted I would have told Darren Wilson to throw on that uniform, get back out there and keep up God's work.

Yeah, right, the guy who ran after a short struggle, during which he was shot once, was "obviously" going to beat the cop to death. He'd already been shot, which lends credence to the notion that he would be trying to surrender as many as 90 seconds later when more shots were being fired at him and he could not find cover. To think that he'd make it nearly 160' away from the cop's SUV, already wounded, then turn and charge the cop who's still shooting at him is the desperate argument here, Junior.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

This comes as no surprise but:

http://fox2now.com/2014/11/29/ferguson-officer-who-shot-michael-brown-resigns/

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Yeah, right, the guy who ran after a short struggle, during which he was shot once, was "obviously" going to beat the cop to death. He'd already been shot, which lends credence to the notion that he would be trying to surrender as many as 90 seconds later when more shots were being fired at him and he could not find cover. To think that he'd make it nearly 160' away from the cop's SUV, already wounded, then turn and charge the cop who's still shooting at him is the desperate argument here, Junior.

The moment he assaulted that officer. He knew his life was going to change forever. He was probably thinking penitentiary time. Here's a possible scenario of his thought process as he was running away. I'm not gonna get away. So eff it. I'm gonna charge this motherfcker and tell a glorious tale about it when I'm serving time.

 

[AndeyHall]

Yeah, right, the guy who ran after a short struggle, during which he was shot once, was "obviously" going to beat the cop to death. He'd already been shot, which lends credence to the notion that he would be trying to surrender as many as 90 seconds later when more shots were being fired at him and he could not find cover. To think that he'd make it nearly 160' away from the cop's SUV, already wounded, then turn and charge the cop who's still shooting at him is the desperate argument here, Junior.

Him (the "Him" being the one who had just committed a violent felony, and then committing another violent felony right after, while also high) running away to gather himself and then regrouping and coming back for round two makes WAY more sense than white cop with what is described to be an exemplary career and no history of excessive force or racist tendencies rolling up to 2 black guys walking down the street and thinking "hey, I bet I can start a fight with one of these black guys and then shoot and kill him and claim self defense and get away with it."

 

[whodat2710]

Yeah, right, the guy who ran after a short struggle, during which he was shot once, was "obviously" going to beat the cop to death. He'd already been shot, which lends credence to the notion that he would be trying to surrender A far cry from fact, it also lends credence to the notion that the high as a kite thug now considered himself bullet-proof since the first shot didn't kill him. He was going to be a thug legend! "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!"...please. as many as 90 seconds later when more shots were being fired at him and he could not find cover. Funny that none of those shots hit him in the back as he was fleeing from a felony arrest. To think that he'd make it nearly 160' away from the cop's SUV, already wounded, then turn and charge the cop who's still shooting at him again assumes facts not in evidence. Implies that the cop was shooting at his back then he turned. is the desperate argument here, Junior.

160 feet huh? You are arguing that the guy wouldn't turn and run 160' while wounded. I'll argue that he didn't need to since the cop was pursuing him to arrest him for felony assault among other things.
-
WRT your continued rant about the Grand Jury - My only comments regarding the GJ is that it should never have gotten that far. Your colluding eyewitnesses not withstanding.

Plain and simple, I don't believe the eyewitnesses. Why? Not because they are black, because their stories match so perfectly. Because none of them mentioned anything bad about MB. Because what they say is not supported by the forensic evidence. If the Grand Jury felt the same, and if DW's testimony WAS supported by the evidence, what is the problem?
-
Crowds gather after an incident has begun, and the only eyewitness there from the beginning has already been discredited. You don't believe DW because he's a cop, and you believe the eyewitnesses because they aren't cops. Good reasoning. You convicting DW just because he's a cop is right up there with racism as far as damning a group for the actions of a few.

...some testimonies match each other AND the facts, others match each other and the Sharpton agenda, but not the facts. Gee, I don't know which one I will give credence to. Were the witnesses coached? Of course, on both sides. That happens for almost every witness in every proceeding in the country to one extent or another. Could the pro-DW be coached in a way that corroborates the forensic evidence and makes sense of it? Sure, which is why I said ALL witness testimony is suspect. When weighed against the forensics of the case, one is credible and one is not. How hard is that to comprehend?

The "facts" you questioned me about that I am referring to are basic ones - MB attacked a cop, which is agreed to by both sides of this. None of the "eyewitnesses" saw this, but if they did none of them mentioned it because it would not fit their anti-cop theories. MB was not shot in the back while his hands were up and he was kneeling on the ground. I guess the question is, how can you lend any credence to the eyewitnesses?

 

[BluesStringer]

160 feet huh? You are arguing that the guy wouldn't turn and run 160' while wounded. I'll argue that he didn't need to since the cop was pursuing him to arrest him for felony assault among other things.

Wrong. I'm not saying he'd have to run back 160', because you're right, he was being pursued. I'm saying he ran 160' away from the SUV. Are you questioning that he ran 160'?

WRT your continued rant about the Grand Jury - My only comments regarding the GJ is that it should never have gotten that far.

So because you think it never should've gotten that far, the ends of the GJ choosing not to indict is justified by the means of running a kangaroo court that included giving them an unconstitutional law to base their decision on? And when a juror asked to clarify that law, the prosecutor told them, "You don't need to worry about that," that end is justified by the means too?

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you didn't even listen to the video I posted and have no idea what I'm even referring to there.

Your colluding eyewitnesses not withstanding.

They weren't "my" witnesses, they were the prosecution's witnesses who have all been treated more like the accused than Wilson himself. And do you have evidence that witnesses colluded? I've seen tons of conjecture to that effect, but not one single shred of evidence. Who did the two white landscapers collude with after they went home outside of Ferguson? Were they even called to the GJ?

But then, why the Hell am I asking you? You don't give a crap because the result you wanted, you got. But don't ever claim to "still have faith" in any part of this government again, because when the evidence of its obvious corruption is staring you in the face, you applaud it.

Blues

ETA:

The "facts" you questioned me about that I am referring to are basic ones - MB attacked a cop, which is agreed to by both sides of this. None of the "eyewitnesses" saw this, but if they did none of them mentioned it because it would not fit their anti-cop theories.

You are so full of crap. Dorian Johnson not only saw what happened at the SUV, he testified in the GJ at length about it, including taking several questions from jurors themselves about it. He's been on TV since the not true announcement stating unequivocally that he stands by everything he said. Wilson even said during his testimony that Brown handed something (the "rillos") to Johnson during the fight, which Johnson also testified to. Johnson said the same day the shooting happened that Brown was hit from the two rounds fired in the vehicle, and Wilson and the forensics corroborated that fact. The only two things that differ between Johnson's and Wilson's testimony about the fight is Johnson says Wilson threw his door open and hit the both of them, and Wilson says Brown slammed the door when he tried to open it, and then Johnson says Wilson grabbed for Brown, and Wilson says Brown started attacking after slamming the door. Other than those two points, there's no significant difference between their testimonies about the fight, or anything that happened up until Brown started running.

You haven't bothered to read any of the testimony, have you? How about the initial report? Wilson said that Brown's "upper body" came in on him and he was punching him while his whole torso was inside. Do you believe there's that much room in a Chevy Tahoe? Wilson wasn't such a credible witness either, though he didn't really have to be because he knew the fix was in before ever entering the building where the GJ met. Otherwise, he never would've even been there.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Blues I understand the need to present another perspective. But to have such a stance on this opposing view is like presenting a analysis of the synopsis of any of the dumb and dumber movies or beavis and butthead shows. It's a sheer waste of your capabilities.