Hands up, don't fruit!
Imbecile.
"The Huff" being the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel?Oh yes the Huff is your friend...
Imbecile.
"The Huff" being the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel?Oh yes the Huff is your friend...
Imbecile.
He's from Minnesota... he's already handicapped.
I drove through St.Paul/Minneapolis yesterday.. what a bunch of ignorant fukking hicks.. they can drive worth crap.. always thought Alberta drivers were bad.. I stand corrected, they are great compared to Minnesota drivers.
They are rude, ignorant and I would say, a little slow..
He's from Minnesota... he's already handicapped.
I drove through St.Paul/Minneapolis yesterday.. what a bunch of ignorant fukking hicks.. they can drive worth crap.. always thought Alberta drivers were bad.. I stand corrected, they are great compared to Minnesota drivers.
They are rude, ignorant and I would say, a little slow..
Well, network and cable ratings both are down, so...
anyway, smart money is on the cops in any future 'incident'.
oh and...this just in:
Conflict News @rConflictNews
Darren Wilson's Resignation Letter via @deray #Ferguson
shadowshiv,
I feel bad for this guy. He didn't do anything wrong, yet he pays the price of the douchebag looters.
I am NOT laughing or making a joke of this, but it looks like he also peed his pants. I imagine he was quite (and rightfully so) frightened when his store was being looted (if he was present at the time)
The looters were the good people; the cops caused all the problems.It is likely that his insurance will cover all or most of the damage. Also the IRS Code Sec 165(e) allows for casualty losses which are not insured. Therefore, he will get some if not all of his money back. As for the crime itself, I blame the cops who stood by and did nothing. I was watching live on Ustream as streamers complained that the cops stood by and did nothing to stop the looters while spending their time harassing people who were filming the worthless cops.
Tamir Rice in Cleveland.
And another twist to the story. Not sure why he wouldn't go after anyone on either side if he can prove they lied. Wouldn't they be under oath..........?
And another twist to the story. Not sure why he wouldn't go after anyone on either side if he can prove they lied. Wouldn't they be under oath..........?
Certain witnesses who spoke before the grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown told obvious lies under oath, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Friday.
“Clearly some were not telling the truth,” he said during an interview on KTRS 550. He added that he's not planning to pursue charges against any lying witnesses.
In his first extensive interview since the grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, McCulloch said he had no regrets about letting grand jury members hear from non-credible witnesses.
“Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said. He added that he would've been criticized no matter his decision.
During the interview, McCulloch referenced a woman who claimed to have seen the shooting.
This “lady clearly wasn't present,” McCulloch said. “She recounted a story right out of the newspaper,” backing up Wilson's version of events.
The criticism of that witness fits the questions surrounding Sandra McElroy, also known as Witness 40.
McElroy, who's admitted to using racial slurs and trying to raise money for Wilson, testified that she saw the entire shooting unfold, and that Brown charged the officer shortly before he was killed — a detail that has proven controversial because of conflicting reports.
more
Some witnesses lied to Michael Brown grand jury, McCulloch says. So why have them testify? : News