Big surprise. Anyone want to concede?
Anyone? Or are the cops all thugs and this a big coverup?
Hello? Is this thing working?
Anyone? Or are the cops all thugs and this a big coverup?
Hello? Is this thing working?
Big surprise. Anyone want to concede?
Anyone? Or are the cops all thugs and this a big coverup?
Hello? Is this thing working?
Sure, I'll concede. Cops killing unarmed non-whites is a good thing. Coz non-whites are bad. Their explanations should be taken at face value and never, ever questioned.
The only remaining question is whether this rule should apply to whites as well. But that's a subject for another day. For now, let us celebrate the death of Michael Brown and encourage Officer Wilson and his comrades to kill many, many more unarmed teenagers.
And always remember, "He reached for his waistband."
Officer Wilson’s side of the story began to come out, in dribs and drabs: after pulling Brown over, Wilson said, Wilson tried to get out of his car – Brown shut the door on him, then pushed himself through the driver’s side window. He went for Wilson’s weapon, whereupon Wilson fired the gun in the vehicle. Brown ran. Wilson chased him. Brown then turned around and ran toward Wilson, whereupon Wilson shot him several times.
According to the Washington Post, “more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony…that supports Wilson’s account of the events….blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests – also support Wilson’s account of the shooting, the Post sources said.”
Now, a new autopsy report revealed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – the same newspaper that originally termed Brown a “Gentle Giant” – showed that Brown’s body had a “graze wound” on his thumb; the wound contained matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.” That can only happen at close range – so close, in fact, that there was no stippling – a patterning of gunpowder that will not appear within an inch of the gun barrel. In other words, as San Francisco medical examiner Dr. Judy Melinek said, “this guy is reaching for the gun.”
No, I think it should be investigated, and possibly prosecuted, as an unjustified police shooting.So you still think this was an execution eh? Wow!
I'll give you this bones, at least you showed up.
Sure, I'll concede. Cops killing unarmed non-whites is a good thing. Coz non-whites are bad. Their explanations should be taken at face value and never, ever questioned.
The only remaining question is whether this rule should apply to whites as well. But that's a subject for another day. For now, let us celebrate the death of Michael Brown and encourage Officer Wilson and his comrades to kill many, many more unarmed teenagers.
And always remember, "He reached for his waistband."
Sure, I'll concede. Cops killing unarmed non-whites is a good thing. Coz non-whites are bad. Their explanations should be taken at face value and never, ever questioned.
The only remaining question is whether this rule should apply to whites as well. But that's a subject for another day. For now, let us celebrate the death of Michael Brown and encourage Officer Wilson and his comrades to kill many, many more unarmed teenagers.
And always remember, "He reached for his waistband."
It has been investigated.No, I think it should be investigated, and possibly prosecuted, as an unjustified police shooting.
You have consistently focussed on Michael Brown's character. Because you refuse to say what your standard is, preferring to tell me what I think, I can only presume from what you post that you think it's justified for cops to shoot people if those people can be accused of bad character after the fact. It's called the "He needed killin', Judge" standard. It's a bit out of fashion in law these days, but you clearly believe in it, because, I reiterate, you continually focus on Michael Brown's character. Obviously you think that's the most important aspect of the case.
So, yeah, by your standards Michael Brown deserved to die. That's why I suggested we celebrate his shooting.
I would check your statistics, but I know off the top of my head that your stat on the percentage of the population that's black is 25% off, so I'll just assume your other stats are equally flawed.That's a tremendous oversimplification. Statistically blacks are 50 times more likely to attack non blacks as the other way around. Another way to look at it is blacks make up 10 percent of the population and 85 percent of the violent crime.
Having said that, black or white, bottom line is if you don't want to wind up dead don't physically attack a police officer and try to take his weapon. Had Brown been successful then it would just be another dead white cop.
Statistically speaking again, roughly 150 police are killed each year while police kill roughly 400 people per year. The vast majority of those killed by police are white. Given that blacks account for 85% of violent crime but police kill mostly nonblacks from the 15% group theoretically the reverse of what you allege appears to be the actual truth.
Acting shrill and denying the obvious is hardly an argument.
Character-assassinating a dead kid is hardly an argument, but that don't stop you.
Character-assassinating a dead kid is hardly an argument, but that don't stop you.
Who is doing either of those in this thread? Lemme at 'em! I'll moiderize da punks!... But overzealous character assassination and egregious speculation condemning Wilson is A-OK?
Who is doing either of those in this thread? Lemme at 'em! I'll moiderize da punks!
Ah, so your point is that it is not legitimate for me to address the character assassination of Michael Brown in this thread unless I, in the same post presumably, also address everything everybody else is saying.Many people doing many things... In all cases, it is silly
Points for cherry picking, but avoidance of the other facts presented is pretty lazy.
Be sure to ignore the fact that Officer Wilson will have the full advantage of an investigation, and if he is disciplined or prosecuted, an undoubtedly able defence team to argue his case for him.
Michael Brown won't.
Ah, so your point is that it is not legitimate for me to address the character assassination of Michael Brown in this thread unless I, in the same post presumably, also address everything everybody else is saying.
Hmm. . . effective tactic, if I bought it. But I don't, so nice try.
Be sure to ignore the fact that Officer Wilson will have the full advantage of an investigation, and if he is disciplined or prosecuted, an undoubtedly able defence team to argue his case for him.
Michael Brown won't.
Um. . . no he doesn't. He's dead.If Officer Wilson was found guilty I would concede that it was an unjustified shooting.
Michael Brown getting killed doesn't default him to victim just because he was killed and btw he has lots of representation.
Um. . . no he doesn't. He's dead.
What the f*ck are you talking about? By what standard? I've articulated one standard, and that's the legal standard for deadly force.Well by that standard we should just incarcerate everyone accused of murder without due process because their alleged victims are dead. Piss on the forensic evidence, the eye witness testimony, they are dead after all and the mob demands they be held accountable whether they are innocent or justified.
Presumption of innocence just a cliche down there?
What the f*ck are you talking about? By what standard? I've articulated one standard, and that's the legal standard for deadly force.
I've said this before, but it apparently didn't get through, so I'll try again. When you make up sh*t in your head, attribute it to me, then argue against it, you're basically talking to yourself. And you can sit in the corner and do that. No need for an expensive computer and power.
Y'all have a real fine day now, hear?
I don't practice law here. If I did, I'd have to charge you.You cherry pick one thing from what I posted and ignore everything else. I asked you about the forensic evidence and the cooberating witness testimony that backs up Wilson's claim. You retort with I concede that cops can shoot blacks. Good grief man you practice (d) law?