And he used "bikers" as an example instead of gangbangers.
He put thought into that too.
So it appears Michael Brown was not an innocent teenager gunned down by the police.
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
And he used "bikers" as an example instead of gangbangers.
He put thought into that too.
I know that there has been a pattern of using race to vilify and your obvious jab of racism at me is a usual suspect when the facts are obvious. I said even black folks in jest, because I acknowledge that this is not a black white issue although some would like to make it so.
Don't sweat it RCS. It is all they have these days. The race card has been diluted by over use many many years ago. People just laugh and roll their eyes now down here.
Maybe, but I'm more comfortable with that than with being happy when unarmed people are shot down.
Yeah... cut down in street... running away... hands held high and yelling don't shoot. That's how it went down... yeah yeah!
I'm not sweating it Smack. No worries there. That is how folks avoid acknowledging that they might have been wrong. By throwing out "You're a racist." It's nothing new. 911 Truther's scream shrilly about being a sellout to the man.
Ignorance is alive and well when it comes to the Mob mentality.
Oh oh I see, you saying even black witnesses corroborating the officer's story was in jest! I get it now. Ha ha ha.
Check out this video... what a bunch of racist!
Chicago Activists Unchained, Destroy Black Leadership - YouTube
Actually there is a difference between gang banger and biker an no I didn't give
any thought to that. I've walked streets where there were gang bangers too and
come to think of it they didn't instill fear in me either
I suppose its because cops are the ones one should be able to go to for protection
in communities and depending on who shows up you have to decide if you could
trust them, The mere fact there is a question in the case of police is the problem
of doubt.
Here where I live we have seen video of a cop who beat the hell out of a guy who
was surrendering to police later to find out he wasn't the person they were looking
for. Same cop kicked a man who had his hands up and on his knees. Yup on
camera kicking him in the face for no reason. Both case not much happened.
one went to jail for assault like the rest of us would have
We leave the door open for more problems unless we clean the mess up and
that goes for cops in many jurisdictions in North America.
any thought to that. I've walked streets where there were gang bangers too and
come to think of it they didn't instill fear in me either
I suppose its because cops are the ones one should be able to go to for protection
in communities and depending on who shows up you have to decide if you could
trust them, The mere fact there is a question in the case of police is the problem
of doubt.
Here where I live we have seen video of a cop who beat the hell out of a guy who
was surrendering to police later to find out he wasn't the person they were looking
for. Same cop kicked a man who had his hands up and on his knees. Yup on
camera kicking him in the face for no reason. Both case not much happened.
one went to jail for assault like the rest of us would have
We leave the door open for more problems unless we clean the mess up and
that goes for cops in many jurisdictions in North America.
You don't get anything. That's obvious. This shooting, even if it was unjustified has bugger all to do with race. It was made about race by guys like Al Sharpton and hand wringing white people. So yes, when I say even black witnesses I say it in jest. You on the other hand toss out the race card, because you have little if anything to retort with. hahaha
Well at least you showed up Nug. Cookies on the right.
What's up with the stupid *** title by the way? Very misleading and just blatantly false actually.
Why not? RCS is presenting the testimony of some witnesses as the only story, why can't you present the testimony of other witnesses as the only story?
Here's my reasoning on the matter. First off, when a police officer (or anyone else) shoots an unarmed person, there is reason for suspicion, and an investigation is entirely proper. Then, the investigation produces a mountain of evidence: eyewitnesses, forensics, physical evidence, and all that. In the process things emerge that lead the finder of fact to conclude that the shooting was justified, that it was accidental, or that it was unjustified (I think we can rule out accidental in this case). One of the critical features is the ability of the finder of fact to hear the testimony of the witnesses and evaluate their credibility, something we will never have (by "finder of fact," I mean investigatory panel, judge, jury, and so forth, depending on where the case is heard).
I have consistently stated the standard for the use of deadly force, and stated that I don't know what happened between Brown and Wilson. But, given that Wilson had a gun (and used it) and Brown was unarmed, as I said at the top, there's reason for suspicion. Just as with the Zimmerman case, where I was suspicious of Zimmerman all along, but held my decision until after the evidence was in, and then pronounced my conclusion that Zimmerman, while hardly innocent as a newborn lamb, was legally justified in shooting Martin. Similarly, I am suspicious of Wilson because he shot an unarmed man. And similarly, I will hold my conclusion until the evidence is in.
Meanwhile, you will claim that I said, or believe, this or that, but that really don't matter. It ain't true. But I've noticed a certain pattern in you of ascribing to me things I've never said, while at the same time raising a mighty ruckus when people ascribe to you things you never said. Oh well, not a lot of consistency in this ol' world. It's OK, my statement is out there now, and no amount of lies, innuendo, or false attribution will change that.
It never is to white people. And after some time on this board, I've pretty much given up on trying to help people see that their viewpoints are not the only valid viewpoints.
There are actually three areas in the city you might be slightly wary of
but I was speaking more of Vancouver and even a few places elsewhere
in the Lower Mainland.
Perhaps you are unaware we are the crossroads of a lot of the drug trade
between Calgary and Vancouver's large metropolitan area.
Kelowna is a beautiful place but it wasn't for Johnathan Bacon he was gunned
down in the heart of the city in broad daylight in mid summer a year or so ago
Lots of crime as everywhere else
but I was speaking more of Vancouver and even a few places elsewhere
in the Lower Mainland.
Perhaps you are unaware we are the crossroads of a lot of the drug trade
between Calgary and Vancouver's large metropolitan area.
Kelowna is a beautiful place but it wasn't for Johnathan Bacon he was gunned
down in the heart of the city in broad daylight in mid summer a year or so ago
Lots of crime as everywhere else
I think it represents RCS's view, which appears to be that Michael Brown deserved to die because he was not an innocent child.
I know that your persecution complex requires you to think other people bring race into the issue, but all I did was ask where any legal opinion had been reached. In our conversation, you were the first person to mention race.
See:
You did it. You played the race card. You might miss it so I tried to make it stand out for you. In case you pretend to miss it again, give me a heads up. How much bigger should I make the font?