goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: gatoveintisiete on November 28, 2014, 05:06:23 PM
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
-
are you from meade ks and on facebook?
-
Good grief.
-
Tgiving is a great time for some kansans to go back to little kansas towns and recharge their intollerance and stupidity.
-
Because Americans have a shorter attention span than CNS or steve Dave's dick, so things need to be drawn out
-
The OP makes a fair point - probably correct - but can we just merge all this crap into one master racial butthurt thread? I mean, how many of the same damned thread do we need? MIR can moderate.
-
- probably correct -
-
I'm starting to believe that stevedave, like everybody else i've ever met from Meade, doesn't know shitt from hot apple butter.
-
- probably correct -
- agreed -
-
Outrage over lack of outrage is my favorite
-
Outrage over lack of outrage is my favorite
It's a bigot's pro move
-
Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong.
Isn't the outrage about when a cop (or other person, e.g: GZ) is getting away with what they perceive to be murder/manslaughter/whatever? What is there to be outraged over when a cop is being prosecuted for a wrongful killing? We've already agreed that murder is bad, not prosecuting it is the source of outrage.
-
Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong.
Isn't the outrage about when a cop (or other person, e.g: GZ) is getting away with what they perceive to be murder/manslaughter/whatever? What is there to be outraged over when a cop is being prosecuted for a wrongful killing? We've already agreed that murder is bad, not prosecuting it is the source of outrage.
Reminds me of "A black guy killed a white guy, THIS IS JUST LIKE TRAYVON" and then the article shows mugshots and talks about the people being in custody from the start.
-
There should never ever be a time in your life when you need to differentiate crap from hot apple butter.
If there was a stupid sayings contest dumbasses from KS would beat the competition like eggs on the backside of a rabbits leather jacket.
-
Some families and communities choose to respond peacefully and within the law to an injustice. The media reacts to the reaction and foments tensions for a story and cause they support. Posts to social media that were misleading stated the firestorm - if on the internet it is true, i have been duped myself.
-
Some families and communities choose to respond peacefully and within the law to an injustice. The media reacts to the reaction and foments tensions for a story and cause they support. Posts to social media that were misleading stated the firestorm - if on the internet it is true, i have been duped myself.
I don't belive that last sentence
-
Amazing foresight on the part of the Ferguson mob, knowing, with enough certainty to torch the town, that the cop wouldn't be indicted.
Libtards are so rough ridin' silly
-
Its like these Ferguson situations are the Democratic parties private playgrounds where they divide America, stir up the base, cause millions of dollars worth of damage over what is eventually proved to reasonable adults to be a sham. All the while taking no risk politically or financially for the mayhem they create......yeah eff them and their rough ridin' reindeer games.
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
-
Fox News is fair and balanced. Other MSM are there with an agenda.
-
I know a lot of people that despise Al for the Tawana Brawley bit.
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
-
People that blame everything on Fox News are dumber than people who blame everything on the Kochs.
It's hilarious to see a sarcastic response regarding conspiracy followed by a serious statement about Fox News. Like, are people really that deluded and obtuse?
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
-
People that blame everything on Fox News are dumber than people who blame everything on the Kochs.
It's hilarious to see a sarcastic response regarding conspiracy followed by a serious statement about Fox News. Like, are people really that deluded and obtuse?
FSD posted this without a bit of irony
-
MIR's shtick of exaggerating and embellishing every post he responds to, only to become extremely defensive and angry at every minute misinterpretation of his own posts might be the most boring and predictable thing on goE.
Edna' s belief that everyone is possessed with the content and context of 2 hours a day of msnbc and media matters drivel when reading his rants is a close second.
-
Do 3-5! :excited:
-
:lol:
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.
Horseshit on all counts
Johnsons testimony doesn't square with the physical evidence, yet was the catalyst for everything else.
-
Oh, okay then buddy. If there is anyone who had the pulse of the protesters and rioters its gatoveintisiete. My bad.
-
If I tell ya theres cheese on the moon, you better hide yer crackers!
-
A "widely reported history of issues". This was just the straw that broke the camels back.
:ROFL:
-
If I tell ya theres cheese on the moon, you better hide yer crackers!
:drool:
-
The left's agenda is having a divisive argument? Why is this?
-
How does the right stay so wholesome?
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.
Horseshit on all counts
Johnsons testimony doesn't square with the physical evidence, yet was the catalyst for everything else.
Officer Wilson's testimony doesn't square with the evidence but that won't even go to trial
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.
Horseshit on all counts
Johnsons testimony doesn't square with the physical evidence, yet was the catalyst for everything else.
Officer Wilson's testimony doesn't square with the evidence but that won't even go to trial
I'm super curious since it's the first time I've heard this. What have you got?
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.
Horseshit on all counts
Johnsons testimony doesn't square with the physical evidence, yet was the catalyst for everything else.
Officer Wilson's testimony doesn't square with the evidence but that won't even go to trial
I'm super curious since it's the first time I've heard this. What have you got?
here's just one example:
He estimates that Brown ran 20-30 feet away from the car and then charged another 10 feet back towards Wilson. But we know Brown died 150 feet away from the car.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
this is an interesting read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html
-
Judging distance in feet is really hard.
-
Judging distance in feet is really hard.
yes. As has been mentioned on this blog, eyewitnesses are very unreliable.
-
Michigan posted the big one that I was referring to.
-
Judging distance in feet is really hard.
I'd guess it would be harder to see 150 feet as 15 feet
-
Judging distance in feet is really hard.
I'd guess it would be harder to see 150 feet as 15 feet
Why should we care about 150'?
-
Here's Wilson's grand jury testimony. The contact starts on page 206.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/ (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/)
Nothing about running 20-30 feet in there. Maybe when he ran after him he was 20-30 feet behind him when he turned around, then came back within 10 feet when he shot him.
If your interested in a detailed eye witness testimony from a person right there on the scene (witness 10):
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371062-grand-jury-volume-6.html#document/p149 (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371062-grand-jury-volume-6.html#document/p149)
EDIT: Page 164 is where he starts describing the actual altercation.
-
Judging distance in feet is really hard.
I'd guess it would be harder to see 150 feet as 15 feet
Probably, but we are talking about a cop here. He's probably not very smart.
-
Here's Wilson's grand jury testimony. The contact starts on page 206.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/ (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/)
Nothing about running 20-30 feet in there. Maybe when he ran after him he was 20-30 feet behind him when he turned around, then came back within 10 feet when he shot him.
If your interested in a detailed eye witness testimony from a person right there on the scene (witness 10):
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371062-grand-jury-volume-6.html#document/p149 (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371062-grand-jury-volume-6.html#document/p149)
EDIT: Page 164 is where he starts describing the actual altercation.
Page 12: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371134-interview-po-darren-wilson.html
-
Here's Wilson's grand jury testimony. The contact starts on page 206.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/ (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/)
Nothing about running 20-30 feet in there. Maybe when he ran after him he was 20-30 feet behind him when he turned around, then came back within 10 feet when he shot him.
If your interested in a detailed eye witness testimony from a person right there on the scene (witness 10):
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371062-grand-jury-volume-6.html#document/p149 (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371062-grand-jury-volume-6.html#document/p149)
EDIT: Page 164 is where he starts describing the actual altercation.
Page 12: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371134-interview-po-darren-wilson.html
Are you still on the 20-30 feet thing? Both the eye witness and wilson say brown ran and wilson chased to within 20 feet or so. If brown only ran 20-30 feet, then wilson didn't run at all.
-
Ok
-
Did you read witness 10's account? Brown ran to the corner with Wilson giving chase.
Also, Wilson said he originally ran 20 to 30 feet, meaning he then ran again.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIyjOJch.jpg&hash=a3332a9c83e3d9916140a182c2880d978c071eee)
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.
-
I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters. Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm? Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions, the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong. It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors. They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice. Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.
Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.
Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?
Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?
Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy
I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.
I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda. The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened, the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was. Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots. This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.
1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.
Horseshit on all counts
Johnsons testimony doesn't square with the physical evidence, yet was the catalyst for everything else.
Officer Wilson's testimony doesn't square with the evidence but that won't even go to trial
I'm super curious since it's the first time I've heard this. What have you got?
here's just one example:
He estimates that Brown ran 20-30 feet away from the car and then charged another 10 feet back towards Wilson. But we know Brown died 150 feet away from the car.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
this is an interesting read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html
How is that conflicting?
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.
You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.
You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.
Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.
You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.
Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?
There is some evidence and testimony they included that would have changed the outcome had they left it out.
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.
You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.
Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?
There is some evidence and testimony they included that would have changed the outcome had they left it out.
Yeah, probably would have been better if they didn't let them see all of the evidence. Would have been an epic riot when they lost the trial.
-
There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.
You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.
You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.
Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?
There is some evidence and testimony they included that would have changed the outcome had they left it out.
Yeah, probably would have been better if they didn't let them see all of the evidence. Would have been an epic riot when they lost the trial.
If you get falsely accused of a crime and see a grand jury, you can rest assured that no evidence that raises doubt of your guilt is going to be presented. Why should cops get special treatment?