Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:00:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 7:41 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:17:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 8:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:53:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 3:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:58:52 -0800, jps wrote:

You cannot take a life because it satisfies your ego.

===

Of course not but you can make an arrest when someone assaults you. If
the suspect resists arrest with force that's not ego, that's self
defense. All of this talk about Brown being shot running away is
nonsense. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it.



My biggest question is what happened to the amateur video of the two,
white construction workers who, while watching the shooting, raised
their hands as if imitating Brown and commented that he was surrendering?

Are you saying that while the shooting was taking place someone was
videotaping two white construction workers who seemed to be imitating
Brown? This photographer, with bullets going every which way, was
taping the construction workers?


I'd have my doubts too. Maybe the major media decided it was a bit
farfetched.


In other words another made up story by CNN for maximum ratings, huh?

There you go putting words into another's mouth and then running with
them. Did I mention CNN or maximum ratings?

Here. This is another youtube video that includes some discussion about
it. Decide for yourself if it's real or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMY1R1LLbtQ


See earlier comments.


Dear Clara,

I guess you missed the part where the narration in the video indicated
that the photographer was located in a basement apartment. He grabbed
an iPad or something and started recording through a window shortly
after the first shots were fired.

Sincerely,

Luddite



Well, that explains everything. He had 'spectacular' ears.

Who's 'Clara'?
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/14 8:04 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,

I never had the need to punch a police officer while he was sitting in
his cruiser. I never had the need to reach for a police officer's gun
while he was sitting in his cruiser.


There's still hope.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:51:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 5:31 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US
Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near
the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence
using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

"Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we
have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they're called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the
state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so
that
you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn't comply with the law."


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

"As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected
when she learned of the federal ruling.

No way, it was a setup all the way. Do the math, he was a white cop, the
kid was black.. There simply is only one way this could go down knowing
the cop is a Klans man and the kid was an Alterboy bringing his granny
to church when he was run down four times and shot thirty times in the
back... I mean, the evidence is there, and I even hear there is a video
tape... Sharpton told me....


Here. Apparently you haven't seen or don't remember this. It doesn't
prove it happened this way but it's an eye witness account that was
apparently dismissed by the DA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU


Photographer must have great ears, or adding words after the fact.


Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and
read.

The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything.
It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was
about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown
put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok".

The photographer claims he heard the construction worker say the things that were written in quotes on the video - no? Therefore, in my opinion, the photographer must have had some good ears.

Who's Clara?

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 8:10 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:51:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 5:31 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US
Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near
the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence
using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

"Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we
have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they're called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the
state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so
that
you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn't comply with the law."


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

"As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected
when she learned of the federal ruling.

No way, it was a setup all the way. Do the math, he was a white cop, the
kid was black.. There simply is only one way this could go down knowing
the cop is a Klans man and the kid was an Alterboy bringing his granny
to church when he was run down four times and shot thirty times in the
back... I mean, the evidence is there, and I even hear there is a video
tape... Sharpton told me....


Here. Apparently you haven't seen or don't remember this. It doesn't
prove it happened this way but it's an eye witness account that was
apparently dismissed by the DA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU


Photographer must have great ears, or adding words after the fact.


Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and
read.

The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything.
It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was
about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown
put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok".

The photographer claims he heard the construction worker say the things that were written in quotes on the video - no? Therefore, in my opinion, the photographer must have had some good ears.

Who's Clara?



No. The comments made by the construction worker were obtained by a
direct interview of him.

The amateur photographer simply recorded what you see in the video.
In an interview he said he offered it to the police but they weren't
interested in it.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 8:06 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:00:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 7:41 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:17:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 8:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:53:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 3:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:58:52 -0800, jps wrote:

You cannot take a life because it satisfies your ego.

===

Of course not but you can make an arrest when someone assaults you. If
the suspect resists arrest with force that's not ego, that's self
defense. All of this talk about Brown being shot running away is
nonsense. There isn't a shred of evidence to support it.



My biggest question is what happened to the amateur video of the two,
white construction workers who, while watching the shooting, raised
their hands as if imitating Brown and commented that he was surrendering?

Are you saying that while the shooting was taking place someone was
videotaping two white construction workers who seemed to be imitating
Brown? This photographer, with bullets going every which way, was
taping the construction workers?


I'd have my doubts too. Maybe the major media decided it was a bit
farfetched.


In other words another made up story by CNN for maximum ratings, huh?

There you go putting words into another's mouth and then running with
them. Did I mention CNN or maximum ratings?

Here. This is another youtube video that includes some discussion about
it. Decide for yourself if it's real or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMY1R1LLbtQ


See earlier comments.


Dear Clara,

I guess you missed the part where the narration in the video indicated
that the photographer was located in a basement apartment. He grabbed
an iPad or something and started recording through a window shortly
after the first shots were fired.

Sincerely,

Luddite



Well, that explains everything. He had 'spectacular' ears.

Who's 'Clara'?


sigh I'll try one more time.

The "photographer" isn't the one being quoted in the video. He simply
recorded the video.

The construction worker who threw his hands up in the air is the one who
said he heard Brown saying, "Ok, Ok".

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:05:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 7:58 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 07:30:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 7:22 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:37:51 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:50:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 2:55 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify
getting killed.

===

That is not what got him killed and I think you know that.

What got him killed was trying to grab the cops gun. That is
tantanount to attempted murder and no cop of any color will let that
stand.



I agree if that's what happened. I just don't know what happened
afterwards for sure and neither does anyone else it seems.

My guess is that it initially went down the way the GJ determined it
went and Wilson was justified in at least the first couple of shots
fired. After that the story gets less certain.

As I understand it, the law requires every shot to be justified in a
deadly force situation. Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots.
Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?

We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided.


If I were defending myself, the justification would be, "Is the guy
down? No? Next shot."

I'm thinking a cop would not do a complete analysis of the scenario
before each round. Do you really think such would be required?


I believe the law says that each shot fired must be justified from an
immediate threat to the officer's life. It's not justify it once and
then fire off the whole magazine.

Before you and others jump to the conclusion that I think Wilson's
actions were not justified ... that is not the case. My gut feel is
they probably were. However, there are many conflicts in the witness's
accounts, some of which were discounted and dismissed by the prosecuting
attorney team.

One that stands out in my mind is the video of the two white
construction workers who raised their hands (imitating Brown) during the
shooting and commented that he was surrendering. That video was played
many times by the media but you don't see it much anymore.

My guess is that Wilson was on a roll. Even when Brown was hit and
surrendering Wilson continued to fire. I'm now hearing the kill shot
may have come from 150 feet away.

If so, it's murder.


The 'kill shot *may* have come from 150 feet away'. Luddite says,
"...which one killed Brown?" Now you throw up your *may* crap. Jeeez.

(Did I get it right that time Mr. Dep'ty?)


No Clara, you didn't. "Luddite" never said the kill shot may have come
from 150 feet away.

Check your attributions before you shoot your mouth off. You are
blending comments other people made (jps) with comments I made.

I suspect it's just old age and poor eyesight. If not, it's dishonesty.

The response was to jps.

Read carefully. There is no comma between '150 feet away' (response to
the previous post from jps) and 'Luddite', which would indicate I was
quoting you. Rather, the appropriate sentence reads - Luddite says,
"...which one killed Brown?"

If the blending is too hard for you, maybe it's due to poor age old
eyesight!


Give me a break.


I know how you feel. Toad's comment must have cheered you up
immensely:

"I must say it is fun watching you *out* the racists. :)"
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:22:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/3/2014 8:10 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:31 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:51:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 5:31 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US
Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near
the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence
using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

"Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we
have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they're called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the
state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so
that
you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn't comply with the law."


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

"As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

The statute thing could have been an honest mistake which she corrected
when she learned of the federal ruling.

No way, it was a setup all the way. Do the math, he was a white cop, the
kid was black.. There simply is only one way this could go down knowing
the cop is a Klans man and the kid was an Alterboy bringing his granny
to church when he was run down four times and shot thirty times in the
back... I mean, the evidence is there, and I even hear there is a video
tape... Sharpton told me....


Here. Apparently you haven't seen or don't remember this. It doesn't
prove it happened this way but it's an eye witness account that was
apparently dismissed by the DA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU


Photographer must have great ears, or adding words after the fact.


Clara, you really need to work on your comprehension of what you see and
read.

The photographer is not the one who claims he heard Brown say anything.
It was the construction worker who threw his hands up in the air and was
about 50 feet away from Brown. *He* is the one who saw and heard Brown
put his hands in the air and say, "Ok, Ok".

The photographer claims he heard the construction worker say the things that were written in quotes on the video - no? Therefore, in my opinion, the photographer must have had some good ears.

Who's Clara?



No. The comments made by the construction worker were obtained by a
direct interview of him.

Oh! OK.

The amateur photographer simply recorded what you see in the video.
In an interview he said he offered it to the police but they weren't
interested in it.


Sounds like good reason for pillaging and plundering.
--

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a liberal."

....Peter Brimelow (Author)
(Thanks, Luddite!)

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 1:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 12/2/2014 10:59 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:59:47 -0800, jps wrote:

The cop was a complete dick. The kid lost his cool, the cop ****ed up
the altercation in a big way. Didn't call for backup, jumped out of
his car and began shooting even though Brown was fleeing.

There were 3 autopsies and all 3 agree he was not shot in the back but
don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant.


Doesn't mean Wilson didn't fire at him. He was hit 6 or 7 times. Wilson
fired about 12 rounds. Obviously some missed.



Ya right. All the shots fired at him, while Brown was running away, missed.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:48:10 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/3/2014 7:23 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:35:37 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 1:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:00:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:19:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Kathy Alizadeh is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who handled the
evidence presented to the Wilson Grand Jury.

At the beginning of the deliberations she handed out copies of the
Missouri statue that covers the conditions under which a police
officer can use deadly force for the juror's to consider. (The statute
is very favorable to the police and to Wilson.)

Turns out the statute she handed out for the juror's benefit was
written in 1979 and had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme
Court in 1985. She didn't bother correcting this "error" until near the
end of the deliberations when she handed out the "correct" statute.
She allowed the jurors to listen to all the testimony and evidence using
the 1979 statute as a guide for how police can respond.

Here is what she told the jurors:

"Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a
statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force
to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have
discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research,
is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the
case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law
is codified in the written form in the books and they're called
statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state
of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United
States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that
you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of
that that doesn't comply with the law."


She never explained to the jurors what the differences were in the two
documents. A juror asked if a Federal Court finding overrules the
original State statute.

Alizadeh's response to the juror's question:

"As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."

Well what was the difference?

Was it significant to the case?

My guess, the old statute allowed the cops to shoot a fleeing felon
and they changed that part.
Since Wilson was making a "defense" case I am not sure it matters.
Brown's fatal wound was not in the back..



Absolutely correct. The part that was unconstitutional was permitting
the cops to use deadly force on someone who is fleeing. If I were
arguing for a conviction or indictment of Wilson, I'd lose because there
is no evidence Brown was shot in the back or that Wilson shot at Brown
while Brown was walking away.

But that's not the point. The point was that the DA's office used every
bit of evidence, including outdated statutes, to influence the GJ for no
indictment even before all the evidence and testimony was heard.

That's not the function or purpose of the DA's office in this situation.

Bu..bu...buu...buuut Wilson is white and Brown is brown and Wilson and
the prosecutors all work for the city of Ferguson. The couldn't
prosecute one of their own, could they?

The whole fiasco stinks to high heaven. Wilson had a defense attorney
where he should have faced a prosecutor looking for any reason to put
him on trial.


I'll bet you agree that Brown was a little sweetheart, don't you?

Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify
getting killed.

The transcripts of the GJ meetings and instructions by the Prosecutor's
office are available to read if you want to wade through them all.
I haven't read or seen all of them but the legal beagles who have feel
that the Prosecution was very selective in terms of who's testimony was
allowed and who's was discredited and trashed. That's what all the
hullabaloo is all about.

BS. The "hullabaloo" started before any of that was even known. The protest are all about the portrayal of Brown as a victim by the media. He beat a cop in his car and tried to take his gun, then charged him in the street. That's why he was shot, not for stealing a box of cigars.

Don't try to re-write history.

Brown's stepfather is now being investigated for inciting a riot with his "Burn the bitch down!" comments. Good! However, the media is guilty as well.



No re-writing of history by me. Yes, the protests began before the
transcripts of the GJ proceedings were released because of multiple eye
witness accounts that Brown was trying to surrender at one point. The
GJ transcripts suggests that testimony and evidence appear to have been
suppressed.

You wrote: "Stealing a box of cigars and shoving the proprietor doesn't justify
getting killed."

That's a re-write of history. Wilson didn't know at the beginning of the incident that Brown had committed strong-arm robbery. And the robbery is *not* the reason he was shot.

Ever hear of Kathy?
 

On 12/3/2014 12:21 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:42:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?

We'll never know for sure. A secret GJ decided.


It is not secret now. The prosecutor released the whole transcript.

How about a black athlete say?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6254688.html

Charles Barkley. Is he a racist too?
Harry would think so.