|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Wayne.B
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. === More nonsense. Brown was not shot in the back, not even once. Go ahead and dismiss. Stick your head in the sand, it won't make any difference to me. The kill shot is now understood to be 150 feet between Wilson and Brown but Wilson was justified because he feared for his life. Each shot is a separate decision. Wilson was a ****ing dick and his ego was at play. Vigilante dick. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. -- "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 Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:23:42 -0800, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === More nonsense. Brown was not shot in the back, not even once. Go ahead and dismiss. Stick your head in the sand, it won't make any difference to me. The kill shot is now understood to be 150 feet between Wilson and Brown but Wilson was justified because he feared for his life. Damn, jps, didn't Luddite just say they couldn't identify the 'kill shot'? Maybe I misread. Each shot is a separate decision. Wilson was a ****ing dick and his ego was at play. Vigilante dick. Agenda? -- "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 12/2/2014 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. He knows that but like most liberals he is willing to throw 50 years of progress under the bus for a bit of political power... I read the posts there on that video the racist jps posted. It was full of blacks and white libs hating white conservatives and especially Fox news. The conservatives were calm and posted facts, the libe were loud and hateful, posting things like "the evidence clearly shows he was shot while running away"... lol.. So sick of this, get up to the go fund me and get this hero cop a couple million to go off and have the life he deserves and worked so hard for.... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:23 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === More nonsense. Brown was not shot in the back, not even once. Go ahead and dismiss. Stick your head in the sand, it won't make any difference to me. The kill shot is now understood to be 150 feet between Wilson and Brown but Wilson was justified because he feared for his life. No it ****ing wasn't.. you are full of ****... Each shot is a separate decision. Wilson was a ****ing dick and his ego was at play. Vigilante dick. He was a hero, who knows how many lives he saved killing this moron... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:34:05 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. Yes, it's not the same sort of absolute language employed by the right. Those on the left still believe in the benefit of the doubt. Not so much on the right. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. Plenty of reason for Wlson to stand trial, even if it's for manslaughter. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:35 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:23:42 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === More nonsense. Brown was not shot in the back, not even once. Go ahead and dismiss. Stick your head in the sand, it won't make any difference to me. The kill shot is now understood to be 150 feet between Wilson and Brown but Wilson was justified because he feared for his life. Damn, jps, didn't Luddite just say they couldn't identify the 'kill shot'? Maybe I misread. Each shot is a separate decision. Wilson was a ****ing dick and his ego was at play. Vigilante dick. Agenda? -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) Jps is gone over the deep end. Just standing there at the entrance of the courthouse with an axe, kill all the whites, that would be a good start for him... I have over 50 years on this earth and most of it we have progressed. I remember when Hartford burned and Jackson came to town, it's been getting better ever since until the New Black Panther Pussies took over the whitehouse.... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
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? |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:46 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:34:05 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. Yes, it's not the same sort of absolute language employed by the right. Those on the left still believe in the benefit of the doubt. Not so much on the right. Rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off.... you are a racist fool... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:48 PM, jps 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. Plenty of reason for Wlson to stand trial, even if it's for manslaughter. There is just as much evidence for you to stand trial for manslaughter... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:25:45 -0500, 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. That's ego talking, which is exactly why the cop should stand trial for murder. You cannot take a life because it satisfies your ego. He took a life, because he feared for his life. Try to take a cops gun away in a confrontational situation. That cop wants to be able to go home to his family. Same as if you broke into someone's house. The homeowner could possible run out the door, but if his family is still there, or he figured too many people get killed in home invasion robberies. He will shoot to kill! Your buddy Harry, mr Liberal, states that fact. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. What video? The one showing Brown shoving the proprietor? |
Ever hear of Kathy?
jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. Where do get brown was fleeing? Stop making up ****. He was shot in the front! |
Ever hear of Kathy?
"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. Nope stealing and roughing up the shopkeeper is not grounds for being shot. But attacking a cop who told you to use the sidewalk is very sufficient grounds to get shot! |
Ever hear of Kathy?
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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 doesnt sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and theyre 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, Im 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 dont necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesnt 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 dont worry about that. Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Us white kids got out of the middle of the street! We did not back talk or attack the cop. We stopped doing the stupid stuff. And if you strong armed a robbery you went to jail or prison. Kid I grew up with robbed a bank, and went to prison. Same as Mr. brown should have gone to jail. Was a minor amount of money value, so he would have probably got probation. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in? |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:57 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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 doesnt sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and theyre 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, Im 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 dont necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesnt 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 dont worry about that. Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Us white kids got out of the middle of the street! We did not back talk or attack the cop. We stopped doing the stupid stuff. And if you strong armed a robbery you went to jail or prison. Kid I grew up with robbed a bank, and went to prison. Same as Mr. brown should have gone to jail. Was a minor amount of money value, so he would have probably got probation. Yup, kids my kid went to school are in jail for bank robbery, and worse... another group are in for stupid **** like stealing cigars... but they didn't try to kill the cop that pulled them over because their parents taught them better. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:34 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. I had not watched that video for a while so I opened my mind a little and watched it from the perspective portrayed in the article. There's no evidence of anything that positively looks like a robbery going on. Brown seems calm at the counter. The proprietor didn't look overly excited when he came out to where Brown and his little buddy were standing. It's entirely possible no "robbery" was taking place, just a dispute about the purchase of some cigars. The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars. Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops? |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in? Look at the video, there is no evidence he paid for the cigars... in fact pretty much looks like he just grabbed a bunch, that's why it's cut after that to separate the time of the grab, to the time of the strong arm... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:57 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. What video? The one showing Brown shoving the proprietor? No the one showing him grabbing more cigars.. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 3:35 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:23:42 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Wayne.B 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. === More nonsense. Brown was not shot in the back, not even once. Go ahead and dismiss. Stick your head in the sand, it won't make any difference to me. The kill shot is now understood to be 150 feet between Wilson and Brown but Wilson was justified because he feared for his life. Damn, jps, didn't Luddite just say they couldn't identify the 'kill shot'? Maybe I misread. No John, I didn't say "they" couldn't identify the kill shot. I said, "Wilson fired off something like 12 total shots. Were all of them justified and which one killed Brown?" That's a question, not a statement of fact. You have a tendency to put words in people's mouths and then run with what you think they said. Each shot is a separate decision. Wilson was a ****ing dick and his ego was at play. Vigilante dick. Agenda? -- "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 12/2/2014 3:53 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:46 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:34:05 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. Yes, it's not the same sort of absolute language employed by the right. Those on the left still believe in the benefit of the doubt. Not so much on the right. Rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off.... you are a racist fool... Kinda figured that if this subject was discussed long enough you would eventually start blowing mental fuses. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ...Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) If he paid for the cigars, why was a robbery report called in? According to the article no robbery report was called in by the shop owner/proprietor. Could be someone else I suppose. If it was called in, it should be in the police logs. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/2/2014 3:34 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. I had not watched that video for a while so I opened my mind a little and watched it from the perspective portrayed in the article. There's no evidence of anything that positively looks like a robbery going on. Brown seems calm at the counter. The proprietor didn't look overly excited when he came out to where Brown and his little buddy were standing. It's entirely possible no "robbery" was taking place, just a dispute about the purchase of some cigars. The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars. Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops? Interesting question. My expectation is it was either a bystander who didn't know the details of what was happening but decided to be a good citizen, or the cops fabricated an incident knowing they were in deep ****. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:32 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 3:34 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:07:56 -0800, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:17:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 1:59 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:17:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/2/2014 12:51 PM, Califbill wrote: jps 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.? Southern justice. This was a screw job from the start. BS. You saw video of the "nice boy" using his bulk to strong arm a shopkeeper shortly before. I doubt it was Mr. Brown's first robbery. And even if it was, it proves he thought bulk got him what he desired. And witnesses, black ones, stated Mr. brown attacked the cop. Interesting, when in Santa Monica for Thanksgiving, a Black Guy at church complained that Wilson should not be hassling a couple kids for walking down the yellow line. They hassled us white kids for doing stupid stuff like that also. Now you are getting to the heart of the controversy. How many of you "white kids" ended up getting shot for doing stupid stuff? Further, there is video showing Brown paying for the cigars at the counter and the owners of the market have confirmed the same. They didn't call the police and insist there was no robbery. 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. This guy is going to get sued, as is the town. The prosecutor is a whole other kettle of fish. That asshole deserves to be disbarred. This video you speak of is news to me. The one I have seen (as have just about everyone with interest) showed some kind of altercation at the counter after Brown reached over and grabbed what I assume are the cigars and then Brown shoving the proprietor around as he was leaving the store. He also stopped and returned briefly seeming to be intimidating the proprietor. Plus, I believe the robbery *was* reported and sent out on the police communications network. Seems like that could be very easily disproved if not true. Where did you see or find the info about this alternate video and story? It's been out there since mid-August. Drowned out by misinformation. Attorney for the market owners confirms that his client didn't call the police and that Mike Brown paid for the cigars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...r-those-cigars Read this (from your source): "Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, **may** have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, **may** show the opposite of what they intended. While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video **appears** to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown **seems** to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford. The confrontation between Brown and the clerk **may** have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. **Perhaps** it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage **seems** to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him." How many 'mays', 'appears', and 'seems' does it take to tell what the author 'attempts' to portray as fact. Further, we're told, "Anyone attempting to justify this shooting by calling Michael Brown a "thug" or a "criminal" or who says that "he had a rap sheet" as various people have claimed over the past few days is, clearly, a racist." Looks like this guy has an agenda! He sums it up in his last sentence referring to Brown as "... an innocent, murdered, american teenager." Not saying he's wrong or anything. But if he knows his stuff, he won't be saying 'may', 'appear', 'seems', etc. I had not watched that video for a while so I opened my mind a little and watched it from the perspective portrayed in the article. There's no evidence of anything that positively looks like a robbery going on. Brown seems calm at the counter. The proprietor didn't look overly excited when he came out to where Brown and his little buddy were standing. It's entirely possible no "robbery" was taking place, just a dispute about the purchase of some cigars. The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars. Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops? Interesting question. My expectation is it was either a bystander who didn't know the details of what was happening but decided to be a good citizen, or the cops fabricated an incident knowing they were in deep ****. Or the store owner decided he better back off or he would suffer the same fate as Officer Wilson... he was trashed twice anyway, you know, for being all robbed and ****... They even tried to torch the place the second time. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:37 PM, 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. Oh my God, stop it... it's bull****, plain and simple. If so, it's murder. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:37 PM, 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. So let me get this straight.. he was killed 150 feet from the officer then ran and closed 145 feet before he died? Look idiot, the evidence clearly showed exactly what officer wilson and the witnesses all said, he was 35 feet away and the blood trail proves that, and turned back toward the cop, the evidence also clearly shows that... Stop lying, just because the kid was black, it won't help anything it only makes things worse... If so, it's murder. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:42 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:32 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The thing that gets me though is that (according to the article) the attorney for the shop owner said the police were not contacted regarding a robbery. Yet, the Ferguson police account says they received a report of the robbery taking place and it involved cigars. Who's telling the truth? Who called the cops? Interesting question. My expectation is it was either a bystander who didn't know the details of what was happening but decided to be a good citizen, or the cops fabricated an incident knowing they were in deep ****. Or the store owner decided he better back off or he would suffer the same fate as Officer Wilson... he was trashed twice anyway, you know, for being all robbed and ****... They even tried to torch the place the second time. So who called the cops then? According to the Ferguson police department a robbery was reported involving cigars and Wilson knew about it when he first came upon Brown and his little buddy in the middle of the road. |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 4:46 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:35 PM, jps 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? And I wonder where the video of Brown saying "I'm gonna' kill me a white cop today, wish I had a gun but I don't need one"? Must have been buried... The video I am referring to exists and has been shown many times by the media, including your favorite channel, Fox News. What "video" are you referring to? |
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 4:52:39 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:46 PM, KC wrote: On 12/2/2014 4:35 PM, jps 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? And I wonder where the video of Brown saying "I'm gonna' kill me a white cop today, wish I had a gun but I don't need one"? Must have been buried... The video I am referring to exists and has been shown many times by the media, including your favorite channel, Fox News. What "video" are you referring to? Making **** up again? How harryesque.. tell me please when did I ever say Fox was my favorite channel? I know, I didn't, you are just incapable of asking a question without crying out for approval from your buds, dude, you really have nothing to be ashamed of here, we all know where you're coming from... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
|
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/14 4:07 PM, KC wrote:
Absolutely. Most of the racism I have seen in my life has been blacks teaching their kids that it's ok to screw whitey. It's like an entitlement because their ancestors sold them to white slave owners... A licensed therapist in Connecticut would be shaking after a few sessions with someone as nutty as you are and on top of your psychoses, you obviously are depressed...about something. -- 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 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. Could be. But no attempt was made to explain what the change was and, when one of the jurors asked if a federal court can over rule a state statue her answer was basically, "don't worry about it". |
Ever hear of Kathy?
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.... |
Ever hear of Kathy?
KC
On 12/2/2014 5:19 PM, Let it snowe wrote: - show quoted text - " 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.... " What the 'ell is an "Alterboy"?? Does that mean he wears a ponytail and acts girlish? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com