Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:12:15 -0800, jps wrote:
Nope, but attacking a cop in his car just may get one shot. Yup, six times. Now I'm hearing that the final kill shot was from 150 feet away. === Nonsense. |
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
#33
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. Why let truth get in the way of a good agenda? -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 2:37 PM, Poco Loco 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. Why let truth get in the way of a good agenda? I remember serving as a juror in a homicide trial years ago. The evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial was very convincing and the defense was weak, to be sure. When we were finally charged by the judge and retired for deliberations I remember the jury foreman stating right away that the guy's guilt was obvious and beyond question and he didn't see any need for prolonged discussion. He wanted to vote right away, return a guilty verdict and go home. He asked if everyone agreed. The majority of us didn't agree and told him that we owed the defendant some discussion of the evidence before returning a verdict. He was ****ed but had no choice but to cooperate. In the end the defendent was found guilty but at least he had a fair trial. |
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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? -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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. |
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
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 |
#39
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Ever hear of Kathy?
On 12/2/2014 2:28 PM, 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. The whole "he should have stayed in the car" **** is hilarious... A cop is trained and it's his job to protect, there would be no justification to let a violent felon who had just tried to kill an officer walk down the street and maybe get a hostage or worse. |
#40
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 Of course, the Daily Caller, Fox News and a hundred other right wing news outlets only showed the footage from the doorway. They never questioned their own assertion that Mike Brown committed "strong arm robbery" at the store. They have an agenda and if the truth contradicts that agenda, they're certainly not going to volunteer the truth. Read the Crooks & Liars report, it has a ring of truth to it. He didn't have enough money to pay for all he wanted, ended up returning what he couldn't afford to buy but the owner checked him on the way out to be sure. He probably took offense, as anyone would. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/fe...deo-seems-show |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Anybody hear from Joe? | ASA | |||
If you want to hear... | General | |||
If you want to hear... | General | |||
What's this I hear ? | ASA | |||
How would you like to hear this in TV? | ASA |