MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you saying Ferguson police do not have to wear full uniform while on duty? Link please. Most LE agencies do have detailed and strict regulations about that. As well as procedures that arresting officers must ID themselves, which was refused- hence the filing against "John Doe". I siad nothing about photgraphing anything.

Were all the reporters misinformed about this? I guess the suit will be dismissed shortly if that is the case. We shall see, IMHO, it will cost them. And if that's what it takes for them to follow proper procedures in the future, it's a good thing.

Since no one will provide a link, here it is:


http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/loca...-city-leaders-receive-death-threats/13886027/

Thousands of threats have been made against the Ferguson Police Department and the city council, and the hacker group Anonymous allegedly took down the city's internet and phone capabilities.
 
Agreed, but who do we think the more foolish of the 2 were?

A cop who has zero complaints against him. And it's safe to say IMO this is true, b/c it would have been "leaked" already if anything existed. And even if we undertake the argument that there are no reports, b/c people in the community don't bother, I'd have to counter that argument with the idea that people who had been seriously wronged by OW would be seeking out Parks et al and telling them their story. Yes?

But back to foolishness...

MB was more than foolish in a number of different ways:

*Robbing a store where the people who own it/work in it know who you are from the neighborhood qualifies as foolish in my book.
*escalating a shoplifting incident to a felony also qualifies as foolish
*sauntering down the street to grandma's house holding stolen merchandise for all to see.....foolish
*defying a more than reasonable and simple directive by LEO while holding stolen merchandise for all the world to see....extremely foolish
*deciding to get into a physical altercation with a cop....beyond foolish
*IF physical altercation escalated into a struggle over officers gun....point of no return

Ok, I got ya.

But one problem I see with this is the automation causation you use to link the robbery to the shooting. I understand it might explain "state of mind" and all that, buttttt just for the whole "looking at it from both sides" thing, let's contemplate this scenario:

-OW drives up and says in a rude manner, "get the *advertiser censored** off the sidewalk."
-MB and DW, perhaps irritated by the rudeness of how the officer said it, say something like, "chill, man, we're almost home."
-OW drives off, sees BOLO, backs up, and this time says something like, "GET THE FU** OUT OF THE STREET, YOU DAM* FOOLS," in a very strong and condescending tone of voice.
-MB takes offense to the tone and the words used, he turns towards OW and starts talking back, like, "we're almost home, man, why you wig**' out, man, we're just walking in the street, man, why you comin' at us??"
-OW takes out his gun and points it at MB. "I said get back on teh fu**in' sidewalk or I swear I'll shoot you."
-MB gets rattled at the sight of the gun pointed at him. He reaches to try to knock the gun out of OW's gun, who was using it for no other reason than to threaten him unjustly and provoke him.
-Either a shot goes off during this part accidentally, or OW shoots hiim on purpose.
-And the rest goes from there.......

In THIS ABOVE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION - what does the previous robbery have to do with it? The robbery was not what provoked MB or caused him to have a state of mind which was led to his own death. IN THE ABOVE, what provoked MB was OW's unjust use of a gun for the purpose of unjustly threatening someone.

IN THE ABOVE situation, taken BY ITSELF AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE ROBBERY, MB made some mistakes and OW also makes a lot of foolish mistakes.

So that state of mind stuff is all good in the scenario which is favorable to OW, but it comes into a whole heck of a lot of holes once you think of the scenario the other way around.

JMO.
 
Well, anyone who can be identified on that video saying that should be charged with threatening to kill a police officer. JMO

First time I viewed that video (it's in the media thread now, BTW), I was horrified that there is a young girl of about 10 years old moving into the front line, chanting the death threats, and holding a sign. What kind of a negligent, idiotic parent allows or encourages THAT? JMO, but I think her parent/s or guardians should be under CPS supervision for allowing that. Allowing that is child endangerment and parental negligence, IMO, that is serious enough to remove custody emergently, and refer to family court. I can't believe the adults in the crowd allowed her to be there, either. Shameful, sickening, disgusting, and criminal behavior, on so many levels, IMO. What were they thinking? A little training exercise for kiddies? Orientation to rioting 101?
 
http://www.westernjournalism.com/51...-martin-luther-king-jr-delivered-dream-speech

I bet we will hear an "I Have a Dream" speech from Jackson or Sharpton today.
It never hurts to hear it again...
They need to take it a step further.

All posts are MOO

That would be great!

I caught an interview with Dr Ben Carson(?) a few days ago that was also spectacular.

He said the civil rights movement was a great and necessary thing, and would have achieved much, but it all went downhill as soon as people started patronizing AA's, focusing on the past, blame, and excuses, instead of using it the way Dr King did.

I'm paraphrasing, but his use of the term "patronizing" struck me as the most important point. I've heard a few of my AA friends reflect the same belief, especially parents. It's insulting to them and sabotages their efforts.

Through the riots, I have seen some great commentaries by AA's, and it gives me a little hope that their voices will be heard more and the others, less.
 
NONOOOO cops were not imo trying to seek revenge...
Cops were trying to keep the looters from stealing, breaking and entering, arson and from throwing bottles filled with piss. :steamed::soldier:
Except none of that was happenign at Mc Donalds, hence the lawsuit.
 
Ok, I got ya.

But one problem I see with this is the automation causation you use to link the robbery to the shooting. I understand it might explain "state of mind" and all that, buttttt just for the whole "looking at it from both sides" thing, let's contemplate this scenario:

-OW drives up and says in a rude manner, "get the *advertiser censored** off the sidewalk."
-MB and DW, perhaps irritated by the rudeness of how the officer said it, say something like, "chill, man, we're almost home."
-OW drives off, sees BOLO, backs up, and this time says something like, "GET THE FU** OUT OF THE STREET, YOU DAM* FOOLS," in a very strong and condescending tone of voice.
-MB takes offense to the tone and the words used, he turns towards OW and starts talking back, like, "we're almost home, man, why you wig**' out, man, we're just walking in the street, man, why you comin' at us??"
-OW takes out his gun and points it at MB. "I said get back on teh fu**in' sidewalk or I swear I'll shoot you."
-MB gets rattled at the sight of the gun pointed at him. He reaches to try to knock the gun out of OW's gun, who was using it for no other reason than to threaten him unjustly and provoke him.
-Either a shot goes off during this part accidentally, or OW shoots hiim on purpose.
-And the rest goes from there.......

In THIS ABOVE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION - what does the previous robbery have to do with it? The robbery was not what provoked MB or caused him to have a state of mind which was led to his own death. IN THE ABOVE, what provoked MB was OW's unjust use of a gun for the purpose of unjustly threatening someone.

IN THE ABOVE situation, taken BY ITSELF AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE ROBBERY, MB made some mistakes and OW also makes a lot of foolish mistakes.

So that state of mind stuff is all good in the scenario which is favorable to OW, but it comes into a whole heck of a lot of holes once you think of the scenario the other way around.

JMO.

Hmmmm....in your hypothetical situation laid out here....what do you think the chances are that someone who just committed a strong armed robbery just so happens to run into the most psycho bloodthirsty racist cop in the world who is just itching to kill a black kid in the middle of the day...and that same psycho cop had somehow managed to keep an impeccably clean record his entire career, awaiting just the right opportunity to do that.
 
But how did they know to call her? :confused:

Maybe she left a message (email, voicemail) to contact her. In hopes to get some media attention/$$$. JMO.

Don Lemon mentioned a little while ago on Brook's show that when he called her, she and her client were just meeting with FBI in her office, IIRC.
 
That would be great!

I caught an interview with Dr Ben Carson(?) a few days ago that was also spectacular.

He said the civil rights movement was a great and necessary thing, and would have achieved much, but it all went downhill as soon as people started patronizing AA's, focusing on the past, blame, and excuses, instead of using it the way Dr King did.

I'm paraphrasing, but his use of the term "patronizing" struck me as the most important point. I've heard a few of my AA friends reflect the same belief, especially parents. It's insulting to them and sabotages their efforts.

Through the riots, I have seen some great commentaries by AA's, and it gives me a little hope that their voices will be heard more and the others, less.

I would absolutely love for him to run for President. :heartbeat:
 
Except none of that was happenign at Mc Donalds, hence the lawsuit.

I tend to get a tad pissy when protestors start whining about civil rights when they fail to utilize the rights they do have.

This is about money, plain and simple.

The people of Ferguson are being used and exploited by race baiters and agitators for their own gain.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
First time I viewed that video (it's in the media thread now, BTW), I was horrified that there is a young girl of about 10 years old moving into the front line, chanting the death threats, and holding a sign. What kind of a negligent, idiotic parent allows or encourages THAT? JMO, but I think her parent/s or guardians should be under CPS supervision for allowing that. Allowing that is child endangerment and parental negligence, IMO, that is serious enough to remove custody emergently, and refer to family court. I can't believe the adults in the crowd allowed her to be there, either. Shameful, sickening, disgusting, and criminal behavior, on so many levels, IMO. What were they thinking? A little training exercise for kiddies? Orientation to rioting 101?

Could you please post a link for that.
 
Since no one will provide a link, here it is:


http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/loca...-city-leaders-receive-death-threats/13886027/

Thousands of threats have been made against the Ferguson Police Department and the city council, and the hacker group Anonymous allegedly took down the city's internet and phone capabilities.

I asked for a link about them being allowed to work out of offical uniform, or refuse to ID themselves while arresting citizens- not seeing either of these things there? Thanks!
 
Ok, I got ya.

But one problem I see with this is the automation causation you use to link the robbery to the shooting. I understand it might explain "state of mind" and all that, buttttt just for the whole "looking at it from both sides" thing, let's contemplate this scenario:

-OW drives up and says in a rude manner, "get the *advertiser censored** off the sidewalk."
-MB and DW, perhaps irritated by the rudeness of how the officer said it, say something like, "chill, man, we're almost home."
-OW drives off, sees BOLO, backs up, and this time says something like, "GET THE FU** OUT OF THE STREET, YOU DAM* FOOLS," in a very strong and condescending tone of voice.
-MB takes offense to the tone and the words used, he turns towards OW and starts talking back, like, "we're almost home, man, why you wig**' out, man, we're just walking in the street, man, why you comin' at us??"
-OW takes out his gun and points it at MB. "I said get back on teh fu**in' sidewalk or I swear I'll shoot you."
-MB gets rattled at the sight of the gun pointed at him. He reaches to try to knock the gun out of OW's gun, who was using it for no other reason than to threaten him unjustly and provoke him.
-Either a shot goes off during this part accidentally, or OW shoots hiim on purpose.
-And the rest goes from there.......

In THIS ABOVE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION - what does the previous robbery have to do with it? The robbery was not what provoked MB or caused him to have a state of mind which was led to his own death. IN THE ABOVE, what provoked MB was OW's unjust use of a gun for the purpose of unjustly threatening someone.

IN THE ABOVE situation, taken BY ITSELF AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE ROBBERY, MB made some mistakes and OW also makes a lot of foolish mistakes.

So that state of mind stuff is all good in the scenario which is favorable to OW, but it comes into a whole heck of a lot of holes once you think of the scenario the other way around.

JMO.

Ok, but we're talking about foolishness, and who in the past, or within the last 1/2 hour or so prior to the shooting exhibited foolish behavior.

Even if we bring state of mind into the discussion, I'd still make the same argument. There has been no, zero, zilch allegations that OW had ever acted in his professional capacity with a "state of mind" that you just described. I will go back to the diligent attempts by Parks & company to dig up dirt on OW and they've come up empty handed. Given that, am I supposed to believe that a cop who would pull his gun on 2 young guys and threaten to shoot them simply b/c they said, "hey man why you hassling me?" Wouldn't have a "smidgen of corruption" attached to his name? if OWs state of mind were such that this was how he conducted himself wouldn't there be complaints? If not in the past, then where are all his alleged victims of harassment now? Ever since the events of that afternoon unfolded, anyone past or present who had a legitimate incident to report regarding his behavior would have been knocking on Parks door ASAP.

There were two people involved here, and thus far, one acted a fool, and one didn't.
JMO
 
you're right. No jaywalking.....
they were walking in the middle of the street,
blocking traffic.
Link in media thread.


Jaywalking came out of the mouth of the police Chief, also linked in media thread. Are you saying he changed his story?
 
I had cnn on a couple of days ago, and the panel was discussing this.

Lemon (quite emphatically) stopped everyone to clarify the timeline of events.

He said the guy did not want to come forward with it because he wanted to stay anonymous. So he told his friend /roommate (he wasn't sure) who is this lawyer.

She gave it to one of Lemon's assistants, and for "some mixed up reason" (again, lemon didn't know), the assistant neglected to give it to Lemon.

Once he did, apparently, Lemon ran with it. Maybe that's when he called her.

I don't know if that show is online, but I would like to rewatch, because I got the impression that she took it to Lemon's guy before the FBI. It annoyed me. But I could have missed something, or they had it wrong at the time.

Just adding this to the table. Personally, I don't think the tape helps us much here. Without the technology and statements for comparison, it could mean anything or nothing.
CNN Releases AUDIO Of Moment Michael Brown Was KI…: http://youtu.be/35tVMUwk1_o

All posts are MOO
 
a
Could you please post a link for that.

LambChop in the last few seconds of the 'Death Chant' video posted on the last page a little girl wearing a skirt and white shoes/socks walks from the far side and takes her place in the line. She is holding a sign but I can't see what's on it. :(

ETA, it actually looks like she might be wearing a school uniform; at any rate, it's a blue plaid jumper dress with a light blue blouse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
245
Total visitors
339

Forum statistics

Threads
609,157
Messages
18,250,194
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top