|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
08-20-2014, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
'Darren Wilson "Nearly beaten unconscious" by Michael Brown before shooting' the comments by the guy who was with brown and said 'the door kicked back' and that the cop 'tried to pull brown into his car' told me there was a physical confrontation between the two. it's too bad there were no dash and cop cams. what they have to try to figure out was if that shooting was justified. and even if the pope came and investigated, and said it was, there's going to be hell to pay from some in ferguson. Last edited by Danzig : 08-20-2014 at 05:17 PM. 
|
|
#2
08-20-2014, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
08-20-2014, 08:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#4
08-20-2014, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What a piece of crap that article is. Even for a right wing dude you are, surely you can do better than that. As your new favorite partner in crime would say...you are a right wing ******...Dish it, deal with it
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#5
08-20-2014, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree with everything the article says. I think the author does a good job of providing evidence to back up every argument he makes. Eric Holder is a joke. He is just a liberal activist who only likes to prosecute certain groups. This has always been his modus operandi dating back to when he first came into office and dropped the case against the New Black Panthers. If that case had been against the KKK, rather than the New Black Panthers, Holder would have had the full weight of his office prosecuting that case. Anyway, going back to this current case, I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative. I don't think there is one of you that could look at me with a straight face and tell me that Eric Holder would be in Ferguson with 40 FBI agents investigating this case if the police officer was black and the shooting victim was white. That is the point that the author of the article is trying to make and any objective person would agree with that. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 08-21-2014 at 02:13 AM.
|
|
#6
08-21-2014, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#7
08-21-2014, 08:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks, Bob, for your thoughtful comment. Natch you have no problem with federal agencies being staffed with left-wing idealogues.
To continue... "WASHINGTON — Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI. On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...data/14060357/ 96 of 400, or 24%. According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an..._United_States http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...133967273.html Is it really a stretch that black deaths at the hands of police make up 24% of the total deaths at the hands of the police? As for the DOJ, never in history has it inserted itself into a case as quickly as it has this one. Why do you suppose that is?
|
|
#8
08-21-2014, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Why should this case be any different? There should be an investigation and if they find the shooting was not justified, then refer the case to the local DA. If it appeared that the local authorities including the DA were not doing their job and that a person's civil rights may have been violated, it would be at that time that Eric Holder should come in and look into the case. Why is he there right now? Two conditions are necessary for civil rights charges to be considered. The first condition is that justice was not served at the local level for whatever reason. There could be several reasons for this. Maybe the local authorities would not do their job or maybe they did do their job but the jury wouldn't convict for whatever reason. So the first condition necessary for civil rights charges to be considered is that justice was not served at the local level. The second condition necessary is that there is evidence of a racial component to the crime. In this case, at this point, not only is there is no evidence that any crime was committed by the officer, but there is certainly no evidence that the officer shot the guy because he was black. There is no evidence of any racial bias on the part of this officer. This officer actually has a perfect record. So for Eric Holder to be in Ferguson right now with 40 FBI agents is absurd. It is totally premature. Holder has no business with this case at this point. He has no jurisdiction. He should do what he did with the George Zimmerman case (with a little less meddling). He should stand back and let the local authorities do their job. If he wants to look over their shoulder a little bit to make sure they are doing their job, that is fine. But until and unless the two conditions I mentioned before are met, Holder should not be there and he should stay out of this case.
|
|
#9
08-21-2014, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
08-22-2014, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#11
08-26-2014, 05:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
President Barack Obama sent no White House representative to the memorial Mass held yesterday in Rochester, New Hampshire, for James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) terrorists.
President Obama, however, did send three White House aides to Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown, the 18 year old who committed a strong arm robbery and assaulted a police officer. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...urnalist-james
|
|
#12
08-26-2014, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
 Such a rare occurrence as a high-ranking officer’s death should have warranted a great deal of attention from our Commander-in-Chief, but Obama has yet to make any public comments regarding his death. Not only has Obama been unable to make any comment about the General’s sacrifice, he also was unable to find the time to make it to General Greene’s funeral, held in Arlington National Cemetery. Obama himself was conspicuously absent, but so were the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense. The highest ranking and most senior member of Obama’s administration that found the time to pay respects to the General that was murdered by the enemy was Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno. This is beyond outrageous, and should be taken as a blatant slap in the face of every military member and civilian that knows and understands the tradition, honor, and respect that comes with military service. In what can only be a gross oversight, or else a belligerent middle-finger, Obama hasn’t even ordered flags to be flown at half-staff, like he did for the deaths of singer Whitney Houston, as well as the former communist and South African President Nelson Mandela. There are no words to describe the amount of disrespect that was on display by Obama’s deliberate absence from the General’s funeral. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/greene.asp
|
|
#13
08-26-2014, 09:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The "robbery" is alleged as the video, if you watch all of it, appears to show him paying for his cigarillos, and the scuffle appears to be an argument over the price. At the absolute worst, it's shoplifting, not a "strong arm robbery" (nice work on parroting Fox News exactly; you make it clear where you get your news from). The store owner never reported a robbery; it was called in by a customer who witnessed the scuffle. The store owner was a bit befuddled when the cops showed up demanding the video, which they didn't demand until after Michael Brown had been shot dead in the street for jaywalking. But carry on with your character assassination of a young black man. You're in fine company; the NYTimes did quite a dance yesterday, trying to make the average teenager into a thug and the cop who killed him (who grew up in a criminal household and started his career on a police force so corrupt the city disbanded it and had the county take over) into a victim. It was astounding. Good grief, if arguing with a bodega owner was a death penalty offense, half the people in NYC would be dead.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#14
08-26-2014, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It wasn't just shoplifting. He physically pushed the owner of the store. That is a "strong-arm robbery". And that's not why he got shot. He got shot because he assaulted the police officer and he charged the officer while the officer was pointing the gun at him and telling him to freeze. You have gone so far to the left that now even the liberal NYTimes is too far right for you. You are the one assassinating character. You are assassinating the character of the police officer (who has a perfect record). Nobody is assassinating the character of Michael Brown. The truth is simply coming out now. We heard all these lies about this innocent kid being shot in the back. Now we are hearing the truth and you define that as "character assassination. 
|
|
#15
08-26-2014, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The truth is, still, no one really knows what happened. and never will. But following your logic, clearly the cop bashed himself in the face to make the adult black man look bad. It's amazing how you can continue to accept your emotions as fact. And only assume one side of the story is correct because that is what you want to believe. You're sounding more and more like our dearly departed veterinarian. Last edited by Rudeboyelvis : 08-26-2014 at 11:32 AM.
|
|
#16
08-26-2014, 11:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm shocked that the Times ran this outrageous hit piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us...ries.html?_r=0 Not an angel???  I get into scuffles every time I argue with Bill over what he charges me for a bottle of Weller 107. We always laugh about it later.
|
|
#17
08-26-2014, 10:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
