Cop gets on a power trip, has no idea he was being filmed

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law? Can you describe the function of a grand jury? What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law?  Can you describe the function of a grand jury?  What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?  

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

I know a hell of a lot more then you think, many experts have said that the way the grand jury handled the Wilson case was extremely unusual and it was deliberately set up to fail to secure a guilty verdict.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347834/-Ferguson-grand-jury-Same-old-inequality-different-venue

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law?  Can you describe the function of a grand jury?  What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?  

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

I know a hell of a lot more then you think, many experts have said that the way the grand jury handled the Wilson case was extremely unusual and it was deliberately set up to fail to secure a guilty verdict.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347834/-Ferguson-grand-jury-Same-old-inequality-different-venue

You don't "know" anything. You are parroting what others have said on political websites that reflect your viewpoint. That's hardly an indication of your or their expertise on the matter. Also, grand juries don't issue verdicts on guilt or innocence. The function of grand juries is to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence of a commission of a crime to bind someone over to trial. That's it and it's a fairly low hurdle.

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law?  Can you describe the function of a grand jury?  What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?  

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

I know a hell of a lot more then you think, many experts have said that the way the grand jury handled the Wilson case was extremely unusual and it was deliberately set up to fail to secure a guilty verdict.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347834/-Ferguson-grand-jury-Same-old-inequality-different-venue

You don't "know" anything.  You are parroting what others have said on political websites that reflect your viewpoint.  That's hardly an indication of your or their expertise on the matter.  Also, grand juries don't issue verdicts on guilt or innocence.  The function of grand juries is to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence of a commission of a crime to bind someone over to trial.  That's it and it's a fairly low hurdle.  

"
I'm not "parroting" anything, i'm telling the truth whether you want to admit or not.

I think you're far too biased to see what's really going on.

Normally Grand Juries get a selective pool of evidence in order to ensure that the defendant is found guilty, but in this case the jury had all of the evidence from the case dumped on them all at once with little to no time to properly go through it all.

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law?  Can you describe the function of a grand jury?  What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?  

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

I know a hell of a lot more then you think, many experts have said that the way the grand jury handled the Wilson case was extremely unusual and it was deliberately set up to fail to secure a guilty verdict.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347834/-Ferguson-grand-jury-Same-old-inequality-different-venue

You don't "know" anything.  You are parroting what others have said on political websites that reflect your viewpoint.  That's hardly an indication of your or their expertise on the matter.  Also, grand juries don't issue verdicts on guilt or innocence.  The function of grand juries is to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence of a commission of a crime to bind someone over to trial.  That's it and it's a fairly low hurdle.  

"
I'm not "parroting" anything, i'm telling the truth whether you want to admit or not.

I think you're far too biased to see what's really going on.

Normally Grand Juries get a selective pool of evidence in order to ensure that the defendant is found guilty, but in this case the jury had all of the evidence from the case dumped on them all at once with little to no time to properly go through it all.

Vexer6, allow me to offer a retort. You know nothing of me or my biases. I do know that you have exhibited ignorance of basic criminal procedure and yet you feel free to lecture me on my biases as if I haven't sat before grand juries. Also, if you had read this thread you would see that I counsel citizens to never talk to the police and to protect their civil liberties at all times. Spare me your sanctimony from behind your keyboard. Some of us have actually helped people navigate through the criminal justice system.

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law?  Can you describe the function of a grand jury?  What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?  

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

I know a hell of a lot more then you think, many experts have said that the way the grand jury handled the Wilson case was extremely unusual and it was deliberately set up to fail to secure a guilty verdict.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347834/-Ferguson-grand-jury-Same-old-inequality-different-venue

You don't "know" anything.  You are parroting what others have said on political websites that reflect your viewpoint.  That's hardly an indication of your or their expertise on the matter.  Also, grand juries don't issue verdicts on guilt or innocence.  The function of grand juries is to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence of a commission of a crime to bind someone over to trial.  That's it and it's a fairly low hurdle.  

"
I'm not "parroting" anything, i'm telling the truth whether you want to admit or not.

I think you're far too biased to see what's really going on.

Normally Grand Juries get a selective pool of evidence in order to ensure that the defendant is found guilty, but in this case the jury had all of the evidence from the case dumped on them all at once with little to no time to properly go through it all.

Vexer6, allow me to offer a retort.  You know nothing of me or my biases.  I do know that you have exhibited ignorance of basic criminal procedure and yet you feel free to lecture me on my biases as if I haven't sat before grand juries. Also, if you had read this thread you would see that I counsel citizens to never talk to the police and to protect their civil liberties at all times.  Spare me your sanctimony from behind your keyboard.  Some of us have actually helped people navigate through the criminal justice system.  

I do not believe I have shown any kind of "ignorance" in the least, and i'll lecture you if I damn well please, if you don't like it then tough sh*t.

Spare me your nonsense.

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Yes the facts did warrant an indictment, it's shown that the police flat-out lied about how far Michael Brown was from Wilson.

Not all reporters are nearly as ignorant of the law as you would like to believe, you don't know everything.

When and where did you obtain your law degree? How long have you worked in criminal law?  Can you describe the function of a grand jury?  What is the standard of proof required for an indictment? What are your bona fides on this subject?  

Show me where I said ALL reporters are ignorant of the law and show me where I claimed to "know everything."

I know a hell of a lot more then you think, many experts have said that the way the grand jury handled the Wilson case was extremely unusual and it was deliberately set up to fail to secure a guilty verdict.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347684/-The-Ferguson-grand-jury-was-never-intended-to-bring-an-nbsp-indictment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347834/-Ferguson-grand-jury-Same-old-inequality-different-venue

You don't "know" anything.  You are parroting what others have said on political websites that reflect your viewpoint.  That's hardly an indication of your or their expertise on the matter.  Also, grand juries don't issue verdicts on guilt or innocence.  The function of grand juries is to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence of a commission of a crime to bind someone over to trial.  That's it and it's a fairly low hurdle.  

"
I'm not "parroting" anything, i'm telling the truth whether you want to admit or not.

I think you're far too biased to see what's really going on.

Normally Grand Juries get a selective pool of evidence in order to ensure that the defendant is found guilty, but in this case the jury had all of the evidence from the case dumped on them all at once with little to no time to properly go through it all.

Vexer6, allow me to offer a retort.  You know nothing of me or my biases.  I do know that you have exhibited ignorance of basic criminal procedure and yet you feel free to lecture me on my biases as if I haven't sat before grand juries. Also, if you had read this thread you would see that I counsel citizens to never talk to the police and to protect their civil liberties at all times.  Spare me your sanctimony from behind your keyboard.  Some of us have actually helped people navigate through the criminal justice system.  

I do not believe I have shown any kind of "ignorance" in the least, and i'll lecture you if I damn well please, if you don't like it then tough sh*t.

Spare me your nonsense.

You sir, have a winning personality and will certainly get far in life. I commend you and wish you success in all your future endeavors.

Thank you very much even if that was intended as sarcasm.

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Well said; this is pretty much where I stand after doing some reading on it tonight. Some observations:

1. Watching the video of Brown stealing the cigars before his confrontation with Wilson, there was obviously a heavy violent streak with the man (apparently I'm supposed to call him a kid) as he shoved the shop owner several times and shouted in his face. He was obviously on a power trip, and very scary at that.

2. Everyone has become HEAVILY opinionated on this matter, resulting in a bizarre right vs. left political battlefield. Liberals are choosing to victimize Brown and shout injustice while Conservatives are choosing to brand the kid a thug and vilify blacks (even Ted Nugent has loudly chimed in on the situation, no surprise). Very few seem to find a more mild and inquisitive stance.

3. Left wing media is clumsily juggling facts and fiction; right wing media has been sardonic and lacking interest in facts.

4. The I5 was blocked in the morning by protesters so people couldn't get to work?? What the hell, people.

5. The looting/riots is being defended by some??

6. Why cops don't wear cameras is a mystery to me. This whole fiasco would have been settled had it been recorded. Eyewitnesses are just eyewitnesses, raw footage is almost certainty. Apparently Obama is doing something about this; I hope it comes to fruition.

corplhicks wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Well said; this is pretty much where I stand after doing some reading on it tonight. Some observations:

1. Watching the video of Brown stealing the cigars before his confrontation with Wilson, there was obviously a heavy violent streak with the man (apparently I'm supposed to call him a kid) as he shoved the shop owner several times and shouted in his face. He was obviously on a power trip, and very scary at that.

2. Everyone has become HEAVILY opinionated on this matter, resulting in a bizarre right vs. left political battlefield. Liberals are choosing to victimize Brown and shout injustice while Conservatives are choosing to brand the kid a thug and vilify blacks (even Ted Nugent has loudly chimed in on the situation, no surprise). Very few seem to find a more mild and inquisitive stance.

3. Left wing media is clumsily juggling facts and fiction; right wing media has been sardonic and lacking interest in facts.

4. The I5 was blocked in the morning by protesters so people couldn't get to work?? What the hell, people.

5. The looting/riots is being defended by some??

6. Why cops don't wear cameras is a mystery to me. This whole fiasco would have been settled had it been recorded. Eyewitnesses are just eyewitnesses, raw footage is almost certainty. Apparently Obama is doing something about this; I hope it comes to fruition.

Brown did not have a "violent streak" nor was he on a "power trip" in the least, that's thuggerization of the worst kind.

It sounds like you have a fear of black men.

Left wing media is most definitely not clumsily juggling facts and fiction, the cold hard fact is the Ferguson police were caught red-handled lying about the incident.

Vexer6 wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Well said; this is pretty much where I stand after doing some reading on it tonight. Some observations:

1. Watching the video of Brown stealing the cigars before his confrontation with Wilson, there was obviously a heavy violent streak with the man (apparently I'm supposed to call him a kid) as he shoved the shop owner several times and shouted in his face. He was obviously on a power trip, and very scary at that.

2. Everyone has become HEAVILY opinionated on this matter, resulting in a bizarre right vs. left political battlefield. Liberals are choosing to victimize Brown and shout injustice while Conservatives are choosing to brand the kid a thug and vilify blacks (even Ted Nugent has loudly chimed in on the situation, no surprise). Very few seem to find a more mild and inquisitive stance.

3. Left wing media is clumsily juggling facts and fiction; right wing media has been sardonic and lacking interest in facts.

4. The I5 was blocked in the morning by protesters so people couldn't get to work?? What the hell, people.

5. The looting/riots is being defended by some??

6. Why cops don't wear cameras is a mystery to me. This whole fiasco would have been settled had it been recorded. Eyewitnesses are just eyewitnesses, raw footage is almost certainty. Apparently Obama is doing something about this; I hope it comes to fruition.

Brown did not have a "violent streak" nor was he on a "power trip" in the least, that's thuggerization of the worst kind.

It sounds like you have a fear of black men.

You tell me, man. 1:25 mark:



I used to be pushed around like that by white kids in my old neighborhood--and I can tell you that they were dangerous. By the way, I'd like to give thanks to all the black kids who protected me during those days. Still good friends with one of them.

This thread has become one...

Vexer6 wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Well said; this is pretty much where I stand after doing some reading on it tonight. Some observations:

1. Watching the video of Brown stealing the cigars before his confrontation with Wilson, there was obviously a heavy violent streak with the man (apparently I'm supposed to call him a kid) as he shoved the shop owner several times and shouted in his face. He was obviously on a power trip, and very scary at that.

2. Everyone has become HEAVILY opinionated on this matter, resulting in a bizarre right vs. left political battlefield. Liberals are choosing to victimize Brown and shout injustice while Conservatives are choosing to brand the kid a thug and vilify blacks (even Ted Nugent has loudly chimed in on the situation, no surprise). Very few seem to find a more mild and inquisitive stance.

3. Left wing media is clumsily juggling facts and fiction; right wing media has been sardonic and lacking interest in facts.

4. The I5 was blocked in the morning by protesters so people couldn't get to work?? What the hell, people.

5. The looting/riots is being defended by some??

6. Why cops don't wear cameras is a mystery to me. This whole fiasco would have been settled had it been recorded. Eyewitnesses are just eyewitnesses, raw footage is almost certainty. Apparently Obama is doing something about this; I hope it comes to fruition.

Brown did not have a "violent streak" nor was he on a "power trip" in the least, that's thuggerization of the worst kind.

It sounds like you have a fear of black men.

Left wing media is most definitely not clumsily juggling facts and fiction, the cold hard fact is the Ferguson police were caught red-handled lying about the incident.

This all reminds me of the 1992 Los Angeles riot. In the early days, some TV stations were playing a lengthy clip of what happened to Rodney King.
what was reported and what I seen were TWO DIFFERENT STORIES.

A drugged / drunken man was refusing to co-operate and be arrested. When the news later said he was on a hard drug like PCP or cocaine, it made a LOT of sense because then an average man can become like Superman and easily fight off a few guys all at once.
There would be no mercy shown to me either if I was aggressive like that and would not stay down on the ground as Rodney King was ordered to.
If I was a policeman, I would think the guy is nuts to keep trying to get up and was planning on attacking.

The general media back then played the race-issue angle, in the way how Vexer would like to see it happen everywhere all over again?

He lived as he died: a thug wannabe.

I also liked how the majority of the black community in Furgeson played into literally every ignorant stereotype that night. I still want to know the reason for all the looting this time around.

"Because, uh... stuff needs stealing?"

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the Thomas Kelly case [ie: murder]. But if a bunch of Hispanic cops can be acquitted in a case like that - Wilson was off scott-free the minute he pulled the trigger. The excuse given for Wilson's actions was that he "was in fear for his life". Well, I am in fear for my life every time I see a cop. Does that give me the same right? Not being cynical, just playing devil's advocate.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the Thomas Kelly case [ie: murder].  But if a bunch of Hispanic cops can be acquitted in a case like that - Wilson was off scott-free the minute he pulled the trigger.  The excuse given for Wilson's actions was that he "was in fear for his life".  Well, I am in fear for my life every time I see a cop.  Does that give me the same right?  Not being cynical, just playing devil's advocate.

When you hear the phrase, "I was in fear for my life" in a case involving a death, what you are hearing is the standard for self defense. A pleading of self defense involves you being in fear for your life or the life of others. This is why Wilson would use that exact phrase - his defense attorney coached him to do so.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the Thomas Kelly case [ie: murder].  But if a bunch of Hispanic cops can be acquitted in a case like that - Wilson was off scott-free the minute he pulled the trigger.  The excuse given for Wilson's actions was that he "was in fear for his life".  Well, I am in fear for my life every time I see a cop.  Does that give me the same right?  Not being cynical, just playing devil's advocate.

That's why I've never once even entertained the notion of being a cop. I grew up in a bad neighborhood where my family and I were scared enough as civilians. As an armed cop, I'd be a hair trigger.

REGARDLESS of race.

mlotek wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I may not be a subject matter expert on much, but I do have a law degree and I have been involved in criminal defense on both the state and federal level.  Some of the clients that I have known have had backgrounds and rap sheets that read like a demon's resume. I have been in prisons to visit them and I've been part of their defense.  I've also had friends murdered. I've had to tell police what guns a friend owned and where he stored them so they could ascertain where his murderer obtained the murder weapon.  I've seen the face of crime up close and personal from both sides.  I can say with some authority that vast majority of reporters know next to nothing about the law and if you believe their reports you are stupid.  I can also say with certainty that opinion pieces about a crime are usually complete garbage.  I can also say that I knew Officer Wilson would be not be indicted because the facts of the case did not warrant an indictment. I find it baffling that Brown has been chosen as a martyr for the cause of police brutality and racist police.  There are far more credible candidates for that position than him.  

Well said; this is pretty much where I stand after doing some reading on it tonight. Some observations:

1. Watching the video of Brown stealing the cigars before his confrontation with Wilson, there was obviously a heavy violent streak with the man (apparently I'm supposed to call him a kid) as he shoved the shop owner several times and shouted in his face. He was obviously on a power trip, and very scary at that.

2. Everyone has become HEAVILY opinionated on this matter, resulting in a bizarre right vs. left political battlefield. Liberals are choosing to victimize Brown and shout injustice while Conservatives are choosing to brand the kid a thug and vilify blacks (even Ted Nugent has loudly chimed in on the situation, no surprise). Very few seem to find a more mild and inquisitive stance.

3. Left wing media is clumsily juggling facts and fiction; right wing media has been sardonic and lacking interest in facts.

4. The I5 was blocked in the morning by protesters so people couldn't get to work?? What the hell, people.

5. The looting/riots is being defended by some??

6. Why cops don't wear cameras is a mystery to me. This whole fiasco would have been settled had it been recorded. Eyewitnesses are just eyewitnesses, raw footage is almost certainty. Apparently Obama is doing something about this; I hope it comes to fruition.

Brown did not have a "violent streak" nor was he on a "power trip" in the least, that's thuggerization of the worst kind.

It sounds like you have a fear of black men.

Left wing media is most definitely not clumsily juggling facts and fiction, the cold hard fact is the Ferguson police were caught red-handled lying about the incident.

This all reminds me of the 1992 Los Angeles riot. In the early days, some TV stations were playing a lengthy clip of what happened to Rodney King.
what was reported and what I seen were TWO DIFFERENT STORIES.

A drugged / drunken man was refusing to co-operate and be arrested. When the news later said he was on a hard drug like PCP or cocaine, it made a LOT of sense because then an average man can become like Superman and easily fight off a few guys all at once.
There would be no mercy shown to me either if I was aggressive like that and would not stay down on the ground as Rodney King was ordered to.
If I was a policeman, I would think the guy is nuts to keep trying to get up and was planning on attacking.

The general media back then played the race-issue angle, in the way how Vexer would like to see it happen everywhere all over again?

You're completely missing the larger point though, there was widespread police corruption in the L.A.P.D., as we would soon find out a few years after the riots when the Rampart scandal unfolded, there are still several unsolved murders involving them to this day.

There was ZERO evidence of Rodney King being on PCP, that's total BS, the autopsy showed he only had marijuana and Alcohol in his system. It sounds like you're willing to believe anything the right-wing media tells you about black people being "thugs".

http://blog.palmpartners.com/tag/rodney-king/

I'm not trying to play the "race-issue angle", it already is one whether you like it or not. Ferguson in general has treating minorities like absolute dogsh*t and has been getting away with it for far too goddamn long, hopefully that will soon change.

DakotaRogers wrote:

He lived as he died: a thug wannabe.

I also liked how the majority of the black community in Furgeson played into literally every ignorant stereotype that night. I still want to know the reason for all the looting this time around.

"Because, uh... stuff needs stealing?"

"thug wannabe"? No he was absolutely f*cking not.

Wow you are unbelievably ignorant and racist

The black community was not "playing into ignorant stereotypes" that night.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347311/--Why-do-they-burn-down-their-own-neighborhood?detail=email

I'm guessing you're one of those people who are so deathly afraid of minorities that you'll look for any excuse to use the "Stand Your Ground" law against them.

Vexer6 wrote:

DakotaRogers wrote:

He lived as he died: a thug wannabe.

I also liked how the majority of the black community in Furgeson played into literally every ignorant stereotype that night. I still want to know the reason for all the looting this time around.

"Because, uh... stuff needs stealing?"

"thug wannabe"? No he was absolutely f*cking not.

Wow you are unbelievably ignorant and racist

The black community was not "playing into ignorant stereotypes" that night.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347311/--Why-do-they-burn-down-their-own-neighborhood?detail=email

I'm guessing you're one of those people who are so deathly afraid of minorities that you'll look for any excuse to use the "Stand Your Ground" law against them.

Why don't you get madder, strain harder, and spray more shit into your underwear.

DakotaRogers wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

DakotaRogers wrote:

He lived as he died: a thug wannabe.

I also liked how the majority of the black community in Furgeson played into literally every ignorant stereotype that night. I still want to know the reason for all the looting this time around.

"Because, uh... stuff needs stealing?"

"thug wannabe"? No he was absolutely f*cking not.

Wow you are unbelievably ignorant and racist

The black community was not "playing into ignorant stereotypes" that night.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347311/--Why-do-they-burn-down-their-own-neighborhood?detail=email

I'm guessing you're one of those people who are so deathly afraid of minorities that you'll look for any excuse to use the "Stand Your Ground" law against them.

Why don't you get madder, strain harder, and spray more shit into your underwear.  

I'm not "straining" or "spraying shit" i'm just disappointed at how judgemental and naive you are.

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not "straining" or "spraying shit"    i'm just disappointed at how judgemental and naive you are.

Oh yeah? I'm disappointed in how emotionally invested you are in this. Cry more, you big girl.

A shoving match in the thread; time to shut things down.

Yup.  Time for FF's favorite shutdown post.

"This thread has outlived its usefulness."

Or something like that...

Before Freddy shuts this down - please everyone, do some research on the Thomas Kelly case. It will disgust you.