That's fine. When you start your forum, you can allow whomever and whatever you want.
What if I wanted to start my own religion and say I didn't want to have to marry gay people. Let me guess, you would have a problem with that? LOL of course you would. So what makes you think we should all believe you when you say you wouldn't have a problem what someone does on their forum?
Not to mention, someone who disagrees with you, you want them kicked off. Gee how liberal and tolerant and accepting of you.
Proof you are the intolerant and unaccepting person on this forum. Typical liberal you are. You are the true bigot here and its obvious you think the rules apply to everyone but you.
Your links: Three from the online blogosphere (which is very large), and one from the online news pages of a nationally recognized large city newspaper (Washington Post).
Was there some kind of cover-up or media embargo on these stories? You just proved the very opposite. Otherwise you wouldn't be aware of any of these events--unless by chance you were there at the scene when they happened.
People who want to be fully informed know that they need to expand their zone beyond just two or three general news and opinion websites or TV channels.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-14-2015).]
Your links: Three from the online blogosphere (which is very large), and one from the online news pages of a nationally recognized large city newspaper (Washington Post).
Was there some kind of cover-up or media embargo on these stories? You just proved the very opposite. Otherwise you wouldn't be aware of any of these events--unless by chance you were there at the scene when they happened.
People who want to be fully informed know that they need to expand their zone beyond just two or three general news and opinion websites or TV channels.
Putting a article online, and plastering it all over the news for weeks are two completely different things. No one cared when the white kid was shot by the black cop. No week long news coverage, no #whitelivesmatter riots, nothing.
What percentage of the population knows the name Zachary Hammond? What percentage knows the name Michael Brown. One was a protected class, one wasn't.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 09-14-2015).]
LOL see I knew you would dodge my very simple question. Its typical liberal tactics. You insist that others play by your rules, but you refuse to play by your own rules. You want everyone to answer your questions, but you feel you don't have to answer to anyone else.
If you want to find out who I am, why don't you go start your own forum, and pm me the link. You won't do it though.
You aren't mentally right in the head. Go get that checked out. I am sure your health care system won't charge you for it. Why won't you take advantage of free help?
Originally posted by dennis_6: Putting a article online, and plastering it all over the news for weeks are two completely different things. No one cared when the white kid was shot by the black cop. No week long news coverage, no #whitelivesmatter riots, nothing.
What percentage of the population knows the name Zachary Hammond? What percentage knows the name Michael Brown?
The Federal Department of Justice. Part of the Executive Branch, which ultimately reports to the current President, Barack Hussein Obama.
Slap!
I do not know who Zachary Hammond is, but if he is of the white race, then no, he did not get the same media coverage as a known criminal the Brown kid was. I say was due to the fact that he is now dead because of his actions. Then, whitey has to pay like a mother ****er to fix the issues caused by #blacklivesmatter.
The Constitution calls for "due process", not "media coverage".
I don't think that Michael Brown had a criminal record before he got into his fatal altercation with the police officer. I put the onus for that on Michael Brown. As far as the surveillance camera footage which was widely reported as evidence that Michael Brown had tried to rob or pilfer cigars from a convenience store--not conclusive. There was no audio and voice recording from inside the store. It's not actually known with any certainty whether Michael Brown was trying to rob or pilfer cigars, or was looking awkward on camera while he was trying to put the cigars back into their original place on the store shelf.
Does it seem like the events that transpired on and after the day when Michael Brown was killed--events in and around Ferguson and across the nation--had anything to do with ClubFed's decision to open a DOJ investigation into the death of Zachary Hammond?
Just throwing that one out for possible discussion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
....As far as the surveillance camera footage which was widely reported as evidence that Michael Brown had tried to rob or pilfer cigars from a convenience store--not conclusive. There was no audio and voice recording from inside the store. It's not actually known with any certainty whether Michael Brown was trying to rob or pilfer cigars, or was looking awkward on camera while he was trying to put the cigars back into their original place on the store shelf.
BULLCRAP
The store clerk and WITNESSES called police and reported the *strong arm robbery*
Repeating (from memory) a news report that I read online. I read it recently. I think it was a relatively recent report, and not an older one.
I have no "beef" about redacting that part (about the cigars and the convenience store) from my post; to wit:
The Constitution calls for "due process", not "media coverage".
I don't think that Michael Brown had a criminal record before he got into his fatal altercation with the police officer. I put the onus for that on Michael Brown. As far as the surveillance camera footage which was widely reported as evidence that Michael Brown had tried to rob or pilfer cigars from a convenience store--not conclusive. There was no audio and voice recording from inside the store. It's not actually known with any certainty whether Michael Brown was trying to rob or pilfer cigars, or was looking awkward on camera while he was trying to put the cigars back into their original place on the store shelf.
Does it seem like the events that transpired on and after the day when Michael Brown was killed--events in and around Ferguson and across the nation--had anything to do with ClubFed's decision to open a DOJ investigation into the death of Zachary Hammond?
Just throwing that one out for possible discussion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
btw 2 Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe stole the country BACK from a rabid racist Conservative white ONLY power structure in a long bloody WAR or nobody was right everybody was WRONG
Robert Mugabe, a guy who seized power by way of a Soviet Communist backed insurgency, has ruthlessly ruled with a *One Party* oppressive Marxist, Socialist government for almost 30 years backed by his personal North Korean trained "security forces", has decimated the economy and plunged the people into poverty, committed genocide of over 20,000 opponents and manipulated faux "elections" by murder and intimidation, (and those are just the "highlights")......
Only a Leftist whack-a-doodle like rayb could equate THIS guy as some sort of "Freedom Fighter"
He's doubtless a big fan of Che Guevara also.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-14-2015).]
2) The Constitution calls for "due process"--not "media coverage". For Zachary Hammond. For Michael Brown. For dennis_6, rinselberg and everyone else, under the law of the land.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2015).]
2) The Constitution calls for "due process"For Michael Brown. For dennis_6, rinselberg and everyone else, under the law of the land.
Don't forget that we also have the right to use deadly force to defend ourselves from an eminent threat of death or great bodily harm. As was the case in the Michael Brown and Travon Martin cases. We do NOT have to wait for a jury to render a judgment before deadly force is used. Keep in mind that deadly force could be in the form of a fist or a kick, without a weapon all the way to defending yourself with a hammer, knife of gun. Deadly force has MANY forms. Michael Brown got EXACTLY what he asked for and initiated, a fight with a COP, and he lost.
2) The Constitution calls for "due process"--not "media coverage". For Zachary Hammond. For Michael Brown. For dennis_6, rinselberg and everyone else, under the law of the land.
1. No one questioned legal proceedings.
2. The conversation was about what liberals choose to champion, and since Zachary Hammond was not black, he was not championed. The news did not plaster his face all over the tv for weeks. No huge social media campaigns. He was not protected. Zachary Hammond was a local example, because you wanted to say Zimbabwe was not local and hence not covered. The point is, crimes against humanity, when the victim is not a protected class are unimportant to liberals.
I see several folks here in complete and utter denial of proof. One even goes as far as to show MULTIPLE levels of truth, and still denial? ****, even graphic pictures have been posted, and we get a collective "Nuh, uh!" from them.
The issue is lies! ...
Chelsea Clinton is not Billy's daughter.
EVERY episode of COPS shows liars.
Obama has not made government more transparent.
Kanye ****ing West announced a presidency in 2020.
Donald Trump. Really people?
Wake up! Open your eyes! The shear amount of BS spouted off at any moment could power a large ship for a century. Hell, the damn sun could power the entire planet in one day. This is definitely rantish, but all of it is a continual eye opener. Pay attention people! Heck, people want others to pay attention for them.
And don't steal! Those that steal will get their just deserts.
Originally posted by rinselberg: ....As far as the surveillance camera footage which was widely reported as evidence that Michael Brown had tried to rob or pilfer cigars from a convenience store--not conclusive. There was no audio and voice recording from inside the store. It's not actually known with any certainty whether Michael Brown was trying to rob or pilfer cigars, or was looking awkward on camera while he was trying to put the cigars back into their original place on the store shelf.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Is this a joke?
No. I expect to have more to post about this later tonight.
But WRT to this discussion (thread), this talk about what happened when Michael Brown was in that convenience store before he was killed is just a small, tangential side issue.
Please don't lose sight of the two biggest "takeaways" (from me) in this discussion; once again:
2) The Constitution calls for "due process". It does not promise "media coverage". For Zachary Hammond. For Michael Brown. For dennis_6, rinselberg and everyone else under the law of the land.
My heart truly bleeds for all the conservatives (and other types, masquerading as conservatives) that have suffered from liberal news media bias from the bleeding heart liberal media.
Please don't lose sight of the two biggest "takeaways" (from me) in this discussion; once again:
Ok, I can't bring myself to read anything else you write/type... if you can so nonchalantly pass-off a video with Brown physically abusing and terrorizing a small Indian man, and stealing a pack of cigars from him, and then making him flinch one last time.
I've REALLY lost respect for you here. I've mostly always disagreed with you before... but this clearly just defines it all for me.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, I can't bring myself to read anything else you write/type... if you can so nonchalantly pass-off a video with Brown physically abusing and terrorizing a small Indian man, and stealing a pack of cigars from him, and then making him flinch one last time.
I've REALLY lost respect for you here. I've mostly always disagreed with you before... but this clearly just defines it all for me.
.... this talk about what happened when Michael Brown was in that convenience store before he was killed is just a small, tangential side issue.
MORE BULLCRAP
The Ferguson Missouri Police would NOT have been looking for Michael Brown, or A PERSON FITTING HIS EXACT DESCRIPTION if he hadn't ROBBED that convenience store to begin with.
It most certainly is NOT "a small, tangential side issue" no matter how much you *wish* it were.
HIS initial CRIME and HIS ACTIONS thereafter brought about his demise.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-15-2015).]
I'm not interested in defending Michael Brown. I already said that I put the onus for Michael Brown's death upon Michael Brown. As far as the compass heading that I have taken (within this thread), my direction does not depend on whether or not Michael Brown was trying to rob that convenience store, or how he was going about trying to rob it.
It's about Zachary Hammond, and what people can fairly and reasonably expect of their government, and of the "fourth estate" (the media).
Don't lose sight of my takeaways (from my previous post).
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2015).]
.....my direction does not depend on whether or not Michael Brown was trying to rob that convenience store, or how he was going about trying to rob it.
Obviously not any more.
But then it certainly wasn't for your lack of *attempting* to steer it 180 degrees away from the TRUTH was it?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't think that Michael Brown had a criminal record before he got into his fatal altercation with the police officer. I put the onus for that on Michael Brown. As far as the surveillance camera footage which was widely reported as evidence that Michael Brown had tried to rob or pilfer cigars from a convenience store--not conclusive. There was no audio and voice recording from inside the store. It's not actually known with any certainty whether Michael Brown was trying to rob or pilfer cigars, or was looking awkward on camera while he was trying to put the cigars back into their original place on the store shelf.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-15-2015).]
I expect to have some more about the Michael Brown convenience store surveillance camera video later tonight. Right now I'm tied up with something else.
You're trying to deflect the focus away from my takeaways. My two main observations. I numbered them. 1). 2). I don't want to repeat that text again in this post. I will probably find that is necessary to repeat that text in my next post.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-15-2015).]
You're trying to deflect the focus away from my takeaways.
I couldn't care less about your "takeaways", even if you were running a halal food drive-up window. The *deflection* here is from YOU. Let's see if you can somehow circle back the ORIGINAL TOPIC.....ZIMBABWE
Mighty strange about that lack of political background coverage concerning that LION named CECIL wasn't it ?
Happen to notice the all media attention over the big "driven hunt" just south of that same area in past few days? You know the sanctioned hunts where the Zimbabwean government is still raking in the only hard currency they can get right now? You know, the *group hunts* with all the Dutch, Belgian and German hunters?
You noticed all the media attention, right?
Of course you didn't........
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-15-2015).]
I expect to have some more about the Michael Brown convenience store surveillance camera video later tonight. Right now I'm tied up with something else.
You're trying to deflect the focus away from my takeaways. My two main observations. I numbered them. 1). 2). I don't want to repeat that text again in this post. I will probably find that is necessary to repeat that text in my next post.
I don't think you will have ANYTHING informative concerning the Michael Brown attack on a Police Officer that lead to his self inflicted death, or his strong arm robbery just before he challenged authority/law.
Feel free to repeat the facts, if you spoke any at all.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 09-16-2015).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: My heart truly bleeds for all the conservatives (and other types, masquerading as conservatives) that have suffered from liberal news media bias from the bleeding heart liberal media.
You mean like the cops that killed because the liberal media made criminals out to look like innocent victims? Or do you mean the store owners, or the people in the wrong place at the wrong time that got beat out of "retribution"? Maybe you mean the way the media shapes reality that affects juries and judges?
Originally posted by dennis_6: 1. No one questioned legal proceedings.
2. The conversation was about what liberals choose to champion, and since Zachary Hammond was not black, he was not championed. The news did not plaster his face all over the tv for weeks. No huge social media campaigns. He was not protected. Zachary Hammond was a local example, because you wanted to say Zimbabwe was not local and hence not covered. The point is, crimes against humanity, when the victim is not a protected class are unimportant to liberals.
In the context of this discussion, I parsed this sentence (from dennis_6) as "The news media did not plaster Zachary Hammond's face all over the TV channels for weeks, in stark contrast to the extended news coverage accorded to Michael Brown."
Zachary Hammond, who was white, was shot dead not too long ago by a black police officer in Seneca, South Carolina.
Michael Brown... Ferguson, Missouri... 'nuff said. No one needs to dust off the "Cliff's Notes" on that.
Picking up on something that just came in from dennis_6, about the way that the "media shapes reality"--yes. Yes, indeed. But it's not a one-way street. Reality also shapes the media, in terms of which news events receive the most prominent and extensive coverage. Here are some basic realities, based in part on the most current projections from the U.S. Census Bureau:
Seneca itself is not a large city. The population is just over 8,200 and about 65 percent white and 35 percent black. Seneca is in the north west corner of South Carolina, and not particularly close to any large cities.
Ferguson is part of the Greater St. Louis metropolitan area. The population of 21,000 is about 70 percent black and 30 percent white. Between 1990 and 2010, Ferguson’s racial composition shifted dramatically with the black population rising from 25 percent to 67 percent. When Michael Brown was shot dead by a Ferguson police officer on August 9, 2014, the Ferguson police chief was white and 50 of the 53-strong Ferguson police force was white; just 3 of Ferguson's police officers were black.
Seneca and Ferguson are not polar opposites in every aspect, but looking at the two localities side by side is not an "apple vs apple" comparison. A young person shot dead by a police officer: one in Seneca and one--a year earlier--in Ferguson. The stories of what happens after the two officer-involved shootings play out in very different ways. What happens after the shootings in each locality is partly driven by the news coverage, and the differences in the amount and extent of the news coverage for one locality (compared to the other one) is very much driven by the differences in what happens from one locality to the other one, after the shootings. There is a subtext or coloration to the commentary here from dennis_6 that comes across to me as Dennis not giving hardly any weight to the second part of this bi-directional feedback loop: The part about how the news coverage itself is shaped (as distinguished from shaping) the events that play out on the ground.
"Liberals" and "liberal media". From dennis_6. Over and over again. Yeah, that has considerable to do with it. But there are other factors that also have considerable weight in shaping the two markedly different stories that are unfolding in the wake of these two officer-involved shootings. Does Dennis have any comprehension of the other complexities and historical factors that are involved? I think he does, but it does not come across to me in any of his recent commentaries.
What is a "Liberal"..? At this point in history, the unqualified or stand-alone use of the L-word--and that is how Dennis repeatedly uses it--does not translate for me to a narrow enough definition to be of any practical value in a discussion. Are the so-called "blactivists" or "Black Lives Matter" campaigners "liberals"..? What about the people that are of the opinion that more could be done within the government to reduce the number of criminal homicides and attempted homicides involving privately owned firearms? The people who give credence to the particular scientists that say that there are very pressing reasons, from a human and world perspective, for governments to double and redouble their efforts to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions across the entire spectrum of human activities and enterprises? Are all of these people liberals? Are they mostly the same people, or are these very different groups of people with not much crossover in terms of their demographics?
What do the liberals of today have in common with the liberals of previous decades? How are they different? In what ways have the defining characteristics of the "liberal" ideology and mindset changed during our lifetimes? Is "liberalism" an idée fixe or does it evolve for the better in the face of trial and error?
As far as the continual sniping at the "bleeding heart liberal media"--which people who are instantly antithetical to anything that strikes them as "liberal" have established beyond any doubt as the main reason for everything that ever happens [sarcasm]-- this (from me) bears repeating:
quote
People who want to be fully informed know that they need to expand their zone beyond just two or three general news and opinion websites or TV channels.
I am not favorably impressed when the depth of the analysis is less than one tenth of an inch.
Now, for the surveillance camera video from the Ferguson convenience store which has been widely accepted as evidence of Michael Brown using strong-arm tactics to relieve the store owner of some cigars "on the house"; i.e., a strong-arm robbery by Michael Brown just minutes before his fatal altercation with the police officer.
I commented on that video, earlier in this discussion, in an offhanded way. A sidebar to the general course of my discussion, but not central to any point that I have tried to get across here. Strike what I said about it from the "record", and nothing that I have said by way of summary in this post is changed in any way. From the first keystroke of this very summary post, there is nothing from me that depends on any conjectural innocence or partially exculpatory material about Michael Brown. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
I only offered that comment because it was something that I read in the format of an online news report, a few days before this thread got started, and the first reference to Michael Brown in this discussion (from dennis_6) prompted me to present it. I did not archive or bookmark it, and despite some real effort on my part, I have not been able to find it again.
I do have some remarks about this from another source that I think add some completion to my part in this discussion:
quote
On August 15, six days after the shooting, the Ferguson PD identified Darren Wilson as the officer involved in the initial shooting incident. During this same announcement, the Ferguson PD released video footage indicating that [Michael] Brown had been involved in a robbery of a convenience store [just] minutes before his [fatal] encounter with [Ferguson PD officer] Wilson.
According to Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Johnson, Ferguson PD Chief Jackson had talked with Johnson and St. Louis County PD Chief Belmar prior to releasing the robbery video, and both urged Jackson not to release it. Despite this advice, Jackson made the decision to release the convenience store video during the same press conference in which Officer Wilson was identified. Incident Commander Johnson expressed his opinion in the news media, saying, “I would have liked to have been consulted.” In looking at the issue, one officer stated, “Ferguson PD was on its own and acted contrary to [our] overall efforts.” The calm experienced on August 14 changed with the release of the video. A Missouri State Highway Patrol commander stated, “You could tell by the tenor of the crowd that we [law enforcement] had taken a step back.”
Many community members believed the police were trying to take the focus away from Officer Wilson and place it on Mr. Brown. Some saw it as a police conspiracy, while others saw it as an attempt to justify the shooting. Rather than ease community tensions, the announcement inflamed [community] tensions... . Although the statement was solely [from Ferguson Police Chief Jackson] other law enforcement agencies involved believe that they shared in the bad publicity.
Spurred by the announcement, the daily demonstrations grew larger, and the evening demonstrators grew more enraged.
What, no more about the Michael Brown strong arm robbery? You said you had some type of compelling argument in his defense? Now you say it is behind us and not worth bringing up again? Almost disappointed, but I am sure your compelling defense is that he was muslum? But your attempt to sound like a politician back steping, or a layer explaining a no return policy just about brings it all together.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 09-16-2015).]
I expect to have some more about the Michael Brown convenience store surveillance camera video later tonight. Right now I'm tied up with something else. . . . Michael Brown... Ferguson, Missouri... 'nuff said. No one needs to dust off the "Cliff's Notes" on that. . . .
I commented on that video, earlier in this discussion, in an offhanded way. A sidebar to the general course of my discussion, but not central to any point that I have tried to get across here. Strike what I said about it from the "record", and nothing that I have said by way of summary in this post is changed in any way. From the first keystroke of this very summary post, there is nothing from me that depends on any conjectural innocence or partially exculpatory material about Michael Brown. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Yes, you did say such things. And no you did not post any "more about it" In fact you said two times that you had more on the strong arm robbery.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 09-16-2015).]
The Constitution calls for "due process", not "media coverage".
I don't think that Michael Brown had a criminal record before he got into his fatal altercation with the police officer. I put the onus for that on Michael Brown. As far as the surveillance camera footage which was widely reported as evidence that Michael Brown had tried to rob or pilfer cigars from a convenience store--not conclusive. There was no audio and voice recording from inside the store. It's not actually known with any certainty whether Michael Brown was trying to rob or pilfer cigars, or was looking awkward on camera while he was trying to put the cigars back into their original place on the store shelf.
Does it seem like the events that transpired on and after the day when Michael Brown was killed--events in and around Ferguson and across the nation--had anything to do with ClubFed's decision to open a DOJ investigation into the death of Zachary Hammond?
Just throwing that one out for possible discussion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The sum total of what I said about the video from the convenience store in Ferguson.
There is another way to look at it; from this perspective, it is very clear.
There is no doubt about what would have happened to Ferguson police officer Darrin Wilson if he [Wilson] had stood up in front of a microphone or otherwise said for the record "I knew that the suspect had just strong-armed a convenience store clerk and robbed some cigars, so I drew my sidearm and shot the suspect with the intention of immobilizing him."
That would be taken all around as a police officer using deadly force against a suspect in a totally impermissible way.
It was never about whether Michael Brown had a prior criminal record. It was never about whether Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store. It was all about whether Ferguson police officer Darrin Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown in order to defend himself or anyone else from the threat of immediate bodily harm at the hands of Michael Brown.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-16-2015).]
The sum total of what I said about the video from the convenience store in Ferguson.
There is another way to look at it; from this perspective, it is very clear.
There is no doubt about what would have happened to Ferguson police officer Darrin Wilson if he [Wilson] had stood up in front of a microphone or otherwise said for the record "I knew that the suspect had just strong-armed a convenience store clerk and robbed some cigars, so I drew my sidearm and shot the suspect with the intention of immobilizing him."
Why would he? That is not what happened. Office Wilson was attacked, Michael Brown fought inside the Police car to get the gun from Office Wilson.
quote
That would be taken all around as a police officer using deadly force against a suspect in a totally impermissible way.
It was never about whether Michael Brown had a prior criminal record. It was never about whether Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store. It was all about whether Ferguson police officer Darrin Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown in order to defend himself or anyone else from the threat of immediate bodily harm at the hands of Michael Brown.
Michael Brown was shot in the hand while attempting to take the gun, and still charged towards Officer Wilson. Thus forcing Officer Wilson to use force to stop the threat.
Yes. Did I ever dispute any of that, or say that I knew otherwise about the altercation between Michael Brown and police officer Wilson? I can say with clarity on my part that I never disputed that account of the altercation between Brown and police officer. Not in this thread, or in any previous thread.
To fill out more clearly what I did say, the convenience store video does not have sound. It does not provide evidence of the words that were being exchanged between Michael Brown and his companion and between Michael Brown and the store owner. It looks like an attempted robbery, but there is some room there for looking at the video and saying that Michael Brown and the store owner were not understanding each other's words very clearly (because of accents; store owner has an Indian subcontinent kind of accent) and that it was not an attempted robbery. That it was a case of a kind of rude and pushy Michael Brown who grabbed some cigars, then balked when the store owner said that will cost you $48 and then tried to put the cigars back on the shelf. An awkward moment, because some of the cigars had escaped the box and fallen onto the floor and Brown or his companion were trying to retrieve some out-of-box cigars from the floor. Two or three things going on all at once that makes the video just short of perfectly obvious, as far as the robbery angle.
It was something that I read recently, online, before this thread got started. I thought that I could find it again using my browser history, and/or some Google searches, but I have not been able to find that exact web page. When I said that I expected to have more about this video, I was thinking that I might find something along the same lines in the two DOJ reports about Ferguson. It wasn't there. I wanted to find that exact web page and try to analyze more closely why they were saying that about the video and where they were getting this from, but I could not find it again.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-16-2015).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: It was something that I read recently, online, before this thread got started. I thought that I could find it again using my browser history, and/or some Google searches, but I have not been able to find that exact web page. When I said that I expected to have more about this video, I was thinking that I might find something along the same lines in the two DOJ reports about Ferguson. It wasn't there. I wanted to find that exact web page and try to analyze more closely why they were saying that about the video and where they were getting this from, but I could not find it again.
Fair enough. So exactly why did you even bring it up in this thread?
He was accused of being a previously banned member, do you know who it was?
Saw in another thread someone said it was Shaun Hammit. I don't know him but I think it is the guy who used to rag on Archie all the time calling him Cletus. He used to be called Shawna.
Saw in another thread someone said it was Shaun Hammit. I don't know him but I think it is the guy who used to rag on Archie all the time calling him Cletus. He used to be called Shawna.
I think I used that paragraph (about the Ferguson convenience store video) because I thought it would draw dennis_6 more attentively into anything else that I was saying at the same time. A "connection".
After reading (and viewing on TV) the accounts of the altercation between Brown and the police officer, and how this very muscular teenager had reached inside the police car and struggled with the officer and tried to take the officer's gun away, I came to a certain mindset about it. I didn't really care one way or the other about whether Brown had any kind of prior criminal record, or whether he was actually trying to steal cigars at the convenience store. I only imagined two possibilities.
The first was that the police officer had been justified (on the ground of self defense) in firing multiple bullets into Brown.
The other possibility was that after this dangerous wrestling match, with Brown reaching into the police car, that Brown was retreating, and no longer an immediate threat to the officer, but that the officer was (obviously) stressed and fired multiple bullets into Brown partly because the officer was so angered, and perhaps also thinking that Brown was a danger to the general public and needed to be immobilized at the scene; that it would be too much of a risk to public safety to allow Brown to leave the scene and try to apprehend Brown after that had transpired.
I never looked very closely or at any length at the convenience store video. Or if I had, it had mostly faded from my memory. So when I said (repeating what I had read so recently) that the video was not conclusive, I was thinking that the video on its own, without corroborating witness testimony, would not have been sufficient to convict Brown of a robbery at that store. When Todd (82-T/A) said that he was offended because it seemed like I was trying to defend a strong-arm style bandit who had intimidated the much smaller store owner--well, I just didn't see that coming. I did not have a clear memory of how the video had ended.
I hope that answers your question here.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-16-2015).]
