On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:08:24 -0400, Lee B
wrote:

"A newly-discovered video taken in the aftermath of Ferguson, Missouri
teen Michael Brown's death features a conversation between two
bystanders, one whom relays what he witnessed—and he states that Brown
fled a police car but then "doubled back" and was charging at officers
as they fired at him."

I had trouble following the actual audio, but someone attached a
transcript. The curious part is "The next thing I know … I’m thinking …
the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from
him”)". Who took what (gun? cigars?) from whom?

I'd like to see the Officer's _Incident Report_.

Does it say Michael Brown made a "furtive" move?

a : done by stealth : surreptitious
b : expressive of stealth : sly had a furtive look about him

Synonyms

sneaky, shady, shifty, slippery, sly, sneaking, stealthy

Antonyms

open, overt, public

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:19:05 +0200, nestork
wrote:


I'm interested in knowing whether Michael Brown went into that
convenience store to buy Skittles, or to steal Skittles. That's going
to make or break the case against Michael Brown in the Court of Public
Opinion.

While no one ought to die over a package of Skittles, many people feel
that the lack of accountability amongst young people is ruining their
quality of life.

When you can't go anywhere without seeing graffiti or gang tags all over
everything, or juvinile offenders are given nothing more than a "stern
talking to" for committing serious crimes (like auto theft), and the
only acceptable hero to young people nowadays seems to be that of a drug
dealing gun totting "gangsta", people want a return to law and order so
that they don't have this "gangsta" culture thrust in their face at
every turn. If it turns out that Michael Brown stole that package of
Skittles, the Court of Public Opinion is going to rule "Good riddance to
you, Mike!", in his case.

If it turns out that Michael Brown stole that package of Skittles, I
wonder how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are going to react? I know
that if I was a store owner and someone threatened to beat me up if I
stopped them from stealing a package of Skittles, it wouldn't be the
$1.49 for the Skittles that would be on my mind. I'd be wanting there
to be some sort of justice for the people that work and pay their taxes
TOO, not just justice for petty criminals. "No Justice, No Peace" works
the other way, too.

Jesus, Jose' and Maria, Nestor. This was not a strong arm robbery
about freakin' Skittles.

He stole cigars valued ~ $48.99 so he could smoke some blunts.

Take a deep breath, Oren and re-read nestork's post again. I take it
that he's against Mr. Brown (and I use the term Mr. quite casually)
whether it was Skittles, a box of Swisher Sweets or the entire freakin'
store. The only question was whether Brown went there to buy or to
steal. If the latter, he's toast in nestork's opinion and the fact that
it was "only" $X in value is NOT the point, the point is he committed a
strong armed robbery.

And we don't know if he stole Swisher Sweets because he wanted blunts or
was just an idiot who liked them. And it matters not. The only thing
that counts is that it appears he stole them and, further, it was a
coordinated effort by two, possibly 3, thugs!



On 8/17/2014 6:34 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:19:05 +0200, nestork
wrote:


I'm interested in knowing whether Michael Brown went into that
convenience store to buy Skittles, or to steal Skittles. That's going
to make or break the case against Michael Brown in the Court of Public
Opinion.

While no one ought to die over a package of Skittles, many people feel
that the lack of accountability amongst young people is ruining their
quality of life.

When you can't go anywhere without seeing graffiti or gang tags all over
everything, or juvinile offenders are given nothing more than a "stern
talking to" for committing serious crimes (like auto theft), and the
only acceptable hero to young people nowadays seems to be that of a drug
dealing gun totting "gangsta", people want a return to law and order so
that they don't have this "gangsta" culture thrust in their face at
every turn. If it turns out that Michael Brown stole that package of
Skittles, the Court of Public Opinion is going to rule "Good riddance to
you, Mike!", in his case.

If it turns out that Michael Brown stole that package of Skittles, I
wonder how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are going to react? I know
that if I was a store owner and someone threatened to beat me up if I
stopped them from stealing a package of Skittles, it wouldn't be the
$1.49 for the Skittles that would be on my mind. I'd be wanting there
to be some sort of justice for the people that work and pay their taxes
TOO, not just justice for petty criminals. "No Justice, No Peace" works
the other way, too.

Jesus, Jose' and Maria, Nestor. This was not a strong arm robbery
about freakin' Skittles.

He stole cigars valued ~ $48.99 so he could smoke some blunts.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 18:45:34 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Take a deep breath, Oren and re-read nestork's post again. I take it
that he's against Mr. Brown (and I use the term Mr. quite casually)
whether it was Skittles, a box of Swisher Sweets or the entire freakin'
store. The only question was whether Brown went there to buy or to
steal. If the latter, he's toast in nestork's opinion and the fact that
it was "only" $X in value is NOT the point, the point is he committed a
strong armed robbery.

And we don't know if he stole Swisher Sweets because he wanted blunts or
was just an idiot who liked them. And it matters not. The only thing
that counts is that it appears he stole them and, further, it was a
coordinated effort by two, possibly 3, thugs!


I like Nestor. Hard to tell sometimes if he is trying to humor us

My bad!

On 8/17/2014 6:49 PM, Oren wrote:

And we don't know if he stole Swisher Sweets because he wanted blunts or
was just an idiot who liked them. And it matters not. The only thing
that counts is that it appears he stole them and, further, it was a
coordinated effort by two, possibly 3, thugs!


I like Nestor. Hard to tell sometimes if he is trying to humor us

My bad!

Looks as if we three (at a minimum) are all the same page. Round up
three more and we can sit on the coroner's jury and make quick work of
the inquestg

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 18:57:28 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

On 8/17/2014 6:49 PM, Oren wrote:

And we don't know if he stole Swisher Sweets because he wanted blunts or
was just an idiot who liked them. And it matters not. The only thing
that counts is that it appears he stole them and, further, it was a
coordinated effort by two, possibly 3, thugs!


I like Nestor. Hard to tell sometimes if he is trying to humor us

My bad!

Looks as if we three (at a minimum) are all the same page. Round up
three more and we can sit on the coroner's jury and make quick work of
the inquestg


Don't rule out gang colors. Flying his colors, the red cap could mean
a member of the Bloods. Speculation on my part (experience). Rivals of
the Crips -- wear (fly) blue flags.

Unquestionably confused: Exactly. The issue isn't in the value of what he stole, the issue lies entirely in the fact that he walked into that convenience store with the motive of stealing what he wanted. It's those petty crimes that go relatively unpunished in today's society that lowers the quality of life for those of us that support our governments with our tax dollars. Who among us would want to make a meager living selling nickle and dime items from a convenience store only to be subject to young thugs that come in to steal what they want from us without any concern for being caught stealing. Doesn't the rule of law apply to them too? Perhaps it does, but the lawyers paint them as being underpriviledged youth who are only trying to have for themselves what others take for granted. They get off with nothing more than community service work; cutting grass with a lawn mower at a civic center or something like that.

Oren:
No, I'm not trying to humour anyone. I just say what I think and why, and people can agree with me or not.

I always wondered what was meant by "strong arm robbery", and I think one of the recent posts make it clear. It's where someone comes into your store, picks up what he wants, and walks out making it clear by his manner that if you try to stop him, you're gonna get a beating. I think if that happened to any one of us, where someone walked into our garage and walked off with our lawn mower, making it clear that if we tried to stop him we'd get a beating, we'd feel completely violated. Why doesn't the law apply to them? Why don't they have to work to save money to buy their own lawn mower?

Anyhow, if the video that's coming out now shows Michael Brown threatening to beat up a convenience store clerk over whatever it was he stole, and that's "strong arm robbery", I just have trouble reconciling that picture of Michael Brown with the other one I heard. You know, that one where Michael Brown is a grade A+ student going to a convenience store to buy some candy.

Does anyone else smell a lawyer at work here?

I know that health care is one of the Provincial Government's largest expenses, but I really don't know how much it costs. The funds come out of something called the "General Budget" which pays for everything the Provincial Government is responsible for paying for.

Once you get your own health care system up and running, it should be as efficient as the Canadian system, and I expect you'll like your system as much as we like ours.

Really, what people need is a government that encourages business and helps industry to bring wealth to a province or state, but also provides for the people's needs, like free education and health care. It's kinda the happy medium between capitalism and socialism. Neither one can ever be truly great on it's own, but when properly married together can become great.

In 1980, the former British colony of Rhodesia officially broke up into two countries; Zambia which was the part of Rhodesia north of the Zambezi River and Zimbabwe, which was the part of Rhodesia south of the Zambezi River.

In Zimbabwe, under President Robert Mugabe, land owned by white farmers was "redistributed" to the blacks who had fought for independance from Britain. The blacks who essentially squatted on farms previously owned by whites had no farming experience, and agricultural exports from Zimbabwe dropped precipitously causing Zimbabwe to borrow money to buy food for it's people, and that in turn causing huge inflation in the country.

At one point the National Bank of Zimbabwe began printing 100 trillion dollar bills to keep up with inflation, and those became the world's highest denomination currency. At the time, a 100,000,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollar bill was worth about 5 US dollars.

In order to ensure that the people of the country got the necessities of life, Robert Mugabe passed a law making it a crime to sell goods like milk, bread and hand soap for more than a small profit, but with the inflation running at a million percent per year, the cost of goods doubled every day, so store owners chose to hide the staples they had purchased rather than sell them for essentially nothing, thereby avoiding the law requiring them to effectively sell those goods at a loss.

Zimbabwe's 100-Trillion-Dollar Bill Is a Hot Collectible - WSJ

And, all of this was brought about by forcing white farmers off their land so that black farmers could take over the operation of those farms. Rhodesia had always been considered the "bread basket" of Africa.

On 8/17/2014 5:35 PM, Oren wrote:

...is it true people are born evil?

Prisons are a necessary evil. Many cannot walk amongst a civilized
society. They are predators preying on the weak and the defenseless.

Example: you cannot rehabilitate a person that has never been
habilitated. Rehabilitation will not work unless the person _wants_ to
change.

Thus, we have cages for confinement of the most notorious.


At the risk of being called racist, I do believe
there are cultural differences. Japanese versus
German versus South African.

I believe the first few years lifw live set up the
emotional needs, a baby in a carseat in front of a
TV will grow up differently than an India baby in
a sling on Mom's hip.

Yes, there are some people who will never be civilized.
There are manipulators, predators, and sociopaths. I've
met a few in person.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/17/2014 11:19 PM, nestork wrote:
'Stormin Mormon[_10_ Wrote:

the welfare card is replenished on the First of the
Month, by the white legislators using tax dollars from
the Europeans who work hard all year.

One man's theory anyway.


In 1980, the former British colony of Rhodesia officially broke up into
two countries; Zambia which was the part of Rhodesia north of the
Zambezi River and Zimbabwe, which was the part of Rhodesia south of the
Zambezi River.

In Zimbabwe, under President Robert Mugabe, land owned by white farmers
was "redistributed" to the blacks who had fought for independance from
Britain. The blacks who essentially squatted on farms previously owned
by whites had no farming experience, and agricultural exports from
Zimbabwe dropped precipitously causing Zimbabwe to borrow money to buy
food for it's people, and that in turn causing huge inflation in the
country.

At one point the National Bank of Zimbabwe began printing 100 trillion
dollar bills to keep up with inflation, and those became the world's
highest denomination currency. At the time, a 100,000,000,000,000
Zimbabwean dollar bill was worth about 5 US dollars.

In order to ensure that the people of the country got the necessities of
life, Robert Mugabe passed a law making it a crime to sell goods like
milk, bread and hand soap for more than a small profit, but with the
inflation running at a million percent per year, the cost of goods
doubled every day, so store owners chose to hide the staples they had
purchased rather than sell them for essentially nothing, thereby
avoiding the law requiring them to effectively sell those goods at a
loss.

'Zimbabwe's 100-Trillion-Dollar Bill Is a Hot Collectible - WSJ'
(http://tinyurl.com/kj7xgmw)

And, all of this was brought about by forcing white farmers off their
land so that black farmers could take over the operation of those farms.
Rhodesia had always been considered the "bread basket" of Africa.

Thank you. That fits very nicely along with what
I'd been saying.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

BenDarrenBach wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:48:23 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
BenDarrenBach;3272625 Wrote:



Don't think there has never been a white person in "black face"
taking

advantage of this type of situation...it is only humans acting in
their

own selfish interest.



No. Not all humans behave that way in their own selfish interest.

I assume you mean all races...lets look at our own race as far as,
exterminating the Jews, slavery, or native American eradication. We
have something in us more elevated than anyone else?

You must be a LIB .

--
Snag

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/17/2014 6:49 PM, Oren wrote:

And we don't know if he stole Swisher Sweets because he wanted
blunts or was just an idiot who liked them. And it matters not. The
only thing that counts is that it appears he stole them and,
further, it was a coordinated effort by two, possibly 3, thugs!


I like Nestor. Hard to tell sometimes if he is trying to humor us

My bad!

Looks as if we three (at a minimum) are all the same page. Round up
three more and we can sit on the coroner's jury and make quick work of
the inquestg

I volunteer .

--
Snag

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 9:27:09 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Oren[_2_ Wrote:

;3272939']

I like Nestor. Hard to tell sometimes if he is trying to humor us





Unquestionably confused: Exactly. The issue isn't in the value of what

he stole, the issue lies entirely in the fact that he walked into that

convenience store with the motive of stealing what he wanted. It's

those petty crimes that go relatively unpunished in today's society that

lowers the quality of life for those of us that support our governments

with our tax dollars. Who among us would want to make a meager living

selling nickle and dime items from a convenience store only to be

subject to young thugs that come in to steal what they want from us

without any concern for being caught stealing. Doesn't the rule of law

apply to them too? Perhaps it does, but the lawyers paint them as being

underpriviledged youth who are only trying to have for themselves what

others take for granted. They get off with nothing more than community

service work; cutting grass with a lawn mower at a civic center or

something like that.



Oren:

No, I'm not trying to humour anyone. I just say what I think and why,

and people can agree with me or not.



I always wondered what was meant by "strong arm robbery", and I think

one of the recent posts make it clear. It's where someone comes into

your store, picks up what he wants, and walks out making it clear by his

manner that if you try to stop him, you're gonna get a beating. I think

if that happened to any one of us, where someone walked into our garage

and walked off with our lawn mower, making it clear that if we tried to

stop him we'd get a beating, we'd feel completely violated. Why doesn't

the law apply to them? Why don't they have to work to save money to buy

their own lawn mower?



Anyhow, if the video that's coming out now shows Michael Brown

threatening to beat up a convenience store clerk over whatever it was he

stole, and that's "strong arm robbery", I just have trouble reconciling

that picture of Michael Brown with the other one I heard. You know,

that one where Michael Brown is a grade A+ student going to a

convenience store to buy some candy.



Does anyone else smell a lawyer at work here?



IDK about the lawyer. Al Sharpton stinks so much that it's impossible
to smell anything else but his stench. His smell is worse than the stench from
his Tawana Brawley smeared in feces fiasco.

On Monday, August 18, 2014 7:30:08 AM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:


You must be a LIB .


Snag

....you must be highly intelligent!

On 8/18/2014 4:03 PM, Taxpayer wrote:
On 08/18/2014 07:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Did you know Walmart shoppers beep when they back up?

Many of them need orange triangles, also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvxNgdFeWqM

LOL, Howbout them "back boobs"?

Wacch you mouf!

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP



Tell your friend I agree. I've had a thug about the same size as
Brown threaten me, threaten to take my cell block keys away. I
replied, you just might do that, but their will be ten others just
like me coming to take them back. (Aside those keys would not allow
him out because of key control policies).

I did tell this fool I would poke his damn eyes out with my shiny new
Cross pen.

... if a man pulls a knife on you, you pull a gun. If he sends one of
your's to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. And. Never
let the facts interfere with the writing of a good report from your
shiny new Cross pen

Retired 25 years, Federal LEO

Hey Oren, did you have a side job of giving prison tats with that shiny new
Cross pen? Is that why it was shiny and new; good medical protocol? VBG

--
Tekkie

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 06:00:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Does anyone else smell a lawyer at work here?



IDK about the lawyer. Al Sharpton stinks so much that it's impossible
to smell anything else but his stench. His smell is worse than the stench from
his Tawana Brawley smeared in feces fiasco.

The cash register went off for Charlatan and Jackson. The bells and
whistles get their attention immediately, if not sooner.

Did you happen to notice or recognize one of the lawyers for the Brown
family? Benjamin Crump, the same lawyer that represented the Trayvon
Martin family in Florida. Things happen in threes.
--
Somtimes you just have a bad day at the dungeon

On 8/19/2014 8:06 PM, trader_4 wrote:

We don't have God, but fortunately there were witnesses and at least one of
them is confirming the officer's sequence of events. That is that the officer
was in his car, trying to get out, when the two were slamming the door shut
on him, fighting with him inside his car, where the officer's gun first went
off. Then they run away, the officer emerges from his car, gun drawn (not
only have they tried to grab his gun, he also knows they match the description
of the robbery suspects from 10 mins ago). Officer orders them to stop,
Brown taunts the cop from about 25 ft away, then starts charging straight
at the cop and continues to do so, as the cop continues to fire.

They stole swishy sweets and the tox report shows Brown had marijuana in
his system, which may help explain what was going on. IDK if the final tox
report is done, possibly more to come. But all that is a long way from the
sweet, innocent teen just walking down the street and shot with his hands in
the air. If that version of events is substantially correct, clearly all
the rioting and hand wringing over the premise that a cop just indiscriminantly killed an innocent black teenager is BS.


Listening to the Michael Savage show tonight, says the
unarmed teen had been fighting with the cop, trying to
sieze the cop's duty weapon.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:06:58 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

...snip....
We don't have God, but fortunately there were witnesses and at least one
of
them is confirming the officer's sequence of events. That is that the
officer
was in his car, trying to get out, when the two were slamming the door
shut
on him, fighting with him inside his car, where the officer's gun first
went
off. Then they run away, the officer emerges from his car, gun drawn
(not
only have they tried to grab his gun, he also knows they match the
description
of the robbery suspects from 10 mins ago). Officer orders them to stop,
Brown taunts the cop from about 25 ft away, then starts charging straight
at the cop and continues to do so, as the cop continues to fire.

They stole swishy sweets and the tox report shows Brown had marijuana in
his system, which may help explain what was going on. IDK if the final
tox
report is done, possibly more to come. But all that is a long way from
the
sweet, innocent teen just walking down the street and shot with his
hands in
the air. If that version of events is substantially correct, clearly all
the rioting and hand wringing over the premise that a cop just
indiscriminantly killed an innocent black teenager is BS.


what type of weapon? Autopsy showed six bullets in body. must have been an
automatic. are those nine round magazines? or clips?

On 8/19/2014 8:01 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:30:54 AM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Unquestionably Confused wrote:

[HUGE OLD SNIPPITY, SNIP SNIP!}

That Sgt. used to say I can't quit

army because I can't afford my drug then. He became nice to me since but

Soon after any how I got transfered down to Mekong Delta town of Can Tho

and onto Northern Iran and N. Africa.

Hi,
Dead man can't talk. Only god knows.

But IF he COULD talk, undoubtedly he would be livid when he read this

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

which indicates - and I am NOT taking it as gospel but...- that the
officer eye orbit was shattered in his confrontation with Brown.

Naturally, if this is proven to be the case (the fracture, not origin)
the next step will be launch a federal investigation seeking to identify
and prosecute those who beat the crap out of the officer to cover up
this obvious execution of mama's precious welfare check.

As we say around here... FMTT! That is F**k Me To Tears!

On 8/19/2014 9:41 PM, RobertMacy wrote:

the air. If that version of events is substantially correct, clearly all
the rioting and hand wringing over the premise that a cop just
indiscriminantly killed an innocent black teenager is BS.


what type of weapon? Autopsy showed six bullets in body. must have been
an automatic. are those nine round magazines? or clips?

To be accurate and/or correct (generally not required by the media or...)

1) Not an automatic, but a semi-automatic or pistol

2) Immaterial really how many rounds the MAGAZINE contained. Studies
have demonstrated that someone only reasonably skilled with a magazine
fed weapon can, having access to say four loaded 13 round magazine can
fire 26 rounds almost as fast (+/- a second or so) as a shooter with a
26 round magazine or a 15 and 11 round magazine. Hence the BS call on
magazine capacity laws. They make little to no practical difference.

3) Clips are little metal tracks holding military rifle cartridges
stacked for easy insertion in military type MAGAZINES.

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:57:31 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/19/2014 9:41 PM, RobertMacy wrote:



the air. If that version of events is substantially correct, clearly all

the rioting and hand wringing over the premise that a cop just

indiscriminantly killed an innocent black teenager is BS.





what type of weapon? Autopsy showed six bullets in body. must have been

an automatic. are those nine round magazines? or clips?



To be accurate and/or correct (generally not required by the media or...)



1) Not an automatic, but a semi-automatic or pistol



2) Immaterial really how many rounds the MAGAZINE contained. Studies

have demonstrated that someone only reasonably skilled with a magazine

fed weapon can, having access to say four loaded 13 round magazine can

fire 26 rounds almost as fast (+/- a second or so) as a shooter with a

26 round magazine or a 15 and 11 round magazine. Hence the BS call on

magazine capacity laws. They make little to no practical difference.



3) Clips are little metal tracks holding military rifle cartridges

stacked for easy insertion in military type MAGAZINES.

Agree with the above observation. And would add that typical police mags
carry 10+ rounds. And six shots doesn't automatically mean it's a
semi-automatic, most revolvers hold 6 rounds, some more.

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:49:32 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/19/2014 8:01 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:30:54 AM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:

Unquestionably Confused wrote:



[HUGE OLD SNIPPITY, SNIP SNIP!}



That Sgt. used to say I can't quit



army because I can't afford my drug then. He became nice to me since but



Soon after any how I got transfered down to Mekong Delta town of Can Tho



and onto Northern Iran and N. Africa.



Hi,

Dead man can't talk. Only god knows.



But IF he COULD talk, undoubtedly he would be livid when he read this



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/



which indicates - and I am NOT taking it as gospel but...- that the

officer eye orbit was shattered in his confrontation with Brown.



Part of the big problem here is that all this basic info should have
been put out within the first day or two. The police new that the police
officer was wounded, that the two had just robbed a convenience store 10 mins
before, assaulted the clerk there... That doesn't mean that the cop
was 100% justified in the shooting, but it does go a long way to explaining
what was really going on, who the initial aggressors likely were, ie that
the teens were not some sweet, innocent kids out for a stroll. And why
doesn't the media show the pic of Brown shoving the store clerk, stealing
the box of cigars, 10 mins before the event, instead of a family pic of him
from years ago? I think we know the answer to that.....

On 8/20/2014 8:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/
which indicates - and I am NOT taking it as gospel but...- that the
officer eye orbit was shattered in his confrontation with Brown.



Part of the big problem here is that all this basic info should have
been put out within the first day or two. The police new that the police
officer was wounded, that the two had just robbed a convenience store 10 mins
before, assaulted the clerk there... That doesn't mean that the cop
was 100% justified in the shooting, but it does go a long way to explaining
what was really going on, who the initial aggressors likely were, ie that
the teens were not some sweet, innocent kids out for a stroll. And why
doesn't the media show the pic of Brown shoving the store clerk, stealing
the box of cigars, 10 mins before the event, instead of a family pic of him
from years ago? I think we know the answer to that.....

There's absolutely no doubt as to the answer to many of the questions
you pose rhetorically.

As for the timing of the release of information regarding the wounding
of the officer (again, IF it truly occurred and I'm saying that to
remain objective)... that's a tough call. There may have been
uncertainty as to the extent of the injury early on.

There may have been a decision to keep it closely held along with all
the other evidence until such time as it could ALL be viewed and
associated with the other pieces of the puzzle in context.

Good decision(s) or bad? Not sure. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is
easy when you have the game results (or a good indication of how the
play turned out) in hand.

In the end it should all come out. Look where we are, what?, 11 days
after the event. Only a rabid (as in INSANE) supporter of Brown would
dare argue this was a clear cut case of an "execution" of a poor teen
that was innocent and...

IMO if the officer had been Black and all other facts remained as they
are in this case at this point in time, this story would be gone from
the media. It never would have peaked anywhere near where this one has
been or will go. The only difference is the race factor.

Draw your own conclusions

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:32:01 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/20/2014 8:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

which indicates - and I am NOT taking it as gospel but...- that the

officer eye orbit was shattered in his confrontation with Brown.







Part of the big problem here is that all this basic info should have

been put out within the first day or two. The police new that the police

officer was wounded, that the two had just robbed a convenience store 10 mins

before, assaulted the clerk there... That doesn't mean that the cop

was 100% justified in the shooting, but it does go a long way to explaining

what was really going on, who the initial aggressors likely were, ie that

the teens were not some sweet, innocent kids out for a stroll. And why

doesn't the media show the pic of Brown shoving the store clerk, stealing

the box of cigars, 10 mins before the event, instead of a family pic of him

from years ago? I think we know the answer to that.....



There's absolutely no doubt as to the answer to many of the questions

you pose rhetorically.



As for the timing of the release of information regarding the wounding

of the officer (again, IF it truly occurred and I'm saying that to

remain objective)... that's a tough call. There may have been

uncertainty as to the extent of the injury early on.


If it's a fracture, they should have an X-ray and know that within hours.
Even without that, they could have put out a statement to the effect that
the officer was being treated for wounds he received in the struggle.





There may have been a decision to keep it closely held along with all

the other evidence until such time as it could ALL be viewed and

associated with the other pieces of the puzzle in context.



Good decision(s) or bad? Not sure.

Well, the police are being portrayed as shooting innocent blacks for
sport and the city is being looted and burned, so there's that....




Monday Morning Quarterbacking is

easy when you have the game results (or a good indication of how the

play turned out) in hand.



But it wasn't just a one time decision, with no feedback. The officials
saw what was happening, the rioting starting, they had days to start getting
at least some of their version of events out there. Instead they waited a
week while the city burns? I don't think that's monday morning quarterbacking
at all.




In the end it should all come out. Look where we are, what?, 11 days

after the event. Only a rabid (as in INSANE) supporter of Brown would

dare argue this was a clear cut case of an "execution" of a poor teen

that was innocent and...



Unfortunately that appears to be a huge number of people, including the
media. The media is showing a pic of an innocent kid, not the hulking
menace that robbed a convenience store 10 mins before and assaulted the
clerk.




IMO if the officer had been Black and all other facts remained as they

are in this case at this point in time, this story would be gone from

the media. It never would have peaked anywhere near where this one has

been or will go. The only difference is the race factor.



Draw your own conclusions

I agree. I see talking heads on MSNBC ranting about a "war on black men" in
this country. Even if the shooting turns out to be unjustified, we're a country
of 300 mil. Events like this are extremely rare and by now, there is plenty
of evidence that suggests that what happened was not a cop just shooting an
innocent teen walking down the street.

On 8/20/2014 8:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:32:01 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/20/2014 8:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:


As for the timing of the release of information regarding the wounding

of the officer (again, IF it truly occurred and I'm saying that to

remain objective)... that's a tough call. There may have been

uncertainty as to the extent of the injury early on.


If it's a fracture, they should have an X-ray and know that within hours.
Even without that, they could have put out a statement to the effect that
the officer was being treated for wounds he received in the struggle.

And your response to the race baiters who might then start screaming
"cover up, cover up! We have this poor child executed and they're
trying to justify it with a smack in the face?"

Only point I was trying to make is that it IS a tough call about what to
release and when. In most instances such as this, you are damned if you
do and damned if you don't


There may have been a decision to keep it closely held along with all

the other evidence until such time as it could ALL be viewed and

associated with the other pieces of the puzzle in context.



Good decision(s) or bad? Not sure.

Well, the police are being portrayed as shooting innocent blacks for
sport and the city is being looted and burned, so there's that...

And in retrospect, it was probably a bad decision (still probably since
we don't know what the reaction might have been if they lead with that
information. How is this discussion NOT Monday Morning Quarterbacking?



But it wasn't just a one time decision, with no feedback. The officials
saw what was happening, the rioting starting, they had days to start getting
at least some of their version of events out there. Instead they waited a
week while the city burns? I don't think that's monday morning quarterbacking
at all.

Who is running the show now? The Governor? That idiot from the State
Patrol? You do know that the Missouri State Patrol is strictly traffic
enforcement right? The overbearing pressure from the White House and
Holder's office? Rushing in for their face time before the body has cooled?

In the end it should all come out. Look where we are, what?, 11 days

after the event. Only a rabid (as in INSANE) supporter of Brown would

dare argue this was a clear cut case of an "execution" of a poor teen

that was innocent and...



Unfortunately that appears to be a huge number of people, including the
media. The media is showing a pic of an innocent kid, not the hulking
menace that robbed a convenience store 10 mins before and assaulted the
clerk.

No, I don't believe that to be the case. When I said rabid/insane I
referred to those goofs and haters who would maintain that Brown was
murdered because he was Black if shown a video taken with his own
MOTHER's cell phone that showed him charging the cop with a knife.
Those types are out there and they walk among us. Unfortunately, there
are also people who would argue the shooting of Brown was justified just
because he told the officer to "F**k off!"

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:03:25 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/20/2014 8:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:32:01 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

On 8/20/2014 8:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:





As for the timing of the release of information regarding the wounding



of the officer (again, IF it truly occurred and I'm saying that to



remain objective)... that's a tough call. There may have been



uncertainty as to the extent of the injury early on.





If it's a fracture, they should have an X-ray and know that within hours.

Even without that, they could have put out a statement to the effect that

the officer was being treated for wounds he received in the struggle.



And your response to the race baiters who might then start screaming

"cover up, cover up! We have this poor child executed and they're

trying to justify it with a smack in the face?"



The response is simple. These are simply the facts. They did what you
just suggested above anyway, from the start. And they did it again, when
the fact that Brown had just robbed the convenience store, came out a week
later, except that then the protesters had the very vailid additional angle
of asking why it took a week to say they were suspects in the store robbery
and using *that* to claim it was a phony coverup.





Only point I was trying to make is that it IS a tough call about what to

release and when. In most instances such as this, you are damned if you

do and damned if you don't



I don't see that at all. In most police incidents like this, the basic
info, eg officer X is being treated at the hospital for facial injuries,
comes out almost immediately. Getting basic facts out is rarely damning,
but not doing so very often is, because it raises suspicions and leaves
people with only one side of the story.







There may have been a decision to keep it closely held along with all



the other evidence until such time as it could ALL be viewed and



associated with the other pieces of the puzzle in context.







Good decision(s) or bad? Not sure.



Well, the police are being portrayed as shooting innocent blacks for

sport and the city is being looted and burned, so there's that...



And in retrospect, it was probably a bad decision (still probably since

we don't know what the reaction might have been if they lead with that

information. How is this discussion NOT Monday Morning Quarterbacking?



Because it's clear that folks across the country would not have had the
image of a totally innocent black kid being gunned down by police, for no
reason. I highly doubt a bunch of blacks are going to come from NYC to
burn up Missouri, if the image on TV was of Brown robbing the convenience
store and the report from day one was that the officer was being treated
at the hospital for head/facial injuries sustained in the altercation.
Right away, that says there is a lot more to the story and a lot of people
who were outraged, would very likely not be nearly as outraged, given reason
to pause, etc. What you had was a very one-sided story that inflamed people.









But it wasn't just a one time decision, with no feedback. The officials

saw what was happening, the rioting starting, they had days to start getting

at least some of their version of events out there. Instead they waited a

week while the city burns? I don't think that's monday morning quarterbacking

at all.



Who is running the show now? The Governor? That idiot from the State

Patrol? You do know that the Missouri State Patrol is strictly traffic

enforcement right? The overbearing pressure from the White House and

Holder's office? Rushing in for their face time before the body has cooled?



I agree we don't know who is running the show, who made the discision to
withhold the basic info that would have more fairly presented what happened,
but whoever it is, they are really dumb.




In the end it should all come out. Look where we are, what?, 11 days



after the event. Only a rabid (as in INSANE) supporter of Brown would



dare argue this was a clear cut case of an "execution" of a poor teen



that was innocent and...







Unfortunately that appears to be a huge number of people, including the

media. The media is showing a pic of an innocent kid, not the hulking

menace that robbed a convenience store 10 mins before and assaulted the

clerk.



No, I don't believe that to be the case.

What isn't the case? Do you deny that the mainstream media is showing the
pic of the younger looking innocent kid, instead of the video of him robbing
the convenience store 10 mins before? I can assure you that if they had a
video of the white cop doing *anything* wrong that day or any day, that
suggested he might have cause to be the aggressor, they damn well would be
playing that. "Here's a video of officer X, shoving another suspect,
yesterday". Roll the tape.... But Brown does it 10 mins before to the
store clerk, while committing a felony and they
don't show the video, they show the sweet, younger pic. Good grief they
are corrupt. I can't believe you'd argue that.


When I said rabid/insane I

referred to those goofs and haters who would maintain that Brown was

murdered because he was Black if shown a video taken with his own

MOTHER's cell phone that showed him charging the cop with a knife.

The media has the convenience store video. Not using it makes them part
of that same rabid bunch of haters.



Those types are out there and they walk among us. Unfortunately, there

are also people who would argue the shooting of Brown was justified just

because he told the officer to "F**k off!"

Funny, I haven't seen that said by anyone yet. And I guarantee you that
you won't see them interviewed as a guest or regular on TV. But I did
see a talking head on MSNBC saying that there is a "war on black men in
this country". That was one rabid bitch.

On 8/20/2014 9:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:


Unfortunately that appears to be a huge number of people, including the

media. The media is showing a pic of an innocent kid, not the hulking

menace that robbed a convenience store 10 mins before and assaulted the

clerk.



No, I don't believe that to be the case.

What isn't the case? Do you deny that the mainstream media is showing the
pic of the younger looking innocent kid, instead of the video of him robbing
the convenience store 10 mins before?

Perhaps it wasn't that clear, read it again. What I don't believe is
the case is that a huge number of people currently believe that the kid
was executed. The media believes only what they want and that typically
is hyperbole that will sell airtime or newsprint. Sensationalism at all
costs. Those a**holes (media) are as culpable in this farce as the
rioters and looters who are demanding justice for Michael Brown and are
just acting out since they have nothing better to do than collect some
televisions, and whatever else they may loot.

I can assure you that if they had a
video of the white cop doing *anything* wrong that day or any day, that
suggested he might have cause to be the aggressor, they damn well would be
playing that. "Here's a video of officer X, shoving another suspect,
yesterday". Roll the tape.... But Brown does it 10 mins before to the
store clerk, while committing a felony and they
don't show the video, they show the sweet, younger pic. Good grief they
are corrupt. I can't believe you'd argue that.


When I said rabid/insane I

referred to those goofs and haters who would maintain that Brown was

murdered because he was Black if shown a video taken with his own

MOTHER's cell phone that showed him charging the cop with a knife.

The media has the convenience store video. Not using it makes them part
of that same rabid bunch of haters.



Those types are out there and they walk among us. Unfortunately, there

are also people who would argue the shooting of Brown was justified just

because he told the officer to "F**k off!"

Funny, I haven't seen that said by anyone yet.

Only because such a video tape in all likelihood doesn't exist.

If you haven't seen folks capable of denying what is proof positive, you
just aren't looking. They ARE out there.

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:10:50 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/20/2014 9:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:





Unfortunately that appears to be a huge number of people, including the



media. The media is showing a pic of an innocent kid, not the hulking



menace that robbed a convenience store 10 mins before and assaulted the



clerk.







No, I don't believe that to be the case.



What isn't the case? Do you deny that the mainstream media is showing the

pic of the younger looking innocent kid, instead of the video of him robbing

the convenience store 10 mins before?



Perhaps it wasn't that clear, read it again. What I don't believe is

the case is that a huge number of people currently believe that the kid

was executed.

It's apparently a large enough number to cause a hell of a lot of trouble.
And all I'm saying is that is the officials had put out more of the basic
facts from the beginning, then there is reason to believe you'd have less
people believing the shooting was unjustified. It would move some of them
into the let's wait for the facts camp. By not putting out that Brown
is the suspect from a robbery and assault 10 mins before, that the officer
was being treated for facial injuries, etc, they left a very one sided picture,
that would lead more people to think it was a totally unjustified shooting,
case closed.


The media believes only what they want and that typically

is hyperbole that will sell airtime or newsprint. Sensationalism at all

costs. Those a**holes (media) are as culpable in this farce as the

rioters and looters who are demanding justice for Michael Brown and are

just acting out since they have nothing better to do than collect some

televisions, and whatever else they may loot.



Yes, we agree on that and on the vast majority of the whole thing.




I can assure you that if they had a

video of the white cop doing *anything* wrong that day or any day, that

suggested he might have cause to be the aggressor, they damn well would be

playing that. "Here's a video of officer X, shoving another suspect,

yesterday". Roll the tape.... But Brown does it 10 mins before to the

store clerk, while committing a felony and they

don't show the video, they show the sweet, younger pic. Good grief they

are corrupt. I can't believe you'd argue that.





When I said rabid/insane I



referred to those goofs and haters who would maintain that Brown was



murdered because he was Black if shown a video taken with his own



MOTHER's cell phone that showed him charging the cop with a knife.



The media has the convenience store video. Not using it makes them part

of that same rabid bunch of haters.







Those types are out there and they walk among us. Unfortunately, there



are also people who would argue the shooting of Brown was justified just



because he told the officer to "F**k off!"



Funny, I haven't seen that said by anyone yet.



Only because such a video tape in all likelihood doesn't exist.



Yep, exactly.


If you haven't seen folks capable of denying what is proof positive, you

just aren't looking. They ARE out there.

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that if you had just some basic info
put out by the officials in the first day or two, it could have changed the
reaction of some of the more reasonable folks. I think that included a lot
of the people who are protesting, assembling in masses, that then gives cover
and assists the trouble makers who want to loot.