A few days ago in Ferguson, Missouri, a white police officer shot and killed a black teenager named Michael Brown. The police say Michael Brown had been struggling with the police officer for his gun. Eye witnesses say that Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air signifying he was surrendering to the police officer.

But now, despite the family of Michael Brown calling for peace, there is rioting and looting in the town of Ferguson, mostly by black men and women.

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and looting in that town any way helps to:

1. determine the facts of the Brown shooting, or

2. improve race relations in Ferguson, Missouri, or

3. improve people's perception of blacks across your great nation?

Pardon me for being blunt, but is this not simply black people looting under the guise of racial anger? That is, how many of those looters even knew who Michael Brown was? How many of them cared if that ni**er lived or died? How many of them simply saw this as a situation where the police were too busy controlling protesters to chase after looters?

If it were a black officer having been accused of shooting and killing a white teen with his hands up in a gesture of surrender, would there be white people breaking into stores to steal liquor and electronics?

This is a case like any other. The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Rioting and looting isn't going to help one bit. Why can't those black people understand that?

nestork wrote:
A few days ago in Ferguson, Missouri, a white police
officer shot and
killed a black teenager named Michael Brown. The police
say Michael
Brown had been struggling with the police officer for his
gun. Eye
witnesses say that Michael Brown was shot with his hands
in the air
signifying he was complying with the police commands.

But now, despite the family of Michael Brown calling for
peace, there
is rioting and looting in the town of Ferguson, mostly by
black men
and women that didn't even know Michael Brown.

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and
looting before
the trial of the officer involved in any way helps to:

1. determine the facts of the Brown shooting, or

2. improve race relations in Ferguson, Missouri, or

3. change people's perception of black people across your
great
nation?

Pardon me for being blunt, but is this not simply black
people looting
under the guise of racial anger? That is, how many of
those looters
even knew who Michael Brown was? And, how many of them
are more
concerned about race relations in Ferguson, Missouri than
they are
about the street value of the tablet computer they stole.

If it were a black officer having been accused of shooting
and
killing a white teen with his hands up in a gesture of
surrender,
would there be white people breaking into liquor stores
and
electronic shops to steal liquor and electronics?

i think this explains alot
http://conservativetribune.com/black...ssage-rioters/

nestork wrote:
A few days ago in Ferguson, Missouri, a white police
officer shot and
killed a black teenager named Michael Brown. The police
say Michael
Brown had been struggling with the police officer for his
gun. Eye
witnesses say that Michael Brown was shot with his hands
in the air
signifying he was complying with the police commands.

But now, despite the family of Michael Brown calling for
peace, there
is rioting and looting in the town of Ferguson, mostly by
black men
and women that didn't even know Michael Brown.

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and
looting before
the trial of the officer involved in any way helps to:

1. determine the facts of the Brown shooting, or

2. improve race relations in Ferguson, Missouri, or

3. change people's perception of black people across your
great
nation?

Pardon me for being blunt, but is this not simply black
people looting
under the guise of racial anger? That is, how many of
those looters
even knew who Michael Brown was? And, how many of them
are more
concerned about race relations in Ferguson, Missouri than
they are
about the street value of the tablet computer they stole.

If it were a black officer having been accused of shooting
and
killing a white teen with his hands up in a gesture of
surrender,
would there be white people breaking into liquor stores
and
electronic shops to steal liquor and electronics?

And no, that's not something "white folks" do

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:16:10 +0200, nestork
wrote:


A few days ago in Ferguson, Missouri, a white police officer shot and
killed a black teenager named Michael Brown. The police say Michael
Brown had been struggling with the police officer for his gun. Eye
witnesses say that Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air
signifying he was complying with the police commands.

But now, despite the family of Michael Brown calling for peace, there is
rioting and looting in the town of Ferguson, mostly by black men and
women that didn't even know Michael Brown.

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and looting before
the trial of the officer involved in any way helps to:

1. determine the facts of the Brown shooting, or

2. improve race relations in Ferguson, Missouri, or

3. change people's perception of black people across your great nation?

Pardon me for being blunt, but is this not simply black people looting
under the guise of racial anger? That is, how many of those looters
even knew who Michael Brown was? And, how many of them are more
concerned about race relations in Ferguson, Missouri than they are
about the street value of the tablet computer they stole.

If it were a black officer having been accused of shooting and killing a
white teen with his hands up in a gesture of surrender, would there be
white people breaking into liquor stores and electronic shops to steal
liquor and electronics?

Maybe I can explain. These porch monkeys ( Dixie blue gums ) feel
they are entitled. Exactly what democrats want them to do.

How about you look at some facts so the police are not the demons.

The litards never, ever, blame the criminal, but claim it is the
whites holding them back so they can never advance.

"He was a good kid!" The democrats have taught them well. The white
man is the reason for your failure in life.

Watch:

Minister's explosive rant on violence in Ferguson goes viral
Aug. 15, 2014 - 7:33 - Johnathan Gentry shares his frustration

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3731606825001/ministers-explosive-rant-on-violence-in-ferguson-goes-viral/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/k9aaxoy

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 5:43:53 PM UTC-5, ChairMan wrote:

If it were a black officer having been accused of shooting

and

killing a white teen with his hands up in a gesture of

surrender,

would there be white people breaking into liquor stores

and

electronic shops to steal liquor and electronics?



And no, that's not something "white folks" do

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.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:16:10 +0200, nestork
wrote:

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and looting before
the trial of the officer

PS: You have the Officer on trial, before a criminal indictment of
criminal wrong doing or any evidence a crime was committed by the
Officer.

"you libs"

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 16:51:28 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

i think this explains alot
http://conservativetribune.com/black...ssage-rioters/

Did he say "dat girl l walkn' down the street wid underwears on wid a
television"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0mVn0HH6U

Well, it seems to me that a fair trial would be a darn sight better than a lynching by a black mob. There's gonna be a court case here regardless. The peace of Ferguson, Missouri has been too heavily disrupted for this not to go to trial so that all the evidence on both sides of the shooting comes out.

But, I agree with what's been said by others. Each and every person in the US and Canada needs to look to themselves for an explanation as to why they got to where they did in life, and not look to someone else to blame.

In the USA, it's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that are claiming black people can't get ahead because the white people are holding them back. Sorry, every white person I know is struggling to get ahead, and is competing with everyone, black or white, to progress in life. To get that better paying job, to get that job promotion, to pay off that mortgage, to put their kids through college, and to leave something to their family when they pass away. Are whites supposed to stop doing that to give blacks MORE opportunity to advance?

Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the way they've been treated by the white man over the past 250 years that they just can't seem to get it together anymore. That is, it's my great great granddad's fault, and by association, my fault. I have several tenants who are native women. One is a nurse and the other a social worker, and both of them work on the native reserves in Northern Manitoba. And, both of them quite frankly tell me that they see too much alcoholism, alcohol-induced violence, drug abuse, family violence and child abuse. The social worker has to take children away from their parents because their paraents are drunk and stoned all the time, there's nothing at home for the kids, so they hang out in the bush and get high sniffing gasoline. The nurse has to patch up indians after they get into drunken fights, often over nothing more than the last bottle of beer in a case, or get raped by their uncle or someone else that just happened to be hanging around the house. I get fed up being told that alcoholism and drug abuse are "diseases" because that absolves the drunk or drug addict from any responsibility in getting themselves into that situation. People make choices in life, and if you make poor choices, you end up going no where.

But, you see, I'm not allowed to say that out loud for being labeled a racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations, just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba. One example of that would be the maturity to realize it's wrong to bring babies into this world until you can afford to support them. Another would be the maturity to realize that you just have to make do without some things until you can afford to buy them or arrange financing to buy them.

BenDarrenBach wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 5:43:53 PM UTC-5, ChairMan
wrote:

If it were a black officer having been accused of
shooting

and

killing a white teen with his hands up in a gesture of

surrender,

would there be white people breaking into liquor stores

and

electronic shops to steal liquor and electronics?



And no, that's not something "white folks" do

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 I don't, and you should rephrase that to sub-humans.
Also, if whitey was to try it, it would be all over the news
because the brothers would expose and beat him/them severely

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 16:51:28 -0500, "ChairMan"

wrote:

i think this explains alot
http://conservativetribune.com/black...ssage-rioters/

Did he say "dat girl l walkn' down the street wid
underwears on wid a
television"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0mVn0HH6U

yup, he said it and a whole lot more and he's got it exactly
right
AMEN to the brother!!!

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:16:10 +0200, nestork
wrote:

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and
looting before
the trial of the officer

PS: You have the Officer on trial, before a criminal
indictment of
criminal wrong doing or any evidence a crime was committed
by the
Officer.

"you libs"

they have gone as far to say the criminals weren't given a
fair chance half the time when they're caught dead to
rights...go figure

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

It takes something called "self discipline" not to steal when an opportunity to steal presents itself, just as...

it take self discipline to avoid getting pregnant when everyone else in your grade 11 class is boinking the basketball team.

it takes self discipline to avoid the lure of drugs and alchohol to go to college instead of hanging out with the homies in the hood and pushing drugs so you can surround yourself with crack hos, smoke blunts and drive a cool ride.

it takes self discipline to get up every day at 7:00 in the morning so you can make breakfast and be at work on time and do your job every day so you can afford to pay your rent.

it's that self discipline that seems to be lacking.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 03:52:16 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3272626']On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:16:10 +0200, nestork
wrote:
-
Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and looting before
the trial of the officer -

PS: You have the Officer on trial, before a criminal indictment of
criminal wrong doing or any evidence a crime was committed by the
Officer.

"you libs"

Well, it seems to me that a fair trial would be a darn sight better than
a lynching by a black mob. There's gonna be a court case here
regardless. The peace of Ferguson, Missouri has been too heavily
disrupted for this not to go to trial so that all the evidence on both
sides of the shooting comes out.

But, I agree with what's been said by others. Each and every person in
the US and Canada needs to look to themselves for an explanation as to
why they got to where they did in life, and not look to someone else to
blame.

In the USA, it's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that are claiming black
people can't get ahead because the white people are holding them back.
Sorry, every white person I know is struggling to get ahead, and is
competing with everyone, black or white, to progress in life. To get
that better paying job, to get that job promotion, to pay off that
mortgage, to put their kids through college, and to leave something to
their family when they pass away. Are whites supposed to stop doing
that to give blacks MORE opportunity to advance?

Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native
people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison
population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the
way they've been treated by the white man over the past 250 years that
they just can't seem to get it together anymore. That is, it's my great
great granddad's fault, and by association, my fault. I have several
tenants who are native women. One is a nurse and the other a social
worker, and both of them work on the native reserves in Northern
Manitoba. And, both of them quite frankly tell me that they see too
much alcoholism, alcohol-induced violence, drug abuse, family violence
and child abuse. The social worker has to take children away from their
parents because their paraents are drunk and stoned all the time,
there's nothing at home for the kids, so they hang out in the bush and
get high sniffing gasoline. The nurse has to patch up indians after
they get into drunken fights, often over nothing more than the last
bottle of beer in a case, or get raped by their uncle or someone else
that just happened to be hanging around the house. I get fed up being
told that alcoholism and drug abuse are "diseases" because that absolves
the drunk or drug addict from any responsibility in getting themselves
into that situation. People make choices in life, and if you make poor
choices, you end up going no where.

But, you see, I'm not allowed to say that out loud for being labeled a
racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations,
just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there
is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some
races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity
as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see
in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba.

Take the population of Iceland and switch it with the population of
Haiti. What do you predict would happen in a generation or two?

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?

Haiti would have fully recovered from the recent earthquake and have a thriving economy, and Iceland would be on it's way to becoming the poorest country in the world.

On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:52:16 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Oren[_2_ Wrote:

;3272626']On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:16:10 +0200, nestork

wrote:

-

Can someone explain to me how black people rioting and looting before

the trial of the officer -



PS: You have the Officer on trial, before a criminal indictment of

criminal wrong doing or any evidence a crime was committed by the

Officer.



"you libs"



Well, it seems to me that a fair trial would be a darn sight better than

a lynching by a black mob. There's gonna be a court case here

regardless. The peace of Ferguson, Missouri has been too heavily

disrupted for this not to go to trial so that all the evidence on both

sides of the shooting comes out.



But, I agree with what's been said by others. Each and every person in

the US and Canada needs to look to themselves for an explanation as to

why they got to where they did in life, and not look to someone else to

blame.



In the USA, it's Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that are claiming black

people can't get ahead because the white people are holding them back.

It's also Al Sharpton that uses the rallying cry in any incident like this,
"No justice, no peace". What exactly does the "no peace part mean"? He
and his rabble rousers aren't chanting for a fair investigation or peaceful
protests, they are calling for "no peace". So, effectively, they are inciting
the riots and looting. Another person was shot last night in the continuing
violence. Is that helping blacks or hurting them?


If Sharpton and all those pretending to be interested in justice, really were
interested in justice, then what came out on Friday should have been enough to
give them pause and wait for the investigation to be completed. I'm referring to
the police report of what happened just 10 mins before the fatal confrontation.
The report is written by another police officer who responded to a convenience
story robbery. The report details the evidence, including excellent store
videos, that show Michael Brown stealing a box of "swisher sweet" cigars from
the store, shoving the store clerk, looming over him, then leaving the store
with the cigars. His buddy, Dorain Johnson was there on video too, he left
just before. The officer says he also went to the scene of the fata shooting,
saw the too and they are in fact the two in the store video. Apparently
Johnson's lawyer admits he was at the convenience store too:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local...bery/14118769/

Now, the officer who shot Brown apparently didn't know about the robbery at
the time. However, knowing that the two were involved in a robbery just 10 mins
before, who do you think was more likely to have started the confrontation
with the office? And how much would you believe the story of Johnson, as to
what actually happened? One part made no sense right from the start.
Johnson claimed the incident started when the officer tried to pull Brown into
his patrol car. Why would a cop ever try to pull someone into his car?
What makes more sense? The cop tried to pull him in? Or Brown started
struggling with the office while the officer was in his car? I see zero
purpose to the cop pulling someone into the car. I do see some loon who
just committed a robbery starting to struggle with the cop, while the cop
is at a disadvantage.

BTW, the swisher sweet cigars are what they use for blunts, aren't they,
ie to hollow out and smoke pot?



Sorry, every white person I know is struggling to get ahead, and is

competing with everyone, black or white, to progress in life. To get

that better paying job, to get that job promotion, to pay off that

mortgage, to put their kids through college, and to leave something to

their family when they pass away. Are whites supposed to stop doing

that to give blacks MORE opportunity to advance?



Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native

people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison

population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the

way they've been treated by the white man over the past 250 years that

they just can't seem to get it together anymore. That is, it's my great

great granddad's fault, and by association, my fault. I have several

tenants who are native women. One is a nurse and the other a social

worker, and both of them work on the native reserves in Northern

Manitoba. And, both of them quite frankly tell me that they see too

much alcoholism, alcohol-induced violence, drug abuse, family violence

and child abuse. The social worker has to take children away from their

parents because their paraents are drunk and stoned all the time,

there's nothing at home for the kids, so they hang out in the bush and

get high sniffing gasoline. The nurse has to patch up indians after

they get into drunken fights, often over nothing more than the last

bottle of beer in a case, or get raped by their uncle or someone else

that just happened to be hanging around the house. I get fed up being

told that alcoholism and drug abuse are "diseases" because that absolves

the drunk or drug addict from any responsibility in getting themselves

into that situation. People make choices in life, and if you make poor

choices, you end up going no where.



But, you see, I'm not allowed to say that out loud for being labeled a

racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations,

just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there

is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some

races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity

as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see

in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba.



You have to admit it's an interesting question what all the root causes
are that contribute to this.

On 8/16/2014 10:57 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 03:52:16 +0200, nestork
But, you see, I'm not allowed to say that out loud for being labeled a
racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations,
just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there
is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some
races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity
as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see
in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba.

Take the population of Iceland and switch it with the population of
Haiti. What do you predict would happen in a generation or two?

Or one could compare for example Germany and Rhodesia.

Actually, there was one such comparison. I remember
someone writing that the nation of South America
(Rhodesia before it was Zimbabwe?) threw out all the
white land owners. In less than a generation, the
productivity went to near zero.

An elderly white man explained it to me that in Europe,
you plant in the spring harvest in the fall, and eat
all year round. Or else you die in the winter. In Africa,
there is food and animals all year round, so no one has
the culture (mindset) of planning ahead, working hard,
and planting for the long cold winter. it's a climate
difference. Now days in the US, we have welfare programs
so that the warm climate people can do the same thing,
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.

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

On 08/17/2014 08:02 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Now, the officer who shot Brown apparently didn't know about the robbery at
the time. However, knowing that the two were involved in a robbery just 10 mins
before, who do you think was more likely to have started the confrontation
with the office?

Brown (a boy scout and excellent student) just went to the store to get some skittles and tea and that creepy-ass cracker cop shot him.

On 08/16/2014 06:49 PM, Oren wrote:
Maybe I can explain. These porch monkeys ( Dixie blue gums ) feel
they are entitled. Exactly what democrats want them to do.

Actually, ignorance comes in all colors. You're pretty much proof of that.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:52:16 -0700, nestork
wrote:

...snip...
Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native
people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison
population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the
...snip....to keep Aioe happy

Regarding Ferguson, tread lightly. The facts are different than the media
coverage.

Did you know that in the US, if you are assaulted by an assailant carrying
a weapon; you have the right to respond in kind. For example, threatened
with a knife, you can kill to defend. Threatened with a gun, you can kill
to defend. HOWEVER, *if* you disarm your assailant; your right for
retribution disappears. Once you've disarmed him and the threat of death
is gone; you can no longer beat the SOB to a pulp, called excessive force.
That's for a private citizen being threatened with bodily harm.

So raises the question, why would a policeman [who obviously still has his
weapon] NOT be chastised for emptying that weapon into someone? Seems the
threat to policeman was gone. Why do laws that apply to citizens NOT apply
to police officers? Nor even logic?


PS: just saw the film Sicko by Moore. Is Canadian health system really
that good?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 06:48:49 -0700, Meg wrote:

On 08/16/2014 06:49 PM, Oren wrote:
Maybe I can explain. These porch monkeys ( Dixie blue gums ) feel
they are entitled. Exactly what democrats want them to do.

Actually, ignorance comes in all colors. You're pretty much proof of
that.

Riots, destroying your own, makes little sense. If one looks at the act as
a form of 'suicide' then makes more sense.

What I mean is, Although pure insanity, when faced with complete futility,
a person commits suicide and leaves their body for the person they
considered harmed them to discover, thereby punishing them. Similarly, and
again pure insanity, when faced with futility, a person will 'destroy
their own nest' and do it in front of the people they deem responsible.

Kind of explains the Harlem riots, etc. Sadly, and herein lies the flaw,
for this to work requires the people responsible for the conditions to
have some empathy.

I don't know because I've never seen Roger Moore's film "Sicko" and I've lived in Canada all of my life, so I don't have any other health care system to compare it to.

But, I can tell you that over here, everyone is entitled to free health care because it's covered by the taxes that all Canadians pay. You do have to wait for a long time to see a doctor sometimes, but emergencies are treated right away.

For example, my mother once fell and broke her wrist. She spent about 4 hours in a hospital emergency room waiting to see a doctor.

I once got hit by a large truck while riding my bicycle and the driver thought that he'd run me over (but he didn't). I woke up in an ambulance on a stretcher and unable to get up. I got whisked into a hospital emergency ward where they got me to move my toes and fingers first, then my hands and feet, then raise my hands and feet, then they did a CAT scan on my head to make sure there was no brain bleeding, and then they kept me under observation for an hour or two before finally letting me go.

So, emergencies get treated right away, but unless it's an emergency, you can spend a long time waiting to see a doctor.

My understanding is that in the USA there are both government run hospitals that anyone can go to, and "for-profit" hospitals that you can't go to unless you pay for your own treatment or you have health insurance which will pay for it. I don't understand how your system works, but I am quite happy with the free health care system we have in Canada.

But, I wouldn't put too much faith in any documentary (Roger Moore's or anyone else's) about health care in Canada vs the USA. There are always going to be cases you can find where the US system worked better and faster than the one in Canada and vice versa, and any documentary that just highlights a few cases won't show the whole picture. But, truth is, most Canadians are very happy with the free health care we receive.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 07:53:29 -0700, nestork
wrote:

...snip...

But, I wouldn't put too much faith in any documentary (Roger Moore's or
anyone else's) about health care in Canada vs the USA. There are always
going to be cases you can find where the US system worked better and
faster than the one in Canada and vice versa, and any documentary that
just highlights a few cases won't show the whole picture. But, truth
is, most Canadians are very happy with the free health care we receive.

good to hear. Moore did bring up the disparity of pricing and quality
between drug sources. Like $250 in US, vs $.06 while his group was in
Cuba. That was for inhaler for lung patient, who got the problem helping
during 9/11, but didn't meet some requirement of being employed as
emergency services, or spending 'enough' time helping, or some such
arbitrary limitation to get out of responsibility. Wait, she was an
emergency service personnel, it was others with him who became afflicted,
but weren't.

There's going to be an investigation into the matter just like there was in the Treyvon Martin case. In it, all the facts will come out as best as we can ascertain. And, public prosecutors are well experienced in trying murder cases and know how to uncover the whole story, whereas people on trial are generally rank amateurs. Very few people ever get to kill more than once or twice.

But, what makes no sense is for the blacks down in Ferguson to be rioting and looting. All that does is create fear and distrust of blacks in their community. Every store owner in Ferguson is undoubtedly sleeping in his store with a shot gun at his side. It's that fear and mistrust that makes fertile ground for prejudice to grow deep roots. If the rioters and looters in Ferguson wanted better race relations, they wouldn't be rioting and looting. They would be waiting for all the facts to come out just like the white people are. At least by doing that, you wouldn't have the fear of mob violence gripping the white people of Ferguson.

No, it's not that complicated.

Most people commit suicide because they lose hope that their situation will ever get better. Depression is a key player in suicides. The more depressed people become, the less likely they are to seek help for their depression. They look for a way out of their situation, and realize they'd rather die than live life under the circumstances they foresee for themselves.

I expect Robin Williams killed himself because he knew that Parkinson's disease and his addictions to alcohol and drugs would eventually prevent him from working as an actor, and he could envision no other work that he would be happy doing.

On 8/17/2014 10:11 AM, RobertMacy wrote:


Regarding Ferguson, tread lightly. The facts are different than the
media coverage.

Did you know that in the US, if you are assaulted by an assailant
carrying a weapon; you have the right to respond in kind. For example,
threatened with a knife, you can kill to defend. Threatened with a gun,
you can kill to defend. HOWEVER, *if* you disarm your assailant; your
right for retribution disappears. Once you've disarmed him and the
threat of death is gone; you can no longer beat the SOB to a pulp,
called excessive force. That's for a private citizen being threatened
with bodily harm.

So raises the question, why would a policeman [who obviously still has
his weapon] NOT be chastised for emptying that weapon into someone?
Seems the threat to policeman was gone. Why do laws that apply to
citizens NOT apply to police officers? Nor even logic?

Reading your second sentence about facts . . .
Do you know that the officer was not being threatened in some manner?
He may have been unarmed, but he may have been making the motions of
having a gun or had some other threat.

I'm withholding judgement until all the facts are known. That may be
never though.

On 8/17/2014 10:53 AM, nestork wrote:



So, emergencies get treated right away, but unless it's an emergency,
you can spend a long time waiting to see a doctor.

My understanding is that in the USA there are both government run
hospitals that anyone can go to, and "for-profit" hospitals that you
can't go to unless you pay for your own treatment or you have health
insurance which will pay for it. I don't understand how your system
works, but I am quite happy with the free health care system we have in
Canada.


How much does your free healthcare cost? It can vary here from free for
the low income to $1000 a month for a working family. Many of us have
at least the majority paid by employers. Of course, if my employer did
not pay for my insurance, he could pay me more and I could pay my own
premiums as well as taxes on that income.


Not a perfect system and not always balanced, but the poor can usually
get free care when needed. It will take a few years for our new system
to be fully in effect and see how it really works and who pays for it.

On 8/17/2014 2:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/17/2014 10:11 AM, RobertMacy wrote:


Regarding Ferguson, tread lightly. The facts are different than the
media coverage.

Did you know that in the US, if you are assaulted by an assailant
carrying a weapon; you have the right to respond in kind. For example,
threatened with a knife, you can kill to defend. Threatened with a gun,
you can kill to defend. HOWEVER, *if* you disarm your assailant; your
right for retribution disappears. Once you've disarmed him and the
threat of death is gone; you can no longer beat the SOB to a pulp,
called excessive force. That's for a private citizen being threatened
with bodily harm.

So raises the question, why would a policeman [who obviously still has
his weapon] NOT be chastised for emptying that weapon into someone?
Seems the threat to policeman was gone. Why do laws that apply to
citizens NOT apply to police officers? Nor even logic?

Reading your second sentence about facts . . .
Do you know that the officer was not being threatened in some manner? He
may have been unarmed, but he may have been making the motions of having
a gun or had some other threat.

I'm withholding judgement until all the facts are known. That may be
never though.

Just heard an interesting video referenced on the news.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...s-the-Incident
(hope that wraps ok; it does on my screen) I'm not familiar with the
site and would take the article with a grain of salt on its own, but it
does have a video. Warning - dead body shown lying in the road.

"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 €¦ Im thinking €¦
the dude started running €¦ (garbled something about €œhe took it from
him€�)". Who took what (gun? cigars?) from whom?

On 8/17/2014 9:05 AM, noname wrote:

Brown (a boy scout and excellent student) just went to the store to get
some skittles and tea and that creepy-ass cracker cop shot him.

Didn't he just get his merit badge at Scouts
for helping little old ladies across the street,
nursing kittens, and taking hot meals to shut
ins?

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

On 8/17/2014 2:08 PM, Lee B wrote:

Just heard an interesting video referenced on the news.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...s-the-Incident
(hope that wraps ok; it does on my screen) I'm not familiar with the
site and would take the article with a grain of salt on its own, but it
does have a video. Warning - dead body shown lying in the road.

"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 €¦ Im thinking €¦
the dude started running €¦ (garbled something about €œhe took it from
him€�)". Who took what (gun? cigars?) from whom?

All the rhetoric - from the media, the racist reverends, the agitators,
the residents and the police - aside...

"One picture is worth a thousand words!"

Video of a felony being committed (taking of goods from the possession
of the clerk in the store is strong armed robbery, a burglary (felony)
in some states) just prior to his death.

His involvement is now admitted to by the family's attorney

The cellphone video at the scene with Brown assuming room temperature
and the comments made - obviously have to be taken as true since one
would strongly suspect that the narrators are not likely to be rushing
to the aid of the police. The narrator tells us that he observed Brown
run away and then come back.

Ask yourself this... If you're a armed police officer, in broad
daylight, and some big lummox like Brown Over 6' and couple hundred
pounds, comes charging BACK at you, What do you do? Especially IF you
cannot clearly see his hands? If he refuses your order to stop?

What if he has a knife in his hand or something that looks like a knife
or COULD be a knife? There's what's known as a 21' rule that says if an
aggressor with a knife gets within 21' of you, you WILL get cut.

Were I confronted with somebody like that and I was armed? I'm going to
take my very best SHOTS until the threat is neutralized.

But let's not be talking about this good boy, who was merely engaged in
a childish prank or shoplifted.

Watching both videos, I would suspect that there were at least THREE
participants. Did you notice he handed off something to the one
standing behind him AFTER he reached across the counter the FIRST time
and that he didn't make that reach the first time until the THIRD
individual walked up to where the female clerk had gone behind the
counter? Was #3 distracting her from what Brown was doing? He gets my
vote, in which case this was surely planned. In Illinois that means it
was a burglary at the least.

Why Brown charged the officer? Who knows? We aren't dealing with a
MENSA member here; he is a thug

On 8/17/2014 3:28 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/17/2014 2:08 PM, Lee B wrote:

Just heard an interesting video referenced on the news.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...s-the-Incident

(hope that wraps ok; it does on my screen) I'm not familiar with the
site and would take the article with a grain of salt on its own, but it
does have a video. Warning - dead body shown lying in the road.

"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 €¦ Im thinking €¦
the dude started running €¦ (garbled something about €œhe took it from
him€�)". Who took what (gun? cigars?) from whom?

All the rhetoric - from the media, the racist reverends, the agitators,
the residents and the police - aside...

"One picture is worth a thousand words!"

Video of a felony being committed (taking of goods from the possession
of the clerk in the store is strong armed robbery, a burglary (felony)
in some states) just prior to his death.

His involvement is now admitted to by the family's attorney

The cellphone video at the scene with Brown assuming room temperature
and the comments made - obviously have to be taken as true since one
would strongly suspect that the narrators are not likely to be rushing
to the aid of the police. The narrator tells us that he observed Brown
run away and then come back.

Ask yourself this... If you're a armed police officer, in broad
daylight, and some big lummox like Brown Over 6' and couple hundred
pounds, comes charging BACK at you, What do you do? Especially IF you
cannot clearly see his hands? If he refuses your order to stop?

What if he has a knife in his hand or something that looks like a knife
or COULD be a knife? There's what's known as a 21' rule that says if an
aggressor with a knife gets within 21' of you, you WILL get cut.

Were I confronted with somebody like that and I was armed? I'm going to
take my very best SHOTS until the threat is neutralized.

But let's not be talking about this good boy, who was merely engaged in
a childish prank or shoplifted.

Watching both videos, I would suspect that there were at least THREE
participants. Did you notice he handed off something to the one
standing behind him AFTER he reached across the counter the FIRST time
and that he didn't make that reach the first time until the THIRD
individual walked up to where the female clerk had gone behind the
counter? Was #3 distracting her from what Brown was doing? He gets my
vote, in which case this was surely planned. In Illinois that means it
was a burglary at the least.

Why Brown charged the officer? Who knows? We aren't dealing with a
MENSA member here; he is a thug

I know I've watched too many cop shows, but probably once a season, a
police officer is charged with shooting an unarmed person, and then it
turns out that the "innocent" person was armed, but an accomplice
recovered the weapon and hid it. I keep wondering about his friend who
was with him at the convenience store and then was walking with him in
the middle of the street. Who seemed eager to get in front of the camera
to give his dramatic account of what happened and most of the reporters
were eager to believe him (and doesn't he already have a lawyer?). I
wish I could figure out the pronouns in the new video of who took what
from whom, when.

I'm not saying that's what happened. More that I suspect there is more
to this story than we've found out so far. And unfortunately, now it's
been a week and people have had time to forget details, or be influenced
by this aftermath, so it may not come out.

On 8/16/2014 9:52 PM, nestork wrote:
Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native
people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison
population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the
way they've been treated by the white man over the past 250 years that
they just can't seem to get it together anymore. That is, it's my great
great granddad's fault, and by association, my fault. I have several
tenants who are native women. One is a nurse and the other a social
worker, and both of them work on the native reserves in Northern
Manitoba. And, both of them quite frankly tell me that they see too
much alcoholism, alcohol-induced violence, drug abuse, family violence
and child abuse. The social worker has to take children away from their
parents because their paraents are drunk and stoned all the time,
there's nothing at home for the kids, so they hang out in the bush and
get high sniffing gasoline. The nurse has to patch up indians after
they get into drunken fights, often over nothing more than the last
bottle of beer in a case, or get raped by their uncle or someone else
that just happened to be hanging around the house. I get fed up being
told that alcoholism and drug abuse are "diseases" because that absolves
the drunk or drug addict from any responsibility in getting themselves
into that situation. People make choices in life, and if you make poor
choices, you end up going no where.

But, you see, I'm not allowed to say that out loud for being labeled a
racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations,
just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there
is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some
races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity
as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see
in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba.

In the USA, the indiginous people have much the same
view point. Can't make any progress, due to how they
were treated by the European settlers. Very common
alcoholism, and violence and theft and welfare.

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

On 8/17/2014 8:02 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:52:16 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations,
just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there
is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some
races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity
as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see
in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba.



You have to admit it's an interesting question what all the root causes
are that contribute to this.

Explaining would be the first step towards doing
some thing about it. Me, well, I'd like to see
100% employment, I'd like to see the only use of
alcohol for Catholic communion, and I'd love to
close the jails and prisons because everyone is
honest and well behaved. I'd love to leave the
key in my car, and leave my trailer unlocked
because everyone is respectful. And that includes
the best wishes for everyone of every group, race,
nationality, ethnicity, gender, orientation,
or birth.

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

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 17:10:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/17/2014 8:02 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:52:16 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
racist. If we could shine the light of science onto human populations,
just like was common prior to WWII, we would undoubtedly find that there
is a great deal of diversity in every human race, but on average some
races just don't mature as quickly or achieve the same level of maturity
as they grow into adulthood, and that would explain much of what we see
in both Ferguson, Missouri and Northern Manitoba.



You have to admit it's an interesting question what all the root causes
are that contribute to this.

Explaining would be the first step towards doing
some thing about it. Me, well, I'd like to see
100% employment, I'd like to see the only use of
alcohol for Catholic communion, and I'd love to
close the jails and prisons because everyone is
honest and well behaved. I'd love to leave the
key in my car, and leave my trailer unlocked
because everyone is respectful. And that includes
the best wishes for everyone of every group, race,
nationality, ethnicity, gender, orientation,
or birth.

....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.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11:15 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:52:16 -0700, nestork

wrote:



...snip...

Here in Canda, we have much the same thing, but only with the native

people of our country. The reason why 80 percent of the prison

population in Canada is native is because they've been so damaged by the

...snip....to keep Aioe happy



Regarding Ferguson, tread lightly. The facts are different than the media

coverage.



Did you know that in the US, if you are assaulted by an assailant carrying

a weapon; you have the right to respond in kind. For example, threatened

with a knife, you can kill to defend. Threatened with a gun, you can kill

to defend. HOWEVER, *if* you disarm your assailant; your right for

retribution disappears. Once you've disarmed him and the threat of death

is gone; you can no longer beat the SOB to a pulp, called excessive force.

That's for a private citizen being threatened with bodily harm.



So raises the question, why would a policeman [who obviously still has his

weapon] NOT be chastised for emptying that weapon into someone? Seems the

threat to policeman was gone. Why do laws that apply to citizens NOT apply

to police officers? Nor even logic?



They do apply to the police. The investigation has to be completed to
figure out to the extent possible, what exactly happened. If it turns
out the officer shot Brown when he was 25 ft away and he had no reason
to believe his own life was in jeopardy, then I'm sure you will see
charges brought.

From what I've heard so far, I'd bet that Brown started it. I say
that because we know he committed a robbery 10 mins earlier, and when
stopped by the officer, Brown had reason to want to get away, because
he likely thought the officer was stopping him for the robbery. So,
it seems more likely he assaulted the officer and tried to get away,
than the version his co-robber gave, which was that the officer tried
to pull Brown into the car. That makes no sense.

What happend after that is the more important part. If Brown was
running away, no reason for the officer to think he was armed, etc and the officer shot him, then clearly he needs to be charged. But suppose he
had his hand in his pants, the officer thought he had a gun, etc, then
it gets a lot more complicated.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:28:17 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:




Why Brown charged the officer? Who knows? We aren't dealing with a

MENSA member here; he is a thug

The toxicology report may shed some light on that. He stole a box
of swishy sweet cigars 10 mins earlier. Isn't that what they make blunts
to smoke pot out of? I'd put odds on the tox report showing he had at
least some drugs in him. But, we'll have to wait to see. I'm content
doing that, instead of burning down some stores.....

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:35:16 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:


Who's to blame about Ferguson? Or South Central L.A.? Those in upper
management of police agencies who tolerate media pundits and reporters
who characterize a hoodlum and thug, regardless of age, as "unarmed" and
holding that condition as a King's X when it comes to deadly force. When
a hoodlum is attempting to take a police officer's firearm from his or
her person, the hoodlum will continue to be unarmed and will be shot to
prevent it from happening. The point of a situation like this is NOT to
let the hoodlum become armed. When that happens we will have the murder
of an UNARMED police officer. That is not acceptable.


We need to stop giving the title of "unarmed" to thugs who attempt to
take an officer's weapon. While his hands are on the officer's weapon,
the thug IS armed. But of course, the racial pimps and racial excuse
makers won't see this minor detail because it takes the wind out of
their sails.


No negotiating with terrorists. No negotiating with hoodlum looters.
Force is all they understand.

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

On 8/17/2014 4:45 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:28:17 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:




Why Brown charged the officer? Who knows? We aren't dealing with a

MENSA member here; he is a thug

The toxicology report may shed some light on that. He stole a box
of swishy sweet cigars 10 mins earlier. Isn't that what they make blunts
to smoke pot out of? I'd put odds on the tox report showing he had at
least some drugs in him. But, we'll have to wait to see. I'm content
doing that, instead of burning down some stores...


I never understood (nor will I ever) the mentality that says "I'm
oppressed and the damn man is out to get me... I know, I'll go burn down
my house, shoot some people and loot homes and stores!"

You can't rationalize that, you can only say that the "oppression" -
either real or imagined - is an excuse to "justify" anti-social behavior
and criminal activity.

Remember the photos after Katrina? WTF are they gonna do with flat
panel televisions? Yet they were carting that, and similar booty, off
like there was no tomorrow.

As for your theory about the Swishers - Blunts - Pot... If the police
officer was holding a bag of Cheetos or Potato Chips or.... I could
understand the attack. g

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:42:01 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

From what I've heard so far, I'd bet that Brown started it. I say
that because we know he committed a robbery 10 mins earlier, and when
stopped by the officer, Brown had reason to want to get away, because
he likely thought the officer was stopping him for the robbery. So,
it seems more likely he assaulted the officer and tried to get away,
than the version his co-robber gave, which was that the officer tried
to pull Brown into the car. That makes no sense.

What happend after that is the more important part. If Brown was
running away, no reason for the officer to think he was armed, etc and the officer shot him, then clearly he needs to be charged. But suppose he
had his hand in his pants, the officer thought he had a gun, etc, then
it gets a lot more complicated.

I agree things being "complicated".

What we need to know is what the Officer "reasonably believed" at the
time of the deadly force. Did he believe Brown may have some type of
concealed weapon or did he believe Brown was just playing pocket pool?

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.