On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:06:22 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Maybe when they open the borders, and we are
flooded with illegals from the south. Then the
whites will riot, and the DHS will kill whitey.

https://tinyurl.com/qeaad8p

On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:06:22 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
[...]
On the radio last night, Dr. Michael Savage
opined that the DHS buying zillions of round
of hollow point ammo, is preparing to put
down white Americans at some future moment.



Hopefully he will be the first one they shoot.

On 8/22/2014 11:24 AM, Davej wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:06:22 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
[...]
On the radio last night, Dr. Michael Savage
opined that the DHS buying zillions of round
of hollow point ammo, is preparing to put
down white Americans at some future moment.



Hopefully he will be the first one they shoot.


First they came for Michael Savage....

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

In article ,
Oren wrote:


- Give the Kurds everything they need militarily to fight. They have
the heart to fight.


And they have been probably the most staunch ally (maybe a tie with
Israel) in the area for years. Not likely to come back to haunt us when
we give them munitions. Heck they deserve our support just for not
screwing with us during the early stages of Iraq (which a lot more than
I can say about our fellow NATO member Turkey).
- Use B-52s to bomb northern Syria day an night - crush the ISIS
command and control there.

Or to quote Tom Clancy: Turn the place into a parking lot and send the
Marines in to paint the lines.

- Add additional carrier group to the Mediterranean Sea and bomb the
hell out of northern Iraq strongholds of ISIS and then some more. Put
several wings of A-10 Warthogs (Jihads call it the Monster) for some
clean-up.

Before we screw up and get all the Warthogs in the bone yard.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:05:31 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:





Still, it seems suspicious for the police and the authorities not to



release all the information that was known at the time. Not releasing



information as it is confirmed makes people suspicious that they're



waiting to find out what's gonna be on the table when this mess goes to



court so they can make up the best story that fits all of the facts.



Innocent people don't do that.







I agree 100% that the officials should have released most of the information

they had in the first day or two. But it's hard to see how withholding the

vidoe tape of Brown committing a robbery and assaulting a clerk 10 mins

before fits your rational of "innocent people don't do that". There was

nothing they could or had to fit to that. Why exactly they didn't put it

out right away, IDK. But I suspect political correctness and fear of the

likes of Sharpton is a factor.



The Mayor of Ferguson has publicly stated that the case is in the

hands of St Louis County? And federal agents.



IOW, The Ferguson PD is not the investigators; nor do they have or nor

can they release information they are not privy to.



Not being sure who was specifically in charge and when is why I said
"officials". All I'm saying is that whoever decided not to release
the basic info, like the fact that the two perps are suspects in that
convenience store robbery 10 mins prior, show the video tape, say that the
cop was being treated at the hospital for facial injuries, etc, that IMO
was a major mistake. Nothing there that's secret. If it were some specific
details of a crime scene, that only the perp would know, ie that they
used a belt to strangle a murder victim, then I agree with what you're saying.
But I see no reason they couldn't have released the above in the first day or
two, when there was no Holder involved, etc.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:59:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


Not being sure who was specifically in charge and when is why I said
"officials". All I'm saying is that whoever decided not to release
the basic info, like the fact that the two perps are suspects in that
convenience store robbery 10 mins prior, show the video tape, say that the
cop was being treated at the hospital for facial injuries, etc, that IMO
was a major mistake. Nothing there that's secret. If it were some specific
details of a crime scene, that only the perp would know, ie that they
used a belt to strangle a murder victim, then I agree with what you're saying.
But I see no reason they couldn't have released the above in the first day or
two, when there was no Holder involved, etc.


We agree. Aside, Holder and company have a big hill to climb with a
Civil Rights violation - they have to prove the violation was
"intentional", meant to deprive Brown of his fundamental rights.

"...Graham v. Connor case became the foundational test for whether
Wilson’s response was appropriate or criminal."

What is reasonable to you or I is not the test. The test is what Ofc.
Wilson believed was reasonable and prudent at the time of the
shooting. The GJ has to consider this, too.

_Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation_

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/supreme-court-case-to-shape-ferguson-investigation/article_2d4f15d1-f56a-57cc-9990-631cc1697e60.html

https://tinyurl.com/nrxrmrc

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:17:52 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last" -- Winston Churchill

And if either of us were running things, whenever we started the air
campaign, it would have been like opening night on Desert Storm or Iraqi
Freedom. You hit as much as possible in the opening move. You don't bomb
one artillery piece, giving them notice, so they can then hide all the other
assets. He should have hit all the prime targets as close together in time
as possible, both in Iraq and Syria. But this is how libs wage war.... Oh
wait, they won't even call it a war.

They need to have a poll to see what direction the wind is blowing. Do
I need a 5 iron or an 8 iron? I've never seen anything so stupid in
my life. Every target in the SITCOM portfolio should be hit
simultaneously.

As my grandfather used to say "**** or get off the pot."
--
"Dodgeball in Burkas" -- Greg Gutfeld

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:23:31 -0700, Oren wrote:



... you can't fix stupid

I'll have to add that to the list - the crack of dawn, a broken heart,
and STUPID.

Three things I can't fix.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:14:45 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:23:31 -0700, Oren wrote:



... you can't fix stupid

I'll have to add that to the list - the crack of dawn, a broken heart,
and STUPID.

Three things I can't fix.

.... add "stuck on stupid"

You can nudge it but you can't fix it.

trader_4 wrote:

The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still
ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still
haven't given up on that one.

Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.

That's not all that crazy.

If you were exposed to airborne asbestos fibers in 1981, that could indeed cause you to come down with mesothelioma in 2014. Some diseases incubate within the body for that long before they rear their ugly heads and make a person sick. Obviously it's hard to establish a cause and effect link between exposure to airborne asbestos fibers and lung cancer over thirty something years, but that's what scientists are discovering about asbestos exposure.

Regarding the super long incubation time of asbestos related lung diseases, we're finding out that the more we study things like that, the more we find out that our previous assumptions about them were completely wrong. And that's true of a lot of things, not just mesothelioma. If James Brady never really recovered from being shot in 1981, and died in 2014, then there's a direct link between his having been shot in 1981 and his death in 2014. If it's reasonable to say that James Brady would have lived longer had he not been shot, then it's reasonable to attribute his death largely to his having been shot.

In article ,
trader_4 wrote:
as possible, both in Iraq and Syria. But this is how libs wage war.... Oh
wait, they won't even call it a war.

ISIL must be given the opportunity to "hands up, don't shoot".

m

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:49:24 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still
ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still
haven't given up on that one.


Trader, the CRV investigation may still be ongoing. I'd have thought
the case would have been closed now, due to lack of evidence. Holder
has a full plate. I did hear today the investigation was still going.
(not from CBS)

Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.

Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington. I can't
imagine him being charged in another criminal indictment this many
years later. I'm thinking that is double jeopardy. Is he charged with
a Civil Right's Violation?

Maybe Mr. Brady died from complications of his injuries sustained in
the shooting. Apparently the Medical Examiner has declared that,
connecting it (gun shot) and determining it a homicide (manner of
death). Do you have a link that Hinkley sp has in fact been charged?
I'd love to read about it.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:49:24 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still
ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still
haven't given up on that one.


Trader, the CRV investigation may still be ongoing. I'd have thought
the case would have been closed now, due to lack of evidence. Holder
has a full plate. I did hear today the investigation was still going.
(not from CBS)

Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.

Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington.

wait - Hinkly is a member of congress??

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:26:25 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:49:24 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still
ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still
haven't given up on that one.


Trader, the CRV investigation may still be ongoing. I'd have thought
the case would have been closed now, due to lack of evidence. Holder
has a full plate. I did hear today the investigation was still going.
(not from CBS)

Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.

Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington.

wait - Hinkly is a member of congress??


I'm taking about John Hinckley, Jr. ( missed the "c" in the spelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

Clear as mud, now? Thanks for letting me help you.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:26:25 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:49:24 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still
ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still
haven't given up on that one.


Trader, the CRV investigation may still be ongoing. I'd have thought
the case would have been closed now, due to lack of evidence. Holder
has a full plate. I did hear today the investigation was still going.
(not from CBS)

Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died
a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.

Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington.

wait - Hinkly is a member of congress??


I'm taking about John Hinckley, Jr. ( missed the "c" in the spelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

Clear as mud, now? Thanks for letting me help you.

yes but you said he was confined in the nut house in Washington, so I
naturally assumed you were talking about congress.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:25:12 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:26:25 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:49:24 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still
ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still
haven't given up on that one.


Trader, the CRV investigation may still be ongoing. I'd have thought
the case would have been closed now, due to lack of evidence. Holder
has a full plate. I did hear today the investigation was still going.
(not from CBS)

Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died
a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.

Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington.

wait - Hinkly is a member of congress??


I'm taking about John Hinckley, Jr. ( missed the "c" in the spelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

Clear as mud, now? Thanks for letting me help you.

yes but you said he was confined in the nut house in Washington, so I
naturally assumed you were talking about congress.


Well, yeah, that is / could be true. I wasn't trying to mislead you
though

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:25:12 PM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:26:25 -0700, "Pico Rico"

wrote:





"Oren" wrote in message

. ..

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:49:24 -0600, rbowman

wrote:



trader_4 wrote:



The Treyvon Martin one, for example, is still

ongoing...... WTF? I didn't even realize that, did you? They still

haven't given up on that one.





Trader, the CRV investigation may still be ongoing. I'd have thought

the case would have been closed now, due to lack of evidence. Holder

has a full plate. I did hear today the investigation was still going.

(not from CBS)



Well, hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died

a

73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014.



Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by

reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington.



wait - Hinkly is a member of congress??





I'm taking about John Hinckley, Jr. ( missed the "c" in the spelling



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.



Clear as mud, now? Thanks for letting me help you.



yes but you said he was confined in the nut house in Washington, so I

naturally assumed you were talking about congress.

Heh, I got it. Oren must be a little slow today

Regarding Hinckly, the prosecutors did say they are looking into it.
That's routine and they can increase the charges, even years later, if
the circumstances change. If someone is convicted of aggravated assualt,
for example, and 5 years later, the victim dies as a result of the injuries
sustained, then they can charge the perp with murder.

In the case of Hinckly, I'd be surprised if they did anything, It's been
30 years, he was found innocent by reason of insanity and it seems unlikely
the jury would have reached a different conclusion if the charges had included
murder. Nor would his confinement in the nut house been any longer either.
They held him until they think he's no longer totally nuts, not based on what
he was charged with.

"The nut house in Washinton" is a very ambiguous term.

It could mean any number of U. S. Government departments and agencies.

...or even the Canadian Embassy.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 21:38:43 +0200, nestork
wrote:


"The nut house in Washinton" is a very ambiguous term.

It could mean any number of government departments and agencies.

Some would maintain it even applies to the Pentagon.

Nestor,

I showed you maps before of Washington D.C., boundary changes too.

Earlier maps included the Lunatic Asylum. Remember?

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the Missouri cop was badly beaten." He does have a facial injury. Does that equate to "badly beaten?"

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:45:54 -0700 (PDT), Davej
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the Missouri cop was badly beaten." He does have a facial injury. Does that equate to "badly beaten?"

Rephrase the question. A guy, 6' 4" at 280 lbs. smacks you up side the
head, what would be your options? Shoot him or box his ears real good?
Which application of hurt would you use?

-
"you libs"

On 8/23/2014 5:45 PM, Davej wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the Missouri cop was badly beaten." He does have a facial injury. Does that equate to "badly beaten?"



Good question...

Dave, why don't we set you in a car seat to restrict your mobility a
bit, I'll smack you in the eye, fracturing your orbit, and you tell me
if you think it's a bad beating.

Granted I'm not going to have quite the impact that "kid" did since I'm
over 65, 6'3" and only about 260lbs, but I'll bet I can still ring your
bell. After all the "kid" was closer to 6'4" and 280+ lbs.

We can solicit volunteers to make the second rush, because I don't want
to do it. I know damn well that if you have a gun or some way of
fending me off, other than your fists, you'll damn sure use it.

You're not stupid, just ignorant or naive. The first smack I gave you -
the fracture - was your learning curve. That should have cured your
ignorance.g

Why is it that every idiot that wants to play Monday Morning QB
regarding a situation that they probably have never been in, hopefully
never will be in, and don't have the first clue... always expect the
police to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules?

You come at a cop with fists, he can use a club or better. You bring a
club, bottle, knife he brings out - at a minimum a taser if it's just a
knife of club, but a gun is perfectly fine by the "real life" rules. If
he brings a knife into play and approaches the 7 yard line, he should be
shot before he can cross it.

Certainly there are exceptions but this idea of "Well, he ONLY hit him
with his fists, the cop didn't have to beat him with a stick. He should
have fought him and kicked him in the nuts and then beat hims soft..."
is bull****.

"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 8/23/2014 5:45 PM, Davej wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the Missouri cop was
badly beaten." He does have a facial injury. Does that equate to "badly
beaten?"



Good question...

Dave, why don't we set you in a car seat to restrict your mobility a bit,
I'll smack you in the eye, fracturing your orbit, and you tell me if you
think it's a bad beating.

Granted I'm not going to have quite the impact that "kid" did since I'm
over 65, 6'3" and only about 260lbs, but I'll bet I can still ring your
bell. After all the "kid" was closer to 6'4" and 280+ lbs.

We can solicit volunteers to make the second rush, because I don't want to
do it. I know damn well that if you have a gun or some way of fending me
off, other than your fists, you'll damn sure use it.

You're not stupid, just ignorant or naive. The first smack I gave you -
the fracture - was your learning curve. That should have cured your
ignorance.g

Why is it that every idiot that wants to play Monday Morning QB regarding
a situation that they probably have never been in, hopefully never will be
in, and don't have the first clue... always expect the police to play by
Marquis of Queensbury rules?

You come at a cop with fists, he can use a club or better. You bring a
club, bottle, knife he brings out - at a minimum a taser if it's just a
knife of club, but a gun is perfectly fine by the "real life" rules. If
he brings a knife into play and approaches the 7 yard line, he should be
shot before he can cross it.

Certainly there are exceptions but this idea of "Well, he ONLY hit him
with his fists, the cop didn't have to beat him with a stick. He should
have fought him and kicked him in the nuts and then beat hims soft..." is
bull****.




But I thought Al Sharpton said . . .

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:11:17 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Davej wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 20145, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the
Missouri cop was badly beaten." He does have a facial
injury. Does that equate to "badly beaten?"


Rephrase the question. A guy, 6' 4" at 280 lbs. smacks you
up side the head, what would be your options? Shoot him or
box his ears real good?


Who smacked who? We don't have a video. One injury is not "badly beaten."

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:18:10 PM UTC-5, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/23/2014 5:45 PM, Davej wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the
Missouri cop was badly beaten." He does have a facial
injury. Does that equate to "badly beaten?"


Good question...

Dave, why don't we set you in a car seat to restrict your
mobility a bit, I'll smack you in the eye, fracturing your
orbit, and you tell me if you think it's a bad beating.


I guess for you white pussy guys one punch is "badly beaten".

Actually, I think the larger and more important question is:

"Are we gonna go through this every time a white cop shoots a black person?"

There are hundreds of thousands of white police officers in the USA, and millions of blacks. It's a statistical certainty that there are going to be conflicts between white police officers and black people, some of which are going to result in shootings, and some of those shootings are going to result in deaths. And, those statistics don't account for the fact that both black kids and white kids shoot avatars in video games all evening long, thereby training their muscle memory to pull the trigger when their target is in their sights.

At what point do we stop calling this racism and accept the fact that with so many white cops and black people, a white cop shooting a black person is a statistical certainty; just as a black cop shooting a white person.

It's not reasonable to have a whole town go nutz with rioting and looting every time it happens.

Why don't Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton take a course in statistics so they can clamber onto their rooftops and proclaim in a loud voice for all to hear: "Don't get all tied up in knots. This was bound to happen eventually."

But, that wouldn't suit Al or Jesse's agenda. It's racism in America that pays their bills and allows them to charge 5 figures to simply give a speach, usually about racism in America. And, that advice would fall on deaf ears anyway. The rioters and looters are not expressing their rage at race relations in the USA. They know darn well that what they're doing does more harm than good when it comes to race relations. They are opportunists that simply want to smash stuff, set fire to stuff and steal stuff. Race relations are the last thing on their mind when they're breaking the window of a liquor store or setting fire to a cop car.

So, I ask again, are we going to go through these "pretend racism riots" and "pretend racism looting" every time a white cop shoots a black person?

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:49:59 PM UTC-4, Davej wrote:
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:11:17 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Davej wrote:

On Wednesday, August 20, 20145, Oren wrote:

[...]



Actually there is little evidence to show that "the

Missouri cop was badly beaten." He does have a facial

injury. Does that equate to "badly beaten?"





Rephrase the question. A guy, 6' 4" at 280 lbs. smacks you

up side the head, what would be your options? Shoot him or

box his ears real good?





Who smacked who? We don't have a video. One injury is not "badly beaten."

He looks badly beaten to me:

http://mrrsinc.medicalillustration.c...it.php?ID=8420

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Oren[_2_ Wrote:

;3275413']

Rephrase the question. A guy, 6' 4" at 280 lbs. smacks you up side the

head, what would be your options? Shoot him or box his ears real good?

Which application of hurt would you use?





Actually, I think the larger and more important question is:



"Are we gonna go through this every time a white cop shoots a black

person?"


Sure, as long as there are race baiting, riot inciting liars like Al
Sharpton around and there are enough dumb people that follow him.




There are hundreds of thousands of white police officers in the USA, and

millions of blacks. It's a statistical certainty that there are going

to be conflicts between white police officers and black people, some of

which are going to result in shootings, and some of those shootings are

going to result in deaths.

There were 12 million arrests in the USA in 2012. In 400 incidents,
police shot and killed someone. That's a total, including the ones
that were fully justified, eg the perp was shooting at the cops. So,
it'r reasonable to assume that a small number of that 400 were questionable
and an even smaller number were unjustified. And those are people of
all race, so even less are black. You're left with a few cases out
of 12 million where the police actually shoot someone black without
justification. And keep in mind, that 12 million is arrests, it's
not counting the number of traffic stops, etc where police routinely
come in contact with people of all color. Yet, MSNBC has a talking
head on, talking about the Brown shooting, saying there is a "war on
black men and black boys in America." Good grief. If you want to see
what could be called a war, look at black on black violence.





And, those statistics don't account for the

fact that both black kids and white kids shoot avatars in video games

all evening long, thereby training their muscle memory to pull the

trigger when their target is in their sights.



At what point do we stop calling this racism and accept the fact that

with so many white cops and black people, a white cop shooting a black

person is a statistical certainty; just as a black cop shooting a white

person.


You'd have to ask the usual race hustlers that question.






It's not reasonable to have a whole town go nutz with rioting and

looting every time it happens.



Fortunately the looting, rioting, burning don't happen every time.
It's actually the exception.





Why don't Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton take a course in statistics so

they can clamber onto their rooftops and proclaim in a loud voice for

all to hear: "Don't get all tied up in knots. This was bound to happen

eventually."


Because then they wouldn't be able to command the attention, the fear,
and of course collect all the money that pours into their organizations.






But, that wouldn't suit Al or Jesse's agenda. It's racism in America

that pays their bills and allows them to charge 5 figures to simply give

a speach, usually about racism in America. And, that advice would fall

on deaf ears anyway. The rioters and looters are not expressing their

rage at race relations in the USA. They know darn well that what

they're doing does more harm than good when it comes to race relations.

They are opportunists that simply want to smash stuff, set fire to stuff

and steal stuff. Race relations are the last thing on their mind when

they're breaking the window of a liquor store or setting fire to a cop

car.


Yep. I find it hard to believe that the guy from out of town who's
grabbing a bottle of Jack Daniels in a liqour store looting really
is thinking about Brown and race relations. In fact, what they are
doing is giving people exactly the opposite view of blacks that they
should be giving. On TV the reporter was interviewing 3 young blacks
sitting on the curb. One is complaining about the lack of Walmarts
and gas stations in the black neighborhood. The stores the blacks
just burned down are still smoldering, and they wonder why nobody is
building more stores?







So, I ask again, are we going to go through these "pretend racism riots"

and "pretend racism looting" every time a white cop shoots a black

person?



Of course. As far as pretending, another data point. I saw Brown's
parents interviewed on TV. They are saying what a great, sweet kid
he was, his father is saying how he taught him to be respectful of the
police, etc. The reporter, to his credit, asked if they had looked at
the video that shows Brown robbing the convenience store 10 mins before
the incident. The answer: No.

Now, if you want to grieve and can't bare to look at it, that's fine
with me. But what I won't tolerate is smearing the cop, making all
kinds of accusations, saying your kid was an angel, getting crowds
all worked up with what you claim and refusing to
look at the video. That is totally unethical and makes you scum
bags, IMO.

On 8/24/2014 7:24 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:49:59 PM UTC-4, Davej wrote:
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:11:17 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Davej wrote:
[snip]

Who smacked who? We don't have a video. One injury is not "badly beaten."

He looks badly beaten to me:

http://mrrsinc.medicalillustration.c...it.php?ID=8420


Unfortunately, that does not depict the actual injuries to the officer,
merely the class of injuries. Hopefully, the officer's were nowhere
near as severe as depicted in the illustration.

At least you - and others - "Get it." We're not talking about a shiner,
a bruising, a welt... we're talking about a serious, disabling injury
that has the potential to create a permanent disability.

Others, like davej and his ilk - who pretend ignorance - are, in
actuality, idiots or race baiters who wouldn't admit the sun rises in
the east if they were standing outside with a compass.

In article ,
Oren wrote:



Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington. I can't
imagine him being charged in another criminal indictment this many
years later. I'm thinking that is double jeopardy. Is he charged with
a Civil Right's Violation?

My personal guess would be the "dual sovereignty" doctrine. This allows
a federal prosecution of an offense to proceed regardless of a previous
state prosecution for that same offense and vice versa because "an act
denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an
offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by
each."
So, depending on who tried him first (and my guess would the feds
because the Pres and other other fed officials were the targets), the
state could take their shot.

Maybe Mr. Brady died from complications of his injuries sustained in
the shooting. Apparently the Medical Examiner has declared that,
connecting it (gun shot) and determining it a homicide (manner of
death). Do you have a link that Hinkley sp has in fact been charged?
I'd love to read about it.
That is gonna be the big thing. I really don't see how you get past
the dueling experts with a jury that is sufficiently confused to have
reasonable doubt.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
"Pico Rico" wrote:

yes but you said he was confined in the nut house in Washington, so I
naturally assumed you were talking about congress.

An easy mistake to make, PR
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 02:38:50 +0200, nestork
wrote:

So, I ask again, are we going to go through these "pretend racism riots"
and "pretend racism looting" every time a white cop shoots a black
person?


Yes. Until the likes of Al Charlatan and Jessie Jackson start looking
at the real problem -- CRIME by blacks. Ever her one of them mention
crime -- black on black? Nope, because the race ticket puts beans on
their plates.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:49:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:



Mr. Bowman, This is interesting. Hinkley sp was found not guilty by
reason of insanity. Confined in the nut house in Washington. I can't
imagine him being charged in another criminal indictment this many
years later. I'm thinking that is double jeopardy. Is he charged with
a Civil Right's Violation?

My personal guess would be the "dual sovereignty" doctrine. This allows
a federal prosecution of an offense to proceed regardless of a previous
state prosecution for that same offense and vice versa because "an act
denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an
offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by
each."
So, depending on who tried him first (and my guess would the feds
because the Pres and other other fed officials were the targets), the
state could take their shot.

Maybe Mr. Brady died from complications of his injuries sustained in
the shooting. Apparently the Medical Examiner has declared that,
connecting it (gun shot) and determining it a homicide (manner of
death). Do you have a link that Hinkley sp has in fact been charged?
I'd love to read about it.
That is gonna be the big thing. I really don't see how you get past
the dueling experts with a jury that is sufficiently confused to have
reasonable doubt.

The shooting took place in Washington, D.C.. I see no way for state
charges to be brought. No jurisdiction to prosecute. It's why I was
asking for the article to read.

"...The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress and the District is therefore
not a part of any U.S. state."

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:48:53 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

On 8/24/2014 7:24 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:49:59 PM UTC-4, Davej wrote:
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:11:17 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Davej wrote:
[snip]

Who smacked who? We don't have a video. One injury is not "badly beaten."

He looks badly beaten to me:

http://mrrsinc.medicalillustration.c...it.php?ID=8420


Unfortunately, that does not depict the actual injuries to the officer,
merely the class of injuries. Hopefully, the officer's were nowhere
near as severe as depicted in the illustration.

At least you - and others - "Get it." We're not talking about a shiner,
a bruising, a welt... we're talking about a serious, disabling injury
that has the potential to create a permanent disability.


Not to mention felony assault on a police officer will justify deadly
force. If Brown's DNA is found on the officer's pistol it would be
attempted murder of a police officer, IMO. I don't know the MO law
though.

Others, like davej and his ilk - who pretend ignorance - are, in
actuality, idiots or race baiters who wouldn't admit the sun rises in
the east if they were standing outside with a compass.


They should go to their local prisons, ask the Warden if they can take
a crook home for the weekend so they can play Hug -A-Thug

On 8/24/2014 11:26 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:48:53 -0500,

[snip]


Unfortunately, that does not depict the actual injuries to the officer,
merely the class of injuries. Hopefully, the officer's were nowhere
near as severe as depicted in the illustration.

At least you - and others - "Get it." We're not talking about a shiner,
a bruising, a welt... we're talking about a serious, disabling injury
that has the potential to create a permanent disability.


Not to mention felony assault on a police officer will justify deadly
force. If Brown's DNA is found on the officer's pistol it would be
attempted murder of a police officer, IMO. I don't know the MO law
though.

Actually, it MIGHT justify use of deadly force, but nothing is carved in
stone. Assault(threat) is not as serious as Battery (actual striking).
A slap in the face from a bitchy female traffic violator is felony.
Hardly warrants an automatic death penalty, does it? OTOH, if she
decides to shove her car in reverse rather than slap, she's pretty well
bought and paid for and if she dies, she dies.

You have to know what the law is and, more importantly, BE THERE to view
the situation from the officer's perspective. Idiots like Davej, if
they acknowledge that maybe the officer had the right to at least draw
his weapon, he should have only shot to wound. One shoots to remove or
terminate the threat to one's life. If the first shot stops him cold,
you can stop. If it doesn't stop him right there, you continue to fire
until he does or you're out of ammunition.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

That is gonna be the big thing. I really don't see how you get past
the dueling experts with a jury that is sufficiently confused to have
reasonable doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...ying-hinckley-
in-death-of-james-brady-in-1981-assassination-
attempt/2014/08/11/cfc8dd88-217c-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html'

http://snipurl.com/2974qls

The Virginia ME threw out a real political curve ball when he ruled that
Brady's death after 33 years was a homicide. Apparently it isn't the first
time the question has come up. The charge in the original trial wasn't
homicide because the victim wasn't dead yet. Years later when the victim
dies, they can try again. Going from 'a year and a day' to 'forever' might
not be the best court decision.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/20269-po...ert-bob-heinle

is a local instance that came to my attention yesterday. There is a memorial
for the fallen officers in a local park and I was surprised to see him on it
with the date of his death in 2010. He had no pulse and wasn't breathing at
the scene, but was revived. Martin killed him that day even though it took
him 11 years to die.

One difference is Martin is doing life with no parole, not spending most of
his time at his parent's house on unsupervised release.

It will be an interesting trial if they decide to go forward with it.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:42:36 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

http://snipurl.com/2974qls

The Virginia ME threw out a real political curve ball when he ruled that
Brady's death after 33 years was a homicide. Apparently it isn't the first
time the question has come up. The charge in the original trial wasn't
homicide because the victim wasn't dead yet. Years later when the victim
dies, they can try again. Going from 'a year and a day' to 'forever' might
not be the best court decision.

That does not support that Hinckley was _charged_ as you wrote: "Well,
hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014."

Glad we got that cleared up.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:42:36 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

http://snipurl.com/2974qls

The Virginia ME threw out a real political curve ball when he ruled that
Brady's death after 33 years was a homicide. Apparently it isn't the first
time the question has come up. The charge in the original trial wasn't
homicide because the victim wasn't dead yet. Years later when the victim
dies, they can try again. Going from 'a year and a day' to 'forever' might
not be the best court decision.

That does not support that Hinckley was _charged_ as you wrote: "Well,
hell, they just charged the guy who shot Brady because Brady died a
73. Obviously being shot in 1981 caused his death in 2014."

Glad we got that cleared up.

We will probably spend another 10 million dollars for another trial for
murder now.

In article ,
Oren wrote:


The shooting took place in Washington, D.C.. I see no way for state
charges to be brought. No jurisdiction to prosecute. It's why I was
asking for the article to read.

"...The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress and the District is therefore
not a part of any U.S. state."

Good point, forgot about that little part. Sometimes the nuances flash
right by me (grin)
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein