http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

https://tinyurl.com/pc2g4ye

[..]

“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all
swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
[...]

"Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket in the fracas, and was left
dazed by the initial confrontation, the source said. He is now
"traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and
terrified" that a grand jury, which began hearing evidence on
Wednesday, will "make some kind of example out of him," the source
said."

“You may engage a threat with enough force that is reasonably
necessary to defend against that danger,”...

(fight fire with fire, meet force with force)

Justified Homicide! in my view.

Oren wrote in news:240av9h2n9ijfsto6svlg3jg0079a3m2f2@
4ax.com:

Justified Homicide! in my view.


Not if you are a KneeGrow.

On 8/20/2014 3:20 PM, Oren wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

https://tinyurl.com/pc2g4ye

[..]

“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all
swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
[...]


Charles Johnson of the political blog Little Green Footballs has this
pegged as almost certainly a hoax, coming from a known liar and
accompanied by a photoshopped image of another person's CT scan:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...e_Ey e_Socket

Jim Hoft’s Unsourced Claim That Officer Darren Wilson Had an "Orbital
Blowout Fracture of the Eye Socket": A few problems in the dumbest man
on the Internet's narrative
By Charles Johnson

The entire right wing universe (including Drudge Report) is now
screaming about this post by, yes, the Dumbest Man on the Internet
again, claiming that anonymous sources told him officer Darren Wilson
suffered an "orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket" in a struggle
with unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

It's possible that someone did leak this information to Hoft, but I'll
remind my readers that Jim Hoft is probably the single most dishonest
right wing blogger on the Internet as well as the dumbest, with a very
long history of distorting facts and completely making stuff up to
push his far right, often overtly racist agenda.

And there are some things to consider about Hoft's claims this time as
well, before lending them credibility they probably don’t deserve.

Here are the symptoms of an orbital blowout fractu

The most common symptoms are bruising, tenderness and swelling
around the eye; redness of the eye; double vision, ordiplopia (seeing
two images at the same time); numbness of the cheek, nose or teeth;
nose bleeds (epistaxis) [See figure 1].

Symptoms that typically indicate a more serious injury are pain
on eye movement, double vision, air under the skin around the eye, and
numbness of the cheek/mouth/nose on the side of the injury. Severe
trauma may cause facial bone fractures, injury to the eye itself, and
injuries to the skull/brain.

In the video taken by an eyewitness immediately after the shooting,
officer Darren Wilson is seen walking calmly around the body with no
signs of discomfort or injury, even though by this time he would have
been in very serious pain.

Video (hit link to view)

Also, no ambulance was called for Wilson, and no first aid was
administered by other officers, which seems odd if he had indeed
suffered this type of serious injury — or any injury at all.

And there’s more evidence that Hoft is trying to pull a fast one
again; here is the original image posted at the AAPOS site, showing a
CT scan of a blowout fracture (on the left), compared to the image
posted at Gateway Pundit by Hoft (on the right):
Original example CT scan (L), compared to altered image posted by Jim
Hoft (R)
(hit link to view images)

Notice the difference? In the version posted by Jim Hoft, the text at
bottom right that says "UNIV OF IOWA" has been crudely erased. Caught
you, Jim.

Was Hoft trying to mislead his readers into thinking this was the
actual X-ray (or CT scan) of Darren Wilson? His text does not make it
clear it wasn’t Wilson’s CT scan — and the words “UNIV OF IOWA” have
been blacked out, quite deliberately.

If Hoft's intent was to mislead, it worked. All over Twitter and right
wing blogs, the wingnuts are raving about "Darren Wilson’s X-ray" that
shows a fractured eye socket — but this is just a generic example
image of an unknown person's CT scan.

Time will tell if Wilson is going to claim he had this type of injury,
but nobody should take Jim Hoft's word for it.

And one more point while I’m at it; Hoft writes:

This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office
and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

So you pick an Internet blogger.

Has your source seen the medical records? I doubt it.

Those will be presented to the Grand Jury. If the injury was sustained
we will know and find out about it. Don't rule out the injury was
trivial or never happened.

"you libs"

On 8/20/2014 6:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

So you pick an Internet blogger.

Has your source seen the medical records? I doubt it.

Those will be presented to the Grand Jury. If the injury was sustained
we will know and find out about it. Don't rule out the injury was
trivial or never happened.

"you libs"


If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:46:51 -0400, Frank
wrote:

If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

A Grand Jury is secret, nothing is made public. Even the accused
cannot address them; nor can his lawyer address the jury.

The GJ will examine evidence presented by the prosecutor and return a
"True Bill" - enough for an indictment or a No Bill for dismissal of
the allegations of the charges.

The GJ is empanelled for X amount of days. They have to decide in that
time.

On 8/20/2014 7:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:46:51 -0400, Frank
wrote:

If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

A Grand Jury is secret, nothing is made public. Even the accused
cannot address them; nor can his lawyer address the jury.

The GJ will examine evidence presented by the prosecutor and return a
"True Bill" - enough for an indictment or a No Bill for dismissal of
the allegations of the charges.

The GJ is empanelled for X amount of days. They have to decide in that
time.

Rules will vary with region. I looked up Delaware's:

"Grand juries in New Castle County shall consist of 15 members, and the
affirmative vote of 9 members shall be necessary to find a true bill of
indictment. Grand juries in Kent County and in Sussex County shall
consist of 10 members, and the affirmative vote of 7 members shall be
necessary to find a true bill of indictment. Grand jurors shall take an
oath to perform faithfully the duties of a grand juror."

In article ,
Frank wrote:

On 8/20/2014 6:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

So you pick an Internet blogger.

Has your source seen the medical records? I doubt it.

Those will be presented to the Grand Jury. If the injury was sustained
we will know and find out about it. Don't rule out the injury was
trivial or never happened.

"you libs"


If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:21:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.

....so eloquently spoken by a judge one time G

My imaginary girlfriend even agrees.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3734640279001/judge-jeanine-gov-perry-indictment-is-hogwash/?playlist_id=937116552001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mu7uo9g

Moe DeLoughan wrote:

Charles Johnson of the political blog Little Green Footballs has this
pegged as almost certainly a hoax, coming from a known liar and
accompanied by a photoshopped image of another person's CT scan:

Little Green Footballs? Wasn't that the favorite blog of that Norwegian mass
murderer? Wasn't Johnson also friendly with that crazy yenta Geller before
she got too weird even for him? Yeah, I'll take his analysis for granite.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

Oren wrote:

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.


https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf
http://snipurl.com/2976dh1

It's a CPD murder analysis for 2011 but has a lot of historical data too.
The statistics are broken down in a number of categories but the takeaway
statistic is approximately 4% of the murders involve whites as either
victims or perpetrators.

I guess the Community Organizer didn't do so well, huh?

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 6:18:10 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".