Re: "If the dead guy were white..."
Hey Coward, If a white guy grabbed a white or black cops gun ANYWHERE, he would be shot dead.
That is a fact. Not conjecture or speculation like your comment, the problem in Ferguson is like you. Full of BS.
A group claiming to be affiliated with hacktivist collective Anonymous has threatened to release the name of the police officer who shot unarmed teen Michael Brown in the town of Ferguson, Missouri. Operation Ferguson says it is a group of hackers linked to Anonymous. It was set up a day after the 18-year-old black man was …
Hey Coward, If a white guy grabbed a white or black cops gun ANYWHERE, he would be shot dead.
That is a fact. Not conjecture or speculation like your comment, the problem in Ferguson is like you. Full of BS.
> white teenager can and does walk down high street carrying a loaded shotgun.
If he walked into Walmart or any public building with it he would have been arrested.
> Black 22-year old at Walmart chatting on the phone while picking up a BB gun off the shelf in the toy gun section, gets the cops called in on him, he says 'it's not real' and they shoot him dead.
The 22 year old removed this Crosman MK 177 air pump rifle from all of its packaging and walked around the store with it. He was ordered to put it down and when he did not comply he was shot.
In the UK an air rifle with more than 12 Foot-Pounds of power is classified as a firearm and needs a firearms certificate to own. The Crosman MK 177 is 12.5 Foot Pounds and has a muzzle velocity of 750 feet per second.
Stop feeding the Bullshit Machine!
Cops do not shoot blacks first and ask questions later. That is a stupid sweeping generalization taken from watching too many TV shows or listening to too much gangsta rap music. Either way you are obviously addlepated.
The fact is that if you won't stay in school, you are not going to graduate. If you don't graduate, you won't get a job, if you don't get a job you often end up relying on criminal means to support yourself and you WILL get caught. Then you are a criminal and it doesn't get better from there.
Just remember this; you put yourself there, not anyone else; including the cops.
None of those things are directly related to race, only to how hard you apply yourself to make life BETTER not WORSE.
Your first example was an activist trying to push open gun carry laws further and he was charged with a misdemeanor for not showing ID; by the cops. He's done this over a dozen times. Oh, that was in Aurora Colorado where there was an actual mass shooting. Cops actually showed some restraint didn't they?
The second example was for a guy who was described as waving a gun at people in the store; turned out that was only an air rifle. Since you don't have any fire arms over there, an "air rifle" can look like a regular gun. I saw ones at Wal-Mart just the other day that look like an AR-15, .3006, H&K, any number of pistols etc. People waving air guns at other people frequently get shot by the cops, moral...don't wave any guns (of ANY type) at people or you may get shot.
Absofuckinglutely! Right on the money.
"I never made any such claim or assumption."
I never said or assumed you were.
"That is a matter of opinion."
No, it's a matter of historical fact. 150 years ago they were slaves. 50 years ago they were not allowed to sit at the front of the bus. Even if we pretend for a moment that America is no longer racist in any way, that means that the current generation is the first to have anything like equality. No time to establish themselves, no 'old money', not proportionally many families with enough tucked away to provide their kids with the best chances, et al.
"I see kids (many of them very smart) who wont even try at school because they are of the opinion that it wont do them any good afterwards"
And that's uniquely a 'black thing'? If it's not, then it's not a valid reason why a grossly disproportionate number are deprived. Are you seriously trying to go down 'the poor black kids are poor because they won't help themselves' route?
I can't even fathom why you are trying to persuade me that racism is not still firmly a part of US culture and that black people are not disproportionately deprived because - at heart - of racism.
"Stop trying to make excuses for people who would rather loot and steal than face facts."
I don't think he was looting anything. He was too busy being back-shot by a police officer.
"The percentage is high because they won't apply themselves."
'They'? What, all of them? More than the white people in the neighbourhood, or equally?
If it's the latter, then it's a problem with POVERTY, not racial minorities, as you would have it.
"Not if you apply yourself!"
I just gave that post a second read, and it was no better the second time. Please tell me how the "whole culture promotes crime".
"there is nothing that can be done until they growup and want to have a better life"
I'm pretty sure most poor people don't want to be poor.
"My Niece (who was poor and half black and had a hard life with addicted parents and was raised by her white gandma) IS NOW A DOCTOR!"
Clearly only because she was raised by a white person or something, right?
The kind of attitude that you are preaching is precisely the problem: "It's not racist, it's just them poor black people all like rap music and won't try".
That has been official policy since the 1960's (in most States), but that hasn't stopped untold numbers of law enforcement personnel from 'leaking' information. In this case, the police are choosing to bestow special treatment on another officer. That in itself is a major failing in law enforcement in general and only compounded by the paramilitary mentality mindset, actions and mindset of modern law enforcement.
If the police 'leak' details of an accused celebrity/famous person and that person gets lynched 'too bad, but cops are underpaid and that $250 from the reporter really helped out buying school supplies'. Fuck that. The police should treat themselves the same as they treat others. This is nothing but police rallying together so they can shoot somebody too. Fuck 'em. If they're judged responsible enough to carry a gun then they should be held accountable for what they do with that gun and held accountable in the public eye, like they so love to do to the people they arrest.
They're members of the public, anonymous ones like you, they're entitled to demand whatever they like. Whether they're entitled to have the demand taken seriously, or to get it is a different matter entirely (and probably what you were aiming at)
AC» Really? You are a moron.
Sir (or possibly Madam *)
If you are going to call people morons, would you at least misspell it properly please?
There should be an 'a' in there somewhere.
* Is there an accepted greeting for asexuals, other-sexuals as well as the other combinations of sex that have recently come to light?
Can you trust a group that say 'we will only release his name when we are certain we've go it right,' when they can't even get their own hashtag right.
By your own measure, the omission of a question mark at the end of the sentence means that no information you supply can be trusted, either.
Making a typo doesn't make a source unreliable.
Releasing the officer's name now would create a vehicle for much worse injustices to be committed, and innocent people will be caught in the feeding frenzy. It's a tragedy about to get worse.
they don't half talk like they're super spy commandos or something
oh no, black ops neutralised our FAQ website. shit. gonna have to stop the conspiracy guys, we're in deep trouble now.
If the decision is make to charge the officer with a crime, they might actually prevent justice being done if a judge decides he can't get a fair trial after these kind of stunts.
...or (the cynical version) could be used as an excuse to let the officer off scot-free as seems to happen on a disturbingly regular basis in cases of abuse of power like this.
Jurisdiction and trial can easily be moved at the request of the defense. Additionally, this could end up being a federal case if there is a finding of civil rights violation by an officer of the government; the notion is that by acting as an agent of the city or state, the city or state cannot be impartial or unbiased arbiters and the US Federal Court needs to take over, just like how the investigation has been taken out of the hands of the city police department and transferred to the county, with the assistance of the FBI.
"Ferguson has been the scene of [...] looting since Brown was shot"
Yeah, because nothing assuages a sense of gross injustice better than a new telly and some flashy trainers.
> a sense of gross injustice better than new flashy trainers.
Nothing pushes the right wing buttons than the appearance of new trainers on the block.
"Nothing pushes the right wing buttons than the appearance of new trainers on the block."
No, you're right. Lets just skip the investigation & trial and execute the copper publicly.
The new trainers haven't "appeared" on the block. They've been stolen from hard working businessmen, and paid for by all of us through increased insurance premiums. The people upon who's feet said trainers have "appeared" are scum. Society would be better off if we could just make the stolen sh*t explode.
People who excuse serious crime because its being committed by their pet demographic are utter utter morons.
And people who respond to injustice by going on a looting spree are also utter morons
If they REALLY had the name of the officer, don't you think that they would be shopping that information around to all the tabloids, to see which tabloid would offer the highest price ? I know I would.
Anonymoose is just bluffing - yeah, they can take down computers, but they know as much about the officer who shot the kid as I do - zilch. BS called.
No, because that's never how they've historically acted. Selling information to tabloids is never what the organisation has done.
I don't think much of them myself, but I'm not about to accuse them of selling out when they don't really seem to have that arrow in their quiver.
"yeah, they can take down computers, but they know as much about the officer who shot the kid as I do - zilch. BS called."
Quite right. Because people who can organise the taking down of websites and with a long track-record of hacking stuff certainly wouldn't know enough about computers to hack into a local police department to obtain data, would they?
The news organizations may well already know his name and being asked to not release it which they are complying with. After all the did give the prince 9 weeks or whatever in Afghanistan before the lowest common denominator internet blog finally blabbed.
Innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law?
It has gotten to be WAY too much. The minute MSNBC hack "reverend" Al Sharpton goes to the scene, all hell breaks loose because he stirs up an already bad situation and no one is able to get a fair trial until the "court of public opinion" has already tarred and feathered the cop. Funny how that works. What about all the damage to property? Who pays for that? Did they all get arrested?
If this kid went for the cops gun while he was being handcuffed, then the cop was entirely justified in shooting him; whether he was black or any other color doesnt matter. Cops get to be safe on the job regardless of the criminals race. Just because you're black doesn't mean you get special treatment. The object lesson here is don't sass off to the cops and don't resist arrest.
Too many call out "racist" when they don't know any facts besides what they are told by the rabble rousers who are callously looking for ratings. Everytime Obama gets criticized, someone pulls out the race card to hide behind because he can't stand the scrutiny. Same thing happens all day long.
Maybe they should charge Sharpton with "Inciting a Riot" or "Interference in a Police Investigation"?
Both of those would apply to script kiddies too!
Well, I'm not going near the rest of your post, but I feel it should be pointed out that it's: "unless proven guilty ..." Important distinction, that. All too often forgotten.
"Everytime Obama gets criticized, someone pulls out the race card to hide behind because he can't stand the scrutiny."
Another idiotic blanket statement from a reactionary. When will it ever end.
Public opinion never has nor never way held to that same idea. And as the idea of a perp walk is something that gets county and state prosecutors all hot and bothered, it's hard to understand why cops should be protected. Not to mention that cops are quick to leak and broadcast action against civil servants and public officials who aren't cops.
Look at the comments that are made all the time by the media, particularly on MSNBC. Holder does it too. The whole time they hide behind the race card because they are afraid to stand up and say what they mean in plain english. He has a Socialist agenda and he's afraid to say it.
Obama is a baldface liar and you have no real argument just your ignorant comments.
Wait until 2015 and you see the REAL cost of Obamacare that he has been hiding by defferring the empoloyer mandate.
Reactionary does'nt even come close
"Obama is a baldface liar and you have no real argument just your ignorant comments."
Unlike your chosen brand of politician, who is honest and not a massive lair at all.
About ten seconds after the last libturd like you pulls his head out of his arse and admits it is a true, non-racist statement.
Because vigilantes are never wrong...
Vigilantes usually sprout in areas where there is no justice. Not saying that that's a good thing, just that that's the way things are.
"...and you know that the hypnotized never lie."
It seems to me that vigilantes usual spring up in areas where there are enough out of control fuckwits to start a vigilante group.
...maybe...just maybe...the kid shot and killed was the one at fault? Hmmm?
It was reported that the kid pushed the officer back into his police car, then grabbed for his gun, then things went terribly bad.
Yea...yea...I know...that's the police version...and the "eye witness" versions are different. They always are. But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent? How about the possibility that his friends aren't telling the truth, and may be lying? It does happen.
And as a lot of kids his age do carry concealed weapons...maybe the cop was afraid for his/her own life, and reacted accordingly.
Because that is exactly what happened earlier today (Wednesday) when a "protester" drew a gun on an officer...and the officer shot back and seriously wounded the little charmer.
"Early on Wednesday, a police officer shot and critically wounded a man who drew a handgun near the site of protests over the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a St. Louis County Police Department officer said.
And before anyone gets their collective knickers in a bunch over what I am saying...believe me...police in general are not on my list of respected persons. They are right there at the very bottom...right alongside politicians.
But the reality of the situation is that there are only two people who know the real answer...and very sadly...one of them is dead.
The interesting thing is that this happened in day light on the street there are other witnesses and the authorities have not even talked to them yet 5 days after the incident. So the only story the establishment has heard is the officers. I call bullshit
Now that Al Sharpton is there; witnesses miraculously appear out of nowhere with a story that supports the kid?
THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME SHARPTON GOES TO THE SCENE!
I call bull shit!
I don't think anyone has disputed that something went wrong at the car. All reports are that a struggle ensued, which may or may not have involved the victim grabbing for or seeming like he was grabbing for the officer's gun. That is something only one person alive had a view of. What is in dispute is what happened next. If the kid was killed at the door of the car during the struggle, then how did he end up away from the car with six bullets in his corpse? It's hard to imagine that multiple witnesses who didn't know about the other witnesses had a similar story, where there was a initial gunshot, the kid went away from the car, and then turned around with his hands up, only to be shot some more. That's not a situation in which the cop is being threatened anymore.
Even the police dont think he had a gun - the best they can come up is that he was struggling for the officers weapon.
a police officer shot and critically wounded a man who drew a handgun
Um, it is not unheard of for cops to claim that the dead guy had a weapon when in fact none seems to have existed. It is also not unheard of for cops to gather immediately after a shooting to "get their story straight.'
Pretty much every Canadian is familiar with the Robert Dziekański murder, during which a group of RCMP tasered an unarmed man to death.
(Oh sorry, he had threatened them with a stapler! And yelled at them too!)
Only later was it found that the cops involved had met secretly at a family member's house, presumably to make sure they all were singing the same song.
The story told by police turned out to be complete fiction, and it was only because of bystander video that they were forced to admit as much.
At this point the only reasonable action is to assume that the police are lying in situations like this, and that the ordinary citizen who has been killed or wounded probably was not at fault.
You are of course right!
I have once or twice felt threatened by humans, so now the only reasonable action is to assume that all humans are threatening psychos who want to harm me.
How about instead we acknowledge that it isn't unheard of, but more information is required before making a judgement.
In this case - where he apparently drew a handgun during a protest - I would expect there to have been a bunch of witnesses. Surely it would not have gone without remark if he hadn't had a gun.
I'm also a loss for motivation for the police officer. "Well... They're already rioting because of a dead guy, one more couldn't hurt"? Or is it "Did I remember to put bullets in my gun today? Only one way to find out I guess".
I'm not saying he couldn't have had a motivation for doing it - and I'm not saying things went exactly as it is being claimed. I'm just struggling to understand why he would shoot - and "only" wound - someone during a protest.
>Yea...yea...I know...that's the police version...and the "eye witness" versions are different. ... But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent?
You've said it yourself, police version(singular), "eye witness" versions (multiple). According to the article it seems he was with one friend so the other eye witnesses must be independent not his friends.
The only bullshit here is what you are spewing.
Within hours of the event happening the riots started. The police have been on call 24-7 since then. They probably have interviewed the witnesses and their notes are waiting on their desks. Problem is, since they're out on the streets trying to protect the public from looters and worse, their reports aren't getting written so there's no official story yet. And no, the cops' story isn't what is being published. What is being published are the facts that fit the anti-police, racism everywhere meme of the LSM. Even this story doesn't include facts released by the police that show there is more to the story than the neat little template the author and you are using to promote a political agenda that has nothing to do with justice to the cop or the kid who was shot.
That's Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, good friend of Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson.
Yeah the riot starting race baiters are back.
Not merely not just his friends but truly independent. The problem at the moment as the mayor of the town has noted is that the black community so distrusts the police force they won't apply to work on it. Which means you can't assume they won't be lying if the corroborate the victim's story. In the same way this story broke running under "white racism" they all know what they're supposed to say to back up a brother. Racism doesn't only come in white sheets.
"But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent?"
I'm personally not assuming he's innocent at all. I have an open mind.
However, when you have corpse with multiple bullet-holes in its back and no weapon, and another guy standing nearby with a weapon, it's fair to make some working assumptions in the name of public safety. You don't just assume the person was innocent and let them carry on as they were while you go about finding out.
When that person is a civvie, they are immediately arrested, the weapon taken away, they are detained, questioned and probably charged. Their name is leaked to the media and published, and their freedoms curtailed while an investigation is under-way. I don't think it's unreasonable for police officers to expect the same - or even more stringent - measures to be taken when they're the one standing next to the corpse. Certainly, my consent to be policed only extends for as long as police officers are subject to the same laws and treatment as the rest of us.
My open mindedness to the dead guy's guilt or otherwise is also a separate concern to him being dead, backshot, yards from the car. If he was struggling for control of a lethal weapon and was shot in the process... well that's fair enough: Tough. I'd expect the officer to be cleared (providing he had followed procedure and his firearm was properly secured.) But when the guy stops struggling, turns and runs away unarmed... that doesn't warrant execution: Which is what shooting someone unarmed in the back is.
When an officer uses deadly force ,shoots someone or else , since he's a pubiic servant he's got no rights to privacy. This principle is well known here in Canada. For certain , the officer would be put on administrative leave and not reintegrated to the force until the end of the investigation and trial if there is one. That very matter should be legislated if it is not. A public servant ( whoever he is ) has no right to withhold his name saying " it's private " , they have to declare their name and number. In this case their laws might be different , but it looks more like a big " cover his ass cause we know he's a murderer and had no valid reason to shoot " than about respecting the law. Police , Sheriffs in the USA enjoy murdering people without valid reasons , specialy in New York . The USA is the wild wild west and the law does not apply to " lawmen " . They are free to murder anyone they want and walk a free man.
Ouch ? yes .. i hope it hits every American in the nuts and bolts and make em react and write their legislatures that they got enough of that crap .
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017