Anonymous threatens to name cop who shot dead unarmed Michael Brown • The Register Forums

1. 1. 1. 1. Thursday 14th August 2014 15:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        > 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.
        
        Not quite.
        
        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.
        
        0 0 Reply
        
        Thursday 14th August 2014 15:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        I should also mention that a 37 year old nurse died when fleeing the store that the 22 year old was waving the air rifle, that looks like an automatic rifle, around.
        
        0 0 Reply
        
        Thursday 14th August 2014 15:20 GMT Dan Paul
        
        Sweeping generalizations again...
        
        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.
        
        0 0 Reply
        
        Thursday 14th August 2014 14:15 GMT Dan Paul
        
        Just pointing out the facts..
        
        That some 50% of high school dropouts are black, of that percentage almost 75% end up in prison? Is it their race or is it due to the culture?
        
        If you glorify the gang life as something to aspire to (because you don't have to work hard, just kill a cop and sell lots of drugs to be installed as a gang member) don't you run the risk of getting caught committing the crime?
        
        The fact is that very few blacks have any interest in becoming a cop because that would be viewed as selling out. It is far more attractive to be a "Gangsta", so you will always be against the cops.
        
        Blacks in poor areas do not become cops and thats the cops fault for what reason?
        
        2 1 Reply
2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  re: So let me get this right....
  
  You're far from correct. Suggesting that the system will bring justice for this young man shows you've never followed any cases like this before. The normal process is that the truth will come out in about 30 to 40 years, once the officer involved has died peacefully in retirement.
  
  Or is this case magically going to be different?
  
  25 8 Reply
3. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:13 GMT Eric Olson
  
  You just need to look to NYC
  
  Where a man was killed by a cop for selling smokes without a license. Yes, the man had priors for similar activities. Yet when six (if I remember correctly) surround the man, one plainclothes office jumped on the man's back and put him in a choke-hold. The man eventually went to the ground, complained about being unable to breath, lost consciousness, and died at the hospital.
  
  How do we know this? It was videotaped by a witness (who was later arrested by police for carrying a handgun). Choke-holds have been forbidden by the city for a decade, so much so that cops are supposed to receive alternative methods and be continually trained on them. Yet the fraternal order that represents the police closed ranks, in the face of absolute proof that the cop not only killed someone but did it by violating police procedure, and pleaded with the public and media that they should not be held accountable, as being a cop is hard.
  
  The 90%+ of cops who are honorable and work day in and out to be peace officers are smeared by idiots like this, yet they still protect their own. Better to cast those fools out and revoke protection since it endangers the rest of them.
  
  18 2 Reply
  1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 20:31 GMT Dan Paul
    
    Re: You just need to look to NYC
    
    The two cases have nothing in common, first nothing in NY Shitty is ever on the up and up, the entire force and the government is corrupt. Who knows about the case down south. All we know for sure is there is a dead teenager and a cop who says he tried to grab his gun from him.
    
    If the cop is right and you backyard quarterbacks have already convicted him without a court of law, you should all burn in hell. Sometimes you don't get what you expect.
    
    NYC Police are a thing to avoid. Don't fuck with them, you'll get hurt. What you saw on TV, they call resisting arrest.
    
    When confronted by a cop in any locale, don't get wise, do what they tell you and shutup.
    
    2 5 Reply
    1. Thursday 14th August 2014 09:11 GMT James Micallef
      
      Re: You just need to look to NYC
      
      "All we know for sure is there is a dead teenager and a cop who says he tried to grab his gun from him"
      
      We also know that the kid got shot at least 4 times, possibly as much as 8, and his body ended up 35 yards from the police car. We do not know whether the kid actually went for the gun, or the officer thought he was going for the gun, or indeed if the officer is making up the whole 'went for the gun' thing, but in none of those scenarios would shooting an unarmed kid in the back be warranted.
      
      8 1 Reply
  2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 21:51 GMT Turtle
    
    @Eric Olson
    
    "Where a man was killed by a cop for selling smokes without a license."
    
    This statement is false, as the rest of your post proves. He was not "killed for selling (untaxed) cigarettes". He was killed while resisting arrest. I understand that put this way it is not as inflammatory or politically useful, but it does have the advantage of being more accurate. (Which of course you might feel is not a virtue worth having...)
    
    2 3 Reply
    1. Thursday 14th August 2014 00:05 GMT Eguro
      
      Re: @Eric Olson
      
      Well unless he was resisting with some version of a weapon - stabbing or shooting for instance - I'd say the selling of smokes is the only one of the two likely to lead to deaths (at least deaths of other people), meaning that being killed for resisting arrest is actually even worse...
      
      4 2 Reply
    2. Thursday 14th August 2014 02:51 GMT Eric Olson
      
      Re: @Eric Olson
      
      Yes, and if you had watched the freely available video, you'll see his resistance was standing there and saying, "Don't touch me." And while doing that, the murderer... I mean peace officer... jumps on the man's back, wraps his arms around the man's neck, and choke-holds him to the ground. I guess never mind that even within the NYC Police Department, such a move is banned and forbidden. The man said, "Don't touch me." That is clearly resisting arrest in a manner that requires complete and utter disregard by the officer of official policy, kind of like, I don't know, the Boston Marathon bomber. Totally in the same league.
      
      You might want to look at the facts (as documented in video) before you try to pull stupid crap like that.
      
      11 1 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 15:29 GMT nanchatte

Seriously...

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.

3 6 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:13 GMT Psyx
  
  Re: Seriously...
  
  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.
  
  16 0 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 15:30 GMT chivo243

Releasing it will be bad, very bad

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.

11 2 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 15:32 GMT Valeyard

ha

they don't half talk like they're super spy commandos or something

TARGET DOWN!!

oh no, black ops neutralised our FAQ website. shit. gonna have to stop the conspiracy guys, we're in deep trouble now.

5 2 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 15:40 GMT James 51

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.

9 1 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  ...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.
  
  14 1 Reply
2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:17 GMT Eric Olson
  
  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.
  
  5 1 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:06 GMT Anonymous Coward

"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.

10 0 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 20:11 GMT I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects
  
  > 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.
  
  4 6 Reply
  1. Thursday 14th August 2014 08:17 GMT LucreLout
    
    "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.
    
    4 1 Reply
    1. Thursday 14th August 2014 14:15 GMT James Micallef
      
      And people who respond to injustice by going on a looting spree are also utter morons
      
      0 0 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:06 GMT The Grump

I call BS on these anon-tards

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.

6 12 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:16 GMT Psyx
  
  Re: I call BS on these anon-tards
  
  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?
  
  13 4 Reply
2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:34 GMT asdf
  
  Re: I call BS on these anon-tards
  
  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.
  
  4 0 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:25 GMT Dan Paul

What happened to the principle of...

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!

6 17 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 17:49 GMT Havin_it
  
  Re: What happened to the principle of...
  
  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.
  
  5 0 Reply
2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 18:55 GMT Keven E.
  
  Re: What happened to the principle of...
  
  "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.
  
  5 6 Reply
  1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 20:41 GMT Dan Paul
    
    Re: What happened to the principle of...
    
    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
    
    4 8 Reply
    1. Thursday 14th August 2014 08:57 GMT Psyx
      
      Re: What happened to the principle of...
      
      "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.
      
      1 1 Reply
  2. Thursday 14th August 2014 14:29 GMT Tom 13
    
    Re: When will it ever end.
    
    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.
    
    0 2 Reply
3. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:20 GMT Eric Olson
  
  Re: What happened to the principle of...
  
  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.
  
  4 1 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:33 GMT A Non e-mouse

Because vigilantes are never wrong...

1 1 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 18:42 GMT Mephistro
  
  "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.
  
  7 2 Reply
  1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 18:52 GMT Someone Else
    
    "Because vigilantes are never wrong..."
    
    "...and you know that the hypnotized never lie."
    
    0 0 Reply
  2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:49 GMT Tom 7
    
    Re: "Because vigilantes are never wrong..."
    
    It seems to me that vigilantes usual spring up in areas where there are enough out of control fuckwits to start a vigilante group.
    
    4 4 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:43 GMT ItsNotMe

Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

...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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0GA0Q420140813

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.

7 10 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:53 GMT James Loughner
  
  Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
  
  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
  
  19 5 Reply
  1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
    
    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!
    
    6 7 Reply
    1. Thursday 14th August 2014 15:16 GMT Tom 13
      
      Re: Now that Al Sharpton
      
      That's Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, good friend of Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations
      
      http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/05/209194252/15-years-later-tawana-brawley-has-paid-1-percent-of-penalty
      
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm
      
      http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=370
      
      Yeah the riot starting race baiters are back.
      
      0 1 Reply
  2. Thursday 14th August 2014 14:37 GMT Tom 13
    
    Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
    
    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.
    
    0 1 Reply
2. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:24 GMT Eric Olson
  
  Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
  
  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.
  
  7 1 Reply
3. Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:51 GMT Tom 7
  
  Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
  
  Even the police dont think he had a gun - the best they can come up is that he was struggling for the officers weapon.
  
  4 1 Reply
4. Wednesday 13th August 2014 21:03 GMT Barry Rueger
  
  Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
  
  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.
  
  4 1 Reply
  1. Thursday 14th August 2014 00:19 GMT Eguro
    
    Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
    
    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.
    
    1 1 Reply
5. Thursday 14th August 2014 07:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
  
  >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.
  
  1 0 Reply
  1. Thursday 14th August 2014 15:22 GMT Tom 13
    
    Re: witnesses must be independent not his friends.
    
    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.
    
    0 0 Reply
  2. Friday 15th August 2014 09:30 GMT Psyx
    
    Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...
    
    "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.
    
    1 0 Reply
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:52 GMT FuzzyTheBear

On the matter of the public's right to know.

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 .

8 1 Reply
1. Wednesday 13th August 2014 17:12 GMT Dan Paul
  
  Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)
  
  Oh yeah he does have a right to privacy. When do we get your real name moron? Then we will go to the media and have your name and address to give to all the nice police officers here in New York who will then do what you say they do.
  
  A cop is not automatically bad, you just make him out to be that way. They call that "prejudice". A "public servant" doesn't have to take your shit either and certainly has a right to a fair trial, something he can't get with idiots like you and Al Sharpton around.
  
  I can say you are a terrorist and you may be or not be. You just did the same thing to all the police in the US.
  
  The USA is not the Wild Wild West idiot. There are some people who think they are above the law, can try and grab a cops gun and throw gang signs in the pictures they are showing on TV. It's pretty obvious to me that one look at that picture tells me he's hooked up with gangs. It is a "right of passage" of gangs to kill a cop or some bystander.
  
  Therefore the cop shouldn't even think once before unloading a whole magazine into the scumbag.
  
  It's as simple as that. And by the way don't expect any fair treatment by cops, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol or any other "public" servant who puts his life on the line every day for sorry losers like you!
  
  2 19 Reply