The dilemma of false narratives

While poring over the numerous stories about the Ferguson riot and its aftermath, one AP story stuck out in particular: “For Some, Location of Brown’s Hands Irrelevant“:

Protester Taylor Gruenloh, a 32-year-old white man from nearby Florissant, said that while he believes there’s truth to claims that Brown had his hands raised when shot, the lack of proof makes little difference to protesters who have found it to be a unifying force.

“Even if you don’t find that it’s true, it’s a valid rallying cry,” he said. “It’s just a metaphor.”

… Architect Evan Chakroff was among the protesters this week in Seattle. He said the “Hands Up” gesture is far from a literal representation of the circumstances of Brown’s death.

“My sense is that it’s totally symbolic and a way of representing powerlessness” in the face of inequality and militarized police, he said.

Several demonstrators said focusing on the exact circumstances of Brown’s shooting misses the point of the slogan.

So here is an interesting cultural lesson – facts and circumstances are irrelevant, as long as an incident raises cultural awareness or endorses the proper narratives.

Of course none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention during the last twenty years. Time and again, we have been presented with examples of oppression by the power structure that have turned out to be completely false:

  • Innocent “motorist” Rodney King was pulled over and savagely beaten by racist white cops; except that King was a convicted felon who fled police during a routine traffic stop, then led them on a 100 mph chase through Los Angeles, then aggressively charged police officers after he had been stopped.
  • Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth witnessed, and unwittingly participated in, numerous war atrocities in Iraq; except that MacBeth was never an Army Ranger and never served in Iraq. He was dismissed from the US Army as unfit after only a month and a half of basic training.
  • Single young black mother Crystal Mangum, reduced to the humiliation of stripping in order to make ends meet, was taunted, assaulted, and raped by a gang of wealthy, privileged white Duke University athletes; except that Mangum was a liar with a troubled past who fabricated the entire incident and is currently serving a prison sentence for second degree murder.
  • Trayvon Martin, an innocent young black man carrying only a can of Arizona tea and a bag of Skittles, was stalked and gunned down in cold blood by George Zimmerman, who was subsequently cleared by the police in a blatant example of racism; except that Martin confronted Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and was dealing Zimmerman an intense ‘ground and pound’ beatdown when Zimmerman shot him in self defense.
  • Dayna Morales, a lesbian waitress, was denied a tip by a bigoted Christian family who also insult her in a handwritten note left on their meal receipt; except that the family came forward and provided another copy of the receipt showing that they did tip her. Morales also lied about her military service (she had actually been dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps) and lied to coworkers at another restaurant, claiming that she had brain cancer.

Yet anyone who initially approached these stories with skepticism or a desire to learn more before making a judgement was immediately dismissed as a racist or a bigot or a warmonger.

While some of these individuals (MacBeth, Mangum, Morales) had their credibility damaged beyond repair and eventually faded from the public view, others remained (and still remain) visible symbols of injustice. Michael Brown is just the latest addition to this list.

What troubles me the most about this trend is the fact that it obscures real issues in favor of manufactured ones. Young black males living in predominately black neighborhoods are far more likely to be murdered than white males the same age, and they are far more likely to be murdered by other young black males, not the police. This is disturbing to everyone including white Americans, but accusing police (as imperfect as they sometimes are) of being uniformed racist murderers will not solve the problem.

Poor blacks, and now Latinos, are far more likely to be arrested and offered sentencing bargains in exchange for a guilty plea than whites who commit the same petty crimes. Blacks and Latinos are also far more likely to be pulled over and searched by police officers (‘driving while black’). These are real systemic injustices that need to be addressed, and that whites on the whole would like to see corrected. But this will never happen as long as largely fabricated incidents are used by the chattering class to “prove” that all whites are racists and that the American justice system inherently oppresses everyone who isn’t white.

So what is the take-away from all of this? Certainly conservatives are not allowed the same degree of leeway with facts when they argue in favor of specific policy initiatives or in defense of specific individuals. The gang of fact-checkers and the hoard of “crowd sourcers” that completely dissected the past life and government emails of Sarah Palin is enough to validate the observation that conservatives will never be granted the right to establish cultural myths and poetic truths. That is reserved only for leftist intellectuals and keepers of the culture.

And maybe that’s the way it should be. Someone, after all, has to stand up for truth and accuracy. And without either, it is difficult to demand accountability from others.

Even NYT Notes That Voter ID Laws DO NOT 'Suppress' Minority Voters
Obama's Immigration Plan: Legal or Illegal?
  • GarandFan

    “…it obscures real issues in favor of manufactured ones.”

    EXACTLY!

    And then the poor ‘aggrieved’ wonder why people tell them to piss off!

  • westcoastwiser

    In Eric Holder’s world, any person who can say “bang- bang” is a danger to society.

    • Barry Hirsh

      Or who chews his pop tart into the shape of a 9mm.

  • jim_m

    “For Some, Truth Irrelevant”

    There you go AP. FIFY.

    • jim_m

      And thank you, Bruce, for coming to the thread and showing us first hand just how irrelevant facts are to the left.

  • jim_m

    You also forgot that Michael Nifong, the DA in the Duke Lacrosse case, was convicted of criminal contempt and disbarred. What the left wants in the Brown case is for the DA to act like Nifong, to hide exculpatory evidence, to get a conviction by any means possible.

    However, this article is a nice demonstration that for the left (and for our resident lefties, like Bruce, who has been very vocal about his desire that Wilson should be indicted and tried) truth has nothing to do with facts. For them truth is about what is ideologically correct. Bruce doesn’t care that there were all sorts of eyewitness testimony that conflicted with each other and with the physical evidence or that witnesses impeached themselves before the grand jury. He wants an indictment, dammit, because a prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich and justice is not about getting to the truth, it is about satisfying the masses. Bruce believes that the DA should have cherry pick the evidence to present to a Grand Jury and that the DA should have gone to trial attempting to intimidate Wilson into a plea bargain even though Wilson was innocent. For Bruce and the left a false conviction, sending an innocent man to prison in the name of their ideology, is justice.

    • May the proponents of such “justice” receive unto themselves that which they champion.

    • Brucehenry

      Ha ha not at all I simply agree with Antonin Scalia about the grand jury process:

      http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/26/justice-scalias-1992-ruling-shows-how-the-ferguson-grand-jury-verdict-is-bullsht/

      Of course a flawed process results in a flawed end product:

      http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/27/witness-threatened/

      Jim cannot bring himself, because he lacks basic empathy and enough imagination to appreciate how this flawed process might look to others, to admit that prosecutors CAN indeed manipulate the grand jury process to exonerate one of their own.

      Jim thinks it’s OK for the defendant to have months to seek legal counsel, be pitched softball questions, and not be challenged in 4 hours of testimony before a grand jury. Of course it’s almost completely unheard of for a defendant to testify in such a proceeding AT ALL, since it is not a trial of fact but simply a probable cause hearing. Jim thinks that witnesses presenting evidence tending to undercut the defendant’s story should be threatened,cross-examined, and challenged with alleged “inconsistencies” — but the defendant himself should not be.

      For instance, at one point, as Nancy Fucking Grace points out, Wilson says it “all happened so fast” and “I just reacted” but at another point claims he “paused and asked myself can I shoot this guy?” The prosecutor never challenged him on that inconsistency, nor did he ask him why he didn’t just step on the gas pedal if the suspect was reaching into his car for his gun.

      There are inconsistencies in Wilson’s story that should have been challenged by cross examination at trial. And he is the ONLY eyewitness claiming to know that Brown was “going for” his weapon. The other eyewitnesses should have been called to testify at trial and THEIR versions made subject to cross-examination too, that’s the way the system is supposed to work.

      • jim_m

        Scalia does not agree with you. Scalia says that the accused has no right to have that evidence submitted before the Grand Jury. This is true. That does not mean that the accused cannot be allowed to testify.

        Additionally, it is customary that the DA chooses whether or not he presents a case to the Grand Jury. In this case the DA was forced to present a case. The DA knew that Wilson was innocent and that the shooting was justified. The DA would never have brought a case on his own, therefore he used his discretion to give ALL the evidence to the Grand Jury so that they could correctly return a verdict of no bill. This prevented the state from wasting millions on a jury trial. Of course, what Bruce refuses to admit, but which is painfully obvious, is that he wanted to force Wilson to accept a plea deal and Bruce would only ever be satisfied with sending an innocent man to prison because Social justice.

        • Brucehenry

          How many millions were “wasted” on a grand jury process that lasted four months and included all that testimony? And if the DA “knew that Wilson was innocent” it was his duty to NOT bring the case to the grand jury and explain to the public why not. It would have been better for the community to have an actual trial and not a charade (or so it can be perceived).

          Why were accusers cross-examined, confronted with alleged inconsistencies, and threatened and the defendant not? Why were some witnesses against Wilson not subpoenaed? Why was the testimony of a white supremacist who claimed to be an eyewitness and corroborated Wilson’s story not challenged but Dorian Johnson’s was?

          • jim_m

            Um, you cannot bring a capital charge against a person without a grand jury, it’s called a constitutional right:

            5th amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,…

            Yes, there should never have been a grand jury, but the DA was pressured into doing it. It was a waste of money, and SJW’s like you should STFU and deal with facts and truth rather than stoking racial hate and violence and believing BS stories printed in the tabloid press all of which were discredited or recanted before the Grand Jury.

          • Brucehenry

            I believe you mean “without” a grand jury.

            Yes and I wonder if Wilson’s story could have been “discredited or recanted” if he had been subject to cross-examination as the witnesses against him were. Unfortunately he was not and now he most likely never will be.

          • jim_m

            Never mind that his testimony is the only testimony that matches all the physical evidence of the case and that no credible witness was brought forth that could contradict him.

            Maybe you need to face the truth that he was justified in killing Brown, that Brown was a criminal and a thug, was suspected in a strong-arm robbery, assaulted Wilson and brought it all upon himself. But I know where you are coming from. Blacks are never guilty of anything if a white man does something to them. It’s axiomatic with idiots like you.

            Why would Wilson have recanted. He never changed his story. It is backed up by all the evidence. It happens to be the truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps he could have been challenged on how a 6’4″ armed veteran police officer could feel that a 6’5″ unarmed teenager could appear to be a “Hulk Hogan” and a “demon” and himself, again a 6’4″ armed veteran police officer, seem to be a “five-year-old.”

          • jim_m

            6’4″ 295 #. Brown was no little boy. Probably outweighed Wilson by at least 50 pounds.

          • Brucehenry

            What did Wilson’s department issued sidearm weigh?

          • jim_m

            I don’t know. Why don’t you walk up to the nearest police officer, try to take his gun and find out yourself?

            That is the dumbest, most asinine comment you have made on this subject yet.

          • Brucehenry

            Just pointing out that 5 year olds don’t carry semiautomatic pistols.

          • jim_m

            It was a metaphor you dumbass. THERE’S your rhetorical flourish. Take that as a lesson from officer WIlson.

            BTW, his SIG would weigh about 29.5 oz plus bullets, so a little over 2 pounds. Yes, a 5 year old can lift that.

          • Brucehenry

            It was a stretch

          • All your points are stretches when they aren’t laughable outright.

          • Quite an accomplishment, in the worst sort of way.

          • Barry Hirsh

            Simple, Brucie!

            Brown was “L’efant Terrible” wif a X-tra dose of ‘tude.

            The kind of ‘tude that compelled him to refuse to obey lawful orders and viciously attack a cop.

            I don’t know what kind of measure you’d use, but 290 v. 210 ain’t exactly par. According to Brown, Wilson was a “pussy”.

            Uh, there MIGHT be a hint in there somewhere…

          • Brucehenry

            The only eyewitness who said Brown refused a lawful order is Wilson. himself.

            The only eyewitness who claimed Brown had a “‘tude” or attacked a cop is Wilson himself.

            The only witness who claimed Brown called Wilson a pussy is Wilson himself.

            Wilson wasn’t challenged or cross-examined on any of these claims.

            He has good reason to assert them, of course, they are self-serving claims. And maybe they are true. But maybe they ain’t. Do you claim cops never lie?

          • Not merely Justified, Righteous.

        • Barry Hirsh

          EXACTLY correct.

      • jim_m

        You know, it really doesn’t surprise me that you cannot distinguish the difference between having an affirmative right to have any and all exculpatory evidence placed before a grand jury and having be allowed for an accused to testify before the grand jury.

        There’s a reason I call you an uneducated dumbass, and you demonstrated it quite nicely there.

        • Brucehenry

          Never said it shouldn’t be or isn’t allowed, I said it is very rarely done. And there was good reason not to do so in this case, due to the possibility of the perception in the community that a cop would be handled differently than a regular old citizen.

          Shocker, that’s how it WAS perceived.

          • jim_m

            You said above that Scalia agreed with you. I pointed out that this was not true.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it’s indeed kind of a stretch to say that something Scalia said in 1992 applies to this case. Meant it more as a rhetorical flourish rather than a substantive argument.

            However it’s “tangentially related” so there’s that lol.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so you lied.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah like you’ve never done anything like that lol.

          • jim_m

            Citing a statement from a sitting SCOTUS justice is not a rhetorical flourish. It is an argument. A rhetorical flourish would be something like using irony or metaphor to make your point.

            Nope. Instead you made a direct claim. That wasn’t any rhetorical flourish, it was a lie and you compounded that lie with lying about it being a rhetorical flourish.

            [edit] and it is not necessarily a stretch to say that what Scalia said in 1992 is relevant here. It is a stretch to claim what you did because it is a complete misinterpretation of Scalia’s statement and makes it out to say something completely different than what the text says.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh ok consider me scolded. In that case call it an illustration of how the grand jury process is not supposed to be a full and fair airing of all the facts in the case but simply a determination of whether there is cause to proceed to trial. I contend there was, and that the public would have been better served by a trial than by this flawed process.

          • His keyboard was in play…

          • Has he ever posted a comment that was factually accurate?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I have said you look fabulous in that fedora and that’s a fact.

          • jim_m

            I’m sure he did so accidentally at some point

  • Vagabond661

    “Fake, but accurate” right Dan Rather? What do you call it when you accuse someone of something they haven’t done just because you think they behave that way?

  • Liberals and facts are not compatible.

  • jim_m
  • Paul Hooson

    All of the physical evidence proves that Michael Brown assaulted the police office at his car door, and tried to wrestle over the gun, including fingerprints, blood splatter and the autopsy reports. Yet, these protesters cling to the discredited claims of some that Brown had his hands in the air or was shot in the back while running away….

    • Brucehenry

      There is no evidence other than Wilson’s testimony that Brown was the initial aggressor. I might try to wrestle the gun away from the cop too if I thought he was going to use it on me.

      • You go…

      • jim_m

        Go right ahead dumbass.

        Where should we send the flowers for your grave?

      • Paul Hooson

        All of the blood splatter was in the police car from Brown. Further fingerprint evidence on the gun along with the autopsy reports proving all the wounds were at close range disprove any claims of Brown running away, being shot in the back or his hands up as some discredited claimed witnesses had once claimed. – The FBI interview with Wilson was largely supported by all of the physical evidence.

        • jim_m

          You see Bruce, that is what happens when someone bothers to inform themselves about the subject.

          • Brucehenry

            I am not attempting to demonstrate that Brown was running away or was shot in the back, or even that he had his hands up.

            What I have asserted, and what is fact, is that the only witness claiming to “know” that Brown “went for” Wilson’s gun or was the original aggressor is Wilson himself.

            He was not challenged on that claim by the prosecutors, indeed at some points they seemed to have coached him along, asking “questions” like “So you feared for your life at that point, is that correct?”

          • jim_m

            OK. Let’s take your claim that WIlson was the aggressor. You are claiming that Wilson merely murdered Brown because he was a black man walking in the street? That makes no sense. Wilson had the right to confront Brown as a suspect (and as it turns out from the video, he was guilty of the charges against him). You are then claiming that Wilson assaulted Brown from inside the car (stupid) and that Brown then refused to run away from this renegade and reckless cop but hung around waiting to be killed.

            Your supposition is as far from the facts as can be. You are searching for something to fit your SJW viewpoint.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL no.Made no claim that Wilson “murdered” Brown, whether because he was black or for any other reason.

            But if he (stupidly, but possibly, and indeed allegedly) grabbed Brown through the window of the SUV and then grabbed his weapon when Brown resisted, Brown may have tried to wrest the gun away
            from him.

            And Brown DID move away from the SUV and Wilson, but for some reason turned around. Did he do it to “charge” Wilson or to surrender? More witnesses claimed he was surrendering or did not hazard a guess as to why than claimed he was aggressively moving toward the cop. And one of those who DID claim he was charging was the cop himself.

          • jim_m

            And what was Wilson’s incentive r motive to shoot a man who was surrendering? The mere allegation shows that you aren’t even bothering to think this through. You convicted Wilson as soon as you heard that a white man shot a black man.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know dude. Do you claim it never happens that black cops shoot black suspects without a good motive?

          • jim_m

            Never use absolutes.

            I wouldn’t claim that it never happens. But I would rather wait to look at the evidence instead of jumping to a racially based conclusion like you have. And if I did jump to a conclusion I would like to think that when real evidence came to light I wouldn’t keep on doubling down on stupid like you are.

          • Brucehenry

            Look genius when a guy is suspected of a crime and voluntarily testifies under oath, claiming to be innocent, he ought to be subject to cross-examination. Like in a trial. If he is to be afforded a chance to proclaim his innocence maybe a prosecutor should challenge his inconsistencies like the prosecutor challenges the inconsistencies of his accusers.

            If the prosecutor fails to give even the appearance of impartiality then he should expect doubts to be raised as to his competence and credibility.

            I started arguing about this subject on Wednesday’s thread, and my point was that it is understandable, given the process used, that people would be skeptical and angry. That is still my position.

            I only joined this thread because you misrepresented what I had been saying Wednesday and Thursday. I never have claimed that Wilson was guilty or that a “murder” was committed, but I have expressed doubt about the credibility of Wilson’s unchallenged testimony and the validity of McCulloch’s choices as to how to conduct this grand jury proceeding. And his Monday night announcement was a fiasco, too, byw.

          • jim_m

            Um…. He was subject to questioning and could have been questioned if the DA saw fit.

            Again, you are only pissed because an innocent man was not sent to prison for a crime he didn’t commit in order to advance your ideological agenda.

            I didn’t misrepresent jack.

          • Brucehenry

            And again you lack the basic empathy and imagination to be able to see how that looks to those in the black community. “If the DA saw fit” exactly. The suspicion in the community would be that the DA is protecting one of his own. Is that really so hard for you to wrap your head around?

            Never mind, of course it is what am I saying.

          • jim_m

            And it wouldn’t look like that to the black community if SJW assholes like you weren’t lying to them from day one and whipping up racial hatred in order to further your own ideological agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            Aaaaaand we’re back to black people, in your opinion, being emotional rubes led around by the nose like children.

          • jim_m

            Nope, preyed upon and lied to by dishonest, amoral jerks and racists like you.

          • Brucehenry

            You seem to think they are such emotional basket cases that they can be whipped into a frenzy by “hucksters” and “racebaiters” despite the facts that you and all these other genius white curmudgeons can see so very plainly.

          • jim_m

            People can be manipulated. I suppose you still think that Tawana Brawley was raped don’t you? You really think that people aren’t susceptible to manipulation by dishonest a-holes like the leadership on the left even though you see example after example of just that being done. I don’t know if you are willfully ignorant or just dishonest.

          • Brucehenry

            “People can be manipulated” says Jim but somehow he himself is immune to the brainwashing and emotional manipulation that black flesh, it seems to him, is heir to.

          • jim_m

            I’m not living in the community being targeted, am I?

            I see you avoided the fact that I just demonstrated that your claim that such manipulation never happens is pure BS. You won’t admit it. You can’t admit it because it lays bare the truth that you take your position for ideological purposes only and you do not care the least bit about truth you only care about what advantage can be gained ideologically. You don’t care whose lives are ruined as long as your ideology is advanced.

          • Far more of a progressive/client thing than a black/white thing.

          • jim_m

            SO you really think that the race baiters and the leftist media have no impact on what the black community thinks? You’re a fool.

          • Barry Hirsh

            We could care less what it “looks like”. The important thing is what it IS, according to every iota of evidence.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m sure you couldn’t care less. That’s because you lack imagination and basic empathy for your fellow human beings, like Jim.

          • jim_m

            What you fail to realize Bruce is that a much younger Jim M was very, very liberal. I do know everything that you are arguing. I lived on that side of the divide for a long time.

          • Brucehenry

            Congratulations on your shriveling.

          • jim_m

            I learned from my experience, where you have failed to do so.

          • Brucehenry

            I have remained Cratchit while you have become Scrooge is more like it.

            Pre-Christmas Eve Scrooge.

          • jim_m

            I learned not to trust the charlatans that you trust. You put your trust in people who are paid to and make their livelihoods from lying. Your whole world view is based on people who lie to you and profit from doing so. I don’t pity your ignorance. I loathe it. I find such ignorance and willfully ignorant people such as yourself repugnant.

          • Brucehenry

            In the slightly paraphrased words of our greatest president ever, “I welcome your hatred.”

            Have a great night.

          • jim_m

            FDR was not our greatest President ever. Merely the longest in office.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I’m sure you prefer Hoover or maybe McKinley or perhaps Chester A Arthur.

          • jim_m

            Well, McKinley was a fraternity brother…

          • You grew up, he merely grew older.

          • Barry Hirsh

            Not only didn’t he get sent to prison, he wasn’t forced to spend his entire life savings defending himself in court.

            Contrary to the “black” perspective, this WAS justice.

          • jim_m

            If Wilson’s testimony was so wrong then why is it the only testimony that is 100% in line with the physical evidence? Why are you so resistant to admitting the truth? Why do you want to punish an innocent person for your ideological gain?

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps because he had months to come up with a story that matched up with the physical evidence?

          • jim_m

            Without actually knowing what all that evidence was. MM HMM.

          • Brucehenry

            Well he did know how many shots he fired and in what direction and how many times and where Brown was hit. He had the same access to the autopsy reports that the media did. he had a lawyer, or maybe a team of lawyers, looking into it for him. Dorian Johnson didn’t.

          • jim_m

            And perhaps it was simply because he was there and was telling the truth.

          • jim_m

            Here is why it was right to present evidence from Wilson’s side of the story to the Grand Jury.

            In order for the Grand Jury to determine whether there exists probable cause that has been committed in a self-defense case, they must do more than merely determine whether there exists probable cause as to each and every element of the criminal charge. This they must do, surely, because if they do not the Grand Jury will be instructed to not indict.

            But in a case involving self-defense, probable cause on each and every element of the criminal charge is necessary but not sufficient for an indictment.

            Why? Because probable cause could exist on each and every element of the criminal charge and yet probable cause of a crime necessary to support an indictment still be lacking.

            Why? Because self-defense eliminates the criminality of the otherwise criminal underlying acts.

            If Evidence of Self-Defense Is Adequate To Eliminate Probable Cause of a Crime, There Can Be No Indictment

            A shooting done in self-defense, then, is simply not a crime at all, and if there is no crime there can be no indictment.

            If either the evidence on the elements of the criminal charge is inadequate to support probable cause that a crime has occurred, or the evidence on self-defense is sufficient to eliminate probable case that a crime has occurred, the outcome from the Grand Jury’s perspective must necessarily be the same: no-true-bill.

            Thus, just as it is perfectly appropriate for the Grand Jury to consider all relevant evidence on each and every element of the criminal charge, it is equally appropriate for the Grand Jury to consider all relevant evidence on the matter of self-defense.

          • Brucehenry

            Which is a perfectly valid opinion as to why it was appropriate to allow Wilson to testify, but doesn’t address my repeated assertion, and others’ observation, that Wilson’s testimony was not challenged in any way but his accusers’ were.

          • jim_m

            Your previous argument was that it was inappropriate to put any evidence of Wilson’s claims before the Grand Jury. This lays to rest any questions as to why it was appropriate to present Wilson’s side of the story to the Grand Jury.

            It wasn’t a conspiracy. Not everything in the world is a racist conspiracy, Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? Where did I say that?

            Without going through the whole long thread again I just remember repeatedly asserting that Wilson’s claims had not been challenged by prosecutors as his accusers’ claims were.

          • jim_m

            You were certainly arguing that this was.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope.

            Closest I came was in asserting “Of course it’s almost completely unheard of for a defendant to testify in such a proceeding AT ALL, since it is not a trial of fact but simply a probable cause hearing.” And that is true but is not a claim that it shouldn’t have been allowed.

            In the same comment, early in the thread, I also asserted that “There are inconsistencies in Wilson’s story that should have been challenged by cross-examination…” That has been my argument throughout.

          • You are clearly playing chess with a pigeon.

          • Barry Hirsh

            A helluva lot less times than you aver.

          • Retired military

            “Do you claim it never happens that white cops shoot black suspects without a good motive?”
            A. in broad daylight
            b. in the middle of a public street
            c. in front of witnesses.
            d. the first time he ever used his gun in the line of duty
            I wouldn’t want to bet a paycheck with those kind of odds against me.

          • Jwb10001

            Bruce on another thread you said something to the effect that white cops are gunning down African Americans with no consequence. That sort of statement indicates that you believe these shootings always or nearly always happen because of bad motives. I don’t think you can support that statement. First of all these incidences are pretty infrequent to begin with, second white and black cops shot white suspects at least as frequently, just had 3 recently. I also don’t understand how you make Wilson the aggressor (not just words but actions) when Brown is basically in the window of the car, that’s quite a trick to me. If Brown didn’t want a confrontation he could have moved out of the street when first confronted by Wilson.

          • Brucehenry

            I believe I said something about the PERCEPTION that white cops are gunning down black kids without consequence.

            And again the only witness who claims to know for a fact that the scuffle at the SUV window was initiated by Brown is Wilson himself. It was contradicted by Dorian Johnson’s testimony, but Johnson was aggressively cross-examined while Wilson was not.

            http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/33LT2o/1fsRtkpEs:DZE_rnAs/www.motherjones.com/

          • jim_m

            Perception = Bigoted lies told for ideological gain

            And you mean the Dorian Johnson that people are saying should be charged with Perjury? Nice that you believe this scumbag.

          • Brucehenry

            “People are saying” a lot of things dumbass. Not exactly proof lol.

          • jim_m

            Nor is the perjured testimony of a criminal.

          • Brucehenry

            And I have not asserted that Johnson’s testimony is “proof” of anything, only that it contradicts Wilson’s and was aggressively challenged by prosecutors in this flawed process while Wilson’s was not.

            EDIT: YOU are the one who seems to be implying that because “people are saying” that Johnson should be charged with perjury means that he is guilty.

          • jim_m

            Aggressively challenged because it did not agree with the physical evidence and he wasn’t consistent in his story. He was the one who claimed that Brown put his hands up and that was contradicted by other witnesses and the physical evidence.

            Johnson also admitted he fled the scene following Brown’s death to run home and change his clothing in an effort to disguise himself so police wouldn’t recognize him and arrest him for robbery.

            Johnson had motive to lie. He was trying to avoid prosecution for robbery. He claimed that Brown was shot in the back while running away and then again when he stopped and put his hands up. These things never happened. When you have someone whose story is obviously bullshit you cross examine them harshly because you know they are lying.

            Of course, you don’t see Johnson’s tale as a pack of lies because you don’t think that truth has anything to do with facts. You think that truth is whatever advances your agenda. Then again you think that putting innocent people in jail to advance your agenda is a good idea too.

          • Brucehenry

            Fifteen eyewitnesses claimed Brown put his hands up when fired upon, two said he didn’t — one of whom was Wilson. There is no physical evidence to support either claim.

            Claiming that the confrontation was initiated by Wilson would have nothing to do with whether or not Johnson would be prosecuted for the robbery as an accomplice. And I believe Johnson’s claim was that Brown was shot AT while running away. — something that 12 other eyewitnesses also asserted.

            Four witnesses claimed Brown put his hand near his waistband during this episode, one of whom was Wilson. Two claimed he did not, and the rest made no claim either way.

            Who had better reason to lie than Wilson? I’ll note that Johnson has NOT been charged as an accomplice in the stealing of the cigarillos, but even you should be able to see that the fact the police have that hanging over his head may have contributed to his nervousness and inconsistency on the stand. Wilson wasn’t subjected to the grilling that Johnson endured.

            http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/33LT2o/11-2FNGJM:IyxxJ+VM/www.motherjones.com/

          • jim_m

            How many of them claimed that because Johnson went on TV that very day and claimed it?

            Again, the physical evidence is something that cannot lie. Eyewitnesses get it wrong all the time. They get it wrong more when demagogues get in front of TV cameras and tell them what to think.

            Johnson is a liar and a criminal and concocted his lies to avoid prosecution. He fled the scene and came back with a pack of lies.

          • Brucehenry

            Claims the all knowing omnisicient Jim M, who is willing to believe that anybody and everybody is lying except the guy who had the most to lose.

            And again there IS no physical evidence to support or refute the claim of “hands up.”

          • jim_m

            I believe they are lying because their testimony contradicts the physical evidence. You on the other hand believe that what they say is true even if physically impossible because the facts don’t relate to truth for you. You are willing to dismiss the facts in order to believe lies that line up with your ideology. You believe in ideology over fact.

          • Brucehenry

            The physical evidence you keep mentioning is the gunpowder residue which doesn’t contradict anything.

          • jim_m

            Also the location of the bullet wounds on Brown’s body. Your hero, Johnson, claims that Brown was shot in the back and with his hands raised and that he never charged at Wilson. He even admits that Brown and Wilson struggled over something so he even admits to the struggle over the gun where you do not. Hell, the criminal is more truthful than you are.

          • Brucehenry

            Does Johnson claim Wilson shot Brown in the back or shot AT Brown in the back?

            Yes he admits there was struggle over the gun. So do I. The question is not whether there was a struggle but whether it was initiated by Wilson grabbing Brown or whether Brown, unprovoked and against all logic, attacked an armed police officer moments after committing a crime in which he was still holding the evidence.

            Wilson may have shot at Brown from behind and missed, in which case there is no bullet wound to examine. However there ARE bullet holes in the surrounding area.

            http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/11/in-brief-something-else-thats-wrong.html

          • jim_m

            It is not necessarily illogical for someone to attack a police office when they are caught red handed committing a robbery. What is illogical is your assuming that this never happens. Once again you assume that people never attack police officers, something that countless dead officers would testify to if they were able to. In fact posted a link to the death of a NY police officer who died under exactly those circumstances so your claim that this is not possible is bullshit.

            Once again you show that your ideology trumps fact or you. You have already been provide proof that your claims are bs but you continue in making them anyway because facts don’t mean anything to you.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t say it never happens but that it is unlikely.

            “Countless dead officers” could indeed testify that they are sometimes attacked by suspects, if they were able. Countless dead black suspects could testify that they are killed by police officers under questionable circumstances and then see the wagons circled around the officers responsible, too, if THEY were able.

            And you have not provided proof of anything only an insistence that one guy is telling the truth while others are lying, ignoring the fact that that one guy wasn’t challenged as others were. And an insistence that the physical evidence disproves something I am not asserting.

          • jim_m

            Certainly. But Brown would not be among their number.

          • jim_m

            Obviously you believe all of Johnson’s testimony. So tell us dumbass, how exactly was Brown shot in the back? How many times? Which bullet holes can you point to to corroborate that “truth”? When did Brown raise his hands? Why was gun powder residue on his hands if he wasn’t trying to take Wilson’s gun?

            You believe all this bullshit in oppostion to the facts and physical evidence. You say that you don’t think your ideology tells you what is true and what isn’t but here wee see evidence that you are denying physical facts and accepting lies because thelies line up with your ideology.

            You’re an idiot and an ideologue

          • Brucehenry

            There are no bullet holes when you miss genius. Wilson has stated he fired many more rounds than those that actually struck Brown.

            Gun powder residue got on his hands during the struggle for Wilson’s gun. Nobody has denied that. What I have stated is Wilson is the only witness who claims that the struggle was initiated by Brown. Gunpowder residue would be present whether the struggle was initiated by either party. Johnson claims Wilson’s aggressive grabbing of Brown through the SUV’s window started the struggle. That is not contradicted by physical evidence.

            So no, I’m not “denying physical facts” just being skeptical of claims made in court but not challenged as others were.

          • jim_m

            Oh, how convenient. Brown was shot in the back until you can’t find any evidence of your claims and then your claim changes to Wilson shot AT Brown’s back. You’re full of crap and you know it.

          • Brucehenry

            I never claimed Brown was shot in the back. You imagined that I claimed it.

          • jim_m

            You claimed that Johnson told the truth. Same thing.

          • Brucehenry

            I never claimed that Johnson told the truth either. I said his claims contradict Wilson’s and were challenged by prosecutors in a way that Wilson’s were not. Can you not fucking read at all?

          • jim_m

            And you cannot read because I said that his claims, including that Brown was shot in the back and that he was shot with his hands raised in surrender, are disproven by the physical evidence and therefore he deserves heightened scrutiny.

            But you believe that he should be believed despite the physical evidence, that he should be given a pass. Or alternately, that people whose testimony does coincide with the physical evidence should be considered as suspect and that their testimony is unreliable.

            Either way this is proof that you believe that ideology points you toward truth more so than actual facts do .

          • Brucehenry

            There is no physical evidence to either support OR refute the claim of “hands up.” And it is my understanding that Johnson said Wilson shot AT Brown while Brown was running away not that he shot him. In that case there is no bullet wound and hence no physical evidence.

            In other words physical evidence proves some things but not others. The gunpowder residue proves there was a struggle for the gun but not why, and has nothing to do with the claims of “hands up” or the claim that shots were fired at Brown in flight.

          • jim_m

            The testimony was that Brown was only shot with his hands up or in the back. The evidence does not support that.

          • Brucehenry

            There is no forensic evidence one way or the other whether or not Brown’s hands were up. He wasn’t struck in the hand or arm to my knowledge.

            If Johnson said Brown was shot in the back but the reality is that he was shot AT instead that doesn’t make him a liar only mistaken. But I don’t even think he made that claim. I could be wrong.

          • jim_m

            Yes, he was struck several times in the hand and arm(s). He was struck in such a way that would have been impossible if his hands were raised.

          • Brucehenry

            And does anyone claim his hands were raised THROUGHOUT this incident?

          • jim_m

            The claim was that Brown was shot in the back while fleeing (not true, there are no wounds to the back). the claim was that he stopped and raised his arms. Brown was shot twice in the front of the upper right bicep, impossible if his hands were raised over his head.

            Again, the claims of Wilson are consistent with the evidence.

            Your claim that Brown “understandably” reached for Wilson’s gun to defend himself is BS. It is not reasonable to reach into a car to try to grab a gun from the driver’s right hand (which would be the hand away from the door). It is reasonable to duck away from the window to avoid being shot.

            You demand that we upend reason and believe things based on your ideological view that all whites are racist. I hold no bill for the police and think that they often overstep their bounds, but in this case Wilson was right.

          • Brucehenry

            Wilson’s claims can be consistent with the physical evidence yet not rule out other versions genius. For instance Brown took a shot to the forehead and two to the chest. Is it not possible that raised hands were dropped when those wounds were inflicted? After all FIFTEEN witnesses saw raised hands and two did not — but one of those two was Wilson himself.

          • jim_m

            And how many of those had already heard the false story from Johnson? Johnson rushed to the media and lied to protect himself. You cannot pick and choose which testimony you want to believe. Either he was shot in the back and raised his hands or you can’t believe that witness for either claim.

            Of course, if what they claim lines up with Bruce’s ideology then we know that it is true regardless of how much it conflicts with physical reality. But then again that pretty much is the pattern for the left.

          • Brucehenry

            The physical evidence is not as cut and dried as you aver. Look at this link.

            For instance, “‘People don’t give up, they don’t surrender with their palms facing in. So for that round, I think the simplest explanation is that his arms were down, rather than up.’

            Even here though, there is conflicting data that underscores the difficulty of reaching a definitive conclusion: ANOTHER ROUND HIT BROWN’S ARM FROM THE EXACT OPPOSITE TRAJECTORY.”

            Also, regarding the head and arm wounds, “You can postulate that he was in the process of falling when those shots were fired OR that he was charging at the police officer, which is consistent with what police officer Wilson alleged.”

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-michael-brown-autopsy-reveal-about-ferguson-shooting/

          • jim_m

            Actually, both falling AND charging are consistent with Wilson’s story.

            Again, ALL wounds are consistent with Wilson’s testimony. Only SOME wounds are consistent with the other testimony and SOME actually conflict with those stories.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually no, if a wound to the arm was from the opposite trajectory that would make at least ONE wound inconsistent with Wilson’s testimony.

            Which is why it is so unfortunate that Wilson wasn’t challenged or cross examined in any meaningful way — only his accusers’ were.

          • jim_m

            The pathologist testified that none of the wounds were inconsistent with Wilson’s story. That was also agreed to by Dr Baden, who examined Brown’s body for the family.

          • Shift goal posts much?

          • Scalia

            And it is my understanding that Johnson said Wilson shot AT Brown while Brown was running away not that he shot him.

            Your understanding is incorrect.

            But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: “It struck my friend in the back.”

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it appears I am indeed incorrect about that. Doesn’t make him a liar, though, only mistaken.

            Look, go back and read my FIRST comment on this thread. It contains my entire point, that folks are upset because the accused was never challenged or cross-examined by prosecutors but his accusers were.

            The fact, or perception, that the white cop Wilson was treated with kid gloves while his black accusers were doubted, cross-examined, challenged on their supposed “inconsistencies,” threatened and smeared in the news conference as liars, is what is to blame for this unrest. And it didn’t have to be this way.

            The DA could have sincerely SOUGHT an indictment rather than a way out of his own jam, or he could have at least conducted the grand jury proceeding in such a way that it didn’t appear as an exercise in wagon-circling, the power structure protecting one of their own.

          • Scalia

            It doesn’t make him “mistaken” either. He could very well be lying. We don’t know. We do know that his statement is contradicted by physical evidence, and that would be sufficient for me to ask follow-up questions.

            By the way, I edited my reply to include the video of Johnson claiming that Brown was shot in the back.

          • Brucehenry

            He indeed could be lying and probably is trying to put the best face he can on the fact that he accompanied Brown down the street after Brown stole the cigarillos, making him a potential target of an accomplice to robbery charge.

            At the every least he was made to LOOK like a liar when aggressively cross-examined, something Wilson was not subjected to.

          • Like most of what he knows, it just ain’t so.

          • What you believe and that which is true and factual are sets which seldom, if ever, intersect.

          • Brucehenry

            From Cracked.com:

            “SJW is one of the most annoying acronyms I have ever seen, and I lived through ROTFLOL….Unfortunately this term got big on the Internet, which is the ruin of all things, It was picked up by racists and sexists, who had a much lower bar for who was being overzealous on behalf of the oppressed…’Maybe black people are human” you would say. ‘Whooa, slow down there, Malcolm X’ they would say.

            LOL.

          • Truth only hurts when it’s supposed to, SJW Bruce.

          • Barry Hirsh

            Do you know the difference between a lawful order and a non-lawful order?

            A cop telling you to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk is a lawful order. YOU ARE COMPELLED BY LAW TO OBEY IT.

            Telling a cop “F–k you and your sidewalk.” while slamming his car door shut on him subjects you to arrest.

            Trying to wrest his weapon from him and fleeing adds charges.

            Turning back and attacking gets you shot. Whether you die or not is decided by the luck of the draw (no pun intended).

            It’s rather a straightforward process, you see…

          • Brucehenry

            No one except Wilson claimed a lawful order was given. Only Wilson.

            No one except Wilson heard anyone say “Fuck you and your sidewalk” or anything of the sort. Only Wilson.

            It DOES appear that Brown attempted to wrest the weapon from Wilson. But we have only Wilson’s word that Brown was the initial aggressor in the scuffle that led to the attempt. Only Wilson says Brown was the initial aggressor.

            Only two of the many witnesses who saw Brown’s last moments claim to know Brown was “attacking” or “charging” Wilson. Aside from one other witness, only Wilson. No one INCLUDING Wilson has offered an explanation of why a guy with multiple gunshot wounds would attack an armed officer pointing a weapon at him. Well, Wilson has, kinda. He claims Brown was a “demon.”

            Wilson was not challenged by the prosecutors on any of these outlandish claims, yet you accept them as Gospel and consider “discredited” any other account. Let me guess, you’re a middle aged white gentleman too.

          • jim_m

            Let me guess, you’re a middle aged white gentleman too.

            Bruce demonstrates that he is a racist. Again.

          • Yet again…

          • Paul Hooson

            Members of the grand jury, both Black and White, weighed all of the physical evidence from the autopsy reports, fingerprints, blood splatter, and all came to the same conclusion here. Bruce should read those reports. It is rather lengthy reading with around 16 or so reports, but leaves no reasonable room for doubt that Wilson’s version of the incidents is most strongly supported by the physical evidence.

  • LiberalNightmare

    There were obvious issues with the Michael Brown story from the start.

    Video of MB shaking down the store owner came out within days, There were credibility issues with the testimony of MB’s buddy from the start.

    If the issue of black men being hunted down by white police officers is such a common occurrence for the black community, why is this case the one they choose to go to the wall with?
    Shouldn’t there have been a better example? A case without so many problems and perhaps a victim that could engender a little more sympathy?

    • Paul Hooson

      Parts of this Ferguson neighborhood are even worse than many people realize. Police have erected barricades near one housing project in the neighborhood to slow traffic to this public housing project that serves to fuel many of the illegal drug and prostitution cases in the neighborhood. Parts of this community are a real armpit.

    • jim_m

      Don’t you know that this is a real problem. Bruce assures us that this is emblematic of the problems in the black community. White cops are hunting down blacks and shooting them for sport.

      Tawana Brawley was unavailable for comment.

      • Brucehenry

        One man’s opinion:

        http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

        Of course it’s Ezra Klein who I should take seriously when he is saying one thing but I’m sure not when he’s saying other things I can’t keep up.

        • jim_m

          You mean Ezra Klein, who still believes the long ago debunked stat of 1 in 5 college coeds being raped?

          Or do you mean the Ezra Klein who suggested that it was necessary in order to achieve “justice” to send innocent people to jail so that others might be intimidated into acting the way he wants them to?

          He concedes that it will result in more innocent people being prosecuted by universities as rapists, and that the miscarriages of justice it yields are not merely an acceptable price, but actually a positive result:

          To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid. …

          Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which
          campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success. It’s those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

          Read that passage again. He is not merely arguing that, to make an omelette, one must break some eggs. He is arguing for false convictions as a conscious strategy in order to strike fear into the innocent.

          Funny that you should bring such a man into this conversation. He is advocating EXACTLY the same solution that you are: Convict innocent people in order to achieve an ideologically desired result.

          Thank you once again for admitting that you believe in a fascist state that rules through fear and oppression, that you believe justice is something that is to be handed out on purely political calculation and should benefit your political allies and punish everyone else.

          • Brucehenry

            I bring Klein into it because several threads ago you told me he was a serious voice on the left and that he should be taken seriously.

            And whatever his views on any other subjects, what argument do you have with the points he made in the article I linked to? Or this one?

            http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

          • jim_m

            I told you no such thing.

            I won’t deign to look at his bullshit. It is rabid partisan crap from a man who has on multiple occasions advocated ruining the lives of innocent people in order to advance his ideology, just as you are doing now.

          • Brucehenry

            “I won’t deign to” consider any information that conflicts with what I already want to believe, says Jim. LOL.

            Good thing YOU’RE not a cop, informants would be useless to you. Or a spy, you wouldn’t believe any information obtained from whoever it was you were spying on.

          • jim_m

            Why should I listen to someone writing about a political position I know I will disagree with and who has a history of lying?

            Would you believe a word of anything I linked from the Blaze? Or Breitbart? Even in those cases neither of those sources have the documented history of lies, deception and willingness to smear, defame and even imprison others for the sake of his ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            I would at least read it. You can even ask M. Soi Disant, I read his opinion piece from Forbes he claimed proved whatever puerile point it was he was trying to make, and told him why I disagreed with it just this past weekend.

          • jim_m

            I would gladly read something if you could furnish a credible source.

          • Brucehenry

            I can’t remember a link you’ve EVER posted that I didn’t at least read.

          • jim_m

            Fine. I took a look at it and it’s BULLSHIT!!!

            Klein ignores the FACT that ALL of the physical evidence backs Wilson’s story up. Not some. ALL.

            Klein is basing his argument on supposition and the testimony of people who have already been discredited. He choses to believe based on ideology, which is not surprising since he, like you, is already on record as saying that innocent people should be put in jail in order to advance his ideological objectives.

          • Brucehenry

            Since Wilson wasn’t cross-examined, like the witnesses against him were, we can’t be sure if the evidence would line up with his story if it had been challenged.

            And there is NO evidence, physical or otherwise, to support his claim that Brown was the original aggressor or that Brown “went for” Wilson’s gun, other than Wilson’s testimony.

            The fact remains that suspicion will linger in the community that McCulloch’s conduct of the grand jury proceeding was intended to result in an exoneration of “one of their own.”

            This suspicion will be present not because of “race baiting hucksters” but because of the long history in Missouri and indeed America of black suspects being killed by white cops under suspicious circumstances. The fact that such an unusual process was employed feeds the suspicion, not the statements of Al Sharpton.

            In Cleveland, a 12 year old boy fucking around with an air-soft gun was shot and killed by police. The original line was that the cops had told the kid “three times” to drop the weapon, but then surveillance video was released that revealed the cops gunned the kid down BEFORE THE CRUISER CAME TO A STOP.

            http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

            I suppose the physical evidence could “line up with the officer’s claim that he shot the kid after three warnings if the video didn’t exist.

            BTW guys like you have already begun to smear the dead kid and his family:

            http://gawker.com/the-smear-campaign-against-12-year-old-killed-by-cops-h-1664355755

          • Brucehenry

            “Why should I listen to someone writing about a political position I know I will disagree with..?”

            That’s our Jim in a nutshell.

          • jim_m

            I will, and do, read things from people I disagree with. I don’t find Klein to be the least bit credible on issues of law for the reasons I have stated.

            BTW, Evidence shows that the blood trail from Brown goes at least 20 feet as he approached Wilson. 20 feet, while he charged at WIlson.

          • Brucehenry

            Or staggered toward him mortally wounded.

          • jim_m

            He did really well to stagger 20 ft with a bullet in the brain.

          • Missed his vital parts…

          • Brucehenry

            You will? You do?

            Then why do you ask “Why should I?”

        • jim_m

          Or did you mean the Ezra Klein that suggested smearing Fred Barnes or some other right wing commentator as being a racist in order to distract from obama’s difficulties during the 2008 lection?

          It’s so hard to keep track of all the bullshit that comes from Ezra Klein. Between the lies, the partisan corruption and the use any means necessary to win even if it means sending innocent people to jail or ruining their lives, I would be surprised that aanyone follows him, but it seems that you, Bruce, and he are birds of a feather. Truth matters not one whit to you. You want to destroy people’s lives in order to advance your agenda. At least you are finally being honest about it.

          • Brucehenry

            WTF are you talking about? Fred Barnes “or some other right wing commentator”? Pulling half-remembered stuff out of your ass? Obama’s “difficulties”? What difficulties? He beat Hillary, and then McCain in a walk.

          • jim_m

            Ezra Klein on the JournOList suggested that they smear Barnes or someone similar as a racist in order to create a story to distract from obama’s problems with the Rev Wright.

            I suggest you start taking Ginko or something for the memory, or seeing someone about possible Alzheimer’s. This wasn’t that long ago and has been raised multiple times on this blog.

          • Brucehenry

            Is it Ginko that gives you the hallucinations? Does it come on blotter paper?

    • Brucehenry
      • LiberalNightmare

        So where’s Al and Jesse? When does the black panther party show up?

        • Brucehenry

          Nice. Cavalier smart ass attitude when a 12 year old boy is gunned down within 1 1/2 SECONDS of cops’ arrival.

          He probably would have grown up to be a thug anyway, right LN?

          • LiberalNightmare

            I see.

            I’m sure that you would mourn his passing even if he hadn’t died in a politically useful manner.

            You should call Sharpton and see if has an intern program. I think you have what it takes.

          • jim_m

            It’s unfortunate, but in this case the police were told about a person with a gun. Yes, they should have been given the info that the caller thought it might be a toy, but that is irrelevant. The 911 operator didn’t know what the kid looked like.

            Also, airsoft guns are made to look identical to real guns and with the orange cap from the muzzle removed there would be no way for the cops to tell he didn’t have a real gun. Remember too that the video is compressed for time, the people move in jerky motion so there was a brief period of time before the officer shot him.

            This is tragic but understandable. You can’t have cops waiting for the first shot to be fired. Obviously, this is nothing more than another dead body for you to stand on while advancing a political agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            This boy was killed, seemingly for the crime of open-carrying in an open-carry state.

            If you think a white boy open-carrying in an open-carry state would have been gunned down by cops less than two seconds after their arrival at the scene then you and I disagree.

          • jim_m

            Unlike you, I’m not interested in testing the theory

          • Brucehenry
  • Barry Hirsh

    Occam’s Razor.

    If anything applies, it’s this faux “racial injustice” thing.

    There is a reason that even Jesse Jackson admitted that he would cross the street it he saw a do-ragged, baggy drawered, grille-and-bling bedecked young black man headed his way.

    It ain’t rocket science.

    • Brucehenry

      I’m sure Jim is glad to have an enlightened gentleman such as yourself on his team.

      • jim_m

        He’s more honest than you are. Heck, Jesse is more honest than you are.

        • Brucehenry

          Oh he’s honest all right. It couldn’t be more plain who and what this guy is.

        • That’s a very low bar…

  • LiberalNightmare

    Rules of Liberal “Grass Roots” Protests #26 –
    Every group, no matter its cause, will eventually protest a Walmart. http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-protests-move-walmart-target-stores-black/story?id=27229554

  • jim_m

    Happy now Bruce? Thanks to you and the bullshit false narative you are promoting and exploiting a man was murdered today in the name of your agenda. This is what you get when you spend weeks whipping up racial hatred over a bogus issue.

    Congrats. I can only hope such is visited upon someone you care about.

    But of course since this was two black kids murdering a white man you don’t care because you can’t make some political points off of it.

    • Brucehenry

      You are a lunatic. This murder had nothing to do with Brown or Wilson. It says so several times in your link. Several times. Kook.

      • Despite eyewitnesses reporting the “youths” cries of “kill whitey” etc.

  • Constitution First

    In other words: Don’t let those pesky facts in in the way of a good diatribe.