Riots in Ferguson MO. USA

[Town Heretic]

Still pushing the lie that Inzl corrected you on,

No, I believe she noted a different IP, which is really easy to do between different devices. But I'm fine with you simply leaving THall out to dry and take the blame for your words.

which means you know it's a lie.

No, but you use that word like some people use prepositions. Strange given you went straight to the puppet bit in that same thread with literally nothing behind it.

.....and still trying to disrupt the thread..... :loser:

You decided to go into it.

For those just happening by, see:

This post wherein the actual posting she distorts is set out. Covers everything from her calling the dead cowards to THall not really doing what she purports.

This post wherein her attempt to alter the meaning of John 15:13 is unhorsed by direct note of a number of commentaries.

And this post wherein she reiterates her charge of coward aimed at those dead Christ's actual word honors while noting her anti-Trinitarain foundation.

As for the current discussion, again, it looks as though the officer has a lot of latitude, but the particulars will determine. So until we get a great deal of sworn testimony and evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction it's just a lot of speculation either way.

 

[northwye]

Below is a video on the tear gas attack on the camera crew of Al Jazerra America:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...v_reporters_al_jazeera_camera_crew_flees.html

Below is a link to a video about the incident in which a reporter for Infowars of Austin, Texas was shot in the side by a Ferguson police officer with a rubber bullet:

http://www.infowars.com/ferguson-riot-police-wound-reporter-in-attack-on-protestors/

Two more conventional type journalists were arrested by police in a Ferguson McDonalds.
Here is a video report on the arrest of the two journalists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETfg8Wmiz_Q

Below is a link to a Huffington Post article on the arrest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/huffington-post-reporter-arrested-ferguson_n_5676829.html

"The Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly and the Washington Post's Wesley Lowery were arrested Wednesday evening while covering the protests in Ferguson, Missouri after the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, who was shot by a police officer last week. The journalists were released unharmed, but their detentions highlighted the town's ramped up police presence, which has left numerous residents injured by rubber bullets, pepper spray and tear gas during protests held every night after Brown's death.

SWAT officers roughed up the reporters inside a McDonald's, where both journalists were working."

The three different media crews who were attacked or arrested by militarized police in Ferguson, Missouri were not from Missouri. I know for sure the three man crew from Austin, Texas were not Missourians. Joe Biggs, the member of the crew who was hit by a rubber bullet is a combat veteran of Afghanistan and was wounded there. Most likely Wesley Lowery from the Washington Post and Ryan J. Reilly are also not Missourians. Its possible the Al Jazerra America crew were stationed in St Louis, but doubtful if they are Missourians.

These media crews came into Missouri as outsiders. Missourians, especially in the rural and small town areas, do not like outsiders, people from other states, coming into Missouri. Its possible that one of the motivations the police had, whether these particular officers were from the local Ferguson police, or another department in the St Louis area, was their dislike of people from out of state coming into Missouri. The police in the St Louis area might very well have seen these out of state media people as threats since they were coming into the state, in part, to film the actions of the Missouri police.

But this dislike of outsider reporters is no excuse for the violation of the First Amendment that clearly happened in Ferguson, a violation which is outstanding in the recent history of actions by the American militarized police forces. In addition, it is possible that the police who carried out these actions against the media people did not realize they would be giving Missouri a bad name, because the videos streamed to the Internet are seen around the world. And some mainstream media also reported on these attacks on reporters.

The technology now enabling many, whether reporters or not, to stream live video feeds with sound to the Internet where the feeds are viewed by thousands and potentially millions all over the world has, "changed the narrative." Mike Adams pointed this out in relation to the Bundy Ranch affair back in April of 2014, that the alternative media and some protestors now have the capability to stream live feeds of events as they unfold to the Internet. This makes it more difficult for authorities and the "dinosaur" media to spin an event in a way which presents those opposing the actions of the authorities in a bad light.

 

[zoo22]

Nice attempt at a manipulation. This is what you said that T referenced with his quote that you conveniently left out.......

Zoo said:

"The whole discussion hinges on the premise that the confrontation being random?" No. It hinges on whether he was armed or not, or whether there was a legitimate reason to believe he was armed when the police shot and killed him.

Oh step away, crazy lady. Get real. I'm not manipulating or hiding anything.

I was answering YOUR post to me, responding to the specific quote that YOU chose:

What you call swaggering, normal thinking discerning people call common sense.

You are just a spoiled brat who's ego can't stand to be corrected or proven wrong, like when T said this:

"You could not be more wrong.
The whole thing hinges on
whether a jury believes that
officer Wilson could reasonably
conclude that he was in danger
of receiving great bodily harm or
death from Brown."

T was right, you were wrong, so take your foot out of your mouth and insert some humility, then get over yourself.

That was your post to me, that I answered. That was the quote you chose ("like when T said this:"), and essentially accused me of sidestepping responding to. But I hadn't sidestepped it, and I showed you. And now, because I didn't also include an additional quote that you hadn't even mentioned, and that doesn't change anything I'd said anyway, you're accusing me of manipulating things? Take a walk.

Here's every piece of conversation I had with your magnificent THall, in order, through it's brief and boring entirety:

Spoiler

9 pages into this discussion and I didn't see the real issue, was the police action one that was without cause?
Did the police officer randomly approach Mike 'gentle giant' Brown? or was there a reason...such as...Mike and his buddy stole from a convenience store earlier that day?
The whole discussion relies on the premise that the confrontation was random, just another BMW (black man walking) when if truth be told this guy was suspected of criminal activity.

"The whole discussion hinges on the premise that the confrontation being random?" No. It hinges on whether he was armed or not, or whether there was a legitimate reason to believe he was armed when the police shot and killed him.

Are you, or is anyone here aware of any indication that there was a legitimate reason for the police to believe that he was armed?

You could not be more wrong.
The whole thing hinges on
whether a jury believes that
officer Wilson could reasonably
conclude that he was in danger
of receiving great bodily harm or
death from Brown.

You reason as an adolescent,
and are ignorant of the
applicable Missouri law.

You could not be more wrong.
The whole thing hinges on
whether a jury believes that
officer Wilson could reasonably
conclude that he was in danger
of receiving great bodily harm or
death from Brown.

Yes, of course if he had a reasonable reason to conclude he was in danger of great bodily harm or death, there'd be a legitimate reason to have shot a suspect. Maybe that happened in the car. Running away down the street, unless Brown was armed, explain to us how there would be a perceived threat to Wilson's life.

Maybe. I don't know. I sure haven't seen anything that would indicate that. Have you? It's been a week now.

You reason as an adolescent,
and are ignorant of the
applicable Missouri law.

No, I don't reason as an adolescent. And I don't purport to be an expert on Missouri law. Get over yourself.

No, I don't reason as an adolescent.

Yes, you do.
Do you need your mommy?

Good for you. "Mommy" insults from the supposed SWAT trainer who's calling other people adolescent. That's just sad.

Here's some reasoning: You're on a public forum, in a discussion about a police officer possibly shooting an unarmed kid in the back and the chaos and anger that's ensued. The two of you, as usual, swaggering around falling over one another, posting about how qualified you are, how you train SWAT teams, or have a manual, CW bleating about how she knows a person who said something, all as if to command some sort of respect; as if you're sharing a knowledge... But out of the other side of your mouths, you're calling people retards, spitting down at them, making "mommy" jokes, and crapping all over anyone you *perceive* as disagreeing with you. Just as you always do. You're a disgrace. It's people like you and CW who give good cops and honorable people in uniform a bad name. It's a shame.

That's all she wrote. Weave it into whatever you want to, head case. It's all right there.

T knows Missouri use of deadly force law like no body else, you don't. You lose.

Wow. That sounds amazing.

Also, is it really true that you call THall on the telephone and softly coo?

 

[zoo22]

Just another excuse for the jb's to loot liquor stores.

What are "jb's?"

And I don't think he'd just make some lame sidestepping insult, change the subject and not tell us exactly what he meant when he said "the jb's." I'm sure he'll want to stand behind what he was saying (well, his abbreviations). That is, if he has any integrity at all.

JABAN.

Now let's talk about how white liberals like you and Town Heretic have enslaved the Black community with your white guilt complex.

Your liberal policies have broken up the family to the point where there are no fathers in the homes of the majority of Black families, so that crime runs rampant inside the Black community.

Well, that was pretty easy to get aCW to show us that he has no integrity.

 

[Christ's Word]

Well, that was pretty easy to get aCW to show us that he has no integrity.

Are you sure you weren't looking in the mirror when you said that? :idunno:

 

[Christ's Word]

No. It hinges on whether he was armed or not, or whether there was a legitimate reason to believe he was armed when the police shot and killed him.

It is real simple jr.......... you made the above statement, no one else said that, those are your words. You are wrong. Under Missouri statute, you are wrong. T called you on it, and he is right. It does not matter if Brown was armed or not, it only matters if Brown was an imminent threat while the officer was trying to make an arrest. A big man does not have to be armed to kill a smaller officer, and our laws in Missouri reflect that reality. Get over your ignorance.

 

[drbrumley]

When you see a police officer beating or shooting a citizen, is your first reaction to sympathize with the officer, or the citizen?

 

[Christ's Word]

Concubine? Really? And we're married, not frigid or dead. Appreciating a good looking person is not a crime.

Since when does appreciating equate "drooling" or being made hot? You need to keep it real. I am sure you feel so honored when your husband makes remarks about how attracted he is to another woman? You can lie to yourself, but you won't fool me, or any other Christian who understands the Covenant of marriage.

 

[zoo22]

It is real simple jr.......... you made the above statement, no one else said that, those are your words. You are wrong. Under Missouri statute, you are wrong. T called you on it, and he is right. It does not matter if Brown was armed or not, it only matters if Brown was an imminent threat while the officer was trying to make an arrest. A big man does not have to be armed to kill a smaller officer, and our laws in Missouri reflect that reality. Get over your ignorance.

Can you seriously not understand and accept that I'd responded to him and I'd and agreed with him? How many times does it take?

Yes, of course if he had a reasonable reason to conclude he was in danger of great bodily harm or death, there'd be a legitimate reason to have shot a suspect.

You really can't read that? Is your head spinning around so fast that you can't read it? Or are you just blinded by the bright magnificent light emanating from your THall?

 

[Christ's Word]

When you see a police officer beating or shooting a citizen, is your first reaction to sympathize with the officer, or the citizen?

My initial reaction would depend on the circumstances, but in time I am sure that I would feel sorry for both. Most departments have mandatory counseling if involved in a shooting before you can return to duty. Those session are usually pretty dry, because the courts have allowed lawyers to pierce client privilege, so the officers are taught to not discuss details of the shooting incident with their therapist.

I have seen police officers beating people already hand cuffed and pinned to the ground, and that makes me very angry.

 

[Christ's Word]

Can you seriously not understand that I'd responded to him and I'd and agreed with him? How many times does it take:



You really can't read that? Is your head spinning around so fast that you can't read it? Or are you blinded by the bright light emanating from your THall?

You never retracted your original garbage, and when you make stupid statements like the one I discussed, I stop reading the rest of your smoke.

 

[drbrumley]

My initial reaction would depend on the circumstances,

Ok, you don't know the circumstances.

I have seen police officers beating people already hand cuffed and pinned to the ground, and that makes me very angry.

And I am thankful to hear that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, that was pretty easy to get aCW to show us that he has no integrity.

Did you really think you were going to get an honest answer from Connie?

 

[Christ's Word]

No, I believe she noted a different IP, which is really easy to do between different devices. But I'm fine with you simply leaving THall out to dry and take the blame for your words.


No, but you use that word like some people use prepositions. Strange given you went straight to the puppet bit in that same thread with literally nothing behind it.


You decided to go into it.

For those just happening by, see:

This post wherein the actual posting she distorts is set out. Covers everything from her calling the dead cowards to THall not really doing what she purports.

This post wherein her attempt to alter the meaning of John 15:13 is unhorsed by direct note of a number of commentaries.

And this post wherein she reiterates her charge of coward aimed at those dead Christ's actual word honors while noting her anti-Trinitarain foundation.

As for the current discussion, again, it looks as though the officer has a lot of latitude, but the particulars will determine. So until we get a great deal of sworn testimony and evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction it's just a lot of speculation either way.

Nobody really cares about your obsession with a two year old argument......and you are quite the weirdo for continuing to bring it up for over 2 years. With your immoral positions on homosexuality, and perpetual lies and compulsions, you have about got the Creep Meter pegged to 11 on a scale that goes form 1 to 10.

 

[Christ's Word]

Ok, you don't know the circumstances.

My first reaction to situations when I see an officer use force, is usually questioning whether there was justification for the application of force, it is more cognitive than emotionally empathetic, I am in observation mode.

 

[zoo22]

You never retracted your original garbage, and when you make stupid statements like the one I discussed, I stop reading the rest of your smoke.

Wow, you are a for real nutcase. Here you go, crazy:

An open letter to TOL and THall: I was wrong in overlooking that if the police officer had a reasonable reason to conclude he was in danger of great bodily harm or death, there'd be a legitimate reason to have shot a suspect.

Thank you.

Also, CW, when you're tandem posting at TOL with your magnificent THall, do you get on the phone and giggle to one another about how awesome each other's posts are?

Or is it more of a purring?

 

[Ktoyou]

Wow, you are a for real nutcase. Here you go, crazy:

An open letter to TOL and THall: I was wrong in overlooking that if the police officer had a reasonable reason to conclude he was in danger of great bodily harm or death, there'd be a legitimate reason to have shot a suspect.

Thank you.

Also, CW, when you're tandem posting at TOL with your magnificent THall, do you get on the phone and giggle to one another about how awesome each other's posts are?

Or is it more of a purring?

No giggling on the phone with other TOL members please, or you have to go to the woodshed. :Clete:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Unless I have some other information to prove otherwise, I assume the cop is a killer. Now, I am of course not saying the LAW should agree with my assumption. Even cops, evil though most of them are, should be considered innocent until proven guilty (although there should be NO mercy on them once they are convicted.) But as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to assume the cop was responsible. Even if the cop was legally justified, he may well have been the initial aggressor in the encounter. In order for the cop to actually be justified he would have to be trying to arrest someone who has already committed aggression, and then that aggressor would have to do something to give the cop good reason to believe that his life is in danger. That just doesn't actually happen that often.

 

[The Berean]

Unless I have some other information to prove otherwise, I assume the cop is a killer. Now, I am of course not saying the LAW should agree with my assumption. Even cops, evil though most of them are, should be considered innocent until proven guilty (although there should be NO mercy on them once they are convicted.) But as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to assume the cop was responsible. Even if the cop was legally justified, he may well have been the initial aggressor in the encounter. In order for the cop to actually be justified he would have to be trying to arrest someone who has already committed aggression, and then that aggressor would have to do something to give the cop good reason to believe that his life is in danger. That just doesn't actually happen that often.

Well, it depends on the facts wouldn't it? One version I read was that as the police officer opened the door of his police car Michael Brown slammed the door closed, pushing the officer back and then Brown reached for the officer's gun. Is this version accurate? I have no idea. We'll see what further detailed come to light.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, it depends on the facts wouldn't it? One version I read was that as the police officer opened the door of his police car Michael Brown slammed the door closed, pushing the officer back and then Brown reached for the officer's gun. Is this version accurate? I have no idea. We'll see what further detailed come to light.

Yeah, I tend to be skeptical of the cops, if for no other reason (there are other reasons) than the fact that they are known to often cover up for each other and that they can get away with lying while you cannot.

If your version is correct, it may have been justified, but as a default I assume that that isn't the case.