BLM Movement -- What is their position on violence against police?
Quote: ams288Does BLM support violence against police?
Your original post said so. But anyone who does even a smidge of research on the topic knows that that is total BS.
So I am wondering if you are standing by that statement?
Without a doubt, BLM supports violence against police.
Quote: RSWithout a doubt, BLM supports violence against police.
Without a doubt, you are wrong.
I did my research last night when I saw RonC's misguided post, and I know there are plenty of articles supporting my case.
Quote: ams288Does BLM support violence against police?
Your original post said so. But anyone who does even a smidge of research on the topic knows that that is total BS.
So I am wondering if you are standing by that statement?
Really? It does? I don't see it that way--fomenting rage is not the same as supporting violence, even though the rage may end up bringing someone to think violence needs to happen...
Quote: RonCThe whole BLM movement is a joke because it really has nothing to do with really making those lives matter. It is more of an organization that exists to foment rage against something that is pretty uncommon (but even happening once is bad and should be fully prosecuted) instead of focusing rage on actually fix things that take many more black lives.
If people believe that "every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials?" (quoting Jalen Rose, who was using statistics from the BLM movement), why would they not be enraged by that fact and moved to act as necessary to prevent the violence by "vigilante law officers."
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen. They aren't saying those things to simply show us "the truth"--they are saying them to create rage beyond what is necessary...
Quote: ams288Without a doubt, you are wrong.
"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"
Let their own words speak for themselves.
If they (BLM movement) aren't about violence why do they allow this kind of rhetoric to be spewed by so many?
Instead of meaningless protests, why doesn't BLM actually do something to show that black lives do in fact matter? How about going into these hard-core, gang-infested cities and giving black youth something to do?
1 How about teaching black children the importance of getting an education?
2 How about revitalizing inner cities where there is nothing but decay and despair?
3 How about putting out Public Service Announcements that there is hope and alternatives to violence? If black lives matter, then do something for the black community.
I guess those issues will never be addressed by the BLM --- IMO they haven't got the leadership skills to face those issues head-on --
Quote: RSWithout a doubt, BLM supports violence against police.
What is your evidence?
Quote: HeySlickIMO the BLM movement
By not publicly condemning vigilante violence or the chants of wanting police dead, the general public perception is that BLM is condoning this behavior.
This is the standard some apply to Trump and the "demented"; why would it not apply to BLM?
Quote: WizardWhat is your evidence?
First of all, it does not matter, as any evidence I or others post will (most likely) be dismissed as either "far right wing conservative" source or "those people aren't part of BLM".
The many videos on YouTube of BLM protests/rallies.
HeySlick's "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelVrRyNCU0
BLM's support of Michael Brown [who attacked the police officer, Darren Wilson].
BLM's support of Trayvon Martin [who attacked George Zimmerman (not police)], a completely violent act.
One video showed people throwing a sign at a police man. Think it was posted in the thread, "Ferguson."
BLM chants/protests, involving something like "F*** the police".
The riots and violence in general, from looting, to burning down stores, setting cars [including police cars] on fire.
BLM and the left-wingers keep saying they were "peaceful" protests, but they couldn't be further from peaceful.
Quote: RSFirst of all, it does not matter, as any evidence I or others post will (most likely) be dismissed as either "far right wing conservative" source or "those people aren't part of BLM".
The many videos on YouTube of BLM protests/rallies.
HeySlick's "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelVrRyNCU0
BLM's support of Michael Brown [who attacked the police officer, Darren Wilson].
BLM's support of Trayvon Martin [who attacked George Zimmerman (not police)], a completely violent act.
One video showed people throwing a sign at a police man. Think it was posted in the thread, "Ferguson."
BLM chants/protests, involving something like "F*** the police".
The riots and violence in general, from looting, to burning down stores, setting cars [including police cars] on fire.
BLM and the left-wingers keep saying they were "peaceful" protests, but they couldn't be further from peaceful.
You got that right - So many poor and troubled black communities thru-out America are morally bankrupt due to the gangster hip-hop culture. In one of my posts above I put forth issues they should address --- IMO The culture factor never seems to be an issue with them -- how can any group of people prosper if they continue to have more children than they can ever nurture into productive and law abiding citizens?
Quote: RSFirst of all, it does not matter, as any evidence I or others post will (most likely) be dismissed as either "far right wing conservative" source or "those people aren't part of BLM".
The many videos on YouTube of BLM protests/rallies.
HeySlick's "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelVrRyNCU0
BLM's support of Michael Brown [who attacked the police officer, Darren Wilson].
BLM's support of Trayvon Martin [who attacked George Zimmerman (not police)], a completely violent act.
One video showed people throwing a sign at a police man. Think it was posted in the thread, "Ferguson."
BLM chants/protests, involving something like "F*** the police".
The riots and violence in general, from looting, to burning down stores, setting cars [including police cars] on fire.
BLM and the left-wingers keep saying they were "peaceful" protests, but they couldn't be further from peaceful.
Quoting the statements or actions of some BLM members does not mean that the entire group adopts that position. When you say "BLM's support of ..." can you show me in a statement of beliefs or something like that from the central organization that supports this? Perhaps they are against the police response to these individuals as opposed to being for the actions of the individuals themselves.
I'm sure I could easily cherry pick statements from Trump supporters to make them look like neo Nazis.
Quote: RSFirst of all, it does not matter, as any evidence I or others post will (most likely) be dismissed as either "far right wing conservative" source or "those people aren't part of BLM".
The many videos on YouTube of BLM protests/rallies.
HeySlick's "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelVrRyNCU0
BLM's support of Michael Brown [who attacked the police officer, Darren Wilson].
BLM's support of Trayvon Martin [who attacked George Zimmerman (not police)], a completely violent act.
One video showed people throwing a sign at a police man. Think it was posted in the thread, "Ferguson."
BLM chants/protests, involving something like "F*** the police".
The riots and violence in general, from looting, to burning down stores, setting cars [including police cars] on fire.
BLM and the left-wingers keep saying they were "peaceful" protests, but they couldn't be further from peaceful.
That's your evidence? Good to see you got nothing.
Quote: ams288Quote: RSFirst of all, it does not matter, as any evidence I or others post will (most likely) be dismissed as either "far right wing conservative" source or "those people aren't part of BLM".
The many videos on YouTube of BLM protests/rallies.
HeySlick's "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelVrRyNCU0
BLM's support of Michael Brown [who attacked the police officer, Darren Wilson].
BLM's support of Trayvon Martin [who attacked George Zimmerman (not police)], a completely violent act.
One video showed people throwing a sign at a police man. Think it was posted in the thread, "Ferguson."
BLM chants/protests, involving something like "F*** the police".
The riots and violence in general, from looting, to burning down stores, setting cars [including police cars] on fire.
BLM and the left-wingers keep saying they were "peaceful" protests, but they couldn't be further from peaceful.
That's your evidence? Good to see you got nothing.
If those violent actions aren't enough evidence -- how many more communities have to be destroyed and, Police killed before you and others realize this BLM movement isn't as passive as you claim? IMO if they are truly non-violent and don't condone the actions of some within said movement -- prove it. I still believe/ feel that actions speak louder than words
Quote: WizardQuoting the statements or actions of some BLM members does not mean that the entire group adopts that position. When you say "BLM's support of ..." can you show me in a statement of beliefs or something like that from the central organization that supports this? Perhaps they are against the police response to these individuals as opposed to being for the actions of the individuals themselves.
I'm sure I could easily cherry pick statements from Trump supporters to make them look like neo Nazis.
Actually, some members here clearly associate Donald Trump's campaign with those groups. The question that has been posed is that of the typical double standard existing--Trump's followers are demented; BLM's followers aren't associated with the group officially.
Maybe some people here do not have sufficient experience to be acquainted with how incendiary rhetoric can jazz up a seething crowd into a molten mob. I can assure you that it is not a pretty picture.Quote: ams288That's your evidence? Good to see you got nothing.
Quote: WizardThis is a split-off from the 2016 Election thread.
Quote: RSFirst of all, it does not matter, as any evidence I or others post will (most likely) be dismissed as either "far right wing conservative" source or "those people aren't part of BLM".
The many videos on YouTube of BLM protests/rallies.
HeySlick's "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelVrRyNCU0
BLM's support of Michael Brown [who attacked the police officer, Darren Wilson].
BLM's support of Trayvon Martin [who attacked George Zimmerman (not police)], a completely violent act.
One video showed people throwing a sign at a police man. Think it was posted in the thread, "Ferguson."
BLM chants/protests, involving something like "F*** the police".
The riots and violence in general, from looting, to burning down stores, setting cars [including police cars] on fire.
BLM and the left-wingers keep saying they were "peaceful" protests, but they couldn't be further from peaceful.
Quoting the statements or actions of some BLM members does not mean that the entire group adopts that position. When you say "BLM's support of ..." can you show me in a statement of beliefs or something like that from the central organization that supports this? Perhaps they are against the police response to these individuals as opposed to being for the actions of the individuals themselves.
I'm sure I could easily cherry pick statements from Trump supporters to make them look like neo Nazis.
Being against the police response (to Martin & Brown) is to say what they (Martin & Brown) did was/is acceptable. When put in a life or death situation, as both Zimmerman & Wilson were, there is no other option than to stop whoever is trying to kill you. Condoning the actions of one side is to support the actions of the other, and vice versa.
It is not black and white (pun intended). I doubt there are any official & specific "we support violence against police" from the official BLM group.
Why the group would align themselves behind Martin & Brown is ridiculous. It would be like Bob N. using a case where cheaters (not legal APs) were arrested and back-roomed to show how casinos mistreat legal APs. If that happened, would you think Bob N. supports cheating in a casino?
Quote: RSBeing against the police response (to Martin & Brown) is to say what they (Martin & Brown) did was/is acceptable.
I get it. So, if a police officer shoots an unarmed person for stealing candy, and I oppose it for reasons for reasons of excessive force, it means I condone stealing candy.
Quote:I doubt there are any official & specific "we support violence against police" from the official BLM group.
Then how do you know that the group as a whole advocates violence against police?
Quote:Why the group would align themselves behind Martin & Brown is ridiculous. It would be like Bob N. using a case where cheaters (not legal APs) were arrested and back-roomed to show how casinos mistreat legal APs. If that happened, would you think Bob N. supports cheating in a casino?
I'm sure most members of BLM would claim that Martin & Brown were not perfect people but victims of racial profiling and excessive force.
Much like if some cheaters were beaten up old-school style by casino security, and Bob Nersesian defended them in a lawsuit, it wouldn't mean he condoned the cheating, but opposed the casino's response to it.
In both the situations (Martin & Brown), the other person's life was in severe jeapoardy. Shooting someone who is in the process of killing you (Martin/Zimmerman), or who is about to/trying to kill you (Brown/Wilson), there is very little that can be done, other than shooting the person who is about to kill you. There is no excessive force in either of these two situations.
From what I've seen, BLM paint the picture of Martin & Brown as being "innocent teenagers". Martin as a young boy, just wanting to enjoy some skittles & Arizona iced tea. Brown as as a child. So yes, they are trying to paint the picture that these two were "perfect", even though they aren't saying so directly.
I'm not sure how racial profiling would fit into either of these two cases, either.
I don't mean BLM as a whole supports violence, and if I said so, I misspoke. According to the BLM website, it is a "leaderfull" organization/movement, meaning there is no top dog / leader. (Kind of like the group Anonymous, there are no leaders, but groups of individuals.) At least that's how I interpreted it.
Regardless, it doesn't matter what is "officially written" or what-have-you. What matters is their actions and what they do and support. Actions speak louder than words, we all know this. We know the meaning behind what they are doing and what they're getting after.
How many times has 1BB hurled numerous insults after insults, only to end the post with "this is not aimed at any specific board member"? Just because someone says one thing, doesn't mean that is their true beliefs.
Quote: HeySlickInstead of meaningless protests, why doesn't BLM actually do something to show that black lives do in fact matter? How about going into these hard-core, gang-infested cities and giving black youth something to do?
1 How about teaching black children the importance of getting an education?
I don't know how it works in other states, but in California, two things stand in the way of delivering quality education to predominantly black (and Hispanic, for that matter) schools; one, most of the money for pre-college education comes from the property taxes of the people living in the district, so the areas with less money end up with poorer schools (and it takes a 55% majority of the voters in that district to enact any additional taxes for the schools); two, you're not going to get the better teachers (which are needed to help dig the students out of the hole their environment has put them in) into these districts because if you even think of considering suggesting this, you'll not only end up with a strike, but you will be branded anti-union for doing so (and it almost goes without saying that the first condition for settling such a strike is, "The teachers have the right to strike again, immediately and without fear of any reprisals, if anyone who taught in the district during the strike (i.e. "strikebreakers") is ever given a job in this district again").
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: HeySlickInstead of meaningless protests, why doesn't BLM actually do something to show that black lives do in fact matter? How about going into these hard-core, gang-infested cities and giving black youth something to do?
1 How about teaching black children the importance of getting an education?
I don't know how it works in other states, but in California, two things stand in the way of delivering quality education to predominantly black (and Hispanic, for that matter) schools; one, most of the money for pre-college education comes from the property taxes of the people living in the district, so the areas with less money end up with poorer schools (and it takes a 55% majority of the voters in that district to enact any additional taxes for the schools); two, you're not going to get the better teachers (which are needed to help dig the students out of the hole their environment has put them in) into these districts because if you even think of considering suggesting this, you'll not only end up with a strike, but you will be branded anti-union for doing so (and it almost goes without saying that the first condition for settling such a strike is, "The teachers have the right to strike again, immediately and without fear of any reprisals, if anyone who taught in the district during the strike (i.e. "strikebreakers") is ever given a job in this district again").
Given that scenario it seems like there' isn't much hope for those living in that kind of environment ,yet others do find ways to succeed. IMO Maybe if those African American et al who did go on to successful careers e.g. professional sports and the entertainment field showed some real concern --- collectively they could solve a lot of these inner city problems. Looking up to the gangster life style and moral turpitude plagues many of the aforementioned trouble communities and, has so for decades upon decades.
Nope. That's the party line, a stand that would have police officers not defend themselves when attacked. Aside from those two facts cherry picked from an intensive and thorough grand jury finding, much exculpatory evidence was presented, among which was that Wilson sensed that Brown was going for his weapon while Brown was attacking the officer, as CNN summarized:,Quote: WizardI get it. So, if a police officer shoots an unarmed person for stealing candy, and I oppose it for reasons for reasons of excessive force, it means I condone stealing candy.
"Wilson said he feared Brown could beat him to death. Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him. Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist. "I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.
Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets. Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents.
Wilson said Brown kept running through shots. Wilson testified he shot at Brown on the street when Brown turned on him. "As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it," he said. "I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk," he said. "At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots," he said. "Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. "And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way."
He told the jurors he thought Brown was going to tackle him. "Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot. "I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped. "When he fell, he fell on his face."
Wilson said Brown reached under his shirt."
However, what is true without any dispute: BLM openly supports violent people whether intentionally or through misguided principles. For example defending certain people with massive records of violence and gang membership (I don't need to name who they are, we all know).
Also, BLM supports demonstrations which disrupt the lives of countless thousands of people just trying to work and live their lives (blocking highways, businesses, etc...)
What is also true, BLM supports movements condemning individual officers even after they are found not guilty by courts of law and investigations.
Is BLM wrong on every issue? No. Are they right on every issue? No. However, they are almost always wrong on the way that they go about spreading their message. Disrupting events and people just trying to live their lives is not productive or professional.
All Lives Matter. Racism is wrong, so are false allegations of racism. BLM loves finding conspiratorial racism where there is none to be found.
Quote: GandlerBLM may not have nefarious intentions at the upper levels, but at the lowest levels, especially at mass protests and demonstrations there are many violent people who participate.
However, what is true without any dispute: BLM openly supports violent people whether intentionally or through misguided principles. For example defending certain people with massive records of violence and gang membership (I don't need to name who they are, we all know).
Also, BLM supports demonstrations which disrupt the lives of countless thousands of people just trying to work and live their lives (blocking highways, businesses, etc...)
What is also true, BLM supports movements condemning individual officers even after they are found not guilty by courts of law and investigations.
Is BLM wrong on every issue? No. Are they right on every issue? No. However, they are almost always wrong on the way that they go about spreading their message. Disrupting events and people just trying to live their lives is not productive or professional.
All Lives Matter. Racism is wrong, so are false allegations of racism. BLM loves finding conspiratorial racism where there is none to be found.
It's perpetual motion in the worst possible way --- victimhood mentality for another generation. Solutions abound and help is out there --- 'personal responsibility' are just words in SO many ways -- action always speaks louder than words.
Edit/afterthought
There's this old line/song etc
You've got to eliminate the Negative and accentuate the positive
I'll never understand why so many people can live their lives in the very opposite direction of the line above??
Quote: HeySlickQuote: GandlerBLM may not have nefarious intentions at the upper levels, but at the lowest levels, especially at mass protests and demonstrations there are many violent people who participate.
However, what is true without any dispute: BLM openly supports violent people whether intentionally or through misguided principles. For example defending certain people with massive records of violence and gang membership (I don't need to name who they are, we all know).
Also, BLM supports demonstrations which disrupt the lives of countless thousands of people just trying to work and live their lives (blocking highways, businesses, etc...)
What is also true, BLM supports movements condemning individual officers even after they are found not guilty by courts of law and investigations.
Is BLM wrong on every issue? No. Are they right on every issue? No. However, they are almost always wrong on the way that they go about spreading their message. Disrupting events and people just trying to live their lives is not productive or professional.
All Lives Matter. Racism is wrong, so are false allegations of racism. BLM loves finding conspiratorial racism where there is none to be found.
It's perpetual motion in the worst possible way --- victimhood mentality for another generation. Solutions abound and help is out there --- 'personal responsibility' are just words in SO many ways -- action always speaks louder than words.
Edit/afterthought
There's this old line/song etc
You've got to eliminate the Negative and accentuate the positive
I'll never understand why so many people can live their lives in the very opposite direction of the line above??
Its because these groups thrive in the negative. They make their living selling racism for a living. Some members of their groups make quite a lot of money from it.
This is why they will find every little case of alleged racism that they can. And, they will invent racism in other cases.
Quote: GandlerIts because these groups thrive in the negative. They make their living selling racism for a living. Some members of their groups make quite a lot of money from it.
This is why they will find every little case of alleged racism that they can. And, they will invent racism in other cases.
There a whole lot of "Reverends" and some people who may have even walked with MLK that make much more of living off racial equality rather than actually doing much to change it.
BLM is just another group living on pointing out the negative...we'll see if they come up with any good ways to actually fix it.
Quote: RonCThere a whole lot of "Reverends" and some people who may have even walked with MLK that make much more of living off racial equality rather than actually doing much to change it.
BLM is just another group living on pointing out the negative...we'll see if they come up with any good ways to actually fix it.
I seriously doubt they will ever fix it - at least not in my remaining life time. Just look at the notorious Sharpton and his friendship with Obama.
Quote: SanchoPanzaNope. That's the party line, a stand that would have police officers not defend themselves when attacked. Aside from those two facts cherry picked from an intensive and thorough grand jury finding, much exculpatory evidence was presented, among which was that Wilson sensed that Brown was going for his weapon while Brown was attacking the officer, as CNN summarized:,
"Wilson said he feared Brown could beat him to death. Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him. Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist. "I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.
Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets. Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents.
Wilson said Brown kept running through shots. Wilson testified he shot at Brown on the street when Brown turned on him. "As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it," he said. "I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk," he said. "At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots," he said. "Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. "And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way."
He told the jurors he thought Brown was going to tackle him. "Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot. "I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped. "When he fell, he fell on his face."
Wilson said Brown reached under his shirt."
Gettin' dizzy from the spin here.
The grand jury heard only one side of things, as usual, but unusually, the DA was trying to show why charges should NOT be pressed. And, HIGHLY unusual, this officer (who should have been charged and gone through a REAL trial) was allowed to testify without cross-examination. So he could say anything he (or the DA) wanted, and nobody was called to refute what he said, though there were witnesses. What he DOESN'T explain is how the fatal shot was through the TOP of Brown's head, let alone inconsistencies between what he claimed and what others saw. Not exactly a congruent fact with his testimony.
And we all know how the police NEVER lie or exaggerate about how something went down. Especially with no video, and no conflicting testimony. Good grief. The protestors were asking for a real trial, not a lynching, and there should have been one, even if the result was the same.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: SanchoPanzaNope. That's the party line, a stand that would have police officers not defend themselves when attacked. Aside from those two facts cherry picked from an intensive and thorough grand jury finding, much exculpatory evidence was presented, among which was that Wilson sensed that Brown was going for his weapon while Brown was attacking the officer, as CNN summarized:,
"Wilson said he feared Brown could beat him to death. Officer Wilson told the grand jury that Brown punched him in the face when the officer drove back to him. Wilson said he tried to get out of his cruiser but Brown slammed the door shut twice and hit him with his fist. "I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right," Wilson said.
Twelve shots were fired by Wilson. Wilson said two shots were fired during a struggle at his police vehicle and that he then fired three bursts of gunfire as he chased and then backed away from Brown. He testified that his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun held a maximum of 13 bullets. Twelve casings were recovered and one bullet remained in the weapon, according to the grand jury documents.
Wilson said Brown kept running through shots. Wilson testified he shot at Brown on the street when Brown turned on him. "As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it," he said. "I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk," he said. "At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots," he said. "Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. "And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way."
He told the jurors he thought Brown was going to tackle him. "Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot. "I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped. "When he fell, he fell on his face."
Wilson said Brown reached under his shirt."
Gettin' dizzy from the spin here.
The grand jury heard only one side of things, as usual, but unusually, the DA was trying to show why charges should NOT be pressed. And, HIGHLY unusual, this officer (who should have been charged and gone through a REAL trial) was allowed to testify without cross-examination. So he could say anything he (or the DA) wanted, and nobody was called to refute what he said, though there were witnesses. What he DOESN'T explain is how the fatal shot was through the TOP of Brown's head, let alone inconsistencies between what he claimed and what others saw. Not exactly a congruent fact with his testimony.
And we all know how the police NEVER lie or exaggerate about how something went down. Especially with no video, and no conflicting testimony. Good grief. The protestors were asking for a real trial, not a lynching, and there should have been one, even if the result was the same.
There is not really any dispute that Brown was guilty. He has a colorful history of violence and gang affiliation.
He was clearly not a good person, and the police did the right thing. Anyone has a right to defend themself. If you are going to rob a store, and then resist arrest and fight with cops is probably not a wise move.
In any case the community is probably better off with one less gang member.
Do police lie sometimes? Sure. Did they in this case? No, almost certainly not. And, even if the officer did exaggerate his story of self defense (which there is no evidence of and no reason to beleive that), he still acted morally by protecting the community.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe grand jury heard only one side of things, as usual,
That is not accurate, as the transcript shows.
Quote:but unusually, the DA was trying to show why charges should NOT be pressed.
Asserted without any documentation.
Quote:And, HIGHLY unusual, this officer (who should have been charged and gone through a REAL trial) was allowed to testify without cross-examination.
Cross-exxamination is never permitted in grand jury hearings. As a matter of fact, the target and witnesses have no legal representation.
The coroner working for the Brown family, Michael Baden, said it could have occurred when Brown was charging Wilson's car.Quote:What he DOESN'T explain is how the fatal shot was through the TOP of Brown's head, let alone inconsistencies between what he claimed and what others saw.
A CNN team, a source not known for being pro-police in such situations, pored through thousands of pages of transcripts and delivered a detailed report about major problems that they found.
“(CNN) -- The grand jury in the case of Michael Brown's shooting didn't just face an onslaught of witnesses with conflicting memories of what happened the day white police officer Darren Wilson killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager. It also heard from witnesses who couldn't be believed at all.
Some admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning. Prosecutors were so skeptical of one woman's account that they asked whether she might have dreamed about seeing the confrontation in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9.
Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides.
"It's no surprise that some people did not tell the truth in this or any other grand jury," says CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.”
Specific witnesses – from both sides -- and their off-kilter testimony were described. In the end, the entire proceeding was reviewed by none other than Eric Holder's activist Justice Department, which gave a clean bill of health to the process.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: SanchoPanza
. Good grief. The protestors were asking for a real trial, not a lynching, and there should have been one, even if the result was the same.
You cannot honestly believe this. There is NO WAY that the protesters would be happy with a fair trial if it resulted in a not guilty verdict. You KNOW that!
Edit... The above sentence is mine, not BBB's....
Quote: RonCIf people believe that "every 28 hours, a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police and/or vigilante law officials?" (quoting Jalen Rose, who was using statistics from the BLM movement), why would they not be enraged by that fact and moved to act as necessary to prevent the violence by "vigilante law officers."
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen. They aren't saying those things to simply show us "the truth"--they are saying them to create rage beyond what is necessary...
Like "selling baby parts", "murdering babies." and so forth?
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
C'mon. They say those things to incite people. When you incite people, things may happen.
For my part, I vowed to never spend another dollar in Baltimore, a city I visited for dinner once or twice a month for the last 20 years. After watching the actions of the citizens burning and looting the CVS, I made my mind up. Sure it only hurts those who actually work for a living and it wont make much of a difference, but it makes me feel good knowing there is something I can do. Maybe this is how these protestors feel.
Quote: HowMany"BLM Movement" should change their name to "Bowel Movement." It's much more appropriate.
A Bowel Movement is a natural human function -- The BLM isn't functional or human in any way whatsoever.
Quote: BozThe sad thing is this entire "movement" was started with a huge LIE in Ferguson, that they still will not admit was Michael Brown's own fault. Even the Justice Dept, who looks for anything to blame on the police found nothing wrong with the actions of the officer. Who by the way, has had his life ruined as he had to fear for his life everyday and move away.
For my part, I vowed to never spend another dollar in Baltimore, a city I visited for dinner once or twice a month for the last 20 years. After watching the actions of the citizens burning and looting the CVS, I made my mind up. Sure it only hurts those who actually work for a living and it wont make much of a difference, but it makes me feel good knowing there is something I can do. Maybe this is how these protestors feel.
It won't make a difference to the BLM protestors. How many do you think actually work for a living?
Which is why they thrive on looting and pilaging.
Quote: GandlerIt won't make a difference to the BLM protestors. How many do you think actually work for a living?
Which is why they thrive on looting and pillaging.
Just like what the extremist/radical elements do within Islam i.e. claim racism or fear of Muslims. Of course the good Muslims /or Blacks will NEVER admit there's a problem within there ranks, or they don't condone the violent actions of their members. Disenfranchised blacks thrive on looting and pillaging - & the radical Muslims thrive on death and mayhem.
Bear in mind that this was an event that the majority of the time was scheduled for a Q/A so if they had a reasonable disagreement with him, they could have taken their time to debate. But instead they interrupted his opening speech and acted like animals which of course led to them being removed. Which prevented them from actually engaging in discourse.
Of course those people have no valid talking points or statistics that validate their claims so all they can ever do is try to destroy events, riot, and loot.
Quote: GandlerOne of my student political groups (YAL) had Milo Yiannopoulos speak at the Rutgers Chapter last night. I could not make it. But not surprisingly the two groups that harassed the event and tried to hijack it were BLM and some Feminist groups...
Bear in mind that this was an event that the majority of the time was scheduled for a Q/A so if they had a reasonable disagreement with him, they could have taken their time to debate. But instead they interrupted his opening speech and acted like animals which of course led to them being removed. Which prevented them from actually engaging in discourse.
Of course those people have no valid talking points or statistics that validate their claims so all they can ever do is try to destroy events, riot, and loot.
The bolded type above reminded me of this little tidbit - A black person walks into a laundry mat & asks for the manager. He wants to complain about all the white colored washing machines, SO the manager lifts the lids of two machines and says: look at those two BLACK agitators inside. IMO so many of todays African Americans are very ungrateful and hateful towards others.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLThe BLM movement? f that. You got a serious answer to some serious problems, I'm all ears.
CHICAGO reported that there were NINETY homicides in AUGUST! I did not see a racial breakdown but I am guessing that the overwhelming majority were black people.
I am wondering how many black people the BLM movement think were killed unjustly by white police officers in the last DECADE in the entire USA?
The BLM 'movement' distracts from the real problem, and diverts resources to fight an imaginary foe. The 'handcuffing' of the police who patrol inner cities has in part led to the exacerbation of inner city violence.
More police patrols will treat the symptom, but not the disease.
Not saying I disagree that something needs to be done. But I don't have the answer, NOT AT ALL. Police in Baltimore are more-or-less looking the other way. Hard to blame them.
Still haven't found out the source yet, but I noticed all these similar comments on an article about Costco charging tax they weren't supposed to on toilet paper. Class action going after them betting the unjust tax money would stay in Costco coffers and everyone was so critical of the people, blaming them. The comments were just so peculiar, common, and repetitive. Sometimes these people beat around the bush, never speaking of the logical next step, letting the listener "have the idea" themselves. You listen waiting for them to mention it, but they go on.
