Jump to content

Ferguson


TPS

Recommended Posts

Did she really say "excessive case forces"? I couldn't get the video to play.

 

Excessive use of force cases. Bad typo, sorry.

 

There was one death last night.

 

Link?

 

Yes, I know...but I don't trust anything the Daily Mail says without confirmation. They're just as likely to say there was a UFO abduction last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

he's a dolphin fan?

 

Looking at him I would say it could be if he grew up here. What do they play in Jordan? Soccer? That's a whole other thread.

 

The lenses on his glasses are shaped like hexagons. I think the brand name is "Slaptheseoffmypretentiousface.com Optics".

 

Excessive use of force cases. Bad typo, sorry.

 

 

 

Link?

 

Yes, I know...but I don't trust anything the Daily Mail says without confirmation. They're just as likely to say there was a UFO abduction last night.

 

So the aliens killed a guy?

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excessive use of force cases. Bad typo, sorry.

No need to apologize since it wasn't your typo. The article had that in there so I was wondering if that's what she really said.

 

LISA BLOOM, NBC LEGAL ANALYST: I handle excessive case forces

 

Link?

 

Yes, I know...but I don't trust anything the Daily Mail says without confirmation. They're just as likely to say there was a UFO abduction last night.

That's all I got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How a false media narrative made Ferguson worse

by Howard Kurtz

 

It was a split-screen spectacle, the president of the United States appealing for calm while Ferguson was starting to erupt in flames.

 

As Obama was saying “there is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it will make for good TV,” the images of tear gas and looting were competing for attention.

 

I don’t know that anything the president said at that point could have deterred the protestors and agitators after no indictment was returned, and here’s why: They were reacting to a media narrative that hardened into cement soon after the tragedy. And we now know that narrative was filled with misinformation.

 

We now know that some eyewitnesses changed their stories, or admitted they never actually saw the shooting.

 

But their accounts echoed across the media landscape, that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the back, that Brown had his hands up, that he was trying to surrender.

 

As St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCullough said in scolding the Fourth Estate:

 

“The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24 hour news cycle, and its insatiable appetite for something for anything to talk about,” he said.Following closely behind were non-stop rumors on social media.”

 

 

more at the link: http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending

 

 

 

 

These are no looter-day saints

by Michael Goodwin

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Wilson's testimony is pretty unbelievable. You guys are freaking hilarious.

 

 

As long as you agree with the verdict...honeslty, Wilsons' tesitimony sounds like a crock of ****. Ignore the fact that the prosecuter in this case seemed to have a conflict of interest and did a terrible job, the jury wasn't made aware of evidence that would have put the witnesses for the defendant in major question, yeah, that is a great write up.

 

Do you understand what the term "probable cause" means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and if the kid killed those cops would we hear a thing about it?

 

Yes, we would have heard about it. Are you doubting that?

 

Honestly, I wasn't even questioning the cops in this Cleveland case...just think the whole situation is sad.

 

My father was a police officer. My grandfather too...killed as result of injuries sustained on the job, before i was born. He was pushed out of a window while trying to break up a domestic squable, early 60's. Died a few weeks later.

 

I am not one of those who always thinks cops are in the wrong...but I do remember my father, an old guy, often saying that a lot of the "younger cops" (he was saying this in the 90's, mind you) had no business being cops. It's a thankless job...but it takes a certain tempermant. Maybe that temperment doesn't exist anymore.

Edited by Buftex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I particularly like when the Grand Jury caught him in various lies and he almost tripped over himself in his backpedal.

In cases like this it is almost impossible to trust the witness in this circumstance because he was likely in such shock from the initial theft to begin with; I do not think his intent was to lie or be wrong, I just think he did not know what he did not know and strung together the rest with what he could make up to justify what he saw. It was not malicious in my opinion, but I'd like to hear what cases you believed he was lying.

 

Yes, we would have heard about it. Are you doubting that?

 

Honestly, I wasn't even questioning the cops in this Cleveland case...just think the whole situation is sad.

 

My father was a police officer. My grandfather too...killed as result of injuries sustained on the job, before i was born. He was pushed out of a window while trying to break up a domestic squable, early 60's. Died a few weeks later.

 

I am not one of those who always thinks cops are in the wrong...but I do remember my father, an old guy, often saying that a lot of the "younger cops" (he was saying this in the 90's, mind you) had no business being cops. It's a thankless job...but it takes a certain tempermant. Maybe that temperment doesn't exist anymore.

We would have heard it as a quick mention on the news, seen a few stories on it and then it would have been silenced by the "black kid shot by white cop, herpderp, justice, peace, no rest, herp derp, racism."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In cases like this it is almost impossible to trust the witness in this circumstance because he was likely in such shock from the initial theft to begin with; I do not think his intent was to lie or be wrong, I just think he did not know what he did not know and strung together the rest with what he could make up to justify what he saw. It was not malicious in my opinion, but I'd like to hear what cases you believed he was lying.

 

Wilson supposedly told them to "Get the F#$@ on the sidewalk", but then he (Johnson) says on page 65 lines 21 through 24 "At that time the officer didn't really look like, you know, he was mad or he was telling us that we was committing a crime, he was just saying get on the sidewalk."

 

Johnson testifies that he brought money to go buy breakfast for his girlfriend and child, and get some cigarillos to smoke weed. Then he testifies that he has no pockets in his pants. Grand Jury notices this and asks about it..."Oh, I keep my money in my shoe". Really? He also said that he intended to pay for the cigarillos, yet had no real reason as to why he didn't except he wanted to just get out of the store and away from the situation. Moments later, Brown and Johnson are just nonchalantly strolling down the middle of the road talking about what their futures held. Sound like someone who was so scared of the robbery that had just occurred?

 

He goes into great detail to describe how Wilson pulled Brown into the patrol car and Brown was just trying to pull away. Yet, when confronted with common sense - how was a 6'4" 285 lb man not able to pull away from an officer's single handed grasp - he has no real answer.

 

Thats just a few that I noticed upon my initial skimming...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilson supposedly told them to "Get the F#$@ on the sidewalk", but then he (Johnson) says on page 65 lines 21 through 24 "At that time the officer didn't really look like, you know, he was mad or he was telling us that we was committing a crime, he was just saying get on the sidewalk."

 

Johnson testifies that he brought money to go buy breakfast for his girlfriend and child, and get some cigarillos to smoke weed. Then he testifies that he has no pockets in his pants. Grand Jury notices this and asks about it..."Oh, I keep my money in my shoe". Really? He also said that he intended to pay for the cigarillos, yet had no real reason as to why he didn't except he wanted to just get out of the store and away from the situation. Moments later, Brown and Johnson are just nonchalantly strolling down the middle of the road talking about what their futures held. Sound like someone who was so scared of the robbery that had just occurred?

 

He goes into great detail to describe how Wilson pulled Brown into the patrol car and Brown was just trying to pull away. Yet, when confronted with common sense - how was a 6'4" 285 lb man not able to pull away from an officer's single handed grasp - he has no real answer.

 

Thats just a few that I noticed upon my initial skimming...

The money thing I just chalked up to him actually doing that because if I don't have pants I usually do that.

 

The issue about getting to the sidewalk I think was just exaggerated because he was a bit riled up, same with him leaving the store. I think he was just and is just a dumb guy who wanted to not be on camera or get shot and did not put the full puzzle together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money thing I just chalked up to him actually doing that because if I don't have pants I usually do that.

 

The issue about getting to the sidewalk I think was just exaggerated because he was a bit riled up, same with him leaving the store. I think he was just and is just a dumb guy who wanted to not be on camera or get shot and did not put the full puzzle together.

 

Is an "exaggeration" a lie? Is the exaggeration intended to create a false appearance of Officer Wilson's demeanor? To paint him as a hateful cop?

 

Regarding not being on camera - so, what you are saying is he knew a crime was being committed and he was implicated in it and he didn't want to get caught?

 

The Grand Jury got to the bottom of that little episode, when Johnson finally admitted that the purpose of walking down the middle of the road was to act tough in the neighborhood.

Edited by Sig1Hunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is an "exaggeration" a lie? Is the exaggeration intended to create a false appearance of Officer Wilson's demeanor? To paint him as a hateful cop?

 

Regarding not being on camera - so, what you are saying is he knew a crime was being committed and he was implicated in it and he didn't want to get caught?

 

The Grand Jury got to the bottom of that little episode, when Johnson finally admitted that the purpose of walking down the middle of the road was to act tough in the neighborhood.

Is an "exaggeration" a lie? Is the exaggeration intended to create a false appearance of Officer Wilson's demeanor? To paint him as a hateful cop?

 

Regarding not being on camera - so, what you are saying is he knew a crime was being committed and he was implicated in it and he didn't want to get caught?

 

The Grand Jury got to the bottom of that little episode, when Johnson finally admitted that the purpose of walking down the middle of the road was to act tough in the neighborhood.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am putting myself in the witnesses shoes with his money.

 

The guy may or may not have been traumatized but likely did not see everything yet told himself he did and made up for it by connecting the dots in his head. It's human nature and it is why witnesses are awful at accounting for events until forensics can match the testimony.

 

He likely believed that the cop was a little hostile and had to draw up in his mind that the cop was that way, if he was or wasn't lying it's hard to say. It just comes with using a witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not disagreeing with you. I am putting myself in the witnesses shoes with his money.

 

The guy may or may not have been traumatized but likely did not see everything yet told himself he did and made up for it by connecting the dots in his head. It's human nature and it is why witnesses are awful at accounting for events until forensics can match the testimony.

 

He likely believed that the cop was a little hostile and had to draw up in his mind that the cop was that way, if he was or wasn't lying it's hard to say. It just comes with using a witness.

 

No doubt that witnesses can process things differently. I understand that - its part of my job. With Johnson, I believe it is a little more than that. Seeing his interviews after the incident, where the MSM jumped on his version of events (which largely fueled the impending national uproar and false narrative) and reading the transcript of his testimony, I dont believe that his mind subconsciously "filled in the empty spaces" as does typically and naturally happen. I believe his version is filled with more conscious and intentional deception. Thats all.

 

Was Wilson exaggerating a little too? Was he really fending off the Incredible Hulk?

 

The difference is this: "It was like a 5 year old against Hulk Hogan". It was a metaphor in order to describe his mindset. Different than stating things as fact "He said get the F off the street".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Wilson exaggerating a little too? Was he really fending off the Incredible Hulk?

Let me tell you as someone who has had to deal with a very large, hopped up person - you wouldn't be so cavalier if you'd ever faced the same thing. Brown was on drugs and very likely on a dopamine high from his earlier shenanigans. A guy that big in that state is capable of plenty of mayhem that you couldn't imagine if you'd never seen it.

 

But keep up the narrative because it fits your politics and most likely the choice you made when you first heard all the for profit media "reporting."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...