Question for all the Michael Brown sympathizers: Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without...

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Voice of Reason wrote:

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

Because he wasn't a rocket scientist?

saveamerica Loc: Texas

Voice of Reason wrote:

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

Here is the problem. B****s commit majority of the Crimes in America (67.6%), 27.4% Mexicans, 2.8% W****s and 2.2% Other.

Statistic would be majority of B****s would be Shot, K**led, Pulled Over, Arrested by Cops and B****s would be the most Convicted and Jailed. 90% of all Black murders are done by other B****s. 96% of White women are Rape by Black males. You have 0.0% of White males raping Black females.

So by Government figures, B****s are Americans Biggest problem.

So what can we do about it???

How can Americans get B****s to obey the laws of America?????

One final thing.

You cannot blame the W****s for any of your problems. We have nothing to do with it.

B****s have done this to themselves. B****s have basically Destroyed their own race.

Watching Ferguson I can see who the real R****t are. They are B****s....

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

Because he is Black and Holder/Obama has his back.

moldyoldy

saveamerica wrote:

Here is the problem. B****s commit majority of the... (show quote)

Your own prejudices have got you making up statistics,
Crime
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 4,000 4,149 105 87

By percentage White 48.0% Black 49.7% Indian/Eskimo 1.3% Pacific Isl.1.0%

moldyoldy

Voice of Reason wrote:

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

If you want to be the voice of reason, then look at both sides and you will see that you are totally screwed up. And in their attempts to demonize Brown, no one mentioned that Wilson is 6 feet 4 inches just like Brown.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

moldyoldy wrote:

If you want to be the voice of reason, then look at both sides and you will see that you are totally screwed up. And in their attempts to demonize Brown, no one mentioned that Wilson is 6 feet 4 inches just like Brown.

Wison was reputed to be 6'2" 200lbs. Brown 6'5" in excess of 300lbs.

dslagowski

Voice of Reason wrote:

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

You are not even realistic. Here is the situation; young man, black, steals from a store, cops are called by the store owner, cop shows up, black man, and trust me I do not trust all cops but, then when the cop pulls up to him after stealing, hits him through the driver side of his car. (That means the cop is sitting down.) You have the audacity to sit here and say, "poor little boy" lost his life after charging an officer who was in fear of his life. This isn't a small man who robed a store, 6 feet 5 inches tall and 250 lbs. I hope someone that big comes after you. You are not thinking clearly at all. This is BO's doing pitting b****s against w****s, Mexican, etc., love your puppet or leave his side. Oh you will be on that FEMA bus that you can't get off because you are a free person. Open your eyes!

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

Voice of Reason wrote:

Supposedly there is a r****t culture in this country which is, in part, exemplified by white policemen shooting black teens without cause. That is the excuse given for the upstanding fine black folks in Ferguson l**ting and destroying their neighbors' property.

So, my question is, given this massive well-known epidemic of white police violence against black teens, why did Michael Brown think he could beat on, and then taunt, a white cop with impunity?

this is just BS spread by the r****t

moldyoldy

dslagowski wrote:

You are not even realistic. Here is the situation... (show quote)

If you actually followed the case, you would know that most of your facts are completely wrong.

moldyoldy

McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault. Or more or less anything.

On any charge considered, it would have taken nine v**es to bring an indictment. We've been given the racial breakdown of the jury, which certainly suggests one answer to "how did they come to this conclusion," but it's what we'll never be told that's the real clue. With nine white jurors, it's easy to imagine that Wilson might have been protected by a handful of jurors who held onto a r****t view of events. However, because of the way things were presented to the jury, confusion on any particular v**e may have been generated by people pulling for a greater charge. We can't know, because the exact v**es on any charge will never be released. And it's clear that, despite McCulloch's smirking protests about being "fair" this process was anything but normal.

Giving the grand jury no instruction is equivalent to throwing them into the deep end of the pool with no swimming lessons. They had to work it out for themselves. It's not unusual for the prosecutor to not suggest a specific charge, but it's almost unprecedented for the prosecutor to dump all the evidence on the jury and leave them to figure it out for themselves. Almost, unprecedented, but not quite.

Question: How many police officers have been indicted in shooting incidents since Bob McCulloch became prosecutor way back in 1991?

Answer: None

McCulloch is the son of a police officer who was shot in the line of duty. In his 24 years as prosecutor, he has never recommended charges against any police officer. How did that happen? It happened in large part because these cases are not handled like other cases.

Question: Had this been a completely different sort of incident, one in which an officer had been k**led, would you have instructed the jury in the same way?

Answer: Oh, hell no.

In the majority of incidentsmake that every other type of incidentMcCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.

In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute. This case was given very special treatment, treatment designed to promote the sort of confusion that leads to "no true bill."

The whole presentation to the grand jury was engineered not only to generate this outcome, but to do so in a way that uses the grand jury process to shield the true nature of what happened. It's a system that McCulloch knows well.

Another very good question that I forgot until it came up in comments: How is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.

Loki Loc: Georgia

moldyoldy wrote:

Your own prejudices have got you making up statistics,
Crime
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 4,000 4,149 105 87

By percentage White 48.0% Black 49.7% Indian/Eskimo 1.3% Pacific Isl.1.0%

B****s are more like 64% of the murder/manslaughter convictions, almost all males between the ages of 15 and 45. This is about 6% of the population. Most of their victims are other b****s. Doubtless caused by more white r****m

dslagowski

moldyoldy wrote:

McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault. Or more or less anything.

On any charge considered, it would have taken nine v**es to bring an indictment. We've been given the racial breakdown of the jury, which certainly suggests one answer to "how did they come to this conclusion," but it's what we'll never be told that's the real clue. With nine white jurors, it's easy to imagine that Wilson might have been protected by a handful of jurors who held onto a r****t view of events. However, because of the way things were presented to the jury, confusion on any particular v**e may have been generated by people pulling for a greater charge. We can't know, because the exact v**es on any charge will never be released. And it's clear that, despite McCulloch's smirking protests about being "fair" this process was anything but normal.

Giving the grand jury no instruction is equivalent to throwing them into the deep end of the pool with no swimming lessons. They had to work it out for themselves. It's not unusual for the prosecutor to not suggest a specific charge, but it's almost unprecedented for the prosecutor to dump all the evidence on the jury and leave them to figure it out for themselves. Almost, unprecedented, but not quite.

Question: How many police officers have been indicted in shooting incidents since Bob McCulloch became prosecutor way back in 1991?

Answer: None

McCulloch is the son of a police officer who was shot in the line of duty. In his 24 years as prosecutor, he has never recommended charges against any police officer. How did that happen? It happened in large part because these cases are not handled like other cases.

Question: Had this been a completely different sort of incident, one in which an officer had been k**led, would you have instructed the jury in the same way?

Answer: Oh, hell no.

In the majority of incidentsmake that every other type of incidentMcCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.

In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute. This case was given very special treatment, treatment designed to promote the sort of confusion that leads to "no true bill."

The whole presentation to the grand jury was engineered not only to generate this outcome, but to do so in a way that uses the grand jury process to shield the true nature of what happened. It's a system that McCulloch knows well.

Another very good question that I forgot until it came up in comments: How is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.

McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what cha... (show quote)

Even if this was a routine stop, the kid punched an officer through the driver side of a squad car. What kinda dumb are you, know matter the color of you skin. Here is a what a BLACK person who witnessed this stated to the Grand Jury, with also has been the officer statement, and concluded by medical examiners.

The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.

The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson neighborhood where Mr. Brown, 18 and unarmed, met his death on Aug. 9 including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence, the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said in a news conference.

The duty of the grand jury is to separate fact and fiction, he said in a statement watched by a tense nation. No probable cause exists to file any charges against Darren Wilson.

The kid charged the officer. I don't care what color of skin you are, purple with pink pook-it-dots, you do this and your nuts!

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

moldyoldy wrote:

McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what charges they should consider. Many sources have said that the jury could have considered first degree murder, second degree murder or various levels of manslaughter. True enough. They might have also considered illegal discharge of a firearm. Or assault. Or more or less anything.

On any charge considered, it would have taken nine v**es to bring an indictment. We've been given the racial breakdown of the jury, which certainly suggests one answer to "how did they come to this conclusion," but it's what we'll never be told that's the real clue. With nine white jurors, it's easy to imagine that Wilson might have been protected by a handful of jurors who held onto a r****t view of events. However, because of the way things were presented to the jury, confusion on any particular v**e may have been generated by people pulling for a greater charge. We can't know, because the exact v**es on any charge will never be released. And it's clear that, despite McCulloch's smirking protests about being "fair" this process was anything but normal.

Giving the grand jury no instruction is equivalent to throwing them into the deep end of the pool with no swimming lessons. They had to work it out for themselves. It's not unusual for the prosecutor to not suggest a specific charge, but it's almost unprecedented for the prosecutor to dump all the evidence on the jury and leave them to figure it out for themselves. Almost, unprecedented, but not quite.

Question: How many police officers have been indicted in shooting incidents since Bob McCulloch became prosecutor way back in 1991?

Answer: None

McCulloch is the son of a police officer who was shot in the line of duty. In his 24 years as prosecutor, he has never recommended charges against any police officer. How did that happen? It happened in large part because these cases are not handled like other cases.

Question: Had this been a completely different sort of incident, one in which an officer had been k**led, would you have instructed the jury in the same way?

Answer: Oh, hell no.

In the majority of incidentsmake that every other type of incidentMcCulloch actively speaks with the jury, directing them in what to look for, discussing possible charges, clearing up issues, actively seeking an indictment. He didn't do that in this case.

In this case, the grand jury was given a mountain of evidence, and next to no help in how they should deal with it. It's exactly how McCulloch would not handle any other case. This "hands off" attitude wasn't just unusual, it's precisely a negation of what a prosecutor is asked to do. McCulloch didn't prosecute. This case was given very special treatment, treatment designed to promote the sort of confusion that leads to "no true bill."

The whole presentation to the grand jury was engineered not only to generate this outcome, but to do so in a way that uses the grand jury process to shield the true nature of what happened. It's a system that McCulloch knows well.

Another very good question that I forgot until it came up in comments: How is it that what the grand jury was told about Wilson's knowledge of the incident at the store involving cigars is completely at odds with the public testimony of the Ferguson police chief two days after the incident? How is it that Wilson having "made" Brown as a suspect in a robbery, called for backup, but that call is not recorded in any of the released transcripts of police communications? That whole section of McCulloch's statement, covering Wilson's extremely unusual testimony before the grand jury, is completely at odds with everything we were told for the last four months.

McCulloch gave the jury no instruction on what cha... (show quote)

I guess you are not aware that the prosecutor is the one running the grand jury he ask the question there are no defense lawyers present so the idea he should go to trial so he could be cross examined is ludicrous

MrEd Loc: Georgia

PoppaGringo wrote:

Because he is Black and Holder/Obama has his back.

That didn't seem to stop that bullet from hitting him in the head though, did it? Obama and Holder can have your back all the way to the grave yard. Fat lot of good that is doing him now.

Any i***t that charges a cop with a gun in his hand with their head down is not thinking very well. That i***t needed to stop and think, now am I bullet proof and can I REALLY charge that officer with that gun with impunity? ANY normal man would stop and think that maybe that is not a very good idea, but this clown is so used to making bad decisions that he doesn't stop to think much about anything, except what he wants. That seems to be a major flaw with most i***ts like him. They forgot how to think for themselves.