(quote) Publicus, #194 -- "Michael Browns parents testify at UN in Geneva: We need answers, mom says" <deleted> is happening to this crazy World? A boy robs a shop, is under influence of whatever shit he was taking, has an argument (if not a fight?) with a Police officer, disobeys orders, threatens people with a handgun (fake?) Police see the gun and shoots the son of a 'mom' Who is now demanding 'answers' from UN!!! ANYONE who BLAMES the Police officer IS CRAZY. UN listening to this 'mom' and 'dad' ARE CRAZY, IRRELEVANT and HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. The whole rigmarole including 'rioting', Judicial inquiry, Judge and Jury is a reflection of the ROT in US society. The whole issue lies in the COLOR of this no good 'child'. People, WAKE UP! YOU ARE CRAZY! Stop politicizing the sad event for which the blame must be laid at the feet of the victim (now dead) or his parents (now demanding answers and traveling to Geneva).

Caaaalm down, they're going to get her as well.

Michael Browns mother may face felony armed robbery charges: report

Lesley McSpadden allegedly led a group of 20 to 30 people to a tent in a parking lot in Ferguson, Mo. on Oct. 18 to beat and rob vendors selling 'Justice for Michael Brown' merchandise.

The stepfather too. What a family!

There have been calls for his arrest for inciting the crowd after the verdict: "Burn this b**** down".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848827/Burn-b-emotional-reaction-Michael-Brown-s-family-repeatedly-called-calm-ultimately-not-hide-anger.html

If you are referring to the robbery, Willson was NOT AWARE of that, according to Fergussons very own police- chief.

Wrong again. Read the Grand Jury evidence. Officer Wilson WAS AWARE of the robbery.

a) where is your answer to my Trayvon- question?

b ) wrong! The Fergusson police- chief said, he didn't! He was asked, if he was sure! Yes, he was sure! He was specifically asked, if he was saying, that he didn't know! No, he didn't know!

Later it was said, he was aware, but unfortunatly/ conveniently, there was no evidence of that fact.

Trayvon Martin was caught for vandalizing his school and the police found a lot of expensive women's jewelry, that he could not account for, and burglary tools in his bag. He had also been caught for drugs before that.

Officer Wilson stopped Brown for walking in the street, but then realized that he was the robbery suspect, when he saw the stolen items in his hand. The police chief said that Wilson did not realize that Brown was the robbery suspect, until he saw the evidence and realized that he was dressed like the wanted man.

Edited November 27, 201411 yr by Ulysses G.

If you are referring to the robbery, Willson was NOT AWARE of that, according to Fergussons very own police- chief.

Wrong again. Read the Grand Jury evidence. Officer Wilson WAS AWARE of the robbery.

The Ferguson police chief initially said Wilson did not know Brown may have been a suspect in a theft. Then the chief changed his story to say Wilson did know. Sounds like the chief wasn't sure which version would be better to present to the public et al.

Wilson disappeared for a considerable period of time without having filed an FPD Incident Report. Wilson had plenty of time to hide away -- hide for whatever reason and there were many reason of all kinds -- and to get his lawyer, confer with the FPD police association of which he was a member, possibly make clandestine or surreptitious contacts with local and county law enforcement officials, perhaps to include the county public prosecutor or his office, Robert McCulloch.

There's been no public accounting of Wilson's location or his contacts while in hiding, and as I said, Wilson had many and varied reasons to hide.

When Wilson filed his FPD Incident Report the Incident Section was left blank As far as I know, Wilson's FPD Incident Report remains confidential.

Let's also remember that neither Brown nor Wilson have been convicted of anything that occurred on that day. One shot the other to death and one was unarmed. Neither was arrested, charged, arraigned. (Did Wilson place Brown under arrest?) Neither have been cleared.

The grand jury did not find probable cause. It did not pass on Wilson's innocence or guilt. Probable cause, innocence, guilt, are three different things among many other factors.

*The problems in Ferguson, Missouri, will continue long after the Grand Jury’s final decision. The real problem in Ferguson is the fact that the residents are stuck with a police department that seemingly lacks ethnic diversity, appears racially insensitive and is unwilling to admit changes within are necessary.

http://www.eurweb.com/2014/11/blackandbluenews-problems-in-ferguson-extend-beyond-grand-jury-decision/

Let's also remember that neither Brown nor Wilson have been convicted of anything that occurred on that day. One shot the other to death and one was unarmed. Neither was arrested, charged, arraigned. (Did Wilson place Brown under arrest?) Neither have been cleared.

I am pretty sure that you can't place a dead criminal under arrest and what would be the point?

For all intents and purposes Officer Wilson was cleared of criminal charges. Eric Holder would look like an idiot if he tried to file civil rights charges against Wilson and despite the racial pandering, he will never go through with it. They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown was shot because he was black and that is very unlikely.

There might be civil charges, but the fact that there were no criminal charges and the differing accounts of the fight at the car would make it harder for a civil suit to be successful.

It is difficult to find locals who can get a clearance to be a police officer the same as it difficult to find speakers of certain languages who can get a top secret clearance so the army has to train people to speak the language instead of using native speakers in many cases.

Indeed !! Which takes me back to my original post in this thread suggesting that education is the key...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/779128-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-jury-reaches-verdict/page-9#entry8727089

By clearance I meant people who have not been arrested and charged and/or convicted of a crime. Or who have heroes who are gangbangers and not the lone ranger. When I grew up kids watched cowboys on TV now it's videos of people singing about shooting police officers.

Any number of studies have shown that better education reduces crime

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-lowers-crime.html

.... hence better chances of becoming eligible for clearance to be on a grand jury, or to be a translator.

The Lone Ranger is not pc now -- but then again -- neither is Tom and Jerry

I just watched the movie with Johnney Depp/Tonto, I thought it was cool again?

Do you think that a better education actually reduces crime or makes smarter criminals and they don't get caught as much? Re Jesse Jackson Jr. although he did get caught. Maybe he needed more education.

Edited November 27, 201411 yr by thailiketoo

Let's also remember that neither Brown nor Wilson have been convicted of anything that occurred on that day. One shot the other to death and one was unarmed. Neither was arrested, charged, arraigned. (Did Wilson place Brown under arrest?) Neither have been cleared.

I am pretty sure that you can't place a dead criminal under arrest and what would be the point?

For all intents and purposes Officer Wilson was cleared of criminal charges. Eric Holder would look like an idiot if he tried to file civil rights charges against Wilson and despite the racial pandering, he will never go through with it. They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown was shot because he was black and that is very unlikely.

There might be civil charges, but the fact that there were no criminal charges and the differing accounts of the fight at the car would make it harder for a civil suit to be successful.

Under that senario Mikey Brown's criminal records will come out.

The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ

The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period.

So make a genuine effort to recognize the fact, accept the reality, deal with the significance of it in every respect to include socially, culturally, in politics and as an integral part of United States history. Denial gets people exactly nowhere and makes them appear to be not only plaintive but also evasive and, moreover, dreary, self-righteous, petulant.

Slavery existed for 300 years until a bloody civil war ended it. Racist lawful institutional discrimination carried on for another 100 years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked a radical turning point as did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If slavery had not existed.....

One major and real shortcoming of the Civil Right Act is that it makes federal prosecution in instances of mortal racial conflict literally impossible to pursue, which means that that aspect of the law needs to be amended to enhance the credibility and the relevance of the judicial system and the viability of the institutions of law enforcement to include the extent to which the Act is applicable to everyday real life, as in Ferguson and St Louis county..

It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction.

"It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction." What on earth are you talking about? Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist?

"The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding.

You once said you had been a federal investigator. Who wrote your reports? If I supervised an investigator who submitted reports written like you write, I would reassign you to the janitorial department or some other sort of menial tasks.

Once the Ferguson grand jury released their verdict, the blacks resumed their looting and burning of their business community. If anyone ever wondered why so many blacks occupy prison cells, all they have to do is look at the way they responded to the grand jury verdict. Somewhere along the line, these people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others for what they do.

It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services.

The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ

The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period.

So make a genuine effort to recognize the fact, accept the reality, deal with the significance of it in every respect to include socially, culturally, in politics and as an integral part of United States history. Denial gets people exactly nowhere and makes them appear to be not only plaintive but also evasive and, moreover, dreary, self-righteous, petulant.

Slavery existed for 300 years until a bloody civil war ended it. Racist lawful institutional discrimination carried on for another 100 years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked a radical turning point as did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If slavery had not existed.....

One major and real shortcoming of the Civil Right Act is that it makes federal prosecution in instances of mortal racial conflict literally impossible to pursue, which means that that aspect of the law needs to be amended to enhance the credibility and the relevance of the judicial system and the viability of the institutions of law enforcement to include the extent to which the Act is applicable to everyday real life, as in Ferguson and St Louis county..

It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction.

"It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned."It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction." What on earth are you talking about? Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist?

"The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding.

You once said you had been a federal investigator. Who wrote your reports? If I supervised an investigator who submitted reports written like you write, I would reassign you to the janitorial department or some other sort of menial tasks.

Once the Ferguson grand jury released their verdict, the blacks resumed their looting and burning of their business community. If anyone ever wondered why so many blacks occupy prison cells, all they have to do is look at the way they responded to the grand jury verdict. Somewhere along the line, these people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others for what they do.

It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services.

Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist?

Dr. Fraud Freud I presume?

If I

My post you quote discusses the "If.....blah blah blah" syndrome as one of denial of reality in favor of constructing a fantasy you can live with.

It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services.

Next thing you'll be out dancing on his grave if you haven't done it already.

Now i'll quote my own post using the boldface you added.....

"It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned."

I do indeed commend you and others for having up to this point quit trying to get away with the term "reverse racism". It is good to see some of the fiction around here getting toned down or abandoned completely.

"The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding.

You quote my reply to another poster who has a different take on the color and race issue from your view. You deleted the post to which I replied and inserted your own view for that of the poster. The poster's view is.....The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ

Do try to keep up with these things because misapplying quotes and whole posts can point to an inability to process basic information and data.

Edited November 27, 201411 yr by Publicus

The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ

The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period.

So make a genuine effort to recognize the fact, accept the reality, deal with the significance of it in every respect to include socially, culturally, in politics and as an integral part of United States history. Denial gets people exactly nowhere and makes them appear to be not only plaintive but also evasive and, moreover, dreary, self-righteous, petulant.

Slavery existed for 300 years until a bloody civil war ended it. Racist lawful institutional discrimination carried on for another 100 years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked a radical turning point as did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If slavery had not existed.....

One major and real shortcoming of the Civil Right Act is that it makes federal prosecution in instances of mortal racial conflict literally impossible to pursue, which means that that aspect of the law needs to be amended to enhance the credibility and the relevance of the judicial system and the viability of the institutions of law enforcement to include the extent to which the Act is applicable to everyday real life, as in Ferguson and St Louis county..

It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction.

"It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned."It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned. Now take the next step of the multi-step recovery process to deal effectively with a long term and profound social and cultural addiction." What on earth are you talking about? Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist?

"The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding.

You once said you had been a federal investigator. Who wrote your reports? If I supervised an investigator who submitted reports written like you write, I would reassign you to the janitorial department or some other sort of menial tasks.

Once the Ferguson grand jury released their verdict, the blacks resumed their looting and burning of their business community. If anyone ever wondered why so many blacks occupy prison cells, all they have to do is look at the way they responded to the grand jury verdict. Somewhere along the line, these people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others for what they do.

It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services.

Do you get this verbiage from Alcoholics Anonymous literature or pamphlets from your psychiatrist?

Dr. Fraud Freud I presume?

If I

My post you quote discusses the "If.....blah blah blah" syndrome as one of denial of reality in favor of constructing a fantasy you can live with.

It is unfortunate Brown died as a result of being shot by the police. It would have been better if Brown had survived and been able to experience life as a recipient of correctional services.

Next thing you'll be out dancing on his grave if you haven't done it already.

Now i'll quote my own post using the boldface you added.....

"It is a sign of some progress that the retrogressive term "reverse racism" has been all but abandoned."

I do indeed commend you and others for having up to this point quit trying to get away with the term "reverse racism". It is good to see some of the fiction around here getting toned down or abandoned completely.

"The fact remains Michael Brown was black." You sound like a broken record. The fact Brown was black had nothing to do with this incident. Your inability to process simple facts is astounding.

You quote my reply to another poster who has a different take on the color and race issue from your view. You deleted the post to which I replied and inserted your own view for that of the poster. The poster's view is.....The fact remains, if Brown had been white this would not have gone to the GJ

Do try to keep up with these things because misapplying quotes and whole posts can point to an inability to process basic information and data.

Interesting reply. I sure wish you would enrol in an English writing course. It would make it much easier to decipher your nonsencial postings if you could write. I feel like a code breaker after reading your posts.

Trayvon Martin was caught for vandalizing his school and the police found a lot of expensive women's jewelry, that he could not account for, and burglary tools in his bag. He had also been caught for drugs before that.

Officer Wilson stopped Brown for walking in the street, but then realized that he was the robbery suspect, when he saw the stolen items in his hand. The police chief said that Wilson did not realize that Brown was the robbery suspect, until he saw the evidence and realized that he was dressed like the wanted man.

...and thank god, America's best armed hall- monitor, George Zimmermann, took care of the troublemaker in the right manor.

Uuuuuhhh, he did drugs! So...he was an unruly teenager, because I never heard about the "expensive jewelery" before. I guess, it is about as correct, as the sudden enlightenment of officer Willson about Brown, having done a robbery, which there is no account for (the knowledge of Willson...not the robbery of Brown).

Both of them indulged in criminal activities, both had a propensity for violence and both were responsible for their own demise. Your spin on the seriousness of the crimes makes no difference as to their fates and who was responsible for them.

Timely advice by the funniest man alive, Chris Rock

Edited November 28, 201411 yr by EyesWideOpen

Chris Rock makes a LOT of sense.

The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period.

Both of them indulged in criminal activities, both had a propensity for violence and both were responsible for their own demise. According to all the evidence, being black is not why they were dispatched.

Care to enlighten us, in which "criminal activity" Treyvon Martin was engaged?

And what kind of role actually the criminal activity played in the Michael Browne- shooting?

If you are referring to the robbery, Willson was NOT AWARE of that, according to Fergussons very own police- chief.

Or are you referring to jaywalking and talking back to a policeman?

This may come as shock to you, but Brown wasn't shot for "jaywalking or talking back to a policeman." When Brown decided to attack Office Wilson, inside his vehicle and attempted to relieve Officer Wilson of his weapon was what got Brown shot. What part of this incident don't you understand or are you trying to out do Publicus for having the most immature and nonsensical posts?

The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period.

Both of them indulged in criminal activities, both had a propensity for violence and both were responsible for their own demise. According to all the evidence, being black is not why they were dispatched.

Care to enlighten us, in which "criminal activity" Treyvon Martin was engaged?

And what kind of role actually the criminal activity played in the Michael Browne- shooting?

If you are referring to the robbery, Willson was NOT AWARE of that, according to Fergussons very own police- chief.

Or are you referring to jaywalking and talking back to a policeman?

This may come as shock to you, but Brown wasn't shot for "jaywalking or talking back to a policeman." When Brown decided to attack Office Wilson, inside his vehicle and attempted to relieve Officer Wilson of his weapon was what got Brown shot. What part of this incident don't you understand or are you trying to out do Publicus for having the most immature and nonsensical posts?

Thank God, you are so mature and intellectual superior.

Sure you noticed, that in one of my earlier posts, I mention the confrontation between Willson and Brown as the one point, that I can not make heads or tail of. There has been a confrontation and Brown may as well have been the driving force. Having said that, I highly doubt, that the thing went from Willlson politely asking "Good Sir, you are aware that you are walking in the middle of the road and you may be in harms way. May I kindly ask you to step on the sidewalk for your own safety" to a struggle in 3 seconds, but I don't know that.

He sure was stopped for jaywalking.

And if Willson was so freaking scared by "Hulk Hogan"...why did he chase the guy, after he turned and walked away?

Oh...I know: he had the right...no ...the obligation to do so!

And because he had a gun, which makes him more powerful than the Hulkster!

By the way: what is that waistband - story about?

Willson was scared about Brown, having a weapon on him?

A weapon, he didn't use before but instead tried to get hold of Willsons gun?

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO &lt;deleted&gt; SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?

I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes.

Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis.

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?

I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes.

Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis.

a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed!

It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties!

What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything?

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?

I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes.

Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis.

a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed!

It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties!

What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything?

The prosecutor has the job of prosecuting; cop or no cop that's his job, not defense. How would you know what they heard? Did you read all of the testimony?

My sightseeing trip to East St. Louis? I went with two body guards to apply for a job there. If you drive through town and get a flat tire you keep driving on the rims till you get out of town to get it fixed. You ever been a soldier in a war walking thru an enemy town? It's like that. To understand the shooting you have to understand the area. I know most of the folks who read Thai Visa can't imagine the USA can be that bad but in places like East St. Louis it is. Look at the two videos below and you will realize why the media keep referring to Ferguson instead of East. St Louis although Ferguson is in East St. Louis. The media thinks we the people are not smart enough to google videos East St. Louis and find out what the area is really like.

Edited November 28, 201411 yr by thailiketoo

@ DM07

"Shot several times, while surrendering!"

If you can't prove it, you might want to preface that sort of remark with an "IMHO".

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?

I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes.

Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis.

a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed!

It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties!

What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything?

The prosecutor has the job of prosecuting; cop or no cop that's his job, not defense. How would you know what they heard? Did you read all of the testimony?

My sightseeing trip to East St. Louis? I went with two body guards to apply for a job there. If you drive through town and get a flat tire you keep driving on the rims till you get out of town to get it fixed. You ever been a soldier in a war walking thru an enemy town? It's like that. To understand the shooting you have to understand the area. I know most of the folks who read Thai Visa can't imagine the USA can be that bad but in places like East St. Louis it is. Look at the two videos below and you will realize why the media keep referring to Ferguson instead of East. St Louis although Ferguson is in East St. Louis. The media thinks we the people are not smart enough to google videos East St. Louis and find out what the area is really like.

You may want to look for the press-conference, the prosecutor gave and listen very closely to what he says, because he is actually using almost the exact same words I used., concerning the evidence and making it as fair as possible.

Again: it is not his job to defend anyone nor to present evidence, to make it "fair".

Again: what has your description of East St. Louis to do with anything?

It is a problematic neighborhood- so what?

Does that mean, cops should just shoot people willy-nilly, because there are poor people? Minorities? Uneducated people?

What is the point, in telling me about that?

@ DM07

"Shot several times, while surrendering!"

If you can't prove it, you might want to preface that sort of remark with an "IMHO".

...and you are the Forum- police, I assume?!

But of course, I will take your well meaning advice to heart!

Again: it is not his job to defend anyone nor to present evidence, to make it "fair".

Again: what has your description of East St. Louis to do with anything?

It is a problematic neighborhood- so what?

Does that mean, cops should just shoot people willy-nilly, because there are poor people? Minorities? Uneducated people?

What is the point, in telling me about that?

Oh, I'm not one of the forum police.

I am simply a long time member that believes if a poster makes an off the wall statement, then it is either a provable fact or should be prefaced with an "IMHO".

If you can't prove it, it is merely an opinion.

However, I do wonder why you think anybody receiving a :fair" hearing before a Grand Jury is, somehow, wrong.

If you were under investigation by a Grand Jury, wouldn't you like it to be as fair as possible?

I know I would.

Trying to blow smoke up my skirt about the prosecutor's job being to prosecute, will hardly convince me his job description outweighs being fair. He very likely knew he did not have a case that would win a conviction and should not go to trial.

Presenting all the evidence in front of a Grand Jury seems to prove his point.

Edited November 28, 201411 yr by chuckd

The prosecutor's job is to prosecute cases that he can PROVE. The preponderance of evidence supports Officer Wilson's version of events. Prosecuting him anyway for political considerations would have violated his professional ethics.

You may want to look for the press-conference, the prosecutor gave and listen very closely to what he says, because he is actually using almost the exact same words I used., concerning the evidence and making it as fair as possible.

Again: it is not his job to defend anyone nor to present evidence, to make it "fair".

Again: what has your description of East St. Louis to do with anything?

It is a problematic neighborhood- so what?

Does that mean, cops should just shoot people willy-nilly, because there are poor people? Minorities? Uneducated people?

What is the point, in telling me about that?

The neighborhood is armed and dangerous. The neighborhood has no respect for law and order and/or police. If you meet ten people there 8 will have a criminal background.

There are many poor neighborhoods in the world East St. Louis is not only poor it is criminal and dangerous for police and fire department. The police are frightened and keep a finger on the trigger and rightly so.

Violent crime rate USA 214

Violent crime rate East St. Louis 3000 - 4000

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-East-St.-Louis-Illinois.html

A murder rate 17 times the U.S. average, the nation’s highest according to the FBI.

There’s the shopping mall where a police officer was shot in the face, a youth center that saw a triple homicide in September, and scattered about the city of 27,000 are brightly lit gas stations that serve as magnets for carjackers, hit-and- run robbers and killers.

The city’s killings, which hit 25 in 2011, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, or 9.23 per 10,000 people compared with the national rate of 0.55.

East St. Louis Cops Outgunned as Cuts Let Killers Thrive http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/east-st-louis-cops-outgunned-as-cuts-let-killers-thrive.html

It is not a quaint little hamlet with disadvantaged farmers milking goats trying to cope with the occasional stealing of a pound of feta cheese.

Many, many years ago I was picked to sit in the Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury. I can't begin to recall the details of two cases which appeared before us. It was a homicide by a two gang members. But I do remember I could ask almost any question I might have about the case. Usually the County Council would advise us so as not to violate a suspects legal rights. The defendants were not present but could have been called if we requested it. It is very one sided only because we are there to determine if the "Prosecution" not the "Defense" has enough evidence of a criminal act to formally charge the person (True Bill). It is not a case of innocence or guilt. I think some people are being confused by this. here is verbatim from the SCC Grand Jury website what the duties are (notice the last point):

The District Attorney's Office serves as one of the legal advisor to the grand jury and may appear before the grand jury at all times for the purpose of giving information or advice relative to any matter cognizable by the grand jury. The presiding Superior Court Judge and County Counsel, as to civil matters, may only give advice when the grand jury requests it. Generally, the district attorney advises the criminal grand jury and the county counsel advises the civil grand jury. Each grand jury has 19 members.

The criminal grand jury is impaneled for three month terms and is selected at random from the list of trial jurors in civil and criminal cases. This grand jury examines evidence presented by the district attorney and determines if there is "probable cause" to believe that an identified person committed a crime. If twelve grand jurors agree, the criminal grand jury will "find" an indictment. The indictment is immediately filed with the court, an arrest warrant is issued, and the defendant is brought before the court to answer the charges.

The district attorney may present any type of criminal case to the criminal grand jury. However, the cases are generally limited to the following:

1. Public corruption and official misconduct;
2. Multiple defendants that will result in unreasonable delay, if prosecution is by complaint;
3. Multiple defendant cases in which some defendants are pending trial and others need to be charged and joined to avoid multiple trials;
4. Complex matters such as major fraud, high tech and trade secret theft;
5. High security cases involving possible escape/rescue of prisoner witnesses;
6. Organized crime and gang cases;
7. Three strikes cases;
8. Cases involving reluctant or hostile witnesses that may require compelled testimony to complete the investigation;
9. Sensitive cases dictating that victims/witnesses should be protected from multiple detailed cross-examinations and/or confrontations with the defendants;
10. Cases arising from "sting operations" or "buy programs" that have common elements of factual proof, but may not be joinable in a prosecution by complaint;
11. High visibility cases that may be jeopardized by undue pretrial publicity resulting in a change of venue, if a preliminary hearing is conducted;
12. "Conscience of the community" matters; and
13. Police use of force cases resulting in serious injury or death.

Both of them indulged in criminal activities, both had a propensity for violence and both were responsible for their own demise. According to all the evidence, being black is not why they were dispatched.

Care to enlighten us, in which "criminal activity" Treyvon Martin was engaged?

And what kind of role actually the criminal activity played in the Michael Browne- shooting?

If you are referring to the robbery, Willson was NOT AWARE of that, according to Fergussons very own police- chief.

Or are you referring to jaywalking and talking back to a policeman?

This may come as shock to you, but Brown wasn't shot for "jaywalking or talking back to a policeman." When Brown decided to attack Office Wilson, inside his vehicle and attempted to relieve Officer Wilson of his weapon was what got Brown shot. What part of this incident don't you understand or are you trying to out do Publicus for having the most immature and nonsensical posts?

Thx for the opportunity to address the bizarre belief that certain people of color deserve to die.

I'd also wonder why, given Darren Wilson's statements on television that he was fearful of the "hulk" Michael Brown, Wilson chose to provocatively single out Brown for the serious and severe crime of jaywalking (after which Wilson noticed cigars).

A provocative cop is a dumb cop, especially when he is white on an almost all white police force in a two-thirds black population community. Talk about asking for it.....

Of course he’d mention [FPD Chief Johnson] that Negro Supercriminal Michael Brown was a robbery suspect. Because Negro Supercriminals are all guilty of all crimes. And when you’re guilty of all crimes — and you happen to be a Negro Supercriminal — you deserve to die.

Of course he’d use the word “robbery” in place of what might have been a case of a shoplifting. Because, when Negro Supercriminals are involved, shopliftings become robberies.

http://verysmartbrothas.com/negro-supercriminal-michael-brown-apparently-deserved-to-die/comment-page-4/

Darren Wilson is so wrongly righteous that his own attorneys say.....

Wilson's attorneys: He'll never be a police officer again

http://www.ksdk.com/media/cinematic/video/70133190/

If officer Darren Wilson has proved any one thing, it is that when a cop decides to be petty, it can color an officer's life and also become a career ending fault. Darren Wilson is now the poster boy to the tiny minority of police in the United States that are Dirty Harry cops in Dirty Harry police departments wherever they may exist.

The Darren Wilsons of police work give the 98% that are honorable and conscientious cops a bad name. Fortunately, most people in the US and elsewhere can recognize and make the distinction between the numbnut Darren Wilson and Ferguson PD cops, in contrast to the 98% of police who take pride in doing their demanding job professionally and well without shooting to death unarmed citizens after chasing them down while the unarmed citizens try to flee the hail of bullets loosed upon them.

Thank God, you are so mature and intellectual superior.

Sure you noticed, that in one of my earlier posts, I mention the confrontation between Willson and Brown as the one point, that I can not make heads or tail of. There has been a confrontation and Brown may as well have been the driving force. Having said that, I highly doubt, that the thing went from Willlson politely asking "Good Sir, you are aware that you are walking in the middle of the road and you may be in harms way. May I kindly ask you to step on the sidewalk for your own safety" to a struggle in 3 seconds, but I don't know that.

He sure was stopped for jaywalking.

And if Willson was so freaking scared by "Hulk Hogan"...why did he chase the guy, after he turned and walked away?

Oh...I know: he had the right...no ...the obligation to do so!

And because he had a gun, which makes him more powerful than the Hulkster!

By the way: what is that waistband - story about?

Willson was scared about Brown, having a weapon on him?

A weapon, he didn't use before but instead tried to get hold of Willsons gun?

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

I'm certainly not going to argue with you about your first sentence. The rest of your post is basically things that have already been discussed and cleared up. Officer Wilson didn't violate any laws and didn't shoot Brown while he was surrendering. You can write nonsenscial posts from now to domesday, it isn't going to alter the facts of this incident.

You may want to look for the press-conference, the prosecutor gave and listen very closely to what he says, because he is actually using almost the exact same words I used., concerning the evidence and making it as fair as possible.

Again: it is not his job to defend anyone nor to present evidence, to make it "fair".

Again: what has your description of East St. Louis to do with anything?

It is a problematic neighborhood- so what?

Does that mean, cops should just shoot people willy-nilly, because there are poor people? Minorities? Uneducated people?

What is the point, in telling me about that?

The neighborhood is armed and dangerous. The neighborhood has no respect for law and order and/or police. If you meet ten people there 8 will have a criminal background.

There are many poor neighborhoods in the world East St. Louis is not only poor it is criminal and dangerous for police and fire department. The police are frightened and keep a finger on the trigger and rightly so.

Violent crime rate USA 214

Violent crime rate East St. Louis 3000 - 4000

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-East-St.-Louis-Illinois.html

A murder rate 17 times the U.S. average, the nation’s highest according to the FBI.

There’s the shopping mall where a police officer was shot in the face, a youth center that saw a triple homicide in September, and scattered about the city of 27,000 are brightly lit gas stations that serve as magnets for carjackers, hit-and- run robbers and killers.

The city’s killings, which hit 25 in 2011, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, or 9.23 per 10,000 people compared with the national rate of 0.55.

East St. Louis Cops Outgunned as Cuts Let Killers Thrive http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/east-st-louis-cops-outgunned-as-cuts-let-killers-thrive.html

It is not a quaint little hamlet with disadvantaged farmers milking goats trying to cope with the occasional stealing of a pound of feta cheese.

Still: what is your point?

There are bad neighbourhoods!

We all know that...

So?

I don't get it!

According to OFFICER WILLSON, he was stopping the guy for walking in the middle of the street, asking him politely (OF COURSE!) to get on the sidewalk!

If the police are so damn scared about that neighborhood, that they constantly have their finger on the trigger, sure it is a really brilliant idea, to get into an argument about jaywalking!

"oh god...I am so scared, going into Fergusson, I am gonna stop the first huge black guy and get into an argument with him about nothing!"

Sound totally legit to me!

So again: what is your point?

The neighborhood is armed and dangerous. The neighborhood has no respect for law and order and/or police. If you meet ten people there 8 will have a criminal background.

There are many poor neighborhoods in the world East St. Louis is not only poor it is criminal and dangerous for police and fire department. The police are frightened and keep a finger on the trigger and rightly so.

Violent crime rate USA 214

Violent crime rate East St. Louis 3000 - 4000

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-East-St.-Louis-Illinois.html

A murder rate 17 times the U.S. average, the nation’s highest according to the FBI.

There’s the shopping mall where a police officer was shot in the face, a youth center that saw a triple homicide in September, and scattered about the city of 27,000 are brightly lit gas stations that serve as magnets for carjackers, hit-and- run robbers and killers.

The city’s killings, which hit 25 in 2011, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, or 9.23 per 10,000 people compared with the national rate of 0.55.

East St. Louis Cops Outgunned as Cuts Let Killers Thrive http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/east-st-louis-cops-outgunned-as-cuts-let-killers-thrive.html

It is not a quaint little hamlet with disadvantaged farmers milking goats trying to cope with the occasional stealing of a pound of feta cheese.

Still: what is your point?

There are bad neighbourhoods!

We all know that...

So?

I don't get it!

According to OFFICER WILLSON, he was stopping the guy for walking in the middle of the street, asking him politely (OF COURSE!) to get on the sidewalk!

If the police are so damn scared about that neighborhood, that they constantly have their finger on the trigger, sure it is a really brilliant idea, to get into an argument about jaywalking!

"oh god...I am so scared, going into Fergusson, I am gonna stop the first huge black guy and get into an argument with him about nothing!"

Sound totally legit to me!

So again: what is your point?

There is so much crime in East St. Louis that a state of war exists between the citizens and the police force.

Now do you understand?

In the UK you can punch a cop and not get killed because the police don't have guns.

In the USA if you punch a cop you might get killed. That's the way it is. That is always the way it has been. Smart criminals don't punch cops. Get it?

Or are you saying that the criminal did not punch the cop?

Edited November 28, 201411 yr by thailiketoo