And here we go again ...

[ZiprHead]

The point is the accounts you are referring to are from witnesses who have been shown to either not be able to see what happened or who made statements incompatible with the physical evidence. You just want Michael Brown to have been the victim rather than the perpetrator.

It’s been pointed out to you repeatedly that you are mistaken about the witnesses in the video. Honestly, what do you have to lose by simply clicking the link. It won’t infect your computer.

Claiming that doesn't make it so. The only evidence that's been presented for his telling the truth is the video itself. That's circular reasoning.

Why don't you just watch the fucking video or STFU about it. You only make yourself appear stupid by claiming to know all about something you refuse to view.

 

[Toni]

The point is the accounts you are referring to are from witnesses who have been shown to either not be able to see what happened or who made statements incompatible with the physical evidence. You just want Michael Brown to have been the victim rather than the perpetrator.

It’s been pointed out to you repeatedly that you are mistaken about the witnesses in the video. Honestly, what do you have to lose by simply clicking the link. It won’t infect your computer.

Claiming that doesn't make it so. The only evidence that's been presented for his telling the truth is the video itself. That's circular reasoning.

It hasn't infected my computer.

You haven't demonstrated that your 'evidence' is in anyway better than what is on the video. You're taking it on faith entirely.

Personally, I prefer to learn as much as possible about all sides before reaching any conclusion....

 

[Derec]

What does an alleged Michael Brown witness video (why couldn't the camera guy turn his head and capture the actual shooting instead?) have to do with the justfied shooting of armed gang criminal Patrick Kimmons or how that shooting is being perceived by left-wing anti police activists? I mean slogans like "We love you Pat-pat" and "Fuck the police".
Can we agree this thug-glorifying has gone way too far?

 

[Arctish]

What does an alleged Michael Brown witness video (why couldn't the camera guy turn his head and capture the actual shooting instead?) have to do with the justfied shooting of armed gang criminal Patrick Kimmons or how that shooting is being perceived by left-wing anti police activists?

We got onto this side track when Jolly said:

His mom claims his hands were up when he was shot. Is that true? Regardless of his actions up until that point, if he was disarmed and his hands were up, they should not have shot him multiple times.

and you replied:

"Hands up, don't shoot" all over again?

Jolly then said :

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot. Once a threat is neutralized, there is no reason to shoot somebody.

And you said:

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot.

That was a reference to the Michael Brown case. A narrative quickly developed that he had his hands up in surrender and the slogan "hands up don't shoot" was born, fueling violent protests and riots. That whole narrative was proven to be BS though.

I responded by posting this:

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot.

That was a reference to the Michael Brown case. A narrative quickly developed that he had his hands up in surrender and the slogan "hands up don't shoot" was born, fueling violent protests and riots. That whole narrative was proven to be BS though.

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

I did that as a kind of a shortcut to disproving your assertion that the claim Brown had his hands up was proven to be BS because
1) I didn't think it needed to be addressed in detail, and
2) I already knew you and Loren would be utterly unwilling to discuss the testimony of witnesses recorded in the documents released by the St. Louis County Prosecutor at that time, Robert McCulloch, much less the analysis provided by PBS Newshour:



More than 50 percent of the witnesses said that Michael Brown had his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. That narrative was not proven to be BS.

I mean slogans like "We love you Pat-pat" and "Fuck the police".
Can we agree this thug-glorifying has gone way too far?

We might, if we can agree on the definition of 'thug', who fits it, and how much information we need before we use the term to describe someone.

 

[laughing dog]

Can we agree this thug-glorifying has gone way too far?

First, so what? Second, if you showed the same concern for victim-smearing as you do for victim-glorifying, I'd say you'd have a point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We got onto this side track when Jolly said:



and you replied:

"Hands up, don't shoot" all over again?

Jolly then said :

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot. Once a threat is neutralized, there is no reason to shoot somebody.

And you said:

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot.

That was a reference to the Michael Brown case. A narrative quickly developed that he had his hands up in surrender and the slogan "hands up don't shoot" was born, fueling violent protests and riots. That whole narrative was proven to be BS though.

I responded by posting this:

I see nothing wrong with hands up meaning down't shoot.

That was a reference to the Michael Brown case. A narrative quickly developed that he had his hands up in surrender and the slogan "hands up don't shoot" was born, fueling violent protests and riots. That whole narrative was proven to be BS though.

Link to video of eyewitnesses saying Brown had his hands in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblJdLcgXfU.

I did that as a kind of a shortcut to disproving your assertion that the claim Brown had his hands up was proven to be BS because
1) I didn't think it needed to be addressed in detail, and
2) I already knew you and Loren would be utterly unwilling to discuss the testimony of witnesses recorded in the documents released by the St. Louis County Prosecutor at that time, Robert McCulloch, much less the analysis provided by PBS Newshour:

View attachment 19025

More than 50 percent of the witnesses said that Michael Brown had his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. That narrative was not proven to be BS.

I mean slogans like "We love you Pat-pat" and "Fuck the police".
Can we agree this thug-glorifying has gone way too far?

We might, if we can agree on the definition of 'thug', who fits it, and how much information we need before we use the term to describe someone.

Which says nothing about the credibility of the witnesses. However, from that article:

More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old,

In other words, more than half the witnesses are not telling the truth.

 

[RVonse]

Claiming that doesn't make it so. The only evidence that's been presented for his telling the truth is the video itself. That's circular reasoning.

Why don't you just watch the fucking video or STFU about it. You only make yourself appear stupid by claiming to know all about something you refuse to view.

At first glance, it does tend to make one look like he wants to remain ignorant. But this is precisely what courts do when they know evidence is tainted or false They do not let the jury see any of it and for good reason.

 

[ZiprHead]

Claiming that doesn't make it so. The only evidence that's been presented for his telling the truth is the video itself. That's circular reasoning.

Why don't you just watch the fucking video or STFU about it. You only make yourself appear stupid by claiming to know all about something you refuse to view.

At first glance, it does tend to make one look like he wants to remain ignorant. But this is precisely what courts do when they know evidence is tainted or false They do not let the jury see any of it and for good reason.

The prosecutor in this case intentionally put witnesses on the stand whom he knew were liars to help the defendant cop.

 

[Arctish]

Claiming that doesn't make it so. The only evidence that's been presented for his telling the truth is the video itself. That's circular reasoning.

Why don't you just watch the fucking video or STFU about it. You only make yourself appear stupid by claiming to know all about something you refuse to view.

At first glance, it does tend to make one look like he wants to remain ignorant. But this is precisely what courts do when they know evidence is tainted or false They do not let the jury see any of it and for good reason.

The person making the decision whether it's tainted or false has to first review it. S/he has to make a good faith judgment on the information being presented and the reliability of the witness, not just assert the testimony is true or false based on an ignorant preconceived notion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At first glance, it does tend to make one look like he wants to remain ignorant. But this is precisely what courts do when they know evidence is tainted or false They do not let the jury see any of it and for good reason.

The person making the decision whether it's tainted or false has to first review it. S/he has to make a good faith judgment on the information being presented and the reliability of the witness, not just assert the testimony is true or false based on an ignorant preconceived notion.

The thing is we know the majority of the witnesses were saying categorically false things--and almost every "mistake" favored Michael Brown. I asked for some evidence that the person in the video isn't one of those--and the only response I get is that the video proves it. Thus there's zero reason to consider this credible.

The video is being pushed because it supports your position, not because it's accurate. This is exactly the same thing trumpsters do in droves.

 

[ZiprHead]

At first glance, it does tend to make one look like he wants to remain ignorant. But this is precisely what courts do when they know evidence is tainted or false They do not let the jury see any of it and for good reason.

The person making the decision whether it's tainted or false has to first review it. S/he has to make a good faith judgment on the information being presented and the reliability of the witness, not just assert the testimony is true or false based on an ignorant preconceived notion.

The thing is we know the majority of the witnesses were saying categorically false things--and almost every "mistake" favored Michael Brown. I asked for some evidence that the person in the video isn't one of those--and the only response I get is that the video proves it. Thus there's zero reason to consider this credible.

The video is being pushed because it supports your position, not because it's accurate. This is exactly the same thing trumpsters do in droves.

No. What Trumpsters do is remain ignorant despite the facts. Like what you are doing here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is we know the majority of the witnesses were saying categorically false things--and almost every "mistake" favored Michael Brown. I asked for some evidence that the person in the video isn't one of those--and the only response I get is that the video proves it. Thus there's zero reason to consider this credible.

The video is being pushed because it supports your position, not because it's accurate. This is exactly the same thing trumpsters do in droves.

No. What Trumpsters do is remain ignorant despite the facts. Like what you are doing here.

The majority said he was shot while fleeing. Not true. Thus the majority are saying things clearly false--either they are unreliable witnesses or they are liars, in either case they should be ignored.

 

[laughing dog]

The thing is we know the majority of the witnesses were saying categorically false things--and almost every "mistake" favored Michael Brown. I asked for some evidence that the person in the video isn't one of those--and the only response I get is that the video proves it. Thus there's zero reason to consider this credible.

The video is being pushed because it supports your position, not because it's accurate. This is exactly the same thing trumpsters do in droves.

No. What Trumpsters do is remain ignorant despite the facts. Like what you are doing here.

The majority said he was shot while fleeing. Not true. Thus the majority are saying things clearly false--either they are unreliable witnesses or they are liars, in either case they should be ignored.

It is fact that Darren Wilson lied under oath.

In the Department of Justice investigation of Brown's death, investigators concluded witness accounts that Wilson reached out of his vehicle and grabbed Brown by the neck were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence. However, Wilson admits in the document to reaching out and grabbing Brown by the forearm.

In the document below, Wilson admits Brown never tried to remove his gun from the holster. In grand jury testimony, Wilson said Brown grabbed his gun and that he feared for his life.

(source: https://www.kmov.com/news/court-docs-may-show-contradictions-in-darren-wilson-s-account/article_8aa34474-714e-57e1-bec5-d52be39c5134.html). According to your standards, his account can be ignored.

 

[Toni]

The thing is we know the majority of the witnesses were saying categorically false things--and almost every "mistake" favored Michael Brown. I asked for some evidence that the person in the video isn't one of those--and the only response I get is that the video proves it. Thus there's zero reason to consider this credible.

The video is being pushed because it supports your position, not because it's accurate. This is exactly the same thing trumpsters do in droves.

No. What Trumpsters do is remain ignorant despite the facts. Like what you are doing here.

The majority said he was shot while fleeing. Not true. Thus the majority are saying things clearly false--either they are unreliable witnesses or they are liars, in either case they should be ignored.

Loren, we get it. Your mind is made up. It was made up the instant you heard a black man was killed by a police officer. You, however, are not confident enough of your position to be willing to view anything that might challenge your beliefs.

You’ve wasted far more time attempting to justify your position about viewing the video than you would ever have spent watching it one frame at a time and then doing a thoughtful write up of why you feel other evidence more compelling.

I don’t feel the need to waste another second of my time. It’s apparent that you don’t believe in evidence or gathering all the facts before forming an opinion. We get it. You’re not a rational thinker.

 

[Derec]

Update in the Patrick Kimmons case:
Man shot by friend in downtown Portland parking lot pleads guilty to being a felon with a gun

The "friend" in question is the dead guy Patrick Kimmons. He was shooting at somebody else, but also hit his friend and fellow Rolling 60 Crip in the thigh.

Nice guys all around. I can see why the Left in Portland would protest dindu Patrick Kimmons getting shot by police and then throw vegan "milk" shakes at anyone who disagrees.

 

[Jarhyn]

Update in the Patrick Kimmons case:
Man shot by friend in downtown Portland parking lot pleads guilty to being a felon with a gun

The "friend" in question is the dead guy Patrick Kimmons. He was shooting at somebody else, but also hit his friend and fellow Rolling 60 Crip in the thigh.

Nice guys all around. I can see why the Left in Portland would protest dindu Patrick Kimmons getting shot by police and then throw vegan "milk" shakes at anyone who disagrees.

Something racist fucks seem to have a hard time understanding: we can have both. Yes, Kimmons is a shitty person, and what made him that way is shitty. But nobody deserves to be shot, especially when they aren't shooting back. Sometimes people need to be shot, but they still don't deserve it. What everyone everywhere deserves is a good education, economic opportunities, and to enjoy the freedom to use whatever substances they fancy... So long as those substances do not weaponize them or enslave them.

This means that the people who did something were the people who criminalized his economic activity and community. They failed to respect his autonomy and freedom, or to support him like humans should be expected to do for each other.

For that, yeah, the cops deserve some milkshakes to the face. It's not like people are shooting and killing them simply because they buy and enjoy and engage in economic activity involving alcohol...