The other side of Ferguson: Missouri Burning

[Derec]

What's the "normal" understanding of the term?

Did Mr. Brown physically attack anyone?

Yes, he did.

 

[laughing dog]

Did Mr. Brown physically attack anyone?

Yes, he did.

IMO, that stretches the notion of attack. Shoving or grabbing someone is not necessarily an attack - even when it is down by a big scary black man.

 

[Derec]

IMO, that stretches the notion of attack. Shoving or grabbing someone is not necessarily an attack - even when it is down by a big scary black man.

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.
Even Brown's supporters admit he robbed a store.

It's possible this is a Poe but I don't think so.

 

[laughing dog]

if you really want me to.... and since you asked...

When people of any color act like a nigger, they get "lynched" like a nigger.

What constitutes acting like a "nigger" and who gets to decide?

 

[ksen]

He was a robber. A robber is somebody who engages in robbery. A robbery is theft with a threat or use of force. Since Brown stole the cigarillos and assaulted the owner that makes him a robber.

There is no definitive evidence that Brown stole anything. In fact there is evidence of him paying the store clerk for his cigarillos. No store employee called in a theft to the police. The police went looking for the video after Mike Brown was killed in an effort to come up with some post hoc justification for the non-judicial killing of Brown.

and it's up in the air about who started the assault.

Wilson would have no reason to attack Brown.

Sure he did. If he thought the black guy was getting uppity and mouthing off he could have felt justified to back his SUV up so fast as to almost hit Brown and then try to put him in his place.

Brown had reason to attack Wilson

Yeah, because Wilson nearly ran him over and then tried to drag him into the truck.

- to avoid going to jail.

Going to jail for what? Brown hadn't committed a crime and Wilson himself has said that he was unaware of anything that had happened at the convenience store.

Furthermore his buddy Johnson said that he was acting crazy, perhaps on account of all the marijuana in his system, which would have affected his inhibitions and reasoning powers - i.e. it would have made a stupid idea to avoid arrest seem like a good idea at the time.

The Reefer Madness defense?

Face it, Brown was playing cops and robbers with live ammo and lost.

Brown definitely lost, but not for the reasons you've mentioned.

 

[laughing dog]

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.

Funny, where I live, people who grab a shirt are not usually charged with assault. And I never denied Mr. Brown engaged in theft or "robbery". I just think people should stop trying to inflate the seriousness of Mr. Brown's actions in the store.

 

[ksen]

Did Mr. Brown physically attack anyone?

Yes, he did.

So Wilson is allowed to defend himself with lethal force when Brown allegedly attacked him but Brown isn't allowed to defend himself when the shop owner assaults him?

- - - Updated - - -

IMO, that stretches the notion of attack. Shoving or grabbing someone is not necessarily an attack - even when it is down by a big scary black man.

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.
Even Brown's supporters admit he robbed a store.

It's possible this is a Poe but I don't think so.

I thought you guys told us black people lie?

 

[Jayjay]

IMO, that stretches the notion of attack. Shoving or grabbing someone is not necessarily an attack - even when it is down by a big scary black man.

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.
Even Brown's supporters admit he robbed a store.

It's possible this is a Poe but I don't think so.

It's a photoshop. The last two lines are just copy pasted, for example the R in "rob" matches the one in "her" exactly.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Disappointed.. I thought the "other side" was going to be discussion of how 91% of all violent crimes against blacks are committed by blacks, and this isn't even one of the 9%, since this man had assaulted a police officer and was in physical contact with the officer's gun when it went off at point blank range. black people are not being gunned down by police... bad people that act like bad people get stopped.

Does anyone even remember that the LA riots and looting after the Rodney King trial was about a FUCKING CRIMINAL that was EVADING CAPTURE? Well, this Ferguson guy was a ROBBER, ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER.

The so-called "witness" that made false claims should be arrested for inciting riots.

which 'so-called' witness made false claims? And i thought the LA riots were about the police beating the shit out of Rodney King when he was on the ground and handcuffed and then not getting in trouble for it. Did I miss something there?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Also, the grand jury testimony was that he had no active chemical thc in his system. That it was a low amount consistent with use on a previous day. But I don't mean that to exonerate Black. He was clearly a thug.

 

[Derec]

There is no definitive evidence that Brown stole anything.

Please. Even his buddy Johnson admits as much.

In fact there is evidence of him paying the store clerk for his cigarillos.

No there isn't. There has been such a claim made on a blog, but it proved not to be true.

No store employee called in a theft to the police.

Because a customer already did.

The police went looking for the video after Mike Brown was killed in an effort to come up with some post hoc justification for the non-judicial killing of Brown.

And boy were they lucky that Brown robbed a store.

If he thought the black guy was getting uppity and mouthing off he could have felt justified to back his SUV up so fast as to almost hit Brown and then try to put him in his place.

Is "getting uppity" code for attacking a police officer and trying to take his gun?

Yeah, because Wilson nearly ran him over and then tried to drag him into the truck.

There is no evidence of neither of thee two claims.

Going to jail for what?

Second degree robbery.

Brown hadn't committed a crime

and Wilson himself has said that he was unaware of anything that had happened at the convenience store.

Even if Wilson wasn't aware Brown surely was aware of what he did.

The Reefer Madness defense?

Nobody can deny that it is a mind-altering drug.

Brown definitely lost, but not for the reasons you've mentioned.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the grand jury testimony was that he had no active chemical thc in his system. That it was a low amount consistent with use on a previous day. But I don't mean that to exonerate Black. He was clearly a thug.

Where did you get that? What I read is that it was a high amount that could have triggered hallucinations.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a photoshop. The last two lines are just copy pasted, for example the R in "rob" matches the one in "her" exactly.

My bad. Of course, the photoshopped text is more truthful than the original.

 

[Derec]

So Wilson is allowed to defend himself with lethal force when Brown allegedly attacked him but Brown isn't allowed to defend himself when the shop owner assaults him?

The shop owner assaulted Brown? Not even Brown's family (including the arson-inciting step-dad) or the Irreverend MSNBC are claiming that.

I thought you guys told us black people lie?

You thought wrong. Or maybe you didn't think at all.
In any case, it turns out this statement was photoshopped. Too bad, it was a rare example of truthfulness on these signs.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Also, the grand jury testimony was that he had no active chemical thc in his system. That it was a low amount consistent with use on a previous day. But I don't mean that to exonerate Black. He was clearly a thug.

Where did you get that? What I read is that it was a high amount that could have triggered hallucinations.

really? I probably got my information off my liberal relatives' facebook.

 

[Derec]

Funny, where I live, people who grab a shirt are not usually charged with assault.

Actually mere threat of violence is usually sufficient for an assault charge, even in Minnesota.

And I never denied Mr. Brown engaged in theft or "robbery".

Ksen did. In fact, he is denying that Brown was guilty of any criminal offense.
But if you are not denying, why do you put "robbery" is scare quotes?

I just think people should stop trying to inflate the seriousness of Mr. Brown's actions in the store.

They are serious enough and they are a testament to his state of mind that day. They are not what got him killed, but they are probably what caused him to attack the police officer.

 

[barbos]

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.
Even Brown's supporters admit he robbed a store.

It's possible this is a Poe but I don't think so.

It's a photoshop. The last two lines are just copy pasted, for example the R in "rob" matches the one in "her" exactly.

Sherlock, the fact that you felt the need to prove it was a photoshop is even funnier than the photoshop itself.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually mere threat of violence is usually sufficient for an assault charge, even in Minnesota.

Not where I live. Do you have any evidence that you are an expert on law enforcement in Mn?

Ksen did. In fact, he is denying that Brown was guilty of any criminal offense.
But if you are not denying, why do you put "robbery" is scare quotes?

I used quote marks. Because I don't know what he committed. And, I suspect that you don't either.

They are serious enough and they are a testament to his state of mind that day.

Then there is no reason to inflate them, even if he is a big scary black man to some people.

They are not what got him killed, but they are probably what caused him to attack the police officer.

Maybe. I'm more interested in why Wilson felt he had to intervene with them in the first place. There is no evidence they were actually "blocking traffic". In my experience in St. Louis (over 10 years of living there) and my family's (over 40), they have never encountered police officers intervening when people are walking in the street as described by Officer Wilson. Never.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Michael Brown's family called for arson. Obviously they consider arson acceptable, why should they object to this?

The question Loren is, why don't YOU object to this?

It shouldn't have happened but I have a hard time getting too upset about it--they called for arson, they got arson.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO, that stretches the notion of attack. Shoving or grabbing someone is not necessarily an attack - even when it is down by a big scary black man.

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.
Even Brown's supporters admit he robbed a store.

It's possible this is a Poe but I don't think so.

I'm sure it's a Poe but all too often I have heard family members of the deceased make statements along these lines--the victims shouldn't have resisted and killed their family member.

- - - Updated - - -

It certainly fulfills the legal definition (even if it doesn't fulfill your personal definition which is too bad but irrelevant) which makes it a robbery, not simply theft.

Funny, where I live, people who grab a shirt are not usually charged with assault. And I never denied Mr. Brown engaged in theft or "robbery". I just think people should stop trying to inflate the seriousness of Mr. Brown's actions in the store.

I don't think what we see in those pictures would get you arrested for assault.

Assault and battery is another matter, though.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Original image:

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The question Loren is, why don't YOU object to this?

It shouldn't have happened but I have a hard time getting too upset about it--they called for arson, they got arson.

You have a hard time getting upset by arson? I don't. I especially don't have a hard time getting upset about people who were trying to stay out of trouble being dragged into it. But this doesn't bother you. You don't get upset by the existence of innocent victims. That says alot.


BTW,
Loren, when did the pastor call for arson?