[fullerra]

I would like to say first that I appreciate most people's perspectives and posts, and that for the most part, this online conversation hasn't broken down to sophomoric rants.

Secondly I would like to say that I am African American, Ivy League educated, and a physician, so all talks of "anger" sitting solely with "uneducated" members of the poor communities across the country are unfounded.

The mere fact that this thread was started 3 days ago, and there are already over 120 posts shows how much of a nerve this strikes with people at large.

From my perspective, the problem with the verdict was that the grand jury did not do its job. It task (correct me if i'm wrong) was not to decide upon the guilt or innocence of Officer Wilson, but rather was there enough evidence to bring this to trial, for an actual jury to decide this. From the mere volume of evidence in both directions, there was, in my opinion, enough evidence for this to go to trial.

Also the fact that the prosecutor's father who was himself a police officer that was killed by an AA man should have been enough to have him removed from the role, and a special prosecutor put in his place.

There have been points raised, about him having "no bias" as a official of the law, which I saw is ridiculous. As a physician, I have taken care of all sorts of scum, from murders to child molesters, but if ever there was any sort of link to family, the patient would have been removed from my census immediately.

For me, this is another case of excessive force being used against African American men with no recourse. Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner,Akai Gurley etc... the problem, is that when it comes to AA men, its "shoot first, ask questions later".

I am not condoning riots, but this is what happens with a disenfranchised community. You won't see 120+ post threads when other non-minority towns riot, torch and burn cars etc... (read NH pumpkin festival, or just about every major sporting event... being in Boston after the RS won in 2004 wasn't pretty)

As for comparisons with the Jewish community with regards to violence following WWII...realizing full well that history is told through the eyes of the victors, read up about the "violence" in the region following the 6 Day War.

I'm not trying to start a slew of angry posts, but remind that its all about perspectives.

[Chadi335is]

In my opinion... I don't believe color/race was the root cause.

It was the blatant disregard of law enforcement and the proven attack on a police officer.

I always been taught to listen and obey law enforcement requests.

This could have been avoidable.

But then again, I don't live in USA

PS. I am a member is the visible minority.

[F1Venom]

I doubt race plays too large a role when a 6'5 300 lb man is charging at you with intents to severely hurt or kill. The officer first tried to stop him from charging by shooting him in the arm, but that made Brown more infuriated and caused the cop to shoot to kill.
Brown had a death wish.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

I feel for the guy who's going to be late for work.

This happened to me once in San Francisco.

White kid was shot by police on 19th Ave. So his family and friends (about 40 people) were blocking traffic during rush hour. One guy who was at the front of the traffic jam, briefly got out of his car to reason with them. It turned into a shouting match. As he was getting back in his car, one of the protesting ran up and kicked his fender. He then got back out of his car and the mob kind of moved aside so he had to option of chasing down the guy who kicked his car or going to work. I thanked God it wasn't me in his position because I don't know what kind of crazy I'd go into if a guy ran up and kicked my car like that.

What the protesters blocking traffic failed to mention is that the kid who got shot by police had stolen a car and was actively running from police. When the police stopped him, they got out of the car to approach the kid and he threw the car in reverse, ramming the cop car behind him and almost killing an officer. That is when they opened fire, once he was using the vehicle as a deadly weapon.

The protesters don't care about that fact. They aren't going to be out there in the street if it was an officer who was run down by their child. These kinds of disruptive displays are unhealthy avenues for coping with depression, stress, etc. at other people's expense. Other people have to deal with sh!t too. The difference is we don't go and take out our frustrations on everyone around us.

[secretsquirrel]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

You clearly did not read the documents presented to the grand jury. Those who said he had his hands up were found not to have witnessed the shooting at all. Those who did said that he was charging the officer when he was shot.

I was speaking of the video taken of the white two men while the shooting was taking place. They were clearly upset about the shooting and threw their hands in the air in the motion of "why did you shoot, he had his hands in the air".

[WreckerX5d]

The rioters for this cause almost have no clue what they're rioting about anymore. It seems like it's just a bunch of "rabble rabble rabble fuck cops rabble".

Here is something that makes me outrage. This man (Captain and Police Officer Jeremy Henwood) was my Company Commander in Afghanistan. He was murdered a few years back by an unintelligent person that just didn't like cops. I recently saw an article about these "protestors" defacing his memorial just because of this case.



The fact that this man was helping out a black child moments before he was shot makes them absolute clueless.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by fullerra

I would like to say first that I appreciate most people's perspectives and posts, and that for the most part, this online conversation hasn't broken down to sophomoric rants.

Secondly I would like to say that I am African American, Ivy League educated, and a physician, so all talks of "anger" sitting solely with "uneducated" members of the poor communities across the country are unfounded.

The mere fact that this thread was started 3 days ago, and there are already over 120 posts shows how much of a nerve this strikes with people at large.

From my perspective, the problem with the verdict was that the grand jury did not do its job. It task (correct me if i'm wrong) was not to decide upon the guilt or innocence of Officer Wilson, but rather was there enough evidence to bring this to trial, for an actual jury to decide this. From the mere volume of evidence in both directions, there was, in my opinion, enough evidence for this to go to trial.

Also the fact that the prosecutor's father who was himself a police officer that was killed by an AA man should have been enough to have him removed from the role, and a special prosecutor put in his place.

There have been points raised, about him having "no bias" as a official of the law, which I saw is ridiculous. As a physician, I have taken care of all sorts of scum, from murders to child molesters, but if ever there was any sort of link to family, the patient would have been removed from my census immediately.

For me, this is another case of excessive force being used against African American men with no recourse. Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner,Akai Gurley etc... the problem, is that when it comes to AA men, its "shoot first, ask questions later".

I am not condoning riots, but this is what happens with a disenfranchised community. You won't see 120+ post threads when other non-minority towns riot, torch and burn cars etc... (read NH pumpkin festival, or just about every major sporting event... being in Boston after the RS won in 2004 wasn't pretty)

As for comparisons with the Jewish community with regards to violence following WWII...realizing full well that history is told through the eyes of the victors, read up about the "violence" in the region following the 6 Day War.

I'm not trying to start a slew of angry posts, but remind that its all about perspectives.

I think if you go back and read the thread, you'll find the nerve that has been struck is with respectful law abiding citizens who are appalled by the behavior of these so called protestors.

What makes you so sure the GJ didn't do it's jog? Did it just not do it's job to your "biased" standard? The proceedings of a GJ is stacked against the potential defendant. The accused has no means of defense as the jurors only get to here the prosecution's case as well as any other testimony, interviews, data, evidence they see fit. By evidence, i mean forensic evidence; which doesn't lie, distort, stretch, or diminish the truth. And the jurors, who were privy to and spent somewhere around 100 hours absorbing all of that testimony and evidence, decided not to bring up criminal charges. .

Aren't all prosecutors typically on the side of the police? Don't they typically have the same goal, to arrest and prosecute those who have broken the law?

To the bolded part of your post. It seems fairly clear that while you may be well educated you are unable to look at this incident objectively. Are you equally outraged by the number of AA men shot down by other AA men? Do you realize that AA men are murdered 9 times more often by other AA men, than they are killed in a justifiable homicide by police? It seems to me if the new mantra of "black lives matter" was the true agenda, those who are shouting that mantra would be better served by shouting it in their own neighborhoods, inner cities, etc.. Another fact that further the validity of this suggestion is that only 30% of police "arrest related deaths" are of AA people. The post above also refutes your bolded statement.

Of course you don't condone riots, other wise you'd be out there yourself. You should be chastising those who are rioting. No matter the reason, there is no place in our society for destroying property of innocent people, let alone inflicting physical harm.

This isn't an angry post as i realize you believe this incident is all about perspective. But i feel i should ask you what you might think the perspective is of people who lost their businesses in the last week? What about people who are in the hospital from last week's riots? How about the perspective of those peaceful protestors who actually reside in Ferguson who had to watch a criminal element ravage their town over a cause which they care nothing about?

I would argue that it's not about perspective, it's about facts, evidence, criminal intent, assault & battery. It's about a misguided young man who made poor decisions when being questioned by local police and paid for it with his life. Something the grand jury also decided it was about. No doubt it's a tragedy that someone lost their child. However, at any given time, Mike Brown could have changed the outcome of that situation.

[fullerra]

Joe,

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I think if you go back and read the thread, you'll find the nerve that has been struck is with respectful law abiding citizens who are appalled by the behavior of these so called protestors.

I read the entire thread, but thank you. My point, was that If this wasn't such a charged issue, If society had truly progressed to the point where there was no inherent bias and strong feelings on either side, there were not have been now 130+ posts on the topic.

What makes you so sure the GJ didn't do it's jog? Did it just not do it's job to your "biased" standard? The proceedings of a GJ is stacked against the potential defendant. The accused has no means of defense as the jurors only get to here the prosecution's case as well as any other testimony, interviews, data, evidence they see fit. By evidence, i mean forensic evidence; which doesn't lie, distort, stretch, or diminish the truth. And the jurors, who were privy to and spent somewhere around 100 hours absorbing all of that testimony and evidence, decided not to bring up criminal charges. .

The grand jury's job was to determine whether there was enough evidence for this to be brought to trial, period.

Let me quote Chief Justice Scalia

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

Why would the prosecutor allow Wilson to testify and potentially rebut any contradictory evidence provided if not to seek to reduce any potential charge, or have a no indictment decision?

Aren't all prosecutors typically on the side of the police? Don't they typically have the same goal, to arrest and prosecute those who have broken the law?

Yes they do, but that job becomes infinitely more difficult when that job is prosecuting an officer of the law(with-whom you must work with on a daily situation), especially when your father, who was a police officer (Prosecutor's) was murdered by an AA male several years ago in a potentially similar situation.

To the bolded part of your post. It seems fairly clear that while you may be well educated you are unable to look at this incident objectively. Are you equally outraged by the number of AA men shot down by other AA men? Do you realize that AA men are murdered 9 times more often by other AA men, than they are killed in a justifiable homicide by police?

So you are comparing criminal homicide to police shootings? That's not a fair comparison, as you could make that to potentially any and every group driven by the pure numbers. Also several more times people die of car accidents every year, or through suicide.

It seems to me if the new mantra of "black lives matter"was the true agenda, those who are shouting that mantra would be better served by shouting it in their own neighborhoods, inner cities, etc..

My point is that ALL lives matter, thanks. I wouldn't have the job I do if I thought anything other than that. Do you think that the topic of intra-minority violence is not being addressed? That is a bit presumptuous, or maybe its because it does not make headlines on Fox News.

Another fact that further the validity of this suggestion is that only 30% of police "arrest related deaths" are of AA people. The post above also refutes your bolded statement.

Where are you coming up with these statistics? My guess would be the FBI website, as that is where these are typically posted. Then you would also know that these numbers to the FBI are purely voluntary and that of the 17,000 Law Enforcement Agencies, only about 750 report. That's only about 4.4 percent, and I don't personally feel comfortable making any conclusions based of a data set only 4.4 percent complete.

Of course you don't condone riots, other wise you'd be out there yourself. You should be chastising those who are rioting. No matter the reason, there is no place in our society for destroying property of innocent people, let alone inflicting physical harm.

This is true of ALL riots, including those after elections, sporting events, pumpkin festivals etc...

This isn't an angry post as i realize you believe this incident is all about perspective. But i feel i should ask you what you might think the perspective is of people who lost their businesses in the last week?

I believe its truly horrible, inexcusable, just like when people riot after key sporting events, which makes even less sense to me, given that at times there are riots with personal property destroyed regardless of whether the home team wins or loses.

What about people who are in the hospital from last week's riots? How about the perspective of those peaceful protestors who actually reside in Ferguson who had to watch a criminal element ravage their town over a cause which they care nothing about?

Yes, there are many stories, many lives changed, many of life's realities learned.

I would argue that it's not about perspective, it's about facts, evidence, criminal intent, assault & battery. It's about a misguided young man who made poor decisions when being questioned by local police and paid for it with his life. Something the grand jury also decided it was about. No doubt it's a tragedy that someone lost their child. However, at any given time, Mike Brown could have changed the outcome of that situation.

Either party could have changed the outcome. Lethal force should not be included in the first options list, as it too often is. Neither you nor I was there that day, the true story as it oftentimes is, lies somewhere in between. No where in my post did I say that the kid was innocent, no where. I did say that when excessive force is used at the hands of police, especially when dealing with a minority suspect (innocent until proven guilty) there too often little or no recourse.

[P1]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I think if you go back and read the thread, you'll find the nerve that has been struck is with respectful law abiding citizens who are appalled by the behavior of these so called protestors.

What makes you so sure the GJ didn't do it's jog? Did it just not do it's job to your "biased" standard? The proceedings of a GJ is stacked against the potential defendant. The accused has no means of defense as the jurors only get to here the prosecution's case as well as any other testimony, interviews, data, evidence they see fit. By evidence, i mean forensic evidence; which doesn't lie, distort, stretch, or diminish the truth. And the jurors, who were privy to and spent somewhere around 100 hours absorbing all of that testimony and evidence, decided not to bring up criminal charges. .

Aren't all prosecutors typically on the side of the police? Don't they typically have the same goal, to arrest and prosecute those who have broken the law?

To the bolded part of your post. It seems fairly clear that while you may be well educated you are unable to look at this incident objectively. Are you equally outraged by the number of AA men shot down by other AA men? Do you realize that AA men are murdered 9 times more often by other AA men, than they are killed in a justifiable homicide by police? It seems to me if the new mantra of "black lives matter" was the true agenda, those who are shouting that mantra would be better served by shouting it in their own neighborhoods, inner cities, etc.. Another fact that further the validity of this suggestion is that only 30% of police "arrest related deaths" are of AA people. The post above also refutes your bolded statement.

Of course you don't condone riots, other wise you'd be out there yourself. You should be chastising those who are rioting. No matter the reason, there is no place in our society for destroying property of innocent people, let alone inflicting physical harm.

This isn't an angry post as i realize you believe this incident is all about perspective. But i feel i should ask you what you might think the perspective is of people who lost their businesses in the last week? What about people who are in the hospital from last week's riots? How about the perspective of those peaceful protestors who actually reside in Ferguson who had to watch a criminal element ravage their town over a cause which they care nothing about?

I would argue that it's not about perspective, it's about facts, evidence, criminal intent, assault & battery. It's about a misguided young man who made poor decisions when being questioned by local police and paid for it with his life. Something the grand jury also decided it was about. No doubt it's a tragedy that someone lost their child. However, at any given time, Mike Brown could have changed the outcome of that situation.

Well said mate...

[fullerra]

oops,

the rebuttal is included in the body of the quote

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by fullerra

Joe,

I read the entire thread, but thank you. My point, was that If this wasn't such a charged issue, If society had truly progressed to the point where there was no inherent bias and strong feelings on either side, there were not have been now 130+ posts on the topic.

The grand jury's job was to determine whether there was enough evidence for this to be brought to trial, period.

Let me quote Chief Justice Scalia

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

Why would the prosecutor allow Wilson to testify and potentially rebut any contradictory evidence provided if not to seek to reduce any potential charge, or have a no indictment decision?

Yes they do, but that job becomes infinitely more difficult when that job is prosecuting an officer of the law(with-whom you must work with on a daily situation), especially when your father, who was a police officer (Prosecutor's) was murdered by an AA male several years ago in a potentially similar situation.

So you are comparing criminal homicide to police shootings? That's not a fair comparison, as you could make that to potentially any and every group driven by the pure numbers. Also several more times people die of car accidents every year, or through suicide.

My point is that ALL lives matter, thanks. I wouldn't have the job I do if I thought anything other than that. Do you think that the topic of intra-minority violence is not being addressed? That is a bit presumptuous, or maybe its because it does not make headlines on Fox News.

Where are you coming up with these statistics? My guess would be the FBI website, as that is where these are typically posted. Then you would also know that these numbers to the FBI are purely voluntary and that of the 17,000 Law Enforcement Agencies, only about 750 report. That's only about 4.4 percent, and I don't personally feel comfortable making any conclusions based of a data set only 4.4 percent complete.

This is true of ALL riots, including those after elections, sporting events, pumpkin festivals etc...

I believe its truly horrible, inexcusable, just like when people riot after key sporting events, which makes even less sense to me, given that at times there are riots with personal property destroyed regardless of whether the home team wins or loses.

Yes, there are many stories, many lives changed, many of life's realities learned.

Either party could have changed the outcome. Lethal force should not be included in the first options list, as it too often is. Neither you nor I was there that day, the true story as it oftentimes is, lies somewhere in between. No where in my post did I say that the kid was innocent, no where. I did say that when excessive force is used at the hands of police, especially when dealing with a minority suspect (innocent until proven guilty) there too often little or no recourse.

I'm no expert, but i was under the impression that the GJ was to hear testimony from ALL witnesses if possible, along with all the evidence, interviews, etc..

So who should be appointed to hand select each prosecutor for each individual case? Because in this country, once you do that type of thing in our legal system, other lawyers are going to demand pinch prosecutors for all their cases once they find some type of potential bias; which we as humans, all have.

I'm comparing your biased outrage towards justifiable homicide of AA men by police to a much larger cause of death for AA men. Since the death of Mike Brown, no one is outraged about the 100+ AA men who have been murdered at the hands of another AA man. But when an AA man dies in a justifiable (according to local, state, FBI, and GJ) homicide at the hands of police; people loot, vandalize, assault, in the name of injustice.

Do you really feel this way or believe the below statement you made?

Originally Posted by fullerra

For me, this is another case of excessive force being used against African American men with no recourse. Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner,Akai Gurley etc... the problem, is that when it comes to AA men, its "shoot first, ask questions later".

Because if you really feel this way and believe this ^^ statement to be true, there is no point in discussing this incident any further.

Those stats were cherry picked by a liberal, minority sympathetic, website. But they cite their source as the DOJ.

Once you assault a police officer, depending on the severity of the assault, only the assailant has the opportunity to change the outcome by complying with officers orders. Despite what AP and social media would have us believe, police are not hunting down AA men and shooting them on sight for "not doing anything".

I'm one of the first one to jump on excessive use of force by police, but i'm also the first to say that if you don't want to get shot, don't punch a cop and try to take his gun. I also believe that police are severely lacking in soft people handling skills. They need LOADS more training in regards to communicating with suspects and non-suspects alike. The have enormous amounts of violent suspect training and need to have the same amount of non-violent suspect training. Many times, just a different tone of voice, use of a different phrase, etc... can go a long way in creating a situation that doesn't end in violence.

If you haven't, i invite you to read the testimony of the two people who were in closest proximity to the incident. Then read some other interview transcripts. Review the physical and forensic evidence. Make a determination from there, as the GJ did. Maybe your opinion will change, maybe it won't. Click Here for Evidence.

I personally was on the fence until the evidence and interviews were released. Until that point i fell back on the fact that police aren't driving around looking for AA men to shoot, in broad day light, on a Saturday, while in a neighborhood full of AA people, who live in a town that already have a stressed police : citizen relationship. But now that i've taken a few hours to review the physical and forensic evidence along with testimony and interviews of those most credible and closely involved. (credible meaning they were at least witness to all or part of the incident)

Speaking to that last part. There have been articles written about the GJ's decision and how multiple accounts of perjury played a key role in the GJ's decision. "Witnesses" going on video making statements shortly after the incident took place were changing their stories upon testifying before the GJ. Take a look at interview 41-1 and 41-2 for a more comical example. But even out side of those, the GJ was shown interviews and statements that were made shortly after the incident before hearing testimony from those same individuals in person or through an FBI recorded interview. There were "eye witnesses" which were proven not to even been within sight of the incident.

I would think as a juror, it would be difficult to bring criminal charges against Wilson with; 1. all the inconsistencies between testimony of different witnesses and 2. with inconsistencies between testimonies of the same witness.

[Taskmaster]

The boy who cried wolf. Let the media (not even the majority of black Americans) call racism enough times and soon everyone will stop paying attention to legitimate grievances people have.

Pretty sure they (and they being big money donors who lean largely conservative) would like to see nothing more than people voting against thier own interest in the name of "spiting" a minority.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I'm no expert, but i was under the impression that the GJ was to hear testimony from ALL witnesses if possible, along with all the evidence, interviews, etc..

So who should be appointed to hand select each prosecutor for each individual case? Because in this country, once you do that type of thing in our legal system, other lawyers are going to demand pinch prosecutors for all their cases once they find some type of potential bias; which we as humans, all have.

I'm comparing your biased outrage towards justifiable homicide of AA men by police to a much larger cause of death for AA men. Since the death of Mike Brown, no one is outraged about the 100+ AA men who have been murdered at the hands of another AA man. But when an AA man dies in a justifiable (according to local, state, FBI, and GJ) homicide at the hands of police; people loot, vandalize, assault, in the name of injustice.

Do you really feel this way or believe the below statement you made?



Because if you really feel this way and believe this ^^ statement to be true, there is no point in discussing this incident any further.

Those stats were cherry picked by a liberal, minority sympathetic, website. But they cite their source as the DOJ.

Once you assault a police officer, depending on the severity of the assault, only the assailant has the opportunity to change the outcome by complying with officers orders. Despite what AP and social media would have us believe, police are not hunting down AA men and shooting them on sight for "not doing anything".

I'm one of the first one to jump on excessive use of force by police, but i'm also the first to say that if you don't want to get shot, don't punch a cop and try to take his gun. I also believe that police are severely lacking in soft people handling skills. They need LOADS more training in regards to communicating with suspects and non-suspects alike. The have enormous amounts of violent suspect training and need to have the same amount of non-violent suspect training. Many times, just a different tone of voice, use of a different phrase, etc... can go a long way in creating a situation that doesn't end in violence.

If you haven't, i invite you to read the testimony of the two people who were in closest proximity to the incident. Then read some other interview transcripts. Review the physical and forensic evidence. Make a determination from there, as the GJ did. Maybe your opinion will change, maybe it won't. Click Here for Evidence.

I personally was on the fence until the evidence and interviews were released. Until that point i fell back on the fact that police aren't driving around looking for AA men to shoot, in broad day light, on a Saturday, while in a neighborhood full of AA people, who live in a town that already have a stressed police : citizen relationship. But now that i've taken a few hours to review the physical and forensic evidence along with testimony and interviews of those most credible and closely involved. (credible meaning they were at least witness to all or part of the incident)

Speaking to that last part. There have been articles written about the GJ's decision and how multiple accounts of perjury played a key role in the GJ's decision. "Witnesses" going on video making statements shortly after the incident took place were changing their stories upon testifying before the GJ. Take a look at interview 41-1 and 41-2 for a more comical example. But even out side of those, the GJ was shown interviews and statements that were made shortly after the incident before hearing testimony from those same individuals in person or through an FBI recorded interview. There were "eye witnesses" which were proven not to even been within sight of the incident.

I would think as a juror, it would be difficult to bring criminal charges against Wilson with; 1. all the inconsistencies between testimony of different witnesses and 2. with inconsistencies between testimonies of the same witness.

Very well said.

I hate saying this because it's so cliché but much of this outrage is really caused by extremely irresponsible media coverage. Interviewing non-credible witnesses which people are now quoting as gospel, despite forensic and actual eye witness evidence to the contrary.

[gonzo]

Protest leaders are asking students to walk out of class and employees to walk of the job nationwide today at 1pm ET.

I, I, I can't even think of what to say.

[Templar]

The fact that someone here claiming to be a MEDICAL DOCTOR can so casually disregard forensic evidence is rather troubling...

[P1]

You guys see this? White guy in St. Louis beaten to death with hammers by black and Mexican kids.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/us/st-...-dead-hammers/

I suppose I'll have to stand on I-35 today and start blocking traffic, right? When do we all start protesting?

#handsupdonthammer

[gonzo]

^
I'm sure Holder will address it.

[F1Venom]

These fkers should be labeled for what they are, domestic terrorists.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Protest leaders are asking students to walk out of class and employees to walk of the job nationwide today at 1pm ET.

I, I, I can't even think of what to say.

We had a group of protestors at the mall here in town when I went this past weekend. Laying on the ground with signs. I walked past and not only did I laugh out loud, I said "You've got to be fucking kidding me".

One jumped up and got all hyped up, called me a racist, yada yada yada. Told him to lay back on the ground in the dirt where he belongs. I actually heard on the radio this morning that some of them got kicked out, re-entered the mall, and then got arrested. WOOP! LOOK AT HOW STRONG YOU ARE! STANDING UP (HEH) FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!

This shit is so played out already, people need to crawl back in their meaningless holes and worry about Ebola again.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Templar

The fact that someone here claiming to be a MEDICAL DOCTOR can so casually disregard forensic evidence is rather troubling...

Don't you know it was planted?
There are witnesses!

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by P1et

You guys see this? White guy in St. Louis beaten to death with hammers by black and Mexican kids.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/us/st-...-dead-hammers/

I suppose I'll have to stand on I-35 today and start blocking traffic, right? When do we all start protesting?

#handsupdonthammer

History repeating itself. Deja vu anyone?

[Devious21]