Do you deny that there are thugs in the streets? I don't see cops smashing windows and looting stores. Didn't you see my "good apples, bad apples" comment? Guess you ignored that very next sentence.

So...who started it? Dead men tell no tales, this is true. but rioting in the streets won't get us any closer to the truth.

@Invictus -

First things first, the kind of bullshit you pull when you say things like "if you're this uniformed, bo_sox48, just stop posting" is ridiculous. You really think I give a shit what you think about me? You just piss people off and bait people into getting pissed off. Do you actually want to argue like that? If you do, keep it up.

On to what matters...

The point about Dr. Baden is that he performed a private autopsy and he made it clear that Mike Brown was shot with his hands up and that Wilson's shots didn't contact him while he was supposedly being assaulted. If residue turns up on his clothes, which Dr. Baden didn't have access to, he could have been shot while charging the car, which doesn't line up completely with the story presented, but doesn't corroborate the witnesses' stories either. What this shows, though, is Wilson's complete disregard for Brown's life, whether he originally intended to kill him or not.

"A gun should only be fired when the shooter intends to kill. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." That's an invention of movies and TV. If the self-defense story is true, then the officer could reasonably have felt he needed six shots to stop the threat to his life. Just as easily, he could have acted wrongly and shot when he did not need to."

I completely agree, though there is no reason that anyone would feel the need to shoot six times, more than likely at least four times from a distance considering they only hit his arms which were probably shielding the rest of his body (conjecture, yes, but by logical extension, not by guesswork). It would take practically unheard of circumstances to warrant all six shots.

"The a dead body taking some time to be moved could have a perfectly reasonable explanation."

Yeah, and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for them taking his body away after hours in a police SUV. No, it was, as you said, "callousness." They could have at least pretended to care about saving his life, Invictus. How you disregard that so easily and sleep at night is beyond me. There's video of all of this.

@tendmote ... who do you think is going to stop first? Protestors or cops? Take yourself back to Little Rock and recall that the President once used the National Guard, called in by the governor, to force the police backwards. Do we really need that again? The police need to point their weapons to the ground and the state needs to drop these crazy restrictions or this is just going to go on and on and the media is not going to go away, which is what they've tried to make happen this whole time.

@bo_sox48 My point is *no one* is going to stop.

"They could have at least pretended to care about saving his life, Invictus."

He was shot right in the head. His life could not have been saved. Again, simple, uncontested facts you just refuse to inform yourself about.


This is basic stuff. If you're going to go on wild, speculative tears then at least ground them in what actually happened.

"Do you deny that there are thugs in the streets? I don't see cops smashing windows and looting stores. Didn't you see my "good apples, bad apples" comment? Guess you ignored that very next sentence."

Cops can be thugs too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8zbR824FKpU

"Cops can be thugs too..."

So let's take all law enforcement off the street, you know, just as a little social experiment in this time of great tension and unrest, and see what happens.

I fully expect rainbows and unicorns and no trolls on webDip.

Some people here are so damn young and naive.

@tendmote ... probably not. If that's the case, then who has more to lose here? In whose better interest is it to abandon this doubly useless fight - the police, who are only wrecking their own reputation, or the protestors, who have already proven they'll walk right into a war zone to get what they want? The police are represented by the state, and the state is represented by the feds, and no one's going to sympathize with the government. Someone from big brother's gonna have to do something about this unless they want to either shoot or arrest every protestor, and considering Amnesty International has already sent people in, that's not gonna go over well. (And, yeah, I know it's a stretch to say that this is going to happen quickly, or that these two worst-case scenarios (all the protestors being arrested or shot) are at all likely.)

"So let's take all law enforcement off the street, you know, just as a little social experiment in this time of great tension and unrest, and see what happens."

No one wants to take cops of the street. People want them to dress in blue, not camo, and people want them to point their guns at the ground, not at protestors. People want the tear gas to stop flying and would rather see barricades put in place to protect the officers. Defense and offense are two different sides of the ball.

"So let's take all law enforcement off the street, you know, just as a little social experiment in this time of great tension and unrest, and see what happens.

I fully expect rainbows and unicorns and no trolls on webDip.

Some people here are so damn young and naive. "

worked before

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/15/340585038/theyre-talking-to-people-tensions-ease-in-ferguson-as-police-change-tactics
www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/tensions-ease-as-highway-patrol-captain-takes-over-security
http://lockerdome.com/6310131759593281/6884810807457812

This Capt. Ron Johnson, he's taking the right approach. You have to start a dialog with people in order to defuse tensions in a conflict resolution process. Community outreach solves more crimes than wire taps, night sticks and intimidation do.

This can serve as a lesson in conflict resolution elsewhere.

May be bullshit, and could be since no other new sources seem to be running with it, but Wilson looks to have been badly beaten before shooting Brown.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

This is something we'll know for certain in time. The source says Wilson was taken to the hospital, so there will be records if this is true.

Obviously, this story could be true and Wilson still ended up shooting Brown without justification. But if it's true it's certainly relevant to understanding what really happened.

Nothing to say?

so are you asserting your link is true or not? Going to lean with no on this one mainly because

1) It's Fox.

2) He was apparently okay enough to still hit a target at 35 feet and then linger around the scene without apparent injury
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvGKpVeIIAAl4ml.jpg

also, this grand jury won't make a decision on indictment until October
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Prosecutor-Grand-Jury-Decision-On-Ferguson-Cop-Darren-Wilson-Could-Come-In-October

does that seem entirely fair?

I'm saying it's relevant. We'll easily be able to find out if it is true because, well, if he's not injured then he's not injured. If he is, he is. I don't know if this is true. I also don't know that it's untrue. But it's an important thing we need to know.

Just because something is on Fox does not automatically mean it's a lie. That's a childish way to look at things. If you read the damn article you'd see this was a Fox exclusive. The source went to them.

The issue here is that Wilson suffering injuries would support the theory he shot in self defense. It's not unreasonable for him to have suffered minor injuries and still felt his life was in danger. The whole defense seems to be based on Brown trying to grab Wilson's gun. Again, I don't know Wilson acted properly. He easily could not have.


As for the grand jury taking to October, justice is a process. The prosecutor may need days to present his case and there are other cases on the docket. If it takes till October it takes till October.

"I'm saying it's relevant. We'll easily be able to find out if it is true because, well, if he's not injured then he's not injured. If he is, he is. I don't know if this is true. I also don't know that it's untrue. But it's an important thing we need to know."

You're right, it's important to know if it's true, otherwise it's just spreading false information

so take the article on its face. One, again, it's from Fox, and only on Fox, a network with a repeated history of outright lying and distorting facts
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/19/fox-news-year-in-apologies-fake-videos-false-in/157273
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382851/how-stupid-happens-kevin-d-williamson

two, it's from an unnamed source close to the 'top brass', who themselves have repeatedly lied and changed their story (did the officer know Michael Brown stole the cigars? or did he make the connection after circling around? or did he not know at all?)

if it does turn out to be true I don't have an issue with it, I have an issue with you citing clearly problematic material while holding a Schrodinger's position yourself and then goading for a response on it

You can come up with examples of that behavior from any of the mainstream media outlets. Remember NBC editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem like he said "coon?" Past bad acts don't prove this is a lie.

Your second point is wholly incomprehensible to me. I really don't know what you're trying to say.


In sum, this isn't "problematic" at all. It's a relevant, and easily falsifiable, piece of news. If it's true, hospital records and photos of the injuries will exist. I'm no more goading for a response than any other person who posts links on this thread is. It matters if Wilson was injured, since that's relevant to the self-defense claim. Not determinative, but relevant.

More and more, it seems you really just want Wilson summarily punished. Even if the worst possible scenario of what he did to Brown is true, he still has constitutional rights to due process, just like everyone else.

Going back to a statement in the original post for a moment:

"Ironic too that they're happening in St. Louis, one of the only cities that didn't have much violence back in the 60s. The police couldn't resist."

I guess the implication of "the police couldn't resist" is that St. Louis was high on some list for "overdue police oppression"?

Since there probably is no such list, is there a specific word for this type of statement?

The sort of absurd thing a college freshman would think, which is what bo_sox48 is.

A college freshman along with everyone but you, Invictus. Why do you keep going there? Keep the personal bullshit out of this. I'm letting you two have at it because you're going deeper than I care to go so stop being a whiny bitch and stop bringing me back into this.

"You can come up with examples of that behavior from any of the mainstream media outlets. Remember NBC editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem like he said "coon?" Past bad acts don't prove this is a lie."

Except no network has the consistency or bias that Fox has. This is a pretty accepted notion.

"Your second point is wholly incomprehensible to me. I really don't know what you're trying to say."

Not that it matters because you're barely even engaging with what I'm saying, but if you were following this event at all, you would know that the St. Louis county PD have changed their story a number of times on different details of the case, in particular whether officer Wilson spotted cigars in Mike Brown's possession which were stolen from the QuikTrip. That's what I'm referring to and it was in no way a difficult point to understand. The fact that you would take an unnamed source close to that very authority, who have a vested interest in spreading a lie to bolster Wilson's credibility, at face value is pretty gullible of you.

"In sum, this isn't "problematic" at all. It's a relevant, and easily falsifiable, piece of news. If it's true, hospital records and photos of the injuries will exist. I'm no more goading for a response than any other person who posts links on this thread is. It matters if Wilson was injured, since that's relevant to the self-defense claim. Not determinative, but relevant. "

"Nothing to say" is literally goading for one, don't act like you just posted a link. It is important if Wilson is injured but your link in no way provides any details to such a fact other than hearsay. Why was this leaked only to Fox news? Why would the county PD not recount such a specific and important detail that would certainly be in their possession? You're not asking yourself the crucial questions.

"More and more, it seems you really just want Wilson summarily punished. Even if the worst possible scenario of what he did to Brown is true, he still has constitutional rights to due process, just like everyone else. "

Nope. I literally said in my post if it was true then I was fine with it. He does have the right to due process, but that right is being poisoned by misinformation like this.

"Except no network has the consistency or bias that Fox has. This is a pretty accepted notion."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

All cable news is awful. There's nothing special about Fox.


"The fact that you would take an unnamed source close to that very authority, who have a vested interest in spreading a lie to bolster Wilson's credibility, at face value is pretty gullible of you."

I never said it's true, just that it's relevant. AGAIN, it'll be very easy to tell if this is true or not because this source says Wilson was taken to a hospital, which means there will be records.

There's no reasonable way to read my statements as taking this report at face value.

""Nothing to say" is literally goading for one, don't act like you just posted a link. It is important if Wilson is injured but your link in no way provides any details to such a fact other than hearsay. Why was this leaked only to Fox news? Why would the county PD not recount such a specific and important detail that would certainly be in their possession? You're not asking yourself the crucial questions."

It wasn't my intent to goad. I was surprised that after a day of constant activity over five hours passed without a response to my post. You're reading too much into three little words.

Of course it's just hearsay. This is just what some source told a news outlet. But it's relevant since, if it's true, it supports the self-defense theory. I said above he could have suffered injuries and still not have properly acted in slef-defense. So even if this is all true it's not determinative that Wilson shouldn't be severely punished. But the fact that this issue has come up is relevant to us trying to understand what happened.

I don't pretend to know why this was only told to Fox or why it took so long to come out.


"I literally said in my post if it was true then I was fine with it. He does have the right to due process, but that right is being poisoned by misinformation like this."

So this is misinformation now? Why are you assuming everything that doesn't support the idea you have in your mind right now a lie? As I said, this all could be true and Wilson is still a piece of shit who acted improperly.

As for his right being "poisoned," that's another thing I just plain don't understand. What do you mean?

"http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

All cable news is awful. There's nothing special about Fox."

Sorry, what does MSNBC having more opinion based journalism have to do with Fox's dishonesty or Wilson's potential injuries? Does MSNBC being more opinionated mean Fox is not dishonest in its coverage?

"I never said it's true, just that it's relevant. AGAIN, it'll be very easy to tell if this is true or not because this source says Wilson was taken to a hospital, which means there will be records.

There's no reasonable way to read my statements as taking this report at face value."

You're taking them entirely at face value because while they could be true, all signs, from eyewitness accounts to photos to the very basic facts of the story (no name biased leak source, biased and untrustworthy network) signal it to not be true. Yet you're going to bat time and again for it as if this one source is was everything hinges on.

"Of course it's just hearsay. This is just what some source told a news outlet. But it's relevant since, if it's true, it supports the self-defense theory. I said above he could have suffered injuries and still not have properly acted in slef-defense. So even if this is all true it's not determinative that Wilson shouldn't be severely punished. But the fact that this issue has come up is relevant to us trying to understand what happened."

Mike Brown is not dead and is actually in hiding and all this is a cover-up for it. I mean, it it could be true right? I just said it so the verdict is out on whether it's true or not. Guess we'll have to wait and see. There aren't any other factors that would indicate whether what I'm saying is true or not. So we'll have to wait. If it is true then Wilson should not be charged. Whether Mike Brown is alive or not is relevant to us trying to understand what happened.

"I don't pretend to know why this was only told to Fox or why it took so long to come out. "

Because you're not applying critical thought
https://twitter.com/search?q=missouri%20cop%20beaten%20bullshit&src=typd

I think it's also funny that you would say something like "all cable news is awful" while citing and hinging all your arguments on a cable news source

Tendmote dragged bo_sox back into it requoting the OP. Invictus just pointed that out in a backhanded kind of way.

Yeah, Twitter is such a castle of rational, critical discussion.


I see you're not really interested in finding out what happened. You're interested in the narrative you already have. This story doesn't defeat the argument Wilson deserves punishment even if it's true. Whether it's true or not will be easy to know once more information comes out.

Like the video of Brown robbing the store, just by EXISTING this claim disrupts the claim this cop just shot Brown in cold blood for no reason at all. That's what really seems to upset you. Naturally, it still could be true that Wilson did the awful things he's been accused of. But to find that out we need to have a proper investigation of what happened.

That means not just dismissing a claim that Wilson was beaten because it was on "Faux News, man!" It means dismissing it when we see proof he never went to the hospital or pictures he that show he never had any injuries. This may take awhile, since if he's smart he's already lawyered up and it's in his best interests to keep his mouth shut and not talk to the press. After all, he still hasn't been indicted.

"
Like the video of Brown robbing the store, just by EXISTING this claim disrupts the claim this cop just shot Brown in cold blood for no reason at all."

Where have I made this claim? You're swinging at strawmen here. What upsets me is people making excuses for what is clearly an overly aggressive manner of policing. Whether Brown punched Wilson a few times or not, stole from a store or not, does not justify his murder after fleeing and putting his hands up. But glad you know what upsets me better than I do.

The Literal Devil's Advocates: A Film (2014)

Starring Invictus and Semck83