Police: Darren Wilson, officer in Ferguson shooting, had no prior disciplinary record [More Info]

CNN ^ | 08/05/14

[wideawake]

It's basic common sense, isn't it? If you can't breathe, you can't talk.

Another piece of basic common sense: if you are a morbidly obese sack of crap surrounded by five police officers who want to arrest you, you should probably go along quietly rather than try to fight your way out of it.

What did Garner think he was going to do? Knock 5 cops out? Break through the perimeter and speed waddle his way into hiding?

[Uncle Chip]

Wrong —

Any air in your lungs at the time allows you to talk but when the air runs out you need to inhale.

When someone is sitting on you preventing your diaphragm from expanding and squeezing your windpipe, inhaling to fill your lungs again becomes a little difficult.

Watch the tape — his last words were I can’t breathe — and the autopsy showed that he was right.

[FreeAtlanta]

Do you think the Democrats would have screwed up again? They made a mistake by agitating with George Zimmerman who turned out to be hispanic, so they had to turn him into a “white” hispanic. I am sure they did a little more research on this shooting.

This is all a Democrat election strategy to “community organize” the vote.

[Balding_Eagle]

I pointed out how wrong you were to go around screaming and shouting about ‘how the police shot him in the back’. Most of us knew, instinctively, that that was the foolish ranting of someone not fully engaged with the facts of the case.

Then you moved on to how the police were out of control, and again, those of us who understand these things knew you were talking from a position of ignorance. We knew, but couldn’t prove, that you were wrong.

Now there’s this bit of news:

“The “JJ Witness Video” – Eye Witness Audio of Mike Brown States: “Brown Doubled Back Toward POlice”…

This wasn’t an out of control cop, it was a cop who was justifiably protecting his own life.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3193733/posts

Again, you’ve been shown, by the facts as they come to light, that your rush to judgment simply shows your own ignorance of how these situations play out on the ground.

You are allowing your biases to blind you to reality.

[INVAR]

Most of us knew, instinctively, that that was the foolish ranting of someone not fully engaged with the facts of the case.

No different than the foolish ranting you, yourself have been engaged - because YOU are not fully engaged with the facts of the case either.

YOU have no 'facts' anymore than I have 'FACTS' of the case. They have as yet not been disclosed in terms of the shooting itself.

We only have what has been reported, and likewise my responses are the results of what has been reported and shown at the time I posted.

We do not know how many shots were fired. We do not know how many times Brown was shot and where he was shot. We do not know factually if it was only one shot from inside the car, or multiple shots fired from outside the car.

My point from the beginning was, and continues to be: if initial reports were true - in an environment where police have become a militarized civilian security force - that if shooting an unarmed person MULTIPLE times (if Brown was indeed running away from the police as first reported) is seen as justified, the threshold of discretion for when police can use deadly force will become narrower and narrower until it becomes accepted that the police can use whatever force they deem necessary at any given time.

That is beyond a dangerous environment to live in.

Do we really want to give a militarized civilian security force that kind of power by applauding this case as justified IF - IF - IF, the initial reports were accurate and the cop shot Brown multiple times away from his squad car?

Given the huge amount of police state tactics being employed against Americans in recent years - it was and is a necessary point of discussion to make.

Even if you do not like it because you will side with whomever has a badge.

I am not so trusting - and I have good reason for that distrust.

[Balding_Eagle]

I understand your desire to change the subject from this case to something else, and to your credit, you’ve been doing that all along as new facts which appear continue to destroy all the arguments you’ve made.

Those of us who aren’t so emotionally involved have seen the truth of this almost from the very beginning. You haven’t, By way of example, your ‘shooting in the back’ theory. We instinctively knew it was nonsense, but you hung in there.

My point is simple, your biases have blinded you to the reality of this one, and your most recent post to me reiterates that.

Hang in there if you must, but you’re no good to our side if you insist on building your positions on lies.

[INVAR]

I understand your desire to change the subject from this case to something else, and to your credit, you’ve been doing that all along as new facts which appear continue to destroy all the arguments you’ve made.

Why are you are debating like a liberal?

My argument on this issue has been consistent; noting the discrepancy in the application of lawful use of deadly force between an agent of the state and a citizen; and the ridiculous dangers of a militarized domestic civilian security force being used on American citizens.

Those of us who aren’t so emotionally involved have seen the truth of this almost from the very beginning.

You've seen NOTHING except the same damn things the rest of us have. All you had and all you currently have, is a supposition based on reports being released.

You have no "truth" in regards to this issue - because you were not there and you have not seen the incontrovertible evidence in this case. Neither have I.

I based my questions on the reporting at the time - and given the endemic overuse of brutality and deadly force by law enforcement of late - the questions and discrepancy arguments were absolutely appropriate to make.

By way of example, your ‘shooting in the back’ theory. We instinctively knew it was nonsense, but you hung in there.

You "knew" nothing. You had only supposition based on what you saw from the reporting. Same as me.

you’re no good to our side if you insist on building your positions on lies.

My position is not going to change - because my position is exactly the same now as it was when this first began. The questions I had and the observations I made are no less relevant now or even tomorrow than when I posted them.

As far as building a position based on 'lies' - you accused me of being a 'race baiter' when I never ONCE mentioned skin color in my arguments. Then you went on to assert that I was a fool, because "it's all about race" when I never once mentioned it.

Smearing and castigating someone who disagrees with you by assigning a label for them having nothing to do with their arguments is a tactic the Left uses.

How can you be any good for Conservatism if you insist on doing likewise?

[Balding_Eagle]

My argument on this issue has been consistent

I didn't read any further.

You want to lie to me, OK, but you're a damn fool lying to yourself.

I read some of you first posts.

[INVAR]

You have a MAJOR reading comprehension problem apparently.

As far as lying, look no further than your post accusing me of being a race-baiter when there is nothing in my posts that even suggest skin color.

You are projecting obviously.

[Balding_Eagle]

Just to quote from one of your posts:

a contributing factor in the shooting death of an unarmed 18 year old by a cop MULTIPLE TIMES while he was running away.

Most of us knew, but couldn't prove at the time, that that were the ravings of an agitator.

[INVAR]

Just like a Leftist - you conveniently leave out the CONTEXT of what was posted and attempt to twist what I wrote to fit your narrative that I'm a 'race-baiter' agitator.

The entire thought that contained that portion of the sentence you posted to further your narrative was this:

Precedents like this can and will be used by totalitarian governments against everyone, not just ghetto thugs wanting to get free shit and instigate mayhem at the urging of communists and community agitators with an agenda to push.

Given how the cops are acting in Ferguson, it is an appearance that such wonton displays of authoritarianism are a problem there and may have been a contributing factor in the shooting death of an unarmed 18 year old by a cop MULTIPLE TIMES while he was running away.

So I have little sympathy for thugs, whether they be ‘hood rats or those with a badge.

Rioting is not the answer. But then neither is sending in armed ‘security forces’ to show off how big and bad they are with weaponry I bet our combat troops would have wished they had in Iraq.

You proved nothing except that you are projecting that which you yourself are… an agitator.

[Balding_Eagle]

Yeah, you might want to hide behind the supposed context, but that was the first of many posts from you which agreed with the MSM conventional wisdom; to wit that

‘the cop shot an unarmed teenager in the back as he was trying to escape the bad policeman’.

We are going to find out that this was/is an ordinary cop, armed as an ordinary cop just doing the kind of duty we all want; keeping the peace in an uncivilized territory. That’s’ something I know that you don’t.

BTW the constant attempt to bait off me using phases ‘Like a Leftist’ etc. doesn’t work with me. Not that I mind your frothing.

[INVAR]

There you go again.

I never had any ‘agreement’ with ‘conventional wisdom’ of the MSM. My questions and comments were (and continue to be) in regards to what was reported at the time it was reported.

That police in this country have become militarized and routinely act outside of what used to constitute a peace officer is the springboard for the comments and questions made in this situation. Especially given how the Executive stated his desire to create a militarized civilian security force. That bodes evil for every liberty-loving American in the country.

That you insist this was ‘an ordinary cop’ “doing what we all want” - does not comport with what I used to understand the definition of ‘ordinary cop’ to be.

Batons, Mace and more recently tasters were used to effect an arrest once upon a time. If ‘keeping the peace’ includes emptying a magazine into perps whenever a cop ‘feels threatened’ - you are one who will enjoy living in a police state.

That is until it is turned on you.

Shooting an unarmed perp multiple times as a legal and policy precedent should worry us and prompt us to make the same arguments I have made if we do not want to live under a police state. But you and those like you apparently do.

We have a litany of example of cops shooting family pets, acting like armed gestapo and not peace officers. My arguments are centered from those observations and in reaction to the reports from Ferguson we had at the time they were made.

Ghetto thugs are ghetto thugs and I have no sympathy for them. Brown apparently deserved his fate considering information that has been released in the last 24 hours.

That said, Ghetto thugs do not pose a clear and present danger to our liberty and our rights however. A militarized civilian security force (formerly known as Police) are a more direct threat to those things. Will this case create a precedent that police have authority to empty magazines into unarmed perps anytime they feel threatened? Will the criteria for such be whatever is deemed to be so by the police themselves?

I trust an armed citizenry far more than I will ever trust an institution of the state. A people who give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, they deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and indeed will end up having neither.

[Balding_Eagle]

Keep posting.

Why you want to continue to side with ‘the gentle giant’ at this stage is puzzling, but go for it.

BTW, he wasn’t shot in the back.

[INVAR]

There you go again.

Your reading comprehension SUCKS or you willfully and deliberately deceive in order to foist your perverted narrative that I’m an “instigating race-baiter” or some such crap.

I never sided with anyone in this case. I asked questions and made comments specific to the use of deadly force by police on an unarmed perp.

BTW, shooting unarmed perps and people and dogs to death by police as policy is perfectly okay with you as long as they are shot in the face and from the front -yes?

[Balding_Eagle]

You may not have consciously sided with the MSM and racial hucksters, but when you posted this;

'a contributing factor in the shooting death of an unarmed 18 year old by a cop MULTIPLE TIMES while he was running away.'

over and over it became impossible to differentiate you from the thug anarchists.

Regarding your last paragraph/question; Ask me again, this time ask it honestly, and with the facts of the case.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother, I tire of you.

[INVAR]

over and over it became impossible to differentiate you from the thug anarchists.

That is most likely because like all seig-heiling goose-stepping promoters of a Police State, you assert anyone who dares question agents of the state as being thug anarchists.