Posted on 07/31/2016 9:56:51 AM PDT by GuavaCheesePuff
SIKESTON, Missouri — On a Friday evening in late July, Catherine Hanaway stood before 50 attentive citizens of a small town in southeastern Missouri—men in slacks and sneakers, women with nicely done hair. Her 6-foot-tall frame swayed slightly as, with her usual frankness, she made a spirited case to be the next governor. The country is breaking down, the former federal prosecutor told the group gathered in the newly opened headquarters of the local Republican Party—police ambushed and murdered in Dallas, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Ballwin, Missouri—three shootings and eight dead in 10 days. As people nibbled cupcakes topped with small American flags, Hanaway painted a picture of violence and decline every bit as dark as the vision Donald Trump had delivered in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland a day earlier. Then she brought it home.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I see the owned media is still obsessed with 'dark' themes now projecting them on every Repub who makes a speech.
Debate? One side uses facts and reason, the other uses emotions and violence.
Race played no role in the encounter. If I had just robbed a store and was walking down the middle of the street, a cop would have treated me the same way. BLM was founded on lies and ignoring the facts, and has just gone downhill from there.
Ground Zero for pandering and letting people vent their frustrations through arson and property destruction. Thanks, Gov. Nixon.
If this had not been handled with kid gloves and letting the inmates run the asylum for a week, the DOJ probably would never have heard of it.
Yep, they are pushing this “dark” meme.
I actually thought Trump’s speech was optimistic, in that, while he described some serious problems, he was also telling us what he planned to do about the problems. What the heck is dark about that???
Goes to show, that “Journolist”, and other efforts to coordinate the liberal talking points in the media, are doing their job. How is it that so many media people, independently of each other, came up with the same “dark” meme to push on their audiences??? It’s hard to believe it would be a coincidence.
And if you point out the lies BLM spreads, you are labelled a racist. That is not a debate, it is a rabid diatribe.
Why aren’t the people in the media praising Hillary’s arousing speech???
Why are they still bitching about Trump’s speech???
It’s as if they want to scare people into voting for Hillary because of fear of Trump, not due to pushing the brilliant positive liberal agenda of Hillary.
Did Politico get approval from Hillary Campaign before posting this nonsense?
That is how radicals work
Radical Left
Radical Islam
Radical Globalists
We need to start labeling our enemies correctly
... and Politico is right there to fan the embers.
I am waiting for one of them to say/do something that separates them from the pack.
One thing about Kinder is that a few years ago I attended an induction ceremony at the Statehouse. Lt. Gov. Kinder asked that applause be held 'til the end. The gallery was packed and as each new member of the legislature was introduced, there was - predictably - some applause.
An unhappy Lt. Gov. Kinder, who was running the show, admonished the crowd saying "You are guests in our house. I will have you removed if you continue your applause."
The people did not stop.
I am rarely a single issue voter, but Kinder lost me that day.
Let it burn. The people of Ferguson and Missourri elected the gov’t that not only allowed this to happen, but refused to squash it early.
Furgeson, you get what you ask(vote) for.
I also refuse to read any article further than “unarmed black man”. His arms were much bigger than the policemans and they were attached to hands that we’re going for a gun.
His arms are what got him killed.
“Dark” conveniently in EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLET after the angelic Hillary in white descended from the heavens to offer free stuff.
Of course it’s still burning...it’s inhabited largely by arsonist and other criminals!!!
Twenty-Five Top Quotes from the DOJ’s Report on the Michael Brown Shooting
[01] The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. (Page 5)
[02] when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)
[03] Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)
[04] Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. (Page 6)
[05] there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)
[06] autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. (Page 7)
[07] witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)
[08] several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)
[09] The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses. (Page 10)
[10] evidence does not establish that it was unreasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown as a threat while Brown was punching and grabbing him in the SUV and attempting to take his gun. (Page 11)
[11] Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)
[12] Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence.8 Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible. (Page 16)
[13] Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. (Page 78)
[14] Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)
[15] several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. (Page 82)
[16] there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)
[17] There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 83)
[18] The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.” (Page 83)
[19] Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. (Page 84)
[20] Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.
[21] In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. (Page 85)
[22] Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. (Page 85)
[23] we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day.” (Page 85)
[24] “It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard.” (citing Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (same))). Rather, where, as here, an officer points his gun at a suspect to halt his advance, that suspect should be on notice that “escalation of the situation would result in the use of the firearm.” Estate of Morgan at 498. An officer is permitted to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014) (“Officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended”). For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Page 85)
[25] Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. (Page 86)
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
Of course Nixon is a Democrat. Phone call from the White House—go easy on the 90% Democrat voters.
With the exception of Eric Greitens (who was a democrat until recently and not to be trusted in my opinion), any of the 3 other Republican candidates are qualified and capable.
We favor Peter Kinder because he was front and center in Ferguson calling for Nixon to put an end to the violence.
There was also an issue in southeast Missouri recently where the Nixon administration has been secretly diverting settlement funds meant for remediation
and clean up of damage from lead mining to the purchase of vast areas of land that was unaffected. Peter Kinder held townhalls to give those opposed to this government land grab a voice.
Jay Nixon has been a disaster for Missouri. Property values in the municipalities surrounding Ferguson have taken a nosedive. Mizzou has suffered a 25% drop in enrollment due to the disruption there.
Nixon was almost the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee before August 9, 2014 the Ferguson shooting. Before Ferguson, he was seen as a moderate white Southerner who can appeal to voters who aren’t in love with Sanders and Warren. His career is over.
Nixon was so conservative for Democrats in 1998 when he ran for Senate, he lost to Kit Bond badly.
“I see the owned media is still obsessed with ‘dark’ themes now projecting them on every Repub who makes a speech.”
You’re exactly right. Since an article on this site appeared this past week, telling about the “DARK” theme, the word has found its way into an awful lot of articles derogatory to Republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.