I'm disgusted with the Ferguson situation

Mike Brown wasn 't shot becasue he smoked marijuana, he wasn't shot because he stole cigarillos, and he wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he shoved a cop back inside the police car and punched him, and then refused to lie on the ground when ordered to do so. He approached the officer and got shot, plain and simple. Officer Wilson was railroaded by a bunch of fanatical activists and CNN, who have no interest in the facts.

i feel like my point of view isn't being heard by anyone, and I don't know what to do about it, so I guess I'll rant.

How is your point of view being ignored? I thought the grand jury agreed with you? Even though (in my opinion) there were more holes in Wilson's story than a Swiss cheese.

originally posted by: Flatwoods
Mike Brown wasn 't shot becasue he smoked marijuana, he wasn't shot because he stole cigarillos, and he wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he shoved a cop back inside the police car and punched him, and then refused to lie on the ground when ordered to do so. He approached the officer and got shot, plain and simple. Officer Wilson was railroaded by a bunch of fanatical activists and CNN, who have no interest in the facts.

i feel like my point of view isn't being heard by anyone, and I don't know what to do about it, so I guess I'll rant.

The people who are protesting will ignore your thoughts on the subject because you are obviously lying and racist...

Just like the cop....

just like the grand jury....

Just like the witnesses....

Ignore all the evidence & witnesses because they were obviously lying to cover up a racist attack by a police officer.

/sarcasm

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

I believe what happened was pretty close to what the official reports & officer claim.

I also agree that there were some "holes in his story" but being in similar situations before you mind does funny things and what and how you remember things are weird at best sometimes.

When your in a life or death situation thinks go slow motion and you have tunnel vision, facts become jumbled a little.
Overall you know what happened but specifics may be sketchy.

I do believe Mr. Brown was aggressive and attacked the officer and tried to bully his way through the situation the way he most likely was used to doing on the street and getting away with it......the same way he did to the store owner just prior to the altercation.

I am thinking he guesses wrong and it was lethal.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
How is your point of view being ignored? I thought the grand jury agreed with you? Even though (in my opinion) there were more holes in Wilson's story than a Swiss cheese.

That's the simple truth, it was the jury's decision, and as I heard the jury was given a 'data-dump' however, one part of what they were given was that officer Wilson stopped them when he saw the cigarillos in Brown's hand, that is not what chief Ferguson had said at the time, to whit, they were stopped for walking on the road, and that Wilson did not know about any robbery. False information to the jury or false reporting by MSM? because someone is lying.

okay lets say it happened that way that your ranting about. I still think there was a different way for Officer Wilson to handle the situation other then a head shot to a young man. What kind of set me on edge is his interview with George Stephnopilis. He says that looking back on the situation there was nothing he would change doing. I thought police had training on how to deal with someone who is unarmed with non-lethal means?

a reply to: Flatwoods

I agree CNN seemed to spearhead the entire MSM message about Ferguson.

All you can do is keep exposing all the gaping holes in the stories from the Media.

a reply to: American-philosopher

The entire incident took place in a few seconds.

How was Wilson supposed to know for sure if Brown was armed or not?

Lots of psychology involved.

a reply to: xuenchen

Agreed. In my opinion, the riots, the response with riot gear and National Guard troops was all intended. What people could have used to grow and change the world we used it to divide ourselves even further.

a reply to: smurfy

This. This right here really gets to me. All too often on here, people bash the MSM (and for the most part, rightfully so) but then turn around and point out a change in story as evidence of something.

It's the media. It's a 24 hour news cycle. They'd rather be first and wrong than last and right. Developing situation? Who cares, put somebody on camera and let them talk like they know what happened. Nobody wants to let things develop and put out a complete story. They want to run with the latest tweet, rumor, facebook post, whatever and then let the facts catch up later, if at all.

And then people sieze on it like it's gospel that the story the media put out 2 minutes after an incident is exactly what happened.

a reply to: Flatwoods

When I say Officer Wilson was railroaded, I mean he was framed for being a racist. Outside of that, I think the case did raise some legitimate questions regarding the use of excessive force, and when an officer is allowed to shoot someone from a distance who is unarmed. However, any opportunity to address these questions has been lost in the hysteria over race, something which, as far as I can see, doesn't even apply in this case. CNN are the ones who have caused this.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh it can't be denied that the media lies and distorts facts but this is truth. They jump on situations for ratings and as you said to be first. The truth doesn't matter, what matters is "We had it first, you heard it from us originally!". So facts are overlooked in the first few minutes something is released.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: smurfy

This. This right here really gets to me. All too often on here, people bash the MSM (and for the most part, rightfully so) but then turn around and point out a change in story as evidence of something.

It's the media. It's a 24 hour news cycle. They'd rather be first and wrong than last and right. Developing situation? Who cares, put somebody on camera and let them talk like they know what happened. Nobody wants to let things develop and put out a complete story. They want to run with the latest tweet, rumor, facebook post, whatever and then let the facts catch up later, if at all.

And then people sieze on it like it's gospel that the story the media put out 2 minutes after an incident is exactly what happened.

I do understand that, but in the case of chief (Jackson is the correct name), I should say around middle August, what he says is unequivical, you can hear what he said in the video, and here the media go to great pains to elicit exactly what he is saying, because his first mention about connection by Wilson and the robbery is somewhat vague, but by the end of the interview everything is crystal clear, and you can hear the surprise in the reporter's voices. That statement does not gel entirely with the statement put out by the spokesman who announced the jury's verdict, according to that, the cigarillos were part of Wilson's attention. So here, the MSM were doing the job properly.


This is the prosecutor's statement on the jury findings, the incident synopsis starts at around the 10.15 minute mark, and you will hear mention of a radio broadcast, and a mention of the Cigarillos, both as part of Wilson's statements. So between the two video I see a conflict. Make up your own mind, or if anyone can properly clarify something I am missing.

a reply to: smurfy

I take your point my comment was in a more general sense in regards to MSM and how some people (many people) take it on here.

MSM gets it right every once in a blue moon.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
okay lets say it happened that way that your ranting about. I still think there was a different way for Officer Wilson to handle the situation other then a head shot to a young man. What kind of set me on edge is his interview with George Stephnopilis. He says that looking back on the situation there was nothing he would change doing. I thought police had training on how to deal with someone who is unarmed with non-lethal means?

Read about use of force. There are any number of reasons why an officer is permitted to use lethal force against an unarmed person.

a reply to: Flatwoods

I personally object to many forms of information out there leaving out facts or being exaggerated one way or another to make things match a persons on view. I also object to people calling this Man a "gentle giant". The blatant way he does his theft says this is not true he is used to pushing people around. At 6'4" and 300 lbs he was aware that he was intimidating I am sure.

With that said, the witnesses had many stories and not much consistency, I had hoped the facts would come out in court to everyones satisfaction. I wish the police were all wearing body cameras. We don't want someone wrongly punished but we don't want police to get away with murder.

a reply to: Flatwoods

I love how he was honored though.Warms the heart.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: smurfy

I take your point

my comment was in a more general sense in regards to MSM and how some people (many people) take it on here.

MSM gets it right every once in a blue moon.

As I said, I understand. I have added the prosecutor's statement above, and he gives the media a bad time, without any particular citing of media behaviour in regard to this event other than say, bad witnesses, but he too is generalising, and I find that a bit tricky, it's a bit like saying ignore everything that the press says, and only believe what I am telling you is the truth as given to the jury...the "true events" or something similar as he states, but judge that for yourself, I see it as dodgy, and it sure makes Chief Jackson's middle August statement, (where the press did well) somwhere in limbo.

a reply to: smurfy

The chief did nothing at all to help any aspect of this situation, and in fact only made it worse. He was absolutely out of his depth in every possible way. Honestly I think everybody above Wilson (not including him is my point) is to blame for this fiasco.

a reply to: Shamrock6
right right I think he was "permitted" to do what he did the question again that I have was did he do everything in his power not to have a loss of life in that situation was there something that could have been done differently.