Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

The Truth · Aug 14, 2014

Anonymous is claiming to know the cop's identity. They have apparently released a couple of cops' personal info despite the fact they they were mistaken for the cop that shot Brown. This doesn't look good for Anonymous, or the Constitution, or civil rights or due process for that matter.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/technology/security/ferguson-anonymous/

Also there are reports that the Feds have opened an investigation and that MO State Police have taken over security, with the FBI acting as command.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/feds-seize-control-police-operations-ferguson/

The letters SHTF come to mind...

Richieg150 · Aug 15, 2014

Family members identified the man as 24-year-old Ezell Ford, who they described as "mentally challenged."
If this is true, it sheds light in a whole different direction. If he indeed was as HIS family members say. But I haven't heard of this on ANY news broadcast.....probably wont hear this in the news, as maybe he was shot as a result of HIS own actions.....IF that is true, it takes all the wind out of the sails of those angered enough to rob, loot, destroy, riot.....uhhh.... because they were angry.. Im waiting for politicians to cry ALL those arrested for rioting should be set free, it wasn't THEIR fault they acted like they did, they were upset and just couldn't help themselves..... what better way to draw attention to the problems between police and citizens, than rioting and causing mayhem, and forcing the police to come down on them to protect the innocent and THEIR businesses.

The Truth · Aug 15, 2014

Ezell Ford was shot in LA, and he was lying on the ground and shot in the back supposedly. Totally different shooting, and possibly better reason to riot than the Brown shooting.

marshaul · Aug 15, 2014

Basically, here's how this country works right now:

1. Police randomly shoot an unarmed, innocent person.

2. Citizens protest.

3. Cops show up in full riot gear; cops and citizens start goading each other; a riot ensues.

4. Cops then use the situation they helped escalate as an after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handedness.

5. Police apologists praise the heroic defenders of private property against the onslaught of anarchy.

6. See step 1.

thedudejdog · Aug 15, 2014

Oc is legal in fegerson with a ccw permit. Anyone up for a oc walk this weekend?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Primus · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
Basically, here's how this country works right now:

1. Police randomly shoot an unarmed, innocent person.

2. Citizens protest.

3. Cops show up in full riot gear; cops and citizens start goading each other; a riot ensues.

4. Cops then use the situation they helped escalate as an after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handedness.

5. Police apologists praise the heroic defenders of private property against the onslaught of anarchy.

6. See step 1.

Which step is the rioting and looting? Property damage and citizens hurt by eachother? I missed it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

marshaul · Aug 15, 2014

Primus said:
Which step is the rioting and looting? Property damage and citizens hurt by eachother? I missed it.

That's because you fail at reading.

Kopis · Aug 15, 2014

police released his name just now.... Darren Wilson. One site listed him as mixed race but i cant find a picture of him. There was also a robbery by two black males at a convenience store nearby. That may have been the LEOs RAS for stopping them and possibly why they pushed back and ran.

Primus · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
Basically, here's how this country works right now:

1. Police randomly shoot an unarmed, innocent person.

2. Citizens protest.

3. Cops show up in full riot gear; cops and citizens start goading each other; a riot ensues.

4. Cops then use the situation they helped escalate as an after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handedness.

5. Police apologists praise the heroic defenders of private property against the onslaught of anarchy.

6. See step 1.

Primus said:
Which step is the rioting and looting? Property damage and citizens hurt by eachother? I missed it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

marshaul said:
That's because you fail at reading.

Sa ok me sur. Cans ya pleeze poonts at oot fo ma.

Wit da quotay thungy majiggy if dat peases ya.

Thanks.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

marshaul · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
Basically, here's how this country works right now:

1. Police randomly shoot an unarmed, innocent person.

2. Citizens protest.

3. Cops show up in full riot gear; cops and citizens start goading each other; [size=+3]a riot ensues.[/size]

4. Cops then use the situation they helped escalate as an after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handedness.

5. Police apologists praise the heroic defenders of private property against the onslaught of anarchy.

6. See step 1.

I made it bigger so you see it before your eyes glaze over.

solus · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul, forgot coverup and misdirection by chief, it was good shoot and misleading who the actually LE was who pulled the trigger.

ipse

waskel · Aug 15, 2014

Interesting turn of events...

Police: Teen Fatally Shot By Ferguson Officer Was Suspect In Convenience Store Robbery

marshaul · Aug 15, 2014

waskel said:
Interesting turn of events...

Police: Teen Fatally Shot By Ferguson Officer Was Suspect In Convenience Store Robbery

Well, I should hope the police at least had some reason for the initial stop.

That has little bearing on subsequent events, however.

mikeyb · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
Basically, here's how this country works right now:

1. Police randomly shoot an unarmed, innocent person.

2. Citizens protest.

3. Cops show up in full riot gear; cops and citizens start goading each other; a riot ensues.

4. Cops then use the situation they helped escalate as an after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handedness.

5. Police apologists praise the heroic defenders of private property against the onslaught of anarchy.

6. See step 1.

Assumption. Two wildly different stories told, and now we have new data to make our assumptions.

Meanwhile, our CINC is off drinking Cape Codders and having shish-kabobs.

marshaul · Aug 15, 2014

mikeyb said:
Assumption. Two wildly different stories told, and now we have new data to make our assumptions.

No assumption. Even the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

This talk about a robbery is so much hand-waving and misdirection. As I said, they better have at least had reason for the stop, but that reason has little to do with subsequent events.

mikeyb · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
Well, I should hope the police at least had some reason for the initial stop.

That has little bearing on subsequent events, however.

marshaul said:
That has little bearing on subsequent events, however.

marshaul said:
That has little bearing on subsequent events

marshaul said:
little bearing on subsequent events

marshaul said:
little bearing

:uhoh:

Yeah, once the protesters figure out that he was a criminal suspect, they'll just put down the torches and pitchforks and go home. The looters will bring back the goods; "Sorry, my bad."

Had the police not been responding to a strong arm robbery, then none of this would be happening. So I'd say this development has a *little* bearing on subsequent events.

mikeyb · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
No assumption. Even the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

This talk about a robbery is so much hand-waving and misdirection. As I said, they better have at least had reason for the stop, but that reason has little to do with subsequent events.

Court of law distinction. And we got fuzzy, grainy, possibly photoshopped photos.

marshaul · Aug 15, 2014

mikeyb said:
:uhoh:

Yeah, once the protesters figure out that he was a criminal suspect, they'll just put down the torches and pitchforks and go home. The looters will bring back the goods; "Sorry, my bad."

Had the police not been responding to a strong arm robbery, then none of this would be happening. So I'd say this development has a *little* bearing on subsequent events.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make (I'm sure that's my fault).

Do you dispute my implicit contention that a "suspected robbery" provides justification for a stop, but in no way provides it for a subsequent shooting?

Primus · Aug 15, 2014

marshaul said:
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make (I'm sure that's my fault).

Do you dispute my implicit contention that a "suspected robbery" provides justification for a stop, but in no way provides it for a subsequent shooting?

No of wouldn't alone provide justification for shooting.

But it certainly adds credence to the officers claims the guy fought him for his gun.

IF that is the guy and he just robbed a store violently do you think he'd just say "ok coppa ya got me"?

He was just about to turn his life around I'm sure...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus · Aug 15, 2014

mikeyb said:
:uhoh:

Yeah, once the protesters figure out that he was a criminal suspect, they'll just put down the torches and pitchforks and go home. The looters will bring back the goods; "Sorry, my bad."

Had the police not been responding to a strong arm robbery, then none of this would be happening. So I'd say this development has a *little* bearing on subsequent events.

Well said... If there was no robbery then they wouldn't have tried to stop this "kid".

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member