Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 10:16:34 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1578243

combelly--the unwashed mutant who demanded the head of a police officer before knowing any of the facts of the case and called it “justice”

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 10:18:05 AM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Recommended By Broken_Clock Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578243

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 10:22:45 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 1578243

Punch a cop, grab for his gun, get shot.You have to be incredibly Gruber

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 10:26:53 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Respond to of 1578243

Devastating NFL Ad Against Obama .........................................................

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 10:37:37 AM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee joseffy Respond to of 1578243

Did you bother to read the testimony? Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all. An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back. Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death. Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, said the grand jury had to weigh testimony that conflicted with physical evidence and conflicting statements by witnesses as it decided whether Wilson should face charges. "Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence," McCulloch said. The decision Monday not to charge Wilson with any crime set off more violent protests in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson and around the country, fueled by claims that the unarmed black 18-year-old was shot while surrendering to the white officer in the mostly African-American city. What people thought were facts about the Aug. 9 shooting have become intertwined with what many see as abuses of power and racial inequality in America. And media coverage of the shooting's aftermath made it into the grand jury proceedings. Before some witnesses testified, prosecutors showed jurors clips of the same people making statements on TV. Their inconsistencies began almost immediately after the shooting, from people in the neighborhood, the friend walking with Brown during the encounter and even one woman who authorities suggested probably wasn't even at the scene at the time. Jurors also were presented with dueling versions from Wilson and Dorian Johnson, who was walking with Brown during the Aug. 9 confrontation. Johnson painted Wilson as provoking the violence, while Wilson said Brown was the aggressor. But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: "It struck my friend in the back." Johnson held to a variation of this description in his grand jury testimony, saying the shot caused Brown's body to "do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him, but he definitely made a jerking movement." Other eyewitness accounts also were clearly wrong. One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not. Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online. Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting. Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have." The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV. "So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted. "Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied. Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head." But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex. "What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend. Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave. "I ain't feeling comfortable," he said. bigstory.ap.org

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 11:18:28 AM
From: i-node	6 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 gamesmistress locogringo Tenchusatsu TideGlider and 1 more member Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578243

>> There are enough questions and strange twist that a trial is indicated to sort things out. Remember that is what the grand jury was called for. Not to try Wilson, but to determine whether or not a trial was needed. And it was THEIR decision, NOT yours. THEY saw the evidence, NOT you. NOT PBS. This is stupid hate-mongering on your part. The grand jury refused to return an indictment, having looked at ALL the evidence, having had the opportunity to question the witnesses to resolve any unanswered questioned. And they refused to indict the officer. Why are you stirring this pot? It is clear the officer acted in self-defense. There is simply no question about it. Michael Brown "reached" into the patrol car -- just as Wilson stated. It was Wilson's responsibility to defend himself and his weapon. He was attacked as the evidence clearly showed. It would have been a travesty for that man to have to defend himself in a criminal murder SHOW trial when the evidence so convincingly showed that he acted in self-defense.

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 11:21:44 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1578243

Sharpton Has Time To Incite Ferguson Racial Violence But No Time To Pay His Taxes .............................................................................................................................................. by: Jon Dougherty November 25, 2014 reddit.com The man revered and welcomed by President Obama doesn’t seem interested in paying his ‘fair share’ like the rest of America Race hustler and “Reverend” Al Sharton, better known as “CI-7? (Confidential Informant 7) to the FBI once upon a time, is in trouble again, though you wouldn’t know it by the dearth of mainstream media reportage. Seems the perennial race-baiter has plenty of time to gin up problems and incite violence in Ferguson, Missouri, following a decision by a St. Louis County grand jury that there was not enough evidence to indict police officer Darren Wilson over the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, but no time to pay his “fair share” of federal taxes. According to The New York Times – and kudos to the paper for reporting this at all – Sharpton’s political rise to fame occurred even as his bills to society went unpaid: Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligations most people see as inevitable, like taxes, rent and other bills. Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. Sharpton, you may recall, is close with the president of the United States; apparently, however, though Obama loves to point out how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes, the subject never comes up with Sharpton. Sharpton, host of a little-watched MSNBC program, has said recently that he is working to pay down his balances but, with the state at least, his balance appears to have grown in recent years, the Times review found. And his National Action Network seems to have been sustained for many years because it has failed to pay federal payroll taxes on its employees. The Times further reported that none of this seems to have dampened Sharpton’s penchant for living large: With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as “abusive,” or “potentially criminal” if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful. Mr. Sharpton and the National Action Network have repeatedly failed to pay travel agencies, hotels and landlords. He has leaned on the generosity of friends and sometimes even the organization, intermingling its finances with his own to cover his daughters’ private school tuition. Meanwhile, though he doesn’t seem to have much time to pay what he owes, Sharpton has plenty of time to stir up racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri. At a press conference he called following the St. Louis County Grand Jury’s decision that there was no evidence to indict officer Darren Wilson – but that there was plenty of evidence his killing of the brutish Michael Brown, who was using his incredibly large stature as a weapon against Wilson – Sharpton called the decision “an absolute blow” and that the “fight is not over.” “It was expected, but still an absolute blow to those of us that wanted to see a fair and open trial. I think that it is clear that even when you see a blow coming … it still hurts nonetheless,” he said from his Harlem offices. He added that Brown’s family “collectively share the pain of having a loved one taken by law enforcement.” Sharpton said he will travel to Ferguson on Tuesday where he will hold a news conference and then plans to return to New York for a rally to call for the federal government “to escalate a criminal indictment.” “Ferguson is not just Missouri,” Sharpton said. “We can lose a round, but the fight is not over.” The Riots Continue: After Jury Decides Not To Indict. Read more about Ferguson.Well, this too is “expected” from Sharpton – after all, he is one of the country’s worst race-baiters and inciters of violence. But expecting him to pay what he owes is obviously asking too much of this “respected civil rights leader.”

To: combjelly who wrote (819396)	11/27/2014 3:19:45 PM
From: Taro	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB joseffy locogringo Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578243

Commie, Please note witness nbr 10: He has been told to be unique as so much, that he called on the authorities only later, because 'being disgusted by some of the witnesses lying through their mouth' about the facts he only knew so well having been a witness himself, he really wanted to give his testimony about what he had seen. His testimony fully supported Officer Wilsons rendition of what took place. /Taro