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 (819609)	11/28/2014 7:22:46 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1586289

>> Portraying blacks, especially young black males, as animalistic with super-human strength and ability to tolerate extreme pain is straight out of the racist handbook for the past few centuries. You were raised in the South, so you know it. Wilson was clearly playing on this, consciously or not. All he missed was Brown was after our women. AFAIK, Wilson wasn't making any statement at all about "blacks". He was describing his encounter with one man, who was in fact bigger and stronger than he was. More importantly, Wilson had been struck in the face twice by this man while at a serious disadvantage -- sitting within a patrol car while Brown was standing outside the car. And according to his testimony he believed he was in danger of losing control of the situation had he been hit again -- which would, of course, have meant Brown would have had access to Wilson's weapon. Wilson had an obligation to protect himself by preventing that. Witness testimony backed up Wilson's account. Now, there were witnesses who lied and probably some who saw things differently. But the preponderance of the testimony backed up Wilson's account. The fact that this has become an issue based on politics rather than on the facts just tells the story, imo. It isn't about any of the stuff you mentioned. It is about the fact that a black man was killed by a cop. What either of them did doesn't matter to you guys. If the cop was in the wrong he should be prosecuted. But there needs to be some reasonable evidence that at least suggests it, and there isn't. I can't speak for the grand jury in this case but were on that panel, if there was a showing the police officer was attacked (and there was) it is pretty much over at that point. The officer has an obligation to defend himself and his weapon. And policemen are trained to shoot to kill and to do what is necessary to eliminate the threat. Given those indisputable facts, I don't see where your political argument has a leg to stand on. I will also point out that on this very thread I was critical of police in St. Louis who shot and killed a black man a day or two after Brown was killed because I thought the man didn't meet the criterion of posing a threat to the officers and he had not attacked them. The man was 10-15 feet away with a knife, and I didn't think it necessary to kill him. I also made that comment on Facebook where a friend who is a former police officer and now a defense attorney disagreed with me, pointing out that 10-15 feet can be closed within a second or two so even though the threat was that of a knife the shooting was easily justifiable. So, unlike you, I'm not politically dispatched one direction or the other and have no discomfort in saying it like it is. Your argument is a very weak attempt to turn something that not racially motivated into a racial event, just like your idiot hero, Obama.

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/28/2014 7:34:26 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB Respond to of 1586289

>> Obviously, he was on Wilson's side. Which isn't his job. His job, as I previously pointed out, is above all, seeking justice. Which means fairness. It is NOT to put someone on trial or to secure a conviction when the evidence doesn't suggest a crime was committed. And justifiable homicide is not a crime. I would also point out that the prosecutor did not question Wilson, another representative in his office did. While he could have told her to "take it easy on him and make it look like he's innocent," there is nothing to suggest that happened and he would have been effectively colluding with employees to pursue a No True Bill, which seems awfully unlikely.

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/28/2014 7:56:09 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1586289

Saint Michael Brown out weighed Wilson by 82 pounds.

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/28/2014 8:44:52 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Recommended By tejek Respond to of 1586289

Not only that, the prosecutor's father was a cop shot in the line of duty. He was an ESPECIALLY cop-loving prosecutor.

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/28/2014 8:57:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 1586289

Here is my problem. Portraying blacks, especially young black males, as animalistic with super-human strength and ability to tolerate extreme pain is straight out of the racist handbook for the past few centuries. You were raised in the South, so you know it. Wilson was clearly playing on this, consciously or not. All he missed was Brown was after our women. Most whites can usually discern when they've encountered a dangerous/bad white man but with black men, they seem to miss all the cues or can't interpret what cues they do see. They see all black men esp young ones in the same way.......much like you describe above. Clearly, Brown scared Wilson to the point where he was not able to function in a professional manner. And so Brown is dead. And there are no words to describe the shit the prosecutor pulled. I hope Holder corrects that misfire.

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/29/2014 8:51:27 AM
From: steve harris	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo TideGlider Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1586289

Portraying blacks, especially young black males, as animalistic with super-human strength and ability to tolerate extreme pain is straight out of the racist handbook for the past few centuries. You should watch a few football games. You know, reality.....

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/29/2014 9:55:01 AM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Respond to of 1586289

LOL!!! You are even dumber than bentwayover..... What a load of crap....

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/29/2014 2:15:51 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By joseffy locogringo Respond to of 1586289

i see you still have serious mental issues

To: combjelly who wrote (819609)	11/29/2014 3:02:55 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586289

Rifts Evident Among Top Democrats After Midterm Trouncing .................................................................................................. NewsMax ^ \| 11-28-14 \| Melanie Batley In the wake of the midterm election defeats, tensions that have been simmering within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party are coming to the surface as the party struggles to find the right way forward in its public positioning, The Wall Street Journal reported. Several examples emerged this week. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer publicly denounced Obamacare on Tuesday, saying it was too narrowly focused on the uninsured and should have aimed to assist the wider population of the middle class. On the same day, Democratic leaders in the Senate were caught off-guard when the White House threatened to veto the restoration of tax breaks for businesses that had been agreed by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. The White House has taken issue with it because it doesn't include provisions to make permanent enhanced tax credits for the working poor. "The twin developments were among fissures within the party that, at their broadest level, show Democrats at odds over what economic message to present to voters ahead of the 2016 presidential race," the Journal said. "Worried that they lacked a compelling position in the midterms, Democrats are split over whether to advance a centrist message or a more populist economic argument that casts everyday families as victims of overly powerful corporations and benighted government policies." Rep. Jerry Nadler confirmed to the Journal that there are splits between the progressive wing of the party and centrists who are concerned that liberal economic policies will alienate mainstream voters in 2016. "You're going to get a fight within the Democratic Party," Nadler told the Journal. "There is a substantial disagreement coming up." (Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...