StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) From the article, the law on using deadly force in MO. If the guy really does have a broken face from Brown, I can't see how that won't be grey area enough to prevent conviction. I'll dig up the reference when I'm not on my phone but I think i read that that statute partially conflicts with s.c. precedence

what?

This post breaks down the various charges that the state could hypothetically bring in this case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...brown-shooting/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 09:31 AM) Wow. the best part is floating the idea of the billionaire NFL owners getting a cut of future tour sales from the acts.

that doesn't mean it's not derogatory, plus a majority of Americans are not the target of the derogation (

The NFL is asking music acts to pay the NFL to play at the Superbowl. http://www.avclub.com/article/coldplay-rih...play-sup-208329

Not sure if it's on because of current events, but pbs is showing an American experience episode on the Freedom Summer. In completely unrelated news, here's some gop reaction to Missouri voter drives. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mi...rive-disgusting

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 08:37 PM) So most of the people arrested the last two nights are from out of town? Just heard that on the radio. That's crazy.a decent amount of the people arrested early on, like the first couple of days, weren't from Ferguson.

god damn commies.... http://gawker.com/who-are-the-revolutionar...itat-1623920601

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 05:10 PM) Yes, but I think we also know the "kill shot" could not have occurred from a backwards angle. He had to have been facing forward. The narrative doesn't really change because if anything that gives Brown an excuse for turning around. It still doesn't excuse the shooting if Brown is just standing there with his hands up. And it doesn't negate Wilson's justifiable use of force IF Brown was running at him. I guess it could open an argument that he "invited" Brown to attack him, in his own self defense, but that seems like a weak argument. If he were firing at Brown as brown was fleeing, those shots would be unjustifiable. Would that make shooting Brown, even if he turned and came back, unjustifiable? I'm not sure how that would fall out.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 05:03 PM) Jesus, sorry teacher. There's a pretty big difference there, this isn't just grammar nitpicking. That autopsy doesn't rule out either version, but what you said implies that it did.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 05:00 PM) it doesnt but then you agree with me? There is a difference between the report suggesting something and being consistent with it. The report does not rule out charging, but it doesn't suggest it either.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) Its not unbelievable, but its also not unbelievable that the media is lying about doing "nothing" and then getting gassed. A whole bunch of different media groups are just lying about it in the same manner, including in their video of the various events. Ok.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:56 PM) This is what most of the medical report suggests at the moment with what little information we have. again, no, it doesn't. The first autopsy is consistent with Brown running forward with his head down. It is also consistent with him being shot in the head as he falls to the ground from the other gun shots.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:55 PM) No, sources are consistent that they did nothing wrong and the police just acted randomly. Yes, they are. Multiple sources from multiple news agencies. There's tons photographic and video evidence. Why is it so unbelievable that a county SWAT team in military gear would be pretty s***ty at protest peace-keeping operations?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:49 PM) My own eyes watching live footage, and I've repeatedly seen police trying to ask media members to do something rational like move back 3 feet and they completely ignore it over and over. I saw a camera man basically walk into the path of tear gas last night when warned for around 10 min that it was going to come. I dont trust their words, but I trust their pictures . Did you also see live video earlier last week where they demanded everyone turn off their recording devices?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:51 PM) And therein lies the problem. Anyone can literally find a source that will back up any version of events that happened over the past week or so. There has been pretty much zero consistency in reporting. The only rule seems to have been that the earlier the report was made, the less accurate it was. We're talking about the police overreaction to protesters and media members, not Brown. There's no problem there, sources are consistent on the police overreaction.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:41 PM) Here's a decent breakdown of why the three witnesses' versions are a little questionable: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/20.../hands-up-story breitbart is a giant pile of bulls***

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:41 PM) How do you know that? Is it based just off of what the reporters said? How do we know there wasnt a mob heading in the direction of where the Al Jazeera had set up and the police told them to move and they refused? It simply doesnt make sense that the there would be that many police in that area and a news crew setting up for a story if there was nothing going on there. Were likely to never know exactly what went on before that video was recorded but when you keep claiming that the news crews got no warning and were just tear gassed for no reason and saying that there was nothing going on in that area you really have no idea what youre talking about. Welp I guess we should give the police who have demonstrated clear overreaction in multiple instances in this case complete deference despite multiple news crews reporting that nothing was going on in that area. Oh, and the police themselves not trying to justify it by saying that they were warned and that there was something going on in the area, but by saying "uh, we don't know what department fired the tear gas, wasn't us!"

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:34 PM) Not really. yeah, you have, and google is your friend. you've been provided with multiple other incidents as well.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:15 PM) She said she missed 30 seconds of it and only came back to see him laying in the street. It was in her interview. She essentially saw nothing. That's not what she says at all in this CNN interview. She says she saw the entire thing, then went back to get her phone, which took about 30 seconds. The 30 seconds is from the end of the shooting to the start of her video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSy69cbDXsk Was there some other interview?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) Thats simply not enough for me. you've been provided with multiple sources

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) But we know he wasn't "fleeing" when he was shot, at least based on internet-opinionreview of the forensics. He's at least facing the cop. And again, I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe a 28 year old cop who appears to have been good at his job was a cold-blooded murderer willing to shoot and kill a person from 35 feet away. A person who was allegedly giving himself up. None of that makes any sense given Brown's earlier actions. Tunnel vision, adrenaline, poor decision making. Who knows if Wilson has ever had to fire his service weapon before? He could have panicked. On the other hand, if you take Wilson's side of the story, Brown's actions don't make much sense. Why would he stop, taunt, and then charge someone who had already fired at him once (from inside the car, whether it was intentional or accidental)? Why are you putting victim in scare quotes? If we give the most charitable interpretation to Brown's side, he was 100% a victim. And no, the outcome when you assault someone with a gun, especially a police officer, shouldn't be instant death. That's not the legal standard, and it shouldn't be the moral one either.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) Ok, to that point I agree. That's along the lines of Stephen A. Smith telling women to stop provoking men into hitting them. But you and I both know there are people who engage cops in a really stupid way and all it does is cause more problems than is necessary. Be polite, follow instructions, and generally it's not going to be an issue. Be combative, defensive, stand your ground and ignore instructions, and you are going to force their hand. And sometimes a response is going to be justified depending on what you're doing. But look at the examples he gave. They were simple verbal disagreements that he justified using physical responses ranging from pepper spray to shooting you over. That is a f***ed up, authoritarian point of view. No person who is actually in a position of authority, especially not one that allows you to deploy force against civilians, should have that point of view. If you can't handle some mean words, turn in your badge ASAP. We're talking about how a cop thinks everyone, children and adults, should act. If your response to someone disagreeing with you strongly is to lose control and lash out, you shouldn't be a cop.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) Based on what info? Why would the cameras be rolling with nothing going on, doesnt make sense. There were protests going on, and police dispersal of peaceful protests. This is based on the police's own response where they didn't know which department gassed the al jazeera crew, but they did not try to justify along the lines you are. Plus, that's just one incident. There definitely wasn't a riot going on mid-day at the McDonalds where they decided to arrest and assault some reporters.