OT: Immaculate Transformation.

Like they say, it'll all come out in the washing...

Jamie

Good Lord, you're stupid. Try doing some research before opening your idiotic mouth.

He didn't use a weapon, idiot. You really should learn something before demonstrating to the entire world how incredibly dumb you are. That doesn't mean it wasn't robbery, or menacing.

Sure. It's in the reports. Do try to get some information before convicting the guy (and demonstrating just how stupid you are).

*HE* KNEW IT, you stupid twit. It's also proof that he wasn't a choir boy, as you pretend.

All of that is in the reports. Look it up before you convict the guy! Jez, you're stupid!

It's *ALL* in the reports.

The smartest thing you've said yet!

You *really* are an idiot, but you've proven that many times before. This thread is no different. FOX is the only network that held back their opinions until something concrete was known. The lefty publications that you get all of your information from are still trying to convict the cop. Race wars sell a lot of ad time and you fall for it every time.

Of course, you idiot! What do you think the cop shot him with, his finger?!

Actually, the policeman's life and being threatened does give him, not only the right, but the responsibility to make that call.

Whether or not he was wounded doesn't matter. Brown had already assaulted the officer. If he was making another move at the officer, he was well within his rights to shoot. Already injured, there is no way the cop could risk a second encounter.

There's no doubt Brown was wounded--he was shot several times before the fatal hits. The question is whether he was charging.

If you listened to the audio I linked, at least one witness said--in his own words and without any prompting, "yes"--and said Brown kept charging even as the officer "dumped" on him.

James Arthur

show the victim robbing a convenience store some 15 minutes before the shoo ting, but not even the police claim that this event (if it really happened) had anything to do with the shooting.

process of the PERP, not the cop.

The video purports to show physical actions of someone who looks like Micha el Brown, which the Ferguson police force presumably hoped that the viewers would interpret as those of some kind of felon. Since Michale Brown didn't live long enough for those actions to be subject to judicial investigation , it was an empty public relations exercise. Krw is a sucker for that kind of story.

dence that's come out, at least so far, is that the cop had already been se verely beaten in an attempt to take his gun.

an attempt to arrest the Michael Brown for jay-walking, while Michael Brown ended up dead. Some reports claim that cop had a fractured eye-socket (whi ch James Arthur reported as a fractured skull) but others settle for "facia l swelling".

is hardly a little "bruised", idiot.

The idiocy is all krw's - as usual. And I made no claim about the quality o f the bruising - that "little" is another one of krw's inventions.

ses you tend to have "n" stories, all somewhat different.

according to several other eyewitnesses who were not involved with either party.

Got evidence of the exact timing? And it might be useful to be able to iden tify these theoretically disinterested witnesses to the point where one mig ht be able to guess whether they would have looked at the incident from a p oint of view that saw the cop as a protector of public order, or from a poi nt of view that saw the cop as a hassler of black kids?

Some projection there, I think.

arrestee dead.

The Ferguson police story is that Michael Brown was in the process of being arrested for jay-walking when he got shot. What is your "truth"?

he was also as high as a kite and had just held up a store.

see any forensic evidence to support this.

preconceived story line so you're blind to it.

But you can't manage to provide a link to it - which doesn't mean that it d oesn't exist, since you are quite as stupid as you claim that everybody els e is, but does leave me free to continue to be sceptical.

If there was forensic evidence that Michael Brown was "high" when he was sh ot, I'd have expected it to have been plastered all over the media, which d oesn't seem to have happened.

hat the police seem to have released some days after the shooting. The vide o seems to show something closer to a shop-lifting than a "hold-up" and in any event suits the police story about the incident well enough to be somew hat suspect.

pinions is automatically wrong, lying and a fruitcake no matter how silly k rw's opinion happens to be (and he can be remarkably silly).

Since krw's operational definition of "the truth" is "what krw happens to b elieve at the time", krw's claim that I know nothing about his "truth" is p erfectly correct, which is more than can be said for most of his claims.

It's also misleading and irrelevant, which are more reliable features of kr w's output.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

What I meant was that it was irrelevant whether or not Brown had been wounded when the officer made the decision to use deadly force. All that mattered was whether the officer believed he was in danger. The fact that Brown had already tried to get his gun away from him and was now coming *at* him gives credence to that belief. My point was that at the time of the first shot, Brown wasn't wounded (it was one sequence of shots *at* Brown). Indeed, whether, or not, he was wounded before was irrelevant. The decision to use deadly force had already been made by the time Brown was wounded.

Yes, however the first shot was the decision point. After that he was a dead man.

to make that call. Courts do.

only the right, but the responsibility to make that call.

Eye-witnesses see what they expect to see. Perceptions are created, not absorbed, and if a witness is primed to perceive a black guy moving towards a cop as someone who is "charging" the cop, that's what the witness will perceive.

As Elizabeth Loftus, has pointed out, eye-witness evidence has to be understood in terms of the state of mind of the witness.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I understood that. I was simply suggesting that a wounded angry bull is very dangerous, more committed and fanatical than otherwise.

If you shoot someone and they keep coming, that's bad.

Could well be--I wasn't there. Had he promptly stopped or fell, maybe he would've fared better.

Michael Brown made a number of bad choices that day, and he paid the price.

James Arthur

Here ya go...

"I came across a striking fact while researching this piece: if Britain were to somehow leave the EU and join the US how would we

poorer than Missouri. Poorer than the much-maligned Kansas and Alabama. Poorer than any state other than Mississippi, and if you take

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Idiot! His cohort admitted he tried to take the cop's gun, and had beat the cop. He was attacking again, when he died.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to 
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

He hasn't done a damned thing about Sgt. Tahmooressi, being held in Mexico. We should declare Mexico off limits for all US residents. No tourists, no business dealings, and stop all money transfers to them from the US.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to 
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Probably so. With average punter salaries at around $40k and average house prices at $400k, the 10:1 ratio makes it, essentially, impossible for the average punter to own a house in he uk. 30 years ago the ratio was only 3:1. This ratio is a true measure of he wealth of the individual.

Additionally, some of the laws restricting freedom here are pretty much outrageous. Although in the US there are often disgusting attempts to curtail freedom, e.g. the police trying to prevent people recording them when the police are committing such actions as beating in innocent people, generally get overruled on constitutional grounds. There is no constitution/bill of rights in he UK, despite claims to the contrary. Even if the EU overrule blatant, oppressive acts of the uk government, they tweak a law,and continue doing the same thing under a different name.

Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

You are free to have and post your opinions.

Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

The above is *fact*. You *are* a liar.

--
**Former** Sgt. Tahmooresi. 

If you can believe the media, then from: 
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-tahmooressi-spin-machine-20140807-column.html#page=1 

we have: 

We should declare Mexico off limits for all US residents. No 
>tourists, no business dealings, and stop all money transfers to them 
>from the US.

--
And your presumption to know better than he does, allowing you to 
cast yourself in the role of a judge, is founded on what criteria?  

John Fields

You're simply proving me right, but everyone knows you're a useless wannabe.

Keep whining and pissing. You gotta do what you're good at, wannabe.