Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, those actions by the media were based on their opinion prior to the facts being revealed.But was it malicious by the liberal news media to push a political agenda?Does he have a case? No. Absence of Malice. It was just news.Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.
I see injustice when loopholes get people off in court.Very silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Again, your age? No, I wasn't there, and neither were you. I gave my opinion as I saw what happened and what didn't happen. I was given the same information that you and everyone else got. I don't believe that justice was served, and I stand by what I have said and stand by my opinion. After all, an opinion is all you have also. Calling me names and acting immature doesn't give credit to your opinion, and makes you look foolish. What does my color have to do with anything? Why bring color into this conversation? Do you think it adds anything of value to the discussion? If so, what exactly? But, just so you'll know how silly your comment is, I'm white, not black. Does that surprise you? Does one have to be black to see injustice? Can't a white man see injustice also? Pleeeeeeease.Uh.....I will not debate this with someone who takes facts and spins them to support his narrative.Yes, he got off very easy. The only one that could've disputed his claims is dead and can't give an opposing side of the story. The only witnesses that were considered as creditable, were those that backed Mr. Wilson's account of what happened. All other witnesses were considered to be liars. And, since there was no video, or actual eye witnesses that could see inside the patrol car, we really don't know for sure that Mr. Brown was trying to get the officer's weapon. Not all witness saw the same things. Not all witnesses told the same story. But, the witnesses that backed up Mr. Wilson's side of the story, were believed and quoted. Also, NO independent outside sources were used during the investigation. Every single one of them had tied to a law enforcement agency. And since there was no trial where a defense lawyer could cross examine so-called witnesses, and independent outside sources weren't allowed to examine any evidence, it leaves a degree of doubt, implying bias and injustice.In your post number 3 you claimed he got off easy and should be happy with it.Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.sure you did, you mouthed off all kinds of stuff you can't back up. Loser.
A local investigation as well as a DoJ investigation that included 40 FBI agents and he was found to have acted appropriately.
Yet you claim he got off easy and he should keep his mouth shut.
That makes you pathetic and a racially biased dick.
Also, calling me a biased dick is silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Your age? Name calling and personal attacks do NOT give merit, nor credit, to what you have to say. There's absolutely no reason to do anything other than discuss this issue in a civil and adult manner.
The only witnesses that were deemed as credible were those that backed Mr. Wilsons account of what happened...and the ones that did not support his account were deemed as not credible.
Well.....HELLO......only one side can be deemed credible.
So when you have conflicting sides, you look at other evidence...such as forensic evidence...and it was the forensic evidence that supported the accounts of those that agreed with the Officers account....it was the forensic evidence that helped the DoJ determine that the other accounts were not credible.
So, that being said, all you have is your opinion. You were not there. And your opinion is in contradiction of the fidnings of over 40 FBI agents.
I was not there....so my opinion is based on the forensic evidence and the findings of 40 FBI agents.
DO yourself a favor. Get off it. We don't hate you for your color. We hate you for your insisting on seeing racism only...even if racism is just one of many possibilities.
We don't give a fuck what color you are.
No they didnt, they unlike Wilson was cleared by a Jury and we all know if the Jury says it then its factWatching Durst get away with murder 30 years ago.
Watching Simpson get away with murder 20 years ago.
I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
where?Jarhead refuses to accept the facts in that same report showing racism within the department.
I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
you know her principles?I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
you consistently compromise your principals so its expected
it isn't his/ her job, it is a message board. Let the man go for it, take the tape that I'm sure is available to him and a lawyer. I'd definitely go after IP addresses on the internet for slander against anyone slandering him. Yep, I'd do that. Go to any message board, I'm sure there are many of them. probably hundreds.I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?
you said he got off easy did you not?Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.sure you did, you mouthed off all kinds of stuff you can't back up. Loser.I have never said nor implied such. Those are your words, not mine. I stated my case and opinion in this thread, and directed you to it. I have stated my opinion in detail, and I stand by it. But, never did I ever say that Mr. Wilson should lose his job, his family, nor his home. The way I understand it, Mr. Wilson resigned, moved, and did so freely.oh, I see, you feel that as a reward, he ought lose his job, his home, his life when the facts backed him.That's a matter of opinion. Obviously we see it differently.no you didn't, why was it easy for him? he only lost his job, had his life threatened, had to move. just how is that easy? please, I'm sorry, he was merely doing what he was paid to do and a low life challenges him and loses.
you know her principles?I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
you consistently compromise your principals so its expected
EOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
what's her principles then?you know her principles?I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
you consistently compromise your principals so its expected
Uh...yeah
EOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
it isn't his/ her job, it is a message board. Let the man go for it, take the tape that I'm sure is available to him and a lawyer. I'd definitely go after IP addresses on the internet for slander against anyone slandering him. Yep, I'd do that. Go to any message board, I'm sure there are many of them. probably hundreds.I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?
Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?
so you don't know her principles. I see. So you just lie all the time. Yep knew it. I just wanted to see if you'd admit it, and you have.Try harder jc....one day you'll be something
and I use the word "liable" as meaning "responsible in the eyes of the law"...so do not tell me how I am wrong and it is slander, not libel.Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control
PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it
OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?
Point (1) - How do you know that any of them were non-biased? Do you know any of them personally? Do you know their backgrounds, their association with law enforcement? Exactly how do you know they were non-biased? Or, is that just your opinion?Excuse me....Very silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Again, your age? No, I wasn't there, and neither were you. I gave my opinion as I saw what happened and what didn't happen. I was given the same information that you and everyone else got. I don't believe that justice was served, and I stand by what I have said and stand by my opinion. After all, an opinion is all you have also. Calling me names and acting immature doesn't give credit to your opinion, and makes you look foolish. What does my color have to do with anything? Why bring color into this conversation? Do you think it adds anything of value to the discussion? If so, what exactly? But, just so you'll know how silly your comment is, I'm white, not black. Does that surprise you? Does one have to be black to see injustice? Can't a white man see injustice also? Pleeeeeeease.Uh.....I will not debate this with someone who takes facts and spins them to support his narrative.Yes, he got off very easy. The only one that could've disputed his claims is dead and can't give an opposing side of the story. The only witnesses that were considered as creditable, were those that backed Mr. Wilson's account of what happened. All other witnesses were considered to be liars. And, since there was no video, or actual eye witnesses that could see inside the patrol car, we really don't know for sure that Mr. Brown was trying to get the officer's weapon. Not all witness saw the same things. Not all witnesses told the same story. But, the witnesses that backed up Mr. Wilson's side of the story, were believed and quoted. Also, NO independent outside sources were used during the investigation. Every single one of them had tied to a law enforcement agency. And since there was no trial where a defense lawyer could cross examine so-called witnesses, and independent outside sources weren't allowed to examine any evidence, it leaves a degree of doubt, implying bias and injustice.In your post number 3 you claimed he got off easy and should be happy with it.Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.
A local investigation as well as a DoJ investigation that included 40 FBI agents and he was found to have acted appropriately.
Yet you claim he got off easy and he should keep his mouth shut.
That makes you pathetic and a racially biased dick.
Also, calling me a biased dick is silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Your age? Name calling and personal attacks do NOT give merit, nor credit, to what you have to say. There's absolutely no reason to do anything other than discuss this issue in a civil and adult manner.
The only witnesses that were deemed as credible were those that backed Mr. Wilsons account of what happened...and the ones that did not support his account were deemed as not credible.
Well.....HELLO......only one side can be deemed credible.
So when you have conflicting sides, you look at other evidence...such as forensic evidence...and it was the forensic evidence that supported the accounts of those that agreed with the Officers account....it was the forensic evidence that helped the DoJ determine that the other accounts were not credible.
So, that being said, all you have is your opinion. You were not there. And your opinion is in contradiction of the fidnings of over 40 FBI agents.
I was not there....so my opinion is based on the forensic evidence and the findings of 40 FBI agents.
DO yourself a favor. Get off it. We don't hate you for your color. We hate you for your insisting on seeing racism only...even if racism is just one of many possibilities.
We don't give a fuck what color you are.
I explained how I formed my opinion. I did not take a position on this until the facts were released. The facts released showed me, 40 FBI agents and countless other non biased officials that the account of Officer Wilson was supported and the accounts of those that saw otherwise were refuted.
You, on the other hand, refuse to accept those facts, and instead going STRICLTY by what you saw on the news and heard through the advocates. You opted to ignore forensic evidence and, instead, opted to go with emotion. And we all know that the media often reports based on emotion before the facts are uncovered and we know for sure that advocates work strictly with emotion.
I brought your color into it because you and I have had a few conversations on here and you always trend toward the excuse of "White Americans are racist by nature"...although you may have never used those exact words, but that is your position....and you are entitled to have it. But I am wise enough to know that when one has that opinion, much of what they support is based on that opinion.
So, in this case, I have no doubt that your refusal to accept the facts and insistence on claiming that the officer was wrong in his actions is based on the fact that you believe that any altercation between a white man and a black man is based on the racial tendencies of the white man.
As for my age....I am old enough to know when I am interacting with a stubborn, hateful racist. You are, by all means, one of them.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.cough, cough, were you trying to make a point?Point (1) - How do you know that any of them were non-biased? Do you know any of them personally? Do you know their backgrounds, their association with law enforcement? Exactly how do you know they were non-biased? Or, is that just your opinion?Excuse me....Very silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Again, your age? No, I wasn't there, and neither were you. I gave my opinion as I saw what happened and what didn't happen. I was given the same information that you and everyone else got. I don't believe that justice was served, and I stand by what I have said and stand by my opinion. After all, an opinion is all you have also. Calling me names and acting immature doesn't give credit to your opinion, and makes you look foolish. What does my color have to do with anything? Why bring color into this conversation? Do you think it adds anything of value to the discussion? If so, what exactly? But, just so you'll know how silly your comment is, I'm white, not black. Does that surprise you? Does one have to be black to see injustice? Can't a white man see injustice also? Pleeeeeeease.Uh.....I will not debate this with someone who takes facts and spins them to support his narrative.Yes, he got off very easy. The only one that could've disputed his claims is dead and can't give an opposing side of the story. The only witnesses that were considered as creditable, were those that backed Mr. Wilson's account of what happened. All other witnesses were considered to be liars. And, since there was no video, or actual eye witnesses that could see inside the patrol car, we really don't know for sure that Mr. Brown was trying to get the officer's weapon. Not all witness saw the same things. Not all witnesses told the same story. But, the witnesses that backed up Mr. Wilson's side of the story, were believed and quoted. Also, NO independent outside sources were used during the investigation. Every single one of them had tied to a law enforcement agency. And since there was no trial where a defense lawyer could cross examine so-called witnesses, and independent outside sources weren't allowed to examine any evidence, it leaves a degree of doubt, implying bias and injustice.In your post number 3 you claimed he got off easy and should be happy with it.
A local investigation as well as a DoJ investigation that included 40 FBI agents and he was found to have acted appropriately.
Yet you claim he got off easy and he should keep his mouth shut.
That makes you pathetic and a racially biased dick.
Also, calling me a biased dick is silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Your age? Name calling and personal attacks do NOT give merit, nor credit, to what you have to say. There's absolutely no reason to do anything other than discuss this issue in a civil and adult manner.
The only witnesses that were deemed as credible were those that backed Mr. Wilsons account of what happened...and the ones that did not support his account were deemed as not credible.
Well.....HELLO......only one side can be deemed credible.
So when you have conflicting sides, you look at other evidence...such as forensic evidence...and it was the forensic evidence that supported the accounts of those that agreed with the Officers account....it was the forensic evidence that helped the DoJ determine that the other accounts were not credible.
So, that being said, all you have is your opinion. You were not there. And your opinion is in contradiction of the fidnings of over 40 FBI agents.
I was not there....so my opinion is based on the forensic evidence and the findings of 40 FBI agents.
DO yourself a favor. Get off it. We don't hate you for your color. We hate you for your insisting on seeing racism only...even if racism is just one of many possibilities.
We don't give a fuck what color you are.
I explained how I formed my opinion. I did not take a position on this until the facts were released. The facts released showed me, 40 FBI agents and countless other non biased officials that the account of Officer Wilson was supported and the accounts of those that saw otherwise were refuted.
You, on the other hand, refuse to accept those facts, and instead going STRICLTY by what you saw on the news and heard through the advocates. You opted to ignore forensic evidence and, instead, opted to go with emotion. And we all know that the media often reports based on emotion before the facts are uncovered and we know for sure that advocates work strictly with emotion.
I brought your color into it because you and I have had a few conversations on here and you always trend toward the excuse of "White Americans are racist by nature"...although you may have never used those exact words, but that is your position....and you are entitled to have it. But I am wise enough to know that when one has that opinion, much of what they support is based on that opinion.
So, in this case, I have no doubt that your refusal to accept the facts and insistence on claiming that the officer was wrong in his actions is based on the fact that you believe that any altercation between a white man and a black man is based on the racial tendencies of the white man.
As for my age....I am old enough to know when I am interacting with a stubborn, hateful racist. You are, by all means, one of them.
Point (2) - 40 FBI agents? Oh, so we have an agency of law enforcement investigating another agency of law enforcement? Obviously no bias there, couldn't be, right?
Point (3) - Oh, so those that agreed with officer Wilson's story, supported his story? No bias there either, right?
Point (4) - I have NEVER implied race. I have ALWAYS been neutral on this forum, in my personal life, and live the way I was raised. Please show me where I have ever used race to take sides. I take any side that is right, period, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or any other divisive descriptor. I am NOT racist, prejudice towards any race, and I'm not a bigot. You sure assume an awful lot not to know me, nor know anything about me.
Point (5) - Very silly, ridiculous and pathetic, to say the least. I have NOT refused to accept any facts what so ever. What facts have I refused to accept? I did NOT say the officer was wrong. I said that both sides were never told, and that a dead man can't give his side. I also said that law enforcement investigating law enforcement is not justice, it has the appearance of bias, and doesn't prove anything as far as guilt or innocence. Please show me where I have ever said that Mr. Wilson was absolutely guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Please, show me where I have ever said such. If you're going to accuse me, then show your proof. I have NEVER ever said, nor implied, that white Americans are racist by nature, never. Where you got that from is beyond me. Care to show where I have ever said such a thing as that. That is NOT my position, and never has been. You don't know me well enough to accuse me of something like that.
Point (6) - Again, what facts have I refused to accept? Please tell me, please. I said that a just investigation was never done, and I stand by that. Yes, in my opinion, the officer could've handled the situation differently without killing an unarmed teen. Yes, I believe that Mr. Wilson used bad judgment and took the life of someone that he didn't have to kill. That is my opinion based on what I know from the different accounts that have been made public. And, I stand by my opinion.
Point (7) - Again, very silly and pathetic, to say the least. I have NEVER ever said nor implied that any altercation between the races is based on racial tendencies. Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you sure that you're replying to the right person? Please show where I have ever said that any altercation between the races is due to racial tendencies of the white man. That is the most ridiculous and pathetic thing that I have ever heard in my life. WOW !!! You're really pulling crap off the wall now, honestly you are. Why not show me all of these things that you're accusing me of saying? Does it give you some kind of warm feeling to accuse people of things that they've never said nor implied?
Point (8) - Oh, so I'm a stubborn hateful racist? WOW !!! You are really going off the deep end now, honestly. For your information, there's not a racist bone in my body, and never has been. You know nothing about me, and it's very obvious. Your name calling and personal attack speaks more about you than it does about me. Again, your age?
