Ferguson: Shooter may not have been aiming for police

[JFK_USA]

Republican hero Bob McCulloch stated:

"I wouldn't say he wasn't targeting police," McCulloch said. "I'm saying right now the evidence we have supports filing the charge that he may have been shooting at someone other than police and struck the police."

I assume the Republicans that claim evidence supported Darren Wilson's story will now say the evidence speaks that the shooter was not aiming for police and protestors don't want "Dead cops"? Right? I won't hold my breath.

 

[Disir]

He said Williams may have acted on a dispute with people over something that had nothing to do with the demonstration, but added, "I'm not sure we're completely buying that part of it."

"We're not 100 percent sure there was a dispute," McCulloch noted.

He said Williams admitted firing the shots and indicated they were not at police. Some of the statements are supported by physical evidence, and some aren't he said

_________________________________________
What is your point?

 

[Two Thumbs]

he shot threw people and hit 2 cops

but you think he wasn't aiming for the cops

wow


uhm, I have give you directions from that Superman statue to where I buried my pirate booty, just paypal me $1000 dollars and I'll email you a map

 

[AmericanFirst]

Libtard wishful thinking.

 

[Rocko]

LMao I guess that makes him a good guy, right? The fact is he was one of the scumbag protestors and look what he did.

 

[JFK_USA]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

 

[Missourian]

<Insert "grasping at straws" meme here>

 

[Disir]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

I'm still looking for your point.

 

[Rocko]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

McCullough also stated he may have indeed targeted the police. Either way the guy was a scumbag lefty protestor.

 

[Godboy]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

What evidence do you have that you believe people are ignoring?

 

[Rozman]

Yeah... This makes a lot of sense....
He was shooting at someone,missed him both times?
What a bunch of BS....

 

[JFK_USA]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

What evidence do you have that you believe people are ignoring?

In the article, McCulloch stated that the physical evidence supports some of what he is saying.

Rednecks don't want to hear any evidence that could even imply that their narrative is wrong. Hence the responses in the thread.

For instance:

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

McCullough also stated he may have indeed targeted the police. Either way the guy was a scumbag lefty protestor.

What evidence did Rocko give to support that the shooter was a democrat? None. But do republicans accept it 100%? Yes. Why? It confirms their narrative.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Hmm. In a crowd of protesters and fired three shots none hit any protesters but hit two cops. But he wasn't aiming at the cops. Yeah that sounds like something a liberal would run with.

 

[Godboy]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

What evidence do you have that you believe people are ignoring?

In the article, McCulloch stated that the physical evidence supports some of what he is saying.

Rednecks don't want to hear any evidence that could even imply that their narrative is wrong. Hence the responses in the thread.

For instance:

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

McCullough also stated he may have indeed targeted the police. Either way the guy was a scumbag lefty protestor.

What evidence did Rocko give to support that the shooter was a democrat? None. But do republicans accept it 100%? Yes. Why? It confirms their narrative.

I would say its likely that the shooter was black. Not guaranteed, but likely. If he is black, then he is likely a democrat. Again, not guaranteed, but likely. If someone held a gun to your head and made you guess the skin color of the shooter, and if you aren't correct he kills you, I think we all know what you would guess. Not being racist, doesn't have to mean being a liar.

 

[Rocko]

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, you taxpayers make sure you work plenty of hours, because you have another Black to take care of for life!
Guilty As Charged!!!

"GTP"

 

[TimothysAlaska]

So let me get this straight, because he said he was not shooting at cops, and only shooting at another black person. That should make it ok and that he did not mean to shoot the cops but only another black person. LoL. Seems like his defense is that black lives only matter if it's a white cop shooting a black person, and that since he was targeting another black person that he should get off....makes sense to me!

Now they can protest black lives don't matter when it's a black person doing the targeting. Kewl. They can protest now till he is released!

 

[Rocko]

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

What evidence do you have that you believe people are ignoring?

In the article, McCulloch stated that the physical evidence supports some of what he is saying.

Rednecks don't want to hear any evidence that could even imply that their narrative is wrong. Hence the responses in the thread.

For instance:

And like clockwork, racists don't want to believe evidence that doesn't support their narrative.

Classic guys, never change.

McCullough also stated he may have indeed targeted the police. Either way the guy was a scumbag lefty protestor.

What evidence did Rocko give to support that the shooter was a democrat? None. But do republicans accept it 100%? Yes. Why? It confirms their narrative.

I would say its likely that the shooter was black. Not guaranteed, but likely. If he is black, then he is likely a democrat. Again, not guaranteed, but likely. If someone held a gun to your head and made you guess the skin color of the shooter, and if you aren't correct he kills you, I think we all know what you would guess. Not being racist, doesn't have to mean being a liar.

anybody protesting is a lefty.

 

[Porker]

Republican hero Bob McCulloch stated:

"I wouldn't say he wasn't targeting police," McCulloch said. "I'm saying right now the evidence we have supports filing the charge that he may have been shooting at someone other than police and struck the police."

I assume the Republicans that claim evidence supported Darren Wilson's story will now say the evidence speaks that the shooter was not aiming for police and protestors don't want "Dead cops"? Right? I won't hold my breath.

Bob McCulloch is a DEMOCRAT one of the few with an ounce of sense between his ears.

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't aiming at the cops.