Let's Play a Game!

[TemplarKormac]

Except that there is no "factual evidence" that MB was "charging the officer" only hearsay from Wilson.

Some physical evidence confirms that Michael Brown generally followed the path from the area of the cone to his final resting point. Investigating police officers found in the street what was later identified as spots of Michael Brown’s blood — denoted by evidence markers 19 and 20 (vol. 24, 88:6). The blood spot identified by evidence marker 20 is 26 feet, 7 inches back up Canfield from the cone — or approximately 22 feet away from where Michael Brown’s body was found, as shown in the adjacent crime scene photograph (Figure 4).

The blood spatter also shows direction — specifically that Brown was moving towards Wilson — as is apparent from the physical appearance of the spots. (This commonsense conclusion is confirmed by experts. For example, Sunday’s story in The Post quotes Michael F. LaForte, a Florida-based forensics expert who examined the investigative reports, as concluding that “Blood strikes the ground and then radiates out in the direction he was traveling.”) So the physical evidence shows Brown moved at least 22 feet generally away from the cone and towards Wilson.

These various pieces of information can be used to roughly calculate Brown’s speed. The 6.5 seconds that elapse on the audiotape from the first shot to the tenth (and final) shot provides some sense of time. And using Dorian Johnson’s testimony (as one way of giving Michael Brown the benefit of the doubt), the first shot “literally stopped [Brown] in his tracks and [he] turned around at that point” (vol. 4, 158:4). So according to Dorian Johnson’s account, Brown would have had 6.5 seconds to travel from where he turned around back to the point where we was finally killed — a total distance of 48 feet (the distance from the marker cone to his left foot). To again give the benefit of the doubt to Michael Brown, this calculation ignores the fact that the baseline of 48 feet is parallel to the street, while Brown was moving somewhat farther — i.e., diagonally towards the middle of the street. Conservatively calculating (by, for example, ignoring the likelihood that Brown paused — an issue discussed below), this works out to average movement of about 7.4 feet per second — very brisk movement. (For comparison, walking 3 miles per hour converts to 4.4 feet per second.)

Merry Christmas!

The overlooked audiotape of the Michael Brown shooting - The Washington Post

 

[BlackSand]

You failed to provide a link for your quote that the report was approved in 2012. If you cannot provide the linked source then you could have invented that quote and are pretending that it exists. The onus is on the person who posted the quote to substantiate it when called upon to do so. If you don't then you place your own credibility in jeopardy. Your choice.

And no, you haven't provided anything to prove that "Redaction was completed in April of this year" either.

You failed to provide an adequate reason for a link ... And it is not my problem you cannot type "Senate Torture Report" in your search engine and click on the link (it will be the big one at the top of the fucking page if you use Bing).

If you have documentation to support your false accusations feel free to post a link ... I am not chasing your tail because you decided to disagree.

It should be noted that the only reason I looked up that link concerning 2012 was because you made false unsupported comments about something I posted that didn't require a link to start with. We have no obligation to chase your unsubstantiated objections around.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You failed to provide a link for your quote that the report was approved in 2012.

It was. In a 9-6 vote on Thursday, December 13, 2012, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the initial CIA "Torture" report:

Report finds harsh CIA interrogations ineffective - The Washington Post

(By the way, Snowe voted against approving the report, Susan Collins (another Republican), however voted for, plus one independent.)

 

[TemplarKormac]

And no, you haven't provided anything to prove that "Redaction was completed in April of this year" either.

On April 3, 2014, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted 11-3 to submit a revised (redacted) version of the report, shown here, for future public release:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/09/sscis3.pdf

 

[Freewill]

Real news without bias and opinion ... Was that back when a runner came up from the docks and proclaimed a boat had arrived?

.

You are young. I remember when there was plenty of news that was just reporting what happened, not telling us what to think about it, not using connotative language, not propaganda, etc. Your idea that real news is relagated to a long ago, distant past is a misconception based on your ignorance of history and your thinking what we see in news reporting today is what the reality has always been.

I don't like being told how to think and feel about news stories.

Anyone who thinks Walter Cronkite was unbiased is congenitally naive. Cronkite is the guy who singlehandedly lost the Vietnam War for the United States by characterizing the Tet offensive as a great North Vietnamese victory

You're suffering from misplaced blame syndrome. Are you still mad at Jane Fonda?

I don't know about anyone else but I still am.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Example of a biased report: (The National Review)

Aided by numerous leaks by Democratic members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, mainstream media are planning a nostalgic trip back to the Bush-bashing days of the 2000s with today’s release of declassified parts of a Senate report on the Bush-era enhanced-interrogation program, a CIA counterterrorism initiative that its critics claim included torture.

Disqualified as news in the first sentence!

Senate Dems Politicize Intelligence Oversight National Review Online

Example of a non biased report: See the entire article @ CIA tortured misled U.S. report finds drawing calls for action Reuters

(Reuters) - The CIA misled the White House and public about its torture of detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks and acted more brutally and pervasively than it acknowledged, a U.S. Senate report said on Tuesday, drawing calls to prosecute American officials.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's five-year review of 6.3 million pages of CIA documents concluded that the intelligence agency failed to disrupt a single plot despite torturing al Qaeda and other captives in secret facilities worldwide between 2002 and 2006, when George W. Bush was president.

The CIA interrogation program was devised by two agency contractors to squeeze information from suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The interrogations took place in countries that included Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

Some captives were deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, at times with their hands shackled above their heads, and the report recorded cases of simulated drowning or "waterboarding" and sexual abuse, including "rectal feeding" or "rectal hydration" without any documented medical need.

The CIA dismissed the findings, saying its interrogations secured valuable information. Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

So you're saying the report was put together by the committee's Republican majority?

No you dullard (facepalms). It was put together entirely by Democrats. They have control over that committee.

Not according to TooTall.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

 

[TooTall]

Example of a biased report: (The National Review)

Aided by numerous leaks by Democratic members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, mainstream media are planning a nostalgic trip back to the Bush-bashing days of the 2000s with today’s release of declassified parts of a Senate report on the Bush-era enhanced-interrogation program, a CIA counterterrorism initiative that its critics claim included torture.

Disqualified as news in the first sentence!

Senate Dems Politicize Intelligence Oversight National Review Online

Example of a non biased report: See the entire article @ CIA tortured misled U.S. report finds drawing calls for action Reuters

(Reuters) - The CIA misled the White House and public about its torture of detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks and acted more brutally and pervasively than it acknowledged, a U.S. Senate report said on Tuesday, drawing calls to prosecute American officials.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's five-year review of 6.3 million pages of CIA documents concluded that the intelligence agency failed to disrupt a single plot despite torturing al Qaeda and other captives in secret facilities worldwide between 2002 and 2006, when George W. Bush was president.

The CIA interrogation program was devised by two agency contractors to squeeze information from suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The interrogations took place in countries that included Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

Some captives were deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, at times with their hands shackled above their heads, and the report recorded cases of simulated drowning or "waterboarding" and sexual abuse, including "rectal feeding" or "rectal hydration" without any documented medical need.

The CIA dismissed the findings, saying its interrogations secured valuable information. Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

So you're saying the report was put together by the committee's Republican majority?

No you dullard (facepalms). It was put together entirely by Democrats. They have control over that committee.

Not according to TooTall.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

I posted "the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority," Apparently your ability to read and comprehend the written word is impaired.

I found this statement somewhere and completely agree with it.

"Senate intlel report investigators refused to interview the accused. Sounds like Rolling Stone's approach in the UVA story."

Any comment?

 

[Manonthestreet]

too Funny Govt news sites are unbiased............ no reasoning with that kind of stupid

 

[Carla_Danger]

Example of a biased report: (The National Review)

Aided by numerous leaks by Democratic members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, mainstream media are planning a nostalgic trip back to the Bush-bashing days of the 2000s with today’s release of declassified parts of a Senate report on the Bush-era enhanced-interrogation program, a CIA counterterrorism initiative that its critics claim included torture.

Disqualified as news in the first sentence!

Senate Dems Politicize Intelligence Oversight National Review Online

Example of a non biased report: See the entire article @ CIA tortured misled U.S. report finds drawing calls for action Reuters

(Reuters) - The CIA misled the White House and public about its torture of detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks and acted more brutally and pervasively than it acknowledged, a U.S. Senate report said on Tuesday, drawing calls to prosecute American officials.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's five-year review of 6.3 million pages of CIA documents concluded that the intelligence agency failed to disrupt a single plot despite torturing al Qaeda and other captives in secret facilities worldwide between 2002 and 2006, when George W. Bush was president.

The CIA interrogation program was devised by two agency contractors to squeeze information from suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The interrogations took place in countries that included Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

Some captives were deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, at times with their hands shackled above their heads, and the report recorded cases of simulated drowning or "waterboarding" and sexual abuse, including "rectal feeding" or "rectal hydration" without any documented medical need.

The CIA dismissed the findings, saying its interrogations secured valuable information. Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

So you're saying the report was put together by the committee's Republican majority?

No you dullard (facepalms). It was put together entirely by Democrats. They have control over that committee.

Not according to TooTall.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

I posted "the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority," Apparently your ability to read and comprehend the written word is impaired.

I found this statement somewhere and completely agree with it.

"Senate intlel report investigators refused to interview the accused. Sounds like Rolling Stone's approach in the UVA story."

Any comment?

Yes, why no link?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Senator Snowe voted with the majority to release the report. Your attempt to paint this as partisan failed.

Olympia Snowe? You're kidding right? She was a Republican in name only, a version of JakeSnarky. Your attempt to paint this as bipartisan has failed. Snowe voted roughly 68% of the time with her party. So, not exactly a Republican now is she? Roughly 1/4 of her votes were with the Democrats.

Olympia Snowe former U.S. Senator for Maine - GovTrack.us

Olympia Snowe - U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington Post

Do a little research before you lecture me.

Also, Snow was the ONLY Republican to vote for the investigation in 2012. The original vote in 2009 was bipartisan, however. Nice of you to blow this out of context, which is on par for you. Just because one Republican voted with the majority does not make it bipartisan.

The vote this past Thursday was 11-3. And since Democrats hold the majority in the Intelligence Committee, even if the three that voted with the Democrats had voted against, the vote would be 8-6, if all 7 Republicans voted against it, it would have been 8-7. So it wouldn't have mattered one way or another how they voted. The report was coming whether the Republicans liked it or not. Hence, partisan.

You allegation that it was 100% partisan has been exposed as a lie. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are proven wrong is your problem.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Okay, here's two articles from the left's 'favorite'. FOX News. So, quote the bias in both of them.



---------------------

The IRS paid more than $6 billion in child tax credits in 2013 to people who were not eligible to receive them, a government watchdog said Tuesday.

Payments went to families that mistakenly claimed the tax credit or claimed the wrong amount, as well as taxpayers who committed fraud, according to an audit by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.

The once-championed way to help low-income working families is now facing problems with how it is ran.

The 2009 economic stimulus package temporarily expanded the credit to more families that don't make enough money to pay federal income tax. The expanded credit expires at the end of 2017.

These families receive the $1,000-per-child credit in the form of a tax refund. The report focus on payments to these families.

The IRS has said the risk is low for improper payments related to the child tax credit. The report says that assessment is incorrect.

"It is imperative that the IRS take action to identify and address all of its programs that are at high risk for improper payments," George said in a statement.

In a statement, the IRS aid it "continues to aggressively explore new ways to detect and stop potentially fraudulent claims while maximizing the use of limited compliance resources."

However, the agency said budget cuts are hurting compliance efforts.

"IRS funding limitations severely hamper our efforts on these and other compliance areas," the agency statement said. "Since 2010, the IRS budget has been reduced by $850 million and we have 13,000 fewer employees."

Earlier this year, the IRS said fewer agents are auditing tax returns than at any time since at least the 1980s.

More than 36 million families claimed about $57 billion in child tax credits in 2013, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

The inspector general's report estimates that taxpayers improperly claimed between $5.9 billion and $7.1 billion in child tax credits that year. The report, however, does distinguish between fraud and credits that were claimed by mistake.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/10/watchdog-irs-paid-6-billion-in-bogus-child-tax-credits/



Police shoot, kill knife-wielding man in New York synagogue
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/09/police-shoot-kill-knife-wielding-man-in-new-york-synagogue/?intcmp=latestnews

Let's use the rightwing standard for what counts as bias, shall we?

Here is how Foxnews titled it's article and worded the URL;

watchdog-irs-paid-6-billion-in-bogus-child-tax-credits/

Watchdog: IRS paid $6 billion in bogus child tax credits

Compare that to the quoted wording from the IRS itself;

"Payments went to families that mistakenly claimed the tax credit or claimed the wrong amount, as well as taxpayers who committed fraud,"

Families made mistakes but FoxNews alleges those mistakes were "bogus".

Wow. Perhaps you should learn to read the article itself. In it, you will see that it is not what you purport it to be. This was such an obvious attempt at selective quoting. The cherry tree has been picked clean, Derideo.

"Payments went to families that mistakenly claimed the tax credit or claimed the wrong amount, as well as taxpayers who committed fraud, according to an audit by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration."

As you can see, what you quoted was a recitation from an audit performed by J. Russell George, not an opinion of Fox News.

Ironic that you project your own reading comprehension shortcoming on others.

You just made my point inadvertently. So I am at your expense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You failed to provide a link for your quote that the report was approved in 2012. If you cannot provide the linked source then you could have invented that quote and are pretending that it exists. The onus is on the person who posted the quote to substantiate it when called upon to do so. If you don't then you place your own credibility in jeopardy. Your choice.

And no, you haven't provided anything to prove that "Redaction was completed in April of this year" either.

You failed to provide an adequate reason for a link ... And it is not my problem you cannot type "Senate Torture Report" in your search engine and click on the link (it will be the big one at the top of the fucking page if you use Bing).

If you have documentation to support your false accusations feel free to post a link ... I am not chasing your tail because you decided to disagree.

It should be noted that the only reason I looked up that link concerning 2012 was because you made false unsupported comments about something I posted that didn't require a link to start with. We have no obligation to chase your unsubstantiated objections around.

.

I am not required to provide "an adequate reason for a link".

That you cannot remain civil when your credibility is on the line says volumes.

Zero link means zero credibility. Congratulations on doing this all to yourself.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You failed to provide a link for your quote that the report was approved in 2012.

It was. In a 9-6 vote on Thursday, December 13, 2012, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the initial CIA "Torture" report:

Report finds harsh CIA interrogations ineffective - The Washington Post

(By the way, Snowe voted against approving the report, Susan Collins (another Republican), however voted for, plus one independent.)

McCain supported the report.

Other GOP lawmakers voiced support for the report’s conclusions. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, issued a statement saying that the committee’s work shows that “cruel” treatment of prisoners “is not only wrong in principle and a stain on our country’s conscience, but also an ineffective and unreliable means of gathering intelligence.”​

 

[TooTall]

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

So you're saying the report was put together by the committee's Republican majority?

No you dullard (facepalms). It was put together entirely by Democrats. They have control over that committee.

Not according to TooTall.

"Many Republicans criticized the decision by Democratic lawmakers to release the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority, saying it would put Americans at risk."

No possibility of this report being biased. LMFAO

I posted "the report, which was put together by the committee's Democratic majority," Apparently your ability to read and comprehend the written word is impaired.

I found this statement somewhere and completely agree with it.

"Senate intlel report investigators refused to interview the accused. Sounds like Rolling Stone's approach in the UVA story."

Any comment?

Yes, why no link?

It was a tweet and I agree completely with the comment.

 

[Clementine]

Okay, here's two articles from the left's 'favorite'. FOX News. So, quote the bias in both of them.



---------------------

The IRS paid more than $6 billion in child tax credits in 2013 to people who were not eligible to receive them, a government watchdog said Tuesday.

Payments went to families that mistakenly claimed the tax credit or claimed the wrong amount, as well as taxpayers who committed fraud, according to an audit by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.

The once-championed way to help low-income working families is now facing problems with how it is ran.

The 2009 economic stimulus package temporarily expanded the credit to more families that don't make enough money to pay federal income tax. The expanded credit expires at the end of 2017.

These families receive the $1,000-per-child credit in the form of a tax refund. The report focus on payments to these families.

The IRS has said the risk is low for improper payments related to the child tax credit. The report says that assessment is incorrect.

"It is imperative that the IRS take action to identify and address all of its programs that are at high risk for improper payments," George said in a statement.

In a statement, the IRS aid it "continues to aggressively explore new ways to detect and stop potentially fraudulent claims while maximizing the use of limited compliance resources."

However, the agency said budget cuts are hurting compliance efforts.

"IRS funding limitations severely hamper our efforts on these and other compliance areas," the agency statement said. "Since 2010, the IRS budget has been reduced by $850 million and we have 13,000 fewer employees."

Earlier this year, the IRS said fewer agents are auditing tax returns than at any time since at least the 1980s.

More than 36 million families claimed about $57 billion in child tax credits in 2013, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

The inspector general's report estimates that taxpayers improperly claimed between $5.9 billion and $7.1 billion in child tax credits that year. The report, however, does distinguish between fraud and credits that were claimed by mistake.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/10/watchdog-irs-paid-6-billion-in-bogus-child-tax-credits/



Police shoot, kill knife-wielding man in New York synagogue
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/09/police-shoot-kill-knife-wielding-man-in-new-york-synagogue/?intcmp=latestnews

Let's use the rightwing standard for what counts as bias, shall we?

Here is how Foxnews titled it's article and worded the URL;

watchdog-irs-paid-6-billion-in-bogus-child-tax-credits/

Watchdog: IRS paid $6 billion in bogus child tax credits

Compare that to the quoted wording from the IRS itself;

"Payments went to families that mistakenly claimed the tax credit or claimed the wrong amount, as well as taxpayers who committed fraud,"

Families made mistakes but FoxNews alleges those mistakes were "bogus".

Bogus payments simply mean payments that were made in error. They actually have no way of knowing whether the credits were given due to mistakes or not. I am betting that everyone contacted said they did it in error. Only other explanation is that they did it on purpose. The child tax credits are a set amount per child and I believe the child must be under 18. Tell me how you screw that one up when filling out the form.

The quotes were mostly from IRS officials, not Fox. Sensationalism would have been claiming millions of tax cheats. $6 billion, with a "b", is a hell of a lot of money to pay out to those who shouldn't get it.