Remember That Poor Little White Girl who got Her head pounded Into the Sidewalk?

[Soupnazi630]

Which version of the story was that, because his story kept changing.

"yeah, yeah, I pulled out my gun after I started wrestling with him inside my car...that's that ticket... yeah."



But this isn't what he claimed. He claimed he heard a report about the "robbery" and was responding to it.

So let me get this straight, he responded to a robbery, but took his time out to harrass a couple of jaywalkers?

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

It did not change.

Onde can encounter other problems when responding to a report

there is no contradiction

 

[JoeB131]

I've been sparring with him and have read a lot of his posts over the last few years and the guy can be perfectly reasonable when he chooses to be. Problem is, he very rarely chooses to be reasonable, even less so on the topic of Michael Brown.

I just can't figure out how or why he exhibits seemingly two entirely different personas: one who is capable of reason and one who is an incorrigible troll.

I guess when it comes to murdering CHILDREN, I tend to be a lot less "reasonable".

Especially to assholes who try to rationalize it.

I'm actually being... pretty consistent.
It was wrong for the girl in the OP to bash a girl's head into the concrete.
It was wrong for a police officer to put 8 rounds into an unarmed teenage over a bag of cigars.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, he pulled his gun because they were scary black people. No one sane pulls a gun over a minor offense like jaywalking or shoplifting.

If he really did think they were dangerous thugs who pushed Apu into the Chip rack, (even though that didn't come out until later) he should have called for backup, not confronted them over jaywalking.


Walking down the center of the street isn't an offense that you need to pull a gun over.

Wrong her pulled his gun because he was attacked.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I guess when it comes to murdering CHILDREN, I tend to be a lot less "reasonable".

Especially to assholes who try to rationalize it.

I'm actually being... pretty consistent.
It was wrong for the girl in the OP to bash a girl's head into the concrete.
It was wrong for a police officer to put 8 rounds into an unarmed teenage over a bag of cigars.

You are never reasonable you are a dishonest fool

Brown was no child.

There was no murder

You are the asshole rationalizing an accusation of murder

You are not being consistent you are lying through your teeth

He did not shoot brown over a bag of cigars you incosistent lying motherfucker he did so because brown attacked him that is fact in your ugly FACE

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong her pulled his gun because he was attacked.

That's what he said. Witnesses said otherwise. He also lied about using racial epitaths and he was fired from his last job for corruption.

 

[JoeB131]

You are never reasonable you are a dishonest fool

Brown was no child.

There was no murder

You are the asshole rationalizing an accusation of murder

You are not being consistent you are lying through your teeth

He did not shoot brown over a bag of cigars you incosistent lying motherfucker he did so because brown attacked him that is fact in your ugly FACE

If he was in the right, why did the city fire him and settle for a million dollars?

This isn't what you do if you are in the right.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Which version of the story was that, because his story kept changing.

Changing how?

But this isn't what he claimed. He claimed he heard a report about the "robbery" and was responding to it.

Yes, when he saw the cigars in Brown's hand.

So let me get this straight, he responded to a robbery, but took his time out to harrass a couple of jaywalkers?

No. The sequence of events has already been explained to you.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I guess when it comes to murdering CHILDREN, I tend to be a lot less "reasonable".

No child was murdered. Try again.

Especially to assholes who try to rationalize it.

What child was murdered and who rationalized it?

I'm actually being... pretty consistent.

Consistent at failing to support your arguments, maybe. You've been asked to provide links to support your claims. You have not.

It was wrong for the girl in the OP to bash a girl's head into the concrete.
It was wrong for a police officer to put 8 rounds into an unarmed teenage over a bag of cigars.

If a police officer puts eight rounds in a teenager for stealing cigars, then yes, - barring any other extenuating circumstances - that would be wrong. However, that's not what happened in Brown's case.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, when he saw the cigars in Brown's hand.

Did he have x-ray vision, because those cigarellos were in a paper bag when he left the store.

No. The sequence of events has already been explained to you.

Except for the parts you ignore, like he was 150 feet away from the police car when he was gunned down.

No child was murdered. Try again.

Naw, it was only an N-word, amiright?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Did he have x-ray vision, because those cigarellos were in a paper bag when he left the store.

Wrong. They were in a bag when he made the first attempt to trade weed for the cigars earlier that morning. The clerk refused to accept weed as payment and Brown left. The clerk then removed the cigars from the bag and put them back on the shelf.

Later that day when Brown returned, he swiped cigars from behind the counter and left. They were in his hand (and not in a bag) when Wilson confronted him about walking down the street.

You forget that there were TWO encounters between Brown and the store.

Except for the parts you ignore, like he was 150 feet away from the police car when he was gunned down.

Except for the part that you ignore like Brown assaulted Wilson in the police cruiser and after walking a distance away, turned and advanced on Wilson.

Naw, it was only an N-word, amiright?

Irrelevant. You're saying an eighteen year old is a child. I'm saying he was not.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. They were in a bag when he made the first attempt to trade weed for the cigars earlier that morning. The clerk refused to accept weed as payment and Brown left. The clerk then removed the cigars from the bag and put them back on the shelf.

You the clerk agreed during the first attempt, and he picked them up later. Then the owner of the store objected, resulting in the altercation that frankly, just wasn't that big of a deal.

You forget that there were TWO encounters between Brown and the store.

No, I didn't forget it... the Police did, they did their very best to hide it, as did the corrupt DA.

Except for the part that you ignore like Brown assaulted Wilson in the police cruiser and after walking a distance away, turned and advanced on Wilson.

because a barefoot, injured kid was such an immediate threat.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You the clerk agreed during the first attempt, and he picked them up later.

Nope. This argument doesn't hold water for two reasons:

1.) If the clerk had agreed he would have gone ahead with the exchange the first time.

2.) If Brown went there to exchange weed for cigars and if the clerk agreed (as you say), Brown would have left with the cigars the first time. His leaving without them wouldn't make any sense in your version.

Then the owner of the store objected, resulting in the altercation that frankly, just wasn't that big of a deal.

Nope. The owner wasn't there or involved during the first interaction.

No, I didn't forget it... the Police did, they did their very best to hide it, as did the corrupt DA.

There would have been no reason to hide it as it actually helped the defense's case.

because a barefoot, injured kid was such an immediate threat.

Yes. Because he assaulted an officer without provocation. And it was no kid.

Brown was eighteen and an adult in the eyes of the law. Do you deny this?

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. This argument doesn't hold water for two reasons:

1.) If the clerk had agreed he would have gone ahead with the exchange the first time.

2.) If Brown went there to exchange weed for cigars and if the clerk agreed (as you say), Brown would have left with the cigars the first time. His leaving without them wouldn't make any sense in your version.

Or he was going somewhere that he couldn't take cigars...

There would have been no reason to hide it as it actually helped the defense's case.

Why would the defense need help when the prosecutor was in the bag?

Yes. Because he assaulted an officer without provocation. And it was no kid.

Brown was eighteen and an adult in the eyes of the law. Do you deny this?

Yes, I do. An 18 year old is not an adult.
He didn't assault the officer without provocation.
He was defending himself against a racist cop.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Or he was going somewhere that he couldn't take cigars...

Pure speculation.

Why would the defense need help when the prosecutor was in the bag?

Opinion.

Yes, I do. An 18 year old is not an adult.

Not in the eyes of the law. But even so, you've referred to him both as a child and a kid. You're not so stupid that you don't know he was neither of those as well.

He didn't assault the officer without provocation.

Yes, he did.

He was defending himself against a racist cop.

No, he was not.

 

[JoeB131]

Pure speculation.

Again, watch the film "Stranger Fruit". It lays it all out about how the store staff traded pot for product.

Not in the eyes of the law. But even so, you've referred to him both as a child and a kid. You're not so stupid that you don't know he was neither of those as well.

I'm not stupid enough be a racist justifying the murder of black children.

Look, man, I don't expect you to be capable of compassion, but how about being capable of self-preservation? Whites are going to be the minority in this country at some point. Do you want the non-white majority to remember we tried to do the right thing, or just leave them with a list of grievances to act on?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again, watch the film "Stranger Fruit". It lays it all out about how the store staff traded pot for product.

I'm not watching that, it's an hour long. Besides, you know and I know that you would never watch any video I posted or clicked any link I shared.

I'm not stupid enough be a racist justifying the murder of black children.

Apparently you are stupid enough to think an eighteen year old is a child. My mistake.

Look, man, I don't expect you to be capable of compassion, but how about being capable of self-preservation? Whites are going to be the minority in this country at some point. Do you want the non-white majority to remember we tried to do the right thing, or just leave them with a list of grievances to act on?

Are you suggesting the future majority might be a threat to me?

 

[Soupnazi630]

That's what he said. Witnesses said otherwise. He also lied about using racial epitaths and he was fired from his last job for corruption.

Witnesses said no such thing, you keep lying about witnesses

He admited to using slurs which is meaningless

You are an absolute liar he was not fired for corruption.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If he was in the right, why did the city fire him and settle for a million dollars?

This isn't what you do if you are in the right.

They did not fire him he quit
Settlements mean nothing.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Again, watch the film "Stranger Fruit". It lays it all out about how the store staff traded pot for product.



I'm not stupid enough be a racist justifying the murder of black children.

Look, man, I don't expect you to be capable of compassion, but how about being capable of self-preservation? Whites are going to be the minority in this country at some point. Do you want the non-white majority to remember we tried to do the right thing, or just leave them with a list of grievances to act on?

You are stupid enough to lie about it by calling it murder


You are not trying to do the right thing you sack of shit

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not watching that, it's an hour long.

Remaining ignorant is always the best strategy, I guess.

Are you suggesting the future majority might be a threat to me?

Geezus, man, you piss yourself now that they are in the minority.

Witnesses said no such thing, you keep lying about witnesses

14 witnesses said Brown had his hands up.

He admited to using slurs which is meaningless

It shows he was a racist... as if shooting an unarmed black kid doesn't show that already.

They did not fire him he quit
Settlements mean nothing.

Anyone who settles admits guilt.