Watching the Brown robbery video I see entitlement of full display

[ScienceRocks]

IF Brown is your childrens roll model...You will remain disadvantaged and on the lower part of society.

Don't ever build a business within these communities. You will be robbed, sacked and fucked over.

 

[Sallow]

The robbery alone, of course not. However, if he assaulted the officer and went for his gun, then the officer may have been fully justified.

If that happened? He would have been "justified" at the time that it was happening. Not when the kid was fleeing down he street. As soon as the danger passed to the officer and the public, the cop should have been able to deal with that without using lethal means.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Watching the Brown robbery video I see entitlement of full display

The only thing on display is your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Rotagilla]

The only thing on display is your ignorance and stupidity.

You support strong arm robbery of honest merchants?

 

[Sallow]

And then the Ferguson PD doubled down and botched it completely. Why? Because they had a cover-up to create and quickly.

Why did Brown's body lie in the street for several hours and no ambulance? Because the FPD needed time to delay any other witnesses besides the chickenshit cop who is now somewhere in Nebraska.

The FPD is a bunch of girlie-men.

 

[emilynghiem]

How, exactly, was that "racist"?

In general, any collective statement that makes a sweeping generalization, of any person or group based on their race, is considered "racist."

 

[Rotagilla]

In general, any collective statement that makes a sweeping generalization, of any person or group based on their race, is considered "racist."

Fine. So, how is post #3 "racist", then?

I know you people like that word, but it just isn't working like it used to.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The only thing on display is your ignorance and stupidity.

No it's your stupidity, if you actually watched the video and still don't agree. Watch his actions, do you see someone who looks cautious, or acts like afraid to get caught ?
This punk acted like he was entitled to what ever he wanted, and how dare the clerk try and stop him.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If that happened? He would have been "justified" at the time that it was happening. Not when the kid was fleeing down he street. As soon as the danger passed to the officer and the public, the cop should have been able to deal with that without using lethal means.

Maybe the cop shouldn't have stopped them to begin with, I don't know, but once a tussle started, and if witnesses are correct that Brown rushed the officer, then it's no surprise Brown got shot.

 

[emilynghiem]

In general, any collective statement that makes a sweeping generalization, of any person or group based on their race, is considered "racist."

Fine. So, how is post #3 "racist", then?

I know you people like that word, but it just isn't working like it used to.

Hi Rotagilla:
First of all, can we start with discussing what is a 'group generalization'
and then we can talk about "racial bias" which is ONE TYPE of generalization.

Even for you to respond to me as "YOU PEOPLE" is already pegging and labeling as a
member of some "group" you imagine in your head that I may not even be a part of.

As a matter of fact, I tend to criticize liberal overuse of the race card, as you are complaining about.
But I don't go around making an equally "blanket statement" which is making the same mistake.

When I address a particular liberal, or con or whoever, I hold THAT PERSON responsible
for their own statement. I don't say "YOU PEOPLE" are doing that etc.

So can we start with an agreement NOT to peg "one person" as "representing a whole group or class."

After we agree on that distinction, we can discuss how this "blanket grouping"
applies to racism, sexism, religious stereotypes, political labels, etc. etc. etc.

There are many ways this labeling thing can be applied to individuals and groups.

I probably AGREE with you that people are making as many anti-white racist statements
while complaining about black or other minority stereotypes.

But the way to correct this is NOT to do the same thing.

So with your statement, because you made a group statement about
"African Americans" IN GENERAL, that is what starts people arguing
over what is or what is not a "fair generalization."

So that's what will get your statement picked apart.

Otherwise, I'd probably agree with your sentiment as I criticize
the liberals and Democrats for this trend in dependency on govt
instead of addressing the root cause of poverty and victim mentality.

The correct way to address the problem is one person at a time,
not blaming the wrong people, like me you false assume are part of the victim propaganda
which I oppose as you do as well.

Sorry I gave you the wrong impression, but your response
gives us the opportunity to discuss the projection of bias, so I am grateful we can resolve this.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[Rotagilla]

In general, any collective statement that makes a sweeping generalization, of any person or group based on their race, is considered "racist."

Fine. So, how is post #3 "racist", then?

I know you people like that word, but it just isn't working like it used to.

Hi Rotagilla:
First of all, can we start with discussing what is a 'group generalization'
and then we can talk about "racial bias" which is ONE TYPE of generalization.

Even for you to respond to me as "YOU PEOPLE" is already pegging and labeling as a
member of some "group" you imagine in your head that I may not even be a part of.

"You people" means those who like to use the word as a weapon to disparage white people..

As soon as I see the word I have a fair idea about the persons agenda. The word has lost it's effect.
We've been called racist for..ANYTHING that negroes don't like us doing/saying to the point of I don't GAF anymore...See "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

See, if EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is "racist"..then NO ONE is because it has become meaningless.

As a matter of fact, I tend to criticize liberal overuse of the race card, as you are complaining about.
But I don't go around making an equally "blanket statement" which is making the same mistake.

When I address a particular liberal, or con or whoever, I hold THAT PERSON responsible
for their own statement. I don't say "YOU PEOPLE" are doing that etc.

So can we start with an agreement NOT to peg "one person" as "representing a whole group or class."

After we agree on that distinction, we can discuss how this "blanket grouping"
applies to racism, sexism, religious stereotypes, political labels, etc. etc. etc.

Right.ok..word games and turning "literal" now that is convenient.
Yes..you are right,,but if you need to use THAT as an excuse to wander around like this...go ahead.

How do you like THIS definition of the stupid word?

A continuously variable term, vague, indefinite and meaningless enough to be able to be used in whatever situation the user wants in order to disparage white people.

There are many ways this labeling thing can be applied to individuals and groups.

I probably AGREE with you that people are making as many anti-white racist statements
while complaining about black or other minority stereotypes.

But the way to correct this is NOT to do the same thing.

Pretending to not understand that I was obviously not referring to every person on the face of the earth
so you could have an excuse to write a dissertation is pretty disingenuous..You miss the forest so you can look at a tree.

So with your statement, because you made a group statement about
"African Americans" IN GENERAL, that is what starts people arguing
over what is or what is not a "fair generalization."

At this point after dragging through all your english teacher doubletalk I have no idea what I said about "african"-americans anyway..If you'd just addressed THAT, you'd have saved us both some time..

So that's what will get your statement picked apart.

"picked apart"..LMAO..nit picked as an excuse to drag the whole thing WAAAY off topic and make it about ME...
You're complaining about the view of the ocean as the titanic sinks..Now give me your english teacher assessment of THAT comment.

Otherwise, I'd probably agree with your sentiment as I criticize
the liberals and Democrats for this trend in dependency on govt
instead of addressing the root cause of poverty and victim mentality.

The correct way to address the problem is one person at a time,
not blaming the wrong people, like me you false assume are part of the victim propaganda
which I oppose as you do as well.

Sorry I gave you the wrong impression, but your response
gives us the opportunity to discuss the projection of bias, so I am grateful we can resolve this.

Yours truly,
Emily

Right whatever..The only thing "resolved" was your need to "correct" me..

Thanks

Now..any time you want to discuss some facts and not your impressions of me, let me know.

 

[Meathead]

Only to have the autopsy info blow it for Walker....why is he not in custody and in jail?

Who's Walker and why should he be in custody for killing a thug? Hell, even Wilson's not in custody which should tell us something.

Wilson will get full disability and retire someplace incognito. He deserves it. The taxpayer will have to pay his way for the rest of his life. I suppose that's not too bad, considering that the public had to feed Brown and his family for generations on end.

 

[dannyboys]

The robbery alone, of course not. However, if he assaulted the officer and went for his gun, then the officer may have been fully justified.

If that happened? He would have been "justified" at the time that it was happening. Not when the kid was fleeing down he street. As soon as the danger passed to the officer and the public, the cop should have been able to deal with that without using lethal means.

Please explain why every fucking LIB on this forum can not spell? Can not string together a coherent sentence?
You are stupid. What do you mean "if" the simian "assaulted the officer then the officer MAY have been fully justified?" Not on this planet son.
You assault an officer on this planet your fucking dead.
Big Mike was a fucking bully from age five. He had spent his basically meaningless life threatening people to get what he wanted from them.
That fuse gets pretty fucking short when you decide to take that attitude to a cop with a gun.
You're stupid. PI

 

[Rozman]

Black privilige?

 

[bucs90]

Watching the video, Brown just casually walks into the store, reaches across the counter, and steals store merchandise. Then, when confronted, he simply pushes and threatens the clerk.

No sign of desperation, no sign of someone who had reached the breaking point and who got out of control.

All's I see is someone doing as they please, someone who has probably stolen store items many times before, someone who uses their size to intimidate and get their way. Someone who looks like they are entitled to do as they please. I don't see how any other conclusion can be reached.

Even if what you post is correct?

Killing a person for this is justified?

That's not why he was killed.

Of course not.

And the officer, as far as we know, wasn't even aware of this "crime".

He went to stop a couple of kids walking in the street. And from what we know? He handled this poorly..to say the least.

Mike Brown, 18, 6'4, 300 lbs, was walking in the middle of the street like a retard. A cop told him to get out of the road. "Big Mike" handled it poorly......to say the least.

 

[bucs90]

The robbery alone, of course not. However, if he assaulted the officer and went for his gun, then the officer may have been fully justified.

That's a big if considering the shot that killed Brown was through the top of his head. Now dance around and give us the official opinion on that. Brown was 6'-5" tall.

How did the cop get up there and point his gun directly down on top of his head. Was Brown butting him in the stomach? To someone who had already shot him several times in the arm?

What are you smoking?

You watch the NFL? See 6'5 defenders tackling 5'10 runners? Their heads are down and low, and their arms are around the waist. Interestingly.....right where a cop would wear a gun.

Big Mike was lunging for the gun. Its why the string of bullets went from the thug's right arm, all the way up to the head. Cop shot what his eyes were focused on- the extended hand, then up to the head.

 

[Gracie]

Big Mike was a thug. Plain and simple. And he got what he didn't think he would ever get. Dead.

 

[Bush92]

You really do have to wonder, based on this video, how many times he's done this before.
No sign here at all, that he was nervous. No looking around to see if anyone is watching, just a cool, no hurry approach to ripping off the store.

Oh yes, he has done this before. But the thug life culture says that he can do what he wants. National news media mourns this peace of shit. The sad thing is that the defense will want to keep this video from being shown to the jury, and some fucking liberal judge will agree.

 

[Manonthestreet]

but...but...the poverty......ummmm ummmmmm the hopeless desperation.............

 

[Gracie]