Michael Brown, unarmed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The white police chief said that they did not believe that it was racially or ethnically motivated, that witnesses said the two groups of men exchanged word prior to the victim and his friend getting into the car.

If you were the white police chief in that town at this point, you would say the same thing. What are the odds of more violence at the mere suggestion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

RE the "bullet" commenter: Isn't the Supreme Court debating the balance between online threats of violence and free speech at this very moment?

BTW, you anonymity on this board in only one of Jeff's clicks away from disappearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

RE the "bullet" commenter: Isn't the Supreme Court debating the balance between online threats of violence and free speech at this very moment?

BTW, you anonymity on this board in only one of Jeff's clicks away from disappearing.

I don't recall anyone making a specific threat, i.e. I'm going to kill you with this bullet. That would be considered a threat.

I had someone tell me on Twitter, they hope I die. It's not the same as "I'm going to kill you".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So you think that death is appropriate for expressing opinions. What a fantastic representative of Conservatism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

RE the "bullet" commenter: Isn't the Supreme Court debating the balance between online threats of violence and free speech at this very moment?

BTW, you anonymity on this board in only one of Jeff's clicks away from disappearing.

I don't recall anyone making a specific threat, i.e. I'm going to kill you with this bullet. That would be considered a threat.

I had someone tell me on Twitter, they hope I die. It's not the same as "I'm going to kill you".

Were you under the impression that the poster meant they wish a bullet would be delivered via mail??

In any case, I think "live by the Sword, Die by the Sword" which followed it should resolve any ambiguity in your mind.

For the record, the poster should have said "live by the opinion, die by the sword". because he is advocating death to people who have an opinion he dislikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

RE the "bullet" commenter: Isn't the Supreme Court debating the balance between online threats of violence and free speech at this very moment?

BTW, you anonymity on this board in only one of Jeff's clicks away from disappearing.

I don't recall anyone making a specific threat, i.e. I'm going to kill you with this bullet. That would be considered a threat.

I had someone tell me on Twitter, they hope I die. It's not the same as "I'm going to kill you".

I will agree that the threat is not as clear or direct as the example you provided.

Whether it is an actionable threat, however, is up to:

1) the Supreme Court and,

2) the criminal prosecutors interpreting that ruling as it applies to existing law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the camera thing is a great idea. Seems the cameras in the police cars have showed the police's side has been correct most every time. They used to be against it, but now? Nope

I'm 100% for cameras. Police have no expectation of privacy on the job. None, zero, zilch - the second they punch in every morning, they cease being private citizens and become government (and trusted with a lot of power over citizens WITH rights).

-Republican/libertarian.

We are treated to privacy or concealment of identity by the burners and looters.

Seems to me that with a bodycam, Ferguson would have never blown up.

Seems to me Michael Brown: could have paid for his cigars.
could have kept his hands off the little shop keeper.
could have walked on the sidewalk like most people.
could have followed the police officer's request that he get on the sidewalk.
could have not reached inside the police car to get the officier's gun.
could have complied with the police officier's many commands to stop and surrender.
could have not verbally and physically threatened the police officer.

I agree. Was it still worth a bullet though?

Actually it was worth 12 bullets. Michael Brown was a slow learner. He heard 11 shots and felt some of them. He still failed to get the message until number 12.

Sure the police officer should have not protected himself. You must be as thick as your black brother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

RE the "bullet" commenter: Isn't the Supreme Court debating the balance between online threats of violence and free speech at this very moment?

BTW, you anonymity on this board in only one of Jeff's clicks away from disappearing.

I don't recall anyone making a specific threat, i.e. I'm going to kill you with this bullet. That would be considered a threat.

I had someone tell me on Twitter, they hope I die. It's not the same as "I'm going to kill you".

Just another example of liberal twisting, distorting and lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The white police chief said that they did not believe that it was racially or ethnically motivated, that witnesses said the two groups of men exchanged word prior to the victim and his friend getting into the car.

If you were the white police chief in that town at this point, you would say the same thing. What are the odds of more violence at the mere suggestion?

Screw that. If there was a white-on-black hate crime, he wouldn't sweep it under the rug in order to "avoid more violence".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So you think that death is appropriate for expressing opinions. What a fantastic representative of Conservatism.

I think if someone chooses to act against the law and gets shot, their choice determined their fate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The white police chief said that they did not believe that it was racially or ethnically motivated, that witnesses said the two groups of men exchanged word prior to the victim and his friend getting into the car.

If you were the white police chief in that town at this point, you would say the same thing. What are the odds of more violence at the mere suggestion?

Screw that. If there was a white-on-black hate crime, he wouldn't sweep it under the rug in order to "avoid more violence".

Couldn't! The Feds wouldn't let him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope you get the bullet you deserve.

That is not a funny or appropriate statement under any circumstances anywhere anyhow.

I'm glad the PP said it. It's never appropriate to constantly accuse people of racism either. Sick of it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

RE the "bullet" commenter: Isn't the Supreme Court debating the balance between online threats of violence and free speech at this very moment?

BTW, you anonymity on this board in only one of Jeff's clicks away from disappearing.

I don't recall anyone making a specific threat, i.e. I'm going to kill you with this bullet. That would be considered a threat.

I had someone tell me on Twitter, they hope I die. It's not the same as "I'm going to kill you".

I will agree that the threat is not as clear or direct as the example you provided.

Whether it is an actionable threat, however, is up to:

1) the Supreme Court and,

2) the criminal prosecutors interpreting that ruling as it applies to existing law

I suppose if authorities can call two fingers a gun, like they do in public schools, you are correct. I find it disturbing you want to live in that world, especially since the Twitter comments to me were from black folk. I would not want them arrested for making a general comment like 'I hope you die'. Would you?

[Anonymous]

I think the comments are egregious--but I think they may be covered by First Amendment. Very tough call for the Supremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the camera thing is a great idea. Seems the cameras in the police cars have showed the police's side has been correct most every time. They used to be against it, but now? Nope

I'm 100% for cameras. Police have no expectation of privacy on the job. None, zero, zilch - the second they punch in every morning, they cease being private citizens and become government (and trusted with a lot of power over citizens WITH rights).

-Republican/libertarian.

We are treated to privacy or concealment of identity by the burners and looters.

Seems to me that with a bodycam, Ferguson would have never blown up.

Seems to me Michael Brown: could have paid for his cigars.
could have kept his hands off the little shop keeper.
could have walked on the sidewalk like most people.
could have followed the police officer's request that he get on the sidewalk.
could have not reached inside the police car to get the officier's gun.
could have complied with the police officier's many commands to stop and surrender.
could have not verbally and physically threatened the police officer.

I agree. Was it still worth a bullet though?

Can we really blame Wilson for not wanting to end up like the poor guy from Capitol Hill a few years ago who will be in therapy for the rest of his life? In the end, Wilson will manage. Sex offenders are able to make a living. Even Casey Anthony hasn't offed herself.

[Anonymous]

Blacks should continue to focus on looting, burning and being victims. Their culture is flawless.