Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Brown didn't submit to anything - that's why he was shot.

No, he was shot because he attacked a police officer and tried to take the officer's gun; then he charged full speed at the officer.

And no, the facts demonstrate that his hands were not up.

If there is conflicting testimony, there are no "facts," even though you like to disregard all testimony that is contrary to your beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2014/12/01/scarborough-rips-media-cowards-spewing-bs-about-ferguson


Rant by Joe on "hands up"

I am not a bit Joe Scarsborough fan, but this was good.
I am happy to see someone in the liberal media calling out the media.
I am happy to see someone in the media supporting police officers instead of vilifying them.
I am happy to see someone speaking out against the action of the members of the St. Louis Rams.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe loses his job at MSNBC.
After all, the purpose of MSNBC is to be this administration’s mouthpiece and promote all things liberal.
This goes against their purpose.
Way to go, Joe!!!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2014/12/01/scarborough-rips-media-cowards-spewing-bs-about-ferguson


Rant by Joe on "hands up"

you need to change the titpe of yoru post to a person who robber a store owner named mike brown, don't make him something he is not. he is a robber first.

Anonymous wrote:Michael Brown didn't submit to anything - that's why he was shot.

No, he was shot because he attacked a police officer and tried to take the officer's gun; then he charged full speed at the officer.

And no, the facts demonstrate that his hands were not up.

When people say end of story, it is customary for them to stop talking. You on the other hand followed it with a question, thereby guaranteeing that it cannot be the end of the story. Brilliant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you trying to say, OP?

It was not a certainty that he was unarmed until he was dead. To suggest that police should have known that is just plain stupid. When someone is out looking for trouble and does not follow police commands they are assumed to be dangerous. Michael Brown was looking for trouble, making trouble and got trouble. End of stroy.

We have the testimony of the police officer involved. Nowhere did he say that he thought Brown might be armed. According to his testimony, it never entered his mind. I agree with PP. What exactly are you saying, OP?

There was no way to know he was unarmed. If he had followed commands, he likely would have been handcuffed and then searched. He did it his way and never followed a police command of several given. End of story. Are blacks exempt from following police commands?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you trying to say, OP?

It was not a certainty that he was unarmed until he was dead. To suggest that police should have known that is just plain stupid. When someone is out looking for trouble and does not follow police commands they are assumed to be dangerous. Michael Brown was looking for trouble, making trouble and got trouble. End of stroy.

We have the testimony of the police officer involved. Nowhere did he say that he thought Brown might be armed. According to his testimony, it never entered his mind. I agree with PP. What exactly are you saying, OP?

Anonymous wrote:What are you trying to say, OP?

It was not a certainty that he was unarmed until he was dead. To suggest that police should have known that is just plain stupid. When someone is out looking for trouble and does not follow police commands they are assumed to be dangerous. Michael Brown was looking for trouble, making trouble and got trouble. End of stroy.

According to the video, MB was in full thug mode in the convenience store. Of course, that in itself doesn't justify shooting him without more, but it does suggest that MB was violent and aggressive (perhaps because he was high) that afternoon

Michael Brown didn't submit to anything - that's why he was shot.

The clerk at the store seemed intimidated though Brown never pulled a gun

Brown had a weapon - his hands.

People are beat to death all the damn time. What we saw here is, in a fight between a gun and brute force, a gun wins.

What are you trying to say, OP?

Huh? If he was armed, don't you think that Wilson or the many cops on the scene afterward would have held up the gun up over their heads like the Stanley Cup???

Did Michael Brown submit to a search before he was shot?