Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Anonymous wrote:

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Psst. Eric Garner wasn't shot; he was choked to death. I think your passion is causing you to make up facts.

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Anonymous wrote:

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors.

That is NOT what the witnesses said. They were repeating what that idiot friend said. That is not what happened. And, it created a very big problem.

Anonymous wrote:

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

The police gave Garner a command. He did not obey and was belligerent. He got shot. Lesson to be learned: when the police tell you to do something you are to shut up, listen, and do what you are told. They are in a high stress job where their lives are in danger every day. Only stupid fools try to fight and argue with an armed policeman and they get killed for their stupidity. Not saying they should be, just it can be avoided.

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

No, but what we get to hear is censored and screened. We only get to see and hear what the news media wants us to see and hear. Not in every case but enough of them to discern a pattern.

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Assumption #1: the bystanders are neutral.
Assumption #2: :"they" had no stake in the fight
Assumption #3 what we all heard from the cellphone video told the whole story.

Time and time again the media is trying to act as judge and jury before all the evidence is presented. Just as in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown I refuse to allow my emotions to be impacted, I refuse to make a judgment until I see all the facts. I refuse to allow the media try and drag me down the garden path.

I am NOT saying these policemen are innocent, or that what they did was right, or anything because I have not examined all the evidence and there has not been a trial. All I am saying is, take with a grain of salt all that you see and hear on sound and video that is released across the internet.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors.

You mean like Eric Garner, who had no weapon and was raising his hands in the air as police calmly walked up to him in a huge group, wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death? WE ALL SAW THE VIDEO. Clearly the police were not scared or in danger -- they chose to kill him because it pissed them off that he did not do what they said.

Same with Ferguson. You heard the neutral bystanders say, "Oh my God, he had his hands up." He was shot because he pissed the police officer off by calling him a pussy and walking away. If the police cannot deal with situations like this without resorting to murder, then they should not be police officers in this great country. Nor should they own a gun, IMO. I fear for their wives, children and neighbors

Oh, so I guess the two videos we have seen were manufactured on a sound stage in Area 51?

We all heard the cellphone video of the completely neutral bystanders who said "OMG, he had his hands up and they shot him." They had no stake in the fight AT ALL. We all heard it. You did too. Don't pretend otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The person breaking the law and resisting arrest was carrying a concealed weapon. If he had been smart he would have declared he was carrying, held his arms up in the air, and awaited further instructions by the police. Instead he chose to tussle and fight and when they saw he was armed and reaching for his weapon the police shot him. You do not have the liberty of great amounts of time to tihnk, "Ok, he has a weapon. He is reaching for it. Maybe I will be lucky and he won't try to shoot me."

No, it is a wild melee with only a few seconds to think and act: shoot first or be shot.

Your description of events is not consistent with reality. Obviously, a mythical scenario that follows your preconceived notions and provides you a justification is preferable to the facts. But, understand that you are not describing what actually happened and what actually happened is much less justifiable.

The only "reality" we have seen is from what the media has chosen to put out for us to view. Until all the facts come out, and the portions of sound and video that have not been censored or held back become available, then what I have written is just as valid as what the media is throwing out there to paint a picture to fit the narrative of poor ole innocent black being killed for no reason by mean ole white policeman.

I have not forgotten the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents. The media did not tell the whole story and even fabricated stuff like Brown had his arms up saying "Don't Shoot!" The media is notorious for lying. Until I see legal transcripts
then it is all fantasy as far as I am concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The person breaking the law and resisting arrest was carrying a concealed weapon. If he had been smart he would have declared he was carrying, held his arms up in the air, and awaited further instructions by the police. Instead he chose to tussle and fight and when they saw he was armed and reaching for his weapon the police shot him. You do not have the liberty of great amounts of time to tihnk, "Ok, he has a weapon. He is reaching for it. Maybe I will be lucky and he won't try to shoot me."

No, it is a wild melee with only a few seconds to think and act: shoot first or be shot.

Your description of events is not consistent with reality. Obviously, a mythical scenario that follows your preconceived notions and provides you a justification is preferable to the facts. But, understand that you are not describing what actually happened and what actually happened is much less justifiable.

The only "reality" we have seen is from what the media has chosen to put out for us to view. Until all the facts come out, and the portions of sound and video that have not been censored or held back become available, then what I have written is just as valid as what the media is throwing out there to paint a picture to fit the narrative of poor ole innocent black being killed for no reason by mean ole white policeman.

I have not forgotten the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents. The media did not tell the whole story and even fabricated stuff like Brown had his arms up saying "Don't Shoot!" The media is notorious for lying. Until I see legal transcripts
then it is all fantasy as far as I am concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds more to me like the police have issues with American blacks.

+1 How ignorant do you have to be to not know this.

Sounds more to me that police have issues with people who break the law and resist arrest.

What country are you from? I ask because here in America, we live by a system of laws. In America, if you break the law you get arrested, not shot. And if you resist arrest in America, we have a law regarding that -- it's called "resisting arrest." You go before a judge and jury, and if you're found guilty, a judge decides your sentence and death is not one of the options.

So what country are you from, where police get to shoot people for resisting arrest? We don't do that in this great country.

The person breaking the law and resisting arrest was carrying a concealed weapon. If he had been smart he would have declared he was carrying, held his arms up in the air, and awaited further instructions by the police. Instead he chose to tussle and fight and when they saw he was armed and reaching for his weapon the police shot him. You do not have the liberty of great amounts of time to tihnk, "Ok, he has a weapon. He is reaching for it. Maybe I will be lucky and he won't try to shoot me."

No, it is a wild melee with only a few seconds to think and act: shoot first or be shot.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The person breaking the law and resisting arrest was carrying a concealed weapon. If he had been smart he would have declared he was carrying, held his arms up in the air, and awaited further instructions by the police. Instead he chose to tussle and fight and when they saw he was armed and reaching for his weapon the police shot him. You do not have the liberty of great amounts of time to tihnk, "Ok, he has a weapon. He is reaching for it. Maybe I will be lucky and he won't try to shoot me."

No, it is a wild melee with only a few seconds to think and act: shoot first or be shot.

Your description of events is not consistent with reality. Obviously, a mythical scenario that follows your preconceived notions and provides you a justification is preferable to the facts. But, understand that you are not describing what actually happened and what actually happened is much less justifiable.

Anonymous wrote:
The person breaking the law and resisting arrest was carrying a concealed weapon. If he had been smart he would have declared he was carrying, held his arms up in the air, and awaited further instructions by the police. Instead he chose to tussle and fight and when they saw he was armed and reaching for his weapon the police shot him. You do not have the liberty of great amounts of time to tihnk, "Ok, he has a weapon. He is reaching for it. Maybe I will be lucky and he won't try to shoot me."

No, it is a wild melee with only a few seconds to think and act: shoot first or be shot.