Yet I wonder what the responses would be if the looters were committing those crimes in the non black areas.

I think they would call in the Cavalry and arrest those who are looting, destroying property and throwing Molotov cocktails as they should be doing in Ferguson. These Looters are getting a pass from the police. That's wrong!

I don't follow you. Do you mean if the looters where White themselves, or do you mean if these same looters (predominantly Black) were looting in a White neighborhood?

It doesn't matter anyway. If they were White I'd be saying the same thing. That they're behaving like a pack of wild dogs.

Oh, I almost forgot:

WHAT'S THE UPSIDE TO BURNING DOWN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD?

.

Tune into CNN or Fox and you can watch the action on the Ferguson streets right now.

I've been following a lot of the coverage on CNN and I admit I am somewhat fascinated by what I'm seeing. I have no doubt that there are some there who are provoking and inciting the crowds. The same here on this board. We call them trolls.

I have one question that I can't figure out ... would the rioting have happened if the cop was black?

I cannot understand "looting". I've seen it a few times in my life (not firsthand, though). The Rodney King stuff, in New Orleans after the hurricane, the race riots of the mid-60s and in the worst case, in Brooklyn during the blackout of 1977. It is a crime of opportunity, not anything else. It is NOT a sign of unhappiness or anger. It's a chance to get something for free. It is shortsighted because it only serves to destroy a community. I don't care what color of residents do this, it KILLS A COMMUNITY! (You ever notice this almost always happens in the heat of summer? The inner-city kids get worked up and do this shit because they're bored. You won't see this happen on a cold winter night because nobody wants to be hanging out on the streets then).

All that said, I believe the cops overreacted here.

So to answer this waving dick of a comment (WHAT'S THE UPSIDE TO BURNING DOWN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD?), one should ask what's the upside of living in that neighborhood, period? Regardless of race and how segregated housing situation still is in the US, all over the world there are poor neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods. And as the gap gets wider, the oppression to keep the status quo gets tougher and you see police acting like military forces. And when it fails, all hell breaks loose. Then people who don't have whatever they don't, go and get it. It's just the way it is. It's like throwing a ball at the wall and act all surprised when it bounces back to you.

People provoking other people are really called anarchists like the leaders of the occupy wall street.

Yes if the cop was black it still could have happened. The cops are the authority figures.

The looting is started by opportunists and then everyday people will join them. Locks don't stop real thieves. They are to keep basicly honest people from stealing. Once the doors are broken in to everyone thinks they can take a taste.

I was in the middle of the Harlem riots in the 60s. The tactical patrol cops were out to stop it. They were all big guys on horse back. They were trying to keep the rioters from moving east from Lexington ave.

They could not stop them. So the people who lived east of Lexington decided to stop them. I got friendly with one of those tactical patrol cops. I met him again years later. I needed a handyman got him from my local hardware store.

Then we got to talking, and he remembered me from my Harlem days.

They coined the phrase Long Hot summer during those summer riots also that song hot time summer in the city.

That is right being bored s a big part of it. Nothing to do so they find something to do.

Another night of Unrest......
http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/ferguson-of...atest-protests/

Two shot, 31 arrested as Ferguson erupts in another night of violence
By Associated PressAugust 19, 2014 | 2:05am
Modal Trigger

Police advance in Ferguson to clear people during a protest late on Aug. 18.
Photo: AP
FOLLOW THE STORY

Two shot, 31 arrested as Ferguson erupts in another night of violence
National Guard arrives in Ferguson amid violent protests
Eric Holder sent to Ferguson for Michael Brown investigation
Ferguson looting spreads to neighboring towns
Michael Brown had marijuana in his system: medical examiner
Obama takes vacation break to return to Washington
SEE ALL 36 STORIES
FERGUSON, Mo. — The National Guard arrived in Ferguson but kept its distance from the streets where protesters clashed again with police, as clouds of tear gas and smoke hung over the St. Louis suburb where Michael Brown was fatally shot by a police officer.
Protesters filled the streets after nightfall Monday, and officers trying to enforce tighter restrictions used bullhorns at times to order them to disperse. Police deployed noisemakers and armored vehicles to push demonstrators back. Officers fired tear gas and flash grenades.
Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol, who is in charge of security in Ferguson, said bottles and Molotov cocktails were thrown from the crowd and that some officers had come under heavy gunfire. At least two people were shot and 31 were arrested, he said. He did not have condition updates on those who were shot. Johnson said four officers were injured by rocks or bottles.
Demonstrators no longer faced the neighborhood’s midnight-to-5 a.m. curfew, but police told protesters that they could not assemble in a single spot and had to keep moving. After the streets had been mostly cleared, authorities ordered reporters to leave as well, citing the risk from gunfire that had been reported.
A photographer for the Getty photo agency was arrested while covering the demonstrations and later released. Two German reporters were arrested and detained for three hours. Conservative German daily Die Welt said correspondent Ansgar Graw and reporter Frank Herrmann, who writes for German regional papers, were arrested after allegedly failing to follow police instructions to vacate an empty street. They said they followed police orders.
Johnson said members of the media had to be asked repeatedly to return to the sidewalks and that it was a matter of safety. He said in some cases it was not immediately clear who was a reporter but that once it was established, police acted properly.
Citing “a dangerous dynamic in the night,” Johnson also urged protesters with peaceful intent to demonstrate during the daytime.
The latest clashes came after a day in which a pathologist hired by the Brown family said the unarmed black 18-year-old suffered a bullet wound to his right arm that may indicate his hands were up or his back was turned. But the pathologist said the team that examined Brown cannot be sure yet exactly how the wounds were inflicted until they have more information.
Witnesses have said Brown’s hands were above his head when he was repeatedly shot by an officer Aug. 9.
The independent autopsy determined that Brown was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, the family’s lawyers and hired pathologists said.

The St. Louis County medical examiner’s autopsy found that Brown was shot six to eight times in the head and chest, office administrator Suzanne McCune said Monday. But she declined to comment further, saying the full findings were not expected for about two weeks.
A grand jury could begin hearing evidence Wednesday to determine whether the officer, Darren Wilson, should be charged in Brown’s death, said Ed Magee, spokesman for St. Louis County’s prosecuting attorney.
A third and final autopsy was performed Monday for the Justice Department by one of the military’s most experienced medical examiners, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
Holder was scheduled to travel to Ferguson later this week to meet with FBI and other officials carrying out an independent federal investigation into Brown’s death.
The Justice Department has mounted an unusually swift and aggressive response to Brown’s death, from the independent autopsy to dozens of FBI agents combing Ferguson for witnesses to the shooting.
In Washington, President Barack Obama said the vast majority of protesters in Ferguson were peaceful, but warned that a small minority was undermining justice. Obama said overcoming the mistrust endemic between many communities and their local police would require Americans to “listen and not just shout.”
Obama said he also spoke to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon about his deployment of the National Guard in Ferguson and urged the governor to ensure the Guard was used in a limited way.
Modal Trigger
Photo: AP
Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump said Brown’s parents wanted the additional autopsy because they feared results of the county’s examination could be biased. Crump declined to release copies of the report.
“They could not trust what was going to be put in the reports about the tragic execution of their child,” he said during Monday’s news conference.
The second autopsy, Crump said, “verifies that the witness accounts were true: that he was shot multiple times.”
Forensic pathologist Shawn Parcells, who assisted former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden during the private autopsy, said a bullet grazed Brown’s right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face.
“We don’t know,” Parcells said. “We still have to look at the other (elements) of this investigation before we start piecing things together.”
Baden — who has testified in several high-profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson murder trial — said one of the bullets entered the top of Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when he suffered that fatal injury. The hired pathologists said Brown, who also was shot four times in the right arm, could have survived the other bullet wounds.
Baden also said there was no gunpowder residue on Brown’s body, indicating he was not shot at close range. However, Baden said he did not have access to Brown’s clothing, and that it was possible the residue could be on the clothing.
Crump also said Brown had abrasions on his face from where he fell to the ground, but there was “otherwise no evidence of a struggle.”

Seen a bit of it on the news over here and the scenes remind me a bit of the London riots a couple of years ago!!

Scary stuff in this day and age!!

It is disconcerting. The rioting and looting aren't the story, but rather the symptom of deeper problems.

But you didn't answer my waving dick question, did you?

You just added your usual far left nonsense from the shittiest country in the world. Fantasizing about an American utopia that you wouldn't be welcome in even if it ever came to pass (BECAUSE YOU'RE FUCKING IRANIAN). But I forgot about the whole year that you lived in the American south. Before you got thrown out because you couldn't find an American desperate enough to marry someone of your ilk (hence your resentment of men and this beautiful country, but I'll leave that to a psychiatrist). Gotcha.

If you read through ALL of my posts, you'd see that I was talking about what happened AFTER the fact. The AFTERMATH. I've taken abusive cops to task over and over again over the years. But because I CORRECTLY point out that these predominantly Black thugs are acting like a pack of wild fucking animals, I'm somehow some kind of racist monster now.

But you didn't answer my question, either. You just danced around it using slightly fancier words than that imbecile Cook County. Oh, sure, you gave me the usual answers about what drives these animals to act the way they do (it's Whitey's oppression, of course). But you didn't answer my waving dick question:

WHAT'S THE UPSIDE TO BURNING DOWN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD?

pb, I don't know where this HATE has come from you lately but you know better than to post shit like this (I'm talking about the flaming crap). It's quite obvious you don't like afsaneh's political and social views but that is no excuse to go off on her with hurtful statements. I think you owe her an apology. Regardless, stop the trolling!

That goes for you, too, cookcounty.

Who started it, SC? Who made the waving dick comment?

Because that's aftermath of what I explained. You can't treat people like animals and when they react, call them animals. Even when they react with compassion like Martin Luther King, what they get? More violence. Everyone knows looting is bad. But this looting didn't happen in vacuum.

Rest of your post is so pathetic, I'm not even gonna dignify that with a remark. I'm just glad you showed what sort of a person you are.

She was wrong to add that but do you know how to use a Notify Post feature?

Likewise. But I said my piece. SC wants it left alone, so I'll leave it alone.

Like I just replied to Afseneh. I'm not apologizing to her, but I promise to leave it alone.

I'm beginning to get the feeling you don't understand what I'm saying. Please continue arguing your point but JUST CUT OUT THE FLAMING ATTACKS IN YOUR POSTS.

I can't make it any simpler than that. And by the way, this goes for EVERYONE.

I called the comment "A waving dick of a comment," simply because you needed it to post it over and over again as if it is some kind of a valid point. I'm not sure how it is wrong to call a comment a waving dick. Is it okay to call it BS? But since it was very recurring, I think cow diarrhea fits it better.

What the fuck is going on? Is there a full moon driving everyone crazy? afs, I'm surprised at you. You are usually more reasonable. Making a comment like that before copying someone's post is flaming. FWIW - it is a little annoying to see pb's statement recurring as much as it is, BUT, IMHO it's a valid question. Couldn't you just say something like, "How many times are you going to ask that"? I think that would make a point.

Anyway, please EVERYONE, take a deep breath, count to ten and RELAX. There's enough hate being shown on tv from Missouri. We shouldn't be adding on to it here on the GBB.

I'm sorry to have used offensive language. However, I don't think that was a valid point. Whenever there's a protest, there are people who hijack the protest with looting. Doesn't mean looting is okay, and certainly doesn't mean that people have to sit quietly and take these actions with no protest.

OK, my two cents - I've been around long enough to see (and learn) that looting one's own neighborhood is one of the stupidest things anyone can do. I don't wanna hear that it's a mindset of a socially and economically deprived class and there are reasons for it to happen. Just sitting by and making believe the reasons for looting are valid is not productive and quite frankly it is just as harmful as the looting itself.

Looters shoot their way into a store. See Video:
http://fox2now.com/2014/08/18/business-owners-cleaning-up-after-another-night-of-looting/

And yet, I never said looting is valid. That's the whole point of why I got mad with that recurrent question. It's that this whole situation has insensitively reduced to a question of if is it right to burn down your own neighborhood or not. But that's not the issue, nor is the big picture. You can't shut down an argument with asking obvious questions that has been already established. Yeah, everyone knows looting is bad. But do you expect people not to protest when police shoots one of them with such unconscionable manner? When they throw tear gas, do you expect people not to set fire to garbage cans, so they can breathe again? And then, don't you expect in a poor neighborhood, there be opportunistic looters? Denying there are bad people doesn't make them go away. And painting them as the whole of a neighborhood or race is not gonna make a valid point.

This should about sum it up:

You don’t know what happened to Michael Brown, so stop pretending that you do

Matt Walsh/ 182 Comments
I don’t know what happened to Michael Brown.
Maybe something conclusive — solid, physical evidence, pointing in one direction or another — will come out within 15 minutes of this post’s publication. Maybe it will take another week. Maybe it will be a month. Maybe we’ll never know for sure.
I don’t know when we’ll know, or if we’ll know, or what we’ll know when we know if we ever know.
I don’t know.
But I do know this: it doesn’t much matter anymore.
Sure, it matters in the actual sense. It matters to God. It matters to honest people. It matters to mature adults who just want the truth, and who don’t show up at crime scenes with pom-poms and popcorn, rooting for one side or another to “win.” It matters to the rational, the reasonable, the thoughtful.
But that is a dwindling breed. As it rapidly fades into the ether, we are left with a society populated by frauds who simply don’t care about the truth at all. It’s almost pathological at this point. They don’t hate the truth, necessarily, they just don’t see it as a particularly compelling issue. They cast their die before the facts are known, and stick by their wagers in spite of whatever information comes to light. They play their assigned role in the Great Narrative, and they never, ever, under any circumstance, stray from the script. All of this, of course, perpetuated by a media that establishes its storyline and then “reports” only on events consistent with the plot. Sometimes they make complicated situations simple, and sometimes they make simple situations complicated. Whatever the case, they make it, and then eventually they drop it and move on to the next ratings stunt.
So that’s why, to many people, it doesn’t matter what actually happened to Michael Brown. This isn’t about Michael Brown anymore. It never was, really. It’s about a narrative — a story — and Michael Brown is useful so long as he serves it.
Does anyone think the protestors will go home and apologize if the officer is vindicated by the evidence? Will MSNBC retract every reckless conjecture and misleading statement? Will Al Sharpton shout “my bad,” and head home, never again to descend like a despicable vulture whenever news cameras and racial tensions meet? Will the looters return their stolen merchandise? Will the Twitter prognosticators tweet out their mea culpas? Will social media be flooded with humbled and humiliated concessions?
If Christ Himself spoke from the heavens and contradicted the established mainstream narrative, is there any way that any of these things would happen as a result?
No, definitely not. They’d just accuse Jesus of getting His facts from Fox News.
But maybe those who’ve rushed to judgment will finally, for once, get to puff up their chests and tell us that they told us so. Maybe they’ll be proven right. Maybe. I don’t know.
I’m willing to say I don’t know, even if it robs me of the opportunity to brag that “I was right from the beginning.”
The problem is that there’s little risk in being rash and reckless. These days, nobody remembers anything that happened before yesterday, nor dwells on anything once it stops trending on Twitter. Therefore, you can be wrong a hundred times a day, you can prophesy and proclaim and accuse, you can do it all without a modicum of reason or integrity, and you will never be held accountable for it. Your credibility is only ever damaged when you stray from the Established Truth, but not when you stray from the Actual Truth.
So this probably won’t do any good, but I’d like to try to break through this wall of false certainty. It’s not that I want to convince you to take a different side; I just want to convince you that you shouldn’t be on anyone’s side right now. I can only prove that nothing’s been proven. I can only show that not enough has been shown. Do what you will with the information — or rather the lack of information — but you must at least consider this:
- Michael Brown was shot six times, twice in the head. Much is being made of the fact that the officer hit him with six bullets, but there is nothing that can be immediately gleaned from this. Despite what you’ve been told, six shots are not automatically “excessive.” It’s particularly relevant in this case to note that Brown was shot in the arm several times, and that the first five wounds were survivable. This could mean that the cop riddled an innocent man with bullets, or it could mean that the cop was shooting at an aggressive, charging suspect, and he had to keep shooting until the suspect went down.
Police are trained to shoot “center mass,” which means they shoot until the threat is neutralized. Sometimes this takes two shots, sometimes six, sometimes ten, sometimes more. Sometimes they go overboard, but nobody with firearm experience would tell you that there’s any clear bullet limit; a number that, when reached, immediately renders each subsequent bullet “excessive.”
Really, what’s the thought process here? If (notice, “IF”) Brown was on the attack, are we now saying that the cop should have fired a predetermined “reasonable” quantity of bullets, and then, if the suspect was still coming after him, he should have holstered his gun and ran for the hills, all in the name of meeting the media’s bullet quota?
This isn’t Hollywood. You can’t take everyone down with one shot.
The number of bullets only matters if certain circumstances are in play; specifically, the circumstance where Brown was surrendering. But if Brown was surrendering then it doesn’t matter if he was shot once or a dozen times, the officer would be guilty of murder. Either way, harping on the number of bullets inflames emotions and does nothing to enlighten or clarify.
- Michael Brown was unarmed. This is relevant, but it doesn’t conclusively tell us anything. The way people are carrying on, you’d think there’s never a time when an unarmed man could pose a lethal threat to an armed man. Leftwing blogs have spent all week telling us that unarmed people are shot by police officers on a relatively frequent basis. They’re right, but they’re wrong when they try to paint this dynamic in a cartoonish, simplistic, “cops are always bad and racist, and suspects are always good and innocent” light. There are many reasons why a law enforcement officer might have cause to shoot an unarmed man — the first being the rather obvious fact that cops don’t always know that the unarmed man is an unarmed man.
Are we really now suggesting that police officers should wait until they’re shot at to shoot back? What sort of maniac would ever become a cop if he had to adhere to those regulations? Being a police officer can be dangerous work; I, for one, don’t think it ought to be suicidal.
Another convincing reason to shoot an unarmed man might be when the man in question is about the size of a professional offensive lineman. Michael Brown was 6’4″ and close to 300 pounds, which makes him only a bit smaller than the average guard or tackle at this year’s NFL scouting combine.
Have you ever been physically assaulted by a 300 pound man? I haven’t, but I’m willing to believe that the experience could be fatal.
Now, if Brown was shot with his hands up, or if Brown was shot while fleeing, then his size is of no consequence. But it’s hard to believe that so many people truly think his size was of no consequence even if he was attempting to attack the officer.
There’s another point that must be raised here: nobody has any right to physically assault another human being, including a cop. Moreover, nobody, including a cop, has any responsibility to get pummeled or throttled by an assailant. If you try to harm an armed man or woman, you might get shot. This is not cruelty. This is self-preservation, and it is just. Again, we don’t know that Brown showed any hostility at all. If he didn’t, then Officer Wilson should be charged and tried. But I’m disturbed by the amount of people who seem to believe that, even if Brown did attack, he didn’t “deserve” to get shot.
It’s not about what the assailants deserve. It’s about what the assailed deserve. And they deserve to protect themselves. IF Brown had already assaulted the officer and tried to steal his gun, and IF the officer pointed his gun at Brown and yelled at him to freeze, and IF Brown ignored that command and rushed towards the officer, as an alleged friend of Officer Wilson claims, then of course the officer would be justified in using lethal force. What else would he do? Quickly put his gun away, grab a taser, and wait for the charging, gigantic individual to be close enough to hopefully subdue? That’s just not how it works, it’s not what any sane law enforcement officer would do, and it isn’t what you would do, either.
- There are eye witnesses. This is important, but it’s not as clear cut as some would like it to be.
Our primary witness is Dorian Johnson, Brown’s friend, and, as we later discovered, suspected accomplice in the robbery that occurred minutes earlier (more on that later). Even before looking at the autopsy report, we can already use rational thought to discern a few things about Johnson’s account: 1) Apart from the officer and Brown himself, Johnson had the best view of the whole ordeal. This makes his account very important. 2) He is going to be (understandably) biased. His friend was killed. Not only was his friend killed, but, according to some versions of the event, Johnson was also involved in the altercation with the cop. 3) He claims that Officer Wilson grabbed Brown by the throat from inside his cruiser. It’s incredible to think that Wilson would try to subdue a 6’4″ man in that fashion. It’s certainly unlike any police procedure I’ve ever heard of.
There is at least one detail in Johnson’s account that we now know to be inaccurate. Johnson claimed that Brown was shot in the back. The private autopsy commission by Brown’s family shows that all of the bullets entered through the front of the body, and none hit him in the back. The county’s report says the same.
Brown’s family says one of the wounds to the arm could still indicate that Brown was shot from behind. This is possible, I suppose, but it’s hardly the confirmation you’d expect after a week of being told that Brown was shot and killed while running away.
The other narrative is that Brown was shot with his hands up. The bullet wounds don’t shed any light on that, one way or another:


Another witness also claims that Brown was shot from behind, but her story contradicts the unseen man in a YouTube video, who can be heard recounting the event moments after it occurred. He seems to suggest that Brown turned and charged at Officer Wilson, and was shot in the process. “The next thing I know, he comes back towards them. The police had his guns drawn on him.”
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, even more so amidst a politically and ideologically fueled mass media frenzy.
- Michael Brown allegedly committed a “strong arm robbery” moments prior to his fatal encounter with police. Despite the near-unanimous consent of pundits and social media “experts,” this fact does matter.
You’ve probably heard people insist that “just because Brown stole some cigars doesn’t mean he should have been shot.” This is a classic example of a straw man argument. Nobody is saying that the revelation of Brown’s cigar-heist somehow makes this shooting justified. That is not the point. That’s not the argument.
The point is that Brown didn’t just “shoplift,” like many dishonest folks have claimed. He walked into a convenience store, brazenly grabbed merchandise from the counter, and then, when confronted, grabbed an old man by the shirt collar and pushed him to the side:


This isn’t some teenager sneaking a pack of gum into the pockets of his cargo shorts. This is a blatant act of completely unnecessary and unwarranted hostility. Grabbing a little old guy by the neck and shoving him aside? How can any honest person pretend that such an act doesn’t indicate a bit of a bully streak (to say the least)?
If Brown was willing to walk into a store and push an old man around for no reason it lends credibility to the notion that, perhaps, he might have picked a fight with a cop.
It doesn’t prove anything, but it does add another dimension to the situation. A dimension that no thinking person would ignore. I’d say his very recent history of vicious behavior is much more relevant than even the fact that Brown had marijuana in his system at the time of the incident.
I ask you this: what if Officer Wilson had pushed around a black teen earlier in the day? Actually, forget earlier in the day, what if video surfaced of him picking on a black kid a year or more before? Do you think all of these people crying “character assassination” would still be singing the same tune?
Of course not. Nor should they.
You don’t generally saunter into the one stop down the street, smack the clerk around just for the hell of it, and then carry on with your day being an otherwise gentle and affable fellow.
But what do I know?
Not much.
I don’t know. You don’t know.
Maybe the officer is a cold blooded killer. Maybe he gunned down a teenager in the middle of the street, in broad daylight, while the innocent kid had his hands up and shouted “don’t shoot.” Maybe this cop decided to throw his entire life away because he was angry, or racist, or insane. That seems implausible, but then it seems implausible that anyone would come charging at a police officer while the officer is pointing a gun right at him. Both extreme ends of this scenario just sound unlikely, but not impossible.
So maybe the truth is in between. Maybe Brown attacked the cop and went for his gun, but then retreated, and maybe the cop panicked and started firing, and maybe Brown got angry and turned around and charged at him, and maybe he was shot and disabled, but the cop kept shooting. Or maybe the officer instigated the entire altercation. Or maybe the officer just asked him to get out of the street and Brown decided to be a tough guy. Or maybe none of these hypotheticals are true.
Maybe the Officer is a murderer, or maybe he’s a good man whose life is now ruined through no fault of his own. Or maybe he’s a good man but an incompetent police office who lost control and overreacted. Maybe Brown was a good man who was viciously gunned down in his prime. Or maybe he was a hostile bully who thought he could assault a cop and walk away unscathed. Or maybe he was a good man who sometimes did stupid things, and this whole situation just got out of control.
Maybe, I don’t know.
Are you confused yet?
I hope so, because that’s the point.
You don’t know, and even what you think you know you don’t really know.
And one day, when we do know, you can come back here and tell me that you always knew, and that I should have known.
I’m sure a lot of people will do just that.
But, then again, I don’t know.

Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/18/d...4BFdUodhMp3V.99

Bean, this is a request. Instead of copying (or typing) an entire article that takes up a huge amount of screen space and can push other threads to another page, why not summarize your interpretation of and article and then provide a link to it? I and many Board members do such; it's a courtesy.

Sorry didn't know that is how is done. I just wanted to share this article with the board members. My apologies.

afs, in your attempt to set the stage for your soapbox (and there is nothing wrong with that - we all do it) you are missing one major point. pb's repeated (and unanswered) question is a valid point to be considered in light of those supporting all the bad things you yourself mentioned above.

Fact #1: There are countless number of murders of blacks by other blacks every year. Yet we don't hear a fraction of the news about that that we do when a white cop shoots a black suspect. Nor are there the kind of riots we're seeing. What does it say about the value of life the black community puts on it's own people when the only thing that gets them up in arms, and rioting and looting, is when a white person is the shooter?


Fact #2: Only about 1/4 of the police shootings involve a white cop and a black suspect. Yet it's only in that minority that we see constant accusations of "racism" or "profiling" being made. And it's only in the black community that we see rioting and looting like this.


Fact #3: In case you haven't, watch the video of the store robbery. Michael Brown and his buddy waltz in there like they own the place, steal the cigars, and then push the owner around on their way out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE


Fact #4: Listen to the caller below, who was among the first to give the police officer's account of what happened. Considering the way Brown comes across on camera, the autopsy showed he wasn't shot in the back (not to mention had marijuana in his system), and the cop actually did suspect Brown had been involved in the strong-arm robbery, I tend to give the officer and this caller every benefit of the doubt.

https://soundcloud.com/fmnewstalk971/caller-josie-on-demand-audio-8-15-14


In my opinion, based on what I've seen so far, Brown was just another common thug. But, like Treyvon Martin before him, many in the black community (and liberals in the media) are trying to paint him as some sort of martyr, all the while ignoring the bigger problems they have that give rise to punks like Brown. And then others, far from honest outrage but simply to exploit the situation, ravage their own community.