The One Thing Progressives Must Never Do Is Look At The Actual Problem

I live in two worlds – one an all White/Hispanic world where the only crimes I was ever victimized by were those committed by the police, and once when my house was robbed by one of the few black teenagers in Fort Collins.

My other world is an almost all-black neighborhood in Maryland, where most of the people are families who moved away from Baltimore to escape the criminal gang culture prevalent there. Unfortunately, that gang culture is spreading into Columbia, and I now get harassed regularly by gangs of black teenagers who were raised in a culture of entitlement, low expectations, and blame of zero self-esteem white progressives.

I’m obviously no fan of the police, but the reason that police are wary of black male teenagers, is because they commit crimes at a much, much higher rate than any other group of people. In order to reduce events like Ferguson, we need to end the culture of crime and violence among black teenagers. This will require that self-loathing white progressives stop encouraging and feeding that culture, as they have done for the past 50 years.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to The One Thing Progressives Must Never Do Is Look At The Actual Problem

  1. gator69 says:

    “This will require that self-loathing white progressives stop encouraging and feeding that culture, as they have done for the past 50 years.”

    Amen brother. Whites are nothing more than enablers, when accusations of racism cause them to be silent. Michael Brown was a thug, received his justice, now may he rest in peace.

  2. Steve Case says:

    The legacy of LBJ’s war on poverty.

    • scizzorbill says:

      Yup, but the real war was/is the war on the White middle class. LBJ’s war was about securing the Black voter class. It worked.

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        A politician who robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the vote of Paul.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The Quote is by George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society.

          To bad the black never get to hear the rest of the plans of the Fabians/Progressives.

          These quotes illustrate the true nature of the Progressives. (The Royal Society hosted a pro-eugenics conference in 2004 so the mindset is still very much alive.)

          “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.” ~ George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

          “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?” ~ George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

          Margaret Sanger’s English exile gave her the opportunity to make some critical interpersonal connections as well. Her bed became a veritable meeting place for the Fabian upper crust: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire….

          Margaret Sanger is founder of Planned parenthood.
          In Her Own Words:
          On the extermination of blacks:
          “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

          How eugenics poisoned the welfare state
          A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today.

          For the Fabians, eugenics was not merely some eccentric hobby or sideline, but central to their social thinking. Beatrice Webb regarded eugenics as ‘the most important question’ of all, while her husband revealed the statist and dirigiste character of the movement with his declaration that ‘no eugenicist can be a laissez faire individualist… he must interfere, interfere, interfere!’ Even for George Bernard Shaw, ‘the only fundamental and possible Socialism’ was ‘the socialisation of the selective breeding of Man’.

          In the years leading up to the first world war Leonard Darwin set about lobbying the government to act. He wanted to set up flying squads of scientists, armed with powers of arrest over the poor, to tour the country weeding out the ‘unfit’. Those who were found wanting by these tribunals were to be segregated in special colonies or sterilised. One politician who supported such draconian measures in parliament was the Labour MP Will Crooks, who described the targets of the eugenics campaign as ‘like human vermin’ who ‘crawl about doing absolutely nothing, except polluting and corrupting everything they touch’. Crooks was perhaps only outdone in his vehement contempt for what we now call the ‘underclass’ by Shaw, who believed that they had ‘no business to be alive’ and speculated at a meeting of the Eugenics Society about the need to use a ‘lethal chamber’ to solve the problem.

          Another Fabian eugenicist, the writer H.G. Wells, vented his frustration and indignation in a direct address to the working class. ‘We cannot go on giving you health, freedom, enlargement, limitless wealth, if all our gifts to you are to be swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny,’ he complained, ‘…and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict upon us.’ ….
          http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/5571423/how-eugenics-poisoned-the-welfare-state/

  3. kentclizbe says:

    You’re a racist. You just don’t realize it yet.

    Let the Politically Correct Progressive CNN genius educate you to your racist racism on race issues. Racist!

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

  4. Gator, come on. The actual events are a bit more complicated. It was an altercation and one of the people involved was armed and the other was an idiot. But a one specimen at that.

    Justice? There was no justice in the killing. If Brown had somehow been killed at the time he went for the gun maybe.

    • gator69 says:

      The actual events.

      A large black man robbed a store, did drugs and assaulted an armed police officer who was on patrol.

      A police officer, while on patrol, was assaulted by a large deranged black man who had just robbed a store and was high on drugs.

      The large black who robbed a store, and assaulted a policeman while high on drugs, is dead.

      The end.

      • ‘robbed a store ‘? Or robbed from a store?

        ‘Robbed a store’ tells me the store cash register and/or a significant amount of valuable goods were stolen. Is that what Brown did?

        It is not clear the store robbing had anything to do with the confrontation in the street.

        It is easy to say “the end” when one of the parties involved in a dispute is dead. The end indeed.

        • gator69 says:

          Congratulations! You passed the test, and you are now a certified thug enabler. Good job.

        • Taphonomic says:

          Wilson knew about the robbery and noticed Brown had a handful of cigars:
          http://globalnews.ca/news/1691095/why-darren-wilson-wasnt-indicted-for-shooting-michael-brown/

        • Taphonomic, that’s right. The cop stopped the pair as they were walking in the middle of the street. He saw the cigars only after. We only have the cop’s words to show that this is what happened.

          Don’t tell me I have to believe whatever a cop or anyone tells a grand jury his version of the story after bumping off the other guy.

        • gofer says:

          The prosecuter said that Wilson got a radio call about the robbery. He knew that Brown matched the description.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          The two also fit the description of those who “robbed the store” that is why Wilson radio for backup, thing went downhill from there. Most of it was Brown fault, first and foremost rule you and Brown do not seem to understand is that it better to judge but twelve and carried by six. When you are stopped by a police officer no matter what, you remain courteous and respectful, after all he represents something larger than you or I and has what I call a impossible task and has to put up with the lowest common denominator all the time, the crap they see and have to put up with is beyond anything anyone should have to. An I am not talking just crime. Putting accident victim in body bags is bad enough, check out a murder scene is worst is something I will not and cannot do. Even if the office treats you poorly and he does does not deserve courteous and respectful, remember courteous and respectful, that always worked for me and it saved me I truly believe a number of traffic tickets. Beyond traffic tickets I do not have much interaction with them since my behavior tends not to attract their attention, I don’t shoplift,or rough up store clerks and not in the habit of walking in the middle of the street.

          If you are having trouble why Brown acted the way he did and if you think you can justify it you can’t. The reality is much simpler that you or I imagined and my oldest brother pointed that out to me and it is something to me that speaks volumes to me, it is/was that Brown probable was incapable of being courteous and respectful and incapable of following instructions since he in all probability had not done that in his entire life. That is what caused him his life, not officer Wilson, Wilson instruction was only the last ones Brown ignored what he was told by someone whom he should have listen to,we also know Brown should have listen to the second to last person instruction he ignored, the store clerk, after all the merchandised he stoled was not his to steal and it is robbery, granted it probably a misdemeanor but since you and I do not know what Brown juvenile record is or was neither of us know what the penalty might have been for that illegal transaction. The possibility of hard time due to his juvenile record might be there and that may explain why thing also went so downhill for officer Wilson.

          It looks to me that Brown was on that trajectory of that thirty percent of black men not live to the ripe old age of thirty. Like to many young black men he would just keep pushing the envelope and in his case soon than later he would run into someone who either bigger of bader and the would end up killing him. Unfortunately for Wilson it ended up on that fateful day the it was his job to reign Brown in and Brown was not going to follow instructions period.

          This case of a young black man ending up dead that way is a amonity since most of the time it another young black man killing the other young black man. Police officers killing people is not all that common, yes it happen far more often than you or I would like but in the statistics it is low. Us lowly humans generally kill one another at a far greater rate than police officers kill us. Lastly I do not want to live in a world without police, if there were none, the job of keeping people like Brown of the even worst bad actors would fall on you and me and quite frankly I don’t want that job.

          Although I do understand if someone kicking in my door I am glad I can call the police but once the door is breached I want everyone to understand I will not waiting for the police come and identify my body, I only hope they will have the job of identifying the person who kick down my door. After all it better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

        • Gofer, an initial press statement clumsily tried to release surveillance footage and link the incident to the theft. The police released a subsequent statement clarifying that the radioed alert did not lead to pursuit and encounter with the two individuals.

          No amount of rationalization is going to change this.

          When the law gets trigger-happy, it is no doubt the clueless who will get shot first. Particularly those clueless to what behaviors, actions, demeanors and words have become trigger-worthy.

        • timg56 says:

          Any allegations concerning the store robbery are irrelevant.

          The rules on the use of deadly force are fairly clear cut. One simply has to reasonably believe an individual (or group of individuals) present a risk of harm, either to themselves or to another individual. There is no requirement that the individual representing said threat be armed.

          The purpose of the Grand Jury was to evaluate the evidence presented to them and determine if Officer Wilson reasonably felt threatened by Mr Brown. They obviously evaluated Officer Wilson’s use of deadly force as reasonable under the circumstances in which it occured. Until we see all of that evidence, our opinions are as irrelevant as the issue of the robbed store. I will note that if the evidence regarding Officer Wilson suffering a fractured optcipital bone are factual, then the Grand Jury’s finding is no surprise.

        • ‘Any allegations concerning the store robbery are irrelevant.’

          Nice, timg. Please stress that the store robbing is a red herring.

          On the ground, where the rubber hits the road, the rules of deadly force are never ‘clear cut’. Otherwise, cops can simply kill everyone and make the world crime-free. Cops are obviously not (and ought not to be) building up little mental checklists; once a certain number of items are checked off, they simply polish off whoever’s in front of them and call it a day. I hope you are not implying it’s that easy.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          ‘Robbed a store’ tells me the store cash register and/or a significant amount of valuable goods were stolen. Is that what Brown did?

          Under Missouri statutes, what Brown committed was a strong-arm robbery (robbery with assault), which is a felony. The monetary value of the goods is not a factor.

          It is not clear the store robbing had anything to do with the confrontation in the street.

          The radio dispatch had already called out the report of the robbery, with a description of the suspects. When Wilson first stopped Brown and Johnson for walking in the street, he did so merely because they were blocking traffic, and he told them to move to the sidewalk. However, as he passed them by, he realized that they fit the description of the robbery suspects, and that they were carrying the reported contraband (cigarillos). At that point, he called dispatch to send backup (“Put me on Canfield with two”), and then reversed his SUV to investigate them as robbery suspects.

          So, yes: it is perfectly clear that the robbery had everything to do with the confrontation.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          The cop stopped the pair as they were walking in the middle of the street. He saw the cigars only after. We only have the cop’s words to show that this is what happened.

          The radio transmissions were released, and prove that Wilson called for backup before confronting Brown and Wilson.

          Perhaps you were unaware.

        • timg56 says:

          Shub,

          Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. If you want to call the lack of relevancy of the alledged robbery a red herring, be my guest. Doesn’t change the main point of it not being relevant.

          And the rules for use of deadly force are clear cut, regardless of your attempt at twisting that into a description of the actual event. I never stated that using deadly force is a clear cut or easy decision for an individual to make at the time. I intentionally referred to the rules because it is on that basis a grand jury will evaluate what happened. And on that score it is pretty clear cut. The rest of your reply concerning cops ridding the world of crime by simply shooting every one they deem unacceptable is nonsensical and addes nothing other than a possible look into your own biases.

      • Mark Luhman says:

        Shub Niggurath , that is not what the grand jury heard, did you listen to anything the DA said after the announcement of the grand jury verdict. Have you bother to look at any of the evidence or is it you made up you mind a long time ago? He knew the two in the middle of the street made the description of the suspects in the convenience store hold up, he first radio for help and then confronted the two suspects, Bron first slammed the squad door back on him and then then slug Wilson at some point Brown went for the gun and was hit in the hand, at that point Brown left a blood trail. That is a fact supported by the forensic evidence, next Brown fled, the blood trail proves that and he returned to the Wilson when he was killed, the blood trail confirms that. from the radio call to where Brown laid dead was ninety seconds, back up arrived in 95 seconds. What we do know there were two shots at the squad, and lots in the second round of shots, they were away from the squad and whether they started when Brown was standing there taunting the officer so brown rushed the officer or after taunting the office Brown rushed Wilson and at that point Wilson started firing. We do know the forensic evidence support Brown coming towards Wilson when he was killed. Again the blood trail tells us that. We also know Brown was not killed standing with his hands up and he was not shot after he fell to the ground. The only powered burn on him was on his hand.

        As far as I am concerned Brown is up for a 2014 Darwin award, first shoplifting then walking down the middle of the street instead of laying low, second when confronting by law enforcement, coming after the law enforcement officer with violence, third after escaping death the first time, coming back for seconds. I know Brown was stupid, the question I now have are you?

        • Mark, you say “that is not what the grand jury heard, …”

          What exact part of what I wrote disagrees with what the jury heard?

          Secondly, you say: “We do know the forensic evidence support Brown coming towards Wilson when he was killed”

          This is funny. An autopsy *cannot* make this determination. Splatter patterns cannot make this determination. All that can be said is that Brown was facing the cop when the shot to the skull was fired.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Secondly, you say: “We do know the forensic evidence support Brown coming towards Wilson when he was killed”

          This is funny. An autopsy *cannot* make this determination. Splatter patterns cannot make this determination. All that can be said is that Brown was facing the cop when the shot to the skull was fired.

          Brown ran from the police SUV some distance. We know that he ran at least a certain distance, because of the locations of the blood splatter. We also know that Brown ended up some distance closer to the police SUV. Thus, we know from the evidence that Brown turned around and came back toward Wilson.

          We also know that Wilson backtracked when Brown came back at him. We know this, because of the locations of the shell casings, four of which are behind Brown’s eventual location.

          Finally, we know that Brown had forward momentum when he received the kill shot. We know this because of the position of the body, and the appearance of facial abrasions sustained when his body hit the pavement while moving forward.

          But, I’m assuming that none of the actual evidence will alter the narrative you have formed in your own mind.

        • timg56 says:

          Good comments Chip.

          One of the things I learned from my youngest brother, who was a prosecutor, was that there is a reason for trials with evidence being presented, rather than just deciding cases based on what gets published in the press or passed around by hearsay.

    • gofer says:

      From the transcript:
      At approximately 11:45 a.m. on Saturday, the ninth of August, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was dispatched to the Northwinds apartment complex for an emergency involving a two-month-old infant having trouble breathing. At approximately 11:53 a.m., while still at the Northwinds call, Wilson heard a radio broadcast of stealing in progress at a market on West Florissant. The broadcast included a brief description of the suspect: a black male, wearing a white t-shirt, who took a box of Swisher cigars. Officer Wilson remained with the mother and the infant until EMS arrived. Officer Wilson left the apartment complex in his police vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe SUV, and drove west on Canfield towards West Florissant. An additional description of the suspect was released at that time: wearing a red hat, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and he was with another male.

      • gofer, I followed the events as they unfolded. You are reading out details from a transcript. The transcript does not accommodate the discordance and subsequent clarification offered by the police statements, does it?

        • gofer says:

          What were those clarifications?

        • That the cop did not encounter Brown and his friend in pursuit. That he did not go after because they matched the radioed description.

        • gofer says:

          Over a half-dozen black witnesses who have testified before a grand jury deciding whether to indict the police officer who killed Michael Brown have provided testimony that “largely supports” Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson’s account of events, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

          Sources told The Washington Post that seven or eight black witnesses gave testimony before the grand jury that was “consistent” with Wilson’s account, but that none have spoken out publicly about what they witnessed because they fear for their safety.

        • I don’t accept hearsay.

          The law provides for a competitive trial for the express purpose of examining contesting claims.

          The Missouri administration hung Mr Wilson, Mr. Brown and the locals out to dry – it gave Mr Wilson him no closure and set him loose with no severance.

        • timg56 says:

          Shub,

          You are certainly entitled to your opinions. You are also free to look foolish. You appear well on your way to doing so with this thread.

          Exactly how does it matter whether Officer Wilson was aware of the alleged store theft or not, or if he made the connection between Michael Brown and that call? It has zero bearing on evaluating Officer Wilson’s use of deadly force. That others bring it up makes them look ignorant. Why you do as well is puzzling.

        • timg, I replied to your comment above as well. The store robbery is irrelevant to subsequent events. There is a fallacy of the narrative in building up a sequence consisting of the robbery first, followed by an account what happened next. In reality, the robbery speaks to the profile of the individual and nothing more.

          I did not bring it up myself. I had to repeat it to clarify.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          That the cop did not encounter Brown and his friend in pursuit. That he did not go after because they matched the radioed description.

          Absolutely untrue. The media tried to spin Jackson’s press statements in that manner, but Jackson clarified within hours, that while Wilson did not initially associate Brown and Johnson as the robbery suspects when he stopped them and told them to get out of the street, that his second encounter was precisely because he realized that they fit the description of the suspects and were carrying cigarillos.

          If you followed the details “as they unfolded”, you clearly didn’t do a very good job.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          The law provides for a competitive trial for the express purpose of examining contesting claims.

          Trials require the existence of probable cause. Based on the body of evidence, there is clearly no probable cause here; thus, a trial would have been a miscarriage of justice, and a violation of Wilson’s fourth amendment-protected rights.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          In reality, the robbery speaks to the profile of the individual and nothing more.

          Wrong again. The robbery also speaks to the state of mind of Brown at the time of the incident, as well as Wilson’s reasonable assessment of the situation when Brown was assaulting him multiple times.

      • Chip,

        Point #1: Wilson told Brown to get off the street. This is exactly what I said: not in pursuit. Would a cop go after a robbery suspect only to tell him to get off the street?

        You are not reading carefully enough.

        Point #2: Whenever someone says “body of evidence”, I immediately discount what they say. A “body of evidence” can make sense only if scrutinized thoroughly. The “body of evidence” was contradictory in nature, with possible motivated witnesses, and no direct eyewitness of the full sequence of events, excepting Wilson. It required further scrutiny.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Point #1: Wilson told Brown to get off the street. This is exactly what I said: not in pursuit. Would a cop go after a robbery suspect only to tell him to get off the street?

          There were two distinct encounters – three, if you separate the SUV assault from the flight-turn-charge. The first encounter was the “get out of the street” encounter. The second encounter was the one prompted by Wilson’s realization that the two fit the description of the robbery suspects.

          You are not reading carefully enough.

          That is always possible. What have I misconstrued?

          Point #2: Whenever someone says “body of evidence”, I immediately discount what they say.

          Well, no offense, but, in the words of Rachel Jeantel: That’s real retarded, sir. Ironically, you go on to explain why:

          A “body of evidence” can make sense only if scrutinized thoroughly. The “body of evidence” was contradictory in nature, with possible motivated witnesses, and no direct eyewitness of the full sequence of events, excepting Wilson. It required further scrutiny.

          The evidence in this case did get that further scrutiny: both through the prosecutor’s office, and through the Grand Jury. As McCollough tried to explain in his announcement, much of the eye-witness testimony – as as very typical, because witnesses are human – directly contradicted the physical evidence, and in some cases, eye-witness testimony was internally contradictory with itself. The prosecutor’s office and the grand jury were tasked with determining how much weight to put on each point of evidence – in other words, they considered the body of evidence to determine what evidence was accurate – and then evaluated that body of evidence to determine if it constituted probable cause that a crime was committed.

        • The first encounter was the “get out of the street” encounter. The second encounter was the one prompted by Wilson’s realization that the two fit the description of the robbery suspects.

          Like I said before, hearsay, and irrelevant to the actions on the ground. You cannot arbitrarily define encounters within the same interaction based on verbal testimony of one of the involved.

          The evidence in this case did get that further scrutiny: both through the prosecutor’s office, and through the Grand Jury

          No. There was no adverserial scrutiny. Non-adversarial scrutiny is no scrutiny.

          The prosecutor’s office and the grand jury were tasked with determining how much weight to put on each point of evidence …

          This is neither the prosecutor’s job nor the grand jury’s. Historical standard and precedent are low enough for the grand jury to have moved to put the case to court. The eyewitness accounts were contradictory enough for this to be required. It is the job of a trial jury to weigh evidence.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Like I said before, hearsay, and irrelevant to the actions on the ground. You cannot arbitrarily define encounters within the same interaction based on verbal testimony of one of the involved.

          Hearsay? First-person testimony is not hearsay, by definition. And the radio transmissions corroborate that the account is factual.

          No. There was no adverserial scrutiny. Non-adversarial scrutiny is no scrutiny.

          How do you know the deliberations of the Grand Jurors?

          This is neither the prosecutor’s job nor the grand jury’s.

          Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse.

          Historical standard and precedent are low enough for the grand jury to have moved to put the case to court. The eyewitness accounts were contradictory enough for this to be required.

          “Contradictory witness accounts” != probable cause. Witness accounts must be weighed against the physical evidence. Witness accounts that do not match the physical evidence simply must not be given the same weight as witness accounts that do match the physical evidence.

          It is the job of a trial jury to weigh evidence.

          One, it is absolutely the responsibility of a grand jury to weigh evidence, since the role of a grand jury is to make a determination of whether the evidence constitutes probable cause that a crime has been committed. Two, it is unconstitutional, unjust, and immoral to put someone in legal jeopardy without first establishing that probable cause exists that the person committed a crime.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Gator, come on. The actual events are a bit more complicated.

      Not at all. Brown assaulted Wilson, putting Wilson in reasonable mortal fear (“I thought the next head blow could knock me unconscious”), then went for Wilson’s gun, and actually had it pointed at Wilson and nearly out of Wilson’s control. Wilson managed to wrest it back, and then get a shot off, injuring Brown’s thumb.

      After further struggle, further assault, and another (missed) shot, Brown ran. Wilson, an on-duty police officer, gave chase, trying to keep him in sight, waiting for the backup for which he had already called.

      Brown stopped, turned around, and then charged Wilson. Brown had already demonstrated his willingness to use deadly force against Wilson; thus, the charge reasonably constituted an intent to use deadly force. Wilson backtracked and shot at Brown, striking him several times. Brown stopped his charge, and Wilson stopped shooting. Brown then resumed his charge, and Wilson resumed shooting. When Brown was within 10-20 feet (the Danger Zone), Wilson shot him in the head, killing him.

      These are the facts, corroborated by the physical evidence.

      Justice? There was no justice in the killing. If Brown had somehow been killed at the time he went for the gun maybe.

      Brown put Wilson in mortal fear – fear that was utterly reasonable, as demonstrated by his actions in the police car – when he charged Wilson, and refused to stop his charge even after being shot several times. Wilson was fully justified in killing Brown. Brown received his earthly justice, as a direct result of his own choices and actions.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Nice round up of actual evidence. Thanks Chip.

      • “Not at all. Brown assaulted Wilson, putting Wilson in reasonable mortal fear “

        The evidence for this in your comment? Wilson’s statement. I don’t believe words, especially from involved parties in a dispute.

        “These are the facts, corroborated by the physical evidence”

        There is nothing in the physical evidence that can support “charging”.

        Brown received his earthly justice…

        Justice is neither revenge, nor comeuppance.

        Story-telling is easy when you killed off one the involved parties and all you have to do is string together words on the internet, isn’t it?

        • Chip Bennett says:

          “Not at all. Brown assaulted Wilson, putting Wilson in reasonable mortal fear “

          The evidence for this in your comment? Wilson’s statement. I don’t believe words, especially from involved parties in a dispute.

          Courts disagree with you. Without cause to disprove such a statement, it is assumed to be true – due process, presumption of innocence, and all that.

          But more importantly, evidence of Brown’s assault of Wilson is not limited to Wilson’s statements. Witness statements and pysical evidence all corroborate Brown’s assault of Wilson.

          “These are the facts, corroborated by the physical evidence”

          There is nothing in the physical evidence that can support “charging”.

          Have you even bothered to look at the physical evidence?

          1. Multiple witness statements that Brown charged Wilson
          2. Location of blood splatter proves that Brown turned around and came back toward Wilson
          3. Locations of spent shell casings prove that Wilson was behind Brown’s eventual location when he started shooting, and that he backtracked.
          4. The position of Brown’s body corroborates that he had forward momentum when he was shot in the head. He could not have fallen the way he did if he were standing still, or on his knees.
          5. The abrasions on Brown’s face corroborate that he had forward momentum when he hit the ground.

          Brown received his earthly justice…

          Justice is neither revenge, nor comeuppance.

          Story-telling is easy when you killed off one the involved parties and all you have to do is string together words on the internet, isn’t it?

          I used neither the term “revenge” nor “comeuppance.” Brown received a legally and morally just response to his actions toward another. In the words of the 5th DCA: That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.

        • Multiple witness statements that Brown charged Wilson
          2. Location of blood splatter proves that Brown turned around and came back toward Wilson
          3. Locations of spent shell casings prove that Wilson was behind Brown’s eventual location when he started shooting, and that he backtracked.
          4. The position of Brown’s body corroborates that he had forward momentum when he was shot in the head. He could not have fallen the way he did if he were standing still, or on his knees.
          5. The abrasions on Brown’s face corroborate that he had forward momentum when he hit the ground.

          Witness statements are not ‘physical evidence’. There are contradictory witnesses as well. You cannot pick and choose.
          Blood splatter cannot prove he “charged”.
          Shell casings can support he ‘backtracked’, you are right, not charged.
          Brown’s body can support he had ‘forward momentum’. That says nothing about the magnitude of the momentum. Body positions can be notoriously misleading.
          Same thing with the abrasions.

          “Courts disagree with you.”

          Court? What court? The grand jury process is not a court.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Witness statements are not ‘physical evidence’. There are contradictory witnesses as well. You cannot pick and choose.

          True, witness statements are not physical evidence. But some witness statements match physical evidence, and others don’t.

          Blood splatter cannot prove he “charged”.

          They prove that Brown moved from Point A to Point B. And I left out one important piece of physical information: the audio recording of the shots fired. They corroborate the timing of the shots: one quick volley of 6 shots, a pause, and a second quick volley of 4 shots.

          Shell casings can support he ‘backtracked’, you are right, not charged.

          Combining the blood splatter, the shell casings, and the audio recording of the shots, you can determine approximately how quickly Brown was moving from Point a to Point B.

          Brown’s body can support he had ‘forward momentum’. That says nothing about the magnitude of the momentum. Body positions can be notoriously misleading.
          Same thing with the abrasions.

          It proves that the momentum was non-zero.

          “Courts disagree with you.”

          Court? What court? The grand jury process is not a court.

          A defendant can speak in his own defense. If the defendant’s statements are not impeached, they are accepted as true. They are not taken as hearsay.

        • True, witness statements are not physical evidence. But some witness statements match physical evidence, and others don’t.

          True. Which is why a trial was needed. A trial that subjects the evidence and witnesses to adversarial process of examination.

          They prove that Brown moved from Point A to Point B. … audio recording … non-zero…

          The physical evidence, supports, as you rightly point out, Brown’s movement. It cannot conclusively support the notion of a charge, let alone a dangerous charge. Splatter evidence, in particular, is not what you make them out to be.

          If the defendant’s statements are not impeached, they are accepted as true

          A grand jury can make decisions regarding what is true, internal to its process. It does not have the power, or jurisdiction to determine truth or impeach statements or evidence.

          The prosecutor’s office pulled a fast one. Incomplete evidence and conflicting claims require cross-examination. The prosecutor’s logic implied the evidence can be used to support selective witness’ statements. It is precisely this step that ought to be subjected to an adversarial process.

          Looking beyond Brown, the operational definition of justice delivery at the point of a gun appears to have evolved to where the assailed is expected to display bodily movement and behavior utterly consistent with the expectations of the assailant, i.e., a cop. All deviations are instantaneously judged to be an act of potentially lethal violence and met with definitive lethal force.

          Human behavior, body movement, or the human mind do not always confirm to such moral interpretation. It appears to me cops’ expectations have been pushed right to the edge of this zone.

          Thus you see the video of a cop asking a guy for his licence and shooting him as he reaches over to get his wallet. Or the LA case of three cops shooting dead a brain-tumor afflicted individual for making an ‘unexpected movement’.

          Persons who have never encountered law enforcement before may not behave predictably enough. They may panic, and get themselves killed in the process, it appears.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          True. Which is why a trial was needed. A trial that subjects the evidence and witnesses to adversarial process of examination.

          Only if it is first established, via indictment, that the evidence as it exists constitutes probable cause that a crime was committed. That’s the way our criminal justice system works – as it should. Under due process and the presumption of innocence, it would be wrong to subject every person accused of a crime to the legal jeopardy and personal burden of a trial unless the state can first show that probable cause exists.

          A grand jury can make decisions regarding what is true, internal to its process. It does not have the power, or jurisdiction to determine truth or impeach statements or evidence.

          This is true of both a grand jury and a petit jury. I’m not sure what your point is.

          The prosecutor’s office pulled a fast one. Incomplete evidence and conflicting claims require cross-examination.

          How can all the evidence constitute incomplete evidence? It is interesting that at the same time that you claim the presentation of information was incomplete, several agitators claim that the presentation of information was so thorough as to confuse the jurors, and was somehow a misuse of the grand jury process.

          And in a grand jury, the jurors provide the cross-examination.

          The prosecutor’s logic implied the evidence can be used to support selective witness’ statements. It is precisely this step that ought to be subjected to an adversarial process.

          That process is performed by the grand jurors.

          Looking beyond Brown…

          It is certainly fair to do so; but understand that, once you do, the conversation has changed, and no longer has anything to do with the incident involving Michael Brown and Darren Wilson.

          Michael Brown did not fail to act in a certain manner and thus invoke unwarranted use of force by a police officer. Michael Brown assaulted a police officer, attempted to use that officer’s gun against him, and then attempted to assault him again.

  5. But a young specimen at that,.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Ever notice that none of the OTHER police killings caused an outcry from the white house?

      Notice: Election time rolls around and the Zimmerman case is booted to headline status.

      Next two years every thing is quiet.

      Election time rolls around and now we have the Ferguson riots.

      This despite the kid who was gunned down by the police for having a toy.

      Or how about the DEAF 84 year old whittler who setup for years in the same spot selling his stuff who was gunned down FROM THE BACK for whittling with a 2 inch (LEGAL) knife blade.

      Neither of those two people was doing a DARN thing wrong and both were killed but you did not see Obama and the professional protesters now did you?

      Or how about the mentally ill kid who was shot in his own home when the parents asked for assistance in getting him to the hospital?

      • gofer says:

        They harp on that he was a “child”. If he had been a 40 yr old, nothing would have been said. They need that angle to whip up frenzy, just like Trayvon.

        • Gail Combs says:

          When the 14 year old that is whaling the tar out of you is 6 ft plus and double your weight you do not care that he is not a ‘man’ the pain is just as bad.
          (My very abusive brother.)

      • These are of course the tough questions that deserve to be asked. If law enforcement is militarized, the citizens live in a de-facto military state. People confuse a law-abiding culture with a militarized state because they are superficially similar and the former is desirable.

  6. Robertv says:

    “because they commit crimes at a much, much higher rate than any other group of people”

    You forgot Government, Wall Street , Banks and ‘Federal’ Reserve .

    The US is not in a financial crisis because of black gangs.

    • Robertv says:

      Racism is just one of the many ways (like Climate) government uses so We The People fight We The People creating insecurity while begging Government to protect us by taking our rights away.

      • Jason Calley says:

        +10

      • TRM says:

        Divide and conquer. It’s been used for so long because it has worked like a charm for so long. Easiest ways to divide? Race, religion, nationalism. Whatever you are, we are always right and god is on our side, yada yada yada.

        Sad state of affairs.

        • Gail Combs says:

          That is what I see playing. I had hoped the race crap was dead and given a decent burial when Obama was elected, instead Obama does nothing but fan the embers in hopes of getting flames.

    • nielszoo says:

      When I was in law enforcement back in the late 70’s early 80’s half of all violent crime (robbery, arson, burglary, rape and kidnapping) was committed by “black” males between the ages of 18-25. Pre 18yo data was not available due to juvi laws but my guess is that if you added in the under 18’s the figure would have jumped to 70 percent. Two observations I had at the time. Most of the victims were poor and “black.” Second, my raised dirt poor, high school and self educated “black” sergeant (the best I ever worked for) along with the “black” officers I worked with were far harder on “blacks” than any officer of any other race. That’s anecdotal, but important. The folks I worked with were smart and knew that letting the little crooks off or cutting them slack made the problems worse.

      The reason the US is in a financial crisis and the reason there are gang problems are all tied together. No one follows any kind of moral compass. Our Progressive leaders (many Republicans included) have done their level best to remove every bit of moral, religious and familial foundation from everyday life. Responsibility is passe and it’s someone else’s fault you aren’t rich and powerful… so you can take whatever you want. This is by design ’cause they can only stay in power in chaos… a law abiding, peaceful society has time to question the motives of those in politics that are gaming the system and their wealthy friends that got that way from access and not hard work.

    • Tim says:

      Steal a billion pay a fine, steal a dime do the time. Corrupt, you bet.

    • rw says:

      In the present context this is evasive. (And/or playing to a receptive audience.)

  7. Fred Wlech says:

    It all started with the Indians,the white man gave them blankets and welfare checks to keep a proud people down . It worked so well the white man used it on the black man . Now more than half the white boys are on government subsidies of some sort. It has reached the point that the indians have begun to laugh at the whiteman.

  8. SMS says:

    Biggest racist on the planet is black and his name is Al Sharpton.

  9. Bob Knows says:

    Psychotic guilt is a big part of why liberals are liberal.

  10. Scott says:

    I would not steal from a store, I usually dont walk in the middle of the road, however if a car was coming I would get off the road, I would not shove, punch or grab a policeman or his gun. I wouldnt charge a policeman, as well I am not a large person, but I am respectful of a smaller person who I feel I might intimidate as im larger than them. Anyway, I understand the political reasons for getting out the vote, I just dont understand much else about why people are protesting.

  11. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    I agree 100% with this statement and I will add that the black families and the Black ministers must change their way at looking at things first. That is going to be very hard!

    • rw says:

      Unfortunately, you’re right. People simply aren’t coming to terms with what’s going on.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The government created a new job category: Un-wed Mother. We are now seeing the results and it is not just among blacks.

        It was also intentional: see The Hand that Rocked the Cradle: A Critical Analysis of Rockefeller Philanthropic Funding

        Family Disintegration In Freefall Since 1965 Report
        … “the statistics that so alarmed Moynihan in the 1960s have only grown worse, not only for blacks, but for whites and Hispanics as well.”

        White illegitimacy has reached the rate of black illegitimacy of the 1960s, while black out-of-wedlock births “tripled between the early 1960s and 2009, remaining far higher than the percentage of white children born to unmarried mothers.”

        Moynihan “saw the breakdown of the nuclear family as the fundamental source of weakness in the black community” and believed “high nonmarital birth rates among blacks and the large share of black children raised in female-headed households created a matriarchal society that undermined the role of black men,” the report recalls.

        As a result, “black men would abdicate their responsibilities as husbands, fathers, and providers, and the pattern would repeat from one generation to the next.” Government exacerbated the problem with plenty of financial assistance to unwed mothers….

  12. This guy really tells it like it is:

  13. gofer says:

    58+% of all major crimes committed by blacks 18-24. White sympathizers keep it going. Even Garth Brooks cancelled Tonight show appearance in sympathy.

  14. gofer says:

    White student says he deserved to be robbed because of white privilege. Absolutely unbelievable.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/29/Student-Robbed-at-Gunpoint-Says-He-Deserved-It-Due-to-His-Privilege

    • Gail Combs says:

      Ayn Rand calls that the sanction of the victim. The Progressives work very hard to lay a guilt trip on us.

      • gofer says:

        Maybe a pistol-whipping would have beat some sense into him. To me, this guy’s attitude is the true definition of racism, when you think about it.

  15. emsnews says:

    They should all cancel their TV appearances! 🙂

  16. exmaschine says:

    Keen observation,s but even better honest conversation.

  17. Robertv says:

    Progressives always try to control the young. That is why they hate homeschooling.

  18. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Off thread – sorry. No one has suggested population control by changing the inheritance laws to share all property for the deceased equally among all surviving mothers and children. This was the cause of Easter Islands to become depopulated and nearly did the same for Malta.

    • Gail Combs says:

      No however the US government has been floating the idea of turning IRAs, 401K… into government annuities and once you die the $$$ goes to the government and not your heirs.

      ….An Investment Company Institute study published this month found that U.S. retirement assets totaled $18.5 trillion at the end of the second quarter 2012, [would cancel US federal debt wouldn’t it?] of which 3.5 trillion was in IRAs and $5.1 trillion was in 401(k) plans…..

      Recent evidence suggests government officials continue to eye the multi-trillion dollar private retirement savings market, including IRAs and 401(k) plans, eyeing the opportunity to redistribute private retirement savings to less affluent Americans and to force the retirement savings out of the private market and into government-controlled programs investing in government-issued debt…Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Department of Labor have been holding combined hearings on various plans designed to introduce government-mandated retirement plans and investment options, including government annuities invested primarily in U.S. Treasury debt, into the private retirement savings market.

      “This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explained National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, describing a recent Treasury-Labor hearing held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium.

      “However it is clear that this is just the first step toward a government takeover. It feels like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”…
      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-government-is-coming-after-your-ira.html

      The IMF had suggested the USA do an across the board confiscation of 10% of the provately held wealth to bring the USA back to the 2008 debt level. SEE FORBES: The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s