Unless this was just a set-up to get Sharpton there so that the IRS can arrest him for owing almost $5 million in federal income tax, WTF is this lying, hateful pig doing at the White House?

Spence?

This is what you get when we somehow elect a guy whose wife was never proud of the country until he got the nomination, whose spiritual mentor is a deranged racist lunatic who hates this country, and whose political mentor, Bill Ayers, is also a deranged lunatic who hates this country.

Boy, are we gonna have some splainin' to do. My kids will ask me, you elected Obama to WHAT?!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855715/Obama-hold-White-House-meetings-Ferguson.html

I can't believe this . It has to be a hoax or this president has reached a new low, even for him. I can't imagine a way that his credibility can get any worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:angel:

At this point I just shake my head in disgust. Nothing he does surprises me-this isn't the first time he's been to the WH.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At this point I just shake my head in disgust. Nothing he does surprises me-this isn't the first time he's been to the WH.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


He is an ADVISER to the president. This actually make sense, bear with me for a moment. I think it could just be that Al Sharpton is advising President Obama on his Foreign Policy. Think about it.

i bite my tongue

Like it or not the Rev is a prominent figure on race issues. Sure, he's an instigator but a lot of people share his perspective. The point of the meeting was to get a variety of opinions and viewpoints.

Can't say I'm a big fan but I do miss the track suits.

This an important figure because he perpetuates the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i become ILL just reading the title of this post

Like it or not the Rev is a prominent figure on race issues. Sure, he's an instigator but a lot of people share his perspective. The point of the meeting was to get a variety of opinions and viewpoints.

Can't say I'm a big fan but I do miss the track suits.

Jesus, you really are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g down that Kool Aid.

Spence, Sharpton makes a living (a tax-free living, so it appears) peddling in nothing but hate and divisiveness. He's an idiot who has absolutely notihng to offer. And he's only "prominent" because people like you are too afraid, because he's black, to tell him to STFU. He enjoys inciting riots, violent riots. He has literally gone all-in on racial hatred, without it, he is nothing.

He also has a show on MSLSD called "Politics Nation". I will say it again, his show is called "Politics Nation". I never knew the word "politics" was an adjective.

"The point of the meeting was to get a variety of opinions "

Oh, I see. So previous to the meeting, Obama had no way of knowing what Sharpton's "opinion" would be? Sharpton really keeps his cards close to his chest, so there's no ay of knowing how he feels about, for example, the Ferguson situation, unless you ask him? That's what you're telling me? Our President and his staff, could not possibly venture aguess about what Rev Al thought about Ferguson, without bringing him in for a photo op? Sharpton is the exact opposit if what Martin Luther King wanted...the exact, polar opposite.

"a lot of people share his perspective"

The vast, vast majority of Americans categorically reject his perspective. His perspective is shared by a miniscule number of loud mouth bomb-throwing Mao-ists, a group that El Duce needs to keep agitated going into 2016.

Someday my kids will ask me..."no, seriously...who did you elect president in 2008 and 2012? I'm impressed that all the history books are in on the gag, but I know you were putting me on with that Chicago radical who had done exactly nothing to show he was capable of the most imprtant job in the world. So who did you really elect?"

i become ILL just reading the title of this post

It is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE that this guy, this guy of all guys, can get an audience with Obama whenever he wants. It tells you everything you need to know about Obama, that he would bow down and kiss the ring, of Al Sharpton, for political capital.

Al Sharpton can call the Oval Office, and say "I'm coming to peddle my hate for the cameras, so expect me at noon", and when he shows up at the Whoite House, instead of getting tasered in the genitals like he deserves, he gets welcomed into the Presidsent's inner circle.

Our President is listening to what Al Sharpton, he of the putrid Tiwanna Brawley lies, has to say. Obama won't listen to Newt Gingrich, but he'll listen to Al Sharpton. Sharpton also owes $5M in federal income taxes. A racist, hatemongering, lying, putrid, disgusting tax-cheat parasite, one of the worst people in the country.

He is an ADVISER to the president. This actually make sense, bear with me for a moment. I think it could just be that Al Sharpton is advising President Obama on his Foreign Policy. Think about it.

When Obama nukes Norway and Denmark, the whitest places on the planet, I'll believe Sharpton is in charge of foreign policy...

I am very surprised that Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers were not invited.

Some may not have heard of another shooting in Ferguson...have U heard about it?....most of course not...where is Obama, Holder, Sharpton on this....20 year old shot dead while sitting in car and burned minding his own business....maybe because it may have been a B on B....where were these same people when Australian jogger Chris Lane was gunned down in Oklahoma because these thugs were bored....it was racial....Australia was in a up roar.

Y do so many people want to have an innocent man Mr. Wilson put in jail?....Completely protecting himself.....Brown commited at leat to crimes...1. robbed a store.... 2. attacked a cop....and there is no knowlege of his past....maybe this was another child that if obama had a boy he would want him to be like Brown.

Is this what this country has come to wanting to put an innocent person behind bars?...The people that should be in jail R the looters and those that burned establishments.

Michael Brown may have been a kid(child) in his parents eyes but he was 18....we R all children of somebody regardless of age......at 18 U R considered an adult.

The point of the meeting was to get a variety of opinions and viewpoints.

.

As long as it fits Obama's agenda. Divide ,divide , divide
So much hate built up in such little time.... I can't remember a race divide this wide .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like it or not the Rev is a prominent figure on race issues. Sure, he's an instigator but a lot of people share his perspective. The point of the meeting was to get a variety of opinions and viewpoints.

Can't say I'm a big fan but I do miss the track suits.

Maybe Barry wanted to tell him to PAY HIS TAXES HE OWES !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its all about the Photo Op.....

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/09/xinsrc_202010609191940613641.jpg

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Bill+Clinton+Al+Sharpton+Democratic+Presidential+L DlShV-HVl8l-550x347.jpg


The guys a Super Douche-bag as far as I'm concerned....but they all do it

I am very surprised that Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers were not invited.

Some may not have heard of another shooting in Ferguson...have U heard about it?....most of course not...where is Obama, Holder, Sharpton on this....20 year old shot dead while sitting in car and burned minding his own business....maybe because it may have been a B on B....where were these same people when Australian jogger Chris Lane was gunned down in Oklahoma because these thugs were bored....it was racial....Australia was in a up roar.

Y do so many people want to have an innocent man Mr. Wilson put in jail?....Completely protecting himself.....Brown commited at leat to crimes...1. robbed a store.... 2. attacked a cop....and there is no knowlege of his past....maybe this was another child that if obama had a boy he would want him to be like Brown.

Is this what this country has come to wanting to put an innocent person behind bars?...The people that should be in jail R the looters and those that burned establishments.

Michael Brown may have been a kid(child) in his parents eyes but he was 18....we R all children of somebody regardless of age......at 18 U R considered an adult.

"Y do so many people want to have an innocent man Mr. Wilson put in jail?...."

Here's why...and it gets to the very core of liberalism. If the liberals don't demand that the white cop be jailed, that means they concede that the black teen was somehow RESPONSIBLE for the awful outcome. Liberals will do anything possible to avoid implying that blacks are RESPONSIBLE for anything bad that happens to them. Blacks have been anointed with "victim" status by liberals, and having been so anointed, it's not possible for anything bad that happens to be their own fault.

The fact that 70% of black childen are born out of wedlock is never relevant. It's always the fault of the whitey cop. Always.

Gotta hand it to liberals. They want to get 100% of the black vote, yet they don't want to provide blacks with any upward economic mobility. I would have thought it would be impossible to get 100% of the votes from a culture that you are simultaneously destroying, but the liberals, by gadfry, have done it. Amazing.

Its all about the Photo Op.....

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/09/xinsrc_202010609191940613641.jpg

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Bill+Clinton+Al+Sharpton+Democratic+Presidential+L DlShV-HVl8l-550x347.jpg


The guys a Super Douche-bag as far as I'm concerned....but they all do it

The one with Bush is very disappointing to me...but not suprising.

Supposedly he met with Reagan too....just didn't find a pic. Its just photo posturing.....

The one with Bush is very disappointing to me...but not suprising.

The bottom pic looks like Bill is describing to Al what crazy #^&#^&#^&#^& he was able to get Monica to do. Al's forehead is pulled back in amazement and he's about to say "you da man"

The bottom pic looks like Bill is describing to Al what crazy #^&#^&#^&#^& he was able to get Monica to do. Al's forehead is pulled back in amazement and he's about to say "you da man"

Good freak n lauaugh! 😊

Y do so many people want to have an innocent man Mr. Wilson put in jail?....Completely protecting himself.....Brown commited at leat to crimes...1. robbed a store.... 2. attacked a cop....and there is no knowlege of his past....maybe this was another child that if obama had a boy he would want him to be like Brown.
I don't think the issue is "throw Wilson in jail" as much as it is "can't we get a fair process."

Walk in their shoes...

You're living in a poor black community and don't have reason to believe the white police are on your side. Your son is set to go to college on Monday and he's killed by the police for what looks to be jaywalking. The investigation is so sloppy it's almost comical and the local PD doesn't even bother to file a police report. Hell, one of the biggest issues, how far he walked before the kill shot wasn't even documented well because the batteries ran out on the camera.

They further try to defame your kids character by leaking video that appears to show him committing theft in an attempt at spin control. The photos of Wilson's wounds show almost nothing. They form a mostly white grand jury and assign a local prosecutor with ties to the department who fails to indict and then goes on TV and takes 20+ minutes to "defend" the officer's actions and characterize your kid as a demon.

Wilson certainly may have been justified in his actions but there's a lot of grey area with this case. I don't blame some for having deep suspicion as to the local PD covering up an abuse of authority.

That doesn't justify criminal protest certainly, but it does highlight how this case has tapped into a much bigger issue.

This guy gets it,

http://youtu.be/r7ayUYvTrVg

I don't think the issue is "throw Wilson in jail" as much as it is "can't we get a fair process."

But if the "process" was "fair", which it was, and if there are only the two choices you pose, then "the" issue IS "throw Wilson in jail."

Walk in their shoes...

But there are so many different shoes to walk in. Some of the members of the "community" which witnessed the events corroborated Wilson's version of what happened. Some, who supposedly did see it, gave accounts contrary to Wilson's, but did not fit the evidence, some ludicrously impossible. Most of the members of the "community" did not witness what happened, so walked in shoes given to them to fit a narrative which, intentionally or not, would incite them. A narrative which, again, did not fit the evidence, so could rationally be perceived to be intentionally misleading. There are Wilson's shoes to walk in. But, of course, those shoes would just be another walk in the daily work of police officers, some of which end up in the , mostly, justified death of a criminal (or the unjustified death of a policeman). But that would just be a boring, though unfortunate occurrence not worthy of weeks of headline news, nor would it be a crisis which should not be allowed to go to waste. And so many other "shoes" including political ones. But that would be another long story. But, most likely, the real story.

You're living in a poor black community and don't have reason to believe the white police are on your side.

That pretty much sounds like spoon fed preconceived prejudice of blacks against whites. Spoon fed by racists who want to keep that "reason" alive. And it somehow gets inflamed when a white cop (but not a black one) opposes a black criminal in the "community"--even though that should be an apparent "reason" to believe the white police "are on your side."

Your son is set to go to college on Monday and he's killed by the police for what looks to be jaywalking.

Isn't that the reason why conclusions shouldn't be jumped to? Never mind that a white cop in this day and age, in a community where he is surrounded by black witnesses, decides he will kill a black guy for jaywalking is almost as ludicrous as the contradictory "witness" testimony which didn't fit, to put it mildly, the evidence. Killed for "what looks to be jaywalking" is an after the event concoction made to fit a narrative. A rational, objective, reaction to what so quickly went down would be to wonder what was going on. Personal, preconceived prejudices, on the other hand, would immediately come to conclusions which fueled their hate. That is more part of the "real issue" or bigger picture in Ferguson.

The investigation is so sloppy it's almost comical and the local PD doesn't even bother to file a police report. Hell, one of the biggest issues, how far he walked before the kill shot wasn't even documented well because the batteries ran out on the camera.

Ah . . . the sloppy investigation syndrome. whenever you got little to nothing, go to the sloppy investigation. Was there ever a perfect one? Have they yet convinced everybody that that Oswald alone actually did kill Kennedy? Or that the Twin Towers were actually brought down by the airplanes?

Didn't Brown's blood trail from the wound he suffered during the scuffle in the car determine how far he walked away and back?

They further try to defame your kids character by leaking video that appears to show him committing theft in an attempt at spin control.

Wow, trying to defame his character by showing him actually robbing and assaulting! Tsk, tsk, not nice. Robbing and assaulting are not to be judged as negative characteristics in certain "communities." And "leaking" truthful evidence is far more detrimental to a jury decision than brazenly concocting a false white on black narrative. No, no, fictional white on black stuff--good. Truthful evidence--bad.

The photos of Wilson's wounds show almost nothing.

But the medical examination showed quite a bit.

They form a mostly white grand jury and assign a local prosecutor with ties to the department

Who are "They"? Aren't local prosecutors supposed to handle local crimes? And don't they all have ties to the department? And the racial makeup of the grand jury was very close to that of its district. Oh, wait . . . Messers Sharpton, Obama, Holder, et al, made it a national issue, so . . . of course . . . there should be some more national, most likey federal, prosecutor assigned by "They." After all, it was white on black. That automatically elevates it to a federal crime. No doubt that would have been a "fairer" investigation by a justice department looking for an "issue" which could simultaneously serve as a wag-the-dog distraction and a proof to the black base that it really cared about them so that their votes would remain secure.

who fails to indict and then goes on TV and takes 20+ minutes to "defend" the officer's actions and characterize your kid as a demon.

I like that wording--"fails to indict". Like it was a failure to do what he was supposed to do. Like the automatic assumption that the prosecutor was supposed to skip the grand jury "process" and indict because the "community" (at least the protesting part which included a lot of outsiders) wanted it.

Wilson certainly may have been justified in his actions but there's a lot of grey area with this case. I don't blame some for having deep suspicion as to the local PD covering up an abuse of authority.

Perhaps you should, if it mattered to the world or the "community, blame something other than the, as you might put it, tired old train of white prejudice creating poor black neighborhoods and motivating white cops to kill black kids. As long as the "issue" remains at that worn out, skin deep, level it will continue to go on and explode into intermittent riots and mayhem. And, by the way, it will continue to foster the hushed up reverse of black on white crime/violence, which occurs in far, far greater proportion than white on black. And none of the above is good. So we should begin walking in some other shoes.

That doesn't justify criminal protest certainly, but it does highlight how this case has tapped into a much bigger issue.

Well, the unjustified criminal "protest" is certainly a major part of the "bigger issue." But, then, if the "bigger issue" is still framed by the old white privilege, white racism, narrative with the lack of black culpability, then this supposed bigger issue will continue, . . . and will continue to be used as a divisive tool to grab the power needed to transform this nation into something quite other than what it still is, and was meant to be.

Supposedly he met with Reagan too....just didn't find a pic. Its just photo posturing.....

"photo posturing" or bumping into one of these guys at an event and getting a pic is one thing, having him as an advisor and bringing him to the White House in that capacity at a time of crisis is quite another thing..

if Clinton or Bush had David Duke as an "adviser" and brought him to the White House for counsel during similar situations...well...that might be comparable :hs:

and I'm sure we'd read this...

[QUOTE=spence;1057920]Like it or not the David Duke is a prominent figure on race issues. Sure, he's an instigator but a lot of people share his perspective. The point of the meeting was to get a variety of opinions and viewpoints.

I don't think the issue is "throw Wilson in jail" as much as it is "can't we get a fair process."

Walk in their shoes...

You're living in a poor black community and don't have reason to believe the white police are on your side. Your son is set to go to college on Monday and he's killed by the police for what looks to be jaywalking. The investigation is so sloppy it's almost comical and the local PD doesn't even bother to file a police report. Hell, one of the biggest issues, how far he walked before the kill shot wasn't even documented well because the batteries ran out on the camera.

They further try to defame your kids character by leaking video that appears to show him committing theft in an attempt at spin control. The photos of Wilson's wounds show almost nothing. They form a mostly white grand jury and assign a local prosecutor with ties to the department who fails to indict and then goes on TV and takes 20+ minutes to "defend" the officer's actions and characterize your kid as a demon.

Wilson certainly may have been justified in his actions but there's a lot of grey area with this case. I don't blame some for having deep suspicion as to the local PD covering up an abuse of authority.

That doesn't justify criminal protest certainly, but it does highlight how this case has tapped into a much bigger issue.

shining example of the progressive tendency to ignore facts and instead construct a narrative that fits a preconceived world view...

I don't think the issue is "throw Wilson in jail" as much as it is "can't we get a fair process."

Walk in their shoes...

You're living in a poor black community and don't have reason to believe the white police are on your side. Your son is set to go to college on Monday and he's killed by the police for what looks to be jaywalking. The investigation is so sloppy it's almost comical and the local PD doesn't even bother to file a police report. Hell, one of the biggest issues, how far he walked before the kill shot wasn't even documented well because the batteries ran out on the camera.

They further try to defame your kids character by leaking video that appears to show him committing theft in an attempt at spin control. The photos of Wilson's wounds show almost nothing. They form a mostly white grand jury and assign a local prosecutor with ties to the department who fails to indict and then goes on TV and takes 20+ minutes to "defend" the officer's actions and characterize your kid as a demon.

Wilson certainly may have been justified in his actions but there's a lot of grey area with this case. I don't blame some for having deep suspicion as to the local PD covering up an abuse of authority.

That doesn't justify criminal protest certainly, but it does highlight how this case has tapped into a much bigger issue.

"I don't think the issue is "throw Wilson in jail" as much as it is "can't we get a fair process."

Yet they received a fair process. More than fair, as it's a good bet that the case never should have even gone to a grand jury, but only did so to placate the likes of you.

"don't have reason to believe the white police are on your side"

Do you ever get one right? The white cops put themselves at risk, in awful, stressful situations, and they do so primarily to STOP BLACKS FROM BEING HURT BY OTHER BLACKS. Try making that wrong. The cops aren't on their side? The officer just picked this kid at random and executed him, is that what you believe?

Spence, can you point to data that suggest that kids who summer on Block Island can get away with punching cops in the head and struggling for their gun?

"Your son is set to go to college on Monday and he's killed by the police for what looks to be jaywalking"

That's not the most stupid thing you've ever said (not by a long shot, sadly), but it might be the most dishonest. Spence, did the cop shoot the kid for jaywalking, or did he shoot the kid during a serious physical altercation?

Killed for jaywalking, yep, that's exactly what happened. The kid never did anything worse that jaywalking, never robbed a store and got caught on video, nope.

Spence, is there any reason to believe that this kid would be dead if he (1) didn't rob that store, and (2) obeyed the cop and stopped walking in the middle of the street?

Keep bleating with the sheep, Spence.

shining example of the progressive tendency to ignore facts and instead construct a narrative that fits a preconceived world view...

Stupifying...

Well the important thing here, not to be missed ,is the real problems in the black community will never be addressed in a meeting that includes Pres. Obama.
It is nice to see a lot of respectable black leaders coming out and talking about personal responsibility and family structure but is very disheartening to have the of first black president of the greatest country in the world never mention it.
I hope the police unions realize who has their backs and who has made them the scapegoat for what is wrong in the black community.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're all missing my point. That is a perspective from which many are looking at this situation and in many ways it's a valid perspective. That doesn't mean there are other perspectives or that it's a complete perspective.

To seek justice doesn't mean you necessarily seek a conviction, it means you want the system to work for you. Given how sloppy and careless the process appears to have been I can see why many don't believe justice was done.

I think you're all missing my point.

perhaps you've reached the point where you are the only one capable of understanding your nonsense?:biglaugh:

What evidence do you have that the process was sloppy and careless?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence is part black I think. I mean,look at the chair he is getting rid of.... The fact he lives with his family is just a disguise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're all missing my point.

If anyone is missing the point ...UR

To seek justice doesn't mean you necessarily seek a conviction,


Sorry Spence they want a conviction.



it means you want the system to work for you. Given how sloppy and careless the process appears to have been I can see why many don't believe justice was done.

Sloppy and careless...U had the FBI, your president and Holder looking for a conviction....did U C your presidents face on TV after the grand jury did not convict?

Neither Holder or Obama should have been in Ferguson.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/damaged-ferguson-businesses-receive-pledges-of-almost-dollar500000/ar-BBghnYt

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/damaged-ferguson-businesses-receive-pledges-of-almost-dollar500000/ar-BBghnYt

Who the hell would rebuild there ?
You got to feel bad for the black woman that had the store baking cakes & cookies.
Started with nothing, worked hard and built a successful business.
the complete oposite of the "it's not my fault" " I need a handout" scum that lit the fires.
She should take whatever donations given to her ( last report I saw it was up over 100k) and move the hell away from there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're all missing my point.

It's not that your point was missed, it's that it was not getting anywhere. The responses were attempts to get somewhere.

That is a perspective from which many are looking at this situation and in many ways it's a valid perspective.

Perspective is self-validating. It is good to observe, even understand, different perspectives, but without agreement on observable "facts," perspective cannot meaningfully function beyond those who hold it. In and of itself, it has no useful function in the larger society. It doesn't get anywhere.

That doesn't mean there are other perspectives or that it's a complete perspective.

Exactly. There are other perspectives. And competing perspectives, arguing strictly on the a priori validation which each perspective gives itself, debate without direction and get nowhere. A complete perspective, as you put it, would be an agreement of perspectives based upon objective observation. It is that agreement which would become law. And law cannot function if it argues against itself. A victorious imposition of a given perspective upon the law destroys the law and, therefor, society.

To seek justice doesn't mean you necessarily seek a conviction, it means you want the system to work for you. Given how sloppy and careless the process appears to have been I can see why many don't believe justice was done.

To "seek justice" can be a very sloppy phrase if the seeking is based on personal or group perspective rather than law. If the "you" for whom the system must work is a group and its particular perspective rather than all of society, then the "complete perspective," the law, is broken, and where we get to, where it goes, is the destruction (transformation) of society.

And when this "justice" sought for a group is based not on legal justice but on perceived historical grievance, then the particular case, Ferguson in this instance, is not about the observable facts and the concluding justice by law, rather the case is merely another springboard for furthering a group perspective. And when such a sought after justice is fueled by ideologues who's intention is to alter society for the benefit of a particular perspective and the group that holds it, then even the "community" is swept up beyond its local perspective and subsumed into a supposed monolithic structure of lockstep black communities. Such a monolith is, on its face, a fictional false one. There is great diversity in the supposed monolith, and the observable facts are that those within it who walk in more independent shoes following values of self-reliance, work ethic, so-called traditional American values, succeed on a far greater scale than those who subscribe to the ideological perspective of the Sharptons and their destructive get nowhere agenda.

Maybe Big "O" will have a beer-gate meeting with him?

Remember Henry Gates?
Remember the WHITE police officer that was the center of questioning his handling the BLACK man's attempt to break into his house?

Or more soundly, the "witness" that called the police (a close friend of mine) who was thrown under the bus by the whoring media and left to answer death threats and violent phone calls all by herself?

This is just a travesty, an utter disgrace that someone who's only contribution to the world is that he was able to set his own race's advancements back 50 years, that he is having a special meeting with the prez.

This also goes to more directly define the character (or lack of) of Obama.

Boy, I'm glad I haven't voted D in decades!!!!!

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Amen

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nyc-grand-jury-to-return-no-indictment-in-police-choke-hold-case-local-media/ar-BBgio9c

Now in New York ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The testimony and case is 100% available on the NYT website. 63 witnesses and the grand Jury could not indict the cop.

Is it possible Brown was just an a hole? I don't know just sick of the effing BS. No one makes excuses for me. No al sharptons coming to my defense if I attack a cop and get killed because of it. Sorry these people including the president need to stop sugar coating and making excuses for people. I don't hate. I don't do anything racially motivated I am friends with all people. What happened in ferguson seems pretty cut and dry to me and I have read a lot of the testimony. Much of the investigation was conducted by the FBI not local authorities.
Certainly there were witnesses that stated they saw Wilson shoot brown while he was kneeling. One was "mike Browns best friend" there were also witnesses that stated they had received pressure from the community to not testify to the facts. One individual came forward to say he had been told not to testify by individuals in the community. But he couldn't let an Innocent man be found guilty(Wilson).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Supposedly he met with Reagan too....just didn't find a pic. Its just photo posturing.....

As scottw said, inviting the guy to the White House to ask his advice on an urgent situation, isn't exactly a photo op. I heard Sharpton has been to the White House 82 times since Obama was elected. No idea if that's true. I have no reason to doubt it,given the company that our President has historically kept. Unbelievable that anyone who sat in Rev Wright's church for decades could get elected POTUS...

The process worked perfectly.
The prosecutor's job is to help the grand jury decide the truth not to get a conviction.
The truth came out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The job of the prosecutor is to present the information they choose to the grand jury so they can determine probable cause.

In the Ferguson case they assigned a prosecutor with a long history of bias towards the police. The long rambling defense of Wilson was bizarre and only reinforced that belief.

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ moves to keep local prosecutors from handling cases like this to ensure the integrity of the process is maintained.

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Wait until Jim sees Ben Carson comparing the US to Nazi Germany. He is going to be bringing that up for the next 10 years.

Wait until Jim sees Ben Carson comparing the US to Nazi Germany. He is going to be bring that up for the 10 years.

Jim . . . PLEASE, PLEASE, don't respond to this.

Is it possible Brown was just an a hole?
Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

What evidence do you have that the process was sloppy and careless?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's all in the grand jury documents released. Multiple instances of failure to follow processes, potential influencing of witnesses, destruction of evidence, lack of evidence collection etc...

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

The good news is, in this country, we don't send defendents to jail just because you don't buy their version of the story. The burden is much higher, as it should be.

You don't get to struggle with police, you just don't. You put your hands up and submit, and THEN you get to take advantage of all the protections that our system provides.

Jim . . . PLEASE, PLEASE, don't respond to this.

Jim in CT - "This is why it is different. Yada, Yada, Liberalism, Yada"

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Less expected than the Ferguson verdict.

Again, the deceased swattd ta th ecops as they tried to handcuff him. NO ONE deserves to die for that, but does anyone believe this guy would be dead if he let the cops do what they tried to do? I didn't see cops on a death hunt in this video, I saw cops approaching this guy with lots of caution and reserve. It escalated AFTER the deceased refused to let the cops handcuff him, and once again, you don't get to do that.

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

I purposely avoided his testimony. My preference was to read testimony of individuals with no perceived "dog in the fight" if you will.

To be honest I feel the case is jaded in hysteria. Many of the witnesses stated as soon as it all happened people who did not witness the event were stating "he shot him for no reason" "he was on his knees"

I agree the NY case is shocking that one I feel should have brought a charge, particularly given video evidence of the event. With the number of officers on the scene, one individual seemingly chose to take action. I am glad the federal government is looking into that one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The job of the prosecutor is to present the information they choose to the grand jury so they can determine probable cause.

THe grand jury is not a mere sponge that only soaks up the information presented by the prosecutor. Grand jury members can ask questions and demand evidence.

In the Ferguson case they assigned a prosecutor with a long history of bias towards the police.

Who be "They"? Since prosecutors, for the most part, prosecute the case brought by police, you'ld think that, yeah, their "bias" was be toward the police. And in most cases, when charges are brought against police, the police, in trial by jury, are usually found justified. This, in sum. would create "a long history of bias towards the police." Perhaps, you could mention some of the vast number of prosecutors that "they" could have assigned who don't have a built in "bias" toward the police

The long rambling defense of Wilson was bizarre and only reinforced that belief.

In contrast to the usual, the grand jury trial transcript was made public, so the WHOLE proceeding, including all the evidence is there, not just your characterization of a "long rambling defense."

It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ moves to keep local prosecutors from handling cases like this to ensure the integrity of the process is maintained.

It wouldn't surprise me either. It wouldn't surprise me if this DOJ would like to nationalize all criminal cases, especially those involving race, to "ensure the integrity of the process." Never mind that the DOJ is not a shining example of integrity. Never mind that centralization of power is what would most likely ensure corruption of the process since it would be unchallenged.

It would not surprise me if this, as well as all preceding progressive administrations did, would continue to make moves which transfer the power of the States to the Federal Government. It wouldn't surprise me if the trajectory of the States becoming agents of the Federal Government continues, and, eventually the States will be dissolved as sovereign entities becoming merely geographic locations on the map of one, unified, State.

The New York announcement this week was stunning.

Why stunning? I am not influenced in this matter by media bias. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. If there was some intentional corruption in the process, it would be one of the duties of the free press to expose that.

Given the video of him intimidating the store clerk it's safe to assume he had a streak.

Have you actually read the transcript of Wilson's account? It doesn't make Brown out to be a jerk, he paints a picture of a crazed person with a death wish. It's almost hard to believe.

Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?

Jim in CT - "This is why it is different. Yada, Yada, Liberalism, Yada"

Carson' statement (unless he was borrowing my tactic of using hyperbole, and it appears that is not the case) is absurd.

Carson did state that in the Obama era, people are afraid to say what they feel, and I think a greayt case can be made for that. Anyone who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Is that the same thing as sending me to a chlorine shower? No. Does it carry the odor of light facism? Yes.

Good enough?

Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?
A lot of good kids steal stuff, doesn't make it right but his behavior towards the clerk shows his attitude.

There's a big gap between intimidating a store clerk and attacking a uniformed officer and taunting said officer to shoot him as Wilson claimed.

Carson' statement (unless he was borrowing my tactic of using hyperbole, and it appears that is not the case) is absurd.

Carson did state that in the Obama era, people are afraid to say what they feel, and I think a greayt case can be made for that. Anyone who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Is that the same thing as sending me to a chlorine shower? No. Does it carry the odor of light facism? Yes.

Good enough?

As I said your responsive would include a "here is why it is different" explanation. It is laughable to compare being called sexist to comparing your country to a group of people who murdered millions. What a freakin joke.

So pls. show where anyone here "who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger" as you repeatedly say that over and over? I've only read a very, very small amount of times where that happens (and not here).

Are you gonna call out Carson every time he is mentioned like you seem to bring up the Duke case (for what 10 years later) and try in your convoluted way to link in to liberals?

Why stunning? I am not influenced in this matter by media bias. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard. If there was some intentional corruption in the process, it would be one of the duties of the free press to expose that.
It would appear that while the grand jury has a lot of power the prosecutor is very influential in shaping the environment in which they work. This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.

I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly. That's not to say it would change the outcome but the people would likely have more faith the process. Seems like there's a high potential for a conflict of interest.

Stunning in that you have a video which clearly show an officer using an improper use of force against someone who while agitated didn't appear to be an imminent threat to the police or those around him. I believe the officer didn't intend to kill him and the guys health likely played a big factor. But even if you give the police the benefit of doubt it's not a free for all.

As I said your responsive would include a "here is why it is different" explanation. It is laughable to compare being called sexist to comparing your country to a group of people who murdered millions. What a freakin joke.

So pls. show where anyone here "who questions the liberal agenda is cast as a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic hatemonger" as you repeatedly say that over and over? I've only read a very, very small amount of times where that happens (and not here).

Are you gonna call out Carson every time he is mentioned like you seem to bring up the Duke case (for what 10 years later) and try in your convoluted way to link in to liberals?

"It is laughable to compare being called sexist to comparing your country to a group of people who murdered millions"

I agree, which is why, if you read my post, I said Carson's comment was "absurd". I didn't think there was a lot of ambiguity in my description.

"I've only read a very, very small amount of times where that happens (and not here)."

That's your opinion Paul, I'm not a professional media watchdog, i don't have a staff tracking these things.

Obama himself, in 2008, said "they", meaning McCain, would try to make folks afraid of the fact that he's black.

Obama said very recently, and I posted this here, that Republicans "gotta stop just hating all the time".

Paul Ryan says, correctly, that SS and Medicare are not syustainable. The next day, there are commercials of Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound lady off a cliff.

Many influential liberals routinely call out the Koch brothers by name, blaming them for everything that is wrong with the universe. I've never actually seen that before in my life, where elected officials routinely call out 2 law-abiding Americans like that.

But you're right, this isn't a divisive administration, and everyone who says it is, is wrong.

"Are you gonna call out Carson every time he is mentioned like you seem to bring up the Duke case "

I see no connection between these 2 things. Carson is a private citizen who made an idiotic comment. The Duke kids were absolutely innocent of the serious charges brought against them, but the folks on your side couldn't refrain from sacrificing all of them (constitution, shmonstitution) on the altar of white guilt and political correctness.

I still bring up that case, because as we learned in ferguson, none of the liberal idiots learned a damn thing from the Duke case. So it still seems to apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?

[Spence]A lot of good kids steal stuff, doesn't make it right but his behavior towards the clerk shows his attitude.

Good to know . . . but doesn't seem to be a response to my post. The vast majority of good kids don't steal stuff off shelves of stores then manhandle the clerk when he tries to stop them. Calling such behavior being a jerk is a rather mild way to discount criminality. A "jerk" would be a slang expression for someone who might be stupid, offensive, rude, or insensitive. Criminal behavior would not normally be considered an attribute of a mere jerk, although most criminals might be jerks.

[Spence]There's a big gap between intimidating a store clerk and attacking a uniformed officer and taunting said officer to shoot him as Wilson claimed.

Is there really a BIG gap? Especially if under the influence of THC which might effect someone prone to violent behavior? Anyway, the way you use the word "jerk," it certainly would apply in this case as well as his behavior with the clerk. And his behavior was criminal in both the confrontation with the clerk and with the policeman.

And there was no need to embellish Wilson's testimony by saying that he said it looked like Brown had a death wish when he said no such thing. And Wilson's testimony was consistent with the evidence, and, here's a word you like, plausible.

And, after all, Wilson's testimony was his "perspective." Being big on perspective, I'ld think you would respect that.

It would appear that while the grand jury has a lot of power the prosecutor is very influential in shaping the environment in which they work.

Excuse me, but wouldn't this be true of all prosecutors. Even federal ones.

This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.

Shall we disqualify applicants for prosecutor if they have police in their families? How about federal prosecutors . . . or federal attorneys general who have a background in so-called civil rights movements and affiliations with radical groups. How about Presidents who also have such backgrounds or families who are affiliated with anti-American values and who wish to fundamentally transform the nation as well as disregarding the Constitution rather than upholding their oath to defend it?

Shall we selectively decide? Is that "fair"? I believe the word "fair" is big with you.

I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly.

Thank you. Although I would be more confident if you actually said that the state is the proper, yes--Constitutionally proper--jurisdiction for managing the process. Not the federal government.

That's not to say it would change the outcome but the people would likely have more faith the process. Seems like there's a high potential for a conflict of interest.

Omigosh. We have come to a place and time when every action can be considered a conflict of interest. Aren't all interests in conflict with someone else's interest in a wholly fractured society in which every third person has a different interest? How have we come to be so divided? How have we drifted from a society which largely had fundamentally uniform values to one in which conflicting "perspectives" are more the norm? A place where "seems like," "perspective," "perhaps, maybe, not sure, appear . . ." and the like hold sway over definite statements?

Spence, "it seems like" there would be "a high potential of conflict of interest" no matter who "they" appointed as prosecutor. It would certainly "seem" so if Eric Holder appointed one.

Stunning in that you have a video which clearly show an officer using an improper use of force against someone who while agitated didn't appear to be an imminent threat to the police or those around him. I believe the officer didn't intend to kill him and the guys health likely played a big factor. But even if you give the police the benefit of doubt it's not a free for all.

It "seems" that the victim did consider it a free for all. He didn't "seem" to think that he needed to obey the police, and that he could tell them to leave him alone. Even though he was doing something illegal.

Not saying Garner deserved to die but lets be serious here (black or white) this is another situation of a guy who didn't help impact the outcome. This guy had a long history of more than 31 arrests including assault and grand larceny. He obviously doesn't know how to follow the rules, again didn't deserve to die but I doubt that the intention of this cop was for this guy to die either. He was resisting arrest and that was pretty clear, had he not resisted I'm not sure this criminal would be dead right now. I also read that at the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation (again, he must think rules don't apply to him). The chokehold the cop put on him contributed to his death but Garner, who weighed 350 pounds, supposedly suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea (wonder what kind of health insurance he had). Im not a doctor but I'd bet his poor health was the main cause of his death. Also, he supposedly didn't die at the scene of the confrontation but suffered a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anyone wonder why cops kept busting Garner for selling cigarettes? The price of cigarettes in city of NY is the highest in the nation and half the cost is taxes. Since this case is portrayed as a white on black crime, it is ironic that in 2009 President Obama signed into law the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act which raised the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes from $.39 to $1.01. This, of course, was to save lives. And in 2010 or 2011 Senator Parker, a black Democrat raised the NY State tax to $4.35 a pack, again to save lives. In the uber "liberal" city of NY there is another $1.50 per pack tax added, to save lives, and the federal excise tax added to all of the above tops the total tax burden on a pack to $6.80.

The city made it a priority for the police to arrest any illegal sale of untaxed cigarettes. The amount of money involved makes it obvious why.

So, now, a white cop is being branded by the black "community" as a murderer for killing a black man who was selling a commodity which was made a black market (no pun intended) item by "well intended" black politicians as well as other "liberal" politicians. And it was politicians who demanded the cops to crack down on such sales.

Sometimes (actually quite often, even usually) political masterminds create laws for our good which turn out to have unintended consequences. Here is an article in Forbes that talks a bit about it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/08/08/ny-man-who-died-during-arrest-attempt-allegedly-targeted-for-selling-untaxed-cigarettes/

:huh: :huh:

Not saying Garner deserved to die but lets be serious here (black or white) this is another situation of a guy who didn't help impact the outcome. This guy had a long history of more than 31 arrests including assault and grand larceny. He obviously doesn't know how to follow the rules, again didn't deserve to die but I doubt that the intention of this cop was for this guy to die either. He was resisting arrest and that was pretty clear, had he not resisted I'm not sure this criminal would be dead right now. I also read that at the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation (again, he must think rules don't apply to him). The chokehold the cop put on him contributed to his death but Garner, who weighed 350 pounds, supposedly suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea (wonder what kind of health insurance he had). Im not a doctor but I'd bet his poor health was the main cause of his death. Also, he supposedly didn't die at the scene of the confrontation but suffered a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This article supports what you say and goes even further:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/12/08/i-rise-today-in-support-of-the-nypd/?subscriber=1

This article supports what you say and goes even further:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/12/08/i-rise-today-in-support-of-the-nypd/?subscriber=1

The video of the Staten Island incident breaks my heart, to see someone die so needlessly.

That being said...Spence might say that this man was essentially executed for selling cigarettes, as he said the Ferguson kid was killed for jaywalking (those are his words). That is demonstrably false. The orifginal crimes in these cases (jaywalking in Ferguson, selling cigarettes in NYC) could not matter less. What matters, all that matters, is that in both cases, the deceased had the opportunity to peacefully submit, and in both cases, they chose to resist. In the Staten Island case, the guy slapped the officer's hand away and said "get away from me".

This guy had been arrested 31 tmes, and all 31 times, he was released back to the street. If anyone knows that the cops aren't out hunting for black criminals, it's this guy in NYC. Yet HE chose to escalate the situation. When you resist arrest, you are guaranteeing a physical confrontation with police, and in some of those cases (especially when the assailant has serious medical issues), the outcome can be disastrous.

The cops cannot let people walk away who choose not to submit. If they did that, no one would submit to an arrest.

I saw one lunatic on Foxnews last night, a black activist, support hi sclaim that blacks are targeted by saying "the cops took John Gitti in, they didn't kill him". Did John Gotti resist arrest?

These people are so thoughtless, it's beyond words. Certainly, there is room for the police to receiv eth ebest modern training to try to minimize the damage done when the criminals choose to confront the police rather than submit. But I see no crime on that video, other than the crime of resisting arrest, which ended in tragedy.

Also, I hear that there was a black female sargeant on the scene in NYC, who di dnot tell the officer to let go, which should remove all discussion of race from this event. It doesn't stop the idiots from claiming racism, but it should.

The video of the Staten Island incident breaks my heart, to see someone die so needlessly.

That being said...Spence might say that this man was essentially executed for selling cigarettes, as he said the Ferguson kid was killed for jaywalking (those are his words). That is demonstrably false. The orifginal crimes in these cases (jaywalking in Ferguson, selling cigarettes in NYC) could not matter less. What matters, all that matters, is that in both cases, the deceased had the opportunity to peacefully submit, and in both cases, they chose to resist. In the Staten Island case, the guy slapped the officer's hand away and said "get away from me".

This guy had been arrested 31 tmes, and all 31 times, he was released back to the street. If anyone knows that the cops aren't out hunting for black criminals, it's this guy in NYC. Yet HE chose to escalate the situation. When you resist arrest, you are guaranteeing a physical confrontation with police, and in some of those cases (especially when the assailant has serious medical issues), the outcome can be disastrous.

The cops cannot let people walk away who choose not to submit. If they did that, no one would submit to an arrest.

I saw one lunatic on Foxnews last night, a black activist, support hi sclaim that blacks are targeted by saying "the cops took John Gitti in, they didn't kill him". Did John Gotti resist arrest?

These people are so thoughtless, it's beyond words. Certainly, there is room for the police to receiv eth ebest modern training to try to minimize the damage done when the criminals choose to confront the police rather than submit. But I see no crime on that video, other than the crime of resisting arrest, which ended in tragedy.

Also, I hear that there was a black female sargeant on the scene in NYC, who di dnot tell the officer to let go, which should remove all discussion of race from this event. It doesn't stop the idiots from claiming racism, but it should.

That was all pretty much corroborated in the Fresh Ink article. It's not that long and an easy read. Although most of it has pertinent details, a few key points for those who don't want to read it:

"While protesters are trying to make this about race, it must be noted that the police showed up in response to complaints from black business owners. The arrest was ordered by a black officer, and the arrest itself was supervised by a black officer, a female sergeant.

A crackdown on the sale of illegal, untaxed cigarettes - called "loosies" since they are sold in singles rather than in packs - had been ordered just days before Garner's arrest by the highest ranking black police officer in the NYPD, Philip Banks.

So a black officer ordered the crackdown, black business owners called for the arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. It's also worth noting that the 23-member grand jury which refused to indict the arresting officer included nine non-white members. Ask yourself how many of those facts you have heard from any member of the race-obsessed, low-information media."

And:

"The patrolman who wrestled Garner to the ground, Daniel Pantaleo, did it by the book, using a takedown maneuver every policeman is taught at the academy. He did not, in fact, use a chokehold, which is defined by the NYPD as "any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air." Now Garner was clearly able to breathe, since that's the only way he could repeatedly say, "I can't breathe."

The autopsy explicitly declares that there was no injury to Garner's windpipe or to his neck bones. This was a wrestler's headlock, not a chokehold. (As a sidenote, chokeholds, while contrary to police policy, are not in fact illegal in the state of New York when an officer uses one to restrain a resisting subject. They are not even illegal in New York City, at the insistence of liberal mayor Bill DeBlasio.) Patrolman Pantaleo was not indicted for the simple reason that he did nothing wrong."

Hardcore progressives have promoted a national police force at least as far back as the 1930's as expressed by one of FDR's brain trust, Rexford Tugwell. Of course, as with most of the more "extreme" wishes of progressives, especially unconstitutional ones, not much was, nor is, publicly made of it. The Constitution delegates police power to the states, not the federal government. So our "analysts" of politics in the media or in academe either don't think it would ever happen, or they secretly hope it does.

In the meantime, federal intrusion into local policing has slowly but gradually grown. Either by direct implementation such as providing funds for hiring more police, or equipping police departments with various weapons or equipment. Of course, with federal "aid" comes attached federal strings. If not explicit, federal wishes are implied or recommended by "guidelines" or by changing guidelines for federal officers which are hoped and implied to be implemented by state and local police departments.

Eric Holder has created another one eliminating racial or ethnic or group profiling: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120914-729780-holder-blindfolds-cops-with-new-anti-profiling-guidelines.htm

Trumped up crises such as Ferguson or the Garner cases, must not go to waste. They provide more and more reason, in the consciousness of the public, for Federal incursion and influence in all governmental areas, including policing,

The difference between what actually happened, and how it's being spun by the media, is astounding. In the Staten Island case, the original complaint was made by a black store owner, who didn't like that his guy was illegally taking business away from him. The cops are obligated to the store owner to address the situation. It was a black female officer at the scene who ordered the arrest. And it was the dead guy who is 100% responsible for causing the situation to escalate into a physical confrontation, which was not a good idea due to his health issues. There was no choke hold applied that I know of (proven by the fact that the guy was speaking while in the headlock, which you cannot do while in a choke hold).

There are bad cops out there who need to be dealt with. But just because there is a dead blac person and a white cop, THAT ALONE isn't evidence of anything. The dishonesty is unbelievable, as is the refusal of the left to even begin to have th econversation that's necessary to make improvements to blacks in poverty.

But just because there is a dead blac person and a white cop, THAT ALONE isn't evidence of anything.

Well . . . yeah, its the evidence of something . . . even guilt.

Let's expand the picture and summarize:

A black president, and then a black senator, helped to significantly achieve a high enough tax/price on the cost of cigarettes in NY so that it was very profitable to make them a black market commodity. Which made it, at least economically, a priority to stop the illegal sales. So then, a black officer ordered the crackdown, and a black criminal was selling the illegal stuff, so black business owners called for his arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. So far, so good.

But an anomaly occurred. Instead of finishing the chain of events in a consistent way, a white officer did the final takedown. He, apparently, did it according to the book. But, if the process had been consistent from top to bottom, a black officer would have done the take-down. Presumably, all would have been good. There would have been no need for "protests," or a grand jury decision to indict, or the federal DOJ to be involved.

but there was an anomaly. A white officer intruded on black events. The white officer broke the orderly process. Being as there is a racially based constituency in our country which is on the lookout for such an anomaly, this became the immediate, a priori, cause for investigations and the assumption of guilt. And mainly, a priori, guilt by policing while white. So, you see, there was evidence of something, even of guilt--guilty of being white.