Last edited:
An inconvenient truth
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
"WHAT IS IT THAT PREVENTS WHITES FROM PROTESTING THEIR OWN DEMOGRAPHIC AND CULTURAL DISPOSSESSION?"-- https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/multiculturalism-and-the-war-against-white-america/
https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/feds-rule-in-2004-that-“white-pride”-is-“offensive”-and-“immoral”/
Last edited:
Wilson’s stated that he retreated during the same period that Brown advanced. That period according to the gunfire audio was 6.5 seconds, not 3. For Wilson to retreat 26 ft in 6.5 seconds his average speed would be 2.7 mph, what you and others have described as a geriatric walk. Michael Brown’s 48 ft jaunt in that same period would require an average speed of 5 mph, nearly double that of Wilson.
Yet that's how his recollection the day after the shooting compared with the evidence and witness testimony. It is what it is. The investigators, the prosecutors and the grand jurors all had access to the same information and more, and all concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge Wilson. Until you can find a party with legal standing to interpret the known evidence in a fashion suitable to convince any charging authority, this case goes nowhere. Where would expect to find an investigative body capable of interpreting this evidence any more rationally than it already has? Maybe the US Justice department, we’ll have to wait and see.
Bells
Staff member
Once again..
Wilson testified that he fired the first group of shots at Brown, which hit Brown and then Wilson backpedaled when Brown appeared as though he was going to charge Wilson. In the break between the first batch of shots and the second (which included the fatal shots), there was a 3 second break. All up, the whole thing took 6.5 seconds. But in the 6.5 seconds is the 3 seconds where Wilson testified that he had backpedaled as Brown advanced towards him. So it was 3 seconds where he backpedaled.
You even quoted when him when he explained when and how far backpedaled yourself.
You cannot make his testimony fit the evidence, because it does not. The only way it can is if Brown was walking slowly towards him, which more half of the eye-witnesses advised he was walking slowly towards him and had his hands up. But it is only that slow walk that matches the evidence. So why did Wilson testify that Brown charged at him when it is absolutely impossible to match it to any of the evidence at the scene?
It comes down to whether he is lying or he is blind and incompetent. Which do you think it is?
Or did you want more time to try to change his testimony some more to try to make it fit?
You call a cop possibly having gotten away with murder "it is what it is"?
You mean the investigators who were his fellow officers from his station, the prosecutor who was hell bent on flooding the jury with so much evidence and a grand jury hearing that went on for months instead of a few days, told the jury to ignore the law and the evidence, did not tell them to indict which he was required to do, badgered any witnesses who dared to testify in a way that could incriminate Wilson and the list goes on and on and on. You mean those investigators and prosecutor? And a grand jury who at one point were encouraged by the prosecutor to go home and do their own research on the shooting and told to ignore the law entirely? Or this..
On September 16, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathy Alizadeh handed the grand jury a copy of Missouri statute 563.046- the state’s use of force doctrine.
This 1979 doctorine was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court based entirely on the portion of the statute that was helpful to Officer Darren Wilson, the part that states police officers are permitted to shoot any suspect that’s simply fleeing.
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Tennessee v. Garner, a 15 year old boy who was shot in the back of the head by a police officer as he attempted to flee after a robbery. The ruling meant that cops could no longer legally kill someone only for attempting to escape, the officer must now have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a dangerous threat to someone or had committed a violent felony.
Keep in mind that Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown had previously got into the infamous altercation which was so conveniently sent to the media with plenty of false rumors and speculation surrounding it.
The grand jury listened to Darren Wilson’s testimony having been told by the prosecutors office, the people who were supposed to actually attempt to prosecute this man, that Darren Wilson did absolutely nothing wrong as long as at some point Mike Brown attempted to flee, based on a law that has not been legal in nearly 30 years- since before Darren Wilson was even born!
For three long and important weeks Alizadeh let this law simmer in the minds of the jurors.
On November 21, only three days before the Grand Jury would make their decision, Alizadeh attempted to protect herself by some-what coming clean, only in a way seemingly devised to confuse the jurors. This woman deserves a portion of the defense money for doing their job so well.
Here is how that happened.
At this point Alizadeh handed the jurors a new explanation of the laws on deadly force.
Confused, presumably by the lack of explanation, one juror asked if Federal court overrides Missouri statutes. Her reply? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”
A second ADA in the room then chimed in to state “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
It doesn’t take a ‘law class’ to explain to a Grand Juror that Yes, the United States Supreme Court does indeed override Missouri statutes. It takes one word – Yes.
But that is not the worst, most unprofessional aspect of ADA Kathy Alizadeh’s presentation to the Grand Jury about this law. The very worst part of it is that she never, ever explained to the Grand Jury what was incorrect about the unconstitutional statute that she had given them and left with them as one of their official papers for weeks and weeks and weeks.
You will not find another legal proceeding in which jurors and Grand jurors are simply handed a law, and then weeks later handed a correction to that law; and then the Grand jurors are simply left to figure out the difference in the laws.. by themselves. That is actually something you would do in a law class – figure it out by yourself.
With prosecutors like this, Darren Wilson never really needed a defense lawyer.” O’Donnell eloquently states.
This 1979 doctorine was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court based entirely on the portion of the statute that was helpful to Officer Darren Wilson, the part that states police officers are permitted to shoot any suspect that’s simply fleeing.
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Tennessee v. Garner, a 15 year old boy who was shot in the back of the head by a police officer as he attempted to flee after a robbery. The ruling meant that cops could no longer legally kill someone only for attempting to escape, the officer must now have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a dangerous threat to someone or had committed a violent felony.
Keep in mind that Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown had previously got into the infamous altercation which was so conveniently sent to the media with plenty of false rumors and speculation surrounding it.
The grand jury listened to Darren Wilson’s testimony having been told by the prosecutors office, the people who were supposed to actually attempt to prosecute this man, that Darren Wilson did absolutely nothing wrong as long as at some point Mike Brown attempted to flee, based on a law that has not been legal in nearly 30 years- since before Darren Wilson was even born!
For three long and important weeks Alizadeh let this law simmer in the minds of the jurors.
On November 21, only three days before the Grand Jury would make their decision, Alizadeh attempted to protect herself by some-what coming clean, only in a way seemingly devised to confuse the jurors. This woman deserves a portion of the defense money for doing their job so well.
Here is how that happened.
Grand Jury November 21, 2014
“Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn’t comply with the law.”
“Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they’re called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I’m sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don’t necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn’t comply with the law.”
“That does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don’t want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I’ve given you a long time ago.
It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally” Alizadeh stated.
It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally” Alizadeh stated.
Confused, presumably by the lack of explanation, one juror asked if Federal court overrides Missouri statutes. Her reply? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”
A second ADA in the room then chimed in to state “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
But that is not the worst, most unprofessional aspect of ADA Kathy Alizadeh’s presentation to the Grand Jury about this law. The very worst part of it is that she never, ever explained to the Grand Jury what was incorrect about the unconstitutional statute that she had given them and left with them as one of their official papers for weeks and weeks and weeks.
You will not find another legal proceeding in which jurors and Grand jurors are simply handed a law, and then weeks later handed a correction to that law; and then the Grand jurors are simply left to figure out the difference in the laws.. by themselves. That is actually something you would do in a law class – figure it out by yourself.
With prosecutors like this, Darren Wilson never really needed a defense lawyer.” O’Donnell eloquently states.
*Rolls eyes*
The case would go nowhere because Wilson is a police officer. Show me any other case where someone shoots an unarmed man, where the evidence does not match the shooter's testimony at all and there was no trial.
This should have gone to trial. The sheer amount of questions about his testimony and the evidence, the fact that he went to the police station and washed up immediately afterwards before investigators were able to speak to him, removing so much of the evidence that was on him from what he claimed was Brown attacking him in the car for one. The inexplicable difference between his testimony and the physical evidence and the eye witness testimony that do not fit his version of events at all. The impossibility of what he claimed happened when the evidence does not support it at all. Those are things that would have been looked at in minute detail in a trial, with expert witnesses and those questions could have been answered. Frankly, the US Justice Department should take this case on, and that of Garner's who was virtually strangled to death in a choke hold on camera.
In this gossip busy body culture, a trial would have been more for public entertainment than for justice. I can't see wasting money for security and lawyers, at the tax payer expense, as the price of admission. The trial would have ended the same way but added continuous tension and cost, in exchange for appeasing rubberneckers.
This discussion is a smoke and mirror distraction, connected to a magic trick. It is designed to distract from the real issue, which is the high rate of crime and violence among the blacks, with blacks killing blacks, 20 times more likely than police killing blacks. We look at the 5% under the microscope and ignore the 95%, so it magically disappears.
If you were a soldier on patrol in Iraq, and walked through a friendly village, and then through a violent village, your stress level and your guard would be different for each. One cannot expect to soldiers to smile in both villages or grimace in both villages since the stress is different. This would be fake and not true to the situation. Teaching one to smile when sad is for actors not real people.
Part of the solution is for blacks to make their neighborhoods safer, so police are naturally less on guard and less defensive and offensive due to high crime stress. This shooting is a public distraction that is being used to cloud the fact that these stressful neighborhoods are run by democrats. I tend to believe this unfortunate result is totally in line with the democratic party, who historical was the party of slavery and segregation. It is hard do to think that incompetence could last so long in positions of power in these cites unless by design.
The blacks are segregated in ghettos, yet that still work for the democratic master at election time. It is not about making it possible to leave the plantation, but making it more comfortable os they stay, but with little else changing, including violence. You can't discuss the violence since that may change something.
This discussion is a smoke and mirror distraction, connected to a magic trick. It is designed to distract from the real issue, which is the high rate of crime and violence among the blacks, with blacks killing blacks, 20 times more likely than police killing blacks. We look at the 5% under the microscope and ignore the 95%, so it magically disappears.
If you were a soldier on patrol in Iraq, and walked through a friendly village, and then through a violent village, your stress level and your guard would be different for each. One cannot expect to soldiers to smile in both villages or grimace in both villages since the stress is different. This would be fake and not true to the situation. Teaching one to smile when sad is for actors not real people.
Part of the solution is for blacks to make their neighborhoods safer, so police are naturally less on guard and less defensive and offensive due to high crime stress. This shooting is a public distraction that is being used to cloud the fact that these stressful neighborhoods are run by democrats. I tend to believe this unfortunate result is totally in line with the democratic party, who historical was the party of slavery and segregation. It is hard do to think that incompetence could last so long in positions of power in these cites unless by design.
The blacks are segregated in ghettos, yet that still work for the democratic master at election time. It is not about making it possible to leave the plantation, but making it more comfortable os they stay, but with little else changing, including violence. You can't discuss the violence since that may change something.
Bells
Staff member
My game?The Marquis said:
Dude, you just made up a story and claimed it actually happened as you described it. It, in fact, did not at all happen as you seem to have imagined it. And no, I do not know where you would have seen it, because it does not exist as you described it. At all.
So you are either suffering from dementia or you are blatantly lying. Which is it?
So the hardliner dude is the one one who complained about the police's actions and you blame the whole?
You're as bad as Photizo and his "it's the black people" braying in this thread.
Only if you are a simpleton...
The call for an investigation was mostly to figure out how and why the kid had become such a hardliner and what led him down the path that saw him attack two officers. I mean, I get that you totally missed that point..
Investigate themselves?
If they did, then you'd have people such as yourself making even more stuff up about them. You've done plenty of it already in this thread.
Yes, they asked the police to investigate a police shooting. Oh noes! How dare they be expected to do their jobs.
What in the hell are you on about now?
Links for what? How they are raising their children?
You don't expect an honest answer because at this point, I don't think you can recognise honesty if it came and bit you on your backside.
Like you? Like when you tried to claim that you read about a peaceful funeral and then you looked behind the words and somehow or other came to the conclusion that the actual peaceful funeral was a near riot starting? Is that how you read and "absorb" The Marquis?
I guess it explains quite a bit.
Err because what you said happened did not actually happen at all...
Is your description of events based on your reading skills where you are looking behind words and finding things that aren't there?
Because the papers reported on the events as they happened. Your narrative is apparently to simply make things up because you really really believe it is true because you looked behind the words...
You are far more susceptible to simply making things up and pretending they are true.
Do you understand that what you claimed happened did not happen at all, yet? Or do you need more time?
Why are you so intent on hoping that I am being emotional?
Let me guess, you opened a dictionary, found the word racism and this is you looking behind the word again?
Who knows me?
Who is the real enemy? The people making the racist and bigoted and white supremacist remarks? Or the people such people are aiming such racist comments at?
Well it certainly does not match up with your imagination where you tried to claim that a riot was about to break out, etc.. Things that never actually happened. It was a funeral, nothing actually happened at the funeral or after the funeral. No riot, no violence.
Did you make it all up because you needed that little something extra to spice it up?
Are you high? No, are you?
Err no, the words were pretty clear for themselves. The family did not want the media there and the police were making sure the media stayed back.
You know, reality and all that?
Could you be more offensive?
I mean I get it, you are so keen to make things up that you are now engaging in racist and offensive stereotyping, but really The Marquis? Really?
Are you done embarrassing yourself some more? Or do you have more left in you?
Not done I see..
Do you know what makes me disgusted in you, The Marquis?
It is the fact that you completely made something up, as in completely made it up and then tried to pass it off as reality. And then you have the absolute cheek to be pissy because I won't take you seriously and because I dared to call you out on your absolute drunken and dishonest drivel.
My advice, get sober. Because at this point, I can only hope that it is the vast amounts of alcohol you keep reminding us you consume that is eating into your brain and causing you to believe things happened that did not actually happen. Or as you put it, look behind the words to fulfill and fit into what you think reality is or should be. No, there was no near riot, no, the media did not blame the police, nor did the general Muslim community. That is the reality of that case. Not as you imagined it, where you tried to make up that there was a near riot at his funeral, just as you tried to pretend that the media blamed the police for his death.
Bells
Staff member
When you are reading between the lines and seeing things that did not actually happen and acting or claiming they did happen because you read between the lines, then it is no longer reading between the lines but a full on health issue and you should consult with a health professional as soon as possible.The Marquis said:
Oh I'm sorry, was reality not good enough for you? Did you want fairy pictures?
Yes, how dare I expect police to not be corrupt and to actually uphold the law. How utterly disrespectful of people like me to have this expectation.
Much better for the populace to look behind the words, completely fabricate things and pretend that fabrication is reality.. How's that working out for you so far?
My god son is a police officer. No, what should be required is honesty, intelligence and understanding the law and also not being corrupt. Do you need help understanding those virtues?
Are you aware that you are not even making any sense?
You are a liar because you completely and utterly made something up and tried to pass it off as fact.
Do you get that? Do you even understand how low you stooped to? Did you do it for attention? Were you feeling left out and not relevant anymore? So much so that you had to completely make something up and tried to pass it off as reality?
The police need better training and corruption has to be stamped out because that's reality. Do you need help understanding that at all?
Are you aware that I was talking about the police in the US?
And that this thread is about what is happening in the US? And that the reality there is that police departments are purchasing military gear for their officers, including anti-mine vehicles (which were used in Ferguson) and grenade launchers, etc? Do you understand that?
Riiiigghhhttttt...
You don't even know or understand what this thread is about, which country this thread is discussing. You are making things up and trying to pass it off as fact, when what you made up never even happened at all. I don't really think you are in any position to be declaring yourself as having any grip on reality, The Marquis. I don't think you've had that grip on reality for a long time. Get some help getting sober. If you need help, I can help you. Because you are bad enough now that I am concerned about you and your welfare. Because this... This is a whole new level of crazy. And it's not good.
Okay.. What you are claiming you saw, DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN. I don't quite know how else to make this clear for you. I have tried to correct you, provide you with the correct information and show you that what you believe and you are claiming happened or what you have seen, did not actually happen.
And if you had bothered to read, the police drove up, opened the car door and shot him dead. No questions were asked, no demands were made and the boy had no time to respond. He was shot as soon as the door was opened as soon as they drove up onto that grass.
Do... You.. Understand.. Now?
Umm they weren't confronted with anything. They had not even sighted the gun when they shot him. The police car drove up onto the grass, stopped within feet of Tamir Rice and by the time the officer was out of the car, he'd already shot him. Then they let him bleed for about 4 minutes and had not started first aid and it wasn't until an FBI officer arrived and started first aid. But it was too late.
How's that for the truth?
I think you've done that to yourself more than anyone could "fuck with you".
Does that make you feel better? All macho and shit? "When" you stick one of those in my face to make me scared? Do you think I am scared already? Thankfully this is the internet and the chances of you coming within 10 miles of me is nil, so your comments of 'when you stick one of those things in my face' is pretty much you just making a bigger tool of yourself instead of being an actual threat, but really, perhaps you want to get a grip.. And some help.
And just to reiterate, the police never saw the gun when they shot him.
But it was a toy gun..
It was never pointed at anyone. The police never even saw the gun when they shot him.
Are you suggesting things that would have my children killed?
What kind of sick puppy are you?
Again with comments about how to possibly get my children killed...? First the whole "when" you point one of those things in my face and your whole spiel about how scared I am (as though you somehow believe this has already happened) and twice now, comments on how to possibly get my children killed. Are you unwell?
The officer who shot him.. It wasn't lack of training. It was that he was so bad at his job that he should never have been hired in the first place. His previous employer actually advised that he should not be a police officer at all because he was so bad at his job (his previous job was also as a police officer in another area).
And I used to think you were sane, defended you against those who once demanded you be banned from this site and actually liked you as a fellow human being. I don't any more. In fact, I'd really prefer you never PM me again, and I would really prefer you just don't speak to me again, thanks. Because, if I am to be perfectly honest, you are clearly insane. And you need help. And as someone who actually used to enjoy chatting to you and reading what you had to say, I am being perfectly honest when I say that you need help.
Last edited:
Excuse me, Reading your post struck a chord in my heart...allow me to interject...I don't know anything about the history of the friendship between the two of you, but please do not throw it away over a difference of opinion. Kindly reconsider and take some time to cool down, okay? Relationships are too valuable...think about the relative worth of your friendship over against a difference of opinion no matter how closely held....Just my two cents....
I clicked on your bare link, despite the obvious dishonesty of your bare link practice, to keep up with the crazy, and it tried to put malware on my computer.photizo said:
In addition to the psychological foulness you post anyway, that is - a type of malware that predates the computer age by centuries.
Why are you not complaining about the fact that Wilson was an affirmative action hire? One would think that a shining example of the downside of affirmative action hiring, like this one, would be right in your wheelhouse.
I am not angry or upset. Just disappointed and disgusted.
I suspect I will have a lot of "I told you so", but so be it. Live and learn.
So...who are you blaming? If what you said is true--and I've no reason to doubt you, though I put myself out there by doing so--who do you think messed with the link? The people who are trying to get such information out there--or those who would want to keep it under wraps so to speak? Which makes more sense?
There is nothing inherently foul about what I've posted here. You may not like it--which is fine--but labeling it "foul" is a purely subjective thing as pertains to you. Foulness to me contextually speaking would include injustice, overt oppression, fanning flames of racial hatred, dishonesty, and the like. Our differing perspectives lead to a difference of opinion as to who the guilty parties are.
Foul is a purely subjective word. You might think bigotry, racism, violence etc are all quite fair and pure - but most of the world considers them foul, and thus it is a quite accurate description of what you have posted.
Then your posts fall quite accurately into the category of "foul" given that you have advocated for the above.
I don't think such things are fair and pure...as I understand things, the definitions have been twisted and modified to serve the ends of those with an apparent anti white bias; nevertheless, when adhered to/adopted out of a willingness to be fair, a double standard in their application quickly becomes discernible as repeatedly the 'other side' can be observed behaving according to the very twisted/modified definitions they sought to burden whites with. Such hypocrisy is the polluted air that sustains the left...sorry, but "I can't breathe" in such an environment.
"most of the world considers them foul"--ever heard the term "the ignorant masses'? Your 'heroes' shamelessly exploit them using alinsky's tactics to further their manifold schemes to destroy this country.
Last edited:
Photizo said:
Those two statements do not reconcile when coming from someone promoting the figures you do.
Huckabee? The guy has no credibility.
But it's also simultaneously a natural psychological phenomenon and something people like Huckabee work to exploit. Consider some of the political arguments coming from his corner of American politics.
Conservatives support terrorism, and Operation Rescue will even celebrate and take credit for it, and because they're "conservative" or "Christian" by label, very few people notice. I've discussed this issue before; look at what happened to Dr. Mila Means.
Conservatives reject science. And that's not just global warming or evolution. The stupid argument about pregnancy and rape that wrecked so many campaigns in 2012? It was a pet argument of Dr. John Willke, the founder and longtime head of the National Right to Life Committee. What Akin and Mourdock said was not misrepresentative of the anti-abortion movement, but, rather, things they weren't supposed to say in public.
And often we find ourselves wondering if conservatism is some sort of cognitive impairment because, to put it as simply as possible, sometimes they just can't tell the difference.
Like your Huckabee article. Its greatest impact comes if we presume the arguments have the same weight in terms of daily human life. One side is upset because police are killing without any real accountability; the other is upset because people don't say enough nice things about the police. Are these really of similar magnitude?
Your argument reflects the Karl Rove tactic: Make your weakness your strength by claiming it is your opponent's weakness. This, in turn, is just a way of exploiting people psychologically by being deliberately confusing.
We knew Bush was lying about torture; now we're finding out just what and how severe those lies were.
It goes on. Day after day, in issues large and small, matters of life and death or simple pride.
If you actually have a point to make other than running around acting like one of the most ignorant people on the planet, it would behoove you to get to the point.
Time for your disparagement of the affirmative action hiring of Wilson, who besides being white and male was an otherwise unqualified and incompetent outsider, as a police officer in Ferguson.photizo said:
To avoid the appearance of a double standard, don'tcha know.