Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

Even YOU know that not to be true.


I know with certainty President Obama has made NO proposal to take my guns away. You have an easy task. You started the lie. You were correctly called out by multiple people that what you are saying is patently false. So, now all you have to do is show where President Obama said he was going to take my guns away. Really Mr. Markle you must be conversing with fourth graders on other forums if you think this type of behavior would be accepted in any honest intellectual discussion. However, I am not trying to be a smart asz. I have notice a real decline in your posts in the last 6 months. Please get a check up. Seriously, sometimes illness sets in and one of the first areas which is impacted is speech and writing. It simply could be like all of us an aging thing, we have a tendency to get lazy on an informal forum like this, but you are missing some of your former logic which has me concerned. Or maybe you are only going through the motions for the dark side now, and maybe your conscience has kicked into high gear.

2seaoat wrote:The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm;

I listened to the Doctor who performed the autopsy describe the first wound has having entered the tip of the thumb at a right angle.  Blood on the gun and uniform could have been transferred during the struggle or the officer could have picked up some on his hands which was transferred to the uniform and gun.  The Doctor said there is nothing in the autopsy which would support or deny that Michael was reaching for a gun.

I only hope for a fair trial for the officer, but anything short of that is a miscarriage of justice.

If there is no indictment, a trial would be a miscarriage of justice.

If there is no indictment, a trial would be a miscarriage of justice.




A bill of indictment from the grand jury, or from the SA office which required a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause must be accomplished before a trial so your statement makes little sense. My daughter will take cases to the grand jury for months.....and they will not vote for a bill, and the State goes and does their ground work to improve their case, and then presents the same to the Grand Jury. The assistants have a close relationship with a Grand Jury who serves for many months. However, the SA office can simply by pass the grand jury and directly charge the defendant, but again, this will required a preliminary hearing where the standard in more likely than not, and does not have to meet the beyond the reasonable doubt level......they are 99% of the cursory routine hearings which result in a finding of probable cause, that defense lawyers will simply waive the preliminary.

So this officer could go months and months before the state or grand jury does anything. If the SA declines to charge and could not get a bill, a special prosecutor could be appointed by the governor and no double jeopardy applies because there has been no trial, and unless the statute of limitations has ran......it could be years. It would be in everybody's interest for this to be months and not years.

2seaoat wrote:The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm;

I listened to the Doctor who performed the autopsy describe the first wound has having entered the tip of the thumb at a right angle.  Blood on the gun and uniform could have been transferred during the struggle or the officer could have picked up some on his hands which was transferred to the uniform and gun.  The Doctor said there is nothing in the autopsy which would support or deny that Michael was reaching for a gun.

I only hope for a fair trial for the officer, but anything short of that is a miscarriage of justice.

Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun. He got shot in the hand and there were two shots fired. At that close range the officer would not have missed shooting him in the torso if there wasn't a struggle. I have no doubt they have evidence of the officers injuries which blow the hell out of the claim the officer just grabbed him and he got away. Brown assaulted him and was a fleeing felon. He already overpowered the officer and was dangerous.

2seaoat wrote:Even YOU know that not to be true.


I know with certainty President Obama has made NO proposal to take my guns away.  You have an easy task.   You started the lie.  You were correctly called out by multiple people that what you are saying is patently false.  So, now all you have to do is show where President Obama said he was going to take my guns away.  Really Mr. Markle you must be conversing with fourth graders on other forums if you think this type of behavior would be accepted in any honest intellectual discussion.  However, I am not trying to be a smart asz.  I have notice a real decline in your posts in the last 6 months.  Please get a check up.  Seriously, sometimes illness sets in and one of the first areas which is impacted is speech and writing.   It simply could be like all of us an aging thing, we have a tendency to get lazy on an informal forum like this, but you are missing some of your former logic which has me concerned.  Or maybe you are only going through the motions for the dark side now, and maybe your conscience has kicked into high gear.

True, even semi-retired President Obama is not foolish enough to make a statement.

As you know...State Senator Barack Hussein Obama:

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

More?

Everyone should oppose illegal gun use no matter where it is. Obama didn't oppose legal gun use,did he? LOL!

2seaoat wrote:...Sensitive fellow......I will give you the kid glove treatment from now on.

Yep! You sure are when your preferred methods of operation are turned on you. Are you feeling it yet...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onVq8vY8MUQ

Vikingwoman wrote:Everyone should oppose illegal gun use no matter where it is. Obama didn't oppose legal gun use,did he? LOL!

He opposed someone defending themselves. I don't care if they own the gun legally or illegally. If someone was assaulting you would you prefer to use a gun to defend yourself or reach for your telephone and dial 911?

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

More?

You have not given one piece of evidence which shows President Obama wants to take my guns away. On the self defense bill, there were no guns being taken away. None. So you make a claim that you have a peanut butter sandwich and you hand us a baloney sandwich.

Please show President Obama in a speech, or a vote wanting to take my guns away. It is one big propaganda technique used with the goal that everybody is a dribbling idiot.

Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite. A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed. It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun. Zero sense.

Let me ask this question? If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun? Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid? Your assumption paints a clear picture.

2seaoat wrote:Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite.  A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed.   It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun.  Zero sense.

Let me ask this question?  If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun?  Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid?  Your assumption paints a clear picture.

Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?

Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?



Four witnesses clearly said the officer grabbed Michael from the squad car. No police statement or statement from the officer has contradicted the same. Until a trial or another witness stepping forth FIRST hand, your fantasy is not reality. However, we can wait for a trial to listen to the officer explain to a jury his perception of who grabbed who first. However, please show me a FIRST hand witness which says that Michael jumped into the squad car going after the officer's gun........utter illogical fantasy.....not one witness has reported that behavior.

2seaoat wrote:Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite.  A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed.   It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun.  Zero sense.

Let me ask this question?  If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun?  Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid?  Your assumption paints a clear picture.

You just throw word salad up here not, you don't even try to make sense. Not that we expect any more from you.

2seaoat wrote:Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?



Four witnesses clearly said the officer grabbed Michael from the squad car.  No police statement or statement from the officer has contradicted the same.  Until a trial or another witness stepping forth FIRST hand, your fantasy is not reality.   However, we can wait for a trial to listen to the officer explain to a jury his perception of who grabbed who first.  However, please show me a FIRST hand witness which says that Michael jumped into the squad car going after the officer's gun........utter illogical fantasy.....not one witness has reported that behavior.

Jumped into the squad car.....did I say he jumped ino the squad car?

Joanimaroni wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?



Four witnesses clearly said the officer grabbed Michael from the squad car.  No police statement or statement from the officer has contradicted the same.  Until a trial or another witness stepping forth FIRST hand, your fantasy is not reality.   However, we can wait for a trial to listen to the officer explain to a jury his perception of who grabbed who first.  However, please show me a FIRST hand witness which says that Michael jumped into the squad car going after the officer's gun........utter illogical fantasy.....not one witness has reported that behavior.

Jumped into the squad car.....did I say he jumped ino the squad car?

Now you've done it. You know he doesn't like being corrected or imitated in an inverse proportion.

*****CHUCKLE*****

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

Jumped into the squad car.....did I say he jumped ino the squad car?

How would he fit into the window? Two pounds of stuff in a one pound bag....so if I am going to attack an officer I am going to want to get the jump on that officer if the goal is to take his gun, and a jump leap, or lunge was going to be required. The witnesses all said the officer appeared to be reaching from his squad grabbing michael. The friend with him immediately gave that observation which was confirmed by other witnesses. So, do you deny the witness observations? The person standing right next to him said he was grabbed and michael was struggling with the officer and two shots were fired and they both ran.......so what first hand witness do you have that contradicts the same.......

Jumping into a squad car? Your words not mine.

Jumping into a squad car? Your words not mine.

That is fair. However, let us get to what is relevant. If as you claimed Michael was attacking the officer and reaching for his gun. Why would he choose the window to get the police officer? Or, would it be more logical that the witnesses are correct that the officer reached out the open window and grabbed Michael. That Michael resisted and struggled with the officer and two shots were fired.

2seaoat wrote:Jumping into a squad car? Your words not mine.

That is fair.  However, let us get to what is relevant.  If as you claimed Michael was attacking the officer and reaching for his gun.  Why would he choose the window to get the police officer?  Or, would it be more logical that the witnesses are correct that the officer reached out the open window and grabbed Michael.  That Michael resisted and struggled with the officer and two shots were fired.

I claimed? The officer and witnesses said Brown assaulted the officer. The gun was fired twice inside the police car, Brown was shot in the thumb, his blood was in the car...obviously his hand and arm was inside the car. What was Brown doing.... trying to change the channel on the radio?

So you deny that the officer grabbed Brown?

2seaoat wrote:So you deny that the officer grabbed Brown?

Johnson said ......
Wilson then shoved open the car door, grabbed Brown around the neck and tried to pull him through the window. He said Brown never tried to reach for Wilson's weapon.

Dorian Johnson later admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun.

Who knows?

2seaoat wrote:Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite.  A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed.   It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun.  Zero sense.

Let me ask this question?  If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun?  Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid?  Your assumption paints a clear picture.

Brown punched the officer in the face,Seaoat. I'm sure the officer grabbed him and Brown then punched him in the face. He had a swollen face and scratches. The officer then went for his gun and the struggle ensued for the gun. Assault on a LEO! Felony! I can tell you right now your scenario didn't happen. Brown was no innocent kid just walking down the street while black and the cop started beating on him and just killed him when he ran. He assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun. Get real man! You want to make it a black thing but you left out a few parts.

You still do not understand. I have made it very clear if the second bullet hit Michael between the eyes and killed him at the squad......I would have ZERO problem. As I have said from day one, little if anything is relevant as to what happened in the car. If the officer killed Michael at the car, there would be no demonstrations, there would be no grand jury, and this would be just one more shooting which was justified.

I am talking about what is relevant. What happened outside the squad which justified the officer summarily executing an unarmed man. I have not heard one witness which contradicted the first four witnesses I saw on CNN. I have seen people post false second and third hand facts which the doctor who did the autopsy clearly argued were not her findings, yet people here repeated the Dispatch second hand facts which on the Odonnell show clearly made the source coming from the defense lawyers for the officer. We need a trial. Anything short of that is just more cover up and white wash. Do not continue being confused that this is simply a racial matter. It is entirely a standard which every sworn officer must adhere and when they do not........they are not above the law.

No, you don't get it at all. He assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun then ran. And you say it had nothing to do w/ that? WTF?