It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Inside Ferguson: What you're NOT being told

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
1. "Inside Ferguson: What you're NOT being told"

2. "Inside Ferguson: What ImDaMan is trying to sell you".

HMMM. I do wonder watching the "riots".....Don't any of those people have to get up for work the next day? Or is rioting their "job"?

And, Im not even arguing the points here....pro and con, positive and negative...just wondering if ImDaMAn is a plant for the rioters here?

It's his point, so if we follow that? Maybe he is trying to incite negativity here? It goes both ways. Im just sayin.....




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman

Brown was a criminal and you can't have a criminal be the face of your anti police movement.


How about these for the "Faces of the Anti Police Movement" ? Think they'll serve?



Image Source



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The people need a martyr. Remember that I am anti-police state and anti-police militarization.

I am also anti-violent criminal behavior.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Gryphon66 I already posted the Dr's direct quote above, he said no such thing. One more time:

This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.

Continue reading the main story
“We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said.




Abe, you're stuck. What you're trumpeting is Dr. Baden's description of the pattern of gunshots on Michael's body.

Read the multiple citations I've provided above.

No evidence of a struggle.

No evidence of a struggle.

Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown six times for Jay-walking.

THAT is the sad horrible fact.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Gryphon66

The people need a martyr. Remember that I am anti-police state and anti-police militarization.

I am also anti-violent criminal behavior.



I see.

Let me see if I've got your math right here ...

A shove against someone smaller than you = Six bullets to the body, at least two to the face.

That about it, Abe?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66 " HE STRESSED THAT HIS INFORMATION DOES NOT ASSIGN BLAME OR JUSTIFY THE SHOOTING" " WE NEED MORE INFORMATION"

You said and I quote " Conclusive forensic evidence " which is untrue, if there was CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE the Doctor would have said that, he didn't, at any point. He said we need more info.

The swelling on the officers face and the multiple eyewitness accounts of the struggle are pretty good evidence too.

But that doesn't fit your agenda,huh?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Gryphon66

The people need a martyr. Remember that I am anti-police state and anti-police militarization.

I am also anti-violent criminal behavior.



I see.

Let me see if I've got your math right here ...

A shove against someone smaller than you = Six bullets to the body, at least two to the face.

That about it, Abe?


Shove me and find out. J/k

No here's my math, attack a cop, punch him in the face, try to take his gun= get shot. Don't need to be a rocket scientist.
edit on 18-8-2014 by abe froman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Gryphon66 " HE STRESSED THAT HIS INFORMATION DOES NOT ASSIGN BLAME OR JUSTIFY THE SHOOTING" " WE NEED MORE INFORMATION"

You said and I quote " Conclusive forensic evidence " which is untrue, if there was CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE the Doctor would have said that, he didn't, at any point. He said we need more info.

The swelling on the officers face and the multiple eyewitness accounts of the struggle are pretty good evidence too.

But that doesn't fit your agenda,huh?



Your posts are the pure definition of cognitive dissonance.

The articles above, and hundreds more available on the internet, demonstrate that Dr. Michael Baden announced today that there was no evidence of a struggle between Michael Brown and Officer Wilson

I'm going to do you a favor and withdraw for a while because obviously you're overwrought.

Take a few deep breaths and read the facts that have been provided above from multiple sources.

There was no struggle, Abe. A man was shot dead in the street for jay-walking.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

I believe the police officer had other options at his disposal. It seems unreasonable to shoot this kid even if he did assault the officer.

To me, I think it's better for a criminal to get away than it is to gun him down where he stands.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
..and PLEASE quit saying brown got shot for jaw walking, it is dishonest. We can discount the testimony of the accomplice as it has already been shown to be a lie.
Brown was not shot in the back.
The next bit of dishonesty being propagated is that the cop shot brown from 25 ft away (based on the distance between the cruiser and the body) eyewitness reports state that the cop ran after Brown after exiting the vehicle, so the vast distance is another bit of dishonesty.
Brown "had his hands up", hearsay. No actual first hand eyewitness reported that except the accomplice who has already been caught lying and by his own admission was hiding behind a car.
Anybody here study Muy Thai? If you confront me and I "put my hands up" you better start counting your teeth.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247 So he can attack civilians? The law provides for shooting a fleeing suspect if he presents a danger to civilians. Once you are bold enough to attack a cop, that shows me you will be twice as likely to attack a civilian, so you qualify in my book.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: ImDaMan
Oh no you are completely right it was business executives out there stealing rims,tires,and hair weaves,


They do their stealing with insider info, shady backroom deals and government approved loopholes. They can't be troubled to get down in the dirt with the rats and the worms.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

If he was not shot from behind, can we assume he was not fleeing? He may have started to run, but apparently he must have stopped and turned around.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
..and PLEASE quit saying brown got shot for jaw walking, it is dishonest. We can discount the testimony of the accomplice as it has already been shown to be a lie.
Brown was not shot in the back.
The next bit of dishonesty being propagated is that the cop shot brown from 25 ft away (based on the distance between the cruiser and the body) eyewitness reports state that the cop ran after Brown after exiting the vehicle, so the vast distance is another bit of dishonesty.
Brown "had his hands up", hearsay. No actual first hand eyewitness reported that except the accomplice who has already been caught lying and by his own admission was hiding behind a car.
Anybody here study Muy Thai? If you confront me and I "put my hands up" you better start counting your teeth.


Wow, so now you're just going to try to muddy the water and throw the kitchen sink at the questions?

As to being Michael Brown being shot for jay-walking, I didn't say it Abe ... the Ferguson Police Chief did.



Hours after the reports' release, police said that Officer Darren Wilson, 28, had no idea 18-year-old Brown was a robbery suspect. He simply wanted Brown to move from the road to the sidewalk, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said at a news conference


Source - Reuters

The rest of your mishmash I'll leave for someone else to unravel.

But ask yourself, why were the majority of the wounds Michael Brown received in his arms and hand?

Well, aside from the two to the head of course.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obviously you are not reading the links, you are just randomly posting links based on their title.

Your first link gives out "facts" which contradict the autopsy itself, though I do want to go back there to read there article about KKK groups arguing with each other over fundraising. Is "The Wire" Known to be unbiased or what?

Your second link wants me to pay $2.00 to read the article.

Your third and final link says this :Based on his preliminary analysis, Baden said the body lacked bruising or signs of blows that would have indicated a struggle.

Preliminary analysis is a far cry from "CONCLUSIVE FORENSIC EVIDENCE" the Dr said he didn't see cuts and bruises,that was his "preliminary analysis" he also said,one more time: "we need more information"

When you try to pass off a preliminary exam as CONCLUSIVE FORENSIC EVIDENCE you are guilty of dishonesty.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obviously you are not reading the links, you are just randomly posting links based on their title.

Your first link gives out "facts" which contradict the autopsy itself, though I do want to go back there to read there article about KKK groups arguing with each other over fundraising. Is "The Wire" Known to be unbiased or what?

Your second link wants me to pay $2.00 to read the article.

Your third and final link says this :Based on his preliminary analysis, Baden said the body lacked bruising or signs of blows that would have indicated a struggle.

Preliminary analysis is a far cry from "CONCLUSIVE FORENSIC EVIDENCE" the Dr said he didn't see cuts and bruises,that was his "preliminary analysis" he also said,one more time: "we need more information"

When you try to pass off a preliminary exam as CONCLUSIVE FORENSIC EVIDENCE you are guilty of dishonesty.



I can't help that Rupert Murdoch wants to charge you to read the WSJ online; I just wanted to demonstrate that both "liberal and conservative biased services" are saying the same thing.

As to the rest of your post, now you're obviously just not telling the truth:

From the first source provided: The Wire:



Baden added that the bullets were fired from at least one or two feet away, and that there was "no evidence of a struggle." The only wounds apart from the bullet wounds were abrasions on Brown's face, attributed to him falling down after the shots to his head.




From the second source provided: Murdoch's WSJ FROM THE FIRST LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE CHEAP SOB'S SITE:



FERGUSON, Mo.—A former New York City medical examiner found "no evidence of a struggle" between Michael Brown and the police officer who shot him at least six times on Aug. 9—an encounter that has sparked more than a week of unrest in this St. Louis suburb.


From the third source provided: MarketWatch:



Based on his preliminary analysis, Baden said the body lacked bruising or signs of blows that would have indicated a struggle.


There's the facts, Jack, er, Abe.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66 What you really mean is you can't handle the truth, you can't refute the logic.

You are once again dishonest, you said, and I quote "As to being Michael Brown being shot for jay-walking, I didn't say it Abe ... the Ferguson Police Chief did. "

You show me that quote where the Ferguson Police chief says " Michael Brown was shot for jaywalking" and I will personally send you a certified check for $1,000.00.

If you are unable to do so, please stop with the outright lies and disinformation, thanks. Have a nice day.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ImDaMan
No follow up to show the proof of what this guy is claiming via FB?

The cop has told his family and friends the following -

1) After initial contact with the teens about getting out of the street he pulled over to the side of the street, then claims he heard on Police radio about the robbery and description matched teens.
2)Officer claimed teens ran after initial struggle/discharge of officers gun inside squad car. He then says teens stopped, turned around, and talked # to him. At that point M Brown charged him, officer fired multiple rounds, with first few impacts on M Brown' s arms. Then as M Brown continued to charge the officer despite being struck 4 times, the officer then fired 2 head shots dropping M Brown just a few feet short of the officer. Officer also thinks M Brown was most likely intoxicated in some form.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=18303823]Gryphon66[/pos

Preliminary is different than CONCLUSIVE FORENSIC EVIDENCE, all the prelim shows us is the cop didn't get a punch in. When I was young I beat a guy into a 3 day coma with my bare hands and there wasn't a mark on me.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: freedom12
This is the truth no one wants to hear or accept. Star for you.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join