It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Michael Brown Evidence Reported by NY Times

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 08:47 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm no fan of Mr. Jackson or Mr. Sharpton but they have the same rights to freedom of speech as all Americans do.

You have to remember, you protect that freedom the most when you DON'T agree with what someone says.

The problems so apparent in Ferguson are repeated across the country in long-standing and deeply hurtful situations. Has everyone forgotten the ridiculous paramilitary response of the police against peaceful citizens (not the rioters so don't bother to go there).

I don't think the solution is as simple at this point as "Hey, can't we all just get along."

But we do have to find a solution, and I believe we need to do that soon.

I agree. Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton should have freedom of speech. But Sharpton is a known liar. See Tawana Brawley. Sharton falsely accused a LEO of rape. He has no credibility and won't admit when he was wrong, yet loves to stir the pot with lies.

"Rev. Al Sharpton would not admit the Tawana Brawley rape case he drove to national prominence was a hoax on Morning Joe Tuesday, saying he had no regrets getting involved and would respond the same way if a woman today made similar claims.

Brawley claimed she was kidnapped and gang-raped by white men, including a police officer and local prosecutor, in 1987. The story became a national sensation and was a career-maker for Sharpton, who was largely unknown at the time.

But after a long investigation revealed Brawley’s claims to be false, it was dropped. Brawley finally began making defamation payments in August for her false accusations in the case, but Sharpton would still admit no fault Tuesday for his controversial involvement".

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: UnBreakable

Al Sharpton is to MSNBC that Nancy Grace is to CNN/HN.

My issue with Sharpton over this is his demand for justice while telling people if the officer is not indicted they will act. He has a very skewed view of justice. Its more along the lines of a lynch mob mentality.

Going after the police wont make a difference. Communicating with police and breaking down the us verse them mentality on the other hand would go a long way.

He needs to focus his hate on the laws in question to force change there. His inability to be proactive in that area suggests to me he only wants the headlines so he can make money off of exploiting the situations.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:29 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

But the law is unequally applied in the USA. You are a police officer, yet time and time again, it has been shown through the evidence, that some police officers tend to get either a slap on the wrist or a lighter sentence when they do violate the law. And most officers do not like having their actions questioned, as it puts them on the defensive. It seems as though, there are far too many reports coming out about bad officers and not enough of the police officers that are doing the right thing all of the time. And I have seen and encountered both in my life time.

As I stated, there is a real case where the law is unequally applied in the country, and it goes all of the way up to the government. Ask yourself this, how many people in congress got sent to jail for say failing to pay taxes or being honest on them? 0, they change the laws. And celebrities who break the law, like say Lindsay Lohan, how many laws has this person broken and ended up getting off all cause she is a star and has fame? Quite a few. And what about the kid in Texas or the heir to the Dupont fortune, think that the victims received justice in their cases? You know the child who was drinking underage, went driving and killed several people, and was given a slap on the wrist, all cause he was too rich? Or the heir to the Dupont fortune, the sick person who raped 2 underage persons, proven in court and did not see one day in prison? That is not equality, that is an inequality in the law. And that is what people are looking at, that is what people are seeing when it comes to the law being different for different people.

The very idea, that all is equal under the law, is a good one, but the reality is turning out to be very different.

Personally I think that the entire Ferguson case was botched, from the get go, too politicized and ultimately, that will play into the trial and grand jury findings. And I disagree, in a trial, the Prosecuting attorney has to make the case, and make it conviencing to that jury that the evidence does support the argument.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:01 PM
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I get what you are saying but you are missing the point im trying to make.

Law Enforcement has nothing to do with what charges are filed, if they are filed, what plea deals might come from it, or fines etc.

The laws are present. Application of justice for breaking those laws is the Prosecuting attorney. That is where the failure lies.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:10 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I get what you are saying but you are missing the point im trying to make.

Law Enforcement has nothing to do with what charges are filed, if they are filed, what plea deals might come from it, or fines etc.

The laws are present. Application of justice for breaking those laws is the Prosecuting attorney. That is where the failure lies.

I don't think anyone is forcing cops to enact civil forfeiture laws on people who clearly aren't doing anything wrong. Cops aren't slaves. You can make choices. Can't you? In fact from what I've seen of cops you actually have tons of choice in most matters. Generally cops defend themselves and their brothers at any cost even if it's not just.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:27 PM
I feel like a broken record. Most of the following I’ve already posted in other threads. But, I’ll take one more shot at it, even though I know most folks made up their minds long ago. It kills me how quickly most of us rush to judgement, and how little we value the lives of others.

Michael Brown may have been a bad guy and a small-time hood, but that doesn’t justify his execution. In my opinion, the most appalling thing about this is that while it’s an obvious, blatant, in-your-face case of racial injustice, there are still an awful lot of people out there (mostly white) who rationalize it as a righteous shoot; like the kid had it coming. Even though we all know that a police officer’s role is not to be judge, jury and executioner, in certain cases (not all) we’re willing to overlook it and make an exception.

To begin with, I don’t know exactly what led to the shooting of Michael Brown. I don’t think anyone else here does either. Nor does the main stream media, the coroner, the DA, etc. The only person who really knows is Darren Wilson. And considering Wilson’s on the hot seat, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether or not he’s telling the truth. Obviously, he’s going to say whatever it takes to justify his actions that day. And I’ve read nothing from the coroner’s report or media reports that sheds any light on the matter.

The fact that Brown had a gunshot wound to his wrist, and his blood was found in the squad car and on Darren Wilson’s uniform, in no way confirm’s he was attempting to take the officer’s gun when it happened. Any number of scenarios could account for that evidence. How do we know, for instance, that the officer hadn’t pulled his gun on Brown while still in the car, and that Brown was struggling to keep from being shot when the gun discharged? To me, that scenario makes a lot more sense than the one where Brown is attempting to take the gun away from Wilson, and it would explain all the evidence obtained. All we’re really confident of is that there was some sort of altercation at the squad car and that the firearm discharged.

It’s the rest of the shots, however, that I question most. After the altercation at the car, it’s quite likely Brown ran from it; otherwise why would his body end up so far away from it? So then, Wilson gets out of the vehicle and starts firing; I think about 10 rounds, 6 of which hit Brown. It’s the killing shot that I find most telling. It entered the top of Brown’s head and the trajectory took it straight down in the direction of the throat. Considering Brown was 6’4” tall, for the bullet to take that trajectory tells me he was likely either bent over and holding his gut (as one witness has stated) or he was well on his way down to the ground/pavement when the shot was fired. Even if Brown had started to charge Wilson from approx 25 feet away (highly unlikely one would charge an armed cop), at the time the killshot took place it appears evident that Brown was already disabled and no longer a threat. In other words, the killshot was not necessary. However, that’s contrary to what Wilson claims, which is that Brown was charging him when he shot him dead, which leaves the trajectory of the fatal shot unexplained.

I don’t know what happened that day, but I do have suspicions about the Ferguson authority’s handling of it. And to me, it's Darren Wilson's story that doesn't add up. Something about all this smells rotten to me...

Lastly, I keep reading/hearing people say that eye witness accounts can’t always be trusted. That may be true. But do you also think that cops and district attorney’s never lie? If so, I’ve got a newsflash for you. Then again, maybe this is just one of those exceptional cases where it’s all OK...

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:34 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra
Aw, but when an officer breaks the law, and it is verified or even proven, with full evidence, very rarely do they get punished, and that is when they exceed their authority.

While yes, the laws do provide protections, however, it is my belief that the oversight for the police should never be in the hands of the police, that it is far to often that the person is harassed or even has to give up do to the run around by the very people that are there to help them. And even then the police often are given a far greater leeway when it comes to following the laws that they have to enforce. Far too many reports come out of police misconduct, that are never resolved, or are lost in an endless see of paperwork.

While I do believe that the police should be given the same rights as the rest of the people, at the same time when they do break the law, and it is proven in a court of law that they are guilty, they should face the max penalty and lose all benefits for being in that position in the first place.

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:08 AM

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
How it happened will never matter to some people. He will always be saint Michael of swisher sweets.

this topic had been beaten to death...i dont have anything else to add except

that is hilarious man.....i actually did a LOL....
i like your style dude[/the stranger]

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 05:10 PM
a reply to: tavi45

To clarify a point you made. Municipal Police are not empowered to enforce civil forfeiture law. That responsibility is the purview of the Sheriff's office and only after court actions that result in a judge issuing a ruling. In this area I think the distinction is important.

Yes we can make choices. In my state we have a wide area of latitude except in a few cases. However it does not change the fact that only the PA's can file charges and prosecute. The courts pass judgement and issue punishment.

As for the last part is there any chance you can stop dragging things off topic? This has nothing to do with what you stated.

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 02:18 AM

originally posted by: tavi45
Yeah because the theft of a blunt is totally worth a death. Maybe he wouldn't be stealing dirt cheap things or being aggressive if he wasn't part of an oppressed demonized underclass.

One black kid steals something that costs a dollar or two and there's instant police response followed by a dead black kid. Wall street businessman destroys thousands of middle class families and he is applauded and protected and well paid.

All the evidence in the world doesn't change the root cause of the anger of the black community. They're tired of being oppressed after fighting for equality for some 200 years.

They are oppressed or they see themselves oppressed? There is a black president for christ sake. How much more do people need to say that yes, you can do something besides be a thug if you are a black teenager.

He didn't just steal some cheap blunt wraps either he pushed the people around physically assaulting them in the process. You might not think it's a big difference but it's huge when u add violence in.

Not going to compare Wall Street crime to this either because at the end of the day if I had to choose being mugged or violently robbed vs being scammed by a con artist Id probably choose the latter but it's silly to even put the two together because they are entirly separate. And guess what, black people work on Wall Street too!
Hell the Nigerian bank scan (419?) or whatever it's called, a huge percentage of fraud is committed by blacks, but worse than Wall Street as there is no legitimate service or commodity tied to it. And yes they get off or get away just like the other white collar criminals.

I swear it's amazing how "oppressed" some blacks claim they are yet u can go back to the times 40s and 50s and find more successful snd more accomplished blacks the a large number who simply don't even try in this era. Instead blame others for their ineptitude.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in