Thank you. I am well aware of what the transcripts say...I've been one of the few who's actually been citing and quoting it in most of these discussions.


I wanted a citation to a legitimate source that says this version of the story was created and perpetrated by "opportunists from the liberal wing of the government and Democratic party", given that - factually speaking - the people who are giving this bastardized version of the story are the "eyewitnesses" (who couldn't keep their stories straight and/or admitted, under oath, they hadn't seen a thing), NFL-football players, and thug-wannabe opportunists looking for a *good* excuse to loot a few free TVs just in time for Christmas gift-giving.

None of those are affiliated with the "government" - either from its "liberal wing" or from the conservative Bible-thumping branch and many are too young TO be registered with ANY political party.


So, I'll still wait for the citation legitimate source that verifies the "Don't-Shoot-Arm-Uppers" are affiliated with the government and/or work for the Democratic party.

Well I consider Obama a very large part of the government...just look at what he has said and by his actions(or inaction)to perpetrate the lies. He also "nominated" Al Sharpton (I would consider that the left-liberal wing of the Democratic party) to do the usual race bating on behalf of the administration. Anyway..The whole scam of the last six years is to not have a "legitimate" source. Nobody ever knows anything in this administration.

I have not seen President Obama walking with his hands in the air chanting "Don't Shoot". Can you direct me to the video of this, which YOU have seen, but that has not yet made it to my national or local news?

I am not aware that President Obama has "nominated" Al Sharpton for ANYthing; please provide a citation to a legitimate source for THAT presented-as-fact statement.

A true statement, not aware. But it seems a large portion of the world is acutely aware of the relationship between Odumbo and Sharpton.

certainly did

he grabbed someone (who never called in a crime and walked away unscathed)

he stole some cigarettes

he got in a struggle with an officer

,,EXCEPT for that last event, nothing warrants death,,,and the last event had ENDED , struggle discontinued,,, by the time he was killed

IF he had been killed DURING a struggle, there would be less to dispute

being killed after traveling over a hundred feet from the vehicle/altercation by foot, without a weapon,, again causes me to not agree that a death penalty is warranted,,,

I am with you this did not warrant a death penalty ...just as the court allowed to kill Travon becouse of a stand your ground law ...know darn well if he would have never gotten out of that car and did as what was told ...that boy would be alive now ... unarmed u shoot to kill ...shakes head ... there is no in between they need to make a in between ...so others have and can have the right to their trial and chance for their life ...


their will always be another group come out to say there where a lot of mistakes but not one to face any truth ...just what their truth is the opposite of the dead person ...kill and not be able to speak for them self... and blatantly ... I can't breath just said it all ... are you working with professionals that should know how to take down and not kill another for arrest ...

The problem I have is with blanket statements like "they should be trained to take down and not kill". Statements like these are made by those with no experience or training.

Those statements are also made by people who live in the imaginary world of the Lone Ranger, in which the hero is always able to shoot a weapon out of someone's hand.

I agree. Nothing occurred that warranted the "death penalty" in either case.

The problem I have is with blanket statements like "they should be trained to take down and not kill". Statements like these are made by those with no experience or training.

The federal government spent hundreds of thousands training me to deal with potentially deadly situations. I can tell you, that one of the biggest lessons I have learned is the fact that no training will make you a superhero. A few (or even a few thousand) hours of "training" won't allow you to "take down" any suspect. Real life does not work like that. Just a like a gun will not make a dark alley safe, martial arts training will not make it safe to allow a deadly threat to get close to you.

If the story the officer was telling were true (there is evidence supporting him and nothing given to the contrary), a perfect do-gooder-boy scout would done the same thing. If your job were to protect and serve and you were attacked by a psychopath who made an attempt at your life, you would be endangering everyone community by not doing SOMETHING. And when that psychopath turned and ran at you for getting out of the car, you would be endangering yourself and the community by giving him a fighting chance against you.

Note: I am not saying that the cop was a "goody two shoes", but what I am saying is that a "goody two shoes" would have done the same thing in the same situation.

The flip side to this all, is the fact that if the officer had the training, and reckless mentality to take this guy down hand to hand, people would be still be trying to crucify him for "using excessive force to beat up an innocent black kid".

What you are describing is a society that has degraded into a society suffering from Moral Relativism. A society where malum in se and malum prohibitum are one and the same.

Perhaps. To be honest, you are speaking over my head a bit on this one, my friend. For that I apologize.

I fear I didn't explain myself well, however... My main objective was to explain the action of the officer stepping out of his vehicle instead of speeding off when he was attacked (which could also lead to lawsuits if Brown were injured during this process). I guess I am trying to say the officer did not necessarily intend to inflict death on Brown until Brown allegedly charged at him. After the assailant started running at the officer again, anyone in sound mind, would have fired upon the attacker. It is still not ok to shoot someone who is blatantly trying to run away unarmed, or blatantly surrenders.

Dodo properly emphasized my other objective, as I believe many to have a very unrealistic view of the world and how real threats can and can't be dealt with.

To clarify:

Moral Relativism: the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves.

Malum in se: An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature, and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state.

Malum prohibitum: An act is said to be malum prohibitum when it is determined by another the be prohibited due to their dislike. It is not immoral in its nature nor injurious in its consequences but could be noticed and will be punished by the law of the state, like walking on the grass, public grass owned by the public.


And yourself along with the other that you responded to are both in error. Once one has committed a trespass, the death penalty applies. If one commits a trespass by battery upon my person, I reserve the right to scatter what little brains possessed all over the lawn and be done with it. To any that tries to trespass upon the case, I reserve the right to remove all property owned or ever to be owned from their person by judgement in a court of record.

However, in this instant case, the officer needs to be given the reason of doubt in regards to the original harassment, was it in response to a call about the previous action of Brown or just the tendency of Wilson to be a psychopath as demonstrated in other videos. Whatever the doubt, matters soon warranted the actions taken.

When Brown committed aggravated battery (he grabbed the gun, makes it aggravated) he now needs to be addressed, peace needs to be restored. That is the entire lawful function of Wilson as a peace officer, restore the peace.

Once challenged by a peace officer, you submit; you're day in court will come soon enough and if the officer has gone beyond his authority so will his.

And sir, I would dare say the unrealistic view of the world would be yours.

"In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own."
-Alexis de Tocqueville

I appreciate the definition. I feel as though you are creating disagreements where there is none, or perhaps very little. Maybe you are simply translating "How things are" verses "How things should be".

I am saying, an officer should have the right to defend himself from a deadly threat just as you or I should.

I am also saying that Brown brought the situation on through his own recklessness. (Which is similar to how I am interpreting your view.)

Furthermore, I would like to think of my opinion being my own. I do believe that my training, having been tested in the real world, has given me a unique perspective in situations similar to these and what would/wouldn't work tactically.

If I am responding to your post, then I am not the creator, I am the respondent, therefore it is not I that creates the disagreement. I am but the one to bring it to light.

But I do disagree, not necessarily with the external manifestation that is but the effect, but with the internal manifestation, the cause that resulted in the external manifestation.

People just following orders, that is why they call it a totalitarian system, a police state, why do they not call it a banker state? A politician state? A lawyer state? A judge state? Because none of these people are ultimately responsible for bringing that condition into manifestation through their behavior, they are the order givers. The order-followers carry out their commands and through their behavior make that condition into reality, that's why they call it a police state. Because every police state that has existed has always been created by police that follow their orders.

When there are terms used that one does not understand, those that seek knowledge search for the answer but most just ignore because they chose to remain ignorant.

When you state that we are of the same conclusion, believe me when I tell you that nothing is further from the truth. You are entitled to your "own" opinion, but when stated in public do not be so surprised when someone objects.

Interesting standpoint. I don't mean that sarcastically either. I'm not surprised to see an objection to my opinion. I am surprised at the manner it was objected to, in this case.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. I hope you are not disappointed by my appreciation...