The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/branco-cartoon-salvage-operation/

Mississippi deputy fired for racist Xbox Live rant: ‘I get paid to beat up n****rs like you’

Travis Gettys
09 Mar 2015 at 12:16 ET

A Mississippi sheriff’s deputy was fired after making racist threats against another gamer while playing Xbox Live.

The other gamer, identified only as “David,” posted a YouTube video of his exchange with former Jackson County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Slater.

He encountered another gamer making racist statements on the gaming system’s voice chat and decided to provoke him.

“I asked him if he wanted to buy food stamps as a random troll,” David told the Free Thought Project. “He then blurted some racial words and I told him he sucked at the game.”


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/mississippi-deputy-fired-for-racist-xbox-live-rant-i-get-paid-to-beat-up-nrs-like-you/

The problem is that the facts are the facts and all the evidences point to Officer Wilson being 100 percent correct in his need to used deadly force on Brown.

The department as a department actions in another story but have nothing to do with the right of even a white police officer to defend his life and that even apply to an attacker with a dark skin.

So you think that everyone who's shyt gits old should leave this site, by, by.

That would be bye bye, hater, and weren't you just leaving?

It seems you didn't read the report. The judge that resigned fixed tickets for white people while not giving blacks a break. The police had a pattern of stopping blacks more often without cause based on what they were charged with compared to the whites stopped.

That is if you can trust the DOJ to look at the data with an impartial eye and that is very open to question given for example their actions in the Zimmerman case.

Including offering aid to anti Zimmmerman rallies and keeping the question of whether to charge him with a civil right crime open years after it was known that there was zero grounds to do so.

Would feel more comfortable if an outside expert would look at the data.

Your replies are so par for the course I don't know why you bother to posts, posters know more or less what you are going to post before you do on almost any given subject.

So rather than trusting the DOJ that actually looked at the data we should trust you that never looked at it? Hmm... what's wrong with this?

Maybe you can not read as I stated an impartial expert should look at the data as the DOJ had proven that they are not impartial.

I had said nothing about my looking at the data as I am not an expert in that field.

Unless they agree with you they're not impartial is basically what you're saying.

Funny how the DOJ must be biased even though you've never seen the figures, but the decision to invade Iraq based on WMDs was correct even though there weren't any.

The last time I met someone so convinced they were right about everything regardless of what the evidence said, they'd just started puberty.

What the hell does an invasion of Iraq under another administration have to do with the current DOJ that had proven under Holder and Obama that they are not impartial when it come to civil right charges?

As a tennis player once said "you can't be serious". Holder is a racist himself. And you, like always, are a Shill.

I was just pointing out some of the holes in your argument. If the DOJ had concluded that the police don't shoot enough black men you'd be all over them like a rash, denouncing any who would say otherwise as traitors.

Basically, it's only impartial or to be trusted if it confirms your deep rooted prejudices.