Black Lives Matter

What was the necessity to mention blacks?

Bull ****.

In this instance its needed to differentiate the difference in treatment between two different classes of people. In CNN's case its used to justify a bunch of armed white terrorists not being arrested, in my case its because it shows the difference of violence given to unarmed, unresisting blacks and the lack of recourse given to white armed terrorists.

If you get your wish of destroying the police departments we will indeed need arm citizens.

After Hurricane Andrew my community have no police or national guard protects for many weeks and with the phone system down no way to summon police in any case.

The neighbors kept the peace and the looters at bay by patrolling the community with shotguns.

In your dreams, junior, in your dreams.

Bill, Nobody is out to destroy the police department. Your imagination goes too far on too many topics.

Sure they are as for example changing the law so cops would need to wait until they are being shot at or hit for that matter before being allow to fired back.

No one would be a cop under laws that take away the right of self defense under reasonable fear standard.

Your imagination is working overtime again. Show me the laws?

Show you the self defense laws as they now stand or the changes that people like Bob and BLM would like to see happen?

Show me the laws as they pertain to the police.

Self defense laws apply to everyone including the police..

You said "cops would need to wait until being shot at." Where are those laws?

Bull **** and you know it.

My lord you can not understand that Bob had openly stated that what he would desire the laws to be, on this very thread. Not what the law happen to be at the moment

An in my opinion that is also the desire of the BLM leadership.

An all my comments had been directed at the end of having people willing to be police officers if repeat if they would get their way in placing such changes on the law books.

I don't give a shyt what Bob said. I'm asking you for evidence of the law.

Since I never stated repeat never stated that the laws had been change I can hardly provide evidence on changes in the laws that had up to this point had not happen.

Not asking for changes; just the laws that applies to the police on the issue being discussed.

If that crap was true, cops wouldn't be walking away 90+% of their murdering of unarmed black male youth. All the cops have to do is claim fear and they walk, even after shooting children for heavens sake.

You can't have it both ways, dummy.

Ferguson Store Owner Says He Doesn’t Believe That’s Mike Brown On Surveillance Video
August 18, 2014 1:28 am·



The convenience store surveillance tapes that the Ferguson police released supposedly shows Michael Brown “robbing” a the local market shortly before being shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson. The Ferguson police have characterized this as a “robbery” in spite of the fact that it was carried out without any brandishing of a weapon. This was really more a case of petty theft shoplifting than anything else. But in an interesting turn of events, this Friday the owners of the store announced that they never said that they believed Michael Brown was even the individual who stole the item from their store.

While the owners of the market are speaking out through an attorney about the surveillance video, the mainstream media have decided to virtually ignore everything they said. Instead, the corporate media outlets have remained content to pretend that this video definitively identifies Michael Brown as the strong arm shoplifter.

The owners claim that this is a claim the police have come up with on their own. On the other hand though, Dorian Johnson, a witness to the shooting of Michael Brown, has reportedly confessed to being with Brown in the convenient store. But this has yet to be corroborated by the store owner, employees or eye witnesses. A number of questions remain as we are not hearing this from Johnson himself, and we already see just how deceptively the Ferguson police are willing to twist facts to suit their narrative.

The store owner, speaking through their attorney, even dispute the claim that they or an employee called 911. They explain that a customer inside the store made the call, and that is how police even got word of a crime, or a perpetrator who “fit the description” of Brown. The fact of the matter is that if there were an actual “robbery,” we can be certain that the store owner would have called the police.

In addition to clarifying that the store owners never said they believed, nor identified the suspect as being Michael Brown, they further claimed that the St. Louis County issued the warrants to confiscate the hard drive of surveillance video Friday. The warrants were issued based on the police claim that Brown “fit the description” of the person in the video. Remember, this was the person who the owners and employees of the store did not even see fit to call the police on due to the pettiness of the crime. The owner clarifies that neither the management of the shop, nor any employee has ever identified Mike Brown as the suspect recorded in the surveillance video.

The claim that the video recorded Brown “robbing” the convenience store is an assertion made by the police alone. The real question is why the mainstream, corporate media has been uncritically taking the word of the police on this matter, even over the eye witness testimonies of the store employees and owners?

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/ferguson-store-owner-says-he-doesnt-believe-thats-mike-brown-on-surveillance-video/