And you think you know this utter load of shit exactly how?
Because everything put in front of the grand jury is also available, online, right in front of you. Not that you'd want to see that or anything, because it would take all the fun out of that petulant little fit you're having.
Prosecutors control everything the grand jury sees. Grand juries are behind closed doors. So how do you know that the prosecutor doesn't lie to the grand jury?
Knowing there would be people with the hearts set on vilifying the cop and the investigation, the prosecutor made the rather unusual decision to let the grand jury take an unusual amount of time to make their own investigative queries, to see any and all testimony they wanted (including obviously spurious stuff from all over the internet, and already debunked nonsense from the street - like Brown's running buddy's description of Wilson shooting out his cruiser window, standing over Brown and shooting him in the back... all stuff that didn't happen, per the evidence and multiple completely-consistent eye witnesses). And then, so you could relax a little bit, he asked the judge overseeing the panel to pre-emptively make arrangements to immediately publish a mountain of information so you could exactly what the grand jury had to work with. What the grand jury saw wasn't just what the prosecutor wanted to show them, it included the output of an army of investigators from the DoJ trying to turn the case into a federal civil rights violation case, and more.
I like how your correction to someone "deliberately spreading false information" is just a re-telling of the officer's account.
No, that's the account based on recordings of radio communications, and based on the testimony of multiple credible eye witnesses, corroborated by the physical evidence. And that's the account that the grand jury mulled over, along with a lot of obvious BS from all sort of other sources, that led the panel to realize there's no THERE there. Just like the DoJ investigation, in which Eric Holder was passionately, desperately hoping to find some sort of evidence of a civil rights violation, is coming up with a whole lot of nothing.
The people who keep trotting out the false narrative are just trying to wish away the 25 days of work done by the grand jury, and the untold thousands of man hours and millions of dollars tied up by Holder and the FBI, that are delivering exactly no police officer to string up.
Gee. I'd think a better way to avoid being punched is to not try to run the guy over, then slam a car door on him.
That might be something to consider, except of course that's pure fantasy on your part. Multiple credible eye witnesses (unlike you, and unlike the people who changed their stories or finally admitted they didn't actually see it happen after all) pointed out that the officer didn't either of the two things you're mentioning. So why bring them up? What's your agenda, in manufacturing a false narrative?
That's good, since, y'know, there was no judge involved.
Wow, you just keep on going with the whole feigned ignorance thing, don't you? The evidence presented to the grand jury could ONLY be released to the public through the piece-by-piece review of a judge (the same judge that sat the panel, not that you care, since the judge is fictional, right?). That judge is the one to decide whether or not the anonymity guaranteed to witnesses (who, you know, don't want to have their houses burned down by those thoughtful, peaceful protesters) is sufficiently preserved in the documents presented to people like you as you are offered the evidence you don't want to acknowledge.
Your supposed fundamental misunderstanding (again, I'm presuming that on this topic it's fake, and just as deliberate as your little bit of theater about non-existent witnesses) about the way that big pile of evidence was curated and released, and which checks and balances are in place, says plenty about your intentions here. What do you gain by saying there's no judge involved when the fact that there is one was plainly discussed in the press conference, in the summary documents, and by every last journalist and legal commentator asked to bundle all of this up for you? Yeah, the talking heads who are seeking to sell the idea that a grand jury is some sort of novel "secret proceeding" that was dreamed up just for the occasion to be unjust to the guy who assaulted the cop are going to assist you in your characterization, of course - their narrative loses a lot of its inflammatory BS vitality when actual details about the case and the process are discussed. And so they distort at every opportunity, and pretend that the evidence seen by the GJ doesn't matter, and that only a trial would show us the REAL evidence, blah blah blah.
Neither they, nor you, would have to spend so much energy trying to talk the evidence away or establish the myth that it wasn't published right in front of your eyes if they hadn't become so irrationally invested in the BS claims of a few people in the immediate aftermath of Brown's robbery and foolish assault. Media outlets who have been cheerleading for riots and who crave a minority victimhood cause du jour manufacture them if that's what they have to do to get attention. Pesky things like credible eye witnesses, physical evidence, and the documents that lay out exactly what was shown to (and asked for by) the GJ are terribly inconvenient, aren't they. You seem to know how that feels.
Found in the form of endless articles and breathless press coverage, referred to upstream and downstream from the deliberately misleading post. The user made an assertion that cannot, in the context of that person being an online, forum-using, plugged-in, slashdot type of human, be considered in any context other than deliberately misleading.
I looked through them and saw nothing to support those claims.
Which means you didn't even give the judge's published material a cursory glance.
No, frankly, I don't know how anyone could ever trust anything you say,
I'm not asking you to trust anything I say. I suggesting that you know right where the testimony is, and the lengthy reports on the forensic evidence, and that you're pretending you can't find it, parse it, or incorporate those facts into your understanding of the situation. You can't be unable to do it, which means that either you're unwilling to do it, or you've got an agenda of some kind that calls for you to try to wish it all away.
It's a little hypocritical that you accuse me of an ad hominem, considering that I replied to your post repeatedly calling someone a liar based only on hearsay, no?
No, I called someone a liar because - despite amply available facts to the contrary - they're spreading false information, on purpose. You know, deliberate deception. Lying.
And, it's also hypocritical that you call me lazy
Why? Here you are commenting on a matter for which all sorts of searchable, link-able documents have been provided, summarized, and repeated (in the sense of the germane details) for you to read. And yet you're pretending that you you're baffled about the availability of that information. You can't be that obtuse, and I was being generous calling you lazy - because you're acting like that information doesn't exist - why?
It is an ad hominem to call someone lazy
Not when the topic being discussed is that person's laziness, right? That's just a simple observation.
you haven't provided any such facts
Well, right. Because the the facts were provided by the corroborated eye witness testimony in front of the grand jury, and by the abundant physical evidence - and nicely wrapped up in the widely disseminated documents that you have indeed been too lazy to read (or too unwilling to, since it establishes a narrative you don't like).
So I'm sure you have a citation to support at least 7 witness statements that say that, at least 6 of whom are African American?
The prosecution released all of that testimony, available for you to read. But to save you the trouble, it was summed up during the press conference, because it was very important, in context. But just for fun, consider reading it, just like all of the journalists who have already done so, and helpfully explained the same thing so that people like you can get their heads on straight.
Nope: "But Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon." -http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown
Ar you calling the Police Chief a liar?
I'm calling him what he was: minus some important details. As pointed out once investigators from multiple agencies, including the FBI got around to listening to recordings of the actual communication. And no, from a distance of course Wilson didn't know that Brown was the guy who had moments before robbed the store. That's why he didn't know who he was possibly dealing with until he got up to them in the street, and saw what he saw. Are you unable to follow the details, here? Why?
If someone slammed a car door into you, wouldn't you push it back?
I might, but that didn't happen. Multiple eyewitnesses say it didn't happen. The only person making that claim is the warrant-out-on-him guy who also - right after it happened - said that Brown was shooting out the car window, shot a kneeling Brown multiple times in the back, etc. You know, Mr. Lying His Ass Off guy... who, strangely enough, you think is more credible than multiple African American witnesses who went to the police to tell them what they saw. How are you measuring credibility, here?
No shit. Crazy dude tries to run me over, slams his car door into me, then pulls a gun out? Damn straight I'm trying to to get that gun away from him!
Except, you'd be hallucinating, since witnesses say that didn't happen.
Inconsistency- you just said he pulled a gun to get Brown to "back off", but now (literally a second or two later), he's trying to "Stop" Brown from backing off??
It's a shame about your cognitive skills. He went for his gun to get Brown to back away from PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE THROUGH HIS CRUISER WINDOW. Once Brown's thumb got winged by a shot in the car, Brown started to move off, and Wilson got out in order to keep him from getting away following Brown's assault on a police officer. Feel free to read that a couple of times so you can get that complex chain of events straight in your head.
and it also proves that Brown was 130-150 feet away. No need to shoot an unarmed person at that distance.
Such pain, there in your head, where it must hurt to process facts. Ouch, huh?
That's the distance from the cruiser, not the distance from the officer, who was pursuing the guy who had just assaulted him. Mr. Stoked On Adrenaline Having Just Strong-Armed A Merchant And Assaulted A Cop decided to turn around and rush Wilson. The distance between them was nowhere near the distance between Brown and the cruiser that Wilson had left behind.
So we're back to wondering what people who choose to lie about these facts (by spinning fantasy, or through omission of important details) think they're going to achieve. Shouldn't you be out burning down your local grocery store or something?
This is the officers testimony. You know, the guy who will be on hook for murder if it goes to trial. Are you really surprised he spun a yarn that makes him look innocent?
It's the officer's testimony AND THE TESTIMONY OF MULTIPLE WITNESSES. And every bit of it is backed up by physical evidence. Unlike the made-for-the-media BS the first "witnesses" dished out, which all fell apart the moment those same people were asked serious questions. Many of them admitted to the grand jury that they never actually saw anything, and were just repeating something they'd heard. Others changed their story dramatically as soon as it was pointed out that what they described couldn't possibly have happened.
Which details of the physical evidence and multiple, corroborated eye witness accounts are you having trouble with, exactly? Please be specific.
But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered?
Except your fantasy version of events didn't actually happen. Multiple (African American, no less) witnesses (whose stories didn't change once asked real questions) came forward of their own volition and explained what happened. Brown didn't surrender. He didn't have his hands up. And he did charge at the cop again after assaulting him the first time.
Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.
But punching him in the face, trying to lay hands on the officer's gun, and then turning around and charging at him seconds later after being told to stop IS grounds for a guy (who'd just been slammed back into his cruiser and punched in his face) to feel threatened when a 6' 270-lb guy rushes him. I'd like to see your reaction. Arms out for a big hug, probably?
They looked at media reports, social media chatter, information gathered by the FBI under Eric Holder's breathless attempts to find some sort of civil rights violation, and much more. They looked at evidence that would never be admitted to a trial because it was just hearsay. And you get to look at all the same evidence, because the prosecutor's office knew people like you would be irrational about it.
Especially batshit irrelevant, as the cop had no idea there was a reported robbery
Why are you lying about this? What's your agenda that you are deliberately spreading false information?
Wilson was on another call nearby (helping with a baby that was having trouble breathing). He heard over his radio that there was a local retail store that had just had the strong-arm robbery we saw on video. After a minute or two more on the local situation, he left, and started in his cruiser down the road. He saw two guys walking down the middle of the street and as he passed, told them to get over to the sidewalk. When he got close, he noted that the 270-pound guy was a perfect match, right down to the red hat and yellow socks, for the description he had just heard on the radio. Before he confronted Brown, he got on the radio and said he had eyes on two individuals, and that he needed backup.
He pulled his cruiser backwards at an angle to cut off their jaunty stroll down the middle of the street and to block other traffic, and went to get out of his cruiser. Brown slammed the cruiser door shut, twice, and punched Wilson in the face, through the window. Before he got hit a third time, Wilson went for his weapon in order to get that huge guy to back off. Brown tried to grab it (his DNA is on the gun), and the gun went off in the car. Twice. One of those shots grazed Brown's thumb, leaving up-close powder marks. He (Brown) started to back off and walk away, and Wilson got out to stop him. Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops). There's blood on the street that shows Brown covered significant distance TOWARDS Wilson, just as described by those same witnesses.
Wilson was exactly aware that there had been a robbery, saw matching perps, and called it in. You know this, everyone knows this, and the people who are deliberately skipping over that simple fact (there are recordings!) are deliberately lying. Like you are, right now.
Prosecutors can 'indict a ham sandwich' with a grand jury.
Prosecutors can't do a damn thing unless they present that grand jury with compelling evidence and the GRAND JURY decides there's probable cause to bring charges. Grand juries routinely opt not to indict people, despite the fervent wishes of prosecutors. Another thing that you know is true, but about which you are lying for some reason. Not quite sure what your actual purpose is in doing so. It's strange.
Do you ever wonder if your lack of critical thinking skills has led you to internalize Republican nonsense?
Even a whiff of critical thinking skills would allow anyone to see that Obama's purely political stunt is the only nonsense in question. If he gave a crap about the illegal immigrants he wants to "bring out of the shadows," he'd have wave the same magic wand months ago, or years ago. But he knew that it would wreck his party's chances of hanging onto legislative power. But - to his shock, no doubt - his party got completely spanked in the election. So he's done what he just did entirely to poison the well for the upcoming election. That is all.
That's how it is at the practice we use. The owner, a man, is there six days a week. He puts in 60-80 hours a week. Off and on, he's had other full-time vets (mostly men), but in recent years he says that almost every applicant for positions in the practice have been women, and most are willing to work only 4 to 6 hours per day, and no more than 4 days per week. They also still want to be able to take maternity leave, etc. So he has a constantly shifting crew of other vets who make what feel like drive-by appearances, greatly reducing the odds that a customer will be able even see the same person twice during the course of some treatment. It's fine, the practice is well run and and they're all good, talented people. But the incoming "class" of vets shows absolutely no interest in putting in the long (and thus much better paying) hours that they used to. And they're almost all women, so hence the correlation.
Measurable, routinely reported, easily verified basic facts are now "bias" in some way? Why? How does smearing the person who mentions facts help you make whatever point you're trying to make, unless you know your ability to persuade relies on less information being on the table.
Point was that cheap (enough) ones absolutely have the ability to maintain position (including altitude) via GPS. When you want to start hanging a decent camera, video TX, the downlink receiver/display, and the beefier batteries/props that become part of hoisting the extras in the air and keeping them up there for over 10 minutes, you're getting closer to a $1000 machine. A lot of it depends on how willing you are to source individually cheaper components and do the build yourself, vs buying something (like a DJI products) that just works out of the box, but at more of a premium. Hang out at a forum like RCGroups.com, and you'll see lots of helpful people who cover that whole spectrum every day.
No they don't - they have auto stabilisation and thats it. You fly a drone in any kind of wind and it'll drift and you have to constantly adjust the throttle to keep it at the right height. Perhaps the really expensive kit has GPS and can keep itself at a certain location and height but the cheap ones most certainly do not.
You need to keep up. Unless for you, "really expensive" is $350.
And that "1/2 pay no income tax" is a very nice way to lie with the apparent truth
I didn't say payroll tax, I said income tax. Payroll taxes don't have any bearing on discretionary spending, paying interest on the debt racked up by things like the ACA's new deficit spending, on a single road, school, Coast Guard ship, solar energy plant crony subsidy, or anything at all along those lines. Payroll taxes are transfer taxes taken from one person, and given to another that same year. Lower income people's payroll tax contributions are a pale shadow of the entitlements they receive in transfers from other people. So net net in their lives, no, they don't pay.
Strange that you would call basic numbers and simple facts about the differences between discretionary and mandatory entitlement spending a "lie," but if you think that's scoring rhetorical points with somebody, I guess that suits you.
It's past time that the elections were publicly funded
More discretionary spending, which would come from the minority of the citizens who pay income taxes. What's your idea (other than not liking the First Amendment, obviously)... that somebody who hates successful people who start businesses should be able to reach into that person's pocket in order to fund a political campaign during which they vilify the very person who's buying them their political ads? Nice. Compulsory funding forcing one person to pay for another person's political ambitions, even as you want to shut down the First Amendment in the very area where it's most important. You're saying that if a politician starts campaigning in my town, promising that he'll call for extra high new taxes on the type of business I run, that I can't - in defense of that business - buy an ad in the local newspaper to educate voters about the wrong-headedness of that politician's goals? Because that's just a little too Freedom Of Speech for your taste? And better yet, you'd like me to spend a little of each day working so that a government middleman can take some of my day's earnings and give it to the guy in question to help fund his attack on me?
Why he didn't simply pitch & implement a Medicare-for-all plan boggles the mind.
Because Medicare is a disaster already, and sweeping a seventh of the entire US economy right into its gaping maw of abuse, corruption, inefficiency and low pay for medical professionals and the facilities they run would be a complete train wreck. They didn't attempt that because they new it would guarantee no buy-in from any thinking people. Just yesterday, we all got treated to a video recording of one of the architects of ObamaCare explaining how the only way it got passed by the one-party vote that put it in place was to avoid transparency and to be deceptive about the nature of the law. The law got lied into place by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
Subsidizing the legitimately poor is not at all the same as keeping them dependent
Except handing out subsidies has been the very hallmark of the lefty "war on poverty" for many decades, and it has resulted in exactly that. Multiple generations of families that are culturally, within their dependent families and social circles, utterly unfamiliar with being anything other than the recipients of other people's money. They feel entitled to it because people who choose to make being the government middleman for such schemes their profession TELL them that they are entitled to it. Half the people in the country pay no income taxes. Half. But they still get to vote and shape the very policies that spare them from having to do so, while putting the cost-paying part of the society's social contract onto other people. The entitlement-minded types love that scheme, and it's no surprise that there are political divisions along those lines.
You might as well argue that public libraries and discounted books are keeping people illiterate.
That is a completely absurd non sequitor.
Better to say that giving someone something every day - something worked, bought, and paid for by other people who are under threat of imprisonment if they don't work part of each of their day to foot that bill - keeps the regular recipients of those things from ever feeling the need to provide for themselves. No need, no motivation. No motivation, and very few people do it. And the rare bright kid who escapes from that cultural pit is reviled by his friends and family for shunning that miserable trap of a way of life. Abuse of the system? Isn't having a gun pointed at you and being told to work from 9:00AM to noon each day in order to hand the fruits of that part of your labor to someone else abuse? Every day, for the rest of your life (or for as long as you can hang onto that productive and creative spark even when you're being told you must work for other people, and that by the way, you're the bad guy for living at all well despite having to do so), as a permanent feature of "the system?" Yeah, that's abuse. Systematic abuse.
The new health care law is just another example of ever more of that daily productivity/income transfer under threat of federal penalty and confiscation by way of the IRS.
I support fully socialized medicine....all health care orgs become non-profit...
Yes! And people who enter the health care field (like neurosurgeons, or emergency medicine specialists) should NOT be allowed to make any more money than absolutely necessary to live in a specific, government-approved lifestyle. Every geographic area of the country has different costs of living, so we'll need an elaborate new government bureaucracy to decide, week-to-week, what is the exact amount that an anesthesiologist should earn in order to exactly pay for rent on his one bedroom apartment and modest level of grocery buying. Just to be sure, we should probably also regulate the exact dollar amount of that rent, too, because many landlords have tenants who are nurses or otherwise employed in health care, and they also should not be allowed to profit, even indirectly, from the fact that someone who couldn't be bothered to trim his toenails ended up getting an infection. Only government control of that entire economic food chain can assure us of fairness and efficiency!
Health Care scarcity is Artificial Scarcity in 2014
It's true. There are thousands of doctors, sitting around in their practices with their staff and equipment and highly regulated record-keeping systems that are just waiting for something to do. If everyone could just walk into any doctor's office any time they wanted without a care in the world because some minority of their fellow citizens can be counted on to pay the bill, that would absolutely have no impact on how many doctors and services there are available. Why, it would be even more attractive to get into healthcare, right? Oh, wait, but you're going to make sure that no doctor can profit from the long years of hard work and the ongoing expense required to start and run a medical practice, so that might actually make some of them reconsider participating in your utopia. Or, they'll all just get that same carefully decided-on-by-government income every year, but move to where the cost of living is lower. But that's not fair! We'll have to regulate the cost of living, too, to make sure it's all socially equal. So even if it does cost more to get food and electricity and supplies to Hawaii, we'll have to force everyone in that supply chain to lose money providing it, just to be fair to people who live in Wisconsin or New Jersey.
But conversely, he Republicans have only criticism of Obama's work on health care, but no actual solution for the health care crisis
Of course they have only criticism. The law is terrible. Millions of people lost their coverage, with the only option to be the new purchase of much more expensive plans or penalties by the IRS. In January, that same thing is going to happen to ten times as many people when the employer mandate (which Obama illegally delayed for political reasons to get it in past this recent election - a lot of good it did him!) kicks in. Typical costs for people who aren't on the subsidy/dole will go up, along with huge new deductibles, just as has already happened to millions of self employed people already. This was predicted, and has happened. That's exactly the sort of criticism the Republicans had, and they were shouted down as being racists or the usual crap, because the left didn't want to face the music.
The ACA doesn't "solve the health care crisis" in any way. It just raises prices for health insurance on one group, and uses some of that money (the part that doesn't get burned in a bonfire of government bureaucracy) is handed to other people. It's a wealth transfer tax that does nothing to actually change what it costs an OB/GYN to get malpractice insurance, or how much a radiologist has to pay for a mortgage, or what it costs to run all of the unnecessary tests that are run to fend off capricious law suits. The health care crisis exists because what we now think of as health care includes hugely costly equipment, chemicals, and legal defe
Slashdot Mirror
And you think you know this utter load of shit exactly how?
Because everything put in front of the grand jury is also available, online, right in front of you. Not that you'd want to see that or anything, because it would take all the fun out of that petulant little fit you're having.
Prosecutors control everything the grand jury sees. Grand juries are behind closed doors. So how do you know that the prosecutor doesn't lie to the grand jury?
Knowing there would be people with the hearts set on vilifying the cop and the investigation, the prosecutor made the rather unusual decision to let the grand jury take an unusual amount of time to make their own investigative queries, to see any and all testimony they wanted (including obviously spurious stuff from all over the internet, and already debunked nonsense from the street - like Brown's running buddy's description of Wilson shooting out his cruiser window, standing over Brown and shooting him in the back ... all stuff that didn't happen, per the evidence and multiple completely-consistent eye witnesses). And then, so you could relax a little bit, he asked the judge overseeing the panel to pre-emptively make arrangements to immediately publish a mountain of information so you could exactly what the grand jury had to work with. What the grand jury saw wasn't just what the prosecutor wanted to show them, it included the output of an army of investigators from the DoJ trying to turn the case into a federal civil rights violation case, and more.
I like how your correction to someone "deliberately spreading false information" is just a re-telling of the officer's account.
No, that's the account based on recordings of radio communications, and based on the testimony of multiple credible eye witnesses, corroborated by the physical evidence. And that's the account that the grand jury mulled over, along with a lot of obvious BS from all sort of other sources, that led the panel to realize there's no THERE there. Just like the DoJ investigation, in which Eric Holder was passionately, desperately hoping to find some sort of evidence of a civil rights violation, is coming up with a whole lot of nothing.
The people who keep trotting out the false narrative are just trying to wish away the 25 days of work done by the grand jury, and the untold thousands of man hours and millions of dollars tied up by Holder and the FBI, that are delivering exactly no police officer to string up.
Gee. I'd think a better way to avoid being punched is to not try to run the guy over, then slam a car door on him.
That might be something to consider, except of course that's pure fantasy on your part. Multiple credible eye witnesses (unlike you, and unlike the people who changed their stories or finally admitted they didn't actually see it happen after all) pointed out that the officer didn't either of the two things you're mentioning. So why bring them up? What's your agenda, in manufacturing a false narrative?
That's good, since, y'know, there was no judge involved.
Wow, you just keep on going with the whole feigned ignorance thing, don't you? The evidence presented to the grand jury could ONLY be released to the public through the piece-by-piece review of a judge (the same judge that sat the panel, not that you care, since the judge is fictional, right?). That judge is the one to decide whether or not the anonymity guaranteed to witnesses (who, you know, don't want to have their houses burned down by those thoughtful, peaceful protesters) is sufficiently preserved in the documents presented to people like you as you are offered the evidence you don't want to acknowledge.
Your supposed fundamental misunderstanding (again, I'm presuming that on this topic it's fake, and just as deliberate as your little bit of theater about non-existent witnesses) about the way that big pile of evidence was curated and released, and which checks and balances are in place, says plenty about your intentions here. What do you gain by saying there's no judge involved when the fact that there is one was plainly discussed in the press conference, in the summary documents, and by every last journalist and legal commentator asked to bundle all of this up for you? Yeah, the talking heads who are seeking to sell the idea that a grand jury is some sort of novel "secret proceeding" that was dreamed up just for the occasion to be unjust to the guy who assaulted the cop are going to assist you in your characterization, of course - their narrative loses a lot of its inflammatory BS vitality when actual details about the case and the process are discussed. And so they distort at every opportunity, and pretend that the evidence seen by the GJ doesn't matter, and that only a trial would show us the REAL evidence, blah blah blah.
Neither they, nor you, would have to spend so much energy trying to talk the evidence away or establish the myth that it wasn't published right in front of your eyes if they hadn't become so irrationally invested in the BS claims of a few people in the immediate aftermath of Brown's robbery and foolish assault. Media outlets who have been cheerleading for riots and who crave a minority victimhood cause du jour manufacture them if that's what they have to do to get attention. Pesky things like credible eye witnesses, physical evidence, and the documents that lay out exactly what was shown to (and asked for by) the GJ are terribly inconvenient, aren't they. You seem to know how that feels.
And your evidence for this is...?
Found in the form of endless articles and breathless press coverage, referred to upstream and downstream from the deliberately misleading post. The user made an assertion that cannot, in the context of that person being an online, forum-using, plugged-in, slashdot type of human, be considered in any context other than deliberately misleading.
I looked through them and saw nothing to support those claims.
Which means you didn't even give the judge's published material a cursory glance.
No, frankly, I don't know how anyone could ever trust anything you say,
I'm not asking you to trust anything I say. I suggesting that you know right where the testimony is, and the lengthy reports on the forensic evidence, and that you're pretending you can't find it, parse it, or incorporate those facts into your understanding of the situation. You can't be unable to do it, which means that either you're unwilling to do it, or you've got an agenda of some kind that calls for you to try to wish it all away.
It's a little hypocritical that you accuse me of an ad hominem, considering that I replied to your post repeatedly calling someone a liar based only on hearsay, no?
No, I called someone a liar because - despite amply available facts to the contrary - they're spreading false information, on purpose. You know, deliberate deception. Lying.
And, it's also hypocritical that you call me lazy
Why? Here you are commenting on a matter for which all sorts of searchable, link-able documents have been provided, summarized, and repeated (in the sense of the germane details) for you to read. And yet you're pretending that you you're baffled about the availability of that information. You can't be that obtuse, and I was being generous calling you lazy - because you're acting like that information doesn't exist - why?
It is an ad hominem to call someone lazy
Not when the topic being discussed is that person's laziness, right? That's just a simple observation.
you haven't provided any such facts
Well, right. Because the the facts were provided by the corroborated eye witness testimony in front of the grand jury, and by the abundant physical evidence - and nicely wrapped up in the widely disseminated documents that you have indeed been too lazy to read (or too unwilling to, since it establishes a narrative you don't like).
Wow, are you lazy. Well, lazy about everything except ad hominem - the comfort zone for people who don't like facts.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...
So I'm sure you have a citation to support at least 7 witness statements that say that, at least 6 of whom are African American?
The prosecution released all of that testimony, available for you to read. But to save you the trouble, it was summed up during the press conference, because it was very important, in context. But just for fun, consider reading it, just like all of the journalists who have already done so, and helpfully explained the same thing so that people like you can get their heads on straight.
Nope: "But Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon." -http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown
Ar you calling the Police Chief a liar?
I'm calling him what he was: minus some important details. As pointed out once investigators from multiple agencies, including the FBI got around to listening to recordings of the actual communication. And no, from a distance of course Wilson didn't know that Brown was the guy who had moments before robbed the store. That's why he didn't know who he was possibly dealing with until he got up to them in the street, and saw what he saw. Are you unable to follow the details, here? Why?
If someone slammed a car door into you, wouldn't you push it back?
I might, but that didn't happen. Multiple eyewitnesses say it didn't happen. The only person making that claim is the warrant-out-on-him guy who also - right after it happened - said that Brown was shooting out the car window, shot a kneeling Brown multiple times in the back, etc. You know, Mr. Lying His Ass Off guy ... who, strangely enough, you think is more credible than multiple African American witnesses who went to the police to tell them what they saw. How are you measuring credibility, here?
No shit. Crazy dude tries to run me over, slams his car door into me, then pulls a gun out? Damn straight I'm trying to to get that gun away from him!
Except, you'd be hallucinating, since witnesses say that didn't happen.
Inconsistency- you just said he pulled a gun to get Brown to "back off", but now (literally a second or two later), he's trying to "Stop" Brown from backing off??
It's a shame about your cognitive skills. He went for his gun to get Brown to back away from PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE THROUGH HIS CRUISER WINDOW. Once Brown's thumb got winged by a shot in the car, Brown started to move off, and Wilson got out in order to keep him from getting away following Brown's assault on a police officer. Feel free to read that a couple of times so you can get that complex chain of events straight in your head.
and it also proves that Brown was 130-150 feet away. No need to shoot an unarmed person at that distance.
Such pain, there in your head, where it must hurt to process facts. Ouch, huh?
That's the distance from the cruiser, not the distance from the officer, who was pursuing the guy who had just assaulted him. Mr. Stoked On Adrenaline Having Just Strong-Armed A Merchant And Assaulted A Cop decided to turn around and rush Wilson. The distance between them was nowhere near the distance between Brown and the cruiser that Wilson had left behind.
So we're back to wondering what people who choose to lie about these facts (by spinning fantasy, or through omission of important details) think they're going to achieve. Shouldn't you be out burning down your local grocery store or something?
This is the officers testimony. You know, the guy who will be on hook for murder if it goes to trial. Are you really surprised he spun a yarn that makes him look innocent?
It's the officer's testimony AND THE TESTIMONY OF MULTIPLE WITNESSES. And every bit of it is backed up by physical evidence. Unlike the made-for-the-media BS the first "witnesses" dished out, which all fell apart the moment those same people were asked serious questions. Many of them admitted to the grand jury that they never actually saw anything, and were just repeating something they'd heard. Others changed their story dramatically as soon as it was pointed out that what they described couldn't possibly have happened.
Which details of the physical evidence and multiple, corroborated eye witness accounts are you having trouble with, exactly? Please be specific.
But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered?
Except your fantasy version of events didn't actually happen. Multiple (African American, no less) witnesses (whose stories didn't change once asked real questions) came forward of their own volition and explained what happened. Brown didn't surrender. He didn't have his hands up. And he did charge at the cop again after assaulting him the first time.
Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.
But punching him in the face, trying to lay hands on the officer's gun, and then turning around and charging at him seconds later after being told to stop IS grounds for a guy (who'd just been slammed back into his cruiser and punched in his face) to feel threatened when a 6' 270-lb guy rushes him. I'd like to see your reaction. Arms out for a big hug, probably?
ALL the facts given by police?
They looked at media reports, social media chatter, information gathered by the FBI under Eric Holder's breathless attempts to find some sort of civil rights violation, and much more. They looked at evidence that would never be admitted to a trial because it was just hearsay. And you get to look at all the same evidence, because the prosecutor's office knew people like you would be irrational about it.
Especially batshit irrelevant, as the cop had no idea there was a reported robbery
Why are you lying about this? What's your agenda that you are deliberately spreading false information?
Wilson was on another call nearby (helping with a baby that was having trouble breathing). He heard over his radio that there was a local retail store that had just had the strong-arm robbery we saw on video. After a minute or two more on the local situation, he left, and started in his cruiser down the road. He saw two guys walking down the middle of the street and as he passed, told them to get over to the sidewalk. When he got close, he noted that the 270-pound guy was a perfect match, right down to the red hat and yellow socks, for the description he had just heard on the radio. Before he confronted Brown, he got on the radio and said he had eyes on two individuals, and that he needed backup.
He pulled his cruiser backwards at an angle to cut off their jaunty stroll down the middle of the street and to block other traffic, and went to get out of his cruiser. Brown slammed the cruiser door shut, twice, and punched Wilson in the face, through the window. Before he got hit a third time, Wilson went for his weapon in order to get that huge guy to back off. Brown tried to grab it (his DNA is on the gun), and the gun went off in the car. Twice. One of those shots grazed Brown's thumb, leaving up-close powder marks. He (Brown) started to back off and walk away, and Wilson got out to stop him. Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops). There's blood on the street that shows Brown covered significant distance TOWARDS Wilson, just as described by those same witnesses.
Wilson was exactly aware that there had been a robbery, saw matching perps, and called it in. You know this, everyone knows this, and the people who are deliberately skipping over that simple fact (there are recordings!) are deliberately lying. Like you are, right now.
Prosecutors can 'indict a ham sandwich' with a grand jury.
Prosecutors can't do a damn thing unless they present that grand jury with compelling evidence and the GRAND JURY decides there's probable cause to bring charges. Grand juries routinely opt not to indict people, despite the fervent wishes of prosecutors. Another thing that you know is true, but about which you are lying for some reason. Not quite sure what your actual purpose is in doing so. It's strange.
Do you ever wonder if your lack of critical thinking skills has led you to internalize Republican nonsense?
Even a whiff of critical thinking skills would allow anyone to see that Obama's purely political stunt is the only nonsense in question. If he gave a crap about the illegal immigrants he wants to "bring out of the shadows," he'd have wave the same magic wand months ago, or years ago. But he knew that it would wreck his party's chances of hanging onto legislative power. But - to his shock, no doubt - his party got completely spanked in the election. So he's done what he just did entirely to poison the well for the upcoming election. That is all.
Where did he say he was convicted? Specifically.
That's how it is at the practice we use. The owner, a man, is there six days a week. He puts in 60-80 hours a week. Off and on, he's had other full-time vets (mostly men), but in recent years he says that almost every applicant for positions in the practice have been women, and most are willing to work only 4 to 6 hours per day, and no more than 4 days per week. They also still want to be able to take maternity leave, etc. So he has a constantly shifting crew of other vets who make what feel like drive-by appearances, greatly reducing the odds that a customer will be able even see the same person twice during the course of some treatment. It's fine, the practice is well run and and they're all good, talented people. But the incoming "class" of vets shows absolutely no interest in putting in the long (and thus much better paying) hours that they used to. And they're almost all women, so hence the correlation.
Hey, it backs your bias so jump right in.
Measurable, routinely reported, easily verified basic facts are now "bias" in some way? Why? How does smearing the person who mentions facts help you make whatever point you're trying to make, unless you know your ability to persuade relies on less information being on the table.
Point was that cheap (enough) ones absolutely have the ability to maintain position (including altitude) via GPS. When you want to start hanging a decent camera, video TX, the downlink receiver/display, and the beefier batteries/props that become part of hoisting the extras in the air and keeping them up there for over 10 minutes, you're getting closer to a $1000 machine. A lot of it depends on how willing you are to source individually cheaper components and do the build yourself, vs buying something (like a DJI products) that just works out of the box, but at more of a premium. Hang out at a forum like RCGroups.com, and you'll see lots of helpful people who cover that whole spectrum every day.
No they don't - they have auto stabilisation and thats it. You fly a drone in any kind of wind and it'll drift and you have to constantly adjust the throttle to keep it at the right height. Perhaps the really expensive kit has GPS and can keep itself at a certain location and height but the cheap ones most certainly do not.
You need to keep up. Unless for you, "really expensive" is $350.
Are the Myth Busters going to have to find another giant hangar for their large scale experiments?
It won't matter. MythBusters will dry up and go away without boobs.
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and yes, I know "ten thousand times weaker" is crappy phrasing.
So ... don't phrase it that way? What the hell is wrong with "one ten-thousandth as strong," anyway?
And that "1/2 pay no income tax" is a very nice way to lie with the apparent truth
I didn't say payroll tax, I said income tax. Payroll taxes don't have any bearing on discretionary spending, paying interest on the debt racked up by things like the ACA's new deficit spending, on a single road, school, Coast Guard ship, solar energy plant crony subsidy, or anything at all along those lines. Payroll taxes are transfer taxes taken from one person, and given to another that same year. Lower income people's payroll tax contributions are a pale shadow of the entitlements they receive in transfers from other people. So net net in their lives, no, they don't pay.
Strange that you would call basic numbers and simple facts about the differences between discretionary and mandatory entitlement spending a "lie," but if you think that's scoring rhetorical points with somebody, I guess that suits you.
It's past time that the elections were publicly funded
More discretionary spending, which would come from the minority of the citizens who pay income taxes. What's your idea (other than not liking the First Amendment, obviously) ... that somebody who hates successful people who start businesses should be able to reach into that person's pocket in order to fund a political campaign during which they vilify the very person who's buying them their political ads? Nice. Compulsory funding forcing one person to pay for another person's political ambitions, even as you want to shut down the First Amendment in the very area where it's most important. You're saying that if a politician starts campaigning in my town, promising that he'll call for extra high new taxes on the type of business I run, that I can't - in defense of that business - buy an ad in the local newspaper to educate voters about the wrong-headedness of that politician's goals? Because that's just a little too Freedom Of Speech for your taste? And better yet, you'd like me to spend a little of each day working so that a government middleman can take some of my day's earnings and give it to the guy in question to help fund his attack on me?
Why he didn't simply pitch & implement a Medicare-for-all plan boggles the mind.
Because Medicare is a disaster already, and sweeping a seventh of the entire US economy right into its gaping maw of abuse, corruption, inefficiency and low pay for medical professionals and the facilities they run would be a complete train wreck. They didn't attempt that because they new it would guarantee no buy-in from any thinking people. Just yesterday, we all got treated to a video recording of one of the architects of ObamaCare explaining how the only way it got passed by the one-party vote that put it in place was to avoid transparency and to be deceptive about the nature of the law. The law got lied into place by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
Subsidizing the legitimately poor is not at all the same as keeping them dependent
Except handing out subsidies has been the very hallmark of the lefty "war on poverty" for many decades, and it has resulted in exactly that. Multiple generations of families that are culturally, within their dependent families and social circles, utterly unfamiliar with being anything other than the recipients of other people's money. They feel entitled to it because people who choose to make being the government middleman for such schemes their profession TELL them that they are entitled to it. Half the people in the country pay no income taxes. Half. But they still get to vote and shape the very policies that spare them from having to do so, while putting the cost-paying part of the society's social contract onto other people. The entitlement-minded types love that scheme, and it's no surprise that there are political divisions along those lines.
You might as well argue that public libraries and discounted books are keeping people illiterate.
That is a completely absurd non sequitor.
Better to say that giving someone something every day - something worked, bought, and paid for by other people who are under threat of imprisonment if they don't work part of each of their day to foot that bill - keeps the regular recipients of those things from ever feeling the need to provide for themselves. No need, no motivation. No motivation, and very few people do it. And the rare bright kid who escapes from that cultural pit is reviled by his friends and family for shunning that miserable trap of a way of life. Abuse of the system? Isn't having a gun pointed at you and being told to work from 9:00AM to noon each day in order to hand the fruits of that part of your labor to someone else abuse? Every day, for the rest of your life (or for as long as you can hang onto that productive and creative spark even when you're being told you must work for other people, and that by the way, you're the bad guy for living at all well despite having to do so), as a permanent feature of "the system?" Yeah, that's abuse. Systematic abuse.
The new health care law is just another example of ever more of that daily productivity/income transfer under threat of federal penalty and confiscation by way of the IRS.
I support fully socialized medicine....all health care orgs become non-profit...
Yes! And people who enter the health care field (like neurosurgeons, or emergency medicine specialists) should NOT be allowed to make any more money than absolutely necessary to live in a specific, government-approved lifestyle. Every geographic area of the country has different costs of living, so we'll need an elaborate new government bureaucracy to decide, week-to-week, what is the exact amount that an anesthesiologist should earn in order to exactly pay for rent on his one bedroom apartment and modest level of grocery buying. Just to be sure, we should probably also regulate the exact dollar amount of that rent, too, because many landlords have tenants who are nurses or otherwise employed in health care, and they also should not be allowed to profit, even indirectly, from the fact that someone who couldn't be bothered to trim his toenails ended up getting an infection. Only government control of that entire economic food chain can assure us of fairness and efficiency!
Health Care scarcity is Artificial Scarcity in 2014
It's true. There are thousands of doctors, sitting around in their practices with their staff and equipment and highly regulated record-keeping systems that are just waiting for something to do. If everyone could just walk into any doctor's office any time they wanted without a care in the world because some minority of their fellow citizens can be counted on to pay the bill, that would absolutely have no impact on how many doctors and services there are available. Why, it would be even more attractive to get into healthcare, right? Oh, wait, but you're going to make sure that no doctor can profit from the long years of hard work and the ongoing expense required to start and run a medical practice, so that might actually make some of them reconsider participating in your utopia. Or, they'll all just get that same carefully decided-on-by-government income every year, but move to where the cost of living is lower. But that's not fair! We'll have to regulate the cost of living, too, to make sure it's all socially equal. So even if it does cost more to get food and electricity and supplies to Hawaii, we'll have to force everyone in that supply chain to lose money providing it, just to be fair to people who live in Wisconsin or New Jersey.
But conversely, he Republicans have only criticism of Obama's work on health care, but no actual solution for the health care crisis
Of course they have only criticism. The law is terrible. Millions of people lost their coverage, with the only option to be the new purchase of much more expensive plans or penalties by the IRS. In January, that same thing is going to happen to ten times as many people when the employer mandate (which Obama illegally delayed for political reasons to get it in past this recent election - a lot of good it did him!) kicks in. Typical costs for people who aren't on the subsidy/dole will go up, along with huge new deductibles, just as has already happened to millions of self employed people already. This was predicted, and has happened. That's exactly the sort of criticism the Republicans had, and they were shouted down as being racists or the usual crap, because the left didn't want to face the music.
The ACA doesn't "solve the health care crisis" in any way. It just raises prices for health insurance on one group, and uses some of that money (the part that doesn't get burned in a bonfire of government bureaucracy) is handed to other people. It's a wealth transfer tax that does nothing to actually change what it costs an OB/GYN to get malpractice insurance, or how much a radiologist has to pay for a mortgage, or what it costs to run all of the unnecessary tests that are run to fend off capricious law suits. The health care crisis exists because what we now think of as health care includes hugely costly equipment, chemicals, and legal defe