media ignores white man killed by black cop

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

So what you seem to be implying is that a white person who is brutally murdered is less important, less newsworthy than a black man being killed by a white man, in this case, a police officer even though the police officer was acting in self-defense.   Your comparison is invalid.  You are implying the fire that burns up a deck by accident is like the story of a white victim of black crime.   Sorry, but no one is going to buy that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the events happen? The criminal was probably doing it because of the complicated socio-economic factors that would lead someone to commit a crime in the first place. I mean, who REALLY wants to steal? Almost nobody. Crime arises out of many inter-sectional conditions such as poverty, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities, cultural environment, etc because he's an evil badman and you can't fit much else into 200 words. The officer in this instance is just doing his job, which is dangerous, to protect and serve. Sounds kind of like a hero. (Hint, I'm using the word hero a lot. An officer getting shot is almost certainly going to be portrayed as a hero. The journalistic term for that type of story is literally a "hero story".

 

Well, yes.  Police officers are actually heroes, and that is accentuated when they get killed by criminals.

 

As for the part you crossed through, which I think would be your explanation for the reason criminals do what they do....   That approach to the criminal makes his actions society's fault.   He's not at fault, society made him a criminal according to how you approach this.  If he had better opportunities, better environment, was not born on the poor side of the tracks, he would not be committing these crimes...   It's everyone else's fault but the criminal; suddenly its the criminal who becomes the victim, in the liberal mindset.

 

The truth is that despite what liberals claim, everyone has an equal shot at a good life in this country.  I know of people who are happy and successful who are suffering from cerebral palsy, who live productive lives despite physical handicaps/disabilities.  They are not living on food stamps, and while they do need some assistance for certain things, they take the bull by horns, they have jobs and they don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves, whining and blaming everyone else.  They have some ambition and they represent the best in our country and demonstrate what some determination and strength of character can accomplish.

 

So when an able-bodies black man whines and snivels around about how he is kept down and denies equal treatment, it isn't worth listening to.   He is a liar.  He is simply too lazy to get up and make his own way.   The US bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of racial minorities, but we are not going to treat them like royalty.

 

There are pockets of racism in the US, but they do not represent the majority of white Americans who, by a landslide twice elected an African American president.   You can sit on here and blather on and on about how some supposed culture in this country that disadvantages black people but the truth is that this country boasts a huge number of successful African Americans in the fields of politics, medicine, sports, music, sports, and business.

 

 

 

 

Now to talk a bit about Michael Brown and Dillon Taylor. One of those those stories is more newsworthy and is a bigger story.

 

Did Dillon's story catapult to the frontpage of virtually all social media, thereby creating a massive demand for more information on the story? Is there any historical context and/or a current problem that could possibly indicate that caucasians are targeted by police officers? For example, if a white male gets stopped with drugs, is he four times more likely to be arrested than a black male who gets stopped for the same thing? Is that white male statistically many times more likely to serve prison time that a black male for that same crime? Were there local and national protests about Dillon? Did anyone riot? Was the police response to the protests near military level, involving deploying rooftop snipers, MRAP's used in warzones, and The National Guard? Did the police threaten unarmed protestors by pointed loaded guns at them? Did the police respond to journalists, American and International, by arresting them? Did they intentionally shoot tear gas at TV news crews and then take their equipment down?

 

The answer to all of those questions for Dillon Taylor is a resounding no. If you flip those questions around a bit, all of those things happen in the Michael Brown story. They are not getting covered equally because the stories are not equal.

 

Mistake #1:   There is only ONE story, not two stories.  You are trying to create a false dichotomy.   There is one story in play.  Michael Brown assaulted a police officer.   He drew first blood.   The fact that one is black and one is white is irrelevant to the issue.   Liberals make an issue of race, but this story has nothing to do with race.

 

Mistake #2:  You fail to acknowledge that the liberal media ran with the narrative they wanted to push.  This was not about honest journalism.  The media made this about race because that's what sells, and that's what generates ratings. 

 

Mistake #3:  You are asking all of the wrong questions.  Liberals usually do that when they are pushing a "race" agenda.   If we go by nothing more than the facts of this case, then what we have is a thief who assaulted a police officer and who attempted a second similar assault but was killed when the officer (who was not physically capable of subduing the criminal) fired his gun in self-defense.  What you should be asking is why Michael Brown was in such a state of mind that he had to be shot five times in order to be taken down. In the past, that is evidence of a person being under the influence of a controlled substance. 

 

For your first paragraph., that's NOT what I said. That is a terrible false witness about what I actually said.

 

I was going off your the sentence you crossed out, which represents the typical liberal, "blame the victim" approach.  Essentially, first paragraph is spot on.  I am not the only one who sees it.  I didn't accuse you "saying" anything.  I was talking about what your post implies.  I stand by what I said.  My assessment of your views is accurate.  It is clear that you side with the lowest common denominator in this story and you have already tried to make the story about Michael Brown about race when it is clearly not about race. 

 

Up until the death of Taylor and the death of Brown, both stories on a look similar. We agree on that.

 

The bigger fire is what matters. Michael Brown is a bigger story because:

A Shooting + Protests + Riots +Tear Gas + Arrests + Mine Resistant Vehicles used in a protest + loads of other events,

 

Is greater than:

 

A shooting.

 

It's that simple.

 

It's a bigger story because it is the one that the media focuses on and continues to foment.  It is a bigger story because it is the one the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are exploiting to forward their own personal agendas.

 

The fact is that the eye-witness accounts of this story are false and the riots and protests (that made the police militaristic presence necessary) are based on lie.  They are rioting because this story has been perverted into a race issue and eye-witnesses willingly lied about what happened in order to create a false narrative.

 

When the video of Brown robbing the store and pushing around the store owner made the African American community angry because suddenly their narrative of this happy, innocent black boy who was gunned down in cold blood who didn't do anything wrong, suddenly went up in smoke.  They didn't want that video out there and strongly condemned the media for releasing it. 

 

The autopsy report proved the eye-witnesses were nothing but liars  because the bullet wound entry points were in the front.  And they proved that Brown didn't have his hands up in surrender.  The injuries received by the police officer from Brown also prove that this was not a kid who was shot in cold blood, but was shot in self-defense.

 

Everything that has been meant to make this story about race relations is nothing but a pack of lies, but you have drunk the liberal media kool-aid and you are willing to jump to conclusions about what the story is really about.

 

Black on black, white on white and black on white crimes don't fit the racist, liberal agenda and so those crimes don't get any coverage.  The only time a murder gets national attention is when a black man is killed by a white man, particularly a policeman.  

 

Why did you imply Michael Brown could've been on drugs? Do you have any actual evidence of that? Toxicology report perhaps?

 

No, because of the testimony I heard from several behavioral experts and those in law enforcement who said that when a person is on some kind of controlled substance they are in a state of mind that makes them feel impervious to pain.  A person hopped up something like heroin can put his fist through a car window and break every bone in his hand and not feel it.   They said that Brown's behavior was consistent with someone who was on some kind of drug.  It could explain why he was shot four times but continued charging the police officer, as if he didn't feel a thing and why it took a shot in the head to finally bring him down.

 

But a lot of those people were white and so I don't know how much credibility their testimony will be given.

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what you seem to be implying is that a white person who is brutally murdered is less important, less newsworthy than a black man being killed by a white man, in this case, a police officer even though the police officer was acting in self-defense.   Your comparison is invalid.  You are implying the fire that burns up a deck by accident is like the story of a white victim of black crime.   Sorry, but no one is going to buy that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the events happen? The criminal was probably doing it because of the complicated socio-economic factors that would lead someone to commit a crime in the first place. I mean, who REALLY wants to steal? Almost nobody. Crime arises out of many inter-sectional conditions such as poverty, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities, cultural environment, etc because he's an evil badman and you can't fit much else into 200 words. The officer in this instance is just doing his job, which is dangerous, to protect and serve. Sounds kind of like a hero. (Hint, I'm using the word hero a lot. An officer getting shot is almost certainly going to be portrayed as a hero. The journalistic term for that type of story is literally a "hero story".

 

Well, yes.  Police officers are actually heroes, and that is accentuated when they get killed by criminals.

 

As for the part you crossed through, which I think would be your explanation for the reason criminals do what they do....   That approach to the criminal makes his actions society's fault.   He's not at fault, society made him a criminal according to how you approach this.  If he had better opportunities, better environment, was not born on the poor side of the tracks, he would not be committing these crimes...   It's everyone else's fault but the criminal; suddenly its the criminal who becomes the victim, in the liberal mindset.

 

The truth is that despite what liberals claim, everyone has an equal shot at a good life in this country.  I know of people who are happy and successful who are suffering from cerebral palsy, who live productive lives despite physical handicaps/disabilities.  They are not living on food stamps, and while they do need some assistance for certain things, they take the bull by horns, they have jobs and they don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves, whining and blaming everyone else.  They have some ambition and they represent the best in our country and demonstrate what some determination and strength of character can accomplish.

 

So when an able-bodies black man whines and snivels around about how he is kept down and denies equal treatment, it isn't worth listening to.   He is a liar.  He is simply too lazy to get up and make his own way.   The US bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of racial minorities, but we are not going to treat them like royalty.

 

There are pockets of racism in the US, but they do not represent the majority of white Americans who, by a landslide twice elected an African American president.   You can sit on here and blather on and on about how some supposed culture in this country that disadvantages black people but the truth is that this country boasts a huge number of successful African Americans in the fields of politics, medicine, sports, music, sports, and business.

 

 

 

 

Now to talk a bit about Michael Brown and Dillon Taylor. One of those those stories is more newsworthy and is a bigger story.

 

Did Dillon's story catapult to the frontpage of virtually all social media, thereby creating a massive demand for more information on the story? Is there any historical context and/or a current problem that could possibly indicate that caucasians are targeted by police officers? For example, if a white male gets stopped with drugs, is he four times more likely to be arrested than a black male who gets stopped for the same thing? Is that white male statistically many times more likely to serve prison time that a black male for that same crime? Were there local and national protests about Dillon? Did anyone riot? Was the police response to the protests near military level, involving deploying rooftop snipers, MRAP's used in warzones, and The National Guard? Did the police threaten unarmed protestors by pointed loaded guns at them? Did the police respond to journalists, American and International, by arresting them? Did they intentionally shoot tear gas at TV news crews and then take their equipment down?

 

The answer to all of those questions for Dillon Taylor is a resounding no. If you flip those questions around a bit, all of those things happen in the Michael Brown story. They are not getting covered equally because the stories are not equal.

 

Mistake #1:   There is only ONE story, not two stories.  You are trying to create a false dichotomy.   There is one story in play.  Michael Brown assaulted a police officer.   He drew first blood.   The fact that one is black and one is white is irrelevant to the issue.   Liberals make an issue of race, but this story has nothing to do with race.

 

Mistake #2:  You fail to acknowledge that the liberal media ran with the narrative they wanted to push.  This was not about honest journalism.  The media made this about race because that's what sells, and that's what generates ratings. 

 

Mistake #3:  You are asking all of the wrong questions.  Liberals usually do that when they are pushing a "race" agenda.   If we go by nothing more than the facts of this case, then what we have is a thief who assaulted a police officer and who attempted a second similar assault but was killed when the officer (who was not physically capable of subduing the criminal) fired his gun in self-defense.  What you should be asking is why Michael Brown was in such a state of mind that he had to be shot five times in order to be taken down. In the past, that is evidence of a person being under the influence of a controlled substance. 

 

For your first paragraph., that's NOT what I said. That is a terrible false witness about what I actually said.

 

I was going off your the sentence you crossed out, which represents the typical liberal, "blame the victim" approach.  Essentially, first paragraph is spot on.  I am not the only one who sees it.  I didn't accuse you "saying" anything.  I was talking about what your post implies.  I stand by what I said.  My assessment of your views is accurate.  It is clear that you side with the lowest common denominator in this story and you have already tried to make the story about Michael Brown about race when it is clearly not about race. 

 

Up until the death of Taylor and the death of Brown, both stories on a look similar. We agree on that.

 

The bigger fire is what matters. Michael Brown is a bigger story because:

A Shooting + Protests + Riots +Tear Gas + Arrests + Mine Resistant Vehicles used in a protest + loads of other events,

 

Is greater than:

 

A shooting.

 

It's that simple.

 

It's a bigger story because it is the one that the media focuses on and continues to foment.  It is a bigger story because it is the one the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are exploiting to forward their own personal agendas.

 

The fact is that the eye-witness accounts of this story are false and the riots and protests (that made the police militaristic presence necessary) are based on lie.  They are rioting because this story has been perverted into a race issue and eye-witnesses willingly lied about what happened in order to create a false narrative.

 

When the video of Brown robbing the store and pushing around the store owner made the African American community angry because suddenly their narrative of this happy, innocent black boy who was gunned down in cold blood who didn't do anything wrong, suddenly went up in smoke.  They didn't want that video out there and strongly condemned the media for releasing it. 

 

The autopsy report proved the eye-witnesses were nothing but liars  because the bullet wound entry points were in the front.  And they proved that Brown didn't have his hands up in surrender.  The injuries received by the police officer from Brown also prove that this was not a kid who was shot in cold blood, but was shot in self-defense.

 

Everything that has been meant to make this story about race relations is nothing but a pack of lies, but you have drunk the liberal media kool-aid and you are willing to jump to conclusions about what the story is really about.

 

Black on black, white on white and black on white crimes don't fit the racist, liberal agenda and so those crimes don't get any coverage.  The only time a murder gets national attention is when a black man is killed by a white man, particularly a policeman.  

 

Why did you imply Michael Brown could've been on drugs? Do you have any actual evidence of that? Toxicology report perhaps?

 

No, because of the testimony I heard from several behavioral experts and those in law enforcement who said that when a person is on some kind of controlled substance they are in a state of mind that makes them feel impervious to pain.  A person hopped up something like heroin can put his fist through a car window and break every bone in his hand and not feel it.   They said that Brown's behavior was consistent with someone who was on some kind of drug.  It could explain why he was shot four times but continued charging the police officer, as if he didn't feel a thing and why it took a shot in the head to finally bring him down.

 

But a lot of those people were white and so I don't know how much credibility their testimony will be given.

 

The toxicology reports are out for Michael Brown. If you want facts, you can look at that. I'll give you a hint: No Heroin found.

 

If the behavioural expert says that it COULD be the case, that's speculation unless they have a toxicology report that proves their case.

 

The protests heated up before Al Sharpton or major news media arrived to start 24 hour coverage. In addition, if a journalist was to state that all the eyewitnesses supporting Michael Brown were lying, everything that the Officer said was true, or more or less most of what you've said in this thread, that's a breach of journalistic ethics. That would get an American Journalist in trouble for sure, in Canada, that would be career ending.

 

You can talk about why you think it's a big story all you want. The fact of the matter is that when the national guard and snipers get deployed, more is happening, therefore, there is more to report on.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

The toxicology reports are out for Michael Brown. If you want facts, you can look at that. I'll give you a hint: No Heroin found.

 

Who said it had to be heroin?  It could be another substance or maybe he was insane.  Whatever the case, the fact remains that He intended to either kill or seriously injure the police officer and the police officer did the right thing in defending himself.

 

 

If the behavioural expert says that it COULD be the case, that's speculation unless they have a toxicology report that proves their case.

 

Yes,  and I presented it as speculation.  They didn't claim he was on something.  They simply said his actions were consistent with someone who was on some kind of substance.

 

 

The protests heated up before Al Sharpton or major news media arrived to start 24 hour coverage.

 

I didn't say they caused the protests.  My point is that Sharpton and Jackson (who don't care about anyone) exploited and inflamed the situation.  They came down and made it worse.   They are both a couple of  people who need not be taken seriously.   They don't care one bit about those people in Ferguson.

 

 

In addition, if a journalist was to state that all the eyewitnesses supporting Michael Brown were lying, everything that the Officer said was true, or more or less most of what you've said in this thread, that's a breach of journalistic ethics. That would get an American Journalist in trouble for sure, in Canada, that would be career ending.

 

Well they were lying and the autopsy reports prove it.  The journalists had to admit that the autopsy reports didn't agree with the eye witness testimony.  That is called reporting the facts and would not get any journalist in trouble.   A violation of journalistic ethics would be to keep presenting false narratives as if they were true when the evidence shows that such narratives are not true. 

 

You can talk about why you think it's a big story all you want. The fact of the matter is that when the national guard and snipers get deployed, more is happening, therefore, there is more to report on.

 

 

 

The National Guard was deployed because a bunch of mindless out of control rioters and looters, most of whom were not even citizens of Ferguson, made it necessary. 

[Burning_Ember]

A Journalist writes about what happened.

 

An Opinion Writer writes about what they think happened.

 

You cannot do both.

 

Going back to the journalist ethics... Some examples of what the reaction would be from a Canadian Editor to the following statements if a Journalist submitted it to them;

 

"On August 9th 2012, Michael Brown died after being shot six times by an Officer from the Ferguson Police Department."

That might pass, but barely. Probably requires editing.

 

"Protests escalated after an altercation at a protest outside the police department."

Good.

 

"They were lying and the autopsy reports prove it."

You do not insert your opinion into an article. Re-write that.

 

"Sharpton and Jackson (who don't care about anyone) exploited and inflamed the situation."

You're fired. Don't even bother submitting any stories to me again.

 

In Canada you are NOT allowed to speculate on whether someone is guilty or not in the news. That is decided by the judge and the judge alone. If there is a trial, you can talk about the court date, whether someone is charged, what the charges are, when and where it happened... You cannot speculate on what happened, nor can you speculate on someones intent, you may not insert an opinion as to someones innocence or guilt, you cannot imply anything about their innocence or guilt whatsoever... Etc.

 

If a reporter in Canada says that Michael Brown could've been in some sort of drug fervor, or was insane, and in that circumstance could only be stopped by two bullets to the head without them having looked at the autopsy report which proves that it was in fact not the case, you would (as politely as possible, this is Canada of course) be fired on the spot.

 

Remember how you (and several others) spoke very passionately about how the media had to protect George Zimmermans right to a fair trial by not speculating on his guilt until it was proven in a court of law? That doesn't just apply when it talks about someones guilt, but also someones innocence.

 

If you want to argue ethics in Journalism, try reading as to what they are first.

[Guest shiloh357]

A Journalist writes about what happened.

 

An Opinion Writer writes about what they think happened.

 

You cannot do both.

 

Going back to the journalist ethics... Some examples of what the reaction would be from a Canadian Editor to the following statements if a Journalist submitted it to them;

 

"On August 9th 2012, Michael Brown died after being shot six times by an Officer from the Ferguson Police Department."

That might pass, but barely. Probably requires editing.

 

"Protests escalated after an altercation at a protest outside the police department."

Good.

 

"They were lying and the autopsy reports prove it."

You do not insert your opinion into an article. Re-write that.

 

"Sharpton and Jackson (who don't care about anyone) exploited and inflamed the situation."

You're fired. Don't even bother submitting any stories to me again.

 

In Canada you are NOT allowed to speculate on whether someone is guilty or not in the news. That is decided by the judge and the judge alone. If there is a trial, you can talk about the court date, whether someone is charged, what the charges are, when and where it happened... You cannot speculate on what happened, nor can you speculate on someones intent, you may not insert an opinion as to someones innocence or guilt, you cannot imply anything about their innocence or guilt whatsoever... Etc.

 

If a reporter in Canada says that Michael Brown could've been in some sort of drug fervor, or was insane, and in that circumstance could only be stopped by two bullets to the head without them having looked at the autopsy report which proves that it was in fact not the case, you would (as politely as possible, this is Canada of course) be fired on the spot.

 

Remember how you (and several others) spoke very passionately about how the media had to protect George Zimmermans right to a fair trial by not speculating on his guilt until it was proven in a court of law? That doesn't just apply when it talks about someones guilt, but also someones innocence.

 

If you want to argue ethics in Journalism, try reading as to what they are first.

You must have a real aversion to the truth.   Truth doesn't come easy to  people who are hell  bent on trying to make this into a race issue.

 

The fact is that the media was forced to admit that the autopsy reports contradicted the eye witnesses who claimed that Michael brown was shot in the back with his hands in the air.

 

The eye witnesses lied because they wanted to hide what really happened.  The autopsy reports proved that the police officer's account of what happened was true.

 

And yes, Shartpon and Jackson don't care about those people.   They are opportunists who use what they can to get some camera time, but they are a couple of the most useless  people on the planet.

 

Like it or not, the journalists had to report that the eye witnesses lied and none of them lost their jobs over it.   Honestly, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Burning_Ember]

 

A Journalist writes about what happened.

 

An Opinion Writer writes about what they think happened.

 

You cannot do both.

 

Going back to the journalist ethics... Some examples of what the reaction would be from a Canadian Editor to the following statements if a Journalist submitted it to them;

 

"On August 9th 2012, Michael Brown died after being shot six times by an Officer from the Ferguson Police Department."

That might pass, but barely. Probably requires editing.

 

"Protests escalated after an altercation at a protest outside the police department."

Good.

 

"They were lying and the autopsy reports prove it."

You do not insert your opinion into an article. Re-write that.

 

"Sharpton and Jackson (who don't care about anyone) exploited and inflamed the situation."

You're fired. Don't even bother submitting any stories to me again.

 

In Canada you are NOT allowed to speculate on whether someone is guilty or not in the news. That is decided by the judge and the judge alone. If there is a trial, you can talk about the court date, whether someone is charged, what the charges are, when and where it happened... You cannot speculate on what happened, nor can you speculate on someones intent, you may not insert an opinion as to someones innocence or guilt, you cannot imply anything about their innocence or guilt whatsoever... Etc.

 

If a reporter in Canada says that Michael Brown could've been in some sort of drug fervor, or was insane, and in that circumstance could only be stopped by two bullets to the head without them having looked at the autopsy report which proves that it was in fact not the case, you would (as politely as possible, this is Canada of course) be fired on the spot.

 

Remember how you (and several others) spoke very passionately about how the media had to protect George Zimmermans right to a fair trial by not speculating on his guilt until it was proven in a court of law? That doesn't just apply when it talks about someones guilt, but also someones innocence.

 

If you want to argue ethics in Journalism, try reading as to what they are first.

You must have a real aversion to the truth.   Truth doesn't come easy to  people who are hell  bent on trying to make this into a race issue.

 

The fact is that the media was forced to admit that the autopsy reports contradicted the eye witnesses who claimed that Michael brown was shot in the back with his hands in the air.

 

The eye witnesses lied because they wanted to hide what really happened.  The autopsy reports proved that the police officer's account of what happened was true.

 

And yes, Shartpon and Jackson don't care about those people.   They are opportunists who use what they can to get some camera time, but they are a couple of the most useless  people on the planet.

 

Like it or not, the journalists had to report that the eye witnesses lied and none of them lost their jobs over it.   Honestly, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Journalists report what eyewitnesses say on the ground. That is their job. Journalists also reported on Darren Wilson's alleged statements, saying he was charged at. They also reported on the new video of the construction workers, who state that Michael Brown was facing towards the Officer with his hands in the air. Which would be consistent with the  Are they lying too?

 

Let's just clear up this big point I just made in that other post.

 

You didn't answer me though, where in the toxicology report for Michael Brown did it say he was on any sort of drug that would be consistent with your expert testimony? If you want to speculate that he could have been on heroin or something, why don't you just check and see what the truth of that actually is?

[Guest shiloh357]

Journalists report what eyewitnesses say on the ground. That is their job. Journalists also reported on Darren Wilson's alleged statements, saying he was charged at. They also reported on the new video of the construction workers, who state that Michael Brown was facing towards the Officer with his hands in the air. Which would be consistent with the  Are they lying too?

 

According to the autopsy reports, there was no way the bullet entry wounds indicate that he had his hands in the air when He was shot.  Journalists had to report that as well.    So yes, these "eye witnesses" are liars.

 

 

Let's just clear up this big point I just made in that other post.

 

You didn't answer me though, where in the toxicology report for Michael Brown did it say he was on any sort of drug that would be consistent with your expert testimony? If you want to speculate that he could have been on heroin or something, why don't you just check and see what the truth of that actually is?

 

I don't really care if he was on drugs or not.   I simply stated what others had speculated on.

 

The issue that concerns me is that the incident is being painted by liberals as a race relations issue.   The accusation being is that the policeman shot him because he's black.  The police officer has been already tried and convicted as a racist by you and those like you.

 

The fact is that Michael Brown wasn't an innocent little black boy skipping down the street and brutally gunned down by a mean ol' white police officer.  He was a thief.  He brazenly stole cigars from a store and pushed the store owner around and he assaulted a police officer thinking that the police officer knew what he had done, which wasn't the case.  He attacked the police officer, beat him and then returned to do it again.  The police officer properly discharged his weapon in self-defense.  Whether Michael Brown was intoxicated or on some kind of drug is neither here nor there.

 

What is important is that this had nothing to do with race, despite how hard you are trying to spin it that way. Michael Brown was a criminal, a thief and evidently you are prefer to sweep that under the rug.

[Guest LadyC]

i've worked in the media. i used to write for a newspaper. fortunately, i was allowed to stick mostly to enertainment reviews (my choice) because the few times i was given assignments to write news articles, i was told HOW i was to write them, and was specifically told that if i wrote anything that was favorable to a conservative viewpoint, i wouldn't be writing for that paper anymore. so BE, you can back down on your defense of ethical journalism. journalists have a job to do.... that job is to put food on their family's table, not to report accurately. ethics go out the window when you have a family to support.

[Burning_Ember]

 

Journalists report what eyewitnesses say on the ground. That is their job. Journalists also reported on Darren Wilson's alleged statements, saying he was charged at. They also reported on the new video of the construction workers, who state that Michael Brown was facing towards the Officer with his hands in the air. Which would be consistent with the  Are they lying too?

 

According to the autopsy reports, there was no way the bullet entry wounds indicate that he had his hands in the air when He was shot.  Journalists had to report that as well.    So yes, these "eye witnesses" are liars.

 

 

Let's just clear up this big point I just made in that other post.

 

You didn't answer me though, where in the toxicology report for Michael Brown did it say he was on any sort of drug that would be consistent with your expert testimony? If you want to speculate that he could have been on heroin or something, why don't you just check and see what the truth of that actually is?

 

I don't really care if he was on drugs or not.   I simply stated what others had speculated on.

 

The issue that concerns me is that the incident is being painted by liberals as a race relations issue.   The accusation being is that the policeman shot him because he's black.  The police officer has been already tried and convicted as a racist by you and those like you.

 

The fact is that Michael Brown wasn't an innocent little black boy skipping down the street and brutally gunned down by a mean ol' white police officer.  He was a thief.  He brazenly stole cigars from a store and pushed the store owner around and he assaulted a police officer thinking that the police officer knew what he had done, which wasn't the case.  He attacked the police officer, beat him and then returned to do it again.  The police officer properly discharged his weapon in self-defense.  Whether Michael Brown was intoxicated or on some kind of drug is neither here nor there.

 

What is important is that this had nothing to do with race, despite how hard you are trying to spin it that way. Michael Brown was a criminal, a thief and evidently you are prefer to sweep that under the rug.

 

The autopsy reports simply prove bullets entered from the front. It also proves that Michael Brown was on no drugs that could support the speculative claims you brought up. If you don't really care either way that he was on drugs or not, perhaps you would care about not repeating falsehoods.

 

On one side you have the Darren Wilson (and conservative media) who says that his life was in immediate danger and that he had to use the gun to defend himself.

 

On the other side you have Dorian Johnson (Michael Brown's friend who was with him at the time), Tiffany Mitchell, who was driving to pick someone up in the area, Piaget Crenshaw, and two construction workers who didn't even live in the neighbourhood all say Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.

 

But they're all lying, right?

 

i've worked in the media. i used to write for a newspaper. fortunately, i was allowed to stick mostly to enertainment reviews (my choice) because the few times i was given assignments to write news articles, i was told HOW i was to write them, and was specifically told that if i wrote anything that was favorable to a conservative viewpoint, i wouldn't be writing for that paper anymore. so BE, you can back down on your defense of ethical journalism. journalists have a job to do.... that job is to put food on their family's table, not to report accurately. ethics go out the window when you have a family to support.

I'm simply stating that is the ethical guidelines. I'm not saying media organizations do a good job of it. It's awful in the US for that, especially with the new whole news-entertainment-opinion mashup that is more or less the majority of national TV news.

 

I've seen a very conservative news org here write almost exclusively from a conservative perspective. Most people I talk to think of that news org is as tabloid shill, since they have troubles with basic ethics more often than they should. Because if someone is writing from one political perspective, you're no longer doing Journalism, you're doing Opinion.

 

Just because there are organizations that mess that up, doesn't mean that Journalists should not do their best to hold themselves to a higher standard.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Journalists report what eyewitnesses say on the ground. That is their job. Journalists also reported on Darren Wilson's alleged statements, saying he was charged at. They also reported on the new video of the construction workers, who state that Michael Brown was facing towards the Officer with his hands in the air. Which would be consistent with the  Are they lying too?

 

According to the autopsy reports, there was no way the bullet entry wounds indicate that he had his hands in the air when He was shot.  Journalists had to report that as well.    So yes, these "eye witnesses" are liars.

 

 

Let's just clear up this big point I just made in that other post.

 

You didn't answer me though, where in the toxicology report for Michael Brown did it say he was on any sort of drug that would be consistent with your expert testimony? If you want to speculate that he could have been on heroin or something, why don't you just check and see what the truth of that actually is?

 

I don't really care if he was on drugs or not.   I simply stated what others had speculated on.

 

The issue that concerns me is that the incident is being painted by liberals as a race relations issue.   The accusation being is that the policeman shot him because he's black.  The police officer has been already tried and convicted as a racist by you and those like you.

 

The fact is that Michael Brown wasn't an innocent little black boy skipping down the street and brutally gunned down by a mean ol' white police officer.  He was a thief.  He brazenly stole cigars from a store and pushed the store owner around and he assaulted a police officer thinking that the police officer knew what he had done, which wasn't the case.  He attacked the police officer, beat him and then returned to do it again.  The police officer properly discharged his weapon in self-defense.  Whether Michael Brown was intoxicated or on some kind of drug is neither here nor there.

 

What is important is that this had nothing to do with race, despite how hard you are trying to spin it that way. Michael Brown was a criminal, a thief and evidently you are prefer to sweep that under the rug.

 

The autopsy reports simply prove bullets entered from the front.

 

Yes, but the eye-witnesses claimed that he was shot in the back, with his hands in the air.  The autopsy proves he was shot in the front and that the entry points also prove that his hands were not in the air.  The eye-withesses are liars.

 

 

It also proves that Michael Brown was on no drugs that could support the speculative claims you brought up. If you don't really care either way that he was on drugs or not, perhaps you would care about not repeating falsehoods.

 

 

I didn't repeat any falsehoods.  No one claimed he was he was on drugs.  All I said was what they speculated upon when they claimed that his actions were consistent with how someone on a controlled substance acted in a similar situation.   So maybe you need to actual read what I said and stop trying refute an argument I didn't raise.

 

On one side you have the Darren Wilson (and conservative media) who says that his life was in immediate danger and that he had to use the gun to defend himself.

 

Which was the truth and plenty of evidence has come forward to support that claim.

 

On the other side you have Dorian Johnson (Michael Brown's friend who was with him at the time), Tiffany Mitchell, who was driving to pick someone up in the area, Piaget Crenshaw, and two construction workers who didn't even live in the neighbourhood all say Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.

 

But they're all lying, right?

 

Yes.  And you would rather believe the lie, evidently.