Friday Open Thread

Who's going shopping today?

I'm taking the day off, which means I won't be on line much.

I hope all Talkleft visitors had a wonderful holiday. I looked at so many store ads my eyes are blurry. At least I forgot about ISIS for a few days.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome

< Pre Thanksgiving Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We had a wonderful and tasty (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:47:38 AM EST
    Thanksgiving dinner with good friends down here in the blustery  Florida keys.  Lots of homemade dishes to go along with a big turkey.  Mme Zorba's delicious Tzatziki was much appreciated.  It was good my friend's house had several couches, to rest upon, digest, and have conversations.  Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving.

    Same old refrains (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    What have I heard about the Michael Brown case that is almost identical to things I heard in the Trayvon Martin case?

    1. Promising college bound boy would never act that way.
    2. If only he had stayed in his car and waited for backup, this wouldn't have happened.
    3. He could have given himself those injuries.
    4. My kid gets hurt worse than that in the playground.
    5. If (deceased's name) was white, he would still be alive.

    Am I the only one (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:18:50 PM EST
    that views the two cases as completely different? Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong. Michael Brown did nothing right. (my informed opinion of course)

    Oh god why did I write that (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:23:21 PM EST
    Please no one respond to it. My intention is not to use up the rest of the open thread by fishing for contradictory blabbering.

    Now you've done it. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:11:54 PM EST
    I'll respond with football. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    Who do you like in next Friday's Pac-12 championship game between Oregon and Arizona?

    Comments in this thread (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Amiss on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    I have been back in the hospital again so I have missed a great deal of the comments on BOTH sides and started reading the comments on what happened in Ferguson and all over our country and on this site as well. New lows have been reached repeatedly on this site, in Ferguson and where I live in ME Florida.

    Calling anyone names never helped anyone's cause.
    I live in an apartment complex, 30 vehicles had their Windows shot out the nite of the G.J. decision. What is very odd to me, our neighbors on either side got their Windows shot out, but our car wasn't touched.

    My husband is a loss prevention auditor for a company whose roots are in Missouri, their store in Ferguson was burned to the ground. Someone enlighten me, because that makes absolutely no sense to me

    After (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    this refreshing blast of raw, racial and partisan hatred, I'm sure the great majority of Whites, having appropriately been chastised and threatened, are now eager to "let the healing begin" by embracing the "Hands Up" agenda.  Or maybe not.

    In your pathetic racist attempt at humor (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:28:57 PM EST
    you reveal a lot about the minds of people like you.

    The controlling whites have been threatened.  So they, by your sick estimation, are not going to "let the healing begin".   Because of course nothing happens without the permission of the ruling class.  What a surprise it will be for your ilk when you finally learn you are not in control.  And you never have been.

    I hope some day you get to see some real raw racial partisan hatred.  Up close and personal.  I really do.


    Shell casing #6- (none / 0) (#2)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:33:26 AM EST
    In this report Wilson says that he fired 10 shots at 4 separate times -- 2 at Tahoe, 5 when 15 feet away, then 2, and finally the last 1.

    But CSIs recover 12 shell casings at the scene -- 1 shy of the 13 max for Wilson's gun. So he now knows that they know that his math is bad.

    Later to the Grand Jury  in DM article here he can't recall how many shots he fired anywhere anytime at all -- he just fired.

    The question of the day is how did 2 shell casings from bullets fired from the same place inside the Tahoe get out of the Tahoe and wind up so far away from it along the south curb -- and so far from each other???

    They are markers #4 and #6 on the crime scene map.

    Why was not atleast one of them found on the floorboard of the Tahoe or on the ground right outside the drivers door??? Shell casings bounce maybe max 12 feet away as the location of the 10 recovered down the road showcase.

    How did those two casings get out of the Tahoe and then get so far away from it and then wind up so far apart from each other???

    Is it possible that one shell casing fired inside the Tahoe was never recovered by CSIs as it was picked up and pocketed by Wilson???

    And was shell casing #6 from the round fired as Wilson was chasing Brown -- the one that hit his right hand that experts say was bleeding so profusely at markers #19 and #20 where he turned around -- bleeding that should have been at the Tahoe door but was suspiciously absent.

    Once again the witnesses are vindicated.

    At what point will you decide to (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    "move on"?

    By all means everyone should just (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    "Move on.  

    Moving on has been so successful in resolving everything from torture to the government eliminating our constitional rights and every Wall Street and government abuse in between.

    If we don't talk about unpleasant subjects, the problems will just magically go away. Fra la la la la. For sure lets all save our beautiful minds for the more cultured things in life.

    Of course even silencing Chip might not work, since we will then be left with the unchallenged high quality comments of whitecap, Jim and other like minded supporters of Wilson.


    "Move On" Means (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    we don't understand how these details show that Wilson is guilty so stop kwetching about them. As I keep telling him, he should post them at theconservativetreehouse.com where he certainly will find somebody willing to engage in such minutiae.

    Thank you for giving us your interpretation (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    of what the words "Move On" means to you. It, according to your comment, means that you do not have to move on at all but can repeatedly keep telling another commenter what to do and where he must do it.  

    It is nice when someone goes out of their way to prove my point.


    Please explain how the detailed (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    back and forth re the minutiae of the incident helps solve the goal of fairness in how law enforcement treats black people?

    Discussion of a problem even (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    when the discussion is at times repetitive is quite often the precursor to action. It keeps the issue in the spotlight and often leads those who read the comments to do independent research to find out more information. While the issue remains alive, action and change is possible.

    Moving on as you advise just puts it in the category of this is just too unpleasant to discuss. So like many other issues lets just sweep it under the rug and silence dissenting voices. Once the voices are silenced, action ceases soon after and the chance of chance dies.

    Chip's POV is different than yours. You have chimed in with your support for law enforcement and McCulloch whenever it suited you. First you suggested that the issue should not be discussed until all the information has been presented and now that there is more information, with comments that Chip has discussed the issue too long.  


    I don't think it is too (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    unpleasant to discuss. And, I suppose, if cmmenters want to spend their time reviewing the gj materials and arguing about them w/each other, so be it. But, ultimately, the remedy re Ferguson PD is in Mr. Holder's hands. I am confident he will obtain a detailed and meticulous reconstruction of the incident based on these materials and his own staff's work.

    You place a whole lot of faith (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    in an administration that is notorious for moving forward rather than take action.

    The approach has not worked well for addressing numerous issues especially when people silenced themselves and others because they just knew that the problem would be fixed.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    the bar for bringing any kind of civil rights charge against Wilson, if that is the suggestion, is almost impossibly high.

    I suspect oculus knows that.


    But my point was (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    what does arguing endlessly here do to substantially change how the Ferguson PD treats black people?

    My answer to that question was clearly stated (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    You don't agree. You think that if people shut up Holder will fix the problem.

    You have a right to that opinion just as I have the right to state why I disagree with it.

    You also have an opportunity on each and every Open Thread  to start a dialog about subjects that you want to discuss.

    Rather than generate interest on other topics, it seems you would rather use the Open Threads to tell people to stop talking about things like TV shows, Michael Brown and any other subject that you don't want discussed.


    I believe that the problem (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:39:07 PM EST
    with the discussion here is that the two opposing factions (pro-Wilson VS pro-Brown) don't understand each other's motives.

    It is my heartfelt belief that the pro-Wilson advocates start their thought process with a bias towards supporting the police officer. They then search through the reported evidence picking out those morsels that could be interpreted as validating his narrative of how the incident occurred. Evidence to the contrary is rejected for any one of many reasons, similar to those used by climate deniers. Eyewitnesses are mistaken, or, lying; bias/prejudice/predisposition is ignored, or, simply, rejected out of hand; facts are ignored as mistaken, or, "unreliable," and, so forth.

    The bottom line is that their starting point is also their conclusion, and, the idea of an "open mind," or, a mind available for different (opposing) theories of how, and, why this shooting occurred is just not there.

    On the other hand, and, speaking for the many people who, I believe, felt as I did, getting to the truth of what happened was the paramount goal of our interest in this case. And, speaking as one who, admittedly, has a bias towards Liberal ideologies, I was fully prepared to exonerate Officer Wilson, if the evidence presented indicated such was the logical conclusion.

    So, my problem was not that I disagreed with the outcome of the Grand Jury procedure, I disagreed with the Grand Jury procedure.

    Wrapping this up, the one fact that I believe was irrefutable, making the outcome not only completely predictable, but, also, completely, avoidable, was prosecutor McCullough's steadfast refusal to recuse himself.

    Yes, I know that that is only my "opinion," but, I also know there are times when an opinion, observed with a logical, cognitively based mind, and, supported by historical, indisputable, facts can lead to only one conclusion. And, that was, that by refusing to take what was the only proper course of action that a prosecutor involved in this racially charged, and, historically evidenced case indicated, only one conclusion could be reached: The Fix Was In.

    And, that's why people of good conscience, are left wanting, and, also why so many people nationwide reacted as they did. It wasn't the dismissal of Officer Wilson that was rotten, it was Mr. McCullough's successful corruption of the Grand Jury process that was rotten. This process that he engineered, and, that he knew would return the result it did, proved what the people of Ferguson always suspected, and now illustrated beyond any shadow of doubt, was responsible for everything that followed.

    What happens next, good or bad, is now in the hands of Mr. Holder.


    Well yes (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:51:35 PM EST
    It would be logical to think that oculus is aware of that information.

    A bandaid and chicken wire approach will not IMO fix the nationwide systematic problem with the militarization of police departments or their first response shot to kill policies.


    I assume we have by now (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    all seen the heartbreaking video of the 12 shot in sight by police while we were "pointlessly" discussing this.

    This situation would be serious enough if everyone saw the problem.  I honestly don't know what happens considering where we are and what we are hearing.  The business as usual attitude bothers me almost as much as the killings.  
    Forget ISIS.  This is the most serious problem this country is currently facing IMO.  I can't see a peaceful resolution.  Dark times ahead.


    Your comment makes sense. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    Hey (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    haven't you heard, the police should definitely have shot that 12 year old. He asked for it and the police delivered. Not a problem.

    A whole lot of people don't see a problem with what the police did.. A 12 year old black boy deserves to be killed for being stupid.


    It seems very likely that officer will (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    face criminal charges. Although media reported the 911 called said the boy was walking around pointing the gun at kids on the playground, in the video he is walking around alone in the gazebo when the patrol car pulled up. Of course, a jury may exonerate the officer.

    The 911 call (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    said it was probably a child with a toy.  An unimportant fact not provided by the dispatcher.  The beat cops don't get all the blame for this.

    Was the dispatcher call to the police recorded (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jack203 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    To come out guns blazing in a playground is unforgivable.  His best defense is that we are living in a world where schools are being shot up every month or so.   But what did the dispatcher say exactly?  Even if there was no mention from the dispatcher of a toy gun.  Unless there were reports of shots fired, the cops should have considered the fact that the "gun" in a playground might not be real, and hesitate an extra few seconds before unloading.  That extra few seconds would have been enough I am quite certain to not be where we are today.

    IMO, in the very least the cop should be fired as he is unfit to protect.  In the most, I think guilty to some level of manslaughter.  Prison time should be on the table.


    A cop screaming at the top of his lungs (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jack203 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:49:10 PM EST
    Is probably going to startle a 12 year old where he is not going to know how to react for at least few moments.  He was almost certainly reaching into his pants to show the copy...hey it's only a fake gun.

    A bad, and unforgivable mistake by the cop to begin shooting.


    egregious (none / 0) (#168)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 29, 2014 at 12:41:53 AM EST
    Watch the Rec Center surveillance tape.
    After the shots were fired the two officers did not go over to the child to provide any medical attention. It was not until a FBI officer arrived 4 minutes after the shooting that there was any attempt to keep the child alive.

    Think on that.


    There are times (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    when "moving on" makes sense; there are other times and circumstances where it may be a type of abandonment of a very unresolved issue.

    I think, oculus, that MO Blue makes a good point when she refers to the dynamics that may well occur if the "there is nothing more we can do here" aspect becomes the dominant motif.  While the timing of "moving on" (as well as the meaning of the sentiment) has to vary in view of the circumstances--and while I own up to opting, at times, for moving beyond an issue when its parameters have been explored as far as we or society will go--the Ferguson matter actually keeps spawning new issues.  

    In many ways, I pulled back from all the Ferguson arguments and discussions of the details throughout these months ... until the past few weeks.  I was certainly aware enough to recognize the huge, defining racial gap in that community and in our broader society; and, I understood the difficulty always faced in obtaining an indictment against a police officer where appropriate use of force & reasonable reactions are at center.  But, I find an uneasiness in myself since the Grand Jury decision.

    My unease--I think--stems from a "gut reaction" really.  But, after all is said-and-done, no matter how we try to find total objectivity in us humans, we are all subject to our own degree of subjectivity.  For me, the nagging question has to do with how would I differentiate the usual, perceived role of a trial court with it's jury from the approach that looks to have been allowed to have been taken by this Grand Jury.  It is a feeling ... based upon the sheer amount of conflicting witness statements/testimony ... that this GJ filled the role of the ultimate trier of fact.  In my usual give & take with husband, a few friends, and a friend (a former asst. DA types, now a defense attorney) on the dog-path a few morns ago, I wondered aloud about how they each looked at it ... what I found from those of us not so schooled in that particular area is the reason for feeling the holes rather than the resolution of an issue.  That is: There is a distinct "feeling" that this more-than-a-ham-sandwich situation seemed to have actually been tried and the "trial" was "in camera."

    Sitting at a geographical distance, as I am, it is somewhat helpful for me to focus on other things.  Yet, when I now read about the 12-year old boy--a very young Black boy--shot & killed in Cleveland ... and, I try to juxtapose that sad event with trying to tell myself that this is all separate, well ....  It may be separate by distance, but doesn't it sort of pull us all back in? Doesn't it pull us all back to the broader, societal question that we have seen raised in differing communities throughout the country?

    I really don't know what we can do; but, it does cry out for more attention and work.  Surely, there must be some communities that have done key procedures differently and/or have promoted different behaviors overall that can give us a clue?


    Christine, if I could I would rate your comment (none / 0) (#169)
    by ZtoA on Sat Nov 29, 2014 at 12:52:39 AM EST
    many many 5s. Yes one's energy levels and local play much into our perceptions of issues of police violence. And, (since this is supposed to be a sort of 'democracy') every one who has a 'gut reaction' (and we all do and we all do not agree) is supposedly allowed that and we are supposedly allowed a vote on that. Guts often drive votes. Politicians know this.

    Very informed, intelligent people tend to decry the media and the coverage of certain issues. But to me it is a sign of what people in general are willing to see (and thus boost the ratings that drive the profits that drive the media corporations), and so the MSM coverages are very useful to see what people are actually willing to witness.


    Chief of Police and policy expert disagree (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    CLEVELAND - A nationally-known police policy expert said the officer was "justified" in shooting 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

    We showed Tim Dimoff, a former Akron police expert who now testifies for and against police in use of force cases, the surveillance video of the shooting.

    He said the officer's actions are justified by the fact that Rice continued to move towards the police car; ignored the officer's verbal warnings to put his hands up; and appeared to reach for what appeared to be a real gun. It was later determine Rice was carrying an airsoft gun.

    Another Grand Jury:

    The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's office will present evidence from the police to a grand jury, which will decide whether to bring charges against the officer.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    i looked for a while for the longer version of that surveillance video that shows the victim playing in completely childlike ways before they drive up.
    I won't say it's been scrubbed but I didn't find it in my brief search.   And I'm pretty good.

    Funny, huh?


    Interesting. In my experience an expert (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    witness re use of force, although always with a bacground in law enforcement, is retained by either the prosecution or defense, not both.

    Has to go to trial for that to apply. (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    An expert witness giving testimony before a GJ  that the use of force was justified can be the prosecutor's witness if he wants him to testify. The prosecutor can call any witness  he/she chooses to call . Isn't that true, oculus.

    You misunderstood my comment. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    My point was use of force experts work for the prosecution or the defense, not both. Othersise, too much impeachment material lurking b

    You are right I did not understand your comment (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    I get what you are saying now.

    Don't understand why an independent expert could not testify that it was justied use of force in one particular case and not justied use of force in a completely different case.

    Testifing before a Grand Jury rather than at a trial would make it much less likely that he would be cross examined in an effort to impeach his testimony.


    Trust me on this. This typr of (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    expert charges big bucks.

    Taxpayers? (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    Just wondering if (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    the local citizens not only pay the salary of their killers but also pay for the experts to get them off.

    Local citizens' tax dollars frequently (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    pay the fees of expert witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense.

    No segue:  did you get the photo of the fab new Garuda/Vishnu at the Met?


    I did not (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    googling now

    Excellent (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    thanks for pointing that out.   I have been giving a lot of thought to what happens to Garuda when I'm not around to admire him.  Seeking a new home.
    Not necessarily for money but that would be nice.

    Why must you evict poor Garuda? (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    Because I don't want him to end up in (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:40:12 PM EST
    one of my redneck relatives basement or garage, assuming the don't just make a righteous bonfire, if the same thing was to happen to me that just happened to my friend I mentioned.  

    Cut down by an aneurysm.  Alive but barely responsive.  
    She was 45.  For some reason that has had me thinking a lot about better "preparation".  If you know what I mean.  

    I love him.  That's the very reason I want to find him a good home while I can.


    A sad side story (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    she had asked me to come over and help her through the ACA signup process.  Literally a week before this happened.  And I put it off because the enrollment period had not begun yet.  
    I haven't  had the heart to find out if I could have gotten them enrolled before this happened.  I think that even if I had the coverage would not have started until January .  But again I have not had the heart to find that out for sure.
    I feel absolutely terrible I did not do it the day she asked me so I don't have to feel this way.

    They were one of the mostly politically unaligned families around here that did not sign up the first year because of republican lies but they were ready to do it and I let them down.  I have felt like hammered sh!t ever since.


    Don't beat yourself up. Aneurisms (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    are like a deus ex machina. Is she eligible for medicaid?

    No (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    just average below average income folks.  Not poor but certainly not in a position to pay the bills that are coming.

    The town had a benefit (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    thanksgivng dinner for her today.  Probably raised a few hundred dollars at most.

    Big bucks or not you state below that (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    Local citizen's tax money frequently pay the expert's fees.

    Your statements seem to be in conflict. If it is frequent practice, then it is more than conceivable that an expert witness could be used by the prosecutor to testify that the officer was justified über shooting Tamir Rice.


    Good luck with that... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:21:57 PM EST
    As pointed out before, the local clown posse didn't collect much in the way of evidence, no photos, no measurements.  How convenient.  And uncredible.  We're left with little more than I-reckonry.  Plus the self serving testimony of a six and a half foot tall babyfaced cop who claims to have been scared back to the age of five.  That part I can believe, because his actions showed about that much maturity.

    Don't pull a word changer (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    Move on???

    This tragedy has been investigated by local and federal.

    You don't like the results so now you wanna talk about all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the facts in this tragedy.

    Try reading the GJ testimony. That's what I'm using as my base for:

    the unchallenged high quality comments of ... Jim and other like minded supporters of Wilson.

    I really don't think (4.25 / 4) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:04:18 AM EST
    you understand, for whatever reason, how offensive the Michael Brown case is for some.
    There are people who do not subscribe to the "the prosecutor got away with it so it has to be legal" school of thought.

    Not to say Chip should not consider moving on.


    Counting heads, (none / 0) (#65)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:11:40 PM EST
    are we? You obviously have no idea how many people are not only "offended," but deeply angered, by the violence, lies, threats and demands occasioned by this incident.  November 4 was but a preliminary to the increasing rejection of the "progressive" ethos, including the "Hands Up" agenda.  What we witness here is political idiocy (for which I am most thankful.)

    I have an excellent idea (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    how many sure your view whitey.  I am surrounded by them.  I had Thanksgiving with them.

    It's going to lose.  If you haven't noticed history, liberal always wins.  Eventually.  It may just take enough of our generation dying off.


    Chip (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    is "staying the course," in accord with presidential mandate.  To the "Hands Up" crowd, what we have seen thus far is but an introduction to the monumental "transformational changes" approaching fruition.  Hopelessly delusional, of course.  

    Pain (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by bocajeff on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:23:38 AM EST
    I understand the pain and hurt this must cause people.

    My pain, though I don't think there's enough evidence against Wilson, is that the young man died needlessly. Potential was wasted. Family and friends are hurt. A city is burned. Political divides widened.

    We need better screening and training for police. We need to get rid of some of the drug laws. And we need to better interdict 18 year old people from stealing from stores and assaulting store owners, allegedly.

    For every Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown there are literally thousands of other people killed in this country each year. Each one deserves to be addressed, mourned and from which to have a lesson to be learned.


    Really?? (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    Why was not atleast one of them found on the floorboard of the Tahoe or on the ground right outside the drivers door??? Shell casings bounce maybe max 12 feet away as the location of the 10 recovered down the road showcase.

    No one knows. But both could have been ejected out the open window and kicked further during the struggle.

    Once again the witnesses are vindicated.

    Uncle, if you want to be credible you are going to have to back up your claims with direct links to the GJ testimony... you know, like GJ V page 7 line 7 to line 17.... (That's just an example I don't know what the content is)


    "if you want to be credible" (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    so many jokes
    So little time

    4U Jim: (none / 0) (#20)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    So I guess, Jim, you missed (none / 0) (#21)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:07:45 AM EST
    this -- Wilson's obsession with shooting Brown's right hand at the point where he turned around at markers #19 and #20 where all the blood from his right hand wound was.

    Chip (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    If you want to be credible you're gonna have to leave a GJ reference... Number, page and line... and then we will know what you are talking about..

    And these references to things like, what happened to the shell casings?? Did Wilson put it in his pocket??

    There is no claim that Wilson didn't shoot Brown. there is no claim that there wasn't 12 shots.

    So what's your point?? The only thing I can think of is that you are trying to raise a cloud...create a false scene...confuse. Very typical when someone is trying to prove that a conspiracy exists.

    Now, can't you see what this type of thing has done?? I mean look at the supposed picture of Wilson's eye that Donald thought was sent out by the FPD. And remember the claim that Brown had been arrested for, I think, burglary. Both false.

    But both fanned the flames on the Right and then fanned the flames on the Left when they were proved wrong... except in many cases, see Donald's comments re the FPD as an example, people don't get the word.... Look at your comment re blood on the SUV..yet it was there as described in the GJ testimony.

    And these types of things sent over the so called social media have been used by people who have no interest in Michael Brown but just want an excuse to start riots and burn.

    Try to think what your actions do.


    Jim (none / 0) (#37)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    What's my point???

    Perhaps this says it best.

    For the entire proceeding, jurors weighed the evidence in light of a law that was deemed unconstitutional almost 30 years ago. Then they corrected the record at the very end, but by then it was too late.

    There was no struggle for the gun, no felony committed in the Tahoe, and Brown was not a fleeing felon. He had no right to resort to deadly force by law and/or by evidence.

    I'm just correcting the broken record of prefabrications and perjurious statements that all of us have been forced to endure for over 3 months.

    So get used to it.


    No link So I don't believe (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    No struggle for the gun??

    Really? And your proof is?? Johnson?? Let me see...

    He claimed that Wilson had a hold of Wilson's neck...

    Yet the autopsy found no damage

    GJ 9/9 Page 186 Line 23 to 189 Line 22


    No Struggle for the Gun???? (none / 0) (#42)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    Chip, just concentrate on that particular claim you just made.  Please give us the justification for that conclusion.  Thank you.

    If there was a struggle for the gun (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    isnt it odd that no information about Browns fingerprints being on the gun was ever introduced at the GJ?
    As I understand it, it was said that they could either test for prints OR DNA and tested for prints.  But that information was not provided to the GJ.
    Do you have different information?

    Except, of course, (none / 0) (#171)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 29, 2014 at 01:00:06 AM EST
    Wilson left the scene with his gun, washed his hands, wiped the gun and bagged it himself at the police department.  No chain of evidence there.

    RJ (none / 0) (#53)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    If there was a struggle for the gun and Brown's hand was caught in the trigger mechanism as Wilson testifies to, then how come none of Brown's DNA or fingerprints were found on the gun???

    No Chip (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    Wilson testified he could feel Brown's finger on his inside the trigger guard... But he didn't say what you claim.

    Wilson on thet Gun Struggle (none / 0) (#49)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    OK Chip, you have the burden of proof of refuting this:
    He grabs my gun, says, "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me." The gun goes down into my hip and at that point I thought I was getting shot. I can feel his fingers try to get inside the trigger guard with my finger and I distinctly remember envisioning a bullet going into my leg. I thought that was the next step.

       I'm not paying attention to him, all I can focus on is just this gun in my leg. I was able to kind of shift slightly like this and then push it down, because he is pushing down like to keep it pinned on my leg. So when I slid, I let him use his momentum to push it down and it was kind of pointed to where the seat buckle would attach on the floorboard on the side of my car. Next thing I remember putting my left hand on it like this, putting my elbow into the back of my seat and just pushing with all I could forward.

        I was just so focused on getting the gun out of me. When I did get it up to this point, he is still holding onto it and I pulled the trigger and nothing happens, it just clicked. I pull it again, it just clicked again.

        At this point I'm like why isn't this working, this guy is going to kill me if he gets ahold of this gun. I pulled it a third time, it goes off. When it went off, it shot through my door panel and my window was down and glass flew out of my door panel. I think that kind of startled him and me at the same time.

    To answer CaptHowdy, the gun wasn't tested for fingerprints.  That is one of the examples some article's cite for the investigation being sloppy.


    Yes, sorry (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    thanks to ppjs helpful link I just read that. It was the DNA the tested for not fingerprints.  
    Was the DNA evidence presented?

    Browns DNA on the gun was determined (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    from blood samples on the gun.

    Wilson had control of the gun after Brown ran away from the SUV. IOW, Wilson's hands were on the gun and the gun was in his possession until he put it in the evidence envelope.

    In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson's testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. "I think it was his blood," Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

    Wilson had Brown's blood on his hands. Wilson had the gun in is hand during the shooting and when he, unsupervised, put the gun into the evidence bag. Blood on the gun prove that Brown's blood was on the gun but does not prove how it got there.


    The NYTimes Says DNA Was Tested (none / 0) (#59)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    A crime scene investigator described swabbing Officer Wilson's gun; the subsequent DNA report found Mr. Brown's genetic material on Officer Wilson's Sig Sauer pistol. Similarly, DNA from Mr. Brown was also found on the officer's uniform pants and shirt.

    Sorry that I don't know the link to the original testimony by the times article is here.


    RJ (none / 0) (#66)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    By genetic material he means "blood" and I think you will find a picture of where it was found and it's not where Wilson said the Brown touched the weapon on the top. It was on the side.

    Furthermore the report says that Wilson's right hand had Brown's blood on it. So any blood could likely have come from secondary transfer from Wilson's own hand.

    And yet he is allowed to wipe it off, wash his hands and put it into the bag himself.

    Just what good is any DNA test after that????


    You are Still a Light Year Away (none / 0) (#72)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:22:42 PM EST
    from proving there was no struggle for the gun.

    Wilson proved that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    when he wiped the weapon clean.

    RJ/DNA (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    Found the DNA Report (none / 0) (#70)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:15:35 PM EST

    The gun is item Q19. "Michael Brown and P.O. Wilson are included as contributors to this major mixture profile".


    RJ (none / 0) (#60)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    the gun wasn't tested for fingerprints.
    Now wasn't that convenient.

    Everything gets tested these days and especially the weapon used in a shooting.

    And yet they forget to do it here???

    I suspect that Wilson wiped the gun clean before he dropped it in the bag -- I think it says so in the report.

    That's not sloppy -- that's destruction of evidence and it's self-incriminating.

    He does that and then afterwards tells this tall tale with Brown's hands were all over his weapon???

    Please -- don't pea on my head and tell me it's raining.


    And you know what chip (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    that is far from the most egregious sloppiness in this deal.  They are too numerous to list here.

    Uncle, if you read my link to the Medical Examiner (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    statement you would know that he had a choice. DNA or fingerprints. He chose DNA because fingerprints are hard to come by from an object people are pulling/pushing, etc.

    So let me see. Wilson lied. The Examiner lied. All the other cops, even those from outside the FPD, lied... The only one telling the truth is Johnson...

    Oh. Wait. The autopsy proved Johnson lied.

    And that's rain, Uncle.


    The GJ never saw the DNA evidence (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:49:47 PM EST
    There is a link for that a couple of comments above.
    You can also read about it in the WSJournal.

    Oops (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    wrong link.  If you care read the WSJ.  I really don't care enough to find the link again.

    Jim (none / 0) (#153)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:21:01 PM EST
    Do you have any link to what you claimed???

    I'm willing to listen to your case but you have to actually present one.

    Did you read Wilson's testimony -- how could Brown be grabbing over the top of his weapon with his hand caught in the gun slide as he describes and there not be injuries to Brown's hand??? Surely what he describes would have left cuts on Brown's hand -- but I don't recall the autopsy finding any to match that hypothetical gungrabbing.

    Also I read the statements of the detectives who were looking for the shell casings. That turns out to be a little hinky too.

    After they find the 10 down the road some officer comes to them and tells them that all they need is 2 more -- that there was 1 still in the gun.

    Now wasn't that convenient and predictable??? Is anyone surprised??? 1 in the chamber right on cue.
    They didn't call them gumshoes for nothing.

    How hard was it to pick up the most incriminating shell casing and then drop an unspent round in the bag to replace it -- especially when you are permitted to bag it all yourself.

    But Wilson screwed up in his story and was done in by the Glide audio recording which he didn't count on:

    Wilson himself describes shooting 4 series's of shots: The first series was 2 at the Tahoe. Glide records the last two series' of shots as 6 and then 4.

    That's 12 but that leaves him with one additional series' of shots to account for -- and atleast 1 shot for it.  

    Well looky at that -- he has 1 live round still left in the chamber and that was spent in series three and that makes 13 and completes all 4 series.

    And I bet that 13th shell casing is in a drawer at home and he looks at it every night.

    I feel for you -- defending his prefabrications and perjuries is a Grimm task.


    RE: The correction of the Missouri law (none / 0) (#170)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 29, 2014 at 12:56:32 AM EST
    The jury was told "part" of the Missouri 'law did not comply with case law" BUT the jury was never told what part. Stupifying.

    Back of his left forearm -- (none / 0) (#16)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    For months all we've heard about is this great struggle for the gun provable by the blood inside the vehicle and a shot to the hand there -- and yet here's what we find from the report:

    There is no evidence and the blood inside the vehicle turns out to be on the handle that Wilson used to open the door.

    There was only a small amount of blood on the outside of the drivers door where Brown was standing and none on the ground.

    If his hand had been shot there there would have been a lot more blood especially on the door and the ground because hand wounds bleed fast and bleed a lot.

    But what do we find there -- blood on the back of Wilson's left forearm which he runs back to the station to wash off.

    How do you get blood on the back of your left forearm in this instance when it's found hardly anywhere else??? Here's how:

    Wilson admitted that he had a hold of Brown's right wrist with his left arm. Witnesses say so as well -- referring to it as appearing like a tussle or arm wrestling.

    And when you're arm-wrestling or gripping the other person's wrist the back of your forearm faces what -- the other person's upper arm.

    That's where it would have come from -- the blood coming from the shot to Brown's upper arm at the window -- just as the witnesses testified to.

    The report is quite a read.


    And go to your own source (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    page 5 and you will see that blood and human tissue was found on the Tahoe.

    By (none / 0) (#38)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    secondary transfer from Wilson. Did you miss the door handle??? Brown's blood but Wilson's fingerprints.

    And his gun was not tested for Brown's DNA or fingerprints as he wiped it clean and bagged it himself.

    Even the CSI writing the report was stunned that the Ferguson PD permitted that.



    No go back and read the GJ testimony (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    GJ Testimony 9/9 Page 41 Line 5 to Page 45 Line 6.



    Okay (none / 0) (#161)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:44:15 PM EST
    I just read your LINK -- thanks.

    So the CSI had to choose DNA or fingerprints and he chose DNA.

    He chose poorly and here's why from the report:

    Blood from Brown was on the back of Wilson's left forearm and the front of Wilson's right hand -- you know, the hand he was using to hold the gun.

    So one would expect Brown's DNA on that gun -- not because Brown touched it but because it was transferred to the gun from Wilson's own hand himself.

    You also know that Wilson admits that he had a grip on Brown's right hand with his left hand. He would have picked up Brown's DNA on his hand from that exercise as well and then transferred it to the gun when he racked it to assure that there was no live round in the chamber when he bagged it.

    They should have gone for the fingerprints. That's the only way to know for sure that he grabbed it -- but I'm sure they realized that they were going to come up empty with the fingerprint route.


    What Happened at the Window isn't Key (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:23:56 PM EST
    The important part in judging if Wilson acted properly is what happened afterwards. I don't think any blogger has read and digested all the descriptions and assessed which ones came from credible witnesses, yet.  However, I think the claim that Wilson fired at a fleeing Brown has been thoroughly discredited.  Shots only rang out after Brown turned around and faced Wilson.  I think it is clear that Brown then headed in Wilson's direction, even though Wilson was shouting "Stop!".  Trying to piece together the exact details of the final death walk from all the transcripts is something I am relying on others to do for me. They are unreadable as far as I am concerned.  I wonder if it was clear to the jury that Wilson had to get fire all those shots or that they decided that since it can never be proven one way or the other, because of conflicting testimony, they had to give him the benefit of the doubt.  

    Another detail from DW testimony (none / 0) (#166)
    by Palli on Sat Nov 29, 2014 at 12:13:22 AM EST
    There is no direct question to Wilson about the crucial question: Did Michael Brown have his hands up when shot?
    16 witnesses say yes; 2 witnesses say no; 3 did not know the answer; 7 were either not asked or unresponsive. Darren Wilson was not asked.

    Has anyone mentioned the O'Donnell MSNBC segment on 11/26?  On September 16, Jurors were all provided with the full draft of the Missouri 1979 USE OF FORCE law but were not told until Nov. 21 at the start but not told the law was declared unconstitutional in 1985 by the Supreme Court. At that time Asst. Pros. Atty. said to the juries:

    "And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
    So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law."
     When a Juror asked her if she meant the law was superseded by federal law,  she answered:
    "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."

    But the Asst. Pros. Atty. never told them what part did not  comply and could not be relied upon for the decision to indict or not.

    For the newbie commentator (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:39:57 AM EST
    Not Uncle Chip, Black Friday is a good day to get fresh white sheets for your next meeting with the other members of the K.

    You could not get me near a mall (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:36:43 AM EST
    with a team of horses.  

    Hope everyone's turkey was perfect.  

    A team of horses (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    would be unlikely to find a suitable parking space. Perhaps a VW Bug would work better.

    Rob Lowe Directv commercials (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    i assume most have seen these. Bother are actually pretty great.  Previously TV did a list of " rejected Rob Lowes".  I especially like Standing Desk Rob Lowe and "Doesn't Even Own A TV" Rob Lowe.  There was another they didn't picture - Painfully Akward Rob Lowe.  It was pulled because people who can't pee in front of others apparently have have a rights group.

    Goth Rob Lowe
    OCD Rob Lowe
    Men's Rights Activist Rob Lowe
    Drunk Department Store Santa Rob Lowe
    Ostentatious Vegan Rob Lowe
    Garage Sale Haggler Rob Lowe
    Aging "Club Kid" Rob Lowe
    PT Cruiser Rob Lowe
    OTB Addict Rob Lowe
    Accidentally Shot Off His Own Toe Rob Lowe
    Piano Key Tie Rob Lowe
    Abolish The Penny Rob Lowe
    Overpronounces Foreign Terms Like Alex Trebek Rob Lowe
    Brony Rob Lowe
    Real Bad Allergies Rob Lowe
    Eats At Chick-Fil-A Rob Lowe
    "Human Cheese" Enthusiast Rob Lowe
    AOL Subscriber Rob Lowe
    Still Tries To Defend The Series Finale Of Lost Rob Lowe
    Bread Snob Thanks To University Eurail Pass Rob Lowe
    Amateur Sleight-Of-Hand Artist Rob Lowe
    Pretends He Doesn't Need Glasses But Totally Does Rob Lowe
    Too Into Roller Coasters Rob Lowe
    Keeps Eight Birds As Pets Rob Lowe
    Standing Desk Rob Lowe
    Adult Braces Rob Lowe
    "Doesn't Even Own A TV" Rob Lowe

    Speaking of TV (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:15:48 AM EST
    there is a Hitchcock marathon on TCM today.

    The most damning (none / 0) (#9)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:29:04 AM EST
    part of the video of Brown's "shopping expedition" has occasioned little comment.  At the end, Brown, on his way out the door, suddenly turns, apparently in response to something said by the clerk, and advances on him in a threatening manner.  The clerk cringes.  We are obliged to rely on inference for what words may have passed between the two.  An invitation to dinner, perchance?  Or a threat of retaliation, if the police should be alerted to the theft?  And the clerk didn't call the police, did he?  No, that was done by a customer.  "Snitches get stitches."

    The media still refuses to comment on the fact that Brown had a "pocket full of 'weed'" when confronted by Wilson.  1.589 grams, to be exact (Crime Laboratory Controlled Substance Analysis Report.)  Why this curious reticence?  To the journalistic mind, this information is simply too "prejudicial."  It would trigger "stereotypical" thought process in the unenlightened.  The truly sophisticated know that possession of the "leafy green" needed to make "blunts" of stolen "cigarillos" is no big deal.  The information might even cause some to jump to the conclusion that Brown attacked Wilson, in a panicked attempt to avoid being "busted" for theft, and caught in possession of "weed."  Can't have that.  It destroys the "narrative."

    "Quotation marks" (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    "What "did" they "ever" do to "you" to "deserve" that "kind of abuse"?

    Yeah, they're avoiding the question (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:50:58 AM EST
    Because we all know what violent monsters weed makes of men.

    Please (none / 0) (#22)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    I deplore, with you, the quaint, "reefer madness" biases of Missouri lawmakers.  It is most regrettable that, in their provincial simplicity, they have made possession of marijuana a serious offense.  Ach, it is too much.  The center cannot hold.

    Who said anything about defending this (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    serious violation of the relevant MO laws on MJ, sir?

    But, please, keep telling us how this was relevant to the actions of Officer Wilson.

    Your witness, counselor.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#36)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    you would care to restate your question, in intelligible form.  I thought we were discussing the impact possession of marijuana would have had on Brown's state of mind.

    You can find (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    You keep making this accusation (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    You have stated on numerous other occasions that Brown's fear of  MO's hash penalties for marijuana possession was the reason for his actions.

    How harsh are the penalties in MO for possession of 1.6 (rounded) grams of marijuana? Is it a felony? What exactly is your definition of harsh? Is the penalty harsher than what it would be for the alleged robbery?

     Surely you wouldn't have made that statement numerous times without knowing what the penalties actually are. So I'm going to repeat my request, tell us,

    how harsh are they?



    Good question (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    The answer


    Up to 35 grams. A violation is a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine of up to $1,000, up to one year in jail, or both. (Mo. Ann. Stat. § 195.233(1)&(2).)


    Up to five grams. Penalties include a fine of up to $5,000, up to seven years in prison, or both. (Mo. Ann. Stat. § 195.211(3).)

    Took me about 144 seconds to Google that.


    Thank you for doing whitecap's research (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    for him.

    I want to thank you for pointing out how easy it would have been for whitecap to obtain this information. That he failed to do so and chose instead to repeatedly rely on the following vague statement is a mystery.

    The penalties for possession of marijuana, in Missouri, are said to be quite harsh.

    I will take this time to point out that the penalties stated for the misdeamor of possessing 1.6 grams of marijuana are the maximum and not the minimum penalty allowed. Also the penalty for the sale of marijuana, while informative, is not relevant to this case.


    Whitecap, (none / 0) (#27)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    rather more modest than some here, needs, and appreciates, all the assistance he can come by.

    Are you seriously proposing that Brown would have been indifferent to the prospect of being caught "holding" marijuana?

    CNN now saying that Johnson had a discussion about "weed" with one of the construction workers as he and Brown were on their way to the store.  It was implied that "refining" THC was touched upon.  


    Jim didn't complete the research (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    Much like most of the country, our jails are overcrowded. Plea deals are becoming the norm and drug courts which deal with treatment rather than jail time have been established to combat the problem. Unlike you, Brown probably was aware of those facts.

    Your comments on this defies logic. According to your version, Brown is so worried about being caught with1.6 grams of marihuana that he decided it would be safer to challenged an armed police officer and risk getting shot.


    In the world of white people ... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    MO Blue: "Your comments on this defies logic. According to your version, Brown is so worried about being caught with1.6 grams of marihuana that he decided it would be safer to challenged an armed police officer and risk getting shot."

    ... whose contemporary views on interracial relations were likely formulated during an era which gave us the film "Mandingo," that's how men of color think -- that is, whenever they're not stealing your car stereo or lusting after your white women.

    The stereotype of the black man as little more than a primal beast and "demonic" thug, and of the black woman as a shiftless welfare queen or an unrepentant Angela Davis-type militant, really doesn't have to make any sense to us for it to still be very real to them.

    Not only have they no concept of their own latent racism and resultant warped perspective, they're just as likely to see themselves as victims of reverse discrimination, because they think that people of color are coddled and have it so much easier than everyone else nowadays.

    In so many ways, I do feel sorry for such people. They've allowed themselves to be enslaved by their own ignorance and fears -- and that's a rather pathetic way to live one's life, in the grip of an unfocused resentment and rage.



    One thing about a situation like this (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    you find out where everyone is coming from don't you.

    These are not citizens to be protected. They are subjects to be controlled.

    Gosh, I'm probably courting another 2 rating.


    Donald, I think I understand you.... (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    You believe all the nonsense you see in the movies.

    CNN and PBS (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    will do that to you.

    Oh, and just what does (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    Fox News, et al, do to you, JimakaPPJ and your fellow travelers?
    Just asking.

    Guys who like to look at (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    beautiful females!!



    Well, if you like them (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:58:45 PM EST
    plastic-looking but brainless, I suppose so.
    Doesn't say much for the guys who prefer this, however.

    Zorba (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:17:05 PM EST
    Ever see the Idiocracy version of FOX NEWS?

    Once again, anyone who has not seen this movie should do so immediately.   It is the most eerily accurate prediction of the future you will ever see on film.  And it's hilarious.


    So where does Whitehood get his news? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    Dogs bark. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "Donald, I think I understand you[.] You believe all the nonsense you see in the movies."

    And the caravan passes.


    The caravan stopped (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:03:18 PM EST
    and got a good laugh at your meanderings...

    I mean, really.

    Have you ever had any real world experience?? You know, a job in some industry?? Or have you always been suckling at the government teat?


    But then, that's all you've ever got, isn't it? Especially when you're playing defense in an argument and you channel your inner ten-year-old.

    And that's why at heart, you are basically a very small-minded and petty person whose opinions really aren't worth the time of day. Because it's readily apparent from your anachronistic and fact-challenged musings that you simply don't know the time of day.



    Wow ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:43:50 PM EST
    Have you ever had any real world experience?? You know, a job in some industry?? Or have you always been suckling at the government teat?

    ... that's a pretty ballsy statement from a guy who's benefited from government programs his entire life and continues to do so.  Personally, as a guy who started out as a public school teacher and who's father made an entire career of it, it doesn't get any more "real world" than that.  Have a couple of uncles who spent their lives in the military, too - or, as you refer to it, "suckling at the government teat" in a job that isn't the "real world".

    From a salesman, no less ...

    Heh ...


    Logic Defied (none / 0) (#35)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    Does what we observe on that video not "defy logic"?  Caught red-handed stealing cigars, Brown throws the protesting clerk into a chip display, and swaggers out the door.  If you can propose an alternative inference, I would be most interested to hear it.  As earlier noted, the admissions of Johnson's lawyer, and the 911 call to the police, seem to remove from the table the claim that a theft did not occur.  And I doubt that Brown's elevated THC levels did much to enhance his judgment.

    Research is hardly needed for the proposition that robbery, combined with possession of marijuana, can have serious consequence, including the prospect of jail time.  Common sense will do quite nicely for that.  


    Have read my comments. I have never (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    stated anything about whether the theft occurred or not.

    The clerk did not have a gun strapped to his waist and the store clerk did not call the police. Pushing an unarmed clerk into a display is a hundred times less dangerous than attacking someone with a gun.

    Active duty policemen do as a matter of fact have guns which they are known to use to kill people. Black people are very aware of this fact.

    Common logic dictates that dead is more serious than appearing before a drug court or even the possibility of spending time in jail.


    You're assuming (none / 0) (#54)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    facts not in evidence: to wit, that Brown was "right in the head" on that day.

    Bloomberg says a state highway patrol chemist testified that the bag of marijuana was "a little bit smaller than a baseball.  Not much, though."


    This is funny (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    So Brown was rational when he was terrified by the prospect of being caught with 1.6 grams of marijuana in a state with "harsh penalties", yet just seconds later, we're to assume he was not "right in the head" and therefore decided to charge a police officer with a gun pointed at him while unarmed.



    Oh. (none / 0) (#96)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    It was not "irrational" for Brown to defy the threat of the clerk to report the robbery to the police?  (Dorian Johnson's grand jury testimony, Vol.4, p.37.) Johnson certainly thought so.

    Might we defer to Johnson's assessment of how likely the Ferguson Market "caper" might land the both of them in jail?  When he saw a police cruiser, the thought that went through his head was "I was just, wow, we're really going to get locked up, this is going to happen" (p.40.)      


    Might have been (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    I just think you're double standard is amusing.

    (Rational) MB terrified of being arrested for pot - seconds later MB (not in his right mind) charging a police officer pointing a gun at him while unarmed.

    The stuff standup routines are made of ...


    A 1.6 gram bag of mj was almost the size (none / 0) (#143)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:59:59 PM EST
    of a baseball?  On what phreakin' micro-gravitational planet?

    As someone who has written in TL (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    numerous times that I believe MJ should be legalized I feel no need to answer your question.

    As to what Brown did or didn't know neither of us can answer that question.

    As to the motives of Brown I can offer no more than that we have video proof if him committing a strong arm robbery in an environment in which he had to have known had cameras.

    I think it obvious that Brown was confident that he was "Big Mike," 6' 5" 289 pounds and could do as he wished.

    It should be remember that many stores in high crime areas just accept such acts as a cost of doing business until they just decide to go out of business thus creating "food deserts."

    And, if I remember right, it was a customer who dialed 911, not the owner or employee.


    DM -- The truth about Wilson medical records (none / 0) (#48)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    Darren Wilson's medical records reveal he showed 'no apparent distress' and little physical injury just hours after shooting Michael Brown

     But we all knew that, didn't we???

    And yet we had to endure 3 months of all the BS about this great struggle in the vehicle that never happened???

    How do you account for the photos (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    of Wilson after the incident?

    The photos support what (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    he just said.  Wilson said Brown hit him with his fists.  As has been pointed out many times by the white power crowd Brown was a big strong guy.   Do you honestly think that if Brown had hit him repeatedly with his fists his face would have been a little rosy in spots?

    Brown's (none / 0) (#68)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    gentle nature led him to strike Wilson softly.

    So which is it mighty mouth (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    is he a dangerous demon with ham sized fists or a wimp who's worst slaps gave Wilson rosy cheeks?

    Oh, dear. (1.67 / 3) (#82)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    Howdy's gettin' rowdy.

    Answer the question (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:01:22 PM EST
    He Never Said Repeatedly (none / 0) (#81)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    I felt that another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse. I mean it was, he's obviously bigger than I was and stronger, and the, I've already taken two to the face and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right. . . . Or at least unconscious and then who knows what would happen to me after that.

    Fairly good reproductions of the pictures are here.


    Howdy, go to GJ testimony (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    9 A No, I do not.
    10 Did he indicate to you that there were
    ll additional injuries that you did not assess or not
    12 see?
    13 A No, we walked through with Darren Wilson
    14 his injury complaint sites, consisting of mainly his
    15 facial area, the back of his neck and he said his

    16 head hurt.


    19 by Darren Wilson. He complained that his face was
    20 hurting. So when I asked him specifically, he

    2l pointed to these sides of his face. We'll get to it
    22 shortly, but also the back of his neck.



    I saw the pictures genius (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:17:15 PM EST
    and I'm telling you I could have done more damage in a slap fight.  Brown, as you love to point out, was a big strong guy.

    Why, Wilson said he was like a "demon".  Like "the Hulk".

    If those are the injuries Wilson imagines he would receive from the Hulk or a demon he probably should find another line of work.


    Puppy Rox caused a heck of a lot (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 04:45:21 PM EST
    more damage to my body/face than Brown did to Wilson . . .  :P Man, I was a bruised mess for, like, ever! I at least expected Wilson to have a bashed up eye similar to what my mom's beagle caused to mine. You could see he blood/bruise pool as it crept down my face for a month. Didn't have it checked out (prob should have!). I would expect an orbital blow out to show some kinda decent bruising. Beagle weighs 17 lbs . . .

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    i too have incurred more serious injuries dog wrestling.

    I've incurred more serious injuries pulling weeds (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 09:03:20 PM EST
    Being a big strong guy has nothing to (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    with being hit in the face by another big strong guy.

    I yield to your expertise on slap fighting.


    Is a (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    pathetically veiled homophobic remark the best you and whitey can do?  Really.

    How about telling us where the marks are from this terrible beating?


    What??? I yield to your (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    claim and that's "homophobic??"

    Do you understand that people are taught to use their open hands rather than fists to slap the ears, etc??? Karate chops, etc?? Really. You are searching for an insult.

    And no has claimed there was a terrible beating,

    Brown hit Wilson and there was a struggle over the gun. Best I can tell Brown hit Wilson twice and then there was reaching and grabbing and pulling... He had bruising and swelling and scratches...all shown on the photographs in the GJ testimony...

    And BTW - After the two shots in the Tahoe he didn't shoot again until during chase Brown turned and started back towards him.... with his hand under his shirt.

    See the GJ testimony Volume 5 starting at page 209 line 18...




    Or do you still cling to the (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    "orbital blowout"?   It would make as much sense and anything else you've said.

    If you had carefully read (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    my previous comments you know that I pointed out to Chip that was false.

    If I had "carefully" read (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    all your previous comments I would be as batsh!t crazy as you.

    What you would be is smarter. (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:04:47 PM EST
    You mean his (none / 0) (#74)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    red cheek that he could have done to himself.

    I'm sure the medical staff there had a good laugh.


    Crazy (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:08:04 PM EST
    You are basically asserting that the police and prosecuter put fake evidence in front of the Grand Jury.   People and critics of Brown have danced around this before but in what I guess was a moment of levity you just came out and said that you now simply discount physical evidence based in Internet research as opposed to evidence collected and presented by professionals.

    Now could it be fake or made up?   Sure, but on this and many other issues the opposite is much more likely and when added together it is clear legally at least the GJ did the only fair thing.  

    Brown started a fight with an officer.   After that it gets a bit murkier but bottom line way more facts line up with Wislon then with any other possible scenarios.   And no facts line up in the same way with Wilson gunning down a man with his hands up.

    In fact I don't even hear other types of scenarios anymore.   No one serious is claiming "Hands up" or shot in the back anymore.   Instead it's moved to dissecting minute facts of the case to somehow discredit Wislon enough to suggest something else bad must have happened but no one will say what.    Other then he didn't have to shoot him and he only did because he was racist.

    Also the new phenomenon is to hold Brown up as a non person with no thoughts or motives of his own.   They get left out of this intense analysis because to face them means we must acknowledge that maybe he wasn't such a good guy for two hours or so that day.   He could have been a great kid every hour of his life but that afternoon something either changed or he was just being himself.  No way to know.

    I find it awful that the circumstances of our society and that day led a white cop face to face with a young black man and the only choice he felt he had was to shoot.   So many other things had to go wrong to bring these two together.  

    But jailing Wilson when he didn't break the law isn't going to solve any of them.

    The cops can't work safely in these types of neighborhoods when it's Us vs Them.   That is what led to this.   Any type of trust above zero would have diffused this to a point were at least Brown didn't die.   Our drug laws, poverty laws, enforcement laws, economic opportunity, lifestyle choices, etc... Led these two men to this place and it's an ugly truth to face.

    That is the tragedy.   How could citizens and police be so hostile towards each other that a Black man thought his only option was to assault the officer and the White cop thought his only option was to shoot?

    To me that is the lesson of Ferguson.   Our police forces must begin to do more serving then protecting but they can't do it themselves.   They need help from the politicians and the people they serve.

    Otherwise expect more murders in these communities by regular criminals and more of these tragedies.


    A reasonable comment. Refreshing. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:21:10 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#156)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    Perfect example of why trust in these communities is so low.

    Minorities searched more then whites

    You simply can't have this if you want to build trust.  These types of laws need to be reformed and enforced.


    Slado (none / 0) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 11:23:11 PM EST
    Team Wilson knew how flimsy those rosy red cheeks were when they began to allege the story of this big "assault" in the cop car.

    That's why they came up with the "orbital blowout" myth until that was exploded.

    And then for 3 months they withheld the facts of Wilson's size equality with Brown -- both were tall and intimidating.

    Here's a guy who is just as big with buddies 20 seconds away and a belt full of tools and yet he chooses the coward's way and resorts to his gun -- and then afterwards claims victimhood status.

    Isn't victimhood what right radio rails about all day every day accusing the left of doing it.

    And yet here is a guy doing it right in front of their eyes and they make him their hero.

    For 3 months team Wilson was peeing on out heads and telling us that it was raining and frankly they pi##ed off a lot of people by doing so.

    And conservative/libertarian radio and internet rants and raves about government lying about Benghazzi etc and yet it applauds and cheers the lies and distortions of the government in this case -- the Ferguson government.

    This event has convinced me that the conservative right has just as many morons hanging from its branches as the liberal left.


    Grand Jury Documents (none / 0) (#111)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    Grand Jury Documents

    These were posted earlier but I do so again that they not get lost in the discussion.

    Other things of note:

    There was no blood on the ground between the Tahoe and Brown's body -- 153.75 feet.

    All of it was between markers 19/20 and his body.

    I was reading (none / 0) (#117)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    an account in the NYTimes about the comments by Pope Francis concerning the fight against ISIS.

    I came across this sentence,

    Francis called for the people and governments of the Middle East to "reverse the trend" of violent conflict, and the 77-year-old pope said military action was not enough to suppress extremism.

    and it stopped me in my tracks.

    I was most interested to read what the Pope might have had to say about confronting the menace of fanaticism by means other than military ones...

    But why in the world did the writer, one Sebnem Arsu, call Francis, "the 77 year-old pope"? It just stopped me, and blurred my ability to concentrate.

    What does that description contribute to the article - or illuminate in any way what Francis was expressing?
    What was the writer expressing - and why was he expressing it?

    The comment, for reasons I'm not exactly sure of, really gave me the creeps.

    Where do these writers come from?

    Those who professionally write about (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 06:43:09 PM EST
    this Pope, as well as the Popes preceding him, seem to include the age reference as a matter of course.

    A lot of what Pope Francis has to say causes many to back up and say things like "How genuine, how good, how like-it-should-be."  It is no secret that I have great admiration and devotion to this very special Pope Francis.  'Though we're not in Star Trek-land, he really does venture into areas and ideas that have brought tears of joy and amazement to so many downtrodden, isolated, hurt, and you-name-it.  Most Popes will speak in terms of peace and peaceful attempts in any situation as the preferred course ... always ... but, he speaks with a directness and specificity that is refreshingly hopeful.  He will stay within creed and dogma, but he is a person--clearly--that understands, stresses, and acts on the spirit (and not simply the more limiting letter) of the law.

    If you were surprised at his comments now in Turkey, you might want to review his comments earlier this year in the home area of a major Mafia family, wherein he openly called them out and openly said the excommunication word.  Now, that is brave ... no matter what your age or position.


    My question: (none / 0) (#126)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    Those who professionally write about this Pope, as well as the Popes preceding him, seem to include the age reference as a matter of course.



    lentinel, I don't know ... only that (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    it is a traditional practice. BTW, in the old solid "journalism" days here, the age of a principal subject of a story was also typically mentioned.  Interesting.

    It's not just the pope (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:46:54 PM EST
    Pick up a "People" sometime. I had to laugh once, because there was one article that noted "(age unknown)". I wish I could recall who was being written about, because I thought it was awesome that s/he could keep that info private.

    Thanks sj. That's exactly (none / 0) (#129)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    what I'm going to say next Tuesday...age unknown.

    That's a major advantage of fishing over running (none / 0) (#133)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:14:19 PM EST
    When running your age is hung out there on the results printout and the online postings of every race. There is no hiding it.

    It seemed (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    to me, to be perfectly honest, that in the context of the article in the Times, a way of saying that the pope was saying something maybe a little shall we say controversial - you know - peace rather than war - and so - saying he is 77 implied that he might not be there forever... so all you warriors out there don't have to be worried...

    Like sometimes they refer to SCOTUS justices normally -- but when they mention their age...


    Age seemed to be the most (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    important re Justice Ginsberg's recent hospitalization for insertion of a stent and ditto re the recent death of P.D. James.

    STARZ is having a free preview weekend (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 08:02:37 PM EST
    i just saw Pompeii.  I liked it.  If you like spectacular effects see it.  The story isn't bad either.  

    Moderate Turkey (none / 0) (#151)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:16:55 PM EST
    The president of our NATO ally had some interesting comments


    Now I can't disagree that Muslims are the only ones who can put their house in order but the bit about Muslims discovering the New World is a bit scary.   If he's the guy running the store then what else does this "Moderate" believe?

    Link (none / 0) (#152)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 28, 2014 at 10:20:11 PM EST
    Jerelyn, I have not had a chance to catch up (none / 0) (#167)
    by ZtoA on Sat Nov 29, 2014 at 12:22:59 AM EST
    with any of the comments in the last several days. But yesterday, T-giving day, I took a short break from making a very multi dish feast for 14 people (three of which were last minute add ons since the guy was the brother of an invited guest, and his (ex) wife died from drinking alcohol last week and he and the two kids, 9 & 12, came up to PDX and then came to my house too) (no worries, I had lots of food and there was a nice spirit in the house). (and it turns out he is a sommelier who is studying to become a master sommelier and he brought a couple of -- amazing-- wines as gifts).

    But during the day, I took a break and since I was way over stimulated, I just clicked on your "Alice's restaurant" link. I was around in the 60s and 70s but where was I? Never actually watched this before or since (since this was a 40 year hence performance). Was I just too not connected with crowds or movies?

    But yesterday, when I watched it for the very first time, I was so extremely moved. It was funny, accessible, informative, and deeply true.

    Today, I found myself humming, then singing this all day. This afternoon I forced my daughter, 26 year old visiting from LA, to watch the whole thing. This evening I staged a 'B!tch" many many minutes at my sister's to get my niece (recently got her undergrad degree and is a lesbian activist and artist) to watch it too. I like the message in "Alice" -- 'If you do not value violence culture, then pass the message on' = "you have to sing it loud all the time".  

    In the last month it has become so apparent, even for those of us trying to not pay attention (we are just working too hard).... Ferguson, Bill Cosby/Jian Ghomeshi and violence/rape culture, IS, and on and on and on. What is Fing wrong with people??  These kinds of violence/hatred are so not good or productive. And it is stupid and ignorant.

    Anyhow, I just wanted to say "Thank You" for your excellent blog and your writings and your views (which I do not always agree with, but hey, that is what keeps life interesting).  Thank You. And thank you all, intelligent interesting commenters!