desertrain10 · ✭✭✭✭✭


Last Active
  • Re: Police gun down 17 year old unarmed black teen. (Update) Grand Jury Now Being Investigated

    Copper wrote: »

    who is she?
    and how is there not enough...all those fucking witnesses with the same story
    DarcSkies wrote: »

    WASHINGTON — The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

    The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

    The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

    This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times. It contradicts some witness accounts, and it will not calm those who have been demanding to know why an unarmed man was shot a total of six times. Mr. Brown’s death continues to fuel anger and sometimes-violent protests.

    In September, Officer Wilson appeared for four hours before a St. Louis County grand jury, which was convened to determine whether there is probable cause that he committed a crime. Legal experts have said that his decision to testify was surprising, given that it was not required by law. But the struggle in the car may prove to be a more influential piece of information for the grand jury, one that speaks to Officer Wilson’s state of mind, his feeling of vulnerability and his sense of heightened alert when he killed Mr. Brown.

    Police officers typically have wide latitude to use lethal force if they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger.

    The officials said that while the federal investigation was continuing, the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson. To press charges, the Justice Department would need to clear a high bar, proving that Officer Wilson willfully violated Mr. Brown’s civil rights when he shot him.

    The account of Officer Wilson’s version of events did not come from the Ferguson Police Department or from officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry.

    In the many accounts of Mr. Brown’s death, the most potent imagery has come from his final moments, when he and Officer Wilson faced each other on Canfield Drive. Some witnesses have said that he appeared to be surrendering with his hands in the air as he was hit with the fatal gunshots. Others have said that Mr. Brown was moving toward Officer Wilson when he was killed.

    Few witnesses had perfect vantage points for the fight in the car, which occurred just after noon on Aug. 9. Mr. Brown was walking down the middle of the street with a friend, Dorian Johnson, when Officer Wilson stopped his S.U.V., a Chevy Tahoe, to order them to the sidewalk.

    Within seconds, the encounter turned into a physical struggle, as the officer and Mr. Brown became entangled through the open driver’s-side window.

    Why did the police shoot an unarmed black teenager in a St. Louis suburb, and what has unfolded since then? Here’s what you need to know about the situation in Missouri.
    OPEN Graphic

    One witness, Piaget Crenshaw, said later that while she could not see clearly, it appeared Mr. Brown was “trying to flee.” Another witness, Tiffany Mitchell, said that she had watched with alarm from a close distance and that as the two briefly struggled, “Michael was pulling off and the cop was trying to pull him in.”

    Michael T. Brady, who lives nearby, said that the altercation was “something strange,” but that he could not tell exactly what was happening. “I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever,” Mr. Brady said. “But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right.”

    However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.

    Mr. Johnson has said that Officer Wilson was the aggressor, backing up his vehicle and opening the door, which hit Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown and then bounced back.

    “He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,” Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. “He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.”

    The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.

    Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department has said in interviews that Officer Wilson was “pushed back into the car” by Mr. Brown and “physically assaulted.” The department is conducting the local investigation into Mr. Brown’s death.

    Spokesmen for the F.B.I. and the Justice Department declined to comment.

    In an interview, Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the Brown family, dismissed Officer Wilson’s account of what happened in the S.U.V. that day.

    “What the police say is not to be taken as gospel,” Mr. Crump said, adding that Officer Wilson should be indicted by the grand jury and his case sent to trial. “He can say what he wants to say in front of a jury. They can listen to all the evidence and the people can have it transparent so they know that the system works for everybody.”

    He added: “The officer’s going to say whatever he’s going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid. Right now, they have this secret proceeding where nobody knows what’s happening and nobody knows what’s going on. No matter what happened in the car, Michael Brown ran away from him.”

    The grand jury has been meeting in Clayton, Mo., since Aug. 20. Robert P. McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, has said that he expects a decision on probable cause by mid-November.


    Bitch you already sitting down how you PINNED down?

    Right lol...

    And if Wilson is to believed that means he continued to fire at an obviously unarmed person who he just shot in the arm and was now surrendering. How was he even a serious threat to you or anyone at that point?
    nex gin
  • Re: The GOP Releases Ad Already Being Dubbed the Most Racist Ad since the Infamous ‘Willie Horton’ Ad...

    S2J wrote: »
    It is a racist ad for obvious reason. But not suprised. Im sure thousands benefited from the good time law an re offended whites included. But they pick the hooded black person possible as a scare tactic. To get people to be tough on crime. Which its already proven longer sentencing doesn't deter re offending.

    See this is just as toxic as any racism imo

    Them crackas got your head so fuked up u willing to sell yourself out along with any moral compass you have, just to side with a murderer and criminal. You dont realize that harms us more than anything. Nikko fukin Jenkins does not represent black people, and i dont look at us as black people as all being like niko johnson, so i didnt flinch watchin that video. Nggas who aint sure about themselves? Or the 'good' white people who 'on our side' but still look at us as less than them? Yea they feelin a way

    The ad is not racist


    Calling the ad racist and siding with the likes of Nikko Jenkins are not one and the same lol

    With that said, I necessarily don't feel the ad is racist ....but what it does do is exploit racism

    or in other words the ad is dog whistle politics at work ...from the imagery to the repeated use of the name "Nikko Jenkins"

    The makers of the ad were exploiting the public's fear of crime and even more so exploiting white irrational fears about Blacks

    Would even argue the ad could serve to perpetuate these fears

    GOP to White voters: Vote for a candidate who is going to protect you from these blac...I mean a candidate who is tough on crime

    Shit is a farse

    Not to mention the ad fails to mention the good time rule was initially widely supported by Nebraska Republican officials even the GOP candidate who is running against Brad Ashford and even a Republican governor signed the good time rule into law

    jonoThe Iconoclast
  • Re: The GOP Releases Ad Already Being Dubbed the Most Racist Ad since the Infamous ‘Willie Horton’ Ad...

    S2J wrote: »
    To b clear... The ad is meant to incite racists. A minor distinction, but it's important.

    Nooo, im pretty sure the ad is mewnt to make him look weak on crime

    And it seems to me to the ad is doing more to troll black folk into stubbing our own toe and creating a sense of boy who cried wolf...thats that long hustle. That REAL counterproductive shyt

    Because if u black and align with inmates and this mfer---as if opposition to crime = opposition to black folk ---you fuck us all over

    As if me bein black im not supposed to be able to think 'uhhh, yea, how'd you let THIS mfer out'. Cmon man. Every inmate aint gotdamn Malcolm X, and every black person does not need to rep fukin inmates


    you can acknowledge the racialized imagery of the ad and still be in opposition of policy such as the good time rule

    The release of one man is not an fair indictment of the law

    The democratic candidate subject of the attack had little to do with the release of Nikko Jenkins or with the signing the bill into law

    So not only is the ad exploiting racism, it serves to perpetuate the narrative that the Democratic Party is the party of welfare queens, thugs, and illegals i.e. colored people
  • Re: Sexually Aggressive Women

    LPast wrote: »
    LPast wrote: »
    - I would readily accept my lady making more than me. I don't think a man should accept a woman making more than them if he didn't do something to better himself.

    - A man doesn't need to initiate the conversation, nor should he live with the expectation of women needing to outwardly say she wants to sleep with him.

    - Being the decider, means being an active member in the decision making. Both men and women need to participate.


    Why shouldn't a man expect a grown ass woman to be direct about what she wants. She doesn't have to always be vocal about it. There's more than one way to let her wishes be known. There's more than one way to initiate sex

    How is a man who likes or rather a woman initiate a convo, sex relinquishing all his duties as an active participant... Does he not than decide to participate in the convo, engage in sex, flirt, etc ...Could he not just walk away. Is there still not the potential for him to fuck up his chances of getting further with the woman

    Anyways there are plenty of reasons why a man would welcome a woman taking the initiative at times...i'm not sure how that automatically makes that person less a man or "lazy" or a bum nigga ...unless he never was the one to initiate things

  • Re: Sexually Aggressive Women

    KingSimba wrote: »
    LPast wrote: »
    Part of the issue here is tact. I agree with others that say they don't want the woman being overt with it. I'm in no rush.

    What y'all don't understand, is that dudes want the female to make the move because they are afraid, lazy, or unsure of themselves.

    But I'm just trying to give you the large picture... Bunch of new age lost niggas

    Not that I agree but that's besides the point

    Some women would rather be upfront about what they want in the bedroom and beyond rather than passively wait around for her suitor to initiate everything

    It's fair that you would rather be the aggressor

    But IMHO only a man who is easily intimidated by a strong woman would view this being the behavior of some one of poor character or something to be discouraged... That's seems to be the position of some of the male posters here though

    I can.only speak for myself when I say that I have no problem with a woman being sexually aggressive. But issues could come into play in regards to when and how they do act. Courtship is important for to get to know each other and see if the physical is even and option. And modesty is always good in public settings. But it seems as of some women on here have an issue with men who think like this.

    So outside the bedroom women who like to take the intiative in certain instances are incapable of doing so with same tack that a man can? Lol

    But really the problem I think some female posters here have is the double standard concerning male/female sexuality and the stigma that surrounds aggressive women ....well at least for me that is what I take issue with