The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,010
- 2,405
People with an agenda often ignore the truth and rely on pure emotions to prove their point. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Michael Brown. I can smell an agenda whenever people bring us issues that have no legal, logical or moral significance, issues such as:
They shot him six times!! My response: who cares!! Look ladies and gentlemen, if it is illegal to shoot someone, a single fatal shot will convict you of murder. There is no enhanced penalty in any jurisdiction for taking more than one shot to kill a man. However, If a person has a right to use deadly force, the number of shots he takes is irrelevant. The only time the number of shots could possibly be significant is when someone claims to have accidentally shot someone. It's difficult to prove you didn't know the gun was loaded when you fired eight shots, especially when your gun was a six-shooter (But your honor, I accidentally reloaded!). How about this for an epitaph, “ He fired one less shot than what it took to stop the thug who killed him.” Would you want that on your tombstone?
He was surrendering!!! My response: Bullshit!! Surrender means “to submit to the will and control” (of the police). Officer Warren said he shouted “Stop, get on the ground” and I believe him because that is what police are taught to say and from my own experience that is exactly what they do say. Did Brown submit to the authority of the police? It is obvious he did not . If he had stopped and gotten on the ground as directed there is no doubt he would still be alive . Instead, he kept advancing toward the officer, the officer he had previously assaulted and whose gun he tried to take. You can call that “surrendering” if you like but that only proves your inability to communicate within the confines of accepted English language definitions. The fact that Brown was advancing towards officer Warren is established beyond the possibility of the slightest residual doubt by the blood trail Brown left. If you don't know about the blood trail don't ask for a link. You have shown you have strong opinions about subjects you know nothing about and that is a good definition of ignorance.
His hands were in the air!! My response: Who gives a royal crap?!! As I have already shown, Brown was not surrendering because he was not following the orders given by the police to stop and get on the ground. However, even if it were true that Brown had his hands and the air (and the evidence proves this was not the case), that doesn't make him less dangerous as he is advancing towards the officer. Those hands can come down in a hurry, folks, and you have to take action before that happens. Raising one's arms is not necessarily an act of submission; just ask anyone who has encountered a wild bear in the woods. The bear stands on its hind legs and lifts its legs to intimidate. In fact those campers who encounter bears in the wilderness are advised to raise their arms to make themselves look larger and more fearsome.
And now for the most notorious agenda of all. The President of the United States sent three representatives to Brown's family. As far as I know, never before in the history of this country has any president sent a representative to console the parents of a dangerous felon who was killed while attacking a police officer (besides assaulting a police officer, Brown also committed a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store). You can laugh at Bush and Palin, but neither of them ever did anything as stupid as that. Obama's ignorance may have been fatal as some people no doubt saw this gesture as evidence that Brown was a victim and officer Warren a racist murderer. Cops were killed and Obama may be to blame. Is Obama really that stupid, or did he have an agenda? I will let each reader decide.
Note to Obama: As president, when a crime has been committed, you are supposed to say words to the effect of, “I can't get involved in an ongoing legal process.” And once a final decision has been made, you are supposed to say words to the effect of, “We are a nation of laws and we have to respect the decision of the jury even if we personally disagree with that decision.” That's what Bush would have done, and that is what Palin (had she been president) would have done and you're supposed to be so much smarter than either of them, right?
They shot him six times!! My response: who cares!! Look ladies and gentlemen, if it is illegal to shoot someone, a single fatal shot will convict you of murder. There is no enhanced penalty in any jurisdiction for taking more than one shot to kill a man. However, If a person has a right to use deadly force, the number of shots he takes is irrelevant. The only time the number of shots could possibly be significant is when someone claims to have accidentally shot someone. It's difficult to prove you didn't know the gun was loaded when you fired eight shots, especially when your gun was a six-shooter (But your honor, I accidentally reloaded!). How about this for an epitaph, “ He fired one less shot than what it took to stop the thug who killed him.” Would you want that on your tombstone?
He was surrendering!!! My response: Bullshit!! Surrender means “to submit to the will and control” (of the police). Officer Warren said he shouted “Stop, get on the ground” and I believe him because that is what police are taught to say and from my own experience that is exactly what they do say. Did Brown submit to the authority of the police? It is obvious he did not . If he had stopped and gotten on the ground as directed there is no doubt he would still be alive . Instead, he kept advancing toward the officer, the officer he had previously assaulted and whose gun he tried to take. You can call that “surrendering” if you like but that only proves your inability to communicate within the confines of accepted English language definitions. The fact that Brown was advancing towards officer Warren is established beyond the possibility of the slightest residual doubt by the blood trail Brown left. If you don't know about the blood trail don't ask for a link. You have shown you have strong opinions about subjects you know nothing about and that is a good definition of ignorance.
His hands were in the air!! My response: Who gives a royal crap?!! As I have already shown, Brown was not surrendering because he was not following the orders given by the police to stop and get on the ground. However, even if it were true that Brown had his hands and the air (and the evidence proves this was not the case), that doesn't make him less dangerous as he is advancing towards the officer. Those hands can come down in a hurry, folks, and you have to take action before that happens. Raising one's arms is not necessarily an act of submission; just ask anyone who has encountered a wild bear in the woods. The bear stands on its hind legs and lifts its legs to intimidate. In fact those campers who encounter bears in the wilderness are advised to raise their arms to make themselves look larger and more fearsome.
And now for the most notorious agenda of all. The President of the United States sent three representatives to Brown's family. As far as I know, never before in the history of this country has any president sent a representative to console the parents of a dangerous felon who was killed while attacking a police officer (besides assaulting a police officer, Brown also committed a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store). You can laugh at Bush and Palin, but neither of them ever did anything as stupid as that. Obama's ignorance may have been fatal as some people no doubt saw this gesture as evidence that Brown was a victim and officer Warren a racist murderer. Cops were killed and Obama may be to blame. Is Obama really that stupid, or did he have an agenda? I will let each reader decide.
Note to Obama: As president, when a crime has been committed, you are supposed to say words to the effect of, “I can't get involved in an ongoing legal process.” And once a final decision has been made, you are supposed to say words to the effect of, “We are a nation of laws and we have to respect the decision of the jury even if we personally disagree with that decision.” That's what Bush would have done, and that is what Palin (had she been president) would have done and you're supposed to be so much smarter than either of them, right?