CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[JoeB131]

He was not shot in thew abdomen.

The bullet wounds to his arms and hands were also consistent with a man running towards the shooter and no his hands would not drop after the first hit.

I thought the bullet wounds in his arms happened when he was trying to take the gun in the car, supposedly.

See what happens when you can't keep your story straight?

 

[Soupnazi630]

He was not shot in thew abdomen.

The bullet wounds to his arms and hands were also consistent with a man running towards the shooter and no his hands would not drop after the first hit.

I thought the bullet wounds in his arms happened when he was trying to take the gun in the car, supposedly.

See what happens when you can't keep your story straight?

No one ever said that he was shot while in the car trying to get the gun. Wilson did keep his story straight and the evidence supported it.

brown was only shot while charging wilson

 

[sartre play]

Just incase don't have time to check back in, want to wish you all a Merry Christmas, / Happy Holiday season.

 

[DandyDonovan]

yup, that's certainly what the lying ass police that commited thousands of civil rights violations in that town said.

You mean that's what the private autopsy report concluded?

Good grief man, this is known fact why are you lying about it here?

 

[DandyDonovan]

He was not shot in thew abdomen.

The bullet wounds to his arms and hands were also consistent with a man running towards the shooter and no his hands would not drop after the first hit.

I thought the bullet wounds in his arms happened when he was trying to take the gun in the car, supposedly.

See what happens when you can't keep your story straight?

Who made that claim? Brown was shot once in the right hand when Wilson was still in the car and Brown reached through the window and grabbed for his gun and they struggled. Again forensic evidence proved that this is true.

You do understand that a grand jury refused to indict and that the Justice Department also investigated and declined pressing charges against Wilson, ruling that the shooting was most certainly self defense, right?

 

[pismoe]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

------------------------------------------ seems to me that WESTERN Style Diversity should be strived [striven] for in a Great Country like the USA . Welsh , Finns , English , Swedes , Italians , Scots and other Born Westerners and Christian from Birth are what is needed when more people are needed in the USA . ------------ just a late thought , opinion and comment .

 

[JoeB131]

No one ever said that he was shot while in the car trying to get the gun. Wilson did keep his story straight and the evidence supported it.

Actually, wilson said the gun went off twice while they were in the car when he tried to pin the kid with his patrol car.

Again, it would be really nice if we had a prosecutor who actually, you kn ow, prosecuted this instead of acting like a defense attorney.

You do understand that a grand jury refused to indict and that the Justice Department also investigated and declined pressing charges against Wilson, ruling that the shooting was most certainly self defense, right?

The Justice Department probably didn't have jurisdiction... And the Grand Jury was lied to by the prosecutor.

So if Wilson is such a great cop, why hasn't he been rehired?

 

[JoeB131]

No one said he was a great cop

Only that the evidence proves he shot brown in self defense making you a fool and liar.

No, the evidence just shows he's a racist twit who panicked when he saw a black kid who was bigger than he was...

But if he's 150 feet away from you, you can get back in your truck and drive away, wait for backup, or do a bunch of other things that don't involve throwing a fussilade of lead down a busy pedestrian area.

 

[anotherlife]

Wealth diversity is important, because it determines the energy of existence of a country, as per mathematical statistics.

 

[JoeB131]

You cannot post or provide any evidence of any kind that he was racist.

You cannot provide or post any evidence to refute the jury's decision.

Um, did you see the chart I posted listing what all the witnesses said..

Oh, never mind.

Get this fact straight he shit brown I self sef nse and it was a justified shooting.

Was that sentence even in English? did you hit the 80 Proof eggnog last night?

 

[Darkwind]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

A much more important concept is 'Assimilation". Diversity and integration in some mixing pot is not as great a desire as taking all that diversity and assimilating it into OUR own culture. Diversity is meaningless if it continues to stand apart from the whole.

 

[Unkotare]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

A much more important concept is 'Assimilation". Diversity and integration in some mixing pot is not as great a desire as taking all that diversity and assimilating it into OUR own culture. ....

That’s what the Melting Pot means.

 

[Darkwind]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

A much more important concept is 'Assimilation". Diversity and integration in some mixing pot is not as great a desire as taking all that diversity and assimilating it into OUR own culture. ....

That’s what the Melting Pot means.

You let Me know when it starts happening. Right now, all this 'diversity' is like oil being mixed in water.

So, unless these diverse cultures are willing to subordinate themselves to the American culture, there is no melting pot.

 

[Unkotare]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

A much more important concept is 'Assimilation". Diversity and integration in some mixing pot is not as great a desire as taking all that diversity and assimilating it into OUR own culture. ....

That’s what the Melting Pot means.

You let Me know when it starts...

It’s happening right now. It’s been happening all along.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you still willfully lying about witnesses who were merely dug up by the media?

Yes.

Here's where that chart came from.

What do the newly released witness statements tell us about the Michael Brown shooting?

Over the course of the investigation, federal agents interviewed dozens of witnesses—some compelled to come forward by subpoena—to piece together what happened on that August 9 afternoon. Shortly after the press conference announcing the jury’s decision, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch released the transcripts of interviews with witnesses and Wilson.

We read and analyzed more than 500 pages of witness testimony and compared each statement to those given by Wilson. Below is a chart comparing several key details of the officer’s report to the witness statements. Was Brown facing Wilson when he was shot, or was his back turned to him? Did Brown have his hands in the air, or were they reaching toward his waist?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Are you still willfully lying about witnesses who were merely dug up by the media?

Yes.

Here's where that chart came from.

What do the newly released witness statements tell us about the Michael Brown shooting?

Over the course of the investigation, federal agents interviewed dozens of witnesses—some compelled to come forward by subpoena—to piece together what happened on that August 9 afternoon. Shortly after the press conference announcing the jury’s decision, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch released the transcripts of interviews with witnesses and Wilson.

We read and analyzed more than 500 pages of witness testimony and compared each statement to those given by Wilson. Below is a chart comparing several key details of the officer’s report to the witness statements. Was Brown facing Wilson when he was shot, or was his back turned to him? Did Brown have his hands in the air, or were they reaching toward his waist?

Yes I was wrong about the media

They were however worthless witnesses found after the fact and they had no credibility.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes I was wrong about the media

They were however worthless witnesses found after the fact and they had no credibility.

Only person with a credibility issue here is you..

The thing is, the DA chose the witnesses that supported his narrative, threatened other witnesses to get the testimony he wanted...

 

[JoeB131]

None of these people came forward during the trial but only after it became political.

So the police were collecting statements after the grand jury hearing? (There was never a trial, that's my point.)

The defense can call them as well and did not even try because most were liars.

Guy, this is where you are a little confused. There was no "Defense". What you had instead was a prosecutor who decided it was his place to clear a rogue cop of wrongdoing.

We know they are liars because the physical evidence proves brown was attacking Wilson making it a justified shooting

Well, no... what you had was a prosecutor (who the people of the county voted out of office for his misconduct in this case) who manipulated the proceeding. That was the whole point.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry wrong your own statement is clear that rh we witnesses were collected by the GED after it was over

No, t hese were witness statements collected by the police after the shooting...

The DA covered up for a corrupt cop that no police department wants to rehire.

Enjoy it. DA's in the future aren't going to pull this shit... too many of them got voted out of office for it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

No one ever said that he was shot while in the car trying to get the gun. Wilson did keep his story straight and the evidence supported it.

Actually, wilson said the gun went off twice while they were in the car when he tried to pin the kid with his patrol car.

Again, it would be really nice if we had a prosecutor who actually, you kn ow, prosecuted this instead of acting like a defense attorney.

You do understand that a grand jury refused to indict and that the Justice Department also investigated and declined pressing charges against Wilson, ruling that the shooting was most certainly self defense, right?

The Justice Department probably didn't have jurisdiction... And the Grand Jury was lied to by the prosecutor.

So if Wilson is such a great cop, why hasn't he been rehired?

You are pitiful. Of course the Justice Department has jurisdiction, that's why they ran an investigation.

As for Wilson, he was actually screwed the situation up from the very beginning the way he handled two subjects , he should have had both of them on the ground with their hands on their head before he got within 25' feet of them. Letting a suspect approach his car was a stupid,d and costly error.

But that doesn't make him a murderer. It does however make you stupid.