I know of no example when this song was used in any way as an anthem to represent racism. If there is a documented case of this please educate me.
If playing any song about the south automatically implies an allegiance with a racist Southern culture, the irony that the very reason this song exists is to refute that stereotype is not lost on me.
The person, an apparent media member, who brought this story to light is quoted below...he obviously doesn't know anything about the history and meaning of the song, but that didn't stop him from pouring ketchup.
[em]Humboldt Park photographer Gabriel Michael captured the footage about 1:30 p.m. in the 100 block of South Pulaski Road.
[strong]"I couldn’t believe what I was hearing because you have to know the history of that song and the meaning,"[/strong] Michael said. [/em]
Did you intentionally leave out this part?:
"“It didn’t makes sense to me. It was [either] a horribly ironic joke that desensitized cops were playing, or it was intentionally disrespectful and intimidating,” Michael told DNAinfo Chicago. “It was aggressive. It was totally out of place.”"
His take is a thousand times more rational and informed than yours is. In Rockworld the cops just HAPPENED to be playing that song. "The CD player turned itself on, sir! It was like magic, sir! Ha ha ha, black magic get it, ha ha ha!"
2 recent music videos explore the song extensively.
20 Feet From Stardom has Merry Clayton talking about singing background on the song. She makes clear that to her the mention of Alabama conjured images of racism. I doubt it is coincidence that when she got a chance to make a solo lp she featured Young's Southern Man.
The other is the Muscle Shoals doc. Which devolves into a Lynard Skynard movie.
I highly recommend both for their music content.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Y'all don't be talkin' down on no Skynard, ya hear?
Yet more awesome bacon work and another notch in the pole of "personal responsibility":
"A grand jury just announced on Friday that they will not indict a Maryland police officer who killed an unarmed man who had Down Syndrome
“They felt no further investigation was necessary,” Frederick County State’s Attorney J. Charles Smith, said about the death of Robert Ethan Saylor, 26. Smith explained at a news conference just outside of the county courthouse, that “no crime had been committed.”
Police justified their killing by explaining that Saylor, who has Down Syndrome, verbally and physically resisted their attempts to remove him from the theater, and because of his large size, the officers say they had to use three sets of handcuffs on him and placed him on his stomach for “one to two minutes.” When he showed signs of distress, officers said they administered CPR and other First Aid. However, back in February, the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office in Baltimore said that Saylor’s death was a homicide resulting from asphyxia.
The killing happened when cops arrived to force Saylor to leave a movie theater after he wanted to see “Zero Dark Thirty,” a second time.
Just as in the case of Eric Garner, the police have said that being obese, “contributed” to Saylor’s death, making him more susceptible to breathing problems."
I look forward to hearing from the resolute defenders of law'n'order about how fucking amazing this brave, selfless, unavoidable display of true American heroism was and how the grand jury made the right call.
Seems like black people would be better off if they respected Law enforcement officers and did not resist arrest. Too bad the current climate of black culture endorses a negative attitude towards police officers. If only we could come together as one people and help black people to behave appropriately etc.
Raj, for fucks sake, grow a pair and fucking boot this turd.
The lyrics to Sweet Home Alabama can be read as either supportive of Governor Wallace and his segregationist stance or against it (you can google several articles that parse the differences in interpretation). It could be used with racist intent if your interpretation of the song is that it is supportive of Wallace.
That is all.
This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. The only ones who know the "true" meaning of the song are the people who wrote it. It is very well documented that Van Zandt and this song were Anti-Wallace. He explained in great detail how this was simply a response to two Neil Young songs with the message that not everyone in the South is a racist as stereotyped in the songs "Southern Man" and "Alabama". One of the lyrics in the song literally "Boos" Wallace, the Democrat Governor at the time. Young even sung "Sweet Home Alabama" at Ronnie Van Zandt's funeral.
But true to form some so-called music historian, or scholar or whatever the fuck some academic idiot calls themselves, THEY know better that the authors and find reason to suspect that the song might really be pro Wallace and as a result, racist. And I know exactly why they think this...because they WANT it to be so it fits into their secret mind garden narrative. Please pass the ketchup Mr. Sowell.
There is a subtle but pervasive point he raises here that applies broadly to many social discourses of late. If we strip it bare, then engage fully, all pretense slips away. And this ongoing tethering and languishing on what we thought we knew versus the plain evidence in our hands simply isn't true, and it doesn't hold. And moreover makes a mockery of the plight of our civil and human rights figures and the course that their ideas pave through history.
In other words, it's a disservice to the people that fought for freedom, both political and social, and to the people who fought for civil rights and social mobility and the feminist movements, that today the cases that are highlighted in the media regress fully from the light of reason so as to so easily and effectively be ridiculed and criticized on social media and elsewhere without pause.
Not to say that there isn't ongoing injustice both racial and demographical in nature. To the contrary, this is easy to find. But the cases that the light is shined on the most are, it seems, the least convincing and the most laughably inarticulate and easily refutable. Of course there are exceptions.
I, for one, could easily cite multiple true injustices both black and white that don't catch a national headline.
The civil rights movement and the subsequent rewriting of national headlines and preambles to policy in both the public and private sphere is something to be proud of and also something worth upholding. As Obama stated, we are a nation of laws, and we must stand behind them. There seems to be in academia and the press an unexpected apathy and a scrambling to find an angle to defend the MB case after the multiple autopsies and the prosecutions case that was presented in detail before a grand jury. The long pause and the scrambling for something to oppose leaves an indelible mark over all the op-eds and pieces written in the wake of the non-indictment.
Most of it rests on speculation before the facts. Most of it seems to be backpedaling to justify in some ways the ambiguity that so preceded and foreshadowed the findings of the investigation. To somehow connect the desired narrative with the inconvenient evidence of the event.
Hands Up, Don't Shoot. Unarmed black, innocent teenager, killed in coldblood. Conveniently leaving out his friend and cohort, Dorian Johnson, a man a few years older and wiser than MB. A Man who stood and walked inches away from MB on that double yellow line that bisected the roadway.
A man and friend who was confronted and was told at the same time to get out of the street and find the sidewalk so that other vehicles could make their way at noon on a city street. A request that any person in authority on any street on any busy road in any country would also reflexively command. Yet Dorian Johnson is still alive and the man that strode alongside him at the time is dead. Why?
Well it seems to come down to the behavior of each individual after the order to disperse. One lives, one tragically dies. Do you really think MB would be dead if he mimicked the actions of his friend Dorian Johnson? I can expand but I think it is one of those tl;dr things SS is notorious for labeling. So I won't, but i think you get the gist.
This simple reasoning seems to me to be so obvious but I've yet to hear anyone bring it up.
So just from indisputable forensic evidence we have (at the least): two shots fired in the cabin of the police vehicle, stipling and soot on MB's hand, indicating that his hand was at a maximum of 9 inches from the end of the pistol, MB's DNA in the cabin of the police vehicle and on the barrel of the gun, broken glass, bullet holes in the cabin of the police vehicle indicating a struggle took place in the vehicle, DJ's testimony of a struggle in the vehicle, DW's testimony of a struggle in the vehicle, Police and Dispatch transcripts indicating the call out of suspects in a strong armed robbery, with descriptions matching MB and DJ.
And finally the reddening and swelling of DW face in photographs at the hospitable after the fact. Admittedly looking of a light struggle but nonetheless an obvious indicator of a struggle occurring. One can relate that some signs of wrestling don't always give justice to the struggle that preceded it as a young sibling brother remembers wrestling harshly on the floor and only coming up with light red marks and swelling.
From a distance it may seem minor. It could be for all we know. But minor or not, contact did happen. And contact did happen between the deceased and the officer's weapon. I challenge anyone on this forum to engage with a police officer's face and reach for his gun today, then come back on this forum, if still alive, and tell us how it went down. All the loudest and most provocative of you in this case would be the least likely to make this challenge happen today or 50 years ago, unlike the true heroes of the civil rights era. You are safe behind a keyboard and decades of victimhood.
The irony is that your forbearers were so brave, so strident, so incredibly strong, that in the aftermath of the social upheaval that they brought and succeeded in transforming, that their offspring became so fragile and so wracked with entitlements that the things that they complain about are incredibly insulting to the things that their forbearers fought about in the first place. The embarrassment is yours and the tragedy is that the real tragedies that happen all the time are misplaced and underrepresented.
Common Fucking Sense is what nobody is talking about. If you have children, then have this talk about how one conducts themselves in the face of an authority. Black or white authority. Black or white person.
Common Sense and the Consequences of not following it should be the message here. And so it goes- The most blatant and obvious truth to behold is the last one to be brought up in any journalistic form in print, in a blog, or on digital pages, save this one.
It is shameful; but the shame is all of ours to share.
The lyrics to Sweet Home Alabama can be read as either supportive of Governor Wallace and his segregationist stance or against it (you can google several articles that parse the differences in interpretation). It could be used with racist intent if your interpretation of the song is that it is supportive of Wallace.
That is all.
This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. The only ones who know the "true" meaning of the song are the people who wrote it. It is very well documented that Van Zandt and this song were Anti-Wallace. He explained in great detail how this was simply a response to two Neil Young songs with the message that not everyone in the South is a racist as stereotyped in the songs "Southern Man" and "Alabama". One of the lyrics in the song literally "Boos" Wallace, the Democrat Governor at the time. Young even sung "Sweet Home Alabama" at Ronnie Van Zandt's funeral.
But true to form some so-called music historian, or scholar or whatever the fuck some academic idiot calls themselves, THEY know better that the authors and find reason to suspect that the song might really be pro Wallace and as a result, racist. And I know exactly why they think this...because they WANT it to be so it fits into their secret mind garden narrative. Please pass the ketchup Mr. Sowell.
There is a subtle but pervasive point he raises here that applies broadly to many social discourses of late. If we strip it bare, then engage fully, all pretense slips away. And this ongoing tethering and languishing on what we thought we knew versus the plain evidence in our hands simply isn't true, and it doesn't hold. And moreover makes a mockery of the plight of our civil and human rights figures and the course that their ideas pave through history.
In other words, it's a disservice to the people that fought for freedom, both political and social, and to the people who fought for civil rights and social mobility and the feminist movements, that today the cases that are highlighted in the media regress fully from the light of reason so as to so easily and effectively be ridiculed and criticized on social media and elsewhere without pause.
Not to say that there isn't ongoing injustice both racial and demographical in nature. To the contrary, this is easy to find. But the cases that the light is shined on the most are, it seems, the least convincing and the most laughably inarticulate and easily refutable. Of course there are exceptions.
I, for one, could easily cite multiple true injustices both black and white that don't catch a national headline.
The civil rights movement and the subsequent rewriting of national headlines and preambles to policy in both the public and private sphere is something to be proud of and also something worth upholding. As Obama stated, we are a nation of laws, and we must stand behind them. There seems to be in academia and the press an unexpected apathy and a scrambling to find an angle to defend the MB case after the multiple autopsies and the prosecutions case that was presented in detail before a grand jury. The long pause and the scrambling for something to oppose leaves an indelible mark over all the op-eds and pieces written in the wake of the non-indictment.
Most of it rests on speculation before the facts. Most of it seems to be backpedaling to justify in some ways the ambiguity that so preceded and foreshadowed the findings of the investigation. To somehow connect the desired narrative with the inconvenient evidence of the event.
Hands Up, Don't Shoot. Unarmed black, innocent teenager, killed in coldblood. Conveniently leaving out his friend and cohort, Dorian Johnson, a man a few years older and wiser than MB. A Man who stood and walked inches away from MB on that double yellow line that bisected the roadway.
A man and friend who was confronted and was told at the same time to get out of the street and find the sidewalk so that other vehicles could make their way at noon on a city street. A request that any person in authority on any street on any busy road in any country would also reflexively command. Yet Dorian Johnson is still alive and the man that strode alongside him at the time is dead. Why?
Well it seems to come down to the behavior of each individual after the order to disperse. One lives, one tragically dies. Do you really think MB would be dead if he mimicked the actions of his friend Dorian Johnson? I can expand but I think it is one of those tl;dr things SS is notorious for labeling. So I won't, but i think you get the gist.
This simple reasoning seems to me to be so obvious but I've yet to hear anyone bring it up.
So just from indisputable forensic evidence we have (at the least): two shots fired in the cabin of the police vehicle, stipling and soot on MB's hand, indicating that his hand was at a maximum of 9 inches from the end of the pistol, MB's DNA in the cabin of the police vehicle and on the barrel of the gun, broken glass, bullet holes in the cabin of the police vehicle indicating a struggle took place in the vehicle, DJ's testimony of a struggle in the vehicle, DW's testimony of a struggle in the vehicle, Police and Dispatch transcripts indicating the call out of suspects in a strong armed robbery, with descriptions matching MB and DJ.
And finally the reddening and swelling of DW face in photographs at the hospitable after the fact. Admittedly looking of a light struggle but nonetheless an obvious indicator of a struggle occurring. One can relate that some signs of wrestling don't always give justice to the struggle that preceded it as a young sibling brother remembers wrestling harshly on the floor and only coming up with light red marks and swelling.
From a distance it may seem minor. It could be for all we know. But minor or not, contact did happen. And contact did happen between the deceased and the officer's weapon. I challenge anyone on this forum to engage with a police officer's face and reach for his gun today, then come back on this forum, if still alive, and tell us how it went down. All the loudest and most provocative of you in this case would be the least likely to make this challenge happen today or 50 years ago, unlike the true heroes of the civil rights era. You are safe behind a keyboard and decades of victimhood.
The irony is that your forbearers were so brave, so strident, so incredibly strong, that in the aftermath of the social upheaval that they brought and succeeded in transforming, that their offspring became so fragile and so wracked with entitlements that the things that they complain about are incredibly insulting to the things that their forbearers fought about in the first place. The embarrassment is yours and the tragedy is that the real tragedies that happen all the time are misplaced and underrepresented.
Common Fucking Sense is what nobody is talking about. If you have children, then have this talk about how one conducts themselves in the face of an authority. Black or white authority. Black or white person.
Common Sense and the Consequences of not following it should be the message here. And so it goes- The most blatant and obvious truth to behold is the last one to be brought up in any journalistic form in print, in a blog, or on digital pages, save this one.
It is shameful; but the shame is all of ours to share.
One thing that often happens when stupid people try to do smart is that they use words they don't normally use and they fuck them up. Hole Zilla doesn't use the word "forebears" in his ordinary life. He grasps for it when he's trying to do smart, and so he fucks it up two different ways. "Forbearers" and "forebearers." That's some funny shit right there, but also pathetic. On some level the poor guy knows he's not very bright and he probably has a very good notion that he's an asshole gloating over the corpse of a dead 18 year old. So he plays smart as a cover. He's just not able to pull it off.
He also pretends that the grand jury was presented with "the prosecution's case," which is pure bullshit. They weren't. They were presented a mishmash of facts and nonsense which was designed to produce a punt, not a touchdown. The "prosecution" ripped apart Dorian Johnson's testimony and gave Darren Wilson a nice relaxing handjob during his.
Yes, some sort of struggle happened at the window of the car. How that ends up in a justifiable homicide of a fleeing suspect many feet away from that car is unexplained by Mr. Forbearers, but then he doesn't really give a shit about that. In his ulcerated sphincter of a mind aggravated cops have a license to kill and no duty to minimize force at all. He's part of the problem. And this is him at his best behavior. In other places, among people who feel the way he does, imagine the shit he says.
"One can relate that some signs of wrestling don't always give justice to the struggle that preceded it as a young sibling brother remembers wrestling harshly on the floor and only coming up with light red marks and swelling."
That particular turd of "Common Fucking Sense" deserves a place all to itself. And some sort of prize for Worst Use Of The Word Justice Ever.
For all the deep, informed geniuses who insisted that the prosecutor was sincerely interested in justice in this case:
""Witness 40" was the Ferguson Grand Jury witness who wrote the racist journal entry after she claimed to have witnessed the Michael Brown shooting. She is also the witness who described Michael Brown charging like a football player.
She's also a liar. The Smoking Gun revealed her identity on Wednesday, and she confirmed it after they published their article unmasking her.
Here's the punch line:
While the “hands-up” account of Dorian Johnson is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment, “Witness 40”’s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation. The “Witness 40” testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.
However, unlike Johnson, “Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.
Yet. She was permitted to give testimony before the Ferguson Grand Jury, she was cited by prosecutor Robert McCulloch as a corroborative witness, and she appears to have made the whole thing up.
McElroy has issues.
In the weeks after Brown’s shooting--but before she contacted police--McElroy used her Facebook account to comment on the case. On August 15, she “liked’ a Facebook comment reporting that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown stole cigars before the confrontation with Wilson. On August 17, a Facebook commenter wrote that Johnson and others should be arrested for inciting riots and giving false statements to police in connection with their claims that Brown had his hands up when shot by Wilson. “The report and autopsy are in so YES they were false,” McElroy wrote of the “hands-up” claims. This appears to be an odd comment from someone who claims to have been present during the shooting. In response to the posting of a news report about a rally in support of Wilson, McElroy wrote on August 17, “Prayers, support God Bless Officer Wilson.”
After meeting with St. Louis police, McElroy continued monitoring the case and posting online. Commenting on a September 12 Riverfront Times story reporting that Ferguson city officials had yet to meet with Brown’s family, McElroy wrote, “But haven’t you heard the news, There great great great grandpa may or may not have been owned by one of our great great great grandpas 200 yrs ago. (Sarcasm).” On September 13, McElroy went on a pro-Wilson Facebook page and posted a graphic that included a photo of Brown lying dead in the street. A type overlay read, “Michael Brown already received justice. So please, stop asking for it.” The following week McElroy responded to a Facebook post about the criminal record of Wilson’s late mother. “As a teenager Mike Brown strong armed a store used drugs hit a police officer and received Justis,” she stated.
She was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a teenager and has had a difficult life. During a bankruptcy case in 2004, her attorney asked to withdraw because McElroy would call the office and berate staff with remarks that they felt were racist.
And as you might imagine by now, she really loathes President Obama.
McElroy’s YouTube page is also filled with a variety of anti-Barack Obama videos, including a clip purporting to show Michelle Obama admitting that the president was born in Kenya. Over the past year, McElroy has subscribed to three channels devoted to mystery and real crime shows, as well as a “We Are Darren Wilson” video channel.
The FBI had thoroughly discredited her testimony, but Robert McCulloch put her in front of the Grand Jury anyway, along with her handwritten account of what happened. Sean Hannity has quoted her over and over again, particularly the description of Michael Brown charging like a football player.
And it was all a lie. This alone should negate the Grand Jury decision not to indict Wilson, but it won't.
Does this rise to the level of a civil rights violation? Did McElroy's lies so taint the Grand Jury that no justice could ever be done, or was she just a blip in the larger picture? It's pretty difficult to believe that one witness could overcome sixteen who tell a different story, but anything is possible."
For all the deep, informed geniuses who insisted that the prosecutor was sincerely interested in justice in this case:
""Witness 40" was the Ferguson Grand Jury witness who wrote the racist journal entry after she claimed to have witnessed the Michael Brown shooting. She is also the witness who described Michael Brown charging like a football player.
She's also a liar. The Smoking Gun revealed her identity on Wednesday, and she confirmed it after they published their article unmasking her.
Here's the punch line:
While the “hands-up” account of Dorian Johnson is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment, “Witness 40”’s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation. The “Witness 40” testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.
However, unlike Johnson, “Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.
Yet. She was permitted to give testimony before the Ferguson Grand Jury, she was cited by prosecutor Robert McCulloch as a corroborative witness, and she appears to have made the whole thing up.
McElroy has issues.
In the weeks after Brown’s shooting--but before she contacted police--McElroy used her Facebook account to comment on the case. On August 15, she “liked’ a Facebook comment reporting that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown stole cigars before the confrontation with Wilson. On August 17, a Facebook commenter wrote that Johnson and others should be arrested for inciting riots and giving false statements to police in connection with their claims that Brown had his hands up when shot by Wilson. “The report and autopsy are in so YES they were false,” McElroy wrote of the “hands-up” claims. This appears to be an odd comment from someone who claims to have been present during the shooting. In response to the posting of a news report about a rally in support of Wilson, McElroy wrote on August 17, “Prayers, support God Bless Officer Wilson.”
After meeting with St. Louis police, McElroy continued monitoring the case and posting online. Commenting on a September 12 Riverfront Times story reporting that Ferguson city officials had yet to meet with Brown’s family, McElroy wrote, “But haven’t you heard the news, There great great great grandpa may or may not have been owned by one of our great great great grandpas 200 yrs ago. (Sarcasm).” On September 13, McElroy went on a pro-Wilson Facebook page and posted a graphic that included a photo of Brown lying dead in the street. A type overlay read, “Michael Brown already received justice. So please, stop asking for it.” The following week McElroy responded to a Facebook post about the criminal record of Wilson’s late mother. “As a teenager Mike Brown strong armed a store used drugs hit a police officer and received Justis,” she stated.
She was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a teenager and has had a difficult life. During a bankruptcy case in 2004, her attorney asked to withdraw because McElroy would call the office and berate staff with remarks that they felt were racist.
And as you might imagine by now, she really loathes President Obama.
McElroy’s YouTube page is also filled with a variety of anti-Barack Obama videos, including a clip purporting to show Michelle Obama admitting that the president was born in Kenya. Over the past year, McElroy has subscribed to three channels devoted to mystery and real crime shows, as well as a “We Are Darren Wilson” video channel.
The FBI had thoroughly discredited her testimony, but Robert McCulloch put her in front of the Grand Jury anyway, along with her handwritten account of what happened. Sean Hannity has quoted her over and over again, particularly the description of Michael Brown charging like a football player.
And it was all a lie. This alone should negate the Grand Jury decision not to indict Wilson, but it won't.
Does this rise to the level of a civil rights violation? Did McElroy's lies so taint the Grand Jury that no justice could ever be done, or was she just a blip in the larger picture? It's pretty difficult to believe that one witness could overcome sixteen who tell a different story, but anything is possible."
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
[strong]Thousands of pages of documents, made public, turn up several examples of testimony with little to no credibility. Witness 22, whose testimony was at first damaging to Officer Wilson, admitted she lied when pressed by investigators. Eventually telling the grand jury, quote: “I just felt like I want to be part of something…I didn’t see what I told the FBI…”
Testimony from witness 35 might have helped lead to an indictment of Officer Wilson, testifying that Michael Brown was, quote, “on his knees,” when shot in the head, by Wilson. However, it wasn’t true. The witness admits to making that story up. In one exchange, the prosecutor asked: “Are you telling us the only thing that’s true about all of your statements before this, is that you saw that police officer shoot him at-point blank range?” The answer: “Yes.”
It happened on both sides. Witness 40 supported Wilson’s version of what happened, but prosecutors revealed she posted a racist comment on-line on the day of the shooting, that read, quote: “They need to kill the ‘expletive,’ ‘expletive.’ It’s like an ape fest.” When questioned about what she allegedly saw, she admitted to having gathered some details from news reports.[/strong]
During the protests there was a young man named Deandre Joshua who was found murdered in his car, shot and set ablaze. Some in the media began to report he might have been killed for being a "snitch" by being a witness in the Michael Brown case. This was quickly debunked as the witnesses were not identified other than by #. So how do we know this woman with Bi-Polar disorder who claims to be "Witness 40" is telling the truth about THAT? Is there a way to determine this? Were the names of the witnesses released at some point or could any nut job claim to be a witness. Not saying it's not true, just wondering how we know for sure?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rock, we know because this same shit happens all over the country essentially the exact same way time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
We need independent prosecutors across the board on these police killings. The days of manipulating grand juries in order to protect police interests should now be over. But it won't be, partly because of the blatant racists (and there are still tons of them) who support the police in their murders, but also partly because of the genuinely good people like you who insist on riding the fence on a clear cut issue.
I mean, I don't see you disagreeing with independent prosecutors. But the wishy-washiness of always assuming every argument is equally valid on either side is getting us nowhere.
If as some say, the prosecutor presented "all the witnesses" even those who were not there and those whose testimony was known to be false, the prosecutor should be fired.
In reality the prosecutor presented witnesses who strengthened his case for no indictment as credible, and discredited witnesses whose testimony harmed his case.
All of the above is clear to anyone who reads the parts of the grand jury hearing that he has selectively released. The parts of the grand jury hearings that he continues to suppress would no doubt show even more prosecutorial misconduct.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
In reality the prosecutor presented witnesses who strengthened his case for no indictment as credible, and discredited witnesses whose testimony harmed his case.
In reality the prosecutor presented witnesses who strengthened his case for no indictment as credible, and discredited witnesses whose testimony harmed his case.
In reality the prosecutor presented witnesses who strengthened his case for no indictment as credible, and discredited witnesses whose testimony harmed his case.
In reality the prosecutor presented witnesses who strengthened his case for no indictment as credible, and discredited witnesses whose testimony harmed his case.
how is it that everyone in this thread has ignored the racist 4th reich crushing hammer known as war on drugs..... which easily accounts for 70% of police brutality,modern slavery of minorities etc etc.
I don't think we can have this discussion while excluding the effects it has had in militarizing the pigs which has then rolled over into their everyday destructive op's and fueled the anti-nigger machine's pulverization of humanity.
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
how is it that everyone in this thread has ignored the racist 4th reich crushing hammer known as war on drugs..... which easily accounts for 70% of police brutality,modern slavery of minorities etc etc.
I don't think we can have this discussion while excluding the effects it has had in militarizing the pigs which has then rolled over into their everyday destructive op's and fueled the anti-nigger machine's pulverization of humanity.
The "War on Drugs" is and always has been a farce....if there was ever a need for an 'Executive Action" this is it.
Rock, we know because this same shit happens all over the country essentially the exact same way time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
We need independent prosecutors across the board on these police killings. The days of manipulating grand juries in order to protect police interests should now be over. But it won't be, partly because of the blatant racists (and there are still tons of them) who support the police in their murders, but also partly because of the genuinely good people like you who insist on riding the fence on a clear cut issue.
I mean, I don't see you disagreeing with independent prosecutors. But the wishy-washiness of always assuming every argument is equally valid on either side is getting us nowhere.
I've stated that all Police that commit a crime should be prosecuted. I've stated that in the two cases being discussed here, the police should have been prosecuted. I support officers wearing cameras, better training and doing whatever we can to hold dishonest and rogue police officers accountable. I don't think that is wishy-washy at all.
If by sitting on the fence you mean I refuse to join the "Fuck The Police" crowd and won't indict an entire system and the half million public servants within it based on the actions of a decided minority. Or won't call every person who wears a uniform and is in a position of authority "Pigs". Then I am guilty as charged. This is bigotry and causes more harm than good.
Luckily, not everyone feels this way and many are able to judge people as individuals and by their individual actions. A great example of this is a case that is happening here in Dallas right now.....an officer was fired for what was defined as "excessive force" that was caught on camera while arresting a homeless man. The local community has come together in an effort to have this officer re-instated and those who are doing it might surprise a lot of people. They are the local musicians, artists and business owners of which many participated in the Dallas "Hands Up" protest. There will be a benefit concert this Friday in support of officer Jesus Martines...he could have easily just been written off as another "Pig" and probably will be by some here.
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
[strong]Thousands of pages of documents, made public, turn up several examples of testimony with little to no credibility. Witness 22, whose testimony was at first damaging to Officer Wilson, admitted she lied when pressed by investigators. Eventually telling the grand jury, quote: “I just felt like I want to be part of something…I didn’t see what I told the FBI…”
Testimony from witness 35 might have helped lead to an indictment of Officer Wilson, testifying that Michael Brown was, quote, “on his knees,” when shot in the head, by Wilson. However, it wasn’t true. The witness admits to making that story up. In one exchange, the prosecutor asked: “Are you telling us the only thing that’s true about all of your statements before this, is that you saw that police officer shoot him at-point blank range?” The answer: “Yes.”
It happened on both sides. Witness 40 supported Wilson’s version of what happened, but prosecutors revealed she posted a racist comment on-line on the day of the shooting, that read, quote: “They need to kill the ‘expletive,’ ‘expletive.’ It’s like an ape fest.” When questioned about what she allegedly saw, she admitted to having gathered some details from news reports.[/strong]
During the protests there was a young man named Deandre Joshua who was found murdered in his car, shot and set ablaze. Some in the media began to report he might have been killed for being a "snitch" by being a witness in the Michael Brown case. This was quickly debunked as the witnesses were not identified other than by #. So how do we know this woman with Bi-Polar disorder who claims to be "Witness 40" is telling the truth about THAT? Is there a way to determine this? Were the names of the witnesses released at some point or could any nut job claim to be a witness. Not saying it's not true, just wondering how we know for sure?
Note that the prosecutor vetted and debunked those statements you're talking about before presenting them to the grand jury, but did no such thing with the testimony of pro-Wilson "Witness" #40. He did these things because he was unequivocally pro-Wilson himself, not because he was interested in letting the grand jury decide. He served them up a big fucking plate of pro-pork BBQ and they dove right in.
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
Especially when he had over a dozen credible witnesses who told essentially the same story and said, basically, that Wilson murdered Brown.
But in Rockworld if you have 14 credible witnesses and 2 shaky witnesses on one side, and one dipso-batshit-racist and an accused cop on the other side, you can go with the cop every time because ***BOTH SIDES*** had bad witnesses. You can make the credible witnesses disappear! It's like magic. And when the cops do everything they can to muddy the forensics and spend months peddling false information to shitbags like Hannity, it's just another ***BOTH SIDES*** moment because, what, a dead guy in a car? After years of deciphering Rock's more mysterious posts I have no idea what that means. Maybe it has something to do with President Romney...
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
Especially when he had over a dozen credible witnesses who told essentially the same story and said, basically, that Wilson murdered Brown.
But in Rockworld if you have 14 credible witnesses and 2 shaky witnesses on one side, and one dipso-batshit-racist and an accused cop on the other side, you can go with the cop every time because ***BOTH SIDES*** had bad witnesses. You can make the credible witnesses disappear! It's like magic. And when the cops do everything they can to muddy the forensics and spend months peddling false information to shitbags like Hannity, it's just another ***BOTH SIDES*** moment because, what, a dead guy in a car? After years of deciphering Rock's more mysterious posts I have no idea what that means. Maybe it has something to do with President Romney...
Well done....you saved mentioning Texas for your next post.
b/w
This biased pig of a (Democrat) prosecutor presented 14 credible witnesses who all told the same story to the Grand Jury? Why the fuck would he do that? My post had nothing to do with "both sides" it simply stated that they presented 40 witnesses to the GJ regardless of how crazy their stories were and depended on the Grand Jury to sort it out...this is fact.
keep on fighting the righteous battle for justice and truth on a website for people who collect soul records...please, continue to chase away the last of the longtime posters and turn this place into the fucking huffington post comments section.
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
Especially when he had over a dozen credible witnesses who told essentially the same story and said, basically, that Wilson murdered Brown.
But in Rockworld if you have 14 credible witnesses and 2 shaky witnesses on one side, and one dipso-batshit-racist and an accused cop on the other side, you can go with the cop every time because ***BOTH SIDES*** had bad witnesses. You can make the credible witnesses disappear! It's like magic. And when the cops do everything they can to muddy the forensics and spend months peddling false information to shitbags like Hannity, it's just another ***BOTH SIDES*** moment because, what, a dead guy in a car? After years of deciphering Rock's more mysterious posts I have no idea what that means. Maybe it has something to do with President Romney...
Well done....you saved mentioning Texas for your next post.
b/w
This biased pig of a (Democrat) prosecutor presented 14 credible witnesses who all told the same story to the Grand Jury? Why the fuck would he do that? My post had nothing to do with "both sides" it simply stated that they presented 40 witnesses to the GJ regardless of how crazy their stories were and depended on the Grand Jury to sort it out...this is fact.
It's a lazy observer's notion of "fact." You're still sticking to your notion that this was a fair process. That's why you're regarded as a cop-jock sniffer.
Why would I have to mention Texas when you beat (no pun intended) me to it? I'll look at that case and comment later.
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
Especially when he had over a dozen credible witnesses who told essentially the same story and said, basically, that Wilson murdered Brown.
But in Rockworld if you have 14 credible witnesses and 2 shaky witnesses on one side, and one dipso-batshit-racist and an accused cop on the other side, you can go with the cop every time because ***BOTH SIDES*** had bad witnesses. You can make the credible witnesses disappear! It's like magic. And when the cops do everything they can to muddy the forensics and spend months peddling false information to shitbags like Hannity, it's just another ***BOTH SIDES*** moment because, what, a dead guy in a car? After years of deciphering Rock's more mysterious posts I have no idea what that means. Maybe it has something to do with President Romney...
Well done....you saved mentioning Texas for your next post.
b/w
This biased pig of a (Democrat) prosecutor presented 14 credible witnesses who all told the same story to the Grand Jury? Why the fuck would he do that? My post had nothing to do with "both sides" it simply stated that they presented 40 witnesses to the GJ regardless of how crazy their stories were and depended on the Grand Jury to sort it out...this is fact.
It's a lazy observer's notion of "fact." You're still sticking to your notion that this was a fair process. That's why you're regarded as a cop-jock sniffer.
Why would I have to mention Texas when you beat (no pun intended) me to it? I'll look at that case and comment later.
Again, because you obviously have a reading comprehension problem, I believe Wilson should have been prosecuted...the fact that you translate that into me saying the process was fair makes you light years worse than a "lazy observer". I love how there are only two stances in Moeworld. Fuck The Pigs or Cop Jock Sniffer. Nothing in between.
It begs the question: Why would the prosecutor put on a witness that was clearly not credible?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
Especially when he had over a dozen credible witnesses who told essentially the same story and said, basically, that Wilson murdered Brown.
But in Rockworld if you have 14 credible witnesses and 2 shaky witnesses on one side, and one dipso-batshit-racist and an accused cop on the other side, you can go with the cop every time because ***BOTH SIDES*** had bad witnesses. You can make the credible witnesses disappear! It's like magic. And when the cops do everything they can to muddy the forensics and spend months peddling false information to shitbags like Hannity, it's just another ***BOTH SIDES*** moment because, what, a dead guy in a car? After years of deciphering Rock's more mysterious posts I have no idea what that means. Maybe it has something to do with President Romney...
Well done....you saved mentioning Texas for your next post.
b/w
This biased pig of a (Democrat) prosecutor presented 14 credible witnesses who all told the same story to the Grand Jury? Why the fuck would he do that? My post had nothing to do with "both sides" it simply stated that they presented 40 witnesses to the GJ regardless of how crazy their stories were and depended on the Grand Jury to sort it out...this is fact.
It's a lazy observer's notion of "fact." You're still sticking to your notion that this was a fair process. That's why you're regarded as a cop-jock sniffer.
Why would I have to mention Texas when you beat (no pun intended) me to it? I'll look at that case and comment later.
Again, because you obviously have a reading comprehension problem, I believe Wilson should have been prosecuted...the fact that you translate that into me saying the process was fair makes you light years worse than a "lazy observer". I love how there are only two stances in Moeworld. Fuck The Pigs or Cop Jock Sniffer. Nothing in between.
Luckily, not everyone feels this way and many are able to judge people as individuals and by their individual actions. A great example of this is a case that is happening here in Dallas right now.....an officer was fired for what was defined as "excessive force" that was caught on camera while arresting a homeless man. The local community has come together in an effort to have this officer re-instated and those who are doing it might surprise a lot of people. They are the local musicians, artists and business owners of which many participated in the Dallas "Hands Up" protest. There will be a benefit concert this Friday in support of officer Jesus Martines...he could have easily just been written off as another "Pig" and probably will be by some here.
Nothing in the video or the articles shows me in any way that ex-cop Martinez is getting a raw deal, though I am somewhat surprised that this use of excessive force could get a cop fired in Texas. Maybe civilization is starting to make headway there after all.
I see a 30 year old cop who seems to be in very good shape using a painful stress technique for 4 minutes against a much older, scrawny guy who isn't resisting at all, unless you count making a lot of noise as resisting, and I know many cops do. I don't know if Martinez has a past record of similar unnecessary bullshit, but I could not possibly care less if he loses his badge for this, because he indulged in the frivolous infliction of pain against a much weaker person in broad daylight for 4 minutes. I doubt this was his first rodeo, and a badge and a gun are not something Martinez is entitled to.
Your support for the right of employers to fire people for the most picayune crap is close to absolute, Rock, and so your clear feelings of sympathy for this guy are unique in my reading of your posts. I would say it's an odd place to draw a line in the sand for most people, but it just underlines your extreme affection for authority, even when it's beating up some poor guy for asking people for a dollar.
I suppose I'm inclined to think one would have to be a bit of a shitstain to volunteer to beat up panhandlers in the first place, though, so I guess we both have a bias.
Comments
Did you intentionally leave out this part?:
"“It didn’t makes sense to me. It was [either] a horribly ironic joke that desensitized cops were playing, or it was intentionally disrespectful and intimidating,” Michael told DNAinfo Chicago. “It was aggressive. It was totally out of place.”"
His take is a thousand times more rational and informed than yours is. In Rockworld the cops just HAPPENED to be playing that song. "The CD player turned itself on, sir! It was like magic, sir! Ha ha ha, black magic get it, ha ha ha!"
Yes, such things happen on Rockworld.
20 Feet From Stardom has Merry Clayton talking about singing background on the song. She makes clear that to her the mention of Alabama conjured images of racism. I doubt it is coincidence that when she got a chance to make a solo lp she featured Young's Southern Man.
The other is the Muscle Shoals doc. Which devolves into a Lynard Skynard movie.
I highly recommend both for their music content.
"A grand jury just announced on Friday that they will not indict a Maryland police officer who killed an unarmed man who had Down Syndrome
“They felt no further investigation was necessary,” Frederick County State’s Attorney J. Charles Smith, said about the death of Robert Ethan Saylor, 26. Smith explained at a news conference just outside of the county courthouse, that “no crime had been committed.”
Police justified their killing by explaining that Saylor, who has Down Syndrome, verbally and physically resisted their attempts to remove him from the theater, and because of his large size, the officers say they had to use three sets of handcuffs on him and placed him on his stomach for “one to two minutes.” When he showed signs of distress, officers said they administered CPR and other First Aid. However, back in February, the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office in Baltimore said that Saylor’s death was a homicide resulting from asphyxia.
The killing happened when cops arrived to force Saylor to leave a movie theater after he wanted to see “Zero Dark Thirty,” a second time.
Just as in the case of Eric Garner, the police have said that being obese, “contributed” to Saylor’s death, making him more susceptible to breathing problems."
I look forward to hearing from the resolute defenders of law'n'order about how fucking amazing this brave, selfless, unavoidable display of true American heroism was and how the grand jury made the right call.
Raj, for fucks sake, grow a pair and fucking boot this turd.
There is a subtle but pervasive point he raises here that applies broadly to many social discourses of late. If we strip it bare, then engage fully, all pretense slips away. And this ongoing tethering and languishing on what we thought we knew versus the plain evidence in our hands simply isn't true, and it doesn't hold. And moreover makes a mockery of the plight of our civil and human rights figures and the course that their ideas pave through history.
In other words, it's a disservice to the people that fought for freedom, both political and social, and to the people who fought for civil rights and social mobility and the feminist movements, that today the cases that are highlighted in the media regress fully from the light of reason so as to so easily and effectively be ridiculed and criticized on social media and elsewhere without pause.
Not to say that there isn't ongoing injustice both racial and demographical in nature. To the contrary, this is easy to find. But the cases that the light is shined on the most are, it seems, the least convincing and the most laughably inarticulate and easily refutable. Of course there are exceptions.
I, for one, could easily cite multiple true injustices both black and white that don't catch a national headline.
The civil rights movement and the subsequent rewriting of national headlines and preambles to policy in both the public and private sphere is something to be proud of and also something worth upholding. As Obama stated, we are a nation of laws, and we must stand behind them. There seems to be in academia and the press an unexpected apathy and a scrambling to find an angle to defend the MB case after the multiple autopsies and the prosecutions case that was presented in detail before a grand jury. The long pause and the scrambling for something to oppose leaves an indelible mark over all the op-eds and pieces written in the wake of the non-indictment.
Most of it rests on speculation before the facts. Most of it seems to be backpedaling to justify in some ways the ambiguity that so preceded and foreshadowed the findings of the investigation. To somehow connect the desired narrative with the inconvenient evidence of the event.
Hands Up, Don't Shoot. Unarmed black, innocent teenager, killed in coldblood. Conveniently leaving out his friend and cohort, Dorian Johnson, a man a few years older and wiser than MB. A Man who stood and walked inches away from MB on that double yellow line that bisected the roadway.
A man and friend who was confronted and was told at the same time to get out of the street and find the sidewalk so that other vehicles could make their way at noon on a city street. A request that any person in authority on any street on any busy road in any country would also reflexively command. Yet Dorian Johnson is still alive and the man that strode alongside him at the time is dead. Why?
Well it seems to come down to the behavior of each individual after the order to disperse. One lives, one tragically dies. Do you really think MB would be dead if he mimicked the actions of his friend Dorian Johnson? I can expand but I think it is one of those tl;dr things SS is notorious for labeling. So I won't, but i think you get the gist.
This simple reasoning seems to me to be so obvious but I've yet to hear anyone bring it up.
So just from indisputable forensic evidence we have (at the least): two shots fired in the cabin of the police vehicle, stipling and soot on MB's hand, indicating that his hand was at a maximum of 9 inches from the end of the pistol, MB's DNA in the cabin of the police vehicle and on the barrel of the gun, broken glass, bullet holes in the cabin of the police vehicle indicating a struggle took place in the vehicle, DJ's testimony of a struggle in the vehicle, DW's testimony of a struggle in the vehicle, Police and Dispatch transcripts indicating the call out of suspects in a strong armed robbery, with descriptions matching MB and DJ.
And finally the reddening and swelling of DW face in photographs at the hospitable after the fact. Admittedly looking of a light struggle but nonetheless an obvious indicator of a struggle occurring. One can relate that some signs of wrestling don't always give justice to the struggle that preceded it as a young sibling brother remembers wrestling harshly on the floor and only coming up with light red marks and swelling.
From a distance it may seem minor. It could be for all we know. But minor or not, contact did happen. And contact did happen between the deceased and the officer's weapon. I challenge anyone on this forum to engage with a police officer's face and reach for his gun today, then come back on this forum, if still alive, and tell us how it went down. All the loudest and most provocative of you in this case would be the least likely to make this challenge happen today or 50 years ago, unlike the true heroes of the civil rights era. You are safe behind a keyboard and decades of victimhood.
The irony is that your forbearers were so brave, so strident, so incredibly strong, that in the aftermath of the social upheaval that they brought and succeeded in transforming, that their offspring became so fragile and so wracked with entitlements that the things that they complain about are incredibly insulting to the things that their forbearers fought about in the first place. The embarrassment is yours and the tragedy is that the real tragedies that happen all the time are misplaced and underrepresented.
Common Fucking Sense is what nobody is talking about. If you have children, then have this talk about how one conducts themselves in the face of an authority. Black or white authority. Black or white person.
Common Sense and the Consequences of not following it should be the message here. And so it goes- The most blatant and obvious truth to behold is the last one to be brought up in any journalistic form in print, in a blog, or on digital pages, save this one.
It is shameful; but the shame is all of ours to share.
Maybe you can use the time put in to write these long winded posts to do some actual paid work ?
Just a suggestion.
One thing that often happens when stupid people try to do smart is that they use words they don't normally use and they fuck them up. Hole Zilla doesn't use the word "forebears" in his ordinary life. He grasps for it when he's trying to do smart, and so he fucks it up two different ways. "Forbearers" and "forebearers." That's some funny shit right there, but also pathetic. On some level the poor guy knows he's not very bright and he probably has a very good notion that he's an asshole gloating over the corpse of a dead 18 year old. So he plays smart as a cover. He's just not able to pull it off.
He also pretends that the grand jury was presented with "the prosecution's case," which is pure bullshit. They weren't. They were presented a mishmash of facts and nonsense which was designed to produce a punt, not a touchdown. The "prosecution" ripped apart Dorian Johnson's testimony and gave Darren Wilson a nice relaxing handjob during his.
Yes, some sort of struggle happened at the window of the car. How that ends up in a justifiable homicide of a fleeing suspect many feet away from that car is unexplained by Mr. Forbearers, but then he doesn't really give a shit about that. In his ulcerated sphincter of a mind aggravated cops have a license to kill and no duty to minimize force at all. He's part of the problem. And this is him at his best behavior. In other places, among people who feel the way he does, imagine the shit he says.
That particular turd of "Common Fucking Sense" deserves a place all to itself. And some sort of prize for Worst Use Of The Word Justice Ever.
""Witness 40" was the Ferguson Grand Jury witness who wrote the racist journal entry after she claimed to have witnessed the Michael Brown shooting. She is also the witness who described Michael Brown charging like a football player.
She's also a liar. The Smoking Gun revealed her identity on Wednesday, and she confirmed it after they published their article unmasking her.
Here's the punch line:
While the “hands-up” account of Dorian Johnson is often cited by those who demanded Wilson’s indictment, “Witness 40”’s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer’s version of the August 9 confrontation. The “Witness 40” testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown’s killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.
However, unlike Johnson, “Witness 40”--a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy--was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death.
Yet. She was permitted to give testimony before the Ferguson Grand Jury, she was cited by prosecutor Robert McCulloch as a corroborative witness, and she appears to have made the whole thing up.
McElroy has issues.
In the weeks after Brown’s shooting--but before she contacted police--McElroy used her Facebook account to comment on the case. On August 15, she “liked’ a Facebook comment reporting that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown stole cigars before the confrontation with Wilson. On August 17, a Facebook commenter wrote that Johnson and others should be arrested for inciting riots and giving false statements to police in connection with their claims that Brown had his hands up when shot by Wilson. “The report and autopsy are in so YES they were false,” McElroy wrote of the “hands-up” claims. This appears to be an odd comment from someone who claims to have been present during the shooting. In response to the posting of a news report about a rally in support of Wilson, McElroy wrote on August 17, “Prayers, support God Bless Officer Wilson.”
After meeting with St. Louis police, McElroy continued monitoring the case and posting online. Commenting on a September 12 Riverfront Times story reporting that Ferguson city officials had yet to meet with Brown’s family, McElroy wrote, “But haven’t you heard the news, There great great great grandpa may or may not have been owned by one of our great great great grandpas 200 yrs ago. (Sarcasm).” On September 13, McElroy went on a pro-Wilson Facebook page and posted a graphic that included a photo of Brown lying dead in the street. A type overlay read, “Michael Brown already received justice. So please, stop asking for it.” The following week McElroy responded to a Facebook post about the criminal record of Wilson’s late mother. “As a teenager Mike Brown strong armed a store used drugs hit a police officer and received Justis,” she stated.
She was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a teenager and has had a difficult life. During a bankruptcy case in 2004, her attorney asked to withdraw because McElroy would call the office and berate staff with remarks that they felt were racist.
And as you might imagine by now, she really loathes President Obama.
McElroy’s YouTube page is also filled with a variety of anti-Barack Obama videos, including a clip purporting to show Michelle Obama admitting that the president was born in Kenya. Over the past year, McElroy has subscribed to three channels devoted to mystery and real crime shows, as well as a “We Are Darren Wilson” video channel.
The FBI had thoroughly discredited her testimony, but Robert McCulloch put her in front of the Grand Jury anyway, along with her handwritten account of what happened. Sean Hannity has quoted her over and over again, particularly the description of Michael Brown charging like a football player.
And it was all a lie. This alone should negate the Grand Jury decision not to indict Wilson, but it won't.
Does this rise to the level of a civil rights violation? Did McElroy's lies so taint the Grand Jury that no justice could ever be done, or was she just a blip in the larger picture? It's pretty difficult to believe that one witness could overcome sixteen who tell a different story, but anything is possible."
Per Karoli/Crooksandliars.com
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer.
Touché, Laz!
My guess is that they presented all the witnesses and let the Grand Jury decide who was credible...obviously many of them weren't
[strong]Thousands of pages of documents, made public, turn up several examples of testimony with little to no credibility. Witness 22, whose testimony was at first damaging to Officer Wilson, admitted she lied when pressed by investigators. Eventually telling the grand jury, quote: “I just felt like I want to be part of something…I didn’t see what I told the FBI…”
Testimony from witness 35 might have helped lead to an indictment of Officer Wilson, testifying that Michael Brown was, quote, “on his knees,” when shot in the head, by Wilson. However, it wasn’t true. The witness admits to making that story up. In one exchange, the prosecutor asked: “Are you telling us the only thing that’s true about all of your statements before this, is that you saw that police officer shoot him at-point blank range?” The answer: “Yes.”
It happened on both sides. Witness 40 supported Wilson’s version of what happened, but prosecutors revealed she posted a racist comment on-line on the day of the shooting, that read, quote: “They need to kill the ‘expletive,’ ‘expletive.’ It’s like an ape fest.” When questioned about what she allegedly saw, she admitted to having gathered some details from news reports.[/strong]
During the protests there was a young man named Deandre Joshua who was found murdered in his car, shot and set ablaze. Some in the media began to report he might have been killed for being a "snitch" by being a witness in the Michael Brown case. This was quickly debunked as the witnesses were not identified other than by #. So how do we know this woman with Bi-Polar disorder who claims to be "Witness 40" is telling the truth about THAT? Is there a way to determine this? Were the names of the witnesses released at some point or could any nut job claim to be a witness. Not saying it's not true, just wondering how we know for sure?
We need independent prosecutors across the board on these police killings. The days of manipulating grand juries in order to protect police interests should now be over. But it won't be, partly because of the blatant racists (and there are still tons of them) who support the police in their murders, but also partly because of the genuinely good people like you who insist on riding the fence on a clear cut issue.
I mean, I don't see you disagreeing with independent prosecutors. But the wishy-washiness of always assuming every argument is equally valid on either side is getting us nowhere.
In reality the prosecutor presented witnesses who strengthened his case for no indictment as credible, and discredited witnesses whose testimony harmed his case.
All of the above is clear to anyone who reads the parts of the grand jury hearing that he has selectively released. The parts of the grand jury hearings that he continues to suppress would no doubt show even more prosecutorial misconduct.
I don't think we can have this discussion while excluding the effects it has had in militarizing the pigs which has then rolled over into their everyday destructive op's and fueled the anti-nigger machine's pulverization of humanity.
Good guess, because that's exactly what he did. That is also against standard grand jury procedure. Why put on a non-credible witness when you're supposed to be seeking an indictment?
The "War on Drugs" is and always has been a farce....if there was ever a need for an 'Executive Action" this is it.
I've stated that all Police that commit a crime should be prosecuted. I've stated that in the two cases being discussed here, the police should have been prosecuted. I support officers wearing cameras, better training and doing whatever we can to hold dishonest and rogue police officers accountable. I don't think that is wishy-washy at all.
If by sitting on the fence you mean I refuse to join the "Fuck The Police" crowd and won't indict an entire system and the half million public servants within it based on the actions of a decided minority. Or won't call every person who wears a uniform and is in a position of authority "Pigs". Then I am guilty as charged. This is bigotry and causes more harm than good.
Luckily, not everyone feels this way and many are able to judge people as individuals and by their individual actions. A great example of this is a case that is happening here in Dallas right now.....an officer was fired for what was defined as "excessive force" that was caught on camera while arresting a homeless man. The local community has come together in an effort to have this officer re-instated and those who are doing it might surprise a lot of people. They are the local musicians, artists and business owners of which many participated in the Dallas "Hands Up" protest. There will be a benefit concert this Friday in support of officer Jesus Martines...he could have easily just been written off as another "Pig" and probably will be by some here.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/white-rock-east-dallas/headlines/20141209-deep-ellum-rallies-around-fired-dallas-patrolman-jesus-martinez.ece
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/11/deep-ellum-advocate-says-dallas-officer-fired-for-excessive-force-allegation-got-raw-deal.html/
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/12/deep-ellum-to-throw-concert-to-benefit-fired-dallas-officer.html/
Note that the prosecutor vetted and debunked those statements you're talking about before presenting them to the grand jury, but did no such thing with the testimony of pro-Wilson "Witness" #40. He did these things because he was unequivocally pro-Wilson himself, not because he was interested in letting the grand jury decide. He served them up a big fucking plate of pro-pork BBQ and they dove right in.
Especially when he had over a dozen credible witnesses who told essentially the same story and said, basically, that Wilson murdered Brown.
But in Rockworld if you have 14 credible witnesses and 2 shaky witnesses on one side, and one dipso-batshit-racist and an accused cop on the other side, you can go with the cop every time because ***BOTH SIDES*** had bad witnesses. You can make the credible witnesses disappear! It's like magic. And when the cops do everything they can to muddy the forensics and spend months peddling false information to shitbags like Hannity, it's just another ***BOTH SIDES*** moment because, what, a dead guy in a car? After years of deciphering Rock's more mysterious posts I have no idea what that means. Maybe it has something to do with President Romney...
Well done....you saved mentioning Texas for your next post.
b/w
This biased pig of a (Democrat) prosecutor presented 14 credible witnesses who all told the same story to the Grand Jury? Why the fuck would he do that? My post had nothing to do with "both sides" it simply stated that they presented 40 witnesses to the GJ regardless of how crazy their stories were and depended on the Grand Jury to sort it out...this is fact.
It's a lazy observer's notion of "fact." You're still sticking to your notion that this was a fair process. That's why you're regarded as a cop-jock sniffer.
Why would I have to mention Texas when you beat (no pun intended) me to it? I'll look at that case and comment later.
Again, because you obviously have a reading comprehension problem, I believe Wilson should have been prosecuted...the fact that you translate that into me saying the process was fair makes you light years worse than a "lazy observer". I love how there are only two stances in Moeworld. Fuck The Pigs or Cop Jock Sniffer. Nothing in between.
Nothing in the video or the articles shows me in any way that ex-cop Martinez is getting a raw deal, though I am somewhat surprised that this use of excessive force could get a cop fired in Texas. Maybe civilization is starting to make headway there after all.
I see a 30 year old cop who seems to be in very good shape using a painful stress technique for 4 minutes against a much older, scrawny guy who isn't resisting at all, unless you count making a lot of noise as resisting, and I know many cops do. I don't know if Martinez has a past record of similar unnecessary bullshit, but I could not possibly care less if he loses his badge for this, because he indulged in the frivolous infliction of pain against a much weaker person in broad daylight for 4 minutes. I doubt this was his first rodeo, and a badge and a gun are not something Martinez is entitled to.
Your support for the right of employers to fire people for the most picayune crap is close to absolute, Rock, and so your clear feelings of sympathy for this guy are unique in my reading of your posts. I would say it's an odd place to draw a line in the sand for most people, but it just underlines your extreme affection for authority, even when it's beating up some poor guy for asking people for a dollar.
I suppose I'm inclined to think one would have to be a bit of a shitstain to volunteer to beat up panhandlers in the first place, though, so I guess we both have a bias.
***BOTH SIDES***!