Warren and Harris repeat a dangerous lie
There is a democratic primary going on and the blatant pandering for the black vote is well underway. Just when we all thought the pandering couldn't get much worse, candidates Liz Warren and Kamala Harris both issued a retelling of a blatant lie - a very dangerous lie - that Michael Brown was murdered!
Warren tweeted: " 5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on."
Harris tweeted: "Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system."
The original lie had Brown shot with his hands up by Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson. The incident sparked riots and began the Black Lives Matter movement . The fact was that Brown was attacking officer Wilson attempting to get his gun! The incident was investigated not only by local authorities, but by the full weight of the Obama Justice Department - the Criminal Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri and the FBI! Although the patently biased AG, Eric Holder, hated to admit it, Wilson fired in self defense.
The findings:
Department of Justice Report Regarding the Criminal Investigation into the Shooting Death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson, March 4, 2015 : As detailed throughout this report, the evidence does not establish that the shots fired by Wilson were objectively unreasonable under federal law. The physical evidence establishes that Wilson shot Brown once in the hand, at close range, while Wilson sat in his police SUV, struggling with Brown for control of Wilson’s gun. Wilson then shot Brown several more times from a distance of at least two feet after Brown ran away from Wilson and then turned and faced him. There are no witness accounts that federal prosecutors, and likewise a jury, would credit to support the conclusion that Wilson fired at Brown from behind. With the exception of the two wounds to Brown’s right arm, which indicate neither bullet trajectory nor the direction in which Brown was moving when he was struck, the medical examiners’ reports are in agreement that the entry wounds from the latter gunshots were to the front of Brown’s body, establishing that Brown was facing Wilson when these shots were fired. This includes the fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head. The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/harris-warren-wrong-about-brown-shooting/
Neither candidate has withdrawn the lie.
What are the advantages?
What are the consequences?
Is it possible that there are still minority individuals who don't trust the police and want to believe that Michael Brown was murdered? Apparently liberals think so and want to take advantage of those sentiments. Stir the pot of racial division and get such people angry enough to vote is the usual liberal strategy. It's ever so easy for some to believe a lie they suspect was true.
The problem is the anger goes beyond the ballot box and cops are ambushed and murdered.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
63 visitors
"Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall"....Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure."
What scares me is that people like Harris and Warren actually believe their own lies before trying to force them on the public.
Why is that any different than when Trump does it? Why is it so terrible when Harries or Warren does it as opposed to when Trump does it every day of his life?
Simple. It just depends on which party your loyalties are with. Nothing more.
I never said it was any different. All politicians lie their tails off daily before and after they get to DC. Some more than others some less. It is the nature of the beast that is DC politics. You can dispute which side lies more if you want. I won't get into that here.
Trump constantly refers to his bestseller as HIS BOOK. Implying that he wrote it. He didn't, as, literate folks know.
Anyone who has read his tweets listened to his ranting, rambling speeches, or, heard one of his senseless, near senile off-the-cuff remarks, know that he is practically illiterate.
Numerous Scholars have studied his writing style and concluded that Trump writes, at best, at a six-grade level.
Trump is the consummate liar.
In the book, that HE DID NOT WRITE, but, constantly lies about writing it, Trump admits his purpose in negotiating is to "close the deal", not, conform to a moral compass.
Trump doesn't have one. Lying to him is just another arrow in his quill, a tool he uses constantly.
The two respected, accomplished Senators you accused of "believing their own lies", do have moral compasses; Trump does not.
These Senators may be mistaken, ill-advised on an issue, but, they are not "liars".
No one is perfect, or, without sin.
Even good, bright, honest people misspeak, or, are wrong about something based on the information that they are using to form their position, but, it is not a deliberate "lie", or deliberate concealment to deceive.
However, Trump, on the other hand, only conceals to deceive.
Trump is your LIAR!
Nah....neither sides is worth the powder to blow them to Hell. Lies and deception are part of the political game on both sides. It is a sorry state for our government to be in, but, it has always been, and will always be, politicians are the dregs of our society, just some worse than others.
However, I have lived long enough in this world to know that, the American people, no matter what the color of their skin, their political party, or where they came from, do not count near as much as the political parties and almighty dollar.
And it seems that no matter how many times that lesson is replayed, politicians never seem to learn, and show now interest in learning unless there is a dollar amount attached to it.
Just my own opinion.
Mister Shakespeare, with all due respect, I rise with the aid of an alarm clock, it takes the morality out of it.
Before someone screams "Off-Topic", I refer you to the opening comment.
Secondly, as I make my points in regard to the topic at hand, it is absolutely critical that all posts be spot on the "topic", or, get, as I have recently, a slew of tickets for "OFF TOPIC" VIOLATION OF THE SACRED CofC!
That, the above, is an editorial comment, admitted semi-on -off-topic, howsomever one wants to slice it. But, I felt, compelled to expose injustice where ever I find it.
My analysis of the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown is that a young "thug", Michael Brown, as his autopsy revealed, was high on drugs at the time of his death.
Additionally, damaging information was obtained from the local store's video cameras, where only10 minutes before, Brown, in a violent rave, strong-armed robbed the local convenience store, who challenged him for stealing something.
Michael Brown was not a nice kid. He was a six foot four inch, hulking, angry Black male with a chip on his shoulder, cranked up on drugs.
In the video, it can be clearly seen that Brown picked up the tiny, Vietnamese store owner with one hand hurled, him like a sack of potatoes, headfirst into a magazine rack, all of which was caught on the store security.
The altercation with Officer Wilson was, in my view, all on Michael Brown wide, angry shoulders, due, primarily to his hostile, violent belligerent behavior and the ingestion of illegal drugs.
Witnesses confirmed that officer Wilson was doing his job when he asked Brown and his friend, a known to police thief, and, local trouble maker," to get out of the street and on the sidewalk".
Brown and fellow offender were walking down the center of the street in oplen defiance of the officers and were not about to stop for a "white cop", half his size.
The "cranked up" Brown, ignored the officer's repeated orders and kept walking with his friend down the center of the road in violation of local law, safety and commonsense.
The officer pulled his cruiser up along the side of the defiant duo, ordering them, again, to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk.
Brown stopped, turned engaged in a profanity-laced heated verbal exchange with the officer, a much smaller man than him.
At some point, Brown reached thru the open patrol car window, trying grabbed the officer's gun from its holster.
This is when the deadly sequence of events led to his death.
Wilson managed to wrestle his holster and weapon away from Brown's hand, once, again ordered Brown to stop and put his hands behind his back.
Again, the drugged laced, violent-prone Brown defied the law enforcement officer's command, blatantly continued to walk down the center of the road away from the officer.
His companion split from Brown because he had had serval run-ins with the law and did not want to go to jail.
A black, young female witness, who knew Brown by named, observed the entire altercation.
Officer Wilson exited his vehicle, again, ordered Brown to stop. Brown turned around and shouted at the officer, "What are you going to do shoot me?"
Wilson, again, ordered this hulking, coked-up, violent-prone young man to put his hand up.
Instead, according to witnesses, and Officer's Wilson's own report, Brown, like a raging bull, put his head down and raced at the officer.
Fearing for his life, Officer Wilson pulled out his revolver from its holster and after ordering him to HALT, STOP. Brown sped up, head down like a raging bull ran toward him at full speed.
The officer, "fearing for his life" shot him in self-defense.
Unfortunately, the media jumped all over the story, reporting it erroneously in their race to be the first to broadcast to "gin" up their ratings.
Cable news and print media led with the glaring, false headlines that a "Young Unarmed, College Bound Black Student Was Shot By White Police Officer"!
This inflammatory false narrative touched off a tender box of violence and destruction, that resulted in a number buildings being torched and burned to the ground.
During the crisis, a large protest gathered by the national news, "wreaking with the strong smell of Marijuana", according to a black anchor on CNN, erupted in violence and another individual being killed by a strayarmed protestor's bullet.
This incident went virtually unnoticed by the so-called "Main Street Media! Every outlet seemed, to me, " Hell Bent" on selling this incident as another unjust "POLICE KILLING OF ANOTHER INNOCENT BLACK YOUTH."
Estimates of upward to a $100 million dollars in damages to the looted business AND fires destroyed this commerial district quickly.
The gleeful, general rioting for PROFIT was all caught on "Live TV", fueling fears in every White community in the nation.
It was here, that the poetic, " Black Lives Matter" movement was spawn, quickly spreading nationwide.
Additional riots broke out, and, it appeared that the police were reticent about stopping it!
I wrote a piece titled: "Black Lives Matter - Just Not To Black People, If It Did, Blacks wouldn't be killing so many Blacks".
Needless to say, it garnered a lot of push back, death threats, condemnation from White and Black groups.
But, the fact remains, that 99.9% of all Black Killings in America are "Black on Black Crimes". Eventually, the Black Lives Matters fizzled out.
I would only like to add that Dorian Wilson is still in fear for his life, because there is an element in this society that dosen't care about the facts that you have detailed. Those are the people that Warren and Harris want to speak to.
But while the legal system may have found Wilson innocent, he remains guilty in the public eye to a large portion of the American public. The police officer, who married girlfriend Barbara Spradling months after the shooting and has a daughter and two step-children, lives in seclusion. The location of his current home is not known to the public.
Gawd….not this again. More riots and anger is what they want.
Unfortunately those who don't know any different believe their garbage.
They were hoping that Trump or the Justice Dept. would call them out on it so that they could gin up the “racism” charge against Trump Africa’s if that led to renewed BLM riots in the streets, so be it. Hopefully they won’t get what they want. They should be charged criminally for inciting to riot for bringing this up again.
Since when has the right cared about telling the truth? Seriously, with trump as the right wing messiah, complaining about ANYONE lying is the height of hypocrisy.
How about sticking to the subject of the seeded article? Care to defend the lies the senators told in this seed?
Sure! They weren't lies, they were alternative facts.
So Trump gives the Democrats carte blanche to lie?
Hypocrisy is calling out every Trump lie, or even partial truth; and then explaining away Democratic lies as "mistakes", "valid opinions", "senior moments", or the catch all "They are still better than Trump".
Hold Democrats to the same standards you do Trump and Republicans.
They never do.
This isn't fucking about TRUMP.
Did you READ the article?
[deleted]
Next time I say politicians lie all the time, and someone wants to claim it's not true, I have to remember this seed.
This isn't even another politician, the economy, health care, or some other abstract concept they are lying about. It's just a regular Joe who worked a street cop's beat. We love to argue about the word "exonerated?" Well, here's a guy who really was exonerated and these two senators - one, a former state attorney general - brazenly lie about the poor guy.
A guy who doesn't have a microphone and network news coverage so he can defend his honor. A guy who didn't pick a fight with either one of them. A private citizen who deserves to be left alone.
And these two evil people want to get everyone angry at him all over again - dishonestly - just for their own political gain.
Disgraceful.
Democratic Candidates for President tell a flat out lie to stoke racial divisiveness and enflame their gullible base and the MSM just ignores it. Another one of those things where you say, if Trump did this....
...All hell would break loose....
It is obviously their opinion that his killing was unlawful, that's how murder is defined. But the law has ruled it lawful, therefore it cannot be, in a legal sense, murder. I think they, and anyone else such as the family of Michael Brown, are entitled to their opinion and should be free to express it, but it's obvious who the candidates are pandering to with such heated rhetoric.
Personally, I believe the officer was justified in shooting him, the first two times. I'm not so sure about the last four shots.
"The physical evidence establishes that Wilson shot Brown once in the hand, at close range, while Wilson sat in his police SUV, struggling with Brown for control of Wilson’s gun. Wilson then shot Brown several more times from a distance of at least two feet after Brown ran away from Wilson and then turned and faced him."
Would he have turned again had Wilson stopped firing after no longer being in fear for his life? If he had to "turn to face him" that meant he was retreating with his back turned as Wilson continued to fire at least four more shots including the fatal shot to the head. I think most reasonable people would see that as excessive and unnecessary, but the jury apparently felt there wasn't enough to prove Wilson no longer feared for his life to call it an unjustified "murder".
The Eric Holder Justice Department and the FBI ruled that all that officer Wilson did was justified. Case closed. I don’t remember a jury trial in this case after the federal findings. The grand jury decided not to indict if I remember right.
Yes, there wasn't even enough evidence of the officers guilt to indict him.
Like I said, "the jury apparently felt there wasn't enough to prove Wilson no longer feared for his life to call it an unjustified "murder"." I suppose I should have clarified with "grand jury".
While I think everyone is welcome to their opinion, and some disagree with that grand jury assessment, these candidates really should be watching their language in regards to this case or they risk a slander lawsuit from Wilson. It's my opinion that OJ Simpson killed his wife, the fact that the jury decided differently doesn't really exonerate him in everyone's minds. So I understand how the candidates could strongly believe Wilson guilty of at minimum excessive force, regardless of the grand jury conclusions. But saying it publicly is a different matter especially when they are so high profile.
What does that have to do with anything? How does that make a grand jury conclusion any more valid?
My question was obviously "What does that, (Eric Holder being AG and Obama being President at the time), have to do with anything?" but I guess that wasn't the question you wanted to answer so you invented your own.
Quite a bit. Holder was a black supremacist. If he could have found any way to classify the incident as a murder, he would have. You seem to be approaching it in a unique fashion as well by asking if all the shots were necessary. You made your little implication that Brown was turning away when he was shot.
Brown was a thug emboldened by the politics of Obama/Holder and he had no fear of officer Wilson. If he got Wilson's gun he would have killed Wilson. The bottom line is simple. Officer Wilson acted in self defense and the world is much better off without a monster like Michael Brown!
Not the topic, but I am sure HA won't flag you, just the comments he doesn't like.
How about sticking to the subject of the seeded article?
I decide what is off topic here, not SP, but ME!
[DELETED]
Yet Brown was never shot in the back. All bullets had entry points from the front. Care to explain that?
So much for idea that Wilson had no reason to fear for his life.
"With the exception of the two wounds to Brown’s right arm, which indicate neither bullet trajectory nor the direction in which Brown was moving when he was struck, the medical examiners’ reports are in agreement that the entry wounds from the latter gunshots were to the front of Brown’s body, establishing that Brown was facing Wilson when these shots were fired."
Two shots could have come with his back turned. I watched the case closely and read the reports of testimony. There were witnesses that said he appeared to retreat before turning back around and receiving the fatal shots. These witnesses had their credibility questioned and some were proved to be liars so you have to take anything they say with a grain of salt. But the evidence and witness accounts support Brown approaching the vehicle in a hostile manner, reaching into the vehicle wrestling with Wilson's gun, then at least two shots made at point blank range which made Brown back up and at least begin to turn to run while receiving two more shots to the right arm (trajectory unclear, arms were in motion) before turning back to face Wilson and receiving the last two shots including the fatal shot to the head.
Per Obama's DOJ:
There are no witness accounts that federal prosecutors, and likewise a jury, would credit to support the conclusion that Wilson fired at Brown from behind
See this part?
No, Wilson couldn't have fired two shots while Brown's back was turned. Unless you are claiming that Brown was faster than a speeding bullet fired from 2 feet away.
That is indeed the definition, or close enough for a non lawyer, but it's not their call, nor is it yours. The Attorney General is the one who makes that decision and he made it. Some slimy politicians are not permitted to reverse it to suit their opinions or their political aspirations.
That is not what the legal definition of murder is.
Here:
murder
[ˈmərdər]
NOUN
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer" · [more]
synonyms:
killing · homicide · assassination · liquidation · extermination · execution · [more]
If the two Dems mentioned believe as you do, I can easily see why they are so wrong.
Realistically, once you pick a fight with a cop and try to take his gun, everything that happens from that point is on you.
Once you're in a fight for your life, I think most people are trying to end it in a way that's final. It's easy for us to armchair quarterback a scene like this and suggest that maybe the cop should have done this or that differently, but once a fight like this is going, I think we're asking an awful lot to expect a cop to just turn off the adrenaline and start taking the least violent path possible. We might want that (in an ideal world I would want that) but it's probably not a reasonable expectation.
And 5 years from now, Democratic leaders will be attacking the right wing Dayton killer, and progressives will cheer them on.
Five years? It’s happening right now on one of my seeds where a member here lists both the El Paso and Dayton shooters as Trump fans despite their writings to the contrary.
I have really never understood what made Michael Brown the poster child for a movement .. Trayvon Martin started the ball rolling with a false narrative that Trayvon was hunted by Zimmerman because of the color of his skin .. which we all know was a thought process created by a altered 911 recording by NBC - but it stuck in the minds of many as truth .. even former President Obama after the verdict finding Zimmerman not guilty stated 'if Trayvon had been white ...' When my lil family blew up over the then presidents words - I had to explain to lil people that anyone confronting Zimmerman that night could have been killed .. then came Michael Brown, the gentle giant .. once again a false narrative was created before any truth of what actually happened could come to light.
This time when my lil family blew up .. I could not stop the fall out .. my oldest son decided I was a racist for not accepting the original 'story' of Brown 'surrendering' .... that scenario never made sense to me
Police shootings of unarmed black men 'boyz' is a problem, it happens far to often .. somehow it needs to be addressed, which is difficult to have them fired, when a union protects the bad cop .. of which officer Wilson was not one.
These lies/false narratives/alternative 'facts' do harm by continuing to perpetuate them .. in my opinion
They should not have characterized Michael Browns tragic death as "murder" just like Donald Trump should not have characterized all Mexicans as "rapists". Both can be considered lies, and both were pandering to a specific group of people. Trump was pandering to those who wrongly imagine every brown person they see or anyone that speaks Spanish as a drug dealing criminal rapist and these senators are pandering to those who wrongly believe Officer Wilson gunned down Michael Brown in cold blood. But hey, that's politics right? At least it is until some extremist on either side shows up at a rally or a Walmart and start shooting innocent people.
Michael Brown got what he deserved and I completely support the cop in this case. Initially I didn't, but after reading about what happened, fact based, Michael Brown got what he deserved.
I'm glad to see you still have your integrity.
Thanks Vic.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
Harris and Warren, and all the others running for president, just keep on going with it.
When candidates have the left wing propaganda media covering their ass....why not?
Usury !
BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RACIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks to all those who kept it civil