Published August 20, 2014 | O'Reilly Factor | By Bill O'Reilly I came back from vacation because I am furious. Furious about how the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown is being reported and how various people are reacting to it. So let's run it down. Mr. Brown is a victim, shot six times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson who up until August 9th had a very good record.
Now, some suspect Wilson of murder and a grand jury is hearing the case. Also, Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson Missouri today to meet with FBI agents and state authorities who are conducting separate investigations. Good. The feds should look into this case. And their investigation should be transparent. That is Americans should get hard information as it comes out. [�] Then there is the looting, disgraceful. And one guy even has a gun, all right, shoots the lock off the door while his cohorts break in and steal the merchandise. It doesn't get any lower than this. The people rioting and looting in Ferguson are dishonoring the memory of Michael Brown and his grieving family. They are insulting them. Again, flat out disgraceful.
THE FACTOR has been investigating those arrested. On Monday night, 78 people were taken into custody and we believe about 30 of them have criminal records. Only four, four out of the 78 are from Ferguson -- many of the others are trouble makers who just streamed into town.
But the liberal media will never report that. Nor will they report the true picture of criminal justice in the U.S.A.
Instead, NBC News pays Al Sharpton to deliver garbage like this. [�] �SHARPTON video clip:A young man 18 years old shot down in the streets unarmed and rather than you address it, you tried to smear the young man, rather than uphold the principles of justice and dignity. I want you to know these parents are not going to cry alone. They're not going to stand alone. They're not going to fight alone. We have had enough.
O'REILLY:�Enough of what, Al? Enough of what? Police efficiency? In 2012, the last stats available from the FBI there were about 12 million arrests in the U.S.A. That averages out to 34,000 arrests per day. In 99.9 percent of those cases, the perpetrator was not killed by police. In fact, just over 400 fatal police shootings a year are recorded in this country, according to the FBI.
So let me restate -- 12 million arrests a year, 400 fatal shootings, many of them justified. And Al Sharpton has the nerve to insult the American police community, men and women risking their lives to protect us.
This charlatan has the gall to do that and NBC News is paying him. My god -- why is that acceptable? [...] But to the race hustlers, Officer Wilson is already guilty. They have convicted him. Their slogan is "no justice, no peace". I guess that's lynch mob justice because those people will never accept anything other than a conviction of murder in this case. They don't really care what happened. They want Officer Wilson punished.
And he should be punished if he murdered Michael Brown. If a jury finds Wilson guilty he should be put in prison for the rest of his life.
But Officer Wilson is entitled to the presumption of innocence that we all have under our constitution -- something Al Sharpton will never give him because Sharpton only cares about his own self-aggrandizement. And if he has to stoke racial hatred to get that, that's what Sharpton will do.
I know this man. His record defines him. Yet he has succeeded in bringing his brand of racial grievance to the White House. When President Obama announced his Brother's Keeper initiative, I was there, Sharpton was there...
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
O'Reilly is totally disagreeing with what Sharpton is saying about blaming the cops. �But Officer Wilson is entitled to the presumption of innocence that we all have under our constitution -- something Al Sharpton will never give him because Sharpton only cares about his own self-aggrandizement.�
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
The way I read it , he's talking about how the MEDIA is presenting it, not that he thinks that way
Quote
Furious about how the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown is being reported and how various people are reacting to it.
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
Did you watch it? I'm gonna have to assume you didn't, because O'Reilly had more to say than what's in the text. He was spot on & he did a superb job at conveying his thoughts on the subject rather articulately & with a believable amount of conviction... In no way did he portray "Mr. Brown" as a victim...if anything he got the point across that Brown was nothing more than the thug he was, without coming across as racist. His commentary on Sharpton & Jackson was also excellent.
I'm generally not a big fan of him, but last night he did a very good job.
The thing is we don't even have 10% of the story at this point.
Very true...that was also brought up in his commentary. Like I said, it was spot on. Probably the best commentary on the subject that has been done so far.
O'Reilly's middle name is "Stanley" because he is a TOOL!
When you are a thug and a punk, and a robber and thief, and a foul mouthed would-be rap artist whose lyrics denigrate women and you are an illegal drug user who's judgment was clouded when you attack a police officer and get your butt capped . . . you are not a "victim," you are not a "Mr." and it is impossible to "dishonour" your memory.
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
O'Reilly is totally disagreeing with what Sharpton is saying about blaming the cops. �But Officer Wilson is entitled to the presumption of innocence that we all have under our constitution -- something Al Sharpton will never give him because Sharpton only cares about his own self-aggrandizement.�
then the Rev. Al and O'Reilly share that trait. They are both only into this for the self aggrandizement.
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
Did you watch it? I'm gonna have to assume you didn't, because O'Reilly had more to say than what's in the text. He was spot on & he did a superb job at conveying his thoughts on the subject rather articulately & with a believable amount of conviction... In no way did he portray "Mr. Brown" as a victim...if anything he got the point across that Brown was nothing more than the thug he was, without coming across as racist. His commentary on Sharpton & Jackson was also excellent.
I'm generally not a big fan of him, but last night he did a very good job.
No, I didn't watch it but for a good reason. I have a hearing problem and usually can't understand the words on tv or videos unless they're captioned. I wear hearing aids but they don't help with videos.
So let me restate -- 12 million arrests a year, 400 fatal shootings, many of them justified.
Splutter.
Many of them justified? Many of them justified? And then he just goes on with his argument?
Sheesh!
A digression, in blue so that you can easily skip it if you want:
In my industry, there's a kind of software we call a "coverage tool." You start it up, and then run your automated tests, and it shows you how much of your production code is exercised by those tests. Generally, code that is tested turns green, and code that is untested turns red.
Some developers use tools like this to tell whether or not they have more automated tests to write. A lot of red code is bad, less red code is better, and they write more tests until there's little enough red code to satisfy some established metric, then check the code in.
Not me, though, and not developers of my ilk. We test-drive--which is to say, we write the automated tests first, before we write the code they exercise, and then we run those tests and watch them fail. Only then, we discipline ourselves, are we permitted to write any production code at all, and only enough production code to make the new tests pass. The slogan is, "Never write a single line of production code that hasn't been demanded into existence by a failing test."
When we use coverage tools, it's in an entirely different context. If I run a coverage tool on code I'm ready to check in and see any red at all, it doesn't mean I have a couple more tests to write before I'm done. It means that, despite my beliefs to the contrary, I'm not actually a test-driven developer yet, I have been dishonestly representing myself as something I'm not, I have some serious and fundamental work to do on my mindset, my discipline, and my professionalism, and I really ought to lose my job.
Now back to the point.
O'Reilly is implying that a situation where a cop commits unjustified fatal shootings is unfortunate, and a situation where he commits fewer is less unfortunate.
That is not the case, and anyone who swallows that without choking has sustained some profound moral corrosion from the Zeitgeist.
Someone who commits even one unjustified fatal shooting is not a cop, he's a murderer. That's what "unjustified" means. He should not simply strive to do better in the future. He should not simply be put on administrative leave. He should not simply be reprimanded. He should not simply be fired. He should be arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated at the very least, but preferably punished directly by the family of the victim in whatever way seems right to them.
It frightens me that few enough people understand this these days that a screed like that can even be broadcast on television without making sponsors scatter in fear, and then praised in a forum like this. We truly have lost something important in this country.
O'Reilly is not implying anything. Simply stating fact. �12 million arrests a year, 400 fatal shootings, many of them justified�
Do you honestly believe that you live in a world where any police shooting is not fully investigated? That unjustified shootings are not prosecuted?
For sure there is bound to be a small fraction of those 400 that are bad cops cover ups. But in this brave new world of cop cameras, far more have been nailed to the barn door.
Oreilly talking about sharpton pimping race stuff --what a joke -Oreilly has had sharpton on his show a few times and all but kisses his azzz.
This schit gets old. Educate yourself if you care to opine on the man or his show.
More of the Talking Points: Also on MSNBC another agitator said this: BERNARD:�There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion there is a war on African-American men. It is an absolutely deplorable situation that the United States, which is supposed to be the greatest nation on earth, sits back and allows black boys to be murdered.
O'REILLY:�Black boys being murdered in the context of Ferguson. Are you kidding me? The truth is that 91 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks -- 91 percent. Yet, that woman tries to mislead folks by accusing American law enforcement of shooting down young black men in the streets.
It's beyond belief -- what is going on in this story is beyond belief. Yet these people get away with it and in certain places they are even respected. Incredibly Al Sharpton is going to speak at the funeral of Michael Brown on Monday morning.
The slogan the racial agitators are using in Ferguson is "hands up, don't shoot". They apparently believe that Michael Brown was trying to surrender when Officer Wilson shot him dead. Maybe that's true. We'll find out.
But MSNBC put a person on the air who said Mr. Brown was shot in the back. That turns out to be false, according to an autopsy.
We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket. �The Factor' has not been able to confirm that, and we do not want to try this case on television. We're only reporting the alleged injury to demonstrate that there will be much more to come in this case. That is why there is an investigation, and a grand jury and a trial process.
O'Reilly is not implying anything. Simply stating fact. �12 million arrests a year, 400 fatal shootings, many of them justified�
Having a little trouble with the meaning of the word "implication?" I'm here for you; let me help.
If he were not implying what I contend, he would have written something more like this:
"Out of 12 million arrests a year, there are only 400 fatal shootings, and only a fraction of those turn out to be unjustified. Of course, every unjustified shooting is an inexcusable tragedy; but..."
By not making a point of the outrageousness of any unjustified shooting--by anyone, but especially by a government cop who claims to be a servant and a protector--he is implying that there is no such point to be made.
If he had said, "There are millions of blacks in this country, many of whom are not congenital criminals," do you think he would have gotten anywhere with your "simply stating fact" defense?
His implied thought is appalling enough; but it gets worse twice. First, his sponsors gave him money to finance the dissemination of that implication without abandoning him in droves. Second, people like you and others on this thread applaud and/or defend him for it.
Quote
Do you honestly believe that you live in a world where any police shooting is not fully investigated? That unjustified shootings are not prosecuted?
Of course we do--at least, where police shootings are not given nearly the degree of scrutiny that Mundane shootings are. Eventually, if the War On Drugs continues--which it almost certainly will until the entire government collapses under its own weight--government cops will essentially have an explicit or implicit license to kill Mundanes for any reason or no reason, provided the particular Mundanes in question are not of some special value to the government.
That's the direction we've been going for decades, and there's nothing on the horizon except total economic collapse that suggests that any change in direction is coming.
We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket.
I don't know, of course, but my instinct is to call BS. If he had been able to show any injury at all stemming from the confrontation, the PD would have trotted it out at the very beginning, at the first sign that things might get ugly. They might even have taken him out back and worked him over themselves just so that he'd have a visible injury they could blame on Brown.
Time will tell, but the delay does severe violence to the credibility of the claim.
What in the Hell are you talking about???? You are saying the same thing as Bill, but not as well as he did?
"Out of 12 million arrests a year, there are only 400 fatal shootings, and only a fraction of those turn out to be unjustified. Of course, every unjustified shooting is an inexcusable tragedy; but..."
O'REILLY:�Enough of what, Al? Enough of what? Police efficiency? In 2012, the last stats available from the FBI there were about 12 million arrests in the U.S.A. That averages out to 34,000 arrests per day. In 99.9 percent of those cases, the perpetrator was not killed by police. In fact, just over 400 fatal police shootings a year are recorded in this country, according to the FBI. So let me restate -- 12 million arrests a year, 400 fatal shootings, many of them justified. And Al Sharpton has the nerve to insult the American police community, men and women risking their lives to protect us. This charlatan has the gall to do that and NBC News is paying him. My god -- why is that acceptable?�
O'Reilly is implying that a situation where a cop commits unjustified fatal shootings is unfortunate
That is not the case, and anyone who swallows that without choking has sustained some profound moral corrosion from the Zeitgeist.
It frightens me that few enough people understand this these days that a screed like that can even be broadcast on television without making sponsors scatter in fear, and then praised in a forum like this. We truly have lost something important in this country.
It is unfortunate...
Your inability to grasp what he's saying doesn't surprise me a bit. Maybe you should try a little more social interaction with normal folks instead of trying to save those poor, unfortunate, sociopathic "victims" of police brutality at your local Kairos meetings...
Your last paragraph is a doozy...I suppose Al Sharpton better represents your views?
I don't know, of course, but my instinct is to call BS. If he had been able to show any injury at all stemming from the confrontation, the PD would have trotted it out at the very beginning, at the first sign that things might get ugly. They might even have taken him out back and worked him over themselves just so that he'd have a visible injury they could blame on Brown.
Time will tell, but the delay does severe violence to the credibility of the claim.
Sharpton couldn't have said it any better....Congratulations???
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
No. A victim implies you've had your rights violated. You don't have a right to attack someone, try to take his gun, and then not get shot in the process, so he's not a victim.
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
No. A victim implies you've had your rights violated. You don't have a right to attack someone, try to take his gun, and then not get shot in the process, so he's not a victim.
As usual, TRH is 100% factually correct. The crime report will list the dirtbag criminal as suspect. Responding officers will do a casualty report indicating that the dirtbag suspect died after forcing the primary officer to shoot him. The reports are attached and filed as one comprehensive report.
O'Reilly is just jealous because Sharpton has lost weight and it's now plainly evident that he's got a bigger fuggin' head than O'Reilly.
The first time O'Reilly saw Sharpton on TV after his weight loss he said, "Look at the size of that fuggers head! It looks like a pregnant fuggin' watermelon, for Pete's sake! People are going to think that he's smarter than me!!,.....I better start talkin' chit about him."
Then,...on the next episode of "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill says,.."Yeah,..Sharpton has a big head,..but it's filled with *chit!* Look at mine! (the camera pans in as Bill wobbles his punkin' head to and fro)
"This big muhfuggah contains *brains*", says Bill.
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
No. A victim implies you've had your rights violated. You don't have a right to attack someone, try to take his gun, and then not get shot in the process, so he's not a victim.
Yawn. �Victim� (1) one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a~of cancer><a~of the auto crash or accident><a~murder or shooting>
he looks like he either just crawled out of his coffin or is ready to be put into one. seriously, i think that dude is not long for this earth. he's gettin' all ashie looking and that ain't good for a brother.
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
No. A victim implies you've had your rights violated. You don't have a right to attack someone, try to take his gun, and then not get shot in the process, so he's not a victim.
Yawn. �Victim� (1) one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a~of cancer><a~of the auto crash or accident><a~murder or shooting>
Context modifies the definition. In this context, it means what I said.
He starts out with "Mr. Brown is a victim". Was he? O'Reilly is accepting as truth exactly what Al Sharpton is saying. He has, by his own admission, no knowledge of whether Brown is the victim or the assailant but he starts right out by putting the blame on the cop.
I'd say well thought out and good words there for sure.
Anyone who has been shot is a victim of being shot.
No. A victim implies you've had your rights violated. You don't have a right to attack someone, try to take his gun, and then not get shot in the process, so he's not a victim.
Yawn. �Victim� (1) one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a~of cancer><a~of the auto crash or accident><a~murder or shooting>
Context modifies the definition. In this context, it means what I said.
Yawn It is not your context. It is Bill Reilly's quote and his context is about a gunshot victim. Local headline:�How Many Gunshot Victims Have There Been In Ferguson So Far? Hospitals Refuse To Say� �Unfortunately, it may take a while for information about further victims of violence in Ferguson to come to light.�
Yawn It is not your context. It is Bill Reilly's quote and his context is about a gunshot victim.
If a robber was shot in the act, do you consider him a victim, or a person who got what was coming to him? Can't be both and you know it. The word victim implies an injustice has occurred.
Yawn It is not your context. It is Bill Reilly's quote and his context is about a gunshot victim.
If a robber was shot in the act, do you consider him a victim, or a person who go what was coming to him? Can't be both and you know it. The word victim implies an injustice has occurred.
A gun fires...person gets hit...they are a gunshot victim.
I met a guy who leaned a gun on the side of his truck. This gun slipped & on the way down a twig got caught in the trigger...the guy got shot...if he's not a gunshot victim, what is he?...besides a dumbass.
A gun fires...person gets hit...they are a gunshot victim.
I met a guy who leaned a gun on the side of his truck. This gun slipped & on the way down a twig got caught in the trigger...the guy got shot...if he's not a gunshot victim, what is he?...besides a dumbass.
The man in your example is a victim because he didn't have it coming, i.e., it wasn't in any sense justice for him to die. Those shot deservedly, on the other hand, aren't correctly termed victims.
I think pretty much everybody grasps what he's saying. The difference is that some people are appalled by it and some people shrug and say, "Well, heck, it is a government, after all:you can't expect it to make omelets without breaking a few eggs."
I don't know, of course, but my instinct is to call BS. If he had been able to show any injury at all stemming from the confrontation, the PD would have trotted it out at the very beginning, at the first sign that things might get ugly. They might even have taken him out back and worked him over themselves just so that he'd have a visible injury they could blame on Brown.
Time will tell, but the delay does severe violence to the credibility of the claim.
Sharpton couldn't have said it any better....Congratulations???
I dunno about you, or a cop, but I'M NOT GOING TO WAIT to be injured before dropping the hammer on a perceived imminent threat. If that's what it was.
Yawn It is not your context. It is Bill Reilly's quote and his context is about a gunshot victim.
If a robber was shot in the act, do you consider him a victim, or a person who got what was coming to him? Can't be both and you know it. The word victim implies an injustice has occurred.
In my world...If a robber was shot in the act, he is a gunshot victim who may or may not got what was coming to him. It most certainly could be either or both. I have already listed several dictionary definitions that do not imply any injustice. Some do and some do not.
Only in your world do you get to pick and chose a different definition than the one that O'Reilly clearly intended.
noun: victim; plural noun: victims 1. a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. [...] 1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging. 2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite. 3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war. 4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming. 5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.
The point of this thread should be what Bill O'Reilly was saying. And not taking him out of context. Or trying to change the meanings of his words.
You're preachin to the choir brother... Baraks comments surprised me even though I know he's sympathetic towards the poor, persecuted, imprisoned sociopaths that attend his Kairos meetings... Sharpton would be proud of his "brother" speaking out against that racist O'Reilly trying to smear the good name of that fine young man who the police gunned down in cold blood...just because he was black...
We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket.
I don't know, of course, but my instinct is to call BS. If he had been able to show any injury at all stemming from the confrontation, the PD would have trotted it out at the very beginning, at the first sign that things might get ugly. They might even have taken him out back and worked him over themselves just so that he'd have a visible injury they could blame on Brown.
Time will tell, but the delay does severe violence to the credibility of the claim.
If you actually believe the BS you're spouting - I'm sorry for you.
Sharpton would be proud of his "brother" speaking out against that racist O'Reilly trying to smear the good name of that fine young man who the police gunned down in cold blood...just because he was black...
Given the larger context of a government murdering its subjects, which this incident may or may not be another example of, I don't give two whoops about racism. For me, murder trumps unfairness every day.
I was just pointing out that it would look a lot better for the police department if Wilson had been injured in the incident than if he hadn't. Surely that's not a controversial statement.
The other two statements are simple extrapolations from that.
First, if Wilson's injury had been part of the narrative from the very beginning, it would be a lot more credible than when it is suddenly inserted after a week of rioting.
Secondly, some police are demonstrably not above creating injuries after the fact to excuse their actions. Remember those three cops who broke into the old lady's house and killed her, then each arranged to acquire small-caliber minor gunshot wounds themselves that they used to justify the shooting? I have no idea whether Wilson is that kind of a cop, but I know of nothing that militates that he can't be.
I understand what he's trying to say, but for crying out loud, this is a forum...not a classroom. Always nitpicking at semantics...
Semantics convey meaning. It give us insight into the way people think. He thinks there's no moral distinction between a crook who got shot and a victim who got shot.
Sharpton would be proud of his "brother" speaking out against that racist O'Reilly trying to smear the good name of that fine young man who the police gunned down in cold blood...just because he was black...
Given the larger context of a government murdering its subjects, which this incident may or may not be another example of, I don't give two whoops about racism. For me, murder trumps unfairness every day.
I was just pointing out that it would look a lot better for the police department if Wilson had been injured in the incident than if he hadn't. Surely that's not a controversial statement.
The other two statements are simple extrapolations from that.
First, if Wilson's injury had been part of the narrative from the very beginning, it would be a lot more credible than when it is suddenly inserted after a week of rioting.
Secondly, some police are demonstrably not above creating injuries after the fact to excuse their actions. Remember those three cops who broke into the old lady's house and killed her, then each arranged to acquire small-caliber minor gunshot wounds themselves that they used to justify the shooting? I have no idea whether Wilson is that kind of a cop, but I know of nothing that militates that he can't be.
I understand what he's trying to say, but for crying out loud, this is a forum...not a classroom. Always nitpicking at semantics...
Semantics convey meaning. It give us insight into the way people think. He thinks there's no moral distinction between a crook who got shot and a victim who got shot.
You should go back and read that EKG thread.
You tried to act like specific descriptive language DOESN'T matter when talking about something you have very rudimentary knowledge of......
I understand what he's trying to say, but for crying out loud, this is a forum...not a classroom. Always nitpicking at semantics...
Semantics convey meaning. It give us insight into the way people think. He thinks there's no moral distinction between a crook who got shot and a victim who got shot.
You should go back and read that EKG thread.
You tried to act like specific descriptive language DOESN'T matter when talking about something you have very rudimentary knowledge of......
This is the second time you mentioned an EKG. Could you refresh my memory by providing a link? I don't recall expressing an opinion on EKG, as I know next to nothing about them. Thanks.
The "smart" thing for the police to do isn't disclosing information about injuries to the officer.
The smart thing is to let witnesses tell factually incorrect versions of what happened, then, if needed, shed them in court with proof that the officer sustained serious injuries.
After reading back through that thread, I have come to the conclusion that TRH is full of it. Yeah, he'd doesn't remember the ten pages he participated in. Likely story........
First, if Wilson's injury had been part of the narrative from the very beginning, it would be a lot more credible than when it is suddenly inserted after a week of rioting.
I agree, but that doesn't make any injuries he incurred any less real. I seem to remember a delay in reporting Zimmermen's injuries too. Of course, I don't believe the reporting of either would have had any real impact on rioting when you're dealing with the class of folks who were engaged in same down in Furgeson.
First, if Wilson's injury had been part of the narrative from the very beginning, it would be a lot more credible than when it is suddenly inserted after a week of rioting.
I agree, but that doesn't make any injuries h incurred any less real. I seem to remember a delay in reporting Zimmermen's injuries too.
Yep. Both cases were likely politically motivated.
First, if Wilson's injury had been part of the narrative from the very beginning, it would be a lot more credible than when it is suddenly inserted after a week of rioting.
I agree, but that doesn't make any injuries h incurred any less real. I seem to remember a delay in reporting Zimmermen's injuries too.
Yep. Both cases were likely politically motivated.
Of course. Do you think that Sharpton was waiting for the facts before he responded to incite the violence ?
I agree, but that doesn't make any injuries he incurred any less real.
What you say is true, but from what I understand, we don't know that he incurred any injuries, just that it has been reported that he's injured. And if he has been injured, we don't know that he was injured by Michael Brown.
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
I agree, but that doesn't make any injuries he incurred any less real.
What you say is true, but from what I understand, we don't know that he incurred any injuries, just that it has been reported that he's injured. And if he has been injured, we don't know that he was injured by Michael Brown.
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
Off topic, but I'd really be interested in the recidivism rate of your Kairos group...
I agree, but that doesn't make any injuries he incurred any less real.
What you say is true, but from what I understand, we don't know that he incurred any injuries, just that it has been reported that he's injured. And if he has been injured, we don't know that he was injured by Michael Brown.
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
You are late to the party. It was stated from the beginning the officer was beaten in the face and his eye was swollen shut along with facial swelling. Catch yourself up to date from the beginning of the incident. Damn...
TRH, why would I apologize? You spouted off about something you are clueless about for ten pages.
And complained about me "nitpicking" you language on a discussion about something that requires correct terminology to articulate an idea clearly.
I did especially like the "I don't recall" act though.
liar
I'm still waiting for you to provide a single quote that indicates to a reasonable person that I've ever claimed special knowledge about electrocardiograms. Absent that, I'm owed a retraction and an apology. Were you a man, one or the other would be forthcoming, but I'm not holding my breath.
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
Off topic, but I'd really be interested in the recidivism rate of your Kairos group...
Based on research over the last 20 years--may be 25 by now--the five-year recidivism rate varies between 5 and 7 percent. As opposed to 65-70% for ex-offenders in general. It's not secret: look it up.
You are late to the party. It was stated from the beginning the officer was beaten in the face and his eye was swollen shut along with facial swelling.
Huh. I can't claim to have been following the situation closely--there are so many cops beating, Tasering, and killing unarmed Mundanes these days--but about a week in was the first I ever heard of an injury to the cop, and it sounded as though it was breaking news.
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
Off topic, but I'd really be interested in the recidivism rate of your Kairos group...
Based on research over the last 20 years--may be 25 by now--the five-year recidivism rate varies between 5 and 7 percent. As opposed to 65-70% for ex-offenders in general. It's not secret: look it up.
I did...& guess what? Your number are low, even by Kairos own reports. All I can find are "studies" provided BY Kairos & their affiliates...kind of like asking Al Sharpton if he's prejudiced...
The assertion that he was injured by Michael Brown before he shot him may or may not be true; based on the evidence I've seen, I choose until further notice to believe that it is not.
Off topic, but I'd really be interested in the recidivism rate of your Kairos group...
Based on research over the last 20 years--may be 25 by now--the five-year recidivism rate varies between 5 and 7 percent. As opposed to 65-70% for ex-offenders in general. It's not secret: look it up.
I did...& guess what? Your number are low, even by Kairos own reports. All I can find are "studies" provided BY Kairos & their affiliates...kind of like asking Al Sharpton if he's prejudiced...
Probably should have been more specific.
The study I saw years ago was regarding ex-offenders who had stayed involved with Kairos (as measured by a particular metric that is perfectly clear if you're involved with Kairos but takes some explaining I don't have time to do now if you're not) for the five years the recidivism was measured over.
Regardless of the actual numbers, though, it's clear that if Kairos is in your state, it's wise for you to support it even if you don't believe in God, simply for the tax money it saves you.
Gotta scram--to a Kairos team meeting, believe it or not.
