Holder Admits "Hands Up" Was Lie

[Rupert Pupkin]

This is shocking news. The "hands up don't shoot" narrative was a lie. I had no idea. I can't believe it. Eric Holder admitted that the slogan was a complete falsehood and did not represent what actually happened.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/04/ho...aim-was-bogus/

[GenuineRisk]

Well, here's an article about the Justice Department report on what actually was happening in Ferguson:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_blacks.html

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well, here's an article about the Justice Department report on what actually was happening in Ferguson:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_blacks.html

That is a different subject. In any criminal trial, all that matters are the facts of the case. In the Michael Brown case, there is no evidence that Officer Wilson did anything wrong. In addition, there is no evidence that Officer Wilson was an overly aggressive officer or that he had any racial bias. That is all that matters in this case.

You wouldn't blame all blacks or all latinos for the disproportionately high levels of crime committed by some blacks and some latinos. So don't blame Officer Wilson for misconduct by some officers. Should a law abiding black citizen who has committed no crime go to jail or lose his job because some other black people commit crime? Of course not. So why should Officer Wilson be punished for misconduct by other officers?

You posting that article is ridiculous. It would be like if I kept saying that some black man was guilty of a crime and then it was proven that he was innocent. Then instead of admitting that I was wrong, I post an article that says that black people commit a lot of crime (as if that is relevant to whether a specific black person is guilty of a crime).

[Danzig]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-cr...lice-employee/

of course the policeman was cleared. I expected that all along. but I'm glad that it brought to light all that was occurring in that town, which is reprehensible.
and I'd imagine the chief wasn't there, because he's packing up his things.
perhaps this will produce broader reviews, and bring more attention to places like this.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politi...port-shocking/

that article has a link in it to the doj report.

[Pants II]

GR is the master of changing thread topics to fit her false left-right paradigm agenda.

Here GR...no linky you can look for it...

Rahm Emanuel and the beloved Dumb Ass Cats of Chicago have their own personal Gitmo.

It's made the rounds on news sites...granted probably not the effeminate feminazi news sites you peruse. Nonetheless that doesn't make it any less true.

Will Holder or the next grievance attorney tackle that issue?

Why no outrage? Grounds for termination at SHILLTOWN?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Pants II

GR is the master of changing thread topics to fit her false left-right paradigm agenda.

Here GR...no linky you can look for it...

Rahm Emanuel and the beloved Dumb Ass Cats of Chicago have their own personal Gitmo.

It's made the rounds on news sites...granted probably not the effeminate feminazi news sites you peruse. Nonetheless that doesn't make it any less true.

Will Holder or the next grievance attorney tackle that issue?

Why no outrage? Grounds for termination at SHILLTOWN?

The facility you speak of resembles gitmo because of the neighborhood it's located in. The securty measures are meant to keep people out not in. Probably because of the drug/gun evidence kept within. If only the idiots could decipher the direction the top of the barbed wire fence faced they would know that but of course that would destroy the narrative so desperately pursued and the truth no longer matters when a MSM agenda is in play.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is a different subject. In any criminal trial, all that matters are the facts of the case. In the Michael Brown case, there is no evidence that Officer Wilson did anything wrong. In addition, there is no evidence that Officer Wilson was an overly aggressive officer or that he had any racial bias. That is all that matters in this case.

You wouldn't blame all blacks or all latinos for the disproportionately high levels of crime committed by some blacks and some latinos. So don't blame Officer Wilson for misconduct by some officers. Should a law abiding black citizen who has committed no crime go to jail or lose his job because some other black people commit crime? Of course not. So why should Officer Wilson be punished for misconduct by other officers?

You posting that article is ridiculous. It would be like if I kept saying that some black man was guilty of a crime and then it was proven that he was innocent. Then instead of admitting that I was wrong, I post an article that says that black people commit a lot of crime (as if that is relevant to whether a specific black person is guilty of a crime).

Your heading implies that Eric Holder had something to do with the evolution of the "Hands Up" narrative. He wasn't "admitting" anything; he was stating what the Justice Department had determined.

Explain to me what is ridiculous about pointing out that there is an established pattern of racial bias in Ferguson. Do you dispute it? Do you think it's not true?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Your heading implies that Eric Holder had something to do with the evolution of the "Hands Up" narrative. He wasn't "admitting" anything; he was stating what the Justice Department had determined.

Explain to me what is ridiculous about pointing out that there is an established pattern of racial bias in Ferguson. Do you dispute it? Do you think it's not true?

i am glad it all came out because of the shooting. there's no reason in this country to have a government entity think it can do as it wishes, and to hell with constitutionality and civil rights. the actions by the officers was bad. to know that it wasn't just condoned, but even demanded by the supervisors, the chief, and even the court (that answered to the chief) is beyond the pale.

i've read about half the doj report so far. was hoping to finish reading it at work--but been too busy til now.

it is..unbelievable.

so far three have been fired. i'd imagine more firings are in the offing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-cr...lice-employee/

of course the policeman was cleared. I expected that all along. but I'm glad that it brought to light all that was occurring in that town, which is reprehensible.
and I'd imagine the chief wasn't there, because he's packing up his things.
perhaps this will produce broader reviews, and bring more attention to places like this.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politi...port-shocking/

that article has a link in it to the doj report.

The news is not just that he was cleared. It was the wording. Holder didn't say that he thought the officer was guilty but they just couldn't prove it. Holder said the opposite. He said they did an exhaustive investigation in which they interviewed 300 people. They found no evidence that Brown's hands were up. They found that that Brown was definitely coming at the officer. They also found that Brown attacked the officer while the officer was in his police car. In other words, there was no case. There was no wrongdoing on the officer's part.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Your heading implies that Eric Holder had something to do with the evolution of the "Hands Up" narrative. He wasn't "admitting" anything; he was stating what the Justice Department had determined.

Explain to me what is ridiculous about pointing out that there is an established pattern of racial bias in Ferguson. Do you dispute it? Do you think it's not true?

I wasn't implying that Holder came up with the "hands up don't shoot" slogan. I was implying that from the very beginning Holder acted like the officer committed a crime. If you listened to all of his statements from the time he first arrived in Ferguson, it was clear whose side he was on. He was extremely sympathetic to the family of Brown, but not to the officer.

I already answered your question about why it was ridiculous for you to change the subject and talk about other instances of police misconduct. I will repeat the reason: Let's say we were debating a different case. Let's say we we were debating a case where I kept saying I thought a black man was guilty of a crime and you thought he was innocent. If it turned out that he was innocent, how ridiculous would it be if I then changed the subject and posted an article about how high the crime rate is among black people? That would have nothing to do with the specific case we were talking about.

With regards to the findings in the report, I wouldn't go as far as say I dispute it. I obviously have no knowledge of what goes in Ferguson. However, I will say that the DOJ did have an agenda, so I would take the findings with at least somewhat of a grain of salt. If the tobacco industry did an investigation on the effects of smoking, I would take the findings with a grain of salt. When a report is done by someone with an agenda, you have to consider that the findings may be biased. This Attorney General has totally politicized his office and he has this "activist/progressive" agenda. I think that is very dangerous to have an AG with his own agenda. The office loses so much credibility.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

So, all of that looting turned out to be unnecessary.

looting is always unnecessary.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I wasn't implying that Holder came up with the "hands up don't shoot" slogan. I was implying that from the very beginning Holder acted like the officer committed a crime. If you listened to all of his statements from the time he first arrived in Ferguson, it was clear whose side he was on. He was extremely sympathetic to the family of Brown, but not to the officer.

I already answered your question about why it was ridiculous for you to change the subject and talk about other instances of police misconduct. I will repeat the reason: Let's say we were debating a different case. Let's say we we were debating a case where I kept saying I thought a black man was guilty of a crime and you thought he was innocent. If it turned out that he was innocent, how ridiculous would it be if I then changed the subject and posted an article about how high the crime rate is among black people? That would have nothing to do with the specific case we were talking about.

With regards to the findings in the report, I wouldn't go as far as say I dispute it. I obviously have no knowledge of what goes in Ferguson. However, I will say that the DOJ did have an agenda, so I would take the findings with at least somewhat of a grain of salt. If the tobacco industry did an investigation on the effects of smoking, I would take the findings with a grain of salt. When a report is done by someone with an agenda, you have to consider that the findings may be biased. This Attorney General has totally politicized his office and he has this "activist/progressive" agenda. I think that is very dangerous to have an AG with his own agenda. The office loses so much credibility.

http://www.newsweek.com/eric-holder-...erguson-265982

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-81128218/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...dued-protests/

there's three articles about his visit so far.
could you show me where it indicates whose 'side he was on'?

and GR didn't 'change the subject'. it's all part of the subject.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_blacks.html


As it stands, we have good evidence that Brown committed criminal acts, as well as a firm conclusion from the Justice Department that there aren’t sufficient facts to support a criminal indictment against Wilson and that the officer is neither guilty of a civil rights violation nor culpable under federal law. As far as the state goes, the evidence shows that he did what he had to do.


But this conclusion shouldn’t lead anyone to dismiss the discord in Ferguson, which was fueled by stronger forces than Brown’s death. The reason it happened as it did—the reason the anger spilled into protests and rioting—is because of a long history of police mistreatment and unfairness. Journalists covered much of this in the weeks and months after the August protests. But a new review from the Justice Department goes beyond what we know to expand on the Ferguson police practices. The department didn’t just discriminate against black Americans; it targeted them for fines and fees and knowingly violated their constitutional rights.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.newsweek.com/eric-holder-...erguson-265982

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-81128218/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...dued-protests/

there's three articles about his visit so far.
could you show me where it indicates whose 'side he was on'?

and GR didn't 'change the subject'. it's all part of the subject.

In the end, I think Holder's specific characterizations about the shooting were fair. I am pleased with that. At least in the end, he admitted that Officer Wilson did nothing wrong. But early on when the case first came to light and during the time leading up to the grand jury verdict and even right after the verdict, most of his behavior was very biased against the officer and in favor of Michael Brown. He met with Brown's family. He sent 40 FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate. Do you think that would have happened if Officer Wilson was black and Michael Brown was white? The White House sent representatives to the funeral. Would that have happened if Brown was white? The White House and DOJ totally took sides throughout the thing. The good news is that in the end they were fair. But I think their handling of the whole thing was extremely destructive. They basically encouraged the protesters and acted like people should be protesting the case. In reality there was nothing to protest about in this case. In other cases maybe, but not this case.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

But this conclusion shouldn’t lead anyone to dismiss the discord in Ferguson, which was fueled by stronger forces than Brown’s death. The reason it happened as it did—the reason the anger spilled into protests and rioting—is because of a long history of police mistreatment and unfairness.

That is a matter of opinion. I would totally disagree with that. Has there been discrimination against black people in this country over the last 60 years? The answer is yes. But is that the reason those people were rioting, looting, and burning down businesses? Absolutely not! The people committing the violence were just opportunists using the Brown shooting as an excuse to behave bad and loot. I don't think there were too many law abiding citizens (who have been treated unfairly in the past by the police) that were looting and burning down buildings.

[Pants II]

No race hates and is biased more against black people than...black people.

Unfortunately that's not a divisive issue so it's hardly addressed by the controlled liberal media and the one 'conservative' media outlet that has its content looked over by the Saudi royals.

But oh well as long as white women can be outraged about something on the internet...that's all that matters.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is a matter of opinion. I would totally disagree with that. Has there been discrimination against black people in this country over the last 60 years? The answer is yes. But is that the reason those people were rioting, looting, and burning down businesses? Absolutely not! The people committing the violence were just opportunists using the Brown shooting as an excuse to behave bad and loot. I don't think there were too many law abiding citizens (who have been treated unfairly in the past by the police) that were looting and burning down buildings.

I am in no way, shape or form talking about the looters. I have no use for anyone who breaks the law.
what I'm discussing are those who live in the town, who have dealt with this issue for years.

I think how the police there handled the protests is a clear example of them doing their level best to escalate things in a hurry. the attitude in that department and city towards it's black population has been that way for years. resentment has built over a period of time, and they finally said enough.

[Pants II]

Two police officers shot in Ferguson last night. But I guess that isn't as important as a couple of racist jokes about black people...you ****ing idiots.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Pants II

Two police officers shot in Ferguson last night. But I guess that isn't as important as a couple of racist jokes about black people...you ****ing idiots.

As long as the Christian baker is baking gay wedding cakes, illegals aren't hassled for driving drunk and are on the dole and the one tranny kid in town isnt being bullied, fock the police.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Your heading implies that Eric Holder had something to do with the evolution of the "Hands Up" narrative. He wasn't "admitting" anything; he was stating what the Justice Department had determined.

Explain to me what is ridiculous about pointing out that there is an established pattern of racial bias in Ferguson. Do you dispute it? Do you think it's not true?

I think that much of what is in that DOJ report is BS. The mayor of Ferguson totally disputes the findings in the DOJ report. What is amazing is that the DOJ didn't learn their lesson from the Brown case. As we saw in the Brown case, you can't rely on unverified anecdotes. Yet much of the DOJ report was based on unverified anecdotes where they didn't even bother to interview witnesses that would totally contradict these alleged claims.

For example, "the DOJ condemns the arrest of a “kid at the school” without mentioning the delinquent in question had pushed a pregnant, African-American principal to the ground in the middle of a fight. The principal of the school is furious right now, that it was portrayed that way.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ferguson-...ter-cops-shot/