Character Assassination: Conservative Blogger Digs Into History of Michael Brown’s Stepfather
The slain Ferguson, Missouri teenager’s non-criminal history was revealed today, which didn’t sit well with Charles C. Johnson, a conservative blogger who filed a request for information on Michael Brown’s history, which should be irrelevant at this point.
When the news came out that the deceased teenager had no top felonies on his record, Johnson started spinning the news and wrote, “Gotnews.com has never said Brown was convicted–only that he was involved in one.”
He did by proxy via his Twitter account on August 19th.
Now he’s asking what a ‘serious felony’ is.
What’s a “serious” felony? #MichaelBrown #Ferguson
— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) September 3, 2014
On GotNews.com he breathlessly wrote:
Juveniles, particularly those involved in gangs, aren’t usually convicted on a first offense. They are usually given probation, a plea bargain, or a reduced sentence.
Notice how he uses the word ‘purported’ then moves on to Brown’s stepfather.
This purported lack of a criminal conviction is entirely consistent with what GotNews.com sources said. Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, has a long rap sheet that includes gang activity. GotNews.com is currently working to obtain that entire arrest record but here are a few snapshots.
I am not going to include Johnson’s snapshots of the stepfather’s alleged activities. This is pure character assassination. I hope no one ever judges me by how my father acted in life. He was a jerk of the highest order, but that has nothing to do with me as a person. Suggesting that Brown was involved in a gang without proof of any sort, is despicable. It’s easy for him to do because of Michael’s race and the fact he’s no longer alive to defend himself. That “long rap sheet” Johnson refers to consists of two arrests. If Michael Brown was complicit in criminal activity, or his stepfather was, that still does not mean he deserved to be gunned down on the street while unarmed. We’ll never know what kind of man Michael could have become, or the contributions to society he may have made, because his life was taken from him by Darren Wilson, who Johnson seems to be supportive of. Twitter users answered Johnson’s question for him.
@bostonhow @ChuckCJohnson It also includes robbery. So Chuck just 100% lied. No way around it. http://t.co/rwMEPcxWDq — P. Johnson (@JWVU00) September 3, 2014
@ChuckCJohnson Class A or Class B, I believe is what they said. Perhaps you can look it up.
— Christopher Scott (@thecascott) September 3, 2014
@ChuckCJohnson Second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, involuntary manslaughter, second-degree robbery, first-degree burglary… — Cody Johnston (@drmistercody) September 3, 2014
.@ChuckCJohnson Second Degree Murder is a serious felony. Are you going to apologize for spreading that false rumor?
— Steven (@lllSMSlll) September 3, 2014
Keep digging, Charles. You look mahvelous! I’m not even going to do a Google search, but I’d bet that Charles went after Trayvon Martin with vigor. Just a hunch.
A far, far, far right wing blogger tweets:
Lawyers state no records exist of second degree murder and #mikebrown#Ferguson — Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) September 3, 2014
Too late, Jim. You took his claim to heart previously.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 20:01
Despicable James O’Keefe wannabe. It would be nice, as an intellectual exercise, to dig into Mr. Johnson’s background, including as many of his relatives as possible. My bet is that they are a less than stellar group of citizens. But, wait, he actually doesn’t do any research! He makes stuff up whole cloth and puts it out there for every slimy fringe rightie to spin.
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 20:01
Despicable James O’Keefe wannabe. It would be nice, as an intellectual exercise, to dig into Mr. Johnson’s background, including as many of his relatives as possible. My bet is that they are a less than stellar group of citizens. But, wait, he actually doesn’t do any research! He makes stuff up whole cloth and puts it out there for every slimy fringe rightie to spin.
neworleans878 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:09
Disgusting.
More disgusting are all the yahoos wishing and hoping…salivating that he finds ANYTHING!
ps…heard he once got time out for a spitball incident back in the second grade…I’m sure this can be spun into the dangerous thug motif they’re so desperate for.
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:18
He got 505 retweets for that big fat lie.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:59
I don’t know how that stuff works, twitter. What does retweeting do? Put it on your own feed or something?
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:02
If you tweet something, then others ‘retweet’ it, it sends it out to more people and circulates it. That’s a hell of a lot of retweets.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 21:08
Hopefully there retweets that mock his stupidity. Can you do that with those? 3:)
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:57
Oh yeah, for sure. It’s very handy for that! Alan gets a ton of hate tweets every day. He just retweets them instead of answering them.
nola878 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:09
Disgusting.
More disgusting are all the yahoos wishing and hoping…salivating that he finds ANYTHING!
ps…heard he once got time out for a spitball incident back in the second grade…I’m sure this can be spun into the dangerous thug motif they’re so desperate for.
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:18
He got 505 retweets for that big fat lie.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:59
I don’t know how that stuff works, twitter. What does retweeting do? Put it on your own feed or something?
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:02
If you tweet something, then others ‘retweet’ it, it sends it out to more people and circulates it. That’s a hell of a lot of retweets.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 21:08
Hopefully there retweets that mock his stupidity. Can you do that with those? 3:)
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:57
Oh yeah, for sure. It’s very handy for that! Alan gets a ton of hate tweets every day. He just retweets them instead of answering them.
NW10 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:17
And he continues to dig deeper:
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507269466057875456
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507282639808524288
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507282959238320128
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:29
Holy shit. This guy is a total douche.
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 20:34
Finally! a way to give more than one up vote!
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:35
:-) Yay!!!
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:01
You can say that again. Oh wait, you did, you did!:-)
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 21:04
I got use to the moderation purgatory on some of the other sites that don’t have real mods. Just the Hammer. Sometimes, I don’t bother but this guy … needed his scarlet letter M (for Massengil) attached to his forehead for his sin of douchebaggery and bad “journalism”.
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:59
Well we have great mods here. Not me though. I’m an awful person:-)
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 22:28
Yes, I can attest to that, she’s horrible!
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 23:22
You’ll never get ‘it’ back now!
Mainah September 4th, 2014 at 09:03
That works. Now I won’t feel so alone in my awfulness. ;-)
Anomaly 100 September 4th, 2014 at 09:33
Solidarity for the awful people!
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:30
Holy crap! This guy is a total douche.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:37
Ok, I had to copy and paste this because that’s all I know how to do. But, I found this tweet under the “help me out.” tweet and this should just say
“I am Douche! Hear me squirt!!!!”
Charles C. Johnson @ChuckCJohnson · 4h
Critics, I know you aren’t used to people not caring if you call them racist but you’re going to have to get used to it with me.
Oops … I figured it out:
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507267749937422336
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) September 3rd, 2014 at 20:17
And he continues to dig deeper:
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507269466057875456
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507282639808524288
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507282959238320128
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:29
Holy shit. This guy is a total douche.
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 20:34
Finally! a way to give more than one up vote!
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:35
:-) Yay!!!
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:01
You can say that again. Oh wait, you did, you did!:-)
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 21:04
I got use to the moderation purgatory on some of the other sites that don’t have real mods. Just the Hammer. Sometimes, I don’t bother but this guy … needed his scarlet letter M (for Massengil) attached to his forehead for his sin of douchebaggery and bad “journalism”.
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:59
Well we have great mods here. Not me though. I’m an awful person:-)
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 22:28
Yes, I can attest to that, she’s horrible!
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 23:22
You’ll never get ‘it’ back now!
Mainah September 4th, 2014 at 09:03
That works. Now I won’t feel so alone in my awfulness. ;-)
Anomaly 100 September 4th, 2014 at 09:33
Solidarity for the awful people!
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:30
Holy crap! This guy is a total douche.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:37
Ok, I had to copy and paste this because that’s all I know how to do. But, I found this tweet under the “help me out.” tweet and this should just say
“I am Douche! Hear me squirt!!!!”
Charles C. Johnson @ChuckCJohnson · 4h
Critics, I know you aren’t used to people not caring if you call them racist but you’re going to have to get used to it with me.
Oops … I figured it out:
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/507267749937422336
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 20:21
BTW, the “GotNews” outlet is Johnson’s and it’s full of fringe conspiracy crap. From his “About” page:
Investigative journalist and author Charles C Johnson got the idea for Got News when he stopped writing for other outlets in January 2014. Johnson was frustrated with the lack of serious investigative journalism, and the adversity to risk of the national media, with the constant “stenography” of DC and NYC media who cozied up to power rather than spoke truth to it.
He was a contributor to the Daily Caller and the Blaze, and his work is frequently featured on Drudge Report.
So, he was dismissed from the lowest of the fringe right media and he’s starting his own vain glorious effort!
Oh, and the best part:
“…members will join the site and start posting stories to earn income based on their web traffic.”
Can’t wait for that all those well researched caps lock and spelling challenged articles to bring him a Pulitzer Prize for Innovations in Journalism!
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:28
Well with stunning investigatory skills, astute knowledge of fact based writing like that … I’m sure the Palin crew will be pounding at his door.
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:38
Thanks for going there and saving the rest of us from having to. He sounds like a milk mustache would be more appropriate than that distinguished beard thing he’s trying for.
tiredoftea September 4th, 2014 at 00:45
Yeah, he’s a pathetic little excuse for a human.
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 20:21
BTW, the “GotNews” outlet is Johnson’s and it’s full of fringe conspiracy crap. From his “About” page:
Investigative journalist and author Charles C Johnson got the idea for Got News when he stopped writing for other outlets in January 2014. Johnson was frustrated with the lack of serious investigative journalism, and the adversity to risk of the national media, with the constant “stenography” of DC and NYC media who cozied up to power rather than spoke truth to it.
He was a contributor to the Daily Caller and the Blaze, and his work is frequently featured on Drudge Report.
So, he was dismissed from the lowest of the fringe right media and he’s starting his own vain glorious effort!
Oh, and the best part:
“…members will join the site and start posting stories to earn income based on their web traffic.”
Can’t wait for that all those well researched caps lock and spelling challenged articles to bring him a Pulitzer Prize for Innovations in Journalism!
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:28
Well with stunning investigatory skills, astute knowledge of fact based writing like that … I’m sure the Palin crew will be pounding at his door.
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:38
Thanks for going there and saving the rest of us from having to. He sounds like a milk mustache would be more appropriate than that distinguished beard thing he’s trying for.
tiredoftea September 4th, 2014 at 00:45
Yeah, he’s a pathetic little excuse for a human.
Linda1961 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:22
How about getting Darren Wilson’s juvenile records, and the criminal records of his parents?
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:35
–Get his PARENTS juvenile records, too!
Isiah Abraham September 4th, 2014 at 19:32
MD Reese: You state: “–Get his PARENTS juvenile records, too!”
And one will ask you the same questions: Why?
Secondly, is Mr. Wilson under the guardianship of his parents?
M D Reese September 5th, 2014 at 19:54
SNARK. There. Linda1961’s comment was also snark. The question you ask is the question we are asking–what does Mr. Brown’s juvenile records have to do with him being murdered by a cop, and what on earth would his STEPFATHER’s records have to do with it?
Isiah Abraham September 6th, 2014 at 18:11
MD Reese: You state: “SNARK. There. Linda1961’s comment was also snark. The question you ask is the question we are
asking–what does Mr. Brown’s juvenile records have to do with him being murdered by a cop, and what on earth would his STEPFATHER’s records have to do with it?”
First of all, we didn’t know that it had already been proven through competent and verifiable evidence and
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Brown had been murdered. Evidently you are way ahead of the curve and everyone else who is waiting for proof to be presented is far behind you. So being someone who is far behind you, I have to ask you: “From where did you get all the substantiated evidence that has led you to judge conclusively and unequivocally
that this was indeed murder?
Secondly, if a question that we have here in this case is one of behaviors, and specifically at this point, Mr. Brown’s behavior during the time of his death, then should we not have access to
records that could shed more light on his pattern of behavior? Should we not have access to records that could shed more light on what kind of individual he actually was and not what kind of individual people have portrayed him to be? And since he was only 18 and not that far removed from what some would consider to be his “ juvenile years,” then why not answer the question by looking into his juvenile records? Those records, along with the video from the convenience store, should give us a much better picture of who Mr. Brown was and not what other people want us to think or believe that he was? Or do you believe that we should only be allowed to use the video from the convenience store to make such a judgment? And if so, why?
Thirdly, I also believe that they are going back in time to search Mr. Wilson’s police record. Now, if there is no reason to look back into records; specifically, Mr. Brown’s juvenile record, then what is the reasoning behind looking back into Mr. Wilson’s six year record? In other words, “if the only thing that matters is what occurred during that incident (as you and others seem to want us to believe), then why do that? Why does Mr. Wilson’s six year record on the force matter? Why did people, who supposedly have a problem with looking back a records, ask to see that?
M D Reese September 7th, 2014 at 15:36
Oh pulleze!. As for the Officer’s record while on the force, that is directly relevant to his killing Mr. Brown. By the way, more eye-witness accounts are belying the police dept.’s story. They even found two white witnesses, so perhaps they’ll look into it.
Isiah Abraham September 10th, 2014 at 19:39
You say, “Oh pulleze!”
Please????? What are you “oh pleasing” about?
2. You say, “As for the Officer’s record while on the force, that is directly relevant to his killing Mr. Brown.”
And Mr. Brown’s isn’t? Interesting. So based on what has happened so far, let me see if I have an accurate understanding of what you are asking for us to do at this point: So far, we know from reports that it has been alleged that Officer Wilson has contended that he shot Michael Brown after Michael Brown had a) attacked him and; b) made an attempt to wrest away his weapon.
With the aforementioned in mind, and with you trying to assert that the record of Officer Wilson’s actions and behaviors is the only one that is directly relevant to this case, it appears then that what you are asking from us is that we should reason and believe that, even though reports have contended that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown after Michael Brown had a)
attacked him and; b) made an attempt to wrest his weapon away from him, the record of Michael Brown’s own actions and behaviors is not relevant to his killing, and therefore is
not relevant to the case. Again, I have to say, “Interesting.’
Now, if that is what you are asking for us to reason and believe, then we can do that if you will do one thing: Can you please explain to us the reason why we should ignore the fact
that it has been reported that Officer Wilson has contended that he shot Michael Brown after Michael Brown had a) attacked him and; b) made an attempt to wrest his weapon away from him? Why should we ignore such a contention in regards to Michael Brown’s own actions and behavior to the point where we make a judgment that a record of Mr. Wilson’s own actions and behaviors is the only record of actions and behavior that is relevant to this case? Why, if it is believed to be the case that Michael Brown did indeed attack Officer Wilson and attempted to wrest away his weapon, should everyone ignore that record? Can you please explain to us why this would be the reasonable and honest thing to do?
2 You say, “By the way, more eye-witness accounts are belying the police dept.’s story.”
Yes, and what’s your point? With the DOJ and its FBI agents
involved , shouldn’t we expect to see more “credible“ “eye-witnesses” coming forward?
3. You say, “They even found two white witnesses, so perhaps they’ll look into it.”
Are we really supposed to be impressed by “two white
witnesses?” Are we really supposed to be surprised that these were found? In fact, so far, with many of the witnesses
being Blacks from Ferguson who are “down for the struggle” and sympathetic to Michael Brown and the Black cause, who
couldn’t see someone trying to invoke the “find me some white witnesses to validate the story” strategy?
Secondly, in respects to witnesses, with a case of this
magnitude, don’t you think that you can find practically anyone to say what you want them to say after the fact (especially if you are as powerful as the government)? With this being the likely case case, the one witness’s account that I find to be the most compelling in all of this is the young man who, unbeknownst to him, was caught immediately after the shooting giving an account of what he had seen. You have
heard of that cell phone recording, haven’t you? Well, that right there is the testimony that has probably been the one that has been the most honest and truthful. That right there is
the testimony that has not been so influenced and colored by the attention that this case has received, that it could be considered tainted.
By the way, the fact that you seem more impressed by reports of “white witnesses” than you are of reports of the individual
who, immediately after the shooting, was caught describing the incident on a cell phone recording, speaks volumes.
Isiah Abraham September 4th, 2014 at 19:30
You say, “How about getting Darren Wilson’s juvenile records, and the criminal records of his parents?”
Why?
Secondly, is Mr. Wilson under the guardianship of his parents?
Thirdly, if you have a problem with people asking for Mr. Brown’s juvenile records, then I’m sure that you have and have had a problem when he, Mr. Brown was being portrayed as some sort of juvenile? And if not, why?
Ty Ellison September 3rd, 2014 at 20:22
I said it before and I’ll say it again. If ANYTHING about Michael Brown is fair game, then surely Officer Wilson’s past is fair game, after all, he’s the SHOOTER. What role(s) did Wilson play in a police department so corrupt that the entire DEPARTMENT was fired? Where’s ANONYMOUS?
Linda1961 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:22
How about getting Darren Wilson’s juvenile records, and the criminal records of his parents?
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:35
–Get his PARENTS juvenile records, too!
Isiah Abraham September 4th, 2014 at 19:32
MD Reese: You state: “–Get his PARENTS juvenile records, too!”
And one will ask you the same questions: Why?
Secondly, is Mr. Wilson under the guardianship of his parents?
M D Reese September 5th, 2014 at 19:54
SNARK. There. Linda1961’s comment was also snark. The question you ask is the question we are asking–what does Mr. Brown’s juvenile records have to do with him being murdered by a cop, and what on earth would his STEPFATHER’s records have to do with it?
Isiah Abraham September 6th, 2014 at 18:11
MD Reese: You state: “SNARK. There. Linda1961’s comment was also snark. The question you ask is the question we are
asking–what does Mr. Brown’s juvenile records have to do with him being murdered by a cop, and what on earth would his STEPFATHER’s records have to do with it?”
First of all, we didn’t know that it had already been proven through competent and verifiable evidence and
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Brown had been murdered. Evidently you are way ahead of the curve and everyone else who is waiting for proof to be presented is far behind you. So being someone who is far behind you, I have to ask you: “From where did you get all the substantiated evidence that has led you to judge conclusively and unequivocally
that this was indeed murder?
Secondly, if a question that we have here in this case is one of behaviors, and specifically at this point, Mr. Brown’s behavior during the time of his death, then should we not have access to
records that could shed more light on his pattern of behavior? Should we not have access to records that could shed more light on what kind of individual he actually was and not what kind of individual people have portrayed him to be? And since he was only 18 and not that far removed from what some would consider to be his “ juvenile years,” then why not answer the question by looking into his juvenile records? Those records, along with the video from the convenience store, should give us a much better picture of who Mr. Brown was and not what other people want us to think or believe that he was? Or do you believe that we should only be allowed to use the video from the convenience store to make such a judgment? And if so, why?
Thirdly, I also believe that they are going back in time to search Mr. Wilson’s police record. Now, if there is no reason to look back into records; specifically, Mr. Brown’s juvenile record, then what is the reasoning behind looking back into Mr. Wilson’s six year record? In other words, “if the only thing that matters is what occurred during that incident (as you and others seem to want us to believe), then why do that? Why does Mr. Wilson’s six year record on the force matter? Why did people, who supposedly have a problem with looking back a records, ask to see that?
M D Reese September 7th, 2014 at 15:36
Oh pulleze!. As for the Officer’s record while on the force, that is directly relevant to his killing Mr. Brown. By the way, more eye-witness accounts are belying the police dept.’s story. They even found two white witnesses, so perhaps they’ll look into it.
Isiah Abraham September 10th, 2014 at 19:39
You say, “Oh pulleze!”
Please????? What are you “oh pleasing” about?
2. You say, “As for the Officer’s record while on the force, that is directly relevant to his killing Mr. Brown.”
And Mr. Brown’s isn’t? Interesting. So based on what has happened so far, let me see if I have an accurate understanding of what you are asking for us to do at this point: So far, we know from reports that it has been alleged that Officer Wilson has contended that he shot Michael Brown after Michael Brown had a) attacked him and; b) made an attempt to wrest away his weapon.
With the aforementioned in mind, and with you trying to assert that the record of Officer Wilson’s actions and behaviors is the only one that is directly relevant to this case, it appears then that what you are asking from us is that we should reason and believe that, even though reports have contended that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown after Michael Brown had a)
attacked him and; b) made an attempt to wrest his weapon away from him, the record of Michael Brown’s own actions and behaviors is not relevant to his killing, and therefore is
not relevant to the case. Again, I have to say, “Interesting.’
Now, if that is what you are asking for us to reason and believe, then we can do that if you will do one thing: Can you please explain to us the reason why we should ignore the fact
that it has been reported that Officer Wilson has contended that he shot Michael Brown after Michael Brown had a) attacked him and; b) made an attempt to wrest his weapon away from him? Why should we ignore such a contention in regards to Michael Brown’s own actions and behavior to the point where we make a judgment that a record of Mr. Wilson’s own actions and behaviors is the only record of actions and behavior that is relevant to this case? Why, if it is believed to be the case that Michael Brown did indeed attack Officer Wilson and attempted to wrest away his weapon, should everyone ignore that record? Can you please explain to us why this would be the reasonable and honest thing to do?
2 You say, “By the way, more eye-witness accounts are belying the police dept.’s story.”
Yes, and what’s your point? With the DOJ and its FBI agents
involved , shouldn’t we expect to see more “credible“ “eye-witnesses” coming forward?
3. You say, “They even found two white witnesses, so perhaps they’ll look into it.”
Are we really supposed to be impressed by “two white
witnesses?” Are we really supposed to be surprised that these were found? In fact, so far, with many of the witnesses
being Blacks from Ferguson who are “down for the struggle” and sympathetic to Michael Brown and the Black cause, who
couldn’t see someone trying to invoke the “find me some white witnesses to validate the story” strategy?
Secondly, in respects to witnesses, with a case of this
magnitude, don’t you think that you can find practically anyone to say what you want them to say after the fact (especially if you are as powerful as the government)? With this being the likely case case, the one witness’s account that I find to be the most compelling in all of this is the young man who, unbeknownst to him, was caught immediately after the shooting giving an account of what he had seen. You have
heard of that cell phone recording, haven’t you? Well, that right there is the testimony that has probably been the one that has been the most honest and truthful. That right there is
the testimony that has not been so influenced and colored by the attention that this case has received, that it could be considered tainted.
By the way, the fact that you seem more impressed by reports of “white witnesses” than you are of reports of the individual
who, immediately after the shooting, was caught describing the incident on a cell phone recording, speaks volumes.
Isiah Abraham September 4th, 2014 at 19:30
You say, “How about getting Darren Wilson’s juvenile records, and the criminal records of his parents?”
Why?
Secondly, is Mr. Wilson under the guardianship of his parents?
Thirdly, if you have a problem with people asking for Mr. Brown’s juvenile records, then I’m sure that you have and have had a problem when he, Mr. Brown was being portrayed as some sort of juvenile? And if not, why?
Ty Ellison September 3rd, 2014 at 20:22
I said it before and I’ll say it again. If ANYTHING about Michael Brown is fair game, then surely Officer Wilson’s past is fair game, after all, he’s the SHOOTER. What role(s) did Wilson play in a police department so corrupt that the entire DEPARTMENT was fired? Where’s ANONYMOUS?
edmeyer_able September 3rd, 2014 at 20:29
This just happened…..Justice Dept to launch an investigation of FPD.
.http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/justice/ferguson-justice-department-investigation/index.html
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 20:54
It’s about time.
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:28
It’s looking like they should just investigate ALL police departments coast to coast. And definitely take away their whiz-bang military equipment.
edmeyer_able September 3rd, 2014 at 20:29
This just happened…..Justice Dept to launch an investigation of FPD.
.http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/justice/ferguson-justice-department-investigation/index.html
mea_mark September 3rd, 2014 at 20:54
It’s about time.
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:28
It’s looking like they should just investigate ALL police departments coast to coast. And definitely take away their whiz-bang military equipment.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:45
This is still America, despite what the right wants to try to assert, and in this country a police officer can not gun down an 18 year old who is surrendering. Even if, if they got into a scuffle … the officer again can’t gun him down in the streets. Sorry but that’s the way it’s suppose to work. In fact, in this country … you’re actually suppose to be innocent before proven guilty. This is insane and if this is there idea of reporting, whatever college he attended, should hang up their accreditation.
Isiah Abraham September 4th, 2014 at 19:22
You state, “This is still America, despite what the right wants to try to assert, and in this country a police officer can not gun down an 18 year old who is surrendering.”
And yet in America, we can, before verifiable and confirmed evidence has been established, assert that the 18year old was surrendering. Very interesting. So Mainah, why, in America, are we allowed to pass judgement before verifiable and confirmed evidence has been established? What makes that action better or different than the action of the hypothetical police officer who guns down an 18 year old who is surrendering?
2. You state, ‘ Even if, if they got into a scuffle … the officer again can’t gun him down in the streets.”
And why is this? Instead of simply telling us what, in your opinion, a police officer can and can’t do, why don’t you try also explaining to us why?
3. You state: “Sorry but that’s the way it’s suppose to work. In fact, in this country … you’re actually suppose to be innocent before proven guilty.”
And yet, taking from your comments, you have already judged the officer guilty. So does the supposing to be “innocent before proven guilty” thing only apply to Mr. Brown in this case? And if so, why does the same standard not apply to the accused officer?
4. You state: “This is insane and if this is their idea of reporting, whatever college he attended, should hang up their accreditation.”
Pot meet kettle and…..
Mainah September 4th, 2014 at 19:49
Yes in America. I can state this because it’s the law. Deadly force, there are rules to its’ use. I can state that his hand were up according to the witnesses who saw the incident and the coroner’s report that gives the ballistics. Hard for a guy to kill you that is unarmed, with 6 rounds in him, and one shot 25 feet away. Yeah, that’s a huge problem.
I haven’t portrayed the officer in a bad light like the “blogger” has which this article addresses. Maybe you missed that part. Nor have I pushed forth erroneous information regarding the office like this “blogger” has. After all … this the point of the article. Or maybe you missed that point too?
I can assert my opinion because unlike the guy in this article, I’m not putting myself out there as a reporter.
So, let’s just wrap this puppy up. Logic meet this guy, he needs you. ;-)
Isiah Abraham September 5th, 2014 at 19:10
You said, “Yes in America. I can state this because it’s the law.”
Well, if you don’t mind, let’s bring the law in and let’s see if this is indeed the case. Let’s see if it does in fact say what you state that it says:
Missouri’s Rule on Deadly Force By Cop :
“A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.”
So now, Mainah, where does it say, as you have stated, that a “Even if, if they got into a scuffle … the officer again can’t gun him
down in the streets.”
2. You say, “Deadly force, there are rules to
its use. “
Yes, I’m sure that practically everyone is aware of the fact that there are rules to the use of deadly force, but can you look at the actual rules and explain to us how, as
you have so far contended, that any of
them were actually broken?
3. You say, “I can state that his hands were up according to the witnesses who saw the incident and the coroners report that gives the ballistics.”
Interesting. So what coroner’s report has definitively stated that Mr. Brown’s “hands were up?” And what overwhelming ballistic evidence has been given by that coroner to back up that contention? Please cite where this report is? Now the reason why I have to ask you this is because, though I have yet to find this stated in any news report, it appears that you have found it stated.
Secondly, there appears to be two sets of witnesses: one that says that his hands were up, while the other says that his hands were down, right? So how about the other
reports of witnesses who have stated otherwise? Why have you chosen to state
according to those witnesses who say that his hands were up? Have you found them to be more credible than those who say otherwise? If so, how did you find out?
Thirdly, why does a simple contention of “hands up” mean that someone no longer possesses a threat to an arresting officer?
4. You say, “Hard for a guy to kill you that is unarmed with 6 rounds in him, and one shot 25 feet away.”
Do you mean before or after the “6 rounds in him”?
5. You say, “Yeah, that‘s a huge problem.”
What’s a “huge problem? What are you trying to say here? Do you mind clarifying?
6. You say, “ I haven’t portrayed the officer in a bad light like the “blogger” has which this article addresses.”
Maybe we have differing definitions of what constitutes a “bad light.” Lol! So, in your opinion, trying to say that an officer gunned down an “18 year old who is
surrendering with his hands up“ is not portraying that officer in a “bad light?” So then let me ask you this: if not a “bad
light,” then what kind of light does that
put the officer under? What kind of
light is the officer being portrayed in when you tell people that he shot a surrendering young man who simply had his hands up ?
7. You say, “ Nor have I pushed forth erroneous information regarding the office like this “blogger” has.”
Well, if that is indeed the case then how do you now that the information that you have pushed forth regarding the officer shooting an ““18 year old who is surrendering with his
hands up“ is itself not erroneous?
8. You say, “After all … this the point of the article. Or maybe you missed that point too?”
Maybe I did?
9. You say, “I can assert my opinion because unlike the guy in this article, I’m not putting myself out there as a reporter.”
And yet, here you are out here reporting that “ his hands were up according to the
witnesses who saw the incident and the coroners report that gives the ballistics.” But yet you are not reporting? Okay.
10. You say, “ let’s just wrap this puppy up.
Logic meet this guy, he needs you. ;-)”
And I guess you must be of the opinion that you don’t? Lol!! Intersting. So Mainah, if Logic chose to come to you first, then why do you believe that anyone else needs him and needs to meet him before you?
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 20:45
This is still America, despite what the right wants to try to assert, and in this country a police officer can not gun down an 18 year old who is surrendering. Even if, if they got into a scuffle … the officer again can’t gun him down in the streets. Sorry but that’s the way it’s suppose to work. In fact, in this country … you’re actually suppose to be innocent before proven guilty. This is insane and if this is their idea of reporting, whatever college he attended, should hang up their accreditation.
Isiah Abraham September 4th, 2014 at 19:22
You state, “This is still America, despite what the right wants to try to assert, and in this country a police officer can not gun down an 18 year old who is surrendering.”
And yet in America, we can, before verifiable and confirmed evidence has been established, assert that the 18year old was surrendering. Very interesting. So Mainah, why, in America, are we allowed to pass judgement before verifiable and confirmed evidence has been established? What makes that action better or different than the action of the hypothetical police officer who guns down an 18 year old who is surrendering?
2. You state, ‘ Even if, if they got into a scuffle … the officer again can’t gun him down in the streets.”
And why is this? Instead of simply telling us what, in your opinion, a police officer can and can’t do, why don’t you try also explaining to us why?
3. You state: “Sorry but that’s the way it’s suppose to work. In fact, in this country … you’re actually suppose to be innocent before proven guilty.”
And yet, taking from your comments, you have already judged the officer guilty. So does the supposing to be “innocent before proven guilty” thing only apply to Mr. Brown in this case? And if so, why does the same standard not apply to the accused officer?
4. You state: “This is insane and if this is their idea of reporting, whatever college he attended, should hang up their accreditation.”
Pot meet kettle and…..
Mainah September 4th, 2014 at 19:49
Yes in America. I can state this because it’s the law. Deadly force, there are rules to its’ use. I can state that his hand were up according to the witnesses who saw the incident and the coroner’s report that gives the ballistics. Hard for a guy to kill you that is unarmed, with 6 rounds in him, and one shot 25 feet away. Yeah, that’s a huge problem.
I haven’t portrayed the officer in a bad light like the “blogger” has which this article addresses. Maybe you missed that part. Nor have I pushed forth erroneous information regarding the office like this “blogger” has. After all … this the point of the article. Or maybe you missed that point too?
I can assert my opinion because unlike the guy in this article, I’m not putting myself out there as a reporter.
So, let’s just wrap this puppy up. Logic meet this guy, he needs you. ;-)
Isiah Abraham September 5th, 2014 at 19:10
You said, “Yes in America. I can state this because it’s the law.”
Well, if you don’t mind, let’s bring the law in and let’s see if this is indeed the case. Let’s see if it does in fact say what you state that it says:
Missouri’s Rule on Deadly Force By Cop :
“A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.”
So now, Mainah, where does it say, as you have stated, that a “Even if, if they got into a scuffle … the officer again can’t gun him
down in the streets.”
2. You say, “Deadly force, there are rules to
its use. “
Yes, I’m sure that practically everyone is aware of the fact that there are rules to the use of deadly force, but can you look at the actual rules and explain to us how, as
you have so far contended, that any of
them were actually broken?
3. You say, “I can state that his hands were up according to the witnesses who saw the incident and the coroners report that gives the ballistics.”
Interesting. So what coroner’s report has definitively stated that Mr. Brown’s “hands were up?” And what overwhelming ballistic evidence has been given by that coroner to back up that contention? Please cite where this report is? Now the reason why I have to ask you this is because, though I have yet to find this stated in any news report, it appears that you have found it stated.
Secondly, there appears to be two sets of witnesses: one that says that his hands were up, while the other says that his hands were down, right? So how about the other
reports of witnesses who have stated otherwise? Why have you chosen to state
according to those witnesses who say that his hands were up? Have you found them to be more credible than those who say otherwise? If so, how did you find out?
Thirdly, why does a simple contention of “hands up” mean that someone no longer possesses a threat to an arresting officer?
4. You say, “Hard for a guy to kill you that is unarmed with 6 rounds in him, and one shot 25 feet away.”
Do you mean before or after the “6 rounds in him”?
5. You say, “Yeah, that‘s a huge problem.”
What’s a “huge problem? What are you trying to say here? Do you mind clarifying?
6. You say, “ I haven’t portrayed the officer in a bad light like the “blogger” has which this article addresses.”
Maybe we have differing definitions of what constitutes a “bad light.” Lol! So, in your opinion, trying to say that an officer gunned down an “18 year old who is
surrendering with his hands up“ is not portraying that officer in a “bad light?” So then let me ask you this: if not a “bad
light,” then what kind of light does that
put the officer under? What kind of
light is the officer being portrayed in when you tell people that he shot a surrendering young man who simply had his hands up ?
7. You say, “ Nor have I pushed forth erroneous information regarding the office like this “blogger” has.”
Well, if that is indeed the case then how do you now that the information that you have pushed forth regarding the officer shooting an ““18 year old who is surrendering with his
hands up“ is itself not erroneous?
8. You say, “After all … this the point of the article. Or maybe you missed that point too?”
Maybe I did?
9. You say, “I can assert my opinion because unlike the guy in this article, I’m not putting myself out there as a reporter.”
And yet, here you are out here reporting that “ his hands were up according to the
witnesses who saw the incident and the coroners report that gives the ballistics.” But yet you are not reporting? Okay.
10. You say, “ let’s just wrap this puppy up.
Logic meet this guy, he needs you. ;-)”
And I guess you must be of the opinion that you don’t? Lol!! Intersting. So Mainah, if Logic chose to come to you first, then why do you believe that anyone else needs him and needs to meet him before you?
NW10 September 3rd, 2014 at 20:57
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/501445429616066560
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:00
Let me guess. The tip came from Ferguson police officers.
NW10 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:04
Just saw that the tweet is from the 18th. Even though he’s been debunked (once again) he still continues to dig deeper.
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:57
He’s panicking. He was wrong and he knows it.
Linda1961 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:05
The same officers who are covering for the killer and coward Wilson?
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 22:10
Yup, those credible guys.
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 21:51
No, Fraud Spews.
Tommy6860 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:52
This guy think he looks smart, ala Rick Perry O.O!
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:56
He’s doing it wrong.
Tommy6860 September 3rd, 2014 at 22:23
You mean, he’s not deleting his stupid-assed tweets?
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 22:26
No because he’s just that stupid. Besides, I took screenshots.
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:26
So is Rick Perry.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 21:00
I love his reporting style …. “I’m gonna say it and then see if it’s true.” WTF?
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:25
He learned it from watching Fox “news”.
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 22:00
Freudian Slip! By GOP @ChuckCJohnson “2nd Degree Murder” by Ferguson PD Darren Wilson for “jaywalking” while black is Summary Execution.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) September 3rd, 2014 at 20:57
https://twitter.com/ChuckCJohnson/status/501445429616066560
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:00
Let me guess. The tip came from Ferguson police officers.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) September 3rd, 2014 at 21:04
Just saw that the tweet is from the 18th. Even though he’s been debunked (once again) he still continues to dig deeper.
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:57
He’s panicking. He was wrong and he knows it.
Linda1961 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:05
The same officers who are covering for the killer and coward Wilson?
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 22:10
Yup, those credible guys.
tiredoftea September 3rd, 2014 at 21:51
No, Fraud Spews.
Tommy6860 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:52
This guy think he looks smart, ala Rick Perry O.O!
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 21:56
He’s doing it wrong.
Tommy6860 September 3rd, 2014 at 22:23
You mean, he’s not deleting his stupid-assed tweets?
Anomaly 100 September 3rd, 2014 at 22:26
No because he’s just that stupid. Besides, I took screenshots.
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:26
So is Rick Perry.
Mainah September 3rd, 2014 at 21:00
I love his reporting style …. “I’m gonna say it and then see if it’s true.” WTF?
M D Reese September 4th, 2014 at 00:25
He learned it from watching Fox “news”.
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 22:00
Freudian Slip! By GOP @ChuckCJohnson “2nd Degree Murder” by Ferguson PD Darren Wilson for “jaywalking” while black is Summary Execution.
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 21:58
“Fresno, Calif Guber Candidate Supported by @ChuckCJohnson behind bars for shooting neighbor, killing a horse”-GOP TV! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/14/california-governor-candidate-behind-bars-for-shooting-neighbor-killing-horse/http://www.
Carlos Sullivan November 26th, 2014 at 21:38
and one of Obama’s major donors was brought up on charges for sexually abusing a young boy. Your point?
Obewon November 26th, 2014 at 22:18
‘GOP endorsed Politician and Candidate running for “California Governor is behind bars for Shooting a neighbor and killing a horse.” You teabaggs are so functionally illiterate you don’t even know the difference between a GOP Candidate In jail for attempted Murder vs some donor charged but not in jail. OMFG! Apparently there isn’t one intelligent person remaining in and voting for GOP, except Colin Powell!
Obewon September 3rd, 2014 at 21:58
“Fresno, Calif Guber Candidate Supported by @ChuckCJohnson behind bars for shooting neighbor, killing a horse”-GOP TV! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/14/california-governor-candidate-behind-bars-for-shooting-neighbor-killing-horse/
Carlos Sullivan November 26th, 2014 at 22:38
and one of Obama’s major donors was brought up on charges for sexually abusing a young boy. Your point?
Obewon November 26th, 2014 at 23:18
‘GOP endorsed Politician and Candidate running for “California Governor is behind bars for Shooting a neighbor and killing a horse.” You teabaggs are so functionally illiterate you don’t even know the difference between a GOP Candidate In jail for attempted Murder vs some donor charged but not in jail. OMFG! Apparently there isn’t one intelligent person remaining in and voting for GOP, except Colin Powell!
ShitheadOfTheDay Grand Prize winner: “Carlos Sullivan (To David Saint 4 hours ago) what are you . . . his mommy?”
“Carlos Sullivan (To David Saint) 4 hours ago
Loser!”