I Was Right Again
 

Good shoot in Ferguson.

I Was Right Again
 

On Thursday, 23 October 2014 07:20:49 UTC-7, pigo wrote:
Good shoot in Ferguson.

Right AGAIN? Yeah, sure... just like you claimed to be right about the WMD in Iraq and clung to that fantasy even after every other right-wing nut conceded they never existed. Yup, you're SPECIAL, Pigo.

I Was Right Again
 

On 2014-10-23 14:20:48 +0000, pigo said:

Good shoot in Ferguson.

Sorry... ...but that is far from supported, let alone proven.

I Was Right Again
 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:13:34 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thursday, 23 October 2014 07:20:49 UTC-7, pigo wrote:
Good shoot in Ferguson.

Right AGAIN? Yeah, sure... just like you claimed to be right about the WMD in Iraq and clung to that fantasy even after every other right-wing nut conceded they never existed. Yup, you're SPECIAL, Pigo.

Well they've finally come up with some of the gas in Iraq. Iran war era but he had them nonetheless. And the bet now is that the grand jury will not indict. My own caveat is that they might know not to but do it anyway to stroke the racists.

I Was Right Again
 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:20:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2014-10-23 14:20:48 +0000, pigo said:

Good shoot in Ferguson.

Sorry... ...but that is far from supported, let alone proven.

I didn't say it was "proven". It's appearing to be supported. And sure as hell a lot closer to what I was saying as opposed to the racists using only skin color to form their own opinions.

But mostly I just wanted to generate some traffic. Thanks!

I Was Right Again
 

On 2014-10-23 18:52:13 +0000, pigo said:

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:20:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2014-10-23 14:20:48 +0000, pigo said:

Good shoot in Ferguson.

Sorry... ...but that is far from supported, let alone proven.

I didn't say it was "proven". It's appearing to be supported. And sure
as hell a lot closer to what I was saying as opposed to the racists
using only skin color to form their own opinions.

You said "good shoot" and that is not even supported.


But mostly I just wanted to generate some traffic. Thanks!

I Was Right Again
 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:54:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

You said "good shoot" and that is not even supported.

The gunshot residue on his hands? All shots from the front? The policeman's injuries aren't out yet aside from very limited descriptions. But everything I'm hearing in the last couple of days leans towards what I was saying from the start.

I Was Right Again
 

On 2014-10-23 19:51:32 +0000, pigo said:

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:54:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

You said "good shoot" and that is not even supported.

The gunshot residue on his hands?

Means there was a time when Michael Brown and Officer Wilson were in
close proximity

All shots from the front?

There is no evidence that supports that claim.

And the one bullet that supposedly injured Brown's forearm that is
supposed to "prove" his hands weren't raise when it struck would also
accord with his forearm being struck while his arms were raised and his
back was to the officer.

The policeman's injuries aren't out yet aside from very limited descriptions.

A very interesting omission, don't you think?

But everything I'm hearing in the last couple of days leans towards
what I was saying from the start.

I Was Right Again
 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:16:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

Means there was a time when Michael Brown and Officer Wilson were in
close proximity

Yeah. Like when he was assaulting the officer inside his car and fighting for his gun. As the officer recounts.

There is no evidence that supports that claim.

Well, except for the autopsy.

And the one bullet that supposedly injured Brown's forearm that is
supposed to "prove" his hands weren't raise when it struck would also
accord with his forearm being struck while his arms were raised and his
back was to the officer.

His arm also could have been raised in an attack posture. Consistant with the officers version.

A very interesting omission, don't you think?

Interesting in that I think they are playing their cards correctly here. Letting the "eyewitnesses" bury themselves before releasing evidence that disproves their story. Knowing that the sharptons of the world would adjust what they "saw" to fit their agenda.

I Was Right Again
 

On 2014-10-23 22:36:11 +0000, pigo said:

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:16:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
Means there was a time when Michael Brown and Officer Wilson were in
close proximity

Yeah. Like when he was assaulting the officer inside his car and
fighting for his gun. As the officer recounts.

Nope. The evidence presented equally supports the contention that he
was defending himself from the officer.

There is no evidence that supports that claim.

Well, except for the autopsy. And the one bullet that supposedly
injured Brown's forearm that is supposed to "prove" his hands weren't
raise when it struck would also accord with his forearm being struck
while his arms were raised and his back was to the officer.

His arm also could have been raised in an attack posture.

No. That's the point.

Consistant with the officers version. A very interesting omission,
don't you think?

Interesting in that I think they are playing their cards correctly
here. Letting the "eyewitnesses" bury themselves before releasing
evidence that disproves their story. Knowing that the sharptons of the
world would adjust what they "saw" to fit their agenda.

The "sharptons" of the world were there on the ground when it happened
and caught on video tape saying that Brown had his hands up?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/


You're suggesting that this was a "sharpton"?

Those were the people on the ground.