Tuesday, September 09, 2014

without monsters of the id the militarized overseers can't justify their existence...,

slate |  Did you know Michael Brown was a killer?

Did you know he was a devoted gang member with an extensive juvenile record who routinely robbed convenience stores and committed acts of mayhem? And did you know that when Officer Darren Wilson shot Brown, he wasn’t using unjustified force, he was defending his life? The 6-foot-4, 300-pound 18-year-old fractured Wilson’s eye socket while reaching for his gun, and was killed while charging at Wilson to land another blow.

If this sounds suspect—if it sounds almost unbelievable—then your head is in the right place. Nothing in this narrative is true. Racist innuendo aside, there’s no evidence Brown was a violent gang member, nor is there evidence of any serious wrongdoing—as a juvenile, Brown was never convicted of a felony nor was he facing charges as an adult. And while Wilson was taken to the hospital after his encounter with Brown, he didn’t suffer serious injuries—the fractured eye socket is a myth.

But if you read websites like the Independent Journal Review, dive into far-right media, or explore the world of Darren Wilson support pages, you’ll find plenty of people who buy the fantasy. They reject the mainstream picture of Brown: A typical teenager, struggling to carve an identity and a life out of his beliefs, actions, and missteps. In their minds Brown was a budding criminal, and Wilson a hero. Or, as one Wilson supporter said during a demonstration for the officer, “We’ll all see this in the end that it was a good shooting. You know, it was a good kill.”

We know why the Brown family was quick to give a loving portrait of Michael. Like any parents in their situation, they wanted the world to see their son as they did—a decent boy who didn’t deserve to die.

The question is for the other side: Why attack Michael Brown’s reputation? After all, if the goal is an objective look, there’s no need to explore Brown or Wilson as individuals. Brown could have been Gandhi or he could have been the Unabomber; all that matters for the case is what happened in a few brief moments on the streets of Ferguson.


Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother CNu:

Could you articulate to us why these cascading details of the Police Shooting Of Michael Brown are SUPERIOR to the details surrounding any one of these 6 murders in St Louis that happened in rapid succession recently?


Are the police men so disproportionately superior to these other killers that such an imbalance in coverage is justified by you?

Quick: Did you see any of the arraignment hearings of any of these 6 murders in which the killers were caught shown on television?
Why not?

CNu said...

Because a "licensed" peace officer has a de facto license to kill - so long as his doing so is lawful and pursuant to protecting and serving the safety and security of his fellow citizens. With great power comes great responsibility.

As far as peasant criminals executing one another in the course of doing business for which there is no legal recourse, while some would consider that regrettable, I consider it nothing more than the cost of doing illegal business.

BigDonOne said...

There is zero sworn testimony existing at this point in time, so what hard evidence is credible remains for the litigation and jury to determine. Liberal lefty *Slate* isn't any more credible than Subrealism considers WND, Amren, etc....

CNu said...

lol, the home of HBD loving and promoting William Saletin is somehow, suddenly, insufficiently "conservative"? Perish the thought...., overseer Wilson's monkey-ass needs to be arrested immediately on suspicion of murder. Everything else is merely conversation...,

BigDonOne said...

@CNu - Saletin ...All this shows is that HBD is so obvious, and well-established, that to deny it would totally destroy ones' credibility in any forum/venue. Subrealism notwithstanding, even left-leaning libs don't want to look stoopid (and this is not BD hijacking your thread, you brought up HBD/Saletin)....

There have been some recent developments Subrealism may have missed. Latest breaking PRR has apparently found three of the many genes which associate with intelligence --->http://www.science20.com/the_conversation/intelligence_inheritance_3_genes_that_add_to_your_iq_score-144428 And even more telling, additional shocking PRR is showing the premise in Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" to be coming true - the world average IQ is dropping because the most intelligent folks are having fewer children ---> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/iq-in-decline-across-the-world-as-scientists-say-were-getting-dumber/story-fniym874-1227052942109

The above terrific links strongly support what BD has been trying to convince Subrealistic folks of for several years, and the hard science is now becoming available....