Michael Brown Alleged to have robbed convenience store before he was killed

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is not now, nor will there ever be, a case in which a White cop shoots and kills a Black kid in which race is never mentioned. And all the usual dorks: Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter on one side and Sharpton and Jackson on the other will always make comments and get them into the story, because that is the custom, like putting cheese on cheeseburgers. It is NOT "playing the race card" it is an integral part of the story and the way things are done. Just like having three wise met rather than seventeen. It is the tradition.

[sirs]

The fact is that until ALL the information is collected, making any judgements is premature, and useless, since there will be no penalties or rewards for the public's comments.

Which begs the question, why oh why perpetually pre-judge the officer as having must have done something recklessly racist, if not criminal??  Is that not precisely acting premature??

[sirs]

There is not now, nor will there ever be, a case in which a White cop shoots and kills a Black kid in which race is never mentioned. And all the usual dorks: Sharpton and Jackson on the other will always make comments and get them into the story, because that is the custom, like putting cheese on cheeseburgers. It is NOT "playing the race card" it is an integral part of the story and the way things are done. Just like having three wise met rather than seventeen. It is the tradition.

Paying Al Sharpton to Deliver Garbage

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not pre judging or judging anything, except in your mind.

[Xavier_Onassis]

O'Reilly accuses Sharpton of interpreting the "facts" and then does the same damned thing himself.
No one condoned looting here or anywhere.
The important "fact" to O'Reilly is that looters that were arrested were not from Ferguson.
Looting is a crime even if you are from Ferguson.

O'Reilly is doing the same crap that he accuses Sharpton of doing.

The fact is what happen and that alone. any statement about what it means is interpretation.

It is a good thing that "99.9%" of people arrested were not shot and killed by the cops.
That does not mean that shooting Michael Brown was okay.

One expects the same crap from O'Reilly that one expects from Sharpton. Neither one is helping the situation. Both are simply banging on their own drums to keep their jobs as drummers. We should examine the records to make sure they are each getting the same pay for the same job.

[sirs]

Wow...talk about never reading what they write and the need to push some agenda.  You've been tripping all over yourself in prejudging & proclaiming how this cop is guilty of something nefarious.  Racism at least, murder at most. 

And what the hell is O'Reily's supposed agenda that mirrors Sharpton??      He made it clear that if a court finds the officer guilty, he should go to prison.  That despite that 99.9% of those arrested weren't shot, that what happened to Brown was anything but ok. 

What is O'Reily doing to NOT help the situation??  Highlighting how what Sharpton is doing that's not helping the situation?  Seriously??  Just let Sharpton bang his prejudged drums, stoke all sorts of racial divisiveness, and NBC pay's him for it??  Wow

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fox gets paid, NBC gets paid, O'Reilly gets paid, Sharpton gets paid. Not by politicians, but by people who buy the crap advertised on all those shows, none of which I tend to watch.

All I have said is that the police should not shoot and kill unarmed people. Tasing is bad enough.

I also said that that cop will no longer be policing anywhere near Ferguson, because he has been burned.
This is not because I favor it, it is simply what happens. Zimmerman is no longer playing neighborhood patrol, either.

O'Reilly acts like the media coverage was deliberately intended to piss him off, and behind his back, too, since he was out of town or off duty or something.
He is no better than Sharpton, just not quite as original.

Sharpton and O'Reily are playing an extended gamer of "Yo' Momma is soooo ugly..."

It is a waste of innocent electrons.

[sirs]

Boy, as I said...that's some rank amount of an agenda you're pushing.  But at least we can agree on something....how much of an idiot & ass Sharpton is being

[Xavier_Onassis]

O'Reilly is nothing but an Irish Sharpton.

I can't recall ever hearing him say anything even remotely profound.

[sirs]

So in other words, yet again, no examples, nothign to back up your claim, in this case no specific instances to demonstrate the apparent mirror images of the men, or how exactly O'Reily is stoking racial hatred like Sharpton...., just your say so   

[Xavier_Onassis]

Nothing but O'Reilly's stupid rant, which is not any different than Sharpton's, just directed at a different audience.

Why would anyone need any more than that?

[Plane]

http://news.msn.com/us/st-louis-police-release-video-of-shooting


    The police were lucky, in this case, that this video was available and is pretty clear.

    Cameras are already pretty common, you never know when one is pointed at you.

    I believe they are going to become ubiquitous, then you will get accustomed to being on camera more often than not.

[sirs]

Nothing but O'Reilly's stupid rant, which is not any different than Sharpton's, just directed at a different audience.

Why would anyone need any more than that?

Because that means nothing.  That's just your say co compared to if a person actually watched his "rant".  If you hadm you would clearly notice how it was the polar opposite of the garbage Sharpton peddles.  O'Reily hasn't made any judgements.  O'Reily wants all the appropriate agencies to investigate, including Holder and the Justice Dept.  O'Reily is on record that if a jury were to find him guilty, he should go to prison.  O'Reily supported Obama's call for calm.  If your definition of a "different audience" is one that is rational, logical, and clear headed, then yea, I guess you're right.  But minus any actual examples in the claim that O'Reily is nothing more than an Irish version of Sharpton, just because you say so, means nothing

That's why ANYONE would need more than that

[Christians4LessGvt]

All I have said is that the police should not shoot and kill unarmed people.

Yes that is a nice text book "plan".

But don't ya think circumstances in the jungle sometimes dictate other options?

If you are a policeman and you exit your vehicle at a volatile scene
and an "unarmed" individual bull-rushes you and is beating your head
into the concrete and a struggle for the officers gun ensues....
how can you state lethal force should not be used?

[Plane]

All I have said is that the police should not shoot and kill unarmed people.

    Yes , there is a flaw in this premise.

     The assumption that "unarmed" is the same thing as "peaceful" or "harmless".

      This just isn't a dependable thing to assume.

      Also a policeman cannot assume that a person is unarmed unless they are naked and their hands are in plain sight.