We have a fairly decent idea about what happened, and it was not what we were initially led to believe. There were many other instances of information in the years that followed, some of which also caused violence. Here’s another example that I mentioned earlier:
I already explained to you what misinformation means. You already admitted this didn't qualify. We're done.
And I gave you numerous examples of misinformation that met your definition. Your response was to throw your milk, grab your blanket and run away. Why?
Because we are living in a hurricane of shit, and you're complaining about a toilet that was clogged up a decade ago. I don't care for the same reason that I don't care what basketball team wins the DIII national championship. If you feel compelled to do your thing where you equate a couple of cherrypicked examples from a decade ago with a political party that has devoted itself to messaging that is close to 100% lies, almost 100% of the time, knock yourself out. You can put "both sides do it" on your fucking headstone for all I care. I'm not interested. Good bye.
You’re putting words in my mouth and seeing only what you want to see. I listed numerous instances of misinformation going back to the 1890s. This wasn’t mean to be a “both sides” argument, simply a “misinformation has caused problems in the past and is showing no signs of slowing down” post. I fail to understand how any of this is controversial.
Because you refuse to accept the difference between things that were sometimes both sides and the approach that has become the primary weapon of the Republican Party from the bottom to the scum that rose to the top. That is not both sides and that is not disputable.
When have I tried to equate both sides? Once again, people are putting words into my mouth. Today’s GOP is essentially the Kremlin and uses disinformation at every opportunity and has no scruples doing so.
an unarmed black teenager was shot 6 times (fired on a total of 12 times) by a police officer during an altercation that was described differently by numerous witnesses. the DOJ eventually determined that they didn't have grounds to charge the officer even though he used poor judgment in his handling of the initial altercation and his decision to chase after a fleeing teenager who he'd already shot once.
i knew this nasty attempt at justifying the unjustifiable was coming from you, boot licker extraordinaire that you are.
We do know exactly what happened there. Multiple eyewitnesses were interviewed by the local authorities and the DOJ. The DOJ found compelling eyewitness and forensic evidence confirming Officer Wilson's account and found that the "hand's up, don't shoot" story came from people that either recanted the story later or admitted to not even being present when the shooting occurred. One Black man who witnessed the shooting told investigators, under oath, that he wished he had been armed because he would have shot Brown himself.
we don't. witness statements uncorroborated by video aren't unimpeachable. other witnesses told other stories.
We do. I encourage you to read the DOJ report on the shooting. The escalation of the strong-arm robbery occurred because Brown took it upon himself to attack Wilson. Wilson is not to blame for being attacked while attempting to stop a robbery subject. Once Brown attacked Wilson, grabbed his gun, and was shot once in the hand, it would have been improper of Wilson not to attempt to continue the arrest. The initial infraction does not matter when it comes to lethal force; lethal force isn't a punishment. It is a defense of oneself or others. You can be a mass murderer and be arrested without incident if you surrender peacefully. On the other hand, you can not be suspected of a single crime at all and be shot and killed if you decide to randomly pull out a gun and start shooting at the police.
www.pbs.org
