Michael Brown shooting II

[TheL8Elvis]

<snip of irrelevant sarcasm>
I quoted you multiple times:

Lots of posters are claiming brown was not shot from behind, which is consistent with the states autopsy, and badens autopsy...

While you are inconsistently saying "consistent with the autopsy" here, there were many times you argued with Fudbucker that the evidence showed he WAS NOT hit from any of those shots from behind.

The state autopsy results we have claim brown was hit 6 times from the front. Not hit from behind.

Baden says one shot may have hit brown from behind.

I say I don't believe brown was hit from behind. He was shot at from behind, but probably not hit.

This is inconsistent how ?

Please semantically parse the difference between shooting from behind and being shot from behind.
Fudbucker is saying he wasn't hit from behind, not shot at. Perhaps we should use 'Hit' and 'shot at' to differentiate.

If that doesn't say shot at but not hit, what does it say? Where is the "consistent with" caveat in that post?

I'm not even sure what your trying to ask here. I am just trying to use words that more easy allow differentiating between shot at from behind and actually hit from behind, as the term "shot from behind" is ambiguous to me, possibly meaning bullets were fired and didn't hit, or they actually hit.

No, you have that wrong. You made the claim he was NOT shot from behind.
So you'll be providing proof he WAS NOT shot from behind, then ?

To which you never did.

That's true, I don't have any more proof he wasn't hit from behind than you have proof he was.

I did, however, provide my evidence for why brown wasn't hit from behind, which you simply hand-waved away.

Right. In which post do you think anyone said otherwise?
Of course some of the claims come from He repeated it multiple times after that.
And from
Maybe you didn't mean to agree with everything in his post?
But it looked like you did.

Yes, maybe I didn't mean to agree with everything in thier posts.

And when I ask you for evidence, instead of just hand-waving it away with vague things like "witnesses" try providing some factual details. It will make the conversation more productive.

Vague things like 4 or more eyewitnesses that were there and that have physical evidence that for the most part matches what they said?

Yes, exactly. Because that's a non-answer. It's a hand-wave. Because witnesses ...

I posted multiple times with 5 witness statements in my posts. So you can be specific. Which witness. What they specifically said and how it disproves what I am saying.

 

[Reheat]

Yep and the word tweet just means the sound a small bird makes. Words have more than one meaning... I'm not sure how hard that is to recognize. You're also the same person who last year admitted you had never heard of the deep early 19th century racist connotations of the word "boogie".

Also, I highlighted the lie. No one is claiming that. It is when you use the word in certain connotations that it because racially orientated. Just like in the early 1900s with the word "boogie".

Well, that's interesting... I'm not old enough to have grown up in the early 1900's, but I did grow up the the very racist mid-South yet I've never heard the word "boogie" to mean anything racist at all. As teenagers we used the word to mean something like "move on" or go. As in "let's boogie out of here". I guess it's easy for person's of color to continue to adhere and even promote the "victim" mentality. It works well for folks like Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, at least they make a living at it....

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Just because you never heard of a word meaning doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Just because it exists, for a small subset of people, does not mean that's the only meaning it has.
This debate over the word is a ridiculous tactic employed by people who want to stand on a pedestal and point at those they perceive as insensitive racists.

 

[This is The End]

Well, that's interesting... I'm not old enough to have grown up in the early 1900's, but I did grow up the the very racist mid-South yet I've never heard the word "boogie" to mean anything racist at all. As teenagers we used the word to mean something like "move on" or go. As in "let's boogie out of here". I guess it's easy for person's of color to continue to adhere and even promote the "victim" mentality. It works well for folks like Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, at least they make a living at it....

Boogie went hand in hand with "spook" and "darkie" in certain sections of early America, perhaps not where you were or perhaps before your time?

Here is a fairly* long list with "boogie":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#African


*Now watch someone claim "thug" doesn't have another racist meaning it happens to not be on that particular list.


Also, note how you remember "boogie" being used to mean "move". That is from its musical term meaning, to dance. To dance out of here. That is a very good illustration of how words have more than one meaning. UrbanDictionary lists the musical term as #1 and the racial meaning as #2. That doesn't make either one not exist.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boogie

1.
boogie
Dance
Let's go boogie down tonight


2.
BOOGIE
racial slur implying a black person, but permissable among white people who are friends and family.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why is "alleged" such an issue? We have no idea who the person is, or where he was at the time of the shooting. It could turn it that he was a witness - but we don't know, and he hasn't made a clear statement to the public. If and when he appears on some cable news show to tell his story, we'll take him seriously. <SNIP>

Perhaps this person/people doesn't have an agenda to try the case in the media ?

Perhaps they police spoke with them, and they don't feel the need to make a statement to the public.

 

[This is The End]

Just because it exists, for a small subset of people, does not mean that's the only meaning it has.

Exactly!! Exactly put.

Some meanings grow, some meanings die out. That would, as you put it, limit the "subsets of people".

Some meanings you might not have heard because they old (like teapot). Some meanings you might not have heard because they more recent (like thug). Obviously people who use racist words that are in the growing category want them to stay "safe". There's always going to be a leading edge to the evolution of language.

Boogie and teapot are likely on one end. A small subset of people are still aware of the racial meaning, they are dying out.

Spook and coon on the other, a larger subset of people are aware of the racial meaning, they didn't die out.

That is exactly what philologists study. J.R.R. Tolkien would have a good laugh at this conversation.

Even if thug is somewhere near the boogie/teapot end, doesn't make it suddenly not exist.

This debate over the word is a ridiculous tactic employed by people who want to stand on a pedestal and point at those they perceive as insensitive racists.

If people are doing that then I agree with you wholeheartedly. But on the other hand there is nothing wrong with letting someone know something might not be polite. Just like if the thread were about a black federal agent or spy and someone said the word spook.

If they are not letting the person know just as a friendly gesture then I agree with you completely.

 

[LTC8K6]

For my clarification (and because it seems more on topic than the rest of the discussions ...)

I don't know that the bracelet has any relevance, but it does look like it was on Johnsons wrist at the store, and is now on the ground by the SUV.

What does the rubber band have to do with anything ?

I don't know what any rubber bands would suggest. Dorian seems to keep some on his wrist to tie up his hair.

The loss of the bracelet suggests participation in the fight at the SUV by Dorian.

 

[Aepervius]

LashL is correct. I have decided to stop using the word thug to describe Brown's behavior because some people find it a racist term.
But it isn't.
You're endeavoring to create a special meaning for the term, which is equally applied to thugs of all races. I can recall a specific NRA instance of Wayne LaPierre using the term jack-booted thugs to describe government agents and he wasn't talking about the scary black man.

You have to reconsider thinking of it as a code word. It's not.

There used to be a time where thug or thugish behavior was considered a general word. I have seen it mostly used in describing a black person having violent or gang behavior in the last years or so.

I guess it depends on which circle you are speaking to.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't know what any rubber bands would suggest. Dorian seems to keep some on his wrist to tie up his hair.
The loss of the bracelet suggests participation in the fight at the SUV by Dorian.

That's what I thought it was likely for. I was thinking I must be missing the real significance.

As for the fight ... well ... I guess.

Or the bracelet simply fell off. No witness suggest seeing anything other than one person in the SUV "window", so occam's razor would suggest, if that is johnsons bracelet, that perhaps it simply fell off when he took off like a rocket from wilson.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Exactly!! Exactly put.

Some meanings grow, some meanings die out. That would, as you put it, limit the "subsets of people".

Some meanings you might not have heard because they old (like teapot). Some meanings you might not have heard because they more recent (like thug). Obviously people who use racist words that are in the growing category want them to stay "safe". There's always going to be a leading edge to the evolution of language.

Boogie and teapot are likely on one end. A small subset of people are still aware of the racial meaning, they are dying out.

Spook and coon on the other, a larger subset of people are aware of the racial meaning, they didn't die out.

That is exactly what philologists study. J.R.R. Tolkien would have a good laugh at this conversation.

Even if thug is somewhere near the boogie/teapot end, doesn't make it suddenly not exist.




If people are doing that then I agree with you wholeheartedly. But on the other hand there is nothing wrong with letting someone know something might not be polite. Just like if the thread were about a black federal agent or spy and someone said the word spook.

If they are not letting the person know just as a friendly gesture then I agree with you completely.

Agreeable.

I only realized it was stupid to use the expression "off the reservation" after someone (not a native American thankfully) corrected me.
And if someone hadn't told me "things are Oriental, people are Asian", I'd still use Oriental to describe a person from China.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<SNIP>
If people are doing that then I agree with you wholeheartedly. But on the other hand there is nothing wrong with letting someone know something might not be polite. Just like if the thread were about a black federal agent or spy and someone said the word spook.

If they are not letting the person know just as a friendly gesture then I agree with you completely.

That's all people are doing in this thread.

 

[This is The End]

I only realized it was stupid to use the expression "off the reservation" after someone (not a native American thankfully) corrected me.

Ah yes. There is a Seinfeld episode that beautifully illustrates this entire point.

And if someone hadn't told me "things are Oriental, people are Asian", I'd still use Oriental to describe a person from China.

Thank you for reminding me. That is a better example that the ones I used because of the fairly recent education of usage which means many older people do not accept it. There are people around the age of 80 or so that still insist on using "Oriental" and ignore any and all corrections.

 

[This is The End]

I hope its not uncool to quote Modest Mouse:

"Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems, after it creates a problem."




ETA: That's not only a great quote because of the in your face knowledge displayed in the second sentence. But also for the subtle knowledge of the first sentence. (That is, that language is a liquid. With all the properties of a liquid; like the ability for not only itself to move, but for other things (humans) to move within it.)

 

[BenBurch]

Origin of the term; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

 

[This is The End]

Origin of the term; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

Are you now going to link to the origin of the term "tweet"??

You are literally displaying your lack of understanding of the discussion by a post that you think does the opposite!!


Look everyone... It's the origin of the term coons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon

Prooved!!

 

[BenBurch]

No, I was showing the history of the word. I have a friend who is a Kali worshipper, in fact.

 

[This is The End]

No, I was showing the history of the word. I have a friend who is a Kali worshipper, in fact.

OK I apologize. I must have gotten you confused with the posters who were trying to prove a word doesn't have another meaning merely by proving it has a more common or original meaning.

(I hope most of the people here know that I tend to get hot, bothered, and offended. I'm on a self-imposed several year long ban of the religion, philosophy, and politics subforums just so I don't bitch 24/7. )

 

[LTC8K6]

That's what I thought it was likely for. I was thinking I must be missing the real significance.

As for the fight ... well ... I guess.

Or the bracelet simply fell off. No witness suggest seeing anything other than one person in the SUV "window", so occam's razor would suggest, if that is johnsons bracelet, that perhaps it simply fell off when he took off like a rocket from wilson.

They were walking together. They must have both been at the door initially.

Big Mike is big, and Dorian is small. Big Mike could easily obscure Dorian, depending on point of view.

Dorian is very clear that if he had not moved, the shot fired from the SUV would have hit him.

That suggests that he was there for at least some of the fight.

Some would say he removed his shirt so he would be less likely to be recognized. That may be why Wilson did not arrest him.

 

[GWCarver]

I suspect that when being physically assaulted by a 300 pound man, a trained police officer can solve the mystery of what's happening, without having to check the pockets of their assailant.

Former detective Fuhrman wasn't referring to what Wilson was thinking at the time of the assault through the car window, but the period immediately after when it was necessary to decide whether or not to use lethal force. Even though a big guy like Michael Brown, who had already attacked Wilson once, was a clearly a threat, if he had a gun or knife in his pocket he would be an even bigger threat. Fuhrman also said when someone tries to get a cop's gun, it should be assumed that person is going to kill him if successful. To me, that seems like a reasonable assumption.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Are you also claiming the word "thug" has no racial meaning?

I would like to have you clearly state that.

..............

It doesn't for me... It never occurred to me until I saw it claimed in this thread..



I hope a moderator will have mercy on us all and send the thug discussion to AAA.....