DOJ Clears Officer Wilson in Devastating Report

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 4, 2015

Today, the Department of Justice released an 86-page report explaining why it will not bring a federal indictment against Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. The report carefully analyses the physical evidence, the autopsy reports, and the witnesses statements, and concludes that Officer Wilson had legitimate reasons to fear for his life, and that the shooting was reasonable.

The entire report is fascinating, but the last five pages are of special interest. They describe what happened after Officer Wilson fired his weapon inside his patrol car and Michael Brown moved away.

These five pages utterly demolish the fanciful version of events that sent blacks and whites into the streets chanting “hands up, don’t shoot.” Below, we have reproduced the text of those five pages, and we urge you to send them to anyone you know who attended a “die-in” or who thinks the Ferguson shooting was a shameful case of “racism.”

Every editor and television producer in the United States and around the world should study these pages. They leave no doubt that the Ferguson disturbances were, start to finish, based on an utterly false version of events that the media passed on uncritically. Of course, editors and producers will not read these pages and they will learn nothing. We can be sure they will treat us to yet more slanted coverage that supports their twisted view of a hopelessly “racist” America.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE SHOOTING DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN BY FERGUSON, MISSOURI POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON

Wilson’s Subsequent Pursuit of Brown and Shots Allegedly Fired as Brown Was Running Away

The evidence does not support concluding that Wilson shot Brown while Brown’s back was toward Wilson. Witnesses, such as Witness 118, Witness 128, Witness 139 and others, who claim to have seen Wilson fire directly into Brown’s back, gave accounts that lack credibility because the physical evidence establishes that there were no entry wounds to Brown’s back, although there was a wound to the anatomical back of Brown’s right arm, and a graze wound to Brown’s right arm. Also, other witnesses who say that Wilson fired at Brown as he ran have given accounts that are not credible because significant aspects of their statements are irreconcilable with the physical evidence, such as Witness 101 and 127, whose statements are suspect for the reasons noted above. Similarly, Witness 124 claims to have seen Wilson following behind Brown while steadily firing at him. However, Witness 124 dramatically changed her accounts of what she saw between the time of her first statement to the SLCPD and second statement to the FBI. She refused to meet with the federal prosecutors to clarify her varying accounts. Also, her account was dramatically different from that of her husband, Witness 115, who was standing next to her during the incident. Witness 115 stated that he thought he saw Wilson fire once at Brown as he was running away, but other aspects of his account lack credibility for the reasons set forth above, i.e. he did not witness significant parts of the shooting and based parts of his account on assumption. Witnesses 128 and 137 initially claimed that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, but then acknowledged that they did not see what Wilson and Brown were doing at this point and thus do not know whether Wilson fired at Brown as he was running away. Witnesses 105 and 106 thought they saw Wilson fire at Brown as he was running, but describe seeing Brown hit in the leg and back in a manner that does not match the autopsy findings. Accordingly, there is no credible evidence that establishes that Wilson fired at or struck Brown’s back as Brown fled.

Shots Fired After Brown Turned to Face Wilson

The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The physical evidence establishes that after he ran about 180 feet away from the SUV, Brown turned and faced Wilson, then moved toward Wilson until Wilson finally shot him in the head and killed him. According to Wilson, Brown balled or clenched his fists and “charged” forward, ignoring commands to stop. Knowing that Brown was much larger than him and that he had previously attempted to overpower him and take his gun, Wilson stated that he feared for his safety and fired at Brown. Again, even Witness 101’s account supports this perception. Brown then reached toward his waistband, causing Wilson to fear that Brown was reaching for a weapon. Wilson stated that he continued to fear for his safety at this point and fired at Brown again. Wilson finally shot Brown in the head as he was falling or lunging forward, after which Brown immediately fell to the ground. Wilson did not fire any additional shots.

Wilson’s version of events is corroborated by the physical evidence that indicates that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he ran from the SUV, by the fact that Brown went to the ground with his left hand at (although not inside) his waistband, and by credible eyewitness accounts. Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104, Witness 105, Witness 108, and Witness 109, among others. These witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example, Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop, stop,” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However, Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired sooner.” Likewise, Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment,” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands “in running position” and started running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly, we conclude that these accounts are credible.

Furthermore, there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. The accounts of the witnesses who have claimed that Brown raised his hands above his head to surrender and said “I don’t have a gun,” or “okay, okay, okay” are inconsistent with the physical evidence or can be challenged in other material ways, and thus cannot be relied upon to form the foundation of a federal prosecution. [Footnote 28] The two most prominent witnesses who have stated that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender are Witness 101 and Witness 127, both of whom claim that Brown turned around with his hands raised in surrender, that he never reached for his waistband, that he never moved forward toward Wilson after turning to face him with his hands up, and that he fell to the ground with his hands raised. These and other aspects of their statements are contradicted by the physical evidence. Crime scene photographs establish that Brown fell to the ground with his left hand at his waistband and his right hand at his side. Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson. Other aspects of the accounts of Witness 101 and Witness 127 would render them not credible in a prosecution of Wilson, namely their accounts of what happened at the SUV. Both claim that Wilson fired the first shot out the SUV window, Witness 101 claims that the shot hit Brown at close range in the torso, and both claim that Brown did not reach inside the vehicle. These claims are irreconcilable with the bullet in the SUV door, the close-range wound to Brown’s hand, Brown’s DNA inside Wilson’s car and on his gun, and the injuries to Wilson’s face.

Footnote [28]: [The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.”]

Other witnesses who have suggested that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender have either recanted their statements, such as Witnesses 119 and 125, provided inconsistent statements, such as Witness 124, or have provided accounts that are verifiably untrue, such as Witnesses 121, 139, and 132. Witness 122 recanted significant portions of his statement by acknowledging that he was not in a position to see what either Brown or Wilson were doing, and who falsely insisted that three police officers pursued Brown and that the shooter was heavy set (in contrast to the slimly-built Wilson). Similar to Witness 128, Witness 122 told Brown’s family that Brown had been shot execution-style. Witness 120 initially told law enforcement that he saw Brown shot at point-blank range as he was on his knees with his hands up. Similar to Witness 138, Witness 120 subsequently acknowledged that he did not see Brown get shot but “assumed” he had been executed while on his knees with his hands up based on “common sense” and what others “in the community told [him.]” There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. For example, some witnesses say that Wilson only fired his weapon out of the SUV, (e.g. Witnesses 128, 101, and 127) or that Wilson stood next to the SUV and killed Brown right there (e.g. Witnesses 139, 132, 120). Some witnesses insist that Wilson shot Brown in the back as he lay on the ground. (e.g. Witnesses 128 and 139). Some witnesses say that Wilson shot Brown and he went to the ground immediately upon turning to face Wilson. (e.g. Witnesses 138, 101, 118, and 127). Some say Wilson went to the ground with his hands raised at right angles. (e.g. Witnesses 138, 118, and 121). Again, all of these statements are contradicted by the physical and forensic evidence, which also undermines the credibility of their accounts of other aspects of the incident, including their assertion that Brown had his hands up in a surrender position when Wilson shot him.

When the shootings are viewed, as they must be, in light of all the surrounding circumstances and what Wilson knew at the time, as established by the credible physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, it was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward and was clearly subdued. Although, with hindsight, we know that Brown was not armed with a gun or other weapon, this fact does not render Wilson’s use of deadly force objectively unreasonable. Again, the key question is whether Brown could reasonably have been perceived to pose a deadly threat to Wilson at the time he shot him regardless of whether Brown was armed. Sufficient credible evidence supports Wilson’s claim that he reasonably perceived Brown to be posing a deadly threat. First, Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. See Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961, 966 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that “[e]ven if a suspect is ultimately ‘found to be unarmed, a police officer can still employ deadly force if objectively reasonable.’”) (quoting Billingsley v. City of Omaha, 277 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2002)); Reese v. Anderson, 926 F.2d 494, 501 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Also irrelevant is the fact that [the suspect] was actually unarmed. [The officer] did not and could not have known this.”); Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 347 (noting that “unarmed” does not mean “harmless) (6th Cir. 1992). While Brown did not use a gun on Wilson at the SUV, his aggressive actions would have given Wilson reason to at least question whether he might be armed, as would his subsequent forward advance and reach toward his waistband. This is especially so in light of the rapidly-evolving nature of the incident. Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.

Moreover, Wilson could present evidence that a jury likely would credit that he reasonably perceived a deadly threat from Brown even if Brown’s hands were empty and he had never reached into his waistband because of Brown’s actions in refusing to halt his forward movement toward Wilson. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Loch v. City of Litchfield is dispositive on this point. There, an officer shot a suspect eight times as he advanced toward the officer. Although the suspect’s “arms were raised above his head or extended at his sides,” the Court of Appeals held that a reasonable officer could have perceived the suspect’s forward advance in the face of the officer’s commands to stop as resistance and a threat. As the Court of Appeals explained:

Although [the suspect] had by this time thrown his firearm in the snow, … [the officer] did not observe that action. Instead of complying with [the officer’s] command to get on the ground, [the suspect] turned and moved toward the officer. [Plaintiffs], noting that [the suspect’s] arms were raised above his head or extended at his sides, suggest that [the suspect] was simply trying to find a suitable place to get on the ground, because his truck sat near a tree and snowbank. But even if [the suspect’s] motives were innocent, a reasonable officer on the scene could have interpreted [the suspect’s] actions as resistance. It is undisputed that [the suspect] continued toward [the officer] despite the officer’s repeated orders to get on the ground …. Thus, a reasonable officer could believe that [the suspect’s] failure to comply was a matter of choice rather than necessity.

Loch, 689 F.3d 961, 966 (8th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).

Were the government to prosecute Wilson, the court would instruct the jury using Loch as a foundation. Given the evidence in this matter, jurors would likely conclude that Wilson had reason to be concerned that Brown was a threat to him as he continued to advance, just as did the officer in Loch.

In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. Wilson could thus present evidence that he reasonably feared that, if left unimpeded, Brown would again assault Wilson, again attempt to overpower him, and again attempt to take his gun. Under the law, Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. Even if, with hindsight, Wilson could have done something other than shoot Brown, the Fourth Amendment does not second-guess a law enforcement officer’s decision on how to respond to an advancing threat. The law gives great deference to officers for their necessarily split-second judgments, especially in incidents such as this one that unfold over a span of less than two minutes. “Thus, under Graham, we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day.” Smith, 954 F.2d at 347 (6th Cir. 1992). See also Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S. Ct. 987, 991-92 (2012) (courts “should be cautious about second-guessing a police officer’s assessment, made on the scene, of the danger presented by a particular situation”); Estate of Morgan v. Cook, 686 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir. 2012) (“The Constitution … requires only that the seizure be objectively reasonable, not that the officer pursue the most prudent course of conduct as judged by 20/20 hindsight vision.” (citing Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328, 1334 (8th Cir. 1993)) “It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard.” (citing Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (same))). Rather, where, as here, an officer points his gun at a suspect to halt his advance, that suspect should be on notice that “escalation of the situation would result in the use of the firearm.” Estate of Morgan at 498. An officer is permitted to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014) (“Officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended”).

For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Willfulness

Even if federal prosecutors determined there were sufficient evidence to convince twelve jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson used unreasonable force, federal law requires that the government must also prove that the officer acted willfully, that is, with the purpose to violate the law. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945) (discussing willfulness element of 18 U.S.C. § 242). The Supreme Court has held that an act is done willfully if it was “committed” either “in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite.” Screws, 325 U.S. at 105. The government need not show that the defendant knew a federal statute or law protected the right with which he intended to interfere. Id. at 106-07 (“[t]he fact that the defendants may not have been thinking in constitutional terms is not material where their aim was not to enforce local law but to deprive a citizen of a right and that right was protected”); United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 52-53 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that jury did not have to find defendant knew of the particular Constitutional provision at issue but that it had to find intent to invade interest protected by Constitution). However, we must prove that the defendant intended to engage in the conduct that violated the Constitution and that he did so knowing that it was a wrongful act. Id.

“[A]ll the attendant circumstance[s]” should be considered in determining whether an act was done willfully. Screws, 325 U.S. at 107. Evidence regarding the egregiousness of the conduct, its character and duration, the weapons employed and the provocation, if any, is therefore relevant to this inquiry. Id. Willfulness may be inferred from blatantly wrongful conduct. See id. at 106; see also United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 881 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Intentionally wrongful conduct, because it contravenes a right definitely established in law, evidences a reckless disregard for that right; such reckless disregard, in turn, is the legal equivalent of willfulness.”); United States v. Dise, 763 F.2d 586, 592 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that when defendant invades personal liberty of another, knowing that invasion is violation of state law, defendant has demonstrated bad faith and reckless disregard for federal constitutional rights). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment do not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute. See United States v. McClean, 528 F.2d 1250, 1255 (2d Cir. 1976) (inadvertence or mistake negates willfulness for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 242).

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution).

Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

Topics: , , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • John Smith

    Facts are racist.

    • Jim

      And the truth should be arrested.

    • Александр Чурбанов

      If facts contradict theory, then so much the worse for the facts.

    • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

      Only because blacks are guilty.

    • Jason Lewis

      You’ve been reported to the Fact Police.

      • John Smith

        Hands up, don’t shoot….

  • Alexandra1973

    While I’m often referred to as a tinfoil-hatter, I’m pretty sure there was no conspiracy to kill an unarmed black man just because he was black.

    • John Smith

      It’s the “criminal” part that does it every time.

  • Kit Ingoldby

    So when does Darren Wilson get an apology, his job back and some compensation for the hell he has been through?

    • When will Dorian Johnson ever face consequences for making up a lie out of thin air that became the entire basis of a protest movement? When will Michael Brown’s mother’s boyfriend face consequences for “burn this b***h down” on the night of November 24?

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Cultural Marxists are indeed masters at “…floating nothing balloons…”
        –then pointing to nothing as a defense. It’s a bad card trick.

    • Hammerheart

      He doesn’t. He’s still quite guilty of being a white male attempting to enforce law and order over a demographic that wants the infrastructure and benefits without having to follow the rules.

    • MekongDelta69

      I’m gonna go with NEVER for a thousand Alex…

      • cherrie greenbaum123

        Yep. How about the Twelfth of Never….kinda reminds me of an old song. Might just go to youtube right about now…..(sigh)…..

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Yes, the Mainstream Marxist Media is portraying Wilson’s
        exoneration as an olive branch rather than color blind justice.

  • This is just about entirely facts determined by the St. Louis County grand jury applied to Federal law. Holder and the DOJ had embedded bed bug lawyers inside the grand jury, so it was well known that when they did not indict, the Feds were never going to indict.

  • gregraven

    Maybe the new chant should be: “Black lies matter.”

    • DaveMed

      Best line I’ve heard in a long time.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Very nice, Greg. Very funny.

    • Luca

      As do the liberal media lies.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Reminds me of “Puggg’s” great one liner:
      “Friends don’t let friends embrace diversity”.

      • AndrewInterrupted

  • AndrewInterrupted

    It’s a “…s**t sandwich…”.

    An 86 page report–while also releasing this. Classis Karl Marx.

    http[colon]//www[dot]cnn[dot]com/2015/03/03/politics/justice-report-ferguson-discrimination/

    • “Look squirrel!”

      BIG SHOCKING NEWS that a municipality with a lot of blacks is also one where law enforcement disparately impacts blacks. The black-white arrest disparity in Ferguson is seven times, in contrast, the national average is eight times.

    • AndrewInterrupted
      • Say for example everyone smoked weed, and doing so was illegal. What it means is that if the law couldn’t nab you for murder, it could always fall back on selective enforcement of marijuana laws.

        There isn’t a jurisdiction with enough blacks where there won’t be such a disparity. But it means that if the DOJ can’t nail a white cop to the wall, they can always fall back on the inevitable disparate impact.

  • guest

    “Hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie.”

    So was the MSM’s depiction of Michael Brown as a gentle giant and a victim of racism.

    • newscomments70

      I don’t think many people are falling for that anymore. Fox News throws us a few crumbs of truth and the internet deluges us with the truth.

    • USofAntiWhite

      Cases like this really damage the whole Black victims of Whites lie. When they have to rally around cases that don’t even involve White people (Zim) and situations where the only victim of racism was the White guy (Ferguson) as well as constantly making excuses for Blacks in prison for felonies and suppressing real statistics of Black on White violent crimes. A White person is over 30 times more likely to be assaulted by a Black than the other way around, yet they only represent 16% of the population with Black males being a percentage of that in the 15-50 range. That is remarkable.

      • Samuel Hathaway

        As someone who used to be fairly sympathetic to blacks, and I speak for many whites, everything from the O.J. trial to this Ferguson mess and how blacks reacted to this has totally turned me off to them as a people and a race. And then discovering who MLK really was, and the lies and theft of our history, like taking credit for inventing the traffic light. My wall is up to the black race. It’s staying. It’s never coming down.

        • ElComadreja

          I had the “pleasure” of growing up around them. I never harbored any illusions about their true nature.

        • BlueSonicStreak

          Although it’s behaviour like that during Ferguson that helped to wake me up, what truly outrages me is the theft of our humanity. The longer I spend investigating racial issues and our history of interaction with other races – ESPECIALLY blacks – the more sickening lies I uncover.

          They steal our accomplishments, but it goes far beyond that. They accuse us of acts we did not commit (anything more than occasional rape, for instance), or of having motivations we clearly (as a close examination of primary sources tends to reveal) did not have. They steal our inventions, sure; but more importantly, they deny us our moral character and our worth as human beings.

          That Big Lie of white evil is dizzyingly all-pervasive. As a white liberal, I used to have no doubt of its demoralizing truth, as who can argue when everyone agrees it’s self-evident? It appears self-evident when any evidence to the contrary is suppressed, at least…

          A post landed in my inbox this afternoon, a notification from a site that I am now banned from and cannot respond to. The post said, “Black pride is about having pride in having black ancestors. White pride is about being proud that your ancestors were not black.”

          Sure; we have nothing in our heritage to be proud of beyond the empty crown of non-blackness, right?

  • Hammerheart

    Feels > Reals in liberal land

  • JackKrak

    The network national news programs could be expanded to six hours and they wouldn’t get to this story.

  • Guest

    I am currently walking around downtown Toronto area. I came to Toronto for one week trip as a backpacker. Toronto is known as the New York City of Canada.

    and it takes quite a while to find a normal person in public…..

    I am currently typing this at a StarBucks location and some of the things I saw everywhere in downtown Toronto for the past several hours are –

    – Yong well-dressed white men walking happily hand-in-hand with his white boyfriend, (and I lost count of how many times I saw gay white couples for the past three hours)

    – A male strip club

    – Homosexual theatre proudly displaying a large photo of naked gay couple having fun

    – Truly obese men and women

    – I saw a white girl who appeared to be in her late-teens standing close to a young black male loitering, and it was obvious that her parents were rarely, if ever, with her while she grew up. The size of her butt tells me that she ate nothing but cheap junkfoods all her life, and most of her cleavage is exposed, and one of her breasts has a very large tattoo. Yes, a woman’s breasts are very beautiful, but it is not funny when it is done by an obese woman such as that one.

    If it makes you feel any better I did not see any young and attractive white Canadian woman walking hand in hand with a non-white male.

    Actually, I do not see a lot of East Asian immigrants, or 2nd generation East Asian Canadians. I do see a lot of “Desi” people, West Asians (very dark) and Pacific Asians.

    I am sitting beside a young black girl who is doing her assignment on her Sony Vaio laptop and actually she is one of the most normal people I have seen today. I briefly talked with her and noticed she is a sweet and intelligent person. I do see quite a few blacks who appear to be of Carribean ancestry in Toronto. Most people that I asked for help in public, were civil and helpful. I plan to have a wonderful time for the remainder of my days in Toronto.

    Toronto is also surprisingly safe and clean for such a large and hectic city.

    • Alexandra1973

      Last time I was in Toronto was around 2000 or 2001. Just saw a lot of Orientals.

      • bv

        There are a lot of Blacks in Toronto but they’re a lot tamer than those circus acts you have in the lower 48.

        AA is not as rampant as in America, blacks who go to College actually make it of their own volition.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          AA has no certifications/receipts. No one has a laminated card saying: “I’m a certified diversity hire”. There is no such trans-parency. So how do you quantify? Only a person who is immersed in a reverse discrimination environment can say for sure how bad it is.

          The white population has been so diminished in places like Toronto that non-whites no longer have any choice but to stand on their own two feet. There aren’t enough white people left to feed on.

          That will America in the next generation. There will be no straight, white men in the room left to blame–then who do you blame? The answer, the last 5 years, has been white women–then who?

    • Ron Cheaters

      Sounds like you’re in the Bloor/Jarvis area, that’s boystown. Take the Bloor line to Spadina, that’s Chinatown. The nicest area used to be Yonge/Eglinton (or young and eligible). Stay away from anything on Finch, and anything on Dufferin (Africa) and Scarborough isn’t very nice either, the R/T there is really scary anytime of day. Walking along King & Queen streets can be really fun, and there’s lots of great food spots there.. Have fun and stay safe.

    • Cheri Rodriguez

      Weak opposition to TPTB but also no competition to hetero Whites who work out, go to the shooting range, etc., when TSHTF.

    • BlueSonicStreak

      From your description here, I literally cannot figure out what you consider “normal” to be.

      • mintalways

        My definition of a normal man or a woman in North America :

        If a student, attending all his or her classes, getting acceptable grades
        and learning a lot and having a wonderful time in general

        If no longer a student, enjoying a fine career

        If an unmarried person, being in a wonderful, happy, romantic relationship
        with someone of the opposite gender and of the same race

        If a married person, being a happy, stable, caring parent at home who is always dependable to his or her family members.

        By the way I am seeing this photo being passed around Facebook now

        It was made after a white male arrogantly claimed to East Asian males,
        “All your women are running into white men’s arms!” and then East Asian
        men responded, “No they are not!” and then the white male said, “Look at those Facebook posts made by Asian women!” and then one of the East Asian guys took a couple of
        minutes to analyze it and then turned it into a meme

  • Dan B. Cooper

    The on-air personalities at Fox News regularly bash the South.

    • Chip Carver

      That’s because they’re all tools of the nation-wreckers, just like their counterparts on “the left”.

    • hihellothere

      ZOG lackeys…

    • Cheri Rodriguez

      If I was a tenured history professor, I’d love to teach a class on The Civil War from the perspective that The Southern States were the good guys. I wonder who’d come after me.

  • Robert Smith

    We never heard a word about the D’Andre Joshua investigation. He was one of the witnesses questioned by police who was found with a bullet hole in his head the morning after the grand jury decision. Why doesn’t anyone care about him?

    • Barring a miracle, I doubt they’ll ever be able to make his assailant. He was murdered during the height of the late night November 24-25 riots. The only way it’ll ever be solved is if every cop in St. Louis participates in the the biggest dragnet in the area’s history.

  • Dan B. Cooper

    The Fox News on-air personalities regularly denigrate the South, Southerners should boycott Fox News.

    • Publius Pompilius Quietus

      FOX News represents the neoconservative perspective, like MSNBC represents the liberal perspective. It can be useful and even informative sometimes, but understand it’s neither objective nor nationalist, although FOX News sometimes use nationalism and race-baiting to make a political point.

    • Robert Binion

      We are all Southerners now.

      • bv

        Any movie directed or produced by Norman Jewison is the epitome of a wasp who clearly hates his ancestry.

        The amount of destruction he’s done with his lies and historical revisionist films can be measured in the haze that blinds average white easily led sheep and inciting rage in these blacks.

    • Hammerheart

      Despite being born in California, I rock a confederate bumper sticker on the back of my truck. I believe the old south should be America’s cultural center of gravity.

      • Cheri Rodriguez

        When you’re driving through ghetto areas, I hope you’re blasting the Lynyrd Skynyrd.

        • Hammerheart

          I try to avoid the projects as best I can because my truck is still new and I’m sure the media would love to cover the event of a vet engaging in a firefight with poor oppressed minorities, however I find nothing disturbs our diverse brethren more than classical music or black metal, haha.

          • Cheri Rodriguez

            The blacks and Puerto Ricans who live around me love to drive around in the middle of the day blasting their stereos. I drive through the projects at 2 a.m. to get some payback.

          • Hammerheart

            Haha. Do any of them actually have jobs? Maybe you should get some blue and red sirens of ebay ans watch them scatter like roaches before the light

          • Samuel Hathaway

            Be sure to pack some heat, too… at 2 a.m.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    Trouble is, the cultural Marxists have long since moved on to their next set of bumper stickers.

  • Christorchaos

    That’s pretty much “Game, Set, Match”. The SJW’s have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy. I do not know why anybody would ever listen to them again for anything. They are beyond the bounds of civilized society, really. No interest in truthfulness, fairness, calm deliberation, … any of those Western “fetishes.”

    • bv

      Ha! Western Fetishes!!

  • Puggg

    Hey a lot of you might have read about this news about the ATF and a certain kind of AR-15 ammo. You know I think what’s going on with that is that the ATF is claiming that it’s a particular danger to cops and their body armor, when it’s no such thing. What I think is going on with that is that Obama needs something to float out there to pretend like he still cares about cops, to distract from the fact that Obama and Holder spent months peddling hate against white cops.

  • Katherine McChesney

    Summary…Blacks lied.

  • Marilyn

    Good! It’s too bad he had his name dragged through the mud and will likely have his life threatened everywhere he goes 🙁

  • Paul Lycurgues

    WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ??

  • MekongDelta69

    After sticking their fingers in their respective ears, self-loathing, guilt ridden, spineless, hypocritical White leftists and almost all blacks put out a joint statement today:

    “Facts? What facts? Lalalalala. I can’t hear you.”

  • TF

    A huge loss for libertarians today. The libertarian community is weeping for the poor young black black who was viciously persecuted by the collectivist white establishment which seeks to shut the borders and limit freedom of movement in what can only be described as an act of extreme authoritarianism.

  • dd121

    Liberals think that if you lie big enough, long enough that the story will start to be true. It isn’t.

    • Fed Up

      Liberals learned from the Nazi regime. That a lie repeated often enough, becomes the truth. That seems to be the modus operandi for all true liberals.

    • Jason Lewis

      Even when their lies are uncovered they feel validated that the lie represents the truth. Recent case being the Rolling Stone report on white college boys raping women on campus.

      • dd121

        One story that was a leftist fantasy, among many.

  • Fed Up

    The bottom line: Blacks truly are pathological liars!

    But shucks, we’ve all known that Blacks can’t stop lying even before this excerpt was posted.

  • Chip Carver

    The folks who run the media could not care less about this report. They are part and parcel of a group of people doing their best to destroy the US, to ruin the lives of Whites. They have seemingly stepped up their efforts in the US as it looks like Europe is eventually going to slip from their grasp. Things are swinging to the right there, and as slow as that may seem, the movement is faster than the non-white imports can breed new welfare dependent criminals to be used as foot-soldiers against the native population. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how Whites react here in the US when their chance comes during and after the inevitable collapse.

  • David Ashton

    MSM.

  • Caucasoid88

    These were on the last five pages?

  • Patty Mudd

    In my time I have never seen one put his hands up. They’ve always got them out instead.

    • Reynardine

      “Hands up, need loot.”

  • Fed Up

    It’s really quite funny and certainly predictable: Call 150 Black “witnesses” and get 150 different versions of the event. Lying, to Blacks, seems to be as natural to them as breathing. Of course, the same holds true for our Liberal “friends.”

  • Chip Carver

    Why weren’t the “witnesses” who obviously lied not arrested and charged with perjury? That protective coloring comes in handy, doesn’t it?

    • baldowl

      Not being restrained by advanced concepts like truth and honesty come with black privilege.

    • USofAntiWhite

      Non-White privilege.

  • More SHOCKING news from Holder’s investigation:

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/doj-ferguson-school-resource-officers-too-quick-to-use-force/article_e5d7a423-aa4e-5689-91b4-cabb698000e6.html

    The report goes on to list a bunch of anecdotal examples. Sure, one can always get outraged if one picks the most egregious individual circumstances from the whole. But that’s just the exception that proves the rule. The reason that so much force is used inside FFSD schools is because many of the students are such ghetto hellions that force is required in order to prevent a full scale Cat 3.

  • Reynardine

    It took 86 pages to come to that conclusion?

    They must have spent at least 50 to come to the conclusion that water is wet.

  • Jim

    Had the Ferguson incident happened in February, the riots never would’ve happened. Ferguson wasn’t about the shooting of a young belligerent thief. It was about crowds of unemployed black people standing around in a housing project moments after Michael Brown was shot…all passing along stories to each other about what happened, the story changing a little bit each time it was retold.

    The media had to go along with the narrative…they’d seen all the movies where Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier and Denzel Washington and young black males accused of raping white women in the South are always the ones who tell the truth, not the white authorities. So, the media now had another really great story to tell…maybe one that would also be made into a movie some day.

    Ferguson was an evolving micro mythology, black American folklore in the making. John Henry and his hammer. But John Henry’s hammer didn’t exist. And Michael Brown’s box of cigars did.

    • Yancy Derringer

      The black guy who wore the ship captain’s hat at all the Ferguson protests can be seen throughout the initial news video coverage at Canfield Drive going from one “witness” to another and coaching them up just before they were interviewed.

      Even during some interviews, he’s standing behind the “witness” and whispering to them, telling them what to say. He’s some activist, his last name starts with an “S,” if I recall right.

      Those two girls CNN flew to New York for their “eyewitness accounts” — one’s first name is Piaget — there’s video of the “S” guy talking to them at Canfield. Their statements were utter lies — hands up, shot in the back, etc.

  • superlloyd

    Hands up: You lied. All you libtad dupes, All you black whingers, All you shameless politicians including Obongo and All you slanted, uncritical media whores. An honorable policeman lost his job and was hung out to dry because of your mendacity and moral corruption. You should all be in the dock.

    • phillyguy

      browns corn rowed accomplice was the biggest liar of them all, he started that hands up lie, he should be thrown in jail for life, his statements started the whole media frenzy and the billions of dollars worth of damage in Ferguson.

  • A Freespeechzone

    Repeat a lie often enough and the truth becomes irrelevant; the mantra of liberals to create and reiterate that negroes are ALWAYS the victims.

    The source of liberal power is based upon lies and the stupid.

    • libertarian1234

      “Repeat a lie often enough and the truth becomes irrelevant; the mantra of liberals to create and reiterate that negroes are ALWAYS the victims.”

      Yes, I seriously doubt the truth of this situation mattered one whit to the press, because their main objective regarding racial events is to promote their ideology, so I doubt this report will have any bearing on how they regard this incident in the future nor will it have any effect on similar instances of deadly black attacks on the police wherein they get shot.

      What is amazing to me is that the media encourages black crime and violence by lying about it, ignoring it or pretending it’s the result of poverty, slavery, past racism or whatever else they’ve been programmed to believe by leftist radicals in their field.

      And the most shameful of them do as they do, because they refuse to write the truth for fear of ruining their careers by their puppeteers in the shadows overhead who are pulling their strings.

      And the report surely will have zero effect on blacks or for their propensity of lying and making up ludicrous tales, because they’ll continue unabated doing
      EXACTLY the same in similar situations.

  • jim

    I wonder if those Congressional Black Caucus members who felt it necessary to do the “hands up, don’t shoot” nonsense on the house floor feel like idiots now…..

    • Kenner

      Jim, you may be unfamiliar with the leftist ploy that even a lie can illustrate a ‘deeper truth’. All they’re feeling right now is outrage that facts cut down their lynchin’ rope.

      • jim

        I get it…my comment was tongue-in-cheek. Much like the false rape stories and hate crime hoaxes, they are used as learning tools since, even though the accuser lied, these problems really do exist and we need to talk about them. Complete horsesh*t.

    • Ernest

      Not at all, in fact this will give them reason to double down. Of course they can only do any of this because most whites just won’t speak up/defend themselves when it comes to matters of race.

  • Dave West

    So it took the DOJ wrecking crew seven months to figure out what your average Amren reader figured out in August of 2014?

    They failed this time to find their fantasy story about a policeman gunning down a black “rocket scientist” for “nuffin.'” Don’t worry it’s not a question as to if the media will try to pull this one again. The question is who, when, and what crime the next “innocent” thug will be found guilty of (aka Mike Brown store robbery) before he is gunned down by a “white, racist, cop.”

    Get ready for King Trayvon III/Gentle Giant III !!! COMING SUMMER 2015 !!!

    • Kenner

      Not that long, if CNN can help it.
      They had a five way split screen a couple of days ago to accommodate their in- and out-house anti-whites discuss the ‘tragic shooting’ of a black African bum by a cop in L.A., where many ‘witnesses’ – all black- contradicted the LAPD’s version that claimed the perp grabbed for the officer’s gun; which is what the video seems to show.
      Again, CNN jumped the shark trying to canonize another black ‘victim’.

      The bum had previously been arrested for robbery and he had stolen his identity from a Frenchman, and the video showed the gun grab.
      Story seems to be fading, even at a network where all ‘Black Lies Matter’ – to them.

    • Yancy Derringer

      That race card is getting dog-eared.

    • BlueSonicStreak

      Give them credit at least for leaving no stone unturned. NO ONE can say this report was rushed.

  • WR_the_realist

    The truth stop mattering to the left a long time ago.

  • archer

    Brown died because of his own stupidity, trying to wrestle Wilson’s gun away inside the police cruiser was a game changer, it showed Wilson that his life was in real danger, that Brown wasn’t thinking clearly to risk getting shot for such a relatively minor infraction.

  • Josh

    What the hell? I can’t believe that Eric Holder has so candidly stated that Wilson was in the right, and that the talking points of “hands up” and “shot in the back” were not supported by the evidence. This is too good to be true. Is it?

  • Magician

    …..

  • TomIron361

    I guess we Yankees should have listened to the Southerners about blacks lying all the time.

  • Earl P. Holt III

    Want to avoid problems with law enforcement?

    PANTS UP — DON’T LOOT !

  • Magician

    Wake Up Don’t Lie

  • Tarczan

    CNN was reporting today that the study neither confirmed nor denied the hands up scenario.

  • Wally Wally

    Discounting the testimony of the witnesses who said Mr. Brown was shot in the back, because the evidence was contradictory, is troubling. Imagine: witnessing a police officer shooting in the direction of a fleeing suspect; at what part of the anatomy would you assume the officer was aiming? The back, being the easiest target to hit, of course. And unless a witness was standing close enough to the suspect to see blood exiting the wound, he wouldn’t be able to say definitively the suspect was hit in the back, only assume.

    The wound to the back of the arm and the graze wound could both have been the result of the officer shooting at a fleeing Mr. Brown, again, making it troubling to out and out discount the evidence of the witnesses who said the officer shot Mr. Brown in the back. Either one of the arm wounds could have been the back shot the witnesses assumed.

    This case isn’t as airtight as Mr. Taylor makes it out to be.

    • BlueSonicStreak

      Goodness, you’re nuts.

      Yes, it’s actually forensically impossible to determine if the wound to the back of the arm was fired while Brown was facing the officer or facing away. Problem is, it would be the SINGLE piece of physical evidence that corroborated the witnesses that claimed Brown’s innocence (accounts that have other credibility issues, as the report notes), while ALL OTHER pieces of evidence corroborate the officer.

      The graze wound was determined by ALL physical evidence to have occurred during a struggle for Wilson’s gun in the officer’s SUV. It did not occur at a later time. Period.

      The full 86-page report is linked up there. Read it.

      Imagine: witnessing a police officer shooting in the direction of a fleeing suspect; at what part of the anatomy would you assume the officer was aiming?

      You seem to have missed the part where none of the more credible witnesses say Wilson shot at Brown as he was “fleeing.”

      • Wally Wally

        Yes, it’s actually forensically impossible to determine if the wound to the back of the arm was fired while Brown was facing the officer or facing away. Problem is, it would be the SINGLE piece of physical evidence that corroborated the witnesses that claimed Brown’s innocence (accounts that have other credibility issues, as the report notes), while ALL OTHER pieces of evidence corroborate the officer.

        If it’s forensically impossible to determine if the wound to the back of the arm was fired while Brown was facing the officer or facing away, then it’s possible the wound was created while Brown was fleeing. Did you understand my “imagine” scenario explaining why I think it was wrong to discount the witness accounts that faulted the officer?

        The graze wound was determined by ALL physical evidence to have occurred during a struggle for Wilson’s gun in the officer’s SUV. It did not occur at a later time. Period.

        I didn’t read the entire 86-page report. Does it talk about the graze wound and at what point in the altercation it occurred? And how did they determine at what point in the altercation the graze wound occurred?

        You seem to have missed the part where none of the more credible witnesses say Wilson shot at Brown as he was “fleeing.”

        Again, back to my “imagine” scenario … I’m not sure the more credible witnesses were correctly identified.

        • BlueSonicStreak

          If it’s forensically impossible to determine if the wound to the back of the arm was fired while Brown was facing the officer or facing away, then it’s possible the wound was created while Brown was fleeing.

          Possible, but overwhelmingly unlikely.

          The next few shots were also on the SAME side (all the shots go up the right side of the body). Since you’re “imagining,” picture this carefully: in order to aim at the SAME side of someone who had just turned around, Wilson would have had to (quite accurately!) adjust his aim to the opposite side of a moving target. For no particular reason, note.

          Does it talk about the graze wound and at what point in the altercation it occurred?

          Yes.

          And how did they determine at what point in the altercation the graze wound occurred?

          Ballistics, wound analysis, gunshot residue, DNA. Try reading it.

          I don’t know how I’m supposed to take you seriously at the point of such obvious laziness and staunch ideological opposition to evidence that clears Officer Wilson.

          You remind me of radical feminists I used to argue with, who would simply INVENT “imagine” scenarios in which women were victimized, and proceed to argue as though their imaginations were reality.

          • Wally Wally

            Possible, but overwhelmingly unlikely.

            Why overwhelmingly unlikely?

            Ballistics, wound analysis, gunshot residue, DNA. Try reading it.

            The next time I get block of free time, I will read it; I’m especially interested in the part about the graze wound.

            I don’t know how I’m supposed to take you seriously at the point of such obvious laziness and staunch ideological opposition to evidence that clears Officer Wilson.

            I took the liberty to scan through a few of your responses to other opposition commenters and noticed a pattern of the use of sarcasm. Did I just get lucky, or is the use of sarcasm against opposition commenters a staple in your debate strategy toolbox?

          • BlueSonicStreak

            Why overwhelmingly unlikely?

            I feel that I’ve explained this, and anything further I can say would just be reiterating the point.

            The next time I get block of free time, I will read it; I’m especially interested in the part about the graze wound.

            In truth, you could have already located and read those parts in the time it took to reply to me.

            Did you find my “imagine” scenario implausible?

            In the face of all the other collected evidence? I thought it was outright fantasy.

            I took the liberty to scan through a few of your responses to other opposition commenters and noticed a pattern of the use of sarcasm. Did I just get lucky, or is the use of sarcasm against opposition commenters a staple in your debate strategy toolbox?

            It’s true, I have a tendency to be sarcastic, acerbic and aggressive in an argument. Just my way. Short fuse on my end. I have tried to temper it at various points in the past (feeling that it may or may not be more successful to argue with less bite), but have never been especially good at toning it down.

            If someone felt I wasn’t actually making a solid point, but only being sarcastic, I could back up and try again. Generally though, I don’t feel my arguments are harmed (and in some cases, are helped – nothing like a bit of humour to hammer a point home) by a bit of sarcasm. Opponents might not agree, but internet arguments are generally plays put on for third parties anyway.

            But in this case, I actually was not being sarcastic in the least when I said that I cannot take you seriously, that you appear very intellectually lazy, and that your comments here seem based only on ideology and not fact. My comment there should be read at face value.

            People like you are the reason Ferguson played such a large role in turning me away from “anti-racism” liberalism and toward white nationalism. Like other commenters here, I could have told you what this report would say by, essentially, the end of last August. Yet, in the wake of the first few weeks of news coverage, I argued endlessly with irrational blacks who (like you here) insisted on harping on the smallest perceived flaw in Wilson’s defense – despite what any reasonable person would conclude was more logical – and who flagrantly rejected the “innocent before proven guilty” principle of our legal system regardless.

            I’m talking to a race of child-like idiots! was my shocked feeling. But black people, in liberal mythology, are supposed to have their fingers on the very pulse of reality. I felt very crazy for weeks, wondering if I was somehow in the wrong after all – but it so happened that I was simultaneously discovering race realism.

            I reeled with the sudden understanding that I had spent a large chunk of my life wilfully engaged in the foggy delusion that blacks behave as intelligently as whites, despite never having seen a shred of evidence for it myself. I reviewed all my previous years as a pro-black advocate in my mind, and the picture was a depressingly pointless waste of my life. Never mind my horror as I realized the slow destruction of our society that anti-white activism has wrought.

            Eventually, I found my way here.

            No sarcasm in that, Wally.

          • Wally Wally

            I feel that I’ve explained this, and anything further I can say would just be reiterating the point.

            No, you didn’t. You declared it was overwhelmingly unlikely but failed to explain why.

            In the face of all the other collected evidence? I thought it was outright fantasy.

            Fantasy? If you had been one those witnesses, do you think you could have definitively known whether or not the suspect had been hit in the back? And to what ideology can you attribute my explanation for why the testimony of those witnesses should not have been dismissed?

            And like clockwork, you trot out the mini-dissertation to defend your adoption of race realism. If you would devote a tenth of that verbiage to answering the questions I cited above, I could take you more seriously.

          • BlueSonicStreak

            No dude, I really did answer your questions. You do not appear to be able to follow my explanations. The single, solitary flaw you seem to think exists in the case would only change things if you ignored literally EVERY OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE in the entire 86-page report, including the fact that the witnesses claiming to have seen Brown shot in the back were demonstrated to be lying on other points as well.

            But forget the report! Even the faintest sneeze at common sense would suggest – as I pointed out – that it would be extremely odd for Wilson to have shot only the right side from the front AND the back, under pressure, on a moving target. The wound pattern alone suggests ALL shots were fired on the same (front) side of the target. You have ignored this.

            And yes, if I had been a WITNESS, an actual witness, I think I would know what side of the body Brown was shot on. As the actual WITNESSES did whose statements actually corroborated the physical evidence. I think I would know – as they did – because I would have SEEN it. That’s what “witness” means.

            As for your “ideology,” don’t think I haven’t seen your comments here before vigorously defending blacks. It’s exceedingly obvious you are black. You just do not want to admit the shooting was Brown’s fault, and not the fault of a racist white officer, in the face of all logic and evidence that exonerates an innocent man. Hence my “diatribe” – I really just want you to appreciate as much as you’re capable how stupid you look and how repulsive the race-hustling is: I was on your side once. Now I’m not.

          • Wally Wally

            We’ve gone off on many tangents, but the original theme of the debate thread was: “it was troubling, IMO, for the DOJ to outright dismiss the testimony of the witnesses who faulted officer Wilson, simply because they mistakenly claimed Mr. Brown was shot in the back, in the face of contradictory evidence. You say you could have definitively known whether or not Mr. Brown had been shot in the back, but without evidence(e.g. – a bullet hole with blood trickling out) — how would you have known?

            To remove all doubt as to the color of my skin — I’m black. But what bearing does that have on my questioning the dismissal of the witnesses. My questioning the dismissal wasn’t based on some frivolous, ideological reason, it was based on a reasonable and logical dispute with their reasoning.

            I’m sorry your experiences with some blacks has been repulsive enough to make all blacks your enemy.

          • BlueSonicStreak

            What bearing? Either you are motivated here solely by irrational emotion, or you’re tremendously stupid. Pick one.

            I would cop to the first, personally, because it’s fixable. And certainly it is obvious to all that you are being willfully irrational when you suggest certain witnesses were “mistaken” rather than lying – even when the report itself notes how many CONFESSED to lying about actually seeing the event.

          • Wally Wally

            What bearing? Either you are motivated here solely by irrational emotion, or you’re tremendously stupid. Pick one.

            Huh???

  • Dan B. Cooper

    Fox News denigrates the South, the South boycotts Fox News