Anonymous Takes The Hoods Off The KKK After Threats Of ‘Lethal Force’ On Ferguson Protesters

Posted by | November 15, 2014 09:30 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics Top Stories

Republish
Reprint


With tension already on the rise while waiting for the Grand Jury decision to be handed down in the case of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, the KKK has promised to use “lethal force” against protesters.

That didn’t go down well with Anonymous, so the loosely-knit Internet collective has responded in the best way possible, taking the hoods off of Klan members.

The irony here is palpable.

Anonymous members are masked while ripping the hoods off of Klan members who promise violence against protesters who are exercising their right to free speech.

KKK sites are being DDOSed, faces are exposed and the Klan’s 1-800 number is being trolled.

Watch [UPDATE – YouTube had removed the video due to what they claim is a violation of their policies, but you can’t keep a good video down]:

 

 

Hands up, hoods off.  Faces of the Klan. 

The KKK should have expected them.

Update:

Frank Ancona is officially doxxed, holla!

Send me any new tweets of Klan members being de-hooded and I’ll add them here. Give the Anons some love using the #OpKKK hashtag. 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100

1,229 responses to Anonymous Takes The Hoods Off The KKK After Threats Of ‘Lethal Force’ On Ferguson Protesters

  1. Keyser Soze November 17th, 2014 at 03:01

    I bet the majority are cops/military

    • whatthe46 November 17th, 2014 at 03:09

      you’d make the forbes magazine if you had enough to play with.

  2. Keyser Soze November 17th, 2014 at 04:01

    I bet the majority are cops/military

    • whatthe46 November 17th, 2014 at 04:09

      you’d make the forbes magazine if you had enough to play with.

  3. Keyser Soze November 17th, 2014 at 04:03

    The problem isnt “white people” and no one thinks it is. The problem is the racist, fascist cops who are secretly members of the KKK, which you support. We fought a damn war to kill you Nazi bastards but we obviously didnt finish the job.

  4. Keyser Soze November 17th, 2014 at 04:04

    The Klan has killed more, looted more, and committed more arson than every single black protester in US history

    • whatthe46 November 17th, 2014 at 04:22

      people like him know nothing of history. they just talk a lot of sh’t. never will he mention the white young adults that will set fires, turn over police/civilian cars, riot, and loot over a dam* game. win or loose. its nothing to do with protesting about indignities or injustice. but when that happens, the KKK and fox calls it letting off steam. go figure. i don’t care what the reason is or who you are, its stupid. but racist like him, only see it wrong when someone else is involved. a&&wipes.

  5. T- November 17th, 2014 at 04:08

    Funfax: Ancona is a port city in central Italy that historically had a thriving Jewish community. Many Jewish people from that area took the name of the city as a family name. That Klansman either had Italian or Jewish ancestry. Irony.

    • Deb Deb Deb November 17th, 2014 at 12:11

      I’m not sure if you thought that was clever… But I can assure you it’s not far from a KKK mentality. To point out your observance of the possibilities of their nationalities based on last names in not accurate, helpful, or useful. Every race, gender, nationality, and religion has it’s fair share of terrible people, most likely because in the end, we all have this “human” thing in common.

      • T- November 17th, 2014 at 12:25

        Sure, finding mirth in the irony of someone who presumably espouses racial supremacy when they have a non-WASPy last name, one which quite possibly comes from an ethnic minority that they think should be persecuted, is just like being in the Klan.

  6. T- November 17th, 2014 at 05:08

    Funfax: Ancona is a port city in central Italy that historically had a thriving Jewish community. Many Jewish people from that area took the name of the city as a family name. That Klansman either had Italian or Jewish ancestry. Irony.

    • Deb Deb Deb November 17th, 2014 at 13:11

      I’m not sure if you thought that was clever… But I can assure you it’s not far from a KKK mentality. To point out your observance of the possibilities of their nationalities based on last names in not accurate, helpful, or useful. Every race, gender, nationality, and religion has it’s fair share of terrible people, most likely because in the end, we all have this “human” thing in common.

      • T- November 17th, 2014 at 13:25

        Sure, finding mirth in the irony of someone who presumably espouses racial supremacy when they have a non-WASPy last name, one which quite possibly comes from an ethnic minority that they think should be persecuted, is just like being in the Klan.

  7. Benjamin Miner November 17th, 2014 at 05:09

    You are everything that is wrong with this planet. You are the scum that hinders the progress of our species and society. You do not deserve the air you breathe or the life you have been given. Please do not reproduce.

  8. ray maxis November 17th, 2014 at 07:53

    Hahahahahaha..Why do all you kLans people look like dirt lot savages..Your women look so hard and smelly..Gawwddd what a disgusting bunch of people..Who didn`t pick the pigment of their skin,just were born into to it…Yet use it to dehumanize anybody that doesn`t mirror their dirtball image..hahahahahahahhahahahahhah!!!!!!

    • socilasatelite November 17th, 2014 at 13:33

      Seen any hood rats latley….not much difference their bud

  9. ray maxis November 17th, 2014 at 08:53

    Hahahahahaha..Why do all you kLans people look like dirt lot savages..Your women look so hard and smelly..Gawwddd what a disgusting bunch of people..Who didn`t pick the pigment of their skin,just were born into to it…Yet use it to dehumanize anybody that doesn`t mirror their dirtball image..hahahahahahahhahahahahhah!!!!!!

    • socilasatelite November 17th, 2014 at 14:33

      Seen any hood rats latley….not much difference their bud

  10. Tigernan Quinn November 17th, 2014 at 08:43

    Fantastic. I’ve been reposting this everywhere I can.

  11. Tigernan Quinn November 17th, 2014 at 09:43

    Fantastic. I’ve been reposting this everywhere I can.

  12. Bob Scully November 17th, 2014 at 10:07

    “We pass this bill and we’ll have them niggers voting for us for the next two hundred years,” President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat.

    • mea_mark November 17th, 2014 at 10:16

      Please edit offensive quotes.

    • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 13:00

      stormfront was shut down so you came here to whine and lie. hahahaha, loser

    • Know 'Em November 17th, 2014 at 13:45

      “We give the racists a safe place to continue their 19th century lifestyles, and we’ll have trailer trash voting for us for the next two centuries, the 19th and the 20th.” Richard Nixon

    • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 15:26

      1) What is the source of this quote, besides Robert Kessler’s book “Inside the White House, which gives no source and is dubious at best.

      2) What we DO KNOW is what was actually passed, as opposed to what a Southerner and a Texan said in the early 1960’s.

  13. Bob Scully November 17th, 2014 at 11:07

    “We pass this bill and we’ll have them n******* voting for us for the next two hundred years,” President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat.

    • mea_mark November 17th, 2014 at 11:16

      Please edit offensive quotes.

    • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 14:00

      stormfront was shut down so you came here to whine and lie. hahahaha, loser

    • Know 'Em November 17th, 2014 at 14:45

      “We give the racists a safe place to continue their 19th century lifestyles, and we’ll have trailer trash voting for us for the next two centuries, the 19th and the 20th.” Richard Nixon

    • OldLefty November 17th, 2014 at 16:26

      1) What is the source of this quote, besides Robert Kessler’s book “Inside the White House, which gives no source and is dubious at best.

      2) What we DO KNOW is what was actually passed, as opposed to what a Southerner and a Texan said in the early 1960’s.

  14. Sid November 17th, 2014 at 11:11

    Koup Klusterflock Klowns.

  15. Cori Hatchet November 17th, 2014 at 17:08

    Who cares? Let all the hate groups kill each other.

  16. Cori Hatchet November 17th, 2014 at 18:08

    Who cares? Let all the hate groups kill each other.

  17. Cori Hatchet November 17th, 2014 at 17:10

    I guess all the violent Ferguson protesters wearing masks and scarves is okee dokee.

    • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 18:56

      stormfront is shut down so you came here

      • Cori Hatchet November 17th, 2014 at 22:43

        I have no idea what stormfront is, and never heard of Anonymous until yesterday. This was on my FB page today, so this came to me, not the other way around. Regardless, I despise bullies of any type, left, right, black, white, doesn’t matter. I’m also a badass and fear nothing. So, I don’t know or care what stormfront or Anonymous is. I guarantee these “organizations” won’t screw with me.

        • tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 08:42

          so you are an idiot

          • Cori Hatchet November 18th, 2014 at 11:18

            135 IQ. You however, are a C_/llT.

            • Cori Hatchet November 18th, 2014 at 11:19

              I advise you to move along.

            • tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 11:23

              rotflmao

        • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 10:23

          ” I guarantee these “organizations” won’t screw with me.” – That is so similar to the Klan’s final internet post, before Anonymous shut them down.

          But, they won’t bother you, unless you are affiliated with a hate group in which case it is most likely they will.

          You likely aren’t relevant enough to garner their attention, even though you’re “a badass who fears nothing” LOL

    • Patricia Stidham-Burns November 18th, 2014 at 08:52

      Yes it is!

  18. Cori Hatchet November 17th, 2014 at 18:10

    I guess all the violent Ferguson protesters wearing masks and scarves is okee dokee.

    • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 19:56

      stormfront is shut down so you came here

      • Cori Hatchet November 17th, 2014 at 23:43

        I have no idea what stormfront is, and never heard of Anonymous until yesterday. This was on my FB page today, so this came to me, not the other way around. Regardless, I despise bullies of any type, left, right, black, white, doesn’t matter. I’m also a badass and fear nothing. So, I don’t know or care what stormfront or Anonymous is. I guarantee these “organizations” won’t screw with me.

        • tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 09:42

          so you are an idiot

          • Cori Hatchet November 18th, 2014 at 12:19

            I advise you to move along.

          • tracey marie November 18th, 2014 at 12:23

            rotflmao

        • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 11:23

          ” I guarantee these “organizations” won’t screw with me.” – That is so similar to the Klan’s final internet post, before Anonymous shut them down.

          But, they won’t bother you, unless you are affiliated with a hate group in which case it is most likely they will.

          You likely aren’t relevant enough to garner their attention, even though you’re “a badass who fears nothing” LOL

    • Patricia Stidham-Burns November 18th, 2014 at 09:52

      Yes it is!

  19. R Wing November 17th, 2014 at 18:17

    Funny that a group that wears hoods is being outed by a group that wears masks. I only hope that smarter heads prevail in this episode, and I hope people will allow the law to works as it should.

    • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 18:55

      as long as the inbred kkk stays out of it and the fergusan racist cops as well, things will be okay

      • R Wing November 17th, 2014 at 20:24

        As long as all accept the decision of the grand jury, regardless of what it is, and there is no rioting, everything will be okay. If there is rioting, I would not expect the cops to stay out of it. That would be anarchy and I would oppose that. I personally would fight to oppose that. Yes, the KKK should stay out of it. For that matter, anonymous, especially a group from Australia should stay out of it. Their actions have just made targets of the people they have identified, even if they made a mistake. I hope no one is hurt because of their misguided actions. They have actually given the KKK some credibility they don’t deserve.

        • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 00:46

          credibility they don’t deserve? they are not getting any credibility. they are getting ousted. and the P.D. and the community deserves to know the cops that are involved in these groups. and i could care less if they are from Australia. quite frankly, that’s just a bigger embarrassment for this country and because this country seems not to be doing a damn thing about the KKK and their actions, i hope they continue doing what they’re doing. who cares if they are now targets? they target innocent people constantly and have murdered innocent people throughout history. i’m sure many (especially cops) are biting their nails hoping they won’t be ousted next. and i’m loving that thought.

          • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 01:39

            Your comments demonstrate exactly the point I was trying to make. You believe anonymous has “ousted” sic the KKK. You haven’t even considered the possibility that they may have named innocent people who are not members of that group. What information did they use to determine who it’s members were? Is it legitimate? If you can’t answer those questions definitively, you have been victimized and hoodwinked by anonymous.You state that it’s wrong for the KKK to target innocent people constantly, yet you seem to think it’s appropriate for anonymous to do the same. What if they came out and named you as a member of the KKK next? The KKK is just a remnant of a nearly dead group. They’re a fringe element that consists of a handful of people with inferiority complexes. Even putting their leader on the news and now making a big story out of this gives them credibility they don’t deserve. You make them appear to be a credible group of armed racist citizens. They are not that. They are a fringe group of individuals.

            • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 02:00

              “What if they came out and named you as a member of the KKK next?” now that would be funny. “You make them appear to be a credible group of armed racist citizens.” BECAUSE THEY ARE!!! how old are you 12? clearly you are uneducated on the matter and thus, should not speak on such. that are you’re just willfully ignorant. which is it?

              • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 02:12

                You have a weird sense of humor if you think that would be funny. Particularly if you lost your job because of it. They are NOT a credible group of armed racist citizens. They are not credible at all. You are the one making them credible. You just don’t get it. Let me type slowly. YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THEM CREDIBLE.” WAS THAT SLOW ENOUGH FOR YOU? BTW, I’m quite well educated on the issue and apparently much, much older than you. I also know the difference between ousted and outed.

                • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 02:26

                  fine. they were “outed.” better? so what part of they are not a group of racist armed citizens, since you’re aware of their history, is a lie? they are RACIST! they are ARMED and they are CITIZENS. they are MURDRERS! you seem to have some kinda love for them? truly confusing, that unless you’re one of them. you can copy and paste your argument all night long, and it won’t change a thing. they are cops, business men/women, potliticians, trailer trash, etc. they are a hateful group of ignorant ba*tards that need to just go away. they are an embarrassment to this country and so are supporters like yourself. they breed children specifically to continue the ignorance they so embrace. in my opinion, child abuse. they support wilson only because a young black teen was shot down in the middle of the street and the people of this country (and the world is watching) want justice. not just “minorities” but the majority of the population wants justice for brown and his family. and what does the KKK do, they insist on intimidation and treats of violence. nothing knew. and now they are feeling what it’s like to be intimidated and harrassed. and how many people have you seen thus far appear on national t.v. denouncing the claim that they are in fact members that were outed by Anonymous? NONE. NADA. ZERO.

        • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 07:22

          “As long as all accept the decision of the grand jury, regardless of what it is, and there is no rioting, everything will be okay.”

          Really . . . Michael Brown will be okay? Michael Brown’s friends, family and loved ones will be okay?

          Anonymous is not a group from Australia, they are a group from every continent, country and state in the world(sans Antarctica). Until people realize this they will continue to underestimate them and therefore repeat the same mistakes as previous fools.

          • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 18:11

            I’m well aware of what anonymous is. The group who has targeted the KKK is from Australia. That is what I was referring to. Actually, they are not even a group. They are a mishmash of like minded individuals. They have done some very good things, such as bringing false accusations to light, and shining light on public corruption. I actually follow the groups activities to some extent. I don’t agree with all they do, but I don’t condemn them either.
            As for Brown being OK, of course he won’t be, nor will his family ever be satisfied. However, if the evidence shows the officer acted appropriately and a decision is made to pursue the case no further, the people should be willing to accept that. That would mean that Brown was responsible for the outcome of his own actions. That should be accepted without rioting. If it is determined that it should go to trial, then it should be tried and the outcome of the trial should be the determining factor.

            • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 21:39

              “Actually, they are not even a group. They are a mishmash of like minded individuals. They have done some very good things, such as bringing false accusations to light, and shining light on public corruption. I actually follow the groups activities to some extent.”

              – thanks for clarifying

              • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 22:27

                Oh dear, do I need to get specific? They are not an organized group that meets, discusses topics, or votes.

                • Axekick November 19th, 2014 at 02:58

                  just avoid the hypocrisy and things will be fine

                  group:
                  a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

                  – no mention of meetings, votes, discussions

            • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 22:12

              even if there’s no indictment on the state level, it doesn’t mean that it goes away. new evidence can be presented later or the feds can take over and he can be prosecuted for civil rights violation. so, don’t get to overjoyed that a murderer may get away. although i know you are hoping like hell.

              • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 22:24

                You’re correct. No double jeopardy with a grand jury. I’m aware the feds can also prosecute for civil rights violations. But they’d need to have pretty much the same evidence that would be used in a state trial. I am not hoping for a murderer to get away with anything. If he’s guilty, let him pay. I have only stated that the process must be allowed to work. We can not make judgments made on rumors, innuendo, or false accusations. That is what the people rioting are doing. That is what you are doing.

                • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 23:00

                  because the GJ is secret, we have no idea what evidence the D.A. is presenting. and, i don’t have faith in the D.A. at all!!! my judgment by the way, is based on a teen that was lying in the middle of the street with 6 holes in his body, including 2 to the head, who happened to be 35 ft away and unarmed, shot by a racist cop, who was peeved that brown wasn’t walking out of the street fast enough. yeah, i’m judging.

    • Emmica Bunneh November 18th, 2014 at 00:19

      “Allow the law to work as it should”? NEWSFLASH: THE LAW DOESN’T WORK; THAT’S THE PROBLEM. People have a right to be pissed about racism and to fight it. It’s insulting to suggest that people should just accept a potentially racist verdict and be okay with it. That’s like saying we might as well just accept racism as is and not fight it. I could understand not condoning violence, but saying that everyone should just accept “the law” (which is created by a system of racism) is ridiculous. And there’s a difference between violence and self defense. If the police or other authority figures or organizations unjustly threaten or harm protesters then damn straight the protesters should fight back.

      • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 01:54

        You haven’t a clue, do you? How can the law work when you haven’t given it a chance. There were people protesting at the scene of the shooting, making statements that weren’t true before it was even being investigated. The cops can’t still be at the scene and have people like you claiming the law doesn’t work. My God, you have to give it a chance. There has to be an investigation. Even you have said it’s a “potential” racist verdict. What you are actually saying is that it will be a racist verdict if they choose not to indict the officer, but it won’t be a racist verdict if they do choose to indict. Yet you have none of the evidence that the grand jury has. You think you are above the law. You state there’s a difference between violence and self defense. Again you are being hypocritical. You’re actually saying it’s wrong if the police are trying to stop the violence, then they are being violent and that gives the rioters the right to be violent. Sorry, that’s not the way it works. If the rioters are breaking the law, they need to be stopped. If they react violently, they are the ones who are forcing the police to defend themselves. That’s the way it is and the way it should be. Apparently, you don’t consider that the original incident started with violence and self defense. The rational people of this country have been waiting to see what the evidence shows. to see who was acting in what capacity. The rational people will look at that evidence and will decide whether to agree with it or not. The irrational people, like you, will only accept that verdict if the grand jury chooses to indict. You will choose to ignore the evidence if the grand jury decides the officer was justified. If you believed in the rule of law, you would accept the decision and would not protest. Once you start protesting, you are stating you don’t believe in the rule of law. THAT IS WHY THE LAW WON’T WORK. SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE NOT TO LET IT WORK. YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE POLICE.

        • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 07:16

          Actually she had well articulated opinions and comment.

          The way the law should work is when you kill someone you receive a trial. When you are sent to a grand jury(rarely for murder) testimony usually takes less than a day.

          When a cop kills someone in St. Louis and is sent to a grand jury they are NEVER found guilty because it is a rigged and secretive system.

          This never was a grand jury case, the cop should have been telling his story to an actual jury rather than immediately being guided by his union representative on what to do, what to say, what not to do, what not to say, etc…

          People like you, the ignorant, are the real problem

          now turn your caps lock off, grow up, read a newspaper and keep an open mind while doing so.

          • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 17:55

            Speaking of ignorant, look in the mirror. It is not necessary to even send something like this to a grand jury. In fact, it’s relatively rare that it is. When anything is sent to a grand jury, there is a very low level of proof needed to send it along further. If something doesn’t get through the grand jury, it means there is not enough evidence to even warrant sending it to trial. If there is the slightest question, it will be sent to trial. Also, just so you know, a Grand Jury does not ever find anyone guilty because that is not their job. They do not determine guilt of innocence. They only determine if there is enough evidence to send it to trial. Perhaps you are the one who should read a newspaper and keep an open mind. It’s obvious you don’t have one. You are another who has determined the persons guilt without knowing any of the facts of the case. BTW, I believe evaluating the evidence and then making a decision is keeping an open mind. That is what I am doing. That is not what you are doing.

            • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 21:51

              Son, a grand jury is completely controlled by the prosecutor who in this case is a former St. Louis police officer. Hearsay is permissible so they don’t necessarily depend on facts to persuade the jurors decision.

              If by “very low level of proof needed” you meant a super majority of jurors, then you are correct. How you determine a super majority to be “a very low level” escapes me.

              A trial is where you can “evaluate evidence” and only evidence in a fair unbiased setting. A grand jury is where you permit the prosecutor(the former police officer) to determine the fate of the accused. Hearsay is not permissible during a criminal trial.

              • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 22:12

                Exactly. My statement using the “very low level of proof” wording is poorly worded. I wasn’t referring to a super majority. I was implying that evidence that wouldn’t be allowed into a regular trial is allowed into a grand jury hearing. Hearsay being one of those. While the prosecutor does present the evidence to a grand jury, the prosecutor also has the option of not even submitting the case to the grand jury. If he actually wanted to kill the case, he wouldn’t have submitted the case to the grand jury at all. Of course that wouldn’t have been a very smart political move. So it’s possible he didn’t think there was enough evidence to present to the grand jury, but he may have decided to present what he had so he would not be accused of covering something up. In fact, that may very well be what happened. If that’s the case, it would be foolhardy for him to sabotage his own case. Regardless of his motivation, it doesn’t seem that it has made any difference to the people who are protesting.

                • Axekick November 19th, 2014 at 03:16

                  Well I am a St. Louisan. Although I am white I’ve many black friends, colleagues and a few neighbors. Generally speaking the County Prosecutor is and has long been viewed as an enemy of the minority community here.

                  Until this happened I was not really aware of how bad the problems in Ferguson were but very aware of it in neighboring communities, scattered throughout St. Louis City & County.

                  In fairness I do believe that the officer should have faced charges, even if manslaughter so an actual jury could hear the evidence and decide his fate.

                  The grand jury system allows that the prosecutor controls 100% of what is heard by the jury, including the hearsay. Therefore the prosecutor alone determines guilt or innocence which is obviously a flawed system of justice.

                  At this point I believe the protests have grown to such a point MORE so because of how the protesters were treated by local police than the shooting of Michael Brown or fate of Darren Wilson. There are young black men shot by police in this area quite frequently, but Ferguson handled this terribly and continues to do so. The Ferguson police chief, in my opinion, is a complete moron. Most police chiefs avoid the media and he races towards it. The day he said Darren Wilson was not aware of the stolen cigars, then moments later claimed he was, then moments later said he didn’t know is just one example. If he cannot communicate more effectively he should not be police chief but in either event it’s more common to have another high ranking officer handle media interviews.

                  • whatthe46 November 19th, 2014 at 03:36

                    in that same announcement to the media, he also said he knew nothing of any injuries that wilson said he had received (broken eye socket). that statement was made days after the shooting.

                    • Axekick November 19th, 2014 at 03:55

                      Correct and I find that hard to believe based on the casual posture with which Wilson was seen walking in the recently released videos following the incident. I’ve never had my own orbital eye socket broken but broke someone elses and have witnessed two others get theirs broken. They appear excruciating, not the type of injury that would allow you to casually go about business as usual. It is more common to temporarily lose your ability to see clearly and not be able to open your mouth to properly enunciate your words. Of course you can produce an xray of a broken eye socket and nobody will be able to know whose x-ray it actually is.

                      I believe he met with the police union representative who instructed him on what to do and he followed those suggestions by keeping a low profile and avoiding all media. They baffled the public with so much bullshit that people were not even interested in questioning them any longer because they knew they would not receive straight answers.

                      Here are fifteen questions for Darren Wilson that I believe if asked before the grand jury, would ensure charges were brought. They are not trick questions or baiting, they are pertinent to the reports of the incident.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/21/1337729/-15-Questions-for-Darren-Wilson?detail=email

            • whatthe46 November 19th, 2014 at 03:38

              please stop… LOL. you are so wrong and way offfffff.

        • Patricia Stidham-Burns November 18th, 2014 at 08:47

          It’s the Police that are breaking the law. Ferguson is a town not a war zone. Wilson assassinated that kid and we all KNOW it unless you are just blind to racism!

          • R Wing November 18th, 2014 at 18:01

            If the police are breaking the law, let it be handled legally. How can you possibly know Wilson assassinated anyone? You haven’t heard the evidence. All you have heard are biased news reports. News reports from both sides, by the way. Police break the law and are often protected by each other. I am not unaware of that. If that happened in this case, the evidence will show it. If there is even the slightest credible evidence submitted to the grand jury, it will go to trial to be further evaluated by a regular jury. If there is no credible evidence, it will not even go to trial. Until the legal process is over, I am not going to make any judgement. I only wish all others would do the same. You can not use news reports and accusations from others, to determine guilt.

        • lawless November 30th, 2014 at 10:57

          thats funny I watch the law in action lately.. I told my son today to wave down a cop.. He missed a court date and he has a warrant and the guy tried to turn himself in 4 times.. The dont take him..

  20. RobWJr November 17th, 2014 at 19:17

    Funny that a group that wears hoods is being outed by a group that wears masks. I only hope that smarter heads prevail in this episode, and I hope people will allow the law to works as it should.

    • tracey marie November 17th, 2014 at 19:55

      as long as the inbred kkk stays out of it and the fergusan racist cops as well, things will be okay

      • RobWJr November 17th, 2014 at 21:24

        As long as all accept the decision of the grand jury, regardless of what it is, and there is no rioting, everything will be okay. If there is rioting, I would not expect the cops to stay out of it. That would be anarchy and I would oppose that. I personally would fight to oppose that. Yes, the KKK should stay out of it. For that matter, anonymous, especially a group from Australia should stay out of it. Their actions have just made targets of the people they have identified, even if they made a mistake. I hope no one is hurt because of their misguided actions. They have actually given the KKK some credibility they don’t deserve.

        • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 01:46

          credibility they don’t deserve? they are not getting any credibility. they are getting ousted. and the P.D. and the community deserves to know the cops that are involved in these groups. and i could care less if they are from Australia. quite frankly, that’s just a bigger embarrassment for this country and because this country seems not to be doing a damn thing about the KKK and their actions, i hope they continue doing what they’re doing. who cares if they are now targets? they target innocent people constantly and have murdered innocent people throughout history. i’m sure many (especially cops) are biting their nails hoping they won’t be ousted next. and i’m loving that thought.

          • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 02:39

            Your comments demonstrate exactly the point I was trying to make. You believe anonymous has “ousted” sic the KKK. You haven’t even considered the possibility that they may have named innocent people who are not members of that group. What information did they use to determine who it’s members were? Is it legitimate? If you can’t answer those questions definitively, you have been victimized and hoodwinked by anonymous.You state that it’s wrong for the KKK to target innocent people constantly, yet you seem to think it’s appropriate for anonymous to do the same. What if they came out and named you as a member of the KKK next? The KKK is just a remnant of a nearly dead group. They’re a fringe element that consists of a handful of people with inferiority complexes. Even putting their leader on the news and now making a big story out of this gives them credibility they don’t deserve. You make them appear to be a credible group of armed racist citizens. They are not that. They are a fringe group of individuals.

            • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 03:00

              “What if they came out and named you as a member of the KKK next?” now that would be funny. “You make them appear to be a credible group of armed racist citizens.” BECAUSE THEY ARE!!! how old are you 12? clearly you are uneducated on the matter and thus, should not speak on such. that are you’re just willfully ignorant. which is it?

              • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 03:12

                You have a weird sense of humor if you think that would be funny. Particularly if you lost your job because of it. They are NOT a credible group of armed racist citizens. They are not credible at all. You are the one making them credible. You just don’t get it. Let me type slowly. YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THEM CREDIBLE.” WAS THAT SLOW ENOUGH FOR YOU? BTW, I’m quite well educated on the issue and apparently much, much older than you. I also know the difference between ousted and outed.

                • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 03:26

                  fine. they were “outed.” better? so what part of they are not a group of racist armed citizens, since you’re aware of their history, is a lie? they are RACIST! they are ARMED and they are CITIZENS. they are MURDRERS! you seem to have some kinda love for them? truly confusing, that unless you’re one of them. you can copy and paste your argument all night long, and it won’t change a thing. they are cops, business men/women, potliticians, trailer trash, etc. they are a hateful group of ignorant ba*tards that need to just go away. they are an embarrassment to this country and so are supporters like yourself. they breed children specifically to continue the ignorance they so embrace. in my opinion, child abuse. they support wilson only because a young black teen was shot down in the middle of the street and the people of this country (and the world is watching) want justice. not just “minorities” but the majority of the population wants justice for brown and his family. and what does the KKK do, they insist on intimidation and treats of violence. nothing knew. and now they are feeling what it’s like to be intimidated and harrassed. and how many people have you seen thus far appear on national t.v. denouncing the claim that they are in fact members that were outed by Anonymous? NONE. NADA. ZERO.

        • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 08:22

          “As long as all accept the decision of the grand jury, regardless of what it is, and there is no rioting, everything will be okay.”

          Really . . . Michael Brown will be okay? Michael Brown’s friends, family and loved ones will be okay?

          Anonymous is not a group from Australia, they are a group from every continent, country and state in the world(sans Antarctica). Until people realize this they will continue to underestimate them and therefore repeat the same mistakes as prior fools.

          • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 19:11

            I’m well aware of what anonymous is. The group who has targeted the KKK is from Australia. That is what I was referring to. Actually, they are not even a group. They are a mishmash of like minded individuals. They have done some very good things, such as bringing false accusations to light, and shining light on public corruption. I actually follow the groups activities to some extent. I don’t agree with all they do, but I don’t condemn them either.
            As for Brown being OK, of course he won’t be, nor will his family ever be satisfied. However, if the evidence shows the officer acted appropriately and a decision is made to pursue the case no further, the people should be willing to accept that. That would mean that Brown was responsible for the outcome of his own actions. That should be accepted without rioting. If it is determined that it should go to trial, then it should be tried and the outcome of the trial should be the determining factor.

            • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 22:39

              “Actually, they are not even a group. They are a mishmash of like minded individuals. They have done some very good things, such as bringing false accusations to light, and shining light on public corruption. I actually follow the groups activities to some extent.”

              – thanks for clarifying

              • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 23:27

                Oh dear, do I need to get specific? They are not an organized group that meets, discusses topics, or votes.

                • Axekick November 19th, 2014 at 03:58

                  just avoid the hypocrisy and things will be fine

                  group:
                  a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

                  – no mention of meetings, votes, discussions

            • whatthe46 November 18th, 2014 at 23:12

              even if there’s no indictment on the state level, it doesn’t mean that it goes away. new evidence can be presented later or the feds can take over and he can be prosecuted for civil rights violation. so, don’t get to overjoyed that a murderer may get away. although i know you are hoping like hell.

              • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 23:24

                You’re correct. No double jeopardy with a grand jury. I’m aware the feds can also prosecute for civil rights violations. But they’d need to have pretty much the same evidence that would be used in a state trial. I am not hoping for a murderer to get away with anything. If he’s guilty, let him pay. I have only stated that the process must be allowed to work. We can not make judgments made on rumors, innuendo, or false accusations. That is what the people rioting are doing. That is what you are doing.

                • whatthe46 November 19th, 2014 at 00:00

                  because the GJ is secret, we have no idea what evidence the D.A. is presenting. and, i don’t have faith in the D.A. at all!!! my judgment by the way, is based on a teen that was lying in the middle of the street with 6 holes in his body, including 2 to the head, who happened to be 35 ft away and unarmed, shot by a racist cop, who was peeved that brown wasn’t walking out of the street fast enough. yeah, i’m judging.

    • Emmica Bunneh November 18th, 2014 at 01:19

      “Allow the law to work as it should”? NEWSFLASH: THE LAW DOESN’T WORK; THAT’S THE PROBLEM. People have a right to be pissed about racism and to fight it. It’s insulting to suggest that people should just accept a potentially racist verdict and be okay with it. That’s like saying we might as well just accept racism as is and not fight it. I could understand not condoning violence, but saying that everyone should just accept “the law” (which is created by a system of racism) is ridiculous. And there’s a difference between violence and self defense. If the police or other authority figures or organizations unjustly threaten or harm protesters then damn straight the protesters should fight back.

      • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 02:54

        You haven’t a clue, do you? How can the law work when you haven’t given it a chance. There were people protesting at the scene of the shooting, making statements that weren’t true before it was even being investigated. The cops can’t still be at the scene and have people like you claiming the law doesn’t work. My God, you have to give it a chance. There has to be an investigation. Even you have said it’s a “potential” racist verdict. What you are actually saying is that it will be a racist verdict if they choose not to indict the officer, but it won’t be a racist verdict if they do choose to indict. Yet you have none of the evidence that the grand jury has. You think you are above the law. You state there’s a difference between violence and self defense. Again you are being hypocritical. You’re actually saying it’s wrong if the police are trying to stop the violence, then they are being violent and that gives the rioters the right to be violent. Sorry, that’s not the way it works. If the rioters are breaking the law, they need to be stopped. If they react violently, they are the ones who are forcing the police to defend themselves. That’s the way it is and the way it should be. Apparently, you don’t consider that the original incident started with violence and self defense. The rational people of this country have been waiting to see what the evidence shows. to see who was acting in what capacity. The rational people will look at that evidence and will decide whether to agree with it or not. The irrational people, like you, will only accept that verdict if the grand jury chooses to indict. You will choose to ignore the evidence if the grand jury decides the officer was justified. If you believed in the rule of law, you would accept the decision and would not protest. Once you start protesting, you are stating you don’t believe in the rule of law. THAT IS WHY THE LAW WON’T WORK. SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE NOT TO LET IT WORK. YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE POLICE.

        • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 08:16

          Actually she had well articulated opinions and comment.

          The way the law should work is when you kill someone you receive a trial. When you are sent to a grand jury(rarely for murder) testimony usually takes less than a day.

          When a cop kills someone in St. Louis and is sent to a grand jury they are NEVER found guilty because it is a rigged and secretive system.

          This never was a grand jury case, the cop should have been telling his story to an actual jury rather than immediately being guided by his union representative on what to do, what to say, what not to do, what not to say, etc…

          People like you, the ignorant, are the real problem

          now turn your caps lock off, grow up, read a newspaper and keep an open mind while doing so.

          • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 18:55

            Speaking of ignorant, look in the mirror. It is not necessary to even send something like this to a grand jury. In fact, it’s relatively rare that it is. When anything is sent to a grand jury, there is a very low level of proof needed to send it along further. If something doesn’t get through the grand jury, it means there is not enough evidence to even warrant sending it to trial. If there is the slightest question, it will be sent to trial. Also, just so you know, a Grand Jury does not ever find anyone guilty because that is not their job. They do not determine guilt of innocence. They only determine if there is enough evidence to send it to trial. Perhaps you are the one who should read a newspaper and keep an open mind. It’s obvious you don’t have one. You are another who has determined the persons guilt without knowing any of the facts of the case. BTW, I believe evaluating the evidence and then making a decision is keeping an open mind. That is what I am doing. That is not what you are doing.

            • Axekick November 18th, 2014 at 22:51

              Son, a grand jury is completely controlled by the prosecutor who in this case is a former St. Louis police officer. Hearsay is permissible so they don’t necessarily depend on facts to persuade the jurors decision.

              If by “very low level of proof needed” you meant a super majority of jurors, then you are correct. How you determine a super majority to be “a very low level” escapes me.

              A trial is where you can “evaluate evidence” and only evidence in a fair unbiased setting. A grand jury is where you permit the prosecutor(the former police officer) to determine the fate of the accused. Hearsay is not permissible during a criminal trial.

              • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 23:12

                Exactly. My statement using the “very low level of proof” wording is poorly worded. I wasn’t referring to a super majority. I was implying that evidence that wouldn’t be allowed into a regular trial is allowed into a grand jury hearing. Hearsay being one of those. While the prosecutor does present the evidence to a grand jury, the prosecutor also has the option of not even submitting the case to the grand jury. If he actually wanted to kill the case, he wouldn’t have submitted the case to the grand jury at all. Of course that wouldn’t have been a very smart political move. So it’s possible he didn’t think there was enough evidence to present to the grand jury, but he may have decided to present what he had so he would not be accused of covering something up. In fact, that may very well be what happened. If that’s the case, it would be foolhardy for him to sabotage his own case. Regardless of his motivation, it doesn’t seem that it has made any difference to the people who are protesting.

                • Axekick November 19th, 2014 at 04:16

                  Well I am a St. Louisan. Although I am white I’ve many black friends, colleagues and a few neighbors. Generally speaking the County Prosecutor is and has long been viewed as an enemy of the minority community here.

                  Until this happened I was not really aware of how bad the problems in Ferguson were but very aware of it in neighboring communities, scattered throughout St. Louis City & County.

                  In fairness I do believe that the officer should have faced charges, even if manslaughter so an actual jury could hear the evidence and decide his fate.

                  The grand jury system allows that the prosecutor controls 100% of what is heard by the jury, including the hearsay. Therefore the prosecutor alone determines guilt or innocence which is obviously a flawed system of justice.

                  At this point I believe the protests have grown to such a point MORE so because of how the protesters were treated by local police than the shooting of Michael Brown or fate of Darren Wilson. There are young black men shot by police in this area quite frequently, but Ferguson handled this terribly and continues to do so. The Ferguson police chief, in my opinion, is a complete moron. Most police chiefs avoid the media and he races towards it. The day he said Darren Wilson was not aware of the stolen cigars, then moments later claimed he was, then moments later said he didn’t know is just one example. If he cannot communicate more effectively he should not be police chief but in either event it’s more common to have another high ranking officer handle media interviews.

                  • whatthe46 November 19th, 2014 at 04:36

                    in that same announcement to the media, he also said he knew nothing of any injuries that wilson said he had received (broken eye socket). that statement was made days after the shooting.

                    • Axekick November 19th, 2014 at 04:55

                      Correct and I find that hard to believe based on the casual posture with which Wilson was seen walking in the recently released videos following the incident. I’ve never had my own orbital eye socket broken but broke someone elses and have witnessed two others get theirs broken. They appear excruciating, not the type of injury that would allow you to casually go about business as usual. It is more common to temporarily lose your ability to see clearly and not be able to open your mouth to properly enunciate your words. Of course you can produce an xray of a broken eye socket and nobody will be able to know whose x-ray it actually is.

                      I believe he met with the police union representative who instructed him on what to do and he followed those suggestions by keeping a low profile and avoiding all media. They baffled the public with so much bullshit that people were not even interested in questioning them any longer because they knew they would not receive straight answers.

                      Here are fifteen questions for Darren Wilson that I believe if asked before the grand jury, would ensure charges were brought. They are not trick questions or baiting, they are pertinent to the reports of the incident.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/21/1337729/-15-Questions-for-Darren-Wilson?detail=email

            • whatthe46 November 19th, 2014 at 04:38

              please stop… LOL. you are so wrong and way offfffff.

        • Patricia Stidham-Burns November 18th, 2014 at 09:47

          It’s the Police that are breaking the law. Ferguson is a town not a war zone. Wilson assassinated that kid and we all KNOW it unless you are just blind to racism!

          • RobWJr November 18th, 2014 at 19:01

            If the police are breaking the law, let it be handled legally. How can you possibly know Wilson assassinated anyone? You haven’t heard the evidence. All you have heard are biased news reports. News reports from both sides, by the way. Police break the law and are often protected by each other. I am not unaware of that. If that happened in this case, the evidence will show it. If there is even the slightest credible evidence submitted to the grand jury, it will go to trial to be further evaluated by a regular jury. If there is no credible evidence, it will not even go to trial. Until the legal process is over, I am not going to make any judgement. I only wish all others would do the same. You can not use news reports and accusations from others, to determine guilt.

        • lawless November 30th, 2014 at 11:57

          thats funny I watch the law in action lately.. I told my son today to wave down a cop.. He missed a court date and he has a warrant and the guy tried to turn himself in 4 times.. The dont take him..

1 … 7 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply