Call Him What He Is: A Domestic Terrorist
A gunman opened fire inside a motel room in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa on Wednesday, killing a man and wounding two women before shooting three more people as he sought to elude an exhaustive manhunt that ended in his capture, police said.
Officers using a stun gun subdued the suspected gunman at a vacant condominium where he had taken refuge, some four hours after the initial shooting, Mesa police spokesman Esteban Flores told reporters.
“At this time we believe he is responsible for each and every one of these shootings,” Flores said. Police said the motive for the rampage was still unclear but that the initial gunfire erupted following an argument at the motel.
“Everything else seemed to be random at that point,” Flores said. “We believe his motive at the other locations was robbery and carjackings and just trying to get away.”
Local NBC affiliate 12 News showed the man being led out of the residential complex in a white full-body suit, his wrists shackled, and taken to a local hospital.
“That is something investigators use if they’re going to be protecting his clothing for evidence,” Flores said of the suit.
The suspected gunman was not publicly named by authorities, but the Arizona Republic newspaper identified him as Ryan Elliot Giroux, citing a Mesa police source. A hospital official confirmed to Reuters that Giroux was treated at Banner Desert Medical Center in Mesa on Wednesday and released into police custody.
Anti-hate group the Southern Poverty Law Center, citing a retired Mesa police detective, identified Giroux, 41, as a member of skinhead and white supremacist groups who had served prison time for burglary and marijuana possession and attempted aggravated assault.
[su_fb]
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo
David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.
* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.
66 responses to Call Him What He Is: A Domestic Terrorist
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Budda March 19th, 2015 at 09:37
Terrorist? Maybe. Stupid,a$$hole outlaw? Definately.
whatthe46 March 19th, 2015 at 19:50
shooting at 5 people, asked the ones that lived if they felt terror?
Budda March 19th, 2015 at 20:43
I feel terror watching some people drive….that doesn’t make them terrorists.
I think the term is getting over used, IMO
illinoisboy1977 March 19th, 2015 at 10:18
The label of “terrorist” would be dependent upon his motivation for the shooting. A “terrorist” is one who uses violence to further his own political views by causing death and instilling fear among an opposing group of people. We don’t yet know the complete circumstances of the shootings.
Khary A March 19th, 2015 at 10:41
HE is a NAZI, there is no other way to describe them as other than terrorists. Perhaps it that they don’t seek to instill terror in you and your kind but make no mistake they sure as hell wish to in at least mine and others. defending these miscreants as otherwise is a myopic view on the nature of the nazi influence.
illinoisboy1977 March 19th, 2015 at 11:11
I don’t disagree with that assessment, other than to point out that beliefs don’t make you a terrorist. Acting on them does. Until all the circumstances and motivations are known, we don’t know if this was a terrorist act, or a violent crime. Either way, he’s never going to walk amongst decent people again.
arc99 March 19th, 2015 at 10:47
I think the point of the article is that our media and our culture does not hesitate to label someone as a terrorist if their name happens to have an Ali or Muhammad in the name and we don’t bother to know the complete circumstances.
Why should we treat an American born caucasian any differently?
Furthermore, why is it that even after the facts are known, caucasian Americans are never referred to as terrorists when in fact that is exactly what they are, even according to your definition. I have never heard the murderer of Dr. George Tiller referred to as a terrorist, despite the fact that his murder was to prevent him from performing abortions.
Here is another case from Pittsburgh in 2009. Not once is the man called a terrorist. That is the point of the article. There is an inherent bias that prevents American caucasians from being called terrorists.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/04/shooter-wearing-bulletproof-vest-guns-down-3-pittsburgh-officers-upset-over/
A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and “lying in wait” opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.
Police Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn’t clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
illinoisboy1977 March 19th, 2015 at 11:12
There are certain criteria for labeling someone a terrorist. The current administration holds tightly to the criteria, as evidenced by the Fort Hood “workplace violence”.
arc99 March 19th, 2015 at 11:50
The critics of the administration also hold tightly to their own criteria as noted in my previous post.
fahvel March 19th, 2015 at 12:49
I think what they hold tightly is what’s beyond the sphincter.
granpa.usthai March 20th, 2015 at 01:31
agree.
just because the general media is biased doesn’t mean the individual has to be.
A WHITE Racist Caucasian Terrorist.
(emphasis on the .).
fahvel March 19th, 2015 at 12:48
you might see and understand more if you used a straw with a bigger diameter to view the world at large.
William March 19th, 2015 at 11:28
Domestic Terrorist, well regulated militia. Hey c’mon aren’t we being a little picky here? Picking the fly-sh!t out of the pepper as it were?
Candide Thirtythree March 19th, 2015 at 17:22
hahaha! I love that saying, I am going to have to tell hubby that one, he has a treasure trove of those witticisms and amusing bon mots.
Herb Sarge Phelps March 19th, 2015 at 11:37
I Live about 2 miles from where this happened. Yes people were terrorized and it was obvious he was likely to kill anyone in his path. It was restrictive, scary, and agonizing. Now what is terrorism about?
fahvel March 19th, 2015 at 12:46
I can think of one fine way to remove the head tats – you are welcome to borrow our old guillotine.
bpollen March 20th, 2015 at 03:11
You got all the cool toys…
trees March 19th, 2015 at 13:03
Dave,
FightingFromTheLeft March 19th, 2015 at 14:17
Oh Trees,
So many places I could go….
If you have tattoos stating ‘SKIN HEAD’ where your eyebrows used to be, you are trying to inspire terrorism.
No, I’m sure he killed that person in the motel to inspire freedom of expression.
When you shoot random people, you are inspiring terrorism.
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
And what is Islamic Terrorism? You mean ISIL or whatever? They are no more Islamic than your right wing psycho who attacks an abortion clinic is Christian. I can say that this terrorist group has very little to do with the actual teachings of the Quran and I challenge you to show proof that it does.
trees March 19th, 2015 at 14:43
The use of violence in the pursuit of political aims.
And you believe his motivation for these crimes was political? Did he shout “Allah Akbar”? What political statement did he give for his motivation, what political exhortation did he make at the time of his arrest?
And I don’t think that definition is entirely accurate, especially within the context that the majority of Americans define it.
Most Americans consider terrorism to be religiously based, you know, religious terrorism?
It would seem that author of this post is attempting to conflate the two.
FightingFromTheLeft March 19th, 2015 at 15:33
SkinHead. The political motivation is pretty clear. White Power.
Since when do we define words or terms based on popular opinion? Terrorism has always been defined by which side of the fence you’re on. I’d imagine its quite terrific when drones come dropping bombs, but I admit I wouldn’t actually know…unlike most Americans.
Candide Thirtythree March 19th, 2015 at 17:19
Exactly, if a skinhead wants to move up in the ranks then they have to impress the higher-ups and that is the definition of political.
Candide Thirtythree March 19th, 2015 at 17:17
Political motive does NOT mean politics as in who is running for congress or dog catcher.
It means political as in you have to be part of the IN group, the group that you are trying to impress to get a job or move up in the ranks.
“Getting a teaching job is almost as political as getting a job in the mafia!”
“It’s still not as political as the bus driving jobs!”
That was an actual conversation in the teacher’s lounge at the school where I did my internship. Scary, no?
Anyway, a skinhead organization is every bit as political as the mafia or the republican party.
granpa.usthai March 20th, 2015 at 01:20
his tattoos ARE his political statement.
WHITE Racist = TERRORIST.
trees March 19th, 2015 at 14:51
I think they, ISIL/ISIS/Boko Haram, would disagree with you. The command from them is to convert to Islam, or die. So, how do we know if they’re representative of the religion, Islam?
Do we examine the history of Islam, it’s founder, his teachings and actions/activities, and it’s beginning’s, it’s origins? Do we use documents written during the course of it’s history?
How are we going to define Islam? What is the lens we’ll use to bring it into a sharp focus?
Bunya March 19th, 2015 at 15:16
“The command from them is to convert to Islam, or die.”
.
Perhaps you should read the Qur’an before you state, with complete authority, what’s in it. I’m guessing you know as much about the Qur’an as you do about the bible (which is very, very little).
.
I could ask you the same … How do we know if those who kill doctors and bomb clinics are representative of the religion, Christianity?
.
Do we examine the history of Christianity, it’s founders, their teachings and actions, activities, and it’s/their beginnings, it’s/their origins? Which of the over 100,000 versions of the bible written during the course of it’s history, do we use?
trees March 19th, 2015 at 20:55
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414113/actual-root-causes-islamic-terrorism-ira-straus
trees March 20th, 2015 at 22:23
Qur’an:9:5 – “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:88 – “The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
I think the text is clear.
arc99 March 20th, 2015 at 23:07
There is no person on earth less qualified to tell us what the text of the Koran means, than someone who is not Muslim.
Using your approach, if I ever have the need to obtain a more complete understanding of Judaism, I will consult a Hindu priest.
trees March 20th, 2015 at 23:47
1) The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 claimed to be Muslim, the terrorists who are beheading people, and burning people alive, also claim Islam as their religion.
2) I posted Islamic texts
3) Either the texts support the actions of the Islamic terrorists, or they don’t.
Read them and think for yourself, ask yourself this question, “do I find exhortations to commit violence in these Islamic passages?”
A couple of posts above this one I posted a rather lengthy series of Qur’anic verses, a simple search on the origins and history of Islam, as well as a biography of Mohammed should bring it all into focus…..
If it makes you uncomfortable, I can understand that. It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to find out what the motivation behind Islamic radicalism is….
arc99 March 21st, 2015 at 00:19
Psalms 137-9 celebrates infanticide so using your logic why would it be unfair to portray infanticide as a core tenet of Judeo-Christian beliefs?
Ultimately you are certainly free to dislike or fear or hate or have whatever negative opinion you choose about a religion practiced by billions of people around the world.
But please know that I personally am disgusted by the religious bigotry that parades around as concern for national security. When the simple act of building a house of worship which happens to be a mosque is seen as a threat, it is quite clear to me that I want no part of this anti Muslim hysteria.
Aside from my own conscience, the only verses I need to understand the proper place of Islam in the United States of America, are Article 6 and Amendment 1 of the US Constitution.
trees March 21st, 2015 at 01:56
http://lutherspub.blogspot.com/2009/07/yes-but-what-about-psalm-137.html
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Yes, But What About Psalm 137?
In addressing C.S. Lewis’ comments about the imprecatory psalms, we dealt primarily with generalizations. But the comment about bashing in the heads of Babylonian infants in Psalm 137:9 demands our attention.
First of all, we should note again that the psalmist’s maledictions are never merely personal. The psalmist in 137 is bemoaning the injustices committed against Israel by Edom and Babylon.
The historical context is most likely the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians in the early 6th century BC, during which time the Edomites availed themselves of Judah’s weakened condition and further violated its citizens – their distant cousins. The prophecy of Obadiah is directed against Edom for this particularly heinous atrocity and callous aggression (cf. Jer.49:7-22; Isa.34:5-17).
You’ll note the similarlity between these prophetic declarations and the psalmist’s prayer. Obadiah, for instance, declares, “As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head.” The Psalmist in 137, now in reference to Babylon (cf. Hab.2:4-20; Jer.50-51; Isa.13; 21:1-10; 47), writes, “happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us,” v.8. If in this the psalmist is accussed of sin, let it be acknowledged that it is because he celebrates the justice of God in His righteous judgment against the cruel destroyer. And v.9, of course, must be read in its immediate context. It is applying and particularizing the principle articulated v.8. As they have dashed our children to the ground, so let the avenger (who, as it turns out, will be the Medo-Persians) dash their infants!
It was a common, grisly practice in ancient warfare (see 2Ki.8:12; Hos.10:14; 13:16; Nah.3:10; Lk.19:44).
Sadly, it is not unknown in modern times either; during WWII at Bromberg, it was observed that the S.S. would “take the Jewish children by their feet and break their heads by striking them against the wall…”
In fact, it is prophesied by Isaiah that such fate would fall upon the Babylonians themselves, who committed such violence: Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians’ pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.
As they have done to others, so it will be done to them. And again, it would appear that the psalmist in 137 is celebrating or anticipating God’s coming justice against the Babylonians – gruesome as it is! This makes us uncomfortable. Can we really celebrate such brutal justice? But here we might recall (again) that heaven itself calls the church to similarly celebrate the terrible retribution that falls against “Babylon the Great,” the violent oppressor of the saints, in Revelation 18:1-19:3. Justice will have been thereby established on the earth.
Justice here does not necessarily pertain to the question of the relative guilt or innocence of the infants. In Scripture it is assumed that infants are not morally culpable agents (e.g., Isa.7:16). Rather, this judgment is conceived as coming against the Babylonian aggressors. We might note that God has destroyed the life of infants elsewhere in judgment directed against the parents, most famously in the case of David (2Sam.12:13-15). We might also note the death of the firstborn in Egypt by God’s mysterious agent, “the Destroyer,” as judgment against Pharaoh’s obstinance.
Of course, as Scripture makes clear, the sons are not imputed with their father’s guilt, nor vice versa (Ez.18:20). So the children are not considered guilty for their father’s atrocities. However, the scriptures also say: “[God] does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” In other words, there are divinely instituted consequences for sins which affect generations (though God here sets limits on their impact, by His mercy, whereas His grace abounds to thousands of generations). My sin and its detrimental impact cannot be neatly confined to my own life. So, the infant in David’s case is not held as culpable for his father’s sins, but he is to some extent punished for them. More directly, David is punished through his child’s illness and death.
Even so, it is asked, how is this fair? Here we must go back to the biblical framework for human history: creation and fall. The wages of sin is death, and so all die because, in Adam, “all sinned,” even those who did not sin by actually breaking the commandment (Rom.5:12-14). Throughout the course of our lives, our actual transgressions bear witness against us concerning our damnable condition. But we are under curse from the moment we’re conceived. As David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me,” Ps.51:5. It is the tragic reality of “Adam’s helpless race.” And as a result, “in Adam, all die,” (1Co.15:22). The judgment that befell us in our forefather was death – a death graciously prolonged in the case of many, allowing some of us an entire life-time in God’s patience and grace. Nevertheless the whole human race is on death row. No one gets out of here alive. Moreover, none of us can demand that we are given first breath upon birth – not to mention God’s continual care for us within the womb (e.g., Ps.139:13-14). We live by mercy alone, and we will die by justice.
All this to say that it is not unjust for God to bring the infant’s life to an end, according to his purposes in judgment and providence, any more so than bringing the octogenarian’s life to an end in a tragic car accident.
Lastly, we must be careful to maintain the distinctions Scripture maintains. If it is in fact just that the evil that I have perpetrated against others be exacted against me (in one form or another), it is not necessarily just for someone to enact it. When the Medes came against Babylon, and dashed their infants’ heads against the ground, though they unwittingly carried out God’s judgment against the Babylonians, they themselves acted wickedly – just as the Babylonian’s and Assyrian’s violence against the infants of Israel and Judah were, in and of themselves, unjust, and yet the vehicle of God’s just judgment against His own people (e.g., Hos.13:16).
Once again, the cross stands as the ultimate illustration of this principle. Jesus’ unjust condemnation and crucifixion – for which those agents who were responsible are held culpable by God – was in fact the foreordained means (e.g, Ac.2:23; 4:27-28) of God’s righteous accomplishment of His saving purposes (Ro.3:25-26). Moreover, even if the retributive principle can be justly applied by the hands of men, it obviously does not follow that I am the one to enact it. Lex talionis was established not to justify revenge or excerbate violence through endless retaliation, but rather to delimit retribution in Israel’s courts, and to undercut personal vengenence. God alone is the avenger in Scripture, and we look ultimately to him to establish justice for us.
In summary, we cannot read Psalm 137:9 as a justification for infanticide. But we would do well, in response to this psalm and others like it, to remember that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is always wrong to take human life without justifiable cause. But God has justifiable cause against us! And as the Judge, He sovereignly determines how justice will be executed. This ought to humble us, and yield repentance. Rather than assigning blame, or seeking (in vain) to unravel God’s myterious providence, Jesus tells us in light of similar tragedies, “unless you repent, you too will all perish,” (Lk.13:1-5).
trees March 21st, 2015 at 02:23
You’re implying that the identification of those who claim acts of barbarity, by their own admission of Islam as being the source material from which they draw upon, is somehow bigoted.
Have I claimed that all Muslims are terrorists?
I have not.
I understand your concern.
You’re concern is that somehow those Muslims who don’t identify with Islamic radicalism will be insulted, or offended, but if you truly oppose the violent narrative then you will be neither offended, or insulted, any more than I am by those who profess to be Christian, and who are clearly not.
There have been countless attempts to slander Christianity by other left wing commentators on this site, a phenomena that has not gone unnoticed by others…..
Hitler was a Christian, being one example of this.
Hitler was not a Christian, and yet it is asserted here often that he was….
And yes, it is tiring work trying to correct the half-truths and outright falsehoods that are constantly being trotted out by those who post here regularly, but I am not offended, nor insulted….
For the truth stands in opposition to the lie, and the truth needs no defender, it merely needs to be proclaimed.
Bunya March 21st, 2015 at 20:40
“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 claimed to be Muslim.”
LOL! And Adolph Hitler, who tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, claimed to be Christian. What’s your point?
OldLefty March 19th, 2015 at 15:22
I think they, ISIL/ISIS/Boko Haram, would disagree with you.
_______
So would the Nazis and Klan who called THEMSELVES Christians.
The Documents and their interpretations and fishy translations.
Don’t forget that we don’t have that with Christianity since there is much disagreement about what gospels were in, which were out and translations unreliable there as well.
The most dangerous view of all is the “My voodoo good, your voodoo bad.”
Bunya March 20th, 2015 at 13:20
LOL! I ask you for proof and you post something from a right wing rag. Nice. Haha. I should’ve known. You know nothing about the bible, so I don’t expect you to know anything about the Qur’an.
.
By the way, it’s your duty as a “Christian” to kill those heretic Muslims, as it instructs in Ezekiel 33:8 and Romans 13:4. Perhaps you should get right on that, if you want to make the “rapture” and all.
trees March 20th, 2015 at 15:07
By the way, it’s your duty as a “Christian” to kill those heretic Muslims, as it instructs in Ezekiel 33:8 and Romans 13:4
??? Romans 4 says it’s my “Christian duty” to kill heretics? It does? Really?
Let’s take a look and see if what you’ve said is true…
Bunya March 20th, 2015 at 16:08
Great. Now which of the over 100,000 different interpretations of the bible did you get that from? The King James version? The New International version? The New Living Translation version? The New King James version? The English Standard version? The Holman Christian Standard Bible? The New American Standard bible? Etc., etc, etc.
.
Here’s mine from the English Standard version:
.
“If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.” Ezekiel 33:8
.
How about this one from the King James version:
.
“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
.
Here’s a little fun fact. There is only ONE Qur’an. Only ONE interpretation, and only ONE God. Cool, huh?
trees March 20th, 2015 at 22:16
So, if there is only one interpretation, then, ISIS/ISIL/Boko Haram/ etc..etc.. must have the correct interpretation, correct? They own, read, and interpret the Qur’an and believe themselves to be faithful to it’s teachings. If there is only one interpretation, your words, then they cannot have a wrong understanding. To interpret is to understand, like right now, for example. You are interpreting the words I’ve written, and understand that your previous statement is either nonsensical, or supports my assertion that the Islamic terrorists are adhering to their beliefs…..
Bunya March 21st, 2015 at 16:59
ISIS, ISIL and Boko Haram are NOT religions, so whatever you’re interpreting is pure nonsense. If you’d read the Qur’an, you’ll notice it mirrors the old testament. That’s why I can point out just as much violence in the bible as you can in the Qur’an.
And here’s a little fun fact. More about Jesus is written in the Qur’an than in the bible. Besides, you’re supposed to belong to the “religion of love” and you’re one of the most hate-filled people posting here. Maybe it’s time for you to give up your three gods and worship only one. It’s a lot easier.
trees March 20th, 2015 at 22:34
Bunya March 21st, 2015 at 17:06
Very good! You know how to copy and paste! Now, can you tell me what you’ve just posted? I don’t think so, because you have your own interpretation for whatever Holy Book you read that isn’t the bible. That’s pretty sad. Why not try posting the parts about loving your neighbor and forgiving transgressions. Did you know the Qur’an teaches that murder is pure evil? Of course not.
You know, I used to be just like you. I hated everything not christian. I found it takes much more energy to hate than to love. Maybe that’s you’re problem. You’re stressing yourself into a heart attack, hating everybody.
whatthe46 March 19th, 2015 at 19:46
“He’s a criminal, most likely a career criminal, but regardless…” you sound like you want to give him a hug. you’re likely satisfied that his life was spared yet you defend the actions of cops when they kill unarmed black males that don’t have criminal records at all.
trees March 19th, 2015 at 20:35
10. Ferguson Market Surveillance Video
At approximately 11:53 a.m. on August 9, 2014, about ten minutes prior to the shooting, Brown and Witness 101 went to Ferguson Market, a nearby convenience store. Surveillance video shows Brown stealing several packages of cigarillos and then forcefully shoving the store clerk who tried to stop him from leaving the store without paying. Evidence of this theft and assault likely would be admissible by the defense in a prosecution of Wilson because it is relevant to show Brown’s state of mind at or near the time of the shooting, and arguably corroborates Wilson’s self-defense claim.
You should read the DOJ report. Yes, I defend the action Darrel Wilson took in his altercation with Michael Brown. The DOJ report also found that officer Wilson acted appropriately. Have you ever bothered to read that report? Were you able to understand it?
I called him a criminal. How do you go from me calling him a criminal to, I probably wanted to hug him? Is that because you hug the criminals in your neighborhood? In my world we don’t hug criminals, just trying to figure out what goes on in yours…..
whatthe46 March 19th, 2015 at 21:05
cherry pick all you want. you are a racist and you should just admit it. brown never killed anyone, never spent time in prison, never assaulted wilson (and the DOJ can only investigate and come to a conclusion based on what limited info they had given months of cover ups so fk that). did the 12 yr old have a criminal record? did any of the young men and teens and kids, spend time in prison? did any of them go on a fk’n shooting spree before they were murdered? had any of them been arrested or convicted for any violent crime? was the black guy in walmart a convicted felon? the answer to those questions are a profound NO! was the black male walking in the stairwell of his own building commiting a criminal act before being shot down? NO! wilson the racist bastard, didn’t even know about the store incident. and it wasn’t the first time he assaulted someone while driving in his patrol car in the same manner that he attacked brown. a black man was just murdered for holding a screw driver while standing in his door way. another 20 y/o university student was just beaten down yesterday by cops, who posed no threat nor did he have a weapon on him. but you seem to suggest, no, you are suggesting that this guy is not all that bad and the police acted with reason. but, you are happy when they kill unarmed black males that posed no threat to anyone. and never question why they don’t use non-leathal tactics. so, yes, you would love to give this twisted b’tch a hug.
trees March 19th, 2015 at 21:40
did the 12 yr old have a criminal record
Michael Brown was 18, not 12
whatthe46 March 19th, 2015 at 22:15
you FOOL! TAMIR wasn’t 18 he was a child. a 12 y/o child!!!! and so what brown was 18, he was still a teen and he wasn’t anywhere near the criminal and racist and evil POS this bastard IS! it was only because of the color of their skin the are dead. not because they were common criminals who went on crime sprees or killing sprees. SIMPLY because they were blessed with beautful brown skin! if attempting to justify their murder helps you sleep at night, then i won’t argue with you. GOT IT! you are a hopeless hypocrite and bigot and racist. you and the rest of the racist/bigot and faux b.s. news (choke) want to make brown out to be some evil thug criminal to justify your acceptance of his murder. stealing does not a death warrant MAKE! if brown had a criminal record like this POS, that would be one thing to consider, not his death, but his life style. but, this maggots record is all over the place and you are being defensive.
whatthe46 March 19th, 2015 at 22:18
brown was also enrolled in college, something this inbred bastard never did. also, if you want to harp on so what he was about to go to college, he’s still this “awful” criminal who stole some cigars, then dude, wake the fk up. there are men in some of the best universities who are rapist and murderers. some even get into medical school i.e., the craigs list killer. bet you forgot about that huh? you cheezy little parasite!!!!!
trees March 19th, 2015 at 22:36
Michael Brown wasn’t shot for stealing the cigars, he was shot for attacking a cop, not once, but twice.
whatthe46 March 19th, 2015 at 22:47
keep on harping on brown. ’cause that’s all you have. a lame ass excuse to murder a black kid. cigars vs. 3 time felon on a rampage who’s outright racist. yeah, you would. and he NEVER ATTACKED NO COP let alone twice.
trees March 20th, 2015 at 00:23
Twice, in one day….
The second attack was what resulted in his death.
rg9rts March 20th, 2015 at 05:13
Don’t waste you time with this idiot
trees March 19th, 2015 at 21:43
you are suggesting that this guy is not all that bad
I called him a criminal.
dave-dr-gonzo March 20th, 2015 at 08:58
You are ignoring a number of expert examinations of the store video that showed Michael Brown _paying_ for the tobacco products, not stealing them.
Funny how you have to play the “let’s hijack the thread by lying about Michael Brown!” card. Poorly.
trees March 20th, 2015 at 14:31
Really? You’re going to try and claim that Michael Brown paid for those cigarillo’s???
We have clear video showing the robbery, we have clear video showing the store owner confronting the robber, and we have clear video showing a belligerent Michael Brown assaulting the store owner. We have an official record of the theft in the form of a call from the store owner to the police department. We have evidence of the call being radioed out to the police who were patrolling at the time, and we have the call on the radio from officer Wilson that he was stopped with suspects…..but don’t take my word for it, read the report that the DOJ wrote……
granpa.usthai March 20th, 2015 at 01:14
are we to believe that 1200 like Klansmen at Bundy’s FAILED overthrow of the US Government in Nevada was a chance meeting of various WHITE Racist ?
Premeditated?
Planned?
ideological foundation?
rg9rts March 20th, 2015 at 05:12
A real pillar of YOUR community
dave-dr-gonzo March 20th, 2015 at 09:02
Trees, like so many other kloset klansmen seems really tetchy about the race stuff. Lord forbid that any good aryan be correctly labeled a terrorist.
rg9rts March 20th, 2015 at 09:13
We have a third musketeer
rg9rts March 20th, 2015 at 09:15
Steve Dodson
trees March 20th, 2015 at 14:20
I like to be accurate. The problem I have with “the race stuff”, is the activism/pot stirring, incitement of looting, harming of others. You, Dave, would seem to be “OK” with the harming of people whose only crime happened to be in the same neighborhood when the demagogue’s started preaching from their pulpit’s of hate and racial unrest….
Maybe you don’t think it’s a big deal when people lose their small businesses because of looting and rioting that was all based on a lie.
Nothing makes you happier than when a cop loses his career, right?
Why don’t you tell us all about “hands up, don’t shoot”, and it’s aftermath.
Bunya March 20th, 2015 at 14:59
Please! “not racist” Trees has informed us time and again he’s NOT racist! So don’t even suggest it!!!
.
He simply feels that the lives of those of the darker persuasion, don’t matter as much as the rights of a trigger-happy cop.
dave-dr-gonzo March 20th, 2015 at 09:02
“An act of terrorism is premeditated.”
Not always. An act of terrorism is opportunistic. And this was an opportunistic act.
Moreover, criminality and terrorism are not mutually exclusive, as former AG Michael Mukasey said.
And this tattooed racist thug fits the definition of domestic terrorist.
trees March 20th, 2015 at 14:05
That’s fine, we’ll call him a Neo-Nazi terrorist and we’ll cause Islamic terrorism, terrorism too….
I’m good with that.
No way out March 19th, 2015 at 16:00
gold old white wing loon
granpa.usthai March 20th, 2015 at 01:33
Doc is calling it right.