5 ms·

> Draw a Fergusson every 3 months? The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories that are removed of all actual facts and detai

> Draw a Fergusson every 3 months? The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories that are removed of all actual facts and details (to fit the narrative). Its pure politics. For example, in the Ferguson case, you where told that the police officer (Darren Wilson) saw Michael Brown, and for whatever reason, just murdered him on the spot, by shooting him through the back of his head - all while Michael Brown was doing nothing wrong, and holding his hands up. Except none of that is true. Here is the basic outline of what happened instead - http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ferguson-shooting-13-facts/2014/11/25/id/609483/ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ferguson-shooting-13-facts/... Or here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown And that's still leaving allot out. In the case of Trayvon Martin, the spin was even worse. This is a racist "white" man - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/02/06/zimmerman-brother-voted-obama/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/02/06/zimmerman... And a watermelon soda is an ice tea - http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-s-skittles-arizona-tea-and-something-called-purple-drank http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-s-skittles-arizona-t... I'm assuming the later was "modified" in the produced story by all the left-leaning news outlets because it was too stereotypical / and the narrative must be protected. If you don't believe it, check the crime seen photos and the court records - I did. And that's about 5% of the falsehood story. I could go on and on. > Should we expect that America uprises against their own police? Cops kill a reported 500 or so people every year. Maybe twice that much in real numbers. The majority of those people are violent criminals - some of which are firing at cops, using knifes to stab cops, garbing at cops' guns, using vehicles to run cops over, etc. Why would anyone that is not delusional with the political media spin revolt against cops?

evan_ 11y ago
Sorry but you're going to need to explain why having watermelon soda is a shoot-on-sight offense, and why it matters that it's soda and not ice tea.
- powertower 11y ago
  > , and why it matters that it's soda and not ice tea. It matters that it was a manufactured lie. The "ice tea and skittles" was also mentioned every time the name Trayvon Martin was mentioned. Every. Single. Time. So it must have also had a great importance to everything and everyone. And the point was to show how these stories are manufactured by removing facts, and replacing them with the narrative... A young 12 year old kid just getting some ice tea and skittles on a bright sunny day - murdered by a white racist who had no injuries, was not arrested, was not handcuffed and taken-in, etc (all points proven false). > Sorry but you're going to need to explain why having watermelon soda is a shoot-on-sight offense Why would I have to explain it? What you just said is completely made up, and you are the one saying it. Trayvon was shot because he was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement. They both made mistakes, it escalated. And everything that was reported was spun to the narrative.
  - evan_ 11y ago
    I'm not familiar with the specific product pictured, so maybe it is a soda, but if you show a can with the Arizona Ice Tea trade dress to 100 people, 99 of them will describe it as "ice tea". There's no grand conspiracy to make the world believe that it was ice tea and not soda, you have invented this. (I assume you really are passionately concerned with the difference between soda and tea and not just trying to talk about a black kid liking fruit soda and watermelon as a way to engage racist stereotypes to dehumanize him.) Whether he was going to drink it or mix it with codeine is immaterial to the events that led to his death so why even bring it up?
    - powertower 11y ago
      edit: you are right, it is coming off looney. Ice tea, soda, watermelon flavored fruit punch or juice, ... the point has been made - a stereotypical-flavor juice drink is converted unanimously to "ice tea" by the media (by 10 out of 10 outlets) for the narrative's sake. For the other 95% of the story, start with the 2nd link above, to see just how ridiculous Zimmerman's character was built-up. Then check Trayvon's twitter screenshot for how he conversed and what drugs he liked (lean). Check the pictures found on his phone of him holding a gun and talking about selling it. Him being expelled from school. Burglary charges. See the conversations he had about being in some type of a fight club and making people bleed, etc... Which was all mostly left out of the story, because it did not support the narrative - http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hoodies-800x430.jpg http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hoodies-8... Or how about the recording that was played for weeks non stop on CNN - > Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black. Which actually turned out to be - > Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. > Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? > Zimmerman: He looks black. The media did a number on that story. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was political spin. Which is what the media in the US does. They do not report facts anymore.
yesbabyyes 11y ago
The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories that are removed of all actual facts and details (to fit the narrative). Its pure politics. What's the narrative? To what end? And that's still leaving allot out. You were there, I presume? I mean, obviously _any_ recollection of a complex course of events will leave out a lot, but the way you phrase it makes it sound like you know more about what happened. Care to shed some light upon this? And a watermelon soda is an ice tea Now this is getting interesting. Do you argue that there is a widespread media cover-up to hide the fact that Mr Martin bought a certain kind of soda that might be used with cough medicine? I can't even... And that's about 5% of the falsehood story. I could go on and on. Am I correct in my understanding that you claim to have knowledge of lots of errors in the reporting of the killing of Trayvon Martin, but you only tell us about the watermelon vs ice tea... thing? That's weird; why not give us something more substantial, something that's, you know, actually convincing (or at least, something that is... anything)? Cops kill a reported 500 or so people every year. Maybe twice that much in real numbers. Yeah, no. It's 500 reported killings during the first 6 months of 2015 already. Killings by police in the US are way up during the 2000s. You're not convincing. If anything, it sounds like you are stuck in a narrative. Please provide something more substantial from your other 95% of truth.
mikeash 11y ago
That newsmax.com article is fascinating. The first three facts in their list have no relevance to the legitimacy of the shooting. They are clearly trying to paint Michael Brown as a bad person who deserved to die, and they aren't even being subtle about it. The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun. One thing I have never seen anyone bring up on either side is the question of why Officer Wilson, believing his life to be in danger while sitting in his car, did not simply drive down the street to eliminate the danger, then reassess the situation from safety. Wilson may well have been in danger, even mortal danger. He still did the wrong thing by responding with lethal force when he could have removed himself from that danger. As a result, he ended up killing one of the people he was sworn to protect.
- powertower 11y ago
  > The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun. The fact that his physical description, the event of the strong-armed robbery, and the report of the stolen item, was brought-cast - which led to the events that followed - is not relevant?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    How is it relevant? The question is whether Darren Wilson was justified in using lethal force. The standards for the use of lethal force by police do not, to my knowledge, contain any mention of previous criminal activity by the suspect. The typical standard in the US is that lethal force is only justified when the person represents an immediate danger to others. I personally think it should go a bit farther than this and also explicitly state that lethal force must be the last resort, i.e. that the person must not only present a danger to others, but that lethal force must be the only way to stop it. Either way, the fact that Michael Brown had just stolen stuff doesn't come into it.
    - powertower 11y ago
      The points in the article dispel the myth of the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" story. It obviously did not go that way at all (e.g., such as not even being shot in the back of the head). The earlier events might, or might not, be relevant to the use of deadly force in a court of law, but they are relevant to my point of the narrative, of the story told to the public - the original comment you are relying to. And yes, garbing at a cop's gun, trying to wrestle it away from him, and then later charging at him like a bull - is justifiable use of deadly force. And the previous events can be used to show the mindset of the individuals. These things happen quickly, and there is no restart of the game.

evan_ 11y ago

Sorry but you're going to need to explain why having watermelon soda is a shoot-on-sight offense, and why it matters that it's soda and not ice tea.

powertower 11y ago
> , and why it matters that it's soda and not ice tea. It matters that it was a manufactured lie. The "ice tea and skittles" was also mentioned every time the name Trayvon Martin was mentioned. Every. Single. Time. So it must have also had a great importance to everything and everyone. And the point was to show how these stories are manufactured by removing facts, and replacing them with the narrative... A young 12 year old kid just getting some ice tea and skittles on a bright sunny day - murdered by a white racist who had no injuries, was not arrested, was not handcuffed and taken-in, etc (all points proven false). > Sorry but you're going to need to explain why having watermelon soda is a shoot-on-sight offense Why would I have to explain it? What you just said is completely made up, and you are the one saying it. Trayvon was shot because he was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement. They both made mistakes, it escalated. And everything that was reported was spun to the narrative.
- evan_ 11y ago
  I'm not familiar with the specific product pictured, so maybe it is a soda, but if you show a can with the Arizona Ice Tea trade dress to 100 people, 99 of them will describe it as "ice tea". There's no grand conspiracy to make the world believe that it was ice tea and not soda, you have invented this. (I assume you really are passionately concerned with the difference between soda and tea and not just trying to talk about a black kid liking fruit soda and watermelon as a way to engage racist stereotypes to dehumanize him.) Whether he was going to drink it or mix it with codeine is immaterial to the events that led to his death so why even bring it up?
  - powertower 11y ago
    edit: you are right, it is coming off looney. Ice tea, soda, watermelon flavored fruit punch or juice, ... the point has been made - a stereotypical-flavor juice drink is converted unanimously to "ice tea" by the media (by 10 out of 10 outlets) for the narrative's sake. For the other 95% of the story, start with the 2nd link above, to see just how ridiculous Zimmerman's character was built-up. Then check Trayvon's twitter screenshot for how he conversed and what drugs he liked (lean). Check the pictures found on his phone of him holding a gun and talking about selling it. Him being expelled from school. Burglary charges. See the conversations he had about being in some type of a fight club and making people bleed, etc... Which was all mostly left out of the story, because it did not support the narrative - http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hoodies-800x430.jpg http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hoodies-8... Or how about the recording that was played for weeks non stop on CNN - > Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black. Which actually turned out to be - > Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. > Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? > Zimmerman: He looks black. The media did a number on that story. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was political spin. Which is what the media in the US does. They do not report facts anymore.

yesbabyyes 11y ago

The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories that are removed of all actual facts and details (to fit the narrative). Its pure politics. What's the narrative? To what end? And that's still leaving allot out. You were there, I presume? I mean, obviously _any_ recollection of a complex course of events will leave out a lot, but the way you phrase it makes it sound like you know more about what happened. Care to shed some light upon this? And a watermelon soda is an ice tea Now this is getting interesting. Do you argue that there is a widespread media cover-up to hide the fact that Mr Martin bought a certain kind of soda that might be used with cough medicine? I can't even... And that's about 5% of the falsehood story. I could go on and on. Am I correct in my understanding that you claim to have knowledge of lots of errors in the reporting of the killing of Trayvon Martin, but you only tell us about the watermelon vs ice tea... thing? That's weird; why not give us something more substantial, something that's, you know, actually convincing (or at least, something that is... anything)? Cops kill a reported 500 or so people every year. Maybe twice that much in real numbers. Yeah, no. It's 500 reported killings during the first 6 months of 2015 already. Killings by police in the US are way up during the 2000s. You're not convincing. If anything, it sounds like you are stuck in a narrative. Please provide something more substantial from your other 95% of truth.

mikeash 11y ago

That newsmax.com article is fascinating. The first three facts in their list have no relevance to the legitimacy of the shooting. They are clearly trying to paint Michael Brown as a bad person who deserved to die, and they aren't even being subtle about it. The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun. One thing I have never seen anyone bring up on either side is the question of why Officer Wilson, believing his life to be in danger while sitting in his car, did not simply drive down the street to eliminate the danger, then reassess the situation from safety. Wilson may well have been in danger, even mortal danger. He still did the wrong thing by responding with lethal force when he could have removed himself from that danger. As a result, he ended up killing one of the people he was sworn to protect.

powertower 11y ago
> The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun. The fact that his physical description, the event of the strong-armed robbery, and the report of the stolen item, was brought-cast - which led to the events that followed - is not relevant?
- mikeash 11y ago
  How is it relevant? The question is whether Darren Wilson was justified in using lethal force. The standards for the use of lethal force by police do not, to my knowledge, contain any mention of previous criminal activity by the suspect. The typical standard in the US is that lethal force is only justified when the person represents an immediate danger to others. I personally think it should go a bit farther than this and also explicitly state that lethal force must be the last resort, i.e. that the person must not only present a danger to others, but that lethal force must be the only way to stop it. Either way, the fact that Michael Brown had just stolen stuff doesn't come into it.
  - powertower 11y ago
    The points in the article dispel the myth of the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" story. It obviously did not go that way at all (e.g., such as not even being shot in the back of the head). The earlier events might, or might not, be relevant to the use of deadly force in a court of law, but they are relevant to my point of the narrative, of the story told to the public - the original comment you are relying to. And yes, garbing at a cop's gun, trying to wrestle it away from him, and then later charging at him like a bull - is justifiable use of deadly force. And the previous events can be used to show the mindset of the individuals. These things happen quickly, and there is no restart of the game.