Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Sep 2017, 7:03 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Having read some of the materials, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the officer killed him and planted the evidence. However, convicting on murder requires more than a simple wager. It requires beyond reasonable doubt, which is hard to get to.


Based on what I've read, I can't say you're wrong. However, I can say the State had a weak murder case.

I would add this: if it was a murder, I find it very difficult to believe the officer's partner knew nothing. If he, as it appears, professed to know nothing or corroborated the officer's story, then the State should have charged him with something and leveraged his testimony. That the prosecutors failed to do this indicates to me that the partner had nothing to offer. In other words, there is some circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing by the officer. However, there is not premeditation nor is there evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Sep 2017, 3:22 pm

Judge left out this important piece of testimony:


"One of Stockley’s fellow officers at the time who arrived on the scene immediately after the shooting, Elijah Simpson, had testified that he didn’t see a gun in the vehicle when he lifted up the airbag and looked in the car. Simpson also testified that it was strange that Stockley was allowed to go back and forth between his own car and the scene of the shooting, and that Stockley was the only officer to remove his gloves during evidence gathering."

As to the judge not being able to see a gun here is a discussion of that:

"Wilson brushes all this off by saying that no extra gun can be seen on Stockley’s person in the blurry cellphone camera footage of the incident that was the main relevant video evidence remaining after one of the officers involved turned off the police vehicle’s dashboard camera. From Wilson:
Stockley was not wearing a jacket; if he had such a gun in his possession it would have been visible on the cell phone video. The gun was too large to fit entirely within any of the pockets on the pants he was wearing, there was no bulge in any pocket indicating a gun within the pocket, and the gun would have been visible if it was tucked into his belt.It’s inconceivable to Wilson that the gun was not visible in the limited available cellphone footage, or hidden elsewhere on Stockley’s person than one of the places he enumerates."

By the way with regard to Stockley saying he was looking in his bag for Quikclot.

"Stockley testified that he had actually gone into the bag in his vehicle to get QuikClot wound dressing from the car and administer it to Smith, but decided against it because “it was futile.” Simpson testified that no one attempted to help Smith even though “he appeared alive.”

Oh really?

The witness who recorded the incident said he saw Stockley try to open the car door two or three times and then just shot four or times (page 4 of the opinion). A firearms examiner testified that based on the examination of clothing the shot to the shoulder (what the prosecution alleged was the kill shot) was from only 6 inches away, as apparently opposed to the other shots. In other words that shot was close enough to damage the victim's clothing.

You can spin the officer not testifying all you want...but there is no friggin' way an officer is not going to support a fellow officer when he is being railroaded. No way. I'm not sure what they could have charged his partner with--he did not anything wrong. Probably did not cooperate with the prosecution and the prosecution was afraid of calling because he was a wildcard. But if you have a good explanation as to why he would not have supported his partner...if he truthfully could have, I would like to hear it.

As to the closest officer being the one to search and secure the gun...it was a pretty good time period before he did secure it--other officers had plenty of time to do it instead of him--and that does not explain why he would contaminate the evidence.

To get beyond reasonable doubt we have to exclude any reasonable factual scenario that points toward innocence. What are the facts that we can say with reasonable certainty:

(1) The victim rammed Stockley's vehicle twice.
(2) Stockley shot at the vehicle
(3) Stockley told his partner to get him
(4) Stockley told his partner that "we're killing this @#$!, don't you know."
(4a) Stockley told his partner to ram the vehicle to stop it.
(5) An officer testified he looked into the vehicle under the airbag and did not see a gun (which Stockley found tucked beneath the seat and center console). That officer also thought it was strange that Stockley was allowed to go back and forth from his own vehicle to the scene of the shooting. The officer also that Stockley was the only person to take off his gloves."
(6) Stockley's DNA was on the gun and the victim's DNA wasn't. For some odd reason he does not use gloves and contaminates the evidence.
(7) Stockley looked for the victim's gun some time after the incident even though there other officers who could have done so. Perhaps while he was going back to his car looking for Quik-clot?
(8) Stockley oddly goes looking into his bag, supposedly looking for Quikclot. Then he supposedly changes his mind.
(9) One of the shots was only 6 inches away from the victim indicating that Stockley after firing a first volley put his gun right next to the victim and shot him.

Facts in dispute:

(1) Judge says that on blurry cell phone video he could not see a planted gun on Stockley's person. But clearly the judge was not able to see what Stockley was doing with the bag. Also, and extremely important was the fact that Stockley's explanation for looking into his bag was bs. Either he was going to try to help the victim or not. Why would he just change his mind?

(2) three witnesses saw what happened when Stockley went up to the car door. The cell phone guy essentially testified that Stockley went up to the front door, tried to open it three or four times and blew the victim away. Another civilian witness said he he saw the officers at the car door, something startled the officers and he heard four or five shots. A police officer said he heard Stockley say show me your hands. The cell phone video indicates that Stockley took 15 seconds to shoot the victim.
(3) puff of smoke on cell phone indicates the final shot.

So, essentially, we have to determine if the uncertain facts are enough to support reasonable doubt.

With regard to the cell phone video I believe that is inconclusive. A cell phone video from a second floor window at night is going to rule out the police officer stashing a gun? We have the disadvantage of not seein the video...but that seems like a huge stretch. It's factor but no way is that reasonable doubt given the other evidence.

Secondly, with regard to the judge's determination that gap in time of 15 seconds meant that Stockley was at the car door meant that Stockley was not intending to shoot the victim. If he intended to shoot the guy he would still want a reason if he could manufacture one.

Finally, the puff of smoke was certainly consistent with the clothing being damaged by one final shot.

Do you know where the doctrine of reasonable doubt came from? It was not really to protect defendants. It originated during a time in which most crimes were punishable by death and jurors were becoming reluctant to serve because they thought they would be eternally damned for sending an innocent death to his death if they were wrong. So a very high standard of proof was required to allow jurors to only convict if they were close to certainty.

Anyway, I digress...

The officer's mental state of saying he wanted to kill the victim, he fact that no one else saw the gun before he did, another officer did not see the gun, his searching for the gun when it was completely unnecessary and another officer could have done it, his DNA on the gun and not the victim's, his going back and forth between his vehicle and the victim's vehicle was suspicious, his made up reason for looking into his bag, his taking off his gloves which resulted in contamination of the gun--this is overwhelming evidence of guilt. All you got really...is that we did not see the gun being planted.

Everything that officer did after shooting is indicative of someone planting evidence. I don't think the grainy cell video not showing a bulge on his person--according to the judge--is enough to get him off.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Sep 2017, 5:24 pm

Freeman, all good and persuasive ... do you think the judge is corrupt or mistaken?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Sep 2017, 6:12 pm

I'd suggest all you really need to prove to get the conviction: the origin of the suspect's weapon. If it can be traced to the officer, you've got him. If it's traced to the decedent, then you've got nothing.

As for the partner not testifying, you're out of your tree. All they have to do is rattle him on the stand and let him know if he's caught in one lie he's going to prison. No cop is going to prison for his partner. There's a lot they will do, but that is a bridge too far.

Then there's the fact that Stockley chose to not have a jury trial. You know the deal: suspects do that when they are confident of their innocence and ability to show it. Juries are for the guilty or for difficult circumstances.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Sep 2017, 7:49 pm

RJ...of course I don't really know...but I would doubt that he acted out of corrupt motives. I just think he has a world view that is biased in favor of the police. I also think there is an underlying implicit bias going on here. This remark concerns me: "Finally, the court observes, based on its 30 years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly.." Does "Urban heroin dealer=black?" In any case, it is bit jarring (to me at least) for a judge to make almost an evidentiary presumption that the police officer could not have planted the gun...because one must have already been there!"

In sum, I just think it would be difficult for a White judge of the Establishment (it wouldn't make difference to a large extent if he were black because you don't get to be a member of the law enforcement establishment unless you subscribe to certain views) to fairly judge a police shooting case where a black drug dealer is shot by a white police officer. People are sensitive to social hierarchy and a black drug dealer ...is pretty much on the absolute low end of social status for a white establishment judge.

I think he would need absolutely indisputable evidence. Like video showing the officer planting the gun.

As for DF's points it is interesting that we don't know who is the registered owner of the gun. If it was registered to the defendant or the officer, I have to believe that the lawyers would have discovered that. Maybe the gun was never registered, maybe it was stolen. I don't know. But I doubt there is a link to the officer or suspect because, if there was, you wouldn't have needed a trial.

I certainly can't foreclose the possibility that his partner was scared to testify for fear of retaliation from the prosecutor. I think that would be chickenshit for an officer to let his partner go down for a crime he did not commit...but I can't exclude it so I'll let it alone.

I think defendant sought a bench trial because he liked his chances with that judge over a jury pool. Typically, you are reluctant to take that chance because you give up the chance of a hung jury. So obviously you really think there is a significant edge going with the judge. I don't think it says anything about the strength or weakness of his case. There were a lot bad facts in this case, no way his lawyers were that confident about it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Sep 2017, 5:41 am

Again, I would point out the partner cannot refuse to testify. That being the case, he should have. Been the focal point of the prosecution's effort. If he flips, the defendant is toast. If he lies, prove it.

It would be legal malpractice for the defendant's attorneys to waive a trial by jury if they were not confident of an acquittal. The guilty need the stupidity of the jury (see OJ) or at least the capacity to fool one person.

In the bigger picture, these rioters should be dealt with most harshly.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 19 Sep 2017, 8:28 pm

Fate wrote:

In the bigger picture, these rioters should be dealt with most harshly.


I completely agree.

The current crop of so called "activists" are the antithesis of the civil rights movement of the late 1960s and have no sense of their own history. They are sadly lost.

The George Soros army lacks leadership, organization, discipline in heat of the battle, loyalty to one another, eloquence from the pulpit or cameras and a clear and thought out strategy.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have encouraged the most socially minded rock band in history (U2) to become a mouthpiece at their concert to highlight their cause. Not these charlatans. They see to it that the concert gets cancelled by informing the police that the concert was one of their many targets last weekend. "No justice, no profits" is how I believe they justified that decision. Fumble.

This rudderless mass of unintelligent egos can't see past the noses of their faces. They don't read. They don't study the blueprints of those who went before them. They don't attempt to organize in a meaningful way. They miss opportunities time and time again. They fail to recognize their allies and ultimately are having a reverse effect on winning anyone over to their otherwise worthwhile cause. And before you ask, by "they," I specifically mean the so called, "activists." I'm NOT referring to the knuckle dragging morons who throw trash cans through storefront windows in the name of their cause. That pitiful lot deserves far worse than what they get once arrested.

I will say this, kudos to the St. Louis Police for outfoxing this group of nitwits at every turn from a media perspective, although the irony of it all is almost too much to take in.

The St. Louis Police Department has taken more than a few pages from the playbook of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr./Gandhi. They have successfully juxtaposed themselves as the recipients of the brutality of the activists. It's the riot police who have had bricks thrown at their faces and heads and have ended up in our emergency rooms. It's been the riot police who, in silence, bear the ugliness of the activists who verbally abuse them with every kind of profanity imaginable. All caught on camera and social media mind you.

Still, the sad reality here is that there are those police who continue to see themselves as beyond the law. I believe they are the minority of police incidentally. But this minority continues unabated to be filled with fear or anger or resentment or all of the above and overreact time and time again. Easy for me to say? Sure. But the training needs an overhaul. That's one of the few ways out of this mess.

Anyway, Freeman did a good job of covering the highlights of the case. Thanks for that. What he left out is this. The wrong prosecuting attorney was chosen. To borrow a partial quote from yourself Fate, Kim Gardner "loves [her] some [her]." This idiot woman is more interested in her own legacy, brand and political career than doing her job effectively. Few have leveled criticism on how she handled the case. But the black community in particular should call her out for the self interested brand generator she is. Going for murder 1? Give me a break. In a heated chase with emotions running high and 40 shades of interpretation at play, you go for murder 1? This is inexcusable and irresponsible on her part. Sure you have him on tape promising he will kill Smith but in that context, it's not enough, at least in St. Louis it isn't.

Gardner is the real reason why the cop walked. Period. Enjoy the morass of her insane world here http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/new-st-louis-circuit-attorney-faces-high-turnover-budget-hurdles/article_42f2a75e-224f-5d5f-96a0-8e2605163da0.html

It was not because of the judge. It was not because of the defense attorneys, it was not because of racism within the judicial system. It was not because of police protecting one another.

This is a case of a very juvenile, immature, ego-centric lawyer whose rookie error has become another lost opportunity in a sea of confusion.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Sep 2017, 6:51 am

dag
The current crop of so called "activists" are the antithesis of the civil rights movement of the late 1960s and have no sense of their own history. They are sadly lost


You have contrasted the St. Louis event with King's marches?
I think a more direct parallel from the past would be the reaction to the acquital of the officers who beat Rodney King.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
Kings marches might more be contrasted with everts that BLM organized like
In August 2014, BLM members organized their first in-person national protest in the form of a "Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride" to Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of Michael Brown.[20] More than five hundred members descended upon Ferguson to participate in non-violent demonstrations. Of the many groups that descended on Ferguson, Black Lives Matter emerged from Ferguson as one of the best organized and most visible groups, becoming nationally recognized as symbolic of the emerging movement.[20]

Since then, Black Lives Matter has organized thousands of protests and demonstrations. Expanding beyond street protests, BLM has expanded to activism on American college campuses, such as the 2015–16 University of Missouri protests.[29]

wikipedia...


Black Lives Matter has been reasonably successful in raising the profile of their cause. Which is institutional racism in the justice system, especially at the enforcement level...
They aren't always as disciplined as the Freedom riders of the 50s and 60s. True. But then they also have to deal with a different public reaction to reported media. In the 60s television viewers saw the Selma march live, and in replay, as an unprecedented television event. The violent police reaction to the Selma marchers was usually the first time that the public at large had seen events of that kind. And many were sickened.

Today, the reportage of BLM events is often skewed by who does the reporting. It isn't simply a matter of point the camera and record the events. And there is a built in skepticism expressed by either side of a polarized populace as they watch from their own media silo.
I think your criticism of BLM is over the top. I don't think that the cumulative effect of systemic racism is understood well by those unaffected... And its the cumulative effect, with seemingly little progress in addressing the system, that causes the frustration that can sometimes generate violent reactions to real and perceived injustice.


It strikes me that victim in this matter behaved wrongly from the start. In video I have seen, he drives away from police when asked to stop, and nearly runs into one officer. I'd be predisposed as the judge to think he was acting like a guilty man from the first moment. And if he's willing to drive away in this fashion, perhaps he's reckless enough to have and attempt to use a firearm... At least it raises a doubt in my mind.
However, the standards for policing and procedures -- in this case the selective turning off of cameras and the chain of evidence - sure do leave a lot to be desired.

If the police had been wearing personal recording devices - perhaps indisputable evidence could have been presented.. There is a large doubt about where the hand gun attributed the victim came from. And in a well documented arrest, this wouldn't be the case. We shouldn't have to trust the statement of one police officer alone ... There should be something in evidence that corroborates him.
There doesn't seem to be, And when people don't trust the system, with good reason, this is going to be a problem.
To rebuild trust police need to have procedures that are unassailable.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Sep 2017, 8:56 am

Rickyp wrote:

Today, the reportage of BLM events is often skewed by who does the reporting. It isn't simply a matter of point the camera and record the events. And there is a built in skepticism expressed by either side of a polarized populace as they watch from their own media silo.


Not exactly. At least not here. Rickyp, we have hardened St. Louis gang members upset and frustrated with outsiders who were paid by Soros to destroy businesses in Ferguson. Gang members from two of the north side's most notorious gangs fought with these paid activists during the Ferguson riot. That's how upside down the Ferguson situation was.

The reportage of BLM events are often skewed? You've got to be kidding? Here at least 90% of what happened in Ferguson was never reported. Our own local news didn't touch various events that took place given their PC stance and fear of fueling more unrest.

How do I know? Testimony from friends who currently live in Ferguson, and more friends who moved out as a result of the madness.

This past weekend was not nearly as insane as what happened in Ferguson but certainly the paid protesters who care so much about their cause that they collect a check were back.

Don't talk to me about BLM reporting being skewed.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Sep 2017, 11:01 am

dag
we have hardened St. Louis gang members upset and frustrated with outsiders who were paid by Soros to destroy businesses in Ferguson


Sure.

For two decades, some have seen Soros as a kind of puppet master secretly controlling the global economy and politics
.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did- ... ght-2017-5

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ed-groups/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... es-climat/

Always nice to blame everything on a conspiracy with an evil genius behind it...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Sep 2017, 1:06 pm

rickyp wrote:dag
we have hardened St. Louis gang members upset and frustrated with outsiders who were paid by Soros to destroy businesses in Ferguson


Sure.

For two decades, some have seen Soros as a kind of puppet master secretly controlling the global economy and politics
.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did- ... ght-2017-5

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ed-groups/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... es-climat/

Always nice to blame everything on a conspiracy with an evil genius behind it...


The bigger joke is trying to compare BLM with a spontaneous riot. BLM has devolved into an irrational left-wing hate group. To the leaders of BLM, white people are the problem and violence is the answer.

One of the founders of Black Lives Matter in Toronto says white people are "genetic defects" and should be "wiped out."
Yusra Khogali has posted the controversial calls on her Facebook page, including another that says whites are "sub-human."
“Whiteness is not humxness, in fact, white skin is sub-humxn,” she wrote. “All phenotypes exist within the black family and white ppl are a genetic defect of blackness.”

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13418/blm ... exit-modal

And, there's more:

1. White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.

2. White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.

3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.

4. White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.

5. White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists a**holes, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.


Got that? Never mind that the white people she’s targeting have worked their entire lives, scrimped and saved to own those homes.

But there’s more. Much more (Edited for language):

6. White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.

7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the f**k they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.

8. Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ d**k-white men will all be returning to work. Get they a*s fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.

9. OK, backing up No. 8, if any white person at your work, or as you enter in spaces and you overhear a white person praising the actions from yesterday, first, get a pic. Get their name and more info. Hell, find out where they work — Get Them Fired. But certainly address them, and, if you need to, you got hands: use them.

10. Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.


http://conservativefiringline.com/blm-l ... get-fired/
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Sep 2017, 2:31 pm

fate
BLM has devolved into an irrational left-wing hate group. To the leaders of BLM, white people are the problem and violence is the answer.

And you found a quote from February 17 and another radical posting to support this claim.
Bully for you.

BLM is a pretty small group in Toronto. But here's what they think they accomplished
Reporter: You've gotten a pledge out of Premier Kathleen Wynne to review the SIU. Toronto City Council passed a unanimous motion to that effect, calling for more accountability. Did you expect that city and provincial leadership would eventually pay attention or respond?

Sandra Hudson: We didn't expect it but we knew that eventually something would happen, because that's what our conviction is. We're so sure that we can win this, and that's what keeps us out there continuing to fight for this. It's what makes us realize this isn't all hopeless.

I was surprised to see Kathleen Wynne come out and make the commitment that she did, but I'm also cognizant that that happened after two weeks. Especially Mayor John Tory is attempting to position the idea of a "meeting" as all that is necessary. And I'm a bit nervous that the media or people who heard this story will think we won and it's OK to stop paying attention.

But we need a lot more than meetings. We need commitments to deal with this issue [of police violence]. This is something people have been talking about since the early '90s. It's very urgent, and it can't go on.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/in ... .obPZLY2K3

Does that sound unreasonable?
You can't pull out individual quotes and actions and try and paint the group, and in relation their cause as unjustified... Especially 6 month old quotes that never amounted to anything...

Effective policing is policing that the whole community supports. When a segment of the community feels that it is being treated unfairly and unjustly ...and they can point to outcomes that support their feelings ...its time to reevaluate how policing is done...
You could start with greater transparency ... and move on to training that emphasizes de-escalation and conflict resolution. All part of the BLM positions...
I know that police interactions with mentally ill people is also a problem. Far too many interactions with the mentally ill end up with violent resolutions.... (The BLM protests in Toronto were supported by advocates for mental health groups for this very reason).

I don't know that the situation in St.Louis is a clear indication of anything... I just know that BLM is now, or ever was, a George Soros sponsored conspiracy...
I think BLM was a legitimate reaction to continued systemic racism.
Does it continue to be constantly and consistently legitimate? For the most part. There is some danger that radicals could poison their efforts... But for the most part they have raised awareness of the issues they want addressed. And in some cases they are getting action.
I think Martin Luther King would largely have approved whilst castigating some of the more radical as counter productive...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Sep 2017, 3:28 pm

Given that the police officer server in this case was a veteran who served in Iraq, thought this article is pertinent.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017 ... -the-badge
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Sep 2017, 5:39 pm

Freeman,

The article on Vets serving as cops in the US was interesting. Thanks for posting it.

I couldn't find the St. Louis Business Journal that first broke the story about Soros backing Ferguson protesters but this should suffice.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/


More here Rickyp though I doubt you'll take the time to read it.



rickyp wrote:

dag

"..we have hardened St. Louis gang members upset and frustrated with outsiders who were paid by Soros to destroy businesses in Ferguson


Sure.


My guess is you doubt my claim or think I'm making it up. Not surprising. Like much of what happened in Ferguson, the real news came from FB, other social media outlets, friends and family.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Sep 2017, 8:07 am

rickyp wrote:fate
BLM has devolved into an irrational left-wing hate group. To the leaders of BLM, white people are the problem and violence is the answer.

And you found a quote from February 17 and another radical posting to support this claim.
Bully for you.


Um, those aren't just random folks, but leaders of BLM. You can blather all you want, but that's what the movement is about--radicalism.