Prosecutor in Ferguson case deliberately misled jurors to ensure Wilson acquittal

Out-friggin-rageous!

Yet another way in which this case was railroaded by the court. Unbelievable. Injustice heaped on injustice. Grievous injury heaped upon insult, heaped upon more grievous injury. Interesting that this dimension of the case is being covered by MSNBC, no small media outlet. One thing is for sure, the PTB in Ferguson and nationally could not have done more to incite the righteous anger of blacks and, really, anyone following the murder of Mike Brown - who has an ounce of morality in their body, if they tried!

In the article concerning the murder of witness DeAndre Joshua, testimony of witness 14 (also missing), refutes the Hands Up, Don't Shoot as a fabrication of the neighborhood. This testimony is detailed, and has a certain ring of truth to it. It is public record.
It seems like a great deal of effort is being put into sensationalizing the murder of Michael Brown, and at this point there is more mis-information available about what did or did not happen that day than correct information. The entire incident has been co-opted by the media and special interests, and turned into something that never happened.

Although I am sure it has happened at other times and in other places, the manipulation of public opinion in regard to the Michael Brown murder is reminiscent of the application of similar strategies by the British in Northern Ireland forty five years ago. According to FDR in politics nothing happens by accident and I believe this situation is being deliberately manipulated to create deeper division between people of different ethnic backgrounds, keeping the people from coming together to oppose police state brutality.

people

Isn't that what they always do, get people to argue amongst themselves thus distracting from more serious issues? The status quo of divide and conquer works well with people.

Under current rule there is no let up in sight. There is too much believing in lies for many people which confuses the issues.

Incorrect

The 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the host is referring to is, of course, the well known Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) [Link] which held that:

"The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The Missouri Statute 563.046 [Link] reads:

1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

The only unconstitutional part of the statute would be 563.046.1(2)(a), if, and only if, the suspect "Has committed or attempted to commit a felony" and the perusing police officer does NOT have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." In that situation, and that situation ONLY, is the statute unconstitutional according to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding.

Keep in mind that in Part II, B, of the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner, it was stated:

"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

That being said, as a matter of law, the Missouri Statute 563.046 is also "not, however, unconstitutional on its face."

The unconstitutionality of the statute is only situational, not on its face, and either way section 563.046.1(2)(a) did not even apply at the Grand Jury hearing, because officer Wilson claimed he had "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Therefore, the host is incorrect.

canyonjammer said:

"Although I am sure it has happened at other times and in other places, the manipulation of public opinion in regard to the Michael Brown murder is reminiscent of the application of similar strategies by the British in Northern Ireland forty five years ago."

Win 52 said:

"Isn't that what they always do, get people to argue amongst themselves thus distracting from more serious issues? The status quo of divide and conquer works well with people."

Sure.

“Formatory apparatus resembles a hired typist who works for a firm and has a large number of stereotyped replies for external impressions. She sends printed replies to other centers who are the ‘directors’ of the firm and who are strangers to each other. Wrong replies are often sent, as the typist is asleep or lazy.” Gurdjieff.

“In the intellectual centre, the mechanical part includes in itself all the work of registration of impressions, memories and associations. This is all that it should do normally, that is, when other parts do their work. It should never reply to questions addressed to the whole centre, it should never try to solve its problems, and it should never decide anything. Unfortunately, in actual fact, it is always ready to decide and it always replies to questions of all sorts in a very narrow and limited way, in ready- made phrases, in slang expressions, in party slogans. All these, and many other elements of our usual reactions, are the work of the mechanical part of the intellectual centre.

“This part has its own name. It is called a ‘formatory apparatus’ or sometimes ‘formatory centre.’ Many people, particularly people No. 1, that is, the great majority of mankind, live all their lives with the formatory apparatus only, never touching other parts of their intellectual centre. For all the immediate needs of life, for receiving A influences and responding to them, and for distorting or rejecting influences C, the formatory apparatus is quite sufficient.

“It is always possible to recognise ‘formatory thinking.’ For instance, formatory centre can count only up to two. It always divides everything in two: ‘bolshevism and fascism,’ ‘workers and bourgeois,’ proletarians and capitalists’ and so on. We owe most modern catchwords to formatory thinking, and not only catchwords but in modern popular theories. Perhaps it is possible to say that at all times all popular theories are formatory." - P.D. Ouspensky. Psychology of Mans Possible Evolution

Hegelian Dialectic….[Link]
Dividers....[Link]

Both autopsies: no shots to back

Read more at these links:

[Link]
[Link]
www.youngcons.com/breaking-autopsy-report-shows-witness-lied-about-michael-brown-shooting/

doesn't sound a lot different from

what the Nazis did with the Reichstag destruction in Germany. When are we gonna wake up. To the perfidy of the banking elite. I say the 'D' word to them all. IN spite of the bad kharma i might deserve... i would witness the executions and applaud.