Friday, August 22, 2014

​ANYONE THAT SAYS MICHAEL BROWN RAISED HIS ARMS IN SURRENDER IS LYING.


ANYONE THAT SAYS MICHAEL BROWN RAISED HIS ARMS IN SURRENDER IS LYING.

I do not care what sex, what age, or what color they are, white, black, pink, blue, purple or GREEN.  When a 6'4" 292 lb. person, whom you have just struggled with to retain control of your gun, is now CHARGING you!!!  You fire 4 non-lethal shots HUMANELY into his/her right arm to dissuade them and they refuse to stop.  You are then forced to shoot for the head. 

What are you thinking, the police PERSON just lies down and lets Brown take his gun this time??? 

Now without actually being there we cannot envision the tense time frame, but this all occurred in maybe 2-3 minutes maximum… say 180 VERY TENSE seconds after the struggle for the gun WITH A SHOT FIRED in the vehicle… the time it took Piaget Crenshaw to ill-advisedly look for and find her I-Pad/camera and move from the bedroom to the balcony to miss ACTUALLY seeing it or recording it. 

Now you say there are conflicting stories of the events, anyone that says he raised his arms in surrender is LYING.  There is NO WAY he could have done that with one bullet, much less four bullets, in the FRONT SIDE of his right arm.  And there is no way the officer could have shot four bullets into the FRONT side of his arm while his arms were raised, exposing the backside of his arms.  This is all confirmed by Mrs. Brown’s own forensics, the Baden autopsy.[1]

Given that, when you consider the FACT, Ferguson/North St. Louis has one of the highest murder rates in the country, this OVERBLOWN issue is not about the UN-justified death of another young black man.  Like most of urban America, young black men are dyeing unjustified at their own hands, black on black violence, on an all too often REGULAR BASIS in Ferguson/North St. Louis.

The Michael Brown issue is about the coveted status of American victimhood.  In the United State of America we treat woman and minorities the high-ranking, coveted status of American Victimhood.

The Michael Brown issue was not the result years of white oppression.  Ferguson Missouri’s African American MAJORITY had FREELY elected a white mayor.  Regionally the city of St. Louis, with a majority of African American voters, has elected a WHITE Mayor 4 times in row starting 2001; in the more affluent St. Louis County a White Majority has and has elected a BLACK County Executive (Mayor) twice in the last 10 years.  There is not and never has, for the last 50 years, been any RACIAL TENSION!!! 

THIS IS ALL BEING FABRICATED BY A FEW CRIMINALLY IMPLICATED INSTIGATORS TO HIDE BEHIND MICHAEL BROWN’S DEATH AND ASSERTED VICTIMHOOD TO COVER UP THEIR CRIMINAL RIOTOUS ATROCITIES!!!!

As my FRIENDS know, I am ADAMANTLY anti-GUN and have spent 10 years, 7 of those years homeless and endured 411 days in jail for my personal CIVIL RIGHTS struggle!!!!!!!!!!!!  Trying to EXPOSE the coveted status of American Victimhood, in the “Jane Crow” era, that panders to women and minorities at the expense of EVERYONE-ELSE’S inalienable individual[2] constitutional RIGHTS!!!!

As a side note, PLEASE do not make the Michael Brown issue into a remake of “Reefer Madness.”  Marijuana is not to BLAME!!!!

GET A GRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHECK THE FACTS!!!!!!

READ MY BLOG!!!!



I need your HELP in bringing the CORRUPTION to LIGHT!!! Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14-5551




[1]“ Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.”  “Mrs. Brown’s Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times” NYTimes By FRANCES ROBLES and JULIE BOSMAN AUG. 17, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
[2] "The essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected, and any individual who is denied by a common carrier, under authority of the state, a facility or convenience which is furnished to another under substantially the same circumstances may properly complain that his constitutional privilege has been invaded." McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914)