18 yr old shoots at off-duty St. Louis cop, gets killed

[Mavorpen]

If this is not what has been essentially implied, or that racial profiling extends to lethal use of force, explain to me why I have been contradicted so many times, and the argument of "racial profiling" continuously shouted about as if I had not already acknowledged it or was trying to disprove it, when I very clearly was not.

The latter claim is what is being made, not "COPS GO PATROLLING FOR BLACKS TO KILL ALL DAY!" I suspect I know the issue here, but I'd need to explain that in a different post once I get access to a computer. Because, the evidence you're looking for doesn't exist in the form you want it. The evidence indirectly supports their claim rather than directly. That doesn't mean It Isn't valid.

Okay, I want to expand on this. There is one fundamental problem with discussing the role of racism with respect to innocent black people being killed by cops: there's no direct data on that. Really. Neither the federal government, nor local police have gathered data on how many people total are killed by the police. Also, neither of them gather any data as to how many "unjustified killings" are committed by the police.

And it's not like the reason they don't is because they can't. They absolutely can, as they keep track of two sets of information: the number of people justifiably killed by the police, and the weapon used in them. There's NO legitimate reason for them to not also keep track of how many unjustified killings or total amount of killings in general conducted by the police. Some people, such as Kyle Wagner from Deadspin, have tried to independently gather this data. After two years, he reached the following conclusion:

The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.

It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.

I've been lied to and delayed by state, county and local law enforcement agencies—almost every time. They've blatantly broken public records laws, and then thumbed their authoritarian noses at the temerity of a citizen asking for information that might embarrass the agency. And these are the people in charge of enforcing the law.

The second biggest thing I learned is that bad journalism colludes with police to hide this information. The primary reason for this is that police will cut off information to reporters who tell tales. And a reporter can't work if he or she can't talk to sources. It happened to me on almost every level as I advanced this year-long Fatal Encounters series through the News & Review. First they talk; then they stop, then they roadblock.

So, we have to look to more indirect evidence here, which there is plenty of. One of my favorite sources on this topic is this one. One data table that should be noted is this one:


Data can be further broken down to reveal some disturbing pieces of information:

• 47% of these killings happened with the claim not that the victims brandished a weapon or a gun, but that they "felt threatened," "feared for their life," or “were
  forced to shoot to protect themselves or others.”
• 44% of those killed had no weapon at all.
• 27% were alleged to have possessed a gun
• Only 20% were actually confirmed to have had a gun.
• A whopping 8% had actually fired or used a weapon that wounded or killed a police officer while on the scene.

Now, these are collected and recorded by the government as justified shootings. That's right, only 20% of the justified killings by the police involved a situation where the individual killed had a weapon, and only 26% of the cops even believed that they had a weapon. 47% of them just felt threatened or feared their life was in danger.

On its own though, that's not enough for me to reach a conclusion. We can do even more than that.

One project conducted found that in New York, San Diego and Las Vegas

the percentage of black people killed by police was at least double that of their share of the city’s total population.

Another report by the BJS, studied contacts with the police. One notable data table is this one:


Where blacks are three times more likely than whites to have force used or threatened against them. That's not just being profiled by a police officer. That's being profiled, stopped, and then threatened with force or having force used against you.

And the absolute most insulting thing about this is that there's one thing missing from the data table on what types of force is used by the police:



That's right: excessive use of deadly force. The very thing that people are upset about. And what's even worse is that there's a Federal law requiring the government to gather data for excessive force that's been ignored for 20 years (yes, the BJS report does provide some information about excessive force, but again, it isn't comprehensive, and deadly force isn't there, and that's partly because the government, for whatever reason, feels that conducting a survey is preferable to requiring this information to be reported and gathered).

But there's one report that's even more damning, and an article summing up its key findings was published only yesterday. The most jarring piece of information at first look is obviously the fact that young black men are 21 times more likely to be fatally shot. But for me, the biggest "what the fuck?" moment came when I read

There were 151 instances in which police noted that teens they had shot dead had been fleeing or resisting arrest at the time of the encounter. 67 percent of those killed in such circumstances were black. That disparity was even starker in the last couple of years: of the 15 teens shot fleeing arrest from 2010 to 2012, 14 were black.

This is fucking ridiculous. It would be equally ridiculous for ANYONE to claim that this isn't clear evidence that something is dangerously fucking wrong here. And it has nothing, utterly nothing to do with "profiling." That's not an excuse, nor does it in any way dismiss the conclusion that racial bias played a significant part in the decision to kill these individuals. This is AFTER they may have been racially profiled. This is AFTER the cop may have tried to arrest them. And I'm fully aware that this includes cases where the victim had been resisting arrest. And I'm fully aware that the police often reported that they had a legitimate fear for their life. But what about those 14 years and younger?

The black boys killed can be disturbingly young. There were 41 teens 14 years or younger reported killed by police from 1980 to 2012 ii. 27 of them were black iii; 8 were white iv; 4 were Hispanic v and 1 was Asian vi.

That's 65% of individuals under 14 killed by cops being black. In order to convince me that this was entirely because of legitimate fear for their life, I'd have to accept that these black boys either had weapons or were physically threatening enough to pose a risk to the life of the cops. And I'm willing to accept that. But I'll need more than "what ifs."

[Ifreann]

The latter claim is what is being made, not "COPS GO PATROLLING FOR BLACKS TO KILL ALL DAY!" I suspect I know the issue here, but I'd need to explain that in a different post once I get access to a computer. Because, the evidence you're looking for doesn't exist in the form you want it. The evidence indirectly supports their claim rather than directly. That doesn't mean It Isn't valid.

Okay, I want to expand on this. There is one fundamental problem with discussing the role of racism with respect to innocent black people being killed by cops: there's no direct data on that. Really. Neither the federal government, nor local police have gathered data on how many people total are killed by the police. Also, neither of them gather any data as to how many "unjustified killings" are committed by the police.

And it's not like the reason they don't is because they can't. They absolutely can, as they keep track of two sets of information: the number of people justifiably killed by the police, and the weapon used in them. There's NO legitimate reason for them to not also keep track of how many unjustified killings or total amount of killings in general conducted by the police. Some people, such as Kyle Wagner from Deadspin, have tried to independently gather this data. After two years, he reached the following conclusion:

The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.

It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.

I've been lied to and delayed by state, county and local law enforcement agencies—almost every time. They've blatantly broken public records laws, and then thumbed their authoritarian noses at the temerity of a citizen asking for information that might embarrass the agency. And these are the people in charge of enforcing the law.

The second biggest thing I learned is that bad journalism colludes with police to hide this information. The primary reason for this is that police will cut off information to reporters who tell tales. And a reporter can't work if he or she can't talk to sources. It happened to me on almost every level as I advanced this year-long Fatal Encounters series through the News & Review. First they talk; then they stop, then they roadblock.

So, we have to look to more indirect evidence here, which there is plenty of. One of my favorite sources on this topic is this one. One data table that should be noted is this one:


Data can be further broken down to reveal some disturbing pieces of information:

• 47% of these killings happened with the claim not that the victims brandished a weapon or a gun, but that they "felt threatened," "feared for their life," or “were
  forced to shoot to protect themselves or others.”
• 44% of those killed had no weapon at all.
• 27% were alleged to have possessed a gun
• Only 20% were actually confirmed to have had a gun.
• A whopping 8% had actually fired or used a weapon that wounded or killed a police officer while on the scene.

Now, these are collected and recorded by the government as justified shootings. That's right, only 20% of the justified killings by the police involved a situation where the individual killed had a weapon, and only 26% of the cops even believed that they had a weapon. 47% of them just felt threatened or feared their life was in danger.

On its own though, that's not enough for me to reach a conclusion. We can do even more than that.

One project conducted found that in New York, San Diego and Las Vegas

the percentage of black people killed by police was at least double that of their share of the city’s total population.

Another report by the BJS, studied contacts with the police. One notable data table is this one:


Where blacks are three times more likely than whites to have force used or threatened against them. That's not just being profiled by a police officer. That's being profiled, stopped, and then threatened with force or having force used against you.

And the absolute most insulting thing about this is that there's one thing missing from the data table on what types of force is used by the police:



That's right: excessive use of deadly force. The very thing that people are upset about. And what's even worse is that there's a Federal law requiring the government to gather data for excessive force that's been ignored for 20 years (yes, the BJS report does provide some information about excessive force, but again, it isn't comprehensive, and deadly force isn't there, and that's partly because the government, for whatever reason, feels that conducting a survey is preferable to requiring this information to be reported and gathered).

But there's one report that's even more damning, and an article summing up its key findings was published only yesterday. The most jarring piece of information at first look is obviously the fact that young black men are 21 times more likely to be fatally shot. But for me, the biggest "what the fuck?" moment came when I read

There were 151 instances in which police noted that teens they had shot dead had been fleeing or resisting arrest at the time of the encounter. 67 percent of those killed in such circumstances were black. That disparity was even starker in the last couple of years: of the 15 teens shot fleeing arrest from 2010 to 2012, 14 were black.

This is fucking ridiculous. It would be equally ridiculous for ANYONE to claim that this isn't clear evidence that something is dangerously fucking wrong here. And it has nothing, utterly nothing to do with "profiling." That's not an excuse, nor does it in any way dismiss the conclusion that racial bias played a significant part in the decision to kill these individuals. This is AFTER they may have been racially profiled. This is AFTER the cop may have tried to arrest them. And I'm fully aware that this includes cases where the victim had been resisting arrest. And I'm fully aware that the police often reported that they had a legitimate fear for their life. But what about those 14 years and younger?

The black boys killed can be disturbingly young. There were 41 teens 14 years or younger reported killed by police from 1980 to 2012 ii. 27 of them were black iii; 8 were white iv; 4 were Hispanic v and 1 was Asian vi.

That's 65% of individuals under 14 killed by cops being black. In order to convince me that this was entirely because of legitimate fear for their life, I'd have to accept that these black boys either had weapons or were physically threatening enough to pose a risk to the life of the cops. And I'm willing to accept that. But I'll need more than "what ifs."

Drink every time this post makes you want to strangle a bald eagle because fucking damn it America.

---

Because releasing a key piece of evidence like that would prejudice the jury pool, and give any officer's attorney a free pass to have a mistrial declared. That's why juries are forbidden from talking to people about the trial while it's ongoing and sequestered if they're serving on a very publicised case.

What is the reasoning behind that?

The reasoning is that the whole idea of a jury trial is that each side takes a turn telling a dozen people why someone should/shouldn't go to jail, and then the dozen people vote on who told the best story^[1]. If a key element of someone's story ends up all over the internet then the dozen people will go into the trial with preconceived notions of whether Johnny Defendant needs locking up, and that rather takes the fairness out of "fair trial".



[1] - Law 001: "Mummy, who is that man with the silly dress and hammer?"

[Imperializt Russia]

whitesplainers

Useful contribution.

I expected significantly better from you.

Here you go:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... n+of+proof


Also, from earlier in this very thread:
viewtopic.php?p=22017626#p22017626

Let's just glance over the titles of those studies:

1. Institutional racism, the police and stop and search: a comparative study of stop and search in the UK and USA
2. The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children
3. The Reality of Racial Profiling
4. Racial
Discrimination
in the Criminal
Justice System

..and what do you know, your allegedly relevant sources are a strawman after all. These would support the concept of racial profiling, which I never even doubted.

Hey, it's not like I totally acknowledged it and even said that it is among the factors causing a higher rate of black people to get killed. This is what I have been saying all along, unless you failed to pick it up.

The problem is, however, that proving that racial profiling exists, which no one even attempted to disprove in this particular discussion, does not equate to proving that all things being equal , and I cannot stress this enough, a cop will kill a black man quicker than they would a white one. This is a crucial difference. There is CORRELATION with race, not CAUSATION. And this correlation comes in the form of racial profiling, the fact that crime rates are not uniform among races, and so on. So, by this definition, yes, blacks are getting killed because they are black. But don't go around and imply that the cause is actually officers choosing to kill more black people because of racism, which is what many people are doing. In a lethal force scenario, danger is perceived THE SAME, a cop won't go "oh let's see what color this person is, he's black so I better kill him lol". Claiming this is the case is disingenious and still remains nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.

If you understood at least a word of what I tried explaining here and you still think there are parts within those sources that you have provided that could prove the relationship between unwarranted police killings of black people is that of CAUSATION, not CORRELATION, which again, would imply that the officers choose to kill more black people, then by all means, please point them out.

Racial profiling is a policy as institutionally racist as they come, short of "kill the blacks".
Institutional racism by design fosters a culture of racism.

The way that whites and blacks are treated so massively differently where whites are significantly more in the wrong than blacks should make this blindingly obvious. Drunken white guy with a rifle? Take it off him, give it to him tomorrow. White kid with a shotgun? Give up when he's noncompliant.

Black guy with a BB gun standing idly in the store selling BB guns? Shoot him in a raid on the store, no warning. Black guy walking home? Shoot him twice in the face. Black guy with a knife? Shoot him more times than the actors in Starship Troopers did.

Because releasing a key piece of evidence like that would prejudice the jury pool, and give any officer's attorney a free pass to have a mistrial declared. That's why juries are forbidden from talking to people about the trial while it's ongoing and sequestered if they're serving on a very publicised case.

What is the reasoning behind that?

It's a jury of your peers, not a jury of avid Fox News viewers.

[Ifreann]

Useful contribution.

I expected significantly better from you.

Let's just glance over the titles of those studies:

1. Institutional racism, the police and stop and search: a comparative study of stop and search in the UK and USA
2. The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children
3. The Reality of Racial Profiling
4. Racial
Discrimination
in the Criminal
Justice System

..and what do you know, your allegedly relevant sources are a strawman after all. These would support the concept of racial profiling, which I never even doubted.

Hey, it's not like I totally acknowledged it and even said that it is among the factors causing a higher rate of black people to get killed. This is what I have been saying all along, unless you failed to pick it up.

The problem is, however, that proving that racial profiling exists, which no one even attempted to disprove in this particular discussion, does not equate to proving that all things being equal , and I cannot stress this enough, a cop will kill a black man quicker than they would a white one. This is a crucial difference. There is CORRELATION with race, not CAUSATION. And this correlation comes in the form of racial profiling, the fact that crime rates are not uniform among races, and so on. So, by this definition, yes, blacks are getting killed because they are black. But don't go around and imply that the cause is actually officers choosing to kill more black people because of racism, which is what many people are doing. In a lethal force scenario, danger is perceived THE SAME, a cop won't go "oh let's see what color this person is, he's black so I better kill him lol". Claiming this is the case is disingenious and still remains nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.

If you understood at least a word of what I tried explaining here and you still think there are parts within those sources that you have provided that could prove the relationship between unwarranted police killings of black people is that of CAUSATION, not CORRELATION, which again, would imply that the officers choose to kill more black people, then by all means, please point them out.

Racial profiling is a policy as institutionally racist as they come, short of "kill the blacks".
Institutional racism by design fosters a culture of racism.

The way that whites and blacks are treated so massively differently where whites are significantly more in the wrong than blacks should make this blindingly obvious. Drunken white guy with a rifle? Take it off him, give it to him tomorrow. White kid with a shotgun? Give up when he's noncompliant.

Black guy with a BB gun standing idly in the store selling BB guns? Shoot him in a raid on the store, no warning. Black guy walking home? Shoot him twice in the face. Black guy with a knife? Shoot him more times than the actors in Starship Troopers did.

And then there was the "sovereign citizen" yahoo who started a fire to lure out the fire fighters and ambush them with his AK-47(or something a reporter would mistake for an AK-47, more likely), and continued shooting when a SWAT team showed up, and miraculously didn't get turned into minced meat by the automatic weapons of The Man. He surrendered, got arrested and charged with a few counts of assault. Dude was literally trying to rebel against the government and murder its agents and he got assault.

[United States of The One Percent]

A ProPublica study just out shows black teens are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white teens.

[Anglo-California]

Some thug opened fire on the cop, the cop returned fire, taking him out. Why would someone protest this?

What makes you think that that's what happened? The police saying so? Because, as noted above, the police say a lot of shit.

The source in the OP seems pretty reliable. Do you have any evidence yourself, or are you afraid of uniforms?

Meanwhile, no one bats an eye when the police are equipped with military hardware or during the countless examples of the 4th Amendment being egregiously violated by the police.

Except that people do bat their eyes at that, and more. Sure seems like you've got a big ole chip on your shoulder there, buddy. You maybe lookin' for someone to knock it off for you?

No one's been rioting over Edward Snowden.

[Othelos]

Wait, this is what people are protesting rn in St. Louis? Wtf?

[Mavorpen]

Wait, this is what people are protesting rn in St. Louis? Wtf?

No. Not exactly. It's a combination of things, not just this one incident.

[Othelos]

Wait, this is what people are protesting rn in St. Louis? Wtf?

No. Not exactly. It's a combination of things, not just this one incident.

Oh ok

[United States of Natan]

There was a similar situation on a recent episode of Franklin & Bash, where a crooked cop worked security on a private estate, trying to kick the real owner off for the person who pretended to own it, and used his position as a cop off-duty and stuff. If anyone remembers the episode more clearly, feel free to correct me.

I would not count on a comedic drama(or is it dramatic comedy) for my legal insights.

Wasn't getting legal insight, I was just noting the connection.

[Mavorpen]

No. Not exactly. It's a combination of things, not just this one incident.

Oh ok

Honestly that's true for a lot of protests these days. They're more or less reactions not specifically to just one incident. Certainly though specific incidents can add enough fuel to the fire to make protests more likely.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Another case of suicide by cop. Good shot cop! I am glad that the good guy won here and lived. So often cops get killed in our country and probably 99 percent of them are heroes. If you shoot at a cop you are a total scumbag. Police risk their lives everyday for us.

[New Chalcedon]

Another case of suicide by cop. Good shot cop! I am glad that the good guy won here and lived. So often cops get killed in our country and probably 99 percent of them are heroes. If you shoot at a cop you are a total scumbag. Police risk their lives everyday for us.

Helpful hint: Unless you like appearing rather silly, I suggest that you read the last page or two worth of posts in the thread you're posting your uninformed, jingoistic bullshit in. Or, for that matter, the story linked to by the OP, or even the recent analysis of the multiple changes of story the St. Louis PD has undertaken, or the violence-by-police stats in general.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

snippity

Finally. This is the type of thing that I have been talking about. You see, the problem is that people were reaching the same conclusions without even attempting to do what you did here, through anecdotal evidence and were using these conclusions as factoids. Thanks for the info.

[Imperializt Russia]

I expected significantly better from you.
Racial profiling is a policy as institutionally racist as they come, short of "kill the blacks".
Institutional racism by design fosters a culture of racism.

The way that whites and blacks are treated so massively differently where whites are significantly more in the wrong than blacks should make this blindingly obvious. Drunken white guy with a rifle? Take it off him, give it to him tomorrow. White kid with a shotgun? Give up when he's noncompliant.

Black guy with a BB gun standing idly in the store selling BB guns? Shoot him in a raid on the store, no warning. Black guy walking home? Shoot him twice in the face. Black guy with a knife? Shoot him more times than the actors in Starship Troopers did.

And then there was the "sovereign citizen" yahoo who started a fire to lure out the fire fighters and ambush them with his AK-47(or something a reporter would mistake for an AK-47, more likely), and continued shooting when a SWAT team showed up, and miraculously didn't get turned into minced meat by the automatic weapons of The Man. He surrendered, got arrested and charged with a few counts of assault. Dude was literally trying to rebel against the government and murder its agents and he got assault.

Holy shit I forgot about that one.

[Ifreann]

What makes you think that that's what happened? The police saying so? Because, as noted above, the police say a lot of shit.

The source in the OP seems pretty reliable.

And the source in the OP is report what the police have said. I'm perfectly willing to believe that they said it. Them saying it doesn't make it true, though.

Do you have any evidence yourself, or are you afraid of uniforms?

There's this, but I'm sure I'm just suspicious of the police changing their story over and over because I'm afraid of uniforms.

Except that people do bat their eyes at that, and more. Sure seems like you've got a big ole chip on your shoulder there, buddy. You maybe lookin' for someone to knock it off for you?

No one's been rioting over Edward Snowden.

So you think that means no one cares?

[Fireye]

Useful contribution.

Oh, yes - pick at one word you don't like, and ignore everything else said. A rather cheap tactic, commonly used by people who know they have no defensible argument to make - instead they hope that by diverting the subject to talking about the appropriateness of that specific word, the larger debate falls by the wayside.

Sorry, not interested.

How about I pick the word that shows you as a racist?

[Condunum]

snippity

Finally. This is the type of thing that I have been talking about. You see, the problem is that people were reaching the same conclusions without even attempting to do what you did here, through anecdotal evidence and were using these conclusions as factoids. Thanks for the info.

Anecdotal evidence is only not evidence when there isn't a new story to tell every week, sometimes more. At some point we have to admit that the long, long chain of "isolated incidents" are anything but, especially when they occur in the same neighborhoods.

[Mavorpen]

snippity

Finally. This is the type of thing that I have been talking about. You see, the problem is that people were reaching the same conclusions without even attempting to do what you did here, through anecdotal evidence and were using these conclusions as factoids. Thanks for the info.

Personally I do think that anecdotes have a place in the discussion, as they're the ones that give us the actual gruesome details, whereas the data available to us are usually lacking in specifics and aren't entirely complete themselves.

[Ifreann]

Oh, yes - pick at one word you don't like, and ignore everything else said. A rather cheap tactic, commonly used by people who know they have no defensible argument to make - instead they hope that by diverting the subject to talking about the appropriateness of that specific word, the larger debate falls by the wayside.

Sorry, not interested.

How about I pick the word that shows you as a racist?

How about you post something substantive?

[Glorious Freedonia]

Another case of suicide by cop. Good shot cop! I am glad that the good guy won here and lived. So often cops get killed in our country and probably 99 percent of them are heroes. If you shoot at a cop you are a total scumbag. Police risk their lives everyday for us.

Helpful hint: Unless you like appearing rather silly, I suggest that you read the last page or two worth of posts in the thread you're posting your uninformed, jingoistic bullshit in. Or, for that matter, the story linked to by the OP, or even the recent analysis of the multiple changes of story the St. Louis PD has undertaken, or the violence-by-police stats in general.

The story said that some punk tried to shoot a cop and paid the price for it. What is your problem?

[Ifreann]

Helpful hint: Unless you like appearing rather silly, I suggest that you read the last page or two worth of posts in the thread you're posting your uninformed, jingoistic bullshit in. Or, for that matter, the story linked to by the OP, or even the recent analysis of the multiple changes of story the St. Louis PD has undertaken, or the violence-by-police stats in general.

The story said that some punk tried to shoot a cop and paid the price for it. What is your problem?

Maybe when you finish masturbating to the death of a "punk" you could maybe consider the possibility that the police were in the wrong while you wash your hands. Sure, they say that the deceased opened fire first, but what if they're lying? What if this officer killed a young man for no good reason and the police force is helping him get away with it?

[Susurruses]

Helpful hint: Unless you like appearing rather silly, I suggest that you read the last page or two worth of posts in the thread you're posting your uninformed, jingoistic bullshit in. Or, for that matter, the story linked to by the OP, or even the recent analysis of the multiple changes of story the St. Louis PD has undertaken, or the violence-by-police stats in general.

The story said that some punk tried to shoot a cop and paid the price for it. What is your problem?

Whose story said?
The police?
Which version of their story are you taking as true?
The one where the bushes that don't exist were there?
Or the one where they realised people have eyes and cameras, and decided the bushes weren't there?

Actually read the thread, as was already suggested.
Follow the sources.
You can do it; I believe in you.
You might even learn something.

[Vamtrl]

wrong thread

[Holyrood]

I really distrust the St. Louis police lately. They're very race-baity and balantly lied in a press conference and claimed Brown robbed someone when no robbery took place and no robbery was called in. Almost certainly a fabricated story by kill happy pigs.