Ferguson: An outsider’s viewpoint part 1


As an outsider who has lived in the USA and who has relatives living in the USA, I have been following the events surrounding the shooting and death of Michael Brown. Please note that I am not calling this death a homicide (technically it is homicide) or murder, because under the circumstances that existed when the shooting took place the actions of Darren Wilson were justified.

There are many aspects of this case that can be discussed, but my fellow bloggers are covering many of them. Some, such as Andrew Branca have been giving very good summaries of the evidence that was placed before the Grand Jury. Therefore, what I want to raise is the issue of the protests.

First of all, I do not believe that the protests are justified, yet I accept that some people have a right to be upset, and that includes Michael Brown’s parents. However upset those parents have been they are not justified in their efforts to cause mayhem in St. Louis or in Ferguson and its surrounds. On top of that it is ludicrous that they claim that their son has been disrespected when the truth about what took place has been placed before the Grand Jury. There were several more credible witnesses than Dorian Johnson and the few who went on T.V. to tell their lies.

Second, the mayhem, looting etc. etc. is the work of political activists, the Marxists, the local chapter of the New Black Panther Party (the black equivalent of the KKK), Anonymous,  and other Anarchists. These activists include individuals involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is even probable that they have links to the Underground Weathermen including links to Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn. These activists want to take over the USA and turn it into a basket case society.

Third, in my household there has been a bit of a debate about the protests and the reasons for the protests. It seems that my husband thinks that these people have a right to protest and be upset. He has even used the word oppression in regard to this particular population. However, I disagree with him, and this is despite any of our experience when we lived in Fairborn, Ohio back in 1984-85.

We lived in a neighbourhood that was mostly white, and as far as I am aware there were no blacks in our part of Fairborn. The blacks lived on the other side of Fairborn. What stood out about this community is that there was almost no crime. On our first night in the house that we rented someone threw a rock through the window (in a room that we never used). That incident was disappointing. When we first arrived there was another family of Australians not very far away from us, but they left a few months later.   The Beaver Creek neighbourhood was different because no blacks lived in Beaver Creek and if one was seen then the police would consider their presence suspicious. We also had friends living in Beaver Creek.  Both neighbourhoods were middle class in their outlook and make-up.  Whilst we were living in Fairborn there was a drive-by shooting and a murder (at the local motel where we had stayed whilst waiting to rent a property when we first arrived and then when we left). That kind of incident was very rare in Fairborn.

Fairborn was not far from Dayton and Xenia which is where most of the blacks lived. We heard of some crimes including the rape of a woman who was caught on the freeway exit just out of Fairborn. I really did consider the crime level to be low.  At least in Fairborn we were aware of the police presence, and on one occasion I was helped out by the police due to something going wrong with the car that I was driving.

My husband had different experiences during his other visits to the USA. He had stayed in Georgia where he had seen other things happening. I think it is actually his other experiences that make him think that somehow or other the blacks have a right to their grievances. Yet, I will beg to differ since I do not believe that the incident itself had anything to do with police oppression or whatever you want to call it.

Where the shooting of Michael Brown is concerned what matters to me is the lead up to the event, that is it is the detail regarding the story that is very important. It starts with the strong arm robbery at the Ferguson Market.  Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson stole cigarillos. A customer inside the business contacted the police via 911. Michael Brown had intimidated the store clerk and this incident was caught on CCTV footage. Police Officer Darren Wilson was in the neighbourhood attending to another call when he heard about the robbery and received a description of the perpetrators. He saw Brown and Johnson walking in the middle of the road, where they were disrupting the flow of traffic. Wilson did what any normal cop would do, he told them to move to the footpath. This angered Brown. Johnson then noted that Johnson was wearing a black t-shirt and one of them had the cigarillos. He backed up his car to speak to them again. Brown got very aggressive, and during the struggle that ensued, Brown attempted to take Wilson’s gun. Two shots were fired within the SUV. Brown and Johnson then ran in different directions. Wilson pursued Brown and Brown turned back towards Wilson. He did not act like he was going to surrender, instead he charged at the police officer.  As Brown let his head down in the charge, Wilson fired off another shot which was the fatal blow.

Wilson had every right to pursue and then attempt to arrest Michael Brown on suspicion of being involved in a strong-arm robbery as well as assaulting a police officer.

However, there is a lot more to the whole story, because it turns out that Leslie McSpadden who is Brown’s mother is shacked up with Louis Head, who just happens to be one of the local activists. On top fo that one of the men who was earliest on the scene was a man by the name of Shahid, also a well-known activist and trouble-maker. It was Shahid who had been seen speaking with Dorian Johnson and two other alleged witnesses. Johnson had gone home and changed his top. He did not replace the bracelet that had been on his wrist when he was in the store, but had been found at the scene of the crime. The reason for the change of top was so that he would not be recognised by the other police. It looks like Shahid got the three together so that they concocted the “hands up, don’t shoot” scenario. Those words were never uttered by Brown!!The whole of the testimony by those witnesses was nothing but a lie.

Once Shahid was involved the ball was rolling and it seems that McSpadden had similar magical links to the likes of Parkes and Chump…. then the media circus began.

The Marxist Media have continued the lies about Michael Brown, proclaiming the gang member to be some kind of gentle giant, who was intending to go to local college so that he could learn how to be a refrigerator mechanic…. yeah, sure.  They used a picture of a younger Michael Brown, just like they did for Trayvon Martin. It is this aspect of everything that has taken place that has really sparked my interest because once again we see how the stirrers and instigators of rioting work together to cause chaos…… and it all goes back to the White House.

Advertisements

6 responses to “Ferguson: An outsider’s viewpoint part 1

  1. I am curious as to what outcome the protesters thought would be appropriate to Brown’s actions. The whole event was over in under a minute.

    At the same time do they really want to live around someone with the lack of self-control to attempt to disarm and attack a police officer?

    Like

    • If you read what Wilson had to say, he states clearly that the area was peppered with drug addicts and gang members.

      Michael Brown, his mother and step father are/were members of the Bloods gang in St. Louis.

      It is the others, the activists, and the bit players that are important in this story.

      Michael Brown is a means to an end, just like Trayvon Martin was a means to an end.

      The names of the organizers of the protests and riots are important. These names include Shahid, Sharpton etc. etc. In fact Sharpton appears to be the loudest of the instigators of the protests and violence.

      Like

    • Aussie,

      i understand that. I am not referring to them, I am referring to the misguided fools who buy into the narrative despite the facts of the case.

      Like

    • Yes…. exactly… they do buy into the narrative.

      This is part 1 of my postings on the subject. I want to explore the wider picture. I encourage to put down your thoughts to me clarify what I want to say about who might be behind the rioting.

      How much of it was stirred up in the first place by agitators? Shahid was on the scene very fast and Shahid is linked to Brown’s mother in some way. Shahid was responsible for what Johnson and others said to the media in the first place… it was all lies…but it was lies for a purpose….

      Who is Shahid? He is a Black Panther? Or some other kind of activist in St. Louis. He has links to Al and Co….. get the picture? This is where I am going with my comments.

      Like

    • I did put some of my thoughts on this issue at my blog.

      https://boricuafudd.wordpress.com/

      Like

  2. Thank you Bori that is really very helpful. I am still gathering my thoughts on the subject. I feel that I have dealt with the facts surrounding the death of Michael Brown but I want to go deeper because there are side issues.

    My direction will be to look more closely at the agitators. I did see another good video of a black man telling off the protesters and again the man is a realist. Many of those who were looting etc were not from Ferguson. They are outside agitators. This is where I am heading.

    Like