As you were told.
Sadly? Nah!
It is what happens when thugs bite off more than they can chew.
:naughty
You are speaking utter nonsense.
No, his discharge was not for racial bigotry.
actually, his dismissal from the police force WAS for racial bigotry
the entire force was terminated because of it
That is your bigotry speaking.
no. my information tracks news stories such as this one:
Darren Wilson’s first police job was in the small town of Jennings, MO–and the police department had such a troubled history with racial tensions between white officers and black residents that the city eventually disbanded it. Three years ago, every single officer–including Wilson–was fired, and new people were hired in an effort to regain credibility with residents.
Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Formerly Worked for Police Dept. Disbanded for Racism, Corruption | Americans Against the Tea Party
His discharge was because his job no longer existed because the Department was disbanded.
yes, that job continued to exist. only it was filled instead by another LEO who was found not to be tainted by a history of racist behavior
every member of that jennings police department was fired. because of the persistence of racial bigotry they exhibited. including the shooter of the young black man
Why it was disbanded was not attributable to him.
and one must question why a innocent would have been fired for racist actions while serving as a law enforcement officer
And he had a clean record at that department.
now, let's all ponder what a "clean record" would look like within a police department which was disbanded because its members were found to act in a racist manner towards the black community it was intended to serve
and then let's also ponder why a police officer who was innocent of racist charges did nothing to preserve his job; he took no action to resist his firing for engaging in racist behavior. he did nothing to preserve his integrity as an honest cop. instead he was fired for being a member of a department which was found to engage in racist actions
That is a ridiculously absurd claim.
You do understand that the interviews came before this testimony, right?
You do understand that it is reported that he said during interviews that he did not remember, right?
You do understand that other witnesses have him telling Brown to stop before turning, right?
You do understand that the GJ testimony came after his interviews, right?
Interviews ~ didn't remember
After interviews ~ remembered
During GJ testimony ~ relayed what he remembered
So how is it that you do not understand that him remembering what happened (especially as it was witnessed by others) prior to testifying to the GJ allowed him to testify to such?
That is how things work with memory, or did you also not know that?
And yet you want to call it a lie. :doh That is just stupid.
And what is funny about this is your focus on something that is completely irrelevant.
Whether or not he remembered makes absolutely no difference to what happened prior to Brown turning, or after he turned and began approaching him.