Red Mosquito

Peeps wrote:it happened here in pittsburgh

imo the outrage of the zimmerman stemmed first from a young angelic african american was shot and then people were outraged over the SYG

Peeps wrote:it happened here in pittsburgh

imo the outrage of the zimmerman stemmed first from a young angelic african american was shot and then people were outraged over the SYG

Spoiler: show

Local authorities investigating the weekend shooting death in Oakland of a former Slippery Rock University football captain could decide today whether to file homicide charges against a man who was questioned and released by police Saturday night.

After interviewing Isiah Smith, 22, police issued a statement late Saturday saying he had "turned himself in" and would be charged with killing Zachary Sheridan of Brookline. The men were reportedly part of two groups who did not know one another but argued and then fought on Forbes Avenue near Bouquet Street after 3 a.m.

Mr. Sheridan, 24, collapsed after being shot while running, police said, and he was pronounced dead at nearby UPMC Presbyterian at 3:44 a.m. Saturday.

At 5 a.m. Sunday, following their conversations with both Mr. Smith and prosecutors in the Allegheny County district attorney's office, police officials issued a new statement saying the suspect had been released from police headquarters without being charged.

"Pending further review of the medical examiner's autopsy report, the district attorney's office has decided not to approve criminal charges" against Mr. Smith, the statement said.

That review of autopsy findings is likely to be concluded today, with the possibility that Mr. Smith could still be charged with homicide and carrying a firearm without a license. There was disagreement between police and the district attorney's office on whether sufficient evidence was immediately available to arrest him, although officials did not want to discuss that difference of opinion in any detail publicly.

Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, said in an emailed statement Sunday: "We have had [a] number of phone conversations with homicide, and when we were presented with an affidavit we believed that more information was needed before approving such a warrant, both from homicide and the medical examiner."

The medical examiner's office reported that Mr. Sheridan died from a gunshot wound to the chest. The location of his wound, however, is apparently one factor prosecutors are weighing before filing charges, as it could factor into any possibility of self-defense in the shooting.

Rather than being shot in a face-on confrontation during a fight, Mr. Sheridan was believed to be fleeing the scene and was shot from the rear, based on surveillance camera footage and eyewitness accounts, said city police major crimes Lt. Daniel Herrmann. After the bullet traveled through his body, he had blood spurting from the area near his throat when attended to by a University of Pittsburgh police officer first on the scene, Lt. Herrmann said.

The shot that killed Mr. Sheridan was the only one fired during the altercation, which came after a verbal dispute on the street escalated between Mr. Sheridan and his friends with Mr. Smith and the male and female who were his companions.

Mr. Smith came to police voluntarily after televised media reports Saturday used camera footage of the incident provided by police as they sought help in seeking the suspects.

Peeps wrote:it happened here in pittsburgh

imo the outrage of the zimmerman stemmed first from a young angelic african american was shot and then people were outraged over the SYG

malice wrote:

turned2black wrote:What's missing from great investigative journalism today is a readership for it.

this

- the problem is, the media's reaction to this lack of readership (which it has played a huge role in creating) is to dumb down their formats even more - and it doesn't help that there's the perverse current environment that applauds stupidity and finds intelligence and education somehow repugnant.

the media creates its own demise by pandering to their readership instead of challenging them either intellectually or in some inspirational manner by presenting well written, factual, and relevant articles.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

malice wrote:

turned2black wrote:What's missing from great investigative journalism today is a readership for it.

this

- the problem is, the media's reaction to this lack of readership (which it has played a huge role in creating) is to dumb down their formats even more - and it doesn't help that there's the perverse current environment that applauds stupidity and finds intelligence and education somehow repugnant.

the media creates its own demise by pandering to their readership instead of challenging them either intellectually or in some inspirational manner by presenting well written, factual, and relevant articles.

That's fine to have this journalistic integrity, but if you're not getting readers and making money, you're losing the writers to layoffs anyways.

Harry Lime wrote:Rachel Maddow.

I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.

Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.

I don't know. She makes me laugh.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:Rachel Maddow.

I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.

Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.

I don't know. She makes me laugh.

If you accept that your preferred party has done anything that you disagree with, you might as well vote for the other party. Glen Beck finally had the freedom to slightly change his viewpoint once his preferred party was out of power. Perhaps Maddow will have that freedom if/ when her party looses power. Maybe even stepping back from thinking that the unitary executive is an acceptable ideal.

Harry Lime wrote:Rachel Maddow.

I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.

Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.

I don't know. She makes me laugh.

turned2black wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:Rachel Maddow.

I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.

Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.

I don't know. She makes me laugh.

I like Maddow. In the wasteland of TV talking heads, I think she's at the top. She's hardly a lock-step Dem. She's been very critical of Obama in the past and seems to hate our drone program about as much as I do.