Posted on

New York Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson published the address of Darren Wilson in the New York Times.

10420290_824088427654005_8987515862057812583_n

New York Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson published the address of Darren Wilson in the New York Times.

If these New York Times reporters are willing to put Darren Wilson’s address out there when it will unquestionably endanger his life, then they should have no complaints about the public knowing where they live.

Julie Bosman
5620 N. Wayne Ave, Apt 2
Chicago, IL 60660-4204

Campbell Robertson
1113 N. Dupre Street
New Orleans, LA 70119-3203

Feel free to share this post and send them your opinion. A couple of million postcards should make a statement.

Like they say; “What’s good for the goose, is good for the dirtbag.”

Rick Sarmiento
2 Million Bikers to DC
Florida State Coordinator

24 thoughts on “New York Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson published the address of Darren Wilson in the New York Times.

  1. What is the point of publishing his address, other to incite the same people who have no respect for other’s property and burn, rob, and loot.

  2. What is your address james?

    1. post your own ,or are you all bark and no bite ???lol

  3. right after you post yours james

    1. we figured you are coward as usually lol

  4. I believe that #1 is correct this does nothing more than make a bad situation worse.

  5. Liberal Press. I wonder what the reported address are ?

  6. Yes you are a coward james, and a Moron.

    1. chicken chicken chicken looser lol

  7. james said, we figured you are coward as usually lol

    James should have said I figured you are a coward as usual lol

    There I fixed that for you Moron….by the way who’s we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

  8. Big difference. We can all publish our addresses. Even publish these two reporters addresses. However, there isn’t a significant number of angry and violent people out there looking to specifically harm either us or these two reporters. However, that’s not the case with the police officer, who probably shares his residence with family members.

  9. Bad move by The Times….

  10. He may be a coward, but I doubt it.
    But you james are a fkn asshole

    1. now come on chicken shit , mommy didnt get a new beamer for the holidays ???lol looser

  11. James can you please change the name of this blog? You and the usual mouth breathers who post here do not represent Ridgewood in any way whatsoever.

    Thanks.

    1. any you represent who ???

  12. This clearly is a threat to the lfficer and his family.

    This was of no news value. They did it because they could.


  13. U:

    This clearly is a threat to the lfficer and his family.
    This was of no news value. They did it because they could.

    They are not journalists in the sense that most of us understand. They did it because they represent a disturbing section of society that views as the evil enemy, things like the police, the military, corporations, banks, religion (except any “foreign” ones), etc. Don’t think the anti-establishment loons are just those Occupy crazies. Those are just the trust funders and various weirdos. A lot lot more inhabit our media and academia.

  14. We should flood the officer with Christmas cards. I am sure that he could use some support right now.

  15. #20 is correct, he could use support right now. However, regarding sending him cards, that would be difficult. The NYTimes didn’t exactly publish his address. They did publish that he and his fiance owned a property on a named lane in a town nearby that they named – and they stated that he no longer lived there, he had left it quickly after the incident in Ferguson, before they published it. It was stupid of them to publish it, trying to show some background on him.


  16. Anonymous:

    #20 is correct, he could use support right now. However, regarding sending him cards, that would be difficult. The NYTimes didn’t exactly publish his address. They did publish that he and his fiance owned a property on a named lane in a town nearby that they named – and they stated that he no longer lived there, he had left it quickly after the incident in Ferguson, before they published it. It was stupid of them to publish it, trying to show some background on him.

    He still owns it, and he only left, in a hurry (he was half-way through cutting his lawn), when he was told that his address had been published. As for sending his xmas cards, I don’t think he really wants sackfulls of mail, which would only add to the problems he has right now of way too much exposure.

  17. Actually, he was rarely ever there since August when shortly after the shooting the Washington Post published the same material about his house. If he left in the middle of mowing the lawn, and I have no reason to doubt you, it was because of Washington Post.

    The NYTimes article was in October. Of course, the NYTimes makes a better villain than the Washington Post.

  18. Thank you for posting this. These scumbags will be getting a taste of their own medicine. There will be no harm involved, but they will waste a lot of time here shortly.

    Reporters act with no responsibility or consequence and it’s time they feel the same pain for their actions. Afterall, politicians and news reporters are two of the worst type of people on the planets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *