18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by police over the weekend. It turns out he was unarmed and the preliminary story of what happened is all kinds of fishy.
Based on this LA Times story, Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street to Brown's grandmother's house. A patrol car pulled up and told them to get out of the street and some kind of scuffle ensued with Brown in the car. Then, Brown got out, put his hands up and was shot repeatedly?
Try to disregard all the ridiculous looting and vandalism by the opportunistic scum.
The officer who fired the shots was a 6-year vet of the force and is on paid administrative leave.
LA Times Reporting - (
New Window )
but the looting and the mob scenes have been ridiculous...it's hard to ignore them...if that's the reaction to something like this, the same people have to wonder why the police are already on the defensive when they encounter someone...and I don't say that to be racist, it is just the truth...police these days don't know what they are dealing with when they make a traffic stop or any kind of stop...
if the officer was wrong, he should be prosecuted, no doubt...but tell me how looting a QuikTrip and other stores (tires, liquor) in your own neighborhood is going to get you justice?
/holds candle
Vastly different versions of what happened.
Except Philly. Fuck Philly. :)
My guess is we'll never know. The officer says one thing. Some eyewitnesses say another. I don't see any independent corroborating evidence for either version. That makes it a "he said" "she said" scenario. The real damage is that whatever minimal trust the community had for the police is now shattered, probably irreparably.
See what happened in Detroit after the 1967 riots.
Quote:
It's an expression of long term economic and social frustration.
Well, there is about to be a lot more economic and social frustration in that area as the businesses flee.
See what happened in Detroit after the 1967 riots.
Agreed. Social declines have momentum. And that momentum is really hard to reverse.
Quote:
It's an expression of long term economic and social frustration.
Well, there is about to be a lot more economic and social frustration in that area as the businesses flee.
See what happened in Detroit after the 1967 riots.
You're seriously comparing this to the Detroit riots?
Perhaps when pointing the finger at others, it exposes ones own significant biases in expressing any sort of nuance on the subject...
Some of us have better things to do than debate the segment of BBI that is still upset over having their skateboard taken away when they were younger?
Though it is precious that you think BBI is somehow the pulse of the nation.
Quote:
that the BBI Police Defense force is getting overstretched? Where's the true hero Rob when you need him?
Some of us have better things to do than debate the segment of BBI that is still upset over having their skateboard taken away when they were younger?
Yeah that is it. You fucking obtuse moron.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
Series question for those who are either involved in law enforcement, or have particularly steadfast in their opinion that police are generally never really in the wrong very often: taking the cost out of consideration, why shouldn't police be required to where small cameras such as go pros?
Unarmed teen reportedly had his hands up in the air when shot. We can "wait for the facts" which will probably never come off since the cops now have the video, and they are completely above the law so it will likely never see hte light of day.
Quote:
that the BBI Police Defense force is getting overstretched? Where's the true hero Rob when you need him?
Some of us have better things to do than debate the segment of BBI that is still upset over having their skateboard taken away when they were younger?
Though it is precious that you think BBI is somehow the pulse of the nation.
Personally, my distrust of the police comes from a couple specific incidences my family and I have experienced. One was a bloody nose when I got arrested for getting caught drinking beers in the woods behind a few local businesses at age 16.
Yes, I know it isn't all police (I've actually had some very good experience with cops, some of which were very recent), but it's hard to ignore a previous experience like the one I had.
One thing that bothers me is how cops are above reproach. It always turns into a game of "he said she said", and the police will always win. So what's to stop them from blatantly lying in police reports or to judges? I've seen it happen with incidents that occurred with my roommates in college. If one party is virtually never at risk of being called out at their lies, it makes perfect sense that they would never be honest in their accounts of events.
"There are no hard national standards, no binding state policies, not even a national database that tracks how often, where, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. The result, say scholars, is a free-wheeling space in American law and police policy. The nations 17,000 law enforcement agencies set their own termsand when citizens cry foul, the courts spit out wildly inconsistent results.
"Pick up the paper any day and theres an excessive force case here and an excessive force case there, and yet theres no national data at all," says William Terrill, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. That contributes to a larger problem of excess subjectivity, he says, where cops who commit brutality can end up going free guilty of what Terrill calls "lawfully awful behavior."
I don't understand how this data is not tracked. Yes, "excessive force" is in the eye of the beholder to some extent, but the public deserves to know how many unarmed citizens have been shot (and/or killed) by police. Why is this number treated as if it is superflous, extraneous, bullshit data? Surely even Rob in NYC can admit that it would be worth tracking.
On an anecdotal level, the number of stories that have come out regarding excessive force or shootings of unarmed individuals is alarming.
I've seen some great discussions on this site regarding the militarization of police, and wonder if that is the primary root of this issue.
NBC News - ( New Window )
"It was never implemented," says Terrill. The Justice Department did not return a request for comment. The FBI, meanwhile, acknowledged the shortcomings in its data."
This also calls to mind this article, which states that in NJ, 99% of police brutality claims go uninvestigated: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/police-brutality-new-jersey-report_n_4555166.html
We can't leave it to the police to police themselves, since clearly, they will not. After all, it is common sense, as cops have a strong brotherhood and a strong bond, so they go above and beyond to protect one another (or perhaps, cover for one another).
[ur]http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf[/url]
Not that it stopped the cops from deleting the evidence in that instance as it was:
[url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/baltimore-pay-250k-videos-deleted-police-vindication-photographers-rights.html/[url]
They also actually used the phone to try and dig up dirt on the victim in this case instead of using it for evidence
[link]http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228#!bB5170[/link]
link - ( New Window )
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf
Not that it stopped the cops from deleting the evidence in that instance as it was:
[url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/baltimore-pay-250k-videos-deleted-police-vindication-photographers-rights.html/[url]
They also actually used the phone to try and dig up dirt on the victim in this case instead of using it for evidence
[url]http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228#!bB5170[/url]
link - ( New Window )
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/baltimore-pay-250k-videos-deleted-police-vindication-photographers-rights.html
Cops used cell phone to dig up dirt on victim anyway:
[url]http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228#!bB5170[/url]
Cops used cell phone to dig up dirt anyway - ( New Window )
So I'd appreciate it if you weren't automatically contentious. A 5 second google search would have brought you to the above links.
Besides, a police department using a cell phone to dig up dirt on someone suing them is just another example of how situations can turn into "citizen vs cop". That is so immoral on so many levels.
They then deleted the footage from the phone, sparking an FBI investigation.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/05/15/fbi-investigating-california-deputies-for-possibly-deleting-footage-of-beating-death-from-confiscated-phones
I know the URL of this site shows some bias BUT it has links and excerpts from The Bakersfield Californian newspaper and the LA times. Within that story, there is another link to a man in Nebraska who had his memory cards taken and destroyed in a similar situation.
This has also happened in Dade County multiple times. Dade County had specifically changed their own policy previously regarding cell phones after an unarmed man was shot on the beach in 2011, with video evidence being destroyed (link is here, for some reason it only lets me post 2 links a post: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2011/05/31/police-confiscate-cell-phone-cameras-after-shooting-unarmed-man-on-miami-beach/).
Dade County 1 - ( New Window )
Please don't take this as sparking a "me vs you" argument. Rather, I am trying to just bring some news articles to the discussion. I don't have an agenda, but I do have an opinion. IMO, cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty. Theoretically, if they are following procedure, it should protect them and help catch perps who assault them if something goes wrong.
It would definitely protect citizens by providing some accountability to the police as well.
NY Times link - ( New Window )
That being said, I am appalled that video evidence has been destroyed in some of these cases.
That being said, I am appalled that video evidence has been destroyed in some of these cases.
I am merely supporting my position. Maybe, by definition, thats pushing an agenda. If there was an edit function I would put it all in one post. Having said that, I am hopeful that I am a little more thoughtful than some of the knee jerk "fuck cops" reaction crowd.
Oh please, give me a break. I have no beef with getting arrested, clearly I deserved it for being a dumbass and not drinking a couple beers in a friend's garage like a normal teenager. It happens to a ton of people when they are stupid and young.
BUT...I didn't run, resist, or give any push back so no need for me to get hurt in the process. Was I grievously injured? Hell no, I got a slightly bloody nose and a bloody lip. Was that still excessive? Yeah, I'd say so, unless you would have no problem with that happening to your kid at that age for doing something so innocuous that probably 75% of people have done.
Besides, this isn't really about me. All I was saying was that my views that police use excessive force are rooted in things that actually happened to me, and things that I see only support this viewpoint. Pretty sure a stationary scrawny 16 year old Indian kid in suburban NJ isn't really enough of a threat that would have resulted in me getting hurt. He could have just spun me around and slapped the cuffs on me instead of slamming my face sideways against a car. It leaves such a negative impression, that I still remember the cops name to this day, and still am weary in every single interaction I have with them.
And I'd rather not discuss my situation much further, because it's completely irrelevant to the scope of this discussion.
I guess the broader point I am trying to make is that people's perspectives are shaped by their interaction with the police, and most of the time, it's not because someone was doing something wrong, but more because of a disproportionate reaction from the police.
To be fair, I will admit people are much more likely to remember a bad interaction than a good interaction.
It would be pretty silly to do something wrong, get arrested, then complain about it. But when you throw in a cop doing something unnecessary along the lines of to either humiliating, embarrassing, berating, or hurting someone, obviously people will have an unfavorable opinion (not saying all four of those things happened to me).
So I'd appreciate it if you weren't automatically contentious. A 5 second google search would have brought you to the above links.
Besides, a police department using a cell phone to dig up dirt on someone suing them is just another example of how situations can turn into "citizen vs cop". That is so immoral on so many levels.
Huh? I don't even have a comment on this thread that I remember or can find, unless it was contentious the moderators deleted it. If I did have one it probably would have been condescending and contentious if i did, so I'll take my medicine and apologize, but normally I earn it.
Quote:
Police confiscating and deleting video evidence or really just any interaction with police is well documented, been singled out as illegal, and is a pervasive problem.
So I'd appreciate it if you weren't automatically contentious. A 5 second google search would have brought you to the above links.
Besides, a police department using a cell phone to dig up dirt on someone suing them is just another example of how situations can turn into "citizen vs cop". That is so immoral on so many levels.
Huh? I don't even have a comment on this thread that I remember or can find, unless it was contentious the moderators deleted it. If I did have one it probably would have been condescending and contentious if i did, so I'll take my medicine and apologize, but normally I earn it.
My bad, it was BC4life.
I understand what you are saying and used to subscribe to this train of thought, but honestly, the negative stories you hear about police tend to be the same across the board and across different regions.
Personally, I find getting roughed up as a 16 year old way less egregious than deleting evidence off of a phone. But if we look at things such as accidental shootings, deleting evidence off of a phone, and police brutality (NOT what happened to me, but police brutality in general) it happens in both urban and suburban areas, poverty stricken and affluent areas (I will say there is a greater disparity between poverty vs affluent areas, but it still occurs in both areas).
From my perspective (and this is admittedly potentially uninformed), it probably has more to do with the fact that cops just don't really get in trouble, always will win a "my word vs their word" argument, and can pretty much do whatever they want without fear or retribution from anyone. Power corrupts people, so its not surprising that a particular role in society that has far less accountability for their actions while simultaneously possessing a ton of power over the populace act over the top. They are human after all.
Go Terps actually said something that really resonated with me -- you have no reason to trust your average cop any more than you would have to trust your average person. A lot of times, I trust them less because they have nobody to answer to if they do something inappropriate or use poor judgement (especially in smaller, comparatively trivial situations). Who's do you call when cops do something wrong... more cops?
Also,
I would agree with Sonic, however, that it seems increasingly unfortunate that some officers themselves do not recognize this schism and apply the same tactics and attitude when clearly inappropriate. If we agree that the risks and challenges of each position are wildly different then surely the logical response would be that the benefits and operating procedures should be different.
The question is, how do we as a society formally account for these differences and implement policies that more effectively serve the needs of our society. Hint: the logical answer is not to ignorantly reply, "well if he didn't break the law or talk back then he wouldn't have given the officer a reason to <insert transgression>."
Re: the video...who the hell do you think investigates the shooting? You say they can't take it without a warrant? Bull shit. They can seize it to prevent evidence from being destroyed. The search warrant is necessary to SEARCH the phone for the video.
The police can't take a random persons phone off the street for no reason.
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary
When they said confiscated - all that could mean is that the phone is in police custody. As long as it is not tampered with and the evidence - why worry about it?
we still don't know what the facts of this case are.
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary
Arm yourself (if that's what intimidating you), or just fight back, no one has a right to rough you up.
I know there are bad policeman and women, but it's not the wild wild west out there or nazi germany. The overwhelming majority of the time law enforcement is acting solely in the best public interest, not going out wilding and roughing up the burberry manning's of the world for no apparent reason.
Re: the video...who the hell do you think investigates the shooting? You say they can't take it without a warrant? Bull shit. They can seize it to prevent evidence from being destroyed. The search warrant is necessary to SEARCH the phone for the video.
The police can't take a random persons phone off the street for no reason.
Sorry, in this situation YOU don't know what you're talking about.
I have a link from the Department of Justice that literally says the police CANNOT seize the video in this scenario unless they have reason to believe that the evidence will be destroyed.
Can you enlighten me as to why the girl would destroy the cell phone video? It's a video of the police shooting a kid. They confiscated it on the spot after the shooting, so let's not pretend that they went back to her and took the video during the course of the investigation. It was an obvious to move to cover their ass.
Don't believe me? Go look at the above links I posted.
Don't believe me, I don't care, and that's your prerogative.
In the grand scheme of things it's something that happens all the time, whether or not you believe it happened to me in my specific incident is pretty inconsequential. And that isn't even my point -- my point is that people are obviously going to draw biases against cops when they are treated like that.
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
Of course it is, but what's the alternative? They will likely not be the organization that does the subsequent investigation but because they're the ones there at the scene when it happens they will still collect evidence.
Quote:
It is a bit worrisome that at the end of the day there is really little stopping an officer from the law from imposing their will on a citizen. Why should that power go largely unchecked?
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary
Arm yourself (if that's what intimidating you), or just fight back, no one has a right to rough you up.
I know there are bad policeman and women, but it's not the wild wild west out there or nazi germany. The overwhelming majority of the time law enforcement is acting solely in the best public interest, not going out wilding and roughing up the burberry manning's of the world for no apparent reason.
Cmon Pjacs, it sounds good in theory, but even if a cop is roughing you up, we all know the worst thing to do is arm yourself or fight back.
You need to sit there and take it, cause if you fight back, it's going to get way way way worse.
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
By that logic, the police shouldn't be allowed to collect any evidence in case there was any misconduct on whatever case they're working. That's just plain silly.
Quote:
In comment 11804101 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
Of course it is, but what's the alternative? They will likely not be the organization that does the subsequent investigation but because they're the ones there at the scene when it happens they will still collect evidence.
The alternative is that whoever is doing the investigation looks into gathering the appropriate evidence, as opposed to the cop or other cops present when the kid was shot. It can't be a group of people who benefit from deleting evidence.
The DOJ said that you cannot seize or destory this evidence without a warrant or without due process. Likely to prevent this exact conflict of interest.
In this case, it looks like the evidence may surface due to the highly publicized nature of this shooting, and the fact that there were multiple cell phones. But in general, cops CANNOT take your phone if you are recording them. They do this all the time anyway.
Reposting the DOJ decision here - ( New Window )
When they said confiscated - all that could mean is that the phone is in police custody. As long as it is not tampered with and the evidence - why worry about it?
we still don't know what the facts of this case are.
Who gives a shit who said what? Why don't you address the content, not the person who originally said it. Are cops intrinsically more moral or have better judgement than regular humans? No, they don't. What he said makes sense.
Also, does anyone else see the hypocrisy in these statements:
1) Wal-Mart guy was pointing an air soft gun at people, witnesses saw it!
2) Ok, maybe a group of witnesses saw the teenager with his hands in the air fleeing when he was murdered, but lets wait for the facts!
Quote:
In comment 11804101 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Who do you think collects evidence at potential crime scenes?
So you don't see a conflict of interest when a group of police is present while a man gets beat to death, or shot, or even to take it down a couple notches, is stopping someone for a traffic stop... and then the SAME PEOPLE confiscate the video evidence?
By that logic, the police shouldn't be allowed to collect any evidence in case there was any misconduct on whatever case they're working. That's just plain silly.
What I'm saying is that officer specifically, or that team specifically. I think it makes sense. I'm not saying the police force as a whole, even though they usually work to cover for eachother anyway.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I was just responding to the hypothetical posed. But your response to that hypothetical would honestly probably get you shot, and you'd have a ton of people defending it anyway.
That being said, I also do think that disproportionate use of force is fairly common within police-citizen interactions, and I still think the worst thing to possibly do is fight back.
Yeah, you'r not part of the "knee jerk "fuck cops" reaction crowd."
Quote:
maybe, but I'm going to go out on a limb without statistical data and say it's rare, maybe not unicorn and mermaid rare, but pretty rare for a person of any race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation to be abiding the law and for zero reason be attacked physically by law enforcement.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I was just responding to the hypothetical posed. But your response to that hypothetical would honestly probably get you shot, and you'd have a ton of people defending it anyway.
That being said, I also do think that disproportionate use of force is fairly common within police-citizen interactions, and I still think the worst thing to possibly do is fight back.
Even if you don't fight back, many police will say "stop resisting" and use force. I don't know if that's a code word or what, but it seems like if they are saying "stop resisting" it's like a license to use force.
I've experienced this personally while not resisting even a little, you see it on leaked videos, and you see it on cops when 5 or 6 cops are tooling on a suspect saying stop resisting while the dude is barely moving.
You're right resisting will 100% make it worse, and I'm not talking about suspect apprehension, I was talking about the unicorn scenario where you are attacked for no reason. In that case my advice (not sure how I'd react and I hope I never find out) would be to defend yourself.
Quote:
...even though they usually work to cover for eachother [sic] anyway.
Yeah, you'r not part of the "knee jerk "fuck cops" reaction crowd."
Calling out reality is NOT a knee jerk reaction and saying fuck the cops. I posted an article that said NINETY NINE PERCENT of complaints police go un-investigated. It wasn't some tinfoil website, it was NJ.Com and I posted it earlier in this thread. What do you consider that?
And let's think about this anecdotally for a second, although this will admittedly carry less weight. Have you not heard stories of cops pulling over other cops for DUIs and essentially doing nothing? Do you not believe that police reports are always accurate, and that in the case of an inaccurate police report, the partner says anything to correct it?
There are probably actual sociological reasons for this. When you have a tight knit community like cops, who literally call themselves a brotherhood, OF COURSE they will cover for eachother. It's expected!
These are human beings! They aren't sentient robots! They have emotions, and they are 100% going to cover for eachother. You never had an employee you were close with at your job who you found yourself in a similar situation with? And then imagine that camaraderie times 1000.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
Quote:
if the bystanders scatter to the winds you may never find them again, particularly if the evidence incriminates their friend or family member. They still have to account for what is seized and anything that is done to it.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
Of course there is a good reason. If the video incriminates her friend or her family member it could have been used against him at trial if he lived and to prevent a successful lawsuit by the family.
No one is saying police can't be recorded. No one is saying police can take someones phone and delete evidence. However, basic search and seizure knowledge tells you that if the police have probable cause to believe there is evidence on your phone, they absolutely CAN seize it and later obtain a search warrant. They can not search it without your consent, or without a search warrant (without exigent circumstances). They can seize it to preserve evidence from being destroyed. Much like searching a house....police can not search an entire house because they found drugs in one room. They can secure the scene (the house) and attempt to get a search warrant.
Quote:
if the bystanders scatter to the winds you may never find them again, particularly if the evidence incriminates their friend or family member. They still have to account for what is seized and anything that is done to it.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
What if the evidence exonerates the officers? Maybe it shows the victim assaulting the officer and then making a move like he was reaching for a weapon?
Quote:
In comment 11804184 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
if the bystanders scatter to the winds you may never find them again, particularly if the evidence incriminates their friend or family member. They still have to account for what is seized and anything that is done to it.
Right, and that's why the DOJ says you can seize the property if you have evidence to believe it will be deleted, which is something I made clear from the very first time I raised this issue.
In this case, there is no reason why that girl would delete the teenager being shot. And the cops who were actually on site when the teen was shot are the ones who are far more likely to tamper with the evidence and have no business collecting it.
I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense for someone to be trusted with collecting evidence that incriminates them. Who in their right mind would do that honorably?
What if the evidence exonerates the officers? Maybe it shows the victim assaulting the officer and then making a move like he was reaching for a weapon?
If a cop was beating a guy up and someone taped it, do you think he should have the authority to confiscate the tape as evidence? Because it's essentially the same situation.
I'm trying to wrap my head around people thinking its okay for someone to just confiscate a tape of a person murdering someone else, just cause he's a cop and he can be trusted to do the right thing. There are multiple examples of police taking tapes and deleting evidence. I posted some examples in this thread.
lol. no, halfback20 on BBI is the supreme lord and ruler of the land.
if this is how this conversation is going to go, fuck this, i have better shit to do and really should get to work.
you win, congrats. cops can take whatever they want from whoever they want, even if its a tape of them murdering an 18 year old kid, cause theyre cops.
i give up. it's mind boggling that some people cannot see why that would be inherently wrong.
So, I can see a video that might exonerate an office absolutely being deleted.
Can't you?
At the same time I can see an officer confiscating a video that clearly shows him unprovoked executing someone.
it's a conundrum.
Quote:
does the DOJ create laws?
lol. no, halfback20 on BBI is the supreme lord and ruler of the land.
if this is how this conversation is going to go, fuck this, i have better shit to do and really should get to work.
you win, congrats. cops can take whatever they want from whoever they want, even if its a tape of them murdering an 18 year old kid, cause theyre cops.
i give up. it's mind boggling that some people cannot see why that would be inherently wrong.
You're right. When you begin arguing against a position that nobody on this thread has taken, it probably is time to get back to work.
Is your persecution complex so bad that you think anyone is arguing that cops should be able to just take whatever they want?
They collect evidence- it's part of their job. For all you know, the video is going to show that the cops did nothing wrong in this case (considering the conflicting stories).
Sheesh.
Imagine if there was no video in the Rodney King debacle.
Quote:
In comment 11804210 halfback20 said:
Quote:
does the DOJ create laws?
lol. no, halfback20 on BBI is the supreme lord and ruler of the land.
if this is how this conversation is going to go, fuck this, i have better shit to do and really should get to work.
you win, congrats. cops can take whatever they want from whoever they want, even if its a tape of them murdering an 18 year old kid, cause theyre cops.
i give up. it's mind boggling that some people cannot see why that would be inherently wrong.
You're right. When you begin arguing against a position that nobody on this thread has taken, it probably is time to get back to work.
Is your persecution complex so bad that you think anyone is arguing that cops should be able to just take whatever they want?
They collect evidence- it's part of their job. For all you know, the video is going to show that the cops did nothing wrong in this case (considering the conflicting stories).
Sheesh.
Cam, I've said multiple times that obviously cops have to take the evidence... not the actual cop who committed the murder or his immediate colleagues.
Also, not sure what conflicting evidence there is. Witness reports are pretty consistent, from what I've read. Kid had his hands up, was backing up, got shot once, fell to the ground, was shot multiple times on the ground.
Maybe that's what we should be talking about, not the video evidence.
I'm out to a meeting, goodbye. Thank you, Dunedin81 and a few others, for having an actual discourse, not some stupid A vs B, Up vs Down bullshit.
Imagine if there was no video in the Rodney King debacle.
And if your friends had video of you punching a police officer when you were saying that you had complied with all of their instructions and been roughed up anyway, would your friends put it on Youtube or would they forget that they ever had it? There can certainly be incentive to delete.
If the police are involved in a shooting, it is going to be investigated. If someone has recorded that shooting, that recording is evidence. Again, no one is saying police have the right to delete that evidence. I'm not even saying they have a right to search the phone, unless they have a warrant/probable cause or exigent circumstances. However they do have every right to seize the phone and preserve the evidence while they attempt to obtain a search warrant.
Even if you don't fight back, many police will say "stop resisting" and use force. I don't know if that's a code word or what, but it seems like if they are saying "stop resisting" it's like a license to use force.
I've experienced this personally while not resisting even a little, you see it on leaked videos, and you see it on cops when 5 or 6 cops are tooling on a suspect saying stop resisting while the dude is barely moving.
You're right resisting will 100% make it worse, and I'm not talking about suspect apprehension, I was talking about the unicorn scenario where you are attacked for no reason. In that case my advice (not sure how I'd react and I hope I never find out) would be to defend yourself.
I just recently enjoyed a BBQ with the in-laws where I met a family friend of theirs that is a retired NYPD detective. He was a wildly entertaining gentleman and I was very interested to hear his tales of infiltrating pick-pocket gangs and various methods of crime fighting that he would employ. After listening to him for a few hours three points stuck out to me;
- I now epathized with officers operating in dangerous and dynamic environment and their need to employ "unconventional" methods to get the job done
- When I asked him how officers rose the leadership ranks within the force he was quick to mention that careers are made via politics, education, or more commonly by making big busts. He went on to tell me that making these bigger busts were usually the result of superiors implying to their underlings that they would look the other way in order for their officers to perhaps take certain liberties in order to facilitate these career-building cases
- He had me demonstrate one such way that he would gather information if he so chose; he had me stand up to mimick the process of being cuffed, he twisted my arm a bit to make it look like I was flexing my shoulder or resisting, and he yelled "stop resisting." Now, he mentioned, he had cause to search within an arms length into my vehicle and/or person if he so wanted. He had thought the procedure was slick but I was rightfully concerned.
Now, will that Unicorn scenario happen to either of us? The odds are most certainly against it. But does that mean that we, as a society, shouldn't examine the systematic mechanisms in place to prevent that sort of liability? Really, my concern is when I read about a liquored up Trooper that seriously injured a gentleman on the Turnpike without public reprimand, or the inebriated officer that fired a barrage of bullets at an occupied vehicle in Westchester. Sure, there are individuals in every profession that could cause a degree of harm to an individual but the stakes happen to be ultimate within this profession and the mechanisms in place to monitor these liabilities seem to be flawed.
Where did you hear that the city policeman that was involved took charge of the evidence?
I've read in three different sources that the County Police were asked to lead the investigation, however, I didn't read the initial reports on this incident.
When exactly did you say the police have to take the evidence? In fact, I thought your original post was about how you were upset that they confiscated the video in the first place?
8 most dangerous unarmed teens at large - ( New Window )
Exactly. Story seems so confusing. Police say he jumped into the car, scuffled, and a shot was fired. Then he exited and was shot twice more.
Witnesses say he had his hands up and was running, then was shot. But is this after the scuffle in the car? Kinda sounds like it to me.
Video footage hopefully clears a lot of it up.
"The versions agree on some basic facts: The officer approached the teens, who were walking in the street, there was an altercation in or near the car, and the officer fired several shots at the unarmed Brown, who was then several yards away, killing him.
In Johnsons version, the officer reached out of the car to grab Brown by the throat. In Belmars version, which cited his departments investigation, Brown reached into the car to attack the officer, and struggled to grab his weapon."
Link - ( New Window )
It's my understanding that shooting someone in the back is a huge no-no for cops
If he was shot in the front, and was running (per the witnesses), it's likely he was running toward a police officer, which is a huge no-no for suspects.
As for who collects evidence in the immediate aftermath of such an incident, it's probably the locals, since they're the ones on the scene. Dunno the timing of when the county got involved, but if they were only called in for the investigation afterwards, they're not likely to be on the scene. Still, it's prejudicial to already have decided that they confiscated it only to destroy it, when there's no evidence at all that it's been destroyed.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
I mean like my personal tinker bell you did in fact show up to give me a presumptive two-cents about why I have great disdain for police, so expecting you to be regular like clockwork was hardly a reach.
I've never owned a skateboard.
"As federal and local authorities begin investigating the case, the key question will be whether the officer had reason to believe Brown, 18, posed a threat gun or no gun."
"The federal courts are very clear that there are times and places where officers are allowed to shoot people in the back when they are running away, even if they are unarmed, said David Klinger, a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and expert on police shootings."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Cam, I've said multiple times that obviously cops have to take the evidence... not the actual cop who committed the murder or his immediate colleagues.
When exactly did you say the police have to take the evidence? In fact, I thought your original post was about how you were upset that they confiscated the video in the first place?
Yes, it is absolutely wrong that they confiscated it at the scene of the crime immediately. If this was not a heavily publicized event, I would bet it likely would have been deleted. And what recourse would a private citizen have? Nothing.
This has happened on multiple occasions previously. Does it happen every time? Who knows, likely not. But that doesn't matter, it should never happen, and if there was an independent Internal Affairs type organization, it would probably mitigate that.
Instead of condescending posts and hypotheticals, I don't understand why some of the following points cannot be addressed:
There aren't many organizations that have shown that they are able to police themselves. Why are cops different?
If cops are adept at policing themselves, how come 99% of complaints go completely uninvestigated?
Why do they confiscate recordings so often in situations such as traffic stops, when it has been stated by the courts time and time again it is the right of citizens to record police officers?
If they follow the rules, why do they hate being recorded so much? Why the opposition to having a recording device while on the clock? Would this not make police safer, while still protecting citizens? Even if it didn't make police safer, would it put them at greater danger? As a parallel, do dashcams have any negative affect on cops safety, or make their jobs harder? So why would a GoPro like device?
I don't understand halfback20's retort to this. Why question the DOJ's authority... do you not want police to be filmed? How are police reacting with arrests to being filmed good for the public?
Is it difficult to fathom that most people don't believe the cops have citizen's best interest at heart? Is it hard to believe that such a tight knit group, that calls themselves a Fraternal order, would really cover up eachothers actions, especially when there is virtually nobody to check this power?
If one group of people have cart blanche to say whatever they want and never have it questioned in the court of law, wouldn't they be more inclined to lie and stretch the truth?
Why is it just acceptable that a group of officers can beat someone or shoot someone, then those same officers are able to confiscate video? It goes back the same premise that cops are human beings also, and they aren't above discretely destroying evidence to protect their reputations and careers provided nobody is able to find out. I think 99% of people in similar situations would do so.
And what's up with the double standard regarding eyewitness testimonies? According to some on here, the Wal-Mart incident was cut and dry, black and white: one or two witnesses said they saw a guy pointing a pellet gun at people while on the phone. I didn't see anyone question whether or not this eyewitness testimony was accurate, and don't recall anyone asking for the surveillance tape. But in this situation, the eyewitness testimony of WAY more people is invalid because we need to wait for the facts. Taking this a step further, not one witnessed (to my knowledge so far) claimed that the teenager tried to take the cops gun. which is supposedly the cops story. Ask yourself: if these were ordinary citizens in a confrontation, and multiple people saw one thing, and the one party who shot the other was claiming self defense, who is more likely covering their ass? It doesn't make any sense.
Maybe I'm the asshole for thinking this, but it seems way more likely to me a hothead cop felt disrespected by some punk ass kid and tried to grab him, than some kid reaching INTO a cop car Grand Theft Auto style to try and take a cops gun.
Generally, I am inclined to believe that cops are more likely to lie or exaggerate the truth - not because they are inherently bad people, but because they are never questioned by the judge in court. They will always win a he said-she said argument, but I can guarantee you they are not always truthful in those situations. While I have some anecdotes about this regarding experiences of my duplex neighbors in college, I'm sure nobody is interested in hearing them, people will tell me I'm lying, so I won't even bring them up. Having said that, I'm sure some of you have been in police reports that are incongruent with the actual sequence of events.
Cops don't deserve to be above reproach. There should not be situations like some of the ones cited earlier in this thread, where there is video of cops shooting and killing a driver of a car and injuring four others in the vehicle, and then not give any explanation for the next 3-4 years. Or situations where a phone is confiscated, evidence is deleted, and the phone is then farmed for dirt on the victim. These types of scumbag moves will happen because every profession has their scumbags, but nothing has happened to these officers. That's the sad part.
halfback20: I AGREE with your 11:53 post. I do NOT agree that the same cops who were involved in the incident have the authority to take a phone on the spot. At the end of the day (rolle '11), I want the video to be released to the public. The sad thing is that the most likely avenue for that to happen would be for the cops to have no idea it was being filmed, and for it to be subsequently leaked on Youtube.
fkap: I don't think that footage was destroyed, because it was widely reported to have existed. If nobody knew about it, I am fairly confident it would never see the light of day. And who would believe a little girl living in poverty that she even had the video? Who would she even go to? Would she file a complaint against the police? It is for this exact reason that a warrant is needed to seize and search the phone unless there is reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed.
Taking this a step further, the fact that the officers who were involved in the homicide in the first place were the ones who confiscated the video presents a huge conflict of interest. That is not due process.
I am also struggling to see how these police, who are inherently NOT an objective party due to their direct involvement in this kid's death, could have made the judgement that this girl was going to delete her cell phone tape.
Can we not stick our heads in the sand and pretty much agree that at least ONE of the main reasons that cell phone was taken was to prevent the footage from leaking and going viral? If you think that thought did not cross the mind of the police when collecting evidence, you're out of your mind.
This is definitely a legitimate point that I'd like to know the answer to.
On one hand, evidence is supposed to be collected right away.
On the other hand, shouldn't evidence be collected once an investigation has begun? Couldn't an investigation have begun with a different segment of law enforcement on that same day? I also wonder if the fact that the footage cannot be altered in a similar manner to biological evidence has any bearing on this question.
Imagining a similar situation, I don't believe that there would be a chain of custody issue if footage from a private business security camera was taken a few days later, and I would assume that these would be basically equivalent scenarios, though I could be wrong on both those facts.
You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that it would have been deleted. You know nothing about this police department or the officer that confiscated it. It's funny you mention condescending posts and hypotheticals. You have brought up several hypotheticals yourself about how the video would have been deleted, etc.
As for your 99% of police brutality complaints go uninvestigated...well it's horse shit. That article is about central New Jersey, not the United States in general.
When the hell did I question the DOJ's authority on filming police? Are you just making shit up now? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to record police. But if your recording becomes evidence, don't be surprised if it gets seized.
Most people don't feel the same way you do re: police. Just because a few people on Reddit hate the police doesn't mean everyone does.
You are wrong.
Ferguson has a whooping 8 guys on shift including the Sargent. Very few departments investigate their cop involved shootings. Just because of the wild speculation it causes and the appearance of impropriety. Since St Louis County sheriff's department is issuing statements, I'll assume that they are the lead agency being overseen by the MDLE (what ever their state agency is called there) and the DOJ.( Holder already said their keeping an eye on the investigation. A good thing in MHO.
Chain of custody
Yes there would be. Why wouldn't investigators take store security tapes during the investigation? Once you leave the scene. That'a it. It's no longer secure. You better believe these guys are doing everything by the book. They have to. Everybody is watching.
You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that it would have been deleted. You know nothing about this police department or the officer that confiscated it. It's funny you mention condescending posts and hypotheticals. You have brought up several hypotheticals yourself about how the video would have been deleted, etc.
As for your 99% of police brutality complaints go uninvestigated...well it's horse shit. That article is about central New Jersey, not the United States in general.
When the hell did I question the DOJ's authority on filming police? Are you just making shit up now? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to record police. But if your recording becomes evidence, don't be surprised if it gets seized.
Most people don't feel the same way you do re: police. Just because a few people on Reddit hate the police doesn't mean everyone does.
You're naive, sorry. I'm basing my assertions off of human nature and the past behavior of cops.
I've presented a number of articles regarding police conduct regarding video evidence. The Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html has essentially ruled that police can be videotaped, yet time and time again, police react aggressively to those filming them.
On a level more specific to this case, the Department of Justice, literally in charge of enforcing laws, specifically states that police cannot seize or search a video or cell phone unless it is likely to be deleted by the person who recorded it . They need a warrant to take that video evidence. It's clear as day.
Answer me this: Do you believe the police confiscated that girls cell phone video because it was evidence, or because they did not want it to leak and go viral? Because if you think it is the former, not the latter, you have your head in the sand.
It would actually just be truly sad if you honestly think the police took that video for an investigation... it just shows you blindly put your faith in ordinary men and regarded them as such upstanding, pillars of moral superiority, as opposed to fully fleshed humans
Anyway, as usual, you ignored every pertinent question in my post, and have reduced your argument to well you don't know him personally so blehhhh. I've raised numerous questions. You've refused to answer any of them. You have said virtually nothing of substance.
And think about how utterly pathetic it is that you are arguing over essentially semantics with regards to police ignoring 99% of complaints. Oh, it's just Central NJ.. I'm sure the rest of the country must have police forces very responsive to complaints from citizen, correct?
The point remains the same: police do not give a shit about complaints about them. They cannot police themselves.
So please, clarify your point for me. Please make it clear to me that you think that the cops took that video to further an investigation, not to avoid a media shitstorm of it showing up on youtube. And please, make it clear that you think that Central NJ is the one isolated area where cops ignore virtually ever complaint against them. Just so I can keep everything straight, conclude that your views are simply not grounded in reality, and move on.
This is anecdotal evidence but I am very confident a quick Google search will be able to provide data to back this up.
I'm not arguing about whether or not this is fair, or warranted, and that is neither here nor there; it's simply the truth. Young people and minorities typically do not trust the police (btw, how we even came to this talking point, I have no idea, but you are the one who raised it).
You are wrong.
Ferguson has a whooping 8 guys on shift including the Sargent. Very few departments investigate their cop involved shootings. Just because of the wild speculation it causes and the appearance of impropriety. Since St Louis County sheriff's department is issuing statements, I'll assume that they are the lead agency being overseen by the MDLE (what ever their state agency is called there) and the DOJ.( Holder already said their keeping an eye on the investigation. A good thing in MHO.
Chain of custody
Yes there would be. Why wouldn't investigators take store security tapes during the investigation? Once you leave the scene. That'a it. It's no longer secure. You better believe these guys are doing everything by the book. They have to. Everybody is watching.
Hey, I said I might be wrong, and I probably was regarding a private business. I said from the start that my issue wasn't so much the recording being taken, but that the recording was taken by an involved party. That's it, and I don't think theres anything too egregious about that stance. If you disagree, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, it's an inherent conflict of interest.
Quote:
absolutely do not trust police.
Taking shit out of context. Conveniently leaving out that I was talking about specific demographics. You think minorities trust the cops? Every other week there's another black kid who gets shot by the cops.
But it was cute how you tried to frame it as if I was speaking about myself. I definitely don't give them all the benefit of the doubt automatically on an institutional level, but I judge people on a case by case basis.
Nice of you to show up and provide nothing of value.
Kid was born in 1996. Really fucks with my head.
deadspin - ( New Window )
I'm sure an outside agency was there almost immediately. I will guarantee that phone chain of custody is documented extremely well.
I was involved in fire (arson)investigation. The system of evidence collection and chain of custody is the same.
I'm sure an outside agency was there almost immediately. I will guarantee that phone chain of custody is documented extremely well.
I was involved in fire (arson)investigation. The system of evidence collection and chain of custody is the same.
CTC: I am going on the account of the actual girl who had her phone taken away. It was in the initial news report. She was interviewed and said the police came over and took it away. I am trying to find the video now.
So yeah!! duh?
What is so unusual with that?
It's what is suppose to happen. Just as the officers gun was taken in as evidence. Just like the cruiser was taken in as evidence.
Why would you want a piece of evidence that that could clear or hang the cop not taken in as evidence for the investigation?
You make no sense. The prosecutor has to bring charges. Why would you not want the prosecutor to have what may be a key piece of evidence to present to a grand jury?
So yeah!! duh?
What is so unusual with that?
It's what is suppose to happen. Just as the officers gun was taken in as evidence. Just like the cruiser was taken in as evidence.
Why would you want a piece of evidence that that could clear or hang the cop not taken in as evidence for the investigation?
You make no sense. The prosecutor has to bring charges. Why would you not want the prosecutor to have what may be a key piece of evidence to present to a grand jury?
Police have a tendency to confiscate video recordings immediately after they are recorded during incidents. This isn't a new phenomenon.
This JUST happened last week...but there are no questions. The police were out of line, because it's legal to record police. - ( New Window )
This happens fairly often. So you can see why I think it would be prudent to have a THIRD party collect digital evidence. It makes perfect sense, I don't really see how or why you would disagree.
"Luckily", the Brown shooting is too high profile for this kind of thing to fly under the radar (poor choice of the word luckily, I know).
Apparently New York City is toying around with the idea of making police wear on duty cameras. That would be a huge win for the public, IMO. Don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Do you disagree with that?
you style yourself clever for having identified an area of conflict - police seizing evidence from bystanders that may incriminate them - but you haven't posed a practical solution.
how exactly is an uninvolved third party - whoever that is - supposed to reach the scene of a conflict in time to both collect evidence and prevent it from being destroyed?
it seems you've watched a little too much L&O and CSI. the forensic team is not going to show up within minutes to collect the phones of bystanders every time there's an incident. that may seem plausible to you in fantasy land, but it doesn't happen in reality.
so, again, who is this miraculous, impartial, omnipresent third party that is going to act as a check on police behavior in the field while staying neutral between the cops and the public?
or maybe you think Superman should do it?
I've presented a number of articles regarding police conduct regarding video evidence. The Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html has essentially ruled that police can be videotaped, yet time and time again, police react aggressively to those filming them.
you should read your "articles" a bit more closely. the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. in fact, they specifically declined to hear this case.
now, to a layman or, in your case, someone who doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about, generally speaking, because he thinks carnival gambling games are legit, declining to review the decision may seem equivalent to the Supreme Court's endorsement of the lower court's ruling. errrrrr. sorry. incorrect. that's not how the Supreme Court works.
so they haven't ruled on this question yet, nor have they "essentially" ruled anything.
now, run off and find us some more articles that you don't understand and perhaps someone can walk you through those too.
Quote:
Quote:
absolutely do not trust police.
Taking shit out of context. Conveniently leaving out that I was talking about specific demographics. You think minorities trust the cops? Every other week there's another black kid who gets shot by the cops.
But it was cute how you tried to frame it as if I was speaking about myself. I definitely don't give them all the benefit of the doubt automatically on an institutional level, but I judge people on a case by case basis.
Nice of you to show up and provide nothing of value.
A specific demographic that includes you but you weren't talking about yourself??? Bullshit.
I'm not confused at all. What I'm absolutely sure of is that you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.
The uniforms on the initial scene do not do the investigation. Their job is to secure scene integrity until the investigating team arrives. That includes preserving all possible evidence. That phone is possible evidence and was properly treated as such. It was their job to secure that evidence. Not to look at or anything else. That phone did not leave the scene until 3rd parties arrived and took possession.
Are you suggesting that they should have detained the girl, make sure she doesn't use her phone, until a detective from an outside agency arrives? That would really go over well.
We already know that the Ferguson PD, while the center of attention, is not the lead agency on this investigation since St. Louis County Sheriff's office is issuing statements. We know the state and the federal government is involved. We also pretty much know that Ferguson doesn't have the capabilities to do this type of investigation due to their size. Why regional task forces are the norm.
What we also know for sure is that you don't have a clue about the difference in evidence preservation and investigation.
As MT stated, you watch too much CIS, etc. You ever notice when they arrive on the scene that they look at the cop standing there and say thanks. Then go in. Or the cop will say this guy here said he saw what ever. Then the investigators go over and interview him.
You really need to do a ride along with you local PD to gain a little insight how things work.
As I stated earlier, I did and taught fire investigation classes. Proper scene and evidence preservation until an investigator(s) is taught in rookie school.
"Laura Hettiger KMOV @LauraKHettiger
Follow
#Ferguson police chief tells me officer who killed #MikeBrown was injured in altercation, side of his face swollen after being "hit" @kmov
8:37 AM - 13 Aug 2014"
but that wouldn't jive with the claims made by Brown's friends...but this may be BS also, which is why nobody should be passing judgment now...
Quote:
What I meant was that the police came over immediately after the shooting and demanded it right away. Not an uninvolved third party. You'd hope there would be some foresight to have some unrelated party, anyone, come and investigate, not the people on the scene. I feel that evidence should be collected by parties that don't have their skin in the matter.
I'm not confused at all. What I'm absolutely sure of is that you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.
The uniforms on the initial scene do not do the investigation. Their job is to secure scene integrity until the investigating team arrives. That includes preserving all possible evidence. That phone is possible evidence and was properly treated as such. It was their job to secure that evidence. Not to look at or anything else. That phone did not leave the scene until 3rd parties arrived and took possession.
Are you suggesting that they should have detained the girl, make sure she doesn't use her phone, until a detective from an outside agency arrives? That would really go over well.
We already know that the Ferguson PD, while the center of attention, is not the lead agency on this investigation since St. Louis County Sheriff's office is issuing statements. We know the state and the federal government is involved. We also pretty much know that Ferguson doesn't have the capabilities to do this type of investigation due to their size. Why regional task forces are the norm.
What we also know for sure is that you don't have a clue about the difference in evidence preservation and investigation.
As MT stated, you watch too much CIS, etc. You ever notice when they arrive on the scene that they look at the cop standing there and say thanks. Then go in. Or the cop will say this guy here said he saw what ever. Then the investigators go over and interview him.
You really need to do a ride along with you local PD to gain a little insight how things work.
As I stated earlier, I did and taught fire investigation classes. Proper scene and evidence preservation until an investigator(s) is taught in rookie school.
What is so difficult to understand. I dont care how its done.
The involved cops took a girls phone that she recorded them with. Its a conflict of interest. Nobody should shoot people and then be in charge of collecting evidence against themselves.
Police have a pattern of confiscsting video of themselves.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
Quote:
In comment 11804943 Peter in Atlanta said:
Quote:
Quote:
absolutely do not trust police.
Taking shit out of context. Conveniently leaving out that I was talking about specific demographics. You think minorities trust the cops? Every other week there's another black kid who gets shot by the cops.
But it was cute how you tried to frame it as if I was speaking about myself. I definitely don't give them all the benefit of the doubt automatically on an institutional level, but I judge people on a case by case basis.
Nice of you to show up and provide nothing of value.
A specific demographic that includes you but you weren't talking about yourself??? Bullshit.
Fuck off. Dont tell me how I feel. One of my closest friends is in state trooper school, im not justifying shit to you. Youre out of touch if you think cops and minorities trust police.
"Laura Hettiger KMOV @LauraKHettiger
Follow
#Ferguson police chief tells me officer who killed #MikeBrown was injured in altercation, side of his face swollen after being "hit" @kmov
8:37 AM - 13 Aug 2014"
but that wouldn't jive with the claims made by Brown's friends...but this may be BS also, which is why nobody should be passing judgment now...
Not sure which story is more accurate, but I'll bet both stories are embellished to some degree.
Quote:
I've presented a number of articles regarding police conduct regarding video evidence. The Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html has essentially ruled that police can be videotaped, yet time and time again, police react aggressively to those filming them.
you should read your "articles" a bit more closely. the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. in fact, they specifically declined to hear this case.
now, to a layman or, in your case, someone who doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about, generally speaking, because he thinks carnival gambling games are legit, declining to review the decision may seem equivalent to the Supreme Court's endorsement of the lower court's ruling. errrrrr. sorry. incorrect. that's not how the Supreme Court works.
so they haven't ruled on this question yet, nor have they "essentially" ruled anything.
now, run off and find us some more articles that you don't understand and perhaps someone can walk you through those too.
Listen to me, you condescending piece of shit. I know it's youre MO to compensate for your shitty life and inadequacies by going on message boards and acting like a big dawg and a prick, but I'm not fucking having it. You wanna have a discussion? More than happy to. Don't you fucking act like I'm some two bit 14 year old incapable of understanding what he's posting.
If you didn't try and cherry pick your arguments, you'd see that the cumulative body of rulings and statements by organizations such as the Supreme Court, DOJ, among other courts. You wanna order semantics about what each one individually means? Have fun with that. You tryin to tell me that it's illegal to record cops? Cause if not, STFU, your point is totally fucking unrelated. http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/21/a-new-first-amendment-right-videotaping-the-police/ wanna decode that for me? That's right, it basically fucking says you are allowed to record cops. So maybe they should stop harassing citizens for recording them while beating people?
What a novel fucking idea, right?!
As for what "magical third party" should come and collect evidence - I have no fucking idea, who the fuck made me the supreme LEO organizer in the United States.
Anyone with any semblance of common sense can see the conflict of interest when a cop murders a kid, then he and his buddies are tasked with collecting the evidence. [b]Do you know see the conflict of interest there?[b]
And the most pathetic part of this thread... how about ONE of you people who will go through mental gymnastics to prove to themselves that cops never do anything wrong... ONE of you... admit that this cop COMPLETELY FUCKED UP.
The rules, procedures, and laws, clearly don't work, since it's run of the mill for police to confiscate videos of them on the job.
Anyway what's your point here? You can't point out flaws unless you have solutions? It's not my job to have solutions. You can't just neglect to attempt to improve a biased, broken system, because someone on a Giants board can't think of anything better.
Of course nobody is looking at the actual cases I've shown in this thread, which I pretty much expected.
From the article:
Yeah, sounds like cops really do a good job of self policing. Internal Affairs seems great. So do you think its okay that the vast majority of complaints go completely unaddressed?
What's your take on that?
youre a shitty troll
Someone happened to be filming it, he never even tried to grab their gun. They didn't have any reason to pursue him either, as he was buying cigarettes and ran back into his house.
But who cares, right - ( New Window )
and it's clear you are one of the may uninformed who have rushed to judgment that the cop was in the wrong here...I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - nobody on this board knows...
and citing examples of other situations is meaningless here...doesn't prove a thing...
of course nobody in this thread who is arguing with me over whatever-the-fuck has even touched on cops wearing cameras
Link - ( New Window )
and it's clear you are one of the may uninformed who have rushed to judgment that the cop was in the wrong here...I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - nobody on this board knows...
and citing examples of other situations is meaningless here...doesn't prove a thing...
No, my point isn't worthless, I don't need to have a valid solution to poke a hole in a shitty procedure.
Other incidents are not useless, it shows a pattern in behavior.
BTW, here's a solution: Let digital evidence be backed up.
[quotes]What is so difficult to understand. I dont care how its done.
The involved cops took a girls phone that she recorded them with. Its a conflict of interest. Nobody should shoot people and then be in charge of collecting evidence against themselves.
Police have a pattern of confiscsting video of themselves.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?[/quote]
Most folks I imagine comprehend exactly what you are saying and probably agree to some extent re: the conflict of interest.
What you have made clear by your quoted post is that you don't comprehend that there is no practical way to do what you propose until we invent teleporters to get investigative teams at the crime scene quick enough to gather evidence. The only way to gather evidence and secure the crime scene right now is for the po-po to do it- they're the only one's there capable of doing it, for better or worse.
So until you come up with a practical solution for conflict of interest, you may as well be complaining that the sea is blue.
On the other hand, practical solutions that are already in place like other agencies taking over the investigation or conducting concurrent investigations, although not perfect, are already in place. Maybe your focus should be on how to improve these methods?
Media reports and investigative journalism also provide the protections you are looking for (although they are also quite flawed).
not trying to be racist here but your diatribes have no point...pointing to past behavior of someone else entirely unrelated to what you're trying to prove is ridiculous...cops are people like everyone else...they make mistakes, they even commit crimes sometimes...having a badge doesn't make them infallible or above the law...but come back when you have proof regarding this event, not just citations to stories you find on the internet...if the evidence proves this cop to have been in the wrong, throw the book at him...but you've already made your conclusions based primarily on your view/attitude toward cops...
"Dear Ferguson:
I have no doubt that the vast majority of you (including the family of the late Michael Brown) are solid, law-abiding citizens who want no more than to see the proper thing done after an unspeakable tragedy. You have my deepest and sincere condolences. I am equally certain that you are willing to let the investigation run its course and will be able to restrain yourself from flying off the handle before all the facts are known and officially made public. The next paragraphs are NOT intended for you.
To all the thugs, looters, race-baiters, rabble-rousers, and Monday Morning Quarterbacks that live in the same area: you are idiots. You are parasites and opportunists who have decided to use a deeply personal tragedy as an opportunity to, as my grandfather would have said, act a rot-non FOOL! Only ONE person on this planet really knows what happened the other day. Tragically, the other young man is no longer with us.
Thugs, theft and destruction is NOT justice. It never has been, and it never will be. Dr. King never said, "Let freedom ring, and get yourself a free TV while you're at it." You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit. Race baiters, we don't know WHAT the officer's motivation was. So how about we let the case run its course before we assume that color was the primary motivation? MMQBs, if you've never been in a potential deadly force situation, SHUT UP!!! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Save some of that hot air for a balloon float. Reverend Sharpton, if you and Treyvon Martin's lawyer really want to really do some good, STOP using the word "execution," for Christ's sake! It's a SHOOTING. A deeply unfortunate SHOOTING. And until the case is closed, that's ALL it is! How about focusing your energy on improving relations between the police and the community? Oh, yeah ... you won't make any money that way, will you? Silly me.
I am a police officer, and I am saying that if the officer in question is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences. But if it is proven that Mr. Brown was in the wrong, I hope all of you parasites are as quick and vocal with your apologies as you were with the officer's condemnation. I also hope that you offer to help rebuild what you destroyed.
Oh -- one more thing: If you want to hate the police and wish us dead, that's fine by me. I don't care. Just do me one favor: Don't call me for any kind of law enforcement service -- regardless of how major or minor -- for the rest of your days. EVER.
Rant over. Back to my seclusion."
not trying to be racist here but your diatribes have no point...pointing to past behavior of someone else entirely unrelated to what you're trying to prove is ridiculous...cops are people like everyone else...they make mistakes, they even commit crimes sometimes...having a badge doesn't make them infallible or above the law...but come back when you have proof regarding this event, not just citations to stories you find on the internet...if the evidence proves this cop to have been in the wrong, throw the book at him...but you've already made your conclusions based primarily on your view/attitude toward cops...
It really boils down to this (see if you agree with me or not): There needs to be more accountability and more checks on their power.
The reason I group cops together is because they are in a unique situation in society, with a unique amount of power of the populace. It is from this position of power that they are able to manipulate situations into their favor. That is the commonality, that's the common thread.
I don't know why I need to always give a disclaimer that it's not every single one. Not all cops are bullies, manipulative, or abuse their power, but a sizable amount do, and that's too many.
There's no recourse anyone has against them. They have carte blanche to do what they want. I would welcome any type of oversight over them. Internal Affairs doesn't seem to be working, and common sense dictates it wouldn't work, anyway.
Your 95% or 99% stat has no value unless you can show how many of those were valid complaints. If anything, the conclusion that could be drawn from those studies (if looked at with an unbiased eye) is that most complaints against the police are bogus and unfounded.
You place value on them because you have a predetermined conclusion- that police won't prosecute or police themselves.
His face being swollen still isn't justification for the kid being shot in the back.
actually, that would be giving you too much credit. i know 13 year olds who are smart enough not to throw money after lost money on carnival games.
if you expect anyone to take you seriously - on any topic - after asking the board for advice on how to beat a street carnival game, i think you're wasting your time.
His face being swollen still isn't justification for the kid being shot in the back.
we actually don't know if the cop fucked up yet. and why don't we know? because the investigation is not complete.
so, some of us (like you) make up our minds based on what we read on Deadspin. others wait for the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about to investigate and come to a conclusion.
and then the dumb fucks will question their result, every single time, simply because they know a guy who knows a guy who got roughed up by a cop once.
don't you have better shit to do? how many more times are you going to ask the board for career advice before you realize that you probably need to pay more attention to your job and less attention to BBI?
Threads like this one and the WalMart one and read how quickly people form conclusions with so little facts remind me of a quote that I have always liked.
Most people don't think -- they merely rearrange their prejudices.
Quote:
Don't you fucking act like I'm some two bit 14 year old incapable of understanding what he's posting.
actually, that would be giving you too much credit. i know 13 year olds who are smart enough not to throw money after lost money on carnival games.
if you expect anyone to take you seriously - on any topic - after asking the board for advice on how to beat a street carnival game, i think you're wasting your time.
lol, do you think I give a shit? My track record where it counts, in real life, speaks for itself. Hope you're having fun being MR AGRO on the board.
Quote:
They don't give a shit. They're looking for an excuse to take free shit. Still though, I'm still waiting on someone to talk about how badly this cop that shot the kid fucked up.
His face being swollen still isn't justification for the kid being shot in the back.
we actually don't know if the cop fucked up yet. and why don't we know? because the investigation is not complete.
so, some of us (like you) make up our minds based on what we read on Deadspin. others wait for the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about to investigate and come to a conclusion.
and then the dumb fucks will question their result, every single time, simply because they know a guy who knows a guy who got roughed up by a cop once.
don't you have better shit to do? how many more times are you going to ask the board for career advice before you realize that you probably need to pay more attention to your job and less attention to BBI?
Actually, no, regardless of what happened, the cop fucked up. I can't imagine any scenario within the context of this situation where an unarmed teen getting shot in the back is dead.
Even IF, hypothetically, he tried to hit a cop, he STILL shouldn't have been shot multiple times and killed.
Dead private citizens is a fuck up unless there was reason to believe the cops life was in danger. Have you seen anything to suggest the cops life was in danger?
Threads like this one and the WalMart one and read how quickly people form conclusions with so little facts remind me of a quote that I have always liked.
Most people don't think -- they merely rearrange their prejudices.
Because the number of times officers have confiscated or deleted digital evidence after they have committed acted inappropriately is far greater than the number of times police have been exonerated by film.
Because police officers are human beings, and humans tend to act in self preservation, so if there is a chance to alter evidence to make the situation appear more favorably to the police, and provided the police felt nobody would know if they confiscated or altered evidence, they probably would. This isn't a cop thing, this is human nature.
Because it's an inherent conflict of interest when the group involved in the homicide of an individual is tasked with gathering evidence at the scene.
Steve, I respect you a lot, so please answer this directly. Do you feel it makes any sense to have for the few individuals involved in this incident to be in charge of collecting evidence that can potentially incriminate them? In fact, does it make any sense for any individual to be in charge of collecting evidence that incriminates him or her?
This case is high profile, so I doubt that video will be deleted or altered (hopefully). But this concept applies to all digital evidence of police action.
I'm still waiting to hear what people think about all cops having badge cameras. It makes complete sense, yet the Police Union fights tooth and nail against it. Why is that?
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I just try to not, and don't see any benefit in jump to conclusions or forming concrete options about these types of things without the benefit of knowing all the facts. I prefer to wait and see what the facts might produce.
It may very well end up I will believe this cop was wrong and should be held criminally responsible, or I may end up believing that it was reasonable for him to feel he needed to fire his weapon, or maybe even something somewhere in between. I just don't make it a practice of so quickly condemning people after first reading about something. You can have your suspicions raised and want to find out more because of it but when too quickly forming concrete opinions I think we then look at everything else from that point from a skewed perspective trying hard to make everything fit into our preconceived view point and lose most objectivity.
"There is no escalation in the use of deadly force. What we are seeing is a proliferation of cell phones and cameras," she said.
"Dear Ferguson:
I have no doubt that the vast majority of you (including the family of the late Michael Brown) are solid, law-abiding citizens who want no more than to see the proper thing done after an unspeakable tragedy. You have my deepest and sincere condolences. I am equally certain that you are willing to let the investigation run its course and will be able to restrain yourself from flying off the handle before all the facts are known and officially made public. The next paragraphs are NOT intended for you.
To all the thugs, looters, race-baiters, rabble-rousers, and Monday Morning Quarterbacks that live in the same area: you are idiots. You are parasites and opportunists who have decided to use a deeply personal tragedy as an opportunity to, as my grandfather would have said, act a rot-non FOOL! Only ONE person on this planet really knows what happened the other day. Tragically, the other young man is no longer with us.
Thugs, theft and destruction is NOT justice. It never has been, and it never will be. Dr. King never said, "Let freedom ring, and get yourself a free TV while you're at it." You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit. Race baiters, we don't know WHAT the officer's motivation was. So how about we let the case run its course before we assume that color was the primary motivation? MMQBs, if you've never been in a potential deadly force situation, SHUT UP!!! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Save some of that hot air for a balloon float. Reverend Sharpton, if you and Treyvon Martin's lawyer really want to really do some good, STOP using the word "execution," for Christ's sake! It's a SHOOTING. A deeply unfortunate SHOOTING. And until the case is closed, that's ALL it is! How about focusing your energy on improving relations between the police and the community? Oh, yeah ... you won't make any money that way, will you? Silly me.
I am a police officer, and I am saying that if the officer in question is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences. But if it is proven that Mr. Brown was in the wrong, I hope all of you parasites are as quick and vocal with your apologies as you were with the officer's condemnation. I also hope that you offer to help rebuild what you destroyed.
Oh -- one more thing: If you want to hate the police and wish us dead, that's fine by me. I don't care. Just do me one favor: Don't call me for any kind of law enforcement service -- regardless of how major or minor -- for the rest of your days. EVER.
Rant over. Back to my seclusion."
He had me until he qualifies anyone that has not been in a potential deadly force situation as not having the right to offer a viewpoint as it pertains to this situation. That's rich. I shudder to think how this might apply to other situations and professions ("if you haven't faced a sales quota dont judge the guy handing out subprime mortgages"-2007).
And I would consider anyone with blanket hate for the police a fool but for a public servant to insinuate that he wouldn't fulfillthe duties of his job that apply to those individuals? Regardless of their ridiculous opinions, it remains that officer's job to serve them. Poor form.
Quote:
St. Louis City police officer, written two days ago...
"Dear Ferguson:
I have no doubt that the vast majority of you (including the family of the late Michael Brown) are solid, law-abiding citizens who want no more than to see the proper thing done after an unspeakable tragedy. You have my deepest and sincere condolences. I am equally certain that you are willing to let the investigation run its course and will be able to restrain yourself from flying off the handle before all the facts are known and officially made public. The next paragraphs are NOT intended for you.
To all the thugs, looters, race-baiters, rabble-rousers, and Monday Morning Quarterbacks that live in the same area: you are idiots. You are parasites and opportunists who have decided to use a deeply personal tragedy as an opportunity to, as my grandfather would have said, act a rot-non FOOL! Only ONE person on this planet really knows what happened the other day. Tragically, the other young man is no longer with us.
Thugs, theft and destruction is NOT justice. It never has been, and it never will be. Dr. King never said, "Let freedom ring, and get yourself a free TV while you're at it." You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit. Race baiters, we don't know WHAT the officer's motivation was. So how about we let the case run its course before we assume that color was the primary motivation? MMQBs, if you've never been in a potential deadly force situation, SHUT UP!!! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Save some of that hot air for a balloon float. Reverend Sharpton, if you and Treyvon Martin's lawyer really want to really do some good, STOP using the word "execution," for Christ's sake! It's a SHOOTING. A deeply unfortunate SHOOTING. And until the case is closed, that's ALL it is! How about focusing your energy on improving relations between the police and the community? Oh, yeah ... you won't make any money that way, will you? Silly me.
I am a police officer, and I am saying that if the officer in question is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences. But if it is proven that Mr. Brown was in the wrong, I hope all of you parasites are as quick and vocal with your apologies as you were with the officer's condemnation. I also hope that you offer to help rebuild what you destroyed.
Oh -- one more thing: If you want to hate the police and wish us dead, that's fine by me. I don't care. Just do me one favor: Don't call me for any kind of law enforcement service -- regardless of how major or minor -- for the rest of your days. EVER.
Rant over. Back to my seclusion."
He had me until he qualifies anyone that has not been in a potential deadly force situation as not having the right to offer a viewpoint as it pertains to this situation. That's rich. I shudder to think how this might apply to other situations and professions ("if you haven't faced a sales quota dont judge the guy handing out subprime mortgages"-2007).
And I would consider anyone with blanket hate for the police a fool but for a public servant to insinuate that he wouldn't fulfillthe duties of his job that apply to those individuals? Regardless of their ridiculous opinions, it remains that officer's job to serve them. Poor form.
I didn't care for the entire tone of the letter and he lost me at "You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit"
That said I don't think he was implying that he wouldn't fulfill his duty but instead if they truly believed that then they should also accept the idea of never calling on the police, in other words they would be hypocrites if they wanted it both ways; "hating them and wanting them dead", and yet would depend on them if the situation would arise.
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I don't need a hint, the answer to the question is that it would open their actions up to more scrutiny.
It would make the life of the police harder... But the question to ask is this -- why would it make law enforcement's lives more difficult?
This is because their actions and situations will always be documented. And their actions and the situations they face are not always congruent with what is reported in police reports or police accounts, and because they do not always act appropriately.
It would also add a video record that police complaints can be checked against. Which is opening up the vulnerability of the police department.
In theory, videotaping would make citizens safer from police abuse, and make the life of the police's life easier by providing an objective record that can justify their actions.
I'm also still waiting on a reasonable answer why the vast majority of complaints against police are completely ignored. This occupation has immense power over the general populace. Can someone give me one good reason why nearly all complaints against them are completely ignored?
So, you guys can sit and roll your eyes all you want, but can ONE PERSON please answer:
What is the downside of having police officers carry on-duty cameras that record their actions? Does this downside outweigh the positive effects?
Why are complaints against police completely ignored? Shouldn't there be some form of checks and balances for a segment of the population that exerts massive amounts of power over citizens?
Does giving a police the automatic benefit of the doubt and always assuming they are truthful in the court of law give them more leeway and more incentive to not be truthful, and present events in a light that is more favorable to the police themselves?
Still haven't gotten an answer to any of these. I've asked these multiple times. Instead, I've got arguments on semantics, vague "oh brother" eye roll comments, and bullshit attacks on me.
So what are the answers to those questions?
It's pathetic how "protect and serve" has turned into "us vs them". Videos of police in military gear confronting protesters and muttering things like "bring it on you fucking animals" (caught on a news video broadcast. I'd post the link but let's not kid yourselves, none of you would look at it anyway).
Quote:
Because the number of times officers have confiscated or deleted digital evidence after they have committed acted inappropriately is far greater than the number of times police have been exonerated by film
Fuck putting the onus on me. I can pull example after example after example of police confiscating, deleting, losing, or altering digital evidence to cover misconduct. Can you please point me to some instances in which police were wrongfully accused of misconduct and then cleared by digital evidence? And not one or two isolates incidents, please, feel free to provide a laundry list. Cause anyone can hit Google for five minutes and come up with example after example of police seizing digital evidence and harassing those who record them.
There obviously isn't any data tracked by the police on how often they manipulate or confiscate digital evidence, given that it's fucking illegal. This country doesn't even track the number of unarmed citizens killed by police.
We don't even track the number of UNARMED citizens killed by police. How is this number not recorded. Isn't this pretty fucking important?
I'm trying to understand the viewpoint of the group that keeps getting argumentative with my assertions. Like what is your basic viewpoint? That police don't abuse their power? What is the point you are trying to prove? That things aren't as bad as they seem?
What is the counterpoint to my point that the police are completely above the law?
Quote:
potential reprisals, or the altering of worker behavior, because of outside pressure?
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I don't need a hint, the answer to the question is that it would open their actions up to more scrutiny.
It would make the life of the police harder... But the question to ask is this -- why would it make law enforcement's lives more difficult?
This is because their actions and situations will always be documented. And their actions and the situations they face are not always congruent with what is reported in police reports or police accounts, and because they do not always act appropriately.
It would also add a video record that police complaints can be checked against. Which is opening up the vulnerability of the police department.
In theory, videotaping would make citizens safer from police abuse, and make the life of the police's life easier by providing an objective record that can justify their actions.
I'm also still waiting on a reasonable answer why the vast majority of complaints against police are completely ignored. This occupation has immense power over the general populace. Can someone give me one good reason why nearly all complaints against them are completely ignored?
So, you guys can sit and roll your eyes all you want, but can ONE PERSON please answer:
What is the downside of having police officers carry on-duty cameras that record their actions? Does this downside outweigh the positive effects?
Why are complaints against police completely ignored? Shouldn't there be some form of checks and balances for a segment of the population that exerts massive amounts of power over citizens?
Does giving a police the automatic benefit of the doubt and always assuming they are truthful in the court of law give them more leeway and more incentive to not be truthful, and present events in a light that is more favorable to the police themselves?
Still haven't gotten an answer to any of these. I've asked these multiple times. Instead, I've got arguments on semantics, vague "oh brother" eye roll comments, and bullshit attacks on me.
So what are the answers to those questions?
It's pathetic how "protect and serve" has turned into "us vs them". Videos of police in military gear confronting protesters and muttering things like "bring it on you fucking animals" (caught on a news video broadcast. I'd post the link but let's not kid yourselves, none of you would look at it anyway).
So, what, your rant was a poorly constructed attack on unions?
Perhaps people are responding because most view your position as having no nuance; not even the semblance of hedging on the subject.
It's all declarative and anger.
Quote:
In comment 11805938 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
potential reprisals, or the altering of worker behavior, because of outside pressure?
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I don't need a hint, the answer to the question is that it would open their actions up to more scrutiny.
It would make the life of the police harder... But the question to ask is this -- why would it make law enforcement's lives more difficult?
This is because their actions and situations will always be documented. And their actions and the situations they face are not always congruent with what is reported in police reports or police accounts, and because they do not always act appropriately.
It would also add a video record that police complaints can be checked against. Which is opening up the vulnerability of the police department.
In theory, videotaping would make citizens safer from police abuse, and make the life of the police's life easier by providing an objective record that can justify their actions.
I'm also still waiting on a reasonable answer why the vast majority of complaints against police are completely ignored. This occupation has immense power over the general populace. Can someone give me one good reason why nearly all complaints against them are completely ignored?
So, you guys can sit and roll your eyes all you want, but can ONE PERSON please answer:
What is the downside of having police officers carry on-duty cameras that record their actions? Does this downside outweigh the positive effects?
Why are complaints against police completely ignored? Shouldn't there be some form of checks and balances for a segment of the population that exerts massive amounts of power over citizens?
Does giving a police the automatic benefit of the doubt and always assuming they are truthful in the court of law give them more leeway and more incentive to not be truthful, and present events in a light that is more favorable to the police themselves?
Still haven't gotten an answer to any of these. I've asked these multiple times. Instead, I've got arguments on semantics, vague "oh brother" eye roll comments, and bullshit attacks on me.
So what are the answers to those questions?
It's pathetic how "protect and serve" has turned into "us vs them". Videos of police in military gear confronting protesters and muttering things like "bring it on you fucking animals" (caught on a news video broadcast. I'd post the link but let's not kid yourselves, none of you would look at it anyway).
So, what, your rant was a poorly constructed attack on unions?
Perhaps people are responding because most view your position as having no nuance; not even the semblance of hedging on the subject.
It's all declarative and anger.
lol. Kicker, I silently learn so much from you discussions with Bill, duned, and others on economics threads that I know how intelligent you are, and know that you are capable of giving actual answers to the questions I've posted. It's incredibly disappointing to see you ignore all the content of my thread.
As for unions, I posed a simple question. Instead of insuating an answer, go ahed an answer it. I have no problem admitting you know more about labor economics and organization than I do, in all likelihood. I gave you my perspective on why the union opposes cameras on cops. More importantly, I think cops don't want cameras recording their movement because of two primary reasons: 1) this probably opens up the door for supervisors to randomly review procedural compliance during arrests and 2) their word is no longer gospel, and their misconduct and transgressions will be recorded.
I'm not saying this in a condescending, sassy way, but please, educate me on what other reasons I missed for why the union would be so vehemently opposed to something that should benefit all parties involved.
It almost seems as if the enemy aren't criminals (which should be a common enemy of both citizens and the police), but anyone who opposes any police actions in any way.
As for "anger", you can you see what you want to see, but if you actually go back and read my points, there isn't really much of a tone of anger or outrage in my posts. Please, I encourage you to do so, because I feel you are filling in blanks with your own preconceived notions about "anti cop" people.
I've raised valid points which are just repeatedly dismissed as "OMG COP HATER", which, much to my chagrin, feels like what you've essentially done.
So to answer your questions, my "rant" wasn't a poorly constructed attack on unions, and I still away the answers to the questions I posed.
I've posted them multiple times, and nobody seems interested in answering them. All I get are bullshit platitudes, probably complete with a bunch of eye rolling and headshaking behind the computer screen - but no answers to the questions I've posted, which I think are fair questions to pose as citizens.
I look forward to when someone answers my questions, because this is a legitimately serious issue with legitimate serious consequences on the day to day lives of the ordinary person in the US.
Police have become militarized. They don't protect and serve. They can say whatever they want, and it's taken as gospel in the court of law.
While the truly bad ones actively cover up eachother's misconduct, at the very least, they do not even look into the misconduct of their coworkers.
They have the power to ruin lives for your average person, and even have the power to end lives. People who have this power need to have some sort of accountability.
There is no trust between segments of the population and the police, and that's a major problem for society as a whole. Instead of any type of reasoning or discussion as to why this is and how it can be fixed, I have people who refuse to give me anything of substance.
I don't answer the questions simply because I feel like it would be a huge waste of my time to deal with this issue. I have no expectation that people would change their tone of outrage or anger over anything I've posted.
So I simply don't try.
Some take it as a sign that I can't come up with valid responses. That's fine. People can take that viewpoint. It's more of a "I simply don't care to waste my time with this type of shit".
There are a variety of reasons a union would not want to expose their workers to more visible monitoring. Namely, by outsiders, any video evidence is often taken out of context. Human recollection of events are biased, but interpretation of objective evidence is also heavily biased.
Workers unions have also fought against video monitoring of workers on assembly lines, in the office, etc. It's not limited to the police union.
Workers work for the benefit of the workers. Trying to attach a "social motive" to a union or a firm misses the point of these entities. Yes, it would be nice if firms gave a shit about pollution, or if firms gave a shit about social stability, etc. But that's not what these entities are for. These entities are for the people within them.
We use laws to create social constructs that constrain the behavior of unions and firms.
To expect unions and firms to do what's "socially responsible" (a reprehensible term, since it's usefulness is almost 0) is foolish.
Are you going to actually play or coach football, or are you going to just post ignorance from the other side?
I am not going to do a police ride-a-long. I don't have time, and I don't think we should reach the point that ride-a-longs should be necessary for citizens to understand why police have the ability to trample their rights and then crush them in court, with the basis of being crushed in court being that they are not cops, and cops are cops.
CTC, since you harped so much on the digital evidence collection, I'd like to ask you point blank: Do you think it's appropriate for the person involved in a homicide or the close colleagues (and ostensibly friends) of the person involved in a homicide to be confiscating digital evidence related to the murder? Is this not a conflict of interest? Does the human instinct to preserve one's career, reputation, and income have no bearing on the police, simply because they are police?
Here's another question: Why do we have arrest quotas? This isn't sales. Arrest quotas inherently make police look for reasons to arrest people. How is this logical? Why are we telling an institution designed to protect, serve, and maintain law and order, that they must arrest a certain amount of people per month? Of course this plants the seeds of mistrust within society.
I said it before, which everyone conviently ignored except for Cam in MO: There MUST be checks on the power of policemen. The courts are effectively useless (unless there is video evidence), because it is a given that a cops word will always win, because they are a cop. Naturally, they will say whatever they want, because there is no downside to saying whatever they want. And considering this, it is extremely inappropriate that involved police officers are able to confiscate video evidence at the scene of a crime. Video is essentially the only way to prove a cop was lying, and you're saying there is no conflict of interest in involved cops confiscating digital evidence.
It's completely illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever.
What do you think I desire? Do you think I desire a lawless society where criminals run amok and do whatever the fuck they want?
No, I want a society where people's rights are respected, where not only are criminals caught, but innocent citizens aren't harassed. A society where confrontations over walking on a street vs sidewalk don't escalate into a dead teenager.
Where the power of authority figures is kept in check, and where a cop can't ruin or end your life without fear of retribution merely because he is a cop. That sounds reasonable to me, but apparently to some of you, it's some sort of over the top way of thinking.
No idea if you'll take it for the advice that it is, but it's something I've had to work on in the past.
You needn't bother responding to me; I made the mistake of diving in on this shithole of a topic far too much already.
There are a variety of reasons a union would not want to expose their workers to more visible monitoring. Namely, by outsiders, any video evidence is often taken out of context. Human recollection of events are biased, but interpretation of objective evidence is also heavily biased.
Workers unions have also fought against video monitoring of workers on assembly lines, in the office, etc. It's not limited to the police union.
Workers work for the benefit of the workers. Trying to attach a "social motive" to a union or a firm misses the point of these entities. Yes, it would be nice if firms gave a shit about pollution, or if firms gave a shit about social stability, etc. But that's not what these entities are for. These entities are for the people within them.
We use laws to create social constructs that constrain the behavior of unions and firms.
To expect unions and firms to do what's "socially responsible" (a reprehensible term, since it's usefulness is almost 0) is foolish.
I understand and agree with all this.
Unions exist for the benefit of those in the union. But wouldn't you agree that the police, as a governmental and social institution funded by taxpayers dollars, have more responsibility than the public than, say, the carpenters union?
Given the context of their function in society, things should be a little different and their end game be taken into a little more consideration?
Police are supposed to be public servants and keep the population safe. And if we think about why they don't want to be filmed or wear cameras, it's because they don't want to be caught in the act of misconduct.
And correct me if I'm wrong (I may be, not being condescending) but the entire premise of a union is 1) labor protection and 2) keeping wages/benefits high? How is refusing to put cameras on cops labor protection? Is their opposition to protect cops from being recorded in the act of misconduct?
Ok, so the end goal is keep wages high and life good for the cops - but the entire foundation of the job of the police is different from most other unionized labor forces, because cops are supposed to be a pillar of society who serve society as a whole and protect against lawlessness and criminals. Their apprehension to be filmed, because it would catch misconduct and get cops in administrative or legal trouble, is really bothersome when put into the context of their function in society.
It feels like you're saying the labor unions are obviously obligated to take whatever steps are necessary to protect police from getting in trouble for misconduct by their very nature as a union, but that should be acceptable despite the fact its bad for every single private citizen (I'm trying to think of any situation where a private citizen would be negatively impacted by cops having cameras as long as they weren't committing a crime).
My roommates brought some beers upstairs, so I apologize if this somewhat stream of consciousness, but I hope it presents a thought process in which you can see a shred of validity, even if it doesn't align with your own viewpoint.
"upheld by the internal units tasked with investigating complaints against their colleagues."
Furthermore it says
"In the majority of cases, the police agencies reportedly "either 'exonerated' the officers, dismissed the complaints as frivolous, determined that they did not have sufficient evidence or simply never closed the investigation."
So it looks like based on that they were investigated. Just because every complaint of police brutality wasn't prosecuted that doesn't mean 99% went uninvestigated. Regardless, you still keep saying it like the article is talking about all police when in reality it's one area in one state.
No idea if you'll take it for the advice that it is, but it's something I've had to work on in the past.
You needn't bother responding to me; I made the mistake of diving in on this shithole of a topic far too much already.
Actually, this is the exact opposite of what's going on. This has been what has ben happening to me (i.e Peter in Atlanta).
And fuck the "glib" responses.. If I"m attributing incorrect responses to people's viewpoints, let's hear their fucking viewpoints?
Because it doesn't take a genius to draw conclusions from the responses in this thread. Context clues, we all learned that in like 2nd grade. And if I'm mistaken, someone correct me.
Because most people seem to think the status quo is fine. And I don't, because people are getting shot by cops at an alarming rate.
Let's take it to a super macro level:
Do people not think citizens are getting shot, killed, and abused by police at an alarming rate?
And do people not believe police abuse their powers at an alarming rate?.
And to a slightly smaller scope, are these incidents occurring more frequently against a certain segment of society, and are the police and their tactics/reactions partially to brame (socioeconomic factors definitely play a very large part in this -- though these factors and police behavior are both interconnected)
Because I gather my thoughts and emotions, that is the crux of my belief. All my posts are cumulatively disagreeing with the two above statements.
So no, I'm getting glib responses because people don't want to take on the questions I am posing.
I already said no.
What is this mystic force that will fall out of the sky that you talk of?
Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Every regional, state and federal agency that can be, by law, is watching this.
Next thing your going to tell me it's Obama's fault.
"upheld by the internal units tasked with investigating complaints against their colleagues."
Furthermore it says
"In the majority of cases, the police agencies reportedly "either 'exonerated' the officers, dismissed the complaints as frivolous, determined that they did not have sufficient evidence or simply never closed the investigation."
So it looks like based on that they were investigated. Just because every complaint of police brutality wasn't prosecuted that doesn't mean 99% went uninvestigated. Regardless, you still keep saying it like the article is talking about all police when in reality it's one area in one state.
Let's address the fact that the headline says "99% were not investigated".
Ok, so first of all:
1) You missed the link that I posed about the North Carolina county where the Florida A&M player was murdered (after looking for help post car crash)... the one that said 95% of complaints were not even investigated.
2) While obviously not every complaint is valid, and some are frivolous, implying that 99% of all complaints had absolutely no police misconduct is absolutely absurd. This is 99% of all arrests -- this is 99% of all of the times people actually took it upon themselves to go back to the police station and file a complaint. Out of every 100 times that happened, 99 were totally false, made up, or had a cop that did nothing wrong. Yeah, okay.
3) You have inherently biased groups trying to investigate these crimes. This is just by nature of the fact that you have part of a "Fratenal Brotherhood" trying to get another part of the brotherhood in trouble. Of course these complaints are legitimately investigated or explored. I truly cannot understand how someone can argue this point. There is literally an archetype of the "good cop who is an outcast from the brotherhood because crooked cops don't like him". This doesn't mean that this only occurs in groups of crooked cops; just like a sports team, frat, or any other bro-camredrie, tattle tales are hated, despised, and exiled. But internal affairs is supposed to work?
BTW: it's so nice of the police agencies to exonerate their own fucking officers. Yeah, I'm sure they did a real thorough investigation of complaints against police before exonerating their own cops and avoiding public scrutiny and media shitstorms.
Blind trust, once again. How you see a stat like 99% and think this is accurate is fucking mind blowing. On top of that, I can't believe an adult would be naive enough to think that legit investigations occurred and an impartial judgement made a police force "exonerate" their own goddamn cops. Are you fucking serious?
I already said no.
What is this mystic force that will fall out of the sky that you talk of?
Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Every regional, state and federal agency that can be, by law, is watching this.
Next thing your going to tell me it's Obama's fault.
Uh, if you said no, then you agree with me. The cops directly involved in the incident should not be collecting evidence pertaining to it. So what's the problem again? That you and I can't think of a better system? Doesn't excuse how fucking stupid it is to trust people with collecting evidence incriminating them.
How's this for a system? Videotape police encounters and make them public record, allow private citizens to back up digital evidence. Boom, solved. There's the system. Now we will know if anything happened that was sketchy.
Doesn't mean my original point was wrong. So cool, I'm glad you agree that people shouldn't be trusted to gather evidence that could incriminate them from the crime scene, now that I developed a better system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/nyregion/10quotas.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion
http://www.oanow.com/news/crime_courts/article_5121e14c-4751-11e3-916d-001a4bcf6878.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/10/local/la-me-ln-ticket-quota-20131210 (this one is tickets, but obviously the framework exists)
theres plenty of info out there. Google it.
-denied a raise for not enough tickets and arrests
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/justice/new-york-stop-and-frisk-trial/
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/second_cop_confirms_nypd_arrest_quotas/
http://rt.com/usa/nypd-evidence-arrest-quotas-570/
I already said no.
What is this mystic force that will fall out of the sky that you talk of?
Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Every regional, state and federal agency that can be, by law, is watching this.
Next thing your going to tell me it's Obama's fault.
What are you even referring to when you talk about mystic force? The mystic force that will make sure cops don't delete evidence that incriminates them?
Thanks for letting me know this is a high profile case (already said this cell phone video is likely safe at this point)
CTC, I might be "stupid" but at least I'm not fucking blind. This is a high profile case, everyone is watching this (as I said many times, but apparently you have selective reading).
The fact of the matter is that this type of shit happens often (see: the link I posted that was an actual TV NEWS REPORT with interviews from actual people who testified about cops forcing them to delete their footage of them beating up an allegedly mentally ill man)
so tell me again how I'm fucking stupid, because you can't think of a better way to protect the integrity of digital evidence? This is fucking bullshit. Why don't you guys answer some questions instead of telling me I'm stupid for raising valid concerns. Or at least try and tell me how they are invalid without grabbing on to minutia and semantics.
so please, since I'm so fucking stupid, tell me again:
tell me please, are there not multiple incidents of cops deleting footage and altering digital evidence when they can without retribution?
I'll save you the trouble. There are, I posted them on the first or second page of this shitshow thread of people who live in a fantasy world. 5 pages deep and nobody has expressed that the cop who shot an 18 year old kid in the back was wrong. You're all more interested in digging your feet into the sand and proving that law enforcement in this country is just perfecttttlyyyyy fine, instead of trying to figure out how we can prevent black teenagers and people from getting shot dead on a bi-weekly basis.
law enforcement in this country is NOT simply a-okay.
who is this neutral third party that's going to do it, and how do you envision them actually doing it, practically speaking?
without that, this entire thread is basically a temper tantrum.
now, we can then go in two directions from there:
a) you actually provide specifics, at which time anyone and everyone who knows anything about law enforcement will snicker at you and explain why what you just wrote is ludicrous
b) you don't provide specifics and cut your losses
What about the other comments I've quoted where you have made wild accusations with no proof what so ever?
This entire situation isn't going to end well...and someone will end up getting killed senselessly as result of it.
Link - ( New Window )
Veterans on Militarization of Ferguson - ( New Window )
Without debating the right or wrong of any of that, you can see how many in the community can get the impression the police are an occupying force as opposed to civil servants. I don't see much good coming of any of this.
Come on, man. That's one of the most irrelevant observation that can be made from that link.
For your information, many soldiers/Marines (including myself) worked and sometimes lived with their Iraqi counterparts. And since one should probably get familiar with one's partners' weapons systems, I don't see how some soldier/Marine posing with or holding an AK is at all meaning that he's trying to get a reaction.
Me thinks you are grasping at straws in trying to deflect the sentiments from that link.
The police officer has good equipment,...so what? If they're doing shit wrong...which I'll wait before I rush to judgement on...then talk about that.
The police officer has good equipment,...so what? If they're doing shit wrong...which I'll wait before I rush to judgement on...then talk about that.
Does it really matter? It's called a "moto-picture." You seemed to have latched onto a pretty innocuous and irrelevant picture for some strange reason.
And it's a damn opinion piece from a person, who probably was combat trained and served in combat making an observation about the trend of police forces being better equipped than the ones actually in combat. Big fucking deal.
Is the increasing arming of our civilian police a result of taking on duties that they never had to cope with before with the reluctance to call out the military?
Thoughts. Comment?
What's the big deal with a swat or special ops police officer having good equipment?
Is the increasing arming of our civilian police a result of taking on duties that they never had to cope with before with the reluctance to call out the military?
Thoughts. Comment?
Probably a factor.
The law that allows the arresting police force to seize and retain some of the monies and assets from drug arrests is also a factor. There has been some reported over zealousness by certain local police forces on that front.
Another factor is the fact that criminals are better armed these days. When you might face a terrorist group or drug gang members who are armed to the teeth, you need to be as well, or better armed than they are to have a chance.
And I have no doubt that the rioting and the looting have attracted the dregs of society.
But I would be lying if I didn't say the specter of what seems to be a very heavy-handed response to the rioting and what can more reasonably be called protesting troubles me.
Just cordon of the area till they tear everything up? That's someones property that taxes are being paid on.
Isn't it the job of police to protect citizens property?
I have no idea if too heavy handed or not.
How far do you think police should go in protecting your family and property? That's just the way I look at it.
A quagmire for sure.
What's the big deal with a swat or special ops police officer having good equipment?
What's the big deal with law enforcement being equipped with such heavy equipment? Seriously? What kind of a threat are they going to be going against that they require such heavy firepower?
Unless there are credible reports of a mass attack from the protestors, I don't see how having snipers train their high powered sniper rifles make the situation any better or having heavily armed police officers standing next to other officers in riot gear.
You don't deescalate a situation through intimidation as much as through outreach. And while I'm a proponent of law enforcement and other first responders being able to defend themselves, I am also a believer that you are as you are perceived...and if you are perceived as being heavy-handed towards a specific demographic, you're not going to disspell that by using intimidation.
Of course a senator was gassed as part of a protest and claims it was peaceful.
Police are asking that protestors stop after the sun goes down. Which is nice, I guess- but as far as I'm aware all they can do is request that- they can't order it.
One report states that police were asking everyone to return to their homes before they gassed them. The response from the crowd: "We are home."
This is really starting to look like a battle between the police and the citizens they're paid to protect and serve.
Perhaps the answer is for Jay Nixon to call in the national guard to handle the protests and keep the Ferguson PD on calls/patrol. Not sure how practical that is, but it is obvious the citizens there have lost all faith and are in fear of the PD. Somehow removing them from the equation should calm them down. I'm just not sure how they would go about doing that.
There isn't "outrage" over having the AK. The complaint is simple. If the guy is going to show comparative pictures to illustrate the point that the police have more armor then he did when deployed, the correct thing to do would be to use a photo with the proper equipment and not the AK.
It certainly could make one question the validity of the comparison. If the rifle in the picture is incorrect, what else is incorrect?
It isn't a big deal but I can see how one could question it.
They have extremely difficult jobs and much of it goes unappreciated. But they also have volunteered to take on such challenges, and with tailored training (maybe not spending as much time and funding on tactical training as much as focusing on community outreach training), I think they can be better prepared for even more difficult situations.
And I have no doubt that the rioting and the looting have attracted the dregs of society.
It strike me that we have almost parallel actions going on here. One is police, FBI, DOJ investigations that will determine whether criminal charges will be filed. I can't see Eric Holder handing out "Get out of Jail Free" cards here so, much too slowly for some, I think we will get to the bottom of what happened here.
The other is actions by the dregs of society, drawing sustenance from the race baiters, that likely will continue until they get their Yankel Rosenbaum (even though this is a police incident).
Completely misses the point.
So endearing. - ( New Window )
It certainly could make one question the validity of the comparison. If the rifle in the picture is incorrect, what else is incorrect?
It isn't a big deal but I can see how one could question it.
Definitely a valid point with regards to validity, especially when the pictures are seen by people with limited knowledge and understanding of what equipments/weapons our troops are equipped with out in combat.
I'm not going to post any pictures of myself in full combat gear to compare it to how some of these law enforcement officers are equipped these days, but I will let you know that it's rather scary that some of these law enforcement departments are manning their less than adequately trained officers with such heavy firepower. Because you can get the equipment and use it doesn't mean that you should, especially when the situation doesn't warrant such usage.
I'm not going to post any pictures of myself in full combat gear to compare it to how some of these law enforcement officers are equipped these days, but I will let you know that it's rather scary that some of these law enforcement departments are manning their less than adequately trained officers with such heavy firepower. Because you can get the equipment and use it doesn't mean that you should, especially when the situation doesn't warrant such usage.
Agree completely.
It wasn't all that long ago that the police, almost entirely, were equipped with revolvers and shotguns. Certainly some of the arming of the police is in response to better armed criminals, but even smaller towns and cities in the US are receiving better and more lethal equipment absent any likely use for it.
DHS has determined that local authorities need to be prepared for a variety of terrorist threats.
Look no further than the federal government for your answer.
RE: Tactical training - one of the reason why it is important to focus n that type of training is that during those rare moments when it is necessary to have your weapon drawn and search and clear an area/building for a suspect - they are trained, and most important confident and calm - as opposed to never having received any of the training and then thrust into a situation unprepared.
More than it should, in my opinion.
Most important issue - what happened in the street that day between the officer, Michael Brown and his friend.
DHS has determined that local authorities need to be prepared for a variety of terrorist threats.
Look no further than the federal government for your answer.
And as Rob stated, it's the usage (as I've also stated in my earlier post).
So DHS said you should be prepared for possible terrorist threats. But I don't remember the last time a terrorist organization decided to conduct a full-blown complicated lethal attack using firearms, so I'm not sure what having such heavily equipped equipment does to prepare one for terrorist attacks. Or are we preparing for Red Dawn style attacks?
My thought is:
You want the equipment and can get it? Fine.
You want to use it to quell a protest? Hmmm...can't you do that without escalating it to the point of using those weapons? Is there such threat that warrants multiple high powered sniper rifles, heavily equipped M-4 carbines, or armored vehicles?
Most important issue - what happened in the street that day between the officer, Michael Brown and his friend.
I agree...that is the question that should be the focus of this thread. However, this is very closely tied to previous threads regarding related topics...so you can see where it went down this path.
DHS has determined that local authorities need to be prepared for a variety of terrorist threats.
Look no further than the federal government for your answer.
True, but such equipment is sometimes deployed in non-terrorist or major threat situations like this one. It's there, so it's used, regardless of threat level or, apparently, its potential negative impact on the situation.
But, I think there are also cases in which the tactical training and reasonable uses of equipment were not available and/or used and also caused problems. It wasn't just the drug issue and 9-11 that caused the interest in more tactical training. After Columbine and similar events - many police agencies realized they were ill prepared to handle such events. I think you have to have that capability, but it must be used judiciously
Again, like I have said in other threads the grants sometimes makes things available which the average police agency has little use for.
RE: Tactical training - one of the reason why it is important to focus n that type of training is that during those rare moments when it is necessary to have your weapon drawn and search and clear an area/building for a suspect - they are trained, and most important confident and calm - as opposed to never having received any of the training and then thrust into a situation unprepared.
Yet, you know what's more important than tactical training? Escalation of force training to use such tactical skills gained through tactical training. So yes, these folks may know how to use those weapons, but somehow, I am a bit skeptical when it comes to the leaders in these departments (along with their subordinates) actually being trained adequately to use such tactics.
Haha...yeah. I hear you.
And I think you and I are on the same page with regards to the judicious use of force/equipment/tactics/etc.
Quote:
"What's the big deal with law enforcement being equipped with such heavy equipment? Seriously? What kind of a threat are they going to be going against that they require such heavy firepower?"
DHS has determined that local authorities need to be prepared for a variety of terrorist threats.
Look no further than the federal government for your answer.
True, but such equipment is sometimes deployed in non-terrorist or major threat situations like this one. It's there, so it's used, regardless of threat level or, apparently, its potential negative impact on the situation.
BMac no argument here. Have to play with the new toys.
heavily armed M-4 carbines?
Another issue that really needs focusing on is communication skills, which is critical component of the escalation of force training you referenced. Probably more that 95% of policing is talking and listening. Most agency work forces are comprised primarily of young males between the ages of 22 - 32. And, I am not sure they are provided the proper expectations regarding what the job entails. The message has to get home that while you have to be able to do the heavy lifting (5% or less of the time) - the job gets done or poorly done based on communication skills.
RE: agencies and training - that could be a separate thread. Personally, I think there should be a little more support and oversight re: police training.
Ok, no valid concerns. Another week, another dead unarmed black guy, another instance of cops abusing their power. All good over here.
White gun rights activists walk into a chipotle with AR15s... imagine if black people did this? They'd be shot dead in minutes.
Psycopaths commit mass murders like the Aurora theater shooting, taken alive. Black kids get shot in the back in STL, but we have to "wait for the facts", you know, cause it might be justified, the officers face was swollen, amirite?
But yeah, no problems at all.
Just because you're in the part of society that doesn't have "valid concerns" or have to deal with any of this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist .
The fact that the counterpoint to all this misconduct is that there are no "valid concerns" pretty much shows that you are biased, ignorant, or just don't give a fuck.
Anyway. re: quotas. Let me get this straight - every department needs to have quotas for it to be a valid concern? What the fuck? Also, why don't you prove to me that you've been in "multiple departments in multiple states" that don't have quotas? What, the onus is always on me when I make a statement? Let's flip the script -- why don't you prove it. And furthermore, why don't you prove what point that is? Because my point is departments DO have quotas and NONE of them should have quotas. This isn't sales, it's fucking law enforcement.
Also, Peter in Atlanta, thanks for the empty bullshit comment as usual, you cock. Care to answer any questions I brought up? No? Didn't think so. Good job, buddy!
Blows my mind... unarmed people getting shot in the streets routinely, but hey, no cause for concern over here!
It's probably because you know that you have no chance of getting blown away in the street, and whether or not you care to admit it, a lot of that is because you aren't black or hispanic.
This entire situation isn't going to end well...and someone will end up getting killed senselessly as result of it. Link - ( New Window )
Well, someone was already senselessly killed by the police. That's why we're in this spot to begin with.
Quote:
In comment 11806695 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
"What's the big deal with law enforcement being equipped with such heavy equipment? Seriously? What kind of a threat are they going to be going against that they require such heavy firepower?"
DHS has determined that local authorities need to be prepared for a variety of terrorist threats.
Look no further than the federal government for your answer.
True, but such equipment is sometimes deployed in non-terrorist or major threat situations like this one. It's there, so it's used, regardless of threat level or, apparently, its potential negative impact on the situation.
BMac no argument here. Have to play with the new toys.
Wouldn't mind having a few of those toys myself ;).
Tell the LA Times, NY Times, or the other publication I posted a link to. I'm basing it off that, so if you're saying its wrong, then tell those publications. I'm going off what has been reported in reputable news organizations.
Police sealed off the area that was the scene of vandalism and looting Sunday night.
Weve done everything we can to demonstrate a remarkable amount of restraint, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said in an interview outside the command post. If there was an easy way to fix this, we would have already solved the problem.
Officers had heard sporadic gunfire, he said. At least 10 people were arrested.
News 4s Scott Thomas said police showed restraint Wednesday night, but then began to use the tear gas when objects were thrown at them. A spokesperson for the St. Louis County Police Department said tear gas was deployed after protesters threw rocks and molotov cocktails at police.
There are reports of police telling reporters and news crews that they aren't allowed to film or take pictures, as well as just plain not letting them into the area.
I really don't know what to think at this point.
The folks that are angry certainly have a right to demonstrate and protest.
The question to me is, are the police instigating the violence, or are there scumbags at the protests igniting it?
Either way, the violence is aimed at the police. Somehow removing them from the equation would help to deescalate the situation, IMO.
Quote:
I ducked out of this thread when it became "The Sonic Youth Show".
Haha...yeah. I hear you.
And I think you and I are on the same page with regards to the judicious use of force/equipment/tactics/etc.
People are ducking out because they literally cannot provide me with any sensible responses to any of the important questions raised about police in this country.
This is the only forum I've encountered where people don't even see a problem with what is going on.
Nobody can answer any of the tough questions. They just spit out insults and platitudes.
So instead of disparaging me, let's hear someone tackle some of the shit I've brought up.
I'm sure halfback20 sees no problem with this. I'm sure this is just an isolate incident of police manipulating digital evidence.
RT @dwallbank: BREAKING: Rep. Clay Says St. Louis County Police to be Relieved of Duty #Ferguson
MT @dwallbank: Clay: "The gov. just called. He's on his way to St. Louis now to announce he's taking STL County police out of the situation"
Have fun kid.
The name they released was NOT the officer involved. And since that officer received death threats, the PD did not release the actual officer's name on Tuesday as they said they would.
Thanks Anon. Great job.
Blows my mind... unarmed people getting shot in the streets routinely, but hey, no cause for concern over here!
Who said there's no cause for concern? Just because we don't have an irrational hatred for the police or people in authority, it doesn't mean we don't think there isn't cause for concern.
Just because we don't fly off the handle and jump to conclusions like you, it doesn't mean we aren't concerned. One day, I hope, you'll grow up to understand the difference.
And you continue to spin it as if having an armored truck show up to a protest where tensions are already high with snipers and carbine carrying officers is acceptable. If that is the kind of judicious use/display of force or escalation of force procedure you are advocating, then we can definitely see where the issue is.
And our military should 100% be far far more heavily armed down to the individual trooper level. When the law enforcement approaches the same level of armament at the individual officer level and those officers are more than ready to bring those armaments out, that's when we've gone down the wrong path.
Deduced from this:
Pretty sure I read it somewhere else this morning also, but haven't found it yet.
LATimes - ( New Window )
protesters sitting in the middle of the street refusing to move...almost all of them NOT from Ferguson but outside the city and outside the state...asked multiple times to disperse but refused...traffic tie ups interfered with Ferguson residents unable to get to their own homes...
peaceful protest across the street from Ferguson police department last night...same types of crowds but stayed on sidewalk and didn't block traffic...nothing thrown and no fights...police present (of course) but zero incidents or arrests...
So the media photo shopped the pics of the armored vehicles and snipers?
Maybe you're right. It does look more like a pic from Afghanistan or Iraq than it does a suburban Missouri police force at a protest.
If the upholders of the law are suppressing legal efforts to monitor them, who and how exactly are we expecting to hold them accountable?
I'm not asking you to make a comment regarding the case itself with regards to who shot the teen and for what reason.
You have been involved in the side discussion regarding the militarization of our police departments, which is a far more broad topic. Without even going into the specifics of this case, we have been discussing the need for such equipment and whether these police departments/officers have adequate training not only to use those equipment properly but to decide when such equipment should be used.
I agree with that, but you were responding to Ronnie's comment about bringing armored vehicles and snipers to a protest by saying you don't trust the media reports.
But those pics are actually part of the media's products. You can't really separate the two.
protesters sitting in the middle of the street refusing to move...almost all of them NOT from Ferguson but outside the city and outside the state...asked multiple times to disperse but refused...traffic tie ups interfered with Ferguson residents unable to get to their own homes...
peaceful protest across the street from Ferguson police department last night...same types of crowds but stayed on sidewalk and didn't block traffic...nothing thrown and no fights...police present (of course) but zero incidents or arrests...
So they block traffic. It's still nonviolent resistance. Arrest them if that's appropriate, but that doesn't mean you need an armored personnel carrier to do it. Yes the violence needs to be dealt with in a different manner, but can you understand why people who generally like and trust law enforcement think that the sort of pictures we see above are incompatible, or close to it, with life in a free society?
Quote:
Blows my mind... unarmed people getting shot in the streets routinely, but hey, no cause for concern over here!
Who said there's no cause for concern? Just because we don't have an irrational hatred for the police or people in authority, it doesn't mean we don't think there isn't cause for concern.
Just because we don't fly off the handle and jump to conclusions like you, it doesn't mean we aren't concerned. One day, I hope, you'll grow up to understand the difference.
You're filling in your own blanks by saying I have an irrational hatred of the police to fit your own narrative of what you want to believe. Nowhere, not in one place, did I say that. But whatever floats your boat. If you go through my posts, not once did I say that. What I have been saying is that they need checks on their power, because as it stands, they can do whatever the hell they want and have complete impunity.
Just cause I have a long post doesn't mean its hateful. If you read them, you would know that, but you don't read them.
As for no cause for concern...I'm going off of what halfback20 said -- that there are not valid reasons for concern. His words, not mine.
I guarantee there are many residents of Ferguson who are glad they are there to prevent more of the city being torched...
Go ahead and google, "Officer convicted" if you really think there are no checks and that police can just do whatever the hell they want.
JFC- the sooner you realize you sound like a loon when you post stuff like what's quoted above, the sooner you'll realize that most everyone agrees with the basic point that the checks in place aren't perfect and that police are overstepping their authority in many places.
I guarantee there are many residents of Ferguson who are glad they are there to prevent more of the city being torched...
Are snipers on rooftops necessary?
It's disheartening that this seems to be an "us vs them" conflict according to law enforcement and protesters.
See video here of cops vs protesters.. Cops words "bring it on you fucking animals"
Obviously this is expected from protesters, but is it really healthy for law enforcement to have this attitude? This probably is one of a few reasons for the calling in of the big guns.
Granted, this comment is probably due to the stress of the situation, but I still think it underscores the overall disposition of the police force in Ferguson.
They definitely should be placed in a more supportive role and hand this crowd control over to another department.
"St. Louis County police will be taken out of the investigation of the shooting death of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, Gov. Jay Nixon will announce Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter.
Its not yet clear who will take over the local investigation. Nixon is expected to make a formal announcement Thursday morning."
Link - ( New Window )
no confirmation from anywhere else
Quote:
What I have been saying is that they need checks on their power, because as it stands, they can do whatever the hell they want and have complete impunity.
Go ahead and google, "Officer convicted" if you really think there are no checks and that police can just do whatever the hell they want.
JFC- the sooner you realize you sound like a loon when you post stuff like what's quoted above, the sooner you'll realize that most everyone agrees with the basic point that the checks in place aren't perfect and that police are overstepping their authority in many places.
Cam - some of you agree. Others, like halfback20, have plainly said he doesn't see a cause for concern.
Also, I don't think the amount of checks in place is sufficient in the slightest because we leave it to police to self police their own organizations, and because there statements are always taken at face value (for lack of a better alternative, quite frankly. It actually does make sense to me that a cop would win a he said-she said type court argument. Problem is, this encourages them to say whatever they want to say since it won't be questioned).
Cameras on officers while they are on duty would protect the public and protect officers who weren't abusing their power.
I'm hoping I don't sound like a loon for taking that position.
Also, with regards to Googling "officer convicted"... on the first page, 3 results are about officers actually being convicted. First result was about a Boston PD who was unknowingly caught on tape beating a handcuffed victim. He was sentenced to jail and charged not only with the assault, but lying in the police report to try and cover it up. What would have happened if there was no camera there?
We can "wait for the facts" which will probably never come off since the cops now have the video, and they are completely above the law so it will likely never see hte[sic] light of day.
If one party is virtually never at risk of being called out at their lies, it makes perfect sense that they would never be honest in their accounts of events.
If one group of people have cart blanche [sic] to say whatever they want and never have it questioned in the court of law, wouldn't they be more inclined to lie and stretch the truth?
...because as it stands, they can do whatever the hell they want and have complete impunity.
[/quote]
You honestly think these are rational statements?
LOL! Good one
I'm hoping I don't sound like a loon for taking that position.
Also, with regards to Googling "officer convicted"... on the first page, 3 results are about officers actually being convicted. First result was about a Boston PD who was unknowingly caught on tape beating a handcuffed victim. He was sentenced to jail and charged not only with the assault, but lying in the police report to try and cover it up. What would have happened if there was no camera there?
But you do sound like a loon when you act as if there aren't any cameras anywhere and that every police force can afford to install and maintain digital recordings. It isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and it's done.
Not understanding why officers wouldn't want to be filmed all day is another head scratcher. I wouldn't want a camera on me all day at work, would you? It isn't always about a nefarious plot by the police to keep minorities down.
We can "wait for the facts" which will probably never come off since the cops now have the video, and they are completely above the law so it will likely never see hte[sic] light of day.
If one party is virtually never at risk of being called out at their lies, it makes perfect sense that they would never be honest in their accounts of events.
If one group of people have cart blanche [sic] to say whatever they want and never have it questioned in the court of law, wouldn't they be more inclined to lie and stretch the truth?
...because as it stands, they can do whatever the hell they want and have complete impunity.
You honestly think these are rational statements? [/quote]
No, you're right there. I used a hyperbole. Having said that, they do have the ability to pretty much say what they want in a police report and have it accepted as fact, regardless of the veracity of the account. I stand by that part.
Mike in St. Louis - uh, why would it have to be one or the other? how about nobody has snipers? has there been any report about any protesters having snipers? putting snipers on roofs isn't exactly going to de-escalate this situation.
Bryan P Willman is not the name of the Ferguson Police Officer who shot Michael Brown. St Louis County officials confirmed to news moments ago that there is no Ferguson Police Officer by the name of Bryan P Willman. Moreover, there is no St Louis County Police Officer by the name of Bryan P Willman either. Since Wednesday, a series of fake names have been circulating on Twitter in the Ferguson shooting death of Michael Brown.
Link - ( New Window )
County Police Chief Jon Belmar, though, said his officers have responded with an incredible amount of restraint, as theyve been the targets of rocks, bottles and gunshots, with two dozen patrol vehicles being destroyed."
A man picks up a flaming bottle and prepares to throw it as a line of police advance in the distance Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.
c'mon, Sonic, be real...how about nobody on the rooftops? how about nobody in the streets throwing molotov cocktails and burning police cars?
Quote:
Cameras on officers while they are on duty would protect the public and protect officers who weren't abusing their power.
I'm hoping I don't sound like a loon for taking that position.
Also, with regards to Googling "officer convicted"... on the first page, 3 results are about officers actually being convicted. First result was about a Boston PD who was unknowingly caught on tape beating a handcuffed victim. He was sentenced to jail and charged not only with the assault, but lying in the police report to try and cover it up. What would have happened if there was no camera there?
But you do sound like a loon when you act as if there aren't any cameras anywhere and that every police force can afford to install and maintain digital recordings. It isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and it's done.
Not understanding why officers wouldn't want to be filmed all day is another head scratcher. I wouldn't want a camera on me all day at work, would you? It isn't always about a nefarious plot by the police to keep minorities down.
When you have the power to arrest someone and change the course of their life, I think it warrants some closer monitoring.
I'm not the only one advocating for cameras on officers.
Look at this study by Police Foundation "The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment."
I spoke earlier about Coeur d'Alene, where 2 years ago, they put cameras on 40 officers. This cost them about $36,000. Definitely not a small cost, but I think as time goes on and the technology gets cheaper, it should definitely be considered. http://www.krem.com/community/Coeur-dAlene-police-enlist-new-body-cameras-173979171.html
Time Magazine: Police wearing cameras - ( New Window )
County Police Chief Jon Belmar, though, said his officers have responded with an incredible amount of restraint, as theyve been the targets of rocks, bottles and gunshots, with two dozen patrol vehicles being destroyed."
A man picks up a flaming bottle and prepares to throw it as a line of police advance in the distance Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.
c'mon, Sonic, be real...how about nobody on the rooftops? how about nobody in the streets throwing molotov cocktails and burning police cars?
It's a riot. We have seen this before, unfortunately. It's not right and the objective here should be to control the crowd and de-escalate the system.
Are police with snipers on rooftops going to de-escalate this situation? Cops in military grade weaponry?
Also, take into account that this riot is because the citizens don't trust the police. So is making the police force look like an invading force going to calm this situation down?
And who is the sniper protecting? I asked you why there needs to be a sniper on the roof, and you said "better the police than protesters with snipers on the roof". It's not either-or. It's not like the sniper on the roof is preventing the citizens of Ferugson, MO, from getting on roofs with their own snipers.
Do you have anything of substance to add, or do you just want to make veiled insults at me?
What's your take on body cameras for cops, CTC? Why don't you engage in a little "adult discussion?". It would probably remove the entire issue of the confiscation and integrity of digital evidence, correct?
you don't leave the rooftops unoccupied and you don't put just a few police armed with their service weapons in the area given what happened Sunday night...unless you just do as one poster suggested earlier - cordon off the area, close the local businesses (most of which had re-opened by Tuesday but closed last night and Wednesday night before dark) and let it become a free for all inside Ferguson...
you don't leave the rooftops unoccupied and you don't put just a few police armed with their service weapons in the area given what happened Sunday night...unless you just do as one poster suggested earlier - cordon off the area, close the local businesses (most of which had re-opened by Tuesday but closed last night and Wednesday night before dark) and let it become a free for all inside Ferguson...
Sounds like you think the snipers on the roof and the police response to the protests is measured and appropriate. I vehemently disagree, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I'd venture to say that the vast, vast, majority of Americans agree with my position as opposed to yours.
donald92 : 10:29 am : link : reply
and reporter from Al Jazeera was also tear gassed and had their equipment dismantled by the police after they ran away.
1. The deceased had put his hands up and was in complete surrender. Unless there is video recording of this, you either believe the one witness who said so, or you don't. Frankly, I don't believe him, not at all.
2. The cop was physically attacked, with bruised face. This can be medically examined, with the degree of severity stated by the doctors.
3. How many shots were fired. This is easily verified and cannot be disputed.
4. Whether the deceased was shot on the back. This is easily verified and cannot be disputed. If he was indeed shot from behind, and from some distance away, it's very troubling.
5. Distance between him and the police when shots were fire. This is easily verified and mostly cannot be disputed. If he was more than a few arm's lengths away, this would also be very troubling.
5. Whether the deceased was shot while laying on the ground, with the cop standing over him. That witness claimed that's what he saw, and again I absolutely do not take his words for it. But if physical evidence lead us to such a scenario, that's really "execution style", and it's very damning.
So, really, let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us. And these physical evidences are (almost) impossible to be tempered with, which hopefully mitigates Sonic's concern.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/13/washington-post-reporter-arrested-in-ferguson/
Police then left and returned a short time later, Lowery said, this time demanding that the reporters leave. Lowery began filming a video on his phone while also using his other hand to pack up his things. An officer objected, Lowery said, but did not press the issue.
Lowery was directed to leave through one door, and then told to go through another, at which point his bag fell off of his shoulder.
Okay, lets take him, one of the officers said, according to Lowery.
Lowery said that at this point, he was slammed against a soda machine and plastic cuffs were placed on his wrists. He was trying to make it clear he was not resisting arrest, but it did not appear the officers believed him.
Lowery said he repeatedly asked for the name or badge number of the officers involved and was denied. He also said that he was given a case number by an officer and told a report would be available within two weeks.
The chief thought he was doing you two a favor, the officer said, according to Lowery.
In a statement issued Wednesday night, Martin D. Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, said there was absolutely no justification for his arrest and said the organization was appalled by the conduct of the officers involved.
Lowery was illegally instructed to stop taking video and followed police instructions, Baron said, after which he was slammed into a machine and handcuffed.
Jon Swaine ✔ @jonswaine
Follow
Tried to get closer to confirm identities of reporters being arrested. Was marched at by cops in riot gear and threatened with arrest
Ryan J. Reilly ✔ @ryanjreilly
Follow
Unfortunately my last Vine featuring the officer who assaulted me was deleted when other my phone died.
Ryan J. Reilly ✔ @ryanjreilly
Follow
@ryanjreilly and @wesleyLowery have been arrested for "not packing their bags quick enough" at McD's #Ferguson
8:40 PM - 13 Aug 2014
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Officers slammed me into a fountain soda machine because I was confused about which door they were asking me to walk out of
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Was waiting to be taken away, large black man SCREAMING for help in back of police truck
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
They refused his several calls for paramedics
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
"I'm dying. I'm dying. Please call help he screamed." They mocked him
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Detained, booked, given answers to no questions. Then just let out
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Got no explaination at any point why in custody other than "trespassing" - at a mcdonalds where we were customers
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
"The chief thought he was doing you a favor" - police officer tells me about release. With no charges, no police report
They are calling it a deescalation of police presence in Ferguson."
I have to assume the National Guard will replace them...
Link - ( New Window )
Remember the 1992 L.A. riots? One of the many criminal scenes were a group of mobs stopped a truck, dragged the driver out, and beat him senseless, right on the street and on broad day light?
Boy, it would be sweet justice if government sniper put a bullet into the head of each and every one of them, killing them right then and there. Better yet, let their bodies lie on the street drawing flies, until their mamas came in and cried how their children were really an "angel who could never harm anybody".
Too bad that did not happen, because the gutless government did not put snipers on the roof.
Did that answer your question?
1. The deceased had put his hands up and was in complete surrender. Unless there is video recording of this, you either believe the one witness who said so, or you don't. Frankly, I don't believe him, not at all.
2. The cop was physically attacked, with bruised face. This can be medically examined, with the degree of severity stated by the doctors.
3. How many shots were fired. This is easily verified and cannot be disputed.
4. Whether the deceased was shot on the back. This is easily verified and cannot be disputed. If he was indeed shot from behind, and from some distance away, it's very troubling.
5. Distance between him and the police when shots were fire. This is easily verified and mostly cannot be disputed. If he was more than a few arm's lengths away, this would also be very troubling.
5. Whether the deceased was shot while laying on the ground, with the cop standing over him. That witness claimed that's what he saw, and again I absolutely do not take his words for it. But if physical evidence lead us to such a scenario, that's really "execution style", and it's very damning.
So, really, let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us. And these physical evidences are (almost) impossible to be tempered with, which hopefully mitigates Sonic's concern.
Concerning #1, For what it is worth, There is not just 1 witness, there WAS only one who spoke to the media. There are actually 3 witnesses that have been interviewed by the Media who have claimed this as of right now. All have said the Police theory of him being shot in the car going for the cops gun is not true.
Concerning #1, For what it is worth, There is not just 1 witness, there WAS only one who spoke to the media. There are actually 3 witnesses that have been interviewed by the Media who have claimed this as of right now. All have said the Police theory of him being shot in the car going for the cops gun is not true.
OK. Then whether or not a shot was fired from inside the police car is also easily determined and undisputable. If the bullet him him, there must be blood in the car. If not, there must be a bullet hole in the car. Either way, the cops have no means, and no incentive, to temper with the evidence. It helps their case.
Greg from LI : 1:03 pm : link : reply
The McDonald's manager asked the reporters to leave because they were pestering customers and they refused. If that's true, then there was cause for their arrest.
Other reports said the reporters were arrested as they were trying to actually leave.
Remember the 1992 L.A. riots? One of the many criminal scenes were a group of mobs stopped a truck, dragged the driver out, and beat him senseless, right on the street and on broad day light?
Boy, it would be sweet justice if government sniper put a bullet into the head of each and every one of them, killing them right then and there. Better yet, let their bodies lie on the street drawing flies, until their mamas came in and cried how their children were really an "angel who could never harm anybody".
Too bad that did not happen, because the gutless government did not put snipers on the roof.
Did that answer your question?
You're kind of a sicko.
Was this ever confirmed?
1. The deceased had put his hands up and was in complete surrender. Unless there is video recording of this, you either believe the one witness who said so, or you don't. Frankly, I don't believe him, not at all.
2. The cop was physically attacked, with bruised face. This can be medically examined, with the degree of severity stated by the doctors.
3. How many shots were fired. This is easily verified and cannot be disputed.
4. Whether the deceased was shot on the back. This is easily verified and cannot be disputed. If he was indeed shot from behind, and from some distance away, it's very troubling.
5. Distance between him and the police when shots were fire. This is easily verified and mostly cannot be disputed. If he was more than a few arm's lengths away, this would also be very troubling.
5. Whether the deceased was shot while laying on the ground, with the cop standing over him. That witness claimed that's what he saw, and again I absolutely do not take his words for it. But if physical evidence lead us to such a scenario, that's really "execution style", and it's very damning.
So, really, let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us. And these physical evidences are (almost) impossible to be tempered with, which hopefully mitigates Sonic's concern.
LOL! How are you going to say 'Let's wait for the facts to come out!' and then in the very same post say 'I don't believe what the witness said at all!'? Which is it? Wait for the facts or draw your own conclusions based on whatever it is you choose to believe?
And montana is right in his 1:04 pm post, there has been more than one witness who saw the incident. Actually, one of them actually recorded it on her phone...which was then taken from her and the 'evidence' erased.
Another Kent State!
Equip every beat officer with an iPhone, for $600 problem solved.
In New York taking the night stick away from the cops created the problems of shootings.
Was this ever confirmed?
If true it really doesn't necessarily mean much.
Remember the 1992 L.A. riots? One of the many criminal scenes were a group of mobs stopped a truck, dragged the driver out, and beat him senseless, right on the street and on broad day light?
Boy, it would be sweet justice if government sniper put a bullet into the head of each and every one of them, killing them right then and there. Better yet, let their bodies lie on the street drawing flies, until their mamas came in and cried how their children were really an "angel who could never harm anybody".
Too bad that did not happen, because the gutless government did not put snipers on the roof.
Did that answer your question?
Man...you're a jackass.
When you have the power to arrest someone and change the course of their life, I think it warrants some closer monitoring.
I'm not the only one advocating for cameras on officers.
Look at this study by Police Foundation "The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment."
I spoke earlier about Coeur d'Alene, where 2 years ago, they put cameras on 40 officers. This cost them about $36,000. Definitely not a small cost, but I think as time goes on and the technology gets cheaper, it should definitely be considered. http://www.krem.com/community/Coeur-dAlene-police-enlist-new-body-cameras-173979171.html
Show me where I ever disagreed with the police having dash cams or the like? I whole-heartedly agree with it.
The thing is, unlike you- I actually live in reality and recognize that it isn't as simple as, "make it so." I also understand why some officers wouldn't want them.
In fact, other than stating that the cost is prohibitive for some municipalities, show me where anyone on this thread disagreed with the idea that cameras would help with accountability? I'll help you- no one has.
When you respond as you do, you should expect the insults that you are receiving- because quite frankly, they're deserved.
But carry on with your bad self.
Quote:
Well, I tell you who they COULD be protecting, if the government really has the balls to protecting the society and preserve order.
Remember the 1992 L.A. riots? One of the many criminal scenes were a group of mobs stopped a truck, dragged the driver out, and beat him senseless, right on the street and on broad day light?
Boy, it would be sweet justice if government sniper put a bullet into the head of each and every one of them, killing them right then and there. Better yet, let their bodies lie on the street drawing flies, until their mamas came in and cried how their children were really an "angel who could never harm anybody".
Too bad that did not happen, because the gutless government did not put snipers on the roof.
Did that answer your question?
Man...you're a jackass.
On many different levels...
Where are you getting that the evidence was erased? I've read that the police took the phone as evidence...anything about erasing any video is paranoid speculation as far as I know.
Quote:
I wouldn't want cameras on me all day at work, nope. But my job doesn't directly affect the public.
When you have the power to arrest someone and change the course of their life, I think it warrants some closer monitoring.
I'm not the only one advocating for cameras on officers.
Look at this study by Police Foundation "The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment."
I spoke earlier about Coeur d'Alene, where 2 years ago, they put cameras on 40 officers. This cost them about $36,000. Definitely not a small cost, but I think as time goes on and the technology gets cheaper, it should definitely be considered. http://www.krem.com/community/Coeur-dAlene-police-enlist-new-body-cameras-173979171.html
Show me where I ever disagreed with the police having dash cams or the like? I whole-heartedly agree with it.
The thing is, unlike you- I actually live in reality and recognize that it isn't as simple as, "make it so." I also understand why some officers wouldn't want them.
In fact, other than stating that the cost is prohibitive for some municipalities, show me where anyone on this thread disagreed with the idea that cameras would help with accountability? I'll help you- no one has.
When you respond as you do, you should expect the insults that you are receiving- because quite frankly, they're deserved.
But carry on with your bad self.
Oh please, step off with that shit. I never even said you disagreed with me. You said it might be cost prohibitive, I responded with an actual dollar amount and with a study that showed their effect.
How am I a jackass for actually giving a previous dollar amount and a study on the benefits?
What suggestions have I made in this thread that are so out of line? What's so fucking egregious about it?
I guess I'm a jackass because I don't automatically give the police the benefit of the doubt.
I've made valid point after valid point only for them to be brushed aside because i am a "jackass".
Article after article, incident after incident.
Hell, the arrested reporter in the mcdonalds stated his vine recording of the arresting officer was deleted aftet he was arrested. Unreal.
So please, enlighten me on what extreme position I have taken makes me a jackass?
Also, not one person has agreed NOR disagreed with me about cameras. Only you and duned even touched on it.
Anyway, a cost of of 36k for 40 offices to wear cameras back in 2012 is 900 per officer. We can assume the cost of the technology has decreased since then. With all the funding for advanced military weaponry, I would think that less than 900 an officer would be low enough to be considered.
It sounds like you are saying I am taking extremist positions, which is reason to ignore the content of what I'm posting... so show me the extremist position? That we need more oversight over cops? You already said you agree with this, and that is the entire crux of everything I have posted. So I would love to see what makes me a "jackass" since you allegedly agree with the foundation of what I am saying.
Was this ever confirmed?
Who are you, Barnaby Dorgan?
Well, there ia a video in the WaPi article I linked. So you can see for yourself if the reporters were pestering customers. From what the video shows, they were not.
Quote:
The McDonald's manager asked the reporters to leave because they were pestering customers and they refused. If that's true, then there was cause for their arrest.
Well, there ia a video in the WaPi article I linked. So you can see for yourself if the reporters were pestering customers. From what the video shows, they were not.
Wow! video from after the police show up shows they weren't pestering customers before the police were called!!! Well, that settles it!
Quote:
So, really, let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us. And these physical evidences are (almost) impossible to be tempered with, which hopefully mitigates Sonic's concern.
LOL! How are you going to say 'Let's wait for the facts to come out!' and then in the very same post say 'I don't believe what the witness said at all!'? Which is it? Wait for the facts or draw your own conclusions based on whatever it is you choose to believe?
And montana is right in his 1:04 pm post, there has been more than one witness who saw the incident. Actually, one of them actually recorded it on her phone...which was then taken from her and the 'evidence' erased.
LOL on you, bone! My exact word was "let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us". And you just distorted into "Let's wait for the facts to come out!"
Do you not understand what physical evidence is?
A cop claiming the deceased had jumped into the police car and attacked him is not physical evidence, even if he swears it's true.
A woman claiming she had recorded the incidence, only to have the cop confiscating her phone and erasing the recording, is not physical evidence, even if she swears it's true.
The deceased's relatives crying "he's an angle who could never hurt anyone" is not physical evidence, even if they sincerely believe it.
Understand now? Physical evidence.
And this woman said she recorded it by phone, and said the phone was then taken by the cops and tempered with -- these are her words, but they just became fact to you? FACTS?
Why didn't the cop's words on the other side become facts accepted by you?
Quote:
In comment 11807109 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
The McDonald's manager asked the reporters to leave because they were pestering customers and they refused. If that's true, then there was cause for their arrest.
Well, there ia a video in the WaPi article I linked. So you can see for yourself if the reporters were pestering customers. From what the video shows, they were not.
Wow! video from after the police show up shows they weren't pestering customers before the police were called!!! Well, that settles it!
First of all, I never said that. Dont put words in my mouth.
Second of all, what is more likely... the police were called by customers -the same population where they are rioting because they dont trust cops - because reporters were "pestering" customers? OR that the MULTIPLE reporters are telling the truth, and the police chief is saying they were pestering customers bc they need a legit reason for the arrest?
Who has more incentive to be dishonest?
What are you insinuating? The police chief said well regarded reporters are pestering customers, and because it's the cops it must be true?
however, that also explains why someone would struggle in their career so much and feel the need (repeatedly) to solicit job advice from a group of strangers on the internet.
here's the best job advice you'll ever get, Sonic: become an entrepreneur. work for yourself. with your mentality, you'll never be successful taking orders or directions from someone with more experience than you because you think everything is a conspiracy and everyone with authority has a sinister motive. don't even waste your time.
Here is another reason why they should, however. http://nypost.com/2014/02/21/cops-hit-my-car-then-arrested-me-to-cover-it-up-suit/
Again, just "her saying" ... nothing else.
Why do you accept her saying, but not the cop's saying that Mr. Brown had jumped into the police car and attacked him?
I don't accept either saying, but why do you seem to accept just one, but not the other?
Per WaPo, the Ferguson PD received a DOJ grant this year for two dashboard cameras and two wearable cameras (I think "officer camera" is a reference to the wearable cameras, could be wrong). The dashboard cameras have not yet been installed.
This, on its own, is not conclusive evidence that Ferguson PD doesn't use the dashboard cameras because they don't want to - it doesn't say how recently the funding for the cameras became available, or if the department has received the physical hardware, or if the hardware hasn't been installed because of a logistical reason that the department is actively trying to resolve (e.g. the person or vendor responsible for the hardware installation has not been able to complete the installation for some legitimate reason). And if the dashboard cameras were installed, there would still be a high likelihood that the cruiser in this particular incident would not have the hardware.
I've linked the WaPo article. I suspect that the source of the information about the grant is from the police chief's press conference yesterday - I don't have time to look up the transcript, but if it's online, there may be something more conclusive in re: why the cameras have not been installed.
WaPo - ( New Window )
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary
EXACTLY! I'm not going to read though this long thread to see if your post has been discussed, but this is exactly the crux of the problem. I also have never been arrested, I'm a 70 year old white male who has been a law abiding citizen all my life, a family man, scientist and a conservative Republican most of my life. In short, someone who you would think needn't be particularly concerned with police brutality or malfeasance. But I have seen enough of it to know without doubt that in any interaction I may have with the police, my well being will depend on the luck of the draw ... good cop or power/ authority seeking thug. You would think that as an American citizen with Constitutional rights I would not have to worry about such situations.
I don't know how true that is, but the video doesn't refute it at all.
Could he have been the dispatcher that day? Is that how Anon f'd up?
Your reply implied that I was disagreeing with the entire concept of cameras. If that is not what you meant to imply, perhaps a change of your communication style is in order? (take that with a grain of salt- I am pretty dumb)
Sometimes when everyone in the room thinks that you are the problem, it's time to do a little self evaluation? Obviously don't change your views...I happen to agree with most of them. Maybe just modify the delivery method to make them more appetizing?
Could he have been the dispatcher that day? Is that how Anon f'd up?
That has been proven to be wrong...No cop by that name is on any of the police forces involved with this incident
Quote:
In comment 11807085 LAXin said:
Quote:
So, really, let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us. And these physical evidences are (almost) impossible to be tempered with, which hopefully mitigates Sonic's concern.
LOL! How are you going to say 'Let's wait for the facts to come out!' and then in the very same post say 'I don't believe what the witness said at all!'? Which is it? Wait for the facts or draw your own conclusions based on whatever it is you choose to believe?
And montana is right in his 1:04 pm post, there has been more than one witness who saw the incident. Actually, one of them actually recorded it on her phone...which was then taken from her and the 'evidence' erased.
LOL on you, bone! My exact word was "let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us". And you just distorted into "Let's wait for the facts to come out!"
Do you not understand what physical evidence is?
A cop claiming the deceased had jumped into the police car and attacked him is not physical evidence, even if he swears it's true.
A woman claiming she had recorded the incidence, only to have the cop confiscating her phone and erasing the recording, is not physical evidence, even if she swears it's true.
The deceased's relatives crying "he's an angle who could never hurt anyone" is not physical evidence, even if they sincerely believe it.
Understand now? Physical evidence.
And this woman said she recorded it by phone, and said the phone was then taken by the cops and tempered with -- these are her words, but they just became fact to you? FACTS?
Why didn't the cop's words on the other side become facts accepted by you?
First off, my bad for believing physical evidence and 'facts' were pretty much interchangeable with the way you were trying to use them. Like you said, people 'claiming' anything is not physical evidence and does not make it a fact until it's proven (most times, but in some rare occasions not always, through physical evidence).
My point, though, was that you said 'Can we actually get back to just the shooting itself and sort out what can be retroactively proven happened (or not happened) by physical evidence, not words.' and 'So, really, let's wait for what the physical evidences have to tell us.'...
...but then you say 'Frankly, I don't believe him, not at all.' with regards to a witness who said he had his hands up...
...but then you say 'That witness claimed that's what he saw, and again I absolutely do not take his words for it.' with regards to what 'the witness' (when there were more than one witness...again, as montana said) said about him being on the ground when shot...
You are asking us to wait until the physical evidence comes out...but then you have chosen to not believe something based on no physical evidence yourself.
So again (I won't laugh at you this time because you really don't seem to be getting it buddy), I ask... are you going to wait for the physical evidence to come out (like you're suggesting everyone should do) or are you the only one who can draw their own conclusions based on no physical evidence while everyone else should wait? I was just confused.
Also, regarding this line:
"And this woman said she recorded it by phone, and said the phone was then taken by the cops and tempered with -- these are her words, but they just became fact to you? FACTS? "
I never said those were 'facts'. I only was telling Cam what I'd seen in a video (still looking for it Cam, been kind of busy the past few hours). I don't know if that's a fact or not that her phone was taken and the evidence erased (which I freely admitted to Cam...that I was pretty sure that's what I remembered hearing in that video but was not 100%...I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong or misquoted something I thought I'd heard).
Lastly, I've been fucked with enough times in my life by the cops (me and 3 other people I carpool with to work every day actually just had an episode with a cop just last Friday as a matter of fact where the cop was REALLY overreacting to an honest mistake made by the person driving) that although I wouldn't necessarily call myself a 'cop hater' because I know that there are a great many good ones out there that do the job the right way and treat civilians with the same respect that they demand to get themselves, I will never think of them as my 'friends' nor that they are there to 'serve and protect'. I'm actually an extremely trusting guy...except when it comes to cops. They have to earn my trust first.
Quote:
I saw a video of the person who had her phone confiscated and I'm pretty sure I remember her saying that the video had been erased. I'll see if I can find the video for 100% verification and get back. I'm not even sure I remember where I saw the video.
Again, just "her saying" ... nothing else.
Why do you accept her saying, but not the cop's saying that Mr. Brown had jumped into the police car and attacked him?
I don't accept either saying, but why do you seem to accept just one, but not the other?
Well, besides the fact that I have a hard time believing anyone...particularly a black man...would jump into a police car that was occupied by a policeman by his own free will...
But besides all of that, I, again, didn't 'accept' anything 'she said'. I just told Cam what I saw in a video. That's all. I don't know where what she said is true or not. I'm honestly not even all that personally involved in this incident because no matter how much everyone may bitch, cry and moan about how this incident could've happened...I really don't think all the demonstrations, rioting and all the other stuff that's going on is really going to change anything. I'm very cynical that these kind of events... and the various reactions to them...ever actually CHANGE anything. By this time next year, this story will be gone and forgotten by 95% (probably more) of the people in the US and it will be some other tragedy taking it's place.
however, that also explains why someone would struggle in their career so much and feel the need (repeatedly) to solicit job advice from a group of strangers on the internet.
here's the best job advice you'll ever get, Sonic: become an entrepreneur. work for yourself. with your mentality, you'll never be successful taking orders or directions from someone with more experience than you because you think everything is a conspiracy and everyone with authority has a sinister motive. don't even waste your time.
Youre an asshole. First of all, lay the fuck off about my career. You have no idea what you are talking about and its totally irrelevant. My career is fine, thanks. Im suceeding at one of the highest pressure sales organizations in inside healthcare sales.
Second off, I am not just ASSUMING because this police chief is an authority figure. In fact, it seems other are assuming the police chief is automatically truthful simply because of his position.
Im basing my position on multiple eye witness reports of REPORTERS fron reputable newspapers, a video, and common sense. Its not "oh hes a cop hes lying". Its "that story makes no sense given the context of the situation, and accounts from reporters as well as video footage."
If you assume this police chief is truthful just because he is a police chief, you are the one who is doing what you are accusing me of by blindly accepting what he said as truth.
And go fuck yourself with regards to my job. The advice I got from Steve in KY and others in sales helped me grow and receive a lucrative promotion. Pot ahot bullshit personal attacks. You feel like a big man trying to attack my career???
Quote:
In comment 11807296 Sonic Youth said:
Well, there ia a video in the WaPi article I linked. So you can see for yourself if the reporters were pestering customers. From what the video shows, they were not.
Wow! video from after the police show up shows they weren't pestering customers before the police were called!!! Well, that settles it!
First of all, I never said that. Dont put words in my mouth.
You never said what I QUOTED you as saying in your 2:31pm post???? Really???
Your reply implied that I was disagreeing with the entire concept of cameras. If that is not what you meant to imply, perhaps a change of your communication style is in order? (take that with a grain of salt- I am pretty dumb)
Sometimes when everyone in the room thinks that you are the problem, it's time to do a little self evaluation? Obviously don't change your views...I happen to agree with most of them. Maybe just modify the delivery method to make them more appetizing?
fair point. I will try and change my tone.
Generally I agree with the "everyone in the room" comment, but people routinely ignore the content of my posts, pick out semantics and minutia to argue against, or pop out of the woodwork to deliver a pot shot and disappear ( peter in atlanta).
I haven't really said or suggested anything outlandish, and am painted as a "anti cop" because I don't automatically trust them. All I want is for people to address the points ive raised.
As for the cost (addressed not specefically to you cam), somehow departments can afford these military grade weapons, but a camera is cost prohibitive? Badge cameras are a lower priority than armored vehicles and machine guns, and thats wrong. If it was 900$ a cop in Idaho 2 years ago, im hoping it can be fit into our massive homeland security budget at this time.
"On Wednesday, an Al-Jazeera crew got caught in the tear gas. St. Charles County SWAT Team members located the journalists, put them into their armored car and then disassembled their equipment and loaded it for them.
A spokesperson for the St. Charles County Sheriffs department says the reporters thanked their officers."
sometimes you need a thousand words to explain a picture...
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11807304 Peter in Atlanta said:
Quote:
In comment 11807296 Sonic Youth said:
Well, there ia a video in the WaPi article I linked. So you can see for yourself if the reporters were pestering customers. From what the video shows, they were not.
Wow! video from after the police show up shows they weren't pestering customers before the police were called!!! Well, that settles it!
First of all, I never said that. Dont put words in my mouth.
You never said what I QUOTED you as saying in your 2:31pm post???? Really???
Oh really? I stated the video did not show that so that definitely did happen? No, I said the video never showed that. PERIOD. And this is another bullshit semantical argument.
The reporters were never told a manager called. Never told they were arrested because of interactions with customers. In fact, the reason given for their arrest was not moving quickly enough. No police report filed. NOTHING. At best, it has to be a breach of procedure. At worst, its a restriction on free press.
I must be in bizzaro land. The police are arresting reporters without explanation and people are defending this. What the fuck?!
"On Wednesday, an Al-Jazeera crew got caught in the tear gas. St. Charles County SWAT Team members located the journalists, put them into their armored car and then disassembled their equipment and loaded it for them.
A spokesperson for the St. Charles County Sheriffs department says the reporters thanked their officers."
sometimes you need a thousand words to explain a picture...
Link - ( New Window )
How does that change the "Picture"?
The police where the ones who directly fired tear gas at them, be it a mistake or not on the police. Putting their equipment up for them because they fucked up is the least they could do. Bragging about them thanking them is a bit asinine on the spokesperson part. There would have been no need to disassemble their equipment if it were not for the police shooting the gas at them.
The bottom line though is that the police actions directly eliminated an information source which seems to be the strategy on their part.
I think you missed Mike's post
Link - ( New Window )
"got any justification for the police
Sonic Youth : 4:21 pm : link : reply
Tear gassing and destroying al-jazeeras video camera? Can any of you admit there's a massive problem with that?"
the answer is it didn't happen as you claim...no destruction...no gassing of the reporters except for the fact they got caught in an area where there was tear gas...if the reporters stick around in that area, that's their problem...most of the other reporters knew to stay away...so the pictures of the police "destroying" the equipment were misinterpreted...
"got any justification for the police
Sonic Youth : 4:21 pm : link : reply
Tear gassing and destroying al-jazeeras video camera? Can any of you admit there's a massive problem with that?"
the answer is it didn't happen as you claim...no destruction...no gassing of the reporters except for the fact they got caught in an area where there was tear gas...if the reporters stick around in that area, that's their problem...most of the other reporters knew to stay away...so the pictures of the police "destroying" the equipment were misinterpreted...
That is not correct on your assumptions. They were in an area where there were there were no demonstrators. They being the Media was obvious with the equipment being set up and the fact they had been there for a few days reporting on the situation. They also were well behind the demonstrators by a couple of blocks.
Here is the video of the incident and you can see a tear gas can land right at the feet of them, as well as their being no other individuals nearby. The actual reporter that was gassed also is interviewed and describes exactly what happened
link - ( New Window )
How does that change the "Picture"?
At a minimum it contradicts the statement that they stole/destroyed/confiscated (take your pick) their equipment.
There is not one demonstrator or group anywhere in those shots. They were well back of the actual riot in the same reporting position they have been at for a couple of days
which is probably why they thanked the police for helping get then out of there...that's a big difference from claiming the police were intentionally going after them...
Quote:
How does that change the "Picture"?
At a minimum it contradicts the statement that they stole/destroyed/confiscated (take your pick) their equipment.
Why? Because a spokesman claimed they said thanks?
Here is another video from Business Insider showing the Police packing their equipment up and then telling the guy who is filming them doing so to leave.
link - ( New Window )
which is probably why they thanked the police for helping get then out of there...that's a big difference from claiming the police were intentionally going after them...
Unintentional, Have you watched the video? They aimed right at them, it was actually a hell of a shot
... I had spoken to police officers who knew we were there. We had had discussions with them. We understood this was as far as we could get in terms of where the protest was going on, about a mile up the road. So, we didnt think there would be any problems here so we were very surprised ...
We were very close to where those [tear gas] canisters were shot from. We yelled, as you heard there [on the video]. We were yelling that we were press. But they continued to fire. We retreated about half a block into the neighborhood, until we could get out of that situation.
We were clearly set up as press with a full live shot set up. As soon as first bullet hit the car we screamed out loud, "We are press, This is media."
Police that were there at the intersection directing traffic earlier knew we were there. We never drove around the police barricade.
There was another station local NBC parked across the street from us the whole time.
They shined a huge flood light at us before firing and I can only imagine they could see what they were shooting at.
Police have not yet released a statement about the event. Al Jazeera has. Here it is in full:
Last night at 10:30 pm CD in Ferguson, Missouri, an Al Jazeera America news crew was reporting behind police barricades. They were easily identifiable as a working television crew. As they were setting up their camera for a live report, tear gas canisters landed in their proximity and police fired rubber bullets in their direction. POlice continued to shoot after crew members clearly and repeatedly shouted "Press."
Al Jazeera America is stunned by this egregious assault on freedom of the press that was clearly intended to have a chilling effect on our ability to cover this important story. Thankfully, all three crew members are physically fine.
We believe that this situation must be investigated along with those involving our colleagues at other media outlets.
A spokesperson for the St. Charles County Sheriffs department says the reporters thanked their officers."
What Al Jazeera America says:
Statement from Kate O'Brian, Al Jazeera America President
That is quite a bit of a different answer then the Spokesperson for the Sherriff's dept who claimed they were:
link - ( New Window )
Thanks, Dad. If long history of this behavior = long history of not automatically believing every single thing a police department says is true, I'm not disagreeing.
Just because someone has a police uniform on does not make them incapable of lying, as it seems some of you believe.
As for the Al-Jazeera photographers -- I'll "wait for the facts" until I hear the reporters story. I don't automatically believe the Ferguson PD's story just because they are the Ferguson PD, given how shaky their explanation was for arresting reporters in McDonalds and lack of procedural integrity in that entire incident (no police report, telling reporters they were arrested for 'not moving fast enough', refusing to give out information regarding arresting officers).
Especially when your the only ones around and it lands 2 feet from you
Quote:
You have a long history of this behavior.
Hahaha
Thanks, Dad. If long history of this behavior = long history of not automatically believing every single thing a police department says is true, I'm not disagreeing.
That confirms it--Daddy issues. Must have started long before the shitty jeep.
If they did that to make them leave all they had to do was tell them to get out of the area. After the gas cleared they asked to stay and were told they could not.
If they did that to make them leave all they had to do was tell them to get out of the area. After the gas cleared they asked to stay and were told they could not.
You obviously have not spent one minute reviewing the multitude of video evidence and eyewitness reports of the incident that refute every single reach you have made in this post. I suggest you do so before jumping in mid-stream.
Oh yeah...The Governor just today pulled all the police depts that were handling this and gave direct control of this situation to the State Police due to the actions such as firing tear gas and rubber bullets at media sources.
If they did that to make them leave all they had to do was tell them to get out of the area. After the gas cleared they asked to stay and were told they could not.
Wow. Just wow. The errant shot is the conclusion you jump at, and the accounts of the reporters is a "conspiracy theory".
Lol.
And uh, yeah, there you go Peter in Atlanta, you got it all figured out. That's some grade A shit talking you got going on there. Anything relevant to say? No? Didn't think so.
Al Jazeera reporter says in the video evidence "We were about a mile away from where the riots were taking place"
lolol. Semantics, again. Sorry you're so dense that you need a disclaimer that nothing in the world is absolute, and people use those terms when speaking in generalities.
Again, absolutely nothing of substance. No comment on the issues at hand. Pretty par for the course from you.
But, yeah, I guess next time I'm hastily typing on a message board I'll add a disclaimer or use words like "most" to clear it up for people who can't use common sense like yourself.
Hey, btw, while we are conversing, any comment on the police arresting and harassing reporters?
Yeah, the ones where the "manager called the cops on them"
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Got no explaination at any point why in custody other than "trespassing" - at a mcdonalds where we were customers
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Released without any charges, no paperwork whatsoever
Wesley Lowery ✔ @WesleyLowery
Follow
Officers decided we weren't leaving McDonalds quickly enough, shouldn't have been taping them.
Ryan J. Reilly ✔ @ryanjreilly
Follow
@ryanjreilly and @wesleyLowery have been arrested for "not packing their bags quick enough" at McD's #Ferguson
Lowery was illegally instructed to stop taking video and followed police instructions, Baron said, after which he was slammed into a machine and handcuffed.
So, how about the both:
1) the reporters a mile away from the riots where teargas was shot directly at them, or
2) the reporters illegally arrested in the mcdonalds with no charges being filed and no explanation other than "not packing up fast enough".
(yeah, a manager called the cops. which is why not one cop mentioned any manager, and they were told they were arrested for "trespassing")
any comments on that, or do you have any more shitty 4th grade insults or picky bullshit about my word usage?
Why would any news organization set up their cameras a mile away?
I love the first part... "well how could they be arrested if the manager didn't call?!?!!", as if it's totally beyond the realm of possibility.
1) Do you honestly think a McDonalds manager would call the police on reporters when there are riots going on outside? The manager most likely didn't call the police, they were pissed off because the reporters didn't ID themselves the first time around.
The trespassing charge was likely made up (!!!). Cause if it was legitimate, you know, police would typically have to make a police report, which they conveniently did not.
Oh, by the way, don't think a correct way to handle the situation IF the manager complained (which most likely did not happen) would be to tell the reporters "the manager wants you out of here"?
2) What incentive do these reporters have to lie about this? Cause I can tell you what incentive the police have to lie about this.
Can we turn this around for a minute: why do you believe the police account, other than the fact they are the police? What suggests to you that the police are more truthful than the reporters, other than their title? If you are going to answer ONE thing in this post, please answer this.
3) The Al-Jazeera America reporters were away from the riots. There is a video of them with nobody anywhere close to them. You ask who would set up a news report a mile from riots? Who would set up a news report in the middle of riots?
There's a video, not that you'll watch it since it doesn't fit in with your narrative.
How do you find the following acceptable:
Then they walked away. Moments later, the police reemerged, telling us that we had to leave. I pulled my phone out and began recording video.
An officer with a large weapon came up to me and said, Stop recording.
I said, Officer, do I not have the right to record you?
He backed off but told me to hurry up. So I gathered my notebook and pens with one hand while recording him with the other hand.
As I exited, I saw Ryan to my left, having a similar argument with two officers. I recorded him, too, and that angered the officer. As I made my way toward the door, the officers gave me conflicting information.
One instructed me to exit to my left. As I turned left, another officer emerged, blocking my path.
Go another way, he said.
As I turned, my backpack, which was slung over one shoulder, began to slip. I said, Officers, let me just gather my bag. As I did, one of them said, Okay, lets take him.
Multiple officers grabbed me. I tried to turn my back to them to assist them in arresting me. I dropped the things from my hands.
My hands are behind my back, I said. Im not resisting. Im not resisting. At which point one officer said: Youre resisting. Stop resisting.
He didnt have an opportunity, because he was arrested as well.
The officers led us outside to a police van. Inside, there was a large man sitting on the floor between the two benches. He began screaming: I cant breathe! Call a paramedic! Call a paramedic!
Ryan and I asked the officers if they intended to help the man. They said he was fine. The screaming went on for the 10 to 15 minutes we stood outside the van.
Im going to die! he screamed. Im going to die! I cant breathe! Im going to die!
I hope youre happy with yourself, one officer told me. And I responded: This storys going to get out there. Its going to be on the front page of The Washington Post tomorrow.
And he said, Yeah, well, youre going to be in my jail cell tonight.
Whos media? he asked.
We said we were. And the officer said we were both free to go. We asked to speak to a commanding officer. We asked to see an arrest report. No report, the officer told us, and no, they wouldnt provide any names.
I asked if there would ever be a report. He came back with a case number and said a report would be available in a week or two.
The chief thought he was doing you two a favor, he said.
link - ( New Window )
Just a glance at the photos posted above tells you that they aimed the canister right at them.
No, you're supposed to use your brain, use context clues, and deduce which side is more truthful.
Not automatically assume its copes because its the cops. Also, way to address nothing in my post.
What reason to you have to believe the police account has more truth than the reporters account other than the fact it's the police? Why can't you answer that question?
The police apparently "had their weapons up and pointed at protesters who are obviously unarmed," he said. In the military, he learned that "your force posture matches the threat. You only raise your weapon if there is a threat that requires lethal force."
With a pointed weapon, Weinberg said, "you could make a mistake, maybe get startled, put your finger on the trigger and shoot somebody who doesn't deserve to be shot."
And threatening people unnecessarily can increase the tensions and danger, exacerbating the situation, he says. "A crowd kind of has a mind of its own that develops over time, depending on what threat they perceive...
"As someone who studies policing in conflict, what's going on Ferguson isn't just immoral and probably unconstitutional, it's ineffective," Army veteran Jason Fritz wrote on Twitter. Fritz is now senior editor of War on the Rocks, which analyzes national security issues.
His was one of the tweets included in a story being shared widely online Thursday morning, with this line at the top: "The general consensus here: if this is militarization, it's the s***iest, least-trained, least professional military in the world, using weapons far beyond what they need, or what the military would use when doing crowd control."
In another, author and former Marine logistics officer Jeff Clement wrote: "Our (Rules of Engagement) regarding who we could point weapons at in Afghanistan was more restrictive than cops in MO.
IMO, the impact of this disaster is going to be felt for years to come, and may ultimately be somewhat positive. It served to highlight racial inequities as well as sheer incompetence that continues to linger in some communities in the US. By the time this is all studied and re-studied, some asses are going to be fired, and some models for re-training are going to be created.
Nevertheless, none of that excuses the way this has been handled since the crisis began in the aftermath of the initial shooting by the police. Sad stuff.
Link - ( New Window )
I'm not some all knowing omni-present god like entity. I don't understand why I would need a disclaimer before everything I say on a message board. This applies not just to me, but to everyone else.
Is there a minuscule, marginal chance that the manager of McDonalds called the cops on those reporters? Yeah, I guess. Chances are, with the info given, the accounts of multiple people, and taking into consideration who has more to gain/hide from lying, that the police account is total bullshit.
At least I'm taking other factors into consideration, as opposed to Peter in Atlanta who is essentially saying "theyre the cops so they are right", as if it's unheard of for police to lie.
Quote:
Weinberg says it's unfair to the military to call what happened in Ferguson evidence of "militarization," saying U.S. soldiers are well "trained in escalation of force."
The police apparently "had their weapons up and pointed at protesters who are obviously unarmed," he said. In the military, he learned that "your force posture matches the threat. You only raise your weapon if there is a threat that requires lethal force."
With a pointed weapon, Weinberg said, "you could make a mistake, maybe get startled, put your finger on the trigger and shoot somebody who doesn't deserve to be shot."
And threatening people unnecessarily can increase the tensions and danger, exacerbating the situation, he says. "A crowd kind of has a mind of its own that develops over time, depending on what threat they perceive...
"As someone who studies policing in conflict, what's going on Ferguson isn't just immoral and probably unconstitutional, it's ineffective," Army veteran Jason Fritz wrote on Twitter. Fritz is now senior editor of War on the Rocks, which analyzes national security issues.
His was one of the tweets included in a story being shared widely online Thursday morning, with this line at the top: "The general consensus here: if this is militarization, it's the s***iest, least-trained, least professional military in the world, using weapons far beyond what they need, or what the military would use when doing crowd control."
In another, author and former Marine logistics officer Jeff Clement wrote: "Our (Rules of Engagement) regarding who we could point weapons at in Afghanistan was more restrictive than cops in MO.
IMO, the impact of this disaster is going to be felt for years to come, and may ultimately be somewhat positive. It served to highlight racial inequities as well as sheer incompetence that continues to linger in some communities in the US. By the time this is all studied and re-studied, some asses are going to be fired, and some models for re-training are going to be created.
Nevertheless, none of that excuses the way this has been handled since the crisis began in the aftermath of the initial shooting by the police. Sad stuff. Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for that, manh. Great read, and I've been a big fan of Fritz and War on the Rocks.
And speaking for the training that my Marines received (and all Marines for that matter), you never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot, especially at any unarmed civilians. That is one of the worst amateur shit you can do whether in a stressful situation where escalation of force must be carefully applied or in any situation for that matter.
Just going off of the news articles and the pictures I've seen, it's really cowboy amateur hour in Ferguson with these law enforcement officers...but then again, I only have that to go on, so I'm probably being overly judgemental, which I admit freely.
Back in 2006 in Ramadi (one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq), our Rules of Engagement for my team and the Iraqi soldiers we advised was more restrictive than the cops in MO. There were several occasions when we had to quell local tribal disputes against US forces, yet we didn't overtly antagonize the Iraqi civilians like these amateurs in Ferguson. Yes, we were more than ready to defend ourselves, but even our Shia Iraqi soldiers dealing with the Sunni civilians knew better than to escalate the situation by pointing their weapons at the civilians. Come on...even the Iraqis didn't do this amateur shit!
As far as the officers wiping the reporters face on the glass at McDonald's that was just an accident.
Link - ( New Window )
Not surprised that you're too stupid to discern the difference.
As far as the officers wiping the reporters face on the glass at McDonald's that was just an accident.
And you know this as a fact, wecause you're stating it as such.
And don't lecture me as to when i should enter a conversation.
As far as better weapons and more body armor, I'm not too sure. I would say similar level at the basic soldier/Marine level is more appropriate (only thing that a combat ready soldier/Marine has over these guys is a couple of frags). I'm not even concerned about the body armor and the M4 carbine being possessed by the police officers as much as I'm concerned that people with less than adequate training are given similar level of lethality. Yes, you can be trained to shoot these weapons, but that's the easy part. Knowing when and how to properly bring out and use those weapons is the difficult part, and until this recent change, I had not seen evidence to tell me that they were able to make those difficult decisions.
MSNBC - still towing the party line - "If you ever received military equipment - your police department becomes a mini-army".
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Sean Hannity doing his best to find inconsistencies in witness testimony and focus the attention on "Part 1" of the incident - with the implication that Brown was fighting with the officer, which I'm sure he will use to argue for justification.
Al Jazeera was stating that the looters took advantage of the show of force by police officers, which meant the looters and rioters were a result of the show of force. In reality, the looting began a few days earlier. Many residents complained about a lack of police presence.
The crowd control definitely mishandled, that was covered fairly well by the media. What seemed to get less coverage was the looting and more specifically what was taken because I did see a report that rifles were taken from one of the stores.
Was a little annoyed to see some of the talking head experts they dragged in - most notably Bernard Kerik - ex-con.
The County Police were relived of command of the crowd control, the County Chief taking back seat to a black St. Louis Major or black State Police Captain. Traffic control was handled, in part, by the new Black Panther Party.
Meanwhile, not a whole lot new about the investigation. There seems to be a consistent story coming from the witnesses - Brown and a friend walking in the street, told to move, confrontation ensued. There was some physical struggle between the the officer and Michael Brown. The struggle also seemed to start before officer exited the vehicle.
Not convinced that Brown's friend's version is 100% accurate, but, some parts have a ring of truth to them, or at least, it made sense that the event could have unfolded in that manner - The officer tried to swing this car door open and he was too close so it went flying back at him, which in turn, made the officer become upset/enraged and that is when struggle began. (* A slightly modified version could have had Brown reacting to the police car swinging out into him and shoving it back at the officer). Then, having the door slammed into him, officer gets mad and grabs Brown and the struggle ensues.
This whole incident hangs on what happened next. I suspect we will get two versions. As Witness stated - as a result of struggle the officer drew his weapon and shortly after a shot was discharged (accidentally/intentionally). Officer's version may be that there was a struggle for his weapon. It's either that or he has to argue that he thought Brown could have taken his weapon.
Next critical point will be - where each shot was fired. At this point, I think the hardest shots to justify will be those away from the vehicle.
I am not justifying any actions on the part of officer. I just think this is the direction this will take.
In my opinion, this started out as an avoidable mess and will take months to clear up.
Media has a right to the information, but discrepancies, even relatively minor ones, between media footage, depositions, and other procedural testimony will not be helpful.
From what I understand, the current situation resulted from a cop's use of his standard sidearm. rioting/mobs ensued and the police reacted. If you think the rioting/mob behavior was going to dissipate if only the police didn't position snipers or other higher power weaponry, I have a slightly used bridge to sell you. The police perhaps handled the situation poorly, perhaps not, but either way it had nothing to do with having shiny toys to play with, IMO.
The police, just like the military, have a strict set of rules they must follow. IMO, the military, just like the police, occasionally muff the situation by mishandling a situation, especially at the onset of hostilities. There's a reason battle (and that includes occupation) tested troops have historically achieved better results than green troops, no matter how much practice field training they've received. It's the same for police, except that for the most part most riot situations are a green troop onset of hostilities. If the same actors are involved in a riot situation next month, I'm guessing the situation is handled better as they learn from their mistakes. And if there's no riots/wars for another 10-20 years, I'm betting both police and military are going to make the same mistakes, no matter how much time either spend in the classroom studying what happened prior.
There is no enemy in civil unrest. They are citizens, law abiding or not. That the cops feel threatened by the people they swore to serve and protect is a problem they helped to create. The shiny new toys were clearly a devisive element.
in that the looting that happened on Sunday more than likely still would have happened.
However, the violence that resulted from what began as peaceful protests later in the week seems to have been a result of the way the police handled the protesters, IMO.
Disagree.
BBI always brings out the lowest common one.
<rim shot>
But to express concern with the latter two issues does not require one to reach a similar judgment on the first two.
After the Travyon Martin reporting two summers ago, I am withholding all judgement until we have a more measured view of things and more evidence.
Well said.
I disagree that its not good that the debate has changed. In my view, law enforcement really has been given way too much power - from its militarization (and the social and fiscal result thereof) to its use of unconscionable things such as civil forfeiture to pad its budget at the expense of the general public. These are fixable issues, but only once the community at large starts talking about them and demanding that their elected representatives fix them.
I think we can all agree that people shouldn't "burn shit", as you put it. However, there is a healthy and, in my view, necessary debate to be had about the way that law enforcement performed in this country.
From what I understand, the current situation resulted from a cop's use of his standard sidearm. rioting/mobs ensued and the police reacted. If you think the rioting/mob behavior was going to dissipate if only the police didn't position snipers or other higher power weaponry, I have a slightly used bridge to sell you. The police perhaps handled the situation poorly, perhaps not, but either way it had nothing to do with having shiny toys to play with, IMO.
The police, just like the military, have a strict set of rules they must follow. IMO, the military, just like the police, occasionally muff the situation by mishandling a situation, especially at the onset of hostilities. There's a reason battle (and that includes occupation) tested troops have historically achieved better results than green troops, no matter how much practice field training they've received. It's the same for police, except that for the most part most riot situations are a green troop onset of hostilities. If the same actors are involved in a riot situation next month, I'm guessing the situation is handled better as they learn from their mistakes. And if there's no riots/wars for another 10-20 years, I'm betting both police and military are going to make the same mistakes, no matter how much time either spend in the classroom studying what happened prior.
By abuse, do you mean an actual physical abuse of the protestor by the police (beyond the tear gas and the normal riot control tactics)? I am more concerned with the amateur response to the peaceful protests.
I continue to dislike the comparison of the military with law enforcement agencies. Military's primary mission is to conduct combat operations in support of national security interests through the use of lethal force. Everything else is secondary. However, the police departments' primary mission is to enforce law and order. Use or threat of lethal force is and should be the last resort, not the first.
When the military is better at reinforcing the rules of engagement as pertaining to responding to non-hostile (or potentially hostile) disturbance (not their core competency) than the law enforcement professionals (their core competency), there is something amiss.
And no one is saying that the rioting/mob behavior would have dissipated if these high powered weapons were not present. However, it doesn't help the situation one bit when you bring in such hardware into an already volatile situation where the protesters already distrust the police. One side is trained (or should be trained) to control the situation appropriately, yet that is not what we saw. As lame as this statement may sound (and it is lame), "with great power (or authority), comes great responsibilities." And in this case the police wielded all the power/authority, yet they were amateurish in understanding their responsibilities to deal with the situation appropriately.
I am disappoint.
I'm sure that you know the thought that perception is reality. Of course this statement should never be taken to be true in all circumstances, but in this case, the appearance was far more important than the actions. It set up an automatic fear and belligerence that could have been avoided.
The remarkable turn around with the advent of the State Police certainly demonstartes this.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
but I honestly don't see them as being equivalent things. The excess in police gear, for one thing at least in terms of equipment and dress as opposed to actions, is cosmetic. The excess in action you can criticize but in terms of weight on a value scale is nowhere near (at least to me) burning shit. For me the motivation sets them completely apart, as I see it more as (perhaps) doing wrong to do good as opposed to doing evil for the sake of doing evil.
I'm sure that you know the thought that perception is reality. Of course this statement should never be taken to be true in all circumstances, but in this case, the appearance was far more important than the actions. It set up an automatic fear and belligerence that could have been avoided.
The remarkable turn around with the advent of the State Police certainly demonstartes this.
What it seems to me at first blush is that their actions may have been appropriate for dealing with rioting and looting but were not at all appropriate for dealing with lawful protests, even if they were raucous and angry. The notion of someone's intent matters to a great deal in an individual criminal proceeding, in determining whether the police response to this has been flawed or flawless I really DGAF if they are well-intentioned.
Police have said the 18-year-old Brown, who is black, was shot after the officer encountered him and another man on the street. They say one of the men pushed the officer into his squad car, then physically assaulted him in the vehicle and struggled with the officer over the officer's weapon. At least one shot was fired inside the car. The struggle then spilled onto the street, where Brown was shot multiple times.
Witnesses have said the officer fired on Brown as he tried to run away.
I'm not even sure if these questions will ever be answered, but was Brown a victim of racial profiling by this officer? And did Brown and his friend assault the officer, who they may have perceived as profiling them?
This entire situation will get more murky before it ever becomes clear.
Exactly.
All the complaining about how now it's "okay" to "burn shit" is a bit confusing (or that the looting isn't a main focus).
The looting took place Sunday night. It was stupid and certainly folks taking advantage of the situation to steal and "burn shit".
What happened Tuesday and Wednesday was not looting or burning shit.
It's amazing how different Thursday night was when instead of having weapons aimed at the protesters and snipers at the ready, the some of the police instead walked with and talked with the protesters. They even were able to keep from arresting reporters or firing tear gas at them. No Molotov cocktails, no rocks thrown at police, no shots fired.
I guess even angry black folks can be civil when they're treated civilly.
Quote:
appropriate. From what I can tell, those conditions only existed on the first night of this whole affair.
Exactly.
All the complaining about how now it's "okay" to "burn shit" is a bit confusing (or that the looting isn't a main focus).
The looting took place Sunday night. It was stupid and certainly folks taking advantage of the situation to steal and "burn shit".
What happened Tuesday and Wednesday was not looting or burning shit.
It's amazing how different Thursday night was when instead of having weapons aimed at the protesters and snipers at the ready, the some of the police instead walked with and talked with the protesters. They even were able to keep from arresting reporters or firing tear gas at them. No Molotov cocktails, no rocks thrown at police, no shots fired.
I guess even angry black folks can be civil when they're treated civilly.
That's the thing...instead of the police viewing the protestors as adversaries or threats and drawing a line keeping the two apart, actually engaging the protestors in a human level was a far better route. These aren't some crazy Somalis, Iraqis, or Afghans you have to watch your back around...they're not going to snatch you if you try to have a civil discourse with them.
And don't lecture me as to when i should enter a conversation.
My bad, I actually thought that with the multitude of evidence readily available that completely disproves the silly notion of it being a mistake, you obviously had not viewed them yet. But I was wrong and should have realized that would not matter because it did not fit your slanted take on the situation down there
On the one hand you have an officer looking for an armed suspect, runs into these guys in the road, and says one of them attacks him. Shots are fired, one in the car the others outside of the car. No comment about if the guy was running away or still actively attacking the officer.
-Still seems "iffy". Even if the guy attacked the officer and went for his weapon, it is still not clear why he was shot *after* the officer left the vehicle.
On the other hand you have two witnesses saying that the officer approached them, then reached out and grabbed one guy by the neck and tried to pull him into the car. (this part in particular makes no sense to me- the only scenario where I could imagine anything remotely close to this is if the officer went to open the door and the guy didn't allow him to- pushed the door closed on the officer, then attempted to get away- the officer perhaps would reach out to grab him to keep him from running...but to just grab him by the neck while the officer is still in the car really makes no sense...) Then a shot is fired, the guy tries to run with his hands up, and the cop guns him down.
I don't really know what to think, but I imagine that both testimonies (officer and witnesses) have a little bit of truth and a little bit of embellishment to them with the truth somewhere in between.
Darren Wilson was identified today as the officer who fatally shot Brown. He is a six-year veteran of the force, and had no prior disciplinary action on his record, according to Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson.""
I agree. It's a completely different matter to shoot suspects. (Although nothing released says that he was even a suspect. Just that the officer that did the shooting was responding to a description of a suspect- shit, even the friend that was with him says the officer just told them to get out of the road.)
For the record: I'm all for shooting suspects.
Robbing a store. Roughed up a clerk. Definitely Brown. - ( New Window )
Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson Shot and Killed Michael Brown After Alleged Robbery - ( New Window )
link - ( New Window )
Oh, it's definitely a robbery. Not saying it isn't at all. Just amazing that stealing something from a convenience store was the thing that got this ball of insanity rolling.
link to Twitter - ( New Window )
Of course, but it paints a different picture. Previously, all anyone knew was that this kid & and his buddy were walking to his grandmother's house when they were bullied by a cop and ended up dead.
Now, we know he robbed the store and it's a bit easier to understand how he and the cop could have ended up in an altercation.
Lies!
And yeah, I agree.
Also starts to make the whole, officer tries to get out of car, Brown closes door on him, officer grabs him from inside of the car- they struggle, shot fired...make a lot more sense.
Now what happened after the struggle should be the focus, IMO, right? (as far as if the shooting was justified) Seems to me that Brown and his friend were running from police to avoid being arrested for the robbery and possibly the assault on the officer, no?
That's why I don't refer to him as a 'teen'. Although technically correct, it's somewhat disingenuous.
In no way do I think it's some sort of "leftist media" or racist conspiracy, though.
It's just plain old normal sensationalist crap.
It sells papers to call him a "teen" rather than just a "man".
Robber shot while involved in an alteration with arresting officer certainly sounds vastly different than boy shot while walking to his grandmothers house.
And there is likely a lot more details that we still don't know.
They need to assume some responsibility for the escalation of the situation. And it seems to be more on leadership than on the individual killer.
Same here. Brown was a big kid.
but yes this may shoot to hell the "witness'" credibility with regard to his claims as to why they were stopped...Brown and Johnson fit the description put out on the radio and they were near the Quik Trip...
also (and this may have been posted here butIi'm not sure), Johnson has a record of lying to the police...he was arrested in the past and gave a false name (someone else's) at the time...
BC,
you have the reporters themselves.
The video of it being fired at them just after the police lit them up with with a spotlight.
Video of the police putting their equip on the ground after the tear gas was fired.
The fact that they were one mile from any rioting.
The fact that they were outside the police barricades.
which puts them in the opposite direction of the riot from the police barricade.
Multiple pictures showing the TG canister at their feet.
In what way was this a "mistake"?
The officer himself may have mistakenly stroked the trigger?
The cop in charge took matters into his own hand?
It can't be those because the police themselves came out and claimed that the crew was just caught in residual gas fired at the riot itself. But the problem with that is that the riot was in the other direction.
Fuck that. You can say whatever and make whatever judgment you want on a message board- you can always change your opinion as new facts come out.
Now taking action before all facts are out is a different story.
They need to assume some responsibility for the escalation of the situation. And it seems to be more on leadership than on the individual killer.
They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Most law enforcement agencies actually keep a lot of details about particular cases close to the belt in advance of prosecution. Presumably Brown's friend is facing prosecution for this. Their job in criminal investigation is to facilitate prosecution (or the decision not to prosecute), not to facilitate the most up-to-date and informed jumps to conclusions by the wider public.
Quote:
If he stole something and used force in te taking of the property or to retain the proeprty - it was a robbery. That being said, it still does not provide justification for the shooting. But, it's a different discussion
Oh, it's definitely a robbery. Not saying it isn't at all. Just amazing that stealing something from a convenience store was the thing that got this ball of insanity rolling.
Well he also was physical during that robbery..Guy is a big dude
Quote:
how all the experts here who had all the answers before knowing all the facts feel. Does nit appear to be the innocent young man that many stated as fact, if that is him in picture.Of course we still don't have all the facts, especially about the shooting, so posters should really think twice before saying anything on either side with certainty.
Fuck that. You can say whatever and make whatever judgment you want on a message board- you can always change your opinion as new facts come out.
Now taking action before all facts are out is a different story.
Agreed...On top of it, while this does shine a different light on the matter, you still have an unarmed man shot multiple times.
They need to assume some responsibility for the escalation of the situation. And it seems to be more on leadership than on the individual killer.
Had the people not rioted, there would have been no need for militarization of the Ferguson police force.
the St. Louis County PD then took over and it was their officers, tactical units, armored vehicles, etc. that came in until yesterday afternoon, when the governor brought in the State Highway Patrol (except for Broderick Crawford) to take over...
interestingly, no one told the St. Louis County police or government the governor was going to do this and this morning, the St. Louis County prosecutor had a press conference criticizing the governor and calling his actions bringing in the State Highway Patrol to be illegal...
so remember the Ferguson PD is out of this except for the Brown shooting and the one night of looting, burning and violence...
Meh, being wrong doesn't make you an asshole.
Quote:
They had infomation that could impact the pubic's impression of the events and decided to withhold it. Then they put on military gear and point weapons at civilians.
They need to assume some responsibility for the escalation of the situation. And it seems to be more on leadership than on the individual killer.
Had the people not rioted, there would have been no need for militarization of the Ferguson police force.
What's your point with this? Police are resolved of any wrong doing for the events after the rioting because, "They started it!"
Are we still in 4th grade?
Quote:
They can say whatever they want on a message board but posters who do express their speculations as facts should not be upset when they are exposed as the assholes they are.
Meh, being wrong doesn't make you an asshole.
Jumping to conclusions can make one an asshole. But a lot of us were assholes to begin with.
That MO would never fly around here (NYC metro). They make our locals look really good, I'm pleased to say.
That MO would never fly around here (NYC metro). They make our locals look really good, I'm pleased to say.
Large metropolitan departments have dedicated PR personnel. Suburban and rural law enforcement do not.
You always seem to get hung up on how someone "appears" on a message board. Really? Its that important to you? So if someone comes into a subject with their own opinion and are found wrong they are assholes? Who has been found wrong in this thread according to you, that's an asshole?
also (and i haven't had a chance to go back and check this), didn't Johnson himself say he and Brown had just come from the Quik Trip where they had gotten a soda? it's hard to remember all that I've heard and read the past few days...
The NYPD, making the metro area proud!
Quote:
In comment 11808187 Big Al said:
Quote:
They can say whatever they want on a message board but posters who do express their speculations as facts should not be upset when they are exposed as the assholes they are.
Meh, being wrong doesn't make you an asshole.
Jumping to conclusions can make one an asshole. But a lot of us were assholes to begin with.
It's a simple risk benefit analysis. Is the benefit of being right worth the risk of looking like an ass for jumping to the wrong conclusion?
But yeah, I agree that we're mostly assholes anyway.
Quote:
They can say whatever they want on a message board but posters who do express their speculations as facts should not be upset when they are exposed as the assholes they are.
You always seem to get hung up on how someone "appears" on a message board. Really? Its that important to you? So if someone comes into a subject with their own opinion and are found wrong they are assholes? Who has been found wrong in this thread according to you, that's an asshole?
I think Al is talking more about people's behavior and not to the point of whether or not they were right or wrong.
generally, the County PD covers about 525 sq. miles and a population of over 1,000,000...there are well over 1,000 employees but not all are police officers...
Also, I think the report of the robbery that the police released this morning said that the suspects were headed towards Quick Trip, not coming from.
Quote:
In comment 11808187 Big Al said:
Quote:
They can say whatever they want on a message board but posters who do express their speculations as facts should not be upset when they are exposed as the assholes they are.
You always seem to get hung up on how someone "appears" on a message board. Really? Its that important to you? So if someone comes into a subject with their own opinion and are found wrong they are assholes? Who has been found wrong in this thread according to you, that's an asshole?
I think Al is talking more about people's behavior and not to the point of whether or not they were right or wrong.
But the fact remains that i can't really see anyone as being wrong about this situation because of info he stole some cigars. Now Sonic may have been over-the-top in his arguments on here, but does this prove him wrong?
generally, the County PD covers about 525 sq. miles and a population of over 1,000,000...there are well over 1,000 employees but not all are police officers...
I meant the local PD in addressing the apparent robbery, but I guess you're right that they're probably working in concert so it probably wasn't just Ferguson's call on how to handle that news.
QT's are wide open at their entrance and the cashier is right there by the doors
A further description, with more details, was given over the radio and stated the suspect was walking towards another convenience store, QuikTrip.
For one thing, I think the size of the crowds may been significantly smaller. People might be upset over the shooting but if they knew he was more culpable for the police contact (not the shooting) it would make some less likely to feel the urge to come out and be sen and heard.
For one thing, I think the size of the crowds may been significantly smaller. People might be upset over the shooting but if they knew he was more culpable for the police contact (not the shooting) it would make some less likely to feel the urge to come out and be sen and heard.
Yeah that's a good point..
And from the article, it said they confirmed his ID within minutes.
You know you robbed a store and that the officer had stopped you because you are a suspect, yet you still go on camera and act all innocent? Did the dumb fuck really think nobody would find out that they were walking home from a robbery?
Then again, all those witnesses better have the same story or else I assume the cop will be saying it was a fight and his force was justified.
and there were isolated instances of rocks/bricks thrown through storefronts and some smash and grabs in the wider area but no one knows if these were related or just opportunistic incidents...
I do know the the police in all three jurisdictions were on high alert and the St. Louis County police on Monday cancelled all days off and officers were all working much longer shifts (12-13 hours as opposed to 10 hours) than usual...
I wouldn't expect him to confess to being an accessory to a robbery or throwing Brown under the bus, but he laid it really thick. And, if the shooting of his friend was unjustified - his lie will get in the way of proving that.
I wouldn't expect him to confess to being an accessory to a robbery or throwing Brown under the bus, but he laid it really thick. And, if the shooting of his friend was unjustified - his lie will get in the way of proving that.
I'm not saying he should have just confessed. He should have just not said anything to anyone, much less TV reporters. Just a dumbass.
I'm not defending the officer in the shooting here nor am I condemning Brown and saying the shooting was justified...it's just not as cut and dried - apparently - as everyone first was claiming...
there's still not enough known publicly to reach a conclusion or to pass judgment...which is what I've been saying all along...
Link - ( New Window )
if you think that's grounds for being murder, you're still wrong. i find it highly improbable that the best course of action was to end up with a dead 18 year old.
you're a stupid fucking piece of shit trying to turn this situation into you vs the other side instead of examining wider issues surrounding it.
you are literally the worst type of person. so now you're fucking proud and gloating that this new info came out? what the fuck is wrong with you?
GLAD YOURE HAPPY ABOUT THIS NEW INFO, as if it has any impact on the things i've stood by re: police power, video recording, use of force, militarization, etc.
you gloating just proves you have no idea of what i was even talking about. stick to acting macho on a message board to cover for your inadequacies in real life, that's about all your good for.
as for the robbery, i'll echo the sentiments of others: it presents it in a different light, but I still have strong doubts that the best course of action was an unarmed guy being shot and killed. at the very least, he is still entitled to due process of law.
He didn't just get stopped out of the blue. He SHOULD have been stopped.
Now I question what happened from a new light given that I lean towards the kid just leaving a robbery where some form of violence was indicated so yes, I could now see him going for the cop's gun or at least disobeying him.
Most police forces would investigate before they release many facts of breaking situation when they themselves are trying to piece together all the facts.
you can keep insulting my intelligence, but i've been a top student, went to a great school, have a great, lucrative, job at a prestigious company on the cutting edge of SaaS.
your dumb fucking pot shots mean nothing to me. if anything, you're just highlighting what a massive piece of shit you are.
so if you want to be a big boy and actually talk about the broader implications of what's been happening, theres plenty to discuss.
if you're more interested in shitting on some dead teenager to prove some stranger on a message board "incorrect" (which isn't even applicable), then you aren't worthy of licking the shit of my boots.
Randy in CT : 12:23 pm : link : reply
just conducted a robbery changes the scene entirely.
He didn't just get stopped out of the blue. He SHOULD have been stopped.
Now I question what happened from a new light given that I lean towards the kid just leaving a robbery where some form of violence was indicated so yes, I could now see him going for the cop's gun or at least disobeying him.
If nothing else, the idea that this kid may have put up a fight or gone for the officer's weapon became that much more probable.
we're not trying the case on BBI. we're discussing it. some of us know how to have a discussion like adults and others like to rant and rave like lunatics without knowing what they're talking about, staking a claim and digging their heels in and arguing with the entire board like some immature little brat throwing a temper tantrum.
i have no qualms about ridiculing people who act like that. that's the only way to keep them in check.
and gee, what do you know? it's the same immature brat doing it over and over again.
He didn't just get stopped out of the blue. He SHOULD have been stopped.
Now I question what happened from a new light given that I lean towards the kid just leaving a robbery where some form of violence was indicated so yes, I could now see him going for the cop's gun or at least disobeying him.
there is such a wide jump from someone stealing a box of dutches that they can use to roll blunts with to taking a cops gun and trying to shoot him.
if this was an armed robber with a long rap sheet, i can agree with the notion that he might have gone for the cops gun.
i think the jump in criminal behavior from taking a box of dutches to taking a cops gun and shooting him is very very very large.
i will step back and wait for all info to come out in light of that recent development, but I still believe it will shake it out in a fashion that shows that lethal force wasn't warranted.
as for disobeying the cop, that's not even close to justification to shooting someone dead.
i'd like to posit that just because he was doing this dumb shit at 18 doesn't mean he was inherently a bad person or was going to be a lifetime criminal because of it. i don't think he deserved to die. and IF he got shot multiple times in the back, this is still on the cop, which I hope people can still agree on.
What if the facts were to come out that showed that the policeman was assaulted, maybe even a little stunned and having been attacked by them already believed that the two men were actually trying to overtake him? If he in that moment believed that and feared for his life from a criminal that was resisting arrest would he be justified in shooting?
Quote:
Last post was the type of thing that got political threads deleted here. Not very helpful if we want Eric to allow this type of thread. Yes my use of the word asshole above was probably not helpful either.
and gee, what do you know? it's the same immature brat doing it over and over again.
oh fuck off with that shit. i've stayed above most of the bullshit for this entire thread. peter in atlanta with half baked insults (wah wah daddy issues) -- plus you're own behavior. so let me get this straight, it's okay for you to insult my career and intelligence, because you didn't use any naughty words?
i've towed a careful line of not throwing out insults at anyone until now. you're a massive piece of shit, you've been a massive piece of shit since i posted about that stupid carnival game, and it's probably to cover up the fact that your actual life is dogshit.
Marketwatch - ( New Window )
Quote:
as for the robbery, i'll echo the sentiments of others: it presents it in a different light, but I still have strong doubts that the best course of action was an unarmed guy being shot and killed. at the very least, he is still entitled to due process of law.
What if the facts were to come out that showed that the policeman was assaulted, maybe even a little stunned and having been attacked by them already believed that the two men were actually trying to overtake him? If he in that moment believed that and feared for his life from a criminal that was resisting arrest would he be justified in shooting?
well, i guess that question will be answered when we see if brown was shot in the back or not.
I think most people probably take more from him showing aggression and violence towards a store clerk and don't give a shit what he was actually stealing.
Quote:
just conducted a robbery changes the scene entirely.
He didn't just get stopped out of the blue. He SHOULD have been stopped.
Now I question what happened from a new light given that I lean towards the kid just leaving a robbery where some form of violence was indicated so yes, I could now see him going for the cop's gun or at least disobeying him.
there is such a wide jump from someone stealing a box of dutches that they can use to roll blunts with to taking a cops gun and trying to shoot him.
if this was an armed robber with a long rap sheet, i can agree with the notion that he might have gone for the cops gun.
i think the jump in criminal behavior from taking a box of dutches to taking a cops gun and shooting him is very very very large.
i will step back and wait for all info to come out in light of that recent development, but I still believe it will shake it out in a fashion that shows that lethal force wasn't warranted.
as for disobeying the cop, that's not even close to justification to shooting someone dead.
i'd like to posit that just because he was doing this dumb shit at 18 doesn't mean he was inherently a bad person or was going to be a lifetime criminal because of it. i don't think he deserved to die. and IF he got shot multiple times in the back, this is still on the cop, which I hope people can still agree on.
I am in the camp of law enforcement at this point who has nothing to gain by shooting someone for no reason.
yes, i agree. not enough of a difference however to warrant him being killed, IMO.
if there is any evidence the kid went for the gun, then I agree with lethal force. I don't think it's warranted in most other situations.
As an exercise, let's make almost every negative assumption we can make about Brown. Let's assume that he went to the store with the intent to shoplift, shoplifted, got caught in the act by an employee, intimidated the employee and violently left the store. Let's assume that the cop car pulled up alongside him and he attempted to grab the cop's gun (which strikes me as being a completely batshit insane thing to attempt, but sure, what the hell, let's go with it). Let's assume that, for at least that brief moment, the officer's life was in legitimate danger, or at least his perception of such was wholly justified.
Even if all of the above turns out to be exactly what happened, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not Brown was unjustifiably murdered. If he was shot in the back as he attempted to flee, it's murder. If he was shot facing the officer with his hands in the air, it's murder. And then his body was left in the street for hours.
That's why people in Ferguson are upset. That's why you have riots - because another black male was killed by the police when he didn't have to be, and then he was left in the street to rot, and the community is angry, and guess what? When you have a lot of angry people who feel like the existing power structure doesn't give a shit about them, at some point some percentage is going to decide that a riot is the best tool left in a pretty empty toolbox.
The robbery, other than its potential relevance to the chain of events that led to Brown's death, is a red herring. We can choose to focus on that, and paint Brown as a criminal who was asking for trouble and found it, and paint a picture where this situation doesn't have something more important and instructive to tell us about the problematic relationship between the police and the black community - and nothing will change. Or we can come from a different place, and assume that even if Brown was something less, maybe even far less, than the innocent angel described in initial reports, that there are lots of data points - in the reaction of the community, in the subsequent behavior of various police forces toward said community, in the relative effectiveness of an aggressive police posture versus a cautious police posture - that may help us learn how to narrow the rift between the police and the black community.
LOL. this is great, princess. keep 'em coming.
...
then you aren't worthy of licking the shit of my boots.
You get shit on your boots at your job? Strange place you work at.
I usually only get shit on my boots when I muck stalls on the weekend.
Making tons of excuses for someone who just conducted a violent criminal act.
I am in the camp of law enforcement at this point who has nothing to gain by shooting someone for no reason.
I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm saying that the leap in criminal behavior from robbing someone of a box of cigars and then taking a cops gun and trying to shoot him is massive, and I don't think every single person who would rob a convenience store of something valued at probably $80 should be assumed to be willing to take a cops gun and shoot him.
Do you not agree with that? If you don't agree with that, let's agree to disagree.
Quote:
there is such a wide jump from someone stealing a box of dutches that they can use to roll blunts with to taking a cops gun and trying to shoot him.
I think most people probably take more from him showing aggression and violence towards a store clerk and don't give a shit what he was actually stealing.
Fair point. I still don't think that implies he would be, quite frankly, stupid or criminal enough to try to take a cops gun.
hey, I could be wrong. If he tried to take the cops gun, he got what he deserved. While this might make it more likely that he may have tried that move, I still put it very far out of the realm of possibility. there's a huge gap between robbing a convenience store while unarmed and murdering a cop with his own weapon.
Back to 51st and Park round deux.
I don't think anyone really knows what happened. If the cops put this out before, they would have been accused of what they are being accused of now, trying to tarnish the victim's reputation.
Everyone just has to wait for the official investigation. Why we need to know the cops name or any other details now is beyond me. Let it play out. Otherwise you jeopardize the entire investigation and taint a potential jury pool.
That's a pretty important potential, is it not?
In forming an opinion about the what the witnesses have said vs. what the police have said, the fact that he had just robbed a store is absolutely relevant and not a red herring.
I do agree with most of the rest of what you posted, however.
ok, I can agree with this position. Yes, you are right, I was tying the robbery to the shooting when really it was his interaction with the police.
As I stated in my post above, his actions in the convenience store make it more likely he did something idiotic to the cop, maybe pushed him and tried to get away, hit him and tried to get away, or something along those lines.
I still don't think him trying to take a cops gun was the most likely scenario. and while I understand information is dynamic, can come at any time, and change the situation, all we can really go on is what we have now.
eventually we will find out where he was shot, and how far away the cop was. those are the key pieces of evidence and will really allow people to draw a more solid conclusion.
Holy crap..."Credibility"?
Here we go again with this habit of living vicariously through BBI
We are on a Internet Football Message board, under aliases, discussing an incident hundreds of miles away from most of us with others that most of us don't know in real life, and you claim this is about "credibility"..Can you not see the irony of that position of yours?
As an exercise, let's make almost every negative assumption we can make about Brown. Let's assume that he went to the store with the intent to shoplift, shoplifted, got caught in the act by an employee, intimidated the employee and violently left the store. Let's assume that the cop car pulled up alongside him and he attempted to grab the cop's gun (which strikes me as being a completely batshit insane thing to attempt, but sure, what the hell, let's go with it). Let's assume that, for at least that brief moment, the officer's life was in legitimate danger, or at least his perception of such was wholly justified.
Even if all of the above turns out to be exactly what happened, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not Brown was unjustifiably murdered. If he was shot in the back as he attempted to flee, it's murder. If he was shot facing the officer with his hands in the air, it's murder. And then his body was left in the street for hours.
That's why people in Ferguson are upset. That's why you have riots - because another black male was killed by the police when he didn't have to be, and then he was left in the street to rot, and the community is angry, and guess what? When you have a lot of angry people who feel like the existing power structure doesn't give a shit about them, at some point some percentage is going to decide that a riot is the best tool left in a pretty empty toolbox.
The robbery, other than its potential relevance to the chain of events that led to Brown's death, is a red herring. We can choose to focus on that, and paint Brown as a criminal who was asking for trouble and found it, and paint a picture where this situation doesn't have something more important and instructive to tell us about the problematic relationship between the police and the black community - and nothing will change. Or we can come from a different place, and assume that even if Brown was something less, maybe even far less, than the innocent angel described in initial reports, that there are lots of data points - in the reaction of the community, in the subsequent behavior of various police forces toward said community, in the relative effectiveness of an aggressive police posture versus a cautious police posture - that may help us learn how to narrow the rift between the police and the black community.
+10000
Really good post.
Quote:
In comment 11808149 WideRight said:
Quote:
They had infomation that could impact the pubic's impression of the events and decided to withhold it. Then they put on military gear and point weapons at civilians.
They need to assume some responsibility for the escalation of the situation. And it seems to be more on leadership than on the individual killer.
Had the people not rioted, there would have been no need for militarization of the Ferguson police force.
What's your point with this? Police are resolved of any wrong doing for the events after the rioting because, "They started it!"
Are we still in 4th grade?
Cam, we demand an apology.
--4th Graders
Quote:
How come you conveniently left out the roughing up of the clerk in your post? That makes a bit difference. Think about how that reflects on your credibility here.
Holy crap..."Credibility"?
Here we go again with this habit of living vicariously through BBI
We are on a Internet Football Message board, under aliases, discussing an incident hundreds of miles away from most of us with others that most of us don't know in real life, and you claim this is about "credibility"..Can you not see the irony of that position of yours?
Your real name isn't Montana? I always thought it was Montana Jones or something. Always pictured you with a whip and a fedora. And always imagined Ronnie saying to Big Al, "You call him, "Doctor Jones" doll!"
Quote:
The robbery, other than its potential relevance to the chain of events that led to Brown's death, is a red herring.
That's a pretty important potential, is it not?
In forming an opinion about the what the witnesses have said vs. what the police have said, the fact that he had just robbed a store is absolutely relevant and not a red herring.
I do agree with most of the rest of what you posted, however.
Isn't his interaction with the cop the more relevant part? I mean, the manner in which he stole the cigars, by roughing up the clerk, plays into how we can imagine the interaction with the officer went, but other than that, isn't it tertiary to the main event at hand -- the interaction between brown and the cop and subsequent shooting?
It's neither here nor there, but it is a distinction worth noting.
It illustrates a violent and unlawful aspect to Brown.
It gives more credence to the police rational of why they stopped him.
Still does not change the fact that an unarmed man was killed, BUT it does change the perception of what exactly led up to that.
Secondly, if the friend that was with Brown, who is the witness to the shooting, was with him when Brown committed the robbery, that could hurt his credibility.
Here you go.
We see that theres tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery, said Freeman Bosley, Johnsons attorney. We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that he did take cigarillos, he told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.
In an interview earlier this week, Johnson described the events of the shooting but did not mention that he and Brown had been in a convenience store just before, or that Brown had stolen anything.
MSNBC - ( New Window )
As an exercise, let's make almost every negative assumption we can make about Brown. Let's assume that he went to the store with the intent to shoplift, shoplifted, got caught in the act by an employee, intimidated the employee and violently left the store. Let's assume that the cop car pulled up alongside him and he attempted to grab the cop's gun (which strikes me as being a completely batshit insane thing to attempt, but sure, what the hell, let's go with it). Let's assume that, for at least that brief moment, the officer's life was in legitimate danger, or at least his perception of such was wholly justified.
Even if all of the above turns out to be exactly what happened, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not Brown was unjustifiably murdered. If he was shot in the back as he attempted to flee, it's murder. If he was shot facing the officer with his hands in the air, it's murder. And then his body was left in the street for hours.
That's why people in Ferguson are upset. That's why you have riots - because another black male was killed by the police when he didn't have to be, and then he was left in the street to rot, and the community is angry, and guess what? When you have a lot of angry people who feel like the existing power structure doesn't give a shit about them, at some point some percentage is going to decide that a riot is the best tool left in a pretty empty toolbox.
The robbery, other than its potential relevance to the chain of events that led to Brown's death, is a red herring. We can choose to focus on that, and paint Brown as a criminal who was asking for trouble and found it, and paint a picture where this situation doesn't have something more important and instructive to tell us about the problematic relationship between the police and the black community - and nothing will change. Or we can come from a different place, and assume that even if Brown was something less, maybe even far less, than the innocent angel described in initial reports, that there are lots of data points - in the reaction of the community, in the subsequent behavior of various police forces toward said community, in the relative effectiveness of an aggressive police posture versus a cautious police posture - that may help us learn how to narrow the rift between the police and the black community.
Does this mean that the cop should shoot an unarmed kid with his arms raised? No.
It means that I tend to think that story is horseshit and the kid brought on the violence at least to some degree.
And for the record, I was 100% against George Zimmerman's actions in that case.
Quote:
In comment 11808341 Big Al said:
Quote:
How come you conveniently left out the roughing up of the clerk in your post? That makes a bit difference. Think about how that reflects on your credibility here.
Holy crap..."Credibility"?
Here we go again with this habit of living vicariously through BBI
We are on a Internet Football Message board, under aliases, discussing an incident hundreds of miles away from most of us with others that most of us don't know in real life, and you claim this is about "credibility"..Can you not see the irony of that position of yours?
Your real name isn't Montana? I always thought it was Montana Jones or something. Always pictured you with a whip and a fedora. And always imagined Ronnie saying to Big Al, "You call him, "Doctor Jones" doll!"
Its actually Pervis...Montana just sounds much tougher and we know how important that is on a message board
I don't think anyone really knows what happened. If the cops put this out before, they would have been accused of what they are being accused of now, trying to tarnish the victim's reputation.
Everyone just has to wait for the official investigation. Why we need to know the cops name or any other details now is beyond me. Let it play out. Otherwise you jeopardize the entire investigation and taint a potential jury pool.
It changes the likelihood of various sequences of events being the actual truth, to be sure - because we have incomplete information. But I don't think it has any substantial bearing on how the subsequent events should be interpreted. If Brown was murdered by the police officer, it's murder regardless of whether Brown was an innocent boy or a robber. If Brown was killed by the officer in self-defense while Brown was reaching for his gun, it's self-defense regardless of whether Brown robbed that store or not.
So yes, if we're trying to figure out what happened, then the robbery is relevant. But when we do get all the answers, when we try to figure out what to learn from all of this, the robbery is less important than everything that happened afterwards - and my concern is that, for a lot of people, the robbery may become an excuse to say "he had it coming" regardless of the actual circumstances of Brown's death.
Pretty sure it will be relevant to any judge or jury. Especially when you have to decide where the truth lies between different eye witness accounts.
That's why people in Ferguson are upset. That's why you have riots - because another black male was killed by the police when he didn't have to be, and then he was left in the street to rot, and the community is angry, and guess what? When you have a lot of angry people who feel like the existing power structure doesn't give a shit about them, at some point some percentage is going to decide that a riot is the best tool left in a pretty empty toolbox.
How does 70% of the population of an area have a pretty empty toolbox? With 50% voter turnout, you'd need 100% turnout of the rest of the population voting the opposite way to keep the existing structure.
interestingly, he never mentioned another case that the Supreme Court actually heard and ruled on: Tennessee v. Garner.
care to look that case up, Sonic? you might actually learn something about the law as it applies to situations like this.
Quote:
buford : 12:41 pm : link : reply
Secondly, if the friend that was with Brown, who is the witness to the shooting, was with him when Brown committed the robbery, that could hurt his credibility.
Here you go.
Code:
In an interview with msnbc shortly after the report was released, Johnsons lawyer confirmed that Brown had taken cigars from the store.
We see that theres tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery, said Freeman Bosley, Johnsons attorney. We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that he did take cigarillos, he told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.
In an interview earlier this week, Johnson described the events of the shooting but did not mention that he and Brown had been in a convenience store just before, or that Brown had stolen anything.
MSNBC - ( New Window )
Great find Filthy...Throws even more of wrench into this confusing situation
The robbery doesn't change the result. But it does open a chink in one of the key witness's story.
It illustrates a violent and unlawful aspect to Brown.
It gives more credence to the police rational of why they stopped him.
Still does not change the fact that an unarmed man was killed, BUT it does change the perception of what exactly led up to that.
Agree with all the above.
Here's one question though: as per the MSNBC link above, if Brown's friend told authorities they stole the dutches, but left it out from his account to the media, does that hurt his credibility still?
The other question I have is whether Brown strong-arming the convenience store clerk highlights enough of a violence streak to presume he put the cops life in danger. This is subjective, and honestly I don't think it can be answered from just that convenience store tape. This is a human being with a complex psyche and composition, I don't think that can be accurately drawn one way or the other from the tape. It DEFINITELY makes it more likely however.
IMO, if he went for the gun (such a psychotic move) he deserved to be shot at close range.
If he went for the gun, got shot at close range, then tried to run away, I don't think he should have been shot more.
If he never tried to go for the gun and tried to run away, I do not believe he should have been shot, regardless of whether he hit the officer. Tackle him, cuff him, he'd probably get knocked around a bunch, throw the book at him for hitting a cop -- but don't shoot him dead.
you're using "murder" as a charged term. the word itself is intended to sway the audience. and no, self defense is not the only situation in which police officers are authorized to use deadly force.
2. The second felon lied and should be arrested.
3. Why was Al S & BO making statements without facts?
Personally responsibility and when using poor judgment by placing yourself in a bad situation can often have horrible unintended results.
Regardless whether the facts end up proving the policeman was criminal in shooting or justified it doesn't change the fact that this young man made a string of horrible decisions that night that directly resulted in his dying. If I were to talk to my son about this, that is the message I would want him to take from it. Often things quickly get out of hand and can spiral out of control. An eighteen year old should understand that and is personally responsible for not putting himself in a situation which increases the likelihood of that maybe happening. Even if the policeman would and up facing charges, it doesn't make him any less dead and it never would have happened if he had stayed within the law.
Based on the Travyon Martin shooting - where the press reports for weeks were riddled with basic factual errors - I think we all need to wait for more information to emerge.
interestingly, he never mentioned another case that the Supreme Court actually heard and ruled on: Tennessee v. Garner.
care to look that case up, Sonic? you might actually learn something about the law as it applies to situations like this.
Uh, he was unarmed? If he's running away from an officer, how does he post a significant threat of death or physical injury to the officer? He doesn't have a weapon. What's he going to do, jedi mind trick choke him to death?
Personally responsibility and when using poor judgment by placing yourself in a bad situation can often have horrible unintended results.
Regardless whether the facts end up proving the policeman was criminal in shooting or justified it doesn't change the fact that this young man made a string of horrible decisions that night that directly resulted in his dying. If I were to talk to my son about this, that is the message I would want him to take from it. Often things quickly get out of hand and can spiral out of control. An eighteen year old should understand that and is personally responsible for not putting himself in a situation which increases the likelihood of that maybe happening. Even if the policeman would and up facing charges, it doesn't make him any less dead and it never would have happened if he had stayed within the law.
I can imagine a scenario where he got shot once in the car, and started running away with his arms up. I don't think it's difficult to imagine.
that, of course, does not mean that police are allowed to shoot anyone and everyone who runs away. but if you think about the law and then apply it to these facts, it's entirely plausible that the cop felt the suspect was dangerous to the community, even after he ran away.
however, we still don't know enough about why the cop may have thought that or if he was justified in thinking that, which is an objective standard. that's why we WAIT to find out more about the case before we go ranting and raving about militarized cops committing genocide on the black community.
Quote:
If Brown was murdered by the police officer, it's murder regardless of whether Brown was an innocent boy or a robber. If Brown was killed by the officer in self-defense while Brown was reaching for his gun, it's self-defense regardless of whether Brown robbed that store or not.
you're using "murder" as a charged term. the word itself is intended to sway the audience. and no, self defense is not the only situation in which police officers are authorized to use deadly force.
Didn't realize I had to list out every possible series of events and how each relates to an alleged robbery that may have preceded it.
The point I am trying (and perhaps failing) to make is that, if the officer was justified in killing Brown, he was justified in doing so regardless of whether Brown actually robbed a store or not. If the officer's actions turn out to be unjustified, they will be unjustified for reasons other than the robbery. If you can come up with a counterexample, I'd be interested in hearing it.
wonderful! now we're learning. but whoops! try again. it's not just if he poses a danger to the officer. it's the officer or "others," including the community at large.
and this guy had just beat up a store clerk. get it now?
Investigators and prosecutors now need to make sure they follow all procedures properly - no concealing evidence or testimony - and act with in the public's interest, which is to aggressively prosecute the killer.
Personally responsibility and when using poor judgment by placing yourself in a bad situation can often have horrible unintended results.
Regardless whether the facts end up proving the policeman was criminal in shooting or justified it doesn't change the fact that this young man made a string of horrible decisions that night that directly resulted in his dying. If I were to talk to my son about this, that is the message I would want him to take from it. Often things quickly get out of hand and can spiral out of control. An eighteen year old should understand that and is personally responsible for not putting himself in a situation which increases the likelihood of that maybe happening. Even if the policeman would and up facing charges, it doesn't make him any less dead and it never would have happened if he had stayed within the law.
This is definitely a given though. This would have been prevented if he didn't do something so stupid as robbing a convenience store of cigars.
At it's very core, this action is what caused the situation. But I'm hoping most people
Also, re: the question of the other witnesses reliability -- his reliability is definitely tarnished if he didn't tell the police about taking the cigars.
However, if he told that to authorities, but subsequently left it out to the media, I don't know how much it tarnishes his account in legal terms.
He's not under any obligation to tell that part to the media - yes, it can make us weary from our perspective.
The fact that he had just committed a violent robbery may have played into the officer's impression that he was a danger to the community, even after he ran away. So yeah, the robbery is extremely important for the analysis.
does that mean Johnson and his attorney are in part at fault for not telling the truth (or at least the whole story) to the media, which certainly would have made things less incendiary?
563.046.
....
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
.....
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony;
Now, I don't know for a fact that the robbery would be a felony, but there certainly seems to be a good chance that it is, and therefore it would be a justified use of deadly force.
Link - ( New Window )
It changes the likelihood of various sequences of events being the actual truth, to be sure - because we have incomplete information. But I don't think it has any substantial bearing on how the subsequent events should be interpreted. If Brown was murdered by the police officer, it's murder regardless of whether Brown was an innocent boy or a robber. If Brown was killed by the officer in self-defense while Brown was reaching for his gun, it's self-defense regardless of whether Brown robbed that store or not.
So yes, if we're trying to figure out what happened, then the robbery is relevant. But when we do get all the answers, when we try to figure out what to learn from all of this, the robbery is less important than everything that happened afterwards - and my concern is that, for a lot of people, the robbery may become an excuse to say "he had it coming" regardless of the actual circumstances of Brown's death.
Of course it has subsequent bearing on how things played out. For one, all I have been hearing is how the cops just gunned down an innocent kid minding his own business and shot him in the back. Now anyone would be outraged by that. And the community responded to that. If it was known that Brown was a suspect in a robbery where a man was beaten, then that changes everything. Not saying there wouldn't have been no reaction, but I think it would have been tempered.
This whole thing is being driven by no information, bad information and yes, a lot of race baiting and police fuck ups. Everyone needs to take a step back and let the investigation happen and have that be what everything is based on. No one is saying that a robbery suspect deserves to get shot in the back, but again, do we know what happened directly before he was shot? No. And what we need to learn from this is to WAIT FOR ALL THE FACTS TO COME OUT.
that, of course, does not mean that police are allowed to shoot anyone and everyone who runs away. but if you think about the law and then apply it to these facts, it's entirely plausible that the cop felt the suspect was dangerous to the community, even after he ran away.
however, we still don't know enough about why the cop may have thought that or if he was justified in thinking that, which is an objective standard. that's why we WAIT to find out more about the case before we go ranting and raving about militarized cops committing genocide on the black community.
so you think an unarmed 18 year old running away from the police is a threat to murder or attempt murder on the cops or others in the community?
I'm glad you posted that link because it doesn't support your position at all. Nothing suggests he was a danger to kill anyone because he was running from the cops. That case you posted doesn't justify his homicide at all.
it's important to note, however, that police officers in the course of making arrests are not held to the same standard, when it comes to shootings, as regular civilians would be when it comes to things like self defense.
a lot of people seem to be under the impression that you analyze a case like this with the standard "murder" or "self defense" elements, but that is absolutely untrue.
Quote:
First and foremost it lends a ton of doubt to his buddies story of what occurred prior to the shooting. This left out fact, combined with the statements he gave to the media about two innocent males getting hassled for no reason
It illustrates a violent and unlawful aspect to Brown.
It gives more credence to the police rational of why they stopped him.
Still does not change the fact that an unarmed man was killed, BUT it does change the perception of what exactly led up to that.
Agree with all the above.
Here's one question though: as per the MSNBC link above, if Brown's friend told authorities they stole the dutches, but left it out from his account to the media, does that hurt his credibility still?
The other question I have is whether Brown strong-arming the convenience store clerk highlights enough of a violence streak to presume he put the cops life in danger. This is subjective, and honestly I don't think it can be answered from just that convenience store tape. This is a human being with a complex psyche and composition, I don't think that can be accurately drawn one way or the other from the tape. It DEFINITELY makes it more likely however.
IMO, if he went for the gun (such a psychotic move) he deserved to be shot at close range.
If he went for the gun, got shot at close range, then tried to run away, I don't think he should have been shot more.
If he never tried to go for the gun and tried to run away, I do not believe he should have been shot, regardless of whether he hit the officer. Tackle him, cuff him, he'd probably get knocked around a bunch, throw the book at him for hitting a cop -- but don't shoot him dead.
In the court of public perception it does hurt his credibility. Remember Trevyon Martin was labeled a druggie because he had smoked a few joints during his teen years, and had a bag Skillets in his pocket. So yeah there will be some pushing the angle that he is not credible
swing and a miss again!
it's not just if they are a threat to commit murder. it's if they pose a "significant threat of death or physical injury" to the community.
0-2 count, slugger. might want to choke up on the bat a bit.
If you expect a different outcome, you're insane. If you consider it fun, you're a jerk.
Assume for arguments sake that Brown did show himself to be a hostile person by attacking the cop. Isn't it possible that the cop could interpret that Brown was a danger about to go off on a violent spree? He'd already allegedly used force in a robbery, and in this scenario would have used force against a police officer, and who knows what words were exchanged during the struggle (did Brown make threats?). I'm not arguing this POV, but neither am I arguing the POV that the fiasco was an abuse by the cop in the shooting. You cannot assume because of partial evidence after the fact (unarmed) that this was known during the event or that this is all the evidence the cop had at the time.
Bottom line is that we don't know what happened, so attempting to color it as police abuse/misconduct or Brown brought it on himself are both equally wrong.
Quote:
so you think an unarmed 18 year old running away from the police is a threat to murder or attempt murder on the cops or others in the community?
swing and a miss again!
it's not just if they are a threat to commit murder. it's if they pose a "significant threat of death or physical injury" to the community.
0-2 count, slugger. might want to
choke up on the bat a bit.
And you think an unarmed man running away posed significant threat of death or injury to the community at large, and should have been shot dead?
If brown killed the clerk, your statute would be more applicable. Hell, even if he had a gun.
That statute is more applicable to someone running around with a gun.
Glad I dont live in your perverse gestapo world, where unarmed people running away are justified to be shot.
(For the record, that last sentence is applied to a generalized situation, not this specific one)
Anyway, I do not think that statute applies in this case. Unless someone can explain to me why we should assume brown was going to go on a violence/murder spree beyond a reasonable doubt.
My last few posts have been directly related to the context in which M in CTs cited statute would apply. I would like to make that clear.
The statute says nothing about the suspect being armed.
Greg, I am only stating he is running away because I am putting it in context of the lawsuit cited by M.
I am not saying he was running away.
Basically, M is saying Brown being shot was justifiable even if he was running away. I do not agree with that in the slightest.
Quote:
...then the cop would know he was unarmed, and M in CTs statute wouldn't apply.
The statute says nothing about the suspect being armed.
I understand that. But being armed would go a long way to proving someone running away was a danger to harm or injure someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you think it would be justified to kill him if he was running away?
I think it's a great idea. Not only does it force a cop to mind their p's and q's, but it also stops your average idiot citizen (Brett) from being able to claim abuse when everything that happened was reasonable.
Brettiot?
strike three! the statute does not require him to be armed. in fact, it's perfectly plausible to view someone as dangerous and capable of using violence to commit serious physical harm after he was just seen committing a violent robbery five minutes before.
umm, no. it's not. strike four?
i'm glad you don't too.
I think it's a great idea. Not only does it force a cop to mind their p's and q's, but it also stops your average idiot citizen (Brett) from being able to claim abuse when everything that happened was reasonable.
Brettiot?
I've heard similar things from law enforcement. Sober people behave much better when they know they're being recorded, and they're much less likely to file bullshit complaints.
Quote:
And you think an unarmed man running away posed significant threat of death or injury to the community at large, and should have been shot dead?
strike three! the statute does not require him to be armed. in fact, it's perfectly plausible to view someone as dangerous and capable of using violence to commit serious physical harm after he was just seen committing a violent robbery five minutes before.
Quote:
That statute is more applicable to someone running around with a gun.
umm, no. it's not. strike four?
Quote:
Glad I dont live in your perverse gestapo world, where unarmed people running away are justified to be shot.
i'm glad you don't too.
You two are going to end up getting this thread deleted
Quote:
in the country? I doubt it is something that could be afforded by most towns and/or states.
I posted a link before in the thread, an idaho town equipped 40 officers in 2012 for 36k.
Which is not an inconsiderable sum. Doesn't mean you don't do it, just means it becomes a consideration in the equation.
Quote:
In comment 11808480 steve in ky said:
Quote:
in the country? I doubt it is something that could be afforded by most towns and/or states.
I posted a link before in the thread, an idaho town equipped 40 officers in 2012 for 36k.
Which is not an inconsiderable sum. Doesn't mean you don't do it, just means it becomes a consideration in the equation.
How long do they last? That 36K isn't a one time fee.
And it's not like you need a camera per officer in the department, just one camera per on duty officer.
Things don't always have to be common place to justify changes that make sense. I have no doubt that budgets could be shifted to make room for the equivalent of this cost.
It also says nothing about the likelihood that such a lawsuit would not occur.
Perhaps, given that much of the equipment used by police forces can be subsidized by government agencies, that this and similar incidents could spur these agencies to cut back on armored vehicles and instead defray the cost of or outright provide the needed cameras.
Quote:
In comment 11808489 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11808480 steve in ky said:
Quote:
in the country? I doubt it is something that could be afforded by most towns and/or states.
I posted a link before in the thread, an idaho town equipped 40 officers in 2012 for 36k.
Which is not an inconsiderable sum. Doesn't mean you don't do it, just means it becomes a consideration in the equation.
How long do they last? That 36K isn't a one time fee.
I'm not in IT, it depends on how footage would be stored, when cameras would be on, etc. I wonder if the major fixed costs of storage are already in place as storage for dash cam video.
Needs paint, backseat smells like vomit.
Quote:
a suburban department can go for a decade without using lethal force and almost as long without a credible excessive force complaint. Again it doesn't mean you don't do it, but the fact that it seems less expensive than a lawsuit says nothing about the likelihood that such a lawsuit would occur.
It also says nothing about the likelihood that such a lawsuit would not occur.
Perhaps, given that much of the equipment used by police forces can be subsidized by government agencies, that this and similar incidents could spur these agencies to cut back on armored vehicles and instead defray the cost of or outright provide the needed cameras.
I think the MRAPs are absurd myself, but they're buying them for pennies on the dollar. And as for the lawsuit occurrence/non-occurrence, as with every other government agency planning for budgetary catastrophe (eg lawsuit, which probably doesn't dent their slice of the budget much if at all anyway) is not their forte.
No, there are stills of someone stealing cigars. Witnesses have stated that Brown wasn't wearing sandals that day, and the guy in that picture looks older and much bigger than Brown.
It should be fairly easy for investigators to establish if the man in those photos was Michael Brown or not, but I don't believe the Ferguson PD has earned the benefit of doubt in this case.
There are tangible benefits, but there are certainly tangible costs.
It shouldn't be eliminated as a possibility, but it should not be guaranteed uniformly in all cases. Regardless of the cost of cameras, there are costs of maintenance and monitoring, which aren't negligible.
Quote:
I can't believe all this happened because he stole cigars. Crazy turn of events.
No, there are stills of someone stealing cigars. Witnesses have stated that Brown wasn't wearing sandals that day, and the guy in that picture looks older and much bigger than Brown.
It should be fairly easy for investigators to establish if the man in those photos was Michael Brown or not, but I don't believe the Ferguson PD has earned the benefit of doubt in this case.
Gee, except the guy with him, Johnson- that was with him when they were stopped and Brown was shot, admitted to the FBI and the PD that they stole cigars from that store just before they were stopped.
1) Witness was lying = questionable credibility
2) Reason for stopping the pair was more than a simple traffic violation.
3) Most important, as has been referenced by a few posters - is the ruling in Tennessee versus Garner - someone who commits a robbery has committed a violent felony. Police use of deadly force may be justified when intervening in or attempting to arrest someone who has committed a violent felony. I say MAY because some jurisdictions/police agencies require necessity to use deadly force typically due to the imminent use of deadly force by the suspect against he officer or a third party. That is the most important reason why the robbery is relevant. not that he committed a bad act so he had it coming.
There are tangible benefits, but there are certainly tangible costs.
It shouldn't be eliminated as a possibility, but it should not be guaranteed uniformly in all cases. Regardless of the cost of cameras, there are costs of maintenance and monitoring, which aren't negligible.
The benefits seem to be pretty large in the areas where the cameras have been put into use.
There's a huge reduction in use of force complaints. I think there are also positive externalities that will come along with a greater amount of trust placed in law enforcement by citizens. It's difficult to place a monetary value on that benefit, but I'm sure it will lead to positive, tangible effects for society.
"The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment." - ( New Window )
1) Witness was lying = questionable credibility
2) Reason for stopping the pair was more than a simple traffic violation.
3) Most important, as has been referenced by a few posters - is the ruling in Tennessee versus Garner - someone who commits a robbery has committed a violent felony. Police use of deadly force may be justified when intervening in or attempting to arrest someone who has committed a violent felony. I say MAY because some jurisdictions/police agencies require necessity to use deadly force typically due to the imminent use of deadly force by the suspect against he officer or a third party. That is the most important reason why the robbery is relevant. not that he committed a bad act so he had it coming.
Number 2 is spot on. But number 1... it seems the witness was forthcoming with authorities about his involvement in stealing cigars. I don't think it impacts his credibility with regards to the court of law.
If does impact his reliability in terms of his statements to the media. But he didn't seem to be lying - just conveniently left out the wrongdoings of himself and Brown in his media statements.
As for 3, I really cannot see the justification for shooting an unarmed man in the back while he is fleeing (which is the situation in which that statute would be applicable).
Do you feel assaulting the clerk and then trying to escape the cop proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown was a grave danger to the community? I do not. It definitely makes him a criminal, but it doesn't make him a criminal that will put other peoples lives in danger beyond a reasonable doubt. If he shot and killed the clerk or even shot at anyone, then I would agree wholeheartedly that force is warranted, even if he is running.
Quote:
In comment 11808517 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
a suburban department can go for a decade without using lethal force and almost as long without a credible excessive force complaint. Again it doesn't mean you don't do it, but the fact that it seems less expensive than a lawsuit says nothing about the likelihood that such a lawsuit would occur.
It also says nothing about the likelihood that such a lawsuit would not occur.
Perhaps, given that much of the equipment used by police forces can be subsidized by government agencies, that this and similar incidents could spur these agencies to cut back on armored vehicles and instead defray the cost of or outright provide the needed cameras.
I think the MRAPs are absurd myself, but they're buying them for pennies on the dollar. (rest of quote excised)
Hence my suggested workaround of having the cameras subsidized/cost reduced, as already happens with the before-discussed Dodge Chargers.
My point still stands. Simply because a study finds one thing does not negate the situation-specific analyses on relevant costs and benefits.
Fiscal and maintenance costs are not the biggest problem. In neighborhoods where it is difficult to get cooperation with investigations, even anonymously, knowing that providing information will be filmed may have an even further chilling effect. For example, responding to an active crime scene it is not unheard for someone to direct an officer in the direction of a discarded firearm/evidence.
At the end of the day, the policy standard will be for the cameras to be running for all encounters with civilians.
I do doubt the universal adoption, especially given a growing urban/rural divide, and the relative resources given to these areas.
My point still stands. Simply because a study finds one thing does not negate the situation-specific analyses on relevant costs and benefits.
Obviously the costs vs benefits need to be analyzed. I was just pointing out that in situations where they have been cameras applied, the benefits have been substantial.
Plus, it would be a very effective check on a group of people who have massive power over the general population. It's not like every single cop deserves to be monitored on the job, but it would definitely mitigate the abuse of force by the bad apples.
My point still stands. Simply because a study finds one thing does not negate the situation-specific analyses on relevant costs and benefits.
The hard thing to quantify is getting the truth. How valuable is it? If we had a video that showed Michael Brown either wrestling for the officer's gun or possibly running away and getting shot in the back, how much would that be worth?
You think too much like an economist. :)
The term 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is inherently subjective, and in my personal opinion, with the information on hand, I don't think I can assume beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown was an imminent danger to the livelihood of the community.
Gee, except the guy with him, Johnson- that was with him when they were stopped and Brown was shot, admitted to the FBI and the PD that they stole cigars from that store just before they were stopped.
Yes, just saw that, my mistake. Saw the video as well, which is much more conclusive.
Quote:
represent an absolute.
My point still stands. Simply because a study finds one thing does not negate the situation-specific analyses on relevant costs and benefits.
The hard thing to quantify is getting the truth. How valuable is it? If we had a video that showed Michael Brown either wrestling for the officer's gun or possibly running away and getting shot in the back, how much would that be worth?
You think too much like an economist. :)
Heh, nah.
You can add the "truth" into any equation. But you also have to remember that, say the tape is used at trial. No matter what it shows, people will interpret it differently (say, who initiated the struggle; maybe it was a verbal altercation by the police that initiated the citizen struggling).
That's my main point. Much like vaccination, which is about as good of a thing as you can advertise, there are exceptions to the rule. In this case, probably quite a few (say, Barney Fife).
And it really plays into the urban/rural divide.
You're 100% correct here. But why is it "nice try Section"? I think if Section knew the admission from the accomplice, he would concede my point.
But the "nice try" statement kind of underscores that this conversation unfortunately has the framework of "pro police vs anti police". I wish it could just be a discussion on how to make things better.
I know a lot of people will be quick to point at me and say "well you're anti-cop, who the hell are you to say that??". But I would like to pre-emptively state that I am not anti cop, but rather I am anti abuse of power.
Being anti cop is stupid. Society needs people to enforce laws and keep the peace.
We are all citizens and we are all either directly or indirectly affected by law enforcement (albeit some much more so than others). Making law enforcement more responsible and accountable benefits all of us.
Quote:
as posted earlier, Johnson and his attorney now admit, after the video was released, that Johnson and Brown stole the cigars...gee, I wonder if things would have burned up as much in Ferguson had Jonson and his attorney NOT claimed that Johnson and Brown were stopped just for walking in the middle of the street?
You're 100% correct here. But why is it "nice try Section"? I think if Section knew the admission from the accomplice, he would concede my point.
But the "nice try" statement kind of underscores that this conversation unfortunately has the framework of "pro police vs anti police". I wish it could just be a discussion on how to make things better.
I know a lot of people will be quick to point at me and say "well you're anti-cop, who the hell are you to say that??". But I would like to pre-emptively state that I am not anti cop, but rather I am anti abuse of power.
Being anti cop is stupid. Society needs people to enforce laws and keep the peace.
We are all citizens and we are all either directly or indirectly affected by law enforcement (albeit some much more so than others). Making law enforcement more responsible and accountable benefits all of us.
+1
I imagine Mike is frustrated by all of the misinformation out there- some of which seems intentional on both sides- being pretty close to "ground zero".
Having said that, I maintain that if Brown is running away, I don't believe there is probable cause to assume he is going to put lives in the community at danger.
Right. So in my opinion, even given the totality of the cirumstances, I don't think its a fair assessment to say Brown was in danger of taking the lives of others.
Look, this branch of the discussion is basically traced back to M in CT finding that court case and trying to gloat that its likely Brown deserved to be shot whether he was running away or not. Not only do I vehemently disagree with that in the context of the law as it is written, but I disagree with it from a humanist standpoint as well.
a fundamental "fact" that many had based their argument on, that Brown was racially profiled and stopped for nothing more than walking in the middle of the street, was undercut and rather than taking a step back, they lashed out with denials and more anger...
If he attacked the officer there's probable cause. It doesn't matter if he did or didn't go after the gun and was running away with his hands up- he already committed a robbery and attacked an officer- why wouldn't you think he is a danger to others- especially considering his size?
look forward to another 5 pages of temper tantrum.
This is not a negligence standard, though when you say "reasonableness" that is the immediate assumption. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, in essence, you must prove the officer was " plainly incompetent or knowingly violated the law" to lose his immunity protection from suit and liability( Supreme Court language,not mine). That is a very difficult standard to overcome.
So,you take the statute cited above and simply view whether under the facts then and there confronting the officer did he reasonably conclude that there was an immediate risk of serious injury to himself or others.
In the discussion that Audible and M in CT had above about whether all or some of the facts leading up to the moment that Brown allegedly either (i) had his hands up or (ii)had his back turned and was fleeing, then without a doubt in my mind,any or all facts ( reported to be a suspect in a robbery, act of violence upon shopkeeper, wrestling in the patrol unit,whatever)would be important in answering the ultimate question: was the use of deadly force objectively reasonable.
None of this looks at things from a criminal viewpoint; that is, whether the officer committed some crime. I didn't think that worth the discussion because the civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is so much easier than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, before I am called a lackey for law enforcement because of who I typically represent, I have represented plaintiffs or their families on the other side of the docket, just not in Texas.
look forward to another 5 pages of temper tantrum.
"Village idiot?"...Step the fuck off you fucking cocksucker. Quit trying to act like a big shot on a message board because you're a weak person IRL.
deserve's got nothing to do with it. cops are allowed, legally, to shoot fleeing suspects in some cases. you did not know that and assumed cops can only use deadly force in self defense. then, when presented with the law, you (predictably) dug your heels in.
as for whether the cop was right to use deadly force in this case, we STILL DON'T KNOW, but of course, that doesn't stop you from judging.
If he attacked the officer there's probable cause. It doesn't matter if he did or didn't go after the gun and was running away with his hands up- he already committed a robbery and attacked an officer- why wouldn't you think he is a danger to others- especially considering his size?
I don't think he would be a grave dangers to others because he hadn't attempted to seriously injure anybody. He also wasn't attacking anyone in the community (after the robbery) when the cop stopped him. So he's unarmed, and didn't go after anyone after he committed his crime.
I know you said it doesn't matter if he went for the gun or not, but IMO it does matter. If he did go for the gun, I think that would elevate how dangerous he was a great, great deal.
We're talking about ending someones life here. I think the threshold should be pretty high.
Well on that same topic of "lying", the police also could have that label placed on them with regards to the statements they have made regarding the Al Jezerra incident:
Tiefenbrunn says officers weren't aware the lights were from a TV crew when the gas was fired and calls descriptions of the incident being an attack on the press "totally incorrect."
The four members of the Al Jazeera crew were collected by members of his department, taken to their gear and then taken to safety, Tiefenbrunn says. They took it as more of a rescue as opposed to what was portrayed on [TV], that we were actually firing tear gas at the media."
So neither party is blameless, but one did tell the police they were involved in the theft of the cigars in a statement to police..We have yet to see anything regarding a correction of that quoted spokesman.
Quote:
trying to gloat that its likely Brown deserved to be shot whether he was running away or not.
deserve's got nothing to do with it. cops are allowed, legally, to shoot fleeing suspects in some cases. you did not know that and assumed cops can only use deadly force in self defense. then, when presented with the law, you (predictably) dug your heels in.
as for whether the cop was right to use deadly force in this case, we STILL DON'T KNOW, but of course, that doesn't stop you from judging.
You posted a link that said cops can shoot a fleeing suspect if there is probably cause that they are an imminent danger to the lives of others.
He shoved a clerk and stole a box of cigars. He may or may not have hit an officer (we still don't know), but I don't think that proves he's an imminent danger to the lives of others.
Anyway, you can go fuck yourself. Within this thread alone, you've taken it upon yourself to insult my intelligence, my career, and my integrity point blank. I could easily have you banned right now for harassing me. Back the fuck up and hop off my dick, stop coming after me.
and i don't think you even know what the word "integrity" means.
have a nice day!
This is not a negligence standard, though when you say "reasonableness" that is the immediate assumption. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, in essence, you must prove the officer was " plainly incompetent or knowingly violated the law" to lose his immunity protection from suit and liability( Supreme Court language,not mine). That is a very difficult standard to overcome.
So,you take the statute cited above and simply view whether under the facts then and there confronting the officer did he reasonably conclude that there was an immediate risk of serious injury to himself or others.
In the discussion that Audible and M in CT had above about whether all or some of the facts leading up to the moment that Brown allegedly either (i) had his hands up or (ii)had his back turned and was fleeing, then without a doubt in my mind,any or all facts ( reported to be a suspect in a robbery, act of violence upon shopkeeper, wrestling in the patrol unit,whatever)would be important in answering the ultimate question: was the use of deadly force objectively reasonable.
None of this looks at things from a criminal viewpoint; that is, whether the officer committed some crime. I didn't think that worth the discussion because the civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is so much easier than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, before I am called a lackey for law enforcement because of who I typically represent, I have represented plaintiffs or their families on the other side of the docket, just not in Texas.
Thank you for the breath of fresh air.
.
Drop and give me twenty!
What is your fucking problem with me you stupid fucking piece of shit?
What the fuck have I said to you that has cause you to go around calling me a village idiot, imply that I'm a failure at my job, and attack me on a personal level? Who the fuck are you? You don't fucking know me or my life, so stop wasting my time with this fucking garbage.
Seriously, what the fuck did I do that you have such a fucking axe to grind with me? Is your personal life such a miserable failure you need to get your kicks by trying to harass people on message boards? You can try and call me stupid, uneducated, or a failure at my career. but my academic track record, education, career path, speak for itself, and it's not going to make your miserable life any better.
I'd really love to know what the fuck your problem is with me. Go the fuck away and leave me the fuck alone.
and i don't think you even know what the word "integrity" means.
have a nice day!
your writing, as usual, is confusing.
Using deadly force does not mean that you're intending to kill someone. It just means that you know there is a substantial risk of death.
So- if he had just finished attacking the officer and was running away- he now knows that he's in some really deep shit. Logically what do you think his next move would be? Find someplace safe to hide, right? And what do you think he would do to an innocent civilian that was somehow in his way? He's already shown he has no qualms about using violence to take what he wants, and has even attacked an officer to keep from being arrested. What's to stop him from beating the shit out of someone and taking their car? Or breaking into someone's house and beating them unconscious or killing them for his hiding spot? Of course there is a chance that he would just turn himself in, but considering what had just happened, which do you think is more likely?
If he did indeed attack the cop, I certainly wouldn't want him hiding somewhere in my neighborhood, would you?
So the officer used deadly force to protect the rest of us from him- that doesn't mean he tried to kill him- it just means he used his gun to stop him. There is a difference there that I don't think you've been acknowledging.
your writing, as usual, is confusing.
I want you to go away and stop responding to me, and stop insulting me. I don't care about what shitty conclusions you've drawn about me from a bunch of threads on a fucking message board.
Stop harassing me. Join the discussion or go away.
your writing, as usual, is confusing.
is that the same bank account you were concerned about when you solicited advice about how to win your lost money back at a street carnival game?
This is not a negligence standard, though when you say "reasonableness" that is the immediate assumption. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, in essence, you must prove the officer was " plainly incompetent or knowingly violated the law" to lose his immunity protection from suit and liability( Supreme Court language,not mine). That is a very difficult standard to overcome.
So,you take the statute cited above and simply view whether under the facts then and there confronting the officer did he reasonably conclude that there was an immediate risk of serious injury to himself or others.
In the discussion that Audible and M in CT had above about whether all or some of the facts leading up to the moment that Brown allegedly either (i) had his hands up or (ii)had his back turned and was fleeing, then without a doubt in my mind,any or all facts ( reported to be a suspect in a robbery, act of violence upon shopkeeper, wrestling in the patrol unit,whatever)would be important in answering the ultimate question: was the use of deadly force objectively reasonable.
None of this looks at things from a criminal viewpoint; that is, whether the officer committed some crime. I didn't think that worth the discussion because the civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is so much easier than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, before I am called a lackey for law enforcement because of who I typically represent, I have represented plaintiffs or their families on the other side of the docket, just not in Texas.
Bob, if you took away the "wrestling in the patrol car" would the physicality of the robbery meet the use of deadly force? I think that is what this will come down to, if there was any resisting or attempt to fight the officer.
Quote:
Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causingor that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causingdeath, serious bodily harm or injury.
Using deadly force does not mean that you're intending to kill someone. It just means that you know there is a substantial risk of death.
So- if he had just finished attacking the officer and was running away- he now knows that he's in some really deep shit. Logically what do you think his next move would be? Find someplace safe to hide, right? And what do you think he would do to an innocent civilian that was somehow in his way? He's already shown he has no qualms about using violence to take what he wants, and has even attacked an officer to keep from being arrested. What's to stop him from beating the shit out of someone and taking their car? Or breaking into someone's house and beating them unconscious or killing them for his hiding spot? Of course there is a chance that he would just turn himself in, but considering what had just happened, which do you think is more likely?
If he did indeed attack the cop, I certainly wouldn't want him hiding somewhere in my neighborhood, would you?
So the officer used deadly force to protect the rest of us from him- that doesn't mean he tried to kill him- it just means he used his gun to stop him. There is a difference there that I don't think you've been acknowledging.
I agree 100% with this.
ok, in that case - no.
i did join the discussion. i provided you with the law (which you didn't have a clue about until like page 7 of this thread).
the issue is, despite the facts of this case changing substantially after your first temper tantrum (which, to an adult, would be cause for significant reexamination of his position), and despite you learning a bit about the law, you're still doing the same thing you did when the news first broke:
criticizing the cops for something you know absolutely nothing about.
and when you do that, you are completely fair game to be called out for your idiotic conclusions and ill-conceived rushes to judgment.
Quote:
Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causingor that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causingdeath, serious bodily harm or injury.
Using deadly force does not mean that you're intending to kill someone. It just means that you know there is a substantial risk of death.
So- if he had just finished attacking the officer and was running away- he now knows that he's in some really deep shit. Logically what do you think his next move would be? Find someplace safe to hide, right? And what do you think he would do to an innocent civilian that was somehow in his way? He's already shown he has no qualms about using violence to take what he wants, and has even attacked an officer to keep from being arrested. What's to stop him from beating the shit out of someone and taking their car? Or breaking into someone's house and beating them unconscious or killing them for his hiding spot? Of course there is a chance that he would just turn himself in, but considering what had just happened, which do you think is more likely?
If he did indeed attack the cop, I certainly wouldn't want him hiding somewhere in my neighborhood, would you?
So the officer used deadly force to protect the rest of us from him- that doesn't mean he tried to kill him- it just means he used his gun to stop him. There is a difference there that I don't think you've been acknowledging.
Hopefully this doesn't sound to argumentative, as I'm just throwing out my viewpoint:
IMO, he didn't show a pattern of extreme or grave violence against others, especially to the point that the community needs to be worried about him killing innocent people. Even when he used force to steal the dutches, he didn't gravely injure the clerk. Even if the cops face was swollen, he didn't attempt to kill the officer (this is why taking the gun isn't immaterial to me -- it changes this whole part).
I just feel that if this is the threshold for using deadly force, you could make the case that every single person fleeing an armed robbery could be shot dead in the back. And I don't think that's the way the law should be enforced.
Yeah it really hinders how the police are viewed in this. They would have been better served to just state that they mishandled that part and were wrong. Don't get why the kid told the media a different version AFTER he told the police they were the ones involved in the robbery...Just stupid and really hurts his credibility
Again, don't know if that's accurate or not... and really have no interest in getting involved too much in this thread... but figured I'd share that.
In a limited number of instances, and this can vary from state to state and incident to incident, a private citizen is authorized to use deadly physical force in the prevent or terminate phase of a specified crime.
The police, in addition to the prevent and terminate phase, are also authorized to use deadly physical force in the arrest phase of a specified crime.
I would not speculate at this point regarding this specific incident, because of the limited amount of information dispersed, the amount of misinformation that's floating around and the reliability of any witness statements.
Let the investigation conclude and just hope no one is railroaded in the name of political expediency.
I just feel that if this is the threshold for using deadly force, you could make the case that every single person fleeing an armed robbery could be shot dead in the back. And I don't think that's the way the law should be enforced.
I don't agree. I think a person fleeing an armed robbery should be shot if they appear to be "getting away". I absolutely do not want someone that uses violence to steal shit running free. I don't want them dead, but if it's a question of them getting away or being shot, I'll choose them being shot any day of the week.
i did join the discussion. i provided you with the law (which you didn't have a clue about until like page 7 of this thread).
the issue is, despite the facts of this case changing substantially after your first temper tantrum (which, to an adult, would be cause for significant reexamination of his position), and despite you learning a bit about the law, you're still doing the same thing you did when the news first broke:
criticizing the cops for something you know absolutely nothing about.
and when you do that, you are completely fair game to be called out for your idiotic conclusions and ill-conceived rushes to judgment.
You're so completely and wildly off base and incorrect. My entire "temper tantrum" was about the lack of accountability and the lack of checks on police power on a macro level with the country as a whole. The facts changing on this case don't affect my views on the broader system.
And don't flatter yourself and try and paint yourself as an educator. Your narrative on me is completely off base.
So what was my "idiotic conclusion"? Tell me what my "idiotic conclusion" was. Where was I mistaken about the wording of the law, and where was this mistake pointed out? Because if you're talking about that case you posted, I don't feel its applicable. I don't see how Brown was enough of a danger to the lives of people in the community that he should have been shot dead while fleeing.
That changes things up again now
...and that makes things even more interesting.
Weird, because the timeline I saw in an article this morning said the officer had been dispatched to look for suspects in the robbery.
Quote:
Even when he used force to steal the dutches, he didn't gravely injure the clerk. Even if the cops face was swollen, he didn't attempt to kill the officer (this is why taking the gun isn't immaterial to me -- it changes this whole part).
I just feel that if this is the threshold for using deadly force, you could make the case that every single person fleeing an armed robbery could be shot dead in the back. And I don't think that's the way the law should be enforced.
I don't agree. I think a person fleeing an armed robbery should be shot if they appear to be "getting away". I absolutely do not want someone that uses violence to steal shit running free. I don't want them dead, but if it's a question of them getting away or being shot, I'll choose them being shot any day of the week.
I understand where you are coming from. Personally, I feel lethal force should be a complete last resort option and used when it is obvious that there are people in danger. We have different viewpoints, that's all.
I think we can both agree that the most desirable outcome is to have a perp get caught and go through due process.
Quote:
police chief just said that he was stopped for walking in traffic, not for being a suspect in the robbery.
...and that makes things even more interesting.
Weird, because the timeline I saw in an article this morning said the officer had been dispatched to look for suspects in the robbery.
Very weird for the Chief to just come out with this today...Almost like they are distancing themselves from him
So either stop insulting me and my personal life, or I'll take steps to make sure you stop.
Quote:
Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causingor that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causingdeath, serious bodily harm or injury.
Using deadly force does not mean that you're intending to kill someone. It just means that you know there is a substantial risk of death.
So- if he had just finished attacking the officer and was running away- he now knows that he's in some really deep shit. Logically what do you think his next move would be? Find someplace safe to hide, right? And what do you think he would do to an innocent civilian that was somehow in his way? He's already shown he has no qualms about using violence to take what he wants, and has even attacked an officer to keep from being arrested. What's to stop him from beating the shit out of someone and taking their car? Or breaking into someone's house and beating them unconscious or killing them for his hiding spot? Of course there is a chance that he would just turn himself in, but considering what had just happened, which do you think is more likely?
If he did indeed attack the cop, I certainly wouldn't want him hiding somewhere in my neighborhood, would you?
So the officer used deadly force to protect the rest of us from him- that doesn't mean he tried to kill him- it just means he used his gun to stop him. There is a difference there that I don't think you've been acknowledging.
This argument could be made in virtually any scenario where a suspect is running away. It makes no sense to impose such a light standard for killing someone and, more importantly, it does not legally justify the use of deadly force.
Thanks for the confirmation oh dorkish one.
Quote:
I totally agree...while the significance of the lies is very different...any deliberate misinformation from either "side" - and I hate to call them sides but that's pretty much what we have - is of no benefit to anyone...
Yeah it really hinders how the police are viewed in this. They would have been better served to just state that they mishandled that part and were wrong. Don't get why the kid told the media a different version AFTER he told the police they were the ones involved in the robbery...Just stupid and really hurts his credibility
It seems it was more of an "incomplete account" that the witness gave rather than a falsified one.
But with this new info out regarding a traffic stop, it might be that he may not have actually told a different version.
Omaha
"Gonzalez said the department is still mapping out how it can pay for the cameras. The Police Departments initial goal is to purchase 100 body-worn cameras, he said.
Ideally, the department would gradually buy more cameras until the majority of the 400 street patrol officers have one, he said.
The department is testing $500 and $300 cameras. Taser estimated that purchasing 100 of the $500 cameras, plus the cost of hardware and digital storage space, would cost $180,000. Digital storage of video footage from 100 cameras would cost about $85,000 each year after the purchase year.
Schmaderer noted that increasing staffing is his top financial priority and said that goal cant fall by the wayside to pay for body-worn cameras.
The department is looking for grants and private funding sources to be able to afford the cameras, Gonzalez said."
Over a 1,000 agency's have body cameras. Just like dash cam's, it will take a while to equip every one.
problem is that the economy has not come back yet in most of the country. Ergo, tax revenues are down. Priories will be getting staff levels back up and replacing long over due equipment comes first.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
police chief just said that he was stopped for walking in traffic, not for being a suspect in the robbery.
...and that makes things even more interesting.
Weird, because the timeline I saw in an article this morning said the officer had been dispatched to look for suspects in the robbery.
Well he probably was, but stopped this guy for walking in traffic. Maybe the cop didn't think he was the suspect, but the kid knew he was a suspected and perhaps reacted to that. It's silly to project at this point.
You fucking pussy.
Arguing is fun. New facts just makes it more fun.
logan80 : 3:54 pm : link : reply
someone or an agency putting together a solid timeline of events, and facts that could provide some clarity."
That's not going to happen until:
A. He's cleared through an investigation.
B. He's not and there is a trial.
Otherwise it could affect future legal proceedings.
No link, just hear of on radio. Think they said USAToday is reporting it.
Quote:
In comment 11808722 Big Al said:
Quote:
police chief just said that he was stopped for walking in traffic, not for being a suspect in the robbery.
...and that makes things even more interesting.
Weird, because the timeline I saw in an article this morning said the officer had been dispatched to look for suspects in the robbery.
Well he probably was, but stopped this guy for walking in traffic. Maybe the cop didn't think he was the suspect, but the kid knew he was a suspected and perhaps reacted to that. It's silly to project at this point.
I honestly don't think there is a cop in America who would prioritize the ticketing of a guy for jaywalking over looking for a robbery suspect that he had been dispatched to
Instead what is given out is snippets of conflicting information at random times. IE; Suspect in armed robbery 6 days later, stopped due to walking in traffic not as a suspect 6 days later, etc. This is being handled very poorly. THAT is the reason they should do that.
Omaha
"Gonzalez said the department is still mapping out how it can pay for the cameras. The Police Departments initial goal is to purchase 100 body-worn cameras, he said.
Ideally, the department would gradually buy more cameras until the majority of the 400 street patrol officers have one, he said.
The department is testing $500 and $300 cameras. Taser estimated that purchasing 100 of the $500 cameras, plus the cost of hardware and digital storage space, would cost $180,000. Digital storage of video footage from 100 cameras would cost about $85,000 each year after the purchase year.
Schmaderer noted that increasing staffing is his top financial priority and said that goal cant fall by the wayside to pay for body-worn cameras.
The department is looking for grants and private funding sources to be able to afford the cameras, Gonzalez said."
Over a 1,000 agency's have body cameras. Just like dash cam's, it will take a while to equip every one.
problem is that the economy has not come back yet in most of the country. Ergo, tax revenues are down. Priories will be getting staff levels back up and replacing long over due equipment comes first.
Link - ( New Window )
That storage cost figure is outrageously high. Storage, and I'm including database software, is the easiest, cheapest component of the whole process. It sounds like some company is looking to hit the lottery with this.
It's not like they aren't releasing information to the public right now, but the unorganized manner in which it's being communicated right now is just feeding the unrest in that city and across the US.
Omaha
"Gonzalez said the department is still mapping out how it can pay for the cameras. The Police Departments initial goal is to purchase 100 body-worn cameras, he said.
Ideally, the department would gradually buy more cameras until the majority of the 400 street patrol officers have one, he said.
The department is testing $500 and $300 cameras. Taser estimated that purchasing 100 of the $500 cameras, plus the cost of hardware and digital storage space, would cost $180,000. Digital storage of video footage from 100 cameras would cost about $85,000 each year after the purchase year.
Schmaderer noted that increasing staffing is his top financial priority and said that goal cant fall by the wayside to pay for body-worn cameras.
The department is looking for grants and private funding sources to be able to afford the cameras, Gonzalez said."
Over a 1,000 agency's have body cameras. Just like dash cam's, it will take a while to equip every one.
problem is that the economy has not come back yet in most of the country. Ergo, tax revenues are down. Priories will be getting staff levels back up and replacing long over due equipment comes first.
Link - ( New Window )
Not true at all. In fact, the IRS has collected a record amount of tax revenue this year.
Tax Revenues for FY14 Hit Record Through July - ( New Window )
It's not like they aren't releasing information to the public right now, but the unorganized manner in which it's being communicated right now is just feeding the unrest in that city and across the US.
They've already done that. The brought in the state police who are better at handling the situation and the head guy is from the area and he's black.
Besides, I was merely pointing out that your claim that tax revenues are down is simply incorrect.
haha. can't afford cameras because of medicaid?
Besides, I was merely pointing out that your claim that tax revenues are down is simply incorrect.
Yeah that's not really true. $100K is salary/benefits for a couple employees once you get outside of the Northeast. Again, doesn't mean you don't do it, but there are towns and counties in the country where replacing a cruiser takes a couple years worth of budget planning.
Quote:
Come back and show me that state revenues are increasing and that any increases that do exist aren't being eaten up by higher state Medicaid and pension/healthcare costs.
haha. can't afford cameras because of medicaid?
Hey, when an entity that has to balance (theoretically given the underfunding of pension plans) it's budget annually, you have your choice of many costs. Feel free to cite one more suitable to your liking.
He says first two shots Brown was running away. Them Brown turned around and five more shots were fired.
Warning: some of the pics he tweeted show Brown lying dead in the street. .
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causingor that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causingdeath, serious bodily harm or injury.
Using deadly force does not mean that you're intending to kill someone. It just means that you know there is a substantial risk of death.
So- if he had just finished attacking the officer and was running away- he now knows that he's in some really deep shit. Logically what do you think his next move would be? Find someplace safe to hide, right? And what do you think he would do to an innocent civilian that was somehow in his way? He's already shown he has no qualms about using violence to take what he wants, and has even attacked an officer to keep from being arrested. What's to stop him from beating the shit out of someone and taking their car? Or breaking into someone's house and beating them unconscious or killing them for his hiding spot? Of course there is a chance that he would just turn himself in, but considering what had just happened, which do you think is more likely?
If he did indeed attack the cop, I certainly wouldn't want him hiding somewhere in my neighborhood, would you?
So the officer used deadly force to protect the rest of us from him- that doesn't mean he tried to kill him- it just means he used his gun to stop him. There is a difference there that I don't think you've been acknowledging.
No argument from me, but it depends on just how much deadly force he used (i.e., the number of shots fired).
He says first two shots Brown was running away. Them Brown turned around and five more shots were fired.
Warning: some of the pics he tweeted show Brown lying dead in the street. .
Link - ( New Window )
Really really troubling that there were two rounds of firing.
One thing for sure, this whole thing from the beginning has been horrible.
This article about a previous incident with Ferguson police is making rounds on social media. I am keeping in mind it is one side of the story. But this is the kind of stuff that cameras could help. At least we can have an objective record for what happened in a situation like this.
And if we can avoid situations like this from occurring in the first place, then maybe we won't have seeds of distrust and suspicion planted within a community.
I'd appreciate if I wasn't attacked for posting this article. If you have a problem with the content, take it up with those who wrote it. I'm just posting it.
Previous incident with Ferugson police and a misidentified minority - ( New Window )
It was like a blur, Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. You couldnt see anything.
The blur proved to be from 12 hours after the incident anyway. The cops had saved the wrong footage after Schottel asked them to preserve it.
Schottel got another unpleasant surprise when he sought the use-of-force history of the officers involved. He learned that before a new chief took over in 2010 the department had a surprising protocol for non-fatal use-of-force reports.
The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval, the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.
No copy was made for the officers personnel file.
Everything involved in an incident would generally be with the police report, Moonier said. I dont know what they maintain in personnel files.
Who was in charge of personnel files, of maintaining them? Schottel asked.
I have no idea, Moonier said. I believe City Hall, but I dont know.
Schottel focused on the date of the incident.
On September 20th, 2009, was there any way to identify any officers that were subject of one or more citizens complaints? he asked.
Not to my knowledge, Moonier said.
Was there any way to identify any officers who had completed several use-of-force reports?
I dont recall.
We need a better system of checks and balances. There has to be an objective record.
There is a lot of catching up to do before new technology is considered.
BMac
Remember what I said about cost for FD equipment. Same with PD. That video will have to be kept for years and treated as possible evidence. Don't forget that was for 100 units I believe. That's for the Omaha PD. Now they want to get 400 eventually. I don't know if that would extrapolate out to $360,000 yearly.
We all can't get away with saving stuff for a couple months like the IRS. :)
It's not all about income taxes.
so, let's say the officer shoots the guy as he's running away. then, the guy stops. play time is over, right? shit just got real. the officer orders him to get down on the ground, or down on his knees and keep his hands in open view. but that's not what this guy did. he turned around.
lots of things can happen when a suspect stops and turns toward you, up to and including him shooting you. sure, maybe he turned around for another reason - to plead with the cop to stop shooting him, whatever. but the cop doesn't know that. all he knows is the guy is violent, disobeying my order and turning toward me.
now, to reiterate, i am not even saying that the cop was right here. i am just trying to emphasize (again) that you can't criticize or judge police officers for their conduct in fatal shootings until AFTER the investigation is complete. not before it starts. not while it is ongoing. after it's over.
and if you spend a lot of time and effort doing that, and then change your tune after new facts come out while the investigation is ongoing, then you're a fool.
there's nothing wrong with giving the police officer the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is over. just because you don't like cops and your buddies don't like cops, and the sites you read don't like cops, doesn't mean that every cop is a bad guy and not trustworthy. for all we know, this could be the most honest, most trustworthy, least racist police officer on the planet, who legitimately thought the guy was going to turn around and shoot him.
we also don't know anything about why the cop shot him twice to begin with. what if there was a physical confrontation? what if he tried to grab the gun? what if he threatened to shoot the cop with a gun he didn't have, trying to bluff? what if a million fucking things that i can't even think of right now? why stake your claim that the cop was wrong, here and now, without knowing what the cop faced in that situation? without really knowing anything about the law or how it works? what do you have to gain from doing that, other than making yourself look like a fool?
haha! i must've missed this gem from before. is that some kind of threat to tattle on me or something? if so, i'm sure the parties who receive that complaint would love to be reminded of your very first response to me on this thread, after i challenged you about your "Supreme Court" argument:
so let's review:
i start off by being condescending and ridiculing you for the carnival game thread (no argument there, i assume), you respond with me having a "shitty life," and then i respond to that by reminding you that you've asked BBI for career advice at least twice since I've been posting, which is not even a full year.
and somehow i'm the one who escalated this to the point where you think it's appropriate to tattle on me? wow, dude.
please, i implore you. go tattle.
2) there's a fine line between giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and literally creating hypotheticals out of thin air. you spit out a bunch of what ifs: what if this, what if that?
and the juxtaposition of cops under stress and citizens not following orders is always interesting to me:
it goes along the lines of:
a) a cop was under stress, he had to react quickly
b) the suspect didn't follow orders, he should have just listened
the kid got shot at twice (possibly hit twice). so what's his next move? does the stress of the situation not apply to him? he just got hit by two bullets, and he's supposed to have the presence of mind to understand exactly what to do? but the mere presence of a stressful situation gives cops a license to shoot someone dead?
cop or not, it's human instinct to act in a way to preserve your own life.
a lot of what i've said in this thread (that you condescendingly referred to as a "temper tantrum") is that police are human as well. i'm sure you can agree with this?
and on one hand, this gels with exactly what you've posited: police are prone to make mistakes in stressful situations. it happens, i agree, and i understand this. that being said, they are trained professionals, and they should be trained to minimize this, but I get there are still gray areas where they will respond if they feel their lives are in danger.
but if you agree that they are human beings that can fall victim to stressful situations, this has to be applied across the board.
they are also human beings that will use tools at their disposal to hide their misconduct (unnecessary disclaimer: not every single one, no absolutes). it's what human beings do.
they are also human beings that will use the power they have to not be questioned in a court of law to present themselves in a better light in police reports and official statements, because what human being wouldn't take that opportunity?
they are also human beings that would be much more lenient and lackadaisical when it comes to self-policing - after all, you are putting the onus on the police to incriminate their friends and coworkers.
that has been the common theme to most what i've been saying: cops are humans beings as well. Just as they make decisions in the heat of moment that might seem incorrect in hindsight, they also make human decisions in the interest of protecting themselves and their colleagues.
and, despite how much of a dick you've been to me, you don't seem like a dumbass, so I'm sure you know that relatively unchecked power opens the door for an abuse of power, due to human nature. this is why I feel it is important to place more oversight and more checks, balances, and accountability on police.
when determining which conflicting account is correct or incorrect, I don't think it's fair to just assume the police are right simply because they are the police.
And by the same token, it's not right to assume police are lying simply because they are the police.
and finally, lastly, and most importantly, to address your final point:
because beyond law and order, beyond context of even society as a whole, and just as one human being to another human being: if i've shot someone twice and they turn around wounded or incapacitated... i would hope I realize have the upper hand, I can safely detain them, instead of firing five more shots and blowing them away. particularly if i've been trained in methods of detainment, submission, and apprehension.
I don't think any of what I said above is unreasonable, even if you want to paint it out to be.
it basically boils down to the fact that the police are people also, and they aren't immune to the pressures, stresses, and temptations that the rest of us are. we can't just assume they are perfect when it comes to not only correctly diagnosing dangerous situations, but in terms of not using their power to protect themselves and coworkers.
it's just human nature. that's why we need an objective record, if possible.
again, people can try and frame this as anti-cop, but it is NOT anti-cop, it's anti abuse of power.
we need cops. we just also need to keep their power in check.
blah blah blah blah blah. Don't brush over the fact you fucking attacked me over previous incidents and attacked my career record before I even said anything.
You can try and frame it as me starting with, but factor of the matter is you came into this thread and insulted me.
don't gloss over the fact that you entered this thread, called me a moron, and told me I suck at my job and am a failure. yeah, that sure seems relevant to this thread.
I'm pretty happy and secure with my situation, so I can ignore it to an extent, but you've turned it into a harassing pattern.
(by the way, i guess you must take a ton of pride and joy in the fact that a friend and I got screwed out of money? what kind of asshole are you to take pride in this?)
so how about you drop your fucking insults about my intelligence, and your insinuations about my performance at work.
Do you follow around acid test and harass him about posting multiple times about being unemployed? why don't you follow him around and berate him for posting about job advice?
and believe me, you've made it a pattern of harassing me, on a much more personal level of me calling you names. call it tattling, I don't give a fuck, but if you don't stop attacking my personal life, I will make it stop. I'm not dealing with your bullshit. Acting like a big man on the internet doesn't make you macho.
I know it's tough for you to follow, so let me break it down for you:
cops are human beings. and if cops, as human beings, act in self preservation under duress, they likely use the tools at their disposal to act in self preservation when it comes to: a) self policing b) being honest about their actions and 3) applying force.
if there are no checks on the immense power they hold, human nature is such that they are likely to take it and run with it.
but I know it was too much for you to actually read a thoughtful statement that made sense. it doesn't fit your narrative which is that:
1) i'm stupid and a failure and a cop hater and
2) cops are right because they are cops
honest question - do you have a problem with reading? was that something that you needed extra attention on in grade school? did you have like a helper that followed you around and explained to your teachers that you don't read well? it's very clear to me that you can type lots of words, but it's equally clear that you don't understand what those words mean.
a few examples:
wrong. you wrote that i had a "shitty life" way before i said one word about your career. go ahead and look back at the beginning of our exchange.
again, i didn't remind you of how much you suck as a salesman until AFTER you had already escalated it from a petty insult to i have a "shitty life." take some responsibility for the words you chose, kid. if you don't want things getting personal, then don't tell someone else they have a shitty life, as misguided as that may be.
what makes you think that? if anything, it makes me sad that there are people out there dumb enough to throw more money after lost money on two-bit carnival games. i legitimately feel bad for you.
i didn't insinuate anything. you're the one who came here to tell us how much you sucked at selling things, looking for advice on how to suck less.
no, AcidTest is a cool and knows how to speak English.
do whatever you gotta do, pal. i have nothing to hide.
Not that you'll have the balls to send me an email, anyway.
But for your information, no, I do not suck at selling "things"... I sell a SaaS platform in a difficult industry to sell to (healthcare) in a difficult market to sell to (Detroit) and have been promoted 3x in 11 months. I have one of the most difficult sales in the country, and thanks to some of the great advice and encouragement I've received from people like Steve in KY.
Not that you'll have the balls to send me an email, anyway.
But for your information, no, I do not suck at selling "things"... I sell a SaaS platform in a difficult industry to sell to (healthcare) in a difficult market to sell to (Detroit) and have been promoted 3x in 11 months. I have one of the most difficult sales in the country, and thanks to some of the great advice and encouragement I've received from people like Steve in KY.
LOL! you're right i don't have the "balls" to send you an email.
or, it could be that i know better than to post my private email account on a public message board because i'm not a fucking moron.
if it's an honest question, i'll answer it honestly: no, I've been in the gifted program through my youth and in the top 5 percentile of all my classes and standardized testing from grade school through to my last semester of college.
so if you think i'm an idiot, you should find it truly distressing, because the future of the country is in the hands of my peers and I.
Quote:
If you want to continue this and potentially resolve this off the board, you can email me at meratelos@gmail.com
Not that you'll have the balls to send me an email, anyway.
But for your information, no, I do not suck at selling "things"... I sell a SaaS platform in a difficult industry to sell to (healthcare) in a difficult market to sell to (Detroit) and have been promoted 3x in 11 months. I have one of the most difficult sales in the country, and thanks to some of the great advice and encouragement I've received from people like Steve in KY.
LOL! you're right i don't have the "balls" to send you an email.
or, it could be that i know better than to post my private email account on a public message board because i'm not a fucking moron.
I posted my secondary email account. my primary one, like every adult in the country, is my first and last name.
i'm not cluttering up this thread anymore with a back and forth between you and I. i choose my words very wisely on here as to not get banned, but go ahead and shoot that above address and email and we have this conversation without the restrictions of this community. then we can see if your assessment stacks up with who I really am.
if not, peace. i'm no longer responding to you in this thread, or any others. up to you, i don't care either way, but my interaction with you on BBI from here on out is no more.
if it's an honest question, i'll answer it honestly: no, I've been in the gifted program through my youth and in the top 5 percentile of all my classes and standardized testing from grade school through to my last semester of college.
so if you think i'm an idiot, you should find it truly distressing, because the future of the country is in the hands of my peers and I.
Mr. Youth, if you were truly gifted, you would have written: "...because the future of the country is in the hands of my peers and me."
Your grammar is horrendous.
Quote:
"honest question - do you have a problem with reading? was that something that you needed extra attention on in grade school?"
if it's an honest question, i'll answer it honestly: no, I've been in the gifted program through my youth and in the top 5 percentile of all my classes and standardized testing from grade school through to my last semester of college.
so if you think i'm an idiot, you should find it truly distressing, because the future of the country is in the hands of my peers and I.
Mr. Youth, if you were truly gifted, you would have written: "...because the future of the country is in the hands of my peers and me."
Your grammar is horrendous.
That being said, it's annoying to have your intelligence insulted over and over and over again when you know point blank it isn't true.
but yes, my grammar probably isn't the best. I was an econ major, not an english major, which is why my favorite parts of BBI besides the sports talk is lurking on the economics threads and learning from those who know more than I do.
It makes me feel good that I will be dead soon.
That was for M in CT, Not Al.
It makes me feel good that I will be dead soon.
Awwww...don't say that. You know you want to live through when the young'ens take over.
Quote:
"you should find it truly distressing, because the future of the country is in the hands of my peers and I."
It makes me feel good that I will be dead soon.
Awwww...don't say that. You know you want to live through when the young'ens take over.
They already did but that quote above sounded like a threat that things are really going to get much worse.
And as far as your settling things "off the board" goes: there's always someone badder.
Exercise caution.
And as far as your settling things "off the board" goes: there's always someone badder.
Exercise caution.
I wasn't trying to say I'm the best or smartest there ever was. I'm not, and I spend every day learning from people better than me to get better at my job.
But I'm only gonna be called a dipshit so many times before I snap and try and defend myself. I've been tempted to bring up SAT scores but holy shit, if I did that, I'd never, ever, ever, ever hear the end of it. God damn, I'll probably just get made fun of bringing this up (can't really blame anyone, I'd make fun of someone also if they brought up SAT scores on a message board).
Haha...I think this is the definition of a humblebrag, right?
It makes me feel good that I will be dead soon.
HAHA. If only I died before I had to read this thread.
Based on what I have heard and accept, it was probably a legal shooting after the kid assaulted the cop and before he put his hands up. had it ended there with a police officer shooting a robbery suspect who had assaulted him and was still resisting, the police may have had grounds for a justified shooting. However, the kids put his hands up after he was shot, the cop finished him off and at that point, to my mind, the officer is then guilty of Murder, or at the very least manslaughter.
The behavior of the militarized police department is a whole other matter.They were as provocative as the crows was. They fired into the crowd, and on the whole were antagonistic and incompetent.They got new toys and acted like a bunch of fucking yahoos, gassing journalists, preventing protest and firing non lethal munitions at the crows, , near as I can tell, somewhat indiscriminately. The comments by the police chief back this up when he said his odfficers "can't be expected to go into the crows and pull out the bad ones, that if people don't want to get hurt then they shouldn't have been there" which is basically the same as saying screw you, you have no right to protest.It's indicative of the level of incompetence on thew part of police, and people with experience in law enforcement and crowd control have said that the tactics they used were no known recognized tactics at all, and not how it's done. This was police just acting like thugs.
Look at pictures of the ferguson police, dressed up like combat troops, with assaults rifles and armoured personel;l carriers and vehicles mounted machine guns, and compare them to the state police, clealry wearing 2 tcolored law enforcement uniforrms, clearly police, and the contrast tells you all you need to know about how local law enforcement is out of hand in many communities in the US.
What is particularly chilling to me are comments made By Barrack Hussein Obama this week when he said that we "Need a national law enforcement agency, just as robust, just as well equipped, and just as well funded as the Military."
This administration encourages this type of behavior by law enforcement, has given 4 billion in military equipment to local law enforcement over the last few years with little training or accountability.
In short, the kid was a criminal, the cop acted like a criminal, and the police are acting like armed thugs.I don't see any good guys here except the staties who had the brains to de-escalate and let the people assemble and vwent, something local law enforcement was unwilling to do.
All parties involved are acting in a partisan manner, and I think it bodes ill for civil liberties going forward.
State police above,maintaining order.
Ferguson police dept. above, equipped like storm troopers and menacing the crowd with their weapons.
factcheck - ( New Window )
1. Cut off airspace so news helicopters can't record events.
2. Make outlandish claims about what they're facing.
3. Restrict news media to certain locations so that the story can't get out of police over reach.
All three of these things have been aggressively pursued by the Obama administration:
#1) Disarm the population.
#2) Escalate the military armament of the police.
#3) "Legalize" the killing of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. (Obama achieved this by signing the NDAA.)
Link - ( New Window )
LINK - ( New Window )
LINK - ( New Window )
Can you summarize?
I'm not currently listening so if this is not 100% accurate I apologize. I will do my best.
*She says the Officer saw the two walking in the middle of the road and told them to get out of the road. He was not aware of any robbery at this time. h
*He then drove past them (I think) and shortly after (with them still in sight) he heard the description of the suspects in the robbery on the radio. He noticed they matched the description.
*I believe he asked for backup at some point around this time.
*He started to get out of his car and said Michael rushed him while he was still in his car.
*There was a struggle in the car where Michael apparently hit him and tried to take his gun, causing the gun to go off in the car.
*Michael and his friend took off, at which point the Officer exited his vehicle and told them to stop, apparently while he had them at gun point.
*Michael apparently started taunting him saying that the Officer wouldn't shoot him...at which point he started sprinting towards the Officer.
*At this time the Officer started shooting. She said that he would not stop and apparently the last shot, which was probably what stopped him, was to the head.
Don't know how accurate her story is or if it's true...but that's what she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=0
432 MRAPS
435 other armored vehicles
44,900 night vision goggles
533 aircraft
93,763 machine guns
180,718 magazines
Uniforms, gas masks, body armor and other equipment too numerous to be counted.
This administration has in place a program that continues to arm local police with milspec weapons, out of all proportion to law enforcement needs.Communities of a few hundred get Armored personell carriers and machine guns along with all the other free goodies.
The fed Govt has conducted numerous joint military/police excercises all over this country since 2008 on over 100 occasions, and continues to arm and support the militarization of the police in the US.
Local law enforcement have a playbook for events like Ferguson they learned from the Military
1. Cut off airspace so news helicopters can't record events.
2. Make outlandish claims about what they're facing.
3. Restrict news media to certain locations so that the story can't get out of police over reach.
Coming soon to a town near you
Link - ( New Window )
And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.
Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darrens first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, Freeze! Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.
LINK - ( New Window )
If you want to complain about the uniforms, equipment and how they handle protests/riots...why don't you visit the militarization thread that was started? I'll even give you the link.
LINK - ( New Window )
If you take into account the fact that Michael was a very large man, fighting him after he's already tried to take your gun would be very very stupid.
I'm not saying that this is all true, I'm just saying this is how I feel IF it is.
You know it's not because of 1984. It's because of another defining feature of this Administration that he quibbles...
That's just my curiosity
That's just my curiosity
I think it an odd shooting in that the first round was justified, the last was not.
Quote:
or elsewhere in general.
You know it's not because of 1984. It's because of another defining feature of this Administration that he quibbles...
And I doubt he unloaded the entire magazine. I thought I read he fired 8 rounds...he's probably carrying somewhere between 10-15 at least.
And how did you come to that conclusion?
what is it about cop threads that bring out the troglodytes?
Quote:
What did he handle improperly at the end?
If, as alleged, after he shot him, the suspect threw up his hands, there was no need to fire again, unless he was advancing on him.
Alleged by his partner in the robbery and personally must have purposely gunned a man down knowing he didn't need to and believe and that the other robber is certainly being truthful.
BTW, dumbass- the pics of the militarized police above are of St.Louis County officers. The Ferguson PD responded to the looting Sunday, then St.Louis County stepped in to handle the protests and prevent additional looting.
You don't even have your facts straight.
Yeah, that's my point. If that story is accurate I really don't know what people expect of a cop in that situation. It is like nobody else is responsible except the cop. Never mind the criminal seemingly intent on taking the officers gun and likely murdering him.
Quote:
I think he shot him, and after that he put his hands up, then the cop finished him off.
And how did you come to that conclusion?
Eyewitness accounts.I doubt the cop fired first if he had his hands up, and I doubt he fired after he was dead. The guy assaulted the officer in his car and when the cop fought his way out the guy tried to flee.the cop shot him, and only then did he throw up his hands.The cop was hot, was already comotted, trained to shoot to kill, and I think he just lost it and finished him off. Maybe Brown did step towards him after his hands were up. I'm very interested to see what the coroner says, , whether he had wounds both in front and back.
I don't know what happened, as I said earlier this is the version I accept.There are 20 different accounts.This is the one I believe until I see what the morgue says.
I've been expecting it to come out at some point that the cop was in a dangerous situation with no easy choices to make I was just trying to point out what could be perceived as the cop being fault in that description.
I didn't pronounce a verdict, just an opinion on what I think after reading on it all day.I don't doubt the cop was justified when he opened fire. I'm not so sure it was when he stopped. The thing that colors me opinion is what seems to be the attitude in General by the local PD towards the
populace by the way they handled ensuing events.
BTW, dumbass- the pics of the militarized police above are of St.Louis County officers. The Ferguson PD responded to the looting Sunday, then St.Louis County stepped in to handle the protests and prevent additional looting.
You don't even have your facts straight.
Pointing out that you weren't even correct regarding the identity of the officers was to show others that were responding to you in good faith that you have pretty much zero credibility.
BTW, dumbass- the pics of the militarized police above are of St.Louis County officers. The Ferguson PD responded to the looting Sunday, then St.Louis County stepped in to handle the protests and prevent additional looting.
You don't even have your facts straight.
Also the guy in the last picture GWG posted, that is pointing and aiming his gun is aiming a Paintball Gun, not a real one
Pointing out that you weren't even correct regarding the identity of the officers was to show others that were responding to you in good faith that you have pretty much zero credibility.
I think the guy that says "For the record: I'm all for shooting suspects" is the one with zero credibility.
Probably don't want to call someone an idiot when you obviously don't know what a tear gas launcher looks like.
That is definitely a paintball gun that is most likely modified to shoot a pepper ball non-lethal round. That's about as different from a tear has launcher as you can get.
Quote:
Tear gas Launcher, idiot.
Probably don't want to call someone an idiot when you obviously don't know what a tear gas launcher looks like.
That is definitely a paintball gun that is most likely modified to shoot a pepper ball non-lethal round. That's about as different from a tear has launcher as you can get.
LMAO...yeah they definitely use paintball guns to launch a tear gas canister...Holy Shit, talk about idiocy..WOW
Single shot:
6 shell:
In action:
They shoot shells dipshit....Note the lack of any hopper such as the Paintball Gun you posted in that picture.
also please show the hopper
if you like, you can get his complete equipment breakdown at busniess insider. You are beyond dumb.Please, just stop, i'm peeing my pants.This is like kicking a dog already
His neck does not cover his goggles you moron, they are completely blocked in the middle by the paintball hopper. I honestly don't think someone could be this amazingly stupid, But you prove me wrong with every single post...
also please show the hopper
if you like, you can get his complete equipment breakdown at busniess insider. You are beyond dumb.Please, just stop, i'm peeing my pants.This is like kicking a dog already
Its in the picture that YOU linked...You just have to have some semblance of smarts to be able to see and understand what it is..This picture is not the gun being held by the officer aiming in that earlier picture you linked
What picture are you looking at exactly? We are all looking at the picture that montana pointed out (the most recent picture with the officer on the bottom right aiming his gun right at us). You're the only one who is looking at the wrong picture with the 38mm barrel. All of us are looking at the picture that montana was referring to. Obviously, your reading comprehension is dismal if you couldn't even discern what picture montana was referring to. And yes, I see what picture you were referring to. No wonder you are terrible at this concept called discussion since all you can read is what you want to read.
either way, what's yoor point. I also posted the one above, which was the last one in the first set.I assumed that was the one you were referring to.
Either way, what's your point.That the police weren't Militarized?You did see the APCs right?The mounted guns?What are you getting at?Some guy brought a paintball gun? So what?
Quote:
stop smoking
What picture are you looking at exactly? We are all looking at the picture that montana pointed out (the most recent picture with the officer on the bottom right aiming his gun right at us). You're the only one who is looking at the wrong picture with the 38mm barrel. All of us are looking at the picture that montana was referring to. Obviously, your reading comprehension is dismal if you couldn't even discern what picture montana was referring to. And yes, I see what picture you were referring to. No wonder you are terrible at this concept called discussion since all you can read is what you want to read.
I'm looking at the picture I posted twice, now, the second one with the guys equipment breakdown.The picture posted directly above.
either way, what's yoor point. I also posted the one above, which was the last one in the first set.I assumed that was the one you were referring to.
Either way, what's your point.That the police weren't Militarized?You did see the APCs right?The mounted guns?What are you getting at?Some guy brought a paintball gun? So what?
Its a very important distinction because it is a less then lethal alternative which goes against the claim of militarization...
Just get banned again so you don't continue to bring the stupid to these threads.
I will do it again for you...Just read it slower so you get it:
Quote:
you said the one where the guy was pointing at the crowd.
either way, what's yoor point. I also posted the one above, which was the last one in the first set.I assumed that was the one you were referring to.
Either way, what's your point.That the police weren't Militarized?You did see the APCs right?The mounted guns?What are you getting at?Some guy brought a paintball gun? So what?
Its a very important distinction because it is a less then lethal alternative which goes against the claim of militarization...
I ask, who is dumber, the guy looking at the wrong last picture with the tear gas launcher, or the guy who misses all the rest of the hardware in all the other pictures.The photos speak for themselves, paintball launcher or not.
As do the articles in Newsweek and the NY times, that say the same thing. Guess we are all inobservant.
Just get banned again so you don't continue to bring the stupid to these threads.
I never said they were not militarized...I pointed out the fact that one of the pics you posted illustrated anything but militarization due to the fact that the officer was aiming a paintball gun...You decided to not read what i wrote and assumed a different picture (even though i specified which one it was ) was involved...You then decided to throw insults out there while the whole time you were the idiot and the one who was wrong...
So at this time go fuck yourself for being a little twat.
Quote:
Who knows? The pathology for many is clearly rooted in something other than logic.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
I mean like my personal tinker bell you did in fact show up to give me a presumptive two-cents about why I have great disdain for police, so expecting you to be regular like clockwork was hardly a reach.
I've never owned a skateboard.
What do you expect from an unabashed shield fucker like Rob?
Quote:
Tell me again how you looked at the pictures, saw a guy with a paintball gun and came to the conclusion the police weren't militarized.
I never said they were not militarized...I pointed out the fact that one of the pics you posted illustrated anything but militarization due to the fact that the officer was aiming a paintball gun...You decided to not read what i wrote and assumed a different picture (even though i specified which one it was ) was involved...You then decided to throw insults out there while the whole time you were the idiot and the one who was wrong...
So at this time go fuck yourself for being a little twat.
Quote:
In comment 11809321 Great White Ghost said:
Quote:
Tell me again how you looked at the pictures, saw a guy with a paintball gun and came to the conclusion the police weren't militarized.
I never said they were not militarized...I pointed out the fact that one of the pics you posted illustrated anything but militarization due to the fact that the officer was aiming a paintball gun...You decided to not read what i wrote and assumed a different picture (even though i specified which one it was ) was involved...You then decided to throw insults out there while the whole time you were the idiot and the one who was wrong...
So at this time go fuck yourself for being a little twat.
Sorry, shithead, you "started" with the insults in your 12:40 post,calling me a dipshit. You're a liar as well. Now fuck off.
Are you on meds, stupid, or do you just lie about stuff? Your very first response when i mentioned the fact that the pic you linked was a paintball gun (you know, the thing you ignorantly and wrongly argued about for 1 hour).:
Great White Ghost : 8/15/2014 11:54 pm : link : reply
Tear gas Launcher, idiot.
So as you can see your wrong once again in this thread...your setting a record for being wrong in here
There is a lot of catching up to do before new technology is considered.
BMac
Remember what I said about cost for FD equipment. Same with PD. That video will have to be kept for years and treated as possible evidence. Don't forget that was for 100 units I believe. That's for the Omaha PD. Now they want to get 400 eventually. I don't know if that would extrapolate out to $360,000 yearly.
We all can't get away with saving stuff for a couple months like the IRS. :)
ctc: Yeah, I get you, but those costs, except for the cameras themselves, look suspiciously high. Here's an example that may illustrate my point.
Some years ago I was contracting at the Bank of New York Mellon, doing tech writing and interactive training for their worldwide money transfer personnel pool (about 5,000 people). I their infinite cluelessness, each employee was allowed 100Mb, yes Megabytes, of storage.
Within a few months, I had some 5 Gigabytes of data that I had to store on my own external hard drive. Needless to say, if that drive went down, the data would be gonzo. I requested appropriate network storage and was backed up by various department heads.
This request was refused. The reason stated was that it would cost IT $20,000+ to provide me with a few Gbs of storage space. My Western Digital Passport external drive cost me around a $100 back then, and held 60Gb. No reason was ever given for the ridiculous cost quoted.
Now the situations aren't completely analogous, and I'm not recommending a relatively low-level storage device like the Passport for critical data, but it reinforces my point about
the stated costs being suspicious at best.
Just get banned again so you don't continue to bring the stupid to these threads.
Ron: I think this idiot ties directly to the thread gidie posted about the trolls winning.
Quote:
In comment 11803822 Rob in NYC said:
Quote:
Who knows? The pathology for many is clearly rooted in something other than logic.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
I mean like my personal tinker bell you did in fact show up to give me a presumptive two-cents about why I have great disdain for police, so expecting you to be regular like clockwork was hardly a reach.
I've never owned a skateboard.
What do you expect from an unabashed shield fucker like Rob?
A position you were able to discern from my constant participation in these threads? Intelligence and nuance in these instances is often lost on dogma and idiocy such as you and Nitro display. Don't worry, you both are in fine company with the likes of Great White Ghost and Sonic Youth - a veritable BBI Algonquin Roundtable.
Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson earned police honor before fatal shooting - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11804662 Nitro said:
Quote:
In comment 11803822 Rob in NYC said:
Quote:
Who knows? The pathology for many is clearly rooted in something other than logic.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
I mean like my personal tinker bell you did in fact show up to give me a presumptive two-cents about why I have great disdain for police, so expecting you to be regular like clockwork was hardly a reach.
I've never owned a skateboard.
What do you expect from an unabashed shield fucker like Rob?
A position you were able to discern from my constant participation in these threads? Intelligence and nuance in these instances is often lost on dogma and idiocy such as you and Nitro display. Don't worry, you both are in fine company with the likes of Great White Ghost and Sonic Youth - a veritable BBI Algonquin Roundtable.
You're a fool. Just because I don't blindly trust everything the police says doesn't mean I hate cops, but you're too biased to realize that.
Why does it seem like you blindly trust all or any of the first reports damning the policeman?
I think it is good not to blindly trust, but why not equally from either side until all the facts can come out? That is where you lose me in this situation.
PS: Glad to hear sales are still going well, don't let people discourage you.
Quote:
Just because I don't blindly trust everything the police says doesn't mean I hate cops,
Why does it seem like you blindly trust all or any of the first reports damning the policeman?
I think it is good not to blindly trust, but why not equally from either side until all the facts can come out? That is where you lose me in this situation.
PS: Glad to hear sales are still going well, don't let people discourage you.
It's not that I blindly believe all reports against police. I take each situation as it comes. There's times I think "victims" are full of shit, i.e the semi recent NYPD subway sodomy case.
It's just that I understand that there are really no checks on what they say, so they can say whatever they want. I've had experience with this first hand.
If nobody questions what you say, what's going to stop you from saying whatever you feel like? Being a cop doesn't preclude someone from lying, and doesn't mean you're automatically honest.
Just like any person, if you can lie with people just accepting what you say as fact, you will have a propensity to say whatever you feel like.
I've had enough and seen enough anecdotal experiences to know that law enforcement aren't all angels, they are people just like everyone else, and I'm not going to automatically assume they are right simply because they are police.
To be honest, many people do the exact opposite of what they claim I do - they automatically take everything presented by police as true, and then do mental gymnastics to come up with a justification.
In fact, I believe most people to be honest.
Quote:
Just like any person, if you can lie with people just accepting what you say as fact, you will have a propensity to say whatever you feel like.
In fact, I believe most people to be honest.
When I read stories like this - a story by a white, retired Air Force captain, who by all accounts is respectable - it makes me tough to believe that police are truthful when investigating their own actions.
Link - ( New Window )
Detroit would be an excellent community to get both sides of the story.
After 6 months of ride along's, I would love to read your paper.
If you are more intelligent than the rest of us as you claim, your thesis and supporting data should be an excellent read.
Looking forward to it.
Thanks in advance.
Detroit would be an excellent community to get both sides of the story.
After 6 months of ride along's, I would love to read your paper.
If you are more intelligent than the rest of us as you claim, your thesis and supporting data should be an excellent read.
Looking forward to it.
Thanks in advance.
Give me a fucking break. Do me a favor, don't comment on the Giants until you go through an NFL game, okay? thanks.
Also, not once, not in one fucking place, did I ever say I was smarter than "the rest of you" ever. Don't believe me? Look through my posts. Not in one spot did I say that. All I objected to was M in CT's douchebaggery for insulting my intelligence. You are older than me, I'm sure I could learn a thing or two from you -- but sorry, going on a ride-a-long is fucking bullshit, it's not needed to criticize the system in place, and it's an unrealistic, garbage deflection tactic.
I don't want to say anything that's insulting to you because I know you are an older person and someone that probably has more experience than me in a bunch of different facets of life... but I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth (like me saying I'm smarter than everyone), and didn't make asinine suggestions like I need to go on a ride-a-long before talking about law enforcement in the country.
Otherwise, don't criticize anyone unless you've done a ride-a-long with them for 6 months. Include NFL players.
And btw, apparently the standard in St. Louis in terms of writing up an incident is that for any incident that doesn't cause death, the officer can generate his/her own incident report. So, clean records can frequently occur where an officer's former behavior wasn't so clean. There is still an awful lot we just don't know about the incident, and about the officer involved.
Thanks
Thanks
How does simply watching them avail to someone a policeman perspective of things the same as a ride-a-long would?
Point taken and understood. It's not terribly feasible given my location (Jersey City).
A greater understanding would indeed make me a more effective critic.
Side story for those who think I blindly hate cops... I was at a buddy's birthday party over in Bridgewater yesterday. One guy pulls out a football, we start tossing it back and forth, talking sports and fantasy football. Really hit it off.
I found out he was a Howell cop, first week on the job. After a few beers and becoming pretty friendly with eachother, I asked him about his opinion about what was going on in Ferguson, and he said he didn't know enough about it to really have an opinion.
But it really didn't affect my opinion of him in a negative light. It's not like I thought he was a dick just because he was a cop or anything.
On a large level (and this doesn't apply to just me, but on a wide scale)...when the vast majority of minorities don't trust an institution as broad and omni-present as the police, wouldn't it be better suited to maybe try and understand why, so the issue can be fixed, as opposed to drawing a line in the sand and making it "pro cop vs anti cop"? Surely there has to be some reason when the distrust is this common amongst a segment of the population.
It is a long video but the interesting part is at about the 6:20 mark it captures the audio of someone standing near by the person recording who saw it happen and was explaining to another person what happened. He clearly says that Brown was running "towards the police" and obviously kept coming at him while shots were being fired because he even say something to the affect that he thought the policeman was missing because he kept coming.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I think that's from the same video.
It is a long video but the interesting part is at about the 6:20 mark it captures the audio of someone standing near by the person recording who saw it happen and was explaining to another person what happened. He clearly says that Brown was running "towards the police" and obviously kept coming at him while shots were being fired because he even say something to the affect that he thought the policeman was missing because he kept coming.
Link - ( New Window )
They also say he had his hands in the air when he was shot
Of course, the term "if credible" is fraught with conflicting emotions/viewpoints/self preservation/etc. If it's only the police deciding what's credible, there's an automatic self-interest conundrum. Not at all an easy problem to tackle.
I agree with you in principle, but sorry, the determination of "frivolous" and "patently absurd" are very subjective judgements. Who determines what and what is not, a "valid" complaint.
I'm not at all comfortable with the police making that judgement.
Quote:
Here is a video soon after the shooting, and it does show the dead body so by warned.
It is a long video but the interesting part is at about the 6:20 mark it captures the audio of someone standing near by the person recording who saw it happen and was explaining to another person what happened. He clearly says that Brown was running "towards the police" and obviously kept coming at him while shots were being fired because he even say something to the affect that he thought the policeman was missing because he kept coming.
Link - ( New Window )
They also say he had his hands in the air when he was shot
It doesn't sound like the one guy who saw the entire incident and was explaining it says that. Listen starting around the 6:20 mark and there is a guy explaining what happened to a second guy. He obviously didn't even realize he was being recorded as he told what he saw. Sounds pretty clear that Brown fist ran away then turned and started running towards the police and didn't stop when then being fired at.
The point I'm making is, who is making that determination? If it's the people who stand to benefit the most from a conclusion that the complaint is frivolous, then there is a conflict of interest.
Quote:
rather than a full-blown investigation to make that determination.
The point I'm making is, who is making that determination? If it's the people who stand to benefit the most from a conclusion that the complaint is frivolous, then there is a conflict of interest.
Do you really think in the era of fiscal austerity law enforcement, especially a smaller department (or state police ostensibly supervising those small departments), has the resources to mount an independent investigation every time someone complains about an officer, no matter how trivial or fanciful?
Quote:
In comment 11811631 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
rather than a full-blown investigation to make that determination.
The point I'm making is, who is making that determination? If it's the people who stand to benefit the most from a conclusion that the complaint is frivolous, then there is a conflict of interest.
Do you really think in the era of fiscal austerity law enforcement, especially a smaller department (or state police ostensibly supervising those small departments), has the resources to mount an independent investigation every time someone complains about an officer, no matter how trivial or fanciful?
And that response simply doesn't answer my question, and you should know that.
link - ( New Window )
Another reporter posted the license plate of people attending a rally for the officer.
Our media sucks.
Link - ( New Window )
Could be a few things.
He had his hands up and his head down when he was hit with the eye-->jaw-->collar bone and then top of the head bullets.
He was charging with his head down when he was hit with the eye-->jaw-->collar bone and then top of the head bullets.
He was hit with the eye-->jaw-->collar bone bullet and was falling to the ground when he got hit in the top of the head.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I can't tell based on the picture.
As far as the head and arm wounds go, we don't know how exactly those happened. They could have been while he had his head down and charging as some have suggested, or the one to the top of his head could have been after he was on the ground. We just don't know yet.
At this point I'm not so sure it's going to matter if all of the evidence points towards this being a justified shooting. Most folks have already made up their minds, and the actions of the police since the shooting have done nothing but fuel their conclusion. Anything that comes out to the contrary is going to be seen as some sort of cover up, sadly.
Have know ungodly idea what you mean by this?
If, and a big if, he's shooting to stop someone charging him, he is shooting body mass. That clip is getting emptied quick.
Where those bullets are hitting are pretty much meaningless, There wasn't any sharpshooting being taken place.
What's more telling is that there were no posterior entry wounds which pretty much dispels the theory he was running away.
Now I haven't a clue whether this shooting was justified or not. None of will know for months. For some, it doesn't matter how it shakes out one way or the other. Their minds are already made up.
That shot pattern is pretty meaningless. If you're going to hang your hat on it, go for it.
We may be through the wormhole here.
That's the odd part.
You're right about the insignificance of the shot pattern. Its the killing that has upset everyone.
With adrenalin pumping and fearing for his safety, I'm surprised that the officer was able to hit Brown even six times. And the way they are all to the left of the body may indicate just how much of a stress the officer was under when he was firing his weapon.
That is why I was surprised you brought up a shot pattern that was pretty insignificant in the whole picture.
Now we have a waiting game to see if it was justified or not.
I also can be pretty dense at times and fail to see the trees.
is that the actual truth doesn't matter anymore in this case.
Most people have already determined the "truth" according to what they want it to be.
Does anyone actually think that if an investigation clears this officer that the protesters (or MSNBC) will say "Oh, I guess we were wrong" and go home. No, more likely we will see full scale riots and days of media reports tearing into the investigation, etc...
On the other side, if the officer is found guilty, there will no doubt be many who will assume he was railroaded thanks to public opinion.
Meanwhile, as others have pointed out... senseless killings of innocent people (especially minorities) happen daily and cops are being attacked (and killed) all over the US but all that gets is a small paragraph buried in the local paper.
My guess is we haven't seen the worst yet in Ferguson.
Not with Sharpton on the scene. I believe the convenience store where the alleged shoplifting/robbery of the cigars took place has since been looted, so I guess he won't get his Freddy's. But this will go on until he gets his Yankel Rosenbaum.
And you're quite right. We still don't know what the actual truth is with respect to this tragedy, but the actual truth is becoming less and less relevant to what has happened and will happen in the future.
And this idea that he is some 'leader ' that black folks follow is way the hell overblown. Most black folks I know see him for what he has become. Folks in Feeguson aren't waiting with baited breath for orders from Reverend Al, believe me.
OK, so at least half of that witness's original claim (that Mr. Brown was shot on the back) was a lie, but does the autopsy report support the other significant part of the witness's claim, that Mr. Brown was raising both hands and in a surrendering position when he was shot?
No one deserves to get shot unless they appear to present an imminent danger to the officer or to a third party, regardless of whether or not they may have committed a crime. That's not to say the use of force may not ultimately prove justified but comparing it to the shrine to a cop-killer is just dumb.
Quote:
they kid who got shot had robbed a store previously, and the "protesters" have subsequently looted that same store? How is this not in the same category as the people with the shrine in jersey city?
No one deserves to get shot unless they appear to present an imminent danger to the officer or to a third party, regardless of whether or not they may have committed a crime. That's not to say the use of force may not ultimately prove justified but comparing it to the shrine to a cop-killer is just dumb.
Agreed
Sharpton sure wasn't booed at that memorial service he ran yesterday. But the comment about Jackson getting booed when he asked for donations to his church is interesting, because when Sharpton asked for donations at that rally he specifically stated that 100% was going to the family.
We should dump ice water on our heads to raise awareness for the guy who lost his livelihood because he was robbed.
Now that some details are out apparently none of the protestors or looters care.
You are correct there certainly would be plenty of more deserving injustices to protest. I guess this is what happens when people don't wait for any of the facts and simply form quick conclusions, then having done so dig in their heels regardless of what fact come out later.
Link - ( New Window )
Now that some details are out apparently none of the protestors or looters care.
I wonder why they didn't know the details?
Let's face it, the outsized Police reaction to the reaction of them shooting an unarmed kid 6-8 times has drawn attention, and is drawing protesters from all over and media parasites like Al Sharpton. This town is becoming a crucible for the same tension between black communities and police departments all over the country where, with surprising regularity, black people get killed by cops.
The St. Louis County PD is investigating the shooting. Have they released anything? Not to my knowledge.
You are absolutely right.
There are more deserving people in the world than a guy that stole some cigars.
Nobody should ever care about an unarmed person being shot and killed by police when they should be out buying pink ribbons to raise awareness for breast cancer.
Wait- babies born with hearts on the outside are more deserving than chicks with one boob, so scratch that last paragraph.
No, wait- kids sold into the sex slave trade are more deserving than kids with hearts on the outside of their body.
Awww, fuck it. Maybe we should just let people put their energy into what they feel impacts them the most, and what they feel strongly about?
No, that'll never work.
Meh, either way my point still stands.
There's always someone more deserving.
The St. Louis County PD is investigating the shooting. Have they released anything? Not to my knowledge.
Today, it was leaked that Brown had marijuana in his system.
Any proof that St. Louis County PD released it?
Any proof that St. Louis County PD released it?
Does it matter who leaked it? It's been reported as "source close to investigation". What's the difference? Leaks like this are strategic.
Quote:
I think he meant racial injustices.
Meh, either way my point still stands.
There's always someone more deserving.
But the point is, if the purpose is to bring to light racial injustice and abuse it is better swerved focusing that energy on an example which would have a better chance of actually swaying people's opinion instead of one that creates more divide and maybe worse yet reinforce stereotypes or prejudices.
It's funny because everyone wants more information...and when some gets leaked if it's not painting a good picture of Brown people are upset.
It's funny because everyone wants more information...and when some gets leaked if it's not painting a good picture of Brown people are upset.
So, it's coincidental that all the information that's been leaked or released has been about Michael Brown and not about the shooting or the officer? OK, then.
Then you see video of this kid apparently robbing a convenience store, conveniently left out of the interviews with his friend, and he's just massive. And there are pictures circulating that purport to be him throwing up gang signs. And he wasn't shot in the back, though his arms may have been up. And you wonder if maybe there was a circumstance where a reasonable officer could have felt threatened enough to pull the trigger. And even as politicized as this has become, could/would a jury or a judge agree?
And if that turns out to be the case, does the crowd rally around this kid as a martyr and keep on demonstrating (maybe worse) or does it accept that the man they accepted as their martyr was flawed and that whatever underlying tension exists between Ferguson PD and the town's black community - and its mirrors across the country - this shooting is not necessarily emblematic of it?
It's funny because everyone wants more information...and when some gets leaked if it's not painting a good picture of Brown people are upset.
Exactly, if people released his grades and pointed to his being a good student ot other examples of him being a good kid (volunteer work, etc) would those that are complaining judge that to be wrong because it has nothing to do with the incident?
Then you see video of this kid apparently robbing a convenience store, conveniently left out of the interviews with his friend, and he's just massive. And there are pictures circulating that purport to be him throwing up gang signs. And he wasn't shot in the back, though his arms may have been up. And you wonder if maybe there was a circumstance where a reasonable officer could have felt threatened enough to pull the trigger. And even as politicized as this has become, could/would a jury or a judge agree?
And if that turns out to be the case, does the crowd rally around this kid as a martyr and keep on demonstrating (maybe worse) or does it accept that the man they accepted as their martyr was flawed and that whatever underlying tension exists between Ferguson PD and the town's black community - and its mirrors across the country - this shooting is not necessarily emblematic of it?
These are good points. Of course, at this point, the facts probably don't really matter. Brown is a symbol, whether he's a good one or not. The attention of the general gist of this case (cop kills unarmed black man) and the crazy military occupation style response of the police has become what it's about.
The media doesn't help. They put out the incomplete story first, then when some facts come out, it is said that the victim or other people are being 'tarnished'. How is the truth tarnishing? The robbery is directly linked, not because the cop knew, but the kid knew he committed the robbery and may have reacted because of that.
I would be happy if nothing came out until the investigation. But we had to know the cops name? Why? Reporters were giving his address and showing his house. No wonder he went into hiding. If all un-connected people backed off of these types of cases, they would probably go a lot smoother. I won't however, hold my breath for that to happen.
There is no excuse for rioting and looting.
Let's just say that the information about Brown is not helping me feel sympathy for the protestors' viewpoint. Aren't there better examples of unjustified police shootings or abuse than this one?
Let's just say that the information about Brown is not helping me feel sympathy for the protestors' viewpoint. Aren't there better examples of unjustified police shootings or abuse than this one?
So, because he was high and stole cigars, you're generally ok with him getting shot in the face?
The Rodney Balko blog & reporting has convinced me this happens with distressing regularity. This Brown case is much weaker than many of the stories he covers.
Public union iron clad civil service job guarantees vs. racial disparities between the municipal work force and the residents. This ought to good. You bring the popcorn I'll bring the beer.
Quote:
I consider myself a reasonably good example of someone who can be swayed in either direction. I am a civil libertarian who is alarmed by police and prosecutorial escalation and am generally against the War on Drugs. I also am alarmed by underclass violence and crime.
Let's just say that the information about Brown is not helping me feel sympathy for the protestors' viewpoint. Aren't there better examples of unjustified police shootings or abuse than this one?
So, because he was high and stole cigars, you're generally ok with him getting shot in the face?
Berr Fridge - You ask me an intelligent question and I'll reply. Otherwise, I won't.
Quote:
In comment 11813093 cosmicj said:
Quote:
I consider myself a reasonably good example of someone who can be swayed in either direction. I am a civil libertarian who is alarmed by police and prosecutorial escalation and am generally against the War on Drugs. I also am alarmed by underclass violence and crime.
Let's just say that the information about Brown is not helping me feel sympathy for the protestors' viewpoint. Aren't there better examples of unjustified police shootings or abuse than this one?
So, because he was high and stole cigars, you're generally ok with him getting shot in the face?
Berr Fridge - You ask me an intelligent question and I'll reply. Otherwise, I won't.
I guess I'm struggling to see what piece of information has been released that turned you against Michael Brown. I mean, it's piddly shit.
These 13 People Were Killed By The War On Drugs - ( New Window )
Let's face it, even without knowing for sure that there was a credible eyewitness, it is extremely difficult to even imagine a scenario under which a cop shooting an unarmed man/kid six times isn't murder. Was the kid a threat to the cop after the second hit by a bullet? The fifth?
You hit the nail on the head, hence the protests.
Let's face it, even without knowing for sure that there was a credible eyewitness, it is extremely difficult to even imagine a scenario under which a cop shooting an unarmed man/kid six times isn't murder. Was the kid a threat to the cop after the second hit by a bullet? The fifth?
I hate to get morbid, but whether he was a threat or not after the second shot depends on where the first 2 shots hit. The family's medical examiner today said only one of the shots would have been fatal, and he presumed it was the last shot. At least 2 shots hit his arm and would not have brought him down. So the answer is, we don't know for sure.
Quote:
if that is he that stole the cigars, but it doesn't change the shooting situation a lick, since even the Ferguson cops have never suggested that the shooter knew about the robbery, let alone that he was a suspect. Nor does it change the fact the he was unarmed and the cop fired at least 6 times, probably more unless he was a terrific shot. Nor the likelihood that (not certainty) that he had his hands up at some point.
Let's face it, even without knowing for sure that there was a credible eyewitness, it is extremely difficult to even imagine a scenario under which a cop shooting an unarmed man/kid six times isn't murder. Was the kid a threat to the cop after the second hit by a bullet? The fifth?
I hate to get morbid, but whether he was a threat or not after the second shot depends on where the first 2 shots hit. The family's medical examiner today said only one of the shots would have been fatal, and he presumed it was the last shot. At least 2 shots hit his arm and would not have brought him down. So the answer is, we don't know for sure.
18 year old kid is now apparently the Hulk.
Common enough that this wouldn't have been a story at all without the protests.
Gee, maybe the fact that the guy is huge and supposedly reached into the car to try to get the officers gun.
I'd like to see what you'd do in that situation, after you wet your pants.
Quote:
"very common". Does that mean 1 a month? 1 a week? 1 a day? Do you have any statistics to back that up?
Common enough that this wouldn't have been a story at all without the protests.
Which is no answer at all.
I guess that's the standard. Use the right amount of force to put the kid down instantaneously. Well, mission accomplished then.
Quote:
"very common". Does that mean 1 a month? 1 a week? 1 a day? Do you have any statistics to back that up?
Common enough that this wouldn't have been a story at all without the protests.
I could be mistaken but I believe use of force deaths number somewhere in the 3-400 range annually. The fact of someone dying at the hands of police is unusual in and of itself.
Also Jason Riley on Andrea Mitchel
JASON RILEY: You could say that. I don't want to litigate this in the press. If the officer used excessive force I think he should be prosecuted. But at the same time, let's not pretend that our morgues and cemeteries are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. The reality is that its because other black people are shooting them. And we need to talk about black criminality. Blacks are only 13% of the population. But they're 50% of homicide victims in this country and 90% of those victims are killed by other black people. We need to talk about that.
I wasn't aware of those stats. They are shocking.
Also Jason Riley on Andrea Mitchel
JASON RILEY: You could say that. I don't want to litigate this in the press. If the officer used excessive force I think he should be prosecuted. But at the same time, let's not pretend that our morgues and cemeteries are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. The reality is that its because other black people are shooting them. And we need to talk about black criminality. Blacks are only 13% of the population. But they're 50% of homicide victims in this country and 90% of those victims are killed by other black people. We need to talk about that.
I wasn't aware of those stats. They are shocking.
I hate to even pretend to wade in this area, but "black-on-black" crime is both a problem, but a function of some very dysfunctional policies put into place by our policymakers (War on Drugs, to name one).
Yeah, that's the point I meant to get across.
You're never going to be able to disentangle the effects of the issues in this area, both discriminatory and not.
That's just bullshit. You're basing that on absolutely nothing.
Really? You know this how?
People are outraged that a video supposedly showing the victim stealing cigars and manhandling a tiny clerk has been circulated. It is being called character assassination as if this video was from years ago. It was minutes before the shooting.
It is completely plausible to think that the officer got the call about the shooting, but in the meantime, he sees a huge guy impeding traffic(which seems so strange since the kid is supposedly nothing but a harmless teddy bear). So he stops the person for impeding traffic and possibly sees cigars and puts the scenario together.
We have no idea if the suspect makes a move towards the officer. We are led to believe he puts his hands up and surrenders, but that is contradicted by his demeanor minutes before in the store. We also have been trained to hear the word execution by the "family lawyer" who ironically lives in Talahassee and represented Trayvon Martin.
There are a lot of questions that arise, but nobody wants to hear them. they want "justice". The problem is - their request for "justice" is as unlawful as the shooting is purported to be.
what I tend to take away from these types of events is two things:
1) Do not put yourself in situations where a police officer might shoot you. Thy aren't just picking random dudes and executing them.
2) A lot of people seem to profit off of race issues, namely the Media and the flock who arrive for these things spreading the message for justice (i.e. Jackson, Sharpton, and this so-called family lawyer).
These events become heated because a mob gets riled up and then the cavalry comes to throw gasoline on the fire, almost always before key facts are known.
That is another case of somebody being instantly villified because of comments made that a group on social media deemed to be offensive, ultimately forcing an apology.
I think it is an awfully disturbing trend to call for ramifications to posts simply because a large enough group is angry.
The flip side of this is that the cops' behavior since the shooting has been incredibly sketchy (hiding name tags, not releasing name of shooter, leaking info about Brown) and incredibly prone to violence and overreaction on their own (too much to list in parentheses). It also calls into question whether this department has a violence and leadership problem of their own that might have caused this incident to result in a fatality when it didn't need to.
Would not have wound up shooting someone 6'4" 290lbs. six times? There's no way that can be proven.
If you are looking at where the bullets hit him as some kind of window into the head of this cop, you are looking to hard to see what you want to see because no one can reasonably draw an inference from that.
Having Holder involved investigating possible US civil rights law violations probably does a whole lot more to keep a lid on the situation than having Sharpton on the scene.
Not really close. Smith treated that incident as a one off, not a classic domestic violence incidence where 'provoking' can mean anything. Including making the wrong thing for dinner.
Provoking a police officer, however, is different. For one, they are not psychos looking to shoot at people, despite what you want to believe.
Quote:
one cop killed a "innocent" kid... i mean seriously i know people say this alot but chicago has people who shouldnt have guns killing innocent people in the cross fire... we need to fix all of that shit as well.
Having Holder involved investigating possible US civil rights law violations probably does a whole lot more to keep a lid on the situation than having Sharpton on the scene.
I agree with this. Hopefully Holder is there to defuse the situation by lending some credibility to it (to the victims family and the protesters) and not to inflame it further.
anyone who claims that the officer should have stopped and taken the time to aim at a moving threat in the hope of winging/disabling him is nuts...
Things are rosy all over.
Quote:
He would have shot him as many times as it took him to end the threat. I wounder how many times the cop shot? That he hit him 6 times without once hitting where he is suppose to aim is telling of the persevered threat he was under.
If you are looking at where the bullets hit him as some kind of window into the head of this cop, you are looking to hard to see what you want to see because no one can reasonably draw an inference from that.
Yes you can. They just don't fit what you want it to be. Just what study after study has shown.
Your taught to shoot at the biggest part of the body, the torso. He never hit that once.
You don't have to be Freud to figure it out.
I'm wondering where all of this gang member talk is coming from. I saw a sign of Brown flashing a peace sign, that's the closest thing I can think of. Anyone have any pics of him actually flashing a gang sign? Because he didn't have a criminal record from what I understand, and I don't really think it's fair to rush to judgement and say he was likely a gang member.
1. Pretty sure it's been stated that the cop had no knowledge of the theft.
2. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that they were impeding traffic. For all we know they could've been crossing the street but walking down the middle of ti BECAUSE there was no traffic.
We have no idea if the suspect makes a move towards the officer. We are led to believe he puts his hands up and surrenders, but that is contradicted by his demeanor minutes before in the store. We also have been trained to hear the word execution by the "family lawyer" who ironically lives in Talahassee and represented Trayvon Martin.
So because he supposedly stole some cigars from a store (from a 'tiny' store clerk), that means he's ready to take on a cop?
what I tend to take away from these types of events is two things:
1) Do not put yourself in situations where a police officer might shoot you. Thy aren't just picking random dudes and executing them.
Says YOU Fats. I've been taken out of a car and handcuffed on the sidewalk for no reason at all...unless driving a nice, new Acura is unlawful in the state of NJ. There's also a story out there where cops were trying to make a guy give them names of guys they could plant guns on so that they could either arrest them or worse. Oh yeah, and then there's the story of the guy who would've been in jail RIGHT NOW because a bunch of officers collaborated with each other to say that a kid got roughed up because he was resisting arrest...only they forgot about the dashcam on their own vehicle which clearly showed the kid with his hands up in the car and giving himself up with no resistance (he was let go by the way). C'mon man...let's not act like this shit doesn't happen because I can give you some stories from first hand experienceS.
I'm not saying I fully believe this cop executed this kid...nor am I saying that the kid did something to deserve it (whether that be stealing or charging the cop). But what I AM saying is that there seems to be contingent here on this site that for whatever reason just can't believe or accept that shit like this DOES happen every day. Sometimes it's deserved, sometimes it's not. But it's difficult to sit here and see some folks act like the thought of a cop killing a kid with no probable cause is so far fetched that it's more likely an asteroid would come and destroy the earth before that would happen.
Because when a cop shoots someone in the line of duty, it normally goes to an internal review. It's not like he's just some guy on the street who shot some in a robbery or murder. He was doing his job. When the internal review is done, they usually release the name.
I know nothing about Ferguson and wouldn't want to try and describe a place I know nothing of, but when "innocent" people get killed by police officers in Jersey City or the Bronx or some other place where violence and lawlessness are rampant - people start screaming about how the police should have known better or shot fewer times, or some other nonsense.
I agree policemen should be held to a high standard but when push comes to shove, they are human beings who want to go home alive when their shift is done... doesn't justify or excuse actual wrong-doing, but if an honest mistake is made in the course of dealing with an "innocent" in one of these towns, I will feel bad for the victim and their family, but I have a hard time working up a desire to crucify the officer.
That does sort of match what Brown's friend (Johnson) said. He said they were walking in the street when the officer told them to 'get out of the fucking road' or something like that. He said they told him that they were almost at their destination and they were having a conversation and that they would be out of the street shortly. He said the officer then drove in front of them and blocked the road (possibly when he was given the suspect description) and when he tried to open his door, it hit Michael and slammed back on him (sounds like bull shit...). If I remember correctly, this is where he said that he believed the officer got mad because he tried to grab Michael by the neck and choke him and drag him in the car (why anyone would try to pull a 300 lb man into the car..idk?)
As for the cigars...you keep insinuating that he just stole them. That's not what happened. He tried to steal them and was confronted by a clerk/owner of the store (not sure which one). When confronted, he became physical with the clerk, thus making it a robbery and not a theft.
That does sort of match what Brown's friend (Johnson) said. He said they were walking in the street when the officer told them to 'get out of the fucking road' or something like that. He said they told him that they were almost at their destination and they were having a conversation and that they would be out of the street shortly. He said the officer then drove in front of them and blocked the road (possibly when he was given the suspect description) and when he tried to open his door, it hit Michael and slammed back on him (sounds like bull shit...). If I remember correctly, this is where he said that he believed the officer got mad because he tried to grab Michael by the neck and choke him and drag him in the car (why anyone would try to pull a 300 lb man into the car..idk?)
As for the cigars...you keep insinuating that he just stole them. That's not what happened. He tried to steal them and was confronted by a clerk/owner of the store (not sure which one). When confronted, he became physical with the clerk, thus making it a robbery and not a theft.
This is where it gets really interesting, if ballistics etc support the officer's version of events ...
Quote:
According to the Officer's friend, he did not know they were suspects in the robbery when he initially encountered them in the roadway. He told them to move out of the roadway and he drove just past them. According to her, he said that is when they gave him the description of the robbery (not theft...there is a difference) suspects. He then stopped to get out to confront them and that is where the first physical confrontation happened while he was still in his car.
That does sort of match what Brown's friend (Johnson) said. He said they were walking in the street when the officer told them to 'get out of the fucking road' or something like that. He said they told him that they were almost at their destination and they were having a conversation and that they would be out of the street shortly. He said the officer then drove in front of them and blocked the road (possibly when he was given the suspect description) and when he tried to open his door, it hit Michael and slammed back on him (sounds like bull shit...). If I remember correctly, this is where he said that he believed the officer got mad because he tried to grab Michael by the neck and choke him and drag him in the car (why anyone would try to pull a 300 lb man into the car..idk?)
As for the cigars...you keep insinuating that he just stole them. That's not what happened. He tried to steal them and was confronted by a clerk/owner of the store (not sure which one). When confronted, he became physical with the clerk, thus making it a robbery and not a theft.
This is where it gets really interesting, if ballistics etc support the officer's version of events ...
ballistics and of course the video evidence, there is video evidence that will at some point (even if its at trial) be released. Correct?
Maybe he in the wrong place at the wrong time. But so what. So was Michael Brown.
But I am not going to sit here on my computer and make disparaging comments about an officer who puts his life on the line and say he was a pussy for being threatened by a 290 lb man rushing at him.
Maybe think before you post stuff like that.
If, in the cops judgement, after shooting an unarmed man five times including once to the head, that a sixth shot to the top of the head was necessary to eliminate his perception of threat, then he can walk.
If he wasn't threatened, then he's a murderer.
Don't be jealous.
If, in the cops judgement, after shooting an unarmed man five times including once to the head, that a sixth shot to the top of the head was necessary to eliminate his perception of threat, then he can walk.
If he wasn't threatened, then he's a murderer.
In real time, as he is being charged, is it realistic to make this analysis between each shot?
It also has voices saying he was shot with his arms in the air surrendering.
Quote:
has men's voices on it indicating Brown moved towards the officer and was shot. The evidence seems to be turning to the officer's favor, to an extent.
It also has voices saying he was shot with his arms in the air surrendering.
I hear you, but if his arms are raised as he's charging toward the officer? Is he surrendering or preparing to dive at the officer?
Quote:
but why shouldn't the cops name be given? If I shot and killed someone, my name would be given, why not the cop? Are they above average citizens? Sure their job comes with people who are looking for a reason to hate them more, but they shouldn't have protections not afforded to me
Because when a cop shoots someone in the line of duty, it normally goes to an internal review. It's not like he's just some guy on the street who shot some in a robbery or murder. He was doing his job. When the internal review is done, they usually release the name.
That is not correct at all...It is usually released within 72 hours of the shooting, The Police Chief came out and stated he did not release it by then due to his perception that he needed to protect the community and the officer
Quote:
In comment 11813316 JonC said:
Quote:
has men's voices on it indicating Brown moved towards the officer and was shot. The evidence seems to be turning to the officer's favor, to an extent.
It also has voices saying he was shot with his arms in the air surrendering.
I hear you, but if his arms are raised as he's charging toward the officer? Is he surrendering or preparing to dive at the officer?
Here's the part the defies common sense: If Brown was already running away, which is proven by where his body was found at least 35' away from the police vehicle. Why would he stop and suddenly charge the officer?
Quote:
The autopsy reported the last shot was the fatal.
If, in the cops judgement, after shooting an unarmed man five times including once to the head, that a sixth shot to the top of the head was necessary to eliminate his perception of threat, then he can walk.
If he wasn't threatened, then he's a murderer.
In real time, as he is being charged, is it realistic to make this analysis between each shot?
Big Al
Correct. Probably unloaded his weapon in under 2 seconds. that he hit him 6 times says something. As I said earlier, I want to hear how many he actually fired.
FatMan in Charlotte : 4:38 pm : link : reply
the growing instances of mob mentality reacting without all of the facts (usually fueled by early Media Reports and social Media). It is what leads to people like George Zimmerman being called a "White Hispanic".
First off, the media did not create the term, "White Hispanic". The US census has been using it for years:
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Internet Release date: September 15, 1999
The race and Hispanic origin categories used by the Census Bureau are mandated
by Office of Management and Budget Directive No. 15, which requires all
federal record keeping and data presentation to use four race categories
(White, Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander)
and two ethnicity categories (Hispanic, non-Hispanic). These classifications
are not intended to be scientific in nature, but are designed to promote
consistency in federal record keeping and data presentation.
It is important to recognize that this system treats race and ethnicity as
separate and independent categories. This means that within the federal system
everyone is classified as both a member of one of the four race groups and also
as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic. Consequently, there are a total of 8
race-ethnicity categories, as illustrated by the table below:
U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, July 1, 1997
(in thousands)
White Black American Indian Asian & Pacific
& Alaska Native Islander
non-Hispanic 194,571 32,324 1,977 9,532
Hispanic 26,746 1,649 347 598
Note the date- 1999 (page is linked below).
Sure, they obviously used it to fit the narrative of crazy white guy shoots poor black kid with skittles, but technically they were correct.
Secondly, people picking a martyr and a cause using less than stellar examples is nothing new. The argument can be made that social media has sped up the process, but for the most part it is a natural process. People don't say, "Wait, lets vet this guy before we get pissed about him being gunned down." So the hand wringing and complaining that he's not a perfect example to use, which is 100% done with the benefit of hindsight is pretty silly.
The argument can be made that regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified, the fact that it raised awareness is a good thing. Not only did it bring the concerns of the citizens of Ferguson that feel disenfranchised national attention, but it also put the spotlight on the militarization/police tactics of some of our police departments.
I think both are good things. Is it perfect? Could it happened with a better example?
Sure it could have, but you can only piss with the dick you've got.
link - ( New Window )
The initial reports made it sound like some unarmed kid, faithfully trying to start a HVAC career soon was shot in the back for no reason by a rogue cop. We heard about how he never hurt or threatened anyone, how he was a gentle giant and there are reports that started taglines about having arms up - don't shoot! We hear the word "execution" over and over again as if an unarmed black kid was picked at random and approached and killed for no reason.
These initial reports came from family and a main supposed eyewitness who is a friend (and probably the other guy in the convenience store video).
Then, as the investigation goes on, we see the gentle giant isn't as clean as people thought and there is video that shows him minutes before his death stealing cigars in the middle of the day with no care if he's caught. Not only that, he pushes and menaces the clerk.
There are now reports that he and the officer scuffled and the police have already said that while Brown was stopped for walking down the middle of the road impeding traffic that a report was issued about the robbery and it is possible the officer knew it, although that isn't the reason Brown was detained.
There are also reports that he didn't just throw his hands up and "surrender", but that he may have gone for the gun before he was shot. I didn't see a kid in the video that looked like the type to cede to authority very quickly.
But the main point is that the story is changing because it was reported so quickly and from only one side.
I have no clue what happened that day. The point is that the millions of people outraged over it have no clue either, yet they don't let that stop them.
BTW - I'm not going to get into the whole being profiled situation. I was once accused of hitting my neighbors car even though the old lady across the street's car (whose driveway was perpendicular to the accident) had a huge dent and a visible orange stripe on the bumper. The cop wouldn't even look saying that he couldn't go on her property without cause. So I ended up liable for the damage. A few hundred bucks for an 18 year old wasn't fun, but it didn't make me think cops are all assholes. It made me realize that you sometimes get put in situations you lose at. Did I charge at the officer, or even curse or yell? No. Even then I knew better.
I get the cultural distrust thing, but if that distrust is so palpable, you'd think being aggressive towards a cop might be the wrong path to take.
You'd think...
But instead of calling him a Hispanic as would normally be the case, they continually called him a White Hispanic.
C'mon, you know as well as I why they did.
But instead of calling him a Hispanic as would normally be the case, they continually called him a White Hispanic.
C'mon, you know as well as I why they did.
I do. I said as much in my post why they did it.
I just get tired of folks thinking that the term was just made up for him. Not sure if you were saying that- just being opportunistic...
LINK - ( New Window )
Haha! Gee, you think?
It's not like it is minorities protesting about how the mostly white cops treat them or anything.
I'm glad you pointed that out for us. Thanks.
1. Pretty sure it's been stated that the cop had no knowledge of the theft.
2. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that they were impeding traffic. For all we know they could've been crossing the street but walking down the middle of ti BECAUSE there was no traffic.
We have no idea if the suspect makes a move towards the officer. We are led to believe he puts his hands up and surrenders, but that is contradicted by his demeanor minutes before in the store. We also have been trained to hear the word execution by the "family lawyer" who ironically lives in Talahassee and represented Trayvon Martin.
So because he supposedly stole some cigars from a store (from a 'tiny' store clerk), that means he's ready to take on a cop?
what I tend to take away from these types of events is two things:
1) Do not put yourself in situations where a police officer might shoot you. Thy aren't just picking random dudes and executing them.
Says YOU Fats. I've been taken out of a car and handcuffed on the sidewalk for no reason at all...unless driving a nice, new Acura is unlawful in the state of NJ. There's also a story out there where cops were trying to make a guy give them names of guys they could plant guns on so that they could either arrest them or worse. Oh yeah, and then there's the story of the guy who would've been in jail RIGHT NOW because a bunch of officers collaborated with each other to say that a kid got roughed up because he was resisting arrest...only they forgot about the dashcam on their own vehicle which clearly showed the kid with his hands up in the car and giving himself up with no resistance (he was let go by the way). C'mon man...let's not act like this shit doesn't happen because I can give you some stories from first hand experienceS.
I'm not saying I fully believe this cop executed this kid...nor am I saying that the kid did something to deserve it (whether that be stealing or charging the cop). But what I AM saying is that there seems to be contingent here on this site that for whatever reason just can't believe or accept that shit like this DOES happen every day. Sometimes it's deserved, sometimes it's not. But it's difficult to sit here and see some folks act like the thought of a cop killing a kid with no probable cause is so far fetched that it's more likely an asteroid would come and destroy the earth before that would happen.
TBone; I have been pulled over and searched by police in Arlington Va for making eye contact with them at a red light. Light turned green, they were next to me but waited for me to go and turned the lights on and pulled behind me. Immediately pulled me from the car and searched everything. When I asked why he pulled me over; he took roughly five minutes to respond until he found a screw missing from my license plate holder. But it was my front license plate which he never even saw. So even if that's a fucking law, he couldn't have known. But I complied along with the cop and other cops that showed up and I got out of there with out even a written warning.
My point is, i have a healthy distrust for cops and I'm certain in situations cops do criminal things. But I have a seriously hard time believing this guy, in the middle of a crowded neighborhood, just decided to straight up off this kid. Go to you tube and watch the video and listen to the one witness that actually saw the incident. He tells the others Brown decided to charge the cop and he didn't understand why he did it. But others at the scene just kept speculating but saw nothing. And on top of that, Browns body is face down facing the direction of the cop car.
There is enough going on in this situation that makes me lean towards the cops. People need to just let the investigation play out. Eric freakin Holder is involved. Not much more is needed.
The majority of the officers involved in the Sean Bell case were black or hispanic. No one said let's not be angry because of the race of the officers involved.
Fact. Just turn the coverage on. CNN has been pretty much on the level with this. Fox seems to do what it does and back the cops but nothing over the top. But msnbc, man, it full on combat. And they are really going after the cops. This is the most biased I've ever seen any main stream media be. Ever.
link - ( New Window )
Of course we still don't have all the evidence to say anything conclusively at this point but it is certainly beginning to appear at least reasonable that the policeman was justified firing his weapon.
Many are using this as a pretext to air their grievances on many different levels, from perceived police brutality or militarization to racial divide that many still feel in various communities. Then you throw in your opportunist assholes, who are only there for their own gains (whether the looters or political figures using the situation to up their own gravitas).
In the end, the shooting itself will become less important, as many have already made up their minds on the guilt/innocent of the parties involved.
I agree. Question is, why haven't "we" figured out a better way to deal with these incidents? That's sort of a rhetorical question more than anything...so I'm not expecting a serious answer back.
Justification obviously falls short of ideal. The outcome - an unarmed teenager killed by his own police force - is very poor. In more accountable professions, heads roll wether its their fault or not. I used to think it was unfair, but it promotes change, which is desparately needed. Civil service and government needs to accoutable to the same degree.
So policy can't prevent them from happening. Got it. But what about an improvement in the method of response that won't send it off into the deep end whenever there are protests/disturbance with racial undertone? Seems like the same tactics get used that were used decades ago, but now there are higher tech weapons/vehicles/etc. on one side.
Just a question being thrown out.
Quote:
and the rinse and repeat response to catalysts, have issues that "we" can't necessarily solve with policy. Policy didn't necessarily create the problems, some of it probably exacerbated them, but pure policy is not likely to fix them either.
So policy can't prevent them from happening. Got it. But what about an improvement in the method of response that won't send it off into the deep end whenever there are protests/disturbance with racial undertone? Seems like the same tactics get used that were used decades ago, but now there are higher tech weapons/vehicles/etc. on one side.
Just a question being thrown out.
I have expressed a lot of misgivings about that militarization bit and I think it has wider salience, but I'm not convinced that the heavy-handed response was the preponderate issue. I doubt it helped, but the rioting has continued through changes in supervising departments. The impulse that responds to even the worst of these reports with a desire to loot a shoe store is probably not one that takes its cues from police wearing camouflage when blue would be more appropriate.
Thats pretty easy to fix. Larger cities have learned how to address that.
Even though I've been a huge critic of the whole "militarization" of the police (primarily because I don't believe that enough training is provided to decide when to bring those "big" guns out), I agree that it wasn't the cause of all of the issues currently going on, and at this point, it's almost moot as the snowball has picked up crazy speed. However, we can all agree that it did not help and even escalated the situation in the beginning. And when you open the flood gates to make the local community distrust you even more by treating them as one lump (the looters and the mostly peaceful local protesters are two distinct groups, in my opinion), you're going to make it harder on yourself by driving the two groups together.
So now, instead of having the locals as an uneasy ally to counter the outsiders coming into Ferguson to cause havoc, many locals are now taking cues from these outsiders as they are most likely seen as stronger personality to "oppose" the heavy-handedness of the authority figures.
As far as the St. Louis Highway Patrol losing control recently. I think that the situation had deteriorated to the point of toxicity long before they were given control. Who's to say that if they would have initially been in charge that things would have been a bit different, but no one did them any favors by bring them in to an already shitty situation.
Thats pretty easy to fix. Larger cities have learned how to address that.
What would larger cities have done if shot at like happened in Ferguson last night. Not shot back like happened last night? Protesters shot 2 people last night. How would larger cities address that? They cleared the streets even though the curfew was lifted. I suppose the authorities should have just stood by and continued to let protesters shoot themselves last night. Their bias is as apparent as the biased eyes looking through a different prism.
I would have run and then waited for backup. Fatties, even when fast can't run for very long.
Of course, I'm not a cop and really can't say what I'd do in that situation (it's just a guess).
Link - ( New Window )
Justification obviously falls short of ideal. The outcome - an unarmed teenager killed by his own police force - is very poor. In more accountable professions, heads roll wether its their fault or not. I used to think it was unfair, but it promotes change, which is desparately needed. Civil service and government needs to accoutable to the same degree.
Gee, an unarmed white kid was shot and killed recently in Georgia. Remember those riots? Yeah, me neither. There was no criminal findings in that case, just as it's looking more likely that there won't be in this case.
There is a point that reality has to be accepted. Emotive arguments such as calling the cop a murderer, saying Brown was executed, he was a Gentle Giant, he was shot in the back, etc, don't help. It seems more delusional than a protest. It's hard to accept that Brown had a lot to do with what happened to him. It's always easier to blame someone else. Unless people recognize what really went wrong, there will be no change.
The riots and looting in the evening definitely set the community and the authorities on edge, no doubt. But instead of seeing that separately from the mostly peaceful "day" protesters the following day, the response more or less was broad and indiscriminate enough to put both the looting and the "day" protesting into the same category of civil disturbance. When you treat all protesters as if they were all involved in the previous night's looting, you're not doing yourself any favor in deescalating the situation. But that's just my opinion and observation (which I admit is most definitely biased).
Can't do it. It's not my thing.
I always thought I'd make a good cop because I do so enjoy delivering beatings.
Quote:
Assuming the officers version of events is true...what would you have done when a 6'4 300 lb man, who had just robbed a gas station, punched you in the face and tried to take your gun, is charging at you at full speed?
I would have run and then waited for backup. Fatties, even when fast can't run for very long.
Of course, I'm not a cop and really can't say what I'd do in that situation (it's just a guess).
I policeman I spoke with told me that in some type of training he went to a few years ago they were told that for nearly half of all police shot while on duty it was with their own gun.
I don't how accurate that is, but I don't see any reason he would make this up and lie to me. And regardless I really doubt the best approach would be to try and run. They could possibly stumble, they would no longer have the suspect in their vision (and in this case his accomplice), and simply be guessing that they wouldn't be overtaken from behind.
The bottom line is if in fact a person chooses to charge at a policeman I don't understand anyone being critical of the officer for defending himself and needing to fire his weapon. Common sense should demand that the aggressor be blamed.
That is absolute BS of that ex-Chief to do this...Just a real chickenshit ploy to get publicity for himself.
Quote:
In comment 11813966 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Assuming the officers version of events is true...what would you have done when a 6'4 300 lb man, who had just robbed a gas station, punched you in the face and tried to take your gun, is charging at you at full speed?
I would have run and then waited for backup. Fatties, even when fast can't run for very long.
Of course, I'm not a cop and really can't say what I'd do in that situation (it's just a guess).
I policeman I spoke with told me that in some type of training he went to a few years ago they were told that for nearly half of all police shot while on duty it was with their own gun.
I don't how accurate that is, but I don't see any reason he would make this up and lie to me. And regardless I really doubt the best approach would be to try and run. They could possibly stumble, they would no longer have the suspect in their vision (and in this case his accomplice), and simply be guessing that they wouldn't be overtaken from behind.
The bottom line is if in fact a person chooses to charge at a policeman I don't understand anyone being critical of the officer for defending himself and needing to fire his weapon. Common sense should demand that the aggressor be blamed.
He asked what someone would do.
I'm not a cop with a cop's training. I would run. Fatties get winded quick.
You wouldn't run?
First, I don't believe the officer. What else is he going to say? Even if it was true, I still wouldn't shoot. Call for back up as Cam says, maybe get my ass kicked. He wouldn't kill me. The guy I saw in the video could be handled without lethal force.
Quote:
Wilson may be able to walk after killing an unarmed teenager. So when this happens again, will we justify it again, and maintain the status quo? The business community of Ferguson deserves better.
Justification obviously falls short of ideal. The outcome - an unarmed teenager killed by his own police force - is very poor. In more accountable professions, heads roll wether its their fault or not. I used to think it was unfair, but it promotes change, which is desparately needed. Civil service and government needs to accoutable to the same degree.
Gee, an unarmed white kid was shot and killed recently in Georgia. Remember those riots? Yeah, me neither. There was no criminal findings in that case, just as it's looking more likely that there won't be in this case.
There is a point that reality has to be accepted. Emotive arguments such as calling the cop a murderer, saying Brown was executed, he was a Gentle Giant, he was shot in the back, etc, don't help. It seems more delusional than a protest. It's hard to accept that Brown had a lot to do with what happened to him. It's always easier to blame someone else. Unless people recognize what really went wrong, there will be no change.
Parents have a hard time admitting that maybe their child was a thug and a criminal who was the aggressor. Much easier to convince themselves it must have been a bad cop.
Quote:
Wilson may be able to walk after killing an unarmed teenager. So when this happens again, will we justify it again, and maintain the status quo? The business community of Ferguson deserves better.
Justification obviously falls short of ideal. The outcome - an unarmed teenager killed by his own police force - is very poor. In more accountable professions, heads roll wether its their fault or not. I used to think it was unfair, but it promotes change, which is desparately needed. Civil service and government needs to accoutable to the same degree.
Gee, an unarmed white kid was shot and killed recently in Georgia. Remember those riots? Yeah, me neither. There was no criminal findings in that case, just as it's looking more likely that there won't be in this case.
There is a point that reality has to be accepted. Emotive arguments such as calling the cop a murderer, saying Brown was executed, he was a Gentle Giant, he was shot in the back, etc, don't help. It seems more delusional than a protest. It's hard to accept that Brown had a lot to do with what happened to him. It's always easier to blame someone else. Unless people recognize what really went wrong, there will be no change.
I don't think it's wholly accurate to equivocate two very different things. Yes, the similarities (are they really similar?) in the circumstances of those two kids(teens) being killed is one thing. However, there is a sense of historic racial tension that is being tapped into by those protesting, who see this case as the white authority figures oppressing the predominantly black community. I'm not saying I agree at all with this, but it's probably the root of the grievances and emotions currently being tapped into in Ferguson and elsewhere.
Your faith in the mercy of others is quite touching.
Quote:
Even if it was true, I still wouldn't shoot. Call for back up as Cam says, maybe get my ass kicked. He wouldn't kill me.
Your faith in the mercy of others is quite touching.
Have you ever been punched by a fattie? It's like getting hit with a pillow...amirite?
Quote:
Wilson may be able to walk after killing an unarmed teenager. So when this happens again, will we justify it again, and maintain the status quo? The business community of Ferguson deserves better.
Justification obviously falls short of ideal. The outcome - an unarmed teenager killed by his own police force - is very poor. In more accountable professions, heads roll wether its their fault or not. I used to think it was unfair, but it promotes change, which is desparately needed. Civil service and government needs to accoutable to the same degree.
Gee, an unarmed white kid was shot and killed recently in Georgia. Remember those riots? Yeah, me neither. There was no criminal findings in that case, just as it's looking more likely that there won't be in this case.
There is a point that reality has to be accepted. Emotive arguments such as calling the cop a murderer, saying Brown was executed, he was a Gentle Giant, he was shot in the back, etc, don't help. It seems more delusional than a protest. It's hard to accept that Brown had a lot to do with what happened to him. It's always easier to blame someone else. Unless people recognize what really went wrong, there will be no change.
Do you realize how absurd your point is about the "white" kid in Georgia being killed is?
Was he killed by a black police officer? Nope
Was he living in a community that has had a history of complaining about the local police? Nope
So why would you think this is a valid comparison?
Quote:
In comment 11813975 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
In comment 11813966 halfback20 said:
Quote:
Assuming the officers version of events is true...what would you have done when a 6'4 300 lb man, who had just robbed a gas station, punched you in the face and tried to take your gun, is charging at you at full speed?
I would have run and then waited for backup. Fatties, even when fast can't run for very long.
Of course, I'm not a cop and really can't say what I'd do in that situation (it's just a guess).
I policeman I spoke with told me that in some type of training he went to a few years ago they were told that for nearly half of all police shot while on duty it was with their own gun.
I don't how accurate that is, but I don't see any reason he would make this up and lie to me. And regardless I really doubt the best approach would be to try and run. They could possibly stumble, they would no longer have the suspect in their vision (and in this case his accomplice), and simply be guessing that they wouldn't be overtaken from behind.
The bottom line is if in fact a person chooses to charge at a policeman I don't understand anyone being critical of the officer for defending himself and needing to fire his weapon. Common sense should demand that the aggressor be blamed.
He asked what someone would do.
I'm not a cop with a cop's training. I would run. Fatties get winded quick.
You wouldn't run?
Firstly I would never want to be a cop, but if I were I believe I would do what I was trained to do, and I doubt that would be to run.
If every time there is a violent aggressor cops run I assume there would be some cases where an innocent civilian would somehow have gotten hurt or killed as a result of the police having fled. Not really what you want in your police force who are there to protect and serve.
How far must we expect people and society to bend to someone that makes the choice to attack? I think expecting the policemen to run is absurd.
if they used deadly force every time there would be a lot more dead people. I thought I read somewhere that there are ways to restrain violent folks without shooting them?
You don't believe the officer, fine. What about the 12, or more, witnesses that corroborate his story, according to a st Louis reporter?
You really think that a policeman ought to let himself get beaten and hope that the almost guy twice his size trying to get his weapon might not kill him.
You have obviously lost all objectivity and ability to use sound reason with this situation. Sit back and think what you are really suggesting.
Sure it could have.
That doesn't mean the officer did anything wrong.
It is very unfortunate that this guy died- probably a lot of it because of his own very, very stupid actions.
Let's not pretend though that violent criminals act in a logical fashion. They don't all get shot, nor do they deserve to.
So while I may argue that it could have been handled differently (which is just an argument- none of us really has any idea), that doesn't mean I think the officer was wrong.
Plainly, I don't know if he did the right thing or not- as it stands though, the evidence that we know seems to be pointing to the officer being justified in using deadly force. Stating that doesn't mean that he couldn't have handled it differently- the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Hypotheticals are absurd in general. Stay on topic
You don't believe the officer, fine. What about the 12, or more, witnesses that corroborate his story, according to a st Louis reporter?
My only problem with this claim by the reporter is that there were supposedly problems right from the beginning with regards to finding any witnesses......Now all of a sudden there is at least 15 of them?
There are numerous cases of young black/hispanic men that are shot by police officers and no one says anything. No one protests. The giant boogeyman Al Sharpton doesn't show up on the scene. The reason is no one would waste their time seeking "justice" for someone who had a gun.
Brown was shot at while the cop was in the car and they were wrestling around, which actually caused Brown to run away from the officer. Then all of a sudden he decides to turn and charge the same cop who just shot at him, after getting at least 35' feet away from him?
That just makes no logical sense. Why run away, put 30' between you and a guy who just shot at you, then decide the prudent thing to do is charge this same guy?
Regardless, I don't know why he did it but we know he was facing the officer when he died and according to the friend of the officer he was 2 to 3 feet away when he collapsed. Shouldn't be difficult to prove with evidence if he was charging him.
Yeah it is really amazing. We have gone from people quickly believing that the cop must have gunned him down by shooting him in the back to now saying that even if he did assault the policeman and then charge at him the policeman should accept the beating instead of firing his weapon.
It is actually scary when people so badly want to make it have to be the police who was wrong and the criminal have to be a victim that no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
The irony of "This" post is wonderful
I don't think it was cold blooded murder, but I do think it was absolutely excessive force. Again, this is just my guessing based off of the witness stories I've read.
Regardless, I don't know why he did it but we know he was facing the officer when he died and according to the friend of the officer he was 2 to 3 feet away when he collapsed. Shouldn't be difficult to prove with evidence if he was charging him.
The gun supposedly went off while they were wrestling in the car. It did not shot him, it went off
I don't think it was cold blooded murder, but I do think it was absolutely excessive force. Again, this is just my guessing based off of the witness stories I've read.
Not a bad interpretation of the events.
The key will be whether the guy just turned around or whether he turned around and then charged him.
The latter doesn't make much sense, but neither does robbing a C-store and then walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight just begging to be stopped by the po-po.
I don't think it was cold blooded murder, but I do think it was absolutely excessive force. Again, this is just my guessing based off of the witness stories I've read.
Sounds about what I also believe may have happened.
It also could be that when he got closer to the cop after stopping he may have lunged at him. The forensics of this will determine much. The initial report only narrowed the distance in the shots from 1' - 30', so hopefully they can get that more detailed
First, I don't believe the officer. What else is he going to say? Even if it was true, I still wouldn't shoot. Call for back up as Cam says, maybe get my ass kicked. He wouldn't kill me. The guy I saw in the video could be handled without lethal force.
See, this is scary to me. While the facts are in question, the idea that even if the officer did what he was supposed to do, he should still be "made an example of" and punished purely for some perceived policy or social reason is IMO contemptible.
But, we'll know better the the investigation is complete, but, I think there may be some issues that never get resolved with any certainty.
I don't think it was cold blooded murder, but I do think it was absolutely excessive force. Again, this is just my guessing based off of the witness stories I've read.
Sounds a little to reasonable to me. Change the "excessive" to "reasonable" and call Brown a big criminal once or twice to broaden its appeal.
Quote:
That was a good read. Sounds like those cops performed well even when threatened. The author also stated that he never shot anyone. This guy Wilson is an outlier. Making an example of him would be good for everyone (except him), and since some are going to take a fall, he might as well be one. Not sure why everyone cares about him so much. He fucked-up even if it was "justified".
First, I don't believe the officer. What else is he going to say? Even if it was true, I still wouldn't shoot. Call for back up as Cam says, maybe get my ass kicked. He wouldn't kill me. The guy I saw in the video could be handled without lethal force.
See, this is scary to me. While the facts are in question, the idea that even if the officer did what he was supposed to do, he should still be "made an example of" and punished purely for some perceived policy or social reason is IMO contemptible.
I agree and probably one of the worst things I have seen posted on this forum in the seventeen or eighteen years I have been here.
the kid was stopped for jaywalking and while the officer tried to put him in the police car the kid escaped his grasped and started to run away
the officer then took a shot at the kid which may or may not grazed his arm (this is why everyone is saying he was shot in the back)
at this point the unarmed kid who was 35 feet away
turned around started to move toward the policeman basically surrendering
(his hands probably in the air).
at which point the cop fired the additional rounds killing him.
the scenario is just as legitimate as all the others posted - and to me makes the most sense. as far as where the shots were fired , where the body was found and eyewitness accounts
and in this scenario it is absolutely UNJUSTIFIABLE use of force by the police officer.
Cop got a bad outcome, which he is unfortunatley partly responsible for - the true degree to which we will never know. But so what. Bad outcomes happen for reasons outside of our control all the time, and in an accountable world, people have to take responsibility, fair or not. If the cop is a good guy, he will be fine in the end, whatever happens.
You read it right. Wide right is a nutjob. Always has been.
Here's what i think happened, from what I've heard and read about the story.
Brown and his buddy were walking down the middle of the street. The cop tells both of them to move to the sidewalk. As the cop is pulling away, he gets the alert about a strong armed robbery and Brown and his buddy match the description. The cop circles back, Brown tries to prevent the cop from getting out of his car. Brown's buddy goes for the cop's gun and a struggle ensues. Brown hits the cop multiple times in the face and then Brown runs away. The cop starts chasing after him. Brown, turns back to the cop, starts to taunt him and then charges him. The officer fearing for his life fires at Brown and eventually kills him. Makes sense to me.
you would guess correctly, Al. it was clear to me in the first several pages of this thread (and other police threads, for that matter) that the vast majority of people commenting and critiquing have absolutely no clue about law enforcement, police protocol or liability.
it's basically monkeys slinging poop at passersby at this point.
i get that people are bored and like to frame the narrative in the way that makes them feel all warm and snuggly and in line with their preconceived notions and ideologies, but insofar as the actual case is concerned, it's ludicrous.
Quote:
was that whether the cop was in the right or wrong is irrelevant and that he should be sacrificed for some larger nebulous issue. That is so unbelievable wrong.
You read it right. Wide right is a nutjob. Always has been.
Here's what i think happened, from what I've heard and read about the story.
Brown and his buddy were walking down the middle of the street. The cop tells both of them to move to the sidewalk. As the cop is pulling away, he gets the alert about a strong armed robbery and Brown and his buddy match the description. The cop circles back, Brown tries to prevent the cop from getting out of his car. Brown's buddy goes for the cop's gun and a struggle ensues. Brown hits the cop multiple times in the face and then Brown runs away. The cop starts chasing after him. Brown, turns back to the cop, starts to taunt him and then charges him. The officer fearing for his life fires at Brown and eventually kills him. Makes sense to me.
The officer may not have known about the robbery. Brown certainly did, but there are conflicting reports about whether the officer did and it seems like the most up to date ones say no. There are certainly permutations from here that put the officer at least partly in the wrong, maybe wholly, but based on what little we know getting into his head from the time of the first shot to the time of the last shot is a lot more difficult than some of you suppose.
think for a second
in what scenario would an unarmed person who try to take a gun away from a cop run away and then stop and turn around and taut a police officer?
Link - ( New Window )
The appropriate corrective measure is to introduce accountability and responsibility for outcomes, not the shooting, but the killing and the riots. The owners of all the now-failed businesses in Ferguson are responsible for their losses and it wasn't their fault. Law enforcement, government and politicians have to be more responsible for outcomes. The officer involved is just part of it. Not sure why that seems so abhorent.
The appropriate corrective measure is to introduce accountability and responsibility for outcomes, not the shooting, but the killing and the riots. The owners of all the now-failed businesses in Ferguson are responsible for their losses and it wasn't their fault. Law enforcement, government and politicians have to be more responsible for outcomes. The officer involved is just part of it. Not sure why that seems so abhorent.
As John McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious!"
The guy is Monday morning QBing..He lacks all the info of the situation. What orders the SP are under, etc...
So an unverified caller is the source of your theory
i get that people are bored and like to frame the narrative in the way that makes them feel all warm and snuggly and in line with their preconceived notions and ideologies, but insofar as the actual case is concerned, it's ludicrous.
Or we like discussing it as it develops..
Quote:
people bother "guessing" at the true narrative of what happened? is there a purpose to that mental exercise? especially now that we know that the facts are fluid and constantly changing? particularly before the grand jury has completed its review?
i get that people are bored and like to frame the narrative in the way that makes them feel all warm and snuggly and in line with their preconceived notions and ideologies, but insofar as the actual case is concerned, it's ludicrous.
Or we like discussing it as it develops..
Discuss or rail at people who don't go along with premature conclusions made due to bias?
The appropriate corrective measure is to introduce accountability and responsibility for outcomes, not the shooting, but the killing and the riots. The owners of all the now-failed businesses in Ferguson are responsible for their losses and it wasn't their fault. Law enforcement, government and politicians have to be more responsible for outcomes. The officer involved is just part of it. Not sure why that seems so abhorent.
It's abhorrent that you would say that he is technically justified (i'm not saying that he was, but continuing with your point) so, iow, innocent of a crime, but that he should be punished anyway...made into an example. For what, I'm not exactly sure but I'm assuming its so that people won't feel the urge to riot in the future.
And, the killing and the riots are not a situation and are not an outcome for which government needs to be responsible. They are *crimes* and the only ones responsible are the people who committed the crimes. Same with the shop owners, they are nothing less than victims.
It's odd *to me) that on one hand you would suggest that an innocent (in this hypothetical) person be punished because to send a societal message and that oddness is compounded by you saying that society (police, government, politicians) should be punished for actions done by actual criminals.
Quote:
In comment 11814179 M in CT said:
Quote:
people bother "guessing" at the true narrative of what happened? is there a purpose to that mental exercise? especially now that we know that the facts are fluid and constantly changing? particularly before the grand jury has completed its review?
i get that people are bored and like to frame the narrative in the way that makes them feel all warm and snuggly and in line with their preconceived notions and ideologies, but insofar as the actual case is concerned, it's ludicrous.
Or we like discussing it as it develops..
Discuss or rail at people who don't go along with premature conclusions made due to bias?
Some do that on both sides of a discussion Peter...That is nothing new
Quote:
. Link - ( New Window )
So an unverified caller is the source of your theory
I guess you missed the part about sources in the press hearing the same story. I'm convinced that this is what happened. The other side has no credibility at this point. Maybe they would earn some respect from me, if their attorney stopped calling the officer a murderer.
Quote:
In comment 11814198 G2 said:
Quote:
. Link - ( New Window )
So an unverified caller is the source of your theory
I guess you missed the part about sources in the press hearing the same story. I'm convinced that this is what happened. The other side has no credibility at this point. Maybe they would earn some respect from me, if their attorney stopped calling the officer a murderer.
No, it did not say that. it said that a source with the Police said it was similar to the account as told by Wilson. She still is an unverified caller with only a first name, and no background of if she was even at the scene. Could have been a friend of Wilson's, someone in the police dept, etc...
not only an unverified caller, but an unverified caller whose story is double-hearsay and probably pretty biased, considering it comes from the wife of the officer.
it's almost as if people deliberately shut their brains off until they hear something they like, then just regurgitate it so they don't have to actually think.
Thug attacked police officer, broke his eye socket - ( New Window )
I don't know Mike...But he definitely has restrictions of what he can, or cannot do by his superiors which include the Governor
Quote:
So an unverified caller is the source of your theory
not only an unverified caller, but an unverified caller whose story is double-hearsay and probably pretty biased, considering it comes from the wife of the officer.
it's almost as if people deliberately shut their brains off until they hear something they like, then just regurgitate it so they don't have to actually think.
This actually was the wife of the officer?
I don't think it's wholly accurate to equivocate two very different things. Yes, the similarities (are they really similar?) in the circumstances of those two kids(teens) being killed is one thing. However, there is a sense of historic racial tension that is being tapped into by those protesting, who see this case as the white authority figures oppressing the predominantly black community. I'm not saying I agree at all with this, but it's probably the root of the grievances and emotions currently being tapped into in Ferguson and elsewhere.
I agree, but that means it's not about the incident itself, but something else. So talking about an unarmed kid shot in the back as he was surrendering is BS. And mostly Wide Right is an ass. As I said, he would probably crap his pants if he was faced with any kind of combative situation as this cop was.
I wonder if this will actually change anyone's mind. Maybe he needed to take more of a beating before defending himself.
From the link:
Do you realize how absurd your point is about the "white" kid in Georgia being killed is?
Was he killed by a black police officer? Nope
Was he living in a community that has had a history of complaining about the local police? Nope
So why would you think this is a valid comparison?
It's valid because at first everyone was saying the cop was wrong and the Grand Jury found no fault. The same will likely happen in this case. It's all about how people use these situations to address their own grievance. More and more we are seeing that the problem was Brown, not the cop. But the people in this town, and many others, will never accept that. It's never about the incident, I agree with you there. But do we pander to that mindset? Do we encourage it? Or do we stand up and say, if you want racial equality, you can't react like this. There is never going to be any progress if we can't get beyond that mindset.
I'm with all those, who want to wait until the investigation is finished. No use jumping to conclusion on what or what did not happen in those minutes that Officer Wilson and Michael Brown (and his buddy) had their confrontation.
My interest has always been the aftermath and the troubling scenes I've seen and read about with the police and the protesters.
the kid was stopped for jaywalking and while the officer tried to put him in the police car the kid escaped his grasped and started to run away
the officer then took a shot at the kid which may or may not grazed his arm (this is why everyone is saying he was shot in the back)
at this point the unarmed kid who was 35 feet away
turned around started to move toward the policeman basically surrendering
(his hands probably in the air).
at which point the cop fired the additional rounds killing him.
the scenario is just as legitimate as all the others posted - and to me makes the most sense. as far as where the shots were fired , where the body was found and eyewitness accounts
and in this scenario it is absolutely UNJUSTIFIABLE use of force by the police officer.
I don't think you've heard all of the witnesses. There are witnesses that say Brown taunted the officer with 'are you going to shoot me' and then charged towards him. And now we find out that the officer suffered a fractured orbital bone. So he's already been beaten by this guy, the guy is coming at him. It wasn't a surrender.
Quote:
In comment 11813988 buford said:
Do you realize how absurd your point is about the "white" kid in Georgia being killed is?
Was he killed by a black police officer? Nope
Was he living in a community that has had a history of complaining about the local police? Nope
So why would you think this is a valid comparison?
It's valid because at first everyone was saying the cop was wrong and the Grand Jury found no fault. The same will likely happen in this case. It's all about how people use these situations to address their own grievance. More and more we are seeing that the problem was Brown, not the cop. But the people in this town, and many others, will never accept that. It's never about the incident, I agree with you there. But do we pander to that mindset? Do we encourage it? Or do we stand up and say, if you want racial equality, you can't react like this. There is never going to be any progress if we can't get beyond that mindset.
The thousands of rioters and their sympathizers in the country want so bad to prove their narrative of cops gunning down black kids to be true, but every time they try to make an example of one of these supposed common occurrences, the truth is not what they want. Thank god for the police who stand up to these rioters. Imagine living in that town? Your house, car, business all ruined by this mob. How anyone can support that mess is beyond me.
And to be fair, he has supported the use of some of the controversial uses of force the last few days, which puts him at odds with the protesters.
Quote:
that passes the smell test. I guess we'll see.
that's the only theory that passes your smell test? One where an unarmed teen tries to take a cops gun, and someone fleeing the police stops and tauntss a cop, all because they stole cheapo cigars from a convenience store?
The record's stuck again.
I wonder how many people that dismiss the women's story even listened to it?
First she was vetted by the radio station, she wasn't some anonymous caller.
She is a close friend of the policeman's wife and was told the story and all the details immediately after it happened. Having to sit by and listen to all the lies being told (shot in back, etc) she explains that she feels that someone needs to set the records straight so to speak and their fore called in with the details as she was told by the policeman wife. She comes across very credible when I listened to her tell her story.
Then if anyone listens to the tape that was on youtoube which captured a guy who witnessed the actual shooting explain what he saw, his explanation aligns perfectly with the details this women reveals as told to her from the policeman's wife.
Now add to that the report about the officers injuries and it confirms the stories details even further.
So at this point while I would say it absolutely happened that way it comes across as much more credible than the rants and lies we first heard, especially when much of those originated from the accomplice in the crimes. yet ironically people latched onto them as absolute truth and won't even pause to consider what these witnesses have to say.
Quote:
In comment 11813988 buford said:
Do you realize how absurd your point is about the "white" kid in Georgia being killed is?
Was he killed by a black police officer? Nope
Was he living in a community that has had a history of complaining about the local police? Nope
So why would you think this is a valid comparison?
It's valid because at first everyone was saying the cop was wrong and the Grand Jury found no fault. The same will likely happen in this case. It's all about how people use these situations to address their own grievance. More and more we are seeing that the problem was Brown, not the cop. But the people in this town, and many others, will never accept that. It's never about the incident, I agree with you there. But do we pander to that mindset? Do we encourage it? Or do we stand up and say, if you want racial equality, you can't react like this. There is never going to be any progress if we can't get beyond that mindset.
The problem is it goes both ways. The situation you have here is a predominantly Black community being policed by a predominantly white police force. That is the inherent blame for any kind of perceived, or real social injustice there.
Using the analogy of what occurred in Georgia won't work because there are zero simularities to each incident does.
Quote:
officer defended himself and rightfully so: Thug attacked police officer, broke his eye socket - ( New Window )
I wonder if this will actually change anyone's mind. Maybe he needed to take more of a beating before defending himself.
From the link:
Quote:
The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.
Only problem i have with buying this is that they are the only source claiming it, and they are a biased source of info. I would think if true this would have been a major point discussed by the major media outlets
Quote:
theory, I would love to hear it. Wait, never mind.
I wonder how many people that dismiss the women's story even listened to it?
First she was vetted by the radio station, she wasn't some anonymous caller.
She is a close friend of the policeman's wife and was told the story and all the details immediately after it happened. Having to sit by and listen to all the lies being told (shot in back, etc) she explains that she feels that someone needs to set the records straight so to speak and their fore called in with the details as she was told by the policeman wife. She comes across very credible when I listened to her tell her story.
Then if anyone listens to the tape that was on youtoube which captured a guy who witnessed the actual shooting explain what he saw, his explanation aligns perfectly with the details this women reveals as told to her from the policeman's wife.
Now add to that the report about the officers injuries and it confirms the stories details even further.
So at this point while I would say it absolutely happened that way it comes across as much more credible than the rants and lies we first heard, especially when much of those originated from the accomplice in the crimes. yet ironically people latched onto them as absolute truth and won't even pause to consider what these witnesses have to say.
Where does it say she was vetted by the radio station?
When taking account all the reasons I gave I find the story to be the most credible I have heard to date. But unlike those that insisted how things had to have happened and spoke in absolutes very early on I admit that I don't know and would never be dogmatic about it. Simply in my opinion the details given from the wife told to us via this women and the actual account from that witness on the Youtube video make the most sense to me at this point in time. I am still open and will wait until the investigation is finished and we hear all the evidence before I form a conclusion.
Quote:
In comment 11814017 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11813988 buford said:
Do you realize how absurd your point is about the "white" kid in Georgia being killed is?
Was he killed by a black police officer? Nope
Was he living in a community that has had a history of complaining about the local police? Nope
So why would you think this is a valid comparison?
It's valid because at first everyone was saying the cop was wrong and the Grand Jury found no fault. The same will likely happen in this case. It's all about how people use these situations to address their own grievance. More and more we are seeing that the problem was Brown, not the cop. But the people in this town, and many others, will never accept that. It's never about the incident, I agree with you there. But do we pander to that mindset? Do we encourage it? Or do we stand up and say, if you want racial equality, you can't react like this. There is never going to be any progress if we can't get beyond that mindset.
The thousands of rioters and their sympathizers in the country want so bad to prove their narrative of cops gunning down black kids to be true, but every time they try to make an example of one of these supposed common occurrences, the truth is not what they want. Thank god for the police who stand up to these rioters. Imagine living in that town? Your house, car, business all ruined by this mob. How anyone can support that mess is beyond me.
I have yet to see ANYONE say they support any kind of violent protesters, or looters.
And to be fair, he has supported the use of some of the controversial uses of force the last few days, which puts him at odds with the protesters.
I agree about joining with the march. Your there for the job of protection to all parties, don't see why that means you march with either side.
Quote:
In comment 11814464 G2 said:
Quote:
theory, I would love to hear it. Wait, never mind.
I wonder how many people that dismiss the women's story even listened to it?
First she was vetted by the radio station, she wasn't some anonymous caller.
She is a close friend of the policeman's wife and was told the story and all the details immediately after it happened. Having to sit by and listen to all the lies being told (shot in back, etc) she explains that she feels that someone needs to set the records straight so to speak and their fore called in with the details as she was told by the policeman wife. She comes across very credible when I listened to her tell her story.
Then if anyone listens to the tape that was on youtoube which captured a guy who witnessed the actual shooting explain what he saw, his explanation aligns perfectly with the details this women reveals as told to her from the policeman's wife.
Now add to that the report about the officers injuries and it confirms the stories details even further.
So at this point while I would say it absolutely happened that way it comes across as much more credible than the rants and lies we first heard, especially when much of those originated from the accomplice in the crimes. yet ironically people latched onto them as absolute truth and won't even pause to consider what these witnesses have to say.
Where does it say she was vetted by the radio station?
Dana says the caller was vetted.
Link - ( New Window )
Bahaha.
Quote:
In comment 11814287 derpaderp said:
Quote:
officer defended himself and rightfully so: Thug attacked police officer, broke his eye socket - ( New Window )
I wonder if this will actually change anyone's mind. Maybe he needed to take more of a beating before defending himself.
From the link:
Quote:
The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.
Only problem i have with buying this is that they are the only source claiming it, and they are a biased source of info. I would think if true this would have been a major point discussed by the major media outlets
Major media has been pushing a point of view that conflicts with this new information. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been discussed in more detail. The media ran with his buddy's account that the cop choked him from the car and that he was shot in the back, as well. Both have been proven as B.S. in the last few days.
Who said that?
Quote:
In comment 11814500 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 11814464 G2 said:
Quote:
theory, I would love to hear it. Wait, never mind.
I wonder how many people that dismiss the women's story even listened to it?
First she was vetted by the radio station, she wasn't some anonymous caller.
She is a close friend of the policeman's wife and was told the story and all the details immediately after it happened. Having to sit by and listen to all the lies being told (shot in back, etc) she explains that she feels that someone needs to set the records straight so to speak and their fore called in with the details as she was told by the policeman wife. She comes across very credible when I listened to her tell her story.
Then if anyone listens to the tape that was on youtoube which captured a guy who witnessed the actual shooting explain what he saw, his explanation aligns perfectly with the details this women reveals as told to her from the policeman's wife.
Now add to that the report about the officers injuries and it confirms the stories details even further.
So at this point while I would say it absolutely happened that way it comes across as much more credible than the rants and lies we first heard, especially when much of those originated from the accomplice in the crimes. yet ironically people latched onto them as absolute truth and won't even pause to consider what these witnesses have to say.
Where does it say she was vetted by the radio station?
Quote:
You can watch the video at Dana Radio.
Dana says the caller was vetted.
Link - ( New Window )
Did you read what is under the link to the radio call?
Come on...
Quote:
police response to the looters is supporting them.
Who said that?
I didn't mean to imply you said it, but there has been discussion that the response was overblown, and pictures of swat teams on military vehicles.
See above, she claims yes vetted, then not really vetted...Vetted or not.. She's a friend of the police officer
Quote:
In comment 11814526 Pork and Beans said:
Quote:
police response to the looters is supporting them.
Who said that?
I didn't mean to imply you said it, but there has been discussion that the response was overblown, and pictures of swat teams on military vehicles.
Not everyone is a violent protester or looter. What was being stated as being overblown was the response to peaceful protestors and the media covering the story
She wasn't there, all that's 'corroborated' was she knows the officer in question.
So you can treat what she said as his version of what happened, but not a second account supporting the officers version of events, as some of you seem inclined to do..
of course
Quote:
In comment 11814526 Pork and Beans said:
Quote:
police response to the looters is supporting them.
Who said that?
I didn't mean to imply you said it, but there has been discussion that the response was overblown, and pictures of swat teams on military vehicles.
Nope...the issue people had were the response the following morning/day when the protesters were mainly peaceful.
If so, it's a strange notion that you're ok with the police having military style weapons that are being trained on civilian protesters, yet you are against law abiding citizens owning handguns and other guns.
Quote:
caller was vetted too. Also read that it jives with unofficial reports. It may be on the grand juries docket tomorrow is what I heard this morning. They meet every wednesday.
See above, she claims yes vetted, then not really vetted...Vetted or not.. She's a friend of the police officer
Not making a call one way or another. It's just another piece of information out there. I give it as much credence as anything I have heard so far. No more, no less. Which is to say not much.
Then it's a bit strange to so vehemently advocate for people to give up their right while giving even more control to those in positions of authority.
Yes, because a person's opinion on the response of the police dictates whether or not they support destruction of property and theft.
I think I'm glad I ruined your sex life.
I am not taking anything on face value, but right now the witnesses story which aligns with the women's story seems to make the most sense. Nothing more
How about the millions of law abiding citizens, who aren't out looting?
You're right - guns ARE pretty devious and cunning that way. You never know when they're going to sneak out in the middle of the night and shoot a family member. Sure, they say all the right things but can you ever really trust one?
Quote:
people in an out of control mob who are looting a town to have weapons, but I do want the people I pay to protect me from that mob to have whatever they need to protect me?
How about the millions of law abiding citizens, who aren't out looting?
I don't know what you are asking. You know my position on law abiding citizens having guns, I've been avoiding gun topics for the reason that no one is changing anyone's mind here. If you are really curious about someone's opinion that is different than yours I will answer your question, but if this is an attempt to be a dick, forget it.
Whose gun? Your own? Or someone else with a gun? Vast majority of gun owners practice proper gun safety so I'm not sure exactly how it will do you harm as long as you're being responsible.
And why would you be in a middle of a mob if you didn't choose to be in one?
Don't really get the intent of your comparison.
Not trying to be a dick. However, your opinion regarding you being ok with police having and using such weapons against their fellow citizens compared to a law abiding citizen wanting to own an AR-15 style weapon that they will only use at the range seems to be a bit off.
Was it an amiable divorce? What was the settlement agreement?
So you're trying saying it's as credible as anything that has come out of Ferguson so far and we should all wait for the grand jury proceedings before condemning or absolving anyone?
Top. Men.
And that's what I expected from you. I asked a legitimate question regarding the contradictory view of weapon from you, yet your response is this. Definitely shouldn't have expected a reasoned response from you on any topic. That's my fault.
Pork and Beans : 8/14/2014 12:59 pm : link : reply
on guns, and we all decided that citizens should be armed to the teeth, it follows that the police should at least have the same firepower.
So the police must be able to defend themselves against their fellow citizens and not because they need it to respond to potential terrorists or armed criminals, as some have argued. Got your logic, brosef.
Link - ( New Window )
Not in Ferguson. North St. Louis.
Next - ( New Window )
Then when facts come out (the 'kid' committed a robbery right before the incident, he was shot in the front, not the back) we are told to doubt these, or any witness that tells a different story.
And I would agree that we should doubt any story. But why wasn't the original story doubted? And then we have morons like Wide Right who think they are super heros and know everything a copy could have and should have done. Amazing.
Come on, the cop should have been able to kick the knife out of his hands. What a slacker!
In this case, you take the initial statement from what we now know was an accomplice to a robbery at face value and add the racial element to it and a city that teeters on racial tension gets gas thrown on it and KABOOM!
Then when other facts start to come out, it is played off as being character assassination and the police covering their ass.
The problem with situations we have like this is people don't want to wait. Hell, you already have people protesting because the cop hasn't been arrested yet, even though they don't know the details. People like being loud, and don't give a shit if they are right or wrong.
Unfortunately, there probably won't be any way to find out definitively what happened. Just another reason why cameras on cops would be an excellent idea.
The same website linked above stated that their sources in the police state that her story coincided with the statement Wilson gave. Which it should since the caller was calling for the Wilson family.
But also it needs to be taken into account that this station claimed they vetted her, then claimed not really, then said it is a friend of the officers wife. Which if he is divorced, that makes that part wrong also and any vetting she may or may not have done is worthless. Bottom line is that the caller was shilling for the police officers family and the radio station seemed to be playing with that fact a bit.
you heard it here first...
Now if someone claiming to be Browns friend calls into a radio show, and that radio show may, or may not have vetted them, and then the Radio station claims that a family spokesman confirms it matches what he has been told, I will be the first to step forward and point out how fucking stupid it is to use it as any kind of proof of anything
Greg from LI : 3:09 pm : link : reply
It's not either/or. It's a hoary cliche, but the truth likely lies somewhere in between. Michael Brown may not have been a gentle giant and Darren Wilson may also have panicked and shot an unarmed man who was trying to surrender.
Unfortunately, there probably won't be any way to find out definitively what happened. Just another reason why cameras on cops would be an excellent idea.
ha, exactly. the cop's wife's (or ex wife's) story matches the cop's story?
gee wilikers! how could that happen?
At what point did it become verified as the gods honest truth that he was shot in the back with his hands up?
None of it's verified. That's the whole point. Right now it's as valid as any theory out there, no more, no less.
Of course it does, the caller is a friend of the Officer...Come on HB, your way smarter then this, can't you see how silly this "proof" is?
yes, it is absolutely shilling. in fact, that is the definition of shilling.
and it's not about discrediting her. she has no credibility to begin with. she's an ANONYMOUS caller to a fucking radio station. she's not under oath, she hasn't been cross examined, she hasn't been subject to any of the checks and balances that we typically use to vet a witness.
it's amazing to me that anyone would actually listen to her account of the story, knowing who she claims to be, and say to themselves "yeah, that must be it." she has a very clear bias and an agenda, and that's in addition to the fact that she's fucking anonymous.
The story also apparently matches what a dozen or so witnesses say including one caught on camera saying what happened.
Did you all fight this hard to discredit the initial witness reports?
Quote:
At what point did his version of what happened become the verified, God's honest truth?
At what point did it become verified as the gods honest truth that he was shot in the back with his hands up?
None of it's verified. That's the whole point. Right now it's as valid as any theory out there, no more, no less.
Don't mean to speak for Greg, but he is not claiming the "Theory" is wrong. He is pointing out how weak of an argument it is to use a friend of the family's account called into a radio show, as any kind of proof of the officers innocence.
BINGO!!!
The story also apparently matches what a dozen or so witnesses say including one caught on camera saying what happened.
Did you all fight this hard to discredit the initial witness reports?
Why would it not match his account? She got the story from HIM!!! So how is this any value at all?
as far as it matching 12 witnesses, that is another tweet that is from a reporter claiming the police as her source..No names, no direct interviews themselves, just leaked info from a Police dept that leaked false info in the past (Their claim of the media being caught up in the tear gas)
Correct...but it is not proof his story is the correct version of what happened yet...It very well could be, but those using this radio call-in as any kind of proof of his story being the real on is off-the-mark
even if he believed or knew otherwise, what incentive does he have to come clean about it? he's protecting his dad, right?
same goes for the woman. she's simply sharing the version of the story that paints her friend in the best light possible.
and somehow that is the version that people identify with the most?
No shit? I'm not investigating the case. I'd hope her story has no fucking value to the detective in charge of the investigation. But it's a chance for us to see what he says happened...no one is saying it's proven fact either.
Most of us that didn't immediately come out against the officer have maintained the entire time that we should all wait for the completed investigation before passing judgement. I still agree with that but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what the officer says what happened
Seems obvious to me. Not sure why some people here are accepting it as truth and others calling it worthless.
Quote:
but did you have this many issues with the original witnesses stories that had him shot in the back? Or the video coming out of the robbery?
In what way do you mean issues? The only initial report that has come out was the guy with him and that has been proven to be wrong. Do i need to also come out and say its wrong? The video of the robbery speaks for itself and if you scroll back you will see i agreed that it is a robbery, not petty theft. Bottom line is that once again your comparisons are not even close to being similar to the one about the "Vetted lady calls in"
Now if someone claiming to be Browns friend calls into a radio show, and that radio show may, or may not have vetted them, and then the Radio station claims that a family spokesman confirms it matches what he has been told, I will be the first to step forward and point out how fucking stupid it is to use it as any kind of proof of anything
I don't have an issue with you, particularly. But there was plenty of 'information' coming out in the beginning that seemed to be accepted as absolute truth, but it seems that anything that would support that the cop acted in self defense has to be proven beyond all doubt. Which would be the opposite in a court of law, if it comes down to it.
That this decorated officer was so dumb that he thought he could get away with blowing this kid away shooting him from behind while under no threat, in plain sight with plenty of witneses. Cops arent that dumb and certainly are not going to off someone in front of bunches of witnesses. Does anyone really believe that is the case here?
Of course the effect of this will give racists evidence to support their side due to the riots and looting etc....There is plenty of racism to call attention too but this one is getting dumb. Meanwhile as someone pointed out 6 more kids in Chicago killed by guns....
Maybe we get the media we deserve.
Quote:
In comment 11814837 buford said:
Quote:
but did you have this many issues with the original witnesses stories that had him shot in the back? Or the video coming out of the robbery?
In what way do you mean issues? The only initial report that has come out was the guy with him and that has been proven to be wrong. Do i need to also come out and say its wrong? The video of the robbery speaks for itself and if you scroll back you will see i agreed that it is a robbery, not petty theft. Bottom line is that once again your comparisons are not even close to being similar to the one about the "Vetted lady calls in"
Now if someone claiming to be Browns friend calls into a radio show, and that radio show may, or may not have vetted them, and then the Radio station claims that a family spokesman confirms it matches what he has been told, I will be the first to step forward and point out how fucking stupid it is to use it as any kind of proof of anything
I don't have an issue with you, particularly. But there was plenty of 'information' coming out in the beginning that seemed to be accepted as absolute truth, but it seems that anything that would support that the cop acted in self defense has to be proven beyond all doubt. Which would be the opposite in a court of law, if it comes down to it.
Buford, what other info has come out about the police officer that has had to be proven beyond all doubt?
Using the fact that a family friend called into a radio show and gave Wilson's version of event proves what?
Quote:
I read somewhere that a source close to the investigation confirmed the friends version of the officers account. Can't remember where I saw that but I'll look.
The same website linked above stated that their sources in the police state that her story coincided with the statement Wilson gave. Which it should since the caller was calling for the Wilson family.
But also it needs to be taken into account that this station claimed they vetted her, then claimed not really, then said it is a friend of the officers wife. Which if he is divorced, that makes that part wrong also and any vetting she may or may not have done is worthless. Bottom line is that the caller was shilling for the police officers family and the radio station seemed to be playing with that fact a bit.
We call this circular reporting. We always want corroborating report/intelligence to strengthen our assessment. However, when you have a story coming from essentially the same source (in this case the woman getting her story from the Wilson family) being mistakenly attributed as coming from two independent sources, it makes it seem like the report/intelligence is far stronger than it is.
Like I noted a little bit ago, does anyone really believe that this cop blew away a defenseless kid from behind in front of witnesses in plain sight?....or because he was black?
Because until it was pointed out that she really was not vetted, and was in fact a family friend, ther info was being presented as some kind of evidence of the officers innocence....
All this new spin about this being his story and its good it came out, only came about AFTER it was pointed out that she really is not vetted and she was a friend.
Like I noted a little bit ago, does anyone really believe that this cop blew away a defenseless kid from behind in front of witnesses in plain sight?....or because he was black?
Yes, unfortunately a lot of people believe that.
Quote:
In comment 11814765 halfback20 said:
Quote:
I read somewhere that a source close to the investigation confirmed the friends version of the officers account. Can't remember where I saw that but I'll look.
The same website linked above stated that their sources in the police state that her story coincided with the statement Wilson gave. Which it should since the caller was calling for the Wilson family.
But also it needs to be taken into account that this station claimed they vetted her, then claimed not really, then said it is a friend of the officers wife. Which if he is divorced, that makes that part wrong also and any vetting she may or may not have done is worthless. Bottom line is that the caller was shilling for the police officers family and the radio station seemed to be playing with that fact a bit.
We call this circular reporting. We always want corroborating report/intelligence to strengthen our assessment. However, when you have a story coming from essentially the same source (in this case the woman getting her story from the Wilson family) being mistakenly attributed as coming from two independent sources, it makes it seem like the report/intelligence is far stronger than it is.
Exactly, and that was how it was first being presented on here
Quote:
I never said anything WAS the complete truth. I just don't see why people keep talking about this woman calling into a radio show. Even if she's exactly who she says she is and everything she says is true, all she's doing is parroting what the cop said. Where's the value in that?
BINGO!!!
Either have I. All people are doing is parroting what others said. There is no value in any of it. Sure has been a lot of speculation up to the families lawyer calling it an execution.
Not disagreeing with you or montana. None of it has any value except for feeding the media frenzy.
Funniest thing I saw this morning on morning Joe one of the msnbc young night hosts getting stoned ny protesters. He did tell them they were trying to get the truth out for them. It didn't work.
Sucks when that moment arrives that you realize that you are at best considered nothing more than part of the media.
I can believe that as I can also believe that he didn't overreact.
That's all for the grand jury to decide.
"I'm alright. I'm alright. People are upset"
Can you IMAGINE what his reaction would have been if this was a Tea Party demonstration? MSNBC would have gone to 24/7 live coverage of the Hayes stoning bumping all of their other hosts except Sharpton.
I really don't want to keep rehashing this so this will be my last post outlining how the discussion got turned:
No that is not the point...It was being presented on here that this lady calling into a radio show was vetted, and that she corroborated the story being told by the officer per a police spokesperson. She was being sold as a witness that happened to have called into the show.
It was only after further examining of the radio blog that it was discovered she actually was not vetted, and that she was a friend of the Officers family telling what she heard.
Now some see this for what it was. A way to have what could be the officers story for comparison to the investigation when it breaks...But when this was first posted a couple posters implied this was evidence to help the officers case as if she was a witness to the actual shooting
Quote:
In comment 11814888 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
I never said anything WAS the complete truth. I just don't see why people keep talking about this woman calling into a radio show. Even if she's exactly who she says she is and everything she says is true, all she's doing is parroting what the cop said. Where's the value in that?
BINGO!!!
Either have I. All people are doing is parroting what others said. There is no value in any of it. Sure has been a lot of speculation up to the families lawyer calling it an execution.
Not disagreeing with you or montana. None of it has any value except for feeding the media frenzy.
Funniest thing I saw this morning on morning Joe one of the msnbc young night hosts getting stoned ny protesters. He did tell them they were trying to get the truth out for them. It didn't work.
Sucks when that moment arrives that you realize that you are at best considered nothing more than part of the media.
I agree
I don't think anyone took her to be a witness. Her telling of the policeman's story however does align with the story of from the witness that did see it and is captured on a youtube video telling another guy what happened.
strangely they don't talk to the friend of the policeman from the call in radio show
Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit to Ferguson - ( New Window )
The potential 2016 candidate was attending a fundraiser. Also present and taking his turn on the stage was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Sharpton told MSNBC's Tamron Hall on Monday that he thinks possible presidential candidates have a responsibility to speak out about the situation in Ferguson.
"This is now a national, central issue, and anyone running for president needs to come up with a formula, or, in my opinion, they forfeit their right to be taken seriously," he said. "I'm amazed that we're not hearing from leading candidates ... Chris Christie or Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. I land in New York this morning, and I see Chris Christie dancing with Jamie Foxx."
While Christie and McCain busted moves on Saturday night, police unleashed tear gas on protesters in Ferguson. Amid the mayhem, a man was wounded by gunshots. This came after Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) declared a state of emergency and instituted a midnight curfew.
Other potential presidential candidates have weighed in on the violence, which began after the deadly shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, by a police officer on Aug. 9. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote an op-ed denouncing the "militarization of law enforcement," a key facet of the situation in Ferguson and a growing trend nationally. Paul has also advocated for reforms to the criminal justice system.
On Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote a Facebook post urging law enforcement to "examine carefully what happened to ensure that justice is served" and condemning the arrests of The Huffington Post's Ryan Reilly and The Washington Post's Wesley Lowery
wow... this guy is only there for the cameras
story - ( New Window )
Wee bit prejudicial for the governor of the state to bluster about prosecution before the case even goes to the grand jury, no?
Link - ( New Window )
Last Week Tonight - Jon Oliver - ( New Window )
FOB Red's BBQ...hahahaha - ( New Window )
Sorry, but if the kid just conducted a strong-armed crime then that very much speaks to his potential demeanor soon thereafter and is relevant.
Quote:
FERGUSON, Mo. Members of the Missouri National Guard who were deployed by the governor arrived on Monday and immediately began to police call spent brass and cigarette butts around the police command center at a nearby mall, Duffel Blog has learned.
FOB Red's BBQ...hahahaha - ( New Window )
Most people aren't going to understand the humor in this one...haha
that being said, since Nixon hasn't handled this too well, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he meant...
Great segment if you like shallow one sided analysis given to get a cheap laugh. Unfortunately to many of your generation, the way they get news.
Great segment if you like shallow one sided analysis given to get a cheap laugh. Unfortunately to many of your generation, the way they get news.
Quote:
In a video statement released Tuesday night, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said "vigorous prosecution must now be pursued" in Michael Brown's death
Wee bit prejudicial for the governor of the state to bluster about prosecution before the case even goes to the grand jury, no? Link - ( New Window )
It's one thin when citizens call for prosecution without the benefit of knowing all the evidence, it is another thing when governing official's do it. What a display of a lack of integrity.
You should have probably been sorry about the shallow characterization of how people get their news. :)
I agree. I will watch them sometimes because they can be funny, they can be entertaining. And sure they can make a good point, but they just as often make poor ones not based on facts. But I have read that with some young people these shows are where they get most if not all of their "news" from.
Nixon seems to be appalled by the local police but more supportive of the county prosecutor. He didn't replace him.
Quote:
for the double post.
You should have probably been sorry about the shallow characterization of how people get their news. :)
How young get news. - ( New Window )
Quote:
or latenight talk show hosts function as a source of information and that their audiences give them such disproportionate credibility. Nothing to do with Ferguson, of course, but just random musing.
I agree. I will watch them sometimes because they can be funny, they can be entertaining. And sure they can make a good point, but they just as often make poor ones not based on facts. But I have read that with some young people these shows are where they get most if not all of their "news" from.
Agree that it's sad, but really how much different are they from many other newscasts as far as being shallow and only presenting one side? They're funny- that's about the only difference.
I'm 30. I refuse to watch television news except in the case of an emergency. I don't trust news outlets that lust after ratings and controversy.
Because if they are funny, they have more credibility. Also if they are the same political bent as you are.
How cynical.
I agree.
Or as we were told, the leaders of tomorrow.
Key section:
A lawyer for the police union, Greg Kloeppel, did not return calls for comment.
The F.B.I., Mr. Bosley said, pressed Mr. Johnson to say how high Mr. Browns hands were. Mr. Johnson said that his hands were not that high, and that one was lower than the other, because he appeared to be favoring it, the lawyer said.
James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Browns hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer.
I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him, Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.
Link - ( New Window )
I'd say 80-90% of the population fits that description.
Cop Pointing Rifle At Ferguson Protestors: "I Will Fucking Kill You" - ( New Window )
OK. No excuse for that at all.
I imagine that guy needs some time off and some rest. No excuse for his actions. I imagine considering how chaotic that whole scene looked, that he let the taunting and stress get the better of him. Stupid fuck ups like that are why there is so much distrust.
Sometimes they're scared people with weapons, unfortunately.
That guy looked scared shitless, IMO.
'Fat, bald pussy' is the first thing that comes to mind when I see this. That should be a good idea, instead of this tub of failure
This is an argument into infinitum with many, who for reasons I can't understand fail to concede this obvious truth. I'm just a cop hater, after all.
This is an argument into infinitum with many, who for reasons I can't understand fail to concede this obvious truth. I'm just a cop hater, after all.
I also agree. Including the part about cop hater.
Thanks for getting it.
Quote:
for the double post.
You should have probably been sorry about the shallow characterization of how people get their news. :)
Watch out, when you point out Big Al's lame ass passive/aggressive style of discussion, he whines that he is being picked on...To the point where he will actually send out emails about it..lol
You need to go back to around page 23 when someone brought it up again as proof of the cops innocence
I'm 30. I refuse to watch television news except in the case of an emergency. I don't trust news outlets that lust after ratings and controversy.
Sad thing is that if you ever get a chance to watch BBC and Aussie news programs, you really sense how bad ours have become
last week, Sonic youth questioned why the police had snipers on the roofs of some buildings...last night the "protesters" had their guns on the rooftops and took shots at the police...
there was an incident last night where police were called to an area to help someone...turns out it was to get them to go to an area where they were ambushed and their car surrounded...they just backed the car up quickly and got out of there before anything happened...
Regarding the guy in the video.....yeah, that's a big part of the problem right there.
Link - ( New Window )
last week, Sonic youth questioned why the police had snipers on the roofs of some buildings...last night the "protesters" had their guns on the rooftops and took shots at the police...
there was an incident last night where police were called to an area to help someone...turns out it was to get them to go to an area where they were ambushed and their car surrounded...they just backed the car up quickly and got out of there before anything happened...
If you're fired upon, you return fire. I have no problem with that. Running around with a rifle in the ready position saying "I'm gonna fucking kill you" to unarmed people? Different situation.
In No Country For Old Men, Sheriff Bell says "I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job", and that's the truth. A hard, unpleasant truth, but there it is. The main purpose of police work is NOT to ensure that every officer goes home, as the cliche goes. Sorry. It's a rough job - that comes with the territory and the power they wield. I will never agree with the idea that police are allowed unlimited leeway because they face dangers.
Link - ( New Window )
Officer safety might be their paramount, but it doesn't mean it should be THE paramount.
I don't know if you can tell that from this source. Look at the blurb right under the picture:
First off they have no idea yet if he will be cleared since its going to a grand jury and the investigation still has a long way to go.
Secondly why would a "National Media" source tell this website prior to putting it out themselves? National Media don't give big scoops out like this to minor bloggers.
It honestly would be best for all if he is cleared of everything, but they are going to make sure of that.
haha. Perfect example of confirmation bias here.
And I said I wouldn't be surprised. Not that it has actually happened.
It's not a joke. It's not a game. If anyone says to you "come see the protest" you need to say "NO!" There's a lot of people out there playing "journalist." I was one of those fools playing "journalist." I will confess that this was the dumbest thing I've ever done in my life. The over-saturation of media is not helping the cause. We were filming at the burned down QT on West Florissant when a protester threw a glass bottle at the police. The crowd was asked by police to disburse over and over again. Those warnings fell on deaf ear's. The police department yelled repeatedly over the loud speaker for the media to separate from the protesters. The "media" understood the level of sincerity when the audible sound of weapons being charged echoed loudly over the chanting demonstrators. A police officer in riot gear invited me to hide behind his armored vehicle. I chose a spot off of the road close to fellow photographer Michael Thomas. The police released a few smoke canisters and then deployed chemicals. I started to choke when an all too familiar sound filled the air. Actual gunfire. This is an unmistakable sound. We heard it during night infiltration in the U.S. Army. I will never forget the sound of gunfire coming my way. The crazy part is that it was a welcome sound. If you heard it....that means that you're still alive. Bullets (unless subsonic) travel faster than the speed of sound. If you heard it...you're alive. The police descended on our position while screaming "Get the fuck out of here!" We were confused as to where he wanted us to go. I remember screaming "WHERE", but I don't remember hearing a direction to run. Still choking from the CS canisters....I took off and ran as fast as I could. All of this was captured on high definition video. I will happily supply is to any media outlet who requests a copy. If you share or redistribute this video on social media or television then you MUST credit Karl Lund for capturing it. Heed my warning. Ferguson is nothing short of a war zone. I will not be able to sleep tonight. I pray that all of my fellow photographer's, police officer friends and ALL of the protesters get home safe. I can't believe that this is happening in our city. I' God be with each of you.
Can we stop calling him a "gentle giant" and "unarmed teen" now?
Thug beat officer before shooting in self defense - ( New Window )
Thanks.
I'm specifically talking about the phrase "unarmed teen". "Dangerous criminal thug" is more accurate.
some comes from live news reports which are on almost every local channel, especially in the evening and into the early morning hours...
below is a link to a feed on reddit that has a lot of detail, as well as still pictures and video from the scene, although it is clear that some misinformation is posted, which they try to clear up...
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
And BTW, there is nothing unusual about grand jury proceedings taking longer than 1 day. So if an indictment is not handed down this afternoon, shame on whoever tries to light the fuse (either no indictment or no decline to indict) on that basis.
Didn't see it. But my comment regarding no indictment being handed down today (now it will be they are stalling) stands.
it's a good thing they announced a target date so people don't keep wondering "is this the day"...
link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
And BTW, there is nothing unusual about grand jury proceedings taking longer than 1 day. So if an indictment is not handed down this afternoon, shame on whoever tries to light the fuse (either no indictment or no decline to indict) on that basis.
I was just thinking the same thing.
And BTW, there is nothing unusual about grand jury proceedings taking longer than 1 day. So if an indictment is not handed down this afternoon, shame on whoever tries to light the fuse (either no indictment or no decline to indict) on that basis.
Lest we forget this...
NYP garbage 'journalism'
there was a shot last night on one of the local news channels where Johnson was handed a bouquet of flowers to "take home to your wife" because he has been away from home...
he has been far too involved with the protesters, including marching with them and going to press conferences by the family, Sharpton, etc....maybe he's under orders to do that, as one poster here said yesterday but I doubt it...
his actions have also caused a split between the "good cops" (Johnson) and the bad cops (the County Police), at least as perceived by the protesters...
Well, I may have drawn the conclusion that it was his wife, because I think they actually referred to her as his significant other. So maybe it is a live in girlfriend or even boyfriend I suppose.
I tend to agree with you about that..
But, he has also caught from the other side. I know they were not thrilled when he supported some of the tactics of the officers (e.g., arrests, tear gas). And, they had a piece last night where some of the protesters were getting really belligerent and abusive towards him.
Absolutely inappropriate, on multiple levels, to bring in another agency and not inform the County Police. They don't have to agree to it or even like it, but to make it work, prior notification and coordination would make things better.
You can tell there is friction - Johnson remarked that he did not agree with the release of the robbery video.
And, you can definitely see the good cops bad cops dynamic.
Just more meat piled on this sh*t sandwich.
In comment 11815968 Big Al said:
Quote:
Great segment on Ferguson (definitely won't jive with what some of the dispositions here however) Last Week Tonight - Jon Oliver - ( New Window )
Great segment if you like shallow one sided analysis given to get a cheap laugh. Unfortunately to many of your generation, the way they get news.
I am mostly a liberal, so I can say that without it's being particularly political. If you go to Google News, roughly 9 out of the first 10 articles citing this apparent new medical news are Murdoch subsidiaries or British tabloids. I picked a link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer because it is neither.
Assuming that this is true, it puts the "Brown with his hands up" scenario in an entirely new light. N'est pas?
Assuming that this is true, it is very strange that this information was not distributed until late last night or early today, depending upon which account you read. Disclosing this a lot earlier might have changed the attitudes that led to the worst riots, at least somewhat.
Link - ( New Window )
In comment 11815968 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 11815755 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Great segment on Ferguson (definitely won't jive with what some of the dispositions here however) Last Week Tonight - Jon Oliver - ( New Window )
Great segment if you like shallow one sided analysis given to get a cheap laugh. Unfortunately to many of your generation, the way they get news.
I bow to you and the rare intelligence and common sense that you have displayed on these threads not to mention your high SAT scores that I could never match. The future is in good hands with you and your peers.
Quote:
I think it's just that the target audience is shallow, has no real thirst for knowledge and perhaps a limited ability to retain it.
what a load of horse shit. So anyone who watches jon stewart has "no thirst for knowledge and a limited ability to retain it". Thats the stupidest shit ive ever heard. And let me guess, fox news viewers are enlightened, right? Btw: my generation gets our news online. We watch stewart cause hes funny. And jon olivers show is a current events show, not really political, not that you care, since you just want to frame is as some bullshit one sided liberal media youngin bullshit.
No, people who continually cite comedy shows as a news source shallow, has no real thirst for knowledge and perhaps a limited ability to retain it.
Media reports directly completely refute this. If you believe this, you are just not being realistic.
Quote:
In comment 11816185 Bill L said:
Quote:
I think it's just that the target audience is shallow, has no real thirst for knowledge and perhaps a limited ability to retain it.
what a load of horse shit. So anyone who watches jon stewart has "no thirst for knowledge and a limited ability to retain it". Thats the stupidest shit ive ever heard. And let me guess, fox news viewers are enlightened, right? Btw: my generation gets our news online. We watch stewart cause hes funny. And jon olivers show is a current events show, not really political, not that you care, since you just want to frame is as some bullshit one sided liberal media youngin bullshit.
No, people who continually cite comedy shows as a news source shallow, has no real thirst for knowledge and perhaps a limited ability to retain it.
Well if youre referring to me (dont think you are though), I cited it as commentary, which it is. And it IS spot on.
Quote:
Lol. Anyone with common sense can see he nails it. Sorry if it doesnt gel with your outdated pro cop circlejerk. Hes not partisan, really ever. His show isn't overtly political. So what axe does he have to grind here? Maybe YOU are the one sided one...
In comment 11815968 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 11815755 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Great segment on Ferguson (definitely won't jive with what some of the dispositions here however) Last Week Tonight - Jon Oliver - ( New Window )
Great segment if you like shallow one sided analysis given to get a cheap laugh. Unfortunately to many of your generation, the way they get news.
I bow to you and the rare intelligence and common sense that you have displayed on these threads not to mention your high SAT scores that I could never match. The future is in good hands with you and your peers.
We get it, Al. Cops are never wrong and nobody should ever criticize them, right?
He doesn't nail shit. He plays to children who don't have a brain. Oh, that's why you like it.
This thread started and people were outright condemning the officer and people responded. The evidence may still show that he did something wrong and nobody should have formed a conclusion yet. However since this story has broke most of the details that have been released do make it seem more likely that the officer may have had cause to fire his weapon.
Well if youre referring to me (dont think you are though), I cited it as commentary, which it is. And it IS spot on.
No, you didn't say anything about it being commentary. Just how he 'nailed it' and anyone who didn't agree had a bad disposition.
I can see why your generation thinks it's as valuable as news, because news has gone so far downhill. But it's not.
Quote:
In comment 11817069 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Lol. Anyone with common sense can see he nails it. Sorry if it doesnt gel with your outdated pro cop circlejerk. Hes not partisan, really ever. His show isn't overtly political. So what axe does he have to grind here? Maybe YOU are the one sided one...
In comment 11815968 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 11815755 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Great segment on Ferguson (definitely won't jive with what some of the dispositions here however) Last Week Tonight - Jon Oliver - ( New Window )
Great segment if you like shallow one sided analysis given to get a cheap laugh. Unfortunately to many of your generation, the way they get news.
I bow to you and the rare intelligence and common sense that you have displayed on these threads not to mention your high SAT scores that I could never match. The future is in good hands with you and your peers.
We get it, Al. Cops are never wrong and nobody should ever criticize them, right?
Why do you feel the need to just make stuff up about what I think? You jump from comments made mostly about one incident to a general blanket feeling about how you have determined in your vast wisdom of how I feel about all police incidents. Apparently logical thinking is not covered on the SATs or you would not have done so well.
We just criticize you because of you hyperbole. Just how did that shot in the back thinky workout for you? Wasn't that absolute gospel?
The fact is that the vast majority on here are waiting for the outcome and debating every piece of gossip, yes gossip, that gets reported. Without prejudging a thing.
Where did you do your grad work at that allowed you to to cite comics and used them as credible sources?
The vast majority here have found out that being absolute usually comes back to bite you in the ass. Everything becomes much more gray as you get older.
You have sold your soul to the devil for an outcome.
What are you going to do if the cop is absolved?
I am mostly a liberal, so I can say that without it's being particularly political. If you go to Google News, roughly 9 out of the first 10 articles citing this apparent new medical news are Murdoch subsidiaries or British tabloids. I picked a link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer because it is neither.
Assuming that this is true, it puts the "Brown with his hands up" scenario in an entirely new light. N'est pas?
Assuming that this is true, it is very strange that this information was not distributed until late last night or early today, depending upon which account you read. Disclosing this a lot earlier might have changed the attitudes that led to the worst riots, at least somewhat. Link - ( New Window )
The link says, ""They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source told Fox News. "They shoved him right back in, that's when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face."
I would think that if "they" were involved, Dorin Johnson. the other part of "they" would have been arrested.
Quote:
Well if youre referring to me (dont think you are though), I cited it as commentary, which it is. And it IS spot on.
No, you didn't say anything about it being commentary. Just how he 'nailed it' and anyone who didn't agree had a bad disposition.
I can see why your generation thinks it's as valuable as news, because news has gone so far downhill. But it's not.
LOL ok, sorry I needed to clear it up for you guys that Jon Oliver's show is a fucking commentary on current events, not news. Didn't realize that wasn't obvious from what the fucking show actually is.
Oh wait, there's probably 0% chance any of you, including Big Al, watched the segment. It probably went as deep as:
"this guy used to be on the Daily Show. This segment is criticizing police. YOUNG PEOPLE AND NEWS ARGHHH".
So where was this dislike for Jon Oliver when people were posting about how strong his show was a month or two back? Nowhere, since they didn't think it took a side in the imaginary "MIKE BROWN/ANTI COP VS ANTI MIKE BROWN/PRO COP" debate/argument/fight/whatever.
Besides, it's fucking pathetic "OH HEY SONIC YOUTH HOW DID THE SHOT IN THE BACK WORK OUT FOR YOU LOLZ"... actively taking sides and rooting for things to unfold a certain way to prove some stupid "point".
Well here's my point: regardless of what happened in this particular case, there are major issues with law enforcement in this country. PERIOD. So you can all stop sitting and hoping and praying that more evidence comes out that makes Michael Brown look like a bad guy, so you can prove your precious points on this pointless message board.
So what am I gonna do if the cop is absolved? Uh, nothing? Go about my day as usual?
Sorry you guys cannot realize that this isn't a one time issue. This is a pattern. This is just one example.
Also, show me one fucking place where I stated Jon Oliver is a fucking source of news. You extrapolated "Jon Oliver nails it" as me calling him a credible news source? But yeah, the friend of an ex wife of the cop who anonymously called into a radio station is totalllllyyyy a credible source, right?
Oliver's show has pretty much got universal acclaim, isn't rooted in politics, and tackles current events and news story with commentary. Nobody even argued that it was a source of news for anyone, but go ahead and run with whatever fits whatever stupid preconceived notions you have in your head.
Let me repeat the most important thing:
Well here's my point: regardless of what happened in this particular case, there are major issues with law enforcement in this country. PERIOD.
Why do you feel the need to just make stuff up about what I think? You jump from comments made mostly about one incident to a general blanket feeling about how you have determined in your vast wisdom of how I feel about all police incidents. Apparently logical thinking is not covered on the SATs or you would not have done so well.
True, it is annoying when people just put words in your mouth right? Hey, btw, can you do me a favor and show me one place where I cited Jon Oliver as a source of news? Do me a favor and go ahead and point it out. Cause "Jon Oliver nails it" pretty much states that his commentary was spot on.
1) Who was around to do the arresting of the other kid for a pretty minor infraction, given that all hell had just broken lose?
2) Is it possible that the "they" part is incorrect, but that Brown still busted Wilson's eye socket? There aren't any well-confirmed, detailed accounts yet.
Quote:
Well if youre referring to me (dont think you are though), I cited it as commentary, which it is. And it IS spot on.
No, you didn't say anything about it being commentary. Just how he 'nailed it' and anyone who didn't agree had a bad disposition.
I can see why your generation thinks it's as valuable as news, because news has gone so far downhill. But it's not.
Buford, first of all, why do you need a disclaimer for me to explain to you that a show that is commentary on current events isn't a news program? You really need that pointed out to you?
And why dont you go ahead and show me where I said "anyone who didn't agree with this segment had a bad disposition".
Nobody watches the Daily Show going "Gee, I wonder what happened in the world today". People watch it thinking "I wonder what stupid hypocritical shit will be revealed while watching it".
And this doesn't even have to do with the Daily Show. This is about Jon Oliver's own shot, which is far far less politicized than the Daily Show.
One point I will agree with you about is when you juxtapose the Daily Show with shit like Fox News, people are likely to find Jon Stewart more honest.
Says the person who thinks "Jon Oliver is spot in" means "citing him as a news source".
We don't know if this particular incident is part of that pattern yet.
You jumped the shark before we know if it is or not and you want us to follow.
Seems like most ain't taking that bait.
Then you get mad when we don't
That you try then tell everyone that they side with cops when all everyone wants is let the event play itself out.
Seriously, who is the clueless one here? The person who needs it explained to them that Jon Oliver is a social commentary program and not a news source? You need that disclaimer printed?
We don't know if this particular incident is part of that pattern yet.
You jumped the shark before we know if it is or not and you want us to follow.
Seems like most ain't taking that bait.
Then you get mad when we don't
That you try then tell everyone that they side with cops when all everyone wants is let the event play itself out.
Fine, let me amend my statement:
There is a troubling pattern. Whether or not this is part of that pattern doesn't take away from the fact that there are serious issues with law enforcement in this country.
Fine
Why don't you start a thread on that premiss then instead of hijacking this one?
Fine
Why don't you start a thread on that premiss then instead of hijacking this one?
lol. this is just funny.
Saying things with absolute certainty (0%) that are actually wrong shows immature and poor logical thinking.
You really think Sonic Youth fits that bill?
Saying things with absolute certainty (0%) that are actually wrong shows immature and poor logical thinking.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, honestly. Because I'm still waiting to see what was biased about Oliver's take. He didn't even make a judgement on whether or not the shooting was justified. He went out of his way not to. He was talking about law enforcement in the country as a whole.
And buford, that's cute. You can try and paint me out us "uninformed" because I don't agree with you about cops, but as crazy as it may seem to you, I do keep up with current events (I prefer using the app Circa).
Quote:
said "Oh wait, there's probably 0% chance any of you, including Big Al, watched the segment."
Saying things with absolute certainty (0%) that are actually wrong shows immature and poor logical thinking.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, honestly. Because I'm still waiting to see what was biased about Oliver's take. He didn't even make a judgement on whether or not the shooting was justified. He went out of his way not to. He was talking about law enforcement in the country as a whole.
And buford, that's cute. You can try and paint me out us "uninformed" because I don't agree with you about cops, but as crazy as it may seem to you, I do keep up with current events (I prefer using the app Circa).
Thank you. I would not be able to sleep if you doubted me.
If it comes out that Mike Brown broke the offices orbital bone, tried to take his gun, charged the officer and was killed in self defense, I will gladly admit I was completely wrong about what I thought occurred.
It doesn't really change the point about the lack of accountability for law enforcement or the way they treat citizens in this country.
BTW, has anyone actually cited a comedy show as a news source? I know it's a long thread, so maybe I missed it.
Institutionally, I suppose. it's about the institutions.
If you think it makes any sense to call 800,000 people one thing, you're crazy, and I don't believe that. However, it's curious that nobody seemed to have a problem with the previous discussion grouping millions of a "younger generation" that allegedly gets their news from comedy sources -- it was clear that it was a generalization though. In my statement, I was (hoping) it was apparent I was speaking in generalities about law enforcement as an institution.
I doubt it's like this in every single department, and I'm sure NYPD is a much different beast than others, but what about Schoolcraft's treatment after taping NYPD violations? I'm sure there were some cops in there that thought he did the right thing, but institutionally, they acted a certain way.
This is pretty much semantics.
BTW, has anyone actually cited a comedy show as a news source? I know it's a long thread, so maybe I missed it.
Not only have you continued to obscure the good points that you have by burying them in hyperbole and emotional comments, but you missed a good opportunity to make another decent point:
There was no need to amend your statement. Regardless of whether the evidence shows the shooting to be a criminal act or not, the actions of the County PD are a good example of "serious issues with law enforcement".
Son, I am disappoint.
Believe me, I've been watching the "action" live the past week + and the media is definitely in the way...plus I've talked to police who were there and continue to be there ...tonight they are saying the media outnumbered the protesters,at least when the night started...
But the media say they aren't a problem - OK....let me tell you, if the media wasn't here it would be a lot less volatile...every time the police do anything, like arrest someone for throwing a rock or refusing to disperse, they are surrounded by media with lights, microphone,cameras and phones...you have no idea what you are talking about ...
Believe me, I've been watching the "action" live the past week + and the media is definitely in the way...plus I've talked to police who were there and continue to be there ...tonight they are saying the media outnumbered the protesters,at least when the night started...
But the media say they aren't a problem - OK....let me tell you, if the media wasn't here it would be a lot less volatile...every time the police do anything, like arrest someone for throwing a rock or refusing to disperse, they are surrounded by media with lights, microphone,cameras and phones...you have no idea what you are talking about ...
This should have never been allowed to escalate into a circus, the media should have had a curfew shorter than the residents.
Wake up, it's not about right or wrong with the media ( and now they are calling bloggers media) it's about who will watch the longest.
If that's not obvious to everyone, you need to re evaluate your education.
Yeesh
Not only have you continued to obscure the good points that you have by burying them in hyperbole and emotional comments, but you missed a good opportunity to make another decent point:
Quote:
here is a troubling pattern. Whether or not this is part of that pattern doesn't take away from the fact that there are serious issues with law enforcement in this country.
There was no need to amend your statement. Regardless of whether the evidence shows the shooting to be a criminal act or not, the actions of the County PD are a good example of "serious issues with law enforcement".
Son, I am disappoint.
=/ maybe i present my points a little to aggro and over the top but I'm not really saying anything that crazy or unreasonable. Whatever, I'm going to be the authority hating, anti cop, ranting and ignorant minority anyway, doesn't matter.
And Mike in STL, I'm referring to the fact that police are rounding off media to the side and then letting them go when they see they are media. I don't need to remind you the Washington Post and Huffington Post reporters were actually thrown in jail. Yeah, they were let go when it was realized they were media, but let's not pretend cops were not arresting or harassing media, or that they were arrested under dubious at best circumstances.
It's pretty crazy that now, in a rationalization to believe that the police are doing as little as wrong possible, the media is getting blamed for making themselves part of the story - when earlier, while covering this same event, cameras were teargassed miles away from the protest.
What about the 2 senators teargassed. Are they responsible for making themselves part of the story? Why can't we just say that rioting is wrong, but police have been way too reactive. They aren't mutually exclusive. I don't understand the rationlizations here.
It's not one side vs another.
Too much history to dismiss by unfounded rumors that I may be insane. See you Wednesday 8/27 @ 8pm ET, Mike.
I think its more a case of failing to have a lick of common sense....
Why protest there?
he acknowledged that sometimes the media has outnumbered the protesters but said "it is what it is" and that the media do an important job...
as part of the report, the local commentator/news reader also pointed out the term media has been used very loosely in Ferguson...anybody with a camera or a smart phone claims to be a member of the media...a lot are free lancers or bloggers who claim to be protecting the First Amendment or trying to get their work noticed by somebody...
plus most of the media do not dress much differently than the protesters and mingle among them...how are the police supposed to tell them apart when things start being thrown at them or shots are fired?
last night, a Russian TV reporter was being taped by her camera man when the media were asked to move...whether through ignorance or language issues, she just kept right on going until the police essentially pushed her out of the way...
I'll fill you in someday, this isn't the thread, got lotsa BBI elite names to drop, most of them were on my bar tab for a couple days. Ask RAZE about pineapple soaked in Grey Goose and my name comes up immediately, lol.
Quote:
Officer Wilson showed up to Ferguson to protest. They were quickly pelted with bottles and surrounded by the "peaceful" protesters in the area. They were then whisked away by police for their own safety. I guess they don't have 1st amendment rights to protest there...
I think its more a case of failing to have a lick of common sense....
Why protest there?
I'm not saying I'd do it. But they had every right to do it without having bottles thrown at them didn't they?
Do you also agree that the Westboro Baptist Church should have the right to claim to a dead soldiers parents that their son deserved to die? Because that falls under the same type of argument.
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
Relevant part is around the 7:20 mark. Officer fired 5 shots that hit the guy that was pulled over, thinking he was subdued. Guy fired 1 shot back, after being hit 5 times, at the officer while he was calling for backup... Eventually killing the officer.
This officer did what many in this thread have asked of the officer in ferguson and payed with his life.
Skip to 7:20 for relevance - ( New Window )
Look, I buy that there was a real possibility that Brown started this by breaking Wilson's eye socket. I still have a problem with the idea that Wilson needed to respond toward an unarmed Brown with 6 or more shots.
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
Where is it confirmed he has a broken bone in his face? Have the police come out and stated this?
Obviously, any violence against them from other protestors is unacceptable. It is also fairly predictable given the circumstances of the situation at this time. They have a right to speak their mind and protest, any private citizen may disagree with their point but if it crosses into violence then obviously a crime has been committed.
If it is found that police or any other government authority are responsible for violence against or otherwise suppressing the media, that actually is a potential 1st Ammendment issue.
Quote:
that support an officer that might very well be innocent and a victim himself, to the westboro baptist church?
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
I guess I'm not following how the Wilson-supporting protesters are in any way different from the Brown-supporting protestors and, if one is equivalent to Wesboro, why all are not equivalent to Westboro. Seems to me also, that if one group should stay away from a certain area, then everyone should (which would be my preference in the first place.
You have two different sides of a situation here; at this point in time, is one really more legitimate than the other?
It is absolutely deplorable that if a boob is shown on TV people can get fined, but irresponsibly run with a story that causes the destruction of a town and results in innocent store owners losing their livlihoods and there are no ramifications?
Our cultural immediacy whether it be 24-hour channels or social media contributes to these mob events. There have to be controls to prevent it from happening over and over again.
Which, for the most part isn't going to do anything. They reported what witnesses said, and reported what the police said. People read the two opposing accounts and believed one or the other.
Do you put a waiting period on reporting? Do you only allow state vetted witnesses to have their accounts published?
I don't think there's any sort of practical solution that doesn't infringe on freedom of the press.
They trot out one protester after another... interspersed with local, black councilmen and women... all of whom have already convicted the officer and are just waiting for the "Justice" system to catch up.
Good thing there isn't any other big news going on - oh wait!
Heck, the whole "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" mantra that keeps getting said came from the initial witness's statement. That the premise is most likely flawed isn't keeping people from chanting it repeatedly.
Who fueled the adoption of the flawed motto? The Media.
The Media also runs interviews with family and attorneys who use inflammatory and mischaracterizing words or phrases like "execute", "assassination", or "Gentle Giant", "Kind Soul", etc. in the early days of reporting.
Isn't there a responsibility to be fair and balanced?
I agree with you, but it is about ratings and when you make it about ratings, you pick your target demographic, then cater to the LCD of that demographic.
It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Seems that for the most part, people don't want to form their own opinion based on the facts. They want someone else's opinion. And who has more credibility than someone on TV? I mean, IT'S TV!
I know it isn't easy to control, but how many events where things snowball out of control have to happen before we recognize the problem and do something about it?
Also in this day of people losing their job if saying something that is maybe politically incorrect you don't get many reporters willing to criticize Brown, but the cops are always easy targets, and so it goes.
I agree with you, but it is about ratings and when you make it about ratings, you pick your target demographic, then cater to the LCD of that demographic.
It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Seems that for the most part, people don't want to form their own opinion based on the facts. They want someone else's opinion. And who has more credibility than someone on TV? I mean, IT'S TV!
Years ago, the news wasn't subject to ratings. The public watched the one they trusted. And you trusted the one that was most accurate reporting the story.
I know it isn't easy to control, but how many events where things snowball out of control have to happen before we recognize the problem and do something about it?
Sure. Which pieces were inaccurate reporting in this case, though?
Early on they were reporting the information that was known. I don't recall anything being inaccurate other than what some of the witnesses said- and even then we still aren't sure how inaccurate they are because we don't know all of the facts yet.
I realize there aren't easy ways to stop this, but it has a real-life impact when people rally around a cause that is partially Media-created.
When people like Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman have to fear for their lives, and not just from the victim's families, there is something wrong.
when people from LA and NY go to Missouri with the intent to loot, there are issues.
i can't yell "Fire" in a public place, but people can say, "No justice, No Peace" or say that somebody was executed repeatedly to fan riots and there is no responsibility.
Also,as much as the media as a whole contributes to hysteria and stupidity... it is obvious that the government cannot and should not penalize media sources for reporting, whether they do a good or a bad job of it.
It isn't too hard to see how people were strung up in town squares years ago as people gleefully looked on.
Then there are the ones who are just giving opinion, those are the problems. People like Sharpton (who is media now) and others who have hijacked this incident and used it for their own agendas.
News is entertainment now, that is correct. It used to be a non-ratings getting piece of business for the Networks, now it's gone way beyond that.
Quote:
is although it is the way it is, shouldn't it be changed? Should we impose stiff penalties for inaccurate reporting? Journalistic integrity was much easier to accomplish when you didn't have Twitter and Facebook to compete with, but there is still a responsibility to uphold.
I know it isn't easy to control, but how many events where things snowball out of control have to happen before we recognize the problem and do something about it?
Sure. Which pieces were inaccurate reporting in this case, though?
Early on they were reporting the information that was known. I don't recall anything being inaccurate other than what some of the witnesses said- and even then we still aren't sure how inaccurate they are because we don't know all of the facts yet.
Essentially you're saying they are accurately reporting inaccurate (or possibly inaccurate) information from self proclaimed witnesses. The problem with that is the reporter, through selective choosing of witnesses, can slant the coverage in favor of their own agenda or point of view. The same thing can happen at the editing phase back at the network. An editor can pick and choose what witnesses will make the final cut.
I'm not sure how to solve the problem, but it is a problem.
Left and right media sources are both guilty of it.
Technically, neither are lying. I recognize that it is a problem, but someone far smarter than my dumbass would have to come up with a solution.
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
Sorry, I forgot the word allegedly. But aren't you being a bit hypocritical?
Quote:
In comment 11817390 halfback20 said:
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
BWAHAHAHAHA
This.
Quote:
In comment 11817390 halfback20 said:
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Here's the difference: I've said if I'm wrong I'll come out an admit it. I was going on what was widely reported by the media.
Meanwhile, you have halfback20 presenting things like "broken orbital bone" and "trying to take the cops gun" as if they are absolute fact.
Quote:
In comment 11817390 halfback20 said:
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
Sorry, I forgot the word allegedly. But aren't you being a bit hypocritical?
Yes, I was going to address that essentially you were doing exactly what you are getting on my case for.
And running the same risk of being hypocritical, I've told a lot of people to fuck off for nitpicking on singular words and "absolutes"... but I think "allegedly" is pretty damn important in that sentence.
Quote:
In comment 11817737 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11817390 halfback20 said:
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Here's the difference: I've said if I'm wrong I'll come out an admit it. I was going on what was widely reported by the media.
Meanwhile, you have halfback20 presenting things like "broken orbital bone" and "trying to take the cops gun" as if they are absolute fact.
He's using the same standard you are? The kid had his hands up. The cop shot him in the back, etc..
The ones complaining you can't trust anything coming out?
Quote:
In comment 11817737 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11817390 halfback20 said:
Quote:
He already punched him and broke a bone in his face...the first 4 shots likely hit his arm and didn't slow him down. What else would you expect the officer to do? He's already tried to take his gun...
Was this confirmed? Where was this confirmed? I haven't seen any confirmation about a broken eye socket, let alone trying to take the cops gun.
Sorry, this just seems like massive projection. Guy robs a store of a box of dutches, now he's the incredible hulk who is on a deathwish, breaking eyesockets and trying to steal guns from cops to murder them.
Anyway, besides my last sentence, I'd love to see where those two facts are confirmed to the point that you can speak as if they are absolute fact. If there is something I missed, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're just projecting what you want to be correct.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Here's the difference: I've said if I'm wrong I'll come out an admit it. I was going on what was widely reported by the media.
Meanwhile, you have halfback20 presenting things like "broken orbital bone" and "trying to take the cops gun" as if they are absolute fact.
I said I should have put the world "allegedly" in my post, get over it.
Anything Sonic says is absolute truth and anything anyone else comments about isn't worth his time.
Second, according to the linked New Republic article, a quirk in Missouri law having to do with treatment of self defense claims will make it almost impossible to convict Wilson under state law. The rule on treatment of claims of self defense in extremely weak and defendent-oriented. This isn't a cop issue.
On the other hand, if this is correct, how this would all be handled in a federal civil rights indictment is not discussed. I would guess that if the only reason Wilson is found not guilty is because of the weakness of the state law, the incentive to indict him on a civil rights charge would increase.
Link - ( New Window )
fortunately things were actually pretty calm in Ferguson last night, helped by the fact a massive rainstorm went through the St. Louis are about 8:30...
Second, according to the linked New Republic article, a quirk in Missouri law having to do with treatment of self defense claims will make it almost impossible to convict Wilson under state law. The rule on treatment of claims of self defense in extremely weak and defendent-oriented. This isn't a cop issue.
On the other hand, if this is correct, how this would all be handled in a federal civil rights indictment is not discussed. I would guess that if the only reason Wilson is found not guilty is because of the weakness of the state law, the incentive to indict him on a civil rights charge would increase. Link - ( New Window )
I think the author of the linked article overstates the relevance of generalizations about juries. This will NOT be a typical jury selection and we don't even know where the trial will take place.
As far as federal civil rights charges are concerned, I'll leave it to bob in texas to weigh in on Sec. 1983 and other potential federal causes of action.
It isn't too hard to see how people were strung up in town squares years ago as people gleefully looked on.
Well, you can definitely argue for the truth of that statement from more than one angle.
Wondering this myself.
From my half hearted research, it seems that any civil rights suit would probably be settled out of court.
Strikes me as very reasonable, and a polite (Christie? polite?) request for Rev. Al to go fuck himself.
Real Clear Politics - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11817357 halfback20 said:
Quote:
that support an officer that might very well be innocent and a victim himself, to the westboro baptist church?
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
I guess I'm not following how the Wilson-supporting protesters are in any way different from the Brown-supporting protestors and, if one is equivalent to Wesboro, why all are not equivalent to Westboro. Seems to me also, that if one group should stay away from a certain area, then everyone should (which would be my preference in the first place.
You have two different sides of a situation here; at this point in time, is one really more legitimate than the other?
Bill, you seriously don't see the difference between one person being shot dead, and the other the one who did the shooting? On top of that, What exactly Are the Wilson people protesting? He has not been charged with anything.
I know it isn't easy to control, but how many events where things snowball out of control have to happen before we recognize the problem and do something about it?
I agree 100% with this..
Quote:
In comment 11817397 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11817357 halfback20 said:
Quote:
that support an officer that might very well be innocent and a victim himself, to the westboro baptist church?
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
I guess I'm not following how the Wilson-supporting protesters are in any way different from the Brown-supporting protestors and, if one is equivalent to Wesboro, why all are not equivalent to Westboro. Seems to me also, that if one group should stay away from a certain area, then everyone should (which would be my preference in the first place.
You have two different sides of a situation here; at this point in time, is one really more legitimate than the other?
Bill, you seriously don't see the difference between one person being shot dead, and the other the one who did the shooting? On top of that, What exactly Are the Wilson people protesting? He has not been charged with anything.
Not formally, but certainly there are people calling for his execution and you have the governor already publicly convicting him even though he has not been shown to be guilty of anything. I can see where a public show of support might be warranted. And, in that case, to me you have two groups of people expressing themselves in public. I just don't see that one is any more legitimate than the other with any more or less right to be there than the other.
Second, according to the linked New Republic article, a quirk in Missouri law having to do with treatment of self defense claims will make it almost impossible to convict Wilson under state law. The rule on treatment of claims of self defense in extremely weak and defendent-oriented. This isn't a cop issue.
On the other hand, if this is correct, how this would all be handled in a federal civil rights indictment is not discussed. I would guess that if the only reason Wilson is found not guilty is because of the weakness of the state law, the incentive to indict him on a civil rights charge would increase. Link - ( New Window )
Yeah i think if they would go after Wilson, it would be a federal case along the lines of a civil rights violation. I agree there is too many aspects that will be tough to pin exactly down to make any kind of a murder case against him (IE: How far away were the shots, the fight in the car, were his hands up, was he charging or not, etc...).
Quote:
In comment 11817397 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11817357 halfback20 said:
Quote:
that support an officer that might very well be innocent and a victim himself, to the westboro baptist church?
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
I guess I'm not following how the Wilson-supporting protesters are in any way different from the Brown-supporting protestors and, if one is equivalent to Wesboro, why all are not equivalent to Westboro. Seems to me also, that if one group should stay away from a certain area, then everyone should (which would be my preference in the first place.
You have two different sides of a situation here; at this point in time, is one really more legitimate than the other?
Bill, you seriously don't see the difference between one person being shot dead, and the other the one who did the shooting? On top of that, What exactly Are the Wilson people protesting? He has not been charged with anything.
I think you're missing this difference. The Westboro Baptist Church targets the families of the deceased soldiers at the funerals of their children. None of the demonstrators supporting the police officer had done so in front of the Brown's residence or (to the best of my knowledge) at any event where they have been present. If there is ANY such protests at the funeral next week then your point becomes completely valid.
Look, I buy that there was a real possibility that Brown started this by breaking Wilson's eye socket. I still have a problem with the idea that Wilson needed to respond toward an unarmed Brown with 6 or more shots.
Keep calling a 6-4, 300 lb, 18 yo, who just committed robbery, and (according to this version) physically attacked a cop, and is now charging him "unarmed" is absurd.
Do you have any doubt that, if no gun is used by either side, he could kill the cop with just his bare hands?
So even a broken eye socket wasn't enough for you ... would a broken neck suffice?
You can say he was dangerous. You can't say he wasn't unarmed.
You can say he was dangerous. You can't say he wasn't unarmed.
OK. Then why do you think quite a few people and many media outlets just keep repeating that "he's unarmed", but not once label him as "dangerous"? Why is that?
That's extremely misleading and manipulative, is it not?
Quote:
In comment 11817439 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 11817397 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11817357 halfback20 said:
Quote:
that support an officer that might very well be innocent and a victim himself, to the westboro baptist church?
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
I guess I'm not following how the Wilson-supporting protesters are in any way different from the Brown-supporting protestors and, if one is equivalent to Wesboro, why all are not equivalent to Westboro. Seems to me also, that if one group should stay away from a certain area, then everyone should (which would be my preference in the first place.
You have two different sides of a situation here; at this point in time, is one really more legitimate than the other?
Bill, you seriously don't see the difference between one person being shot dead, and the other the one who did the shooting? On top of that, What exactly Are the Wilson people protesting? He has not been charged with anything.
Not formally, but certainly there are people calling for his execution and you have the governor already publicly convicting him even though he has not been shown to be guilty of anything. I can see where a public show of support might be warranted. And, in that case, to me you have two groups of people expressing themselves in public. I just don't see that one is any more legitimate than the other with any more or less right to be there than the other.
I agree, The Gov should not have come out talking about anything other then a thorough investigation is needed. His statement was over-the-top towards one side. With that said, why then protest at the site where Wilson shot Brown? Protest at the Gov. residence, the Ferguson Police Dept, in front of Wilson's home if your true goal is to show support, there is plenty of media there also.
It comes down to the following facts that still make me scratch my head:
1) Wilson has not been charges, arrested, shot, railroaded, banished, or anything to warrant any kind of a protest.
2) Even if he had been charged, what is the purpose of protesting there at the scene of the shooting? Once again their choice of venue is absurd.
2) They were evacuated for their safety. Not one policeman, Govt. official, Sheriff, State Trooper stopped these people from protesting by shooting rubber bullets, tear gas, arrested, or used any kind of physical actions against them. So how exactly were their Rights to Freedom of Speech violated?
3) Browns supporters also did not use any kind of physical act against them other then raising their voices at them when they attempted to join the march.
These were two individuals whose goal was to incite, not protest. Hell they put about 30 secs worth of work into their protest signs. If they were actually there to give support, you would think they would spend more then $5 and minimal effort on their signs.
But then again, I wonder a lot of things like why people are continuing to chant "Hand Up, Don't Shoot", or why they are calling the release of a robbery video minutes before he was killed as character assassination as if the incident took place years agi and is immaterial.
Quote:
In comment 11817439 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 11817397 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11817357 halfback20 said:
Quote:
that support an officer that might very well be innocent and a victim himself, to the westboro baptist church?
These people were not celebrating Michael Brown's death. They were protesting peacefully about something that is very reasonable. There is a difference.
The comparison is about the extremes of "Freedom of speech", and its absurd that after you pull that out as an argument, i have to sit here and explain the comparison. Almost as silly as you claiming the actions of two people protesting for a white police officer who shot to death a black teenager, in front of the teenagers parents, as being innocent and peaceful.
I guess I'm not following how the Wilson-supporting protesters are in any way different from the Brown-supporting protestors and, if one is equivalent to Wesboro, why all are not equivalent to Westboro. Seems to me also, that if one group should stay away from a certain area, then everyone should (which would be my preference in the first place.
You have two different sides of a situation here; at this point in time, is one really more legitimate than the other?
Bill, you seriously don't see the difference between one person being shot dead, and the other the one who did the shooting? On top of that, What exactly Are the Wilson people protesting? He has not been charged with anything.
I think you're missing this difference. The Westboro Baptist Church targets the families of the deceased soldiers at the funerals of their children. None of the demonstrators supporting the police officer had done so in front of the Brown's residence or (to the best of my knowledge) at any event where they have been present. If there is ANY such protests at the funeral next week then your point becomes completely valid.
They protested in Browns neighborhood, how does that not apply to an affront towards his Parents?
In fact, the only demonstration I'm aware of (and there could be some I'm not aware of) was in front of the courthouse where the grand jury hearing was taking place.
hahaha. Yeah, I'm the one attacking other posters, there you go, spot on.
It's like people are trying to make Brown look like some crazed cop murdering sociopath because he robbed a convenience store 50$ box of cigars... someone should apply that standard to a young Mark Wahlberg, since he was doing way worse during his armed robberies, including blinding a clerk (i'm talking about the robbery of the convenience store in general, and staying away from the interaction with the cop. The reason for this is because we are drawing conclusions on the interaction based on his robbery of the convenience store... also yes, I know it's a ridiculous comparison, but I'm using a famous person who committed way worse robberies).
It makes him criminally liable, but an unarmed (albeit forceful) robbery of a convenience store of a $50 isn't enough of an indictment on someone's character enough to claim that they are a threat to start murdering police officers.
If it comes out that he broke a cops face, tried to take his gun and discharged it in a car, then I think it's definitely safe to say he was someone who was likely to murder a cop. But I don't think you can automatically assume that is all true because of the robbery.
I highly, highly doubt it.
I highly, highly doubt it.
I agree, I don't think they would be. This is because:
1) He's white (let's not beat around the bush, this is a key reason)
2) He caused serious bodily injury during the course of his robbery.
In fact, the only demonstration I'm aware of (and there could be some I'm not aware of) was in front of the courthouse where the grand jury hearing was taking place.
Are you honestly going to sit here and claim that their protest was not in the area of where his Parents live? Seriously??
clearly he wasn't somebody who cared that the police might have been called or a guy that was going into hiding after robbing someone. He seemed to be drawing even more attention to himself.
that fits the definition of erratic behavior to me.
clearly he wasn't somebody who cared that the police might have been called or a guy that was going into hiding after robbing someone. He seemed to be drawing even more attention to himself.
that fits the definition of erratic behavior to me.
Oh come on. "Disrupting traffic"... he was walking in the middle of the street, not standing in the middle of a highway.
And can we drop the adjectives and speak about what he did? You can call it "brazenly robbing the convenience store"... he shoved the clerk and took a box of dutches (not justifying this, just putting it in plane english). He then was walking in the middle of the road.
Isolated, those two events don't exactly scream cop killer to me.
Quote:
The WBC demonstrates across from the cemetery or on the funeral route. It's more than a bit of a stretch to equate neighborhood to that. How noticeable would the WBC be if they were 5 blocks away from either the cemetery or funeral route?
In fact, the only demonstration I'm aware of (and there could be some I'm not aware of) was in front of the courthouse where the grand jury hearing was taking place.
Are you honestly going to sit here and claim that their protest was not in the area of where his Parents live? Seriously??
Is the courthouse in their neighborhood? If there was another demonstration how close was it to their house? Are you suggesting they get a 1 mile zone of privacy? If the demonstration could not be seen or heard from their residence you might as well say there can be no demonstrations nationwide because they might be seen on TV?
To summarize, I've seen nothing to indicate that the demonstration was a direct visual or audio confrontation of the parents which is the trademark of the WBC. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it because I haven't seen it.
People are jumping through hoops to convince themselves that Brown was someone who would have had a propensity to murder cops. The fact of the matter is nothing that happened before any confrontation with the officer shows that he was a danger to start killing police officers.
If there was some sort of violent criminal record, or an armed robbery, or gun charge, or gang affiliation, I could see it.
Fact of the matter is he shoved a clerk and took a $50 box of cheap cigars, and then was walking in the middle of a road in a suburban neighborhood. That's not enough to say "this guy is the type of person who would break a cops orbital bone, try to take his gun, and murder him".
Walking in the middle of the road is disrupting traffic, not to mention a completely idiotic thing to do, especially if you care whether or not somebody might be looking at you for a robbery.
you can minimize the robbery all you want, but he went into a store, made no attempt to hide that he was stealing and then initiated physical contact with the clerk. He's unarmed, but it isn't like he concealed the cigars and snuck away - he frankly didn't give a shit. Makes me wonder if he gave a shit when the police showed up. Apparently not.
Walking in the middle of the road is disrupting traffic, not to mention a completely idiotic thing to do, especially if you care whether or not somebody might be looking at you for a robbery.
you can minimize the robbery all you want, but he went into a store, made no attempt to hide that he was stealing and then initiated physical contact with the clerk. He's unarmed, but it isn't like he concealed the cigars and snuck away - he frankly didn't give a shit. Makes me wonder if he gave a shit when the police showed up. Apparently not.
Ok, my entire point is that while everything you wrote here may be true...
...it doesn't mean he was someone you would single out as an individual likely to start killing cops.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
Why are you trying to make everything he did sound worse?
Let's just put it in plain english: He shoved a clerk, robbed a store of a relatively cheap good. He then walked in the middle of a suburban road.
That doesn't imply he's a danger to start pumping lead into the police.
Quote:
In comment 11818356 njm said:
Quote:
The WBC demonstrates across from the cemetery or on the funeral route. It's more than a bit of a stretch to equate neighborhood to that. How noticeable would the WBC be if they were 5 blocks away from either the cemetery or funeral route?
In fact, the only demonstration I'm aware of (and there could be some I'm not aware of) was in front of the courthouse where the grand jury hearing was taking place.
Are you honestly going to sit here and claim that their protest was not in the area of where his Parents live? Seriously??
Is the courthouse in their neighborhood? If there was another demonstration how close was it to their house? Are you suggesting they get a 1 mile zone of privacy? If the demonstration could not be seen or heard from their residence you might as well say there can be no demonstrations nationwide because they might be seen on TV?
To summarize, I've seen nothing to indicate that the demonstration was a direct visual or audio confrontation of the parents which is the trademark of the WBC. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it because I haven't seen it.
WBC is not directly targeting fallen soldiers parents either. They are protesting the funeral in order to get media coverage at any cost to the victims friends and family, just like these two did. I give up, if your going to sit here and claim them joining a march in support of Brown is not an affront to his parents there is no hope for an honest discourse about the subject matter. You know as well as I that the mere fact that they decided to intrude on Browns rally is a slap to the face of his parents. Trying to parse it around distances is weak
If they actually wanted to support him why did they choose to go there instead of the organized rally supporting Wilson That is happening every weekend in front of a local TV Station??
"We must use all means at our disposal to end the violence and restore calm to the region," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in comments to an emergency United Nations Security Council session on the America crisis.
The crisis began a week ago in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
when a person has just brazenly robbed a store in the middle of the day and follows it up in the next few minutes by disrupting traffic enough to be stopped by an officer, who knows what his next step is.
clearly he wasn't somebody who cared that the police might have been called or a guy that was going into hiding after robbing someone. He seemed to be drawing even more attention to himself.
that fits the definition of erratic behavior to me.
Oh come on. "Disrupting traffic"... he was walking in the middle of the street, not standing in the middle of a highway.
And can we drop the adjectives and speak about what he did? You can call it "brazenly robbing the convenience store"... he shoved the clerk and took a box of dutches (not justifying this, just putting it in plane english). He then was walking in the middle of the road.
Isolated, those two events don't exactly scream cop killer to me.
Sounds like an argument based on "semantics".
Obama and Holder have not weighed in either. No riots - nothing to see here - move along
Obama and Holder have not weighed in either. No riots - nothing to see here - move along
I understand the point your making and can see where this could be viewed that way. But there are some key factors that are different here:
It has yet to be ruled out if he had a gun or not.
The 911 call they were responding to was one of a "Man with a gun".
In addition one huge aspect is that the Police Officer was wearing a body camera and they have stated that all footage from this incident will be released to the public.
Quote:
In comment 11818383 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
when a person has just brazenly robbed a store in the middle of the day and follows it up in the next few minutes by disrupting traffic enough to be stopped by an officer, who knows what his next step is.
clearly he wasn't somebody who cared that the police might have been called or a guy that was going into hiding after robbing someone. He seemed to be drawing even more attention to himself.
that fits the definition of erratic behavior to me.
Oh come on. "Disrupting traffic"... he was walking in the middle of the street, not standing in the middle of a highway.
And can we drop the adjectives and speak about what he did? You can call it "brazenly robbing the convenience store"... he shoved the clerk and took a box of dutches (not justifying this, just putting it in plane english). He then was walking in the middle of the road.
Isolated, those two events don't exactly scream cop killer to me.
Sounds like an argument based on "semantics".
No, semantics would be harping on bullshit like "absolutes" on a message board.
If you want to induce widespread unrest and national attention, Ferguson has provided a "how to" guide. The shooting occurred 15 days ago and all we know is that Brown probably stole some cigars, and walked in the middle of the road.
and are the statements released to the public immediately upon completion or withheld for sometime for review - or maybe until the investigation is complete.
So in short, no. It's not adjectives. It's not semantics. There's your little tidbit of info on the difference.
Quote:
"adjectives".
Disrupting traffic and walking in the middle of the street isn't harping on "adjectives" They are different and one implies that someone is causing a problem to the flow of the community. It was clearly presented in order to try and make what Brown was actually doing look worse.
So in short, no. It's not adjectives. It's not semantics. There's your little tidbit of info on the difference.
Do you even read what you write?
and are the statements released to the public immediately upon completion or withheld for sometime for review - or maybe until the investigation is complete.
In a shooting situation you would think immediately. At the very least once it is been assigned to be investigated, the first step should be an incident report from the officer involved by those doing the investigating. The case was referred to the County the next day. The county prosecutor and the Sheriffs should have had one done that morning.
It is really baffling as to why one was not done. You have on paper the officers sworn testimony. If this was a case of of a non-police involved shooting the very first thing they do is take statements from those involved, why would they not do the same here?
Quote:
this incident blew up probably before he made it back to the station and the investigation was taken over almost immediately by the county.
and are the statements released to the public immediately upon completion or withheld for sometime for review - or maybe until the investigation is complete.
In a shooting situation you would think immediately. At the very least once it is been assigned to be investigated, the first step should be an incident report from the officer involved by those doing the investigating. The case was referred to the County the next day. The county prosecutor and the Sheriffs should have had one done that morning.
It is really baffling as to why one was not done. You have on paper the officers sworn testimony. If this was a case of of a non-police involved shooting the very first thing they do is take statements from those involved, why would they not do the same here?
Not saying when a report is typically filed or not, just saying the case was turned over from Ferguson to St. Louis County within 40 minutes of the shooting.
And everything I have read so far, indicates that no official statements will be released until they've been heard by a grand jury.
I am no legal expert and I don't really understand FOI limitations or allowances, so that's all I can say, it's what I've read.
People clamor for information yet complain when it's released prematurely, at least in this case when it is officially released hopefully you can say it is in fact factual and from the source.
Quote:
In comment 11824575 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
this incident blew up probably before he made it back to the station and the investigation was taken over almost immediately by the county.
and are the statements released to the public immediately upon completion or withheld for sometime for review - or maybe until the investigation is complete.
In a shooting situation you would think immediately. At the very least once it is been assigned to be investigated, the first step should be an incident report from the officer involved by those doing the investigating. The case was referred to the County the next day. The county prosecutor and the Sheriffs should have had one done that morning.
It is really baffling as to why one was not done. You have on paper the officers sworn testimony. If this was a case of of a non-police involved shooting the very first thing they do is take statements from those involved, why would they not do the same here?
Not saying when a report is typically filed or not, just saying the case was turned over from Ferguson to St. Louis County within 40 minutes of the shooting.
And everything I have read so far, indicates that no official statements will be released until they've been heard by a grand jury.
I am no legal expert and I don't really understand FOI limitations or allowances, so that's all I can say, it's what I've read.
People clamor for information yet complain when it's released prematurely, at least in this case when it is officially released hopefully you can say it is in fact factual and from the source.
Well the very fact that a normal police procedure like an incident report not being done as part of the investigation, is one of the big reasons as to why there is no info coming out. That is major screw-up
Critics and news media outlets have questioned why Ferguson police released an incident report from a robbery in which Brown was a suspect, as well as security video showing the robbery, but not the report on the shooting of the unarmed 18-year-old a short time later by Officer Darren Wilson.
The reason, according to the office of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch, is that it doesnt exist
The grand jury reviewing the facts in the case is impaneled until mid-September, but could continue to deliberate beyond its term, in which case their sole focus would be on the shooting of Brown. At the conclusion of its investigation, the grand jury will decide whether to indict Wilson in connection with the shooting.
The St. Louis County prosecutor's office stressed that it is cooperating with the concurrent federal investigation of Browns death and is sharing information with FBI agents who are looking into whether his civil rights were violated.
"What information do we need to give the public to keep this from turning into a shitshow?"
"How much information can we legally provide while the investigation is ongoing?" AND
"What are the implications likely to be if we do not provide this minimum level of information?"
They didn't go through that thinking, and they reaped the whirlwind in large part (not exclusively, but largely) as a consequence.
I'm pretty sure it was a shit show when they got it.
Maybe not providing some minimal information as quickly as possible made it worse. There were clearly some trigger events. This didn't happen in a vacuum.
Stupidity all around.
Link - ( New Window )
the rest, eh, don't release information just to appease the public, take the proper time and investigate it fully and release something you when it makes sense not just for the sake of people want you to say something.
unless people feel the need for the "well say something when we know something" comments.
filed not released, right? and it wasn't written by Wilson so wouldn't be signed by Wilson.
Quote:
but not signed off by Officer Wilson Link - ( New Window )
filed not released, right? and it wasn't written by Wilson so wouldn't be signed by Wilson.
It was released. You can read it on the link supplied.
In other words, St. Louis County Police didn't say "gimme," Ferguson Police said "here." And after they handed it off, based upon their own wishes to do so, their need to file an incident report disappeared. What a surprise.
They knew what they were doing, and why.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11824742 sphinx said:
Quote:
but not signed off by Officer Wilson Link - ( New Window )
filed not released, right? and it wasn't written by Wilson so wouldn't be signed by Wilson.
It was released. You can read it on the link supplied.
Read the article, there is nothing in it, while the investigation is pending.
We will not release it, said Schellman, who noted that this is the countys normal procedure. This isnt any different than a typical larceny from a local convenience store.
Wilson never filed a report on the incident, according to the office of the St. Louis County prosecutor. The case was quickly turned over to the county at the request of local police. According to the document, the St. Louis County police entered the incident report on Aug. 19, 10 days after the shooting. It was approved for release the following morning.
Quote:
Police in Ferguson, Missouri, did not file an incident report on the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Michael Brown because they turned the case over to St. Louis County police almost immediately, the county prosecutors office tells NBC News.
In other words, St. Louis County Police didn't say "gimme," Ferguson Police said "here." And after they handed it off, based upon their own wishes to do so, their need to file an incident report disappeared. What a surprise.
They knew what they were doing, and why.
Not interesting. You never investigate your own.
Unless you're in the financial game.
FIRE sector is sooo above board.
It's not obtuse. The two bear little direct relationship to each other but both represent fuckups. The Administration took sides in the Brown case. The Commander in Chief should have been present at the funeral of a KIA general officer absent something extraordinary. A golf outing is not extraordinary.
Yes because the Attorney General rarely injects himself into investigations of police shootings or other non-federal crimes without evidence of cover-up (just two weeks after the commission of the crime).
Sure. I'm more animated about what he didn't do than what he did and I certainly don't pretend I'm unbiased, but I think he was wrong on both counts. And I think if the Administration had declined to address the underlying crime until there was something suggesting a cover-up it may have limited the scope of the Ferguson protests, at least to an extent. It gave currency to a narrative that wasn't justified by facts, and reportedly it was the DOJ that wanted the cigar story kept under wraps.
Reducing this protest to a simple dichotomy between local and national peaceful protesters and a handful of looters and rioters does this a disservice. Some of those people who came from around the country had less than peaceful intentions.
Actually, the point is how does the President comment about certain events but doesn't have anything to say about what happens in his home town.
Usually, all the incessant chicago talk sounds like a way to delegitimize a potential african american grievance by basically asserting theyre their own worst problem. And this is all too frequent. Im not stating anything about this case in particular, ive avoidedthis thread because there is still a lot we dont know. But generally speaking the chicago point is usually only brought up disingenuously
Usually, all the incessant chicago talk sounds like a way to delegitimize a potential african american grievance by basically asserting theyre their own worst problem. And this is all too frequent. Im not stating anything about this case in particular, ive avoidedthis thread because there is still a lot we dont know. But generally speaking the chicago point is usually only brought up disingenuously
I think it comes up when the race hustlers and others talk about the "war on Black youth" by police as though this is the greatest danger. Obviously if they were really concerned about that, they would be discussing where the far greater source of danger comes (from each other). Other than that, I would say Chicago is irreverent to this situation.
Link - ( New Window )
The report was created 10 days after the shooting
It's a first for him. Let's hope he leads a march for her.
Why do you substitute robbery, with physical violence, with the tame term "stole"?
Probably the same reason why so many kept calling him "unarmed" again and again and again, which was accurate, yet intentionally never once used the label "violent and dangerous", which was equally accurate, and very much relevant.
That is because they have already planned on attending his funeral, which is scheduled for October.
buford, bring it up all you want. It would be nice though if certain people brought it up in a context that doesnt scream diversion every single time though. And thats certainly not the context in which reverand al raised it. A lot of people love injecting chicago into topics where they dont belong. Its a slight of hand. Dont look at whats happening over here, look at whats happening over THERE, thats a much bigger problem. And in and of itself, its tough to argue that, but that doesnt change the fact that you cant help but feel its often raised by certain people soley as a tool to delegitamize unrelated african american grievances, or sometimes as silly as just to score a cheap political point because someone doesnt like how much golf the president played one weekend or something. This chicago talking point is most often not seemingly raised out of genuine care by certain people
On the divisive events that are far fewer in numbers, and often happen in circumstances that are random in comparison to the black on black crime that is often committed in cold blood, either for retribution, for botched drug deals, for gang wars or initiations, etc.
Police killing an unarmed black person happens not out of vengence or premeditation, but out of bad luck or bad judgment.
If anything, focusing on these events that are by chance really takes away the magnitude of the events that are controllable.
Uh, it probably has more to do that the assailants weren't cops and the murdered weren't unarmed...
Peter, you got me with the adverbs, but can we not have this stupid grammatical back and forth? You understand exactly what I was saying. "blocking traffic" isn't walking in the street, and the simple way people are wording Brown's last actions are obvious attempts to make him look like as bad of a person as possible.
That's kind of a paper tiger IMO though, because regardless of whether or not Brown was a criminal or not, he deserves a trial. It doesn't change the fact that the only way the shooting would be justified would be if the cop's life was on the line.
Quote:
all we know is that Brown probably stole some cigars, and walked in the middle of the road.
Why do you substitute robbery, with physical violence, with the tame term "stole"?
Probably the same reason why so many kept calling him "unarmed" again and again and again, which was accurate, yet intentionally never once used the label "violent and dangerous", which was equally accurate, and very much relevant.
This is the leap in logic I'm talking about.
Ok, he physically assaulted the clerk. Doesn't look like he punched him though, kind of a manhandle and shove from the video. Whatever he did, it looks like he gave the clerk a threat or something along those lines.
I don't think it's safe to assume from that interaction that he was "violent and dangerous" to the point of murdering a cop. Don't you think there are a few steps in between "assaulting/shoving clerk (not punching him or threatening with a weapon)" to "danger to cop's life"
Last year, 10 times more people were killed by stray bullets or mistaken identity than killings by officers of unarmed people.
Where are those stories? they shouldn't lack a certain grab because there are quite of bit of children in that total.
Is this the longest BBI thread ever?
Link - ( New Window )
is that chicago murder rate is at a 51 year low
Chicago police say homicides fall to lowest level since 1963 - ( New Window )
"He heard loud noises, and at the time he didn't even realize the import of what he was hearing until afterwards, and it just happened to have captured 12 seconds of what transpired outside of his building," Blumenthal said.
Lemon said Monday that CNN was still waiting on confirmation from the FBI.
"We had been told that at least six shots were fired at Michael Brown. In the tape that you have, which is alleged to be of the shootingwe can't independently authorize it, as CNN, because we did not shoot it, but there were more than six shots," Lemon said.
"I personally heard at least eleven," Blumenthal said.
link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Thanks MoM, good to know a sports thread is still tops.
Quote:
In comment 11824568 manh george said:
Quote:
all we know is that Brown probably stole some cigars, and walked in the middle of the road.
Why do you substitute robbery, with physical violence, with the tame term "stole"?
Probably the same reason why so many kept calling him "unarmed" again and again and again, which was accurate, yet intentionally never once used the label "violent and dangerous", which was equally accurate, and very much relevant.
This is the leap in logic I'm talking about.
Ok, he physically assaulted the clerk. Doesn't look like he punched him though, kind of a manhandle and shove from the video. Whatever he did, it looks like he gave the clerk a threat or something along those lines.
I don't think it's safe to assume from that interaction that he was "violent and dangerous" to the point of murdering a cop. Don't you think there are a few steps in between "assaulting/shoving clerk (not punching him or threatening with a weapon)" to "danger to cop's life"
Well he cracked the cop's orbital bone. That says violent to me but I guess in your world as your posts show assaulting a cop is OK.
We get it. You are the only one to make leaps of faith.
Still a matter of conjecture. There are sources that say that, there are others who said that his eye socket was fine and he was treated for nothing more than minor swelling.
Quote:
In comment 11825058 LAXin said:
Quote:
In comment 11824568 manh george said:
Quote:
all we know is that Brown probably stole some cigars, and walked in the middle of the road.
Why do you substitute robbery, with physical violence, with the tame term "stole"?
Probably the same reason why so many kept calling him "unarmed" again and again and again, which was accurate, yet intentionally never once used the label "violent and dangerous", which was equally accurate, and very much relevant.
This is the leap in logic I'm talking about.
Ok, he physically assaulted the clerk. Doesn't look like he punched him though, kind of a manhandle and shove from the video. Whatever he did, it looks like he gave the clerk a threat or something along those lines.
I don't think it's safe to assume from that interaction that he was "violent and dangerous" to the point of murdering a cop. Don't you think there are a few steps in between "assaulting/shoving clerk (not punching him or threatening with a weapon)" to "danger to cop's life"
Well he cracked the cop's orbital bone. That says violent to me but I guess in your world as your posts show assaulting a cop is OK.
We get it. You are the only one to make leaps of faith.
Where is the official statement that he cracked his eye socket? That is nothing but another internet rumor just like the one that got retracted claiming the police have dozens of witnesses backing them. This stuff is easy to verify on both sides, but it seems some don't really want the facts here.
buford, bring it up all you want. It would be nice though if certain people brought it up in a context that doesnt scream diversion every single time though. And thats certainly not the context in which reverand al raised it. A lot of people love injecting chicago into topics where they dont belong. Its a slight of hand. Dont look at whats happening over here, look at whats happening over THERE, thats a much bigger problem. And in and of itself, its tough to argue that, but that doesnt change the fact that you cant help but feel its often raised by certain people soley as a tool to delegitamize unrelated african american grievances, or sometimes as silly as just to score a cheap political point because someone doesnt like how much golf the president played one weekend or something. This chicago talking point is most often not seemingly raised out of genuine care by certain people
Well who does care? Certainly not Obama or black leaders who ignore it for the most part. And not the Democrats who run the city, or for that matter most cities where there are horrible rates of black on black crime, bad schools and unemployment. I'd say that the Democratic Party would be the place that black people should start pushing their grievances to.
Whereas young people shooting young people, particularly (though not exclusively) young minority men, is much more common. The murder rate now isn't historically high and reflects overall trends in violent crime and that is great. But the capacity for community effort - locally and nationwide - to actually do some good, to save lives and keep young men (particularly young minority men) out of prison is much greater.
So the one effort certainly does not preclude the other, but it would be nice to see the latter get that sort of media attention and the regular, devoted intervention of national personalities.
There is no one who cares more about black on black violence in this country than black people, because thats where it hits closest to home. They certainly care more about it than the white righties who usually only bring it up as a diversion. The fact that said violence still occurs does not mean black people dont care, or dont try to take steps to address it. We have a lot of problems in this country that dont get fixed despite good intentions, and many of them we put a lot more money and effort to than this onr
And yes it is relevant that kids are dying day after day from guns in Chicago because maybe, just maybe if half the media attention and public attention was paid to the situation in Chicago as is being paid to a non story here, a few more kids might be alive in Chicago.
Meanwhile lets mourn a complete thug who based on his actions was obviously headed towards far worse violent crimes. You don't attack a police officer and act like he did at the convenience store and not have a future filled with indiscriminate violence ahead of you.
The biggest one is the fact that in Ferguson, a Govt. employee tasked with the job of serving and protecting citizens shot and killed an unarmed citizen.. If you can't see why that would stir more attention then gang or criminal related shootings then your blind.
The second aspect is that there has been a long simmering displeasure with how the Ferguson police have dealt with the local Black population. In addition there is the fact that the Black population is vastly underrepresented in the Police Dept.
And yes it is relevant that kids are dying day after day from guns in Chicago because maybe, just maybe if half the media attention and public attention was paid to the situation in Chicago as is being paid to a non story here, a few more kids might be alive in Chicago.
Meanwhile lets mourn a complete thug who based on his actions was obviously headed towards far worse violent crimes. You don't attack a police officer and act like he did at the convenience store and not have a future filled with indiscriminate violence ahead of you.
Wow..If it was determined that the "Complete Thug" was killed in an unlawful Police shooting are we still not supposed to question the act?
You attack a cop and go for his gun you should expect to get shot and killed. Why is this complicated? What am I missing?
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
How do you know its the turnover in town? Its not like these people have a ton of options to move to for work and a new home
I don't trust the police at all but if you attack them and go for their gun, they will shoot you. Why is this complicated?
Meanwhile, we protest and have all this media attention over what is seeming like the slight possibility this wasnt a rightful shooting and that possibility becomes slighter and slighter every week....yet is anyone protesting or demonstrating anywhere for kids killed everyday in Chicago?
Why not?
You attack a cop and go for his gun you should expect to get shot and killed. Why is this complicated? What am I missing?
Because NONE of what you wrote has been proven or stated officially yet. And WTF does this mean:
But there is a responsibility in the black community. Even all these black people can mobilize and protest what seems like a rightful shooting, why can't they protest daily killing of children in their community?
There are plenty of racists out there and plenty with racist ideas and all this has done is validate their position.
2. With respect to the racial composition of the Ferguson police force. Yes, it does not CURRENTLY reflect the racial composition of the town. But are you suggesting that cops get fired to reconfigure the ration? Unless there is evidence that recent hires continue that disparity you are going to run into a) civil service issues , b) public employee union issues and c) civil rights law issues if you want to radically reshuffle the composition of the force.
Quote:
Well he cracked the cop's orbital bone.
Still a matter of conjecture. There are sources that say that, there are others who said that his eye socket was fine and he was treated for nothing more than minor swelling.
Yeah, the orbital bone claim has been debunked. The x-ray that's been peddled as Wilson's CT scan came from a generic information page on Blowout Fractures from the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.
Link - ( New Window )
The biggest one is the fact that in Ferguson, a Govt. employee tasked with the job of serving and protecting citizens shot and killed an unarmed citizen.. If you can't see why that would stir more attention then gang or criminal related shootings then your blind.
The second aspect is that there has been a long simmering displeasure with how the Ferguson police have dealt with the local Black population. In addition there is the fact that the Black population is vastly underrepresented in the Police Dept.
The last is a line that is frequently trotted out but it isn't clear exactly what it means. I'm sure the department would love to be deluged by applications from qualified minority candidates but African Americans are underrepresented on most police forces, and racism is a partial explanation if it is one at all. If you don't like your community being policed by people who don't look like you and didn't grow up in the same neighborhood as you, join the police force. Some of the linked articles suggest that African American officers don't always get a warm reception either, so maybe some of the change needs to be social/cultural.
How do you know he was attacking him? There are many more reports by others that claim he was shot while surrendering and that he did nothing to warrant the shooting
Link - ( New Window )
Well no. Plenty of people attack police officers without getting shot. Hit back? Pepper sprayed or tased? Sure. But a tiny fraction of assaults on LEOs result in the officer using his weapon to shoot and kill his assailant. Doesn't mean it was wrong in this case or that there are plenty of other instances where assailants could have been justifiably shot but weren't, but not every such attack means the attacker will get shot.
The rest of the story ...
August 19, 2014 1:15 pm By Gilbert Bailon, Post-Dispatch editor
:
A tweet Monday night by St. Louis Post-Dispatch police reporter Christine Byers has generated a lot of attention online:
Christine Byers ✔ @ChristineDByers
Follow
Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson
10:30 PM - 18 Aug 2014
3,527 RETWEETS 1,408 FAVORITES
Byers has been on FMLA leave since March. She is not involved in the Ferguson coverage while she is on leave.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch did not report the information included in Byers' tweet, either in print or online on STLtoday.com.
Byers has tweeted today in regards to her tweet on Monday:
Christine Byers ✔ @ChristineDByers
Follow
On FMLA from paper. Earlier tweets did not meet standards for publication.
1:50 PM - 19 Aug 2014
204 RETWEETS 88 FAVORITES
You can debate the details but all point to a couple simple points.
Very violent person with no fear of the police
No fear of being shot
No fear of assaulting a police officer
I would have shot him too. And like I keep saying, I don't trust the police at all.
Quote:
doing the shooting. That is why there is always an investigation. Most of the killings in Chicago and other cities go unsolved.
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
How do you know its the turnover in town? Its not like these people have a ton of options to move to for work and a new home
Because I read about it.
Link - ( New Window )
I think we can agree that the media sucks big time.
There is also testimony the officer is shooting at Brown as he is fleeing, after the immediate threat has passed. The possibility remains that he fired out of necessity or anger.
You don't know what happened, but it's pretty apparent what side you are coming down on.
There is not enough information to reach a conclusion if you want to weigh all the available evidence.
You latch onto every piece of information supportive of the officer's version and reach a conclusion before the grand jury has had a chance to review this. You're just as bad as the clowns demanding the officer be arrested and jailed.
Quote:
In comment 11825696 buford said:
Quote:
doing the shooting. That is why there is always an investigation. Most of the killings in Chicago and other cities go unsolved.
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
How do you know its the turnover in town? Its not like these people have a ton of options to move to for work and a new home
Because I read about it. Link - ( New Window )
That link extrapolates from demographic trends. It does not say anything about how long the average officer has been on the force. It may very well have seen significant turnover in the meantime. The officer involved in the shooting had been on the force for six years, IIRC.
Does that make any sense in any way?
This is logic and reasoning and circumstantial evidence.
Do you really believe the cop was trying to pull an agitated 300lb man into his car?
So if you happen to get in an incident with police that results in you smacking him in the face, it is okay for the Police to shoot you if you are giving up or running away?
Does that make any sense in any way?
This is logic and reasoning and circumstantial evidence.
Do you really believe the cop was trying to pull an agitated 300lb man into his car?
But in your opinion it makes more sense that even though he had distanced himself from the car by at least 35' by running away, he decided to instead turn around and charge a cop holding a gun on him? That is more absurd then the gun going off in the car.
We don't know what happened yet, but as with most stories it will end up being somewhere in the middle most likely. The fact remains that there have been more claims made on the police side that have been found to be nothing more then BS. This tends to cast doubt on much of what is being claimed in his defense
Quote:
In comment 11825696 buford said:
Quote:
doing the shooting. That is why there is always an investigation. Most of the killings in Chicago and other cities go unsolved.
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
How do you know its the turnover in town? Its not like these people have a ton of options to move to for work and a new home
Because I read about it. Link - ( New Window )
Maybe you can show me the line you read that proves your claim..I see that as of 14 years ago Blacks were the majority of the population and it has grown since then
I never said that, show me where i claim that is what happened?
Well you have that part wrong. The claim is that the Cop yelled at them to get out of the street. They then said something to the cop that pissed him off. The cop turned around and cut them off while supposedly reaching out and grabbing Brown by the throat. They struggled, the gun went off.
So there is no "pulling him in the car", it is more about detaining him.
I don't know if that is what happened or not, I am merely pointing out how you have already decided the whole case for us based on a true lack of knowledge of what is known
let's just scrap our court system, give you some quotes from the internet and the media and you can determine guilt or innocence based on that.
After seeing the video of Brown at the convenience store do you really believe that? And one has to do with the other as much as some folks here with preconceived opinions say it doesnt.
It gives you a clear glimpse into Browns attitude and behavior. But it is the cop....grabbing a 300lb man by the throat because he was jaywalking and not listening....lol...ok
So you're saying that there should have been a ban on hiring white policemen in 2010?
Were their other hires and what is the racial breakdown? How many applicants were their and what were their qualifications and racial breakdown? Without knowing those answers the simple fact that a white applicant was hired after the town became predominately (but not exclusively) black is meaningless.
Quote:
In comment 11825702 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11825696 buford said:
Quote:
doing the shooting. That is why there is always an investigation. Most of the killings in Chicago and other cities go unsolved.
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
How do you know its the turnover in town? Its not like these people have a ton of options to move to for work and a new home
Because I read about it. Link - ( New Window )
Maybe you can show me the line you read that proves your claim..I see that as of 14 years ago Blacks were the majority of the population and it has grown since then
How fast do you think a police force in a small town will turn over.
Don't answer that. I should have known better than to try a rational argument with you.
In order to not believe the cop you have to believe that this 300lb thug, who just robbed a convenient store in a violent and indiscriminate way, was jaywalking.
When the cop told him and his buddy to get out of the street, the cop grabbed this 300lb man by the throat, (while being outnumbered 2:1) they struggled, the cop tried to pull him into his car and the gun accidentally goes off.
The Brown gets away and he runs, but then turns around when the police officer fires 6 times while he is just standing there...then decides to fire several more times....
Or the other side
Same violent 300lb man, ignores the cop, then attacks the cop, they struggle for cops gun. Gun goes off. He runs away, Cops says stop and he turns and comes back at the officer. Officer fires, Brown doesnt stop, he fires again eventually killing him.
After seeing the video of Brown at the convenience store do you really believe that? And one has to do with the other as much as some folks here with preconceived opinions say it doesnt.
It gives you a clear glimpse into Browns attitude and behavior. But it is the cop....grabbing a 300lb man by the throat because he was jaywalking and not listening....lol...ok
Look, Brown is definitely no saint. But it is quite a leap of imagination to automatically assume that someone who strongly shoved a clerk away from him while stealing blunts, is then going to apply the same disregard and aggressiveness to a police officer with a gun.
Quote:
In comment 11825760 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 11825702 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11825696 buford said:
Quote:
doing the shooting. That is why there is always an investigation. Most of the killings in Chicago and other cities go unsolved.
The racial makeup of the police force is an issue. But it is because of the turnover in the town more than anything. They can't fire all the existing cops, they can only change through attrition.
How do you know its the turnover in town? Its not like these people have a ton of options to move to for work and a new home
Because I read about it. Link - ( New Window )
Maybe you can show me the line you read that proves your claim..I see that as of 14 years ago Blacks were the majority of the population and it has grown since then
How fast do you think a police force in a small town will turn over.
Don't answer that. I should have known better than to try a rational argument with you.
Why are you getting all hissy over a simple request to show where you got your info. That link does not prove squat and you know it
And thousands mourn a guy who was an piece of shit. And more kids getting shot every day, actually innocent kids and no one is mourning. It is disgusting....ANd the racists wimn again.
And thousands mourn a guy who was an piece of shit. And more kids getting shot every day, actually innocent kids and no one is mourning. It is disgusting....ANd the racists wimn again.
LOL..ok
Link - ( New Window )
In my estimation certainly not, but you can understand how someone could come to that conclusion.
As Dune points out, the fact he committed robbery just prior to this incident does effect the view of him that was originally pushed (Gentle giant, etc...). But i agree the way some are using this robbery subplot as justification for the shooting is not fair either.
Link - ( New Window )
Seems the only time I hear it is when someone is crying racism against white folks or reverse discrimination.
Meanwhile, the very same folks don't even pay enough attention to the "black on black" crime problem to know that "black leaders" are almost constantly speaking out about it and trying to draw attention to it.
Maybe the reason it doesn't make huge headlines all the time is because there are a shit ton of white folks that don't actually give a shit if "they kill each other" unless it's used as some sort of talking point to push their "poor downtrodden white man" agenda.
Sure. That reply makes perfect sense. Congrats.
But there is a responsibility in the black community. Even all these black people can mobilize and protest what seems like a rightful shooting, why can't they protest daily killing of children in their community?
There are plenty of racists out there and plenty with racist ideas and all this has done is validate their position.
What shows that this "seems" like a rightful shooting?
Im still waiting for the statement that shows that Brown broke an orbital bone, or "wasn't afraid to die", or was a raging maniac.
If he was a violent raging maniac, I'm pretty sure he'd have done a little more of a number on that clerk.
You're taking things and stretching them as far as possible to serve your purpose.
If a video comes out that shows Brown beating the shit out an officer and going for a gun, you're right.
But nothing implies that at the moment.
And in this country, there is due process. We didn't take the Aurora IL Movie Theater shooter out and summarily execute him on the spot, and this guy was killing people in a movie theater. He went to trial. No matter if Brown was a "piece of shit" or the cracked out maniac you want him to be, he STILL deserves a trial, unless he the officers life was in mortal danger.
This isn't about it being okay to hit cops, this is about it not be okay to shoot criminals dead because they are "pieces of shit".
And no protests over the daily murder of innocent children in CHicago.
EARLIER IN THIS VERY THREAD, literally a page or two ago, the same reporter who tweeted that tweet RECANTED it!
Does that make any sense in any way?
This is logic and reasoning and circumstantial evidence.
Do you really believe the cop was trying to pull an agitated 300lb man into his car?
But it's totally logical for someone to grab a cop's gun? That makes perfect sense?
Who the fuck grabs a cops gun? Oh wait, but he robbed a convenience store of a 50$ box of cigars by shoving the clerk (didn't even punch the clerk or anything along those lines). He must have been on a true deathwish, based on that, right?
I'm not trying to paint him out to be a good guy or anything, but saying he was a psycho man on a deathwish who didn't care about living or dying based on that convenience store robbery is so absurd and self serving.
And no protests over the daily murder of innocent children in CHicago.
Over and over again and you just can't get it.
The difference is this is someone killed by the police. Not criminals killing criminals.
Read that again.
Killed by officers... that's why it's a bigger deal.
Equating it to inner city violence is a false equivalency.
Quote:
You have massive protests over a thug that just committed a strong arm robbery attacking the store clerk in the process, and then was shot by police
And no protests over the daily murder of innocent children in CHicago.
Over and over again and you just can't get it.
The difference is this is someone killed by the police. Not criminals killing criminals.
Read that again.
Killed by officers... that's why it's a bigger deal.
Equating it to inner city violence is a false equivalency.
In order to not believe the cop you have to believe that this 300lb thug, who just robbed a convenient store in a violent and indiscriminate way, was jaywalking.
When the cop told him and his buddy to get out of the street, the cop grabbed this 300lb man by the throat, (while being outnumbered 2:1) they struggled, the cop tried to pull him into his car and the gun accidentally goes off.
The Brown gets away and he runs, but then turns around when the police officer fires 6 times while he is just standing there...then decides to fire several more times....
Or the other side
Same violent 300lb man, ignores the cop, then attacks the cop, they struggle for cops gun. Gun goes off. He runs away, Cops says stop and he turns and comes back at the officer. Officer fires, Brown doesnt stop, he fires again eventually killing him.
Here's a novel theory: Maybe the truth is somewhere between the middle of the two reports?
You say it doesn't make any sense for a cop to pull someone into a car. Definitely doesn't, I'll give you that. It probably makes sense for him to try and grab someone, and probably makes sense for someone to maybe hit him and try to get away. Who knows if that happened, but that makes sense.
But in what world, does it make ANY sense, for someone to try and take a cops gun (insane thing #1), run away from a cop and turn around without the intention of surrendering (insane thing #2), then run TOWARD a cop with a gun (insane thing #3).
What's the thought behind that? I'm going to try and kill this cop in broad daylight with his car right here instead of trying to run away and escape?
Somehow, that's plausible to you? Oh yeah, cause that convenience store tape clearly shows Brown was on a psychopathic death wish and didn't care about being shot (you know, shoving a store clerk, taking something valued at about $50).
The cop was clearly attacked and struck on the face. You want to debate whether or not the cop shot him in cold blood afterwards...go ahead but there are witnesses that say he rushed the cop...after attacking him the first time and the circumstantial evidence and autopsey supports that.
Because an orbital bone being cracked shows a lot more use of force than minor swelling?
Because an orbital bone being cracked is such a greater degree of an injury than facial swelling, that it would lend more credence to the assertion that the cop felt his life was in danger?
Quote:
In comment 11826029 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
You have massive protests over a thug that just committed a strong arm robbery attacking the store clerk in the process, and then was shot by police
And no protests over the daily murder of innocent children in CHicago.
Over and over again and you just can't get it.
The difference is this is someone killed by the police. Not criminals killing criminals.
Read that again.
Killed by officers... that's why it's a bigger deal.
Equating it to inner city violence is a false equivalency.
And using this example of a potentially violent criminal being shot in self defense by a police officer is a bad place to promote your agenda--which is clear.
Randy, my agenda is greater controls and accountability on police. So this seems like a perfectly apt platform.
The cop was clearly attacked and struck on the face. You want to debate whether or not the cop shot him in cold blood afterwards...go ahead but there are witnesses that say he rushed the cop...after attacking him the first time and the circumstantial evidence and autopsey supports that.
There's witnesses that say he didn't also. So the witnesses who believe what you want are acceptable, but other witnesses aren't?
Nobody is denying he robbed a store. What does that have to do with whether his killing was justified or not?
This isn't a lawless country, you don't just go shooting people unless they pose a grave threat to someone's life. There's due process and courts and laws.
Mike Brown could be the biggest "thug", scumbag, whatever, but unless the cops life was in grave danger, he gets arrested, not shot and killed.
So really, the onus is to prove that the cop's life was in grave danger. Not what kind of person Brown was. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with this.
You do realize that they have been protesting about Ferguson in Chicago?
Very cursory google search. Find more yourself since you're so interested - ( New Window )
RE: him being a piece of shit - I'd like to see your highlight reel when you were 18. He shoplifted and bullied the owner when he tried to recover the property = a strong armed robbery. But, let's not make the kid out to be John Dillinger. He committed a stupid petty crime and exacerbated it by threatening force, which in turn, led to him getting shot and killed. The dangerous black thug, piece of shit is dead - so all's well that ends well...for some of you at least.
the fact that this happened 2 weeks ago and considering the level of mismanagent, this is the perfect horse.
let's say everything "works out" for the police, and brown was a crazed maniac who tried to take a cops gun, turned into the hulk, tried to rush a cop and got shot dead (seriously though, who runs away from a cop, turns around, and runs back towards him??). But ASSUMING that's all true, this situation was still horrendously managed.
If they are sitting on proof that it's justified, they should release it. If the cop has a broken orbital bone, tell us, so that the public knows it might have been more likely to be justified.
It's total mismanagement. They just let conjecture run rampant, and essentially allow people to use their preconceived prejudices to form their own opinions.
So yes I can certainly believe that he then rushed the cop as witnesses have claimed.
The cop was clearly attacked and struck on the face. You want to debate whether or not the cop shot him in cold blood afterwards...go ahead but there are witnesses that say he rushed the cop...after attacking him the first time and the circumstantial evidence and autopsey supports that.
The autopsy does not show any kind of proof that he was "rushing the officer". It stated that brown was shot either 1'-30' feet away.
You keep throwing stuff out there that has either been debunked or is not true at all about this case.
Then you have low standards for someone's life in danger. If that's the case, anyone who is seen committing an armed robbery should be shot on site.
Is that how you feel? Anyone committing an armed robbery should be immediately summarily executed by responding authorities?
But yah, anyway, you are just filling in blanks with what you want to believe. Because the only things suggesting that the cops' life was in danger is "witness accounts", mostly tied to an unsubstantiated claim that the cops gun was compromised, and an unsubstantiated claim that Brown was psycho enough to charge a cop after running away.
As for the cops injury, its idiotic to say the severity doesn't matter. A broken orbital bone and a swollen eye are totally different.
You are backing the wrong horse here.
The autopsey already shows he was shot in the front. Your star witness said he was running away and shot in the back.
He fell forward and his hands were not likely up. He wasnt giving up, he was coming forward.
He attacked a clerk 10 minutes earlier. You think Brown wasnt thinking about that and thinking they woud get him on that? How many years for a strong armed robbery?
So it makes sense that he went after the cop....after running from the cop and realizing he wasnt going to get away.
Of course they would matter. Everytime a cop shoots someone, there is an internal investigation.
And simply because he was unarmed doesn't mean he wasn't dangerous.
I am sure there is a protocol of options they do through pretty quickly, but I have to believe lethal force to stop it is on the list.
Link - ( New Window )
A large 6'3" 290lb man, larger than you, has had a physical altercation with a shop owner. He ignores your uniform, gun, and authority and has a physical altercation with you, leaving your face swollen, and has decided to come back for more. (that's the cops story, right?)
What makes you think that you're NOT in grave danger?
Link - ( New Window )
Years ago in a far away land when I was considering what to do for a grad paper, I actually considered this very subject. Departments all over the country were under court order to improve their ethnic composition.
Long story short.
There is a real problem getting "qualified" minority applicants. Minorities, for the most part, do not consider civil service jobs desirable. There is a ton of research, done by much brighter academics than us, on the mores of ethnic groups that covers the subject.
All sorts of effort have been made over the years to change that perception.
Police departments especially still have a hard time today recruiting minorities.
This is meant to be a general comment on the subject and not any single department.
Another customer called the police.
You are backing the wrong horse here.
The autopsey already shows he was shot in the front. Your star witness said he was running away and shot in the back.
He fell forward and his hands were not likely up. He wasnt giving up, he was coming forward.
He attacked a clerk 10 minutes earlier. You think Brown wasnt thinking about that and thinking they woud get him on that? How many years for a strong armed robbery?
So it makes sense that he went after the cop....after running from the cop and realizing he wasnt going to get away.
Yes, I shoved a clerk and took a 50$ box of cigars, so I am now going to attempt to murder this cop and get away.
No, I don't think that's a reasonable though process, and i don't think taking that box of dutches from the store is enough to say with confidence he was in that frame of mind.
A large 6'3" 290lb man, larger than you, has had a physical altercation with a shop owner. He ignores your uniform, gun, and authority and has a physical altercation with you, leaving your face swollen, and has decided to come back for more. (that's the cops story, right?)
What makes you think that you're NOT in grave danger?
Cool, I guess I'll take a stab at it, but you know, cops are TRAINED for this, while I'm literally just doing guesswork here.
But first off:
The cop wasn't responding to a robbery. He didn't know about the robbery.
So what we have is a kid who didn't listen to what I said when I told him to get off the street. Maybe he tried to hit me and ran away, cause I'm still waiting to see where it's been proven that someone turned around and charged at a cop (seriously, has someone proven this anywhere?).
If my gun is drawn and someone is coming at me to fight me, I'm going to shoot. This can't be proven without any form of conjecture.
Nobody can prove this, because if they can prove that Brown was coming to beat up a cop and try to kill him, nobody would really have a problem with a cop shooting in self defense. But it's all conjecture and bullshit extrapolations from "he shoved the clerk and took the cigars". The guy didn't even strike the clerk, so I have a hard time believing he now is deciding to turn into the hulk and fight cops.
If someone hit me and is trying to escape, I pursue on foot and call for backup.
So really, it comes down to people drawing their own conclusions based on what they want to be true.
Turning it into white vs black, liberal vs conservative, pro cop vs anti cop, is just a pile of horse shit... the fact is the system in place is failing a large segment of US citizens and needs to be fixed.
is there any other kind?
Quote:
How do know that you're NOT in grave danger?
is there any other kind?
He has insisted and put in bold "grave danger". I'm just using his words because he is using that as a threshold for the officer using deadly force.
Quote:
In comment 11826226 Peter in Atlanta said:
Quote:
How do know that you're NOT in grave danger?
is there any other kind?
He has insisted and put in bold "grave danger". I'm just using his words because he is using that as a threshold for the officer using deadly force.
I know, sorry, just interjecting from A Few Good Men
105) Q. Why?
A. I felt that his life might be in danger once word of the letter got out.
106) Q. Grave danger?
A. Is there another kind?
sorry, carry on.
First of all: I'm not a cop. I would imagine cops would have some sort of training to actually do a better risk assessment than me.
But playing along, if he's not charging at me, the fact that he is at a distance and I have a gun.
Sorry, the burden is on the police force to prove there was grave danger. Not to prove that Brown wasn't a mortal danger to the cops life.
This is someone's fucking life we're talking about it.
Quote:
make the 911 call. And as an aside, where did the $48 box of cigars go? Link - ( New Window )
Another customer called the police.
I just said I'd shoot him if I was charged. What the fuck wasn't answered about your question?
How would I determine if he was a threat or not? Depends on if he's stationary or not.
Sorry I had to spell it out for you, but the answer was there in both posts.
I'm talking about the context of our argument. I understand the cop is a defendant. though I'm not understanding why he would have to prove it wasn't self defense, as opposed to proving it was self defense.
Regardless, that wasn't what I was referring to.
Quote:
Yours isn't biased?
Less than yours. You aren't evaluating this case based on the facts as we know them. You are skewing them into a "cops are always out to get us" angle. I try to call them as I see them--even if wrong.
Well your last post which simplified everything into the dichotomy of "cop vs criminal, I believe cop" isn't exactly an example of you looking at facts and calling things as you see them.
Link - ( New Window )
You would be surprised.
The data is out there.
While there are more minority ff's than cops, there is still a big recruitment problem.
Link - ( New Window )
Cam in MO : 12:38 pm : link : reply
"Nobody cares about black kids dying in Chicago!"
Seems the only time I hear it is when someone is crying racism against white folks or reverse discrimination.
Meanwhile, the very same folks don't even pay enough attention to the "black on black" crime problem to know that "black leaders" are almost constantly speaking out about it and trying to draw attention to it.
Maybe the reason it doesn't make huge headlines all the time is because there are a shit ton of white folks that don't actually give a shit if "they kill each other" unless it's used as some sort of talking point to push their "poor downtrodden white man" agenda.
This might sound harsh, but should it matter if a shitload of white people don't care? That doesn't eliminate the problem. Eliminating the problem would be if blacks put as much effort and disgust into black-on-black killings as they do making martyrs out of some who are turning out to be less than martyr material. It also eliminates the racial aspect and the insinuation that a bunch of white cops are waiting in the lurch to gun down unarmed black kids.
In the past month in charlotte, two 10-year old black girls were killed by stray gunfire. Did you hear about these stories? Why not? compared to Michael Brown, those two girls WERE angels, and 100% innocent. I'll reiterate what I said before - 10 times more people were killed by stray gunfire or mistaken identity last year than police shootings of unarmed assailants (of any color).
What has more of a lasting impact and saves lives - blacks putting pressure to stop the black-on-black killings or racially dividing the nation by insinuating cops are out to get them? I guarantee showing a 10-year old's cherubic face in the Media is going to go a lot further than propping up Brown or trayvon Martin as doe-like kids killed in cold blood, especially when they already have the doe-eyed kids to choose from. you know, ones who are robbing shit or slamming a guys head into a sidewalk.
Try and villify a 10 year old girl - it is damn hard to do, but then again, it eliminates the angle that they were slayed by dirty, racist cops.
It sure is better than making Brown and Martin out to be these future bright stars, minding their own business until they get in the way of a racist jackass.
Then I'm sure you can rebut it point by point.
Must have been a dirty racist cop that just decided to kill him in broad daylight in the middle of the street because he didnt like black people that assault him and punch him in the face and try to take his gun and then run at him.
Instead, there is:
- A narrow fixation on the singular incident
- A predictable pattern of victim-blaming, because a victim must be entirely innocent and pure or otherwise said victim deserves no sympathy ("she was making out with a dude she didn't even know before they left the party, she probably wanted it")
- A use of code-words by at least one poster (don't say thug in every sentence; just say nigger, because it's offensive you believe we don't understand code)
- A hideous condescenion towards the black community for being the root cause of their ills (funny how "black on black" crime is a thing, but "white on white crime" is just crime, eh?).
- An artful though tired erection and subsequent demolition of the strawman that is "the black leaders like Sharpton are the REAL problem!" (conveniently and condescendingly anointed by white people as representative of Black thought).
- An 80s formalist-style deflection of the topic of racism by accusing those who would dare to state the obvious truth that race played a role in the incident and incidents such as this one nationwide as the true racists (at this point, "racism" and "racist" are racial slur-level trigger words for certain white people).
- A deflection of the issue towards other issues, exhibiting a faux-sympathy towards the plight of the black community when the goal is to merely dismiss the significance of any problem raised, due to an inability or lack of desire to engage the topic at hand.
Racism is a whole lot more than calling someone a nigger or shooting someone because they're black, but hey, white privilege is often unrecognized in how it impacts a person's perspective.
A pitiful reflection of the state of intellectual discourse in this country.
This post wasn't worth my time, it's not worth Cam or Joe's time to post here either. I don't know why I wrote this. Feel free to delete the post or my account. It's rather ugly here now.
Must have been a dirty racist cop that just decided to kill him in broad daylight in the middle of the street because he didnt like black people that assault him and punch him in the face and try to take his gun and then run at him.
Are you being dense on purpose or just to troll? The video is subplot to the whole situation. It does nothing at this point to prove or disprove anything. You keep reaching into a bag of tricks pulling out nonsense and then think by proclaiming its all the evidence needed to justify the shooting. You literally have used every assumption, rumor, innuendo, and fabrication that has been debunked time and again and then pretend its legit.
Seriously your doing your argument zero good and just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Putting it on a message board thread about a kid being killed by what could be excessive force reeks of insincerity. Then calling it martyrdom and citing all the circumstanials just looks like you're using the issue to make the same point as PA Giants fan, with less vulgarity. Your opinion has equal weight as any, but if your agenda is to make a difference, your not going to accomplish that here.
I disagree with that...I think its a point with some justifiable merit to it. I still don't agree that the comparison argument using Black on Black crime in relation to the Brown shooting is valid. but as far as addressing a deeply rooted problem that has been going on for years i think FMiC makes some valid points.
So you're right and you're wrong. "Black people" didn't anoint Sharpton, but neither did "white people".
"Eliminating the problem would be if blacks put as much effort and disgust into black-on-black killings"
I shouldn't have to refute a statement as asinine as this. I honestly have no clue how a reasonable, intelligent human being could read this dreck presented as fact and not think it's offensive.
Comparing the Brown and Martin cases makes no sense. A detective, who was later seen as a boon for the defense case, got on the witness stand and said there was no evidence to show Martin was doing anything illegal that night and that he would not have stopped Martin. But yes, in haste to make a ridiculous comparison, let's skip 98% of the story up to the part where Martin is on top of GZ.
Some people are missing the bigger picture, which is ACCOUNTABILITY. Just as it's ridiculous to think blacks aren't grappling with issue of crime in their neighborhoods, it's also ridiculous to think black people believe all cops are whites in search of young blacks to kill. What people want is accountability. Chicago (home of the Brown case false equivalency Hall of Fame) has the country's largest jail and it's teeming with blacks. Most of those people will be held accountable by the criminal justice system. In many of these highly publicized cases, what people are ultimately bothered by is the notion (fairly or unfairly) that the criminal justice system doesn't protect them or hold all accountable to the same standard.
The disingenuous and dismissive nature of discussing black on black violence doesn't advance this thread at all.
You mean it does not even prove Mike Brown was, in fact, NOT "an angle who could never hurt anyone", NOT a "gentle giant" -- characterizations his relatives and supporters insisted on him??
It doesn't prove at least that much? Really?
"It sure is better than making Brown and Martin out to be these future bright stars, minding their own business until they get in the way of a racist jackass."
Umm yeah...except for the fact that in Martin's case he WAS minding his own business until he ran into a racist jackass with a gun.
I've only been checking in on this thread every now and then and, as I said before, I don't plan on getting involved in it too much. But it irks me to see someone who I respect blatantly misstate the facts of the Trayvon Martin case like you are Fats. You want to go ahead and believe that Zimmerman was justified in shooting and killing him (even though it's funny how his various actions AFTER that case don't count as strikes against his character and yet you all have no problem using Brown's previous act as somehow to mean that he deserved to be killed), then by all means, feel free. But let's not act like Martin went out there looking for trouble because that's a flat out lie.
The assaulted a police officer and ended up dead.
I generally don't like the police. I don't trust the police and you are going to end up on the wrong side of these arguments. You already are.
And the disgust over the protests of a dead thug versus the silence over the dead innocents makes you guys complete phonies. Where are your threads about dead kids in CHicago and other places?
It is quite funny really.
"Eliminating the problem would be if blacks put as much effort and disgust into black-on-black killings"
I shouldn't have to refute a statement as asinine as this. I honestly have no clue how a reasonable, intelligent human being could read this dreck presented as fact and not think it's offensive.
Comparing the Brown and Martin cases makes no sense. A detective, who was later seen as a boon for the defense case, got on the witness stand and said there was no evidence to show Martin was doing anything illegal that night and that he would not have stopped Martin. But yes, in haste to make a ridiculous comparison, let's skip 98% of the story up to the part where Martin is on top of GZ.
Some people are missing the bigger picture, which is ACCOUNTABILITY. Just as it's ridiculous to think blacks aren't grappling with issue of crime in their neighborhoods, it's also ridiculous to think black people believe all cops are whites in search of young blacks to kill. What people want is accountability. Chicago (home of the Brown case false equivalency Hall of Fame) has the country's largest jail and it's teeming with blacks. Most of those people will be held accountable by the criminal justice system. In many of these highly publicized cases, what people are ultimately bothered by is the notion (fairly or unfairly) that the criminal justice system doesn't protect them or hold all accountable to the same standard.
The disingenuous and dismissive nature of discussing black on black violence doesn't advance this thread at all.
Very well put and stated.
I don't know if Brown deserved to be shot and killed yet. I've been more than willing to wait until more of the facts come out. But to just completely ignore how Martin got into the predicament that HE was put into by someone else, while yes...minding his own business... I can't stand to just let go. Again, particularly by someone who I still think of a friend.
Instead, there is:
- A narrow fixation on the singular incident
- A predictable pattern of victim-blaming, because a victim must be entirely innocent and pure or otherwise said victim deserves no sympathy ("she was making out with a dude she didn't even know before they left the party, she probably wanted it")
- A use of code-words by at least one poster (don't say thug in every sentence; just say nigger, because it's offensive you believe we don't understand code)
- A hideous condescenion towards the black community for being the root cause of their ills (funny how "black on black" crime is a thing, but "white on white crime" is just crime, eh?).
- An artful though tired erection and subsequent demolition of the strawman that is "the black leaders like Sharpton are the REAL problem!" (conveniently and condescendingly anointed by white people as representative of Black thought).
- An 80s formalist-style deflection of the topic of racism by accusing those who would dare to state the obvious truth that race played a role in the incident and incidents such as this one nationwide as the true racists (at this point, "racism" and "racist" are racial slur-level trigger words for certain white people).
- A deflection of the issue towards other issues, exhibiting a faux-sympathy towards the plight of the black community when the goal is to merely dismiss the significance of any problem raised, due to an inability or lack of desire to engage the topic at hand.
Racism is a whole lot more than calling someone a nigger or shooting someone because they're black, but hey, white privilege is often unrecognized in how it impacts a person's perspective.
A pitiful reflection of the state of intellectual discourse in this country.
This post wasn't worth my time, it's not worth Cam or Joe's time to post here either. I don't know why I wrote this. Feel free to delete the post or my account. It's rather ugly here now.
Great post. Basically my thoughts. I've been scanning this thread but I haven't felt the need to throw myself into this mess of a thread. Gonna wait until more information is out. But I agree with a lot of the same things you wrote.
Quote:
The video is subplot to the whole situation. It does nothing at this point to prove or disprove anything.
You mean it does not even prove Mike Brown was, in fact, NOT "an angle who could never hurt anyone", NOT a "gentle giant" -- characterizations his relatives and supporters insisted on him??
It doesn't prove at least that much? Really?
This really is not this hard to understand:
His past has NOTHING to do with whether or not the shooting was justified..Nothing, Nada, Zip, Nil, Zilch...to do with the justification of the shooting.
If Brown was aggressive and charged the officer after an earlier struggle, the shooting is justified.
If Brown had run, and then stopped when the officer had told him to and did not make an aggressive move towards him, the shooting is not justified.
The robbery of the cigars has nothing to do with that. The Officer did not stop him for that, he did not even know about the robbery until after the shooting. Shoving a clerk while stealing some cigars does not automatically put you in the mad dog category.
18 years ago and it still makes me sick - ( New Window )
Was the freshly buried teenager's thug's burial plot good dancing territory?
Fucking creep.
The assaulted a police officer and ended up dead.
I generally don't like the police. I don't trust the police and you are going to end up on the wrong side of these arguments. You already are.
And the disgust over the protests of a dead thug versus the silence over the dead innocents makes you guys complete phonies. Where are your threads about dead kids in CHicago and other places?
It is quite funny really.
LOL....I feel like i'm talking to a child. Please enlighten us all and explain exactly how your "winning the argument"?
I have no idea how Ferguson will react.
the idea that the black community can't multi-task and be pissed about black on black crime AND incidents like those involving Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown is pretty ridiculous. it's like when someone rails against Congressional hearings on steroids - i'm pretty sure the government can handle multiple important issues at once, despite your own inability to address more than one problem simultaneously.
the reason why these cases generate interest, media attention and ultimately, growing "unrest" is the very real issue of unequal treatment under the law. the Michael Brown case may or may not be the best example of that, but certain cases are symbolic or emblematic of that issue, and that's all you need to get going.
this is both a problem of reality and of perception. in reality, more black men get arrested than white men. more black men populate prisons. the numbers are staggering and they're not at all in line with the racial makeup of the country. so, you either believe the black people are more prone to violence and should just stop it (FMiC) or you believe that maybe there are some other things going on that lead to the kind of skewed law enforcement that we see in this country, and those are the types of things that piss people off and cause them to riot. and then, of course, there's the perception which is very much that the police are the enemy, nobody should talk to them, nobody should cooperate with them, and they're always looking to screw you over. is that congruent with the "protect and serve" message? what about an armored vehicle and tear gas?
and of course, there are very real economic and societal issues that force young black men into a cycle of drugs, violence and poverty, putting them directly at odds with the same law enforcement agencies that are supposed to protect them and serve them. if you deny those exist or poo poo them, then you are just uninformed. and those issues are not the types of things that the black community can just resolve to figure out with lots of can-do attitude. many people are simply stuck.
basically, this sort of criticism typically comes from the comfortable white guy sitting behind a computer screen in an air-conditioned office, whose last encounter with the cops was 8 years ago when he got a speeding ticket. you have no idea what is going on in the 'hood or why the gun violence level is what it is. the black community is entitled to be enraged when white police officers don't enforce the law equally, just as they are entitled to be introspective when a stray bullet kills a young girl. we (comfortable, white people) don't have any right to tell another community how to react to the things that happen to them or how to prioritize the bad things in terms of how they should spend their focus.
again, not "offensive," but pretty fucking ignorant.
Based on my limited understanding of Missouri law - 1% sounds about right.
How will Ferguson react? How will non Ferguson residents react?
I wonder what the protests would have looked like had only Ferguson residents attended. If the verdict does not go their way - will the mobilization of protesters, particularly outsiders, be as effective (= similar numbers and media attention).
Quote:
In comment 11826600 montanagiant said:
Quote:
The video is subplot to the whole situation. It does nothing at this point to prove or disprove anything.
You mean it does not even prove Mike Brown was, in fact, NOT "an angle who could never hurt anyone", NOT a "gentle giant" -- characterizations his relatives and supporters insisted on him??
It doesn't prove at least that much? Really?
This really is not this hard to understand:
His past has NOTHING to do with whether or not the shooting was justified..Nothing, Nada, Zip, Nil, Zilch...to do with the justification of the shooting.
If Brown was aggressive and charged the officer after an earlier struggle, the shooting is justified.
If Brown had run, and then stopped when the officer had told him to and did not make an aggressive move towards him, the shooting is not justified.
The robbery of the cigars has nothing to do with that. The Officer did not stop him for that, he did not even know about the robbery until after the shooting. Shoving a clerk while stealing some cigars does not automatically put you in the mad dog category.
Montana, that wasn't the past. That was the present day. It happened present day and show's a behavior and attitude moments before the altercation. To me it sounds like the kid was on some sort of power trip that day and it led to the incident. But that doesn't mean I'm right. That's just how some people view it. Is there any video of the cop being angry that day and out on some sort of power trip? No.
Quote:
In comment 11826612 LAXin said:
Quote:
In comment 11826600 montanagiant said:
Quote:
The video is subplot to the whole situation. It does nothing at this point to prove or disprove anything.
You mean it does not even prove Mike Brown was, in fact, NOT "an angle who could never hurt anyone", NOT a "gentle giant" -- characterizations his relatives and supporters insisted on him??
It doesn't prove at least that much? Really?
This really is not this hard to understand:
His past has NOTHING to do with whether or not the shooting was justified..Nothing, Nada, Zip, Nil, Zilch...to do with the justification of the shooting.
If Brown was aggressive and charged the officer after an earlier struggle, the shooting is justified.
If Brown had run, and then stopped when the officer had told him to and did not make an aggressive move towards him, the shooting is not justified.
The robbery of the cigars has nothing to do with that. The Officer did not stop him for that, he did not even know about the robbery until after the shooting. Shoving a clerk while stealing some cigars does not automatically put you in the mad dog category.
Montana, that wasn't the past. That was the present day. It happened present day and show's a behavior and attitude moments before the altercation. To me it sounds like the kid was on some sort of power trip that day and it led to the incident. But that doesn't mean I'm right. That's just how some people view it. Is there any video of the cop being angry that day and out on some sort of power trip? No.
What do you mean it was not the past? It all happened before the stop and the shooting..Where did this theory that stealing cigars and shoving a clerk equates to wanting to kill cops come from? Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Does this mean that because there are witnesses that said the Officer grabbed Brown by the neck and was choking him over jay walking, it shows an overly aggressive cop who was intent on killing Brown no matter what?
I don't think people miss the picture - I think they disagree on what accountability is. If the only way for accountability to happen is for people to pre-judge the outcome of the cases, that is unacceptable. My whole premise on this thread is that a rush to judgment has caused irreparable harm to a lot of innocent folks, and it keeps happening.
T-Bone - I probably should back off any Trayvon Martin comparisons. My take on that case is multi-tiered. I think Zimmerman overstepped his bounds, but I also think it attracted a lot of attention initially because people mistakenly thought Zimmerman was a white man. I tie it in with Brown more from the angle that a lot of people took on the stance that it was some scrawny 10 year old gunned down my a racist maniac. It did no good for the Media to run with photos that showed Martin in 1st grade while showing Zimmerman looking menacing everytime. And that leads me to another common gripe in this thread - the Media's fault.
The Media slants these stories based on initial reports and starts perpetuating a bias to the masses. Then it snowballs. Sometimes it snowballs rightfully, and sometimes it doesn't.
Kyle doesn't want us to have a discussion here because he just wants everyone to accept that there is institutional racism and let that justify actions that aren't justifiable, like violent protests and looting. In the strictest of sense, if "over 30 year old whites" are ineligible to discuss these matters or if institutional racism is an acceptable excuse to railroad people, I'm not really sure what that accomplishes.
My attitude is that the Media is the biggest part of the problem. They could run as sensational of a story about a 10 year old hit with a stray bullet as they can a shooting of an unarmed youth, and they can affect change. Instead, they are content to pit white against black, and I'm pretty sure I know why, the color green.
discussions like this are tough to have because nobody knows the facts of the case. So in essence, we do what I've complained about in the beginning - we rush to judgment.
There is a legitimate point to be made to question why more isn't done to combat senseless murders in the inner cities. Because it is a much more rampant problem than police shooting unarmed people.
For the most part this discussion has been civil, despite some people thinking we shouldn't have the discussion at all.
But it is easier to make it a racial argument because the flip side of accepting the economic parity is that the solution would be to elevate the poor. I don't know too many people willing to take on that crusade.
Poor people are more inclined to engage in crime. If we just call it institutional racism without taking into account economic realities, then a huge piece of the puzzle remains missing.
What do you mean it was not the past? It all happened before the stop and the shooting..Where did this theory that stealing cigars and shoving a clerk equates to wanting to kill cops come from? Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Does this mean that because there are witnesses that said the Officer grabbed Brown by the neck and was choking him over jay walking, it shows an overly aggressive cop who was intent on killing Brown no matter what?
Exactly what it means, it wasn't the past. It was moments before. And I never said he was trying to kill the cop. I think he was acting erratic based on the behavior exhibited in the strong armed robbery video. It doesn't matter that it was only a box of cigars. Or maybe it does. If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over?
Why would you ignore a video of him performing a strong arm robbery just before an incident that led to his death do to another altercation? That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown. For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent. Not saying that's what happened, but these are the kinds of thoughts that enter one's mind with the evidence that has been presented.
again, not "offensive," but pretty fucking ignorant.
What the reaction impacts everyone in a community, there certainly should be a discussion on how people should react. When violence an looting affect innocent members and that looting is largely overlooked or justified because a certain group is angry, that is unacceptable.
Hypothetical here, but let's say Offcier wilson gets convicted of murder (and let's even assume correctly). Would it be OK for whites to storm the streets and cause violence and mayhem? Would blacks not be able to voice their opinions on how ridiculous it would be to do that?
I think I can better answer your question by looking at the status of another group of skin-colored minority just like the blacks -- the (east) Asians.
Their crime and prison rate is also disproportional to their population percentage, but it is to the contrary, it is staggeringly low. And it's extremely rare that we hear an Asian got shot by police in a violent struggle.
In addition to a lower (violent) crime rate, Asians also somehow managed to achieve higher education and higher median family income, even higher than the mainstream white majority who is supposedly dishing out all these discrimination and repression against color-skinned minorities. This isn't just an individual example here and there, this is a general statistic on an entire color-skinned minority group of millions.
So how could this happen? Does the repressive/discriminatory/unjust American society/establishment somehow just forgot to (or did't care to) target and surpress the Asians, allowing them to enjoy lower arrest, higher income, and a more stable status than even the whites? Or does the root cause to the hardships experienced by the black communities that you mentioned really lie within themselves?
Instead, there is:
- A narrow fixation on the singular incident
- A predictable pattern of victim-blaming, because a victim must be entirely innocent and pure or otherwise said victim deserves no sympathy ("she was making out with a dude she didn't even know before they left the party, she probably wanted it")
- A use of code-words by at least one poster (don't say thug in every sentence; just say nigger, because it's offensive you believe we don't understand code)
- A hideous condescenion towards the black community for being the root cause of their ills (funny how "black on black" crime is a thing, but "white on white crime" is just crime, eh?).
- An artful though tired erection and subsequent demolition of the strawman that is "the black leaders like Sharpton are the REAL problem!" (conveniently and condescendingly anointed by white people as representative of Black thought).
- An 80s formalist-style deflection of the topic of racism by accusing those who would dare to state the obvious truth that race played a role in the incident and incidents such as this one nationwide as the true racists (at this point, "racism" and "racist" are racial slur-level trigger words for certain white people).
- A deflection of the issue towards other issues, exhibiting a faux-sympathy towards the plight of the black community when the goal is to merely dismiss the significance of any problem raised, due to an inability or lack of desire to engage the topic at hand.
Racism is a whole lot more than calling someone a nigger or shooting someone because they're black, but hey, white privilege is often unrecognized in how it impacts a person's perspective.
A pitiful reflection of the state of intellectual discourse in this country.
This post wasn't worth my time, it's not worth Cam or Joe's time to post here either. I don't know why I wrote this. Feel free to delete the post or my account. It's rather ugly here now.
I enjoy arguing with you because you're good at it, but you're equally guilty of erecting straw men. The fact that they actually exist doesn't mean they're not straw men. There are some people involved in this who aren't worthy of response, and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who they are. There are people taking contrary positions on this thread, even doing so stridently, who don't deserve to be lumped in with those posters. This whole "recognize your privilege" bullshit is just that. No doubt African Americans and other minorities face particular challenges in this country but the most important factors for the myriad of social ills are not racial but social and economic, and poor white people and poor black people have a lot more in common than those people do with affluent folks of the same skin color.
There are a few books that document the economics of race and what led up to it. Whites were already established economic leaders and blacks were traditionally opressed, either by law or by institutional barriers. So blacks went for political influence. Meanwhile, Asians came to the US and established an economic influence by working at and eventually owning small businesses, family run businesses that allowed them to make money, bring relatives over, and establish an economic base.
It would be impossible to say that blacks should have done the same thing because they traditionally did not have access to such opportunities.
The black community's 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.
This issue entered the public consciousness in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a "tangle of pathology" among blacks that fed a 24 percent black "illegitimacy" rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.
Many accused Moynihan, who was white, of "blaming the victim:" of saying that black behavior, not racism, was the main cause of black problems. That dynamic persists. Most talk about the 72 percent has come from conservative circles; when influential blacks like Bill Cosby have spoken out about it, they have been all but shouted down by liberals saying that a lack of equal education and opportunity are the true root of the problem.
This article is almost 4 years old - ( New Window )
Beyond that, the posters who you have in mind as being unfairly lumped in with the problem are, indeed, problems.
An unwillingness to address the issue of race, racism, and systemic problems in America throughout 1700 posts -- think about that: one thousand seven hundred posts -- is due to those very posters you would defend. Call it willful ignorance, call it cowardice, call it dishonesty, call it what you may. It's a conversation that, as one person noted, white people are not comfortable having. If you want evidence that that's true, this thread is Exhibit A.
Quote:
In comment 11826659 bradshaw44 said:
What do you mean it was not the past? It all happened before the stop and the shooting..Where did this theory that stealing cigars and shoving a clerk equates to wanting to kill cops come from? Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Does this mean that because there are witnesses that said the Officer grabbed Brown by the neck and was choking him over jay walking, it shows an overly aggressive cop who was intent on killing Brown no matter what?
Exactly what it means, it wasn't the past. It was moments before. And I never said he was trying to kill the cop. I think he was acting erratic based on the behavior exhibited in the strong armed robbery video. It doesn't matter that it was only a box of cigars. Or maybe it does. If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over?
Why would you ignore a video of him performing a strong arm robbery just before an incident that led to his death do to another altercation? That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown. For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent. Not saying that's what happened, but these are the kinds of thoughts that enter one's mind with the evidence that has been presented.
Moments before = THE PAST...does not matter if it is 1 second or 1 year, it still is the past. It happened before the incident with the police which means its in the past when that shooting occurred. What would be your timeline where the "Robbery does not illustrate Brown being erratic"? the next day?, Week? Year?
gone by in time and no longer existing.
"the danger is now past"
synonyms: gone (by), over (and done with), no more, done, bygone, former, (of) old, olden, long-ago; literaryof yore
"memories of times past"
"" If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over? ""
Obviously it means that shoving a clerk illustrates that he is willing to die by fighting with police. Everyone knows that once you shove someone in the course of a theft your definitely on track to becoming a huge menace to society and should be put down for our safety.
""That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown""
Absolutely if he was being charged with the Robbery. As far as if the shooting is justifiable or not it is evidence of nothing at all EXCEPT with regards to public opinion.
""For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent.""
No, Brown was told to get out of the street to which he responded in a way that caused the cop to stop him. Not one aspect of the robbery had anything to do with the confrontation. As a matter of fact this actually illustrates why your claim of fear of arrest is wrong. Why would Brown talk back to an officer who told him to get out of the street IF he was afraid of arrest?
Unless Officer Wilson is proven to be some kind of psychopath, I don't believe the motive here is racism. He still may have used excessive force, that will be for a jury to decide. But to say this is all about race is wrong.
Beyond that, the posters who you have in mind as being unfairly lumped in with the problem are, indeed, problems.
An unwillingness to address the issue of race, racism, and systemic problems in America throughout 1700 posts -- think about that: one thousand seven hundred posts -- is due to those very posters you would defend. Call it willful ignorance, call it cowardice, call it dishonesty, call it what you may. It's a conversation that, as one person noted, white people are not comfortable having. If you want evidence that that's true, this thread is Exhibit A.
And I spend every day dealing with poor white people and poor black people in my line of work. The vocabulary might differ slightly and the drugs of choice do a little bit too but the problems are the same. Poor education, absent or shitty parents and substance abuse. And I have spent a decade plus in the military (active and as a reservist) dealing with people of all races and I have had a very similar experience. Yes there are social pressures associated with being African American and yes I will never know what it means to be the victim of profiling but I have a much easier time relating to African Americans (and Hispanics, and Asians) who grew up in suburbia than I do to white people who grew up dirt poor in trailers.
Quote:
In comment 11826664 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11826659 bradshaw44 said:
What do you mean it was not the past? It all happened before the stop and the shooting..Where did this theory that stealing cigars and shoving a clerk equates to wanting to kill cops come from? Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Does this mean that because there are witnesses that said the Officer grabbed Brown by the neck and was choking him over jay walking, it shows an overly aggressive cop who was intent on killing Brown no matter what?
Exactly what it means, it wasn't the past. It was moments before. And I never said he was trying to kill the cop. I think he was acting erratic based on the behavior exhibited in the strong armed robbery video. It doesn't matter that it was only a box of cigars. Or maybe it does. If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over?
Why would you ignore a video of him performing a strong arm robbery just before an incident that led to his death do to another altercation? That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown. For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent. Not saying that's what happened, but these are the kinds of thoughts that enter one's mind with the evidence that has been presented.
Moments before = THE PAST...does not matter if it is 1 second or 1 year, it still is the past. It happened before the incident with the police which means its in the past when that shooting occurred. What would be your timeline where the "Robbery does not illustrate Brown being erratic"? the next day?, Week? Year?
Quote:
PAST
gone by in time and no longer existing.
"the danger is now past"
synonyms: gone (by), over (and done with), no more, done, bygone, former, (of) old, olden, long-ago; literaryof yore
"memories of times past"
"" If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over? ""
Obviously it means that shoving a clerk illustrates that he is willing to die by fighting with police. Everyone knows that once you shove someone in the course of a theft your definitely on track to becoming a huge menace to society and should be put down for our safety.
""That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown""
Absolutely if he was being charged with the Robbery. As far as if the shooting is justifiable or not it is evidence of nothing at all EXCEPT with regards to public opinion.
""For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent.""
No, Brown was told to get out of the street to which he responded in a way that caused the cop to stop him. Not one aspect of the robbery had anything to do with the confrontation. As a matter of fact this actually illustrates why your claim of fear of arrest is wrong. Why would Brown talk back to an officer who told him to get out of the street IF he was afraid of arrest?
Ha ha ha, WOW. You know exactly what you are trying to insinuate when you say the "Past". You're inferring it was at a point in his life when he was possibly up to no good, but has since gotten his act together. That doesn't happen all in one day. Gimme a break.
Quote:
In comment 11826684 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 11826664 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 11826659 bradshaw44 said:
What do you mean it was not the past? It all happened before the stop and the shooting..Where did this theory that stealing cigars and shoving a clerk equates to wanting to kill cops come from? Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Does this mean that because there are witnesses that said the Officer grabbed Brown by the neck and was choking him over jay walking, it shows an overly aggressive cop who was intent on killing Brown no matter what?
Exactly what it means, it wasn't the past. It was moments before. And I never said he was trying to kill the cop. I think he was acting erratic based on the behavior exhibited in the strong armed robbery video. It doesn't matter that it was only a box of cigars. Or maybe it does. If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over?
Why would you ignore a video of him performing a strong arm robbery just before an incident that led to his death do to another altercation? That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown. For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent. Not saying that's what happened, but these are the kinds of thoughts that enter one's mind with the evidence that has been presented.
Moments before = THE PAST...does not matter if it is 1 second or 1 year, it still is the past. It happened before the incident with the police which means its in the past when that shooting occurred. What would be your timeline where the "Robbery does not illustrate Brown being erratic"? the next day?, Week? Year?
Quote:
PAST
gone by in time and no longer existing.
"the danger is now past"
synonyms: gone (by), over (and done with), no more, done, bygone, former, (of) old, olden, long-ago; literaryof yore
"memories of times past"
"" If he was willing to get physical with a store clerk over a box of cigars, then what else was he capable of getting physical over? ""
Obviously it means that shoving a clerk illustrates that he is willing to die by fighting with police. Everyone knows that once you shove someone in the course of a theft your definitely on track to becoming a huge menace to society and should be put down for our safety.
""That kind of circumstantial evidence leans heavily against Brown""
Absolutely if he was being charged with the Robbery. As far as if the shooting is justifiable or not it is evidence of nothing at all EXCEPT with regards to public opinion.
""For all Brown knew, the cop had been called about that robbery so he felt the need to get violent.""
No, Brown was told to get out of the street to which he responded in a way that caused the cop to stop him. Not one aspect of the robbery had anything to do with the confrontation. As a matter of fact this actually illustrates why your claim of fear of arrest is wrong. Why would Brown talk back to an officer who told him to get out of the street IF he was afraid of arrest?
Ha ha ha, WOW. You know exactly what you are trying to insinuate when you say the "Past". You're inferring it was at a point in his life when he was possibly up to no good, but has since gotten his act together. That doesn't happen all in one day. Gimme a break.
Holy shit this gets tedious...No..I'm trying to illustrate for the 20th time that the Robbery incident had NOTHING to do with the shooting and that past is the past..there is no "Moments before is not the past" BS your trying to present
YOU on the other hand want to play Psychiatrist due to a 20 sec clip, Determine that shoving a clerk is proof positive of a severe criminal mindset, make it seem to be the crime of the century, apply it to Brown as a crazed dog on the run who is afraid of arrest.
You top that off arguing that something that happened before the shooting is not considered the past. This silly theory of yours that in this deranged, crazed mindset brought on by the horrible nature of the shove he gave that clerk, he is so afraid of arrest that he is willing to risk his own life to get away. Is completely blown up by the fact that Brown himself draws attention to himself by mouthing off to the cop...
Now your back to a semantics argument that your wrong about also
As I stated in earlier posts with Montana, I don't know what happened but I'm not going to ignore the fact that this video exists.
Brown robbed a store and attacked the clerk and then menaced him showing himself to be violent and dangerous and obviously having little respect for others. Note how he also looked at the other customer in the store.
Then he is walking down the middle of the street and the officer tells him to get the fuck out of the middle of the street and he attacks him. You want to believe that the cop reached through his window and tried to grab a 6'3" 290 lb man by the throat?
They struggled and the officers gun went off. The officer was hit in the face causing swelling on one side of his face.
None of this is really in question. The at some point the officer shot Brown. Some witnesses believe he ran towards the cop and kept coming and the autopsey and number of shots fired would indicate this to make sense.
You want people to believe the officer stood there shooting him over and over until he dies while he had his hands in the air surrendering? Which doesnt fit the autopsy anyway.
And there have been protests, riots and looting over this person who was claimed to be a good person, productive when in fact he is on video showing himself to be a common street thug and by witness account willing to attack a police officer.
No if my siding and believing the police in this case (which I usually don't and I dont generally trust the police or even think they are necesary most of the time) makes me a racist, then you are a moron. And if my thinking that all this energy being wasted and violence via riots over a piece of shit while innocent kids are murdered daily in chicago is completely moronic and misguided then you are a moron.
And if you don't believe that this whole incident gives wind beneath the wings of racist point of views, then you are a moron.
Now continue your rants and attack me and as more comes out, and the officer is further exonerated you will likely not say you were wrong or apologize and just let the subject just fade away as will the general public forgetting all the damage done and energy wasted and another innocent kids gets killed and more racial divide is created all because a piece of shit thug got shot.
This. Exactly my point.
Sorry, educate yourself better about a situation
So if he is in a state of mind that is based on not being caught, why is he walking down the middle of the road when a cop drives by and then talks back to him when that same cop tells him to get out of the road?
Wouldn't that mindset mean your going to be incognito as possible?
Complete thug.....proven on video...but no it must have been the cop deciding to shoot him for the hell of it.
Quote:
even if the officer didn't know Brown had just done that (which isn't clear), Brown did. It gave him more of a reason to try to get away and it shows that for whatever reason he was violent not long before the interaction. It is definitive? Of course not. You don't forfeit your right not to be assaulted or killed because you commit a crime unless you present an imminent threat to another person, save that you are subject to arrest.
So if he is in a state of mind that is based on not being caught, why is he walking down the middle of the road when a cop drives by and then talks back to him when that same cop tells him to get out of the road?
Wouldn't that mindset mean your going to be incognito as possible?
Certainly a reasonable interpretation, but it would suggest that something wasn't right in his mind at the time.
Not saying it isn't possible, but I tend to believe something else PROBABLY happened. Although just as any other situation, it's not 100% because we simply don't have all the facts.
Like i said earlier..Its like talking to a little child with you.
Absolutely it does, you have proven that in virtually every one of your posts
Wyatt Earp...lol...Thats what Montana believes....No run along and go protest. Get your ticket for Missouri quick so you can help them out. No peace...No justice.
That gives racists the opportunity say...."see there you go again"......
And you are right there propogating the nonsense with them. Morons on both sides. I am just aware enough to say morons on both sides. You chose the side of the thug. congrats.
Not saying it isn't possible, but I tend to believe something else PROBABLY happened. Although just as any other situation, it's not 100% because we simply don't have all the facts.
Or he crossed paths, the cop got pissed, Brown got pissed, they struggle, Brown runs, the Cop yells to stop, Brown stops and turns around.
Then Brown ________________________________ ?.
It could be as simple as Brown turning around too fast. Or it could be complex with a bunch of nuances such as that Brown turned around and approached the officer with an aggressive look on his face. Brown turning around rushing the Officer. Brown surrendering and the Officer makes a horrible mistake. Even Brown turning around and that act causes him to stumble forward which the officer viewed as being aggressive.
No one knows yet, but the Robbery will not have any factor on the decision if the Shooting was justified or not. It only will apply to how people will view all of this.
Wyatt Earp...lol...Thats what Montana believes....No run along and go protest. Get your ticket for Missouri quick so you can help them out. No peace...No justice.
Damn, you got me there kiddo
but you have ignored the facts and are now making up your own completely ignoring the most likely scenerio which some witnesses say happened....now run along and tell me what that is....hint, it is the same as what the police claim occurred too.
It is because the stories have changed quite dramatically since the thread was started.
what is relevant is that there has been a rise in emotion due to the early version of the story that was told.
That is a trend that simply cannot keep happening.
but you have ignored the facts and are now making up your own completely ignoring the most likely scenerio which some witnesses say happened....now run along and tell me what that is....hint, it is the same as what the police claim occurred too.
Please explain what facts I have wrong..And what official witness reports have you read that contradict what i have said? You sit there spewing nonsense yet you have yet to show one thing to back up what you claim. What you have used has been debunked for a few days now (IE: The dozens of witness's supporting the police version that has been shown to be a false claim that you seized on earlier)..
Its easy to run your mouth, but you need to back it up with some facts at some point Ace..
Just above this post you just made up an entire diatribe of what might have occurred....all slanted against the officer and without any facts and actually contrary to all testimony....except for Browns buddy who was proven to be lying by the autopsy when he say he was running away and was shot in the back.
So if you are here to correct the
Then Brown ________________________________ ?.
It could be as simple as Brown turning around too fast. Or it could be complex with a bunch of nuances such as that Brown turned around and approached the officer with an aggressive look on his face. Brown turning around rushing the Officer. Brown surrendering and the Officer makes a horrible mistake. Even Brown turning around and that act causes him to stumble forward which the officer viewed as being aggressive"
When we already know the officer was attacked and punched in the face. His face was swollen.....Funny how you keep missing the facts when it doesnt apply to your made up version of the story...thats just one example. Your whole posting history here is like this. You really are the troll.
Just above this post you just made up an entire diatribe of what might have occurred....all slanted against the officer and without any facts and actually contrary to all testimony....except for Browns buddy who was proven to be lying by the autopsy when he say he was running away and was shot in the back.
So if you are here to correct the
Quote:
"facts, rumors and BS", how did you just come up with this nonsense.
Quote:
"Or he crossed paths, the cop got pissed, Brown got pissed, they struggle, Brown runs, the Cop yells to stop, Brown stops and turns around.
Then Brown ________________________________ ?.
It could be as simple as Brown turning around too fast. Or it could be complex with a bunch of nuances such as that Brown turned around and approached the officer with an aggressive look on his face. Brown turning around rushing the Officer. Brown surrendering and the Officer makes a horrible mistake. Even Brown turning around and that act causes him to stumble forward which the officer viewed as being aggressive"
When we already know the officer was attacked and punched in the face. His face was swollen.....Funny how you keep missing the facts when it doesnt apply to your made up version of the story...thats just one example. Your whole posting history here is like this. You really are the troll.
Now don't start parsing what you claimed earlier..YOU claimed "Brown fractured his orbital bone" Which has been shown to be wrong...
LOL..the one and only example you pull out of your ass is even wrong..HA
What I may have said is that I didnt see the difference between breaking an orbital bone or not. He was assaulting a police officer in the face...not sure what difference it really makes....
Again your bias keeps getting the best of you. Now you are imagining things...nice.
So lets see where I said that.
Now how does one manage to miss the perp assaulting the police officer in their description of events that night? hmmmmm...not important enough for you troll?
What I may have said is that I didnt see the difference between breaking an orbital bone or not. He was assaulting a police officer in the face...not sure what difference it really makes....
Again your bias keeps getting the best of you. Now you are imagining things...nice.
So lets see where I said that.
Your correct, You claimed he hit him in the face (which is not proven either but you did not say he fractured his bone).
Where you were using the false claims was with the "Dozens of witnesses supported the cops story" with a link. Which has been debunked for 3 days now
The fractured orbital bone hasn't been debunked, it also hasn't been proven. The supposed x-ray was deemed to be false.
we don't know if there was a struggle for the gun. We don't know if Brown put his hands up in surrender. We don't know how disruptive he was to traffic or simply jaywalking.
you guys are doing exactly what we shouldn't be - fighting over versions of the story. We should just wait for the facts to come out and let the situation be dealt with.
LOL..one that has been debunked for days, and you keep claiming the cop got punched in the face while there is nothing out there stating that.
As well as your asinine theory about Browns state of mind led him to charging the officer. Which there is nothing to back that yet despite your claims that the autopsy report, or the phantom official witness statements you claim to have read.
Yeah i agree...you can't win when your dealing with the stupid
Well the only witness who claims there was a shot fired while the officer was in the car, is also the same one who claims Brown was doing nothing more then trying to get out of the grasp of the officer by pushing away from his car:
Mitchell reached for her phone to record the encounter.
"I didn't get the video because a shot was fired through the window so I tried to get out of the way," she said.
After that shot, Brown broke free from the officer's grasp, both women told CNN, and started running, but he only got about 20 feet from the squad car by Crenshaw's estimate.
So which one you going to run with? if you claim there was a shot fired in the car because of this witness, then you can't claim he punched the officer. lol...so you better make revision #12 to your version of events
Lmao...
The officer who killed Brown says the teenager rushed at him full speed in the moments before the shooting, according to an account phoned in to a St. Louis radio station and confirmed by a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation.
According to the version on KFTK, phoned in by a woman who identified herself as "Josie," the altercation on August 9 began after Officer Darren Wilson rolled down his window to tell Brown and a friend to stop walking in the street.
When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once, the caller said.
Stunning images of unrest in Ferguson National Guard deployed to Ferguson
Photos: Emotions run high in Ferguson Photos: Emotions run high in Ferguson
Witness: 'I knew this was not right'
Wilson pursued Brown and his friend, ordering them to freeze, according to the account. When they turned around, Brown began taunting Wilson, saying he would not arrest them, then ran at the officer at full speed, the caller said.
Wilson then began shooting. The final shot was to Brown's forehead, and the teenager fell two or three feet in front of Wilson, said the caller, who identified herself as the officer's friend.
A source with detailed knowledge of the investigation later told CNN the caller's account is "accurate," in that it matches what Wilson has told investigators.
But accounts of exactly what happened when Wilson stopped Brown vary widely.
Witnesses said they saw a scuffle between the officer and Brown at the police car before the young man was shot. Several witnesses said Brown raised his hands and was not attacking the officer.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Brown happened to strong arm rob a store, and just his bad luck (not further behavior or anything of that nature) he just happened to cross path's with super racist Wyatt Earp, and Earp shot him dead in the middle of the street, in the middle of a neighborhood, in the middle of the day?
Not saying it isn't possible, but I tend to believe something else PROBABLY happened. Although just as any other situation, it's not 100% because we simply don't have all the facts.
Or he crossed paths, the cop got pissed, Brown got pissed, they struggle, Brown runs, the Cop yells to stop, Brown stops and turns around.
Then Brown ________________________________ ?.
It could be as simple as Brown turning around too fast. Or it could be complex with a bunch of nuances such as that Brown turned around and approached the officer with an aggressive look on his face. Brown turning around rushing the Officer. Brown surrendering and the Officer makes a horrible mistake. Even Brown turning around and that act causes him to stumble forward which the officer viewed as being aggressive.
No one knows yet, but the Robbery will not have any factor on the decision if the Shooting was justified or not. It only will apply to how people will view all of this.
Look, anything could have happened, even the crazy ass post of mine you have quoted here. All we are trying to convey, is that, his "past" behavior, minutes before he crossed path's with the cop, PROBABLY had something to do with what happened.
Have you ever caught somebody lying to you, just by how strange their account of the story was? That's how I view this situation.
LOL...this is just too easy...The link you just supplied is to a caller into CNN that has since been discovered to be a friend of the Officers girlfriend.....She was not there, thus she is not a witness by any stretch of the imagination..
You want try to get another one since you did say
Quote:
In comment 11826883 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Brown happened to strong arm rob a store, and just his bad luck (not further behavior or anything of that nature) he just happened to cross path's with super racist Wyatt Earp, and Earp shot him dead in the middle of the street, in the middle of a neighborhood, in the middle of the day?
Not saying it isn't possible, but I tend to believe something else PROBABLY happened. Although just as any other situation, it's not 100% because we simply don't have all the facts.
Or he crossed paths, the cop got pissed, Brown got pissed, they struggle, Brown runs, the Cop yells to stop, Brown stops and turns around.
Then Brown ________________________________ ?.
It could be as simple as Brown turning around too fast. Or it could be complex with a bunch of nuances such as that Brown turned around and approached the officer with an aggressive look on his face. Brown turning around rushing the Officer. Brown surrendering and the Officer makes a horrible mistake. Even Brown turning around and that act causes him to stumble forward which the officer viewed as being aggressive.
No one knows yet, but the Robbery will not have any factor on the decision if the Shooting was justified or not. It only will apply to how people will view all of this.
Look, anything could have happened, even the crazy ass post of mine you have quoted here. All we are trying to convey, is that, his "past" behavior, minutes before he crossed path's with the cop, PROBABLY had something to do with what happened.
Have you ever caught somebody lying to you, just by how strange their account of the story was? That's how I view this situation.
Absolutely agree with that 100%...But it will have zero to do with if the shooting is determined to be justified, or not. That is going to come down to the actions that happened right after Brown stopped
Its not a summary, you have one side claiming he was shot in cold blood, you have some chick who was not there on the other side claiming it was justifiable because she heard that..
Go ahead get your link to the witnesse(S) (plural...remember?) together you claim to have read about. because the only one you have so far says he was shot in cold blood after doing nothing more then pulling away from the officer..
Link - ( New Window )
LInk - ( New Window )
What is becoming obvious after reading the different accounts is that the officer tried to get out of the car and was pushed back in and the officer and Brown tangled through the window...
It is starting to come clear...So Brown was assaulitng a police officer, resisting arrest after committing a strong armed robbery. Seems all agree now on these items
See now your getting so desperate your putting words in my mouth while at the same time trying to parse what you claimed earlier.....I always maintained there was a struggle, we just don't know if that involved punches or him trying to just get away.
What was in dispute was if there was a shot fired in the car. You claimed to have read multiple links with witnesses (Plural..meaning more then one per your own claim) saying there was a shot. The only actual witness you have supplied that states that also claims he was shot in cold blood which completely blows the hell up the rest of your silly theory..
Link - ( New Window )
Your bias has made it so you ignore the facts that dont fit your agenda. How did you miss Dorian Johnson. I linked the damn article for you...hmmmmm
Holy shit...do you just not understand, or are you dense? That link has not one whit to do with what the fuck you claimed. You claimed you had read multiple accounts of the gun going off..What the hell does an editorial by a cop who was not even there have squat to do with it?
- If as first reported there was a radio call about the ROBBERY not a theft, it was by force.
-The officer should have waited for backup.
-some posters said this this was a KID 6'4" give me a break
-the officer should not been hit while sitting in the car - the first thing you learn in Harlem is do not fight a person who is outside your car.
- I've never fired an automatic weapon but the weapon of choice of my buddies on the NYPD was the GLOCK, which I think is automatic.
The other thing I must say some of the young posters saying that armed soldiers
are more able to handle crowds - what about Kent State the Nation Guard fuckeng panicked.
- If as first reported there was a radio call about the ROBBERY not a theft, it was by force.
-The officer should have waited for backup.
-some posters said this this was a KID 6'4" give me a break
-the officer should not been hit while sitting in the car - the first thing you learn in Harlem is do not fight a person who is outside your car.
- I've never fired an automatic weapon but the weapon of choice of my buddies on the NYPD was the GLOCK, which I think is automatic.
The other thing I must say some of the young posters saying that armed soldiers
are more able to handle crowds - what about Kent State the Nation Guard fuckeng panicked.
Glock is not automatic. Semi-auto. Meaning you have to pull the trigger for ever single bullet fired. It's not bolt action is about all that means.
You want to believe there was no altercation at the vehicle where the officer was struck or that the gun was fired but there are multiple accounts despite your claim there was only one.
The link to the officers examination is 100% in line with what I believe as well and have stated as much each step of the way. That is the way I believe it went down. Your version which was not based in facts was 100% slanted against the officer and was not logical.
There is enough information here that you can begin to deduce what actually occurred as the officer does in the lin provided. I came to the same conclusions that he has.
Your bias has made it so you ignore the facts that dont fit your agenda. How did you miss Dorian Johnson. I linked the damn article for you...hmmmmm
LOL. there really is something wrong with you isn't there?
~ sigh ~..here we go again:
Yes he did, but he also claimed they were innocently walking down the street doing nothing wrong (while ignoring the fact of the robbery, the jaywalking, and the disrespect to the officer. He also is another one who claims Brown was shot in cold blood while surrendering with his arms up when he was shot, and that all he did was try to pull away from the officer..
So Einstein, if your going to use Dorin Johnson as your key proof that a shot was fired, you have to also accept his story that Brown did nothing to deserve the shooting, which is another witness that destroys your whole claim that Brown was a "thug" who deserved it.
Holy shit man. Grow a pair admit you were wrong again. And the partner has to admit there was a shot fired because there was. And his other parts of his story are being proven to be lies by the forensics. Read the article linked. I couldn't explain what I think most likely happened any better.
You claimed there was only one witness (this woman) Who claimed there was a shot fired in the car. When presented with the evidence that Dorian Johnson, Browns partner in crime also gave the same testimony about the shot being fired, rather then admit you are wrong again....
You jump to the illogical conclusion
You see just like before when you jumped to an illogical conclusion you do it again here. Noting that Dorian Johnson stated the shots fired in the car does not mean it true or the rest of the story true. Of course it kind of has to be true because there would be a shell casing and other evidence most likely. The rest of his story does not hinge nor proven truthful or a lie based on his testimony of a shot fired in the car. That is you illogical jump to an illogical conclusion and why you continue to look like a troll here.
So grow a pair and admit you continue to be proven wrong about the facts.
Holy shit man. Grow a pair admit you were wrong again. And the partner has to admit there was a shot fired because there was. And his other parts of his story are being proven to be lies by the forensics. Read the article linked. I couldn't explain what I think most likely happened any better.
I need a decoder ring for that first part.
You have yet to prove me wrong , or be correct about in this whole thread. But lets review this new revised theory:
So now you claim he is only telling the truth about the part you want him to be telling the truth about (shots fired), but he is lying about everything else because...you just want him to correct??...Okay..yeah.. Another great example of a theory pulled out of your ass...that really nails down and proves your point
Instead, there is:
- A narrow fixation on the singular incident
- A predictable pattern of victim-blaming, because a victim must be entirely innocent and pure or otherwise said victim deserves no sympathy ("she was making out with a dude she didn't even know before they left the party, she probably wanted it")
- A use of code-words by at least one poster (don't say thug in every sentence; just say nigger, because it's offensive you believe we don't understand code)
- A hideous condescenion towards the black community for being the root cause of their ills (funny how "black on black" crime is a thing, but "white on white crime" is just crime, eh?).
- An artful though tired erection and subsequent demolition of the strawman that is "the black leaders like Sharpton are the REAL problem!" (conveniently and condescendingly anointed by white people as representative of Black thought).
- An 80s formalist-style deflection of the topic of racism by accusing those who would dare to state the obvious truth that race played a role in the incident and incidents such as this one nationwide as the true racists (at this point, "racism" and "racist" are racial slur-level trigger words for certain white people).
- A deflection of the issue towards other issues, exhibiting a faux-sympathy towards the plight of the black community when the goal is to merely dismiss the significance of any problem raised, due to an inability or lack of desire to engage the topic at hand.
Racism is a whole lot more than calling someone a nigger or shooting someone because they're black, but hey, white privilege is often unrecognized in how it impacts a person's perspective.
A pitiful reflection of the state of intellectual discourse in this country.
This post wasn't worth my time, it's not worth Cam or Joe's time to post here either. I don't know why I wrote this. Feel free to delete the post or my account. It's rather ugly here now.
+1000000
You claimed there was only one witness (this woman) Who claimed there was a shot fired in the car. When presented with the evidence that Dorian Johnson, Browns partner in crime also gave the same testimony about the shot being fired, rather then admit you are wrong again....
You jump to the illogical conclusion
Quote:
So Einstein, if your going to use Dorin Johnson as your key proof that a shot was fired, you have to also accept his story that Brown did nothing to deserve the shooting, which is another witness that destroys your whole claim that Brown was a "thug" who deserved it.
You see just like before when you jumped to an illogical conclusion you do it again here. Noting that Dorian Johnson stated the shots fired in the car does not mean it true or the rest of the story true. Of course it kind of has to be true because there would be a shell casing and other evidence most likely. The rest of his story does not hinge nor proven truthful or a lie based on his testimony of a shot fired in the car. That is you illogical jump to an illogical conclusion and why you continue to look like a troll here.
So grow a pair and admit you continue to be proven wrong about the facts.
Here's the reality of it and this will be painful for you:
I never claimed there was only "One witness to the gun being fired in the car"...YOU claimed there were multiple ones which i then asked you to prove and to show who those multiple ones are.
After a few hours the best you came up with is:
1)a friend of the Officers who called into a radio show and was not at the scene and has never been fully named.
2)a link to an editorial by a cop who was never at the scene.
3) Two witnesses (one a friend of Browns who was with him) who while claiming they heard the gun go off, have also stated that Brown did nothing more then try to get away from an officer who grabbed him by the neck, and then was shot in cold blood while surrendering with his arms up.
Now "Logically" the first two you supplied are a joke. The 3rd one if your to believe them means that this was an unjustified killing per their eyewitness account. Since you claim that Brown (a "viscous Thug who deserved this") punched the officer and was then charging him in anger to beat him, "LOGICALLY" you would then be wrong about that if your going to hang your hat on these two as your key evidence of a shot in the car.
But unfortunately you have shown in this thread to being an irrational illogical person who forgets half the shit they claim, then parses the rest when proven wrong. So I'm done taking you to school over this because i lack the energy of spending hours trying to keep you on target and pointing out your fabrications. It also is unfair to the rest of the board who wish to actually discuss the topic...You keep on reading up on the situation, get some actual real facts, learn how to stay on point and you can actually discus it with the adults in the future in a coherent manner.
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
A "troll" isn't merely someone who disagrees with you. It's someone who fucks with you to get a rise out of you, and all he's done is talk sense into your absurd point of view.
Quote:
The horror....It hasnt been proven he hit him the face? And the gun didnt go off inside the car? And they weren't struggling. Except some want you to believe he was pulling a 300lb man into the car.....but whatever.. You have been proven to be a troll. congrats...
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
I love how you so casually dismiss his behavior and then go on to further your argument by describing what he stole AND it's value. And it wasn't just a shove. When the clerk tries to keep Brown from leaving the store, Brown makes an agressive charge or movement toward him. I guess that could alleged kidnapping by the store owner.
And forget all that... You flat out clearly don't give two shits about the clerk who just went through a traumatizing situation.
Quote:
In comment 11826939 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
The horror....It hasnt been proven he hit him the face? And the gun didnt go off inside the car? And they weren't struggling. Except some want you to believe he was pulling a 300lb man into the car.....but whatever.. You have been proven to be a troll. congrats...
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
I love how you so casually dismiss his behavior and then go on to further your argument by describing what he stole AND it's value. And it wasn't just a shove. When the clerk tries to keep Brown from leaving the store, Brown makes an agressive charge or movement toward him. I guess that could alleged kidnapping by the store owner.
And forget all that... You flat out clearly don't give two shits about the clerk who just went through a traumatizing situation.
Ok, does ANY of that have to do with whether or not Brown should be shot dead in the street?
What are you trying to say here? The clerk was traumatized, so Brown deserved to die in the middle of the road?
I'm bringing up the value of the item and the fact that it was a shove because I am trying to dispel the notion that the robbery somehow implies Brown was a crazed maniac on a deathwish trying to murder cops.
If he was a crazed murderer on a deathwish who didn't care about killing cops, he'd have likely stolen something of greater value, and actually injured the clerk.
But regardless of what happened, regardless of how traumatizing the situation was for the clerk (I mean, he didn't even call 911 but regardless, there could have been other reasons) - it doesn't matter, because we have due process in this country, and Brown committing a robbery shouldn't be some kind of roundabout justification for him being shot dead in the street.
Regardless of how much you want to break down the robbery, the fact of the matter is that nobody deserves to be shot dead for something of that magnitude, unless you think we should be doling out the death penalty for unarmed robberies.
And the retort to this is that it shows that Brown was in a certain state of mind that would lead people to believe he was likely to kill a cop. And my response to that is how I ended my last post: it's fucking bullshit. Shoving a clerk and stealing something of comparatively value makes you a criminal, but doesn't equate to someone being down to just start killing cops.
It doesn't make much logical sense that a person who just stole stuff and initiated physical contact with a much smaller clerk (who did absolutely nothing wrong), somehow is going to be a passive guy peacefully surrendering meekly with hands up.
Of course the robbery impacts the story - it just doesn't corroborate the idea that a police officer shot a person at random or just because he was black, and that's the narrative some want to keep pushing here.
That is a organized collection of anecdotes. Which clearly document what happen in those cases, but contribute nothing to what prompted this officers actions.
If you want cops to perceive everything as a maximum threat, as those anecdotes suggest, then might as well give them armoured humvees with drone surveillence. Those who feel the cop used excessive force really can't believe that he needed to kill the guy - no matter how big he was or what he had just done - to eliminate the threat. A better cop would have produced a better outcome.
Have there been any reports of the cruiser being loaded onto a flatbed and hauled away for forensic tests?
Meh...effort in itself is commendable to a point. However, effort, no matter how earnest it is, based on hyperbolic and one-sided views don't amount to shit and are oft more detrimental to the overall discussion than anything else.
Daily News Show Video - ( New Window )
Well if you have problems with anything I'm saying, I'd love to hear it.
I may be brash, but contrary to what you're saying, nothing I've said is outlandish by any stretch.
So if you have an issue with what I'm saying, just come out and say it. I don't know why you'd have a problem with me, but over the few pages recently, I've pretty much maintained:
a) cops need more accountability
b) the robbery doesn't automatically mean that brown was a threat to start killing cops.
Do either of those strike you as unreasonable? or is it just cool now to go with the whole "omg sonic youth, what a young cop hater lolz"
Quote:
And by magnum opus, I mean seppuku.
Well if you have problems with anything I'm saying, I'd love to hear it.
I may be brash, but contrary to what you're saying, nothing I've said is outlandish by any stretch.
So if you have an issue with what I'm saying, just come out and say it. I don't know why you'd have a problem with me, but over the few pages recently, I've pretty much maintained:
a) cops need more accountability
b) the robbery doesn't automatically mean that brown was a threat to start killing cops.
Do either of those strike you as unreasonable? or is it just cool now to go with the whole "omg sonic youth, what a young cop hater lolz"
Nope, I don't have any problems with you personally. And honestly, I've tuned you out after your umpteenth post trying to rationalize your hyperbolic comments regarding law enforcement and their malaise. I'm, by no means, a police apologist as you can probably see from my own posts on this topic. However, I also agree with many on this thread that until the investigation is completed and more information comes out, any speculations on your part or anyone else's part are nothing more than just that, unevaluated guesses.
So continue with your incessant need to view the police as something maligned just because of handful of stories or whatnot.
But yes, I stand by my comment that you are doing a bang up job in completely clouding your own valid points by going the hyperbolic route.
Quote:
In comment 11827095 RC02XX said:
Quote:
And by magnum opus, I mean seppuku.
Well if you have problems with anything I'm saying, I'd love to hear it.
I may be brash, but contrary to what you're saying, nothing I've said is outlandish by any stretch.
So if you have an issue with what I'm saying, just come out and say it. I don't know why you'd have a problem with me, but over the few pages recently, I've pretty much maintained:
a) cops need more accountability
b) the robbery doesn't automatically mean that brown was a threat to start killing cops.
Do either of those strike you as unreasonable? or is it just cool now to go with the whole "omg sonic youth, what a young cop hater lolz"
Nope, I don't have any problems with you personally. And honestly, I've tuned you out after your umpteenth post trying to rationalize your hyperbolic comments regarding law enforcement and their malaise. I'm, by no means, a police apologist as you can probably see from my own posts on this topic. However, I also agree with many on this thread that until the investigation is completed and more information comes out, any speculations on your part or anyone else's part are nothing more than just that, unevaluated guesses.
So continue with your incessant need to view the police as something maligned just because of handful of stories or whatnot.
But yes, I stand by my comment that you are doing a bang up job in completely clouding your own valid points by going the hyperbolic route.
In fairness, I'm not basing my viewpoint that law enforcement is misguided and needs serious improvement based on a handful of anecdotal stories...
Cop= good guy
Felon= bad guy
So, like I said, unless PROVEN otherwise, cop is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The big kid brought this deed upon himself because of his prior actions. No cop would shoot a law abiding citizen under normal circumstances.
Lastly, it matters zero to me what race this felon is. His skin color has nothing to do with the facts of the case. I hope everyone feels this way.
Brown was not a felon.
Brown was not a felon.
maybe not a convicted felon and I agree with you, the hyperbole on both sides makes the comment author look worse than the subject, but is the robbery of a convenience store while assaulting an employee a misdemeanor? Serious question. Because while spock may have been using hyperbole it could be true.
But, some people have made decent points here, but it gets obscured on both extremes. Calling Brown a thug, felon, a weapon is as erroneous as calling him a Gentle Giant or a peaceful, docile person.
The main issue with events like this is there is no black and white, just a whole lot off gray.
On a side note, do you really think the police officer opened up on him if he wasn't in fear of bodily harm? The kid is a pretty big dude you know. So, it appears we had multiple felonies on this day.
Robbery - ( New Window )
Georgia code of robbery - ( New Window )
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 8 - OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT
ARTICLE 1 - THEFT
16-8-12 - Penalties for violation of Code Sections 16-8-2 through 16-8-9
O.C.G.A. 16-8-12 (2010)
16-8-12. Penalties for violation of Code Sections 16-8-2 through 16-8-9
(a) A person convicted of a violation of Code Sections 16-8-2 through 16-8-9 shall be punished as for a misdemeanor except:
(1) If the property which was the subject of the theft exceeded $500.00 in value
Robbery in second degree - ( New Window )
Does threat of violence change that? This wasn't just shoplifting.
Strong arm - ( New Window )
Robbery is usually taking something with force or the threat of force. A theft is just stealing something and running out of the store.
Yeah I think your correct...Especially adding the fact he got physical with the clerk...
There is another video of the incident in the store from a different angle that shows him interacting with the clerk (the claim is he pays for the cigars in hand). He appears to grab more cigars then he had money for, and he puts back a bunch of them. Some view the clerk coming around the counter with Browns money in hand (but i don't know if i agree with that, hard to tell). The link claims the Stores attorney stated that the owner of the store was puzzled why they even asked for the tape since they never reported a crime and felt it was not a serious issue.
Whatever words were exchanged between the man in the video and the store owner, they were not considered very serious, as the store owner nor the employees did not report a theft at the store. According to the stores attorney, the owners were bewildered when the police approached them demanding the surveillance tapes.
So now we need to see if charges are filed against Dorin Johnson with regards to the leaked vid where the police claimed they robbed the store. The link below is to a biased website but they were the first to show the video thus why i linked them.
Another question mark
link - ( New Window )
If he stole cigars and shoved someone on the way out, that's robbery. Because it wasn't THAT violent, and because the money at issue was small, it may not have been reported, but remember that this whole idea that you can press or drop charges is mostly a myth. In most places even if you swear out a citizen warrant you have little to no control over what happens to the charges thereafter, and even if you as the victim don't want charges taken out if the LEO finds probable cause in what you say and/or the evidence he can get an arrest warrant of his own accord.
Why, what do you find wrong with posting it?
Upon further review ... I agree.
Quote:
this is robbery. It is a class B felony as I read the statute, penalty seems to be 5 to 15 years.
Yeah I think your correct...Especially adding the fact he got physical with the clerk...
There is another video of the incident in the store from a different angle that shows him interacting with the clerk (the claim is he pays for the cigars in hand). He appears to grab more cigars then he had money for, and he puts back a bunch of them. Some view the clerk coming around the counter with Browns money in hand (but i don't know if i agree with that, hard to tell). The link claims the Stores attorney stated that the owner of the store was puzzled why they even asked for the tape since they never reported a crime and felt it was not a serious issue.
Quote:
From observation, it looks as if he had tried to buy more, but then was unable to afford it, hence why he left several packets on the counter. This prompted the store owner to come out from behind the counter and have a discussion with him, which prompted the shove witnessed in the full video.
Whatever words were exchanged between the man in the video and the store owner, they were not considered very serious, as the store owner nor the employees did not report a theft at the store. According to the stores attorney, the owners were bewildered when the police approached them demanding the surveillance tapes.
So now we need to see if charges are filed against Dorin Johnson with regards to the leaked vid where the police claimed they robbed the store. The link below is to a biased website but they were the first to show the video thus why i linked them.
Another question mark link - ( New Window )
First I don't see any transfer of money in that video, and why would it be illegal to release the video? Didn't they even cite the freedom of information act as the reason they released it and that they held back releasing it until after funeral services were complete out of respect for the family?
I don't know, that is not my take, that is the websites theory....My reason for posting it is because it shows the whole sequence of the situation at the store. I would think that would be something interesting to have available and why was this not released with the earlier vid?
Quote:
In comment 11827023 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11826939 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
The horror....It hasnt been proven he hit him the face? And the gun didnt go off inside the car? And they weren't struggling. Except some want you to believe he was pulling a 300lb man into the car.....but whatever.. You have been proven to be a troll. congrats...
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
I love how you so casually dismiss his behavior and then go on to further your argument by describing what he stole AND it's value. And it wasn't just a shove. When the clerk tries to keep Brown from leaving the store, Brown makes an agressive charge or movement toward him. I guess that could alleged kidnapping by the store owner.
And forget all that... You flat out clearly don't give two shits about the clerk who just went through a traumatizing situation.
Ok, does ANY of that have to do with whether or not Brown should be shot dead in the street?
What are you trying to say here? The clerk was traumatized, so Brown deserved to die in the middle of the road?
I'm bringing up the value of the item and the fact that it was a shove because I am trying to dispel the notion that the robbery somehow implies Brown was a crazed maniac on a deathwish trying to murder cops.
If he was a crazed murderer on a deathwish who didn't care about killing cops, he'd have likely stolen something of greater value, and actually injured the clerk.
But regardless of what happened, regardless of how traumatizing the situation was for the clerk (I mean, he didn't even call 911 but regardless, there could have been other reasons) - it doesn't matter, because we have due process in this country, and Brown committing a robbery shouldn't be some kind of roundabout justification for him being shot dead in the street.
Regardless of how much you want to break down the robbery, the fact of the matter is that nobody deserves to be shot dead for something of that magnitude, unless you think we should be doling out the death penalty for unarmed robberies.
And the retort to this is that it shows that Brown was in a certain state of mind that would lead people to believe he was likely to kill a cop. And my response to that is how I ended my last post: it's fucking bullshit. Shoving a clerk and stealing something of comparatively value makes you a criminal, but doesn't equate to someone being down to just start killing cops.
It's simple. You've chosen to defend a criminal and down play his behavior because you hate cops. And further you ignore the innocent store clerks assault to further your cause. You've allowed your hatered to cloud your judgement. I probably have what could be described as an unhealthy dislike of police officers. Yet I'm able to use simple reason in my thought process of any situation.
Again, please tell me, all the chips on the table; if you're a betting man, you're betting on the the belief that after exhibiting such dangerous behavior on that tape, he just happened to stumble across a racist cop that was out to kill a black kid, in the middle of the street, in the middle of a neighborhood of his peers, in the middle of the day???
There are times when you have to step back and really allow yourself to look at things logically and not let bias cloud your judgement.
LOL...The kid with no-facts that he claims are facts is back....You have posted the "I don't like cops" mantra 8 times now, it does not matter to anyone who or what you like...Homework get done? Did you read up and actually check shit out about this?
Good to see you view that ass whipping i gave you last night as a gift..That is a positive first step towards adult discussion.
Quote:
In comment 11827029 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 11827023 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11826939 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
The horror....It hasnt been proven he hit him the face? And the gun didnt go off inside the car? And they weren't struggling. Except some want you to believe he was pulling a 300lb man into the car.....but whatever.. You have been proven to be a troll. congrats...
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
I love how you so casually dismiss his behavior and then go on to further your argument by describing what he stole AND it's value. And it wasn't just a shove. When the clerk tries to keep Brown from leaving the store, Brown makes an agressive charge or movement toward him. I guess that could alleged kidnapping by the store owner.
And forget all that... You flat out clearly don't give two shits about the clerk who just went through a traumatizing situation.
Ok, does ANY of that have to do with whether or not Brown should be shot dead in the street?
What are you trying to say here? The clerk was traumatized, so Brown deserved to die in the middle of the road?
I'm bringing up the value of the item and the fact that it was a shove because I am trying to dispel the notion that the robbery somehow implies Brown was a crazed maniac on a deathwish trying to murder cops.
If he was a crazed murderer on a deathwish who didn't care about killing cops, he'd have likely stolen something of greater value, and actually injured the clerk.
But regardless of what happened, regardless of how traumatizing the situation was for the clerk (I mean, he didn't even call 911 but regardless, there could have been other reasons) - it doesn't matter, because we have due process in this country, and Brown committing a robbery shouldn't be some kind of roundabout justification for him being shot dead in the street.
Regardless of how much you want to break down the robbery, the fact of the matter is that nobody deserves to be shot dead for something of that magnitude, unless you think we should be doling out the death penalty for unarmed robberies.
And the retort to this is that it shows that Brown was in a certain state of mind that would lead people to believe he was likely to kill a cop. And my response to that is how I ended my last post: it's fucking bullshit. Shoving a clerk and stealing something of comparatively value makes you a criminal, but doesn't equate to someone being down to just start killing cops.
It's simple. You've chosen to defend a criminal and down play his behavior because you hate cops. And further you ignore the innocent store clerks assault to further your cause. You've allowed your hatered to cloud your judgement. I probably have what could be described as an unhealthy dislike of police officers. Yet I'm able to use simple reason in my thought process of any situation.
Again, please tell me, all the chips on the table; if you're a betting man, you're betting on the the belief that after exhibiting such dangerous behavior on that tape, he just happened to stumble across a racist cop that was out to kill a black kid, in the middle of the street, in the middle of a neighborhood of his peers, in the middle of the day???
There are times when you have to step back and really allow yourself to look at things logically and not let bias cloud your judgement.
Give me a break. I'm stating that someone committing an unarmed robbery of a convenience store isn't automatically someone who is likely to fight to the death with cops.
You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of: Trying to make what occurred seem as violent and dangerous as possible to postulate that Brown was someone who was ready to take a cop's life.
There's a huge jump between his crime and cop-killing.
And no, I don't think that he just ran into a racist cop who felt like shooting a black guy. I think there was some sort of incident, probably Brown trying to escape - but it very well could have likely ended up in a myriad of ways other than an unarmed dead teenager.
When an unarmed person is shot by the cops, there better be some solid evidence that a cops life was in immediate danger.
I'm also stating that police do not have enough accountability or controls on their power, and are ineffective when tasked with investigating their own organizations or other police organizations.
You mean the guy who had his store looted during riots now says he didn't think it was a big deal? I wonder why he would say that?
Perhaps, the customer who called the police told the owner after the "Gentle Giant" had left the store so he didn't need to make the call.
Local people robbing, looting and destroying stores that..
1. Many are owned by other black citizens
2. Most employ people who live right in those neighborhoods which means they may now be out of work.
3. Many rely on and shop in those stores.
If the local laws are applied/enforced as written, then this cop should never be convicted of any wrong doing. In this state, a cop is permitted to shoot someone who runs from being questioned. The person does not even have to be accused of a crime. Shitty law but that is what it is. ...don't shoot the messenger.
Long term - the only thing that will potentially fix this situation between the people in these high crime areas and the cops is to have the police depts in those cities racially mirror those cities. It does not mean that black cops will go easy on the people who live there. In fact, they may be tougher because they would not be concerned about the racist claims. What you may find is that the citizens would fight the cops less because they are black. I personally think there is hostility towards white cops in black neighborhoods even if they did not do anything to deserve that hostility. Now, if we can only get more black people in those areas to apply to be, and pass the test to become a police officer.
1. Many are owned by other black citizens
2. Most employ people who live right in those neighborhoods which means they may now be out of work.
3. Many rely on and shop in those stores.
If you would have followed the story unfold, you would have seen that only a handful of looters and violent protesters are actually from Ferguson and call it their home. Majority are from elsewhere and chose this incident as an opportunity to get back at the "man" as well as to make some quick score.
Maybe instead of jumping to conclusion in the other direction as opposed to folks like Sonic Youth and others who have been critical of the police, you probably should have took heed of what many people have stated on this thread already and don't let your own biases and emotions cloud your ability to dig deeper.
Quote:
If you would have followed the story unfold, you would have seen that only a handful of looters and violent protesters are actually from Ferguson and call it their home.
No.. NOT true. Show me some stats that show how many are from out of town. The looting started way before those other people came into town. Yes there are stories of people traveling in for this. They even showed a guy from Texas who was arrested three nights in a row. Those stories exist but do not come here and try to pass off all of the looters as out of town people. Save that BS story for someone else.
It's one thing that the protesters and the local government seem to agree upon. The mayor came out two days after the even and was saying that many of the looters were coming from out of town and that the citizens of Ferguson were generally complying with police requests.
Dude...everyone on the ground agreed that majority of the looters weren't locals, so your assertion that the locals are destroying their own livelihood is patently false. But if you want to use that as your narrative in your shitty attempt at a veiled racial bullshit, then by all means go for it.
Quote:
But you have to admit it is odd that it was not the store owner who did and per his lawyer did not view it as a serious matter.
You mean the guy who had his store looted during riots now says he didn't think it was a big deal? I wonder why he would say that?
Perhaps, the customer who called the police told the owner after the "Gentle Giant" had left the store so he didn't need to make the call.
So let me get this straight..according to you, the riots scared the guy from making this out to be a big deal to him..If that is the case then why did he not call the police prior to the riots about this horrible robbery? I
I don't know anyone outside of his family and friends who used the term "Gentle Giant". The guy was not a gentle giant, but neither was he a mad dog..so spare me the hyperbole.
This could absolutely be why he did not call. As I stated above the question here is if any charges are filed
Dude you are making my day....my week really...
Keep defending a thug that is on videotape committing a felony, robbing a store literally 10 minutes before the incident.
If the local laws are applied/enforced as written, then this cop should never be convicted of any wrong doing. In this state, a cop is permitted to shoot someone who runs from being questioned. The person does not even have to be accused of a crime.
That is completely incorrect...There is no state in the USA that allows a cop to shoot you for just running from him. These are the mandated guidelines for use of force:
2- does the actor have the opportunity to use a weapon to cause serious injury or death to someone else or you.
3- does the actor intent cause you to believe someone else or yourself will be seriously injured or may die.
Use of force is serious issue where officers can be criminally charged for use of excessive force. In some cases officers have been criminally and civilly charged with failure to act.
the officer must be able to articulate the events and actions that prompted the officer to apply force.
Dude you are making my day....my week really...
Keep defending a thug that is on videotape committing a felony, robbing a store literally 10 minutes before the incident.
Its spelled "according"..little buddy...see I keep schooling you night and day.
You didnt answer...either...was Brown and the store clerk just hugging it out?
Is it
A)The clerk and Brown are really secret best friends having a little fun?
B)The Clerk actually likes being robbed and grabbed by the throat?
C)Nothing really happened and we all imagined it?
D)The clerk feared for retribution?
Poor sweet Michael Brown.
Then according to Montana, 10 minutes later this sweet Michael Brown just so happened to run in a racist cop that decided to shoot him 6 times for no reason.
Link - ( New Window )
You didnt answer...either...was Brown and the store clerk just hugging it out?
What am I incorrect, or correct about Ace? I don't know if the shooting was justified or not. I have never stated the Cop was guilty or innocent, nor have I claimed Brown was undeserving of the shooting. You had a ton of info come out at first that has now been found to be incorrect. Then we have you who continues to propagate nonsense (in between the multitude of "I don't like cops" claims that you have repeated ad nauseam) and then gets his panties bunched up when your errors get pointed out.
So, if the officer felt that because the guy was twice his size and was posing a threat (whether armed or not), then he could use deadly force. Plus, if the officer attempted to question him because he thought the teen attempted to commit a felony, then he COULD shoot him if he ran during the questioning.
Is it
A)The clerk and Brown are really secret best friends having a little fun?
B)The Clerk actually likes being robbed and grabbed by the throat?
C)Nothing really happened and we all imagined it?
D)The clerk feared for retribution?
Poor sweet Michael Brown.
Then according to Montana, 10 minutes later this sweet Michael Brown just so happened to run in a racist cop that decided to shoot him 6 times for no reason.
Why do you come on this thread and repeatedly LIE about stuff? Do you honestly think making a false claim about what I have said serves you any good? This is like the 4th time you have done this, every single time in the past you get your ass handed to you and then you slink away until the next time when the whole process gets repeated..
I never said he hugged him, never said they did not have a violent confrontation (in fact i have repeatedly said this was a robbery due to him shoving the clerk).
Don't be upset because I busted you lying earlier in this thread, just stop lying. Pull your panties out of your ass, man the fuck up, and stop lying. You won't get so humiliated by just following those simple rules
Montana, why don't you post your version of events you think are likely that you posted above again so we can get a good look at your objectivity here...lol
So, if the officer felt that because the guy was twice his size and was posing a threat (whether armed or not), then he could use deadly force. Plus, if the officer attempted to question him because he thought the teen attempted to commit a felony, then he COULD shoot him if he ran during the questioning.
Correct, but that was not what you wrote Eric. You said this:
[quote]If the local laws are applied/enforced as written, then this cop should never be convicted of any wrong doing. In this state, a cop is permitted to shoot someone who runs from being questioned. The person does not even have to be accused of a crime.[/quote
A cop is not allowed to just shoot someone running from being questioned
So, if the officer felt that because the guy was twice his size and was posing a threat (whether armed or not), then he could use deadly force. Plus, if the officer attempted to question him because he thought the teen attempted to commit a felony, then he COULD shoot him if he ran during the questioning.
Correct, but that was not what you wrote Eric. You said this:
A cop is not allowed to just shoot someone running from being questioned
So come on repost you event timeline here. Explain to us all how poor sweet innocent Michael Brown robbed a store, then just so happened to run into a racist cop that decided to shoot him in the middle of the street, middle of the day, because he doesnt like blakc people.
So come on repost you event timeline here. Explain to us all how poor sweet innocent Michael Brown robbed a store, then just so happened to run into a racist cop that decided to shoot him in the middle of the street, middle of the day, because he doesnt like blakc people.
Go away..your are coming across like a petulant child at this point...Its really unfair for me and to the board, to continue to even spend the time correcting all the fallacies you keep coming up with. You just keep repeating the same nonsense, add some new fabrication, and your subtle racism is tiresome..For the sake of the thread and so that Eric does not delete it, stop posting to me..your an idiot and i don't have the energy.
Let's wait until findings are released before calling people felons or gentle giants. Before claiming orbital bones have been broken or that a store owner accepted cash for cigars that appear to be in the process of stolen.
It really shouldn't be that difficult.
I don't know where your getting that from but he can't shoot him because he may believe he committed a felony. Here is the supreme court ruling from 1985:
Memphis, Tennessee, 1974. Police are looking for a burgler. They see a suspect fleeing the scene of the crime. He tries to get away, climbing over a chain-link fence. A policeman shoots the suspect who turns out to be an unarmed teenaged boy.
..."The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion." Justice Byron White writes: "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. ...It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead."
Johnson still has to deal with an outstanding warrant in another county...
Link - ( New Window )
Let's wait until findings are released before calling people felons or gentle giants. Before claiming orbital bones have been broken or that a store owner accepted cash for cigars that appear to be in the process of stolen.
It really shouldn't be that difficult.
I agree...thing is no one has claimed he paid for them..I presented a clip and stated that the website is a biased one and that they believed he was paying for them. I also pointed out that per that clip he appears to be putting back packages of cigars he had in his hand.
The clip was something unseen and happened seconds prior to the shove by Brown. It appears to show a normal transaction up to when the clerk comes around the counter. The sole purpose of the clip was to watch the seconds prior to the struggle from a different angle. The other question it presents is why was it not included with the leaked clip of the shove? That was all that was
Nobody is right or wrong at this point, because nobody has the facts.
That's all i was trying to say.
Nobody is right or wrong at this point, because nobody has the facts.
That's all i was trying to say.
Amen.
You've been consistently wrong every single time.
Although not understanding truth and deduction explains your comments and how you got into this predicament in the first place. I agree with the officer with the "anecdotal" evidence....I am sure he is wrong 100% of the time too...LOL LOL
Although not understanding truth and deduction explains your comments and how you got into this predicament in the first place. I agree with the officer with the "anecdotal" evidence....I am sure he is wrong 100% of the time too...LOL LOL
You were also wrong about the broken orbital bone being proven. Also, what predicament? I'm not in any predicament. You're the one who is getting undressed by MontanaGiant.
But yeah, whatever you want to tell yourself. Any sensible person would find it difficult to look at that convenience store tape, and decide from that clip that Michael Brown was a someone who would try to kill cops.
You can agree with the cop all you want, but you should at least admit that the officer does have a dog in the fight, and has every reason to present things in a way that's more favorable to him, as do most police organizations. That's why I'm leery to trust the word of the police and the word of the officer when it comes to their version of the events.
I'd say that's a pretty reasonable assessment. It would be best if an unbiased outside organization would be able to conduct this investigation, but it isn't really feasible given the structure of law enforcement.
Body cameras would really mitigate a lot of this he said-she said stuff.
Unlike some people, and contrary to what you might believe, I'm not "rooting" for a particular "side". Whether or not shooting Brown was justified in this incident doesn't really erase the fact that there are institutional dysfunctions with law enforcement.
I want justice to be served, and I'm not sure police investigating police is the best way to get to that point.
I don't know what better options are out there, but I wish there was some other way that was viable.
Ok. Kill a cop? Maybe not be sure. But he sure has no problem with menacing and attacking people. So when a cop ends up shooting him 10 minutes later in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, I tend to think Brown probably had something to do with it and not some racist cop killing some innocent kid because he was black
Quote:
Any sensible person would find it difficult to look at that convenience store tape, and decide from that clip that Michael Brown was a someone who would try to kill cops.
Ok. Kill a cop? Maybe not be sure. But he sure has no problem with menacing and attacking people. So when a cop ends up shooting him 10 minutes later in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, I tend to think Brown probably had something to do with it and not some racist cop killing some innocent kid because he was black
I think that this could be considered an example of Bayes' Theorem of conditional probability.
Quote:
Wrong about what besides the links to the 12 witnesses which there was dozens but the story was recanted. What else was I soooo wrong about? And every time? Now you know you are full of crap because I have agreed with some items from you dumbasses too. So that means you are saying you guys are wrong all the time, every time too? Cracks me up.....
Although not understanding truth and deduction explains your comments and how you got into this predicament in the first place. I agree with the officer with the "anecdotal" evidence....I am sure he is wrong 100% of the time too...LOL LOL
You were also wrong about the broken orbital bone being proven. Also, what predicament? I'm not in any predicament. You're the one who is getting undressed by MontanaGiant.
But yeah, whatever you want to tell yourself. Any sensible person would find it difficult to look at that convenience store tape, and decide from that clip that Michael Brown was a someone who would try to kill cops.
You can agree with the cop all you want, but you should at least admit that the officer does have a dog in the fight, and has every reason to present things in a way that's more favorable to him, as do most police organizations. That's why I'm leery to trust the word of the police and the word of the officer when it comes to their version of the events.
I'd say that's a pretty reasonable assessment. It would be best if an unbiased outside organization would be able to conduct this investigation, but it isn't really feasible given the structure of law enforcement.
Body cameras would really mitigate a lot of this he said-she said stuff.
Unlike some people, and contrary to what you might believe, I'm not "rooting" for a particular "side". Whether or not shooting Brown was justified in this incident doesn't really erase the fact that there are institutional dysfunctions with law enforcement.
I want justice to be served, and I'm not sure police investigating police is the best way to get to that point.
I don't know what better options are out there, but I wish there was some other way that was viable.
Don't bother getting dragged into his delusion...You will feel dumber just from the fact you have given him the time of day. It will be hours of correcting him, pointing out his fabrications, keeping him focused on what the hell he was claiming, then repeat the whole cycle again.
It sucks the energy out of the whole thread
Oh, and a member of the Crips, to boot.
Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown's juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11827034 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11827029 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 11827023 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11826939 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
The horror....It hasnt been proven he hit him the face? And the gun didnt go off inside the car? And they weren't struggling. Except some want you to believe he was pulling a 300lb man into the car.....but whatever.. You have been proven to be a troll. congrats...
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
I love how you so casually dismiss his behavior and then go on to further your argument by describing what he stole AND it's value. And it wasn't just a shove. When the clerk tries to keep Brown from leaving the store, Brown makes an agressive charge or movement toward him. I guess that could alleged kidnapping by the store owner.
And forget all that... You flat out clearly don't give two shits about the clerk who just went through a traumatizing situation.
Ok, does ANY of that have to do with whether or not Brown should be shot dead in the street?
What are you trying to say here? The clerk was traumatized, so Brown deserved to die in the middle of the road?
I'm bringing up the value of the item and the fact that it was a shove because I am trying to dispel the notion that the robbery somehow implies Brown was a crazed maniac on a deathwish trying to murder cops.
If he was a crazed murderer on a deathwish who didn't care about killing cops, he'd have likely stolen something of greater value, and actually injured the clerk.
But regardless of what happened, regardless of how traumatizing the situation was for the clerk (I mean, he didn't even call 911 but regardless, there could have been other reasons) - it doesn't matter, because we have due process in this country, and Brown committing a robbery shouldn't be some kind of roundabout justification for him being shot dead in the street.
Regardless of how much you want to break down the robbery, the fact of the matter is that nobody deserves to be shot dead for something of that magnitude, unless you think we should be doling out the death penalty for unarmed robberies.
And the retort to this is that it shows that Brown was in a certain state of mind that would lead people to believe he was likely to kill a cop. And my response to that is how I ended my last post: it's fucking bullshit. Shoving a clerk and stealing something of comparatively value makes you a criminal, but doesn't equate to someone being down to just start killing cops.
It's simple. You've chosen to defend a criminal and down play his behavior because you hate cops. And further you ignore the innocent store clerks assault to further your cause. You've allowed your hatered to cloud your judgement. I probably have what could be described as an unhealthy dislike of police officers. Yet I'm able to use simple reason in my thought process of any situation.
Again, please tell me, all the chips on the table; if you're a betting man, you're betting on the the belief that after exhibiting such dangerous behavior on that tape, he just happened to stumble across a racist cop that was out to kill a black kid, in the middle of the street, in the middle of a neighborhood of his peers, in the middle of the day???
There are times when you have to step back and really allow yourself to look at things logically and not let bias cloud your judgement.
Give me a break. I'm stating that someone committing an unarmed robbery of a convenience store isn't automatically someone who is likely to fight to the death with cops.
You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of: Trying to make what occurred seem as violent and dangerous as possible to postulate that Brown was someone who was ready to take a cop's life.
There's a huge jump between his crime and cop-killing.
And no, I don't think that he just ran into a racist cop who felt like shooting a black guy. I think there was some sort of incident, probably Brown trying to escape - but it very well could have likely ended up in a myriad of ways other than an unarmed dead teenager.
When an unarmed person is shot by the cops, there better be some solid evidence that a cops life was in immediate danger.
I'm also stating that police do not have enough accountability or controls on their power, and are ineffective when tasked with investigating their own organizations or other police organizations.
Then I don't understand why you're so worked up?
And if you don't see how dangerous that young mans behavior was in that video then I don't think we can get on the same page. That behavior was frightening to say the least. Had that little man shut that door, brown would have fucked him up. That wasn't just "stealing" it was a strong armed robbery. He didn't give a fuck what happened. You can't convince me otherwise. And that behavior supports the belief that he was acting irrationally that day.
Like I keep saying folks hitching their ride to the wrong horse here.
i gotta say, in a thread full of hilarious shit posted by people who have no clue what they're saying, this is perhaps the funniest comment of all. you're not rooting for a side??? you expect people to believe that?
I don't know what better options are out there, but I wish there was some other way that was viable.
so, in sum...i don't like it because i don't like cops, but i have no solution, so i'm just going to spend three weeks arguing about it on the internet anyway, despite the fact that i offer nothing of substance.
awesome.
Like I keep saying folks hitching their ride to the wrong horse here.
There's a fair amount of space between thug who got what he deserved and racist cop deciding to shoot him dead on the street. If you're sure it's either of those options with what we know today you are seeing what you want to see.
Ha...Yes when you point out this idiots mistakes he calls it trolling...
And you are a troll....pretty obvious by now. So repost it again....lol
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11828523 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 11827034 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11827029 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 11827023 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 11826939 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
The horror....It hasnt been proven he hit him the face? And the gun didnt go off inside the car? And they weren't struggling. Except some want you to believe he was pulling a 300lb man into the car.....but whatever.. You have been proven to be a troll. congrats...
This is so fucking stupid. You sit there and keep repeating "OMG YOU CLAIM HE PULLED A 300 LB INTO A CAR LOL TROLL TROLL TROLL"
While it's equally as stupid, if not even more stupid, to assume someone would fight a cop, run away from a cop, then turn around and faced an armed cop, while unarmed, and charge at him.
The truth is, NEITHER of those things probably happened. But in a vacuum, the latter is less plausible than the former.
but oh yeah, Brown shoved a clerk and took $48 worth of cigars. Clearly he was ready to fight cops to the death.
It's like you wish he was a crazed, cracked out "thug" (i.e nigger) hellbent on killing a cop. Well even if he was, him stealing a box of cigars while shoving a cop isn't really proof of that, sorry. It's fucking bullshit.
I love how you so casually dismiss his behavior and then go on to further your argument by describing what he stole AND it's value. And it wasn't just a shove. When the clerk tries to keep Brown from leaving the store, Brown makes an agressive charge or movement toward him. I guess that could alleged kidnapping by the store owner.
And forget all that... You flat out clearly don't give two shits about the clerk who just went through a traumatizing situation.
Ok, does ANY of that have to do with whether or not Brown should be shot dead in the street?
What are you trying to say here? The clerk was traumatized, so Brown deserved to die in the middle of the road?
I'm bringing up the value of the item and the fact that it was a shove because I am trying to dispel the notion that the robbery somehow implies Brown was a crazed maniac on a deathwish trying to murder cops.
If he was a crazed murderer on a deathwish who didn't care about killing cops, he'd have likely stolen something of greater value, and actually injured the clerk.
But regardless of what happened, regardless of how traumatizing the situation was for the clerk (I mean, he didn't even call 911 but regardless, there could have been other reasons) - it doesn't matter, because we have due process in this country, and Brown committing a robbery shouldn't be some kind of roundabout justification for him being shot dead in the street.
Regardless of how much you want to break down the robbery, the fact of the matter is that nobody deserves to be shot dead for something of that magnitude, unless you think we should be doling out the death penalty for unarmed robberies.
And the retort to this is that it shows that Brown was in a certain state of mind that would lead people to believe he was likely to kill a cop. And my response to that is how I ended my last post: it's fucking bullshit. Shoving a clerk and stealing something of comparatively value makes you a criminal, but doesn't equate to someone being down to just start killing cops.
It's simple. You've chosen to defend a criminal and down play his behavior because you hate cops. And further you ignore the innocent store clerks assault to further your cause. You've allowed your hatered to cloud your judgement. I probably have what could be described as an unhealthy dislike of police officers. Yet I'm able to use simple reason in my thought process of any situation.
Again, please tell me, all the chips on the table; if you're a betting man, you're betting on the the belief that after exhibiting such dangerous behavior on that tape, he just happened to stumble across a racist cop that was out to kill a black kid, in the middle of the street, in the middle of a neighborhood of his peers, in the middle of the day???
There are times when you have to step back and really allow yourself to look at things logically and not let bias cloud your judgement.
Give me a break. I'm stating that someone committing an unarmed robbery of a convenience store isn't automatically someone who is likely to fight to the death with cops.
You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of: Trying to make what occurred seem as violent and dangerous as possible to postulate that Brown was someone who was ready to take a cop's life.
There's a huge jump between his crime and cop-killing.
And no, I don't think that he just ran into a racist cop who felt like shooting a black guy. I think there was some sort of incident, probably Brown trying to escape - but it very well could have likely ended up in a myriad of ways other than an unarmed dead teenager.
When an unarmed person is shot by the cops, there better be some solid evidence that a cops life was in immediate danger.
I'm also stating that police do not have enough accountability or controls on their power, and are ineffective when tasked with investigating their own organizations or other police organizations.
Then I don't understand why you're so worked up?
And if you don't see how dangerous that young mans behavior was in that video then I don't think we can get on the same page. That behavior was frightening to say the least. Had that little man shut that door, brown would have fucked him up. That wasn't just "stealing" it was a strong armed robbery. He didn't give a fuck what happened. You can't convince me otherwise. And that behavior supports the belief that he was acting irrationally that day.
If you think that Brown's actions as shown in the video, while deplorable, would make him a threat to kill someone (particularly a cop) later that day, then please don't walk down Easton Ave in New Brunswick and observe the drunk college guys walking around. Because they consistently beat the shit out of eachother and do way more harm to eachother than the shove in that video, especially after stealing from one another or eachother's houses... and based on what you've said about Brown, they are all ticking time bombs that could go off and start killing cops later.
I'm sure I'll get called out for a supposed false equivalency but it's more accurate than you think.
There are a lot more violent crimes committed on a day to day basis than Brown's robbery. and I don't think all of those people are time bombs of lethal danger enough to the extent that the cops can shoot them.
Like I said, if something can be proven to have happened during the interaction with the cop it's one thing, but it's bullshit to say based on that video that Brown was ready to start killing people and fighting cops till he was shot.
The lack of accountability for police and the fact that the vast, vast majority of go uninvestigated, as concluded by a variety of studies in a variety of locations.
Harassing people who record them. The fact that a cop's word is automatically always assumed to be true in the court of law simply because someone is a cop, unless there is video evidence, and the subsequent lack of willingness to implement video evidence to protect both citizens from police abuse and police from false accusations.
The absurd disparity between arrests across races, and in the NYPD in particular, the way stop and frisk targets minorities (according to the statistics).
As discussed at length, the heavy handed military-esque responses to certain situations.
The lack of effectiveness of internal affair investigations.
These are just a few things that jump to mind immediately.
Someone gets choked to death for selling cigarettes in the street, someone else gets shot to death after an altercation after stealing cigarettes... whether or not some of these actions were justified on an individual basis, the pattern is alarming.
Basically, way more accountability and not automatically taking a cop's account as gospel when they technology is available to do so. I'm not saying cops are always wrong, or necessarily lying 100% of the time, or even a majority of the time. I'm just saying they aren't always right or being completely honest 100% of the time.
Quote:
Unlike some people, and contrary to what you might believe, I'm not "rooting" for a particular "side".
i gotta say, in a thread full of hilarious shit posted by people who have no clue what they're saying, this is perhaps the funniest comment of all. you're not rooting for a side??? you expect people to believe that?
Quote:
I want justice to be served, and I'm not sure police investigating police is the best way to get to that point.
I don't know what better options are out there, but I wish there was some other way that was viable.
so, in sum...i don't like it because i don't like cops, but i have no solution, so i'm just going to spend three weeks arguing about it on the internet anyway, despite the fact that i offer nothing of substance.
awesome.
Yeah, contrary to what you may believe, I'm not rooting for a side. What, you think I'm gonna be all bummed out if it a video turns up that shows Brown legitimately tried to take the cops gun and tried to shoot him?
No, not really. It wouldn't change my mind about the concerns I've voiced on a macro level. So seriously, I don't give a fuck and am not "rooting" for anybody. It's an all around shitty situation and I think it's fucking pathetic that people are rooting for one of these two people.
And your second point is fucking stupid. It's not "I don't like cops", it's that there's issues with the integrity of the system in place. It's not my job to come up with solutions, I don't have the expertise or education to do so. That doesn't mean I can't voice my displeasure with how things currently are, so your point is idiotic.
Otherwise, don't complain about the Giants defense unless you can come up with a better scheme.
No, not really. It wouldn't change my mind about the concerns I've voiced on a macro level. So seriously, I don't give a fuck and am not "rooting" for anybody. It's an all around shitty situation and I think it's fucking pathetic that people are rooting for one of these two people."
Unlike you, I will be honest about this rooting thing. Yes I do hope it was a correct shooting in accordance with police protocol, if that is what you mean by "rooting". I always hope that police act in the correct way in such incidents (and yes we know they do not always). If not, let the chips fall where they may,
Not relative to this case at all, but just pointing it out for those who suggested those not instantly condemning the Ferguson officer must be pro cop.
Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec While Texting And Driving - ( New Window )
No, not really. It wouldn't change my mind about the concerns I've voiced on a macro level. So seriously, I don't give a fuck and am not "rooting" for anybody. It's an all around shitty situation and I think it's fucking pathetic that people are rooting for one of these two people."
Unlike you, I will be honest about this rooting thing. Yes I do hope it was a correct shooting in accordance with police protocol, if that is what you mean by "rooting". I always hope that police act in the correct way in such incidents (and yes we know they do not always). If not, let the chips fall where they may,
Well, I guess good for you if you're "rooting" for a side. Officer Wilson can be cleared in this incident, and it doesnt' change the issues at large. This case can go one way or the nothing, but it won't impact the larger trends at work.
So have fun "rooting". It definitely explains your attempts to make Michael Brown to look like a dangerous, cracked out "nigger" (aka "thug") who was ready to start cop killnng. At least youre honest so your intensions are clear, and if you're being honest about "rooting" for one side or another, most reasonable people won't take your assessment of Brown seriously.
After all, you'd legit be happy if more news came out to make him look like a bad guy. It's like your glossing over the fact theres a dead teenager. But yeah, fuck it, i mean he was a "thug" right? It's not like people can turn their lives around at that point after committing $50 robberies that didn't actually physically hurt anyone. He deserved to be shot dead in the street, after all, he was a crazed "thug" (codeword for nigger).
Fuck rehabilitation. Let's just shoot all teenagers who make bad decisions and commit unarmed robberies dead.
Fuck it, those stupid "thugs" deserve it, right?
I'm sure you don't care that Michael Brown died because he's a "thug", right? Fuck due process, fuck the court systems, he deserved to be shot dead in the middle of a street, cause fuck "thugs", they don't deserve due process.
the most deplorable disposition is that it doesn't matter that Brown died cause he was a "thug" (i.e nigger). As if the fact he committed a $50 robbery where he shoved a clerk just shows he's a crazed "thug" about to go on a killing spree.
Jon from PA, I don't think you hate black people, and I don't think youre racist at all. But why don't you come out and say you dislike "niggers" (aka thugs), which are pretty much poor black people in terrible economic areas.
We aren't stupid. We can all see the subtext. "Thug" is the PC way to say nigger. its very obvious and has been for a while.
There's been various articles about how "thug" has replaced nigger, in common conversation. I'm not saying "thug" is racist, but come on, it's obvious.
You can replace "thug" with nigger and see if it has any affect on the sentences as constructed, cause it doesn't.
I want to reiterate that I don't think Jon from PA is racist. Having said that, I do believe, Brown being black AND his "rooting" interest in the cop definitely skew how he views the situation.
People like M in CT can claim I have a "rooting" interest one way or the other, but I don't care one way or the other with regards to this partiular incident. IMO, it doesn't change the larger issues.When someone admits a rooting interest, they've essentially admitted they will take the opportunity to disparage the opposing "team". That's why Jon in PA's attempts to make a dead 18 year old kid look like a lethal danger to humanity make sense in context.
I really don't think so, my friend. I'm don't think anyone is overtly racist, at all. I don't want it come off as if I am calling Jon from PA a racist person.
But I do believe that Michael Brown being black is a factor in determining his "mindset", personality, and danger level.
I don't get how people are saying the video proves he was ready to start fighting/kiilling cops.
Go down Easton Ave in New Brunswick in the fall and you'll see way more violent encounters and people getting their teeth smashed in, kicked in the face, etc. But Brown shoves a clerk in the process of a $50 robbery, and now he's a legit candidate to start killing cops.
That's a huge leap of logic;
All I'm saying is the subtext is very obvious. I'm not a guy that throws around the word "nigger", but I'm not afraid to say it in a context where it isn't an insult and used as a platform for discussion.
There's a great deadspin article about how "thug" is essentially the PC way to say "nigger", (cue the insults re: deadspin, apparently for some reason they aren't a legit site)... and the article makes a lot of sense.
It's sad to me people are saying Brown was a "thug" so it's okay he died. As if the laws and courts don't matter, and cops can just shoot anyone considered a "thug" without any issues. I'm still maintaining that if Officer Wilson's life was in danger, he had every right to subdue Brown. Bot the onus should be on him to prove his life was in danger. after all, he's not the one who was born in 1996 and shot dead a few weeks ago.
Cry me a river, dude. It's quite obvious to everyone who "rational" you are. You've consistently gotten facts about the case wrong, and admitted to having a "rooting interest", which inherently means you are biased. It isn't a huge leap in logic to assme you'd LOVE for any more info to come out that makes Brown look like a worse person.
I'm glad you're "rooting interest" would be served by making a dead teenager look like more of a bad guy.
So yeah, if you can point out where I lost rationality, I'd appreciate it.
Can I describe some one as a hoodlum, ne'er-do-well, etc without it having a different meaning.
Just what is the generic term for a piece of shit reguardless of race now a days.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Come on now. I think anyone that claims that needs to think deeply about how they reached that conclusion because at the root they will ultimately find the problem to all of this.
I keep stating it that in general I do not trust the police but those concerned about police abusing power are attaching their credibility to the wrong horse here.
And l am sorry for the crime of hoping police officers acted in the right way. If that is what you call rooting, I am proud.of rooting
Can I describe some one as a hoodlum, ne'er-do-well, etc without it having a different meaning.
Just what is the generic term for a piece of shit reguardless of race now a days.
Inquiring minds want to know.
haha. Good point. I think I'd go with "douchebag" or "asshole".
Look, you do raise a good point. But "thug" is so obviously nigger nowadatys... Like I said previously, I'm not the only one who has pointed that out previously.
not sure if you saw my response in the other thread, but thanks for your help CTC. I am really grateful, and can truly appreciate that you can cast aside our difference in opinions with regards to this contentious issue and still help me out with other things. I owe you one, friend.
And l am sorry for the crime of hoping police officers acted in the right way. If that is what you call rooting, I am proud.of rooting
I can respect hoping that an officer acted within the parameters of his power, and it'd be better for everyone if that was the case.
But that disposition shouldn't expect to finding ways to try and show Brown was a crazed "thug" ready to start kill cops that day. Can we at least be realistic and honest? Someone who committed the robbery that Brown did isn't really likely to start turning around and charging cops with the intent of fighting cops to the death.
So I guess "root" all you want, but when you have a rooting interest, its only natural to try and disparage the "opposition"... so it's not a surprise nobody takes your opinion seriously.
People can call me anti cop and claim I'm a cop hater, etc, but honestly I just want to see them get it right. Unfortunately, I don't have faith in the internal processes of police departments to objectively investigate.
Maybe thug didn't change....maybe N%##er did?
Just something to think about.
And I am rooting for the cop to he right. Wouldn't want to live in a society where a cop would just kill a kid dead in the middle of the street middle of the day for no reason....which obviously didn't happen.
And Brown was a thug. It is not just just a simple theft. You are being an apologist. It is the menacing behavior...which makes him a thug. Look up the word menacing if you need help.
How did that happen? Not being facetious, really would like to know the history progression on how it evolved to that.
You don't have to help me.
What I want you to do 40 years from now is help, if you can, some 25 year old you don't know and may not agree with make it in life.
It's what it's all about.
For the first time since breaking football, the media, and the internet, Richard Sherman addressed the reaction to his postgame interview, and his critics' use of the word "thug."
"The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays. Because they know."
The day after the Seahawks' win, the word "thug" was uttered 625 times on American television, or more than on any single day in at least three years.
continued ... - ( New Window )
Who decided this? When and where?
I personally don't use the word.
Please explain the origin of the instance of when it changed.
Sounds like some are just as ignorant as me on the subject but take it as Gospel.
If it's so simple, Please explain for us dummies.
No more no less.
For the first time since breaking football, the media, and the internet, Richard Sherman addressed the reaction to his postgame interview, and his critics' use of the word "thug."
"The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays. Because they know."
The day after the Seahawks' win, the word "thug" was uttered 625 times on American television, or more than on any single day in at least three years. continued ... - ( New Window )
I get the undertones, but people have used "thug life" since Tupac to describe a lifestyle, usually to brag about their own. The celebration of violence, of gangs, etc etc is implicit. If someone is over twitter flashing gang signs and handguns and a wad of cash is he not advertising that lifestyle? There are certainly some people that use that word interchangeably with "black" or with other more offensive words, but does one need to walk on eggshells around the fact that someone is very intentionally cultivating an image?
Quote:
Deadspin ...
For the first time since breaking football, the media, and the internet, Richard Sherman addressed the reaction to his postgame interview, and his critics' use of the word "thug."
"The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays. Because they know."
The day after the Seahawks' win, the word "thug" was uttered 625 times on American television, or more than on any single day in at least three years. continued ... - ( New Window )
I get the undertones, but people have used "thug life" since Tupac to describe a lifestyle, usually to brag about their own. The celebration of violence, of gangs, etc etc is implicit. If someone is over twitter flashing gang signs and handguns and a wad of cash is he not advertising that lifestyle? There are certainly some people that use that word interchangeably with "black" or with other more offensive words, but does one need to walk on eggshells around the fact that someone is very intentionally cultivating an image?
That can be said about he mob of any nationality.
There in lies the problem.
We talking African American, Mexican, Italian, Irish, Russian, Asian, etc.
There are a lot of gangs vying to be thugs.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
That is a fascinating article..
Link - ( New Window )
"He's one of my best friends but we have to do what's best for the city," Jimenez said. "It doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but he made a mistake after 20 years of solving crimes."- Police Chief Jimenez
Comments including that of which I've posted above to me epitomize the attitude that many of us law-abiding private citizens find offensive. In one statement Jimenez marginalizes the egregiously trampling of a citizen's rights in what quite easily could have been a life-or-death situation because his colleague merely did his job for 20 years.
You mean to tell me that someone threatening to kill an unarmed citizen while aiming an assault rifle at them, all while demonstrating the clarity of mind to conceal his identity, should be *gasp* actually be held accountable for his actions? After having done his job for 20 years?
Imagine if we gave privately employed citizens the same benefit of the doubt after 20 years of experience.
Hoboken cops struggle to contain rowdy recent Academy recruits - ( New Window )
Quote:
The Florissant prosecutor is Ronald Brockmeyer, who also has a criminal defense practice in St. Charles County, and who is also the chief municipal prosecutor for the towns of Vinita Park and Dellwood. He is also the judge yes, the judge in both Ferguson and Breckenridge Hills.
In Virginia you see substitute judges in lower court who have criminal defense as part of their practice and I've seen one who also worked as a contracted attorney for Social Services (which isn't prosecutorial but serves a similar function in civil DSS proceedings). It sounds damning but I really don't notice a difference. They're not usually as efficient as the full timers but they do a pretty good job. You also see part-time prosecutors who might do some defense work as part of their practice (though never in the same jurisdiction). Most of them will conflict out at the first sign of a conflict because the stakes are just too high if they get habeused.
Sure, it's right here:
Big Al : 8/30/2014 6:44 pm : link : reply
a crazed thug ready to kill a cop.
You're getting old, buddy.
As Dune noted, it speaks towards the culture that precipitated these events
totally justifiable. - ( New Window )
Hee hee.
Just so that everyone knows- I completely made up that quote. The date and time is exactly the same as the comment I replied to.
Just waiting for someone to not notice so I can sit back and enjoy the fireworks (not really. Ok, really).
Quote:
Are you trying to set the loose cannon off with that edited post?
Hee hee.
Just so that everyone knows- I completely made up that quote. The date and time is exactly the same as the comment I replied to.
Just waiting for someone to not notice so I can sit back and enjoy the fireworks (not really. Ok, really).
Bored at work, are we?
What if the thread goes kaputz before you get a chance to read it? That's always the danger of inciting unrest on a thread then taking off for a while.
St Louis Post Dispatch posted 1 hour ago - ( New Window )