• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
Most of us see these kids around. The black kids who embrace the gangsta style, the inner city style. The pants hanging down, the brash talk, the rap music, the aggressive posture. I see them too. The difference is I know some of them. I know some of their parents, I know most of them are basically decent kids. I know a lot of this is just a style which they'll grow out of.
Click to expand...

I know some of them too. The difference is that St. Michael "grew out of" his style when he robbed that store (if not sooner).
 
Reheat said:
The number of shots taken matters only to the likes of Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton, the race hustlers.

Once a policeman (or anyone else for that matter) decides to use his weapon he fires until the assailant goes down. He is taught to shoot until the threat is stopped. The number of shots is irrelevant to anything else. How ever many is takes is simply how many are needed to stop the threat. This is also true of civilians who know anything valid about self defense.

No, it's neither difficult or easy to take less shots. Typically, he will fire two (called a double tap) and assess, then fire more as needed. I'll tell you this, if what we've heard is true, that Brown attacked him in the car and tried to take his weapon, I'd fire at that charging 300 # man until the magazine was empty and then reload for a second string if that's what it took to stop the assailant.

Determining if someone is armed might be difficult if they don't show the weapon. If they don't show it, it would be difficult for them to use it on you, wouldn't it? However, one does not have to be armed to be a deadly threat.

I've answered based on your questions, not based on the assumption that what we do know is all true. We still don't know all of the facts and my answers don't presume that we do...
Click to expand...

Thank You
 
Unabogie said:
That's it? The only people who care how many times an unarmed person is shot are "race hustlers"?
Click to expand...

The Central Scrutinizer said:
No. Those of us in an over/under pool also care.
Click to expand...

newyorkguy said:
<snip> The sarcastic, snarky comments have bothered me too. I think they serve at least two purposes for the posters who make them: one it's a way to marginalize Michael Brown, to trivialize his death, to make clear their lack of compassion and two it's a passive-aggressive way to flame posters that obviously take this matter very seriously.

<snip>
Click to expand...

;)
 
I've actually looked up what Sharpton has had to say on the issue, and it isn't as bad as what you might think. I read someone describe him as saying the looters are liberators, and his actual words aren't like that.
 
Reheat said:
However, one does not have to be armed to be a deadly threat.
Click to expand...

eeyore1954 said:
Thank You
Click to expand...

This is something the Apostles of St Michael don't understand.

Remember, the guy who did this (below) was "unarmed". While he didn't kill her, it wasn't due to lack of effort.
 

Attachments

  • Christy-Mack-Photos-of-War-Machine-Incident.jpg
    Christy-Mack-Photos-of-War-Machine-Incident.jpg
    61.6 KB · Views: 13
Unabogie said:
That's it? The only people who care how many times an unarmed person is shot are "race hustlers"? Is "race hustler" a code word of some sort? Because there are obviously more people than those two who care about police killings. Where do you get this statistic from?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between caring about police killings and caring about the number of shots?

Why do you say unarmed? The important point is whether or not it was reasonable for the policeman to think the Michael Brown was a threat to his safety. Not whether or not he was armed. If what the policeman says is true then it looks as if he was a threat to him.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
This is something the Apostles of St Michael don't understand.

Remember, the guy who did this (below) was "unarmed". While he didn't kill her, it wasn't due to lack of effort.
Click to expand...

Should she have shot him?
Was backup on the way?

I'm not sure we'll get too far with unrelated incidents of violence.
 
eeyore1954 said:
There is a difference between caring about police killings and caring about the number of shots?

Why do you say unarmed? The important point is whether or not it was reasonable for the policeman to think the Michael Brown was a threat to his safety. Not whether or not he was armed. If what the policeman says is true then it looks as if he was a threat to him.
Click to expand...

Can you direct me to an account of what the officer had to say about what happened?
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Can you direct me to an account of what the officer had to say about what happened?
Click to expand...

There is no account of what Wilson says happened because he declined to write any of it down. His incident report is completely blank. And of course, since it's literally a blank slate, he can say anything he wants once all of the other witnesses are interviewed. Apparently, this is not troubling to some people.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Can you direct me to an account of what the officer had to say about what happened?
Click to expand...

Unless you think there is a conspiracy, or the police chief is lying or mistaken, this appears to be the best account we have (so far) of what the officer had to say about what happened:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...el-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/

Sunday Aug. 10

10 a.m. – Michael Brown, 18, was unarmed, St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar says in a news conference. Belmar says Brown physically assaulted the officer, and during a struggle between the two, Brown reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired in the car followed by other gunshots outside of the car.
 
Unabogie said:
There is no account of what Wilson says happened because he declined to write any of it down. His incident report is completely blank. And of course, since it's literally a blank slate, he can say anything he wants once all of the other witnesses are interviewed. Apparently, this is not troubling to some people.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that he declined to write down what happened ?

As I have already pointed out below, it certainly appears the SLCPD have his written version of events.


TheL8Elvis said:
http://time.com/3146887/ferguson-michael-brown-darren-wilson-questions/

The incident report, filed by the St. Louis County police department, contains no new information on the encounter between Brown and Wilson. There are no written details about the event. As a result, the officer’s account of what transpired when the two men met just after noon on Aug. 9 remains a mystery.
And it will be for some time, according to Brian Schellman, a spokesman for the St. Louis County police department. Schellman told TIME that the department does not intend to release the “investigative” component of the incident report, the part that details Wilson’s version of events.

Schellman said that under the Missouri State “Sunshine” Law, the department was not required to release the information during a pending investigation. As a result, Wilson’s account of what happens will remain confidential unless it is presented by a prosecutor, Schellman said.

“We will not release it,” said Schellman, who noted that this is the county’s normal procedure. “This isn’t any different than a typical larceny from a local convenience store.”

This implies Wilson his given an account to me.
Click to expand...
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Unless you think there is a conspiracy, or the police chief is lying or mistaken, this appears to be the best account we have (so far) of what the officer had to say about what happened:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...el-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/

Sunday Aug. 10

10 a.m. – Michael Brown, 18, was unarmed, St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar says in a news conference. Belmar says Brown physically assaulted the officer, and during a struggle between the two, Brown reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired in the car followed by other gunshots outside of the car.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Love the photo of the looter hiding his face with wine bottles as he leaps through the broken window.
 
What I have learned from this thread so far:
1) Unarmed means no threat.
2) What parents and friends say is unimpeachable.
3) Eyewitness accounts are gospel so long as the majority of the unofficial reports agree.
4) Jaywalking means walking down the middle of the road.
5) Grabbing people by the throat and shoving them while stealing their property is shoplifting.
6) Blogs mean something as long as it confirms my uninformed opinion.
7) Never admit you were wrong on even trivial matters.
8) The hypotenuse is shorter than either leg.
9) Because not many/no witnesses have been come out with a different version of events, there must not be any.
9b) Snitches don't get stitches.
10) Questioning available evidence is wrong, no matter the source.
11) Obstinance is bliss.
 
Unabogie said:
I was responding to the racism inherent in claiming the only people who care are "race hustlers". Do you really not see that?



Because that's factually true?
Click to expand...

I doubt there is anyone here that disagrees with your highly political views that hasn't been called "racist" at one time or another, so what you have to say doesn't bother me at all..

If there wasn't a general rule against calling people out, I'd start a poll just to show that. There's at least one other poster who does it too.

It's as if you think once you label someone as racist the discussion ends and you've won the argument. I've got news for you and it's likely to not be to pleasant to your eyes or ears...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom