Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toontown said:
Giant violent thug robs store and assaults cop
Giant violent thug is shot and killed
Mobs of smaller thugs seize the opportunity to riot, burn, and loot
Police use limited force to control and discourage burning, looting rioters
Rabblerousers feign shock and dismay at police corruption

That idiotic series of events might have been sensibly discussed in another forum. Not this one. Not with this crew. A sensible discussion would have disposed of the issue in a few pages. Instead, you generated 82 pages of hysterical, utterly tedious cackling.
Click to expand...


You appear to be saying that 'sensible discussion' is 'agrees with you'. This is evidenced by your weasel words and framing of events. Note earlier I listed things I thought worth discussing, not a summery.

Again, I agree that much of the discussion hasn't been sensible in the traditional use of the word, but your statement was this discussion shouldn't even exist. Are you now backing away from that? It should exist, but people should agree with you more? If that is the case, congratulations, that's what just about everyone thinks. For instance, I think people are being unreasonable in many of the criticism of Wilson's actions that day and demanding a criminal trial is not only unwarranted but actively harmful, while at the same time find the downplaying or handwaving of the actual corruption, rights violations, and outright stupidity of the local PD abhorrent. In other words, that this discussion is worth having but wish people would agree with me more.

Of course I'm also willing to be swayed by solid reasoning and evidence. That might be where we differ.
 
Toontown said:
Mobs of smaller thugs seize the opportunity to riot, burn, and loot
Police use limited force to control and discourage burning, looting rioters
Rabblerousers feign shock and dismay at police corruption
Click to expand...

"thugs". It's always that word...
 
plague311 said:
As previously stated, he had gone for Wilson's gun. You don't make a play for a gun unless you intend to use it.
Click to expand...


I question this characterization of Brown's alleged attempt to grab Wilson's gun for reasons I posted two months ago:

Cl1mh4224rd said:
There are several possibilities here:

  1. Brown lunged through the SUVs window in an attempt to grab Wilson's weapon, which is holstered on his right hip.
  2. Wilson pulls his weapon in response to a physical attack by Brown, likely the shoving of the SUV's door (ed. 2015-02-01: or a punch).
  3. Wilson pulls his weapon as he's attempting to get out of the SUV to confront Brown and Johnson, before any physical aggression by Brown.
There are more, I'm sure. In all possibilities, though, it's far more likely that Wilson himself unholstered his weapon while in his SUV and had enough control over it to point it in Brown's direction and pull the trigger once.
Click to expand...


It's quite possible that any attempt on Brown's part for Wilson's gun was in Brown's own self defense. ETA: I'm not saying he was unlikely to use it against Wilson, but I don't think that was the primary motivation for the alleged attempt, which is what others appear to be implying.
 
Last edited:
No amount of chicken squawking is going to convince police to allow themselves to be assaulted by thugs or allow their communities to be raped by burning, looting mobs, without even putting up a fight.
 
Last edited:
Burning, looting rioters used to be tough. But now they're just wussie hypocrites who run to the internet to endlessly bemoan their mistreatment when the cops rough them up a little.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
True. They'll do it of their own accord: Report cites plunge in SPD enforcement of low-level crime and NYPD Work Slowdown: Police Commissioner Acknowledges Steep Drop In Enforcement After Officers' Deaths.
Click to expand...

Funny thing - many young, law-abiding, black New Yorkers were actually pretty happy about this, saying that they've never felt safer. My point has always been that nobody should have to feel that way. Gang members mostly shoot at or attack one another, telling the police to target *all* black men is an absurd reaction.
 
Toontown said:
Giant violent thug robs store and assaults cop
Giant violent thug is shot and killed
Mobs of smaller thugs seize the opportunity to riot, burn, and loot
Police use limited force to control and discourage burning, looting rioters
Rabblerousers feign shock and dismay at police corruption

That idiotic series of events might have been sensibly discussed in another forum. Not this one. Not with this crew. A sensible discussion would have disposed of the issue in a few pages. Instead, you generated 82 pages of hysterical, utterly tedious cackling.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
FTFY.
Click to expand...

First, don't take this as an attack against you, Cl1mh4224rd. It's not, we're on the same side.

The police pulled out K-9 units against mourners. That was before any protests had developed, much less any looting. If anything, the violent overreaction by police is what turned Ferguson into a crisis, not some sort of looting (which, BTW, the *protestors* handled while the police stood back and did nothing).

We've seen the videos, over and over, of the cops blasting random people with tear gas, arresting reporters, pointing guns at protestors, and the like. This is no longer worth arguing about. The Ferguson PD, and every other PD involved, should be put under federal watch, if not disbanded entirely.

The question is, why does anyone continue to defend their violence?
 
Mumbles said:
Funny thing - many young, law-abiding, black New Yorkers were actually pretty happy about this, saying that they've never felt safer. My point has always been that nobody should have to feel that way. Gang members mostly shoot at or attack one another, telling the police to target *all* black men is an absurd reaction.
Click to expand...

Great. I see the makings of an arrangement wherein NY police agree to cease all patrols in predominantly black areas in exchange for black criminals agreeing to limit their activities to those areas.

Young, law-abiding, black New Yorkers will feel very safe and be very happy. Black criminals will feel very safe and be very happy, as will other residents of the city as crime drops dramatically in their areas. The police will also be very happy. Everyone will be very happy.

You guys should really make an effort to cut that deal.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Great. I see the makings of an arrangement wherein NY police agree to cease all patrols in predominantly black areas in exchange for black criminals agreeing to limit their activities to those areas.

Young, law-abiding, black New Yorkers will feel very safe and be very happy. Black criminals will feel very safe and be very happy, as will other residents of the city as crime drops dramatically in their areas. The police will also be very happy. Everyone will be very happy.

You guys should really make an effort to cut that deal.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

People *want* the police to go after criminals. They simply don't want to be attacked based on their skin color. And during their slowdown, this is exactly what the police did. Police responded to domestic violence, to murders, and so on. They simply didn't rush out for a black kid walking to school, or a black guy riding the bus.

And yes, that's the deal we're *trying* to cut. But the police don't want it. That's the entire point here.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Sure would be nice if they would keep statistics on this. But for some reason they want to hide it. The fact that they cover keep this quiet is very telling about what they think of their own behavior.
Click to expand...

Well considering that the article make a shooting where the guy refused to come quietly, started a fight with the cops, then grabbed one of their guns a "bad shoot" and also seemed to be declaring the same about a robber who was running from the police while firing a gun at them, I'm not surprised either because it seems that in some people's opinion unless a cop is shot multiple times he's not allowed to shoot back, and probably not even then.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Well considering that the article make a shooting where the guy refused to come quietly, started a fight with the cops, then grabbed one of their guns a "bad shoot"...
Click to expand...


Three bullets point blank into the back of a person lying face down on the ground, whom you're currently pinning in that position, is worse than a bad shoot.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Sure would be nice if they would keep statistics on this. But for some reason they want to hide it. The fact that they cover keep this quiet is very telling about what they think of their own behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm just quoting this for simplicity. First off, I've never said cops are always right, and have made my position AGAINST the police in the Eric Garner case, and others. I'm not some police officer nut hugger. You then follow that up with a statement that equates to, "They've done other bad stuff, so obviously they've done something wrong in this case as well." It doesn't follow.

Your requirements for deadly harm are laughable. Banging head on the concrete? Get real. That could kill or knock someone unconscious immediately. If he had waited until it got to that point he'd assuredly be dead. It's obvious you just haven't kept up with the evidence in this case.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Three bullets point blank into the back of a person lying face down on the ground, whom you're currently pinning in that position, is worse than a bad shoot.
Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten the bit about said person having a gun, just because he's face down doesn't stop him firing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom