Michael Brown shooting II

[Cain]

Well you made it sound more definitive before than you are now.

I think you're reading things into my comments as you're trying to twist the witness's -- oh, I'm sorry, the alleged witness's -- words.

into my statements as you're I think it COULD be an eyewitness, but there is zero proof that this person was. He could be, or he could have heard this from someone else and used poor language. Until this person is identified, it's just conjecture on the part of the people who are the flipside of what you're accusing me of being.

As I said, on its own, it's not much; but it matches with Josie's account, which correctly predicted the autopsy. It's somewhat understandable this person would not get dolled up and appear on television. The store owner who was robbed begged reporters not to write that he had anything to do with the 911 call.

If this person identifies himself and gives a fuller context of what he meant, then we can talk about it.

For all we know, he could have spoken to the police.

P.S. I don't know anyone here who thinks this was premeditated murder. If it happened like the witnesses say it did, it's a case of a cop losing control of himself and lashing out. In this respect, I think that if Brown did punch him, this would make the end result more understandable, but not less incriminating for Wilson. In other words, when you ask "why would Wilson, a cop with no record, suddenly shoot down a unarmed kid?" the answer is because that kid gave him a rap on the face and he lost his **** over it.

And so he murdered him. There are other ways officers can get their "informal" justice, and it happens behind closed doors, not in broad daylight. Does Wilson have a known temper problem?

Negligence does not require dishonesty. If you make an honest mistake in a situation you are responsible not to and someone dies, it is considered negligence.

From the Free Dictionary:Honest mistakes can still be negligent mistakes.

Look at you, running your dictionary. Negligence in this context means that Wilson failed at his job; that he bears some kind of responsibility. Child neglect does not mean you forgot to pack a lunch for your kid or give her money. What I'm saying is that you're not allowing for the possibility that Wilson made an understandable mistake.

It was not possible for Brown to make a move like that given the timing of the shots on the audio and the trajectory of the kill shot are against the Brown was coming at Wilson scenario.

Again, I dispute when you're claiming he turned around relative to the gunfire. It's possible, and at this point more likely than not, that he was facing Wilson when all ten shots were fired. Granting, that he turned around after the six-shot burst, the only possibilities you allow is that Wilson's guilty. And that's where it seems most of this force-fit "reasoning" goes. The real first premise is that Wilson's guilty.

Loss of control due to rage happens to cops all the time. Are you claiming it never does?

Yeah, I'm saying it never happens. Good Lord, this is pathetic. How many cops flat-out murder surrendering suspects in hail of bullets... in the middle of the day... with potential witnesses all around? Are there any alternatives? Suicide by cop -- are you saying it never happens? I'm the one allowing for more possibilities; you're the one closing them off.

"Kept coming toward him." ≠ "charging at him".

It's true, he does not use the verb "charge." He also does not say "bum-rush." He just says Brown keeps comin' at him. Maybe Brown, the Gentle Giant, went extra slow so the officer could take time aiming. Or maybe Wilson had a button undone, and Brown just wanted to make sure Mr. Wilson looked snappy for the public. Polite 'till the end.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Every robber that uses force and/or the threat of physical violence is a thug.

By the way, you are being highly insulting by implying that people are racist. I assume that it is because you are trying to shut down debate rather than making undeserved personal attacks against other forum members.

You falsely accused me of making statements I did not make. Did I miss the post where you corrected that mistake?

As for the racism, if you are denying that has anything to do with the perceptions of this incident both on the forum and in the country, that would be a naive position.*


*Note, I did not say ALL the reactions.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Almost half a million dollars raised, and for what? Wilson still hasn't been charged or even arrested! This is all money for anticipated legal fees, I guess. Who knew that people love the police this much? I'm sure that after this, cops will have no problem pulling out a gun and waxing somebody who makes the slightest wrong move, because the public apparently supports that 100%. (Seriously, soooooo much money...)

There are currently two fundraisers for Darren Wilson, though. One of the fundraisers is being run by a police charity, but the other one seems a tad more...sketchy.

In contrast to the other Wilson page and the donation page for Brown, little information has been given to donors about who is running the anonymous fundraising effort.

In a message to visitors two weeks ago, the anonymous Wilson fundraiser page wrote that it was working with Shield of Hope to become a verified recipient. That has not happened. The fundraiser also gave out a pseudonymous Gmail account to users seeking more information, but did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

In its statement to The Times, GoFundMe's spokeswoman said the anonymously run donation page had also been removed from its search results, adding that "this campaign no longer meets GoFundMe’s stated requirement of having a valid Facebook account connected."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

......Does Wilson have a known temper problem?

He has friends swearing he had no temper problem, one person who claims he was a jerk with an attitude when she encountered him, and a personal history that suggested becoming a cop was something he needed because he was becoming rowdy after a rough childhood.

So he most certainly could have, but we don't really know yet.

Do you have evidence he didn't?

..... Look at you, running your dictionary.

You mean to tell you how I'm using the term?

..... Negligence in this context means that Wilson failed at his job; that he bears some kind of responsibility. Child neglect does not mean you forgot to pack a lunch for your kid or give her money. What I'm saying is that you're not allowing for the possibility that Wilson made an understandable mistake.

I have higher expectations of cops with guns.

..... Again, I dispute when you're claiming he turned around relative to the gunfire. It's possible, and at this point more likely than not, that he was facing Wilson when all ten shots were fired. Granting, that he turned around after the six-shot burst, the only possibilities you allow is that Wilson's guilty. And that's where it seems most of this force-fit "reasoning" goes. The real first premise is that Wilson's guilty.

The police themselves acknowledge Wilson shot as Brown was fleeing. The gun has a 13 round capacity. One shot occurred at the car, 10 shots are on the audio.

Is your premise shooting at the fleeing Brown comprised only 2 rounds. Or are you saying Wilson reloaded?

..... Yeah, I'm saying it never happens. Good Lord, this is pathetic. How many cops flat-out murder surrendering suspects in hail of bullets... in the middle of the day... with potential witnesses all around? Are there any alternatives? Suicide by cop -- are you saying it never happens? I'm the one allowing for more possibilities; you're the one closing them off.

It can be extremely rare or unfortunately common. That is not the evidence I am using here.

..... It's true, he does not use the verb "charge." He also does not say "bum-rush." He just says Brown keeps comin' at him. Maybe Brown, the Gentle Giant, went extra slow so the officer could take time aiming. Or maybe Wilson had a button undone, and Brown just wanted to make sure Mr. Wilson looked snappy for the public. Polite 'till the end.

You need to explain the audio and the kill shot, not what witnesses might have meant.

 

[LashL]

This silliness about the use of the word "thug" and the pretence by some that it is a racial slur against black people strikes me as, well, silly.

The word is commonly used as defined, whether it be a reference to a street thug, a union thug, a jack-booted thug, a police thug, an Irish thug, a mafia thug, a black thug, a government thug, or, most often, just a thug without any qualifiers. I do not understand why some people are pretending that the word 'thug' refers only or primarily to black people, because it obviously does not, and I do not understand why some are pretending that the use of the word 'thug' is an indication of racial bias, which is, frankly, ridiculous.

A thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of whether or not the individual indulging in thuggery is white, black, yellow, red, brown, or other.

 

[Mumbles]

This silliness about the use of the word "thug" and the pretence by some that it is a racial slur against black people strikes me as, well, silly.

I see.

Well, feel free to explain why that label was given to Stanford graduate Richard Sherman, for speaking too loudly.

I won't say that it's unwarranted every time a white person uses in against a black guy. Where a white person to call, say, Chief Keef a thug, I'd have to agree. But we've seen it used for just regular black kids, who had a photo giving the finger to the camera, as well. And frankly, that's not very far from Ben Stein whining about how Michael Brown was armed with "his incredibly strong, scary self", and thus should not be described as unarmed. It's an obvious redefinition of the word, and one brazenly based on racial hatred. And if you're going to attach it to Trayvon Martin/Jordan Davis/Michael Brown, you need to find some real evidence of thuggery, and not just one incident that would be shrugged off had they been white.

But I'm glad you find it "silly". Because for me, it's my friends and family's lives at stake, and I'd prefer that others not deal with this nonsense.

ETA: This is all off-topic, and I did not mean to spark any sort of argument - but people who rush to use the word "thug" for black kids are persona non grata as far as I care.

 

[Unabogie]

This silliness about the use of the word "thug" and the pretence by some that it is a racial slur against black people strikes me as, well, silly.

The word is commonly used as defined, whether it be a reference to a street thug, a union thug, a jack-booted thug, a police thug, an Irish thug, a mafia thug, a black thug, a government thug, or, most often, just a thug without any qualifiers. I do not understand why some people are pretending that the word 'thug' refers only or primarily to black people, because it obviously does not, and I do not understand why some are pretending that the use of the word 'thug' is an indication of racial bias, which is, frankly, ridiculous.

A thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of whether or not the individual indulging in thuggery is white, black, yellow, red, brown, or other.

You seem to wholly misunderstand the argument. The word thug can be used for those other things, but it's not commonly used that way. It's almost always used to describe black people. For instance, Mitt Romney assaulted a gay student. Did anyone call him a thug? No. They call Barack Obama a thug, even though unlike Mitt, Obama has never assaulted anyone. George Zimmerman has been arrested two times for assaulting women, just since his acquittal. Anyone call him a thug? No, they call Trayvon Martin one. As for why people are thinking it's because of racial bias, perhaps it's because certain posters have openly admitted to being racist in this very thread? Do you think they're only "pretending" to be openly racist?

By the way, I asked you a question in your PM box. Can you please respond?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

So...what if you only perform one thuggish action in your entire life? Are you still a thug?
I'm still gonna ask why everybody is so focused on assaulting the victim's character and are ignoring Wilson completely. It's like they're bending over backwards to make Wilson look like an angel.

I didn't choose the thug life, the thug life chose me.

At least, that's Tupac's take on it.

 

[LashL]

I see.
...

I think you're entirely missing the point, which is that the word is just - and only - what it is, despite some folks or groups of folks trying to usurp it for their own purposes at various points in time.

As I said previously, a thug is a thug is a thug. It has nothing to do with being white, black, yellow, red, brown, or otherwise.

Various groups of people have tried in the past to make the word "thug" be about specific "others" for their own purposes, but it didn't work then and it should not work now.

 

[sgtbaker]

Bingo

Oh dear!

 

[LashL]

Well, feel free to explain why that label was given to ...

For the same reason it's been given to all of the other individuals and all of the other groups that any individual or group wants to label for their own purposes.

It's complete nonsense.

As is claiming that the word "thug" is a racial slur against black people.

 

[Mumbles]

I didn't choose the thug life, the thug life chose me.

At least, that's Tupac's take on it.

Tupac also said "It doesn't matter if you call your self a lawyer, a man, an African American...to them, we're just thugs and (n-word)s."

He's not who you want to quote on this.

 

[Mumbles]

For the same reason it's been given to all of the other individuals and all of the other groups that any individual or group wants to label for their own purposes.

It's complete nonsense.

As is claiming that the word "thug" is a racial slur against black people.

That's just weak. Does not address what I said in any way.

ETA: The idea of the criminal black man isn't even a new stereotype. It goes back to slavery days, and picked up steam around 1900. So yes, I'll point it out when I see people making the exact same argument that was in "Birth of a Nation".

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Tupac also said "It doesn't matter if you call your self a lawyer, a man, an African American...to them, we're just thugs and (n-word)s."

He's not who you want to quote on this.

Yeah, he is.

I find a Tupac quote works in all situations, including baptisms.

 

[LashL]

The word thug can be used for those other things, but it's not commonly used that way. It's almost always used to describe black people.

Nonsense.

 

[LashL]

That's just weak. Does not address what I said in any way.

Sigh. You cherrypicked my first post and pretended that you addressed it, and now you pretend that I didn't address your cherrypicked response.

Ugh. Go play your games with others.

 

[Cain]

one person who claims he was a jerk with an attitude when she encountered him

Are you talking about the girl who needed to douse her eyes with milk? But yeah, he seems like total jerk-face.

Do you have evidence he didn't?

No, I haven't been as thorough in my investigation... I'll be sure to produce evidence that he didn't have a temper problem soon enough.

I have higher expectations of cops with guns.

You're saying it happened without demonstrating it's what happened. This is like pulling teeth. Can you at least try to sound reasonable? Maybe Wilson didn't commit a crime...

The police themselves acknowledge Wilson shot as Brown was fleeing. The gun has a 13 round capacity. One shot occurred at the car, 10 shots are on the audio.

Is your premise shooting at the fleeing Brown comprised only 2 rounds. Or are you saying Wilson reloaded?

Unless the police have said otherwise, as far as I know Wilson could have fired only one round as Brown and Johnson fled. I highly doubt that Wilson would have reloaded after shooting his weapon only two or three times.

You need to explain the audio and the kill shot, not what witnesses might have meant.

This has been explained. More than once. Brown charges/bum rushes/comes at [Wilson], and Wilson squeezes off six rounds (probably accounting for most of the wounds to the right side of Brown's body). Brown keeps coming, Wilson fires four more times.

 

[LashL]

That's just weak. Does not address what I said in any way.

Nah, you just aren't paying attention.

ETA: The idea of the criminal black man isn't even a new stereotype. It goes back to slavery days, and picked up steam around 1900. So yes, I'll point it out when I see people making the exact same argument that was in "Birth of a Nation".

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've posted. You might want to hit the "off" switch.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Nonsense.

Sure it is. I mean look at all of the Union thugs. Not a single one is white! Oh, wait...

Just make sure you never call a black criminal a criminal, because that makes you a racist. Along with just about anything else, according to many on this forum.

 

[Mumbles]

I think you're reading things into my comments as you're trying to twist the witness's -- oh, I'm sorry, the alleged witness's -- words.

Why is "alleged" such an issue? We have no idea who the person is, or where he was at the time of the shooting. It could turn it that he was a witness - but we don't know, and he hasn't made a clear statement to the public. If and when he appears on some cable news show to tell his story, we'll take him seriously.

As I said, on its own, it's not much; but it matches with Josie's account, which correctly predicted the autopsy. It's somewhat understandable this person would not get dolled up and appear on television. The store owner who was robbed begged reporters not to write that he had anything to do with the 911 call.

I'm actually sympathetic to the store clerk - the police's move was clearly intended to inflame tensions, so the store would get wrecked.

Josie, as has been discussed, is relating a third-hand account at best. And people will protect their friends, I get that. Although I do find it funny that many people here give that latitude for one side, but not the other - especially those who are outraged that Brown's family would call him a "gentle giant", but think that this Josie person is an acceptable witness.

For all we know, he could have spoken to the police.

Well, wouldn't they have released the statement?

No, really, given that the Ferguson are PD are willing to march down the street en-masse, shooting rubber bullets and teargas at anyone they see, and that they are willin to release information on Brown that they then admit is unrelated to the shooting, do you have any reason for us to think they would not have released any such statement?

And so he murdered him. There are other ways officers can get their "informal" justice, and it happens behind closed doors, not in broad daylight. Does Wilson have a known temper problem?

Well, that's what we're trying to figure out, now isn't it?