Michael Brown shooting II

[BenBurch]

OK I apologize. I must have gotten you confused with the posters who were trying to prove a word doesn't have another meaning merely by proving it has a more common or original meaning.

(I hope most of the people here know that I tend to get hot, bothered, and offended. I'm on a self-imposed several year long ban of the religion, philosophy, and politics subforums just so I don't bitch 24/7. )

No problem!

 

[This is The End]

Even though a big guy like Michael Brown, who had already attacked Wilson once, was a clearly a threat, if he had a gun or knife in his pocket he would be an even bigger threat. Fuhrman also said when someone tries to get a cop's gun, it should be assumed that person is going to kill him if successful.

You just made an interesting point, perhaps unintentionally.

Would it be logical for someone who already has a gun in their pocket to go for another persons gun before just using their own instead?

If someone tried to steal my gun I would, perhaps incorrectly, assume that they don't have one. If they did they would be ignoring a much easier vector of getting my gun than grabbing for it. That is, pointing theirs at me first and then just saying "give me yours".

Then, if they fail to steal my gun, and run away. That is even further information that would make me assume, perhaps incorrectly, that they don't have one of their own. The would have ignored the other vector not once, but twice.

If Wilson really did act unjustifiably, and if he is the type of person who would try and CYA (worm his way out) as opposed to honorably confess, then he would go for one of the very top fallbacks which are "they were reaching for their pocket" or "they were reaching for my gun". My point being, they don't often both appear in the same incident. Just one or the other.

Therefore a "he reached for his pocket" in the time between the running away and turning around volleys is not likely to be the claim. That is why we are getting hints of a returning movement instead. Even though there really isn't much time for someone to interpret a returning movement between the main volleys...

There is just enough time for a quick /react,freeze,turn around/. But enough for a /react,turn around/return movement/?? Not as much.

 

[Unabogie]

Even though a big guy like Michael Brown, who had already attacked Wilson once

And you know this for fact...how?

 

[This is The End]

I hope a moderator will have mercy on us all and send the thug discussion to AAA.....

Yes because a discussion of word usage and definitions completely relative to the topic never occurs in JREF threads!!

It's just as on topic than the 4 page long discussion of how wide the road is.

Oh nevermind. I get it. One "side" turned out to be incorrect in that discussion. So it can stay. The other "side" turned out to be incorrect in this discussion. So it better go!! Don't want anyone to see that!

If people did not by nature yearn to choose a side then biases like that would not occur.

One of the very basic foundations of science is to not stop at "I have never heard of it, it must not exist".

If you have never heard of something you are supposed to seek out information. You say "I have never heard of that, let me research it and do some discovery".

The fact that a couple people in this thread chose to literally say "I have never heard of X, it must not exist" and at the same time say "X means Y, therefore X cannot have any other meanings" is a very good set of claims to examine at a forum such as ours.

Therefore, even if a discussion of the meaning and use of the word thug was not on topic for this thread (remember, normal drift is allowed, which includes definitions of on topic words) then a move to AAH would not be appropriate, a move to the Literature or Education subforum would be.

Though since several of us have come to an agreement, like Monketey Ghost and BenBurch. And others have stated that they also are familiar with the racial meaning of the word, like Aepervius. I say we can put the issue to rest here.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You just made an interesting point, perhaps unintentionally.

Would it be logical for someone who already has a gun in their pocket to go for another persons gun before just using their own instead?

...

If it was more easily accessible at the time, why not?

 

[This is The End]

If it was more easily accessible at the time, why not?

Just to clarify before I respond:

Are you proposing that there are situations where reaching for the gun in another persons pocket/holster is "more easily accessible" than reaching for the gun in your own pocket/holster?

And that the situation in this topic is one of them?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And you know this for fact...how?

Someone might want to point this out to Unabogie, although this has been posted numerous times in this thread...

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crim...olice-news-conference-michael-brown/13860601/

Belmar said the incident started when Brown physically assaulted the police officer, pushing him into the officer's vehicle. He said there was a struggle inside the car, and at some point Brown reached for the officer's weapon. One shot was fired inside the vehicle.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes because a discussion of word usage and definitions completely relative to the topic never occurs in JREF threads!!

It's just as on topic than the 4 page long discussion of how wide the road is.

Oh nevermind. I get it. One "side" turned out to be incorrect in that discussion. So it can stay. The other "side" turned out to be incorrect in this discussion. So it better go!! Don't want anyone to see that!
If people did not by nature yearn to choose a side then biases like that would not occur.

One of the very basic foundations of science is to not stop at "I have never heard of it, it must not exist".

If you have never heard of something you are supposed to seek out information. You say "I have never heard of that, let me research it and do some discovery".

The fact that a couple people in this thread chose to literally say "I have never heard of X, it must not exist" and at the same time say "X means Y, therefore X cannot have any other meanings" is a very good set of claims to examine at a forum such as ours.

Therefore, even if a discussion of the meaning and use of the word thug was not on topic for this thread (remember, normal drift is allowed, which includes definitions of on topic words) then a move to AAH would not be appropriate, a move to the Literature or Education subforum would be.

Though since several of us have come to an agreement, like Monketey Ghost and BenBurch. And others have stated that they also are familiar with the racial meaning of the word, like Aepervius. I say we can put the issue to rest here.

Did anyone actually make that argument ?I mean, besides you ?

 

[Unabogie]

If it was more easily accessible at the time, why not?

Just to clarify before I respond:

Are you proposing that there are situations where reaching for the gun in another persons pocket/holster is "more easily accessible" than reaching for the gun in your own pocket/holster?

And that the situation in this topic is one of them?

Actually to me this illustrates a problem I see with the logic of many of the posters here. They have frequently asked the question "why would Darren Wilson suddenly decide to become a murderer and simply take the life of a person for no reason?" That's a good question, but if the answer is "because sometimes people let their anger turn them into irrational actors temporarily", the reply is that this is preposterous. Watching the video of Wilson after the shooting, his body language does look to me like a person who is in distress over what just happened, but even if you disagree, this is one possible truth. However, when that question is reversed, and we ask "why would Michael Brown attempt to murder the policeman on a moment's notice?", then the answer that "he was a thug" seems to be completely sufficient. Brown would have to had decided on two separate irrational actions that day: a) to knowingly attempt to murder a policeman in broad daylight with witnesses around, and b) to run himself head first into a hail of bullets instead of running away. This could also be one possible truth, but there's no escaping the fact that to explain this event, at least one or both of the actors that day would have to have been acting in an insane way. Since neither of them were known to be insane, each possibility should be given equal weight, and the evidence should be examined to see which narrative is supported by the evidence and witnesses. Of course, Michael Brown can't tell his side of the story, and Darren Wilson will have a vested interest in lying about what happened, so his claims should be given extra scrutiny. For this reason, the "why would anyone do this?" questions are valid, but they don't get us very far. Neither had a reason to do what they are accused of, yet one of them did it. In fact, it's possible both things are true, isn't it? That Darren Wilson killed an unarmed person without good cause because he was emotionally overcome by a perceived threat to his life a few moments earlier?

 

[GWCarver]

You just made an interesting point, perhaps unintentionally.

Would it be logical for someone who already has a gun in their pocket to go for another persons gun before just using their own instead?

If someone tried to steal my gun I would, perhaps incorrectly, assume that they don't have one. If they did they would be ignoring a much easier vector of getting my gun than grabbing for it. That is, pointing theirs at me first and then just saying "give me yours".

Then, if they fail to steal my gun, and run away. That is even further information that would make me assume, perhaps incorrectly, that they don't have one of their own. The would have ignored the other vector not once, but twice.

If Wilson really did act unjustifiably, and if he is the type of person who would try and CYA (worm his way out) as opposed to honorably confess, then he would go for one of the very top fallbacks which are "they were reaching for their pocket" or "they were reaching for my gun". My point being, they don't often both appear in the same incident. Just one or the other.

Therefore a "he reached for his pocket" in the time between the running away and turning around volleys is not likely to be the claim. That is why we are getting hints of a returning movement instead. Even though there really isn't much time for someone to interpret a returning movement between the main volleys...

There is just enough time for a quick /react,freeze,turn around/. But enough for a /react,turn around/return movement/?? Not as much.

It is certainly possible Michael tried to grab Wilson's gun just to keep the cop from shooting him with it, whether it was in the holster or already in Wilson's hand. It would be hard for the cop to know that was his only intention, though, considering it came in the middle of what appears to be a pretty brutal assault. In any case, I think Wilson's not knowing if Brown was armed would have come more in play at the time when Brown disengaged and started running around the car to escape. That is when the knowns and unknowns would have come together and Wilson would have had to decide whether to shoot him. (I don't really know if he fired at that time or not.) Once Wilson was in firing position and had his gun pointed at Michael in the middle of the street, I think it was a situation in which he was going to shoot if he felt any danger at all coming from the direction of what he already knew to be a dangerous man, so whether or not Brown was armed would not be quite the issue it would have been a minute earlier. He was now holding all the cards.

Disclaimer: All of the above is speculation.

 

[Unabogie]

This has to be a joke, right? Your ideas are nonsense. That's not rude or uncivil, it's just obvious.

So are all of my ideas nonsense? Like when I said "Sarah Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican party?" Did it rise to that level of nonsense?

 

[Unabogie]

considering it came in the middle of what appears to be a pretty brutal assault.

Disclaimer: All of the above is speculation.

Especially that part, correct? Exactly what sort of "brutal assault" are you claiming occurred?

 

[Mumbles]

Of course you may, but I'll limit myself to suggesting you Google my user
name and ponder my avatar.

I did, but it's rude to make assumptions.

In any case, I live in Spain and instead of thug, people would prolly say "gorilla", normally applied to night-club and disco security, Latin American gang members, neo-Nazi youths and Eastern European mafia types.

In the US, "gorilla" would likely get you called out immediately, and people hate to be thought of as racists, even when they clearly embrace racism.So, instead, we get a different set of thinly-veiled euphemisms - such as "thug" or "welfare queen" - along with goofy assumptions such as "black people never talk about black on black crime".

 

[tsig]

Why do people keeping trying to prove that a word doesn't have a particular meaning by pointing out that it has another meaning? This is one of the very basic parts of the English language for crying out loud.

"It is nonsense that people call that white bird over there a crane because a crane is that thing putting the steel girder onto the building!! Oh wait, neither of those things must be called a crane because I had to crane my neck to look!!"

Then we have the people claiming that it isn't racist because it isn't in the ******* dictionary!!

I suppose "spook" and "coon" also have no such racial connotations.

Face it, their only out is that in the case of this thread one of the other word meanings also applies.

But guess what? If this were a thread about a black FBI agent do you think they would claim it is OK for them to use the word "spook"? Because spook also means an FBI agent... Actually some of them probably would do that.

And "uncle Tom" only means my father's brother named "Thomas".

Words mean just what I want them to mean no more and no less so since 'thug' means other things it cannot be a racist slur.

 

[This is The End]

each possibility should be given equal weight

Your whole post was apt, but I just wanted to comment on this part.

More precisely, each possibility should be looked at equally and fairly and no weight should be given absent of logic and solid evidence. Weight should not be given solely because of the human nature to have bias. Your post clearly demonstrated people have been doing the later instead of the former.

 

[tsig]

I'm getting tired of your skeptical thuggery.

Looks like the skeptical thuggery has been guilty of some skullduggery.

 

[Unabogie]

I did, but it's rude to make assumptions.



In the US, "gorilla" would likely get you called out immediately, and people hate to be thought of as racists, even when they clearly embrace racism.So, instead, we get a different set of thinly-veiled euphemisms - such as "thug" or "welfare queen" - along with goofy assumptions such as "black people never talk about black on black crime".

This is what the KKK had to say about Michael Brown:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/...olice-officer-who-shot-african-american-teen/

“We are setting up a reward/fund for the police officer who shot this thug,” the Klan group said in an email. “He is a hero! We need more white cops who are anti-Zog and willing to put Jewish controlled black thugs in their place. Most cops are cowards and do nothing while 90% of interracial crime is black (and non-white) on white.”

 

[SleepingWeasle]

Doesn't the fact that you quoted the KKK saying "black thugs" imply that even to them, thug does not necessarily mean black? You don't hear them talking about black *******, just *******.

 

[rwguinn]

The only way "Thug" as a descriptor is racist is by a racist definition of the word by a racist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Words sometimes take on new meanings. You may not agree the word, thug, has, but many people see it differently:

Seahawks player Richard Sherman after the brouhaha last Jan

In the press conference, Sherman said he was sorry the interview had taken attention away from his teammates, but he also said he didn’t believe the response to it was warranted, especially people who labeled him a “thug” after the interview. He also said he believed “thug” is now an “accepted way of calling somebody the n word.”

*I see this has been addressed.