Status
Not open for further replies.
You're the second person on this board today to declare that Police should have less rights that normal people.
Soldiers voluntarily give up their constitutional rights to serve and protect our society. Why is it so strange to think that police can also waive their rights (or some of their rights) in order to serve the public in this capacity? Morally and ethically, we, as society, can declare policing to be a job which demands those sacrifices in order to accomplish what we want to accomplish.

I guess you can include me in that group who believes that police should have less rights than the general public and I have a clear conscience in that demand.
 
Brown's failure to avail himself of that generously given chance, and Brown's total refusal to stop being an ongoing threat completely validates Wilson's decision to neutralize him with additional gunfire.
I don't know if any of this speculation is relevant. I don't know what happened. It amazes me that people are so sure of what Wilson was confronted with. He might have been reasonably in fear of his life. He might have been angry that he was treated with contempt and not respected. Officers, being human, have been known to continue with deadly force when it is not needed.

You cannot say that you know what was in the mind of Wilson or Brown. You can speculate what could have been but it is nothing more than that.
 
I know, I had trouble believing Wilson never knew when Chief Belmar first said it (before he corrected himself) as that made perfect sense explaining why Wilson would go back.

Those police ought to have an opening in their communications department, they really screwed up on this one. At first I can understand that 'no one expects the Spanish Inquisition' and they weren't quite prepared for a full-on adversarial media onslaught. However, after a few days it ought to have dawned on them that saying almost nothing (and getting some of those few things wrong!) was not helping and when it's already there in your face every day you damn well better learn to expect the Spanish Inquisition!

Here's the problem with that. Regardless of whether or not Darren Wilson was justified, the police force in general responded to local residents milling about, setting up memorials, and so on, with shotguns and barking police dogs, before any serious protests had begun. And when police respond with overwhelming force, they inevitably attract the media (bringing snarling police dogs to groups of nonviolent black people is an especially bad idea in the US, given our history). The proper response to community anger would have been to let people rally, only bring force if the rallies become violent, and let folks speak. But what we saw was a strong attempt to intimidate and silence people.

Yes, it's a PR nightmare, but it's one created entirely by the police. Even in Bull Conner's case, you can argue that black people chose to march where he was police chief, knowing that he would wildly overreact. In this case, it was just local people discussing a shooting that caused the PD to freak out and become defensive and threatening.
 
Wasn't Belmar always careful to say "initial encounter" though?

That's not the way I saw it being reported, and if so, why would he make that niggling distinction anyway? It just served to confuse the situation.

So was it just a case of not being perceptive enough about a misconception taking hold in the minds of those he was giving the press conference to?

They should have figured it out long before they did. They were playing coy saying things like 'more than a couple' bullets in Michael Brown and 'more than a few' casings recovered and the whole 35' repeated error that just makes them look bad. It's no wonder a number of those reporters smelled blood, it was like they were holding a bloody rag over shark-infested waters so they shouldn't be too surprised if a hand got bit off.

Hindsight may be 20-20 but it does serve some purposes, let's call it an 'after action report.' When something gets stuffed up it's incumbent upon the stuffers-up to reflect on their actions so it doesn't happen again. In this instance I find little to fault with Darren Wilson's actions but the way the police organizations handled the aftermath was pretty piss-poor in many regards. They should have taken the Canfield Urban Legend on straight away by correcting the record with the Ferguson Market theft and stuck to the verifiable facts which they should damn well have had in their hands in short order. Mind you there's definitely value in withholding certain facts to help verify the veracity of witnesses, but giving out sparse info that's either wrong or indicative of wanting to hide something didn't seem to do much to defuse this situation, did it?
 
Last edited:
You're the second person on this board today to declare that Police should have less rights that normal people.

Soldiers voluntarily give up their constitutional rights to serve and protect our society. Why is it so strange to think that police can also waive their rights (or some of their rights) in order to serve the public in this capacity? Morally and ethically, we, as society, can declare policing to be a job which demands those sacrifices in order to accomplish what we want to accomplish.

I guess you can include me in that group who believes that police should have less rights than the general public and I have a clear conscience in that demand.
I think we should tread lightly when it comes to rights. However, in the case of police officers there is clearly an unequal distribution of power and authority. Officers have authority over civilians in a way that civilians don't over officers. If it is axiomatic that everyone must have identical rights at all times then I think we have a paradox on our hands.
 
Here's the problem with that. Regardless of whether or not Darren Wilson was justified, the police force in general responded to local residents milling about, setting up memorials, and so on, with shotguns and barking police dogs, before any serious protests had begun. And when police respond with overwhelming force, they inevitably attract the media (bringing snarling police dogs to groups of nonviolent black people is an especially bad idea in the US, given our history). The proper response to community anger would have been to let people rally, only bring force if the rallies become violent, and let folks speak. But what we saw was a strong attempt to intimidate and silence people.

Yes, it's a PR nightmare, but it's one created entirely by the police. Even in Bull Conner's case, you can argue that black people chose to march where he was police chief, knowing that he would wildly overreact. In this case, it was just local people discussing a shooting that caused the PD to freak out and become defensive and threatening.

Heh, I was writing a post agreeing with your same basic thrust but on different grounds. I definitely agree that the aftermath of this was handled poorly by the various police organizations, and I was unaware of them deploying K-9 units soon after the shooting.
 
I may have missed some important details about when police escalated things and what had already happened on the protests up to that point... but until I see evidence count me in the skeptical camp re: police bringing out dogs when nothing had been done to justify it.

My instinct here is to think the Ferguson PD probably knew exactly what to expect from that area of the community. These are the people and this is the neighborhood where officers were getting gunfire at them WHILE STILL PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE on the day Brown was shot.

This is the community that surrounded the crime scene and caused police to have to radio "we're going to have a problem here."

This is the community that rallied around someone who'd just robbed and assaulted someone who contributed to said community by running a store in it (and for all I know he lived there too, not sure.)

The sort of community that automatically and blindly supports a criminal because he's the same race and because, as Wilson said, it was an area hostile to police.

Racist criminal sympathizers get no sympathy from me.

I'd say the FPD had their number and I'd say the riots confirmed everything negative the FPD ever felt about that community, and then some.
 
No, we are not.

There is a reason that humanity has come to view cruel and unusual punishment as evil. There is a reason that humanity has come to the realization that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It has to do with the understanding that societies that value the life of even criminals are by far the best societies with the least amount of crime, incarceration rates and have higher levels of well being.

"A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members." --Dostoevsky
What does any of this have to do with Michael Brown?

eta: nvm, I see you've addressed it.
 
Last edited:
It was the pot, man. Wilson noticed it right away on his socks, and concluded correctly that Brown was Satan incarnate. He must have been, haven't you seen Reefer madness?

He could ignore bullet wounds, bulk up and then run while dead, I'm surprised it didn't take silver bullets to bring him down.
 
I still see a lot of hindsight-aided armchair quarterbacking of Wilson's actions. I wish people would do less of that, especially when we're talking about a "victim" who had robbed a store, assaulted a clerk, assaulted and battered the officer, tried to take his gun, presumably would've murdered the officer with his own gun had he been successful, etc.

If this is the sort of person you are going this forcefully "to bat" for then it really makes me wonder just who exactly some people believe police DO have a right to defend themselves against.

But anyway... when people talk about things like "he should've dodged him like a matador" - setting aside how silly that is in and of itself, and when people talk about things like "well he wasn't necessarily a threat just because he was coming back toward him and ignoring commands" I just need to point something out that most people don't seem to be considering:

Every moment Wilson hadn't yet subdued and neutralized the threat posed by Michael Brown, he was in greater and greater danger.

Again, let's not cloud ourselves with hindsight here. Put yourself in Wilson's position at that moment.

You're alone. You expect backup, but it's not here.

So far, all the aggression and threat has come from this suspect, but where is the other guy? He had a friend who has now sort of disappeared, but he was there next to him not long ago. Is he readying to attack you from behind? Does he have a pistol? Does he have a knife?

They said they were almost to their destination... is this all taking place right next to one of their friends' homes? If they are the kind of guys who would attack a police officer so forcefully and unexpectedly and try to take your firearm then you have to assume Dorian Johnson is prepared to do violence, and you have to assume any and all friends they may have nearby are too.

Is Johnson off getting his own "backup" from the destination they said they'd almost reached?

While you are keeping Brown in your sights and dealing with him... is Johnson arriving with two large angry friends from behind you, sneaking up with weapons?

Obviously, I'm not claiming Wilson was able to think about all these things literally in this kind of detail but these are the kind of (very real) possibilities and threats that a cop has to have in the back of his mind. Or at least those who set police procedure must have in the back of their minds when they're establishing protocols.

The protocol is to gain compliance and neutralize Brown who has proven himself to be a potentially deadly threat to the officer as fast as possible. He has already shown he is entirely prepared to do forceful bursts of violence on Officer Wilson, now he's wounded and even more angry but he's a big guy and he's definitely not looking like he's out of commission.

It is reasonable for an officer who wants to go home alive at the end of this shift, to put Michael Brown down and use as many bullets as he has to in order to see him drop to the ground, and to give him no further patience or additional chances once he's continuing to approach and stubbornly refusing to comply with directives.

There is no more serious situation a person can be in with relation to the police than when they have already been shot by an officer multiple times and are still alive and being given a chance to still live and still comply. Brown getting that chance indicates a remarkable level of generosity on Officer Wilson's part, and a willingness to increase his own risk in the hopes of being able to spare Brown's life (again, every moment he's giving Brown to finally comply is a moment Johnson could be readying an attack from behind.) That Brown would continue to act in a threatening manner and still attempt to attack Wilson in that most serious of situations says everything we need to know about him.

Brown's failure to avail himself of that generously given chance, and Brown's total refusal to stop being an ongoing threat completely validates Wilson's decision to neutralize him with additional gunfire.

Amazing how an unarmed black teenager can so scare a cop that he has to kill him innit?

Guess if Brown had had a penknife it would have take a couple of swat teams to take him out.
 

Darren Wilson was:

Sober
Newly married with a pregnant wife
A Protector
A point in the thin blue line
Fortunate Michael Brown did not wrest the gun from his hands


A human being.

When you put it like that, I'm saddened that he was killed unnecessarily.
 
It's unclear where the blood was coming from, some have argued it was from the original hand wound. In any case the final 21-25 feet likely came from the final 5 seconds of the audio of the shots. 5 ft/s is 3.4 mph, NOT a charge. Conceivably the 25 foot forward movement could have started during the initial 6 shot flurry, which would mean that Brown was moving even slower overall.
I haven't done an exhaustive read of all the forensics, does anyone know if they did an analysis on the blood splatters? Would be partly dependent on the flow rate of course, but I would think you could at least come up with a rough idea of forward movement based on the patterns and spread.

Well, right. But as I have said, he could have started out charging a couple of paces. Then he started getting shot, slowing him down. But his body has a lot more mass than those bullets, and his forward momentum could have kept him coming for several more paces; albeit, at a much slower rate. 21-25 ft is not a whole lot of ground to cover, afterall.

I am not convinced one way or the other. I am, however, convinced that Michael Brown was a criminal. I am also convinced that Officer Wilson was perhaps a little irresponsible. I am not convinced that Officer Wilson outright murdered him, but neither I am not convinced that he didn't.

And that is the entire problem: If I were on the GJ, I would probably have voted not to indict either. There are many different scenarios that are plausible. You cannot get a conviction in a criminal trial based on speculation. Remember, it has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt.
 
Amazing how an unarmed black teenager can so scare a cop that he has to kill him innit?

A fist to head can knock one unconcious and that is what Brown already tried to do at the police car.

Maybe he wasn't thinking clearly cause he had already been punched in the head.

Or maybe he was thinking clearly cause the guy had already tried to disarm him.
 
You are both active participants in this thread, yet neither of you in all this time can get basic, irrefutable facts correct such as where the shots were fired.

There's really no excuse for that, either neither of you are capable of basic reading comprehension, you are deliberately lying about the case, or some combination of that. Neither option makes you look good on a forum dedicated to critical thinking.

If you are going to dispute such basic facts at least try to come up with a rational argument, otherwise you really ought to be over in Conspiracy Theories.

Okay, well, let's go.

Again, I have little concern for your nonsense, and I see an attack from you as a badge of honor. I rarely bother trying read your gibberish, and I only did so this time because I spotted KatieG's response to you.

By the way, did you even bother to apologize for that fake conspiracy theory that you falsely claimed I made a couple of months ago? That seems like a pretty basic step, to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom