Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptical Greg said:
It may be the " ... the (idealized) American Way™, ", but until the reality is changed through social change, i.e. - electing officials who are held accountable, to put the kind of police force in place to serve the public interest. Until then it is not a good idea not to go around assaulting police officers, no matter what your perceived sense of ' what's right ' may be....

Until then, ' ... shooting first ', may be your best option. and you can sort it out in court later, which is not an option if you are dead....
Click to expand...

Being dead right ain't all it's cracked up to be.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Until then, ' ... shooting first ', may be your best option. and you can sort it out in court later, which is not an option if you are dead....
Click to expand...


This sort of implies that someone has to die. And if not "has to", the mentality certainly ensures that someone will die.

The people who attempt to justify these alleged self-defense killings, without fail, frame the situation as "either him or me". This seems to be some kind of post-rationalization. Someone did die, therefore someone had to die, therefore it's better that it was this person of questionable character and not this person of less questionable character.

People like me simply ask the question, "Why did anyone have to die?"
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This sort of implies that someone has to die. And if not "has to", the mentality certainly ensures that someone will die.

The people who attempt to justify these alleged self-defense killings, without fail, frame the situation as "either him or me". This seems to be some kind of post-rationalization. Someone did die, therefore someone had to die, therefore it's better that it was this person of questionable character and not this person of less questionable character.

People like me simply ask the question, "Why did anyone have to die?"
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's the first question everybody asks.

Obviously the person who did the killing has a vested interest in providing an answer that absolves them of guilt. But it's not like nobody else is able or willing to distinguish between murder and self-defense.
 
davefoc said:
I don't enjoy people misrepresenting what somebody said to create strawman arguments to satisfy their need for simplistic rationalization.
Click to expand...

Care to explain how my statement was a strawman? Everything she said was aimed at what, she claims, was Wilson creating the entire situation. Initiating the contact, being aggressive, etc. If that's not stating that Brown did nothing wrong, and Wilson did everything wrong, then what the hell is it? Please, break it down for me. I don't enjoy a lot of things, especially being accused of creating strawmen that I clearly wasn't.

davefoc said:
Nothing that KatieG said fit your characterization of it as an an apology for Brown's actions. Lots of people commit crimes. The goal of police is to arrest them without killing them.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. That's not their goal at all, their goal is to protect and serve the community. Whether that involves taking a life or not is completely determined by the situation.

davefoc said:
Wilson failed at that and it's reasonable to question what happened that made that so.
Click to expand...

He failed at something that he isn't required to succeed at?

davefoc said:
The people here that want to make this in to a clear cut case of violent thug killed by policemen just doing his job are making assumptions up the kazoo but they don't realize it because it's so much easier to come to clear cut opinions that support our preconceived notions.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness testimony matches the physical evidence and gives us a pretty good idea at what happened. Meanwhile, you're going to follow this assertion of "people here" making assumptions followed by a long post of you making a bunch of assumptions....d'oh k.

davefoc said:
They assume that the woman who came forth either deserved to by cursed at or that she is lying,
Click to expand...

I explained why I believe she was lying and you have yet to address it. Any of the 3ish times that I've commented on it. Her story contradicts itself, and is extremely far fetched. Care to tell me why you feel she is absolutely telling the truth? You know, outside of just her word.

davefoc said:
they assume that Wilson's actions in the Arman video were unusual for Wilson or that there is some unseen aspect of the incident that justifies Wilson's actions,
Click to expand...

I have conceded that he may have been a dick in this situation. My only point is that we really don't know all that much about the incident considering it's a 15 second video. There could have been things we missed. The cop that was working as a security guard and shot the black kid had a long list of infractions. Reporters posted his entire history in the matter of a few days. I am absolutely positive that reporters were trying to dig up everything they could on Wilson, and found this one video. That would require the police staff only ignoring infractions against Wilson, but not on this other officer that worked for the same precinct? Had Wilson acted inappropriately in the past? I'm positive of it, despite being a cop people still make mistakes in their job or are run by emotion. Does he have a long documented history of it as a go-to way to act? I haven't seen any evidence pointing to it.

davefoc said:
they assume that Wilson really had a clean record when there were multiple reasons to doubt that reports of transgressions by Wilson would have been saved.
Click to expand...

Referenced above, there are obvious records of police infractions at this precinct, maybe not all of them, but rest-assured if he had a constant issue of abusing his power there would have been some history.

davefoc said:
they assume that Wilson didn't repeat the same kind of lies he made with regard to the Arman incident in his testimony about the Brown incident,
Click to expand...

I have no issues conceding that Wilson wanted to paint himself in as good of a light as he could. That's human preservation. Do I think he outright lied, as you seem to be implying? No. The physical evidence seems to coincide with his version of the story.

davefoc said:
they assume that Wilson is telling the truth about the initial contact between himself, Brown and Johnson and that he acted reasonably,
Click to expand...

Dorian explains it as a father scolding a child, he doesn't say Wilson was some off the charts, crazy cop on a power trip. You can read his testimony the same as I did, and I posted it with page numbers in my previous posts.

davefoc said:
they assume that when Wilson backs his car up he isn't acting in an aggravated state because Johnson and Brown have ignored him despite the fact that Wilson's actions were extremely ill considered just based on his own safety,
Click to expand...

Why would he drive passed them if he were so pissed off at being ignored? That doesn't make sense. As to the rest, I'll agree to disagree. I don't think Wilson knowingly put himself in harms way. I think he was doing his job.

davefoc said:
they assume that when Brown turned towards Wilson, Brown acted in a way that was so threatening that Wilson had no choice but to shoot Brown to protect himself
Click to expand...

Because he was moving towards Wilson, while disregarding orders not to do that specific action. Dorian openly states that Brown had his pissed off face on. At this point, Brown had several options to no longer get shot. He could have chosen any of them, but didn't. That's on him.

davefoc said:
and they assume that Brown wasn't getting on the ground when Wilson put three shots into his head
Click to expand...

Any evidence that he was or is this just more irony of you complaining about other people making assertions while making an assertion? There have been a handful of charts and illustrations posted here that provide the angles.

davefoc said:
and they assume that with at least three shots in him Brown posed such a threat to Wilson that he had no choice but to shoot Brown in the head.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he was a threat or not, I don't know if Wilson knew how many of his shots hit, I don't know if Brown was still trying to move towards Wilson. Neither do you.

davefoc said:
Maybe there is something to all these assumptions. We are in to the land of the unknowable here, but I think there's plenty of reason to see Wilson's actions in this event as a possible significant contributor to the tragedy. I think it is very likely that Brown would be alive if almost any other policemen had been in Wilson's situation.
Click to expand...

I think you have absolutely no evidence to go on that Brown would have been alive if he assaulted another police officer. As posted above, you are making a ton of assertions to combat people making assertions. It's a bit hypocritical.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This sort of implies that someone has to die. And if not "has to", the mentality certainly ensures that someone will die.

The people who attempt to justify these alleged self-defense killings, without fail, frame the situation as "either him or me". This seems to be some kind of post-rationalization. Someone did die, therefore someone had to die, therefore it's better that it was this person of questionable character and not this person of less questionable character.

People like me simply ask the question, "Why did anyone have to die?"
Click to expand...

You would have to ask the murderers.

I have a question too. Why do I have to be willing to risk being killed when I can employ a known, effective method that would reduce that risk?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Nobody "had to die". If only Brown hadn't robbed that convenience store. If only he hadn't grabbed the cop's gun and assaulted him. If only he had put up his hands in surrender instead of charging at the officer in a marijuana-induced rage...
Click to expand...

Let's be honest - I don't think Brown was a great person. But it sounds like the reason he grabbed for Wilson's gun, was because Wilson pulled it out and pointed it at Brown at less-than-arm's-length - without firing. At that point, reaching for Wilson's gun was the reasonable response from Brown, regardless of what happened before.

Wilson seems to have made a bad decision here - although, certainly an understandable one, and which indicates that he actually is not at all violent. Which, as I think I said before here, moves the meter towards him.

But really...marajuana-induced rage? that almost never happens...
 
Mumbles said:
Let's be honest - I don't think Brown was a great person. But it sounds like the reason he grabbed for Wilson's gun, was because Wilson pulled it out and pointed it at Brown at less-than-arm's-length - without firing. At that point, reaching for Wilson's gun was the reasonable response from Brown, regardless of what happened before.
Click to expand...

Or Brown could've stopped punching him and...wait for it...put his hands up.
 
HenryLee said:
Or Brown could've stopped punching him and...wait for it...put his hands up.
Click to expand...

Sure.

But let's be honest - this thread is about Darren Wilson's actions, not Mike Brown's, even though the thread title is "Michael Brown Shooting II". If Wilson had to shoot to protect his life...well, it's sad, but some people are placed in that situation. And I think people will agree that drawing a gun without firing it, at arms-length from an attacker, is not a good move - exactly because you can be disarmed and killed with your own weapon. That doesn't mean Wilson is a criminal or anything, it's just a bad move, the end.

This is how I always understood gun safety: First, you always back down from a fight if possible. Although, this is obviously not possible for a cop - we pay them to be confrontational. But second, if you point your gun at anyone, you're planning to shoot them.

This is not like John Crawford III, or Eric Garner, or Trayvon Martin, or Jordan Davis, or really, the other residents of Ferguson. This was one cop, against one lawbreaking citizen. This could have gone much better.

As I've said again and again, the big issue here wasn't Brown or Wilson, it was the mass violence in response to mourning the death of Mike Brown.
 
Mumbles said:
Sure.

But let's be honest - this thread is about Darren Wilson's actions, not Mike Brown's, even though the thread title is "Michael Brown Shooting II". If Wilson had to shoot to protect his life...well, it's sad, but some people are placed in that situation. And I think people will agree that drawing a gun without firing it, at arms-length from an attacker, is not a good move - exactly because you can be disarmed and killed with your own weapon. That doesn't mean Wilson is a criminal or anything, it's just a bad move, the end.

This is how I always understood gun safety: First, you always back down from a fight if possible. Although, this is obviously not possible for a cop - we pay them to be confrontational. But second, if you point your gun at anyone, you're planning to shoot them.

This is not like John Crawford III, or Eric Garner, or Trayvon Martin, or Jordan Davis, or really, the other residents of Ferguson. This was one cop, against one lawbreaking citizen. This could have gone much better.

As I've said again and again, the big issue here wasn't Brown or Wilson, it was the mass violence in response to mourning the death of Mike Brown.
Click to expand...

Which would never have happened if the story of Michael Brown wasn't turned into a fantasy story and relayed to the media outlets.
 
Mumbles said:
Let's be honest - I don't think Brown was a great person. But it sounds like the reason he grabbed for Wilson's gun, was because Wilson pulled it out and pointed it at Brown at less-than-arm's-length - without firing . At that point, reaching for Wilson's gun was the reasonable response from Brown, regardless of what happened before.

Wilson seems to have made a bad decision here - although, certainly an understandable one, and which indicates that he actually is not at all violent. Which, as I think I said before here, moves the meter towards him.

But really...marajuana-induced rage? that almost never happens...
Click to expand...
I looked it up. It is on page 1 of the police training manual: "No matter how hard it is to draw a sidearm while sitting in your vehicle, do it. Then make sure you point it all assbackwardy at the guy with all the leverage."

Really, where did you come up with that?
 
Mumbles said:
Let's be honest - I don't think Brown was a great person. But it sounds like the reason he grabbed for Wilson's gun, was because Wilson pulled it out and pointed it at Brown at less-than-arm's-length - without firing. At that point, reaching for Wilson's gun was the reasonable response from Brown, regardless of what happened before.
Click to expand...

You have a vivid imagination. Do you have any evidence for your musings?
 
Wolrab said:
I looked it up. It is on page 1 of the police training manual: "No matter how hard it is to draw a sidearm while sitting in your vehicle, do it. Then make sure you point it all assbackwardy at the guy with all the leverage."

Really, where did you come up with that?
Click to expand...

That would be Wilson's testimony to the Grand Jury. He was being attacked through his car window by Brown. He then pulled his gun, and pointed it at Brown, at which point Brown grabbed the gun - which is when he fired 2 shots, hitting Brown in the hand.

Wilson was quite clear on why he didn't wear a taser (it was uncomfortable), why he didn't use pepper spray (it could affect him as well as Brown, as Wilson was sitting in his car at the time) and why he thought it necessary to pull his gun (he was worried Brown would knock him unconscious or kill him).
 
plague311 said:
Which would never have happened if the story of Michael Brown wasn't turned into a fantasy story and relayed to the media outlets.
Click to expand...

Which media outlets? As I said, the local police showed up with shotguns and k-9 units, on the night of the shooting, as was shown via the residents, before this became a major story.
 
Mumbles said:
Which media outlets? As I said, the local police showed up with shotguns and k-9 units, on the night of the shooting, as was shown via the residents, before this became a major story.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with...the media outlets that were on scene within 2 hours of the shooting. Those ones, sorry I don't know their specific calls letters, cause I mostly don't care.

Do you think they showed up with K-9 units and shotguns because there were shots fired at the scene? No? Got another explanation? More of the "cops wanting to shoot them some black people" logic? I completely agree that at times the cops of Ferguson were completely irrational and inappropriate. Let's not pretend like the community didn't perpetuate it at least a little. The fantasy stories, which are plenty, the gun shots at the scene, etc.
 
Timeline question...when did the QuikTrip burn down? Before or after the stormtroopers arrived?
 
plague311 said:
I'm going to go with...the media outlets that were on scene within 2 hours of the shooting. Those ones, sorry I don't know their specific calls letters, cause I mostly don't care.

Do you think they showed up with K-9 units and shotguns because there were shots fired at the scene? No? Got another explanation? More of the "cops wanting to shoot them some black people" logic? I completely agree that at times the cops of Ferguson were completely irrational and inappropriate. Let's not pretend like the community didn't perpetuate it at least a little. The fantasy stories, which are plenty, the gun shots at the scene, etc.
Click to expand...

Okay. Here's the problem. I don't think there was a national media source on the scene within two hours. And in this specific story, Brown's body was still on the ground, and police investigating, after two hours.

And no, I do not think that the police showed up with shotguns and K-9 units because of "shots fired". And I base this on their demonstrated behavior of attacking nonviolent reporters. We saw it with TWiB, we saw it with Al-Jareeza, we saw it with Daily Banter, we saw it with Washington Post, we saw it with Huffington Post, in the days after the shooting. The local police behaved in an entirely irrational and violent manner to protestors - and they've been slapped down by the federal courts, at least twice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom