• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I glad for the both of you that you're content to live in a society in which cops can just kill people, and as long as they tell us they had to, we just go ahead and believe them.

Personally, I find such a notion rather chilling, and wish to see a scrutiny applied to these situations that assures the citizenry their police force is acting with the responsibility their roles merit.

If a cop is standing over the dead body of a 48 year old black woman who works as a high powered corporate lawyer, who is laying there dead next to her Lexus, unarmed, and still wearing her expensive suit... I'm going to have my eyebrow raised up pretty high with regard to his claim that he had to kill her. Especially if I go on to find out that she had no criminal record whatsoever, and was just out by her car at her normal time of going home for the day...

If, however, a police officer tells me he had to kill an enormous white male thug who'd just committed a violent felony an hour earlier... I'm going to start off fairly inclined to believe him, especially if the cop has injuries.
 
I glad for the both of you that you're content to live in a society in which cops can just kill people, and as long as they tell us they had to, we just go ahead and believe them.

Personally, I find such a notion rather chilling, and wish to see a scrutiny applied to these situations that assures the citizenry their police force is acting with the responsibility their roles merit.
Your repeated claims to not be able to read minds don't seem to preclude you from making attempts to.

You are correct, though. I can tell from this post that you really are unable to.
 
I know what it means. I also know it is used as a dog whistle term for those wishing to not use other words considered socially unacceptable. If I am unsure of the user's intent, and therefore wish to distance myself from the term by use of quotation marks, that is my prerogative. If that somehow offends or troubles you, it's not something I am concerned with beyond the end of this sentence.


I'm with Skeptic Tank on this. I don't see how someone can watch that video of Brown robbing the store, knocking the clerk out of his way and then turning around to intimidate the clerk back into the store and not think Brown was a thug.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZRLVOv3.gif[/qimg]
 
If a cop is standing over the dead body of a 48 year old black woman who works as a high powered corporate lawyer, who is laying there dead next to her Lexus, unarmed, and still wearing her expensive suit... I'm going to have my eyebrow raised up pretty high with regard to his claim that he had to kill her. Especially if I go on to find out that she had no criminal record whatsoever, and was just out by her car at her normal time of going home for the day...

If, however, a police officer tells me he had to kill an enormous white male thug who'd just committed a violent felony an hour earlier... I'm going to start off fairly inclined to believe him, especially if the cop has injuries.

Good for you.

But I prefer to live in a society in which we follow the rule of law instead of gut instinct.

And the rule of of law dictates we investigate this situation, await all the evidence, and then render judgment accordingly.

But the biased and irrational are free to render their judgement any time, and apparently aren't shy about doing so.
 
I'm with Skeptic Tank on this. I don't see how someone can watch that video of Brown robbing the store, knocking the clerk out of his way and then turning around to intimidate the clerk back into the store and not think Brown was a thug.

For the sake of hilarity, let's assume he was. Does being a thug mean it is permissible for a police officer to shoot a man who has surrendered? Witness accounts say he was shot twice, turned away, put his hands in the air, and received an additional five rounds in the back while he was facing away.

Maybe he did knock around a shopkeeper. Maybe he did rough up the cop. Maybe he even did really make a grab for the gun. But at the point he'd been shot twice and had surrendered, all further shooting should have ceased. Five rounds into the back isn't an honest mistake. Five rounds in the back isn't an attempt to disable someone. Particularly when they've been hit twice already, were facing away, and had hands in the air. Five rounds in the back is an execution.

Of course, this is all provided the witness accounts were completely accurate. Reality may vary. We will see.
 
Your repeated claims to not be able to read minds don't seem to preclude you from making attempts to.

You are correct, though. I can tell from this post that you really are unable to.

I apologize if I have misconstrued your position.

Please, tell me which part of the bolded portion I got wrong:
I glad for the both of you that you're content to live in a society in which cops can just kill people, and as long as they tell us they had to, we just go ahead and believe them.
 
Here's an odd detail regarding the alleged robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-michael-brown-robbery-suspect



So there was never an official police complaint by the store? Wasn't the whole idea that Wilson was responding to a reported robbery, but how would that call have gone out if there was no official complaint from the store owners that included a description?
.

Crimes are generally considered to be "against the people of the state". The customer's complaint is as valid as the worker's would have been.

Somebody may decide to not press charges, but that is meaningless to the DA. However, if they refuse to testify, the DA usually has little to go one.( One of Zimmerman's girl troubles comes to mind)
 
I'm with Skeptic Tank on this. I don't see how someone can watch that video of Brown robbing the store, knocking the clerk out of his way and then turning around to intimidate the clerk back into the store and not think Brown was a thug.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZRLVOv3.gif[/qimg]

Okay... but what does any of that have to do with my post that you quoted?
 
Last edited:
For the sake of hilarity, let's assume he was. Does being a thug mean it is permissible for a police officer to shoot a man who has surrendered? Witness accounts say he was shot twice, turned away, put his hands in the air, and received an additional five rounds in the back while he was facing away.

Maybe he did knock around a shopkeeper. Maybe he did rough up the cop. Maybe he even did really make a grab for the gun. But at the point he'd been shot twice and had surrendered, all further shooting should have ceased. Five rounds into the back isn't an honest mistake. Five rounds in the back isn't an attempt to disable someone. Particularly when they've been hit twice already, were facing away, and had hands in the air. Five rounds in the back is an execution.

Of course, this is all provided the witness accounts were completely accurate. Reality may vary. We will see.
I have read many claims in this thread regarding how many times Mr. Brown was shot, and where.
Is there anyplace you know of where the the accurate information is available?
 
I have read many claims in this thread regarding how many times Mr. Brown was shot, and where.
Is there anyplace you know of where the the accurate information is available?

The autopsy is supposed to be released in about three and a half weeks from now. Until then there's the witness accounts and what Chief Belmar (?) has said which is: there were 'more than a few' casings (from Wilson's gun) recovered and there were 'more than a couple' bullets in Mike Brown.
 
This, from last sunday, is th eonly report of the officer's side that I canfind:

"According to Belmar, a Ferguson police officer had an encounter on the street with two individuals. One of the individuals was Brown’s friend, Dorin Johnson. As the police officer was exiting his vehicle, the police officer was allegedly pushed back into the car---where a struggle then ensued over the officer’s weapon.

“There was at least one shot fired inside the car,” Belmar said during the press conference Sunday morning held at the Ferguson Fire Department.

He said the officer then exited his vehicle and fatally shot Brown and that the entire scene---from approximately the car door to the shooting---is about 35 feet.

More than a few shell casings were recovered from the scene, he said stating that he can not say exactly how many times Brown was struck by gunfire.

“It was more than a couple,” he said. “But, I don’t think it was many more than that.” "

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_86cdc228-20c9-11e4-984c-001a4bcf887a.html

Related question- Is that a Grand Jury locale?
 
I apologize if I have misconstrued your position.

Please, tell me which part of the bolded portion I got wrong:
More questions without making any statements other than personal attacks Johnny?

Okay, I'll play anyway.
Sometimes is it okay for LEO's to kill people?
If investigations into these deaths find that it was necessary, or accidental ( not negligent) it's okay.
If it turns out that it was not necessary, or was negligent, the LEO' s should be reprimanded or punished based upon a reasonable examination of the circumstances.
I believe them unless evidence to the contrary comes out, and recognize that no set of rules, however comprehensive or well thought out, will be able to cover every circumstance or emotional element to arise.

If you think you can construct a robo-cop that will do better, have at it.
 
How would it be possible for Brown to get at Wilson's weapon, assuming the conflict starts with Wilson still in the police vehicle?



Speak for yourself.

He's 6' 4" and reaching into what was likely an open window. It's certainly possible. The door also at one time opened, so certainly possible for them to have struggled for it.

And I'm only stating what I have observed, and not just at this forum. Some people believe Johnson and some people believe Wilson. People say they see Bigfoot all the time, do we believe them?
 
More questions without making any statements other than personal attacks Johnny?

If you feel I've personally attacked you, by all means report the post. But I'm not aware that I have.

Okay, I'll play anyway.
Sometimes is it okay for LEO's to kill people?
If investigations into these deaths find that it was necessary, or accidental ( not negligent) it's okay.
If it turns out that it was not necessary, or was negligent, the LEO' s should be reprimanded or punished based upon a reasonable examination of the circumstances.
I believe them unless evidence to the contrary comes out, and recognize that no set of rules, however comprehensive or well thought out, will be able to cover every circumstance or emotional element to arise.

If you think you can construct a robo-cop that will do better, have at it.


How is the bold portion not another way of saying "cops can just kill people, and as long as they tell us they had to, we just go ahead and believe them"?

Edit: And by the way, there is evidence to the contrary in the statements of three different witnesses.
 
Last edited:
So, it looks like there may have been no shots in the back, and it looks like there may be an explanation for the multiple shots away from the SUV.

So far, it's looking like the officer has a good chance of being exonerated, imo.

So far...
 
I think I'll wait for an autopsy report to decide if and how may times Brown was shot in the back.

Not that I don't find the internet sleuthing presented in the last few post incredibly compelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom