• 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.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
casebro said:
So what are the possible strategies for leaking so much evidence that backs the cop?
Click to expand...

That they realized it was such a poor decision to withhold it for so long?

This still bugs me, watch this video and consider the following:

That was posted to Youtube on August 10th, a day after the shooting. Consider what this man knows which wouldn't become known until several days later:

1. That Michael Brown had stolen the Cigarillos.

2. That it was the Ferguson Market and not the Quik Trip.

3. That the Ferguson Market had not called police.

4. That Dorian Johnson had put the box back on the counter after Mike Brown handed them to him. What detail!

5. That someone had said Mike Brown was running from the police.

6. He knows that the police had passed up Dorian Johnson and Mike Brown and uses the same phrase 'almost to our destination' as Johnson would tell media two days later when he surfaced on MSNBC.

Odds are he knows Dorian Johnson and talked to him, if not witnessed the whole thing, (possibly in the Ferguson Market vid?) yet tells a story about an execution style killing. Who is this guy? Why did it take so long for the rest of the information to come out through the police or press?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
For those hypothesising warning shots, can you cite a police department anywhere which sanctions this? I doubt you can. Firing warning shots is beyond stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone actually stated that it was sanctioned, just that in the heat of the moment it could have happened. No one has stated it's taught or trained to officers.
 
ProBonoShill said:
Not sure what you're on about, you can "pose" whatever your little heart desires,
Click to expand...

I didn't pose anything--I was referring to the hypothetical brought up by Cain and Skeptic Tank--if you read the posts you'd know that.

but when jump off the deep end and link slavery to these present day events, I'm going to point out how absurd it is.
Click to expand...

I didn't link slavery directly to the Michael Brown shooting. I brought it up as a necessary ADDITION to the absurd hypothetical that I was responding to. In other words (since you apparently are missing my point completely) IF Whites were enslaved for a hundred years or so, then suffered countless instances of explicit and implicit discrimination, and were a minority and on the lower end of the economic spectrum, etc etc etc THEN it would not be surprising to see a 'liberal media' reacting to the hypothetical violent demonstration by said whites in much the same way they supposedly are now! It's an absurd hypothetical of course--I was just pointing out how absurd it was. If you read the posts before just lashing out at me blindly, you might understand that!
 
Cain said:
The problem is that many of the officer's critics have (ironically) jumped the gun, and been quick to condemn the situation based almost entirely on race. The hypothetical scenario laid keeps as many facts the same as possible while switching the races, which somehow suggests the officer is more sympathetic, at least to my left-wing eyes. Is it exactly the same because of years of slavery, segregation and discrimination? No. But that your first and only move is to sputter things about race history indicates you're not thinking capable of thinking about this outside of race. It's backward reasoning. Instead we should start with the physics of what happened.
Click to expand...

I think we share some common ground here, and your statement above is more in line with reality. If you read (what I thought was my last post on this thread) you'll see where I'm coming from. I have no idea where the blame is in this case--a trial will likely determine some sort of conclusion. Race certainly could have played a big role in how things went down--it probably wasn't the only factor.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
If he did fire while Mr. Brown was fleeing, I don't see where that necessarily violates any law.
The ( admittedly small ) amount of googling I did states that there is no national statute regarding when an officer may shoot a fleeing felon. There are court decisions that set a standard that the officer may shoot if a fleeing, violent felon if he believes the felon to be a threat to himself or others. Puts us into the ugly realm of determining what the officer believed in the few seconds after being attacked violently ( if that happened )

I would think a reasonable person might have to concede the violent felon part if it turns out that officer Wilson's face is indeed ********** up. Trickier to try to guess how much rationality would go into what he believed about the future threat at that point.

There is also, of course, the possibility of a warning shot or shots.
Click to expand...

It appears that under MO law, it can be legal to shoot a fleeing felon. It's a pretty broad law. Too broad, imo.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/500286071801126912/photo/1

Under that law, Wilson could have shot Brown square in the back, legally, if Brown beat him up.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I didn't pose anything--I was referring to the hypothetical brought up by Cain and Skeptic Tank--if you read the posts you'd know that.



I didn't link slavery directly to the Michael Brown shooting. I brought it up as a necessary ADDITION to the absurd hypothetical that I was responding to. In other words (since you apparently are missing my point completely) IF Whites were enslaved for a hundred years or so, then suffered countless instances of explicit and implicit discrimination, and were a minority and on the lower end of the economic spectrum, etc etc etc THEN it would not be surprising to see a 'liberal media' reacting to the hypothetical violent demonstration by said whites in much the same way they supposedly are now! It's an absurd hypothetical of course--I was just pointing out how absurd it was. If you read the posts before just lashing out at me blindly, you might understand that!
Click to expand...

This was the post you were responding too:

Skeptic Tank said:
Yep, exactly.

Bravo.

I'd love to travel to that alternate universe for an hour and just print out as many headlines from the major news media, Huffington Post, etc. as possible. As well as pages of the thread about it here, if there even was one.

ETA: I'd particularly love to see what people were saying about that predominantly white community out rioting, and doing chants about wanting the black officer dead, demanding his name, media showing his house, etc. They'd be portrayed as the worst, most vile racists in the country and a national mark of shame.
Click to expand...

This was your response:

stanfr said:
So, in this 'alternate universe', were the whites former slaves who had been subjected to hundreds years of blatant and not-so-blatant discrimination and mistreatment? Not that context matters...
Click to expand...

You were clearly trying to use slavery as some sort of warped rationale.

I was just pointing out the fact slavery was abolished 150 years ago and the scenario you presented wasn't possible.

Was I being a bit pedantic, yeah probably and you seem much more invested in this than I am, so I'm dropping this now for the good of the thread.
 
ProBonoShill said:
You were clearly trying to use slavery as some sort of warped rationale.I was just pointing out the fact slavery was abolished 150 years ago and the scenario you presented wasn't possible.

Was I being a bit pedantic, yeah probably and you seem much more invested in this than I am, so I'm dropping this now for the good of the thread.
Click to expand...

No, I was pointing out that one cannot just reassign the races involved and expect the outcome--the reaction of the community, the press etc, to be the same. You have to take into account context That is all I was saying. It directly goes to the state of mind of Michael Brown (who may or may not have had bad experiences with the police, certainly some in the community have) and the state of mind of Wilson (who may or may not have had preconceived biases about what to expect from a large male African American suspect--certainly the disparity in race between the department and the community suggests there may have been a bit of a problem there). Sorry I was not more explicit in my response, like you I'm not really much invested in this and don't feel the urge to spout long diatribes ;)
 
LTC8K6 said:
It appears that under MO law, it can be legal to shoot a fleeing felon. It's a pretty broad law. Too broad, imo.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/500286071801126912/photo/1

Under that law, Wilson could have shot Brown square in the back, legally, if Brown beat him up.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

But in 1985, the Supreme Court declared in Tennessee v. Garner that police cannot use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon who is not perceived to be dangerous.
Click to expand...

But there's that word "perceived"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule#U.S._Law
 
Cain said:
I think the initial claim that Wilson executed Brown in cold blood was highly questionable, and that's the one that resonated with the public, what with people holding their open hands high above their heads.
Click to expand...

I actually had someone tell me that the reason we know he had his hands above his head is because thats what the protestors are doing. They're just doing what Michael was doing. I kid you not.
 
stanfr said:
It directly goes to the state of mind of Michael Brown ...
Click to expand...


Exactly. The robbery and battery on a police officer weren't such a big deal, because slavery.

You know who I found really loves this sort of mitigation argument?

Black judges.
 
casebro said:
He has yet to explain himself to YOU. You betchya he explained himself to the prosecutor and the cops from SLCPD, the ones investigating the shooting. And they did not arrest him. And in fact allowed him to vacation out of state.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the wonderful folks we've seen out on the streets of Ferguson firing tear gas at reporters and pointing guns at innocent, unarmed protesters? Wow, if that's not a ringing endorsement of Wilson, I don't know what is!
 
Unabogie said:
Oh, you mean the wonderful folks we've seen out on the streets of Ferguson firing tear gas at reporters and pointing guns at innocent, unarmed protesters? Wow, if that's not a ringing endorsement of Wilson, I don't know what is!
Click to expand...

One crazy cop, who was probably taunted to the breaking point, does not a case make...

Really not sure what other cops have to do with Wilson, either.

Especially when they aren't even Ferguson cops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom